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 -
How does the null hypothesis have a place here and why do you get to decide what it is? We aren’t approving drugs here, we’re just trying to weigh two theories, it’s completely unfair to arbitrarily privilege the one you like more.
That’s kind of like asking how does algebra have a place here, we’re just trying to solve for a variable in this equation.
A hypothesis test is a method to provide evidence for or against two competing theories using data and the way that they’re commonly constructed is to assume a null hypothesis as being the one where the data are not from significantly different distributions.
A standard hypothesis test is not the only method and its use in science is sometimes over stated but it’s by far the most common approach to address such questions, and that’s just how it’s structured.
It’s kind of Occam in the end. It’s simpler to assume that there’s no difference between how fast this group of monkeys climb trees vs that one. If I wanted to posit that the second group climbs faster, I can collect data and argue that it backs up my assumption, but the null case is null because it makes less assumptions.
Sure, sure, but the anti-racist monkey has been sitting at the bottom of its tree for generation upon generation now while increasingly bitter and haggard progressives glare at me like it's my fault it won't climb.
Oh but here come the anti-HBD guys, the biggest internet forum debate jobbers this side of flat-earthers, and today they're saying "null hypothesis" a lot. Like if they play this game about who has to prove their hypothesis well enough, we'll suddenly forget that their monkey is never ever going to climb that fucking tree.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's been a while since I took a science class, but IIRC every scientific investigation has to have a null hypothesis. Wikipedia says that the definition of "null hypothesis" is the hypothesis that no relationship exists—i. e., intelligence has no correlation with race.
You can set the threshold for rejecting the null hypothesis at any significance level you want. You have to set it quite high (by social science standards) to not reject it in this case, but if you're starting with the conclusion you want, that's what you do.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link