site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   25227 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 30, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I read Freddie deBoer on Everyone Can't Do Everything , and I'm trying to have some thoughts on the topic. It's not going well and I'd appreciate contributions and reactions.

In summary, school Halloween celebrations have been canceled at some locations due to equity concerns, due to some students not being of a culture that has Halloween: students without the tradition aren't able to enjoy it, and so no one at the school should enjoy it. Another, different, example of the same impulse is to let a fully blind child onto the field to play peewee football with the aid of radio instructions from the coach. These examples are then bent to serve his argument that schools at all levels should not be designed with the goal of educating every student presented to them, since some students lack the native talent to succeed at them: some check out at 12 and can't read even after high school, some are fit for vo-tech trades but not theory-laden engineering, some few are capable of world-class physics research (or fintech), and all are poorly served by promoting the view that success at any level is merely a matter of effort and perseverance. It's arguably cruel to hold out the possibility of high success to unfortunates who are incapable of it under any circumstance. This leads to lots of poor outcomes: wasted time in schools, devaluation of all markers of achievement as standards are lowered to pass all who show up, credential inflation. That said, he acknowledges the possibility of achievement beyond one's talent with dedication, and offers no real prescriptions beyond protest at the state of affairs.

Raw thoughts, no real ordering: kids who drop out explicitly, not just implicitly, have no place to go other than back home as a drag on the family unit (impractical) or into the workforce as menial labor (viscerally revolting, childhood is for more than that).

attainment, the ability after training to accomplish a task, seems intuitively to have many more factors than just talent and time of exposure. Off the top of my head:

  • developmental enablers - whether the student is or has been stunted by malnutrition, disease, heavy metals, etc
  • social cohort - is there competition between friends to develop skills? Is there mutual support between them? Does the home culture value schooling, or is school just a holding pen to let the parents work?
  • match between presentation and student - not that learning style silliness, but literally the match between the student's model of the things being used to describe the subject of instruction and the vocabulary used to present it
  • amount of potential energy the student has for the task - are adolescents up at 6 for the bus and in class at 8 when they're wired to wake at 10 and 11? Have they already been worn down by 3 hours of lecture before the current topic? Was lunch garbage that will spike blood sugar and crash it a half-hour later, or cause a food reaction?
  • yes, natural talent is a thing, I'm not denying it
  • time of exposure to the topic, in lecture, in homework, in independent work
  • have the precursors of the current topic been laid down effectively?
  • I don't have a clean phrasing for this - are they pushed? Kids aren't typically self-motivated to study boring difficult topics
  • when are the skills presented in the kid's life? Learning rates fluctuate over your life, generally downward; conversely, some kids are late bloomers and hit all their milestones on the same learning curve, just delayed a year.

So, very different skill-acquisition timelines are possible. Here are some prototypes I can imagine:

  • Standard-issue kid is deliberately unschooled and left to follow their interests until 16 with exposure to increasingly complex practical tasks, learning only what is needed, ends up mediocre but comfortable.
  • Standard-issue kid doesn't value anything, spends the entirety of elementary and high school disrupting classes and not learning anything.
  • Functionally damaged kid is advanced with his cohort, doesn't learn anything beyond some of his times tables because the dependency tree doesn't get filled in, bags groceries and never learns anything for the rest of his life.
  • Functionally damaged kid is held back until skills are mastered, discovers that he just needs to be exposed to a topic for twice as long as a standard kid but it takes as well otherwise, is allowed time, graduates high school at 20 and struggles some but ends up running a small lawn care company.
  • Functionally damaged kid is held back until skills are mastered, discovers that he just needs to be exposed to a topic for twice as long as a standard kid but it takes as well otherwise, ages out at 18, is not prepared to advance in life, scrapes along as a grocery bagger forever.
  • Talented kid is given a median course of study, takes engineering courses in college, has 80th percentile life.
  • Talented kid is given a hothouse aggressively tracked course of study with a dedicated tutor, becomes a global expert.

All of these are just-so stories, I'm not very happy with them as argumentation or intuition pumps, and they don't advance a point, but I don't want to waste the time spent typing them out. I guess they demonstrate a few points in the broader space of possibilities and show that life outcomes aren't just f(talent, instruction hours).

I can only resist solutions-oriented thinking for so long. What does a student know, when? What ideas are they prepared to build on? How well do they recall a given fact, when? How well do they manipulate interacting facts? What fact, in other words, do we present to a student, by what channel, with what phrasing, at what time? How do we determine this? Economically, how do we structure delivery of these functions for good scaling? I guess I'm redefining "private tutor" here, with functional breakouts to slot automation in as useful. What about providing education after schooling age?

Teaching staff aren't just presenters and test designers, of course. They're required reporters of signs of abuse, first-line mental health responders, mentors, coaches, disciplinarians, college advisors. Similarly schools have had extra functionality piled onto them over time - childhood food distribution, extracurriculars, a refuge for children from a poor home life, a facility for permissive parent figures, I'm sure there are others.

Raw thoughts, no real ordering: kids who drop out explicitly, not just implicitly, have no place to go other than back home as a drag on the family unit (impractical) or into the workforce as menial labor (viscerally revolting, childhood is for more than that).

All of our agrarian history suggests otherwise. The collapse in child birth rates as we've urbanized and have less need for child labour suggests that the little tykes are supposed to be cheap, low-skill farmhands. We took away their niche and now their numbers are dropping. Coincidence?

Normalize sending kids to a McDonald's upstate.

I do feel a bit confused about the connections Freddie's trying to draw there. They seem to just be loosely connected by "these are all unrealistic expectations placed on schools by some people at some times." I have some opinions and experiences with respect to any given topic, but the piece as a whole seems a bit all over the place.

Yeah, as I thought the first time I saw this story on reddit: the stories seem to have different roots.

The story about Halloween is, imo, just about hostility towards tradition. Freddie himself points out that "LGBT appreciation day" or "AAPI day" wouldn't go under these same criteria, even if many students either don't feel a part of them or actively think they're reductive or insulting. Nobody has a problem with straight, blank people sitting around feeling alienated.

There's no "you can do anything" principle here imo, just social engineers given too much of a leash.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats