site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   12329 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 28, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

They must have gotten guys who work in STEM because there’s no way 58% of men know what a checksum is. Same with many of the electronics terms, 64% know what a gauss is? I had to look it up, it’s a non-SI unit for magnetic flux density, and I am extremely skeptical that the majority of men have even heard of that.

Same with boson, 76% of men are familiar enough with particle physics? Less than 50% of men have even had a single physics class in high school! I’d be surprised if 76% knew what a proton was.

Science-fiction uses it a lot: anyone who knows about 40k knows about Necron gauss weaponry, and that's a lot of men.

There's also a Gauss rifle in Fallout, and a Gauss cannon in Doom.

They must have gotten guys who work in STEM because there’s no way 58% of men know what a checksum is. Same with many of the electronics terms, 64% know what a gauss is? I had to look it up, it’s a non-SI unit for magnetic flux density, and I am extremely skeptical that the majority of men have even heard of that.

Same with boson, 76% of men are familiar enough with particle physics? Less than 50% of men have even had a single physics class in high school! I’d be surprised if 76% knew what a proton was.

Most men have heard of the Higgs boson, AKA the God particle. They may have no idea what it is (I certainly don't), but they know it has something to do with subatomic particles and the Large Hadron Collider.

Gauss is probably recognized as the last name of Carl Friedrich Gauss rather than the unit.

I am familiar with the unit (as of my PhD days it was still the main practical unit among engineers and experimental physicists because the Tesla is so large) but I also read "gauss" as a proper name.

The study explains that the numbers in this table are z-values on a normal distribution, not percentages.

Because the distribution of percentages known was very right-skewed and did not differentiate much between well-known words, it was useful to apply a probit transformation to the percentages. The probit function translates percentages known to z values on the basis of the cumulative normal distribution. That is, a word known by 2.5% of the participants would have a word prevalence of –1.96; a word known by 97.5% of the participants would have a prevalence of +1.96. Because a word known by 0% of participants would return a prevalence score of –∞ and a percentage known of 100% would return a prevalence score of +∞, the range was reduced to percentages known from 0.5% (prevalence = –2.576) to 99.5% (prevalence = +2.576).2

2The specific formula we used in Microsoft Excel was =NORM.INV(0.005+Pknown*0.99;0;1).

A simpler version of this formula is =NORM.S.INV(0.005+Pknown*0.99). The inverse is =(NORM.S.DIST(prevalence,TRUE)-0.005)/0.99. So, for "gauss", prevalences of +0.64 for men vs. +0.31 for women actually mean percentages of 74 percent for men vs. 62 percent for women.

That makes sense. I’ve seen the table reproduced as a graph with percentages, I guess nobody (including me sadly) bothers to read the actual study.

From a quick look, although there’s not a direct easy conversion AFAIK, 0.15 prevalence is about 56% familiarity, 0.5 is about 70%, and 0.8 is 80%, so it’s not the massive gap originally presented.

But I think all the study did was check if the participants knew it was a word or not by having them pick out the real ones from a list of gibberish?

there’s not a direct easy conversion AFAIK

I gave one in an edit.

But I think all the study did was check whether the participants knew it was a word or not by having them pick out the real ones from a list of gibberish.

More or less.

For each vocabulary test, a random sample of 67 words and 33 nonwords was selected. For each letter string, participants had to indicate whether or not they knew the stimulus. At the end of the test, participants received information about their performance, in the form of a vocabulary score based on the percentage of correctly identified words minus the percentage of nonwords identified as words. For instance, a participant who responded “yes” to 55 of the 67 words and to 2 of the 33 nonwords received feedback that they knew 55/67 – 2/33 = 76% of the English vocabulary. Participants could do the test multiple times and always got a different sample of words and nonwords.

But they largely replicated the results by administering three ordinary multiple-choice vocabulary tests, with r = 0.69 vs. the original test.

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