Submission statement: Scott Alexander's mistake theory vs conflict theory distinction is one of the most useful frames for understanding political discourse. But most explanations of conflict theory are either hostile or deliberately obscure. This post attempts something different: a clear-language, analytical reconstruction of how conflict theorists actually think and why their approach makes sense in specific contexts.

Main claims: (1) Conflict theory is genuine epistemology, not just strategy - it answers "what should I believe?" with different criteria than correspondence to reality. (2) These epistemologies are adaptations to different games - cooperative vs zero-sum. (3) Most mistake theorists are strategically naive about which game they're playing.

Long read (~7k words), but if you've ever been confused about why stating true facts sometimes makes people angrier, this might help.