site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 24, 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.

They only adjust for test scores. Higher income means you can afford expensive unpaid internships/experiences, have the connections for such things, can start businesses at a young age, more likely to pick up unique and interesting skills at a young age, etc. This study is really silly and pointless if not adjusting for this whole category of experience which makes an applicant more desirable. Are you telling me that a kid who spent three summers working with a noble prize winning scientist is less likely to be a good scientist? Doubt. Think of all the invisible habits and motivations learned from such experiences. Well, such things cost money. I know a family that sent three kids to Hotchkiss and then to Ivy League schools. That’s 50k a year. For Hotchkiss, in their “colleges listed in order of total number of matriculants”, Ivys are 5 of the top 8.

I guess “colleges are more likely to pick good applicants and good applicants cost money” is less interesting. The consequences of ignoring expensive experiences in accepting students is that wealthy parents will stop spending money on these experiences. Who does that help? I would at least prefer my rulers to have a lot of unique experiences.

Who does that help?

Poor students.

Poor students as a cohort will be more helped by having the right stock of elites, who have had the best formative experiences in their formative years, than that 0.001% of them are chosen to attend an Ivy League

The longer answer is that yes, having an inpaid internship with a prize-winning scientist may be better than the student graduating and getting experience the old fashioned way by going to college and then working. But I doubt that it's so much better that it outweighs the benefit 1) to smart but poor people by giving them a chance at social mobility and 2) to society by having elites whose backgrounds make them more in tune with what non-elites have to go through. After all, they're going to be ruling non-elites.