site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 3, 2022

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.

24
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Acknowledging the reality of HBD is important because if we don't acknowledge it we will end up with policies which are premised upon it being false (disparate impact doctrine for discrimination and affirmative action are the big ones, general distrust in IQ as you mention is another) and these policies are highly inefficient and unfair.

I don't want a world where people go "I know about HBD so I'm going to throw all the applications from black people away". I want a world where people go "I know about HBD so if after considering all the applications in a race blind manner I end up with 2% blacks in a highly technical field I won't be surprised or consider that problematic". And I'm not alone in this. Basically everyone I see talking about HBD feels the same. The first position is a strawman.

If you know about HBD then it wouldn't it be self defeating to examine applications in a race blind way? And why would black people be ok with that when they have the voting power to force you to hire them anyway?

Because in real life situations, race is almost never the relevant inflection point. You almost always have more specific information that swamps out any signal from race.

If you know about HBD then it wouldn't it be self defeating to examine applications in a race blind way?

No because race is a very very rough predictor of aptitude and bosses screening applicants have access to much stronger predictors. If I want high mathematical ability in my candidates I could just select only Asian candidates as they tend to score better on measures of mathematical aptitude, or I could ignore race and screen based on something like SAT math scores or scores on a math test I make applicants complete. The second approach is vastly better at accurately screening for candidates with high mathematical ability.

The main issue for me is that when a society says, "we are going to blind ourselves to this aspect of reality for the greater good," it's inevitable that we blind ourselves to other aspects of reality as well. Until we develop an ideology that has, at its foundations, a denial of reality itself. That seems to be the nightmare scenario we are stumbling towards in the dark.

Yes, this is the point that was so eloquently made by Eliezer Yudkowsky in "Universal Fire" and by Scott Alexander in "Kolmogorov Complicity and the Parable of Lightning". Everything is connected; you can't deny reality in just one little harmless area without starting a chain reaction which ends up with promising young scientists purged, freedom of speech destroyed, epistemology in tatters, and object-level policy disaster after disaster.

Thanks for the links. I'll look into them when I have time.

Edit: They are both short pieces but great reads.

Basically everyone I see talking about HBD feels the same. The first position is a strawman.

My experience dealing with actual HR people feels like they do, actually, throw away all the applications from groups they perceive to be unlikely to be capable.

HR people do indeed show bias, but not due to HBD.

Well sure, but that's probably at least in part due to not believing in HBD.

I don't see how it is relevant to their belief in HBD. I'm arguing that if they were HBDers, that would be just another axis to create an arbitrary hard cutoff point at.