
Conflict vs. Mistake - smackay
http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/01/24/conflict-vs-mistake/
======
closeparen
This has beautiful explanatory power for leftist opposition to market-rate
housing development. It explains the arguments I tend to see very well:

\- The effect of supply and demand on price (“trickle down economics”) is an
oversimplification or outright fabrication pushed by real estate and tech
interests to fool you. Those technocrats are funded by monied interests and
can’t be trusted.

\- We cannot depend on the market to provide something as important as
housing; it must be a human right. Therefore block all market rate
development. (With no follow-up policy prescription, or no concern for the
feasibility, implementation details, or side effects of any housing-as-a-
human-right policy prescriptions).

\- We should continue to block development because YIMBYs and their backers
are bad people and our class enemies who want luxury condos for themselves and
don’t care about the poor.

\- Even if some YIMBYs are well intentioned, it’s stupid that they want to
debate supply and demand with affordable housing activists when they should be
allying against their mutual enemy, rich suburban homeowners. This is most
interesting because it’s a direct exhortation to abandon mistake theory and
engage on conflict theory’s terms.

I like this a lot. It may be what I needed to stop arguing with these people
on the internet.

~~~
frgtpsswrdlame
>I like this a lot. It may be what I needed to stop arguing with these people
on the internet.

Why would it cause you to stop arguing with them? It enables you to argue with
them more effectively, not opt out entirely.

------
pjc50
> "public choice theory is racist, and if you believe it you’re a white
> supremacist."

That's a really uncharitable reading of the Baffler piece which says that
public choice theory has _been used_ as an argument to cover policies that
were racist in intent and effect.

The Baffler piece is long but this is probably the key para:

"Buchanan proposed that Virginia could finesse the question of full compliance
with Brown and avoid leaving the impression that the state wished to revert to
crude Jim Crow standards of race privilege. Buchanan’s innovative solution was
the introduction of school vouchers, which would empower parents to send
children to schools of their choice on the public dime, while also working to
buttress the prerogatives of white and affluent populations in restricting
broader cross-racial access to the public good of state-financed education. He
contended that a voucher system was the best allocation of educational
resources because it would compel schools to compete for students and
resources, which would lead to educational improvement. On paper, at least,
Buchanan was advocating a market-based, seemingly race-neutral policy
solution. In effect, however, it allowed for the continued perpetuation of
segregation. For example, Virginia’s Prince Edwards County shuttered its
public schools in 1959 while doling out vouchers to students who attended
private schools that only accepted white children. As a result, black children
in Prince Edwards County went without formal education for more than five
years."

~~~
Anderkent
>In marking Calhoun’s political philosophy as the crucial antecedent of public
choice theory, Tabarrok and Cowen unwittingly confirmed what critics have long
maintained: libertarianism is a political philosophy shot through with white
supremacy. Public choice theory, a technical language nominally about human
behavior and incentives, helps ensure that blacks remain shackled.

This paragraph closes the first section of the article, and very clearly says
"public choice theory pretends to be about facts about human behaviour, but
really it's a racist tool of exploitation".

------
tsjackson
I've been undergoing a similar transition in thought, likely triggered by the
same events. I'm struggling to reconcile the competing lenses.

In our current political reality, anything that is not desirable to Republican
elites will be argued against as if it were simply a technical "Mistake." No
matter how many times they're out-argued, they continue arguing on a technical
basis. "Tax cuts to the rich increase jobs and wealth for everyone" and
"Climate change isn't being caused by human action" are probably the two most
glaring examples of trash arguments that should sink under the weight of
overwhelming evidence to the contrary, but they may never go away. And it
seems that more and more political arguments are increasingly in this camp,
emboldened by the persistence of these incorrect assertions.

Politicians/elites are blatantly arguing in bad faith at least some of the
time. They won't be convinced by any argument or evidence, no matter how
damning. They are getting away with this because outside of hard science,
nothing can be "proven" and they will surface any doubt in an argument and
simply magnify it. At some level, it's a social hardship that owes to
epistemology and the limits of our knowing.

Of course there are still difficult technical questions of governance as well.
Policy making is not easy. But at this point, it's extremely difficult to
distinguish between arguing against "mistakes" and arguing against something
that is simply inconvenient to the arguer. On the surface they generally look
the same - like a person in a suit making a technical argument. The trash
arguments are poisoning the well, making it impossible to share a space for
discussing the truly difficult questions with those who disagree.

We live in an era of noise, and we are in desperate need of better filters.
How do we detect an argument made in bad faith? How do we respond once we know
an argument can't be won? I don't think we have good answers to either
question.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
That's partly the point. Political positions that are wholly based on the
conflict model can be reframed using the language of the mistake model to give
them more credibility than they deserve. (Which in a reality-based world,
would be exactly none.)

The noise isn't surprising. Certain industries are notorious for producing
pollution. Mental pollution produced by bad-faith "debate" is just another
instance of a general pattern.

A cure? Cui bono is a reasonable first test for bad faith. It's not infallible
and can lead to paranoia, but it's better than nothing.

But I think the pattern is even more general, and transcends political
positions.

Some people are inherently entitled, narcissistic, and exploitative, and they
will _always_ try to gravitate to positions of power unless there's an
explicit mechanism that stops them.

A minority of these individuals are unusually inventive and productive, but
most are simply resource parasites. Once in power they do incredible damage.

And they are very adaptive. They will operate successfully in every
traditional political system you can imagine. And they will use conflict _and_
mistake rhetoric, as suits their needs.

~~~
simula67
> That's partly the point. Political positions that are wholly based on the
> conflict model can be reframed using the language of the mistake model to
> give them more credibility than they deserve.

Are you saying this is another way in which the Elites stays in control ? Good
way to 'increase passion' :)

------
dpwm
This discussion of conflict theorists vs mistake theorists reminds me of
conspiracy theorists: by this I specifically mean those who go out of their
way to look for a conspiracy where the evidence is rather thin. But there
appears to be less criticism of the opposite of this, those coincidence
theorists who go out of their way to find a coincidence where the evidence of
collusion is too great to ignore. I suspect that nobody is wholly one or the
other: one who believes in conspiracies between the US state and the wealthy
to manufacture wars seems somewhat unlikely to believe in communists-in-every-
level-of-government conspiracy theories.

Nobody could reasonably argue that the organisation of workers into unions
involved no cooperation, yet we become labelled as conspiracy theorists,
stereotyped and dismissed completely if we refuse to believe that events,
which were incredibly convenient for the moneyed few, involved no cooperation
in the face of evidence to the contrary.

The problem with past events is that they are always subject to some
interpretation. There are events in distant history that are still a matter of
contention and which scholars, with no political preference for a particular
individual, can agree upon. With the deep politicisation of much of the
international events of the last 100 years and the amount that remains to gain
by exploiting them, it may well be that the dust never settles.

~~~
Y_Y
You make a great point. If like to add that asserting that politicisation of
the past muddying the waters for us now is certainly a Conflictian issue. I am
a big fan of SSC and usually agree with the articles, but found myself leaning
towards the Mistakean position a bit less than half of the time. Hopefully
this signals a new direction in understanding why society doesn't get on and
if/how we can fix it.

------
iainmerrick
Seems to me this distinction fits well with the good old Prisoners' Dilemma...

A mistake theorist is the kind of person who always cooperates (because it's
best move for everybody!) and a conflict theorist is the kind of person who
always defects (because you'll get ruthlessly exploited otherwise!)

A synthesis of the two views might be: "this entire setup is doomed to failure
because it's vulnerable to exploitation. We need to change the rules of the
game."

~~~
cortesoft
That seems to be more the mistake theory again; the conflict theorist would
say the powerful would turn any rule change to their advantage.

~~~
iainmerrick
They would _try_ to, the trick would be to figure out the right rules! And to
be powerful enough to establish them, and vigilant enough to maintain them.

~~~
Y_Y
I think we're going in a circle here because of a Russell-type problem. If you
want to change the meta-rules to prevent the powerful using conflict to
benefit themselves then great. The problem is that the rules are set within
the system itself, therefore by the same elites. The conflict position works
precisely because of this. You might even say this was anticipated by Plato's
two-tier system of government.

------
golemotron
The corollary to the conflict view that no one likes to see is that conflict
is never resolved. Minor conflicts might be, but you can always shift the goal
posts and find a new conflict - and there always has to be a new one to
maintain a worldview based on power.

Conflict theory is for people who like to fight. People who like to fight will
always find a fight.

~~~
Flozzin
This reminds me of a family guy episode, where Brian, who is normally liberal,
finds that all the pieces of power in the government are now democrat. So he
switches sides and becomes a republican.

While the above example is made up, and satire. There definitely is a portion
of people that love to fight the powers that be. In the US you can see these
people in both parties.

~~~
utellme
It's like "The Dogs of War" who need permanent war, some kind of chaos to
create possibilities for people like them.

------
SideburnsOfDoom
What do you do if you hold (largely) to Mistake theory, but it becomes clear
that many people in politics seem to be "my team or yours" Conflict theorists?

~~~
WalterSear
Depends whether you ascribe their positions as mistakes, or as a form of
conflict.

~~~
saint_fiasco
Not really. A mistake theorist is obviously going to attribute it to a
mistake. But the end result is the same: the other guy is going to treat you
as an enemy, work against you, and generally defect against you in prisoner
dilemmas.

From a conflict theorist's point of view, this is similar to the issue of
People who vote "against their own interests" because they were brainwashed by
the Elite. The perception and framing of it is different, but the issue is the
same.

------
ffxtian
When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means
just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said
Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The
question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that's all.”

What this guy's analysis fails to account for is that power matters, smart
people coming up with solutions for "mistakes" (whether "hard" or "easy") is
necessary, but not sufficient. The question is, and has only ever been, which
is to be master -- who has the power?

~~~
aninhumer
I think the point of this entire post is him admitting the exact failing
you're attributing to him in your comment?

~~~
ffxtian
It's possible -- I'm not a regular reader of his blog, and thus might be
missing stylistic cues, or other occluded methods of admitting a failing. The
only thing I _read_ him admit to is that he's less sure of himself than
before. Likewise, "Right now I think conflict theory is probably a less
helpful way of viewing the world in general than mistake theory" doesn't quite
express the idea that "these two theories actually address vastly differing
questions that I and the rest of 'respectable' society have been conditioned
to conflate". (edit) To clarify: how to obtain power (conflict theory) vs how
to effectively wield power (mistake theory)

~~~
aninhumer
Yeah, that's a reasonable criticism. I read your first comment as suggesting
he didn't recognise conflict theory as existing.

My instinct is also to characterise the theories in a similar way. I'd
describe it as how things ought to be (mistake theory) vs how to achieve that
(conflict theory), but I guess that's kind of the same thing you're saying.

However, I'm not sure you can entirely separate these theories though. A
mistake can be creating a society which encourages power imbalances, and a
consequence of power imbalances can be societies that are less able to notice
certain mistakes.

~~~
ffxtian
Re: your last paragraph, it seems to me that the question of "who wields
power" will always have material priority -- one of the benefits of power is
deciding what is and isn't a "mistake". Look at climate change -- no amount of
scientific consensus or popular belief-that-it-is-a-mistake has succeeded in
constraining those people whose activities are driving it (I'm speaking not
just of DJT's recent escapades in pulling the US from the Paris deal, but the
insufficiency of Paris itself). This is power. No amount of problem-
identifying/solving has (or will) convince the captains of industry that
maintaining their current economic growth targets is less preferable than
making vast swaths of the earth less hospitable to life.

------
golemotron
Eric Hoffer's book 'The True Believer' is a good explanation of the dynamics
of movements based on Conflict Theory.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer)

------
NumberSix
The author incorrectly speculates that the title of the magazine -- Jacobite
-- is a play on Jacobin:

Jacobite – which is apparently still a real magazine and not a one-off gag
making fun of Jacobin – summarizes their article Under-Theorizing Government
as “You’ll never hear the terms ‘principal-agent problem,’ ‘rent-seeking,’ or
‘aligning incentives’ from socialists. That’s because they expect ideology to
solve all practical considerations of governance.”

Jacobite has nothing to do with Jacobin. Jacobitism (/ˈdʒækəbaɪˌtɪzm/ JAK-ə-
by-tiz-əm;[1][2] Scottish Gaelic: Seumasachas [ˈʃeːməs̪əxəs̪], Irish:
Seacaibíteachas, Séamusachas) was a political movement in Great Britain and
Ireland that aimed to restore the Roman Catholic Stuart King James II of
England and Ireland (as James VII in Scotland) and his heirs to the thrones of
England, Scotland, France and Ireland. The movement took its name from
Jacobus, the Renaissance Latin form of Iacomus, which in turn comes from the
original Latin form of James, "Iacobus." Adherents rebelled against the
British government on several occasions between 1688 and 1746.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobitism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobitism)

The Jacobins on the other hand were a French political movement/party:

The Society of the Friends of the Constitution (French: Société des amis de la
Constitution), after 1792 renamed Society of the Jacobins, Friends of Freedom
and Equality (Société des Jacobins, amis de la liberté et de l'égalité),
commonly known as the Jacobin Club (Club des Jacobins) or simply the Jacobins
(English: /ˈdʒæ.kə.bɪnz/; French: [ʒa.kɔ.bɛ̃]), was the most influential
political club during the French Revolution. Initially founded in 1789 by
anti-Royalist deputies from Brittany, the Club grew into a nationwide
republican movement, with a membership estimated at a half million or more.[1]
The Jacobin Club was heterogeneous and included both prominent parliamentary
factions of the early 1790s, the Mountain and the Girondins.

In 1792–93, the Girondins were more prominent in leading France, the period
when war was declared on Austria and Prussia, the monarchy was overthrown and
the Republic created.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobin)

~~~
snrplfth
I can almost guarantee you that Scott Alexander is aware of who the Jacobites
and the Jacobins were and what the difference is. The blog is constantly
bringing up all manner of historical and political esoterica. He's making a
joke based on the name resemblance.

~~~
NumberSix
It doesn't read like a joke. It reads like a mistake or perhaps he is assuming
his audience won't be aware of who the Jacobites were and will find it funny.

~~~
snrplfth
I've read this blog for years. This is exactly the kind of joke he makes all
the time; in describing or referring to something, he folds in a fact which,
while not literally true, is a funny way of imagining it to be, and which is
expected to be obvious to the readership. It's kind of like the practice of
Using Capital Letters to refer to a Self-Serious Idea of Something.

It's just the way he writes.

~~~
DoreenMichele
I have never read his blog. The fact that he is playing with language and in
no way confused seems clear as day to me.

