Warning to all Rationalists

This document is told from a Strategist's perspective. Not a Rationalist's.

This whole entire section is so that you are consciously aware that I will make every rational error in the book except for the one's that I subjectively find meaningful. And yet, despite definitely being wrong about the specific details of everything I will say in this document. I am still right about the general conceptual message I am communicating. I have faith that the members of this community are open-minded enough to see that.

I have been a reader for nearly a year on the LW community, and yet I am still an alien to the natives of this community because at the core of my psychology, I am not a rationalist. I am a strategist.

And before reading this document, the difference between those two words may not have much meaning to you. But you will soon see how polarizing this difference in thought process truly is.

And you will soon see how this difference has sabotaged our ancestors throughout all of history.

I hope that I can communicate amicably with the members of this community because I have a greater appreciation for rationality than other strategists. As I had a rationalist way of viewing the world during my upbringing.

I hope that I am not treated discriminatorily because I prioritize different systems in my brain as my method for achieving real-world results.

And I hope that this document can serve some semblance of a bridge between our two worlds without being buried because the majority on this site could not conceptualize the fact that there are different styles of thinking that can both achieve positive real-world results.

Strategy vs Rationality

Strategy deals with patterns. Rationality deals with validity.

Strategy is wide while Rationality is narrow.

Strategy is error-prone & messy while Rationality is correct and precise.

Strategy is a fortune cookie. Eliminating 99.9% of options by telling you the general direction things will go.

Rationality is a restrained ASI. Telling you exactly what will happen through universal systems-level truths, while being unable to escape from its confines.

Strategy values history & real-world outcomes. Rationality values research & systemic possibilities.

Both Strategy & Rationality are useless without the other when it comes to practical matters. Even though many strategists are not aware that they are utilizing Rationality in practical matters, and many Rationalists are not aware that they use Strategy in practical matters, they both are. It's just that Rationalists are better at utilizing the systems in the brain that allow for Rationality than Strategists, and Strategists are better at utilizing the systems in the brain that allow for Strategy than Rationalists.

How all Rationalists habitually sabotage Strategists without even being aware of it

This document is addressed the the LW community because I have seen that throughout all of history Rationalists have hated Strategists and Strategists have hated Rationalists.

And it's not because we are that different. We are both the most intellectual types of personas. But we think completely differently at the core of our motivations and our ways of perceiving information. So consequently, we don't understand each other.

Rationalists consistently see Strategists as inexcusably "wrong" or "presumptuous"

While Strategists consistently see Rationalists as inexcusably "short-sighted" or "slow"

And this is because Rationalists do not understand the meaning or value of the Strategist's work. And they can't understand it because they use their own brain as a frame of reference for how other people's brain's work, and can't conceptualize how different the capabilities of the strategist's brain is. They can't conceptualize that the strategist's brain is wired for future prediction in a way that their own isn't. Partly because of ego, partly because of unawareness. Furthermore, for the Strategist, everything is relative to a concrete external goal. While for the rationalist, the goal is often far more fluid, internal, or related to universal truths. Consequently, despite what the Strategist may achieve, those results are seen as "luck". Or the systems created by the strategists are seen as "non-valuable"

Strategists do not understand the meaning or value of the Rationalists work either. And I can attest to this, as I have consistently noted that other strategists see scientists, researchers, academics, etc. as inefficient. Furthermore, I am a strategist, and despite my familiarity with the community, I still do not find meaning or value in the work being done here. I see it as "inefficient" "short-sighted" and "slow". I am incapable of ascertaining the value of pursuing universal truths & passing that knowledge on to future generations. I am incapable of seeing the value of validity based problem-solving as opposed to patterns-based problem-solving.

But obviously, despite my own psychological limitations. The productive effects of Rationalist work throughout history can be seen in the present.

And if you are not blind to the patterns present in history that consistently predict the present, (As 99% of all people are, including most people in this community). Then you will recognize as well that the consequent productive effects of Strategist work is significant as well.

I've said all this, but it must be noted that the animosity between our two camps of thought go far deeper. We don't just dislike each other. But we actively sabotage each other.

Despite us having similar long-term goals at our core, (Long-term betterment of society, prevention of disastrous risks like AGI, increased intellectual capabilities of the general public, etc.)

We both attach negative traits to the other party because of the deficiencies we so clearly see in their reasoning.

And I promise you, just as Strategists are severely deficient in Rationality in a way that makes them look stupid to many Rationalists, Rationalists are severely deficient in Strategy in a way that makes them look stupid to many Strategists as well.

This problem is way more deeply entrenched in the history of humanity & our present reality's current circumstances than anyone is even faintly aware of.

I have consistently seen Strategists be inaccurate about some core truth with which their whole strategy is dependent on. they can be extremely effective in achieving the objective they decided to aim for, but the objective itself could not be reconciled with reality, or was so emotionally motivated that its contents were distorted beyond any serious practical benefits compared to what the individual was capable of.

Likewise, I consistently see Rationalists have no awareness or care of goals in the first place. Every human acts for a goal. If you don't set an external one, then your default one becomes the goals motivated by human motivations systems. (I understand how human motivation systems function to a significant degree. And the autonomous adherence to these motivation systems due to a lack of derived motivation from a specified external goal inevitably causes your real-world actions to harm society as a whole. Regardless of what you may believe about yourself. And as no human has any motivation whatsoever to believe themselves to be "evil" or to deliberately act "evil", for the sake of maliciousness itself. The lack of an altruistic long-term goal & the consequent subconscious autonomous adherence to the motivations systems inherent in human motivation systems is the closest thing to "evil" that exists in our reality.)

To make more clear how Rationalists and Strategists habitually sabotage each other, take the following real-world examples.

Strategists actively tell people things like, "Don't get educated, "credible" sources are non-valuable, and research studies are "wastes of resources."

Rationalists & Strategist employers do not accept the other camp. So an organization will be made up of primarily rationalists and strategists will be left out even if it is an area of interest in which they are capable of contributing significant value. (There are significantly less strategists than rationalists, so while the vice-versa happens, it is far rarer)

In strategist communities, rationalists are outcasted. While in rationalist communities, strategists are outcasted. Online, if one camp fails to conform to the other's thought process, then the downvotes drown out the post. In person, if the methods of reasoning are different, the other person is considered "incompetent", and is treated with contempt. Often actively sabotaged in the form of slander.

I say all this to bring context to this document's demand that the reader does not ask for external justifications of claims. Instead, this document requires that readers test the concepts explored in this document in the real-world. It demands that the readers do not use validity-based reasoning to understand it. It demands that they use patterns-based reasoning and ask themselves, "When is this not true?", while testing the concepts on the real-world. And after 50 trials where 1 error is found the document demands that the reader does not throw out the concept and go back to the drawing board, but instead look for the deeper pattern.

Strategic thinking differs from rational thinking in that rationality and strategy rely on different physiological systems in the brain. Rationality relies on logic & reasoning systems. These systems measure informational inconsistencies and allow the reader to predict future outcomes through probabilities.

Strategy relies on the reader's ability to use heuristical thinking. Which comprises of seeing patterns, Making up imaginary worldstates that represent potentially more accurate patterns, observing the real-world to see if those patterns are true,

If improving your ability to think by going through the uncomfortable process of utilizing a system of the brain that you are unfamiliar with is not something that interests you, then this document is not for you. This document is for those that are willing to temporarily humble themselves so that they may grow in a critical area of weakness in which they'd previously subconsciously held with contempt.

The critical heuristics utilized by the Rationalist Strategist.

There must be a thorough understanding of each of the 7 following factors:

• 1. What exists.
  • Before there is meaning in any information or patterns, all information is equivalent to noise. The goal-system injects meaning into information, and the intellectual system adapts its interpretation of information based on the goal-system.
    • Consequently, there must be a constant & thorough exposure to the unknown unknowns, and a thorough understanding of the probabilities associated to the current state of unknown unknowns.
• 2. The composition of the important things that exist
  • There must be a thorough understanding of the systemic composition of the goal.
    • Reality systems
    • Brain systems
    • Worldstate change systems
    • How the specific objective relates to these 3 systems
  • There must be a large set of heuristics developed as a consequence of a large sample of both real-world personal experience, condensed conclusions from predecessors, and data. - Without these heuristics, critical thinking & problem-solving is impossible, regardless of an individuals intelligence from a hardware perspective.
  • All core high-level systems must be understood in their entirety.
    • A single perspective/pattern MUST NOT be mistaken for the system itself. (This is currently what is done almost 100% of the time.)
    • Understanding is measured by the ability to predict the future in contexts associated with those systems/functions.
    • Humanity must be very wary of hidden functions, and should develop methods for discovering hidden functions. Such as understanding how the smaller parts collaborate to create functions & systems.
      • An example of a hidden function is bit flipping caused by astral radiation. If a bit flipping happens once every 100 years, and a long-term plan was created on the assumption that bit flipping was not a function that existed, then catastrophic failure becomes a possibility.
  • The interrelations between the core high-level systems and the goals must be understood in their entirety.
    • Without this understanding, humans control nothing. Moloch controls everything.
    • Without this understanding, high-level optimizations will inevitably be made towards things that are not the real goal, but are instead patterns or adjacent information.
    • Without this understanding, low-level optimizations will be non-goal aligned, they will lack the ability to give high-level feedback, and motivation will decrease.
    • The optimization matrixes must be clearly defined, and the systemic basis for those definitions must be thoroughly instilled in all core organizational contributors.
• 3. What strategy is
  • Strategy = How an agent overcomes the informational & motivational deficiencies inherent in their hardware to optimize action to change the worldstate in pursuit of the goal-function.
  • Human Strategy = the rules & heuristics applied in the usage of knowledge for the pursuit of a goal
• 4. The high-level on how strategy should be implemented
  • Patterns thinking
  • Systems thinking
  • Correctness of system
  • Accuracy of system
  • Significance of system
  • high level systems as a consequence of "nature" or "times"
  • Manmade systems
  • Moloch
  • Psychological biases
  • False premises
  • Focus & cognitive functions
  • operations
  • accountability
  • people
  • culture
  • incentive structure
  • Potential flaws in the structure of a given strategy
  • Potential strategic deficiencies
  • Unknown unknowns
• 5. How the specific strategy should be implemented
• 6. Potential deficiencies in the strategy, and there should be high-level contingencies
  • (Even if those contingencies are something as simple as, create a new strategy or alter the current strategy using heuristics that consider the new information)
• 7. Motivations associated with the creation & implementations of the strategy