You seem to have a rather warped and narrow view of rationality, maybe because LW rationality and ancient rationality are, despite sharing a name, not at all the same thing. Most of what you name Strategy I would consider part of rationality, whether or not any given rationalist is skilled at it. Your frame is unnecessarily adversarial and limiting, failing to understand what LW rationality is and how Strategy meshes with it, even though the critique of the rationality community as lacking Strategy skill is accurate.
Alright, the first chunk of my frowning was from claims about Rationality as a generic concept (and my immediate reaction to it). Second, I am puzzled by a few of your sentences.
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.
What do you make of Goal Factoring, one of the techniques designed to patch that class of behaviors ? If I see a self-identified rationalist not being aware of their own goals, and there are a bunch, goal factoring would be my first suggestion. I would expect them to be curious about it.
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.
Mostly unnecessary caveat; one of the main draws of this website is to study the flaws of our own lenses.
Please be undeterred by the negative karma, it's only a signal that this particular post may fail at its intended purpose. Namely:
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.
...where is this document? Here I see a warning about the document, a surface clash of concepts, another warning of ignoring advice from other groups, and a bullet point list with too little guidance on how to get those heuristics understood.
Listing the virtues is a starting point, but one does not simply say "go forth and learn for yourself what Good Strategy is" and see that done without a lot of nudging, or else one might stay in the comfort of "validity-based reasoning" all call it a day. Which I would find disappointing.
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 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.
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.
There must be a thorough understanding of each of the 7 following factors: