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 -
This idea of "you are smart even though you don't do anything smart" reminds me of a book Freddie deBoer reviewed, Amy Lutz's Chasing the Intact Mind. From reading the review, Lutz's thesis appears to be that the parents of severely mentally disabled children often seem to believe (explicitly or implicitly) that, while their non-verbal autistic or cerebral palsied etc. child gives no outward appearance of engaging in high-level cognition of any kind, somewhere inside there's an "intact" mind which is fully conscious, self-aware and capable of high-level reasoning. Their desperation to communicate with this "intact mind" leads them down a range of garden paths, such as pseudoscientific nonsense like facilitated communication: a technique wherein a non-verbal person can purportedly communicate through an intermediary. Countless studies have demonstrated that facilitated communication is bunk, the product of wishful thinking and the ideomotor effect: the non-verbal person is effectively being used as a Ouija board. The belief in an "intact mind" residing somewhere inside the body of a non-verbal or even vegetative person amounts to a modern form of mind-body dualism.
(Some people might be tempted to point to the existence of people with locked-in syndrome, such as Jean-Dominique Bauby, as a counter-example. The difference here is that Bauby was unambiguously capable of high-level cognition prior to the stroke which caused his condition, living an entirely independent life; and after the stroke his communication did not need to be "facilitated" in the manner described above. Contrast this with a child who has never given any indication of higher-level brain function.)
I wonder if there's a less extreme version of the same phenomenon going on here. Much as proponents of the "intact mind" believe that every human being is equally conscious, self-aware and capable of high-level cognition, and some people just need more accommodations to express themselves than others — perhaps by the same token there are people who believe that everyone is born equally intelligent, and some people just need more accommodations to express that intelligence than others (or they're only intelligent in a nonstandard domain unrelated to verbal or numerical reasoning).
There are several obvious retorts to this worldview:
I recently indulged in a little smack-talk about how Math majors have higher SAT verbal scores than English majors, but now it's bothering me that I don't even know what the correlation is between SAT math and verbal scores ... and I'm not even sure how to find out! Google searches and AI summaries seem to be so polluted with stat questions about correlations in hypothetical SAT results that I can't quickly find anything with results for the correlation in actual SAT results. Even the College Board's annual report, which is at least statistically literate enough to define and report standard deviations for each subtest, doesn't report the correlation between subtests. They have other reports of correlations between paper and digital SATs, between SAT results and future college grades... They'll even report separate correlations of subtest scores with other tests and with HS GPA without mentioning the subtests' correlation with each other!
Well wait I do find this: A report from Connecticut estimates a 0.89-0.9 correlation based on an observed 0.82-0.85 correlation. N=1,343 but I'll take it. Then with the bivariate normal distribution CDF from Octave/Matlab, I ask for
0.1-bvncdf([norminv(0.1, 0, 1) -norminv(0.1, 0, 1)], [0 0], [1 0.9; 0.9 1]), which is ... 1.5e-10? About one person in seven billion? (as opposed to the one person in a hundred we'd get if there was no correlation). If I go with that 0.82 correlation I still only get one person in 2 million, so that kind of test score would probably be a thing that's happened before, but only because the kid was having a lucky day with math and bad luck with reading simultaneously, not because you'd expect to see a score like that again on a retest.Of course SAT scores aren't actually a Gaussian distribution, but I think that thought experiment still strongly suggests you're right, and anyway there's no way we're finding data with higher moments. Even if we got our hands on raw data, I'd bet that a kid with 650+ math and sub-380 reading is much more likely to be a recent immigrant who's still struggling with English, not someone who's actually got poor verbal reasoning skills in general.
More options
Context Copy link
My attitude towards claims of different forms of intelligence is that it is obviously true on its face, but that one can safely assume that when one is talking to someone claiming that they have a "different" form of intelligence than the ones that can be measured they probably don't rate highly in any form of intelligence.
Other forms of intelligence have their observable markers. The person with great emotional intelligence has a ton of friends, is a great salesman, can start a conversation with anyone off the street. The person with great spiritual intelligence is one who is always moral, a holy man who always does the right thing and knows the right thing to do, a saint. Someone with artistic talent produces art. I've known men who could barely read, but possessed some kind of innate mechanical ability to fix anything. People who truly possess these talents are quick to acknowledge that they are dumb, their talents and the rewards thereof provide the recompense for their stupidity.
By contrast, you have the person who loudly proclaims their emotional intelligence, such a person almost certainly lacks emotional intelligence as that is not a very emotionally intelligent thing to say to people. The person who talks about their intense charisma but has no friends, or the person who speaks of their spirituality but is a bad person. Or the worst of the worst: street smarts, common sense. The number of abject failures who crow about their common sense is a clear indictment of the concept, if it exists it clearly has limited value! And as a country bumpkin, I was eternally treated in my younger years to college friends telling me I lacked "street smarts," which always amounted to some kind of useless local knowledge at best, and just urban myths at worst.
I can say that different forms of intelligence exist from personal experience, in that I consistently rate much higher on any classic test that measures intelligence than I function in day to day life, I overperform on tests. I'm a mediocre mechanic, even though I would trounce anyone at the dealership in an LSAT; and I could never cut hair even if my IQ qualifies me for the job. But when one claims all the forms of intelligence that can't be measured, and has no evidence to back it up, it's easy to dismiss them as a liar.
I don't know man. I have always spent majority of my time among high and above high intelligence people (or at least people doing well in fields that put serious cognitive load on the person) - and some of them quite easily fall for scams, cons, ideologies, mlm or flat out inability at a glance to figure out some danger.
There is some naivety in some people that the life must beat out of them and for a lot of people of the scholarly kind due to variety of reasons it comes late.
My own mental model of people who are very smart in STEM fields is that they will have ridiculous crank-tier beliefs about other topics. Isaac Newton's obsession with hidden codes in the Bible is basically the Ur example of this.
More options
Context Copy link
It's not that I disdain the concept of common sense or street smarts, or that I don't believe in the book smart genius who is a babe in the woods in life.
It's that I find that stating out loud, constantly, boasting, identifying that one is "street smart" instead of "book smart" is poorly correlated or even anti-correlated with actual street smarts. The people I know who brag about their street smarts are often just as if not more likely to fall constantly for scams, cons, flimflams etc. The perpetual victims in my life, the ones who are always buying the wrong car or dating the wrong woman or telling me about some magic product they bought from a weird website the lowers their electricity bill using technology developed by Nikola Tesla, they are exactly the people telling me they aren't book-smart but they have common sense.
So assess people based on the visible evidence that results from their intelligence, not based on their claims. For common sense, that looks like somebody who runs their life well. Someone who doesn't fall for scams, who always knows the score, who always gets a deal, who has a guy for that, a contact over there, a trick for getting things done. That guy has street smarts. The guy who claims he has street smarts, he is most typically falling back on the way of identifying himself that people won't call him out on the way they would book smarts. Always check for receipts.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
True, and weirdly enough, these people bear a strong familial resemblance to those people who seem extremely invested in their IQ score or MENSA membership, as a substitute for their paucity of actual intellectual achievements. Genuinely smart people don't care about their IQ score or what fruity little club they're a member of: they demonstrate their intelligence through their actions.
My favourite critique of this concept came from Malcolm in the Middle:
That's not really what street smarts is supposed to mean. Street smarts is things like knowing when someone's trying to con you, being able to tell what strangers you should to be civil to and who you shouldn't, knowing how to avoid getting robbed or caught in the middle of a fight, how to project dangerousness without aggressiveness so people will leave you alone, things like that.
That's what it should mean, in reality when I here people use street smart day-to-day, it's offered as a contrast and salve to a lack of "book smarts." The lack of books smarts is obvious in a lack of education, a low wage job, or simply in speaking to him; the claim of street smarts is treated as unverifiable, there's no standardized testing for speaking to strangers or dodging a con man.
I'm contending that if one doesn't see evidence of competence in how they handle themselves, one should treat claims of street smarts as unverifiable and subject to being rejected without evidence.
Indeed, like how 'curvy' or 'unconventionally attractive' are used.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I agree that "street smarts" means more than that, traditionally referring to métis in the Seeing Like a State sense (in contrast to we "rationalist" mistake-theorist quokkas who can't quite believe people would go on the internet and tell lies, or try to take advantage of others).
But it's surprising how often the term gets used in a manner indistinguishable from the usage Malcolm outlined above. It sort of reminds me of those people who "discovered this cool life hack", which amounts to them lying and cheating other people and abusing the social contract. "I discovered this cool life hack: if you print off a fake handicapped parking permit, most people won't bother to check and you can park in the handicapped spaces." Hate to break it to you dude, but the reason we aren't doing that isn't because we didn't think of it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I mostly agree, but I don't necessarily consider these two in tension with one another. Consider the archetypal charming psycho-/socio-path in fiction, who could maintain friendships and relationships if he wanted to, but doesn't see any value in doing so, and yet is unquestionably adept at charming and manipulating people in the short-term (e.g. con artists, cads, politicians with shit-eating grins).
I suppose this hinges on the question of what "charisma" means. To take a stab at it, I'd say it means the ability to make people like you, feel at ease around you, trust you — and especially the ability to do this in a very short timeframe. When considered as a goal-oriented skill, it's the ability to get people to do things for you because they find you prestigious rather than dominant. I see no reason why a person couldn't be good at this (even exceptionally good at it) and also have no use for friends, approaching every interpersonal relationship as a mark to be exploited.
I think we're talking past each other on the definition of friend, my friend. You seem to be using it to mean a true mutual understanding between two people, while I'm using it to mean more along the lines of "people who like you."
The con artist may have no real friends, in the sense that he doesn't actually like or value these people around him. But many people are under the impression that they are friends with him, that's how he conned them. Bernie Madoff conned his friends, so you may say he wasn't friends with them, but they trusted him and allowed themselves to be conned because they thought of him as a friend. The cad may not love his conquests, but they are all under the impression that he does. Politicians function by getting people to believe they care, even when they don't, and getting people to throw themselves under every passing bus requires that those people like you.
Someone with charisma may be a sociopath (though I hate that tired and fake archetype) who approaches every interaction as one of exploitation, but that's only his interior life, from the outside you won't know that really. From the outside, in terms of visible or measurable outcomes, you'll see someone with a lot of friends and admirers, tons of people willing to do him favors. While you might be able to construct a hypothetical toy example where it behooves the charming sociopath to have no friends, I don't really think it's a common case, in nearly every situation it is better to have people like you than to have people dislike you. Life is nearly always easier when people like you, and your brilliant sociopath is basically never going to calculate otherwise.
So when someone has genuine charisma, from the outside you're going to see someone with a lot of friends. Even if on the inside he disdains them, from the outside that's what you'll see, and if you don't see it no charisma exists.
The opposite case is rare enough that it strikes me as another cope, in which people who lack charisma pretend that they have stealth-charisma, and despite the fact that everyone hates them it is all really a clever manipulation game they are playing.
Yeah, that's fair enough. If no one likes you (even if it's not reciprocated), you have no business calling yourself charismatic.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The law of averages doesn't dictate how extreme these clusters are, though, and only loosely bounds how big they can be. Theoretically, all skills could be heavily right-tailed and so extremely large groups could lie within close range of the median person (in all areas, which is definitely what most people mean when they say "average", they don't mean a literal arithmetic average).
Of course, there's a utility aspect to it too. Even if we were to grant that your thesis were true, there's the weird human psychology thing where telling people it's true can have certain self-fulfilling prophesy effects, although their extremity is debated. Motivation is weird.
You mean stereotype threat?
In any case, I'm sceptical about whether the extremely mentally disabled people I'm describing are even capable of the reasoning required to understand the concept of being unintelligent on multiple axes, never mind fall victim to the self-fulfilling prophecy it implies. If you're referring to 90 IQ people who read this comment and decide there's no point in trying any more, that's not the category of person I'm referring to.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link