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 -
He didn't conclude that, read his post again. He explicitly calls this a "hypothesis".
To your broader point though, of course our biases will inform how much credibility we give someone. To some extent I think this is actually mathematically correct. If someone tells me they went outside and saw a bird I'll believe them without question, if they tell me they went outside and saw an alien I'll start looking for reasons why they might be lying or mistaken. This is in line with bayesian reasoning because my prior probability for someone seeing a bird is much higher than my prior for them lying about seeing a bird whereas the opposite of true for aliens.
The place where it gets tricky is when we start adjusting our credence not based upon how likely the claim is but instead based upon how much we want it to be true. There are things I don't want to be true that are unfortunately still quite likely and things I want to be true that are very unlikely. It's tempting but mathematically invalid to interpret evidence in line with my desires rather than my unbiased assessments.
To the extent that post was a pure hypothesis, this is a fair point. But I also assume that if he's posting a hypothesis it's because he finds it at least somewhat persuasive which is why I framed my mirror attempt as "one possible explanation" and asked if he found any of what I wrote convincing. The idea was to see how motteposting reacts to motteposting's hypothesis.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link