site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9mo ago (text post)   29237 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 19, 2024

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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The obvious reply to that is "why do Asians do well?" Shouldn't it take hundreds of years for them to catch up too? (Of course, Asians weren't quite as disadvantaged, but I wouldn't say they had a hundred year head start either.)

It seems like the rapid economic advancement of East Asia is an argument against hard racial hereditarianism. Because the HBD arguments goes that Sub-Saharan Africa is poor, underdeveloped, and wartorn because black Africans are just have bad genes. But if we grant the HBD premise that EAsians are, for genetic reasons, more intelligent than whites, blacks, American Indians, Arabs, etc. then it becomes clear that a people with high "genetic potential" can spend centuries mired in poverty, before some environmental stimulus induces rapid development. Because prior to the mid-point of the century, many EAsian countries were as poor or poorer than many SSA and Latin American countries. Someone in the 19th or early 20th century who claimed EAsian poverty was for genetic reasons would have been on as solid footing a someone who claimed the same of SSA poverty today, but he would have been wrong.

Someone in the 19th or early 20th century who claimed EAsian poverty was for genetic reasons would

You know what? Once Portuguese visited Japan in 16th century, they got some Japanese slaves. Slavemasters owning both African and Japanese slaves noticed stunning difference between two. Pretty soon, enslaving East Asians was outlawed.

Where can I read about this?

I don't remember where I read about this, wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Japan has some links

Except Japan existed and was developed and rich despite having no natural resources. They almost immediately matched the European nations once they started trying. China also matched and exceeded Europe prior to the 19th century. I'm sure some racists thought they were inferior, but no one who actually looked at the history of Africa and Asia would find them comparable.

You’re switching from outcomes of various groups within America to globally at a country level, which makes it more complex.

North Koreans are shorter than South Koreans. We know pretty strongly that’s environment and not genes causing that difference. But when we can control for environment sufficiently and remove it as a barrier, as in the case of malnutrition, it’s probably going to be genes setting the upper limit on height.

Also we can now compare performance on international tests and observe outcomes for various immigrant groups around the world over time as well as at the country level. If there weren’t consistent trends then that would be strong counterevidence. But there are quite consistent trends.

I misread the comment and assumed we were talking about the races on a global scale.

Why do you think east Asia was significantly poorer and more underdeveloped than Europe for so long if east Asians really have more "raw" intelligence (g or whatever) than Europeans? What do you think the barrier was in that case; why did they need to adop European tech and institutions rather than developing their own equivalent (or superior) ones?

Re: “European” tech and institutions:

https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/07/25/how-the-west-was-won/

Markets work if they aren’t strangled and the Industrial Revolution didn’t arrive everywhere the same way.

Japan was closed off, then it rapidly industrialized, then after WWII it rebuilt and became a juggernaut until an aging population slowed things down.

China and Korea had a real bloody time of it. Then South Korea was able to rapidly grow with US protection and eventuality China loosened up on the central planning and also made significant gains. North Korea remains a basket case.

Now we see if they can possibly do anything to avoid population collapse…

Well you're saying that East Asians abandoned inefficient economic policies and adopted the efficient ones of Europeans, but that's besides the point. If you accept the premises that inborn genetic ability (however it is measured) is the primary determinant of national prosperity, and that Asians are equal to or higher than Europeans in measured ability, then it becomes strange that East Asians had to play "catch-up" at all. Why was it the Europeans who in the first place developed the technology and industry necessary to generate unprecedented wealth?

Luck matters.

History is full of strange contingencies and many books have been written trying to explain why the scientific and industrial revolutions took place in Western Europe and not somewhere else. Britain having easily accessible coal was pretty important, for example. Lots of people believe Christianity had important cultural effects that led to intellectual and economic freedom and the resulting innovation.

The correlation in modern times between national IQ and wealth is a modern correlation. Inborn ability can be constrained from reaching its potential by the environment. China is still hobbled by bad policy and underperforms its potential, as is North Korea.

Luck matters.

Right.

The correlation in modern times between national IQ and wealth is a modern correlation.

IQ tests didn't exist prior to the 20th century so it's hard to say whether the correlation is a recent development or not.

The measured correlation is obviously a modern development because before then we didn’t measure it.

But also having knowledge economies is a modern thing. A genius farmer in the days of yore couldn’t leverage his intellect like a genius investor or programmer or general white-collar professional can. The gains from intelligence are much higher now than in the past, as is the gap in wealth between countries.

And the rapid increase in height in Japan is an argument against hard physical hereditarianism.

There are certainly things that can hold down development besides heritable low intelligence. The most obvious is Communism (thanks to the Kims for demonstrating the quite clearly). But this doesn't mean heritable intelligence doesn't exist, and we have other information demonstrating that.

I don't think heritable intelligence doesn't exist.

I am not an expert on this topic, but first google result, The US Asian population has doubled since 2000 and has gone up 40x since 1960; today, 57% of Asian Americans were born in a different country, and 30% live in California.

Basically, the averages for Asians in the US are dominated by recent immigrants who start out relatively affluent and don't have the family history of oppression that a chinese person whose ancestors worked on the railroad might be able to attest to. And they tend to cluster in places with high cost-of-living, which translates to 'high income' in national averages that don't adjust for that.

And this isn't true for, say, blacks in the US, of whom 82% are native-born descendants of slaves, and cluster more in southern states with low cost of living.

I've tried a few times to find data on average income/etc for Asian Americans descended from eg chinese railroad workers in the old West vs recent immigrants in the last generation or three, but haven't had any luck. It may be that Asian immigrants so vastly outnumber the 'native' stock of Asians in the US that interbreeding has rendered this distinction meaningless, which I don't think it has for black populations.

What about Jews? Jews started as poor immigrants with a history of centuries of persecution. And it didn't take 300 years for them to catch up.

When you say immigrants, are you saying 'to the US', or some other thing?

If you mean the US, first of all I'd ask you support your claim because it doesn't actually sound correct to me, and second of all I'd say that well educated and affluent people being forced to flee at one specific time to a place that gives them full rights and opportunities is not the same as centuries of chattel slavery and segregation.

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