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 -
This Reddit thread that I saw linked over on rDrama made me wonder if any studies have ever been done about the relative intelligence of straight people and gay people.
Just like there is reason to believe that some ethnic groups are more intelligent than others on average, is it possible that some sexual orientations are more intelligent than others on average? I have not tried to crunch the numbers, but it seems to me that gay people are overrepresented compared to their population size among the ranks of prominent intellectuals and artists. Not just recently, but also hundreds of years ago. Them living in high cost of living areas would add evidence to this theory.
Of course there are many possible other explanations, and the thread mentions some of them: gays have more money because they usually have no kids, gays in poor areas stay closeted out of fear of persecution and are drawn to liberal and usually also expensive cities, gays move in to poor areas and make them fashionable and then those areas become rich. Etc.
One other possible explanation that comes to my mind that I did not see in the thread is that maybe because it is easier for gay men to get laid than straight men on average, they don't have to devote as much of their minds as straights to getting laid and are thus free to focus on other things. I'm not sure about that theory, though - after all, just because getting laid is easy for you does not necessarily mean that you will spend less of your mental energy thinking about getting laid. And being a sexual minority could tend to add some level of stress that partly counterbalances the benefits of being able to easily get laid, especially in the olden days.
I suppose it is also possible that intelligent, creative gays are more likely to come out than intellectually mediocre gays, but I have no idea if there is any truth to that.
I do wonder, though, if maybe part of the reason for gay affluence and prominence is an actual intelligence difference of some sort.
I don't accept the premise of their overepresentation as intellectuals historically, but I do think it is likely that in certain industries they might be more overepresented in say theater, or say fashion model designers. And same in the past.
I would argue that it isn't due to intelligence but due to a different nature and nurture. The gays in behavior tend to behave and have different interests than straight men and women in a manner that allows them to specialize in certain art pursuits that straight men would be more uninterested. They combine a male sensibility with a more feminine side, or a willingness to care for certain arts than straight men care less about. So it is about them being inherently more attracted to certain fashions and arts and industries.
This idea of preferences is also the biggest factor for the differences in male and female overepresentation in certain industries. Well, outside of that which relates to physical differences and men being stronger.
As for greater intelligence of the gays, that is a dangerous explanation today in the age of progressive stack and an agenda in favor of overepresentation of LGBT groups. Seems like a way to excuse this.
My unsubstantiated pet theory is related. I've always imagined that if gays are overrepresented among intelligent or creative people, it's because they had greater incentive (and more energy) to use those talents simply because child-rearing, and often times a life in respectable society, were off the table.
Marriage and children require an unimaginable resource investment. Before having kids I used to enjoy reading philosophy and obscure history books. My wife used to draw, paint, and write. We still do that stuff, but probably at about 5% of our previous intensity simply because the vast, vast majority of our time is devoted to childcare, breadwinning, and homemaking. That's not a bad thing, because those things are very rewarding, but it sometimes makes me a bit sad that I have zero time to read challenging books and effortpost on the Motte.
I assume a gay man with no kids, or a gay man having hookups on the down-low to preserve his reputation in polite society, would simply have much more free time and energy and his disposal compared to his married straight peers, thus resulting in a greater proportion of gays among those who contribute to high IQ fields. Of course this is surely not the only factor.
Alternatively, parents strongly discourage their children from trying to become creative types because it's a terrible idea in 95% of cases, and gays are more likely to have sufficiently poor relationships with their parents to completely ignore them.
We can spitball ideas for why artists are more likely to be gay all day long.
Okay?
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