Some people I know seem to spontaneously jump from simulacrum 1 to simulacrum 3. They don't seem to notice when they do it. I find this frustrating (thinking: "where has your curiosity gone?")

The reluctance to enthusiastically "commit to a side" smells wrong to them. I suspect such people perceive my committing to sim1 as weird and pathologically passive.

I think they just haven't the time to let themselves sit with a question, so if an answer isn't felt now, it may never come (answers are felt. Uncertainty is uncomfortable).

I deeply respect and have learned a lot from some of them. But I'm missing something important. I need maths

How does one reach equanimity with one's capability level? There seemingly aren't any strong reasons why I can't get arbitrarily better at this... It would just require asymptotically more effort.

I don't want to plateau, I want to eat the library. But I would have to let go of every other interest.

Every outcome seems unacceptable to me.

Requesting advice:

I'm writing a piece on rationalism*/ postrationalism/transhumanism, and some primary sources I'd use would be @SquirrelInHell's "Tuning your cognitive strategies" and some earlier writings.

Are there any who see ethical issues with this, or anyone who knew this person who'd be uncomfortable with me doing this? A comment on the linked post reads

Man, it does make me sad that whenever I bring up this technique, there’s an obligatory version of this conversation.

-[person who crossposted some of SquirrelInHell's writings poshumously to LW]

I do think there's something to say, quite distinct from any speculation about the cause of a tragedy. I have three primary sources currently. It is downstream of my experience but won't necessarily feature that.