site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   35650 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 20, 2023

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.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

(2) Vietnam is interesting because it’s a dirt poor developing country with relatively good HBD and a significant language barrier to the rest of the world, so you’re going to see things like high test scores and not a lot of high achieving scientists.

(5) Argentina is also a weird economy for a variety of reasons, but as I understand it it had a very strong economy in the early 20th century, some stagnation after WWII, and a major crisis after unwisely starting a war with Britain which they never recovered from. But Latin America in general tends to have higher standards of living than you’d think from looking at their GDP per capita, too.

Why should the US be poorer?

The three factors are length of time a nation has been organized as a State (US 247 years England 374 years) had settled agriculture (US 415ish years, England 6,000 years), and state of technology lets give these equal weight. These predict that England should have a GDP that's larger than the US (it's had more time under a state and significantly more time using agriculture). But the opposite is true.

The three factors are length of time a nation has been organized as a State (US 247 years England 374 years)

This comparison seems wrong from the start. England and America didn't evolve seperately, England passed the torch to America. The US achieved so much in 247 years largely because they could draw on hundreds of years of English political tradition.

It seems to me that a particular land area being under agriculture longer is either neutral or a detriment when it comes to development, while the ancestors of the inhabitants being agriculturalists for a long time is the source of the advantage.

Iraq today is almost completely desertified after millennia of soil erosion and depletion, while the prosperity of the US is in part due to its natural resources being underutilized until recently, when a population with generations of accumulated experience in agriculture and industry was able to expand with relatively little opposition into virgin territory.

I guess the argument could hold up if the Mesopotamian agriculturalists relocated to a more favorable area and were able to use their accumulated skills to jump ahead quickly, like the American colonists. But this still runs into the problem that their skills are constrained by the environment.

Imo a more predictive version of SAT* would have to include a “G” for geography, encompassing things like natural resources, soil quality, likelihood of natural disasters (ie America and Singapore supposedly have lower human capital than their growth rates would indicate but both are blessed with really favorable geography).

But at that point you can’t really create a simple formula for a simple theory anymore, you’re back to saying “growth is a whole bunch of different factors”

For what it's worth, Arab immigrants from the Fertile Crescent do form a market-dominant minority across much of Latin America (including the president of El Salvador who has been getting a lot of attention recently) and Africa.

And as far as simple formulas go, I'd be surprised if IQ by itself didn't get you a lot closer to the mark than SAT, with the caveat that many, if not most, nations are too diverse to be analyzed as a single unit regardless of what parameters are being considered (e.g. Latin America has Whites, Mestizos, and Natives; India has its castes; every African country is a patchwork of tribes and ethnic groups).

In terms of how this potential, however it is determined, relates to a given country's economic performance, I often analogize it to genetically predicted height, where it's easier to make someone shorter than they would be otherwise through malnutrition, but quite hard to make them taller than their genes indicate. We can easily find pairs of countries where one has been held back from its true potential, usually but not exclusively by communism e.g. North and South Korea or Burma and Thailand. The key challenge in terms of immigration policy would be to identify nations underperforming relative to their potential and encourage migration from those places specifically.

Yes the key things on agriculture and state is it’s the people who did those things. People who were able to create state capacity at lower levels of technological development. Capable of forming large scale militaries to protect their farmland and resource buildup from rival tribes looking to take their stuff etc.

As sliders1234 points out, these first two are kinda nonsense. Pretty much all the European, Middle Eastern, and North African countries are similarly situated when it comes to agriculture; at least, as far as I know, agriculture has never been lost and extends to pre-history. And all of these nations descend from states thousands of years ago, though you can sometimes argue continuity. That England colonized the US shouldn't reset the clock, though.

The people populating America today are not the native Americans. They’re people from technologically advanced countries that had agricultural.

The native Americans are in fact poor. So I don’t think your argument holds any water.

The model seems like bull, but those are the factors that cause it to predict a much lower income for the US than the actual data. The US is pretty weird, in that its population changed dramatically over the last 420 or so years, but there's no did your population change dramatically factor in the model.

and having a much worse backyard than it would have had if it had been in Europe

..worse?

You mean better.

A rich country unable to industrialise would have only ended up one way in Europe - as lunch.

That’s all suppositional. Spain is well run in many ways.

Agreed, they had a particularly difficult time between trying to make a quantum leap from a country excelling in agriculture to an industrialized nation via extreme ISI, coupled with a broader international economic landscape that didn't support them. I have to assume their export driven economy in particular took a significant blow following the opening of the Panama Canal redirecting shipping, trade, and investment to the North, making their geographical position at the far south suddenly a hindrance rather than a unique advantage. Between the World Wars their FDI also dried way up as their former European sponsors went broke and America remained aloof, distrustful of what it saw as South American fascism (famously prohibiting European countries from purchasing from Argentina with Marshall Plan funds). As economic conditions got worse people naturally protested and the government responded by writing populist checks that its deteriorating trade and investment landscape couldn't really cover, and things spiraled ever farther.

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