site banner
PaperclipPerfector  15d ago (text post)   31185 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 26, 2026

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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

'Null hypothesis' does not mean 'most likely hypothesis'; it means 'the hypothesis that the thing for which we are looking does not exist.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

'Null hypothesis' does not mean 'most likely hypothesis';

I agree that's not the definition of "null hypothesis" and I have never claimed otherwise.

Here is a thought experiment to demonstrate my point:

Suppose that a previously unknown species of bird is discovered; 6 members of the new species are exposed to a high dose of radiation, a level that is known to kill roughly half of birds which are exposed. After the radiation exposure, 2 of the six die within a few weeks. There is a debate over whether or not this new species is invulnerable to radiation. There is no special reason to think that this new species is different from any other species of bird, but for some obscure political reason, there are people who insist that this new species is invulnerable to radiation.

Concerning our experiment, what should the null hypothesis be?

The null hypothesis would be that the value of X (in this case, susceptibility to radiation) does not differ between group A (previously known birds) and group B (the previously unknown species).

The null hypothesis would be that the value of X (in this case, susceptibility to radiation) does not differ between group A (previously known birds) and group B (the previously unknown species).

Notice that this does NOT agree with your previous definition of "null hypothesis":

it means 'the hypothesis that the thing for which we are looking does not exist.'

Here, the thing we are looking for is a relationship between (1) exposure to radiation of members of the new bird species; and (2) death.

By your own reasoning, the null hypothesis is that this new bird species is not susceptible to radiation. Yes, this is a silly conclusion but that's the point: There's something very wrong with your reasoning.

The 'thing for which we are looking' is usually 'a difference in variable X between group A and group B.

X can be 'rate of disease progression/recovery' with A and B being patients administered a new medication vs. a placebo.

X can be 'susceptibility to radiation' with A and B being species of bird.

X can be 'biological capacity for intelligence' with A and B being human ethnic groups.

The 'thing for which we are looking' is usually 'a difference in variable X between group A and group B.

It's interesting that you choose the word "usually," it seems to me that this gives you the flexibility to frame the null hypothesis so as to fit your political preferences.

Here's another example:

suppose there is an obscure un-contacted tribe ("Tribe Z") of people in some remote rain forest and for whatever reason, the question on the table is whether the male members of Tribe Z are taller than the female members of Tribe Z. Suppose further that we meet (and measure) only 4 members of the tribe -- 2 males and 2 females -- and that both of the males are significantly taller than either female. What's the null hypothesis here?

Ok, Group A is males from Tribe Z; Group B is females from Tribe Z. The variable X is height.

So your reasoning, the null hypothesis is that there is no difference in height between the men and women of Tribe Z.

Agreed?

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.

Yes, that would be the null hypothesis.

Scientific Study Finds No Significant Difference in Height Between Men and Women in Newly Discovered Tribe

and in human beings in general

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.

More comments

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