site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   29676 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 18, 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So yes, he does believe in effective altruism. Not the caring about people part, the maximizing multiversal utility part.

Absolutely that, the maximising utility bit. He found a theory that meshed with his quirks around maths and probability games, and he fastened onto it like a limpet. And I am beginning to think that it filled, for him, the space that ordinary people have around rituals like Christmas and birthdays. Again, this is me taking my own impression from what is only short mentions in the book, but it struck me that the parents didn't celebrate his birthday, for example, because there was a good chance they simply forgot it.

If you're possibly developmentally disordered and you're growing up the weird, oddball kid the elder of two kids where your younger brother is more 'normal' and more popular, even with your own parents, in the kind of household where the parents go "Oh, it's your birthday? Huh, who knew?" and the model of interpersonal interactions you are getting is "give them money to shut them up/make them go away so we can get on with the important stuff" (like fancy dinner parties) - then yeah, I can see the attraction in a shiny theory where you can do good and get all the validation and praise by "give them money to make them go away".

There's a sort of fox-and-sour-grapes comment about physical attractiveness which made me smile, because it is very much a teenager's view of dealing with rejection (but then again, Bankman-Fried was in his late twenties when Lewis was writing the book, and I do think it's telling that he's still stuck at this middle-school level):

His whole life, as far back as he could remember, he’d been perplexed by the way people allowed physical appearance to shape their lives. “You start by making decisions on who you are going to be with based on how they look,” he said. “Then, because of that, you make bad choices about religion and food and everything else. Then you are just rolling the dice on who you are going to be.” Anna Wintour, now that he thought of it, represented much of what he disliked about human beings. “There are very few businesses that I have strong moral objections to, and hers is one of them,” he said. “I actually have disdain for fashion. I have general disdain for the importance that physical attractiveness has, and this is one thing emanating out of that.”

I mean, you're this rather scruffy, not the most handsome, slightly chubby and unfit kid in high school, you're already something of a weirdo or not fitting in, of course you're going to downplay the importance of looks: "I don't care if the pretty girls aren't interested in me, I'm not interested in them first, so hah!" But there's a deeper problem there; he's not interested in much of anything except the few things that seem to hit the dopamine receptors for him:

[Anna Wintour] looked like a million bucks, but her art, like all art, was wasted on Sam. When you asked Sam to describe a person’s appearance — even a person he’d slept with — he’d say, “I don’t really know how to answer that. I’m not good at judging how people look.”

...He felt nothing in the presence of art. He found religion absurd. He thought both right-wing and left-wing political opinions kind of dumb, less a consequence of thought than of their holder’s tribal identity. He and his family ignored the rituals that punctuated most people’s existence. He didn’t even celebrate his own birthday. What gave pleasure and solace and a sense of belonging to others left Sam cold. When the Bankman-Frieds traveled to Europe, Sam realized that he was just staring at a lot of old buildings for no particular reason. “We did a few trips,” he said. “I basically hated it.” To his unrelenting alienation there was one exception: games. In sixth grade Sam heard about a game called Magic: The Gathering. For the next four years it was the only activity that consumed him faster than he could consume it.

[Early FTX employees] And they pretty much all shared, or said they shared, their boss’s utter indifference to grace or beauty.

So yeah, I'm leaning more and more towards the view that while he certainly is a crook, it wasn't avarice driving him, or not as ordinary people would define it; he wanted the money because it was a symbol of success, and to him, success means "Mom and Dad approve of what I'm doing, plus I get to live how I like and people have to do what I want" as well as the ego-boost of "See, I am the Only Guy Who's Always Right" from the approval of the EA crowd. And I think he picked EA as his philosophy because his younger brother (the popular, normal one, remember!) was already involved in that, it was the kind of nice liberal 'right side of history' values his mother would approve of (again, I'm feeling like Herr Doktor Freud with the mommy issues but uh, yeah, I think some definitely there) and the theory behind it all, which revolved around Bayes Theorem etc., fitted into the slots in his brain that he reserved for "worth paying attention to".

Also, yes I'm blaming the parents because he should have been brought to child psychologists and so forth from an early age since I do think that there's autism spectrum/ADHD/worrying lack of empathy going on there, not treated as Mommy's Little Echo:

By the time Sam was eight she had given up on the idea that his wants and needs would be anything like other children’s. She remembered the instant that happened. She had been at Stanford for over a decade, a frequent contributor of difficult papers to academic journals. “I was walking him to school, and he asked me what I was doing,” recalled Barbara. “I told him I was giving some paper, and he asked, ‘What’s it on?’” I gave him a bullshit answer, and he pressed me on it, and by the end of the walk we were in the middle of a deep conversation about the argument. The points he was making were better than any of the reviewers’. At that moment my parenting style changed.”

Yeah, no. I don't care how bright your eight year old is (and Bankman-Fried is smart but not genius-level smart), he's not going to be doing a law paper critique better than adult reviewers. What he is doing parroting back to you the things he's learned, from listening to you talking at those adult dinner parties, that you think and like and defend.

Caveat: I may be being massively unfair to the parents as I haven't read the entire book yet. They may indeed have been sending him to therapists and what-not. But so far, I get the impression that Barbara was the main parent, and both parents just accepted that little Sammy was weird and not like other kids, but he was doing okay in school and not in trouble, so whatever. Let him stay in his bedroom, we've got Pointless Virtue Signalling to get on with:

None of what the Bankman-Frieds did was for show; they weren’t that kind of people. They just really thought about what they did before they did it. In his twenties Sam would learn that his parents had never married. In silent protest of the fact that their gay friends could not legally marry, they’d joined in a civil union. And they never said a word about it to their children, or to anyone else, as far as Sam could tell.

Never told anyone, huh? If I believe that (which I don't), then it's not really an effective protest about unfair and unequal treatment, now is it? Imagine in the Civil Rights Era a white proponent of equal rights going "Well, I'm not going to drink out of public water fountains if black people can't use them too, but I'm not going to say a word to anyone about it so no-one will ever know that's what I'm protesting. That will certainly show the government what's what!" Pointless. Virtue. Signalling.

EDIT: Honestly, Babs, you should have thrown your kid a few birthday parties. Make him feel special. That you, as his goddamn family, cared enough about him to give a damn in taking time and trouble to consider what he liked and then prepared it for him, instead of "yeah, if you want something, tell me and I'll buy it" (and that will get you out of my hair when I can't even be bothered to remember your birthday). Then he wouldn't have grown up with such a desperate need for approval that he did what he did with FTX/Alameda Research.

EDIT EDIT: I'm not saying I'm getting Mrs Jellyby vibes here but I'm not saying I'm not, either.

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