Been trying to put together a framework for analyzing the way people think, process, approach, and prioritize information; for some time now. The same few patterns seem to come up rather consistently. The following is an attempt to systematize them a little bit.

To be clear, a few of these appear to be rather involuntary, naturalistic, and compulsive: less of a "this is the way people are", more of a "way they routinely choose to be".

Nevertheless, the more I think about them, the more they make sense.

Pointers

By the far the most common, most reactive, most emotional, and the most vocal of all. In politics, the first to repost any and all "events" they happen to personally resonate with. Whether towards the positive or negative side of the spectrum, usually matters little.

"Biden's gaffs are out of control: what just happened."

"Trump's completely deranged: here's the proof."

Political conversations inherently lend themselves rather poorly to any genuine scrutiny, as duly noted already. They do reveal quite well, nevertheless, the ones who are the most content and the least concerned, at once, with snap judgements and singular point-based conclusions. Traders of mental real estate belonging to the audience of their respective channel and/or platform rarely seem to care about their role in this regard, just as well.

It doesn't quite stop at politics, nevertheless. People reposting interview segments of any pop-tech CEO thoughtfully waving their hands and saying a great deal of words, so few of which carry any genuine information. With a few promptly adopting whatever word salad their ears had the misfortune of exposing themselves to as a holy gospel, some others procede to focus on the most dramatic, emotionally charged "hot takes":

"Musk's takeover of Twitter is genius / in shambles."

"It's all over / a new era for OpenAI and Altman now."

Does it reveal a bit more about the state of affairs within the mind of an average "influencer" and/or "news" organization in the space? Certainly. Neither would be considering such rhetoric if it didn't "work", however. The demand is clearly there. Whether the ones in demand are consciously aware of its ability to hijack their own attention span towards the latest "OMG" moment is of secondary importance here.

People, on average, are clearly content, satisfied, complacent enough to outsource their considerations to the most likeable, professional, intellectually sophisticated individual/s around them, at a drop of a hat. One "hot take" is all genuinely takes for some. No sense of perspective. No sense of history that has been transpiring for the last few decades before any given point they are presented with. Point taken. Point absorbed.

If you are anywhere close to the world of web development, you don't need me to tell you about the amount of buzz/hype/clout regularly generated around ever-the-latest, ever-the-greatest yet framework for JS. Sure, it may implement the same old standard that's been around for three decades, yet this time around it's most definitely a game-changer.

Most of "organizations" and "communities" at large seem to be just as susceptible to it.^[1] Certainly, at times it is a matter of pure compliance alone. Other times, it is somewhat more akin to "our great caliph has spoken, we shall promptly spread his word". Replace Scott's remark with any formal/non-formal leader/founder of any given source/brand, representing any single identity endowment point: will there be any major difference?

Vectorizers

Live through enough moments of an inner/outer sense of dissonance/humiliation to continue relying on spurious injections of vacuous points of information with little to no relation in between each other, and you'll likely end up "graduating" to the next level. At this particular stage, each point becomes less of an end-all be-all: more of a "but wait".

Russia has invaded Ukraine, completely unprovoked? But wait: haven't there been a whole lot of conversations that since have been swept under the rug? What was the US State Department doing there back in 2013, exactly? What about that phone call, with the F* the EU moment? The Merkel's somewhat fascinating interview for the Zeit? ^[2]

Hamas/Israel brutally attacked/oppressed the other side, thus provoking a long overdue just retaliation? But wait: hasn't there been a back-and-forth in that particular part of the world for decades on end, at this point? What's been going on there before? Should I be joining someone's protest for Palestine/Israel based purely off ... what was it, exactly? ^[3]

Is the Musk's takeover of Twitter/X actually the worst thing in the world? Should I consider an Altman a genius and/or scumbag, based off one's tech journal take alone?

Vectorizing is a great deal of fun. It is also somewhat calming of a pastime. Instead of succumbing to whatever emotions you are being led to with that particular incoming data point, you can choose to either [a] immediately contrast it against all of the models and/or understanding you have on the topic, if they are available or [b] practice ἐποχή by suspending your judgement altogether and marking it as "needs more investigation".^[4]

As fun as it is, some people do point out the dangers of taking this too far. Clearly, there is a great deal of difference in between having done one's research, serving as a basis for one's understanding of the world as it was before the situation came to evolve up to, and including the point, in which we now observe it; and a pure implication of such a basis.

To me, an individual's inability to notice an exceedingly clear absence of any foundational body of knowledge behind anyone's particular persuasion tactics has always been much more representative of that particular individual's level of understanding with regards to persuasion itself. Should we hold in contempt all chefs on the basis of a few murderers, known to have used knives in the past, then? Seems outright silly, if not arbitrary. ^[5]

The framing is quite worrying, as well: "a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable (and hopefully not legally actionable)"? Who is to determine the "wildness", the "acceptability" or the "legal actionability" of any statement, considered "accusation"?

Quite a telling example with regards to the difference in between the thought process of P's and V's, now that I think about it. While the former have no reservation in applying, projecting, imposing their own preferences, evaluations, judgements, beliefs, ideals unto the rest of the world; the latter are quick to retreat into their inner world with every new piece of evidence in a mere attempt to triangulate it all. While the former are posting, accusing, and calling each other out; the latter are busy simply trying to understand.

Where did that particular framing come from, for instance? What does the trajectory of life for the individual and/or group of co-authors, behind that article as a whole, look like? When did they develop their glaring distaste for Trump, Joe Rogan, Fox News?

This line of reasoning is quite universal, as well. Elon Musk is not a static snapshot of whatever assumptions your mind happens to project onto him the moment his name comes up in your mind's eye. Nor is Trump, or Altman, or Sutskever, or Yudkowsky. Individuals change. Societies change. Times change. Little, if anything, is permanent.

Whatever point any given article/influencer/intellectual may want to impress upon you represents, at best: a single set of un/reliable facts, takes, or opinions. At worst? Forget it. Which point of origin, of which coordinate system, did that guy happen to reach that particular point of his from, on the other hand? Now that's a vector to consider.

Once you've acquired at least somewhat significant enough of a perspective, you'll likely gain at least somewhat resolute of a desire to figure out the future to come, just as well.

At this point, if you're not careful enough, things might take a turn for the worse.

Differentiators

Trace enough vectors through any given period while gradually reducing the last historical precedent any current data point in the immediate present is contrasted against, and you've got yourself nothing short of an effective approximation of an immediate rate of change within any given domain you're attempting to process.

If you are trying to figure out the moment at which it would be most appropriate to abandon the current ship you're working at for the sake of another, infinitely more promising of an opportunity; if you have even an ounce of entrepreneurial spirit contained within you; this will be one of, if not the key to, your ultimate "win".

Get into the habit of detecting the upcoming change in the tide. Whether it is to promptly ship of a few containers worth of masks for the upcoming COVID hysteria from overseas, sensing a nearby market opportunity; abandoning any of your left-leaning reservations to openly join Trump on his campaigning trail; or playing into public and/or shareholders' expectations. While the pointers react and vectorizers try to figure it out, you are there solely to adapt and go with the flow, wherever it happens to go.

Accused of being a mercenary? What a sweet compliment. Principles are overrated. Values are overpriced. It's a cruel world: only the strongest survive. Adapt or perish.

Holmes is a prime example of a first-class differentiator. Who needs a working medical prototype if you can just make it up as you go along? Madoff was another one, unlucky enough to get caught in the crosshairs of the establishment, as it was desperately scrambling for a public sacrifice to appease the victims of a gamble gone sour.

See how many you can count amongst finfluencers and their favourite toy.

Operatives

Expose yourself for a [1] sufficient amount of time, to a [2] sufficiently challenging environment, wherein you must solve a [3] sufficiently important problem for other human beings to compensate you for your efforts, with a [4] sufficiently curious mind, dissatisfied with settling for whatever "rules" you are told to operate by in that particular domain, and you'll be on your way to figure out much more than just the latest trend.

Ray Dalio's "Principles for Dealing with the Changing World Order" come to mind here. Notice his ability to move back and forth, starting from any arbitrary* point in history. He's not merely sensing the next shift in the tide [D]. He understands its function.

If a P wakes up groggy in the morning, he rushes to get bitter/resentful/disappointed about it, rush to post his state of mind on TT/IG/X for some more garbage to feed into his barely present consciousness, proceed to waste yet another day pretending to "rest", stay up until 3 AM once again, then repeat the cycle all over again the next morning.

If a V wakes up groggy in the morning, he might some spend some time analyzing how this mess came to be. How did he start his morning the day before? Did anything hijack his attention in the noon? What about the evening? Ah, binge watching yet again. If he doesn't get too busy tracing the whole thing all the way back into his early infancy, he may even decide to skip on social media altogether for the day: a nice improvement.

If a D wakes up this way, he'll head on straight for a solid mug of coffee. No coffee left? Hit the nearest store. Closed? Will grab one on the way to the office. Adapt or perish.

An O? It's one of those days, then. Put some music on. Meditate for a little while. Go for a jog. Take a shower. Review the work to do for the day. Have a breakfast. Off we go. If it's not scheduled outright, it will instantly pop up in their mind as the way to go about it.

This isn't merely about structure, or protocols, or set-in-stone plans.

To quote Sarah Constantin's post:

One of the things I’ve noticed in people who are farther along in business or management than I am, usually men with a “leaderly” mien, is a certain comfort with uncertainty or imperfection.
They can act relaxed even when their personal understanding of a situation is vague, when the future is uncertain, when the optimal outcome is unlikely. This doesn’t mean they’re not motivated to get things done. But they’re cool with a world in which a lot of things remain nebulous and unresolved at any given moment.
They’re able to produce low-detail, high-level, positive patter for a general audience. They’re able to remain skeptical, expecting that most new ideas won’t work, without seeming sad about that.
Talking to someone like that, it feels like a smooth layer of butter has been spread over the world, where everything is pretty much normal and fine most of the time — not a crisis, not a victory, just normalcy.

You do not get to this level without having developed a visceral, instinctual, functional bird's eye view over the environment you operate in, at large. Without a pre-conscious understanding of the ups and downs, lefts and rights, back and forth's of the sea itself; you, as a captain, don't stand a single chance in crossing it. Same goes for any domain.

If you're rising up of what you know to be a sinusoidal wave, you instantly sense that this ascent isn't going to permanent. You know a moment where it will seem as if you are not moving at all, is coming. You understand a descent will promptly follow it. Why would you not be comfortable? Why react to it? Stop chasing shadows: just enjoy the ride.

Rigid, formulaic, inflexible, utterly detached from any and all dynamics of the real world "first A, then B, followed by C" are perfectly viable if your intent is to get on the action of yet another D-able trend which a great deal of P's are so eagerly embracing.^[6] They mean nothing in the real world where the situation may change several times in a single day.

You don't cross the ocean with an abstract notion of the way you should act alone: if not by an accident, or an extraordinary amount of luck. You don't get to become a captain of either a civilian airplane or an oversized cargo vessel by showing up with a mere plan at someone's doorstep. Completing a MOOC, graduating from any arbitrarily prestigious institution, getting a new shiny certificate at the end of it all: means less than nothing.

Some skills can't be taught, to begin with. They can only be developed via a consistently applied effort, across a span of time prolonged enough for your brain's wiring to give up on its repeated attempts to port your previous conditioning into the new environment altogether, in favour of an actual understanding, gradually emerging as you go along.

This understanding, un/subconscious more often than not, is precisely the source of "mien"-ly attitude that comes to the surface in the way people carry themselves. That attitude is just an effect, however: the cause of it is an internalized, automatic, habitual "sense" of the way your domain of choice operates: sole product of time and immersion.

Once at least one single function's nature and co/domains become apparent, trying to get a grip on the way other domains of human endeavour work becomes an interesting exercise, in its own regard. Watching people go bonkers about any single talking point without even the slightest attempt to understand the ever-recurring cycles by which these points re/emerge over and over again is an interesting pastime, just as well.

Did I mention the side-effect of you gaining an ability to develop at least somewhat reliable operational guides for yourself and other people, within your field? Fairly indispensable for running any joint effort past the point of "right into the ground".

Shifters

Should you not be familiar with the basics of category theory, here's a quick^[7] refresher.

If any given function establishes a relationship between its inputs/domain and its outputs/codomain, so as to make of a $D = {1, 2, 3}$ its corresponding $C = {1, 4, 9}$ , any functor $F (f) \to f \circ f$ establishes, amongst other things, a relationship between input/output's of a given function, and input/output's of a corresponding function; thereby turning our aforementioned $f (x) = x^{2}$ into an $F (f) \to f \circ f = (x^{2})^{2} = x^{4}$ .

In an ever so slightly less obnoxious, mathematical, abstraction-walled language: if some people only limit themselves to understand and act upon the relationships between the immediately observable causes and effects, a few more might venture a step further in order to identify and understand the relationships between relationships themselves.

Consider the relationship in between the time spent on a given activity, and the results produced at an arbitrary point of evaluation. Functionally, you might begin representing it by a rather straightforward relationship: $r (t) = R t - E$ for a sequential, incremental, clearly defined in advanced work; requiring a set amount of effort $E$ to accomplish, performed at a constant rate of production $R$ by the source of labour in question.

Doesn't look wrong, does it? If it is, indeed, a "sequential, incremental, clearly defined in advanced work"; if the amount of total effort is, indeed, a constant and not "by the way, here's one more thing we've forgotten to mention during the last call"; if the production rate is, indeed, well represented by a constant of the average output per any given fraction of time; what is there not up to par about such a functional outlook?

"Keep your R consistent", everyone. "Never expand on your E", under any circumstance. Instantly quotable. Universally applicable. Marketable to all executive levels. Makes you look smart in front of your prospective employer, regardless of whether you're about to be hired as a consultant or a regular blue-collar employee; and your own superior alike.

Go right ahead, then: use it, apply it, spread it in your own organization. See how long it takes for the novelty effect, if it ever comes into being, to wear off; for the Goodhart's law to kick into the full effect, as your colleagues do their worst to inflate their respective $E$ while doing their absolute best to justify their increasingly non-existent KPIs by the $R$ .

Cause-and-effect tracking is not a simple task. It can be made infinitely more difficult by blindly adopting strategies, methodologies, perspectives, approaches, entire philosophies of life; based solely on [P] how cool or smart or trendy or fashionable or intellectually sophisticated they appear to be, on [V] the contrast between any historical precedent wherein they were not in use, and their prospective point of application in the now, on [D] how well they may help you adapt to the environment, or even on [O] the observable relationship today, between the data at an input/cause and output/effect layers alone.

When the functional demarcations or dispositions or maps everyone's been using on for years, decades, centuries on end at times; having been conceived at a specific point in time, authored by a specific individual and/or group of people, with a specific set of concerns, interests, blind spots and curses, anchored within their own character, personality, environment, social pressure; when they stop tracking any remotely meaningful relationships in between the abstract and the real: look for a functor.

The Weirding Diary comes to mind here. Regardless of how much you personally agree with any of the points Venkatesh made then, notice the mode of analysis itself. His is not a model of any singular relationship in the domain of the observable causes and effects.

In my 2012 post, Welcome to the Future Nauseous, I defined the idea of a manufactured normalcy field (MNF). An MNF comprises both the models in your head, and elements in the built environment meant to encourage it to stabilize in your head. A stable MNF keeps the sense of weirdness at bay, and normal people functioning as adults. When the field destabilizes due to models crumbling in your head, reality acquires a surreal character. When it destabilizes due to the built environment crumbling, you have an anxiety response. When both crumble, you experience weirdness. In all three cases, functional behaviors required for survival get disrupted.

You don't get to ever notice the destabilizations of your models if all you're ever doing is exploiting them for fun and profit. To bring back the abstract repertoire of the moment: to notice the shift of your functions, you must be looking for the functors moving them.

You could certainly argue in favour of this framing being completely pointless, as any arbitrarily abstract approach to model any part of the world or society, whether in their concrete/physical or cultural/zeitgeist-y manner, could be still be reduced to an $f (x)$ .

The distinction is intentional. Being able to distinguish the undergoing changes within the world/society/individual/myself as they evolve in time, from the way those changes themselves happen to change and evolve, in turn; will be relevant for our next level yet.

To further cement the distinction, look at his tweet:

Sure, it does certainly delineate the inputs and outputs of an institution whom we might consider to prioritize an outward appearance over any and all of it operational essence.

What does the word "syndrome" stand for, however: if not a shift in the modus operandi of institutions themselves, from their usual/common/expected function-ality into producers of self-servingly aggrandizing impressions, via the functor of SaaS? ^[8]

Another way to look at it yet, would be to draw a parallel off the levels we've introduced so far. If any single data point is a fully sufficient piece of information to a P; half of the information needed at worst, to come to any conclusion, to a V; one of a whole set of elements required to draw any reasonable plan of action for a D or an O; then a singular understanding of a given relationship/function might fully satisfy an O, while being only one piece of the puzzle for an individual, versed in the functor scale/mode of analysis.

Navigators

Trace enough functor-ial shifts, and you will find yourself in another place yet. Just as Dalio's extensive D-ial tracking has led him to develop his own O-nal approach to the world, there is a case to be made for the same evolution on the functional level as well.

Just as any function, isolated at any one place within the coordinate system it is projected onto, evaluates to a single point; when considered within the field it is bound to, each and every function is little more than a single thread of its own underlying "fabric".

Specifically: a vector or a slope field. If you happen to have an intuitive analogy for what a differential equation it is derived from may represent, feel free to share your insight. ^[9]

Breaking it down into anything remotely concrete feels like a gargantuan task, outright. 道德經 might be relevant. Out of all the 140+ translations available, here's Le Guin's:

The way you can go
isn’t the real way.
The name you can say
isn’t the real name.

Heaven and earth
begin in the unnamed:
name’s the mother
of the ten thousand things.

Ported to our own map:

The function you can employ
isn't the real function.
The relationship you can define
isn't the real relationship.

Abstract and concrete
begin in the undefinable:
definition's the mother
of all the understanding.

It is rather unlikely 老子 thought of calculus, out of all things, when composing the opening lines of their Magnum Opus. Regardless, it will have to make do. I'm not that certain there is any single example that has any hope of reaching this level of abstraction.

Just as a perspective of a P with regards to "this is clearly the way it is, haven't you heard of <latest point of the day>?" makes little sense to a V/D; so does the perspective of an O with regards to "this is clearly the way it works, haven't you thought of <projection of one's own experience/philosophy/worldview/frame of reference onto an arbitrarily chosen period of recent/historical development>?" might make no sense to an N.

Dalio's take on the "Changing World Order" left me somewhat troubled, in this regard. Clearly, he knows what he's talking about. At the same time, he doesn't even attempt to move beyond the concept of the "order" as his education/environment/experience led him to view it as: with one "power" dominating, subjugating, and ruling over the rest.

Quite a graph, isn't it?

Warning: Chinese ahead.

Analysing historical precedents ...

Before the US: the British.

Before the British: the Dutch.

Before the Dutch: ERROR

Ë̴͙̹ư̸̯r̷̦̀̓ȏ̷̯p̴̭͝ȅ̵͖̿ ̶̛͔͒ṅ̵͘͜o̸̼͎͐̀ṭ̷͐ ̵̟̝͋f̴͙̙͌o̵̗̰̔͊ȕ̸̝̰̕n̷̟͔̎d̵̘̝͊.̶͎̣̓̀ ̷̗̘̲͝͝ ̸̡͎̭͓̥̹̝̱͎̉͒͒͝

S̷̭̲̞̝͎̞̺͈̭͊̀͘t̸̖̼̅o̸̱͔̯͇̼̯͛̓̌̑͝ͅc̶̭̜̱̜̈́́͗̋̍́͜k̶͚̫͍̥͈̟̱̼͖̾̒̎̅̍̓̄ ̸̟̑̈́̊̐̏͠m̸̢̥̻̹̣̼̿͌a̸͈̤̝̻̙̘̟̩̥͒̅͊͗̈́̂̒͠͠r̸̗͉͙̩͖̆̽̈́̈́̚͜͝ͅk̴̨̹̣̫̈́͛͌̚ȩ̷̹͈̺̣̙́̋͌̉͊̽̈́̒͊t̴̼̠̯̻͍̹͓͌͒̊̆̍ ̶̠̫̥̿i̵̡̞̥͈̤̻̖̹̿̔̅͊̆͆̈́͆s̵͎͚̘̹͈̫̀͑̔͑̐ ̸̯̗̬̝̭̉̒̈́v̶̺̲̅̈͛͐̀͠ò̵̢̡̤̹̠̺͇̦͗̇͝͝ȉ̸͙̃̈́̾̀͗͗d̷̗̬͚͔̠͉̗͂͐͗̒̏̀̊̈́̆.

F̴̡̦̯͉̦̭̲̯̣̬͒́̽̓̈́u̷̧̢̧̝̝̭͉̱̱̟̹̼̬͚͕͙̲͉̰̺̯̺̙̠̇͛̉̿̌̉̍̑̓͛͗̏̅͋̈̈́͆̿̈́̍̕̚͜͠ͅn̶̦͉̻̪͌̀̈́͊c̴̞̩͇͖͕̦̦̖̯̗̗̦̼͙̙͇̯̥̜̭̪̰͍̀͋͗̈́̋̊͆̓̄͂͜͜ͅṱ̸̡̧͉͎̖̩͔̤̮̯̼͓̩̮͙̌̆̑̀̈́̽̆į̵̛͍̘͇̺̪͍̯̜̻̰̮̟̣͈̟̥̩̱̤̠̮̣̯̟̗̽͒͛̀͑̾̑̎̐͌̅́͑͑̉̂͝ơ̴̧̜͖̠̦̼̹͈̹̟̫̞̰̟̻̦̞͉̪͑̇̍̓̚n̷̡̛̝̝̲̻̰̞̥̲̗̝̳̼̲̱͈͂̀͂̔̓͑̐̈́̋̈́̊̌̌͛̑̚̕͠͝͠͝ ̴̛̬̻̻̲̮͇̠̺̝͔̤̞̰̻͚̮̥͋̀͛̎̉͜ç̸͕̜̞͈̝͈̬͓̹͈̺̰̹̉̉̔̎ͅä̶̢̙̳̖͈͓̪̰̬͑͗͋̔͂͒͑͠ḽ̶̢̡̥̬͚̬̯̻̖͇̼̊̆ļ̸͍͔̦̫̮̥̌̽̍̓͐̄̾͝ ̸̟͙͓͕̖̖̭̇̎̽͑̏̅̂̋̓͗̅͆͊̔͗͋̀̇͐͑͒̇̀̕͜͝i̴̢͍͚̪͛̐̽s̴̡̨̢̛̛̺͉͚̩̱̮̻̹̟̄͌̉̈̆̾͂̋̐͗̏́̔ ̵̠̜̪̖̜̼͍̣͈̦̜͔̜̣̥͎͎̠͐͌͑̈́̄̎͆̃̍̈́͗͋͑̾̇̃̆͊̚̚0̶̢̨͎̮̤͕̪͔̭̼͇͔̳̫̭͓̦͔̯̗̎̾͌̓͋͌̆̉̀͌̂̿̔̽͊̎͠͝͝ͅ.̷̛̛̙̩̫̯͍̼̣̔̇̉̊̀̅͛̃͊͒̈̽̓̚͠͠ͅ

Exception raised.

Program aborted.

His analysis isn't wrong, once again. It is spot on, in fact. As long as you operate off the exact same set of axioms he regards to be obvious, fundamental, unquestionable: true.

What are chances of them truly being so, given the constant shifts within the way people operate on a daily basis, as they attempt to derive the next direction the world seems to be heading in, conceptualizing it all from a handful of vectors, which they construct based on a select few points their own mind ever let them pay any attention to?

Even if you do assume our world, society, economy, civilization had permanently altered during the Dutch Golden Age, what is the likelihood of it never transitioning again? ^[10]

Navigating changes while they happen without attempting to fit the constantly shifting landscape of the territory, as it is, into your conceptual map of the way it ought to be: no matter the manner of expertise, education, experience, or epistemological inquiry your "ought to" happens to be based on; is a completely different beast of a skill altogether.

It's also the skill that no single identity within any society, community or organization you'll ever be a part of will ever encourage you to acquire. To be a rationalist implies to do what it is required in order to preserve rationalism, in whatever light your affiliation led you to regard it as; or witness a part of yourself die and fade into oblivion, outright.

Same applies to being an Israeli, a Ukrainian, an American, or a Chinese. Identity can end up shaping an individual to a great deal more substantial of an extent than the one to which they may want or choose or even attempt to alter their own sense of "self".

Same goes for any need or desire or obsession, of any intensity at all.

So the unwanting soul
sees what’s hidden,
and the ever-wanting soul
sees only what it wants.

With regards to the dynamics of the underlying field behind any given cause-and-effect function your episteme allows you to observe, this has little to do with any "mysticism".

Your "wants" and intents prime your attention, leading you to disregard most, if not all, of the information that is not in line with the object of your target. If your sole objective in life is to "win" and "compete" and "cut the enemy", you will look for and notice and see enemies all over, whether they are there or not. If the only "rationality" you ever allow yourself to consider is the one espoused by EY, how will you ever get to be less wrong?

Do you even have your own sense of what it actually means to be wrong, to begin with?

Language is a thread-forming instrument in this regard, as well. The cultural dimension clearly matters along the very same vein, yet even if were to flatten it out completely: everyday colloquialisms, common associations within the words themselves which translate one thought into a line of reasoning into a chain of questions into a series of conclusions into a set of decisions into a sequence of actions to undertake from then on.

There are two aspects of it which matter the most to our discussion: the epistemic aspect, as contrasted against the social one. We are, furthermore, yet to reach the point at which the former would come to shape the latter. To this day, the exact opposite has held true. Our neural wiring deems it much more sensible to orient itself in the world it lives in based off social cues or hints or advice or opinion, therefore; rather than a perfectly coherent epistemic representation or knowledge or understanding or worldview.

Putting it bluntly, this implies that most of you people reading this, care a great deal less about being wrong then you do about being seen as wrong by LW or any other group or tribe or community or organization their perception has sufficiently primed you up for.

Not because you are not as smart as you believe yourself to be. On the contrary: your brain is smart enough to have figured out long ago that social approval is an infinitely more lucrative of resource than any rationality you may have ever wished to develop.

Recognizing that most of the language you are using then is, in fact, not merely a terribly inaccurate map of the incredibly complex territory you are trying to chart your course through; but, in fact, it's not even as much of a map as it is a membership card for the club representing your social circle, cultural upbringing, and ethnic/national heritage; will therefore be the step zero in trying to overcome your brain's innate tribal mechanic.

If you've never acquainted yourself with any language other than English, you're in for a treat. If you've never troubled yourself with any sense of interest or curiosity towards; with a willingness to understand, empathize, "rise up" or "lower yourself" to the level of people outside of your own social circle: the one you personally happen to be the most familiar, affiliated and/or entangled with; the success and/or failure of which determine your own, whether you happen to be happy about the fact or not; you're in for a treat.

Step one of venturing beyond your local thread is realizing it is, in fact, incessantly local. Meanwhile, the field underneath it is, in itself, in the state of a constant gradual shift. ^[11]

To believe that our beliefs are permanent truths which encompass reality is a sad arrogance. To let go of that belief is to find safety. - Le Guin

Your words, your concepts, your perception, your imagination's scenery; on the other hand, can only feed you with snapshots of the world as it once used to be. Talk to your parents: the older, the better. See how many of their skills and thought patterns and decision making rules-of-thumb will be strictly relevant to your own life, in 2025.

The difference between your map and the territory is simply not significant enough for your brain to pick on it, for the time being. Yet in time, this difference will only grow.

Step two is ~~selling off all of your possessions and retreating into a Buddhist temple until the end of your life~~. If that seems like a bit too radical of a measure for the time being, would you possibly consider starting out by becoming an ever so slightly less entitled, self-centered, obnoxious little ****? ^[12] As our merry individualism hits its limits here.

The world owes you less than nothing. The game you want to "win" so bad at exists in your imagination alone. The life is meant to be lived, not exploited with a smug sense of rationalism-ized superiority over the "normies". The whole of "them" and "you" and "it" is one and the same. The more you focus on your map, the less of the territory you'll see.

Somewhere along the way, we've seem to become quite comfortable with the idea that each and every one ought to only care about their own little garden. The world should take care of itself, then. Unless it's the election season, of course. Then the world must promptly fall in line to do our bidding, whatever that is. Quite a charming philosophy.

If it's not our own little garden, as individuals, it's our own little garden project, as a group. Well: until the only thing you care to notice is either the garden of your own and/or the pack you run with on a daily basis, the world will keep trampling over it.

Talking heads will lie, three-letter groups will twist your hand without you noticing, corporations you lease your time and attention for "fun" and convenience to will keep reselling your information to the highest bidder; all driven by the same self-interest we, as a society, have decided to operate on. Tragedy of the commons, wasn't it? Great point.

Until you acknowledge it is not about you, that it never was about you, that it never will be about you; we and you and they won't move a single inch. The territory will remain uncharted. The map will only keep getting loftier, prettier, more sophisticated, more "rational", more "altruistic", more of the more of the more: until the less of the none. ^[13]

Step three is letting go of what "is" to let your neural net process what "could" or "can". Not sure if there is a better way of putting it, though I am fairly certain there could be.

Step four:

Do not do.
Doing not-doing.
To act without acting.
Action by inaction.
You do nothing yet it gets done.

In physical terms: don't punch a non-Newtonian fluid.

Don't force into the explicit/legible what is inherently implicit/illegible.

Don't even attempt to figure out any concrete examples to make sense of, at this point.

On a serious note: if you do happen to find a way to lower down to the object-level what appears to reside fully within the meta-level and in no way intersect it, with a tool that has evolved primarily as a means for primates to "point" out to each other where the nearest predator, shelter, and food happens to be; do share your findings with all.

Also: while browsing for tags, I've accidentally stumbled upon the "cultural knowledge" entry. Perhaps it might make sense to see a "metis" as an example of a field which imparts the shared collective momentum of S to O to D to V to P then? Its inherently implicit illegible nature does seem to concur with all of the aforementioned, at least.

Practical Tips

Clean up your identity. You're are not an X-ist or Y-an or Z-er. What you are is a regular, common representative of the Homo Sapiens species who is a bit too eager to play into "What tribe shall I seek shelter and salvation from?" game we've been playing for ages.

Graham's approach is the starting point.

The more labels you have for yourself, the dumber they make you.

You can go a step further. Instead of limiting yourself to a select few labels, you can further constrain those labels themselves to be as general as they could possibly be. Example: "a man, a human being, a citizen of planet earth". Yes, these are my own.

The more labels you have for yourself, the more prone you'll be able to get P-stuck gathering ammunition against your enemy of the day; completely disregarding the considerations you could only reach in the levels above of your favourite "points".

-

Go on an expert diet. There are no "experts", only people who have given themselves a chance to go beyond the point of passive, reactive, impulsive, consumptive, system-one, default-mode existence. They know what they know not because of who they are, but because of what they do. Enough time, immersion, and experience will make an expert out of anyone. Quit putting people on pedestal. Start using your own brain, for a change.

If you're not planning to go on a social media diet, which I would also wholeheartedly recommend, this is not going to be easy. Influencer economy operates off points and emotions, drama and hot takes. If you can't be bothered sparing yourself from an onslaught your senses, at least pay attention to the O/D/V's their P's stem from.

-

Box yourself out. There are no "subjects" and "disciplines", no "markets" and "industries", no T distinct from E distinct from R distinct from Y within the territory itself. Only a great lot of maps people draw and re-draw and over-draw in an attempt to justify their identity and preferences, choices and affiliations, careers and positions, titles and status. Draw your own, or you will waste your life charting someone else's course throughout.

Little caveat: there's a fine line between a contrarian "got to have my take on this" and "got to understand how this construct works at conjunction of its parts and beyond".

The first is the fool's claim to fame on the web. The second is an approach of someone who doesn't blindly accept whatever frame of reference, explanations, and theories they're being handed; without having thoroughly processed, if not reconstructed, particular details, from which the individual points of view are then derived.

Yes: boring, tedious, unintuitive, time-consuming. Just as we like it.

Now you know why most would rather P all over the place.

-

Let it go. It doesn't matter what "it" is. If you're holding onto it, if you're attached to it, if you need or want or crave or got to: learn to let it go. Nothing to do with Buddhism or Chinese philosophy. You simply won't notice the gorilla if you're busy counting balls.

Not specific to any singular level alone. Even random points will be out of your reach, unless you get a handle on your emotions and attachments. Nothing more to add here.

-

Fit out of it. When faced with a choice in between saying something "controversial" or "playing it safe", choose the former. I've had plenty of opportunities to do exactly that with this piece of writing. If it might ruffle some feathers, but still be important for people to consider: do just that. It's not going to feel nice. That is the whole point.

This might be the most important of them all, so expanding on it feels appropriate.

Groups of people are known to acquire emergent properties which the individual group members might not be able or willing to show on their own. Deindividuation is one of these. Groupthink is another one. If you believe yourself to be the smartest cookie out there who is never going to succumb to such silliness, chances are: you really are not.

Clock's gears do not get to choose whether the clock's mechanism gets to affect them: it simply does. Similarly, your mere presence within a given social gathering is enough to make your neural circuit go funny. Should you wish to avoid it, put in some effort in order to "fit out" of your brain's default response to social situations, real or virtual.

Eventually, you just might end up developing a certain immunity against your brain's attempts to hijack some of your more rational faculties in the service of the local "tribe".

Import caveat: "trolling" is not controversial, in my book. It's an idiot's way to stand out. If you don't have enough active brain cells, you might as well spare anyone from knowing that much. If your life is a horrible mess and you desperately need some endo-injection of neurochemicals to make you feel at least a bit better, get busy. Don't waste people's time.

Another caveat: contrarianism isn't controversial, either. Going against the grain for the sake of going against the grain is yet another cheap attempt to glue eyeballs to yourself.

It must feel uncomfortable to you, not necessarily to other people. "Edgy, yet sensible" rather than "completely and utterly bonkers." When in doubt, err on the sensible side.

Summary: train yourself to reach beyond the P/V/D/F-s your social environment expects you to fit in. If it seems as if it doesn't expect anything from you at all, it's not unlikely that you've been in/advertently sheltering yourself from any information that could compromise your cozy little thought bubble. Not a great place to find yourself in.

-

Know your levels. Obvious: don't settle for a P when a V/D is in order. Less obvious: don't try to navigate out of the issues your significant other is sharing with you when all she wants you to do is to acknowledge her point of view. Generally, don't be this boy:

“Give a boy a hammer and everything he meets has to be pounded.” - QI

-

Find your application. If you don't apply it, you'll forget it. Which would be quite a shame given how much time it must have taken to read up to this point. There is a handful of exercises I could leave you with, yet with those I would be tapping either into your reactance or memories of boring school assignments. Not my intention here.

I know it has an application for me, as I've certainly been using it to inform my own conclusions, decisions, and thought process throughout the week. Whether the same will hold true for you, I might never know. Though I'd certainly love to hear any and all feedback on the matter. Provided that feedback consists of more than an up/down-vote.

If you do find it useful, it might help quite a few people if you were to come back and share some of your battle-tested advice on the matter. In the spirit of this article, I'm preparing to re-V-ize it at some later date. There are most definitely going to be important points I will have missed. Any tips, in that regard, are welcome.

Wishing you all the highest of levels in your thoughts and actions alike.

^{^}
Explaining why I'm putting them into quotes will take a whole separate article. For now, I can't help but notice people using these terms at every opportunity, no matter how remotely suitable of an occasion, with little to no care in the world for the exact nature of the underlying dynamics; completely disregarding the differences and/or mechanics by which specific communities/organizations operate. Taxonomies in biology exist, and are regularly reviewed, for a reason.
^{^}
No English. "The 2014 Minsk Agreement was an attempt to give Ukraine time. ... It also used this time to get stronger, as you can see today. Ukraine of 2014/15 is not today's Ukraine." was the fragment that quite a few people found interesting. So much, that the original interview appears to either have been scrapped from the web altogether, or reposted under some extraordinarily heavy editing.
^{^}
To be clear: I am perfectly aware that every reasonable individual here is likely to have their personal even-more-reasonable-than-the-one-who-came-before-me take on each of the above, and more. Feel free to "battle it out" in DMs, yet do your best to keep your comments on topic: analysis and/or decision making.
^{^}
This last one appears to lead right into ἀταραξία for some. Perhaps, for you as well? Might be worth adding to your personal "needs more investigation" list.
^{^}
That article, in particular, having made no effort to include any samples from any source that would be leaning towards the left side of political spectrum does appear to be in a rather significant state of self-induced suicidal state, as well.
^{^}
Do they have any idea of what learning actually entails? Not a chance. Gosh if they'll love the experience of it, though. They'll even feel so much smarter, too.
^{^}
Therefore, necessarily incomplete, terrible, and wrong. To all mathematicians: I am quite ~~sorry~~ indifferent about this ~~unfortunate~~ fully deliberate turn of events.
^{^}
Stimulation-as-a-Service: "you give us cash, we make you feel good". Likely part of an Lowest Common Denominator [LCD] meta-functor: "What's the least amount of self-sustaining effort that we can expect the highest ROI from?" Possibly, part of the I-Me-Myself [IMM] meta-functor, in turn: unabashedly appealing to individualism, personal gain, self-interest, and "winning"; at the expense of all else, including the long-term health of the society as a whole.
^{^}
It was enough of a headache to grasp the changes in the way changes change, when talking about the functor scale alone. Not to mention my extensively absent experience when dealing with differential equations, to begin with.
^{^}
Alternatively: argumentum ad barberum. You don't ask your hairdresser if you need a haircut. You don't ask a hedge fund manager if there is a society to be had without financial markets for him to tap into. This has little to do with evil or greed or capitalism or the West/US. Everything to do with incentives.
^{^}
If anyone knows how to animate this particular part, some help would be most appreciated. 3Blue1Brown style, perhaps? Maybe something entirely. No clue.
^{^}
Still working on it, myself. You might have noticed that I've got quite a long way to go. This remark isn't meant to serve as an insult either, to be perfectly clear: merely as an acknowledgement of the human spirit we all happen to share.
^{^}
I'll see about expanding on it in another post; so much to say, so little time.