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 -
They are not "religiosity genes". All of these people, if born in 2000 BC, would be religious. Almost all would be christian in pre-enlightenment Europe. There are a variety of alleles that have small effects - maybe a low score on the many intelligence / educational attainment correlated ones means you sort into low SES groups in life, which is correlated with religiosity. This would not cause religiosity in 2000 BC. Maybe a bunch of alleles that (possibly in turn indirectly) make one more willing to dissent from one's group might decrease religiosity in 2000BC, but increase it today. It's much worse than that though, these genes help cause the incredibly complex biological mechanisms that relate to human thought, which we do not understand - so understanding mechanistically how this SNP correlates with that isn't happening any time soon. But even with what we do understand, there are many more causal pathways between some SNP and religiosity that take circuitous paths depending on the current environment, than ones directly causing 'religiosity'. I think this is what the phenotypic null hypothesis bit was about.
Also, whites aren't going to have more "religiosity genes" than indians or blacks.
More options
Context Copy link