site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   1269 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for May 11, 2025

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Do we know anything about 2nd or 3rd generation Han / Japanese / Korean criminality and educational attainment? I’m not looking for Asians generally, because of Hmong. This could conceivably tell us the influence of culture on behavior, no?

I don't know the answer to your first question, but I am wondering why it would tell us with any definitiveness the influence of culture on behavior. Possibly I'm being obtuse, but could you explain?

IMO Asians assimilate in every aspect of culture, including parenting and worldview. If their educational attainment and criminality are the same after 2/3 generations then it would be strong evidence that the effect of culture on behavior is insignificant. I know there’s already studies like this wrt immigration in Europe but I haven’t seen one for this.

There is extensive evidence from numerous disciplines--psychology, anthropology, sociology, economics--that culture has an effect on behavior. You mention significance--do you mean statistical significance? That would require numerous studies with numerous groups, and even then there's the question of generalizability. I think to simply look at "Asians" and make assumption XYZ then look at 2nd or 3rd generations (presumably "outside" their culture? To whatever degree?) and make more assumptions is a weak analytical design.

The evidence is not always strong. It’s mostly correlative. I’m familiar with adoption studies. I’m interested in how it affects important behaviors, not just any behaviors.

That would require numerous studies with numerous groups

It would require some strong studies with a few groups before I am convinced that culture is less important than previously considered. If Chinese Americans and Chinese French, after assimilation in the 2nd or 3rd generations, are still behaviorally Chinese, then of genetics is even more important than I previously considered, and culture is probably less important than I previously thought. It would add credence to a thought I’ve had recently where cultural institutions are primarily for filtering genetic types and not for directing individual behavior (or rather, it’s for improving multigenerational behaviors through genetics rather than improving an individual’s behavior).

then look at 2nd or 3rd generations (presumably "outside" their culture? To whatever degree?)

Yes, because I’m interested in truth-seeking; I have the luxury to not be engaged in the neurotic janitorial work of academia where careful minds go to die. In real life, because I know that Asians overwhelmingly assimilate into cultural norms, I can use this proxy to obtain the information I’m looking for. An academic would have to first spends year and publish papers “proving” that Asian Americans assimilate, when it’s obvious.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats