site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 21, 2022

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.

13
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

CNBC is reporting that

Although the final official figures have not been released, it is estimated that the Qatar World Cup will cost around 220 billion to 300 billion dollars. This will also make it the most expensive World Cup ever.

Notably

At this year’s World Cup in Qatar, it’s noteworthy that seven of the eight stadiums have been constructed recently. Only one was renovated. Lusail Stadium alone, located north of Doha, cost $45 billion. Additionally, about 20,000 new hotel rooms have been constructed, as well as new driveways.

The USA's GDP is $20 trillion, so a cost of $220 billion is about 1% of the USA's GDP, which should immediately raise some red flags. Now that something smells fishy, we can look up Qatar's GDP and realize that CNBC is claiming that Qatar has spent at least 120% of their GDP on the World Cup.

Unsurprisingly, we can count on Reuters to set the record straight.

Gas-rich Qatar, in an attempt to emulate the dramatic transformation of Gulf rivals Dubai and Abu Dhabi, has spent at least $229 billion on infrastructure in the 11 years since winning the bid to host the World Cup.

Some Googling also gets us news.sky.com being more explicit

Qatar maintains that, while much of the infrastructure included in the $200bn figure will be used during the tournament, its construction would have taken place regardless of whether the cup was being held there, so it should not be viewed as the total cost.

I think it's fair to say that reporting all infrastructure spending in the last decade as "spending on the World Cup infrastructure" is pants-on-fire misleading, particularly when comparing it to the costs other countries paid.

The New York Times does it with a bit more plausible deniability.

For the country of three million people, the monthlong tournament is the culmination of 12 years of preparation and more than $200 billion in infrastructure spending, subsumed into a grand nation-building project for a state the size of Connecticut surrounded by more powerful neighbors.

Although their tweet is more suspect

Qatar opened its long-awaited World Cup with a 2-0 loss to Ecuador on Sunday, a disappointing start to an event that had required more than a decade of planning; $200 billion in investments; and countless uncomfortable questions about human rights.

But what about that $45 billion stadium (which, incidentally, is greater than Qatar's annual government spending)?

That also seems implausible. No source is cited but, for comparison, Yankee Stadium has 12,000 seats (vs Lusail's 9,000) and cost $2.3 billion (or 5% the alleged cost of Lusail). Also sportingnews.com, while also guilty of running that $220 billion number, helpfully lists the costs of each of the new stadiums and claims Lusail Stadium cost $767 million.

Rough order-of-magnitude verification of numbers is a valuable skill. If I tell you the deepest part of the ocean is 500 miles deep you should really be able to know that I'm wrong (the USA is ~2500 miles wide). You should know if the government spends $1 billion or $50 million on something. Reporting that a country spent $200 billion on a sporting event instantly raise a red flag.

Go play Wits & Wagers.

Just to pick up on one aspect of this, I completely agree about the importance of having decent Fermi estimation skills, and it’s something you can definitely train. I’m continually amazed at how many people don’t have basic frames of reference for things like populations, money, timescales, distances, etc..

I remember hearing a prominent philosophy academic once say in a talk that “octopuses evolved 500 billion years ago”. I assumed it was a slip of the tongue, but then she gave the same talk a month later and made exactly the same mistake. I assume she read “500 million” somewhere and it got transmuted to “500 billion” in her head, but jeez, you should be instinctively sanity-checking and filtering that stuff in your head (“are octopuses an order of magnitude more ancient than the universe itself?”).

In the interests of fun, here’s one of my favourite (paired sets of) Fermi questions for the sub.

(1) Imagine our sun as the size of a baseball located in New York. Mutatis mutandis, how far away would the nearest star (Proxima Centauri) be?

Answer: about 2000km (approximately the distance from NYC to Oklahoma City).

Reasoning: Proxima Centauri is 40,208,000,000,000 km away. Our sun is 1,392,700 km in diameter, so it would take approximately 28 million suns in a line to reach to Proxima Centauri. A baseball is approximately 7cm in diameter, and 28 million baseballs would stretch approximately 2000 km.

(2) Imagine our galaxy as the size of a dinner plate (again let’s say in NYC). Again mutatis mutandis, how far away would the nearest galaxy (Andromeda) be?

Answer: about 7.5 metres away!

**Reasoning: the Milky Way is approximately 100,000 light years in diameter. Andromeda is approximately 2.5 million light years away, so it would take 25 Milky Ways stacked end to end to reach it. A large dinner plate is approximately 30cm in diameter, so 25 of them stacked end to end would extend 7.5m.

My surprised upshot: compared to interstellar distances, galaxies are unbelievably close to each other!

I'm going to type out my unfiltered thoughtprocess. And not use a calculator or spend more than 30 seconds per problem because that would be against the Spirit of Fermi estimation.

(1) Imagine our sun as the size of a baseball located in New York. Mutatis mutandis, how far away would the nearest star (Proxima Centauri) be?

  • I know that the sun is 150*10^6 km away and the nearest start is 4 lightyears away. So it would be cheating.

  • But fuck that, I know it takes light 8 minutes to reach The Sun and 4 years to reach the nearest star.

  • So 8 minutes to 4 years is one ratio, and baseball and the sun is the other ratio.

  • Wild out of my ass guess would be the ball is outside the atmosphere of earth.

Revelation: Annnddd I was wayyy off. By an order of magnitude.

(2) Imagine our galaxy as the size of a dinner plate (again let’s say in NYC). Again mutatis mutandis, how far away would the nearest galaxy (Andromeda) be?

  • I know Andromeda is 2*10^6 light years away.

  • Repeat the same process as before.

Revelation: Wild overestimate again. Off by many orders of magnitude.


I need to get better at intuiting ratios.

Also, a persons Fermi estimating abilities are a very good indicator of how much they read as a child. Serious.

Many of the intuitions such as astronomic distances, evolutionary timelines, depth of natural features like the oceans are things I learned straight out of my middle school textbooks or Children's encyclopedias.

I know it takes light 8 minutes to reach The Sun and 4 years to reach the nearest star.

Sounds like you are treating the baseball as the size of the earth's orbit around the sun, rather than the size of the sun itself. But that would give you an answer that's too small rather than too big so idk how you got your answer.

So 8 minutes to 4 years is one ratio, and baseball and the sun is the other ratio.

I am confused about your reasoning here...are you calculating (4 years / 8 minutes) * (radius of baseball / radius of sun)? That would give you a unitless value, not a distance. I think you were using the wrong values in your calculation but I can't tell what you were using.

You are right, I goofed by taking the distance from earth to the sun instead of the size of the sun. The answers being even remotely a few orders of magnitude away is a coincidence.

I feel like the magnitudes involved in interstellar and intergalactic distances are so vast that it's not really a mark against your intuition that you find it difficult to wrap your head around. For everyone that isn't an astronomer it's really just trivia anyway.

Whereas people work with and talk about money all the time, so I think people should be expected to have better intuition in that regard.