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 -
It’s resisted valiantly because it represents a vicious motte and bailey, where “related psychological differences” covers whatever one can get away with. Difference in preferences becomes difference in ability, which becomes difference in moral value, which becomes difference in rights. I am not exaggerating. The innate differences of men and women have been used to excuse systematic denial of women’s rights. Same for white vs. black.
This, but unironically. The merest suggestion of group differences attracts a cloud of more or less the worst (Internet) partisans you can imagine. Just ask Scott.
The systematic denial of differences hasn't exactly been a godsend for equality, rights, or anti-racism/anti-sexism as defined by sane people instead of sign-flipped racists/sexists. Quite the opposite!
More options
Context Copy link
This has been the standard excuse that I've kept encountered from those on the left who deny HBD or anything similar to it on ethical grounds, but I've found it to be rather lacking. As you write, it has been used to excuse denial of rights based on genetic categorization - which had been going on for literally centuries and likely millennia before anyone ever knew anything about genetic causes of average differences in behavior. And starting from a world where basically all of human history had unequal rights for women vs men and blacks vs whites (vs yellows vs reds vs etc), equal rights were achieved not through scientific arguments about genetics. Whether or not genetic reasoning would be successfully used to justify the implementation of such a denial of rights in an environment where such equal rights are already taken for granted is a very different question, and pointing to how some people in the past wrote essays reaching for genetics to justify the pre-existing millennia-old status quo of unequal rights as evidence that it would just doesn't look like anything other than paranoia to me. Anecdotally, but I've yet to see anyone who's sexist/racist enough to call for denial of rights to women/blacks who seem like they would have been egalitarian equal-rights-supporters but for their knowledge of HBD or similar scientific concepts. I'm sure some exist, but the evidence that such people are so numerous as to meaningfully affect political outcomes in terms of equal rights is something I'm rather skeptical of, and something I'd absolutely love to see actual good, rigorous scientific research done on, in order to better inform all of us with respect to the value of denying this science on ethical grounds.
On the one hand, it's true that people who enshrined differential treatment in law based on sex and ethnicity did not understand the genetic basis for the differences between groups, as legislation of this kind predated our modern understanding of genetics. On the other hand, they obviously had some kind of intuitive understanding of the psychological differences between men and women, or white people and black people, even if they didn't understand the mechanisms underpinning said differences. This results in a situation like that described by Joseph Henrich, where a proposed explanation for a phenomenon is factually wrong but nonetheless produces accurate and useful predictions. "Women tend to take a close interest in children for reasons of genetics and evolutionary psychology" is factually true; "women tend to take a close interest in children because God created them as a helpmeet for men" is factually false, and yet the latter explanation still produces useful predictions. If you were to ask a gender studies professor and an uneducated Catholic living in the sixteenth century which kinds of careers women would tend to pursue if there were no obstacles in their way, I'd hazard a guess that the latter would give you more accurate answers. Consider the "paradox" that more liberal and economically free nations tend to have more stratified sex ratios in STEM, childcare etc.: it's only a "paradox" if you accept the false premise that men and women are psychologically the same and want the same things, on average.
I don't buy the stock woke narrative that white males historically conspired to oppress women and people of colour out of sheer bloody-mindedness. People in the past didn't need Gregor Mendel to tell them that men and women tend to have innately different interests, temperaments and priorities: up untill about ten minutes ago, this was seen as so obvious as to hardly even be worth mentioning. (That's why I think woke efforts to bury journal articles which produce politically incorrect findings are both infuriating and futile: so many of these articles are just telling us what we already know. "Newsflash: across cultures, female children like playing with dolls while male children like playing with fire trucks, suggesting that sex differences are innate." Get out of town. Next you'll be telling me water is wet.) I don't think denying women the franchise was a morally good idea, but it was obviously a decision made on the back of lawmakers' intuitive understanding of the psychological differences between men and women, even if they didn't understand the mechanism that caused these differences. They didn't just do it out of spite.
This actually gets to why conservatism is often a good system without very good reasons to do something different. Evolutionary pressures would tend to select a tribe to grow if their beliefs produce positive results.
Tribe A: Men stay home with kids. Women get weapons and fight tribe B for the best agricultural land.
Tribe B: women take care of kids. Men fight rival tribe.
Which Gods tribe A and B pray to does not matter. Tribe B will kills the babysitting male tribe and turn their women into sex slaves.
Tribe B beliefs are now the beliefs of the now larger tribe B combined with tribe A.
Yes, cultural evolution in a nutshell.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link