site banner
PaperclipPerfector  17d ago (text post)   25589 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 22, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I mean it's entirely possible it's more potent than described by medical literature. It's also entirely possible that people who buy into it are more likely to have out of character or excessive manifestations.

I mean it's entirely possible it's more potent than described by medical literature.

The medical literature doesn't actually describe it as impotent. Without cheating, what do you think the medical literature says about the ability of hypnosis to induce orgasm in women? What do you think the medical literature says about the effectiveness of hypnosis for breast growth? How confident are you?

It's also entirely possible that people who buy into it are more likely to have out of character or excessive manifestations

It has nothing to do with buying into it. Hypnotic orgasms do not at all require buy in, and don't require unusually strong manifestation. You might find Richard Feynman's account of trying to call BS on hypnosis interesting.

Here are a couple quotes:

I thought, "Baloney!" She took a match, lit it, blew it out, and touched it to the back of my hand. It felt slightly warm. My eyes were closed throughout all of this, but I was thinking, "That's easy. She lit one match, but touched a different match to my hand. There's nothin' to that; it's a fake!"

When I came out of the hypnosis and looked at the back of my hand, I got the biggest surprise: There was a burn on the back of my hand. Soon a blister grew, and it never hurt at all, even when it broke.

And

The hypnotist made various demonstrations, having me do things that I couldn't normally do, and at the end he said that after I came out of hypnosis, instead of returning to my seat directly, which was the natural way to go, I would walk all the way around the room and go to my seat from the back.

All through the demonstration I was vaguely aware of what was going on, and cooperating with the things the hypnotist said, but this time I decided, "Damn it, enough is enough! I'm gonna go straight to my seat."

When it was time to get up and go off the stage, I started to walk straight to my seat. But then an annoying feeling came over me: I felt so uncomfortable that I couldn't continue. I walked all the way around the hall.

Lots of weird shit causes orgasms, and IIRC people have used hypnosis as a replacement for anesthesia. Dissociation is powerful.

If you are saying hypnosis can make your boobs grow then I'm going to call you a crank unless you have some damn good evidence.

Lots of weird shit causes orgasms, and IIRC people have used hypnosis as a replacement for anesthesia. Dissociation is powerful.

Yes hypnosis is good at pain too. This sounds like a change of tune though?

If you are saying hypnosis can make your boobs grow then I'm going to call you a crank unless you have some damn good evidence.

I'm not saying it can, I'm asking you to predict what the literature says.

What do you think the literature says?

Since you are asking this question I'm sure there is a paper from 50 years ago with terrible research methods that suggests this is a thing, but that doesn't make it not absolute nonsense.

To more directly answer your question, I predict the literature that is the body of scientific knowledge suggests that this is not a thing and does not take it credibly. The existence of crank papers to the contrary does not mitigate this.

Especially since it is now known that many strange papers at the time represented intelligence work.

What about the other question?

I pointed out that the "boring" hypnosis you see in medical training has more to do with what "reputable" people are permitted to do, and gave the example of orgasms as something "less boring" which you won't see there because it's clearly inappropriate not because it can't be done.

Your response was "I mean it's entirely possible it's more potent than described by medical literature", which seems to imply that you think the literature says such things aren't doable, but when I ask what you think the literature actually says on the topic you seem to do a 180 and downplay the significance as if you never thought hypnosis couldn't produce orgasms or anything "powerful".

I'm not really sure what your stance is here. Do you see how this looks like a change of tune?

Since you are asking this question I'm sure there is a paper from 50 years ago with terrible research methods that suggests this is a thing, but that doesn't make it not absolute nonsense.

But that's not the question, right? The question is "how potent is it as described by the literature", not "do you trust what the literature". Do you see why that's the question at play here?

To more directly answer your question, I predict the literature that is the body of scientific knowledge suggests that this is not a thing and does not take it credibly. The existence of crank papers to the contrary does not mitigate this.

What does "I predict the body of scientific knowledge suggests that it's not a thing and does not take it credibly" mean, exactly?

Do you predict that there might be a poorly done study that found some effect, but more studies or the best studies find no effect?

Or do you just mean something like "Even if everything in the literature is supportive, if it's not studied recently I interpret that as the science saying it's not a thing"?

Do you see why I'm asking these questions?

I am supportive of hypnosis as a modality but it has limited utility and that utility is further hampered by susceptibility to hypnosis seemingly being more of an innate trait. Some people it works for and they want it to work for and you can do some great things with it but for the majority it is useless.

However overstating its value in the way you seem to do patterns matches to ....a lack of scientific rigor, and I'm saying this as someone who came into the conversation correction someone to let them know hypnosis is actually a thing.

I've done nothing to even state the effectiveness of hypnosis other than pointing out one thing that is bog standard in erotic hypnosis circles -- which you seemed to agree with as possible, at least after I point it out?

I'm asking you questions about what you think the science says because I don't think you actually know what the science says despite actively taking a strong stance, and you immediately started back tracking and dodging. You apparently can't answer simple questions about how you interpret the science, and you're accusing me of a lack of scientific rigor? The projection is super strong here.

People who can justify their beliefs don't move goal posts and don't dodge questions. Why do you feel the need to?

Dawg I haven't changed my goal posts at all you just jumped down my throat reaallllll harrrrrdddd.

More comments

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