tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642084484458008587.post1180755087385494155..comments2024-01-16T04:37:26.870-08:00Comments on Thinking Complete: In defence of conflict theoryRichard Ngohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04825733481608403399noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642084484458008587.post-23357264062180011692020-02-21T20:13:15.193-08:002020-02-21T20:13:15.193-08:00To clarify a bit; there are non-conflict, perhaps ...To clarify a bit; there are non-conflict, perhaps non-mistake theory actors who generally contribute significantly to the solution to a problem. And their gains are often claimed by conflict theorists, bolstering the confidence of conflict theorists in their methods beyond what might be warranted. <br /><br />In "the fight against global warming" Intel and other chip manufacturers have contributed significantly by making processors which perform a calculation using less and less energy. But they're ignored since they weren't waving a flag while making these gains. Ryan W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10436503972074564305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642084484458008587.post-65551998062083010512020-02-21T13:01:33.518-08:002020-02-21T13:01:33.518-08:00"Taxation in many Western countries is pretty...<br />"Taxation in many Western countries is pretty screwed up..."<br /><br />This paragraph confuses me. You start with the apparent understanding that a high top marginal rate isn't, in itself, a victory. A system which claims to reduce wealth inequality but which highly taxes the upper middle class while allowing tax breaks to the super wealthy is empty virtue signaling. It fails to accomplish its stated goal. Yet "it fails to accomplish its goal" doesn't seem sufficient evidence to demonstrate that a given methodology is problematic. <br /><br />"who made strong moral arguments about the duties of the wealthy to pay back to society."<br /><br />Such arguments existed centuries ago. Nobless oblige. <br /><br />"But that wasn't nearly as true back when social safety nets and labour regulations just didn't exist, working conditions were atrocious, and debtors were thrown in prison."<br /><br />Throwing debtors in prison sounds a lot like something that would be targeted by mistake theory. You can't pay off your debts in prison, after all. And again, I think you give too much unproven credit to conflict theorists. Did improved economic activity improve working conditions? <br />Arguably it did, quite a bit. By automatically giving all credit to conflict theorists it becomes impossible to consider that anyone else may have been making progress on the problem. <br /><br /><br />"Global warming, where the wealthy countries and people who emit massive amounts of emissions are screwing over everyone else, including future generations."<br /><br />Those wealthy countries are also contributing a good share of technological advancements which will pave the way away from a reliance on fossil fuels. I don't see how demonizing 'wealthy countries' tangibly moves us forward. I can understand how removing onerous restrictions on nuclear power moves us forward. <br /><br />"Factory farming, where everyone who eats meat is screwing over lots of animals."<br /><br />I can see that view, certainly. But does it help more to demonize meat eaters or develop tasty meat alternatives? Why believe that mistake theorists aren't working on this problem at least as dilligently as conflict theorists. <br /><br /><br />"But conflict theorists still have the concept of people making mistakes."<br /><br />Other people primarily, though. Can we agree that Conflict theorists are less likely to question their own beliefs than Mistake theorists? <br /><br />"They don't need to have fantasies of revolution in order to care about special interests corrupting representatives"<br /><br />Certainly. The question is whether 'caring' is a solution. If it's not, then the question is what is the most effective path forward, especially given that all major political players are influenced by special interests to a strong extent. Most commonly, the Conflict Theory approach to special interests is to favor some special interests and demonize others, to justify some elites and undermine others. I suspect a mistake theory approach is to ask; how can we design systems which are less subject to corruption. <br /><br />"There are no holders of power who do not become complacent or corrupt eventually. Overthrowing those rulers and systems comes at massive cost to all involved."<br /><br />I suspect you'll get very broad agreement on this point, even from two groups both involved in direct conflict with one another. <br /><br />"That's not to say that we should seize such control ourselves, because that will simply create a new elite - but we need to make sure nobody else does."<br /><br />The notion of balance of power as promoting a fertile playing field for mistake theorists does seem worth considering. Ryan W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10436503972074564305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642084484458008587.post-84635719583376796492020-02-21T13:00:16.412-08:002020-02-21T13:00:16.412-08:00I think one issue I see with this discussion is th...<br />I think one issue I see with this discussion is that if you have a mistake theorist and a conflict theorist both working towards some goal, conflict theorists will look at the situation and claim credit. "This is what we were fighting for. We got it. So we got it because we were fighting for it." Conflict theory consistently ignores the possiblity that this chain of logic might have failed at any point or that anyone else might have been working on the project. <br /><br />The element of Scott's essay that most forced me to update my views was categorizing Public Choice theory as 'mistake theory' rather than 'conflict theory.' Previously, I would have described Public Choice theory as a more enlightened form of conflict theory (though I wouldn't have used that precise term at the time.) After Scott's essay I'm more likely to view Public Choice theory as the means by which Mistake Theory addresses things like conflict of interest. <br /><br /><br />"It took a lot of effort from a lot of conflict theorists"<br /><br />If cross cultural comparisons mean anything, the industrial revolution was more predictive of the elimination of slavery than any particular form of political advocacy. <br /><br />You seem to be assuming that all major progress comes from conflict theorists. The biggest problem with those who rely exclusively on conflict theory is that they tend to have fewer mechanisms to question their own beliefs. For Mistake theorists, self-questioning and falsifiable theory seems to be their bread and butter. The result is that mistake theory produces falsifiable theories and refines itself and conflict theory is far slower to do so. The Green Party was able to claim that global warming was an issue while still opposing Nuclear power. Without nuclear power or some other form of baseload generation or futuristic power storage or futuristic power transmittance it's generally not possible to go above about +25% wind power + solar power. <br /><br />If the Greens had been more reflective and willing to question their own beliefs they might have helped us to take serious action against climate change 30 years ago. Instead of being a stepping stone they were a stubling block on the most critical issue for that time period. <br /><br />....Ryan W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10436503972074564305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642084484458008587.post-72035952165273889712018-04-20T15:17:02.508-07:002018-04-20T15:17:02.508-07:00Nuanced analysis by itself isn't intrinsically...Nuanced analysis by itself isn't intrinsically mistake-theoretic. While there seems to be some correlation between being an analytic person and being a mistake theorist, it's also quite possible that your analysis leads you to conclude that the biggest barrier to change is other people whose goals oppose yours, who you'll therefore come into conflict with. So conflict theory comes first in the sense that only once enough powerful people's goals are aligned with yours does it make sense to focus on the policy proposals to achieve those goals.Richard Ngohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04825733481608403399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642084484458008587.post-27663699768576356822018-04-06T15:48:56.013-07:002018-04-06T15:48:56.013-07:00I've only recently read Scott's and your a...I've only recently read Scott's and your articles, and it provides some interesting perspectives on the sorts of political machinations I've seen play out over the past few years.<br /><br />And while I agree with you that a lot of the hard work is done by conflict theorists, I disagree that this somehow comes "first". Analyzing a situation to decide which change needs to be made is firmly in the mistake theorists camp. Conflict theory just doesn't seem to lend itself to the sort of nuanced analysis needed, at least in my mind.Sandro Magihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05446177882449578817noreply@blogger.com