site banner
ZorbaTHut  1yr ago (text post)   35340 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 26, 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.

26
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The triumph of the blank slate

an article in the Atlantic recently made the case that separating sport by sex doesn’t make sense, because it ‘reinforces the idea that boys are inherently bigger, faster, and stronger than girls in a competitive setting — a notion that’s been challenged by scientists for years.’

On a similar theme, a few weeks back the New York Times ran a piece arguing that ‘maternal instinct is a myth that men created’. In the essay, published in the world’s most influential newspaper, it was stated that ‘The notion that the selflessness and tenderness babies require is uniquely ingrained in the biology of women, ready to go at the flip of a switch, is a relatively modern — and pernicious — one. It was constructed over decades by men selling an image of what a mother should be, diverting our attention from what she actually is and calling it science.’

Just recently, Scientific American stated that ‘Before the late 18th century, Western science recognized only one sex — the male — and considered the female body an inferior version of it. The shift historians call the “two-sex model” served mainly to reinforce gender and racial divisions by tying social status to the body.’

Yet what is strange is that such ideas are triumphant, even as the scientific evidence against them mounts up, with the expanding understanding of genetics and the role of inheritance. The tabula rasa should by all rights be dead, indeed it should have been killed twenty years ago with the publication of one of the most important books of the century so far, Steven Pinker’s The Blank Slate.

Rather than blank slate-led ideas falling to mockery and obscurity, the opposite has happened — they’ve proliferated and spread. Pinker was obviously right, yet seems to have lost.

i recently was in a seminar discussing fixed versus growth mindsets, and it was argued that believing in any innate/genetic component of intelligence was connected to a 'fixed' mindset. we were discouraged from using the idea of 'talent' as it implied that some people were just naturally better at some things than others. it seems like a core part of the 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' mantra that is finding its way everywhere - the idea of innate difference is anathema to the principle behind caring about equity versus equality.

"Nature vs. nurture" is such a contentious question because, in practice, it's just a shallow covering over "who should be in charge." If it's Nurture, then things could be Nurtured better if we had a different society - if better people were in charge - if Our Revolution succeeds! "It's nurture!" is the cry of the revolutionary. But if it's nature, then things can't be nurtured better no matter what society we have, so there's no point in trying to overturn the status quo. "It's nature!" is the cry of the entrenched power.

Complicating this is that both facial claims are probably always at least a little true.

Complicating this is that both facial claims are probably always at least a little true.

Yeah it's a pretty trivially silly distinction. Even if something is "100% genetic," environment is still hugely important. For example, let's imagine math ability is 100% genetically determined. Nevertheless, a math genius born in a modern developed country is going to have a much different set of life outcomes than the same person born in a hunter gatherer society.

What's worse is, "What percent of a thing is environmentally/genetically determined" is itself environmentally determined. In an environment where not everyone is well-fed, height isn't completely genetic, because there are people who are short because they've been malnourished. Once you feed everyone, the environment is no longer determining who is short, it's just genetics.

(Unless I've made a mistake here) This paradox is pretty contentious though because it seemingly undermines many revolutionaries. If something is even a little bit genetic, the revolutionary seems to be steering the future where it becomes more and more genetic. Since revolutionaries aren't out there measuring how genetic and meritocratic society is, I suspect "there is some nurture to it!" is basically said in bad faith, by people who are salty.

That is to say, being short sucks whether its because of your genetics or because you're not well-fed. The Short Revolution uses the nature/nurture argument to justify the guillotine.

The honest blank slatist is then resigned to argue that genetics and biology is unfair. Is he even wrong?

The honest blank slatist is then resigned to argue that genetics and biology is unfair. Is he even wrong?

I'm not sure what this even means, if they are acknowledging that genetics and biology is unfair then they can't be a blank slatist. Yes, biology and genetics is unfair, when did "life isn't fair" stop being a cliche truism?

Complicating this is that both facial claims are probably always at least a little true.

I was assuming that this was uncontroversial enough that most real people would agree with it, and so nobody would be a true blank slatist. In this way, "blank slatism" would be a spectrum of belief. Someone who thinks that nurture is most of things, and nature is very little would be highly blank slatist.

Still, my post was bad because it assumed that a world without disparate nurture impacts would still look more or less like ours, whereas it might look very different. In that world, all differences really are nature, but maybe those differences are very small. In that case, highly blank slatists are vindicated.

when did "life isn't fair" stop being a cliche truism?

Around the same time that they started handing out participation trophies, if I had to guess.

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