Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

‘Culture wars’ are fought by tiny minority – UK study

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 674 posts

Re: ‘Culture wars’ are fought by tiny minority – UK study

#471

Post by da39a3ee »

8fGTBjZxBcHq wrote: post #379
da39a3ee wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I (late 30s) am unable to talk to younger members (late 20s) of my family about science in western society because they believe that academic science is inherently corrupted by patriarchal and racist power structures, whereas I believe that there is no need to be anywhere near so cynical about academic science and that it is in fact one of the areas of society that we can be proud of. The younger members have grown u…

I'm more your age but I think I agree with your family members here. Thinking about the technical details of science is not very important to lay people like me. But the cultural questions involved like who is doing science? for what reasons? under what constraints? what practical applications are there and who will they be applied to? Those potentially matter quite a bit to me. Sounds like your family are attempting…

> I think I agree with your family members here. Thinking about the technical details of science is not very important to lay people like me.

It's not just the "technical details". It's the entire scientific outlook and scientific method! We all agree that building the fair and healthy societies that we want is a very hard task. So when we have hard tasks to do, we don't want to turn away from a scientific/engineering mentality, quite the opposite!

For example, we see that we have a lot of unfairness in society that we want to fix. Perhaps studying game theory and mathematical economics would allow you to contribute to human efforts to create incentive structures and legislation that will promote fairness. Presumably studying statistics and decision theory will help understand the challenges we face as a society needing to make decisions in the face of uncertainty and complex costs.

But studying these things is HARD; it requires effort over a long time span to climb the mountain. It does NOT help at all if young people are encouraged to mill around at the base of the mountain wittering about power structures and unfairness in academia.

Re: ‘Culture wars’ are fought by tiny minority – UK study

#472

Post by rstupek »

TheKarateKid wrote: post #352
andrew_ wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The Social Dilemma" on Netflix touches on this - in part, the algorithms that run these platforms and govern (guide?) user interaction are responsible in large part for pitting people against each other. It's in their best interest to keep eyeballs on their respective sites as much has humanly possible.

Yes algorithms contribute, but the media is the reason these problems go from being just an argument on social media, to an actual societal issue. Before the media started using social media as “facts” for their reporting, these arguments would just be another online “flame war.” Remember when we used those terms? Remember when online arguments remained as just that? Now, when 1000 people on Twitter try to cancel som…

I think you're generous with 1000 people being the high bar for media reports. My gut says <12 is enough

Re: ‘Culture wars’ are fought by tiny minority – UK study

#473

Post by skrebbel »

HPsquared wrote: post #257
skrebbel wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1-5% is very different from 0.06% though.

The 0.06% is the share of total NPR visitors, not those who read the comments sections. If we limit our sample to people who view the comments sections, it's probably closer to 1%.

Good point! You convinced me, it's not an impressive statistic (except maybe wrt a "nobody reads comments" argument)

Re: ‘Culture wars’ are fought by tiny minority – UK study

#474

Post by shadowgovt »

SuoDuanDao wrote: post #442
shadowgovt wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the fact some people perceive it to be is the root of, perhaps, quite a bit of consternation on the issue. But I see it is the same as forcing people to stay in an unpleasant class until they understand type theory. We teach people things they need to know so that they know them, because knowledge is useful. We're certainly not calling the question of "having education seminars" into question, are we?

But the 'knowledge is useful' stance presupposes that these classes have value, that what they're teaching is actually true or useful. That's precisely what many of us don't believe. Suppose we were discussing a risk management seminar which you had reason to believe was teaching a flawed methodology, one likely to cause serious harm if widely adopted. Would you be similarly sanguine in that case?

> That's precisely what many of us don't believe.

With respect, I'll defer to the career sociologists and psychologists on the topic, much as I'd defer to the risk management PhD on the topic of risk management.

I've known too many tech-savvy folk who think humans can be reduced and deconstructed like a computer, declare humanities research bunk because it doesn't fit their mental model, and get profoundly surprised when their mental model doesn't fit actual human behavior. The psychologists and sociologists have a better track record on modeling and predicting human behavior.

Re: ‘Culture wars’ are fought by tiny minority – UK study

#475

Post by danans »

rayiner wrote: post #4

I like the More in Common Project. But it overlooks the disproportionate representation of the extremists in our institutions. This happened at my alma matter earlier this year: https://freebeacon.com/campus/northwestern-law-administrator... . They also voted to abandon entrance exams at my magnet high school: https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=4979 It’s not comforting to know that only a tiny minority of people a…

The event described in that article about Northwestern was voluntary, as were the statements of that Dean.

Statements of that sort are meant to be acknowledgement that systemic racism is universal and perpetuates through us at the individual level, and usually in ways far more subtle than police brutality or the use of racial slurs.

One of the most anti-racist things that one can do is acknowledge the racism in themselves, and keep that in mind and in check when making decisions that affect others. Never trust when someone says they are absolutely not racist - it's something we all struggle with because of our shared conditioning.

A Dean saying they are racist and a "gatekeeper of white supremacy" is just acknowledging that through the power of their position, thet exercise a system that furthers white privilege.

If anything, that Dean should be applauded for confronting and acknowledging their own role in racist systems.

All the same, I can acknowledge that part of me becomes somewhat racist when walking through a less white part of town at night (and I'm not white).

Re: ‘Culture wars’ are fought by tiny minority – UK study

#476

Post by shadowgovt »

rayiner wrote: post #440
shadowgovt wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm definitely not. I also hold such descriptions of these trainings in high skepticism, because I've been through a similar training and had a coworker describe it as such when all the training was doing was surfacing the scientific evidence suggesting unconscious bias is a real phenomenon that people aren't aware of. The fact my colleague took it so personally says more about them, I think, than the training.

You don't have to believe the description of the session--there are screenshots in the article.

Nothing about the article suggests that text was forced. I'm not going to trust the Free Beacon's interpretation of some out-of-context screenshots.

Re: ‘Culture wars’ are fought by tiny minority – UK study

#477

Post by rayiner »

danans wrote: post #475
rayiner wrote: post #4

I like the More in Common Project. But it overlooks the disproportionate representation of the extremists in our institutions. This happened at my alma matter earlier this year: https://freebeacon.com/campus/northwestern-law-administrator... . They also voted to abandon entrance exams at my magnet high school: https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=4979 It’s not comforting to know that only a tiny minority of people a…

The event described in that article about Northwestern was voluntary, as were the statements of that Dean. Statements of that sort are meant to be acknowledgement that systemic racism is universal and perpetuates through us at the individual level, and usually in ways far more subtle than police brutality or the use of racial slurs. One of the most anti-racist things that one can do is acknowledge the racism in thems…

It doesn't matter if they were voluntary. They were hostile and cult-ish. This was a Zoom meeting attended by hundreds of students, many of them not even American and most likely unfamiliar with how academics are defining those words today. As a non-white person I would have been extremely uncomfortable sitting through that. We can talk about systemic racism and implicit bias without the theatrics and personal confessions of responsibility.

Re: ‘Culture wars’ are fought by tiny minority – UK study

#478

Post by da39a3ee »

gsk22 wrote: post #375
da39a3ee wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I (late 30s) am unable to talk to younger members (late 20s) of my family about science in western society because they believe that academic science is inherently corrupted by patriarchal and racist power structures, whereas I believe that there is no need to be anywhere near so cynical about academic science and that it is in fact one of the areas of society that we can be proud of. The younger members have grown u…

So in other words, it _hasn't_ invaded your family life. "Some of my family disagrees with my views" is different than "my family life has been upended/invaded".

Did you miss the part where I said "unable to talk to younger members of my family about science"?

Which part of that do you not find particularly significant? You don't think "talking about science" is an important thing for family members to be able do do? You think "science" sounds like a narrow, nerdy sort of conversation that one wouldn't need to have often? You don't think that arguing every time the topic comes up could damage relations with people that I want to get on with? You don't think that us mutually disrespecting each others positions could damage relations? I'm really at a loss for what goes on in your family; do enlighten us.

Re: ‘Culture wars’ are fought by tiny minority – UK study

#479

Post by bosswipe »

rayiner wrote: post #4

I like the More in Common Project. But it overlooks the disproportionate representation of the extremists in our institutions. This happened at my alma matter earlier this year: https://freebeacon.com/campus/northwestern-law-administrator... . They also voted to abandon entrance exams at my magnet high school: https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=4979 It’s not comforting to know that only a tiny minority of people a…

Spoken as a skilled cultural warrior that knows which weaponized stories to deploy to generate outrage for their side.

Re: ‘Culture wars’ are fought by tiny minority – UK study

#480

Post by alex_c »

ardy42 wrote: post #424
jimbokun wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the absolute laziest ways to write a "news" article is the "here are a list of things people tweeted about this topic" compilation.

> One of the absolute laziest ways to write a "news" article is the "here are a list of things people tweeted about this topic" compilation. It's definitely less work that investigative journalism, but to the extent that twitter is influential, it's a topic that should be covered. IMHO, the media has (at least) two important jobs: 1) conduct novel investigations and 2) summarize the firehose of events and ideas into…

I very very strongly reject the idea that "What people are saying on social media" is worth summarizing or covering by the media.

I can list many reasons, the top few would be:

1. It is too easy to game "what people are saying" on social media

2. Loudest voices / most extreme positions get picked up, amplified, and passed off as "what people are saying"

3. It is too easy / predictable to game what kind of messages the media chooses to summarize

4. None of it matters (see my original post about what people say vs. what people do)

If an idea is worth discussing, it is worth discussing regardless of its source (social media or otherwise). Conversely, and I know this is open for debate, but Twitter is not a great medium for discussing ideas.

Social media regularly reminds me of the Douglas Adams quote:

“The story so far: In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.”

That is, on average, what people are saying on social media. It is not worth summarizing and covering.

Post reply on HN