site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   31070 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 understand your objection, but I think Diamond's book is one of those that taken as how he states it fits into the not even wrong category. You read the book, and it all sounds very science-y and convincing. But then you think about it again and it occurs to you that, hmm wait a minute, how can you even suppose to think about what a "wild" pig, chicken, horse etc actually is? The fact is the ostensibly wild populations of these things are hopelessly interbred with escaped chickens and horses from the early and current selectively bred populations, and its not easily done determinable when breeding really started.

Then you did down into things like his zebra arguments, and they are just obviously rubbish because there are multiple instances of Europeans going to Africa in the 1800s and early 1900s and remarking on how easy to break zebras are, and it seems his zebra-horse comparison is actually like 180 degrees from what actually was the difficulty level. And then you have to think to yourself, "huh, if he got this super easy thing so wrong, how much else is just him spinning nonsense?" And then even small inquiries indicate yes. And your logical conclusion is delving into the rest is simply a massive waste of time and energy.

Then you did down into things like his zebra arguments, and they are just obviously rubbish because there are multiple instances of Europeans going to Africa in the 1800s and early 1900s and remarking on how easy to break zebras are,

But, breaking an animal is not the same as domesticating an animal. As noted on page 159: "Elephants have been tamed, but never domesticated. Hannibal's elephants were, and Asian work elephants are, just wild elephants that were captured and tamed; they were not bred in captivity. In contrast, a domesticated animal is defined as an animal selectively bred in captivity and thereby modified from its wild ancestors, for use by humans who control the animal's breeding and food supply."

And of course to this day zebras have not been domesticated.

And of course to this day zebras have not been domesticated.

This probably highlights my issue with GGS the best. Why would you say that without checking first? Why would Diamond?

I did check. Did you?

Yes. They are tamed, and bread in captivity. What's supposed to be the problem, that they haven't diverged enough? If so the only reason it hasn't happened is because we didn't want it to.

What's supposed to be the problem

The problem is that we are talking about domestication. Every source I have seen says that the have not been domesticated. Do you have a source that says otherwise?

If so the only reason it hasn't happened is because we didn't want it to.

How do you know? Where is your evidence for that claim? Diamond says that there are something like 170 wild species of large herbivores, yet humans have managed to domesticate only 15. Did we not want to domesticate the other 155 as well? Or is it possible that only a few species are susceptible to domestication?

The problem is that we are talking about domestication. Every source I have seen says that the have not been domesticated. Do you have a source that says otherwise?

I was under the impression that "zebras have not been domesticated until this day" was an argument for why cultures that developed with animals that were domesticated had some sort of an advantage, not that it's an otherwise contentless claim, only true via a technicality. Are you saying it's the latter?

How do you know? Where is your evidence for that claim?

Because the only criterion necessary for "domestication" is that we artificially breed them to have some characteristic making them more useful to us, than their wild counterpart. Unless you wish to make the claim that zebra's DNA is somehow locked and set in stone, it's only a question of time before you find some heritable feature, a cosmetic one, if nothing else, that you can breed more of.

Did we not want to domesticate the other 155 as well?

Yes. Why do you find it that unlikely? Based on what evidence?

Or is it possible that only a few species are susceptible to domestication?

It's possible, but it needs supporting evidence, like someone actually trying, and then failing to accomplish it.

In the case of zebras we can dimiss it, because the population that lived next to zebras didn't seem to even try (they didn't tame them, or breed them in captivity, even though we know it's possible), and by the time other populations discovered them, they had little practical use for a new specialized animal species.

I was under the impression that "zebras have not been domesticated until this day" was an argument for why cultures that developed with animals that were domesticated had some sort of an advantage,

No, it was merely an argument that Diamond is correct that zebras are difficult to domesticate.

It's possible, but it needs supporting evidence, like someone actually trying, and then failing to accomplish it.

I find that a rather astonishing statement, since we are talking about the merits of a book which spent many pages making that exact argument, with supporting evidence. That doesn't mean that the book is correct, but your claim that no such argument has been made doesn't wash. And, re zebras, Diamond does refer to unsuccessful modern efforts to domesticate zebras.

And, remember, none of us cares about zebras. Rather, we are discussing the accuracy of Diamond's claim about zebras. And that claim is about domestication, which he defines in the standard way as an animal "selectively bred in captivity and thereby modified from its wild ancestors, for use by humans who control the animal's breeding and food supply."

No, it was merely an argument that Diamond is correct that zebras are difficult to domesticate.

Right, so that would be "an otherwise contentless claim, only true via a technicality"

Diamond does refer to unsuccessful modern efforts to domesticate zebras.

But he refers to them in the same way he refers to wheat vs teosinte and maize, i.e. he makes it insanely difficult to figure out where reference even is, and then it usually turns out he's presented it in a misleading way. Have you seen even a bit of the video I linked?

And, remember, none of us cares about zebras. Rather, we are discussing the accuracy of Diamond's claim about zebras.

Actually, as per your own argument, we're discussing the accuracy of the connections he drew from the basic component of other researcher's claims about zebras. I can grant the simple fact that they haven't been domesticated - I'm sure that if we looked into the details it's actually debatable, but like you said, we don't care about zebras. What I cannot grant is that it's evidence for his broader argument.

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