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 -
As always, a kernel of truth grows into a turd of idiocy.
Motte: Wearing SPF30 sunscreen is probably among the cheaper interventions in terms of cost/inconvenience compared to QOL saved. Even if you can't do it 100% of the time, do it 90% of the time since the damage is additive.
Bailey: Avoid the sun, wear a thick knit sweater, reapply sunscreen hourly.
This is harmful advice. Skin cancer kills almost no one. If I recall correctly skin cancers only lower U.S. life expectancy by a few days.
On the other hand, people who get more sun live years longer.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/heres-something-unexpected-sunbathers-live-longer-201606069738
Supplement with Vitamin D you say? Not so easy: https://www.outsideonline.com/health/wellness/sunscreen-sun-exposure-skin-cancer-science/
Sunlight is good for you. Go get some. Personally, I use sunscreen on my face because I don't want to look old. I compensate by sunbathing the rest of my body.
AHEM.
And this is Ireland, not noted for "long hot sunny days year-round".
So basically 100 people in a country of 5m? 1 out of 50k isn’t that worrying. Moreover Irish are probably most susceptible to it.
Dying from something easily preventable is also a stupid way to go.
Why not advise kids to smoke tobacco, too? They probably won't get lung cancer, and the benefits of nicotine are that they won't get fat and will have better focus!
I had a close relative who died of lung cancer from smoking, so "only a few people relative to the entire population are gonna die" isn't a good sell to me. It's a fucking miserable, humiliating, degrading, painful, awful, horrible way to die and I can't think dying of skin cancer is any better.
You are now switching the argument. Is sunscreen stupid? No. Is dying from skin cancer common? No.
More options
Context Copy link
Depends on whether the cost of that prevention would have been too high. It's easy to prevent death via recreational mountaineering -- don't do it -- but I think you'll find that to be a rather unpopular position among mountaineering enthusiasts. Similarly, it may be easy to stay inside when the sun is out, but the cost of doing so is high regardless.
It's a reasonable question to ask, but I think if you added up the pluses and minuses you'd find smoking is a negative on balance. Not just lung cancer but COPD and a host of other diseases which debilitate as well as kill, plus stinking like smoke and having cravings for cigarettes.
But maybe I'm wrong; my mother was a lifelong unrepentant smoker, though it did kill her in the end.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, getting more sun is good. Sunscreen allows you to get more sun exposure without getting burned or increasing your risk of melanoma.
You're attacking the bailey, not the motte.
The bailey is what needs to be attacked. The motte is generally defend-able position that may or may not have some merit, but is worthy of consideration. It's use in protecting the bailey is the problem.
I think in the context of a discussion where the other side explicitly said "here is the kernel of truth and the rest of a turd of nonsense", there is a different dynamic.
More options
Context Copy link
I remember it as Mr. Mot the hardworking barber from Star Trek TNG, versus Beetle Bailey the lazy layabout private from the comic strip.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Observational studies without clear mechanisms of action are almost completely worthless. Reading the study it's just the classic thing where they controlled for a handful of factors that they thought of and then declared whatever was left over the effect of the thing they're studying. Rather than it being any of the countless variations across the population that aren't included in the arbitrary list of controls. (I think Scott has a post somewhere where he mentioned how little he trusts studies like this.) For instance this is how they controlled for comorbidity:
I wonder if any illnesses not prescribed those drugs might both increase mortality and decrease sunbathing? Or general variation in health below the level of actual illness?
This is in contrast to the skin cancer risk where the mechanism of action is very straightforward. It seems like a serious failure of both science and science communication that this sort of largely-meaningless observational study gets put on the same level.
I agree that it's very hard to tease out the direct impact of sun exposure from all the other things that come with it, but if that's really the case then clearly it isn't a big deal and it's definitely not worth shifting your attitude to favour indoor activities over outdoor ones.
More options
Context Copy link
Fair point about observational studies.
But I'll still take a huge effect with an unknown mechanism vs a tiny effect with a known mechanism.
Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. When the effect size is large, we can get still get use from observational studies. For example, I believe that observational studies would be fully sufficient to demonstrate the harms of smoking, even with no other knowledge.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If that were the extent of the advice, I think it would be fine. Put sunscreen on is good advice. Don’t let your kids play outside is batshit insane. In fact, to my mind the benefits to children from playing outside are substantial enough that if I thought talking about sunscreen would keep a kid indoors I’d never tell parents about sunscreen.
The physical benefits are that a kid gets actual exercise, running around, playing. They develop better coordination. A kid who’s playing is basically getting hours of aerobic exercise, building muscles, and so on. A kid stuck inside gets none of that. They sit and stare at screens and get fat.
Then there’s the social benefits. Making actual real life friends improves mental health. It embeds a child in a social network of peers and other adults. It teaches social responsibility and empathy and a whole host of social skills that simply cannot be learned by chatting over a headset.
It teaches good problem solving. Kid wants to get across a stream, he might accidentally learn something in trying to figure out how to do that. He might want to play a different game than the other kids and have to learn to negotiate with the other kids to get that. He might learn how to practice a skill so he can get good enough to play with the other kids.
If children only got one single benefit, I’d still be in favor of having the kids play outside. Even if the only benefit were preventing obesity, it’s an easy trade. Cancer at 70+ is bad, but if caught early is fairly treatable most of the time. Obesity is a chronic disease that often causes heart attacks in fairly young people. Taking 5 years off retirement or 30 years? Easy choice.
Well, yeah, we agree 100% there. It's batshit insane advice.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Sunscreen acts as a moisturizer and protects your skin from irritants if your oils have been washed off. It prevents dryness, acne, sub burn and cancer. The good stuff isn't sticky or smelly.
I apply it once a day, but I am also brown and work indoors. Strong recommend.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link