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 -
Alright I've repeatedly tried to be a bit soft here but to be blunt this is absolutely horseshit that seems to not match genetic studies, general research, or the gross consensus of individuals working in the field.
Some additional examples:
Gifted people have good life outcomes and contra to expectations are more attractive than average.
The "major psychiatric diagnosis" is just not true by any stretch of the imagination. It does not capture definitions of serious mental illness, inpatient populations, or most the most likely diagnosis (anxiety disorders are more common).
EDS has several known genetic markers and the one that all of the psych patients has is mysteriously the one that doesn't have genetic markers. Also women are more flexible than men and many women who are normal will claim they have EDS.
Additionally googling this person appears to show all the usual signs of questionableness and medical inaccuracy.
You are falling for pure ascientific bullshit quackery.
Look, I don't doubt that some people get convinced they have diagnoses that, from your perspective or the broader medical perspective, they don't actually have. You seem to be really upset about that. I don't particularly care one way or another, because I have experienced first hand how ruinous it can be to your life to get debilitating, chronic conditions repeatedly misdiagnosed by the traditional medical system and spend a boatload of money for the pleasure.
The argument that the original article is making refers to a certain subtype of the population, often with some sort of serious chronic illness, that has a propensity to shift narrative frames more easily than others. I find that to be a reasonable argument that matches my experience in life.
From my perspective, instead of talking about this claim, you seem to be ignoring the original claim and zeroing in on complaining about cluster B women? Which is kind of confusing.
I think this may be one of those things where you are looking into it from outside the medical community and going "huh that's interesting."
But what you are stumbling into is an appeal to the work of an alternative medicine practitioner whose work seems to be heavily cited by the "cluster-b but in denial of it" community to flatter their understanding of their own pathology despite clear instruction to the contrary by legitimate medical resources.
At the same time the reference seems to completely misunderstand the wide body of clinical and genetic research as well as basic understandings in terms as well effectively universal clinical consensus.
Attempting to fit some bullshit 2+2=5 stuff into an explanation of priestliness is a fools errand since what its looking to use is total crap.
Nothing about it makes any sense and ive rattled off several significant examples (that's not how mental illness categorization works, thats not how EDS works, thats not how allergies work....).
Additional people who work in the priestly cast do not have the personality attributes you associate with most of these line items.
Again none of this make any sense.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link