Comment by zahlman
3 days ago
> graph seems OK but
The point of the argument is agnostic to the contents and structure of the graphs. They are only there to illustrate that a) there exists a conflict; b) both sides of this conflict have a graph; c) even though these graphs inform positions on the same policy, they are composed of completely unrelated ideas.
> But he hasn't supplied any arguments. He outlined an abstract theoretical model, but it makes no testable predictions and he doesn't try to prove it's correct.
You're meant, I think, to find the argument intuitively persuasive. It's easy to map the model's concept onto one's own beliefs, at least if you consider yourself to be rational (and most people do, even if they end up believing absurdities).
I think there is a testable prediction: if you just go in guns blazing to a "culture war" argument and try to convince people of your viewpoint, you are not going to make any progress. Further, in order to even challenge individual beliefs, you will have to understand how they relate to the rest of the other side's memeplex.
> Then he claims there are no real debates in the west about climate change, vaccines, or race, it's all driven by the evil Ruskies "creating social chaos". This claim isn't linked in any way to the first part with the graphs.
Blaming Russia for this is indeed very much out of pocket, and an example of the kind of culture warring that the article seems to want to discourage. However, there is ample evidence of the existence of the groups cited (granted there are others from other countries as well), even if they can't really explain more than a small part of the problem — at least directly. I think it's fair to say that a small number of agitators can produce large amounts of social tension, if they hit just the right talking points (qv. https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/30/sort-by-controversial/).
More importantly, I'd say the dearth of "real debate" is abundantly clear from looking at pretty much any social media. Even on sites that allow users to take either side of an issue, even on the subset of those where one side isn't clearly being continually persecuted and driven off, you find very heavy siloing of each side into its own echo chamber.
> even though these graphs inform positions on the same policy, they are composed of completely unrelated ideas
I'm still confused :( The two graphs shown at the start aren't two sides of the same issue, they're two different issues.
> I think there is a testable prediction: if you just go in guns blazing to a "culture war" argument and try to convince people of your viewpoint, you are not going to make any progress.
I think that was the observation that his theory is trying to explain, not a novel prediction of it. The theory would have to make a testable prediction that isn't just the original phenomenon existing.
The Slate Star Codex article is fun but it's a fictional story. It doesn't let us say anything about reality.
From the responses elsewhere in this thread the author of TFA (@staph here) sounds like a very agreeable & articulate person, but I can't shake off the feeling he's a post-Soviet plant attacking the very spirit of Western Civilization. Understating his intellect just like a mob boss.
A sign of actual good faith would be to provide a compelling (alternative) reasoning structure for climate change activists. Not a strawman graph*.
As you know the post Soviets need to believe in growth. They can't even get to solar without climate change! Therefore, anything to divide the opposition can only help the cause.
*A subgraph "potatoes -> vodka -> biofuels" would only be satire but quite uplifting to all involved.. and almost provides the prediction you are looking for