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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
... no, individual evidence from n95 wearers tested under controlled conditions, which is why it was phrased like that.
I agree that is much better, and think it should be ~ mandatory for all publicly funded research. I just strongly disagree that this is related to why people distrust experts, or even why some subfields of experts are constantly catastrophically wrong.
Specifically, slowness in adapting to modern conditions. Publishing all your data wasn't feasible before the internet, and government and sometimes academic research norms are still stuck in the 20th century.
Materials scientists and chemists don't publish their raw data either! But those fields are, to a significant extent, more trustworthy than social science. And plenty of shoddy econ research is done on public data, but is worthless because what they do with it sucks.
You can still just fake your data? Faking your data well in experimental fields isn't actually hard.
I think it's definitely one of the factors for why they are catastrophically wrong. Another is the very act of expert-trusting, we'd have a lot less problems if there was a lot more distrust.
They don't need to, their work is constantly being verified with data from mines, foundries, factories, and refineries.
There's ways to detect that, and it will come out during replication. Experimental fields aren't such a big deal anyway, since they are, in fact experimental - the field itself tells you not to take the results very seriously.
And a lot more problems? What should a 95Iq person do when their doctor says they have cancer and need to take pills that'll make them feel terrible?
Right, but there are a lot of teachers and social workers and (bad) economists who think they're verifying the work of other academics, but aren't, they're just very confused. Public data wouldn't change that.
That didn't happen in psychology though, because everyone was faking and publication biasing etc.
Anything can be taken to an extreme, sure.
The difference is that industry is creating a functioning product, social workers aren't. If they think they're verifying the work of other academics, it's not in the same way, it's because they think they see the problems that have the causes outlined in academic theories, not because they can actually provide solutions. You also don't seem to know that many social workers, there's a lot of ideological lefties there, but half of them get mugged by reality within a few years.
It did happen in psychology, this is where the name "replication crisis" comes from.
A lot of important decisions are made on the basis of expert claims!
No I agree social workers r mostly bad, I'm just saying that they're an example of why more public data won't fix anything.
I mean, there were decades of terribly done pseudoreplications until the replication crisis.
And most of the trust in them is misplaced. You gave a particularly extreme example, where I would agree with you mistrust would be unwise, but it only worked because what the expert suggested was verified on a large scale, and the person he was giving advice to was particularly unable to make judgments on his own.
My point was that this is a bad example. Yes data would fix things if it existed. The kind of data I was talking about simply does not exist in case of social work, and sociological theories.
I was under the impression people didn't really try replicating these studies because they assumed they were done correctly? Also that most of them weren't bad because the data was literally made up (it's true of some cases but not a lot), and in the case it was made up it wasn't publically available.
I don't think this is true. Another example of 'trusting the experts' is trusting that the judge in your legal case is fair and not corrupt. Another is trusting that the wikipedia article you just read is accurate.
I think the 'bad experts' would manage to interpret the publicly-available data in exactly the terrible ways they currently do, and not be able to tell the difference?
Well, they didn't try to adversarially replicate them. But there were plenty of replications in the sense of studies on the same thing that also got positive results.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link