site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   34531 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 30, 2023

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
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

A couple of weeks ago, in the week of Jan 16 thread, there was a discussion of the kerfuffle re Florida refusing to offer the pilot of AP African American Studies. There were a couple of minor developments last week. First, the course description is available here

Second, Florida specified its objections here

Now, I am not a fan of most "studies" courses, because, in my limited experience, they tend to lack rigor and often push a political viewpoint, which is both a disservice to students and, to the extent that students are required to parrot that viewpoint, a First Amendment violation when the course is taught in public schools (and in private schools as well, in California). I have not looked closely at the course description for the AP class, so I don't know if it has those flaws. That being said, this decision by Florida seems to be more a part of the DeSantis for President campaign than a principled objection. That is because the course description is not a curriculum, and the course description, like all AP course descriptions, says:

Individual teachers are responsible for designing their own curriculum for AP courses and selecting appropriate college-level readings, assignments, and resources. This publication presents the content and skills that are the focus of the corresponding college course and that appear on the AP Exam. It also organizes the content and skills into a series of units that represent a sequence found in widely adopted college syllabi. The intention of this publication is to respect teachers' time and expertise by providing a roadmap that they can modify and adapt to their local priorities and preferences.

I have attended several AP trainings in my day, and can attest that they make a big deal about individual teachers being given autonomy, as long as their syllabus addresses the content and skills set forth in the course description. So, none of the readings complained about are required, and teachers are free, as required by Florida's "Stop WOKE Act" to assign readings on all sides of the issues in question.

And, btw, the claims on the other side that Florida does not want to teach African American history is also nonsense, because teaching of African American history is mandated in FL schools

Edit: PS: There is a very odd complaint in the Florida DOE's list: It objects to a reading by one author in part because, "Kelley's first book was a study of Black communists in Alabama." Not, 'an adulatory study," but merely a "study." It is like objecting to a reading by Donald Horowitz because he wrote a study of ethnic riots.

EDIT: disregard the below. I missed the course description link

You’ve got a slight problem in your post: a circular reference.

That is because the course description is not a curriculum, and the course description, like all AP course descriptions, says:

[no specifics about this AP class]

I have attended several AP trainings in my day, and can attest that they make a big deal about individual teachers being given autonomy, as long as their syllabus addresses the content and skills set forth in the course description.

From this, it looks like anything could be taught and match the course description. We should really look at the actual course description, and much more importantly What’s on the test??

No, no, no. The course description sets out the topics and skills to be covered. (As I noted in my post). HOW those topics are covered -- the curriculum -- is up to the individual teacher. It is simply not true that "anything" can be taught, and in fact the College Board requires AP teachers to submit their syllabi to the AP Course Audit to ensure that they are actually covering those topics and skills.

HOW those topics are covered -- the curriculum -- is up to the individual teacher.

in fact the College Board requires AP teachers to submit their syllabi to the AP Course Audit to ensure that they are actually covering those topics and skills.

So... it's not actually up to the individual teacher then? You seem to be proposing some sort of magic, inviolable barrier between "how" and "what" that I don't think exists here. In the realm of teaching, the how and the what influence each other heavily and are frequently just the same thing in different garb.

???? The TOPICS are required (to the extent, of course, that anyone can cover all of the topics, which they can't. But the point is that a course needs to cover those topics, not other topics. Eg: The AP Modern World History covers "the cultural, economic, political, and social developments that have shaped the world from c. 1200 CE to the present." So, a syllabus that spent weeks comparing the Roman and Han empires would be dinged).

But, there is no mandate re HOW the topics are covered. So, in a unit in AP Modern World on Mass Atrocities After 1900, I can focus on Rwanda and Cambodia, or on Germany and the Holodomor, or whatever. Similarly, in that unit I can assign readings by Scott Straus, or by Omar McDoom (yes, the real name of a guy who studies the topic), or Lee Ann Fujii, or people who claim all of those people are misguided.

So you realistically think some teacher is going to be able to get away with assigning Steve Sailer or Charles Murray to add the HBD context to such a course? (If I were the teacher of such a course and strictly striving to be objective, I would feel deficient in that regard to not do so, irrespective of my personal political leanings.) You think that's actually possible?

You're also ignoring that the whole point of AP courses is the test, meaning that the test inevitably dictates quite a bit by gravity even if not necessarily by fiat. You're, as I stated in my other response to you, appealing to possibility while ignoring probability. The fate of those who naively accept that reasoning from their opponents is the same fate of any other gambler who bets on bad odds: the house wins.

Why should those who oppose ideology X be willing to or care to bet on the small probability that a course with every reason to be biased in favor of ideology X might, with great effort on their part that they could expend elsewhere, not be? Why go to pains to try to stop your opponent from shooting you with a gun when you can just stop them from possessing it at all in the first place? Who benefits from this other than the bad actors who caused the issue in the first place? It's the equivalent of peeing on the floor (causing concerns over education being institutionally biased towards the left by, well, institutionally capturing education in a biased left-wing fashion) and demanding someone else clean it up (expend massive resources to try to allow you to still be able to teach your favorite pet subjects without taking advantage of that capture). Why should they?

So you realistically think some teacher is going to be able to get away with assigning Steve Sailer or Charles Murray to add the HBD context to such a course?

What teachers can "get away with" is a rather different issue, but the question is not whether they would get away with adding a new topic to the course, but whether they can get away with including a variety of views on the existing topics in the course.

You're also ignoring that the whole point of AP courses is the test,

As I discuss elsewhere, that is not the whole point of AP courses. The point of AP courses is to enhance student learning.

As I discuss elsewhere, that is not the whole point of AP courses. The point of AP courses is to enhance student learning.

Is this a joke? Were you ever in AP courses? The point is to skip college classes and hopefully save money.

It's also to get higher weighted GPAs in schools that do that. Anyone in the top 10% or so of my highschool class had a GPA higher than could be achieved without taking APs, any non-AP class that took, even with a perfect score, would lower their weighted GPA.

Once upon a time, but more importantly I taught an AP class for years.

More comments

As I discuss elsewhere, that is not the whole point of AP courses. The point of AP courses is to enhance student learning.

How many AP students have you polled about this?

Quite a few, actually. In the form of revealed preferences. And I have certainly had lengthy discussions with school policy makers and accreditors, and that is precisely why policy makers pushed to enhance AP offerings, and why accreditors pushed them to do so.

More comments

Hahaha. That might be what is written down about AP courses, but in practice, the point is to give smart kids some college credit through the public school system. And ‘no, we’re not going to spend state money getting kids college credit in some field invented by literal communists and ending in -studies’ is a perfectly reasonable view to take.

Hahaha. That might be what is written down about AP courses, but in practice, the point is to give smart kids some college credit through the public school system.

It's right there in the name, "Advanced Placement". The College Board's own blurb about it:

AP gives students the chance to tackle college-level work while they're still in high school—whether they're learning online or in the classroom. And through taking AP Exams, students can earn college credit and placement.

And ‘no, we’re not going to spend state money getting kids college credit in some field invented by literal communists and ending in -studies’ is a perfectly reasonable view to take.

And I never said otherwise. As I said, initially, I am generally skeptical of "studies" courses, and as I have said above, Florida is free to decide what courses to offer and not offer. And had they said, "we think "studies" courses are usually bullshit, so we don't want to offer them," that would be fine. But, that is not what they said.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats