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 -
Continuing my theme in the previous comment of springboarding off the QC thread for discussion topics...
War of the sexes, but specifically regarding long term relationships and marriage.
What, in your opinion, should/does a desirable male partner bring to the table? What should/does a desirable female partner bring to the table?
The goal here is not specifically symmetry, if the desirableness is asymmetrical. For example, if you think a woman should desire a man with a stable job, but a man would be neutral or negative towards a woman with a stable job, then there's no need to include that on both lists.
To make the discussion more specific, less hypothetical: excluding amorphous concepts of "chemistry", what is the concrete package of measurable traits the opposite sex needs to offer for you to want to commit to a relationship with them? What is the package you are offering them in exchange? Do you feel this is a "good deal"?
(I'll answer for myself in a reply rather than answering within the question.)
deleted
Basic economics suggest there is some truth to the idea that opposites attract. Stated differently, long term successful relationships are positive sum. Generally, you need comparative advantage to get positive sum. To an extent, you want differences to maximize that comparative advantage.
At the same time, gravity theory of trade suggests that while you want some differences (to maximize comparative advantage) you don’t want too many differences because that limits ability to trade.
So do opposites attract? Yes and no.
More options
Context Copy link
Please make a separate post about that and tag me. I have been wondering the same thing forever.
More options
Context Copy link
You hit the nail on the head. Very sad to interact deeply with people who only conceptualize the world through the lens of TV or newspapers. It's the difference between a PC or an NPC, a gap that cleaves through intelligence, status and everything else.
More options
Context Copy link
Ha. I broadly agree in that, like I said, posting on the Motte is a strong signal against what I like in a mate.
I used to value the ability to maintain super intense philosophical discussion more. Certainly it was part of what I enjoyed about dating, probing people's minds in great depth. I find that in the actual day to day nitty gritty of being married it's barely even a half point bonus. I just need a partner who is willing to indulge me occasionally going off at length about a topic— I can find discussion partners with strong opinions online for no cost at all. As long as I feel assured my partner isn't an idiot and his opinions and values come from somewhere sincere and genuine, his being able to obsessively analyze them is, eh. Not very important.
I wouldn't describe "opposites attract" as total baloney, while still basically agreeing with you. I think people are highly attracted to certain very compatible personality opposites that are suited well to complementing their own strengths/weaknesses, and that aside from that they prefer to be as similar as possible. I don't specifically view it as sexed, at least individually, although it's clear that on a statistical level it is. My situation is a slightly weird variation on yours - I consider myself and my husband to be very, very different people, with an excellent match of complementing strengths, but outsiders say we're basically the exact same person, so at least on a superficial external level I guess we are similar. (We're certainly almost the same politically, religiously, intellectually, etc...).
Hm. I would describe myself as possibly none of those things? I am certainly not organized or particularly ambitious. But I do highly value conscientiousness in other people - I'm the kind of person to immediately offer a 7000 word opinion on anything I'm asked, on the spot, but I've always adored the kind of personality that says "good question, let me think about that" and then comes back two days later with a response. To me that kind of slow, deliberate care IS an area of opposite-attraction-compatibility, a very nice braking mechanism on my own more reactive/impulsive style (which I like plenty in myself, but since I've got it covered I don't need it from someone else).
It's worth having a smart or intense spouse because - your childrens' genes are half their genes, and creating more smart people is valuable, tbh. If you pick a randomly selected ~100iq 'nice person' as a spouse, your kids are going to be a lot dumber, less interesting, in expectation than otherwise. And just on a purely altruistic basis, more people being smart is pretty important!
Smart ≠highly analytical and inclined to in depth discussion, introspection, navel-gazing.
Disagreed. They are the same.
But you are touching on the part where @curious_straight_ca errs. Smartness can be good because it allows you to navigate society better than non-smart people who don't analyze the world right/at all. On the other hand, it might lead to you inventing calculus, molecular wave theory, or special relativity while your non-smart peers go out to the club and flirt with girls. (Those guys ended up with 0, 2, and 3 kids respectively.) More likely, you could unheroically become engrossed in a useless but fascinating system like chess openings, futurism debates, or rationalism.
It's also possible smartness might make you piss off your tribe and/or develop mental disorders. Smartness is not an unalloyed good, probably because it leads to in depth discussion, introspection, navel-gazing.
Need more evidence/citations that they are same.
Anecdotally, using proxies for intelligence like vast breadth of knowledge, grasping new material extremely quickly, getting good grades in very challenging programs, and creative problem solving, I can think of a number of very smart people I know who don't do much in the way of in depth discussion, introspection, or navel-gazing. It doesn't interest or excite them the way, say, a cool engineering problem does. Their approach to their inner selves is -shrug-, to interpersonal politics is "well, it all works out in the end", etc. These things simply don't bother or preoccupy them, they find them tedious and a waste of time better spent on cool problems.
Positivism is useless for defining words. I like my definition and think most people share it. As for why I contested you on a semantic point, it's common for people to try to redefine "smart" as "having the collection of mental attributes that lead to success", which is circular (good brain = good brain). This is IMO not a valid definition. From this comment, you are not falling into that trap, so my bad.
Highlight meaningful. You rephrased my definition. Their smartness is the mental quality that leads to them becoming engrossed in untangling systems: that is to say, analysis. We on the Motte are engrossed in analyzing and introspecting on one particular type of problem. They have another. Non-smart people get engrossed in analyzing neither. They just live life and vibe, which is probably the better way to go about this thing.
I simply don't feel that "interesting ways to solve energy output problems from solar cells" can be described as "in depth discussion, introspection, navel-gazing".
If you think that any contemplation of a complex problem is "in depth discussion, introspection, navel-gazing", then sure, a total lack of desire to interact with complex problems is not well correlated with intelligence.
But if people are inclined to "live life and vibe" outside their professional fields + areas of special interest, that doesn't intrinsically reflect on their intelligence.
(I think this whole comment thread kicked off with someone dropping in to say prioritizing a smart mate is important, which I interpreted as a response to my claim that constant in-depth quality discussion turned out to not be nearly as meaningful to me as I'd imagined when I started dating. Hence my initial response resisting conflating the two. I really believe it has much more to do with personality than intelligence)
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