site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 19, 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.

11
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I'm probably going to be corrected by some theology major (I don't care) but let me give my best explanation of Calvinism:

Before you're born, it's already predetermined whether you're going to heaven or hell.

"So why, pastor, should I be good and righteous"

"My son, when you sin, it reveals that you're wicked and going to hell. Best, therefore, to abstain from sin."

As a persuasive technique, this probably works just as good as anything. It's often difficult to tease out causality in noisy data. I point this out in the context of Scott's latest post. Look at the graphs here and tell me what you notice:

https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-polyamory

I notice that choosing to be monogamous or polygamous barely matters at all across many aspects of wellbeing. But there is one key difference: fertility. Polygamous people have many fewer children.

Does polygamy cause infertility or does infertility cause polygamy? Does it matter? It's extremely dysgenic and bound to go the way of the Shakers.

Wait, why does Scott trust Aella’s data? Aella is an internet propagandist for polygamy and promiscuity. Many happy monogamists who find polygamy disgusting would never subscribe to her or follow her. Her monogamist followers are preselected with being unsatisfied with monogamy, and her polygamy followers are preselected with finding polygamy satisfying (hence why they are following a promiscuous woman who talks about it all day). Her most die hard followers are the most likely to take the survey, even just because they see the link more often, and the followers are those who have found the most benefit regardless of how it affects the median polygamist. “Just in, atheists are unsatisfied with atheism, as proven by a survey of atheists who follow Bishop Robert Barron on Twitter.” Am I missing something?

If there are things that are less likely to vary differentially with "how likely am I to see/respond to Aella's poll" then you can trust them more. Not sure how best to evaluate that, though.

Aella is an internet propagandist for polygamy and promiscuity.

You're making me like her even more than I already did. But yeah, I wouldn't necessarily trust her data unless it confirmed my pre-existing preferences, in which case fuck it.

Wait, why does Scott trust Aella’s data?

If it's Worth Doing, It's Worth Doing with Made-Up Statistics.

I'm... skeptical, for a variety of reasons, but the underlying concept isn't obviously wrong. Bad data is still data if it's coming from an honest actor, and for the sort of really clear effects we should care about even a dishonest actor becomes a lot more obvious if they're just completely making things up.

I don't really think that article is applicable here. In Scott's case he's arguing about using made up numbers in the absence of data, not in favor of using whatever data was available. It's easy to imagine ways that data biased in ways you may not know can lead you away from the truth.

Her monogamist followers are preselected with being unsatisfied

i don't think this is a given, i'm repulsed by the idea of poly relationships and i follow anybody crazy enough to be entertaining on twitter (and the girl who showers once a month yet has time to bang 3 different guys a week is a goddamn spectacle). I could definitely imagine there being some selection bias in the data seeing as she reports polling in Fetlife and some un named "friend’s personality testing website" being about a quarter of the data.

The bigger issue is that it's self reported polling data collected in a somewhat conspicuous way. Anybody with any agenda about how many partners a person should have can add their 2 cents , and polyamorous people aren't going to say "yeah poly prettymuch sucks" on a poll they know people are going to gawk at on twitter.

In practice, "preselected with being unsatisfied" isn't going to mean "every single one is unsatisfied", it just means "being unsatisfied is disproportionately likely". You may be personally satisfied despite this being true.

That’s probably because you’re interested in diverse ideologies as a personality trait, which themotte userbase is generally selected for. I’m fairly certain that the median social media experience consists of people following accounts they agree with and which propagate their sense of identity. Consider also that in many healthy straight relationships, a person would be reasonably upset with their partner following a prostitute / pro-promiscuity egirl. If this is true, then I do think a whole class of people in healthy monogamous relationships with rules are much less likely to see the poll link, let alone participate in the poll.

Consider also that in many healthy straight relationships, a person would be reasonably upset with their partner following a prostitute / pro-promiscuity egirl

I think following on Twitter is a little different to following on OnlyFans, here.

A lot different but a husband would probably still have some explaining to to if a conservative wife fully understood what Aella is. Even more so if the first exposure was one of Alele's thirst posts. You're not getting a divorce over it but it's not going to be a fun conversation.

...polyamorous people aren't going to say "yeah poly prettymuch sucks" on a poll they know people are going to gawk at on twitter.

My impression is that this can be generalized across quite a few life decisions. People that have a huge amount invested in uncommon decisions that many people told them are bad ideas probably aren't going to regularly proclaim that they should have just listened to the crowd. Some will, of course, but many people will insist that their weird choice is actually excellent and superior to the normies.