"The primary thing when you take a sword in your hands is your intention to cut the enemy, whatever the means. Whenever you parry, hit, spring, strike or touch the enemy's cutting sword, you must cut the enemy in the same movement. It is essential to attain this. If you think only of hitting, springing, striking or touching the enemy, you will not be able actually to cut him."
–Miyamoto Musashi, from The Book of Five Rings
"We are living on borrowed time and abiding by the law of probability, which is the only law we carefully observe. Had we done otherwise, we would now be dead heroes instead of surviving experts."
–Devil's Guard
"People with intelligence will use it to fashion things both true and false, and will try to push through whatever they want with clever reasoning. This is injury from intelligence. Nothing you do will have effect if you do not use truth."
—Hagakure
Strategist Dictum 1: Do Things for Reasons
So, what is this is absurd strategist nonsense I'm always going on about?
Good question.
Reflecting today on the nature of the world, I believe I have come to the core tenet of strategy. The one from which all other tenets flow, the quintessential, alpha-omega principle of strategy, which is -
Do things for reasons.
Wait, what?! What is this absurd nonsense? "Do things for reasons"? This guy aspires to be the greatest-something-or-other-victory-empire-strategy-what-the-hell, and what he's got to say is "Do things for reasons"? Do things for reasons?
Yes. Do things for reasons.
While this might simple on the surface, this is not the way most people run their lives.
Most people's daily lives are done out of custom, with no carefully evaluated and explicitly defined reasons for their actions. Worse still, decisions in high conflict and highly leveraged situations are usually made on the basis of naive emotion… which is horrifying if you really stop and reflect on what that means.
Most people do not do things for reasons. They do things "because that's the way it's done," or they go with their first impulse.
You might have as many as 10,000 nuanced options when you come to a crucially important decision. Outside of Disney movies, your first impulse is not at all likely to be the most effective one.
So again -
Strategist Dictum 1: Do things for reasons.
Which brings us to a corollary -
Strategist Corollary 1: Do not simply "do shit" for no reason.
Doing shit for no reason is a cause of lots of misery. Your wife is in a very bad mood one day and starts yelling. If you go with your first impulse, it will most likely be wrong, and your marriage will suffer. Out of the 10,000 options available to you, the naive impulse is unlikely to be the correct one.
The same is true in negotiations.
The same is true in the buying and selling of securities.
The same is true in choosing how to market your product.
The same is true in dealing with crime.
The same is true in maximizing tax revenues without destroying commerce.
The same is true in dealing with being insulted.
The same is true in dealing with criticism.
The same is true in choosing how to spend your money.
Doing things without reasons (usually because of habit/custom, or out of emotion) leads to ineffectiveness and misery.
The first dictum of strategy, then, is "do things for reasons."
The way to start doing that is to ask, "What is my objective here?"
Then, "What course of action makes me most likely to reach that objective?"
That's a little hard to remember when all hell is breaking loose. The simpler version is to ask yourself, "What is winning?"
Do things for reasons.
Don't "do shit" for no reason.
Your naive impulse is unlikely to produce the best result.
Ask, "What is my objective here? What gives me the best chance of reaching it?"
Ask, "What is winning?"
Follow up with action. Adjust if necessary. Win.
Stupid People Aren't a Problem. Oblivious People Are a Problem.
When I was a bit younger, I used to think stupid people were a problem.
I don't know how I'd define stupid exactly, but you know roughly what I mean. I thought, "Stupid people cause problems."
Now I'm starting to change my mind.
However you define "stupid," I don't think it's stupid people causing problems. There's lots of things I'm unskilled, uneducated, or unsophisticated about, but I tend to know I'm unskilled, uneducated, and unsophisticated about it. If I got into a metalworking shop, I'd quickly ask someone there what I'm supposed to do to stay safe, and then I'd stay the hell out of the way.
You see, I'm stupid about metalworking and metalworking safety, but that's okay. I'm rarely in a metalworking shop, I'd ask for guidance/instructions if I was, and I'd be careful and stay out of the way.
Some people lack all common sense, but even then I don't think they're necessarily going to break something. If you're a boss and you've got an employee who is a hard worker, honest, but lacks common sense, that's okay. Give them clear, simple, precise, repeatable instructions. Have them trained and re-trained before letting them loose on something breakable. Check in on them, encourage them, gently correct when things are wrong.
There's plenty of room for stupid people in the hell. I'm pretty stupid about lots of things, but I manage okay.
I don't think stupidity causes as many problems as I originally thought.
Nah, it's not stupidity. You know what causes problems? People who are oblivious and aren't paying attention.
I reckon most car crashes—are they the result of unskilled drivers, or paying not paying attention? I think the latter. Either someone talking on the cell phone, eating, putting on makeup, or otherwise not paying attention while driving. Or having liquor and being oblivious to your drunkenness and hopping behind the wheel.
Our society places a huge premium on "intelligence"—and frankly, I think it's kind of overrated. I'll write about this some other time. There's plenty of attributes more important than intelligence—work ethic, honesty, loyalty, awareness, persistence, empathy, diplomacy, things like that. For most important things in life, I'd take a hard working, honest, loyal, aware, persistent, empathetic, tactful person who had even below average book smarts over an intelligent person lacking those attributes.
But the real killer is being oblivious and unaware. Not watching the road while you're driving. Not checking and double-checking that all the machines are off. Not putting up signs that construction is happening. Just basic, basic shit that has nothing to do with intelligence. Paying attention to surroundings.
Stupidity can be dealt with. If someone's not good at something, they can learn it slower, or manage around that area, or avoid it, or delegate/defer it to someone else.
You can plan around lack of skill or ability in many areas, or avoid those areas and key in on virtues. Really, I think there's room in the world for people of people of all smarts and lack-of-smarts. Intelligence is overrated, and there's a dozen or so traits I'd look for before intelligence in someone in my life.
Stupid people aren't a problem. Oblivious people, though? Oh, they break all kinds of shit. Oblivious people are a big, big problem. We gotta watch out for them.
If You're Intelligent, Beware the Cleverness Disease
Maybe the biggest problem really intelligent people have is that they spend more time being clever than being effective.
I used to suffer from this disease of the mind. I'd want to do something new, novel, and fascinating—instead of just getting something done.
The really effective people I know, the people who make the biggest difference in the world, who make the best things, who get the most done, who live the best lives—they all are more concerned with getting something done that fits than with making it clever.
Over-researching relatively minor things is a great example. Take a quick look, get an understanding, choose one. Change later if it becomes an issue.
Trying to reinvent the wheel constantly.
Using words people don't know—maybe makes you seem clever, but makes you much less clear and less effective.
Trying to show off instead of listening.
Trying to make a point in an obscure way for no good reason—instead of just saying it outright.
The absolute worst one? Arguing with people over stuff that doesn't matter—you win the point, but become radioactive to whoever you were arguing with. Proving someone wrong? Yeah, clever. Very ineffective, though.
Winning Ugly is Superior to Losing Beautifully
I was getting absolutely destroyed in this game of Chess. The opponent played a crazy reckless attacking style, but my mind wasn't running fast enough to keep up with the pace of the game.
You can see he has two queens and a rook to my one rook, but then he decided to take all of my pieces before ending… or something. He had numerous opportunities to trade off a queen for my last rook, but didn't do so. He could've checkmated me a number of times, but didn't do so.
So I moved my king around out of the way of checks, leaving my rook just to sit there. He doesn't take it, and gradually picks off all my pieces. Then, bam, I dump my rook on the back row, checkmating him. What a ridiculous victory.
A few lessons here -
1.) The ugliest win in the world is superior to the prettiest defeat. You usually don't want risk losing in order to win a little prettier.
2.) It ain't over 'till it's over. Don't party until the cash is in the bank. Finish things when they can be finished.
3.) Winning by a huge margin can make people stupid… I wasn't as bad as I was playing, and my opponent decided to play cat and mouse with me… whoops. I was having a bad game, but that turned out around really fast on the last move.
"After victory, tighten the straps on your helmet."—Tokugawa Ieyasu, Founder of the Tokugawa Shogunate
"They don't get it!" No, you don't get it.
I'm writing this largely as a reminder to myself.
Sometimes I do something that I think is really cool. Then I go share it with the world. And sometimes, I get feedback that seems off-base to me.
Y'know, I'm wrong a lot of the time. I'm wrong more often than most people, simply because I try to huge volumes of stuff. When I'm 55% sure, I'll usually write up my initial thoughts and just note that I'm not sure if it's correct, but it's what I'm thinking about.
So, I'm wrong a lot. A lot of times, someone points out a glaring error I made. For instance, Jason Shen was kind enough to point out that the vast majority of people think to some extent that business/commerce/wealth is zero sum, so maybe it keeps making sense to talk about "adding value"—oh, right, selction bias on my part since most of my peer group either directly create things that didn't exist before (artists, engineers, programmers, experimental scientists, etc) or facilitate trade and exchange and wealth building (entrepreneurs, managers, investors, financiers, etc).
But most people that aren't directly involved in the creation or trade. The world is complex, most people in the West work in big corporations and don't see how their role directly contributes to new wealth being created. So anyways, mea culpa there, and I'll amend my position. Thanks Jason.
So, sometimes it's pointed out that I'm mistaken. And that's great! Then I get to evolve my thinking.
But other times, I do something that I think is pretty cool and useful, and I get some feedback that seems to indicate a complete lack of getting-it on the part of the other person. Y'know, like, really really quit ignorant shit sometimes. The worst is when I'm writing something and I get ignorant nitpicky shit that incorrectly summarizes the point I made—even though I wrote the exact opposite point a little bit later in a piece, for instance.
My first reaction—"Blah. What an idiot. They don't get it."
False!
No, it's on you, if you're creating, to make sure people get it. And that doesn't just mean being logical if you're writing or having great features if you're marketing a product you made or having the right qualifications if you're trying to land a job or a contract.
Nope. Being right isn't enough. You also have to do everything else.
If you're writing a piece, you have to make sure the title, introduction, images, and formatting all fit the expectations and heuristics of the people who you care about if they "get it" or not.
If you're marketing a product, you've got to cover all the relevant specs, and ALSO cover all the (sometimes irrational) buying criteria people have.
If you're trying to land a job or contract, you've got be well-qualified, but you've also got to convey professionalism, empathy, and the warm fuzzy feeling.
A lot of this seems like, and partially is, bullshit.
If you're writing, people will skim your work. You need to take that into account, and make good transitions, sub-headlines, intelligently use bolding and links, and otherwise make sure the people of your target audience get the message. If they don't get it, that means YOU didn't get it.
If you're marketing, people aren't going to buy your product solely on logic. Actually, a slim fraction of people will, but probably not enough to keep you in business. You need to keep learning marketing and buyer's psychology, even if you don't want to. Or hire someone to do that. Because if you're getting your ass kicked by a competitor that's got a worse product than you, it's not your customers that don't get it—YOU don't get it.
If you're trying to a land a job, people are going to size you up based on somewhat arbitrary criteria. If you get passed over for a less qualified candidate, it's not that the company didn't get it. YOU didn't get it. Cufflinks matter and the quality of the paper your proposal is on matters and if your shoes are shined matters and all of that matters, *if you care about that particular job*.
Of course, sometimes you don't care. Some people aren't your target market, and you can shrug it off. I think it would be a fantastic idea to conquer North Korea, for a whole lot of reasons. Yet, I likely won't be able to persuade Kim Jong-il of that, and that's okay. He's not my target market and won't be convinced.
But if you do care, then never ever ever ever say, "They don't get it" if you care about the person who just made that decision. No, you don't get it. You did it wrong. Learn. Figure out where the decision/reaction came from, and do it better next time.
This was largely a reminder to myself.
Stripping Down to Cause and Effect
One thing I've been striving to do—often unsuccessfully—is remove moral judgments from my observation of situations.
Most people don't distinguish between observing and judging.
They say, "It's bad that it's raining outside." Well. Maybe, yeah. But there's two things going on there—first, it's raining. That's either true or false. Then there's that "bad"—which is an opinion, a moral judgment on the situation.
I think most people aren't aware of when they're making moral judgments and when they're making observations. That's not good for being able to think clearly.
Analysis and observation needs to be separated from moral evaluation to do it straightforwardly, or else you get blind to effects you don't expect and don't want to see.
Thus, I'd recommend you strip your observations down to cause and effect. "X seems to have happened, what caused it? Perhaps Y, perhaps Z… let's observe some more."
That's observing and then moving into analysis.
You can judge after that—that's fine, I judge things all the time—but for clear analysis, you've got to be able to separate the observing from the judging. And yet, it's hard. Look at the this sentence here—"that's fine, I judge all the time… for clear analysis, you've got to separate observing from judging." That sentence fails its own recommendation.
Sort of.
It's complicated. It's maybe impossible to completely remove judgment from observation. But I'd recommend you try, because you're more likely to figure out what's actually happening to do that. To do that, look for what effects are actually happening, and then try to figure out the causes. Refrain from judging whether the causes/effects are good or bad until you've figured out what causes produce what effects.
Guest Essay: Humans Are Not Automatically Strategic
Guest essay by Anna Salamon, "Humans Are Not Automatically Strategic":
Sebastian Marshall writes:
"[A] large majority of otherwise smart people spend time doing semi-productive things, when there are massively productive opportunities untapped.
A somewhat silly example: Let's say someone aspires to be a comedian, the best comedian ever, and to make a living doing comedy. He wants nothing else, it is his purpose. And he decides that in order to become a better comedian, he will watch re-runs of the old television cartoon 'Garfield and Friends' that was on TV from 1988 to 1995....
I'm curious as to why."
Why will a randomly chosen eight-year-old fail a calculus test? Because most possible answers are wrong, and there is no force to guide him to the correct answers. (There is no need to postulate a "fear of success"; most ways writing or not writing on a calculus test constitute failure, and so people, and rocks, fail calculus tests by default.)
Why do most of us, most of the time, choose to "pursue our goals" through routes that are far less effective than the routes we could find if we tried?[1] My guess is that here, as with the calculus test, the main problem is that most courses of action are extremely ineffective, and that there has been no strong evolutionary or cultural force sufficient to focus us on the very narrow behavior patterns that would actually be effective.
To be more specific: there are clearly at least some limited senses in which we have goals. We: (1) tell ourselves and others stories of how we're aiming for various "goals"; (2) search out modes of activity that are consistent with the role, and goal-seeking, that we see ourselves as doing ("learning math"; "becoming a comedian"; "being a good parent"); and sometimes even (3) feel glad or disappointed when we do/don't achieve our "goals".
But there are clearly also heuristics that would be useful to goal-achievement (or that would be part of what it means to "have goals" at all) that we do not automatically carry out. We do not automatically:
.... or carry out any number of other useful techniques. Instead, we mostly just do things. We act from habit; we act from impulse or convenience when primed by the activities in front of us; we remember our goal and choose an action that feels associated with our goal. We do any number of things. But we do not systematically choose the narrow sets of actions that would effectively optimize for our claimed goals, or for any other goals.
Why? Most basically, because humans are only just on the cusp of general intelligence. That is not at all the same as the ability to automatically implement these heuristics. Our verbal, conversational systems are much better at abstract reasoning than are the motivational systems that pull our behavior. I have enough abstract reasoning ability to understand that I'm safe on the glass floor of a tall building, or that ice cream is not healthy, or that exercise furthers my goals... but this doesn't lead to an automatic updating of the reward gradients that, absent rare and costly conscious overrides, pull my behavior. I can train my automatic systems, for example by visualizing ice cream as disgusting and artery-clogging and yucky, or by walking across the glass floor often enough to persuade my brain that I can't fall through the floor... but systematically training one's motivational systems in this way is also not automatic for us. And so it seems far from surprising that most of us have not trained ourselves in this way, and that most of our "goal-seeking" actions are far less effective than they could be.
Still, I'm keen to train. I know people who are far more strategic than I am, and there seem to be clear avenues for becoming far more strategic than they are. It also seems that having goals, in a much more pervasive sense than (1)-(3), is part of what "rational" should mean, will help us achieve what we care about, and hasn't been taught in much detail on LW.
So, to second Sebastian's questions: does this analysis seem right? Have some of you trained yourselves to be substantially more strategic, or goal-achieving, than you started out? How did you do it? Do you agree with (a)-(h) above? Do you have some good heuristics to add? Do you have some good ideas for how to train yourself in such heuristics?
[1] For example, why do many people go through long training programs "to make money" without spending a few hours doing salary comparisons ahead of time? Why do many who type for hours a day remain two-finger typists, without bothering with a typing tutor program? Why do people spend their Saturdays "enjoying themselves" without bothering to track which of their habitual leisure activities are *actually* enjoyable? Why do even unusually numerate people fear illness, car accidents, and bogeymen, and take safety measures, but not bother to look up statistics on the relative risks? Why do most of us settle into a single, stereotyped mode of studying, writing, social interaction, or the like, without trying alternatives to see if they work better -- even when such experiments as we have tried have sometimes given great boosts?
Steps to Achievement: The Pitfalls, Costs, Requirements, and Timelines
I believe that's a fantastic list of achievement/victory heuristics. Some of these are difficult to do, though. Let's look to make this into a practical, actionable sort of document. I believe the steps outlined above can be broadly grouped. I've done it with some minor rephrasing to make it in first person plural -
Identify: (a) Ask ourselves what we're trying to achieve, (b) ask ourselves how we could tell if we achieved it and how we can track progress
Research: (c) Become strongly curious about information that would help achieve the goal, and (d) gather that information (through methods like asking how folks commonly achieve this goal, especially methods that aren't habitual)
Test: (e) Test methods that might work to achieve goals, especially non-habitual methods, while tracking what works and doesn't
Focus: (f) Focus most of the energy that isn't going into researching/exploring on methods that are starting to produce the best results, (g) make sure that the "goal" chosen is worthwhile, is desired for coherent reasons, and firmly commit to it at this stage so that doubt does not consume excessive time and energy
Persevere: (h) Use environmental cues and social contexts to boost motivation, persist in the face of adversity and frustration, and not given in to temptation to quit or take it easy.
There's some implicit steps in the model. I think it would go like this:
Identify -> (make decision to begin) -> Research -> (begin) -> Test -> (analyze early results) -> Focus -> (make firm commitment at this stage) -> Persevere -> (achieve or re-evaluate) -> (back to step 1)
I believe Anna roughly laid out five key stages—Identify, research, test, focus, persevere. I believe there's seven other stages mixed in—make decision to begin, begin, analyze early results, make firm commitment, achieve or re-evaluate, repeat.
Identify - the first stage to accomplishing a goal is to identify a goal.
I believe this is one of the hardest stages, due to the individual nature of it. You need to figure out your goals for yourself.
There are other potential pitfalls—people who are fatalistic ("things are already decided"), nihilistic ("nothing matters"), or believe they can't achieve will have problems with this stage.
Thinking about goals tends to be difficult because you're making sacrifices. If you choose to make one thing your goal, then you're choosing not to make something else your goal. You have to prioritize, or you'll be stuck serving multiple masters, which is no good.
Requirements: Introspection about what you want to achieve, patience, working and re-working at goals, and taking the time to describe and elaborate what success would look like.
Timeline: Varies wildly. Bursts of insight are fast, finding loose threads can take more than a year. Don't feel bad if it does.
Make decision to begin – I believe this is an underrated component to achieving. Saying, "I have now decided start pursuing this goal."
This tends to produce a lot of anxiety. Our next section will have tips for dealing with it, so I won't deal with this here.
Requirements: Willpower. This is tricky.
Timeline: Varies—people think things over for a while. But the decision to start exploring a goal can happen instantly.
Research – Facts are actually useful.
Everything you can know about how to do anything is based on a fact. How do I improve my energy level? Turns out that knowing about nutrition is useful.
Requirements: Research skill, internet.
Timeline: Depends on the goal. Of course, research can be an ongoing process forever, but how much is enough to get started? Depends on the field. Younger fields probably require less research since they tend to have more long hanging fruit available for discovery/achievement, less established competition, and less regulation about beginning.
Begin – The journey of a thousand miles starts with one step and whatnot.
A lot of people never actually start things. They think about starting something, or they start to think about something, but getting to the actual step of starting something rarely happens.
When were you taking your dream vacation, again?
This is another thing that's scary. When you start, the thing that was only a possibility before starts to form, and that freaks some people out. The next section of the book, again, helps you deal with it.
Requirements: A bit of decisiveness, and then, simply starting.
Timeline: Immediate, though people often take a lot of time to prepare to begin.
Test – You should probably test things as long as the test doesn't damage you too badly.
Testing things that aren't fatal or too damaging if they fail is probably the only way to achieve in a new domain, and maybe the only way to achieve in a domain where how to succeed shifts over time. A lot of people obsess over, "Where should I get started?" Well, why not start anywhere that might be valuable? There's probably some good ways to assess and choose the best jumping off point, but action of any sort that might work at this stage is quite valuable.
Requirements: Action orientation. Though speed isn't required, the faster you can try/implement something, the better. Willingness to stomach non-success
Timeline: Depends on the discipline. You should start getting some feedback fairly quickly.
Analyze early results - Here, you analyze what's working early on and put more emphasis/effort into that area.
Basically, once something is working, you know that it's promising. Just keep in mind that you should explore other options, and that some things take a while to pan out. If it's a rare high-upside thing, it might be worth pursuing even if it hasn't shown tangible results yet.
Potential Pitfalls: Analyzing with too small of a sample size could give you bad data and make you quit too soon or be overly optimistic about a particular way. Focusing on something that produces short term gains with a relatively low local maximum could be unfortunate.
Requirements: Data-tracking ability. Analytical skills, especially with numbers, statistics, and trends help a lot here. Being able to make charts, graphs, and visualizations isn't necessary, but might help you easily spot long term trends.
Timeline: I find analyzing one week's worth of data can be done in between 20 minutes and an hour, depending on the complexity. The first time is the hardest, it gets easier after that.
Focus - Here, you isolate the one, two, or three things that provide the most results and bear down in those areas.
This is an important part. If you stay split between too many paths, you never wind up actually doing the thing.
Requirements: The ability to identify high yield areas from your analysis, and be decisive enough to focus in the highest yield area or two.
Timeline: It might take a while to ramp up the effort in the highest yield area or there might be relevant equipment/supplies needed, but the decision to do it can be made very quickly after analysis.
Make firm commitment - These might seem redundant, but I think people don't commit to their goals enough.
At least, I see normal people who seem to be wandering through life without having anything particularly meaningful happen. Whereas I tend to see results from people who say, "Yes! I will!" At this point where you're getting ready to focus, you have an idea on what things cost and what the results are going to be. Do you want it bad enough to firmly commit to get it at all costs?
Costs: This might be scary, or not. It might be slightly mentally taxing, or not. It might require an identity shift, or might not. It shouldn't be too difficult, but you're getting on the verge of success—you might have to confront some inner demons.
Requirements: Decisiveness, a bit of willpower.
Timeline: Instant.
Persevere - In this stage, you're gearing up for the long haul.
Getting relevant supplies, tools, outreach, building an external environment, making relevant commitments, and otherwise positioning yourself for success, and then persisting.
A lot of people give up. You can reduce the chances of this by making the environment more supportive of your success, getting emotional support, and the old fashioned "burn your boats behind you."
Costs: I think if you've clearly identified the payoffs, it shouldn't be too tough, but the road can get weary at times. Persistence can be hard and tiring. The most expensive cost is doing the right thing when you need to, but you're not in the mood to do so.
Requirements: Constructing an environment conducive to success, staying motivated, persistence.
Timeline: Constructing a positive environment varies in time depending on what your environment looked like before you started. How long you'll have to persist depends on the scope of your goal and the methods you've chosen.
Achieve or re-evaluate - Time to see if your beliefs pay the rent.
You're either starting to achieve your goal, or you're starting to reconsider if the path you chose was correct. If the latter, you might have to go back to the drawing board. If the former, congratulations! Time to celebrate briefly, and then move on. Either way, you'll be assessing, re-assessing, identifying, and re-identifying goals at this stage.
Costs: Completing or abandoning a project both have their costs, the latter more than the former. Either way you'll get a sense of closure after this—consciously abandoning a project where you gave it your all, but then it didn't pan out or your high level goals changed can actually be very enjoyable if you ship.
Requirements: If achieving, graciousness. If re-evaluating, emotional steadfastness to not quit too early, but pragmatism/realism to know when you need to go back to the drawing board.
Timeline: Funny enough, a lot of times when you're succeeding at an abstract discipline, you don't realize it for a while. Other goals are easier to notice. It depends on the specific goal and field.
Repeat - After completing or abandoning a goal, it's time to go back to the start, to identify the next things you'll devote yourself to and spend your life energy on. This is where you start identifying goals, researching them, committing to starting, and so on.
Anna wrote:
I think there's a lot of potential to build out in each specific area, identify and apply these methods to common goals, and so on. Perhaps we could go through the list for developing in rationality, or becoming more healthy, or wealthy, or an accomplished artist, or any other number of valuable pursuits.