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 -
There have been many attempts on the Motte to somehow explain the left-right divide from deep archetypes or psychology, life strategies, etc. I think the supposed insight is a mirage. There are no perfect mappings to such clean sides, the two American sides are idiosyncratic cultural developments specific to time and location; their positions on issues does not follow from basic human first principles. But this is the particular battle that keeps your mind busy so it looks fundamental. Maybe an Indian would find that Hindu vs Muslim is the fundamental eternal opposition based on wholly different human types and brains.
This particular attempt seems weak to me, it's guesswork without evidence. Conscientiousness is one of the traits on the "big five" model of personality, and is about something like being organized and structured, keeping to a schedule, remembering rules, etc. Conformism as a concept maybe maps to low openness to experience. I can't really see how Conscientiousness and Conformism form two ends of some kind of axis.
Evidence is unambiguous that political opinion is significantly genetic, which would imply there are innate attractions to a general political aesthetic. We're in the very early days of understanding what those attractions are, so it's unsurprising there are many false starts.
Regarding plausibility of the specific idea, there is very direct path to grounding the concept. With a initial premise that public opinion is shaped by elite discourse it's a relatively straightforward conclusion, once you recognize an institution can disproportionally raise the status of some over others, that a long-lasting powerful institution could leave a mark on our social fabric.
Given two points in a n-dimensional plane you can reduce everything to the relative proximity to each point. Conformist and conscientious behaviours aren't some inherent axis, they're just the two dominant behaviours that were advantaged by the introduction of organized religion.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link