Can you explain what stood out to you as conservative about the "progress studies" article?
Wikipedia defines conservatism as "a political and social philosophy promoting traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization".
Patrick Collison's article [1] to me seems to be saying "we should be a lot more systematic and scientific in figuring out the drivers of societal progress, and aggressively invest in those things." That seems in direct opposition to conservatism, since it advocates a dramatic overhaul of ineffective institutions.
Collison's definition of progress does seem narrowly focused on measurable economic metrics. Is that the source of your grievance? I think that developments like women's suffrage and racial desegration should be included in discussions of "progress studies", whether or not they led to improvements in measurable metrics. Collison neglects to include examples of this type in his article, but it's not clear to me that he considers them unworthy of study.
Wikipedia defines conservatism as "a political and social philosophy promoting traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization".
Patrick Collison's article [1] to me seems to be saying "we should be a lot more systematic and scientific in figuring out the drivers of societal progress, and aggressively invest in those things." That seems in direct opposition to conservatism, since it advocates a dramatic overhaul of ineffective institutions.
Collison's definition of progress does seem narrowly focused on measurable economic metrics. Is that the source of your grievance? I think that developments like women's suffrage and racial desegration should be included in discussions of "progress studies", whether or not they led to improvements in measurable metrics. Collison neglects to include examples of this type in his article, but it's not clear to me that he considers them unworthy of study.
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/07/we-need-...