site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 15, 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.

13
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I stan the psychiatrist here, there are millions of ways in which even the majority of humans wish to "adjust their appearance", from getting haircuts to piercings. Lumping it all together as a manifestation of "body dysmorphia" dilutes it to uselessness, even if you try and restrict it to just those that require surgery. I wager a large fraction of the populace wouldn't say no to free/perceptually safe surgery for even minor cosmetic blemishes, and most don't because of at least the former, as well as general inertia.

If we are paying for top and bottom surgery why not this? The conversation on this particular topic is of course very unhealthy, and the people who advocate for dysmorphia treatment are typically allergic to formal analysis and typology on these topics which complicates the matter.

I forward the obverse, that I expect a proper cost-analysis that considers DALY and QALY to show that top and bottom surgery don't provide enough benefit to be worth providing, at least as free services through public healthcare systems. I haven't run the numbers myself, nor am I aware of a formal attempt, but that still happens to be my expectation.

Am I against people getting that done, on their own dime? Or surgeons doing them? Not at all. I just don't want general taxpayers, be it through subsidizing the NHS in the UK, or through greater insurance premiums elsewhere, to be the ones footing the bill.

If said hard-nosed analysis did show that the procedure provided net positive QALY (at about the same rate per pound as any normal surgery), then I would accept that as justification for it to be universally available to the dysmorphic. For free (to them, via the NHS or insurance).

The psychiatrist tried to define what "illness" is and use that angle, but appeared to be on the losing end of the argument.

I haven't thought about this enough to have landed on one side or the other, but I think it is very reasonable to think of this as a sliding scale and a fuzzy one at that.

Shame said shrink wasn't a Dr. S. A. Sisskind, he'd have rekt them.

But the real one already has excellent essays on the topic, just in case you haven't read these particular ones:

https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/10/07/contra-caplan-on-mental-illness/

https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/contra-kirkegaard-on-evolutionary

While I don't agree with Scott on everything, I lean towards his pragmatic approach here.

Shame said shrink wasn't a Dr. S. A. Sisskind, he'd have rekt them.

  1. "Siskind".

  2. I haven't met Scott in person, so I'm not sure how effective he is in a real-time format, but I should note that this doesn't correlate very well (notice that politicians are typically excellent at quips and real-time debate but uninspired at essay-writing).

I actually disagree pretty intensely with Scott on most medical adjacent topics (most especially his views on the FDA). I think he's a philosopher and a wise person who happens to work as a physician and not really immersed in the milieu of medicine (likely driven by where he has gotten his training). It's unlikely this impairs his care for the population he chooses to treat, but for the most part he doesn't really act or think like a doctor (granted Psychiatrists often do this).

And sorry, I have thought about mental illness is, just not this body dysmorphia claim (and I can see how the way I wrote that would make that unclear).

In any case, I think if the surgeons had split off signaling from "dysmorphia" it would be easier to agree with them. A piercing or a tattoo is trying to say or express something, even if the latter is "permanent." An adjustment of your body to what you feel like you need to be seems naively dysmorphic. One example thrown out was "if an OnlyFans creator wants a boob job to make more money is that dysmorphia" and it was asserted yes, and I think you are right that greatly erodes whatever dysmorphia is supposed to mean, but still I'm willing to go with "eh, mild end of the scale."