site banner

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
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Does Progressive Ideology Make People Unhealthy?

Or: The internet wrestles with the finding that progressives (especially liberal women) are more likely to be diagnosed with a mental illness.

John Haidt seems to have kicked it off with good piece that goes over his usual points: cellphones cause problems by encouraging comparison and closing off real independent play that builds resilience , but liberal kids specifically are being taught "anti-CBT" - instead of learning resilience and an internal locus of control liberal kids are taught catastrophizing and believing things are outside of their control. I'm sure we've all seen adult liberals emphasizing how "traumatized" and "tired" they are made by events.

Noah Smith thinks it can be reduced to phones, and many problems - e.g. competition on Instagram depressing girls, a doomer media narrative making people sad - just come down to phones too.

(The one I found most interesting) Musa al-Gharbi has a great piece that does seem to come down to "conservatives are just generally more psychologically resilient in polling, for various reasons" - there are obvious ones like them being more religious or emphasizing an internal locus of control, but also more interesting ones I didn't consider like conservatives allegedly having less homogeneous groups and progressivism seemingly attracting more neurotic types in general.

The summary:

  1. There are likely some genetic and biological factors that simultaneously predispose people towards both mental illness/ wellness and liberalism/ conservatism, respectively.

  2. Net of these predispositions, conservatism probably helps adherents make sense of, and respond constructively to, adverse states of affairs. These effects are independent of, but enhanced by, religiosity and patriotism (which tend to be ideological fellow-travelers with conservatism).

  3. Some strains of liberal ideology, on the other hand, likely exacerbate (and even incentivize) anxiety, depression, and other forms of unhealthy thinking. The increased power and prevalence of these ideological frameworks post-2011 may have contributed to the dramatic and asymmetrical rise in mental distress among liberals over the past decade.

  4. People who are unwell may be especially attracted to liberal politics over conservatism for a variety of reasons, and this may exacerbate observed ideological gaps net of other factors.

As well as an interesting prediction:

On this model, liberals would move first, with the conservative increase in negative emotionality emerging as a reaction to shifts in liberal discourse and behaviors. However, there should be a disjuncture over time because the prevailing liberal ideologies would continue to exert a powerful influence over the mental state of liberals but would come to exercise diminishing influence over conservatives. These patterns are, in fact, reflected in the data.

I'll have to dig into this to confirm but this is something to watch: can conservatives "win" the cultural contest by providing a less neurotic example or will they all be assimilated into the same therapy mindset? Clearly the phenomenon of trad-larping seems to show some dissatisfaction with what liberalism has to offer but i'm not sure how p

From what I recall of Haidt, there does seem to be some "contagion" effect in terms of liberal tactics where, if liberals complain and use school services e.g. to resolve speech disputes, cons eventually try to do the same (I've seen similar things with female/feminist style complaints spreading to the other side).

TBH I also think there's a "capitalist realism" thing going on where no one can see outside liberal ideas even if they seem manifestly inert or outright unhelpful. They're just considered "the right thing". And it's repeated over and over. In fact: failure just leads to more calls to "promote mental health" and more demands, not less.

Reading Crazy Like Us after it came up here really reinforced this: As one user commented on Scott's review: "I found the trauma section of the book very compelling, in part because it squares with my impression of the United States as a society that is convinced it understands trauma better than any previous society but seems to achieve uniquely poor outcomes. It would be like a land that was convinced it had the best vaccine for polio but you look around and every fourth person is in an iron lung."

Even if conservatism offers a better outcome psychologically it doesn't matter, cause liberals won't listen to conservatives anymore than the well-meaning "trauma" counselors in Crazy Like Us cared to listen to the locals' own view of things.

Great post. I’m convinced there’s a solid link between liberal neuroticism, social contagion of said neuroticism, and many chronic mental health/pain issues.

Scott Alexander seems to be edging towards this conclusion recently, with this post about how transgender folks are more likely to have hyper mobility or EDS. I’ve actually been diagnosed with this condition and I’m convinced there’s a massive mental/social contagion aspect based on a decade of personal experience.

He also more directly confronts this in his review of *the Geography of Madness where he dives into the social contagion of things like penis stealing witches making entire communities of adults freak out and believe their genitals are being mutilated.

Clearly there is a strong cultural / mythopoetic element to most of our cultural neuroses and mental health issues. Unfortunately the dominant frame around these topics is that people are just born with their brains a certain way, and we should accommodate or pity them accordingly. In reality, the tried and true tactics of shaming and forcing people to become more resilient would be far more effective.

Psychiatry in general has clearly failed our generation, and is actively producing a host of messed up people that are incapable of dealing with even daily life. I for one am beyond disgusted with the psychological establishment, and think we need to burn it to the ground and start over.

That being said, I’m open to other suggestions.

Psychiatry in general has clearly failed our generation, and is actively producing a host of messed up people that are incapable of dealing with even daily life.

I don't think psychiatry is innocent and it has a lot to answer for, but a lot of the problem seems to be society failing on multiple fronts and psychiatrists lacking the spine or humility to shut it down when progressives use their field as a panacea* since the other problems (e.g. cellphones, suburban living + overly restrictive parenting styles, all the other potential structural issues making people unhappy) are hard to fix even in theory.

I think there's a general hollowing of institutions and supports and liberals are clinging to the closest thing to a life raft.

There is a similar problem with education. A kid in is born into almost hilariously maladaptive social situations, doesn't have a father and his mother may also be poor and ill-equipped but we're supposed to blame lazy or racist teachers when he inevitably fails? Here even conservatives get in on the game (even though "education" is more likely to be seen as a panacea by liberals).

What is wrong with suburban living? Is this about some American suburbs being so utterly car dependant and lacking in services and commons that kids are effectively locked in their houses?

Yes. Which is why I also threw in more restrictive parenting styles (though the geography itself can pose problems).