Scott examines and rejects conflict theory (the idea that political disagreements come from material self-interest), arguing instead that political positions are primarily driven by psychological needs and identity rather than material interests. Longer summary

Scott argues against conflict theory, which posits that political disagreements stem from material self-interest, and instead proposes that political positions are driven by psychological needs. He demonstrates this through several examples: the SALT tax cap affecting coastal elites garnered little attention despite significant financial impact, vaccine debates can't be explained by material interests, and most hot-button issues like wokeness or Ukraine have minimal material impact on Americans. The post explains how psychological factors, such as desire for self-esteem and group identity, better explain political positions. Scott concludes that while this makes persuasion theoretically possible, it also explains why genuine compromise attempts are rare. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander revisits his 'Targeting Meritocracy' post, realizing the disagreements stemmed from different fundamental perspectives: mistake theory vs. conflict theory. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reflects on his previous post 'Targeting Meritocracy' and the disagreements it generated. He realizes that the core of the disagreement stems from different perspectives: mistake theory vs. conflict theory. Scott originally wrote from a mistake theory viewpoint, assuming good government is about solving problems efficiently. However, he now understands that those who disagreed likely approached it from a conflict theory perspective, where good government is about serving specific class interests. This realization helps explain the stark difference in opinions and reinforces the importance of identifying fundamental assumptions when encountering seemingly inexplicable disagreements. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander responds to comments on billionaire philanthropy, addressing criticisms while ultimately defending its net positive impact and arguing to protect the most effective charitable efforts. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to comments on his previous post about billionaire philanthropy. He addresses criticisms and counterarguments, providing further analysis on topics like the scale of billionaire donations compared to political spending, the democratic nature of philanthropy, tax deductibility, and potential downsides. While acknowledging some valid concerns, Scott ultimately defends the net positive impact of billionaire philanthropy, especially highlighting examples like the Gates Foundation's global health work. He argues that even if some billionaire philanthropy is problematic, the most effective charitable efforts are so valuable that they should be protected and encouraged. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander addresses feedback on his conflict vs. mistake theory post, acknowledging criticisms while defending the core concept's usefulness as a starting point for understanding different approaches to societal problems. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to comments on his post about conflict vs. mistake theory. He acknowledges valid criticisms while defending the core concept as useful, even if imperfect. Key points include: 1) The dichotomy is meant as a starting point for understanding, not a perfect description. 2) There's confusion between the theories and specific political ideologies that needs clarification. 3) The theories may be better understood as different perspectives or emphases rather than mutually exclusive worldviews. 4) Some commenters offer interesting alternative interpretations or applications of the concepts. 5) Scott reflects on the complexities around ideas of 'shilling' and bias in relation to the theories. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander analyzes SSC survey data to explore the conflict vs. mistake theory distinction in political disagreements, finding that Marxists and the alt-right tend more towards conflict theory than other groups. Longer summary

Scott Alexander analyzes data from the SSC survey to explore the distinction between conflict theory and mistake theory in political disagreements. The post presents various survey questions that tap into this distinction and shows correlations between responses. Results indicate that Marxists and the alt-right tend more towards conflict theory, while libertarians and liberals lean more towards mistake theory. The analysis also explores relationships between conflict theory tendencies and various demographic factors, finding some weak correlations with financial situation, self-perceived morality, and certain personality traits. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander explores the conflict vs. mistake theory dichotomy in politics, reflecting on his own mistake theory bias and considering the merits of conflict theory. Longer summary

Scott Alexander introduces the conflict vs. mistake theory dichotomy in politics and governance. Mistake theorists view political issues as problems to be solved through debate and expertise, while conflict theorists see politics as a struggle between opposing groups. The post explores how these perspectives differ in their approach to free speech, racism, democracy, and revolution. Scott reflects on his own tendency towards mistake theory and considers the merits of conflict theory, especially in light of current political realities. He concludes that while he still leans towards mistake theory, he recognizes the need to engage more seriously with conflict theory perspectives. Shorter summary