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 -
Inferential Distance: a Prologue
Over the few weeks I've come a across multiple posts here that have left me wondering "are we looking at the same event?" or less charitably "WTF has this commentor been smoking?", and this has gotten me thinking about something that I've been meaning to do since we made the transition to the new site, and that is to start consolidating the the things I've written under this pseudonym and that are currently spread out over a decade of time, and half a dozen different websites/forums, into something more manageable. This is not that post, but it is something of a prelude.
I see a lot of posts here from ostensible right wingers lamenting the progressives' omnipresence and inevitable victory, and I'm not sure what to make of them because that is not what I see, or what I hear, when I talk to the actual human beings in my life. If anything it's the opposite. The progressives are running scared. For every year since 1972, that's for half a century now, Gallup has run a poll on institutional trust that asks people to what degree they expect the media, the government, academia, etc... to report facts "fully, accurately, and fairly". The available answers are; a Great deal, a Fair amount, Not very much, and Not at all. Well the results for 2022 have just been released and people who answered "not at all" for trust in mass media is at 38%. This has been characterized by the talking heads, and many rationalists as "a crisis of sense making" but I don't really see it that way. Sounds more like healthy skepticism if you ask me.
Those that are familiar with me from my time on LessWrong and /r/SSC may recall that the concept of "inferential distance" has always been something of a hobby horse of mine, and I think this issue in particular illustrates why. You see. there is a lot talk here on theMotte about progressives "controlling the narrative", "twitter being the wellspring of culture", "normies doing whatever the tv tells them", that to me seems absurd, but in light of Gallup's results makes a certain amount of sense. I don't think it's any secret that this forum, as a splinter faction of the rationalist movement skews wealthy, secular, cosmopolitan, college-educated, and frankly Democrat. While I could be wrong, I would be willing to bet that there are way more fans of Cumtown here than there are fans of Rush Limbaugh or Tucker Carlson. And with that in mind I think the fact that trust in the media seems to break pretty cleanly along class and partisan lines (70% of Democrats having a fair amount of trust or greater in the media vs less than 14% of Republicans) explains a lot.
You expect people to believe what you see on the news because that's normal where you're from.
I expect everyone to roll their eyes at the news because that's normal where I'm from.
...and this points to the first of many fundamental disconnects.
A lot of this, not saying all, is just related to the internet and its relative anonymity. In real life I think we all calibrate ourselves to be more ingratiating to those we're dealing with and even if we're comfortable enough to have an argument with someone it's often a much less appealing proposition than being able to downvote and move on or close the tab or block because of the oft-mentioned skin in the game. Even online I think if you consider someone a friend you're going to be less hostile, less likely to argue, more likely to calibrate your opinion toward theirs if you value them as a friend. Mistake theory is how we mostly code disagreements in these conditions and I think it's much more likely to be true if only for these conditions. Someone around me starts laying into the Democrats and I can nod and agree with the rest of them because I do. Someone around me starts laying into the Republicans and I can also nod and agree because I do. These are somewhat reflective of my opinion but they're also me agreeing with them because it's easier to agree and I'd rather have a conversation with someone than an argument.
As a pseudonymous internet commenter you're willing to disagree and let your inhibitions go. The interaction is not really about getting along anymore it's about winning and getting the praise and esteem that goes along with that. You'll sandbag a win because it's in your best interests to appeal as an underdog. You're more likely to tell the truth that you've kept secret from friends and relatives but you're also more likely to lie. Everything is amped up and so much of it is about getting attention/respect that Conflict theory is not only easier it makes sense because the goal is to win and you already know you're right. Progressives control the narrative, it's obvious because of reasons A,B, and C. These are all true. I also know that none of my friends or relatives agree with this but that's D and why would I include something that undermines my idea when I have data that agrees with it? I think there's a certain level of disingenuous rhetoric that everyone engages in when presenting an argument because they're trying to "win" and often that comes off as a disconnection or inferential step away from your reality but I think a good portion of it is never really turning off the war part of the culture war. In a way it's kind of a mistake theory for conflict theory, I guess but I believe people engage in this behavior, even unknowingly, much more than they'd ever admit. This is all me probably typical-minding but it's how I explain almost everyone ever sandbagging their own position/politics to appear as a more appealing underdog for some reason.
I think you're right and the more steps removed you are from someone and their knowledge the more likely you are to look at it and think that they're smoking bath salts. Society seems to be built more towards atomization and it's a hell of an easy way to create hundreds and thousands and millions more inferential steps between each other and our trust or acceptance of one another's knowledge. I also think that it's fair to call that disconnect reaction a natural heuristic toward not being fooled. And I think that heuristic instinct gets stronger the more it's proven correct and it's often easy to prove it correct with whatever data you want that supports your disconnected feeling. It might be right or wrong but I think it's safe to say that we mostly find it wrong even if most of the time it actually is wrong because most of the time the heuristic works and that disconnection from others is often a much stronger weight toward our eventual conclusion of accepting that information than piles of links to studies/articles even if the media and academia have done themselves no favors here.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link