site banner
ZorbaTHut  1yr ago (text post)   35190 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 19, 2022

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.

33
Top New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Yeah, that's a point that's made as well.

Which is pretty damning, because it invites teachers to use a suboptimal method just because it feels good.

Using suboptimal methods just because it feels good is perhaps the most common failure mode for everything humans have done in all of history. The entire gambling industry exploits the extreme version of this feature of psychology.

Especially to the extent we are evolved to feel good using the suboptimal methods.

Edit: I don't need awards, this point is general enough it doesn't really contain much insight as far as I'm concerned.

Using suboptimal methods because it just feels good is perhaps the most common failure mode for everything in all of history.

I think this quip is question-begging, and just serves to muddy the waters by conflating several distinct phenomena:

  1. Conflict between a society's short-term and long-term preferences.

  2. Conflict between the preferences of distinct groups in a society.

  3. How individuals/groups establish preferences, and how they understand and express these preferences.

There are important questions of fact involved:

  • Are whole-language approaches more effective for teaching students literacy?

  • Should effectiveness in teaching students literacy be the unique factor determining instructional approach?

  • Are teachers well-positioned to evaluate the effectiveness of various instructional approaches?

  • Do teachers have insight into how they arrive at their own preferences?

  • Do teachers misrepresent the justifications for their preferences? Do they do so knowingly?

  • Are whole-language approaches easier/more fun for teachers?

  • Do teachers prefer whole-language approaches because they're more pleasant for teachers?

  • Do students have effective political advocates for their interests?

  • Etc.

Sure.

I'm must making the broader point that it wouldn't be surprising to see teachers preferring to utilize a method that makes them feel good even against evidence that it is less effective at teaching the subject it purports to teach.

One of the more reliable features of human psychology is the active avoidance of unpleasant or painful stimuli and preference for pleasurable or at least neutral ones.

So my general belief is that methods people enjoy more are not likely to be the best methods for achieving a stated goal, especially when the benefits of said goal accrue to others.

There are many options/potential solutions for resolving such a disparity, but it does require us to admit that such a disparity exists, first.

Undervalued comment. Thank you. How do I give you an award? Take this emoji.🥇

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