Conflict Theory Vs. Mistake Theory

From the continuing series of People Smarter Than Me.

Scott Alexander at Astral Codex Ten (ACX): Why I Am Not a Conflict Theorist .

I had not heard the phrases conflict theory and mistake theory before, but we have been over similar territory many times here.

Conflict theory is the belief that political disagreements come from material conflict. So for example, if rich people support capitalism, and poor people support socialism, this isn’t because one side doesn’t understand economics. It’s because rich people correctly believe capitalism is good for the rich, and poor people correctly believe socialism is good for the poor. Or if white people are racist, it’s not because they have some kind of mistaken stereotypes that need to be corrected - it’s because they correctly believe racism is good for white people...I think simple versions of conflict theory are clearly wrong. This doesn’t mean that simple versions of mistake theory (the idea that people disagree because of reasoning errors, like not understanding Economics 101) are automatically right. But it gives some leeway for thinking harder about how reasoning errors and other kinds of error interact.

As usual, I do find myself wishing there were someone smart enough to serve as an editor for Dr. Alexander, but he is thorough. He goes issue by issue that our beliefs cannot stem only from self-interest - not on either side, whatever we accuse our opponents of - nor can they be solely attributed to being uniformed or untrained. SALT taxes, vaccinations, climate, immigration, Ukraine, lockdowns, Gaza, the deficit - the self interest is there for a few, and for many of us to a small degree. But in general, no.  He does identify a few issues that might be more a product of self-interest.

It is related to CS Lewis's Bulverism, focusing on some status of the speaker rather than the reasonableness of the argument. Alexander finds that where we stand on issues is more related to psychological factors. I said in the 80s that 50% of all political positions are performative.  By the 90s I had upped that to 75%, and by the 00s I said more than half seriously that I now believed that 90% of our political beliefs are performative, to fit in, or show off, or belittle others. Human beings are not that unreasonable.  In pure situations where they are motivated for real results they can strategise.  But we take shortcuts, because our real purpose is not to arrive at the right answer.  

At this point I just hope that some residue of my beliefs, when subjected to consuming fire, turn out to have their origin in desire to find the truth.