Emergence of Identity and Belief

I’d like to explore early development of action hierarchy components with a narrative about a budding human being. I hope that an intuition, however faint, will emerge for how these components co-evolve with identity; how those crucial meta-capabilities develop; how the seeds of fairness and goodness sprout; and how everything ties together to motivate directed action. Let’s begin in the beginning.

Solipsism in the Womb

The fetus assumes that they are the purpose of the universe, if not the universe itself. This perspective fits the facts they have encountered. It also happens to carry a good deal of truth: the placenta bestows upon the fetus a singular amount of authoritarian control thus enthroning them as the all-powerful, all-important lord of their small world.

Fulfillment of their desires is imperative, but by no means simple. The universe may be their servant or even their extension, but it does not grant control over itself by magic. It only yields when it is treated right. The fetus must comply with the world’s demands before they can expect its obedience.

To comprehend what they must do and develop the skills to do it, the fetus depends on inductive learning, with its assumption of a consistent causal relationship between action and consequence. Continue reading Emergence of Identity and Belief

Magical Foundations of Agreement

We’ve looked at the banality of problems that plague execution, the limitations of the perfect worlds of strategy, and the deep, often conflicting, hierarchies that underlie action. We’ve seen how difficult it is to create, communicate, and scale coherent action hierarchies. But these might still seem like practical challenges that can be overcome if we could just make our models accurate enough, our meta-capabilities developed enough, our goals clear enough, our language explicit enough, and our incentives powerful enough. Maybe not today, but in the future. Maybe if we could gather sufficient empirical evidence, develop direct brain-to-brain communication, build an optimal planning computer, or otherwise improve our capabilities, we could converge to solutions that are fair, stable, effective, and objectively correct.

It is common to blame lack of progress towards convergence on bad faith or incompetence. It is obvious how power, money, fame, or nepotism incentivize defense of the status quo. It is easy to find examples of hypocrisy, immorality, laziness, or unfairness. It is tempting to reach a comforting, but wrong, conclusion that perverse incentives, bad people, and flawed systems are the reason we don’t move towards obvious solutions.

There are, of course, massive practical imperfections that can be improved. But underneath all the misunderstandings, inefficiencies, bad faith, and practical challenges there are legitimate disagreements that have been engaged in good faith by smart, conscientious, and resourceful people for millennia; disagreements that have proven impossible to conclusively resolve even with the purest of intentions and even in the most idealized of thought experiments. Underneath the status quo are concessions – not just to the practical difficulty, but – to the theoretical impossibility of complete agreement.

The search for universal agreement is much like the search for perpetual motion machines. Continue reading Magical Foundations of Agreement

Magic and the Challenge of Action

Accurate and coherent action hierarchies seem obviously necessary for productive action. How can haphazard everyday decisions lead to desirable long term consequences? How can incoherent models lead to effective strategies? How can uncoordinated action avoid mistakes? How can resistance to feedback lead to strong models and capabilities? If we don’t know where we are going, how can we expect to get there?

It is therefore immensely frustrating to see incoherent action all around us. From the smallest individual projects to the largest organizations and global concerns most action seems shortsighted and detrimental to its own goals. Furthermore, opportunities for disproportionate increases in effectiveness seem simple and obvious.

The cornucopia of potential improvements is at first baffling and then empowering. Who would have thought that basic insight could be so rare and valuable, that inexperience could be a source of vision? Unencumbered by limitations of obsolete technology, social norms, and past obligations visionaries can better see the flaws of existing structures and are well positioned to direct their improvement.

But even the simplest, most beneficial, and least contentious changes are resisted with greater fervor than visionaries thought possible. Some blame this unexpected resistance on lack of logic, but individual actions do tend to follow from their goals, models, and skills. Others blame individual action hierarchies: if they can generate such irrational behavior, then they ought to be replaced. But this obvious solution faces the same fate as the one that lead to it: people vigorously resist overt attempts to influence their action hierarchies.

It is to the questions of why people do this and how it affects action and progress that we turn to next. Continue reading Magic and the Challenge of Action

Anatomy of Action and Understanding

The correct thing to do seems so obvious, its implementation so simple and clear in our heads. Why then is turning it into reality so difficult and error prone? Why is doing it ourselves so much easier than explaining it to others? Is the answer really obvious or does it merely appear to be? What is behind the feeling of clarity? What is behind effortless action? Why are they so elusive and difficult to convert into results?

Before we can tackle questions like these, we need a model of action. Such models tend to hide underneath arguments, disguised as something obvious, and are important to make explicit. I’ll develop my model in this post and apply it to the challenge of action in the next one. I suspect that while many will indeed find my model obvious, and perhaps overwrought, many others will find it incomplete, incomprehensible, irrelevant, or wrong.

At its broadest, an action can be separated into three parts: goal, strategy, and execution. Goals define the purpose of action and are the ultimate measure of progress. Strategies are plans to move from current reality to the state defined by the goal. Execution is the interaction with reality in service of the goal.

While roughly correct, this view ignores or abstracts too much to be very useful. A major issue is that strategy generates a hierarchical set of sub-goals for execution to implement, but this implementation requires strategy at each step. It is difficult to draw a non-arbitrary line between strategy and execution because they are themselves a hierarchy of actions, each with its own goal, strategy, and execution.

It is similarly unclear how independent child actions are. We can treat them as inseparable parts of a larger whole because their goals are substantially defined by the parent’s strategy; or we can treat them as largely independent because they determine how, or if, to achieve these goals.

We can thus defensibly approach action with a focus on strategy, execution, or interaction between substantially independent actions. The first two views correctly recognize the value of unified action towards a coherent purpose and of skill and autonomy on the ground, respectively, but tend to underestimate their own limitations and lead to disappointment and ineffectiveness. The latter view more accurately captures the challenge of action. Continue reading Anatomy of Action and Understanding

Banality of Problems and the Limits of Scalability

Once upon a time I liked to derive lessons from stories; sometimes I still do. A recurring lesson is the impact of minor mistakes and random circumstances on the character’s fate. If only they stayed quiet, or paid more attention, or used a newer car, or avoided traffic, or were less trusting… Mistakes that were easy to avoid with just a little more knowledge or composure or preparation.

Of course, the writer needs to end the story and villain’s mistakes allow difficult odds to be overcome in an exciting way. But there are deeper reasons for errors: individual pride, complacency of experience, overconfidence of inexperience, effects of stress on decision-making, trade-offs inherent to skill-sets.

We focus on mistakes as failures to prepare at the expense of a broader lesson: “The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry.” Leaders respond with deeper plans, contingency plans, redundancy, more data, explicit procedures, education… They develop meta-plans to make plans responsive to the dynamics of execution, they build ever-more complete ways to evaluate results and feed them back to decision makers at ever-faster rates.

But more complex plans have more ways to fail, redundancy breeds complacency, contingency plans are under-tested, procedures reduce individual motivation and attention to detail, credentials give a false sense of confidence… And problems again arise for reasons so banal they would be funny if they weren’t so painful. Continue reading Banality of Problems and the Limits of Scalability

Perfect Worlds and Their Limits

Perfect worlds occupy a sizable chunk of intellectual thought. They can be points of departure as with the Garden of Eden or Rousseau’s natural man. Or goals of progress as with Marx’s final stage of history, Plato’s Republic, or Buddhist nirvana. Or simplified models of reality as with much of economics. Or mindsets open to objective truth as with Rawls’ veil of ignorance.

The appeal of perfection is easy to understand. We want truth. We want to act ethically and effectively. We want to make correct plans to achieve worthy goals. Such efforts lead us to ever-higher levels of abstraction which culminate in perfect worlds.

Perfect worlds rest on correct principles. Principles that are true and mutually consistent. Principles that can be understood, communicated, and adopted by everyone. Principles we can link back to to resolve disagreements, motivate performance, and justify demands. Such actionable agreement makes the world efficient, fair, and stable, makes individual lives meaningful, ethical, and comprehensible.

Perfect worlds offer powerful answers that conform to our highest ideals, that inspire us with the possibilities of unity and clarity. So we search for truth to define and justify principles with which to build coherent goals, models, and systems. We communicate them to others and rally against those that are based on wrong principles, are poorly implemented, or are hypocritical.

When you find correct principles it can feel like you’ve unlocked the entire puzzle. Continue reading Perfect Worlds and Their Limits

Plurality of Absolutes

A common source of impassioned disagreements, bitter disappointments, and judgmental moralizing is over-extension of good principles. Such principles are not only deeply believed, but have proven themselves to the believers. They really do embody important truths and they really do work.

At the core of disagreement isn’t truth or efficacy, it is exclusivity and universality. There can be, and often are, multiple functional approaches. Even if one approach is best, it relies on assumptions – such as values and capabilities – that might not be universally available.

People try to prove that their approach is best and that, therefore, we should promote the required values and capabilities. The task is intertwined with their morality, sense of purpose and justice, the vision that guides their lives. It is difficult to acknowledge alternatives without putting your own morality and worldview on trial, without undermining the passion that drives you.

I propose a mindset, lets call it Plurality of Absolutes, as a solution. The essence of this mindset is that (1) different mechanisms drive the social world at different scales and that (2) most beliefs can be justifiably held as long as one restricts scope. Continue reading Plurality of Absolutes

After Virtue – A Bird’s Eye View

Alasdair MacIntyre is a major figure in the modern revival of virtue ethics and After Virtue is a key text of that revival. The book covers a lot of ground, both in depth and breadth. Unfortunately, MacIntyre doesn’t lay out the argument he is meticulously building, and the writing style and formatting makes separating central threads from sub-arguments difficult. This post is an attempt at a very high level understanding of that central argument. [Note: MacIntyre did concisely write out his core argument a few years after publication in a very helpful article, The Claims of After Virtue (pdf).]

MacIntyre agrees with Nietzsche’s analysis of modernity, but believes there is an alternative to accepting Nietzsche’s prescription. Continue reading After Virtue – A Bird’s Eye View

Less Work for Less Pay – Why Don’t Companies Offer The Option?

You are a salaried employee in one of the high pay, high hours, high stress careers and want to slow down a bit. You are happy enough with your company and your job, you just want to do less of it and have time and energy for other things. And you don’t need all that money they are paying you. You want to trade some of that high salary for additional time.

You’ll be a happier, more productive employee who’ll be less likely to jump ship and the company will benefit accordingly. It makes perfect sense, so why is it so rare? Are companies just stuck in the stone age?

I’d like to focus on just one aspect that seems to blindside people asking for less work for less pay.

A Multiple Choice Question:

You are making $160,000/year and are working 80 hours/week. You want to work 40 hours/week. What is a fair annual salary at these reduced hours?

a) $100,000
b) $80,0000
c) $60,0000
d) $45,000

My guess is that most employees looking for reduced hours would say (b) with some selecting (a) or (c). For a company faced with this question the answer is generally (d), sometimes (c). Continue reading Less Work for Less Pay – Why Don’t Companies Offer The Option?