This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Politics is the Mind
KillerChangerYudowsky wrote an Politics is the Mind-Killer on less wrong back in 2007 on this topic. For an article with the supposed purpose of convincing people ... it kinda sucks at that goal.
To read it uncharitably:
Perhaps the biggest problem with the article is that there is a baked in assumption: that the purpose of the mind is for rationality. Once the mind has been touched by politics it is changed into an irrational thing, and thus it has been "killed" or deprived of its main purpose. This is exactly backwards. The mind was built for politics, language, and social games. Humans have taken this purpose built machine dedicated to politics and managed to make it do other things like math and rationality. And noticeably, these other things are very hard for most people to do. While politics is a mixture of fun, addicting, and often easy for even "idiots" to grasp.
The Drug of Politics
Switching gears, back to charitable. I've always loved the idea of "politics as the mind-killer". Because it so neatly fits my own experience. I was part of the Ron Paul rEVOLution in 2007. I remember sitting outside in 20 degree weather guarding a Ron Paul Blimp from anyone that might want to come by and cut the line, or hopefully just answering friendly people that had questions. I saw the phone survey polls that he wasn't anywhere close to winning the nomination, and I didn't ever really believe them, even when they were born out by the actual primary elections. I was filled with so much hope and copium. Him losing felt like a physical blow.
I came out of that experience like a drug user coming down from a haze. Why had I been so dumb and stupid? Why had I ignored good data? Why had I spent so much time arguing with people to try and convince them? Why did I think I was winning arguments instead of just exhausting the people around me?
The answer was available online in the same sorts of places I'd found Ron Paul. I'd been "mind-killed". I'd gotten very very high on the drug of politics, and I'd never had a strong hit before so I had no tolerance built up. All rationality had left me. So I swung hard in the opposite direction. I became the kind of abolitionist that was a recovering alcoholic. I berated and argued with people about politics being the mind-killer and did so far harder than I ever stubbed for Ron Paul. The irony was lost on me.
An Illusive middle truth
Over a decade later and I've mellowed a lot. I shake my head at the overly enthusiastic supporters of this or that politician. But I'm not gonna say anything to them. I'm not playing the part of a wide eyed DARE presenter yelling "never do it even once!" instead I'm now in the role of the "exhausted" participant that those young operatives get to "win" arguments with.
I don't know if either side is correct, I don't even feel certain that there is some kind of middle ground where a little bit of controlled politics is the way to go.
I'm only certain that politics changes us. Like going through puberty, seeing evil, having sex, your first child, or your first experience with death. You aren't the same afterwards. Once you've seen arguments as soldiers, or motives attached to every move its hard to go back. A conflict theory view of the world is pernicious and infectious, while mistake theory is fragile and hard to reassemble once broken. It places everyone in a prisoner's dilemma, where mistake theory is cooperating, and conflict theory is defecting.
I don't believe it with absolute certainty, but I am pretty sure that the changes wrought by politics are not for the best. Religion and philosophy have both sought to place some ground rules on politics and specifically how you treat other people. Because it is not hard to find examples throughout history of politics going far enough to get ugly and to turn into violence or war. This is a part of Yudowsky's article that is correct: politics is war by other means. But it is our attempt at a polite war, a war with rules and far less violence than actual war. Politics makes us worse, makes us uglier.
Scott has written of archipelego as utopia. It is noticeably a land that mostly tries to avoid politics altogether. The solution is not to argue over scarce resources, the solution is to infinitely subdivide an infinite pool of resources. This is where the necessity of politics becomes apparent. We don't live in that world of infinite resources. We have to figure out ways of subdividing finite resources. War and violence is the way of nature in figuring out the allocation of resources. Creatures eat each other to take another's resources. Politics is the human alternative. Our way of dividing scarce resources when we would otherwise use violence.
In that way politics is beautiful. It doesn't deserve the label of a mind killer. It was humanity's first triumph over nature, but it was such an early triumph that some of us mistake it as part of nature. However, I do not want to tear down the warning signs that so many have sought to erect. Politics will fundamentally change your mind. Most people who come down from the drug of politics don't have good things to say about it. Be ware of politics, but do not hate it.
Please, please link to the original version of "Archipelago", not the (horrible) edited version.
More options
Context Copy link
Addressing the idea of people becoming conflict theorists instead of mistake theorists, I consider this an illegitimate way to divide people.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/01/24/conflict-vs-mistake/
That conflict theorist article is really bad. Its Scott naming what he prefers people to think on all sorts of views mistake theory and attacking other including valid and invalid perspectives as conflict theory. See where he talks about democracy, racism, technocracy, etc.
It isn't a legitimate road to being a fair minded truth telling person. It essentially means agreeing with what Scott Siskind wants, to avoid him sticking a negative label to you, and getting the positive label. And of course since then countless people have done that game of calling themselves charitable, nice mistake theorists and others who don't share their rationalist type ideology to be conflict theorists.
Other than that, it is too associated with Scott constantly making such associations with different views that makes you a mistake theorist vs a conflict theorist.
i.e. when he says:
and many more of that vein.
I would just discard the whole concept, as an intellectual dead end and as an example of the negative part of politics. Being sneaky passive aggressive, with excessive intellectual arrogance where it is unwarranted and dismissing too much debate, to adopt a very limited worldview and to promote intellectual close mindedness and certainty where it is unwarranted and detrimental, based on positive and negative associations. Where Scott's goes so far as to directly call out specific assertions (like supporting technocracy) as mistake theorist or conflict theorist.
There is also no good reason to dismiss the value of conflict relations as a part of reality, including of those who are in conflict against you.
It isn't the high road to avoid the ugly side of politics, and it isn't a way to successfully be clear headed and avoid the fog. It doesn't promote such methodology that is independent of foregone conclusions, but rather promotes adopting uncritically Scott's perspective on various issues, and team and the self belief that in doing so you have already succeeded in being the good mistake theorist, instead of the bad conflict theorist.
As for the ugliness of politics, there will always be politics. And it will be influenced by those participating it. How ugly or good politics can be is not set in stone. Feedback loops of conflict of mutual escalation are certainly possible, and of mutual anger. But that has to do with what the arrangement is and what incentives there is for dominant rhetoric. Things are not as ugly as possible by default. For example, if my neighbor respects my fence, and tries to have a good relationship with me, we would have cordial relationships. Good relationship are about respecting important restrictions and red lines. If he constantly makes onerous demands, tries to steal my land on grounds of me having no right to it, demands me to house his relatives and pay for them, accuses me of being a bad guy who is bigotted for not giving in, well that is going to create an explosive relationship. I am going to be pissed off and angry too. I believe the solution to the ugliness of politics is to enforce and have dominant just norms. Which are quite different than manipulative one sided demand on the name of justice which causes problems. Anyway, if you find yourself in such a situation where you are dealing with such bad behaving people, then you can't escape an ugly situation.
Including by running away. But it is possible for the dominant political arrangements to be such that are less conflict inducing because the dominant moral priors and agenda, are such that doesn't temple over the sacred, much of which does have to do with national and religious self determination and existence. But there is often going to be an ugly side due to exactly that competition and will to gain over the other which often includes masquerading such agendas under nicer labels, or ideologies. Even though there is also a side of conflict that is for good, such as obviously self defense and plenty of grey zones. I don't think utopia is possible, but it is the case that with better type of politics, you can have less of negative things like conflict, prioritization of organized group minority interests at expense of common good because it benefits the party, narcissism over irrelevant differences, use of politics to destroy the communities of your outgroup and to destroy them as a people, etc, etc.
Why?
We can observe that friction exists between various people at various times and under various conditions. This friction often gets bad enough that something has to be done about it. In deciding what to do about it, we need a theory of where the friction is actually coming from. We can observe that sometimes this friction comes from mistakes, from misunderstandings leading people to fight over things they don't actually need to fight about: a coworker is claiming someone stole their lunch out of the fridge, when actually it just got bumped behind someone else's lunchbag. Find their lunch and give it to them, exchange apologies, and the problem simply goes away. Other times, the problem is real: maybe someone really did steal their lunch, and has been repeatedly.
Someone who believes the lunch was misplaced is operating off mistake theory. Someone who thinks the lunch was stolen is operating off conflict theory. Neither is better than the other, both are appropriate in some situations and inappropriate in others. You can't simply discount either without crippling your ability to reason about the actions and motivations of others.
How is any of this illegitimate?
I'm a conflict theorist, and I think a technocracy is stupid. I'm happy to argue why at great length, but really all I'd be doing is pointing at the horrifying record of actual "technocracy" as it exists in the real world.
There's another analogous dimension -- tug of rope vs pulling the rope sideways.
Just as neither conflict/mistake is better than the other, so to is the distinction between shifting power/preference between parties vs pushing outwards towards the Pareto frontier.
More options
Context Copy link
Well, my point was that Scott and others following his template associate mistake theory with their preferred ideology and conclusions and conflict theory with groups they oppose. They attempt to paint a picture of correct views of a good mistake theorist and of bad conflict theorists. It is also about being sneaky and passive aggressive in diminishing opposing political tribes. This is an aspect of the whole issue that can't be ignored.
Another aspect about being a supposed neutral outside observer vs taking part in the issue as a motivated party with again a lot of pretending.
If both perspectives in proportion makes sense as part of a whole, why do you think the division of people at such categories and being one or the other, is legitimate? When the point in the way it is presented is that it is ideal to be a mistake theorist and falling down to be a conflict theorist. If we are to use only the more limited way you define it, which is far from all the baggage the term carries, shouldn't the ideal to be neither a mistake theorist, nor a conflict theorist and just have an accurate version of reality?
I am not a conflict theorist because it is simply one in the long line of labels meant to manipulate people by putting them in inadequate boxes. Like a lot of the phobes or isms. The goal is to get you to act in a certain manner, lest you fit into the negative misused label.
Mistake theorist is code for Scott's ideology for the most part in the way it is promoted in the article.
Also, the examples chosen are deliberate.
See:
There is a reason the names are George Soros (who Scott endorsed to have influence in Hungary) and Koch brothers, and not a controversial genuinely far right figure. and you actually won't see the people who in the text their preferences are constantly associated with mistake theory, separate that kind of people with the arguments.
I don't see why the idea that technocracy sucks must be explicitly tied with the "conflict theorist" concept and all the baggage it carries and can't be related with priors unrelated to that. Just cause it wasn't framed in that manner in Scott's article, doesn't mean it doesn't qualify. And why being pro technocracy, is related to being a supposed "mistake theorist". Certainly technocracy supporters tend to not only have their vision of society but also consider those opposing their vision as enemies/opposition to be opposed. And the technocracy in practice has a certain identity, and preferences, which is related to how the people supporting technocracy see it to be. And it does crush people beyond its boot. This idea of the generalized technocracy for the smartest and best, is just an easy way to assume no direction. However, the people who support technocracy do have a direction in mind.
The concept is just a self serving rhetoric that helps Scott promote his political preferences and divide things in a way that encourages cohesion in favor of his political tribe and against others, by putting people in a box, associating rationalists and people who support similar stuff with mistake theory, and other groups with conflict theory, in a way that loses plenty of nuance.
I think whether or not Scott was doing that is a separate question from whether or not these labels accurately describe reality. A lot of us here started off as mistake theorists, we thought that the various tribes are largely on the same page regarding their values, and these culture war spats was just Moloch egregoring prospiracies to spread toxoplasma of rage. We thought that if we just explain ourselves well enough, and listen to the other side well enough, we'll dissuade the other side from paths that are obviously counter-productive to our common goals, and come to a solution that satisfies everyone...
...and then, for various reasons, we slowly started believing that our goals are actually quite different, and that there can be no solution that's good for us all. We might somehow end up settling on rules of engagement to make the conflict more civilized, perhaps a truce, or when I'm feeling optimistic, maybe even full-blown peace, and tense-but-respectful neighborly relations, but the one thing we're not getting is a resolution that puts us all on the same page with regards to what we want to achieve.
I also think a strong argument can be made that you're right, and this is not what Scott was driving at at all. It's been a long time since I read that post, but I don't think he was talking about irreconcilable value differences there at all, so your interpretation feels quite compelling to me.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I've always seen conflict vs mistake theory as being about what you believe the other person in the disagreement is thinking. A mistake theorist believes that their opponent is making an error in reasoning, while a conflict theorist believes that their opponent is motivated to support their side.
I think designating people as purely one or the other is silly, but it doesn't make the framework useless for looking at why people support what they do.
Unfortunately, part of what it has been about in the original article and how it has been expressed has been to relate it with particular tribe and dogma and to be passive aggressive about other political tribes being conflict theorists.
I fundamentally don't agree with the positive idea that rationalists have about themselves.
So I see the way you define it to be part of a motte and bailey.
But everyone is motivated to support their side. And in doing so, they tend to see others as wrong.
Rationalists who are obviously liberals who are animated by their dogma and priors, are just not truthful if they act as if they are only motivated by what is rational and correct. In fact it is quite an aggressive and arrogant move to make such strong claim and distinction, and it has been a core part of how it has been used. And we have seen the rationalist types including Scott Siskind get involved with all sorts of networks.
Indeed, I would suggest people to research the rationalist movement without looking just as this specific subset of rationalist movement. Which isn't that different from the general. All sorts of far leftists, marxists and liberals proclaiming their ideology rationalism, scientific has existed for quite a while in modernity. The trap in this movement has always been declaring their ideology scientific and their approach rational, bias and tribalism free, even though that isn't at all the case. Basically, rather than achieving what they claim to aspire, their presumptuousness of having done so and being dismissive of other valid perspectives like the ones you see in Scott's article that genuinely does that and associates conclusions about all sorts of topics with mistake theory or negatively with conflict theory (which is going to influence people, you can't strip that away), leads to a peculiar dogmatism that is unaware of itself. Which makes the movement arrogant.
That doesn't lead only to marxists and scientific marxism but even people like Karl Popper who end up becoming the mentors of people like George Soros.
Except for mistake theorists, who are [in and according to that theory] more motivated by the desire to get the correct answer. People who think other people work like that are mistake theorists. It's that weird brain thing that makes some people choose "co-operate" as the first move in a prisoner's dilemma game.
The problem is that for people who tend to get right answers most of the time, their mistake theory is functionally indistinguishable from conflict theory in favor of "people who get the right answers more often than not" privilege (from the perspective of people who are wrong). Their correct answers oppress those who don't get things right, thus the need to redistribute their correctness, by force if necessary.
I don't agree that self proclaimed mistake theorists are more motivated by the desire to get the correct answer, than to support their side. My argument is that the label is associated with a broader movement and views that for a very long time organizing in their groups, has been proclaiming its ideology as scientific, rational. And it is a movement that is about a shared belief system and tribal sympathies. A movement that has operated for quite a while, more than a century. A lot of blind faith and fanaticism. A lot of propaganda about how they are rational, the future, etc, etc.
This faith to their own righteousness and rationality, just cause isn't about the supernatural, doesn't mean it isn't a very deep and blind faith. This is a core dogma of rationalistic movements that are about specific ideological priors and specific ends, even where such ends could, or would be harmful. There isn't any strong tendencies for reexamination and internal change, in such situations.
I agree that it is functionally indistinguishable.
As for them being on the right, imposing the truth to those who are wrong, that is an enormous issue. From a perspective of various religions, imposing their dogma, is imposing the truth against the ignorant and heretics.
To give in to the presumption that self proclaimed mistake theorists get it right will excuse their attempt to force their way to the rest of us, no? Movements proclaiming themselves to have it all figured out of rationalist type have existed since the French revolution with its cult of reason, and some of various different intensities. Not all are the same but all have strong shared elements. Their record has resulted in plenty of excesses and failures to put it in understated terms.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link