site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 1, 2024

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.

Do specific parenting choices really make a difference for how people eventually turn out?

@gog posted a comment fairly deep in the thread about courtesy, which seemed worth discussing further. (https://www.themotte.org/post/812/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/176067?context=8#context)

The obvious: misery is bad all on its own, regardless of whether it affects future earnings. So, for instance, Aaron Stark’s childhood was bad (https://youtube.com/watch?v=su4Is-kBGRw) and his parents should feel bad, even though he eventually turned out alright. It sounds like Aella’s childhood was bad and her parents should feel bad (https://aella.substack.com/p/a-disobedience-guide-for-children is not about her childhood specifically, but is the kind of discourse she and others with similar childhoods end up in. FWIW, “my parents are too violent, maybe I should escalate to breaking windows” sounds like an absolutely terrible plan), and it’s debatable whether she turned out alright or not.

Also obvious: It’s possible to prevent children from learning basic things like reading by never reading to them, teaching them, or exposing them to reading culture, not having books at home, not reading or writing oneself, etc, as has been common historically among impoverished households. There seem to be a fair number of children on the margin, who can learn to read just fine with proper instruction and interesting materials, but fall off with poor instruction and boring materials (c.f. Los Angelas whole language program). There also seem to be a fair number of people who will learn to read with just the Bible and an adult who will eventually, somewhat irritably answer their questions.

Contentious: given a certain genetic makeup, family environment, and baseline level of things like nutrition, how much difference do things like daycare, schooling methods, or specific actions make?

Does teaching a child to read at 3 vs 6 matter? Does teaching them algebra at 9 vs 16 matter? Does it only matter under certain circumstances (such as a future mathematician needing to learn math early, or a future world class musician needing to learn to play an instrument early)? Do the children of the sorts of people who like cramming them full of Math and Culture and Literature end up with a richer inner life than if their parents hadn’t had time and energy for that?

I’ve read a lot of fairly surface level articles and reviews about this by people like Scott Alexander, Brand Caplan, and Freddie DeBoer, but mostly forget the details. They tend toward saying that most things work about as well as other things, but some situations are miserable or waste a lot of money and resources, and wasting billions of dollars making people miserable for no reason is probably bad.

I was homeschooled, and am now teaching public school, and sending my daughters to public preschool. Several of my friends are homeschooling or planning to once their kids are old enough, and more are stay at home parents than not, despite being generally lower middle class. I don’t have anything against homeschooling, it just isn’t pragmatic given my personal financial situation and the personalities of my older daughter vs husband and I. This might change as she gets older, she’s still in pre-K, and when I try to teach her something, she tends to argue with me about it.

My general impression on the ground, as it were, with two children and teaching 600 elementary children, is that there is not necessarily any One True Way that will work for every child. And that there are children who are thriving in the large elementary school, and children who are miserable there. Their autism program, especially, seems very stressful for everyone involved, like placing it inside a very large elementary school was probably a bad idea.

Both my daughters seem pretty happy with their publicly funded daycare/pre-K. Two year old is always waving bye to everyone and seems pretty happy to see them. Four year old talks about liking the playground, some friends, and learning to write her name. We bought food from the school cook, and it was quite good. Gog’s preschool did sound pretty unfortunate.

Is there any useful way to systematize any of these observations? Any high leverage changes people are able to make but don’t?

Minor quibble: Kids have no real frame of reference, so they are easy to satisfy. Every kid at my daycare except the screaming one-year-old would have said they liked me and the daycare ladies and the food and most of the other kids. One kid (the one who never spoke) tried to refuse to return to the daycare when I quit, though- because she now had a point of comparison.

Main point: Does it matter? Think of watching a movie with a kid and all the jokes and references that the kid doesn't even realize are jokes and references. He doesn't know what he's missing. He might enjoy the movie more than you did, but your experience of the movie was richer/denser. The entire world is like that, all the time, and as you become more culturally educated you realize how many well-credentialed adults are in the same position as the kid watching the movie. Doctors and physicists and professors all the way down to gas-station clerks are missing a huge part of human experience and there is no way to even explain that to them since they don't even realize it's there. So all that wordcel cultural stuff is of limited economic benefit, but it is of extreme personal benefit. And it is a benefit that I want to pass to my kids. But there's too much to absorb to start late, so having a dad like me isn't enough. There needs to be teaching and exposure.

So you learn algebra when you're nine, because algebra is easy- it requires no real experience of the world. And then, when all the other 16-year-olds are learning algebra and how to write a sentence (really), you can start philosophy and literature because now you understand death and fear and maybe love. And you don't have to start by learning to read archaic English because you've been reading archaic stuff since you were 7 even though it didn't matter and you can engage the material because you aren't just stepping into the cultural conversation cold- you've been sitting at the grown-ups' table, silent and listening, since you were 10. And when everyone else is taking out student loans to go get an ersatz "The Marvel Cinematic Universe and Feminism" liberal arts education, you already have one at least as good as what they will get, probably better, and you can now study something that pays because you need money but you also need a lot more than that.

So I'd say it matters very much.

I can second everything in this comment. My upbringing was like the one you mentioned, and people frequently think given that I keep talking about the Greeks and Romans and use Big Words etc. that I must have studied philosophy or something humanities/liberal arts like that when in reality I did Pure Mathematics and leveraged my learning there to get into quant finance where I make pretty decent money.

In my case I still needed to do a large amount of catching up on the liberal arts stuff during and after my degree just because there is so much out there. Indeed this catching up is going on to this day, I'm currently going through the (absoutely excellent) art history course on Khan Academy, which although being extremely "liberal" and "progressive" tinged is still extremely useful and informative as I know from my metis of the structure of the world what is actually important and I should care about and what is merely progressive "kissing the ring" and can be safely discarded.

I could very well see someone who doesn't have a good bullshit detector falling for the progressive worldview which is heavily implied and softly pushed by the teachers behind the course but if you know the pitfalls you can avoid them pretty easily and get a solid and relatively deep understanding of not just Western art, but the artistic history of the whole world, all for free.

Kids have no real frame of reference, so they are easy to satisfy.

Of course they do. Their own home, mostly.

Think of watching a movie with a kid and all the jokes and references that the kid doesn't even realize are jokes and references.

Yeah, I was homeschooled in a conservative community, so I have a lot of experience with not understanding references. It isn't really that big a deal? Or, rather, we get to choose which references we get vs not, based on how we spend our time. I now understand a lot of culture war references from spending time here. Bravo, me. Very rich.

So you learn algebra when you're nine, because algebra is easy

Lol. Your daughter is smart at math. Congratulations. But don't belittle the majority with passing dismissive remarks.

And then, when all the other 16-year-olds are learning algebra and how to write a sentence (really), you can start philosophy and literature because now you understand death and fear and maybe love. And you don't have to start by learning to read archaic English because you've been reading archaic stuff since you were 7 even though it didn't matter and you can engage the material because you aren't just stepping into the cultural conversation cold- you've been sitting at the grown-ups' table, silent and listening, since you were 10.

And you feel very self-satisfied about this. It bolsters your self image as a very good and cultured person, who deserves a good life and family and job. You start a Substack. It is a nice hobby. You belong to a very pleasant book club. Is it a better hobby than joining a sports team? How would one know?

And when everyone else is taking out student loans to go get an ersatz "The Marvel Cinematic Universe and Feminism" liberal arts education, you already have one at least as good as what they will get, probably better, and you can now study something that pays because you need money but you also need a lot more than that.

Or you go to a Great Books college and engage in a perpetual book club for several years, then work at a grocery store for a while to be near your community, then teach for a bit, notice that algebra is not easy for everyone, marry and raise children, spend time at the park with the children, unschool them while feeling a bit lonely. Are still a nice person to have in the book club, but can't come for a decade or so, on account of the children.

This is all fine. I've lived like this, and have no problem with it. But it's unclear that one child seeks out Dostoyevsky and another basketball primarily on account of education or conscious choices, vs personality and proclivities.

Are you basing this on actual people you know? If so, how old are they? I come from a "read Les Miserables in second grade" kind of family, and it's fine. I have nothing against it. But am not sure it's important, based on the fact that I spend my free time on Internet forums, full of rich references and people complaining about Moloch (a multi-level reference!) eating everything.

So you learn algebra when you're nine, because algebra is easy- it requires no real experience of the world. And then, when all the other 16-year-olds are learning algebra and how to write a sentence (really), you can start philosophy and literature because now you understand death and fear and maybe love. And you don't have to start by learning to read archaic English because you've been reading archaic stuff since you were 7 even though it didn't matter and you can engage the material because you aren't just stepping into the cultural conversation cold- you've been sitting at the grown-ups' table, silent and listening, since you were 10.

but IQ is doing much of the work, no, not the parenting? There is so much information for free online and elsewhere, as well as scholarships, that bright kids should not be deprived too much by not having top-tier parenting. Maybe 50-100 years ago it was like this, but tech has leveled playing field a lot.

IQ lets you use the info, but it doesn't make you prefer it to video games. Parenting removes the possibility of video games.

You seem to be assuming that kids will know to find all the resources on their own, and generally do the executive function things a parent would likely be much better at. Parental encouragement, purchase of supplies (robot, pencils), and setting up the house comfortably for the hobbies (desks, quiet space) all matter greatly on top of what you can get by googling "learn to code"

It seems like part of the problem with the Caplan take, is that people imagine wildly different parameters for the parental Overton window.

Parents will obviously buy pencils. The few children so deprived they don't even get pencils from home are given them at school (along with paper, snacks, and some other things).

Most parents can and will get desks and a lower end robot, keyboard, hard drive, or whatever. This is especially true if the kid is credibly using it for educational purposes. Some parents also have better connections, more money, more home space, and time to take the kid to clubs, but this seems in some sense intrinsic -- most parents won't be able to change these things just by wanting to.

A quiet space can be surprisingly hard! Maybe the kid should go to the library?