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 qualified that by stating exactly the sort of thing I was talking about. Women from Chengdu will, on average, be more gracile, have more-feminine hormone balances, and be less-prone to physical aggression than women from Uganda. These are observable truths.
I don't think you understand what is being discussed here or how these things work, and I'm not trying to dismiss you by saying so, but I also don't really know where to begin to correct the misapprehension. I'm talking here about shared alleles and especially those related to cognition and phenomenology. And yes, mating with a genetically-distant partner results in a child which is less like either parent in those respects, whereas closely-related children of the same population will have more overlap than the child with either genetically-distant parent. I.e. they will experience the world more similarly than the actual direct offspring.
People often get weird when I talk about this but it's never clear to me whether they object to what I'm saying on some 'ought' level or if they just don't understand the concept.
You're simply mistaken about this. Actually you're so mistaken that I'm not even sure how deep the problem goes. Probably some sort of thought experiment would help but it's morning chaos hour in my house and constructing one that covers all the contingencies would be a real chore.
It might be instructive to think about how closely-related brothers are compared to each other and their children.
EDIT: Oh! And because it's specifically relevant do note that kids aren't 'half' each parent, but can swing as far out as about 2/3 one and 1/3 the other, though in most cases yeah it's generally close to half and half.
Can we please all start proactively explaining our statements. I took genetics classes long ago as part of general education in college. I'm either severely out of date on some large revolution in the field or people are making specific claims that can't be squared with any sensible understanding of the field. How does this possibly make sense?
Probably polyploidy.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This conversation doesn't seem to be helping so I'll thank you for it and duck out. But I think the word 'closer' is doing you more harm than good. I've already been very clear that I'm talking about amount of shared alleles. Actually, hold on- here, @Sloot just illustrated the matter in a way that might help.
Anyway, have a lovely whatever it is wherever you are.
No you haven't. You're strictly wrong about genetics.
More options
Context Copy link
Because of the odd way that bees reproduce, workers are as related or more related to their sisters than they would be to their hypothetical children, hence tending to the queen rather than trying to have babies.
Likewise, it’s not inherently ridiculous that your inbred cousins’ child is more closely related to you than your own child with someone very different to you, because the inbred child is getting a double helping of almost-your-genes whereas your actual child only gets one copy of your-actual-genes. I don’t know how the maths would work out in practice though.
More options
Context Copy link
https://www.themotte.org/post/1314/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/281172?context=2
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link