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 -
Yes, that would be the null hypothesis. The observed differences in height, both in the observed tribe members and in human beings in general, is the evidence with which we reject the null hypothesis, but it does not stop being the null hypothesis because it is rejected.
Scientific Study Finds No Significant Difference in Height Between Men and Women in Newly Discovered Tribe
This is a bit confusing. In my hypothetical, the study was strictly limited to a small number of members of Tribe Z. Are you saying that it's permissible to use general knowledge and/or data from outside of the study to make a determination regarding the null hypothesis? Are you saying it's required?
Yes, general knowledge can contribute to a rejection of the null hypothesis. That is why, while for the time being, I do not believe that there is a difference in genetically-determined intelligence between races, I am not claiming that as a sanity-complete proposition. If Omega-the-super-intelligent-computer-with-a-100.00%-track-record-of-being-right were to conclude that such intelligence differences exist, I would conclude that Nature is a racist arsehole and support transhumanism more vigorously, but I would not be compelled to re-evaluate everything I thought I knew the way I would if Ωtsicwa100ptrobr were to state that China does not exist or that the Napoleonic Era didn't happen.
I am very skeptical that someone can do original research; observe that their research results do not require a rejection of the null hypothesis; and reject the null hypothesis anyway based on their general knowledge.
I challenge you to identify two scientific studies, published in reputable journals where this has happened and accepted for publication. (To be clear, I am not referring to meta-analysis, which I know is a thing.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link