@Atian_1 comments on "Culture War Roundup for the week of December 30, 2024

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 30, 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.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

non_radical_centrist 4mo ago

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-theory-that-men-evolved-to-hunt-and-women-evolved-to-gather-is-wrong1/

It's hard to trust Scientific American when they mix communicating real, good science with blatant contradictory nonsense. Their article on Man the Hunter being inaccurate makes great points about how women can be excellent endurance runners, outpacing men over long distances. But then it also has a this paragraph about gender vs sex.

Before getting into the evidence, we need to first talk about sex and gender. "Sex" typically refers to biological sex, which can be defined by myriad characteristics such as chromosomes, hormone levels, gonads, external genitalia and secondary sex characteristics. The terms "female" and "male" are often used in relation to biological sex. "Gender" refers to how an individual identifies—woman, man, nonbinary, and so forth. Much of the scientific literature confuses and conflates female/male and woman/man terminology without providing definitions to clarify what it is referring to and why those terms were chosen. For the purpose of describing anatomical and physiological evidence, most of the literature uses "female" and "male," so we use those words here when discussing the results of such studies. For ethnographic and archaeological evidence, we are attempting to reconstruct social roles, for which the terms "woman" and "man" are usually used. Unfortunately, both these word sets assume a binary, which does not exist biologically, psychologically or socially. Sex and gender both exist as a spectrum, but it is difficult to add that nuance when citing the work of others.

How many pre-historic humans would actually have any seperation between the concept of a "female" and a "woman"? Not to mention they way they actually bring up "women in social roles" doesn't acknowledge their own distinction- you're never going to get a pregnant trans women, but you could get a pregnant trans men. We don't know anything about "gender" as progressives view it in pre-historic societies- we only know about sex, what we observe through things like skeletal remains and inferences from behaviour of human-like animals. The article would've done better to solely use female and male the whole way through and not try to seperate sex and gender.

Later, there's a paragraph about how athletic studies don't do enough research on females that wasn't relevant to anything else in the article. A non-sequitor that wasn't relevant to the article since we do know enough about female biology to determine their relative advantages and weaknesses at physical activities compared to men.

The article does have some good informative material in it.

Important for the purposes of this discussion, estrogen also improves fat metabolism. During exercise, estrogen seems to encourage the body to use stored fat for energy before stored carbohydrates. Fat contains more calories per gram than carbohydrates do, so it burns more slowly, which can delay fatigue during endurance activity. Not only does estrogen encourage fat burning, but it also promotes greater fat storage within muscles—marbling if you will—which makes that fat's energy more readily available. Adiponectin, another hormone that is typically present in higher amounts in females than in males, further enhances fat metabolism while sparing carbohydrates for future use, and it protects muscle from breakdown. Anne Friedlander of Stanford University and her colleagues found that females use as much as 70 percent more fat for energy during exercise than males.

Correspondingly, the muscle fibers of females differ from those of males. Females have more type I, or "slow-twitch," muscle fibers than males do. These fibers generate energy slowly by using fat. They are not all that powerful, but they take a long time to become fatigued. They are the endurance muscle fibers. Males, in contrast, typically have more type II ("fast-twitch") fibers, which use carbohydrates to provide quick energy and a great deal of power but tire rapidly.

Females also tend to have a greater number of estrogen receptors on their skeletal muscles compared with males. This arrangement makes these muscles more sensitive to estrogen, including to its protective effect after physical activity. Estrogen's ability to increase fat metabolism and regulate the body's response to the hormone insulin can help prevent muscle breakdown during intense exercise. Furthermore, estrogen appears to have a stabilizing effect on cell membranes that might otherwise rupture from acute stress brought on by heat and exercise. Ruptured cells release enzymes called creatine kinases, which can damage tissues.

But then later it had this infamous paragraph:

Inequity between male and female athletes is a result not of inherent biological differences between the sexes but of biases in how they are treated in sports. As an example, some endurance-running events allow the use of professional runners called pacesetters to help competitors perform their best. Men are not permitted to act as pacesetters in many women's events because of the belief that they will make the women "artificially faster," as though women were not actually doing the running themselves."

I had never seen that paragraph in context before. Knowing the context, that they just explained the inherent biological differences, then denied them right after, makes it worse! Right after they broke down in detail how females have hormones and muscles built for stamina over power! The reason why male pacesetters aren't allowed for women's endurance running is because the male pacesetter would be setting the pace too fast for the women, who are built for going a longer distance at a slower pace than men, as they had literally just explained earlier in the article.

They also downplay the evidence that "Man the Hunter" was accurate, but at least they include it.

Males living in the Upper Paleolithic—the cultural period between roughly 45,000 and 10,000 years ago, when early modern humans entered Europe—do show higher rates of a set of injuries to the right elbow region known as thrower's elbow, which could mean they were more likely than females to throw spears. But it does not mean women were not hunting, because this period is also when people invented the bow and arrow, hunting nets and fishing hooks. These more sophisticated tools enabled humans to catch a wider variety of animals; they were also easier on hunters' bodies. Women may have favored hunting tactics that took advantage of these new technologies.

In conclusion, their own conclusion perfectly demonstrates their own double think:

Female physiology is optimized for exactly the kinds of endurance activities involved in procuring game animals for food. And ancient women and men appear to have engaged in the same foraging activities rather than upholding a sex-based division of labor. It was the arrival some 10,000 years ago of agriculture, with its intensive investment in land, population growth and resultant clumped resources, that led to rigid gendered roles and economic inequality.

They claim at the same time that females are biologically optimized to perform certain activities better than males, but also that females and males performed the exact same activities in an egalitarian society.

A lot of old anthropology like the original "Man the Hunter" article this article is a response to, is flawed. But at the same time, modern anthropology is just as if not more biased than the anthropology of the 60s. Their intro has a line saying,

Bystanders might be left wondering whether portrayals of women hunters are trying to make the past more inclusive than it really was—or whether Man the Hunter-style assumptions about the past are attempts to project sexism backward in time.

The reason why bystanders are so confused is because that's exactly what organizations like Scientific American are trying to do. If they really were just trying to correct a mistaken historical record, bystanders who don't do deep dives into human pre-history could safely trust pop sci and wouldn't be so skeptical. But when Scientific American blatantly tries to push an agenda, bystanders rightly grow skeptical.

Context

Atian_1 non_radical_centrist 4mo ago · Edited 4mo ago

Not commenting on the political aspects, but it seems like they covered way more benefits of estrogen than they did benefits of testosterone. This irks me because it reminds me of all those nutrition articles that praise one food's benefits, like how uniquely special quinoa is because it has magnesium, this, that, etc. When you could write the same exact article replacing "quinoa" for some other food, because there's tons of foods with identical or better nutrient profiles. Anyway:

You can't just list the cellular and global benefits of estrogen and not list the same benefits of testosterone. Testosterone has to be just as if not more muscle-sparing than estrogen. It is interesting and probably true that estrogen would shift fuel source more to fat, which does sound useful for very long-distance events, but just like women have more estrogen receptors and all the benefits that come with it, men have more testosterone receptors and all the benefits that come along with it, benefits that I could imagine would be relevant to hunting as well. The article doesn't seem to be doing a fair comparison.

For one, male-levels of testosterone uniquely allow tendon and ligament CSA to increase from exercise, which is injury-protective. Bone and muscle CSA will be larger, and fast-twitch muscles and power will be useful for certain game. I think it depends on what kind of game you are chasing, and whether you're going to run 100+ miles or maybe just a marathon or maybe just a short distance, idk.

The_Nybbler In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball. Atian_1 4mo ago

It is interesting and probably true that estrogen would shift fuel source more to fat, which does sound useful for very long-distance events

My understanding (and it might be bro-science) is that for very long distance events, you're not using either stored fat or glycogen for most of it; you're using what you take in, so your limit is how much you can eat and absorb.

FtttG The_Nybbler 4mo ago

This is correct. Running a marathon is essentially incompatible with doing a keto diet. Throughout the marathon, all the runners will be doing their damnedest to guzzle as much glucose and isotonic drinks as they can stomach without puking and/or shitting themselves. Hitting the wall is the point in the marathon at which you've exhausted your supply of carbs and must burn fat instead, at which keeping to any kind of reasonable pace is effectively impossible.

faul_sname Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science. Atian_1 4mo ago

This irks me because it reminds me of all those nutrition articles that praise one food's benefits, like how uniquely special quinoa is because it has magnesium, this, that, etc. When you could write the same exact article replacing "quinoa" for some other food, because there's tons of foods with identical or better nutrient profiles.

The good news is that LLMs exist now, and you can write those articles about other, non-trendy foods too! Just imagine, "6 Reasons Why Rutabagas Are An Underrated Superfood". Be the change you fear to see in the world.

VecGS Chaotic good faul_sname 4mo ago

Just for fun I asked: https://chatgpt.com/share/6773255e-8f74-8004-915d-56088ff34dc2

I'm not going to include the whole thing here so as not to fall afoul of the rules.

Now I want to get me some rutabagas...

ulyssessword faul_sname 4mo ago

Please list 6 Reasons Why Rutabagas Are An Underrated Superfood

Result (Copilot):

Rutabagas are indeed an underrated superfood, packed with a variety of nutrients and health benefits. Here are six reasons why you should consider adding them to your diet:

Rich in Nutrients: Rutabagas are a great source of vitamins and minerals, including vitamin C, vitamin E, potassium, calcium, and magnesium. These nutrients support immune function, bone health, and overall well-being.

High in Fiber: Rutabagas are high in dietary fiber, which helps promote healthy digestion, prevent constipation, and maintain a healthy weight by keeping you feeling full for longer.

Low in Calories: Despite being rich in nutrients, rutabagas are low in calories. This makes them an excellent choice for those looking to maintain or lose weight without sacrificing essential nutrients.

Antioxidant Properties: Rutabagas contain antioxidants, such as vitamin C and beta-carotene, which help protect your cells from damage caused by free radicals and reduce the risk of chronic diseases.

Supports Heart Health: The potassium in rutabagas can help regulate blood pressure and reduce the risk of heart disease. Additionally, their high fiber content supports healthy cholesterol levels.

Versatile in the Kitchen: Rutabagas can be used in a variety of dishes, from soups and stews to roasted vegetables and mashed sides. Their slightly sweet and earthy flavor adds depth and nutrition to many recipes.

Next time you're grocery shopping, don't forget to give rutabagas a try! Your body will thank you.

Recently, I was linked to an anti-Cybertruck viral song clip. I fed a related prompt to an AI and got better lyrics that referenced specific issues I had heard about (rust, frame strength, windows, angular appearance) in one attempt:

There once was a truck that sailed the streets,
The Cybertruck, with angles neat,
But oh, the folks, they did not cheer,
For the truck was quite a sight to fear.

Oh, the Cybertruck, it came to town,
With a body made of steel so brown,
But the people said, "It's just too strange,
We'd rather have a truck that's plain."

The windows cracked, the body bent,
The Cybertruck, it made a dent,
In the hopes of those who dreamed,
Of a truck that wasn't so extreme.

[Chorus]

The design was bold, the look was new,
But the Cybertruck, it split the view,
Some folks loved, but many frowned,
As the truck rolled through the town.

So here's a tale of a truck so grand,
That tried to change the auto land,
But in the end, it couldn't sway,
The hearts of those who walked away.

What is this place?

Why are you called The Motte?

New post guidelines

Rules

Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats