Thursday, July 2nd, 2020
About a week ago, I saw this story going around social media about this blogger named Scott Alexander and his site slatestarcodex.com.
I'd never heard of Scott Alexander or his site before, but I've since learned he's a psychiatrist from San Francisco who wrote about all kinds of interesting subjects like tribalism, racism, libertarianism, Trump, and so on.
The reason he was in the news was because the NY Times wanted to do a feature on him, but after interviewing him, it was revealed to the blogger that they'd discovered his full name and were planning to doxx him in the article (Scott Alexander is only his first and middle name). You can read the details on his site, but as a result, he decided he would delete his blog in order to protect his identity. The idea was that if there was no blog, there would be no story.
Once this became public the NY Times was criticized by various media outlets, and it's been reported that even amongst their own staff it's become a hotly debated issue.
But I'm not really here to talk about any of that.
A few days after hearing about this whole situation, I was chatting with someone when they brought up the subject of mistake theorists versus conflict theorists. I'd never heard those terms, so they briefly explained what they were and linked me to this article:
What do you know? It's an article by that guy I've been hearing so much about!
The blog post is fairly long, so here's a link to a much more succinct explanation of mistake v. conflict theory:
https://gregashman.wordpress.com/2018/07/27/it-turns-out-that-i-am-a-mistake-theorist/
Basically, what it boils down to is that there are two types of people in this world, mistake theorists and conflict theorists. Mistake theorists believe that in order to solve the world's problems, we need to increase intelligence. By educating and informing people to make the best decisions, we put the right people in power, to make the right policies, to make the world a better place.
Meanwhile, conflict theorists believe that our world is always in conflict between those who have power and those who do not. And where mistake theorists believe that you solve the world's problems by increasing intelligence, conflict theorists believe you do so by increasing passion.
“Conflict theorists think you can save the world by increasing passion. The rich and powerful win because they already work together effectively; the poor and powerless will win only once they unite and stand up for themselves. You want activists tirelessly informing everybody of the important causes that they need to fight for.”
I admit I don't fully understand conflict theorists and see myself as a mistake theorist. I believe that if we can help people see the truth, we can improve the world. (For example, there's so much information out there about Covid-19, if there was a way to filter out all the bad information, I believe we would be much better off.)
Maybe I'm a mistake theorist because in the overall scheme of things, I'm not oppressed, I don't have to worry about my basic necessities, so I don't see myself as poor and powerless. Is that what it boils down to?
Do you see yourself as a conflict theorist? Do you believe that what the world really needs is for the have-nots to band together and fight and overthrow the power structure? I'd love to hear from you in the comments so I can better understand your position.
Speaking of conflicts, I wanted to mention how at least one person was very angry with my last post. I was afraid that might happen, that it might be seen as some manipulation tactic to get more tips. Maybe it was and I'm just unwilling to admit it to myself, but I really did wonder to myself why anyone would tip (donate) when they don't have to, or if they didn't think their actions might benefit them in some way (i.e. by increasing the value of their BCH holdings). I asked myself this not only in relation to my read.cash earnings, but also as it related to infrastructure funding in the BCH ecosystem. As someone who donated $500 to Bitcoin ABC, I did so because I believe in their work and wanted to support them in some small way. I didn't have to. My family could have used that $500 as much as Bitcoin ABC could, but I donated because I find value in their work. And that's all I was saying. I was just wondering if the world would be a better place if we were more supportive and encouraging of one another, of the ideas we want to see executed, not because we are forced to, but through voluntary means.
I get that might just be wishful thinking. As I mentioned in my previous article, maybe we're just not built that way.
I admit I've read Ayn Rand and once spent an entire semester in college trying to act like Howard Roark. But I don't know if I'd want a world where all we cared about was our own personal happiness, though maybe I'm just not smart enough to see Ayn Rand was right.
But that's what this is all about for me. The way I see my articles is just me thinking out loud. I'm here to learn while also sharing my own thoughts and experiences. I hope that people don't take offense to my articles, but maybe that's impossible if we're to believe the mistake theorist v. conflict theorist dichotomy.
I've been told mistake theorists and conflict theorists can never reconcile. Perhaps that's true. After all, part of the beauty of this world is that it's filled with all different types of people, so it makes sense that some will just never see eye-to-eye with each other. But at the same time, we are all part of the same human race, and I can't help but wonder if any of us are really all that different in the grand scheme of things.
Thank you for reading. (Who knows, maybe I should be the one tipping you to read these articles.)
what a terroris!! 🙄😂