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 -
If you reframe this discussion as "I, a person who is not an aerospace engineer, is disagreeing with the findings of aerospace engineers who have no financial incentive and the inventor of the airplane, who happens to be hired by the defense" that is an accurate enough presentation.
It also makes the commentary look stupid.
I don't know what your job is, but imagine you are explaining something about your job and a used car salesman slams in like Kanye and goes ima let you finish but you are totally wrong.
That also sounds pretty stupid, no?
This is a terrible analogy, and I think you're smart enough to know it. Let's use an analogy that's more akin to psychology:
The difference between aerospace engineering and homeopathy/psychology is that the former has loads of empirical evidence and concrete track record of success as detectable and measurable by a layman in everyday life, while the latter 2 not only lack empirical evidence but often go directly against it.
If you want to claim that modern psychology as practiced by modern psychologists has as much credibility as modern aerospace engineering as practiced by modern aerospace engineers, then just say that. That can be an interesting venue of conversation, where people can discuss the various details and specifics of what gives these people credibility or doesn't. But just making some vague statement about "expert opinions" and "assuming" they're wrong (again, no such thing happened) looks like you're just trying to smuggle in a bailey via a motte.
I've banged the drum on this being medicine and psychiatry not psychology half a dozen times.
People who literally cannot define psychosis are saying "she's not psychotic and the result of this is that women will get away with murder because of their periods."
The analogy holds.
OK, well I see no prospect of any productive conversation with you on this topic, then. I'll only respond to your comments insomuch as to correct what I see as errors for third parties.
I mean I don't know what to say, the posts here involve a lot of demonstrably untrue statements and I've provided a link that provides education so that people can understand the various contexts and their is a large amount of outright refusal.
Assuming information is more incorrect because it comes from someone with information, training, and experience is obvious idiocy, but it does appear to be the stance you are advocating for.
This is false, it's obviously false by looking at this thread, and I'm puzzled as to how you can write this as if it would be taken seriously. Like, it's so transparently dishonest that I don't know what else to say than that you appear to be obviously operating in bad faith, and I would prefer you didn't.
You claimed:
"The difference between aerospace engineering and homeopathy/psychology is that the former has loads of empirical evidence and concrete track record of success as detectable and measurable by a layman in everyday life, while the latter 2 not only lack empirical evidence but often go directly against it."
Again we are talking about psychiatry, not psychology, but both have plenty of incredibly rigorous, replicable, and reliable research and conclusions. As with anything they also have elements of bleeding edge and hobby research that are questionable.
Critical thinking involves using basic investigation to discriminate between things that are questionable and things that have a strong basis.
Instead you try to imply that psychiatry, psychology, and homeopathy are all the same level of reliable.
Indeed. And I've noticed that
Well, not literally at the exact same identical level, but close enough, as I was being hyperbolic; I'm assuming your comparison of aerospace engineering with psychiatry was also hyperbolic, because that claim would be more ridiculous than homeopathy, as someone with more knowledge than I wish I had in psychiatry.
I've noticed that through my various investigations of reality, that this is true. There's no single text or set of texts I could read on some semi-anonymous message board that would convince me otherwise. If your judgment is that my judgment is wrong, that's fair enough, different people come to different conclusions based on the evidence. But nowhere did I imply that "information is more incorrect because it comes from someone with information, training, and experience." That is utterly ridiculous and transparently in bad faith. The point is that psychiatry experts, and people who trust them, like you, believe they have information, training, and experience [in ways that would inform them better than the layman], when, in fact, that is false. Much like how a homeopathic researcher believes, in their heart of hearts, that they have better information, training, and experience in healing people with water, or a moon landing truther believes that they have better information, etc. Again, different people can have different opinions on this, but given the state of the evidence, it is quite reasonable to group all these people together in terms of their credibility.
I am very confused, you seem to be simultaneously claiming that psychiatry is on par with homeopathy and criticizing me for complaining that you are making that claim.
Pick. Is it bullshit or is it not. If you think it's bullshit, prove it. Given that you required significant redirection to note the difference between psychology and psychiatry I don't think you can.
Additionally psychiatry does areas where it is 100% as predictable and reliable as aerospace engineering. These are more limited than we'd like, but antipsychotic goes on, psychosis goes off and BZD goes on, catatonia goes off are extremely well understood biological phenomena. Yeah we don't understand everything about them, but just because we don't full understand how ice skates work doesn't mean physics is broken.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link