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 -
I don't see the study; as is unfortunately common in popular works, the book does not have standard endnotes or footnotes. But, the comparison is not between wheat and corn, but between teosinte and wild wheat, and teosinte ears were apparently very small, as he discusses. Note also that even today, wheat has much more protein, and more of most other nutrients, than does corn.
Well, it sounds to me that we are agreeing about the dangers of dismissing arguments out of hand.
roystgnr points out that's not really an apropriate comparison either.
I remember there was some autistic alt-righter that took the whole thing apart, I think I can find the link if you want. Trying to criticize a book of this size going purely off years-old memories probably isn't going to work out.
Let's put it this way: I'm in favor of putting beloved-by-the-establishment pop-sci authors of Theories Of Everything on the same level as 4channers, and pub philosophers, whichever way you want to equalize them. If you're game for that, than we're in agreement.
Well, if the 4channer and pub philosopher assembles as much evidence as Diamond did, sure. But I don’t see the point in summarily dismissing an argument simply because it is a theory of everything, nor because it is beloved by the establishment. Not to mention that that leaves no bottom rung for theories of everything written by journalists.
Yeah, but that's not how it works. Look, I found the video taking Diamond apart. Full of evidence, and it's better presented than Diamond's, but no one is going to put them on equal footing. This is a systemic failure in our society, we constantly promote half-baked nonsense, and bury it's criticism.
I do. What are the chances of someone discovering a proper Theory of Everything? In history / social sciences they inevitably turn out to be self-congratulatory stories we tell ourselves, the evidence turns out to be misrepresented in various ways, and counter-evidence turns out to be left out (deliberately or otherwise). These sorts of huge theories require huge amounts of effort to refute them (the video I linked is a mere 2 hours and 46 minutes for example), so at the end of the day it seems the appropriate reaction is "cool story, bro" not putting the person on an interview circuit.
I don't see why we have to pull up journalists from their rung.
Huh, just learned that zebras are actually tamable. I have been spreading that bad meme for a while now.
More options
Context Copy link
But that should not be the criterion. The criterion should be whether the argument and evidence brings us closer to the truth.
They're the same thing, and that's might point. Evidence for specific claims like "one crop provided more calories per acre than another" bring us closer to the truth. The chances of assembling many such specific claims, and evidence for them, into a sweeping Theory Of Everything has minuscule chances of bringing us closer to the truth.
Well, I don't see how the individual components of an argument can bring us closer to the truth, but the overall argument doesn't.
It's pretty simple, the individual components are verifiable in multiple ways, the bigger argument is not verifiable in any way, unless you happen to have a Multiverse Explorer that allows us to play around with the individual parameters and confirm that the implications drawn from the components to the grand theory are correct.
Also as a he complexity of your argument grows, the chances of making a mistake increases, and I don't think the relationship is linear. Add to that various psychological biases, and like I said the chances of you taking anyone closer to the truth are minuscule.
Yes, but that is my point. A large, complex argument might get the big picture wrong, yet have components that are valuable. We are agreeing with each other.
Except that the current orthodoxy also certainly suffers from biases and other weaknesses. As the old joke goes, "I don’t have to outrun the bear. I just have to outrun you."
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