Conflict theory is wrong, so long as you assume the difference in preferences between people are due to improper reasoning and can be corrected through better rationality and more information.
If there's a "true" ideal risk tolerance when making a decision, or an optimal choice that balances all the different considerations perfectly, than anyone who deviates from that optimum is simple wrong, and thus making a mistake. Of course this optimum happens to correspond, or closely correspond to what people advocating for mistake theory believe. It's just a matter of coming up with an optimization function and finding that optimum with the best information available.
Boiling down self-interest to financial gain seems to be a classic mistake of rationalists. That which can not be easily measured is assumed to be less important, whether or not it actually is (I.E. The quantitative fallacy).
I think the strongest impetus for posts promoting mistake theory is the idea that if we just talk things out we can find a compromise that works well for everyone, or more simply that there should be more levelheaded dialog between people who disagree. The sharp distinction between conflict and mistake theory seems to be in pursuit of that goal, rather than the distinction being actually true, with mistake theory being the correct choice between the two.
Conflict theory is wrong, so long as you assume the difference in preferences between people are due to improper reasoning and can be corrected through better rationality and more information.
If there's a "true" ideal risk tolerance when making a decision, or an optimal choice that balances all the different considerations perfectly, than anyone who deviates from that optimum is simple wrong, and thus making a mistake. Of course this optimum happens to correspond, or closely correspond to what people advocating for mistake theory believe. It's just a matter of coming up with an optimization function and finding that optimum with the best information available.
Boiling down self-interest to financial gain seems to be a classic mistake of rationalists. That which can not be easily measured is assumed to be less important, whether or not it actually is (I.E. The quantitative fallacy).
I think the strongest impetus for posts promoting mistake theory is the idea that if we just talk things out we can find a compromise that works well for everyone, or more simply that there should be more levelheaded dialog between people who disagree. The sharp distinction between conflict and mistake theory seems to be in pursuit of that goal, rather than the distinction being actually true, with mistake theory being the correct choice between the two.
Off-topic
Distance yourself from Erik Ahrens if you haven't done so yet.
He's become increasingly deranged in recent months, finally reaching lolcow status.
Any movement and/or person associated with him will take credibility damage.