some outgroups aren’t malicious and aren’t so diametrically opposed to your goals that it’s an intentional conflict, but they’re just bad at thinking and can’t be trusted to cooperate.
In what way is this different than mistake theory?
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.
In what way is this different than mistake theory?
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.