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 -
True Detective Night Country
There is a culture war internet discourse happening around HBO’s newest show True Detective Night Country. The discourse can generally be summed up as follows: HBO newest show TD Night Country is the 4th season of an anthology mystery/crime miniseries. The first season came out ten years ago and it starred Matthew McConaughey and Woody Harrelson as two detectives searching for a killer in Louisiana. The plot does not particularly matter, but the show is widely viewed as one of the greatest single seasons of TV ever. Speaking for myself, I agree with this assessment. I return to it every few years and I am still impressed at how good the acting, story, and cinematography are.
Fast forward ten years…two mediocre seasons (2 and 3) were released, and HBO announced the release of True Detective Season 4, co-named Night Country. Season 4 stars Jodie Foster and Kali Reis as two detectives unravelling a murder mystery in Alaska and people were very, very excited for this season. Prior to release, Night Country received overwhelming critical reception from TV critics. It currently has a 93% Rotten Tomatoes score (RT can be gamed, but the 93% score shows the general reception).
I was also very excited for this show. Critics were calling it the best season of True Detective since season 1; some were even saying it was better than season 1. With these very lofty expectations, I watched the show as it was released, week by week.
By episode two, I knew this show had problems. By episode four, I knew it just wasn’t very good. By episodes 5 and 6, I was hate watching. Many people have reviewed and discussed the show’s problems much more eloquently than I. This video is quite good and sums up the many many problems the show has:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=y2TCOd_YZF4
What I will say is that the show is simply…boring. It is a six-hour miniseries and at least 70% of the show is filled with boring relationship drama (the remaining 30% being focused on the actual…criminal investigation). The characters are uninteresting, low stakes, and unlikeable. The easter eggs paying homage to season 1 are like a frying pan to the face in their obviousness. The story carries no emotional weight, has major plot holes, and the ending is unsatisfying and bewildering. It’s bad. I would not recommend this show to anyone.
Now here is where the culture war comes into play. Online, fans of the True Detective series are panning the series. Go check out the audience score on Rotten Tomatoes, it is a paltry 61%. The True Detective subreddit is especially critical of the show. People are especially disappointed and confused given how critically hyped it was before its release.
But what has happened is that many critics, podcasters, even Issa Lopez, the director, are blaming the backlash on sexism and misogyny. They say that male fanboys of season 1 are brigading review sites and review bombing the show. They are saying that the viewers dislike the show because it features two women lead detectives and that viewers can’t stand the lack of masculinity that was so integral to season 1. Even the professional critics who have dared to post their negative opinions on Twitter are being called misogynistic.
The problem with this read is that…the show sucks. It’s just not good for all of the reasons I’ve listed above. It’s extremely frustrating to see people called misogynistic and “anti-woke” for criticizing a show with two women leads. I find it particularly unfair because other detective shows with women leads, such as Mare of Eastown or Sharp Objects, were fantastic. It didn’t receive the critical backlash because those shows were actually good. We now exist in a bizarre universe where a magazine like Rolling Stone overwhelmingly praises the show while a magazine like Forbes pans it.
I’m not one who normally gets involved in the culture war, but I found this discourse particularly egregious. I don’t know what the future of this series holds, but I’m hoping someone at HBO sees the light.
Update: Issa Lopez has been hired to write and direct season 5 of True Detective. Whoosh.
I have to rant about a particular incredibly stupid plot point in the finale. SPOILERS if anyone cares.
It's revealed that the scientists at the lab are studying a life form in the permafrost and that they are better able to access the life form due to pollution created by the local mine which melts the permafrost. So not only does the lab publish fake reports about the pollution levels to protect the mine, but the lab actually asks the mine to pollute more to help its research along. This pollution causes deaths, birth defects, and other problems in the local town. The lab claims that their research will revolutionize the field of health in some unspecified ways, and that their work will eventually be unfathomably valuable.
Ok, so...
God, I know Hollywood hates corporations, but why does it think they are so stupid?
Everyone should read their Coase before becoming authors.
More options
Context Copy link
Screenwriters and especially studio execs are dimwits who know bugger-all about science, but have absorbed the notion (from watching Captain Planet and Ferngully as kids) that science is Bad and destroys the environment.
Questions like "why don't they ship the permafrost off to some place where it's safer to melt" and "why can't they buy the stuff they need instead of getting it from pollution" are more "they have no common sense" than "they know nothing about science".
That's part of "are dimwits".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
And so have most of their audience.
More options
Context Copy link
I wouldn’t say stupid. It’s that most of them have majored in film and writing and have been working on only that kind of thing and most likely have never met working scientists, business owners, or anyone who isn’t involved in writing and filmmaking.
That kind of insular world creates all kinds of stupid blind spots. They don’t understand science or know anyone who does, so they understand science only on a popular science IFLS level where it’s either terrible and destructive, or it basically shits out gadgets and stands in for magic.
Of course they do the same with politics, history, journalism, and education too.
I think one of the biggest things holding back screenwriting is that insular perspective. Not only does it prevent people from making compelling stories about other subjects, but since everyone has the exact same thoughts about those topics, there’s not really anything surprising. Andy Weir is good at making stories about ordinary working people in space because he studied the physics and chemistry of space and because he likely knows a good number of blue collar workers who don’t think like the elites do.
This same industry will hire sensitivity readers to ensure that they're not making the slightest offense to the most terminally online members of favored groups.
More options
Context Copy link
From the purely academic g or IQ or whatever perspective, these people probably don't fall into the category of what people think of when they think of "stupid people." The mere ability to put together a script with a coherent plot and structure that fits a TV show (e.g. each episode presents some self-contained plot point that serves as a piece of the larger season-long plot) probably excludes them from that.
But as the mother of a fictional stupid person always said, stupid is as stupid does. And the behavior you describe is extremely stupid. If you're writing a mostly grounded script that involves some scientific mechanism as a core plot point and will be presented to a broad adult audience, then obviously getting that mechanism to be plausible to a layman adult should be a high priority. Which means checking the science and the typical layman's understanding of the science, so as to make sure that they're not falling prey to blind spots created by their insular perspective. After all, it's common knowledge that everyone has blind spots and that no one has a true grasp of their own blind spots; as such, if getting this plot point to sound believable to a typical viewer matters to the writers, then they would check.
They either didn't check or didn't care to implement what they learned when they checked. This indicates that they either actively chose to write the script in a way that made themselves appear stupid or just didn't care about it.
I think some people don’t know what they don’t know, and when everyone around them has similar blind spots it gets really hard to realize that you’re in one. For example, I’ve never been to Europe. Nobody I know has ever been to Europe, and none of my friends know anyone who has ever been to Europe. So were I to write something about life in Europe, the deficit would be obvious to people who have been to Europe, but not to me, and not to my first level draft readers (who are likely to be people I know personally). Nobody else sees the problem because they have similar low level assumptions about Europe that I do. Then nobody can point out that high tea isn’t really a thing, for example, or that London doesn’t look like brownstone buildings anymore or what have you.
Yes ideally you check. I try to check as well. But if you don’t know that you don’t know, things get missed simply because is sounds right to you.
But as you demonstrated, you were able to predict all of these problems that would arise from your own blind spots. As such, if you did decide to write a story that took place in Europe, you are now equipped to at least avoid and possibly mitigate these problems. The biggest insight I'd say you presented is that because everyone has unknown unknowns, it follows that it sounds right to you should, by no means, be the bar by which you decide if it actually is right for your story. Knowing all this, if you still decide to just proceed based on it sounds right to you instead of researching with actual Europeans or Europe experts and, as a result, you fail in your goal of writing a story that presents a believable description of a story taking place in real-world Europe, then I would describe that as, at the very least, acting stupid.
Of course, a writer probably doesn't have the time and energy to do this kind of checking for every possible unknown unknown or even every plausible one. But if the details are as important as to be pivotal to the main plot point of the story, it seems stupid not to prioritize getting that right.
I mean I’m able to predict that I don’t know those things because in that case, it’s a known issue for me. I’m also not exactly up to speed on a lot of other topics, including things that I think I know. And if everyone around me has the same blind spots and misbeliefs about a given topic, the chances of something getting on the screen that’s obviously wrong to an expert, or even a layperson interested in the subject goes up quite a bit.
I’ll be the first to tell you I don’t know much about the law. Most people don’t. The problem is that because of the popularity of legal shows and crime dramas, most people think they know the law. Any draft readers will have the same ideas about the law you do. And so it gets into police and crime dramas where most people think that’s how the law works. Any knowledgeable lawyer or even anyone who’s been in a real courtroom knows that the courtroom scenes of most crime dramas are bunk. Jury trials don’t work that way, at all. The lawyers are not allowed to pontificate as they do in crime dramas. The rules of what kinds of evidence and testimony and questions you can ask are far stricter than what TV has taught American audiences about criminal law. It still shows up on TV every week.
Right, and that phenomenon of getting things wrong due to being around people who are similarly ignorant as oneself is also common knowledge. I'd wager, for instance, that most Hollywood writers would characterize Evangelical Christians in red enclaves as suffering from this (some of them might think "Oh, those poor ignoramuses might fall prey to echo chambers, but a smart cookie like me is safe," which would be a stupider act than everything else I've written about combined). If there are some details that are important to get correct in one's script for the sake of keeping the audience invested, then it seems rather stupid to me not to avoid this kind of echo chamber effect by intentionally seeking out advice from people outside one's social circles, ideally from actual subject-matter experts.
I'd argue that part of the phenomenon here is that American media and American audiences have created a sort of fictional system of law shared within these various media properties that relies on just-barely-plausible suspension of disbelief that both the creators and the viewers have decided to agree upon in order to make things more entertaining. I categorize the legal systems we see in these shows in the same bin as the trope of a knock in the head being a reliable way to reliably make them lose consciousness for a few hours without any other health implications or sounds of explosions in space.
Funnily enough, one of the many pieces of criticism against the recent Disney+ show She-Hulk: Attorney at Law seemed to be how unrealistic its legal proceedings were. Perhaps they were no less realistic than what we normally see in legal shows, but maybe the show probably didn't respect the agreement of suspension of disbelief and just threw up there whatever was convenient for the plot, which was what lost viewers. If that's what happened, I think that would be stupidity; you don't need to check that the legal system in your script is accurate, but you do need to check that it is believable to your audience, which means checking what constitutes believability to your audience.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The calibre of people here is higher than your average writer. Plus we actually care about plots and rationality of characters. Writers might not care, they figure out the plot to fit whatever they want to say.
"Somehow Palpatine returned. Despite him apparently resurrecting from the dead, we shall spend absolutely zero effort thinking about how we might kill him permanently."
I find it darkly amusing that this is also largely how the writers of new SW stories think about their political opposition. "Somehow, racism has returned. Despite racism managing to defeat our almost total control of western culture, we shall spend absolutely zero effort thinking about how to actually resolve the problem, and instead double down on the same policies that failed last time."
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Seriously? Wow, that's comic book levels of contrivance. Like, if it was Mr. Freeze doing something like that then I could buy it.
I guess they were going for some kind of twist? 'haha check it out it was the scientists after all bet u didn't see that coming😏'?
More options
Context Copy link
As a practicing academic research scientist, perhaps I can shed some light on this. The short answer is that no-one believes you when you say your end results will be world-changing, so good luck getting funding for even so much as a dinky thermal element radiator.
Scientific funding bodies are staffed by a mixture of know-nothing bureaucrats and ex-scientists turned people managers, neither of whom have seen the business end of a revolutionary scientific discovery for decades at best. No practicing scientist gets any money unless they can present these grey beancounters with colourful diagrams of massaged "preliminary results" which purport to show that a revolutionary discovery is Just One More Grant Award away: and so, cursed by the incentives foist upon them, practicing scientists have to enter a rat race of hyperbole, the end result being that everyone is claiming to be revolutionary at once. This in turn makes the beancounter's incompetence a self-fulfilling prophecy: their inability to assign monies to measured, meritorious proposals means no-one bothers writing measured, meritorious proposals, and the process devolves into a competition about who can spam the most outlandish over-promises, shiny diagrams, and ESG buzzwords. Making skepticism about revolutionary claims retroactively correct.
So the fact that scientists on top of a world-changing discovery are forced to rely on warm mercury backwash from a mine because no funding body will give them $1000 for a space heater is... extremely plausible to me.
EDIT: The above probably constitutes sanewashing. For the record I think the even more plausible explanation is that lazy showrunners didn't give it any thought beyond Corpos Bad, Hard Scientists Bad. The plot device actually does make sense, but my opinion of the show is sufficiently low that I think them correct only by accident.
This sounds like a failure of academic research. In a case like this where you know the results could be hugely valuable, i.e., profitable, there is no shortage of venture capitalists who would be interested in properly funding the research at least to the point where its value could be proven out.
More options
Context Copy link
This is just a cynical, pessimistic, edgy hot take; come on!
It's correct, of course, but you should have kept going until you reached very cynical, very pessimistic, and very edgy. It's too optimistic to imply that the beancounters would at least fund the best projects if only they could figure out what those projects were! As counterexamples, I was just last week treated to multiple separate stories of this form: Researcher A1 working on Project A demonstrated that with a slight modification AA he could make Older Project B obsolete at a fraction of the cost, so researchers B1 through Bn managed to convince their shared superiors that A1 was stepping out of his lane, and either further work into AA got canceled or all of A got canceled for the sin.
I've of course heard the claim that "science advances one funeral at a time", but I'd imagined it only being applicable to great intellectual frameworks versus the difficulty of making large paradigm shifts, not to every little idea and technology versus the difficulty of finding something new to work on earlier than you'd planned.
The one contra to support his thesis is it explains Elon Musks. Being a man who can see where techs could go has immense value as most people can’t do that. That we in fact have a bunch of techs that could flourish if only we had the manager who knew how to put all the pieces together. Also implies the average VC kind of sucks and really just trade off what’s worked in the past and building the next SAAS model or app.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is also how you get gain of function research. You have to find some way of making what you do sexy.
Another problem is that there are more scientists than plausible paths of scientific enquiry.
Philip Kitcher has some useful insights here on the division of epistemic labour in science. In short, it's not always ideal to have scientists pursuing just the most plausible hypotheses. Instead, we should allocate epistemic labour in proportion to something like expected utility, such that low-probability high-impact hypotheses get their due. Unfortunately, this can be a hard sell to many researchers given the current incentive structures. Do you want to spend 10 years researching a hypothesis that is almost certainly false and is going to give you null results, just for the 1% chance that it's true? In practice this means that science in practice probably skews too much towards epistemic conservatism, with outlier hypotheses often being explored only by well-funded and established eccentric researchers (example: Avi Loeb is one of the very few mainstream academics exploring extraterrestrial intelligence hypotheses, and he gets a ton of crap for it).
There are also of course some fields (maybe social psychology, neuroscience, and pharmacology as examples) where the incentives stack up differently, often because it's easy to massage data or methodology to guarantee positive results. This means that researchers go for whatever looks bold and exciting and shiny because they know they'll be able to manufacture some eye-catching results, whereas a better division of epistemic labour would have them doing more prosaic but valuable work testing and pruning existing paradigms and identifying plausible mechanisms where it exists (cue "it ain't much but it's honest work" meme).
All of which is to say, I think there's plenty of work to go around in the sciences, enough to absorb all the researchers we have and more, but right now that labour is allocated highly inefficiently/suboptimally.
I wonder if there's a labor quality issue here.
At Google and Facebook of old engineers had near absolute freedom to choose what they wanted to work on. Google famously had 20% time, Facebook had a fairly permissive evaluation system that let you go do things like make desktop Linux for engineers better if you could argue that it was impactful. They were trusted to do this because hiring filtered for very talented and self-motivated people. The filter was so effective that you could let the performance evaluation process weed out the slackers. As a result, you got the best match between what people were working on and what they were personally motivated to work on. People put in long hours because they really wanted to see their idea working and out in the wild.
From what I've absorbed from fiction, it seems academia used to kind of be that way? Tenure was used to prove out that you were the real deal, and then you just worked on whatever tickled your fancy. My guess is that as academia grew and grew, you got more slackers, and no real weed-out mechanism, so you end up with lots of gatekeeping on what kind of research gets done.
Or maybe professors have had to specialize in grant-writing for a very long time, I don't know the field.
Academia is many things, but I don't see people going for (and getting) professorships as slackers. They almost invariably are smart, hard working people who could be making well into the six figures or more in industry. (Note: this is for what I'll just call real fields.)
The big issue is that it's so astoundingly competitive to get any kind of professorship, let alone a desirable one, that intellectual conservatism reigns supreme. Going off on some tangent that has high potential but is unlikely to bear any fruit is just too risky.
More options
Context Copy link
It’s a quantity AND a quality problem. Bear in mind that academia is universal, so one a problem is solved it stays solved and the first to solve gets 99% of the credit.
In most fields, there are a few approaches that look like they will bear fruit. I refer to these as ‘plausible’ above. The thing is, if you are not top-tier, you really don’t want to work on these, because other better-funded labs with cleverer researchers are already on it. But you don’t want to take the chance of going out on a limb either. What you want is something closely enough related to the sexy thing that it will get you money and prestige, without getting you steamrollered. In the same way that you wouldn’t try to DIY your own internet search algorithm these days, but you might try to make something useful that has slipped under Google’s notice and get them to buy you out.
The funders, who are somewhat out of touch, have to allocate research money in this environment.
One stable equilibrium is to only fund the top-tier people, on the assumption they are the most likely to make plausible breakthroughs. This is sort of what we already do. The downside is that you get groupthink in the big players and you miss out on the occasional transformative upstart. The other downside is that research is prestigious enough, and requires so much investment from would-be researchers, that you have a vast pool of no-hopers who will destroy themselves trying to make to top-tier.
What happens in practice is therefore that we funnel almost all the money to the big players and keep a secondary fund for any interesting-looking second tier work. The second tier is therefore a desperate scrambling mess of people trying to prove that their unlikely discovery will change the world. Many of them even delude themselves into thinking it’s true.
The decline in academia you note is mostly a function of the number of plausible research directions going down as the number of academics goes up. The result is a bunch of second-raters competing for scraps.
(Sorry, this is longer and ramblier than I hoped. Also, I should clarify that I was one of said second-raters. It’s not meant as an insult, just the sad result of hope meeting reality.)
EDIT: you got two replies in 10 minutes. Can you spot the triggered (former) academics?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
All true, but you already explained why it can’t be otherwise. Scientific labour mostly isn’t allocated, it’s chosen, and nobody is going to willingly sign up for a 99% chance of unadulterated failure. Even if we had the resources to make such a life cushy, which we don’t.
I don’t think it’s an insuperable problem. A difficult one to be sure, but academic incentive structures are a lot more mutable than a bunch of other social problems if you have the political will. There’s also the fact that the current blind review journal-based publishing system is on borrowed time thanks to advances in LLMs, so we’ll need to do a fair amount of innovating/rebuilding in the next decade anyway.
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
The first assumption you could make is that Hollywood writers are just stupid. But that doesn’t feel right especially with HBO since writers do often get intricate stories right and research all sorts of mythology and historical facts to build characters and plots.
I think this leads you to a conclusion that Hollywood views corporations and business in general as low status. Therefore, learning how a business would think can’t be done because it would be beneath them to study how business would think. Thus business thinking can only be a caricature of dumb evil villains doing silly sort cuts to get things done.
From the outside I get the feeling that writers are being taught some kind of paint-by-numbers system, the construct a basic plot, and then dress it up to match the setting.
An example from the show: Chief of Police Danvers, portrayed by Jodie Foster, takes orders from some guy from Anchorage, and has to quote regulations to get him to defer to her. If you know anything about how police are structure in America, this makes no sense. Within municipalities the chief is the highest police officer. They do answer to others within the municipality, like mayors or police commissioners, but they're not part of some state-wide system.
My guess is that the paint-by-numbers called for the female chief to have a male chauvinist superior. The writers don't bother to make that align with any bit of reality except that it's "in Alaska."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link