site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   34566 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 New Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

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.

Not to generalize the world to you, but I've found educators that aren't jaded after a few years to be unreliable sources with regards to education.

I have no idea what that means, or why it is relevant. I am talking about why the course is offered, which is not to help students skip classes. Why would anyone put in all that extra work for that? And, why would you possibly think that jaded teachers are reliable sources?

I am talking about why the course is offered, which is not to help students skip classes.

I'm pretty sure that is the sales pitch that actually works though. If you think there is a different reason, and that is education, I don't think you understand school.

And, why would you possibly think that jaded teachers are reliable sources?

Because their view on education largely mirrors mine. Which is that we are wasting lots of people's time and money.

I'm pretty sure that is the sales pitch that actually works though

Perhaps, but why does that matter? If I convince my 4-yr-old that it is fun to eat vegetables by shaping them like Winnie the Pooh, does that mean that the purpose of feeding him vegetables is to have him experience fun?

Because their view on education largely mirrors mine.

That is hardly the basis for deeming them a reliable source for an empirical claim

That is hardly the basis for deeming them a reliable source for an empirical claim

The average non-jaded educators being utopian in outlook and blind to the obvious falsity of the blank slate theory of humanity is pretty strong.

Perhaps, but why does that matter? If I convince my 4-yr-old that it is fun to eat vegetables by shaping them like Winnie the Pooh, does that mean that the purpose of feeding him vegetables is to have him experience fun?

Comparing an AP class to vegetables is very much what I'm talking about. Its closer to one of those fancy shaped ice cream bars you could get from the truck back in the day. Perhaps charitably it might be cutting a napkin into an airplane shape to prank your nephew into eating it.

Your analogy to things that lack nutritional value seems to be a claim that AP classes lack educational value. That is a very odd claim, esp given that it is their value relative to ordinary courses which is relevant to whether they enhance student learning. Not to mention that it is unclear how a valueless course would give students enough knowledge and skills to permit them to pass the test and get college credit.

But, even if they do lack value, what does that have to do with why they are offered? If a doctor gives you an experimental medicine that you agree to take only because it has the side effect of getting you high, but it turns out that the drug is ineffective, would you infer that the doctor's goal was to get you high, not to cure you?

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.

Quite a few, actually. In the form of revealed preferences.

So you've guessed what they think?

Well, suppose you, like I did, taught an AP history class which emphasizes acquiring the skills needed for success in college rather than test prep. Suppose also you explicitly told students that that is the goal and that they will have to do a lot of outside work if they want to pass the AP test. Suppose also that very few students pass the test each year. Suppose also that the course demands a great deal of student time, and students in the class get Bs and Cs for the first time ever. Supoose also that, despite all that, each year the younger siblings and friends of those students sign up for two periods of the class in numbers that exceed the contractual class maximum. Would you infer from that that the students are motivated by a desire for college credit? Assume also that the students are not morons.

By this logic, people who enter a lottery don't actually want to win.

And even then, we're supposed to base our opinion off of your one little heterodox experiment? I know many people who took AP classes including myself. The test/college credit was the main focus.

Incidentally, you don't think it might have been a little dishonest to not have disclosed that you are/were a teacher of AP courses in this discussion sooner?

By this logic, people who enter a lottery don't actually want to win.

Whether they hope to win is not the issue. The issue is whether they get benefits even if they don't win. People go to Vegas, and to the track, even though they know that they probably won't win, because the experience is fun. People attend football games for awful teams with no hope of winning, and the players on the team play the game, because there are additional benefits other than winning. Winning is a nice bonus, but it is not necessarily the be all and end all.

And even then, we're supposed to base our opinion off of your one little heterodox experiment? I know many people who took AP classes including myself. The test/college credit was the main focus.

And I know literally hundreds of people who have taken AP classes.

Incidentally, you don't think it might have been a little dishonest to not have disclosed that you are/were a teacher of AP courses in this discussion sooner?

I don't know what would be "dishonest" about it, but in my initial post, I did say: "I have attended several AP trainings in my day,'

Whether they hope to win is not the issue. The issue is whether they get benefits even if they don't win. People go to Vegas, and to the track, even though they know that they probably won't win, because the experience is fun. People attend football games for awful teams with no hope of winning, and the players on the team play the game, because there are additional benefits other than winning. Winning is a nice bonus, but it is not necessarily the be all and end all.

And yet with all of these examples the winning/competition still dictates of most of the incentives of the whole endeavor, hence my point. People may get ancillary benefits from football or betting on horse racing other than winning but the whole activity is still designed around winning and this dictates most of its structure. People may have fun betting on horses even if they still lose, but for the most part they pick horses they think are going to win and hope they do. People may support their local team even if they don't win, but they still want them to and get pissed if they blatantly don't try or play like shit.

People may get ancillary benefits from football or betting on horse racing other than winning but the whole activity is still designed around winning

And yet some of the most enjoyable games of football and baseball that I have personally played have been ones in which I lost. Yes, winning is more fun than losing, and taking an AP class and then getting college credit is better than taking that same class and not getting credit. But I never said otherwise. I merely challenged the claim that "the whole point" of the course is the test. It simply is not the whole point. It is not the only reason students take it, and it most certainly is not the only reason, or even a major reason, that schools offer it.

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