site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 18, 2023

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.

6
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The problem lies in inherent issues with spatial IQ as measured by math questions. The SAT math section can’t have math that every high schooler doesn’t know for reasons of fairness.

For what it's worth, I always chalked the far higher variance in the verbal section to the fact that math questions (almost always) have exactly one correct answer, while the verbal section plays a lot more into social expectations of how you interpret texts and questions, and doesn't quantify well.

I scored pretty well, but not 800, on verbal (and like many, higher on math) and felt that many of the multiple-choice questions had ambiguous answers in which at least two could be, arguably -- and I probably could have written a few paragraphs of justification -- interpreted as correct. I'm not going to claim that I deserved a higher score, but at some level it felt like the meta-game was determining which answer a College Board test writer would interpret as correct.

at some level it felt like the meta-game was determining which answer a College Board test writer would interpret as correct.

Absolutely; this was the bane of my existance when I was in my standardised testing years. With the quant sections I knew how well I had done pretty much as soon as I had checked over my answers during the test itself, with the verbal section there was always a lot more inherent variance based on which option was the supposedly "correct" one.

That just means you’re not as good at verbal though. I very consistently do extremely well on verbal sections and there are people who can consistently hit 800 on the SAT’s variant. They’re not inconsistent and there is pretty much always an obvious best answer. And I never studied examiner dictionaries or grading guidelines, it’s not scrabble or a spelling bee.

I think it's trickier than that, though. I've got this fairly strong memory of a multiple choice verbal question along the lines of

'How does Alcohol impact driving skills

A) Strongly negatively B) Negatively C) Significantly Negatively D) Positively '

Where I'm sure they wanted the exact wording of the pamphlet in hindsight, but it's also somewhat absurd to mark any of A-C as incorrect.

Fair enough, I definitely agree I'm less good at verbal compared to quant. The other thing that always ground my gears was the fact that we got more time per question on the quant section compared to the verbal section, they were giving 1:15 or so per quant question and like 0:50 per verbal question, even though the quant sections were stuff you could spit out answers to in 0:30 while the verbal stuff often required reading a passage, which used up the 0:50 you had per question.