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 -
I'm not sure this is a tenable position.
If you actually dig deep into the philosophy of disease and disorder in medicine, it's actually very hard to robustly define what an "illness" is, and there are actually lots of cases where the collection of symptoms is more valuable to doctors than the specific cause of what is going wrong in a person.
Consider over-the-counter medicine, which often just treats symptoms like fever, runny nose, or pain. Sure, it might be helpful to know the exact variety of flu or cold virus I'm dealing with, but researching and treating each of them individually would be costly for society, and it far more resource efficient to say, "Use what you can get at the supermarket to deal with the worst symptoms, and if you sickness gets bad enough, then go to the doctor for more specific medicine."
The process of constructing a definition of a "healthy human body" is a partially social one, and has points that are debatable. What's our cut-off for "unhealthy"? Is every measurable trait of the human body that correlates to shorter lifespan, or greater physical or mental distress automatically "unhealthy"? I'm sure I don't need to explain why that would be unworkable - but one example is that would have us saying that being tall is "unhealthy" since men tend to be taller than women, and tend to live shorter lives than women. But these kinds of questions pop up over and over in medicine, and the current medical consensus of what counts as a "disease" and what is merely a normal variation of human traits is going to be highly dependent on what treatments exist, what kind of measurements we can take, and past precedence.
The DSM is very clear in its introduction about the model it uses when thinking about mental disorders. It more or less acknowledges that the diagnostic categories are more practical than ontologically rigorous. They're telling the doctor, "In the past, when we've had patients that report issues x, y and z, we've generally found medicines a, b and c seem to help those patients in controlled studies." They're not telling doctors, "A patient reporting issues x, y and z, has a definitely 'real' disease A, which is mechanistically and reliably caused by b, c and d."
More options
Context Copy link