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 -
Out of curiosity, how much stock do you put in the polls of economists that IGM Chicago puts out? Presumably such polls dilute out individual cranks and their idiosyncrasies all come out in the wash, but it would still be of limited use if there's systematic biases and blind spots.
Low to no usefulness.
To be a useful survey question of economists, a question needs to:
Given those limitations not all the survey questions are useful.
Many of them have a huge scope like asking "would regulation of x industry be [good]". That becomes basically a vibes questions about how you feel about regulation in general. Even the staunchest libertarian leaning economist can acknowledge regulation is sometimes helpful. And even the staunchest statist pro-regulator out there can acknowledge that some regulations are harmful. So the question really becomes 'what quality of regulation do you think is likely'.
If the economists don't clearly come down on one side of the question, then you are back to a foundational problem of "how do you know which experts to trust if the experts disagree with each other?" This seems useful for someone that wants to organize a panel discussion between economists that disagree with each other, but less useful if you are just a pleb trying to figure out what the experts say on a topic.
Sometimes there are questions about price movements, or supply and demand movements. You can predict what economists will say by understanding a basic econ 101 textbook. You'll typically see fewer "uncertain" answers for these questions. It is maybe useful to have a professional economist interpret a current political problem and translate the econ 101 rules for everyone. But I do believe that people can do this for themselves. And typically when they fail to make this translation it is because they willfully don't want it to be true, and no amount of expert consensus will get through to them.
https://www.kentclarkcenter.org/surveys/women-and-the-labor-market/
I'll go through this survey on their website to demonstrate.
Question A: (rephrased basic econ question) If you take someone out of the labor force for a few years will they be paid more or less than someone that continued to work during that time? Obviously they will be paid less. Ok, what would be the effect of them not leaving the labor force at all. They would be paid the same.
Question B: (not limited in scope, agreement slightly unclear) It is comparing two treatment effects and asking which one is bigger. This can be very misleading: Treatment A might be huge, while treatment B might only be large. Or Treatment A is small, while treatment B is non-existent. In both cases the economist would answer the same. In this specific question you can go to the comments and find that while they think Treatment A is bigger, many seem to think Treatment B matters too.
Question C: (Agreements slightly unclear, This may be a useful one) I do think the economists didn't read the question very closely, or else there is an interpretation of "substantially" that I don't understand. This type of regulation would only address one of the things that cause a difference in pay for mothers vs not-mothers. And quite a few economists said in the previous example, that educational and occupational choices still matter. What this question is implying through the answer and the other survey responses: There is a gender pay gap. This gender pay gap has at least two major causes (educational and occupational choices vs parenthood and social norms around men's and women’s roles in childrearing). A partial solution for only one of the more major causes will substantially cause the gender pay gap to close. Removing the word "substantially" from the question would remove my objection, but it would also render the question much closer to a basic econ question.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link