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 -
Human beings see meaning in noise. When we lack information, we "fill in the gaps", and this makes us able to perceive things even with limited information, but it also makes us hallucinate when we go too long without sleep, and to see faces where they do not exist (pareidolia). The "overactive agent detector" is built into our perception, it likely aids with sympathy, and results in strange things like "Mono no aware". I think 'minor positive' is putting it too lightly, but I also don't subscribe to the belief that only truth has utility and that all bias is wrong (and darwinism doesn't select as if it's true, either).
Wikipedias definition of rationality refers to normality/typicality, it differs from the rationalist definition, which refers to an inhuman level of objectivity only seen in modern western cultures and in certain outliers. I'd say "health of the human mind" is a better definition, of course implying that rationalist communities aren't any more healthy than the average farmer. Insanity can occur in highly logical people, with little negative effect on their productivity (e.g. Terry Davis made his own operation system despite being a Skizophrenic), so they are not opposites.
The reason such a person shouldn't be diagnosed is because physical health isn't mental health. The two can relate, but they don't necessarily. Also, the system of diagnosis is crude, so it's a poor authority outside of clearly defined boxes.
"Religious conviction" cannot be cured because it's not a disease. It's the mind functioning exactly how it's meant to. You may assume the mind ought to prioritize truth, but that's not how the mind works and neither is it how it's meant to work. The sense of self which is capable of reasoning identifies as the entire being, but it's actually just a small part of the brain, and the majority of the brain uses associative reasoning rather than logic. Rational people notice the conflict between their higher order thinking and their animalistic nature, and consider this a mistake to be corrected, after which they self-tyrannize, calling this process improvement, maturation or learning.
Religious people have better mental health on average (I can dig up the source if you want, it was one of Emil Kirkegaard's articles). And I meant that rationalists want to reduces biases, and turn human beings into something that they're not, and that they naively assume that this is an improvement, because they naively assume that truth seeking is superior. You probably know that depressed people tend to have more accurate worldviews, and I'd consider this an argument against the value of truth seeking, but I don't expect you to agree. This is likely because it's an axiom of yours, and one cannot argue against an axiom, and neither can one defend an axiom. Moreover, even if I say "truth seeking is not optimal", and this were true, then you could say "since the statement is true, truth is still optimal". So despite my belief being something like "disillusionment is bad for your health and there's many hidden costs to what you're doing to yourself", the position I end up having to defend is "truth is not truth", which I obviously won't.
I can give arguments like "Sharks lack intelligence and have lived for around 450 million years without issue, while humans, who have been somewhat truth seeking for about 200 years, are on the path of self-destruction", making irrationality more meta-rational. I could also point out issues with the assumptions of rationalists, for instance, they think "more knowledge is better in itself", but what's actually true is that relative knowledge offers an advantage over another person. They incorrectly conclude "X is good for me, so X is good in general", and then they make "X is good" part of the concensus, and then everyone seeks more X. But despite the increase in X, the system as a whole does not seem to benefit any (Easterlin paradox is one example of this)
But I have made 100s of such observations, and I don't feel writing all of them, and neither do I think you'd want to read them. I can't counter all of rationalism in just a few pages of text, I can only point at a few flaws and hope you teach yourself how to discover the rest of the flaws I've seen by reverse engineering the process which I used to find these few examples.
More options
Context Copy link