site banner

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
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

A Case For/Against Education, Intuition.

My submission to @FiveHourMarathon's Essay Competition.

  • Education - Catchall term to refer to mass primary+secondary schooling, not specifically the act of educating oneself through any means.

  • Intuition - Defined as follows in the paragraphs below.

The case against education is well trodded territory among The Motte users. Bryan Caplans and Freddie deBoers work can be considered to be a part of the 'Rationalist Canon'. Of course, the majority of the rationalists who speak of educations ills are not blind ideologues. They do concede that there are a certain set of benefits to education. However, a benefit that I (think that I) benefit from strongly yet hardly ever see talked about, is intuition building.

I am not talking about intuition in the sense of "learning how to learn", or transferring patterns of thoughts/ideas from one domain to another, those ideas rest on shaky foundations, to say the least. I am referring to a very narrowly defined type of 'intuition', intuition of material/mechanical systems of The World. More specifically, I am referring to the ideal outcome of well-integrated baseline knowledge of Physics, Chemistry, and Biology. This subset of general intuition in my estimation is a proxy for one's "bullshit detector", if something runs afoul of 5th grade science, there is (probably) something fishy afoot (treat it as a loose heuristic and spare us the string theory).

One can make the case that a large number of people, especially educated people lack that body of intuitions. However, I think the reason I do have those intuitions is largely because I generalized the latent ideas of certain topics taught in middle/high school. But one can absolutely argue that the mass failure to impart these intuitions means the education system is not doing its explicit job well enough.

It's difficult to highlight successes of said type of intuition, but it is very easy to highlight failures of a lack of said intuition.

Case Study 1: Outdoor Mask Mandates/Adherence

(I would extend it to mask adherence at all, but I'll steelman myself here)

Outdoor Mask Mandates (OMM) are idiotic. The evidence they "work" is nonexistent. Despite its (I assume) obvious idiocy; They were adopted in practically all of South America, East Asia, and some countries in Europe. OMMs being a spectacular form of Security theatre can explain their being used as policy more than well enough. The shocking revelation for me was that a large number of people, including "well-educated" people actually could not parse out that fact and act as such. Everyone has seen some confused bastard wearing a mask alone while walking in the park, and sometimes even performatively distancing themselves as they walk past people.

Where does my formulation of intuition tie into this? If you recall reading your textbook in middle school physics class, there were probably pictures of the process of diffusion. Usually demonstrated by adding a drop of food coloring to a beaker full of water, and showing how the water picks up the color. It doesn't take much creativity to infer that, that same drop of food coloring added to the ocean would practically 0 effect on the ocean. Is the logic not the same with someone wearing a mask outdoors (especially if they are alone, for the steelman)?

The fact that fluids diffuse/disperse is fundamental to my baseline understanding of the physical world. In that what I intuit about physical reality without exercising any thought. I wonder what went wrong for anyone to mask outdoors ever at all and not see the futility of it.

Do those people know something I don't? Did they not internalize what is essentially 6th-grade physics? Whatsoever the reason, their model of physical reality is much unlike mine.

Case Study 2: Reflexive HBD Skepticism

Once again, we are back at middle school biology. Most middle schoolers learn that certain traits are determined by genetics (and that the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell). Examples are usually explored via differently colored flowers, eyes, corn, cauliflower, and dog breeds (Not only their color but their behavior as well). Being middle schoolers by all means they still don't have a clue how about genetics works, and neither do I. But the seed intuition is valuable nonetheless, that genetic determinism exists at all to begin with, and that its a powerful force.

Of course I would have to fight a weakman to claim that HBD skeptics or the "race is a social construction" people literally don't believe in genetic determinism. But It seems to me that if you studied middle school biology at all, genetic determinism should be your prior, your null hypothesis (literal meaning not hypothesis testing meaning).

By all means, it seems like a modeling failure to me if your model assigns negligible weight to the overwhelming force that turned wolves into dogs and selected all sub-par vitamin d synthesizing skin havers out of Scandinavia (also taught in middle-high school).

Case Study 3: Newton's Third Law, The First Law of Thermodynamics.

In the most simplest terms, the essence of the aforementioned laws are "something can't be created out of nothing". Although both these laws apply to specific instances in physics, the essense generalizes to justt about every domain. Economics has its analog, There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. The failure to internalize and crystalize this group of ideas is responsible for just about all of left-wing economic theory.

A loose extension of these body of ideas is the acknowledgment of the idea of complex systems. A lot of the seed intuition is imparted in physics and biology class (food chain, ecosystems, etc). I'm sure there was plenty of support for fucking about with complex systems in the last two years. I'm aware that to tamper or not with complex systems just boils down to liberalism vs conservatism, but I am highlighting the lack of intuition towards the system's existence at all to begin with, not the insistence to act otherwise with proper knowledge.

Sounds good, doesn't work. No matter what they know of first principles of a domain, people do not generalize it to real world automatically, and their experience in school cannot teach them when to generalize scientific principles. Some learn it on their own. Most learn... something else.

The official premise of basic school education is murky in itself. It's such a vast enterprise with such questionable returns that its advocates can't help but peddle it as a panacea, I guess. There's the plausible-enough aspect of teaching people object-level trivia (although they forget virtually all of it); the dubious claim of teaching advantageous habits of mind (e.g. the shift from concrete operational to formal operational thinking that Flynn believed explains some of the eponymous effect), the related basically-misleading promise of raising intelligence and thus improving outcomes (beyond the contribution of credentials themselves, and isolation from antisocial environments for the most unfortunate kids... who are lucky enough to get into schools for higher strata). All of that list is pretty worthless in my book, in comparison to the human cost of a decade of imprisonment (I'm essentially with EB/JB on this one). Then there are less popular but more convincing arguments, «school as a day care» mainly.

But the key error undermining the premise, I think, comes all the way from the conceit of actual teachers, who are overwhelmingly not bright enough for high-fidelity metacognition and theories of mind. You don't upload data into a child. You do not even «train» a child. You prompt experiences, and children learn from those experiences. Their intuitions are grounded in the context of their interactions with the curriculum, teachers and each other. And I posit that intuitions they form are the opposite of what you'd like them to get.

Among my abandoned Substack drafts is one dedicated to Stonetoss meme about HBD/dog breeds (dogwhistle, as it were), or rather to its edit (Taken from Twitter. Apparent origin on reddit). Some excerpts:

It's so bad I can't help but share it. It's deceptive, has negative entertainment value and is the opposite of what a good meme must be. Yet I welcome you to contemplate it. Worse yet, I ask you to focus on a single frame.

Frames 3-6 are dumb in their own right. But it's the second one which is truly rage-inducing and, I think, illustrates the core failure of the currently dominant left-liberal philosophy as it pertains to epistemology, communication, science, education, humor, art and political behavior writ large, as a coherent, self-perpetuating memetic ecosystem (to the extent such things exist) shutting a plurality of strongly online people out of the real world.

The most baffling part is the fact that saying «phenotypic diversity» adds nothing over «dogs look so different».

Nevermind that this (representative) definition is inseparable from the issue of genetic causation: this is just not an answer. The older figure (henceforth Teacher) pretends to respond to the younger (Child), casually showing off his mastery of scientific terminology, but merely restates the question. It's tautological, it's Molière's virtus dormitiva. Why? Or rather, why would the edit's author deem it clever and proper and edifying, as did his audience?

I think this is a sure way to 1) assert authority and 2) kill scientific curiosity in a child. [...]

Humans have the capacity for developing a theory of mind. Much more efficiently than current language models that infer hidden instructions, like InstructGPT [this is an old draft] children use it to apply feedback to every level of abstraction: what the dialogue is about, what having a dialogue can be about, what does it mean for anything to be about something. If the teacher's confident answer doesn't make sense, this is not yet grounds to doubt the teacher: it indicates that your question has had a meaning different from what it seemed to have, and was generated in confusion.

To continue with ML analogies: ultimately, instruction inference («theory of mind») leads to children meta-learning the teacher's preferred inductive biases.

In simple words: for all the role of heredity, it is possible to teach people not just facts but high-order patterns of thought, simply by giving answers that communicate how the question is understood.

Now why would a question about, say, the reason dogs are unlike each other elicit a condescending non-response? Because what matters is names, not your silly «why»'s; verbal correlations, not causality and predictive power of communicable models. And – just as well! – social feedback approximates distributed backpropagation, so one updates and learns to guide attention accordingly. Children can drive you mad asking about names of things; that's curiosity too. That's cute, when children do it. But in terms of cognition, that's the opposite of grokking: that's memorization, a strategic dead end. In terms of mental behavior, shifting the balance towards memorization lays the foundation for the opposite of science: for magical thinking. People who are consistently trained in such magic develop certain notions which are very odd when laid out explicitly.

For example: education itself. In this paradigm, being educated means getting properly socialized, a matter of convention akin to table etiquette, rewarding prosocial conformism and good recall (but also allowing for relativism with regards to the value of ideas conveyed by the program). Technically it is the procedure of having a pupil memorize a score of magic character strings and behaviors, doing what Eliezer Yudkowsky calls guessing the teacher's password. A person who says «wow dog breeds sure look different» is ignorant; one who knows the True Name Of The Thing understands there's nothing special to this pattern, merely Phenotypic Diversity. Vygotsky used to say that learning of systematic, well-defined scientific concepts by children bootstraps their generalization ability and abstract reasoning over mundane ones; here, scientific labels are used to prevent correct generalizations from forming.

Crucially, this is not just a normative belief but part of these people's genuine world model (such as there is), informing their stance on many contentious topics, e.g. meritocracy, school funding, fairness, cognitive testing, biases or «socioeconomic factors» from the original meme. They robustly believe that superior performance is a matter of having received in advance, maybe through guile or unnoticed privilege, some correct passwords, and refuse to believe – no matter the evidence – that culture-fair testing is conceivable or that it's possible to discuss the capacity for thought as such. That's simply not how thinking works in their world.

Science, then, as an outgrowth of education (through school-to-degree pipeline), is a social domain one gains access to after having collected enough passwords, mastered the advanced protocol; it is high-status in a way, because «in this house we believe ... science is real» and what scientists say is received as truth. But all its prestige is inseparable from following the protocol [...]

For whatever reason, you are confident in your ability to apply principles of natural science to the real world. I'd venture a guess that you're used to being smarter than your peers and the teacher too. A regular person, meanwhile, learns that reality has a surprising amount of detail, that figuring out nontrivial questions is way over one's head, and pattern-matching the problem to password-generators is the way to go. What is the teacher's password to «are masks useful outdoors»? You claim diffusion is enough to say no. But a normal person remembers the punishment for overconfidence, the sense of getting stuff wrong. And if you really think about what you've learned in school, there's wind direction, laminar and turbulent flows, uncertainty about survival rates of viral particles, and sufficient loads, and relative movement of people, and probabilities of them coughing in your general direction, and... conclusion: the correct password is «trust the Science», where the Science will be defined by the consensus of Experts. I'm saying it like it's bad, and the Stonetoss example is IMO sufficient to show how it might be harmful... but it's honestly a reasonable intuition for a normie.

The sort of intuition that doesn't get forgotten after school.

Among my abandoned Substack drafts

Can you share your Substack? Wasn't aware you had one.

There's nothing there, it's preemptively abandoned. Was supposed to be here.