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 -
I don't precisely know where Elon lands in the Motte's situation evaluation of the Culture War at present, but I think I've got an example than can be used as a lense beyond The MuskATeer himself.
This is a very recent (x)weet from Elon. If you really, carefully parse it with your far less powerful brain (than Elon's, that is) you might be able to understand that - this is just basic macroeconomic understanding. Holy shit this is fucking Econ 101
But, as I've said before, Elon has adopted just enough PodCaster Bro aesthetics to know that slight rephrasings of 1+1=2 obvious insights, combined with "thoughtful" pauses and idiosyncratic speech patterns can make you look deep to the midwits. I am convinced this is also 90% of Sam Altman's playbook.
Business-eese and consulting speaking get a lot of flak for being made up pseudo-languages that exist to further unearned vibes of authority and experience on the part of the speaker. It's fun to point and laugh that it's all either nonsense or very obvious truths dressed up in jargon.
I think the cycle is repeating itself with many different sides of the AI wars. Connor Leahy is even more egregious than Musk, and also triples down by trying (and mostly failing) to pin people down with gotcha hypotheticals that are worded to sounded apocalyptic in their profundity.
I think a good heuristic for valid expertise in a subject is the degree to which it gets a little boring. Scott Alexander's posts often veer into "holy shit, get to the point, dude!" territory. Many posts related to SCOTUS here on The Motte (of which I am thankful for, please keep them going!) often get just a little tedious - not because of jargony pablum, but because the authors generally really know what they're talking about and go multiple layers deep in reference and citation.
I'm someone who's been in the Tech industry (or, maybe more accurately, technology focused parts of several industries) for my entire career. At least at the start, "tech" was looked at as a weird subculture - the bosses knew they needed it, but it wasn't the show. In the middle 2010s, that started to change as the FAANGs became the largest and richest companies on the planet. Now that we are at peak AI hullabaloo, not only do you see people with zero technical capability presenting themselves as experts, you have an entire aesthetic-cultural superstructure. I think Musk is not only part of it, but one of those who built it. Altman as well. If you peer into their backgrounds, their techincal bonafides are questionable at best. Musk seems like a hacker level dev who brute forced his way into PayPal (and was then brute forced out). His claims about being deeply involved in engineering to this day have to be impossible (SpaceX, Tesla, and Xwitter couldn't run if so much was contingent on him). It's more likely he injects himself into meetings and initiatives here and there and mostly serves as a slight derailing force to otherwise normal activities. Altman seems to have zero background and is perhaps the poster boy for weird SF striver life.
I seek the opinions of the Mottizen community.
I’ll certainly agree with you in one place: Elon Musk, along with essentially everyone else expressing an opinion on inflation, has a lot of unearned confidence. Macroeconomics, and inflation specifically, is an area that brings out a lot of people fitting lines to past data and absolutely sure of causality. In reality, there is a wide range of opinions in macroeconomics on the relationship between fiscal and monetary theory and price levels, all held by PhDs genuinely trying to figure out what's going on. All those people in 2021 calling inflation “transitory” genuinely had thought hard about their predictions and genuinely were wrong. See Figure 1 here, where traders with money on the line completely missed their bets on CPI paths.
I’ll take a moment to share my personal hobby horse, John Cochrane’s fiscal theory of the price level. It predicts that inflation is caused when people expect the government to repay its debt by printing money in the future instead of responsibly running a fiscal surplus. Deficits in response to crisis are fine as long as you can credibly pay them back, but our recent government has shown absolutely no plans to do so. Regarding valid expertise, Cochrane pleasantly obliges by providing media anywhere from engaging (Podcasts! Sound effects!) to unintelligible without an econ degree (Calculus¡ Terrifying¡).
At least on this topic, I don’t think Musk is worse than anyone else. Everybody (including me) wants to say they have a handle of what causes inflation; we probably don’t, and will get to partake in the classic human experience of being completely wrong about the future of the macroeconomy.
One set of people got the non-transitory nature right without using any sophisticated modeling or "genuinely trying to figure out what's going on". The other set got it wrong while using sophisticated modeling and "genuinely trying to figure out what's going on". This did not lead me to conclude that causes of inflation post-2020 were hopelessly complex, but that people exercised motivated reasoning and recruited a bunch of pointless complexity rather than just acknowledge the obvious conclusion in front of them.
The whole thing feels like the midwit meme brought to life.
In Physics 101, there's a class of problems where there are multiple ways to figure out the answer. One is through difficult integration of force and velocity equations. The other is noting that energy is conserved and you can figure it out through simple algebra that way. There's another class of problems where one thing absolutely dominates -- one hard SF author posed the problem in a short story about a spaceship moving through the solar system at 0.25g constant acceleration. Yes, it's a ridiculously multi-body problem, but you can basically ignore all the smaller influences because 0.25g swamps them.
These economic questions tend to be like those problems. Yes, there's a way to make it complicated, but there's also a simple "energy" (money supply/spending) argument. And yes, there's a bunch of other factors, but when you throw around trillions of dollars, they're swamped.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link