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 -
Cancer screening doesn't generally have the advertised benefits when we look at all-cause mortality rather than cancer-specific mortality. Here's a fairly recent review of evidence on mammograms specifically. At this point, I'm against government funding of mammograms until someone can demonstrate that it actually improves health outcomes.
Hydro asked if it was mostly "gay stuff and contraceptives," and the answer is no.
I understand that you're in favor of general slashes to most forms of government aid. But I doubt that the opposition to Planned Parenthood stems from principled minarchism.
The linked report is interesting, though. It's a plausible thesis, and the provided meta-analyses don't suggest much of an effect from mammography.
#1 concludes with a 10% overdiagnosis in women 55-69. #2 says 30% in women age 40-49 and 20% in women age 50-59. They're certainly suggestive of a correlation with age. Let's use the conservative figure. For every 7 women who needed the diagnosis, then, 3 didn't. That...doesn't feel terribly wrong to me? And I'd certainly feel comfortable with a 9-to-1 rate.
Anyway, back to the main thrust: all-cause mortality. Much like the trend lines, the author oscillates between emphasizing the lack of statistical significance and the weirdness of seeing a trend line at all. How could the interventions actively kill people sooner? Is there a confounder, where the people who actually get screenings are the ones who are a little unhealthier to start?
So...interesting results. Probably a good reason not to screen under 50 or 55. This is a little more strict than what various governments already suggest.
Though I would hesitate to use this as evidence against cancer screening in general. The paper cites colorectal and cervical cancer as examples where the outcomes really are much better with earlier detection!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link