I think that’s very confusing. The relevant distinctions are not in your essay at all—they’re about how much each side value’s the other side’s desires, and whether they think there IS significant difference in sum based on cooperation, and what kinds of repeated interactions are expected.
Your thesis is very biased toward mistake theory, and makes simply wrong assumptions about most of the conflicts that this applies to.
Indeed, the mistake theory strategy pushes the obviously good plan of making things better off for everyone.
No, mistake theorists push the obviously bad plan of letting the opposition control the narrative and destroy any value that might be left. The outgroup is evil, not negotiating in good faith, and it’s an error to give them an inch. Conflict theory is the correct one for this decision.
The reason I’m thinking about this is that I want a theory of non-zero-sum games involving counterfactual reasoning and superrationality. It’s not clear to me what superrational agents “should” do in general non-zero-sum games.
Wait, shouldn’t you want a decision theory (including non-zero-sum games) that maximizes your goals? It probably will include counterfactual reasoning, but may or may not touch on superrationality. In any case, social categorization of conflict is probably the wrong starting point.
[note: written awhile ago, and six votes netting to zero indicate that it’s at best a non-helpful comment]
Which outgroup? Which decision? Are you saying this is universally true?
For some outgroups and decisions, this applies. It doesn’t need to be universal, only exploitable. Often mistake theory is helpful in identifying acceptable compromises and maintaining future cooperation. Occasionally, mistake theory opens you to disaster. You shouldn’t bias toward one or the other, you should evaluate which one has the most likely decent outcomes.
Also, I keep meaning to introduce “incompetence theory” (or maybe “negligence theory”)- 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.
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.
I think that’s very confusing. The relevant distinctions are not in your essay at all—they’re about how much each side value’s the other side’s desires, and whether they think there IS significant difference in sum based on cooperation, and what kinds of repeated interactions are expected.
Your thesis is very biased toward mistake theory, and makes simply wrong assumptions about most of the conflicts that this applies to.
No, mistake theorists push the obviously bad plan of letting the opposition control the narrative and destroy any value that might be left. The outgroup is evil, not negotiating in good faith, and it’s an error to give them an inch. Conflict theory is the correct one for this decision.
Wait, shouldn’t you want a decision theory (including non-zero-sum games) that maximizes your goals? It probably will include counterfactual reasoning, but may or may not touch on superrationality. In any case, social categorization of conflict is probably the wrong starting point.
Which outgroup? Which decision? Are you saying this is universally true?
[note: written awhile ago, and six votes netting to zero indicate that it’s at best a non-helpful comment]
For some outgroups and decisions, this applies. It doesn’t need to be universal, only exploitable. Often mistake theory is helpful in identifying acceptable compromises and maintaining future cooperation. Occasionally, mistake theory opens you to disaster. You shouldn’t bias toward one or the other, you should evaluate which one has the most likely decent outcomes.
Also, I keep meaning to introduce “incompetence theory” (or maybe “negligence theory”)- 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.
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.