site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   25232 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.

Anything can be taken to an extreme, sure.

A lot of important decisions are made on the basis of expert claims!

The difference is that industry is creating a functioning product, social workers aren't

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.

It did happen in psychology, this is where the name "replication crisis" comes from.

I mean, there were decades of terribly done pseudoreplications until the replication crisis.

A lot of important decisions are made on the basis of expert claims!

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.

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.

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 mean, there were decades of terribly done pseudoreplications until the replication crisis.

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.

And most of the trust in them is misplaced

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.

Yes data would fix things if it existed.

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?

I was under the impression people didn't really try replicating these studies because they assumed they were done correctly

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.

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