site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7mo ago (text post)   26627 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 25, 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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I just have the IQ charts which were trending on Twitter recently. They all seem to indicate 130 area. Kennedy fwiw seems to rank highly. I do not know how to interpret grades from the ‘30s. Seems like most of our Presidential candidates went to Harvard/Yale etc which even for a rich kid isn’t that easy to buy your way in if you are sub 120 IQ.

https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2015/05/27/poindexter-in-chief-presidential-iqs-and-success-in-the-oval-office

https://thoughtcatalog.com/january-nelson/2021/06/presidents-ranked-by-iq/

That seems totally made up. Especially the way they report it to two decimal places, that's absurd. All we have for most presidents is vague rumors: https://www.powerfulprep.com/searching-for-the-presidents-test-scores/ . But apparently W Bush got a 1200 on his SAT score. It's still easy for him to get in anywhere, he wasn't just "a rich kid" but the son of a soon-to-be-president. Same with Chelsea Clinton and the Obama girls- they get in wherever the hell they want. It's such a stupid corrupt system.

I am seeing Bush took the SAT in 1964.

I am seeing in 1967 a high school drop out rate of 17%.

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d17/tables/dt17_219.70.asp

For high school graduates it looks like males went to college in 1964 at a 57% rate.

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d99/d99t187.asp

It looks like in 1969 a 550 verbal SAT score was at 79% of SAT users and at 90% of a national representative sample. Bush was 566. A 650 math SAT was 89% of SAT users for boys. Bush scored 640. That probably puts him around 95% for everyone.

I did a google for top 5% of Americans IQ and it returned 125. This analysis would put George Bush around 123 IQ. The chart I shared before had him at 124.875. The chart seems broadly correct for Bush based on his SAT scores.

I think you forgot to adjust for changes in benchmarks on the SAT. Scores have gone up as the test has gotten easier. Similarly, I believe the average GPA is like 3.8 at Harvard now. B’s and C’s look bad today compared to today’s grading but they would essentially be A’s and A-‘s today.

My analysis points towards Bush being in the 94% based on SAT scores.

I can believe 125 (or thereabouts). I think that's about the sweet spot for political leaders- smarter than average but still relatable. No pausing while they search for the perfect word, they just speak directly.

But I don't believe the other ones, like saying John Quincy Adams was 168.75.

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