site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2yr ago (text post)   32543 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 15, 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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I disagree, this sort of approach is easily hackable by mining scholarly works for whatever data suits your idea, shaping it into a narrative that is trendy with the current zeitgeist, thus ensuring few people will be interested in challenging you to begin with, and the remainder is too intimidated by the sheer magnitude and obscurity of the material you've dug out.

Yes, but isn't that a claim that the argument might be wrong, rather than a claim that they must be wrong? It seems to me to be an argument for skepticism, rather than an argument for dismissal out of hand.

Didn't it spend pages upon pages talking about how lucky Europeans were because they started off with caloric and easy to cultivate crops, and easily tamable animals, only for it to turn out that ancient European plants/animals were about as useful to humans as those anywhere else, and what the authors were comparing were products of generations of artificial selection to wild plants/animals?

  1. As a possibly non-relevant aside, the book is about why Eurasia developed more quickly than elsewhere, rather than Europe.

  2. Glancing at my copy of the book, he says: "Experimental studies in which botanists have collected seeds from such natural stands of wild [fertile crescent] cereals, much as as hunter-gatherers must have been doing over 10,000 years ago, show that annual harvests of up to nearly a ton of seeds per hectare can be obtained[.] ... [In contrast,] [c]orn's probable ancestor, a wild plant known as teosinte, ... was less productive in the wild than wild wheat . . ." So he certainly at least tried to compare like with like. In addition, that is only one of three advantages he claims that Eurasian cereal plants had over wild plants elsewhere; the others, he argues, are that they are annuals, and that most are plants that "usually pollinate themselves but are occasionally self-pollinated." I don't know whether either of those attributes can be changed via artificial selection. Re animals, he notes that only 14 of the world's large (100lbs+) herbivorous animals were ever domesticated (including only 13 of 72 in Eurasia) and notes that even modern efforts to domesticate large wild animals other than the "ancient fourteen" that were domesticated failed, and makes arguments why so few have been domesticated.

  3. Most importantly, that is an argument that Diamond is wrong, or that that he overstates his case. But it is not an argument that "no one ever should have taken him seriously," and I note that on the Wikipedia page on the book, Joel Mokyr is cited as saying that "Diamond's view that Eurasia succeeded largely because of a uniquely large stock of domesticable plants is flawed because of the possibility of crop manipulation and selection in the plants of other regions, the drawbacks of an indigenous plant such as sumpweed could have been bred out, Mokyr wrote, since 'all domesticated plants had originally undesirable characteristics' eliminated via 'deliberate and lucky selection mechanisms'", which sounds like the criticism you are citing.* But he is also quoted as saying that the book is "one of the more important contributions to long-term economic history and is simply mandatory to anyone who purports to engage Big Questions in the area of long-term global history". And I will say that one of the strengths of the book is that is explicitly states the assumptions behind its arguments, repeatedly refers to possible weaknesses in supporting evidence, and also repeatedly suggests avenues for future research which might undermine some of its claims.

  • But I note that, re teosinte, Diamond's argument is not that such changes were impossible -- they obviously weren't -- but that they took a very long time (at p. 137), which helps explain why development in the Americas lagged behind development in Eurasia (and, of course, it is the lag that he seeks to explain).

Glancing at my copy of the book, he says: "Experimental studies in which botanists have collected seeds from such natural stands of wild [fertile crescent] cereals, much as as hunter-gatherers must have been doing over 10,000 years ago, show that annual harvests of up to nearly a ton of seeds per hectare can be obtained[.] ... [In contrast,] [c]orn's probable ancestor, a wild plant known as teosinte, ... was less productive in the wild than wild wheat . . ." So he certainly at least tried to compare like with like.

It has been ages since I read the book, so I might be conflating a bunch of things, and it's also been quite long time since I heard the counter arguments. Does he name any of these studies? Wheat outcompeting corn is unintuitive right off the bat.

Yes, but isn't that a claim that the argument might be wrong, rather than a claim that they must be wrong? It seems to me to be an argument for skepticism, rather than an argument for dismissal out of hand.

I edited some things in so maybe you missed it when you wrote your response, but I disagree with your definition of "taken seriously". Like I said Channers schizzoing out about COVID weren't taken seriously, even though they were right, and were making arguments that should have been addressed.

Does he name any of these studies? Wheat outcompeting corn is unintuitive right off the bat

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.

but I disagree with your definition of "taken seriously". Like I said Channers schizzoing out about COVID weren't taken seriously, even though they were right, and were making arguments that should have been addressed.

Well, it sounds to me that we are agreeing about the dangers of dismissing arguments out of hand.

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.

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.

Well, it sounds to me that we are agreeing about the dangers of dismissing arguments out of hand.

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.

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,

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.

Well, if the 4channer and pub philosopher assembles as much evidence as Diamond did, sure.

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.

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.

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.

Not to mention that that leaves no bottom rung for theories of everything written by journalists.

I don't see why we have to pull up journalists from their rung.

What are the chances of someone discovering a proper Theory of Everything?

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.

More comments

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