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 -
There's an idea that I've been considering for a while, a partial explanation of the origins of Blue-Tribe and Red-Tribe as political forces, and I'd appreciate thoughts.
tl;dr: Blue-Tribe gains status with better communication tools, Red-Tribe gains status with hierarchical structure and industrialization. These groups have relatively consistent social and political beliefs, and attempt to use their status to structure society according to their predispositions.
Moderately expanded:
Abrahamic religion comes along ~2000 years ago and upends the social landscape. Importantly, the new religion provides new benchmarks for which to assess individuals, and therefore disproportionally raises the status of individuals with behaviours that best fit the religious structure. Specifically, individuals high in conformism and/or rule-abiding behaviour. These become the new elite.
As Rome declines and the Catholic Church gains prominence there is again a redirection in the social landscape, this type disproportionally benefitting rule-abiding and hierarchical neurotypes above that of other religious types. We'll call this group the Conscientious, which roughly maps to the modern Red-Tribe. The religious subtype that is now playing a distant second fiddle, with an inability to enforce power across large geographical distances, we'll call the Conformists, roughly mapping to the modern Blue-Tribe.
Western society trods along for around 1000 years with the Conscientious as the clear dominant neurotype. But the printing press is then introduced, a technology that overwhelmingly facilitates Conformist power above that of the Conscientious. Significant upheaval occurs as the two groups become roughly balanced in power.
The Conformist vs Conscientious struggle at this point is widely prevalent, becoming a primary axis for conflict. First it's Protestantism (Conformist) vs Catholicism (Conscientious), but then as Protestantism takes hold within Northern European nations and schisms occur people begin to self-select into denominations that favour their predispositions (e.g. Lutheranism overwhelmingly Conformist, Calvinism overwhelmingly Conscientious). Even as the explicit religions change, the general political and social tendencies remain consistent. Conformists favour abolition and liberalism, the Conscientious favour stringent sexual morality, and so on.
The printing press facilitates books, universities and the media, all heavily advantaging Conformists. But economic expansion also creates industrialization, which advantages the social status of the Conscientious. While other neurotypes continue to exist, the power of Conformist and Conscientious circles is so far above that of everyone else that even minor shifts in the balance of power have social ramifications. But for the most part the trend is clear, communication tools advance year over year, advantaging Conformists, with only relatively minor reversions due to periods of industrialization.
While Conformists attempted to maintain Conformity centered around the Bible, this increasingly became absurd as contradictions and inconsistencies are made apparent. A shift towards conforming around "reason" and scientific knowledge occurred, as the contradictions can be buried at a much deeper level. Conformists eventually become the modern agnostics and separate from Christianity. Protestant sects that remain are overwhelmingly Conscientious.
Over the last 50 years we have the trifecta of rapid advancement in communication tools, deindustrialization of the West, and (possibly as a consequence of the first two) a decline in religiosity. The decline in Conscientious power is so extensive that, as of the last few years, they no longer hold sufficient power and status to constitute a bloc in their own right, with a broad coalition of Anti-Conformism taking up the mantle as designated opposition.
And two final notes:
I recognize the label of "Conformist" is relatively derogatory, but for now it feels the most appropriate. I do not believe that a desire to conform is necessarily inherent within the broad collection of people that can be called 'Conformist' (although it certainly applies to a subset, there are factions even with Conformists), but rather the general appreciation for debate and argument forces individuals to use a common set of axioms, which as a byproduct causes thoughts and beliefs to converge. (I could write quite a bit on the irony of debate causing a convergence of axiomatic beliefs, but I'm unsure if its been done)
Even to the extent this whole concept may be true, it is only one axis among many.
This is first time I've attempted to organize my thoughts on this, so I apologize if it's rough or if the formatting is a pain.
I think that what you're looking at is https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/04/a-thrivesurvive-theory-of-the-political-spectrum/ but the "thrive" side are not chill hippies, but the people who compete with their fellow man rather than with sabertooth tigers etc. So "survivalists" like small rigid hierarchies because they are good for surviving a zombie apocalypse, while "thrivists" like huge social hierarchies where they can backstab their way to the top with utter disregard for external reality.
From that point of view "First it's Protestantism (Conformist) vs Catholicism (Conscientious)" gets it exactly backwards.
Very interesting essay.
If I can put on my Objectivist hat for a moment, I think the "leveling" effect he discusses is a major part of the trap. An exemplary hunter will probably accrue social power just by the obvious fact of providing more meat. In a zero-sum social game, this is a threat to the less successful hunters. Gossip, mockery, and reputational attacks are much easier than becoming an exemplary hunter, but they'll reduce the rewards and power of the exemplary, which helps keep society trapped in stagnation.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link