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 -
Vivek Ramaswamy has written an article on his foreign policy doctrine, focusing on China.
He is squarely taking aim at the "neocons and liberal internationalists", in other words the two main constituents of what Obama referred to as "the Blob" dominating foreign policy in D.C. He is predictably being called an isolationist and WaPo columnists are freaking out.
WaPo columnists themselves are not relevant but they are often mouthpieces for more powerful interests. Trump was hated for many things but one underappreciated aspect of why the Blob hated him was his instinct not to start new wars. In fact, he is one of the few presidents in recent memory who did not start a new war and he tried to get out of Syria - twice - but was undermined by his own bureaucracy.
Vivek is a much smarter guy than Trump, so I wonder if the Blob would be able to run circles around him the way they did around Trump. I doubt it and I suspect they doubt it too, which is why I think a campaign to destroy Vivek is likely to ramp up before too long. Trump couldn't be controlled outright but at least he could be misled.
https://twitter.com/vivekgramaswamy/status/1696234841249857658?s=46&t=aQ6ajj220jubjU7-o3SuWQ
He’s now posting for physical fitness test for colleges in order to help black people get into college.
There probably is an edge for blacks at the extreme of the spectrum but I’m also a believer intelligence and athleticism aren’t anti-correlated. You would end up getting the superstar athletes who are 1100 SAT scores. But those guys don’t want to go to Harvard they rightfully view football as their payday and want to play in the SEC. The 1300 SAT score tennis player is likely already getting into Harvard.
Ramsy does have this popular mid-twit sounds good at first thought messenging.
I would be down with getting every kid to do a 6-ish minute mile. Upper class and wealthy people already are skinny. Obesity is one of those things I see in statistics but I know fairly close to zero people with the issue.
I think adding physical fitness measures as metrics for college admissions would actually decrease Black admissions on the timescale of two or three years. The second they're added, every current academic try-hard would shift priorities to working on those things, and it's actually an objective metric that can't be gamed (by applicants and admissions officers) as much as e.g. GPA or extra curricular padding. 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.
Even now, the savvier people deadset on prestige education brands know that excelling in some obscure sport is one of the best ways to get a meaningful edge in the admissions game.
You think a system based on mile time would select more strongly for IQ than a system based on test scores and GPA?
Could you make that argument, because that seems prima facie crazy to me.
There are obviously systems that would select more strongly for IQ than mile time, like test scores and GPA. But that's not our current system: people are first binned into categories based on their race, and only then do test scores and GPA come into play. 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. An auxiliary hypothesis needed for this to work is the mile time would still be correlated with IQ, with the delta between it and better measures being smaller than what's introduced by the binning.
There are diligence, ability to cheat, and family income effects that would be captured by mile times, which are themselves positively correlated with IQ.
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
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