Hmm. Another very interesting article by Scott Alexander. Ironically, I've found myself in both positions, usually whichever is the opposite of whoever I'm arguing with. :P
@Angle I liked that article, though I'm pretty definitely (as is pretty obvious to anyone who knows me) on the disagreement side.
It's very difficult for me to take the 'conflict' side even remotely seriously as a /thing people actually believe/ instead of as…some weird disorder of indigestion that manifests as a form of temporary insanity.
@Azure I think its actually a pretty accurate way to view many things? I mean, politics often does come down to groups with different goals trying to have their way. Sure, you can argue that in the end everyone just wants to be happy and they only disagree on implementation, but when that implementation happens to include things like slavery, conflict theory is generally a bett3r way of viewing things. :/
@Angle NOW and again. I think it's more the exception than the rule. And even where it seems to fit, I suspect a lot of people tend to /pursue/ a conflicting goal out of misunderstanding. Or would like something else just as much, or at least as a pretty close second.
@Angle To be fair, I guess when I think of 'mistake' I include a lot of things that aren't entirely /mistakes/ of knowledge. Like being overwrought, inertia, fear. A lot of what might be thought of as /real/ conflicts I think of at least partly as some people being overwrought and cranky and not stopping to think about how other things might be more in their interest or rejecting the idea out of tribalism.
@Azure Mmm, I'm willing to count that as a mistake - as long as it seems reasonable that they might be convinced by mistake theory methods. After that, it's time to fall back to conflict theory. :/