Myopic Changes and the Baseline

Exploring the limits of Immediate Thought and the power of Reflection.

Myopia

As a biological fact, we have very limited working memory and attention. We can only think about a couple of items at a time. Ergo, on a biological level, immediate thinking is myopic: overly local, missing.

Such immediate thinking cannot capture most interesting parts of the world. To deal with this, we need to reflect: to assemble multiple instants of immediate thinking into a coherent whole. The easiest way to do so is to Take Notes and fix the mistakes we see there.

Irreflexive Myopia

We can all benefit from reflecting on myopia. Otherwise, we risk making stupid mistakes, where we are overly myopic without realising it.

Here are some examples:

• While playing basketball and not jumping high enough, thinking: "If only there were no gravity, then I could fly!"

• While being grounded: "If only my parents were dead, then I could be independent!"

• "If only there were no traffic rules, then I could drive faster!"

The character is too myopic in all those examples. They do not reflect on the broader consequences of the "if" statements. They merely think about a nice world without them.

Because it is easy to immediately think about such a world without immediately thinking of a contradiction, they assume that the world is possible and reasonable. You would need to pause, and reflect, to realise this was not the case.

It is no surprise, then, that Irreflexive Myopia is pervasive in situations detrimental to reflection. Powerlessness. Frustration. Anger.

The Baseline

Negotiation Theory offers the concept of the BATNA: the Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement. This means that before entering any negotiation, you should identify your best alternative so that you know when things are bad enough to walk out.

There is a more general concept there, which I call the Baseline.

Whenever I consider a conditional scenario, a "What if?", I think of the Baseline.

The Baseline is the most obvious and coherent world that satisfies the condition.

A Baseline should be obvious. If I need to think a lot to come up with one, it is a sign that the conditional scenario is wonky or that I am thinking too hard and should focus on something even more obvious.

A Baseline should be coherent, and obviously coherent. It should not be arguable whether the Baseline makes sense.

Examples

"Without gravity, I could fly."

Without gravity, we do not get any of the world as we know it. The Baseline here is a fundamentally alien world, based on different physics.

There might be more thoughtful and more charitable ways to understand this sentence. I could think of "If I had a gravity field right around me", "If I could control the winds rather than gravity", or "If I had a super cheap jetpack", etc. These things look less like a Baseline, and the more you think seriously about it, the more you consider, "Ok, let's say I wanted to fly, how would I do so?" rather than "What would it be without gravity?".

"Without my parents, I could do whatever I want."

As a Baseline, living is harsh. Parents alleviate this a lot. Without parents, you now have to deal with that harshness by yourself. In other words, being an orphan sucks.

"Without traffic rules, I could drive faster."

As a Baseline, coordination in public spaces occupied by thousands of strangers does not naturally happen. Without traffic rules and with cars as fast as we now have, it is unclear whether we would even feel confident enough to drive on most roads.

"Without globalisation, we could be more independent."

As a Baseline, resources are scarce. Being connected to others with whom you can peacefully trade alleviates this. Without globalisation, the cost of everything becomes much higher, and large parts of our supply chains that can't be replaced internally collapse.

It is not so much "becoming more independent" as it is a self-inflicted embargo.

"Without money, we wouldn't need to work."

As a Baseline, you must work to survive; the Universe makes surviving expensive. We need food, water, shelter and air; none come for free. Even air requires some fragile and complex internal machinery to pump it from the atmosphere.

All societies that managed to reduce subsistence work have critically depended on money. Without money, we still need to work to survive. But then, our societies are missing a key ingredient in reducing the time we need to work, individually and collectively.

The Baseline is not "Without money, we find an epic way to build an epic society where we need to work even less". The Baseline is "We have our current mediocre societies, and we got rid of money as a tool".

If the goal is to eradicate the need to work, let's find concrete ways; we don't even need to talk about money for that. If there are problems with how we use money, let's find better alternatives. If solutions involve removing money, let's try them locally and see what happens.

If the only solution one can come up with involves giving up money altogether, let's ignore that person and tell them to read more because, at this point, they are not planning to help.

"Without laws, we would be free."

As a Baseline, living and working together is expensive: people need to know what to do and what not to do, and this needs to be communicated and enforced. Some coordination naturally happens, but it is arbitrary, based on whisper networks, individually rewards power-hungry sadists, and punishes pro-social behaviour.

Societies that managed to do better have critically depended on laws. Without laws, we still need to pay that cost that lets us live and work together. But in that situation, our societies are now missing a key ingredient in making living and working together cheaper.

The Baseline is not "Without laws, we found innovative and epic ways to coordinate at scale". The Baseline is "We have our current mediocre societies, and we got rid of laws as tools".

If the goal is to solve coordination, living, and working together, let's go! Let's find concrete ways to do so, and we don't even need to talk about laws for that. If our laws are problematic, let's find better alternatives. If there are solutions that involve removing laws, let's try them locally and see what happens.

If the only solution one can come up with involves giving up laws altogether, let's ignore that person and tell them to read more because, at this point, they are not planning to help.

Exercises to the reader

The following examples are left to the reader:

• "Without technology, life would be simpler."

• "Without taxes, we would keep all our earnings."

• "Without schools, children would learn whatever they want."

• "Without borders, people could live anywhere in the world and benefit from the best societies we have built."

Conclusion

The World is more complex than what fits in our immediate thoughts. Considering any part of it requires careful reflection, a process of integrating many immediate thoughts.

Reflection is costly. Before going too deep into a conditional, it is convenient to establish a firm Baseline and then justify each deviation from it. Not being able to do so is a strong sign to stop considering that conditional.

Have a nice day!