|
Curvature of Earth posted:"I want to see people like me on television who don't exist to be murdered" is a pretty legitimate complaint. It is and I apologize for suggesting otherwise. The part that's dumb is still having to have that conversation and then the results of that conversation being the exact thing everyone asked them not to do.
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 12:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 11:06 |
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:No I mean what the hell does "I want to see people like me on television who don't exist to be murdered" mean, like I can't parse that "I want to see [people like me on television who don't exist][ to be murdered]" "I want to see [people like me on television [who don't exist to be murdered]]"
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 12:42
|
|
|
eatenmyeyes posted:Their style of argument is so reliant on subjective/indemonstrable/false information that if their opponent tries to nail down facts/definitions/axioms, "You're a butthurt idiot who is afraid of having your dogma scrutinized. Go away!", is a response that allows them to simultaneously disengage from an unwinnable debate while accusing their opponent of being defeated by their superior rhetoric. I mean, reactionaries, by and large, do not actually believe in free speech. It's a convenient ideal to crouch behind when they're under fire, and the only ideal their mental strawman of a standard opponent is willing to concede. Which is why it makes them so angry when someone removes the cover and has a different understanding of free speech. I mean do you really think the people who at times seem to want to build a time machine to give Qin Shi Huang a blowjob would have perfect intellectual freedom in their ideal state?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 12:51
|
|
|
SolTerrasa posted:The idea is that a lot of the time, minority characters (including/especially sexual minorities) are written into movies and TV in order to be killed later. Think about it like this: who does worse in a horror movie? Black guy, gay guy, lesbian woman, or lily-white fraternity bro type? Yeah.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:Reactionaries promised me SA was a Hugbox of the Cathedral, and instead I get criticized to my face. How dare you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
pookel posted:I will say this, the "Cathedral" bullshit did serve me well once, as an analogy to "patriarchy" when I was explaining to my alt-right friend that no, feminists don't think there's a literal group of misogynist dudes secretly running the world, that it's a social structure that is largely invisible and operates without the conscious intent of the people who are propping it up. I don't know if he agreed with me, but at least he understood it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
pookel posted:I will say this, the "Cathedral" bullshit did serve me well once, as an analogy to "patriarchy" when I was explaining to my alt-right friend that no, feminists don't think there's a literal group of misogynist dudes secretly running the world, that it's a social structure that is largely invisible and operates without the conscious intent of the people who are propping it up. I don't know if he agreed with me, but at least he understood it. But that's not oppressing meeeee so it must not be real! Now let me tell you about how prevalent and real false rape accusations are and how rape happening to men too makes it less of a problem for women because
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:But that's not oppressing meeeee so it must not be real! Now let me tell you about how prevalent and real false rape accusations are and how rape happening to men too makes it less of a problem for women because I for one, being a spiteful and hate-filled creature, take great delight in the destruction of perhaps mainstream psychology's most established sexist. E: for those who have not suffered the misfortune of having been confronted with baumeisters essay "what's good about men?" - it's basically what PP is parodying here, but by a guy with tenure who means it by heart and considers it important.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
I can't wait til Haidt whines about how not enough academics take Trump seriously.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Anyone paying attention to such matters might find some satisfaction or reassurance in hearing that Roy "what's good about men?" Baumeister is currently seeing his most famous discoveries fall victim to psychology's Replication Crisis and the fallout - with his theories of ego depletion and money priming currently joining the ranks of failed ideas like power posing, flag priming, stereotype threat and so on. For added topicality, many of those are favourites of LessWrong and SSC. Because there's nothing quite as solidly settled science you should extrapolate from as a single study that matches your biases.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
Anyone here have insight into the real-world existence/relevance of so-called "virtue signalling?" Same friend seems to think it's accepted psychological theory, and I have, to put it mildly, doubts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
pookel posted:Anyone here have insight into the real-world existence/relevance of so-called "virtue signalling?" Same friend seems to think it's accepted psychological theory, and I have, to put it mildly, doubts. Invention, April 2015; claim of credit, October 2015; Google Trends concurs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
I like how that first link starts out with an example of Whole Foods and then says that the British do it too but they're more sophisticated about it 
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:Speaking of butthurt the comic they're referencing works great with goatkcd: Why does this always work? Does it work with Penny Arcade?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
divabot posted:For added topicality, many of those are favourites of LessWrong and SSC. Because there's nothing quite as solidly settled science you should extrapolate from as a single study that matches your biases. Can't judge how much the "rationalist"/LW case overlaps with either.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Why does this always work? Does it work with Penny Arcade? Because XKCD fits into the standard end with punchline thing
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Yeah a bunch of stuff Yud fav Kahneman was absolutely sold on is rightfully dying right now. Not Kahneman's own research though, that has turned out to be extremely solid. So basically, there are at least two different kinds of irrationality psychology has ascribed to people, with one standing up to scrutiny, and being very interesting for TED talk audiences. The former is mostly about our intuitions wrt. probabilities and (economically quantifiable) value/risk - there, the scientific evidence is extremely strong that we're reliably falling victim to Savannah brain biases. The other is about metaphor-like subconscious influences (e.g. you walk slower after having read a lot of age-associated terms, like Florida), and the scientific evidence in favour of that being a major determinant of behavior is currently looking extremely shaky. Since it's been on my reading list for a while, how much of Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow is still holding up? Alternatively, is there a better layman's summary of the current state of the art in this stuff?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
Twerkteam Pizza posted:Because XKCD fits into the standard end with punchline thing That or it's a single-page square with text under it like some editorial cartoon and any joke like that can be replaced with goatse and still work. I mean it's literally the image compliment of replacing the text of a New Yorker political cartoon with "Christ, what an rear end in a top hat!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:Since it's been on my reading list for a while, how much of Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow is still holding up? Alternatively, is there a better layman's summary of the current state of the art in this stuff? Some paraphernalia will most likely be lost, because the science they're built on simply isn't there, but the core of the program is extremely solid - especially all of the stuff that's built on Kahneman's own research. Gerd Gigerenzer is maybe the most important critic of Kahneman, but I don't really see any recent (post-TFS) developments there. It's the same debate still, conducted at a very high level. This is a totally different level than e.g. Pinker's books, which may or may not be true, or may even be not-even-wrong. I should say, this isn't my core area of expertise - Kahneman's usually very careful to avoid talking about neural stuff. Although I'm trying to submit something namedropping Kahneman right now ...
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
pookel posted:Anyone here have insight into the real-world existence/relevance of so-called "virtue signalling?" Same friend seems to think it's accepted psychological theory, and I have, to put it mildly, doubts. It's just a supercilious "gently caress you". People you like have beliefs and behaviors and people you don't like are just signaling implying hypocrisy and shallowness. It's like when an economist accuses someone of mood affiliation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
I know it's used to mean "gently caress you," but I was interested in whether it exists at all as a psychological concept, or if it's pure reactionary fantasy. Sounds like the latter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
Dmitri-9 posted:It's just a supercilious "gently caress you". People you like have beliefs and behaviors and people you don't like are just signaling implying hypocrisy and shallowness. It's like when an economist accuses someone of mood affiliation. I'm trying to imagine how it could actually be a real psychological theory. Like the paper would be full of silly case studies about how "this guy shops at whole foods and it makes him feel good but he's actually a jerk!" But yeah it's basically "Haha you're so dumb for feeling strongly about an issue, I am the smart better person because I am an edgy internet nihilist who doesn't feel strongly about things! WAIT WHAT DID THAT WOMAN SAY ABOUT VIDEOGAMES?!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
Well, in theory, the idea is that people sometimes do good things in order to make themselves look good rather than out of altruism. This seems reasonable on the face of it; the problems comes in when you start applying that to everything you disagree with.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
I'm pretty certain that it was this thread that linked me to an academic takedown of the concept of signalling, at least as used by NRx, because it's most often deployed as a stealthy argument to authority -- the authority in this case being the nihilism of the author. Alternatively: "I am an rear end in a top hat, therefore good people can't exist."
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
pookel posted:Well, in theory, the idea is that people sometimes do good things in order to make themselves look good rather than out of altruism. This seems reasonable on the face of it; the problems comes in when you start applying that to everything you disagree with. I guess nobody would even doubt that people, well, try to leave a good impression, and that at least some people care more about image than about effect. But who, then, would doubt that using this as an insult is very often going to be just as scientific as calling someone an idiot?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
pookel posted:Well, in theory, the idea is that people sometimes do good things in order to make themselves look good rather than out of altruism. This seems reasonable on the face of it; the problems comes in when you start applying that to everything you disagree with. Yeah, it sounds reasonable, but I don't see how it could be even remotely scientific. How would you go about testing sincerity?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
Signalling itself is a rather well established theory especially in biology. I'm sure there's somebody who's hosed it up, of course, but the theory itself isn't obviously or well-estbalishedly wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
pookel posted:Well, in theory, the idea is that people sometimes do good things in order to make themselves look good rather than out of altruism. This seems reasonable on the face of it; the problems comes in when you start applying that to everything you disagree with. Most altruism is a complex interplay of helping people making you feel good due to brain chemicals, assuaging guilt, because you were taught it was the proper thing to do, and to make people think you're a good person. "Virtue signalling" is a worthless concept because it attempts to boil down a complicated behavior into a catchy buzzword.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
Small Frozen Thing posted:Most altruism is a complex interplay of helping people making you feel good due to brain chemicals, assuaging guilt, because you were taught it was the proper thing to do, and to make people think you're a good person. "Virtue signalling" is a worthless concept because it attempts to boil down a complicated behavior into a catchy buzzword.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Can't say anything about 'virtue signalling', but signalling as a concept in biology is not discredited by pointing out that the underlying individual behavior is governed by multiple factors - you can talk about selection for genes conductive of a certain behavioral pattern independently of the specific situation. Nobody else here is talking about that form of signalling though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:Nobody else here is talking about that form of signalling though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:FWIW, I don' think signalling is a prominent concept in psychology - it's economics or evolutionary biology. oh my god shut up
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Can you link me to what specifically you mean? Signalling in biology is relevant because reactionaries pretend it's the same thing, and use it to claim a scientific basis for the concept of "virtue signalling."
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
Small Frozen Thing posted:Most altruism is a complex interplay of helping people making you feel good due to brain chemicals, assuaging guilt, because you were taught it was the proper thing to do, and to make people think you're a good person. "Virtue signalling" is a worthless concept because it attempts to boil down a complicated behavior into a catchy buzzword. I mean it sounds specifically like internet nihilists repackaging the argument of "aha you drive a Prius but you haven't given all your money and worldly possessions to help starving children, clearly you are a hypocrite and are only doing it for vanity and charity doesn't work / you don't actually care / i feel better about myself because i do not give or volunteer!" There was an episode of the Dilbert cartoon where Dilbert smugly pointed this out to everyone like he was morpheus revealing the loving matrix and I think that's all that needs to be said about it really.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
"Virtue signalling" is basically a more sciency-sounding version of "white knighting," just a thinly-veiled excuse to dismiss people who stand up for anything even vaguely progressive.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
They misuse the term "signalling" anyway. I'd love to see a NRx shitlord say "the stripes on a wasp are just signalling, so they can't really sting" and then poke a nest.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
pookel posted:No? I mean, I'm not talking about a website, but about conversations I've had.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
Signalling as used by reactionaries is just a kind of sciency-sounding ad hominem to dismiss people without argument. Also there's no way for someone to prove they AREN'T signalling, so you never have to deal with the actual content of their arguments.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Qwertycoatl posted:They misuse the term "signalling" anyway. I'd love to see a NRx shitlord say "the stripes on a wasp are just signalling, so they can't really sting" and then poke a nest. someone should give cingulate a yellow/black striped avatar
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 11:06 |
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:Signalling as used by reactionaries is just a kind of sciency-sounding ad hominem to dismiss people without argument. Another reason rhetorical "signalling" is manifestly stupid: the best way to counter it is to accuse the other person of doing the same thing. "You're just signalling to gain social approval!" "Oh yeah, well pointing that out is just counter-signalling to gain the approval of your own peers!" (Also, it's absolutely possible for either of you to troll the other by entering an endless loop of one-upsmanship. "Bringing up counter-signalling is just evidence that you're counter-counter-signalling!", then repeat by adding more "counter"s without limit.) The only equivalent I can think of is the fallacy fallacy (because everyone who learns about the fallacy fallacy immediately thinks it'd be funny if two people started arguing like "You pointed out my argumentum ad hominem as if that refuted my point; that's the fallacy fallacy." "Oh yeah, well thinking the fallacy fallacy has any impact on the validity of my arguments is the fallacy fallacy fallacy!"). Except the fallacy fallacy fallacy is joke rhetoric that I've never seen anyone use seriously, while I've read actual reactionaries talk about the necessity of counter-signalling.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 21:46
|
|
