site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9mo ago (text post)   28388 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 28, 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.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The correlation between grip strength and reasoning is 0.23.

If you pick two random people their grip strength will correctly order them by IQ 58% of the time. If you only look at people with z>1 grip strength then this drops to 53%

So for any moderately selective college you’re basically operating 3% above random.

If you order by SAT you get 70% and 60% respectively.

You’ve got a long way to argue that affirmative action is so unmeritocratic that it makes such a crappy signal like mile time comparable to a decent signal like test scores.

Then we can talk about why you think “mile time with no AA” is either better or more politically feasible than “test scores with no AA”

If you start testing for something, people will start training it.

Yes and apparently adding a ton of non-IQ signal will magically make this test a better proxy for IQ.

The existing admissions process already has a ton of non-IQ signal. I'm not sure if this would be better or worse.

If you pick the top 1% of grippers their average IQ will be 102. I think Harvard manages to do better than that.

Then we can talk about why you think “mile time with no AA” is either better or more politically feasible than “test scores with no AA”

I said neither that it was better nor more politically feasible than anything, just that it could be more strongly selective of IQ than our current system, which is test scores with (de facto) AA and a bunch of other stuff.

If you pick two random people their grip strength will correctly order them by IQ 58% of the time. If you only look at with z>1 grip strength then this drops to 53%.

Sure. But that's before you've made a system that rewards grip strength with social outcomes. As soon as you do that, the correlation with IQ would become greater, as people with higher IQs interested in better social outcomes would then try to optimize for grip strength and be more effective at optimizing for it. Similarly, although there's no correlation between volunteering inclinations and IQ, you would see a strong one if you look at high schoolers, as they try to pad their resumes with volunteer work for the purposes of admission. You'd see a similar response from students with a grip strength system: you'd have parents sending their kids to after school gripping programs, specialized gripping coaching, etc. Motivated high schoolers would flock to web forums devoted to developing good grip. Some ambitious students would turn to grip-enhancing drugs. A black market would develop for professional grippers who would be hired as a stand-in for students to take the Scholastic Griptitude Test.

This applies to pretty much anything. If a DEI ETS decided to make a test that focused solely on obscure figures in African American history, you'd see the groups that outperform today outperform nearly as much on the new test.

Now, that would never become as strong a signal as SAT scores, which are fairly g-loaded. But, as with my original phrasing, it wouldn't surprise me if it ended up selecting for intelligence more strongly than the actual existing system we have.

Sure. But that's before you've made a system that rewards grip strength with social outcomes. As soon as you do that, the correlation with IQ would become greater, as people with higher IQs interested in better social outcomes would then try to optimize for grip strength and be more effective at optimizing for it.

You're conjecturing that grip strength and conscientiousness are positively correlated (citation?) and that conscientiousness and IQ are positively correlated (seems contentious at best after some Googling). Take every concern I had with using terribly-correlated variables and square it because you're not even talking about a direct connection anymore.

I don't think you really comprehend how weakly these traits are connected, and how relying on interactions between those traits makes that even worse. Yes, many good traits are correlated (a.k.a. the halo effect), and yes, people who deny this are worth refuting. But to go the opposite direction and just see these traits as interchangeable proxies for each other is crazy.

Suppose you published the entire SAT answer key a week before the test. Conscientious students would memorize it and completely destroy the other students, but nobody would dare to claim that this improves the correlation of the test with IQ! This is because the SAT is already a good proxy!

For any decent metric adding in confounding factors make it worse and the only reason you can conjecture the opposite is because grip strength is such a terrible metric to begin with.

The average SAT score is 520 on each test. The average Harvard admit has an average in the low 700s (white admits average 745 and African Americans average 704). The standard deviation on each test is around 100. This puts African American Harvard admits around 1.8 standard deviations above average.

And you think social incentives will transform your 3%-above-random-chance signal into something competitive?

You're conjecturing that grip strength and conscientiousness are positively correlated (citation?)

I'm conjecturing that outcomes on any arbitrary measure that will result in better social outcomes and can be influenced by planning and hard work is positively correlated with conscientiousness and intelligence. Give a random student in China a test on US History and tell them it doesn't matter, and there'll only be a small correlation between intelligence and score. Let them know four years beforehand that if they get a perfect score on the test they'll get a million USD and a visa to the USA, and there'll be a strong correlation.

just see these traits as interchangeable proxies for each other is crazy... This is because the SAT is already a good proxy!

To quote myself in the comment you're responding to: "that would never become as strong a signal as SAT scores, which are fairly g-loaded."

But, you get at something real: I do think to some extent every objective metric is interchangeable. Choose an arbitrary objective metric to excel at and tell students that their future well-being depends on it, and conscientious students will outperform on it as much as possible, which will often be a lot for intelligent students. The questions are how much grip strength is trainable and how much intelligence helps training. If the trait is more like height, then measurements of it will fail as a proxy; if it's more like ability to play the piano, it will work well.

that conscientiousness and IQ are positively correlated (seems contentious at best after some Googling)

I acknowledge the studies on this do contradict my point, and I remain skeptical. My suspicion is that what they're measuring as conscientiousness doesn't capture what we think of as conscientiousness, but I've not had the chance to look into the studies in detail.

Suppose you published the entire SAT answer key a week before the test. Conscientious students would memorize it and completely destroy the other students, but nobody would dare to claim that this improves the correlation of the test with IQ! This is because the SAT is already a good proxy!

I'm going to bite the bullet here and say that, given a choice between our current system (which is not purely test or test-and-GPA based) and a purely memorize-the-publicized-answers test, I think the memorize-the-answers test would select more for IQ.

I'm conjecturing that outcomes on any arbitrary measure that will result in better social outcomes and can be influenced by planning and hard work is positively correlated with conscientiousness and intelligence

Your original claim was

I wouldn't be surprised if switching to 1-mile time as the sole criterion of admission would select more strongly for IQ than the current system.

Nowhere did you mention conscientiousness.

You doubled down in your next comment

What I'm saying is that I wouldn't be surprised if the mile time metric would manage to better select for IQ, even without the more direct signals from GPA and test scores, because it would drop the binning step

You believe Harvard's non-SAT-related admissions criteria make this plausible, despite the fact that the average Black admit to Harvard has a 96th percentile SATs.

If you filter for the top 1% of grip strength the average IQ will be 56th percentile (I don't recall the math offhand, but a simple programmatic proof:

import numpy as np
X = np.random.normal(0, 1, (1000000, 2))
cov = np.array([1.0, .23*.23, .23*.23, 1.0]).reshape(2,2)
Z = X @ np.linalg.cholesky(cov)  # Create two variables with correlation 0.23
grip = Z[:,0]
iq = Z[:,1]
print(grip.std()) # 1.00
print(iq.std())  # 1.00
print((grip * iq).mean())  # 0.053 (i.e. 0.23^2)
I = np.argsort(grip)
print(iq[I[-10000:]].mean())  # 0.144 or the 55.7th percentile

).

Let me reiterate that it seems clear that Harvard filters strongly on SAT. Certainly there are plenty of factors that dilute this, but given that the average Black admit to Harvard has a SAT-z-score of 1.8 while a grip-based admissions program would struggle to get an average admit with an IQ-z-score of 0.1 makes this seem like a pretty open-and-shut case to me.

just see these traits as interchangeable proxies for each other is crazy... This is because the SAT is already a good proxy!

To quote myself in the comment you're responding to: "that would never become as strong a signal as SAT scores, which are fairly g-loaded."

You accept the SAT as good. You just don't acknowledge how vast of a gap there is between an r^2 value of 0.7 and 0.05. The "interchangeable" part is that you're chaining these correlations (grip strength -> conscientiousness -> iq) and claiming that what comes out the other side is somehow relevant to the conversation. This is only sensible if you think these correlations are high.

I'm going to bite the bullet here and say that, given a choice between our current system (which is not purely test or test-and-GPA based) and a purely memorize-the-publicized-answers test, I think the memorize-the-answers test would select more for IQ.

I don't like affirmative action, but correlations of 0.8 (SAT and IQ) don't emerge by chance, and trying to cobble together terrible proxies into a decent one won't get you remotely close.

If you want to argue that affirmative action destroys the selection then argue it. Here is the obvious report to cite from. In my opinion this will be rather difficult since a school filtering for the top 1% of grippers would have an average IQ of 102, while Harvard very clearly is well beyond that.

Yes but we aren't asking gunners to order themselves by grip strength yet.

Part of the hypo is that we ask graduating seniors to test their mile time to get into elite schools. If you did that, high IQ high conscientiousness kids will understand the assignment and train the 1600m. This would improve the correlation for 18yo college applicants.

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