Mistake theory focuses on beliefs and education/discussion to get alignment (or at least understanding and compromise). Conflict theory focuses on force and social leverage. Neither are appropriate for incompetence theory.
I think I’ve gathered a different definition of the terms. From what I got, mistake theory could be boiled down to “all/all important/most of the world’s problems are due to some kind of inefficiency. Somewhere out there, something is broken. That includes bad beliefs, incompetence, coordination problems, etc.”
I think there are different conceptions of the theory talking past each other (or perhaps a large group talking past me; I’ll bow out shortly). There are two very distinct classifications one might want to use this theory for.
1) How should i judge or think about relationships with those who seem to act in opposition to my goals? I’m fine with a very expansive view of mistake theory for this—there’s not much benefit to villianizing or denigration of persons (unless it really is a deep conflict in values, in which case it can be correct to recognize that).
2) How should I strategize to further my goals in the face of this opposition? This is a superset of #1 - part of the strategy is often to pursue relationships and discussion/negotiation. But ALSO there are different strategies to reach alignment or to negotiate/compromise with people who simply don’t model the universe as much as you do, but don’t actually misalign on a value level, than with those who are disagreeing because they have different priors or evidence, so different paths to compatible goals.
For #1, mistake vs conflict is a fine starting point, and I’d agree that I prefer to treat most things as mistake (though not all, and perhaps not as much “most” as many around here). For #2, I find value in more categories, to select among more strategies.
Mistake theory focuses on beliefs and education/discussion to get alignment (or at least understanding and compromise). Conflict theory focuses on force and social leverage. Neither are appropriate for incompetence theory.
Huh.
I think I’ve gathered a different definition of the terms. From what I got, mistake theory could be boiled down to “all/all important/most of the world’s problems are due to some kind of inefficiency. Somewhere out there, something is broken. That includes bad beliefs, incompetence, coordination problems, etc.”
I think there are different conceptions of the theory talking past each other (or perhaps a large group talking past me; I’ll bow out shortly). There are two very distinct classifications one might want to use this theory for.
1) How should i judge or think about relationships with those who seem to act in opposition to my goals? I’m fine with a very expansive view of mistake theory for this—there’s not much benefit to villianizing or denigration of persons (unless it really is a deep conflict in values, in which case it can be correct to recognize that).
2) How should I strategize to further my goals in the face of this opposition? This is a superset of #1 - part of the strategy is often to pursue relationships and discussion/negotiation. But ALSO there are different strategies to reach alignment or to negotiate/compromise with people who simply don’t model the universe as much as you do, but don’t actually misalign on a value level, than with those who are disagreeing because they have different priors or evidence, so different paths to compatible goals.
For #1, mistake vs conflict is a fine starting point, and I’d agree that I prefer to treat most things as mistake (though not all, and perhaps not as much “most” as many around here). For #2, I find value in more categories, to select among more strategies.