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 -
Doesn’t Ron Desantis disprove your rule that non-elites can’t achieve high office or even Joe Biden?
Desantis has like 400k networth now. Yes he has has the elite degrees. This just says the filter for entering the elites may be earlier. He no doubt got great SAT scores early then got into elite schools. Paid for it looks like from ROTC money.
The thing with the filter being earlier it could mean one of two things.
Joe Biden doesn’t seem to have money or elite academics early.
The filter may fall in different ways for different people. Even in the days of aristocracy, a super-gifted person might be able to claw their way into elite circles. Or perhaps one of high ambition and the will to do what it takes to get in. But barring near obsession with making it or extremely high skill, I don’t think it’s possible to be in a federal elected position (and by the way, Desantis as governor is in state politics, not federal).
More options
Context Copy link
But that's the point there; you can say "DeSantis and Biden came from ordinary backgrounds" but when you look at them, yeah ordinary backgrounds but DeSantis was smart enough to get into the good university etc.
Biden, looking him up on Wikipedia, has a law degree. He's not an ex-coal miner like Keir Hardie. Indeed, he even was an adjunct professor, and even if we presume this was an easy gig, again it's not "and Joe is blue-collar salt of the earth background" as per the potted bio notion of his life:
And seemingly the family background was affluent, but then became what would be called elsewhere "distressed gentlefolk" until his father later got back on his feet:
He got into local politics, got elected to the Senate, and carved out a career as a good reliable old-style party hack with a solid reputation as the guy who didn't step out of line and knew how to wheel and deal. That was his major selling point both as Obama's VP and as President: "he's not gonna rock the boat".
I've seen the same thing in the Irish, and British, Labour Parties: the guys from the working-class, trade union background were slowly eased out or replaced by the middle-class striver types, who went to university and have affluent middle to upper-middle class family backgrounds and family members.
The last genuine working-class Labour leader for Ireland was Frank Cluskey from 1977-81. The current leaderette (I don't like her and never have) is Ivana Bacik. My personal fave of this trend is Ruairi Quinn, our first openly atheist minister, party leader from 1997-2002, so fierily socialist as a student radical that his nickname was Ho Chi Quinn, and... his brother and cousin are (or were) prominent businessmen, so none of the proletariat tendency there.
If coal miners became politicians today it would mean our entire meritocracy and educational system has failed.
I think it’s reasonable to say the leaders of our complex society should be IQ 130 and probably around a 1500 SAT score. The entire filter for our system would be failing if that kid isn’t getting selected into a top 25 university today.
It’s also been said of unions that the leaders no longer come from the workers but from outside of it. Back in the day poor immigrant kids who were smart might not have been caught up into our systems filters for leadership and would have taken the mill job. Their intelligence would have led them to leadership. But now they are filtered out earlier.
It just feels like going backwards and a thing for poor countries to not identify their most talented individuals early. Do we want 1500 SAT kids working at Wal-Mart for 20 years so they can be good working class people?
many such cases. https://www.prepscholar.com/sat/s/scores/1500-sat-score-is-this-good
Not sure on your point. I wasn’t saying that can get you into any school. But it does seem to be a reasonable IQ level for top American public offices.
Also every school in the top 17 except Cal Tech has per class enrollment of over 1k. So I’m fairly sure being the 20k best SAT score makes you competitive far earlier than the 17th school.
The 20th school is Notre Dame. In the fictional world of the West Wing the POTUS went to Notre Dame which seems to be a reasonable place approximately to start the academic achievement area for smart enough to handle the intellectual rigor of top office.
I guess my point was, 1500 isnt all that special. Theres a lot of other kids with that score, and only a limited number of spots at top universities. Plus, the US system puts a lot more emphasis on things like sports, extracurriculars, legacies, and DEI than raw test scores. So a whole lot of smart kids dont get in to top schools (eg, me) while a lot of not-that-smart kids do.
Special - No.
But IQ 130 level does seem to be the line for smart enough for upper management in the US. Elon Musks had lower SAT scores but when it was harder so he’s probably about 140. A lot of Presidents seem to be around 130. We probably have 600k-1.5 million people around that level. For the pure IQ it seems a good place for the filter. Then other characteristics and experiences matter.
It also does seem to be the area where you start to be filtered into the top schools. And if not your like Honors College at big state school where they don’t have numbers to filter on whether you have the right DEI experience and activities.
Do you have any evidence for your claim that "a lot of presidents seem to be around 130?" I would peg most of them around 115. Smarter than average, but still close enough to average that they can relate to regular people and build up their social skills. I think a lot of very-smart individuals suffer from being alienated from other kids their age and grow up with poor social skills as a result. Or at least, that's what I tell myself... :/
edit: see for example JFK's Harvard application essay: https://archive.is/ss2qE which seems like something a bad student would grind out to try and salvage a C from a class where he understood nothing. Though, as that article notes, he did seem to understand the social importance of going to an elite university, in a way few teenagers fully grasp.
I just have the IQ charts which were trending on Twitter recently. They all seem to indicate 130 area. Kennedy fwiw seems to rank highly. I do not know how to interpret grades from the ‘30s. Seems like most of our Presidential candidates went to Harvard/Yale etc which even for a rich kid isn’t that easy to buy your way in if you are sub 120 IQ.
https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2015/05/27/poindexter-in-chief-presidential-iqs-and-success-in-the-oval-office
https://thoughtcatalog.com/january-nelson/2021/06/presidents-ranked-by-iq/
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
Well, you can't have it both ways. You can't have "tell your kids they can be and do anything" and also "only the top top men get the top top jobs".
I don’t believe any kid can be anything. So no hypocrisy there.
I would say though until you truly know a kids ability telling them they can do anything is a good thing and probably helped me. But that’s because I grew up lower class where most can’t rise up anymore but did end up having top 1% test scores. Until you figure out if someone has talent you should leave the door open.
That's true, and I don't mean never encourage them. But be realistic: unless they do have particular talents, if they come from an ordinary background they are not going to be the superstars, they'll have an ordinary life, and having an ordinary life is fine and good. Do your best, but if your best is "average" that does not mean you're dumb or a loser.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Take the transitive closure of the inference steps you are doing here, and you basically arrive at "groups that are definitionally unsuited for governing roles should not self-govern". This may sound attractive to you as long as you can model the qualification as a one-dimensional parameter like IQ, but what if society develops sufficient complexity that a caste emerges which is (genetically, socially) optimised for politics in particular, rather than general intelligence? Would you then also consider it a failure of the system if any group is represented and governed by people who are not members of the caste of Superior Politicians, and thus either a born Superior Politician's potential was wasted, or administration is suboptimal? In that case, you've basically reinvented one standard argument for a medieval aristocracy.
It’s not a gotcha to me.
In that case society would be better governed by the Superior Politicians provided you mean by that they make decisions that mostly benefit all of society on net.
I also have no problem saying S Africa would be better off for everyone if only whites could vote versus everyone. I also believe that is being proven true.
And in the case of S Africa that with the whites not even giving a shit about the blacks. Your super politicians are implying that they actually would have a feel for how to benefit everyone versus being only incentivized to benefit themselves.
More options
Context Copy link
The public should be educated such that members of the public who are capable of understanding self-governing are taught it.
You could ask "what if society is so complex that it's not even possible to teach people?" but I'm skeptical that this can be a thing if the elite is capable of understanding it. And "the populace can't be taught" is a magnet for motivated reasoning (or lying thinly covered by motivated reasoning) and probably won't result in an accurate assessment of whether the populace can be taught.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't agree with this at all. Leaders should be people who actually have had to deal with the real world that most Americans experience on a daily basis. I don't give a damn about their IQ or their SAT scores.
Do you have an example of a well functioning government led by low IQ people?
Rwanda and Botswana have massively improved with black Africans in a dominant position. So has Namibia.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That is obviously terrible, but the problems with the leaders no longer coming from the workers is that not only are their interests no longer aligned with the workers' interests, but even if they were benevolent they aren't going to really understand the workers' interests.
IMO I mostly think the elites have done a good job for US workers. They work fewer hours than their parents and their homes have 10x the stuff.
In my opinion the actual erosion isn’t with economics it’s all the social policy that is hurting them the most. The working class was a lot better when they had more religiousity governing their behavior and not the elites culture of today. The tran stuff just confuses them. For every 1 in a couple thousand kids with actual biological transexualism there are hundred if not more working class kids confused who just work better with simpler sexual culture and traditions. Most would be better if the rule was just have sex with the person whose about your intelligence and attractiveness within a 10 min.walk and marry them for 70 years.
I disagree with your view on elites but I agree 100% with this. This is what people did for a very long period of time, and it's what led to all the old couples I know being happily married for decades. There are multiple stories in my family history of either a guy or girl at age 15 seeing the cute-one-next-door riding their bike and saying, out loud, "I'm going to marry that one." And then it happening. They found an eligible person who met their minimum standards for attractiveness and similarity, and chose to commit to them. By contrast, my girlfriend's mom had an insightful commentary on people in relationships today: "They keey divorcing because they just keep shopping." Stop shopping, stop comparing, stop optimizing, make an acceptable choice and allow the natural human instincts for pair-bonding do their job, and then continue to choose your partner even when it gets tough. That's what love means!
Reminds me of a passage from one of Tolkien's letters to his son:
More options
Context Copy link
Divorce is actually dropping because people aren't marrying. Again, the exploding in divorce in the 70's and 80's was basically 25 years of pent-up demand and shifts in how people marry.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The problem with that is you are brain-draining the labor class of all their natural leaders, and assimilating them into the gentry culture that considers working class culture its enemy. When the union leaders and managers come back from their elite colleges to manage the coal miners and Wal-Mart workers, they will no longer be working class kids who rose through the ranks and who understand and represent the interests of their people; they will instead be culturally-foreign occupiers.
Sure but then obviously you would need an India style class system where some people by birth would be restricted in their career options. This is contra to all of American history.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I agree with MaicTheTrue. Ron DeSantis is one individual. Think of base rates: there is only one Ron DeSantis. Perhaps a handful of other politicians with similar backgrounds. What is the probability your kid is going to be the next one?
Think it in terms of sports. Some individuals become the elite sport stars worth millions of dollars and have a pretty nice life until they retire. it doesn't change the fact that 99.x% of kids who want to become top players in a major league never become one. For a parent of perfectly ordinary good kid with ordinary good talents, it would be very irresponsible to encourage their kids to start on the path of all necessary requirements to become a top athlete (invest heavily in training and start their sports career in their teens). It makes sense if you have a pretty good probability that either your kid is in the top 1/10,000 talent bracket or if you are from gang-ridden favela without any other prospects and there is absolutely nothing to lose. Neither case applies to most people in the first world, where there is a secure career path option.
I believe it is quite the same thing if you want to become an elite political operative. You need right personality, some intellectual capacity, right social talents, in-born ambition, and looks (or charisma, which is often again, the looks). If the kid is not naturally popular in his/her group of kids and demonstrating the instincts of top political operative by age 11, I don't think it would be useful feed them the ambition to be a top politician.
Ambition is good thing, but it is better to direct it to useful pursuits.
AOC? That’s two. I don’t think Massie was from some elite family and well it as well known as the other two is still pretty well known.
More options
Context Copy link
You don’t need to be a politician at 22 to be a politician at 60. They can go on the safer career paths (honestly prefer politicians with outside politics experience).
Truth is in a meritocracy especially with intelligence being highly hereditary you would expect the longer that meritocracy exists that elites would largely come from some form of elites (in Americas case it’s going to be dominated by the PMC or top 20%). The only way you get elites from the lower class with intelligence being hereditary is when you have another blocking force like in immigrant communities that are working class initially before those immigrant communities sort themselves on intelligence. And the occasional smart kids whose family was poor because of alcoholism (my dad died of liver cancer so I sort of fit this).
Sure. And my point kinda was, any random kid is going to better served by realistically geared aspirations and fully generic "how to be successful in life, at the margin" kind of lessons (less about becoming the president or going to Harvard, more about conscientiousness, habit forming, reading the room to observe true unwritten rules). If the kid has the special something to become the president, he/she will stumble upon that path by their own talents (or perhaps you already possess much more meaningful resources to help them than aspirations only, such as a trust fund or networks).
Unrelated, but there may be something wrong with that model, depending on how do you quantify "largely" and all the rest of the details. An example of a possible mechanic to consider: Consider differential birthrates in social strata. Suppose a fully deterministic hereditary model of genetic eliteness and the meritocratic elite has relatively less children than non-elite classes. Then, due to dwindling applicant pool, either the size of elite gets smaller each generation, or the brightest sons and daughters of plebeian background must be given opportunities to enter. Alternatively, if the meritocratic elite has relatively more kids but size of elite stays the same, in a couple of generations, there will be large class of nearly elite upper middle class class just below the threshold, with nearly the same genetic background as the members of elite. Due to random variation, some kids of this non-elite upper middle class again would have the merits to become elite again.
More options
Context Copy link
I disagree with your view on elites but I agree 100% with this. This is what people did for a very long period of time, and it's what led to all the old couples I know being happily married for decades. There are multiple stories in my family history of either a guy or girl at age 15 seeing the cute-one-next-door riding their bike and saying, out loud, "I'm going to marry that one." And then it happening. They found an eligible person who met their minimum standards for attractiveness and similarity, and chose to commit to them. By contrast, my girlfriend's mom had an insightful commentary on people in relationships today: "They keey divorcing because they just keep shopping." Stop shopping, stop comparing, stop optimizing, make an acceptable choice and allow the natural human instincts for pair-bonding do their job, and then continue to choose your partner even when it gets tough. That's what love means!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link