posted on May 09, 2018 12:03 PM by
u/seeking-abyss
27
u/Wegwerfkontobelegt32 pointsat 1525868393.000000
Y’know I think it would be best if we just rounded those inferior
conflict theorists up into camps and figured out a solution how to deal
with them. Not an intermediate or temporary solution, mind you,
something more definite.
If you pay attention, you'll start to see conflict theorists everywhere -- running the banks, the media, the law firms. You can start to imagine a pattern where the conflict theorists are engaged in a grand global conspiracy to manipulate world events to keep the superior theorists controlled and preventing an all-out theorist war.
The more I argued with them, the better I came to know their dialectic. First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, they themselves simply played stupid. If all this didn't help, they pretended not to understand, or, if challenged, they changed the subject in a hurry, quoted platitudes which, if you accepted them, they immediately related to entirely different matters, and then, if again attacked, gave ground and pretended not to know exactly what you were talking about. Whenever you tried to attack one of these apostles, your hand closed on a jelly-like slime which divided up and poured through your fingers, but in the next moment collected again. But if you really struck one of these fellows so telling a blow that, observed by the audience, he couldn't help but agree, and if you believed that this had taken you at least one step forward, your amazement was great the next day. The conflict theorist had not the slightest recollection of the day before, he rattled off his same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; he couldn't remember a thing, except that he had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day. Sometimes I stood there thunderstruck. I didn't know what to be more amazed at: the agility of their tongues or their virtuosity at lying. Gradually I began to hate them.
You’re right that people exist on a continuum and few people exist at
the very extreme ends of it, but it looks to me like most people lean
heavily to one side or the other. At least it appears that way online in
how arguments usually flesh out.
As an example, take the Google memo. People who lean mistake theorist
would argue about how reasonable an interpretation of the data was and
make up their mind about Damore in accordance with that. People who lean
conflict theorist would look at his interpretation of the data and then
put him into a category based on that and bolster or slander him based
on that without much concern for the validity of the data.
> As an example, take the Google memo. People who lean mistake theorist would argue about how reasonable an interpretation of the data was and make up their mind about Damore in accordance with that. People who lean conflict theorist would look at his interpretation of the data and then put him into a category based on that and bolster or slander him based on that without much concern for the validity of the data.
It’s interesting how you use neutral language for the mistake theory interpretation (“how reasonable … and make up their mind about Damore in accordance with that”) while you use the words “bolster” and “slander” for the conflict theory interpretation, as well as claiming that they would have little concern for the validity of the data. Aren’t you bolstering mistake theory and slandering conflict theory right now?
I said everyone exists on a spectrum and I have a little conflict theorist in me as well. It's a broad generalisation talking about specific types of people. By definition conflict theorists are more about supporting their side and bashing the other once they're on a side and mistake theorists are more concerned about data.
We are talking about types of people, not about data here. If you asked me what kind of person Damore was, I would sound more like a conflict theorist, as would just about anyone. If you asked anyone about the data Damore presented, even the conflict theorists would sound like mistake theorists.
How so? I think I'm fairly mistake theorist when it comes to politics. I consider myself left on most issues, but if the data seems to indicate the right are correct on a particular issue I'll change my view.
Wow this will be boring. Why are you so concerned?
Left on wealth redistribution and regulations. I think there should be more of both. Ideally there’d be a liveable ubi with no minimum wage.
Left on social issues. I think people should be free to do what they want so long as they’re not causing harm to anyone. Decriminalize drugs would be a good start. Weeding out discrimination by making application processes blind. I’m against affirmative action though so that brings me back to the centre a bit.
I’ve always voted for the liberal party here in canada. They are far more palatable to me than the conservative party.
Did you ignore the context of a liveable ubi? No one would need a job to get by.
Or are you just against the idea of no minimum wage no matter how strong the social safety net?
Fwiw I think a minimum wage is absolutely necessary within the current system.
> Or are you just against the idea of no minimum wage no matter how strong the social safety net?
Yep. They might cut the net, you can never be too careful.
I get that you’re trying to be like chapo, but that schtick only works when you have something funny or clever to say.
Yes. I’m a 19th century robber baron who wants massive wealth redistribution so that we can finally get rid of that pesky minimum wage (that is absolutely vital to the economy at this point in time)
I’m not. It depends on the structure of the economy.
The stronger the social safety net and equality of opportunity in a society, the lower a minimum wage has to be. The weaker the social safety net and equality of opportunity, the higher it has to be. Oddly, a lot of people on the right and left want the opposite of those scenarios. Strong social safety nets and higher minimum wage or weak social safety nets and lower minimum wage. The former will stagnate growth and the latter will fuel inequality. I’d prefer the former to the latter, but both seem far from optimal to me.
We may never reach a level of ubi and equality of opportunity I idealize. In that case some level of minimum wage would be desirable, but it would be less than whats desirable now.
> By definition conflict theorists are more about supporting their side and bashing the other once they're on a side and mistake theorists are more concerned about data.
That's not the point at all. Insofar the distinction ever had objective meaning, it'd mean this: conflict theorists explain most disputes as conflicts of morals or interests, and mistake theorists explain most disputes as misunderstanding or disagreements about interpretation. There's no guarantee at all that mistake theorists aren't "on a side", or that being "on a side" is bad. If it's to mean anything, it has to be a meta-theory of how nonconvergence of beliefs is explained.
"By definition one side is concerned about being right and one side is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes. I'm not a mindless jerk, so it's clear which I am."
> I said everyone exists on a spectrum and I have a little conflict theorist in me as well. It's a broad generalisation talking about specific types of people.
You’ll note that I talked about the theories in the abstract, not people (theorists).
The "conflict theorist vs mistake theorist" dichotomy always seemed to me to be like drawing a distinction between drivers who use the gas, and drivers who use the break. Most people are going to be using both, and using one is clearly wildly unpractical, which is why Scott's decision to identify with one side of the false dichotomy he drew is weird.
>Most people are going to be using both, and using one is clearly wildly unpractical, which is why Scott's decision to identify with one side of the false dichotomy he drew is weird.
Oops, I just goofed my way into Holocaust denial, ahyuck!
I thought he was pretty clear about people exhibiting both. It's impossible to navigate the world otherwise. He identifies as mistake theorist because he is mostly concerned with the data. You won't easily be able to predict what side of an issue he is on by his political leanings and if you can show him convincing data to the contrary he will count that as evidence against his opinion and roughly update accordingly.
"By maintaining that the crimes of history are the result of error, Enlightenment philosophers create a problem of evil as insoluble as any that confronts Christian theologians. Why are humans so fond of error? Why has growing knowledge been used to establish new kinds of tyranny and wage ever more destructive wars?" -John Gray, Black Mass
Hi there! In this thread, we're probably going to mock the Rationalist tendency to divide people into binary reasoning styles, determine one of them to be more rational and therefore correct, declare themselves as thinkers of the correct reasoning style and look down on everybody else. See also "low decouplers" and "object level".
There might also be some sneering at HBD and the associated white supremacist crowd over at your place.
Enjoy your stay!
Thanks for the welcome!
I only discovered this sub a few days ago and subscribed maybe an hour before this post so it was pretty amusing to see a post by me at the top.
So far I enjoy this sub for it's humour. It also lends a bit of perspective and makes me take the rationalist stuff a bit less seriously. Have fun!
> It also lends a bit of perspective and makes me take the rationalist stuff a bit less seriously.
Oh good. That's honestly what we're aiming for more often than not.
And hey, since you seem happy to participate I was hoping you wouldn't mind answering a question for me. Not a particularly hostile one, I hope, but something I've been wondering about for some time now.
Who are the conflict theorists in public discourse? Who are the mistake theorists? Which actual people or groups are these labels meant to adhere to?
I ask because my read of the SSC article that laid them out was that they were both useful but incomplete models of human disagreement, somewhat akin to the way it sometimes makes sense to model light as a particle and sometimes as a wave even though the reality is much more complicated than either model suggests. It seemed to me that an astute political observer should have both models in their head and use them interchangeably as the situation demanded. That fits with how I tend to think about politics and appears to align with how most people talk about it.
And yet I usually see the two models discussed on r/SSC as "conflict theorists think _this_ but mistake theorists think _that_", which doesn't really parse to me if the dichotomy is primarily an introspective device. So what an I missing? Who are the parties that I should think of as modeling this disagreement?
> The words minimizing, justifying, and denying all have different but closely-related meanings. To lump them all under a common term is painting with a brush of the correct width. It's something historians do and I hate because it means I might be wrong.
Fixed it for you.
Y’know I think it would be best if we just rounded those inferior conflict theorists up into camps and figured out a solution how to deal with them. Not an intermediate or temporary solution, mind you, something more definite.
(((Conflict theorists)))
How uncharitable, sir! I am not a
white supremacistHolocaust denier, I am awhite nationalistHolocaust REVISIONST!You’re right that people exist on a continuum and few people exist at the very extreme ends of it, but it looks to me like most people lean heavily to one side or the other. At least it appears that way online in how arguments usually flesh out.
As an example, take the Google memo. People who lean mistake theorist would argue about how reasonable an interpretation of the data was and make up their mind about Damore in accordance with that. People who lean conflict theorist would look at his interpretation of the data and then put him into a category based on that and bolster or slander him based on that without much concern for the validity of the data.
Hi guys!
Holocaust denial is irrational, so are idiotic beliefs that Jews rule the world or poison wells as explained in my posts.
Antisemites are generally stupid as fuck.