site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   24273 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 11, 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.

If heritability did all that you claim, the children of doctors would breeze through medical entrance exams and the selection would be costless. The fact that they don't, that even doctor-parented children grind in coaching alongside everyone else, is itself evidence that selection does something beyond filtering for pedigree.

The folk conception of biology and evolution that people have is still very Lamarckian in this way. Even among intelligent families, children are still very much a crapshoot. I’ve wondered at times though whether you can breed out some of the most fundamental characteristics in humans.

In any population, you can select for a certain trait and by encouraging its reproduction within the population, greatly increasing the frequency of its heritability and expression. Could you theoretically do the opposite? Take say a trait from the big 5 like neuroticism. If you outright banned the reproduction of all highly neurotic people, could you with time extinguish that feature of human personality entirely or merely suppress the strength of its intensity and the frequency of its appearance?

Looking at other animals, how many species could you confidently express have “personality” in a way that’s as discernible with what you find in humans?

I’ve wondered at times though whether you can breed out some of the most fundamental characteristics in humans.

Of course you can. Some humans are born without these characteristics. Many lack sex drives, or intelligence, or morality, or basic health.

Even among intelligent families, children are still very much a crapshoot.

You're probably picking up on sibling genetic variance being 50% of population genetic variance. That means your childrens' genetic IQs have standard deviations of 10 points. If e^2 > 0%, then the sibling SD is even higher. Empirically it's like 12 points or something iirc. But the median sibling has the same gene score as the parental median. So, 120 IQ parents (genetically) can somewhat easily have a <108 IQ kid, a 120 IQ kid, and a >132 IQ kid, which are pretty stark differences.

This ignores regression to the mean. The 120 IQ parent's children will tend towards a longer term average of the ancestors of that parent. Roughly speaking. So the distribution is not symmetric. An especially smart, outlier person's children are more likely to go downwards in IQ than to go upwards.

This ignores regression to the mean. The 120 IQ parent's children will tend towards a longer term average of the ancestors of that parent.

Gene scores do not regress to the mean. And therefore neither do 100% heritable phenotypes. I was speaking in gene scores. Regression to the mean comes from e^2. People with above average traits have above average e^2, but their children have an expected e^2 of exactly average.

An especially smart, outlier person's children are more likely to go downwards in IQ than to go upwards.

But yes, this is true in real life since the e^2 component of IQ is between 20% and 40% Also, the expected effect of de novo mutations on offspring gene scores is small but negative.

Neuroticism specifically has some pretty clear advantages when it comes to surviving in times of adversity when those around you are untrustworthy or dangerous. This makes it pretty hard to select against; Once the neurotics find out what you are doing, they are going to hide away and work hard to minimize it showing.

I guess modern society and social media is kind of doing it though. The neurotics can seek safety in their room bathed in light from their screens whilst minimizing interaction with the outside world. Meanwhile, the western world is safe enough that most risk takers are likely to survive and will have many opportunities for procreation if that is what they desire. Caution may have been a winning strategy a hundred years ago, but now it seems like taking risks is the way to go, as you can bank on modern medicine saving your life if something goes wrong. If the modern west continues unimpeded for a thousand years, perhaps neuroticism will be considered a weird mental illness, and our descendants will all be men of action. I wonder what kind of society they would create.

You're looking at polygenic selection, which would be significantly slower than selecting for traits dominated by a handful of genes. But in principle? Absolutely. It would just be a massive pain in the ass, but we've done it for dogs and cattle. There is evidence for weak selection for specific personality traits over human evolution, but I forget the specifics.

You're looking at polygenic selection, which would be significantly slower than selecting for traits dominated by a handful of genes.

No, it's not. If you set heritability when the allele is at 50% frequency equal to the polygenic heritability of the other trait, mendelian selection is slower because heritability is usually under this value, due to additive genetic variance being smaller when the allele frequency is under 50%. Polygenic selection is faster in general. And it's not a massive pain in the ass, it's pretty easy to get a shift of >0.50 SDs per generation when you can control the selection differential.

CC for @Tretiak below.

When it comes to trait-based selection, whether a trait is polygenic, monogenic—or anything in between—the genetic architecture doesn't matter for the response to selection. Only thing that matters is heritability and selection differential (how "drastic" your selection is).

Breeder's Equation for a quantitative/continuous trait (e.g., neuroticism) is R = h^2 * S, where R is the response to selection, h^2 heritability, and S the selection differential (how different the mean of the selected parents is relative to the general population).

Heritability would be the dominant form of the equation, but you also can’t factor out the epigenetic influence (I would think) unless gene expression itself can be further reduced to strict biological determinants. Which is to say gene expression is also heritable. I understand what you’re saying here but I’m still unsure as to whether it answers the question or not. Or maybe it’s a poorly formed question. I probably don’t have the background here that you do.

Incidentally what does the equation say about people of exceptionally gifted talents that have no known biological pedigree found within their family ancestry?

Epigenetic variance explains ~0% of phenotypic variance. You should probably just not refer to it again and epistemically audit whatever process led you to mention it like it was important.

That’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about its role in gene expression.

It doesn't have a significant role if it doesn't cause significant differences in phenotype, because heritability is high.

It doesn’t play a direct role in the inheritance of certain traits but it impacts the ability to express them.

You're not understanding. Epigenetic variance explains ~0% of phenotypic variance, so it doesn't impact gene expression between people do a significant extent. Has nothing to do with between-generations.

More comments

Heritability would be the dominant form of the equation, but you also can’t factor out the epigenetic influence (I would think)

In the 2000s and 2010s there was massive hype and hopium around human epigenetics being A Thing, largely to fight against the crimethink that the variance in traits such as cognitive ability could be primarily explained by heritability. This hype and hopium had already mostly died down by the late 2010s/early 2020s.

Incidentally what does the equation say about people of exceptionally gifted talents that have no known biological pedigree found within their family ancestry?

It doesn't directly nor does it need to. The usual parent-offspring equation (Y = a + bx + e, basically almost the simplest linear regression one can think of) and the normal distribution describe it well. Exceptionally gifted parents tend to have more gifted children, on average, than unremarkable parents. However, unremarkable parents far outnumber exceptionally gifted people. Thus, it'd be no surprise that exceptionally gifted people sometimes come from unremarkable families.

I remember that time as well. Quite well in fact and immediately knew it was being over hyped and sold by the media; probably on purpose.

Only 1%-2% of genes code for traits. The rest you can resign to the scrap heap, whatever else (which is still an enormous amount) is involved in genetic expression (epigenetics). That’s all I mean to emphasize. I’m not at all taking the form of an argument produced for the target audience you’re referring to. But even so, the argument does nothing to rebut the importance of epigenetics, properly understood.

The side note about gifted children I meant more about the emergence and origin of these traits from a lineage of unremarkable people. Are they simply dormant or latent because of epigenetic suppression? If you look at a Michael Jordan for instance, there was nothing to suggest in his biological lineage that he would’ve been the kind of person he was. Just in raw genetic factors alone his brother was 5’8, which is quite the contrast. Same with a LeBron James. So what gives in that instance?

Only 2%-3% of genes code for traits. The rest you can resign to the scrap heap, whatever else (which is still an enormous amount) is involved in genetic expression (epigenetics).

It sounds like you are confusing protein-coding regions of the genome for regions of the genome that influence traits. Non-coding regions of the genome also do stuff including gene expression (gene expression is very much not a synonym for epigenetics, which pertains to gene expression insofar it doesn't involve alterations in the genome). Both coding and non-coding regions of the genome are passed down to offspring via heritability.

In a basketball context, to dismiss non-coding regions of the genome would be to dismiss efficient-off-ball-scoring, rebounding, assists, and defense.

The side note about gifted children I meant more about the emergence and origin of these traits from a lineage of unremarkable people. Are they simply dormant or latent because of epigenetic suppression? If you look at a Michael Jordan for instance, there was nothing to suggest in his biological lineage that he would’ve been the kind of person he was. Just in raw genetic factors alone his brother was 5’8, which is quite the contrast. Same with a LeBron James. So what gives in that instance?

My previous comment already addressed this. As a side-note, Jordan and his brother Larry is a well-known man-bites-dog story. Yet, Larry may be 5'8" (listed 5'9") but he also displayed an incredible leaping ability, well beyond an unremarkable person, such that he was an UNC basketball player himself. James's familial history is unclear, given his mother's... background.

It sounds like you are confusing protein-coding regions of the genome for regions of the genome that influence traits. Non-coding regions of the genome also do stuff including gene expression (gene expression is very much not a synonym for epigenetics, which pertains to gene expression insofar it doesn't involve alterations in the genome). Both coding and non-coding regions of the genome are passed down to offspring via heritability.

Literally every word of this is exactly what I’ve said the whole entire time.

Epigenetics and gene expression doesn’t biologically “edit DNA,” all I’m saying is it regulates genetic expression (literally the definition). The question I’m asking is a very simple one and I can’t fathom how it’s not being understood. Take any traits you want that have a known genetic link: eidetic memory, mathematical ability, extreme height, etc., that we normally associate with “geniuses” of one kind of another. A lot of the time when you examine what can be known of their ancestry, there are often ‘zero’ links to those same traits found in their parents or distant ancestors. So either, that pedigree ‘is’ there and it’s somehow being overlooked and not noticed / suppressed via epigenetic mechanisms (environmental stress, deficient biological development, other impacts, etc.) or it just spontaneously arose in the random shuffling of genes that happens in every human being that produces an exotic combination of edge traits. The question I’m asking is on what side of the ledger does the answer to that question (where do these traits come from?) owe more to? The former or the latter? It’s a question about the properties of inheritance.

In a basketball context, to dismiss non-coding regions of the genome would be to dismiss efficient-off-ball-scoring, rebounding, assists, and defense.

Again, that’s not what I’m saying or asking.

Only 2%-3% of genes code for traits.

The molecular guys probably fucked that one up because 50>% of behavior variance is explained by genetic variance. They don't really have good evidence for that claim any more than psychologists have good evidence for anything they teach the teenagers. And of course we are not allowed to teach the teenagers quantitative genetics, which produces voting citizens with a knowledge base like you. But maybe the two facts are jointly true. I suspect though that the entire DNA being about 800 megabytes, means that 2% actually being code leave 4 megabytes, and I feel like a lot more than 4 megabytes.

… Eh. Are you telling me you weren’t aware that only between 1%-2% of genes in human beings code for proteins? This is something that’s taught in the intro chapters of almost every introductory genomics textbook I’ve ever seen.

Are you telling me you weren’t aware that only between 1%-2% of genes in human beings code for proteins?

Uh no, it was spoonfed to me in school just like you. Unless you picked it up from an even worse source, like a podcast or youtube video. Lol.

This is something that’s taught in the intro chapters of almost every introductory genomics textbook I’ve ever seen.

Yes and most claims in most psychology textbooks are false. I'm telling you that the textbook-for-teens is not trustworthy. I suspect the 2% coding region claim has something wrong with it, just like emotional intelligence and Freudianism.

More comments

Polygenic selection would take a lot more time, yeah. But it still isn’t clear to me if you’re just diminishing the normal signal an otherwise healthy instinct might have or would you succeed in eradicating it entirely, overtime?

I’ve seen evolutionary analyses (much more on the speculative end) done for other questions like, “Why are children in the west much more rebellious against their parents unlike in China?,” and people have seriously proposed explanations like, “The amount of wars and rebellions China has been through and put down over the centuries have produced a socially Darwinistic byproduct of executing those members of the population who revolted against the leader.” Meaning there literally isn’t a genetic basis for rebellion in China as there would be in a place like the US, because they were all killed off. That was the premise of “collective punishment” if you were disobedient, they wouldn’t just wipe out you, but also your family.

I mean thé obvious counter argument is the history of China, which is nothing but peasant rebellions.

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