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 -
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