Rationalism, Authority, Intuition and their Interactions
What happens when people operating on different frameworks talk to each other?
Introduction
I often model people as operating on different frameworks to understand reality. Some relate primarily to Rationalism, while others think in terms of Authority or Intuition.
Those frameworks can be understood in an all-compassing way, including values and affiliations. Here, I will focus on them as framework used to find and understand truth.
People using different frameworks regularly talk to each other without realising it. At best, they talk past each other. At worst, they clash for meaningless reasons.
These frameworks are all universal. One can theoretically interpret anything using any of them. This explains why people overuse them: you never truly get it wrong when using one of these frameworks.
Naturally, they will reach the truth on different topics at different speeds. There are no free lunches, and no framework is perfect. Through Rationalism, one can go faster than Science but will fail when trying to affect wide-scale political change for the greater good.
I have shared those frameworks with some people, who have benefitted from them. Personally, thinking in those terms makes it easier to understand people.
The Frameworks
Rationalism
Rationalism is the most obvious framework for understanding and predicting the world.
It is the main framework behind proofs and evidence.
The core thesis of Rationalism is that Reason is the source of knowledge. Knowledge is made of proofs. Belief in a statement is only justified to the extent that we can make a case for it.
Rationalism puts its emphasis on words. Its tools are discussions, debates and papers.
According to Rationalism, if a line of reasoning is valid, then its conclusion should be true. Conversely, if a statement is true, then there ought to be a reasoning that proves it. Sound and complete.
Authority
Authority is the most conservative framework for understanding and predicting the world.
It is the main mechanism behind group truth building.
The core thesis of Authority is that knowledge requires a lot of inertia. To establish something as true, it needs to be very credible.
Authority puts its emphasis on time. Knowledge not built with time will not stand the test of time. Most of everything is shit, and time is the great distiller.
According to Authority, if we want to believe someone, they need to have a lot of practice, have studied their field for a long time, have the respect of their peers or have a long track record of success.
Intuition
Intuition is the most pervasive framework for understanding and predicting the world. We might not even think about it as a framework because it is embedded in our brains. It is like air: we can't see it because we are in it.
The core thesis of Intuition is that knowledge is what feels deeply true. Knowledge is gnosis or insight: what we have deeply internalised.
Intuition emphasises self-awareness. Introspection, reflection, and paying attention to our own feelings.
According to Intuition, we do not establish statements as true. We can merely observe ourselves and realise what we have felt to be true.
Clash of Frameworks
When different frameworks meet for the first time, they can try to dominate each other. This is a bid for control: difference implies risks, and external risks should be minimised if not annihilated.
Investigating this type of interaction is the first step toward a synthesis.
This is why I will focus on how frameworks relate to each other when each one considers itself to be the only measure of truth.
Rationalism
From the point of view of Rationalism, when one can't make a case for a theory, they are wrong. Even if they were right, the theory would still be fishy and unreliable.
But this insistence itself feels fishy to the other frameworks. If Rationalism were correct, then it would be obvious and would not need complex proofs in the first place.
From an Authority's standpoint, Rationalism should follow the process and win, establish a track record and then leverage it: there is no need for chit-chat and word games.
From an Intuition standpoint, Rationalism should make things clear on an intuitive level. After all, if you can't explain something to an 8-year-old, have you truly understood it?
Other frameworks can sometimes tolerate Rationalism as a necessary cost, such as getting turbo-jet engines or smartphone computers.
But to be clear, this tolerance is still part of a domination strategy: Rationalism can build cool shit for us, but it should shut its mouth outside of STEM.
Authority
From Authority's point of view, when one can't show a track record and support for their peers, they are wrong. Even if they were right, this was most likely due to luck. If it isn't luck, they should build a track record soon enough, and there is no need to argue.
But this constant pressure feels like forced conformity to the other frameworks. How can new ideas get a foothold if they never find the resources to be tested in the first place? This is a Catch-22, similar to the graduate who can not find a job because they all require 5 years of experience.
Rationalism has seen Authority converge on the wrong beliefs and set back progress too many times. Practices and protocols are just suspicious superstitions and mechanisms of mass manipulation. If they work at all, then why can't Authority demonstrate how they do it.
Intuition has seen Authority leveraged as an oppressive tool against human nature too often. It is a tool that conveniently lets one discard what every individual finds obvious.
Other frameworks can tolerate Authority as a necessary cost to pay in some cases, like controlling people you despise as a way to live with them.
But to be clear, this tolerance is still part of a domination strategy: Authority can manage the out-group, but it should not constrain how I live my life.
Intuition
From the point of view of Intuition, it does not even make sense to speak of beliefs and knowledge separately from what we feel is true.
Of course, we can publicly share a formal proof, or our understanding of the expert consensus. But this is not belief. Until we feel them, we merely proclaim our trust in someone else over our beliefs.
This obviously flies over the head of Rationalism and Authority. From the latter's standpoint, feelings are nothing more than delusions. Intuition is just the default state of humans, who are captured by their reptilian brains.
Rationalism sees people falling prey to cognitive biases, and to the extent that we can't live without Intuition, it should be tamed and useful.
Authority sees people falling prey to their feelings. They are stupid and should not be listened to.
Empathy
After the many historical clashes between these frameworks, it should be easy for us to take a step back and gain perspective.
I am not going for a big synthesis right now. I'll go over each framework, espousing a more empathetic perspective rather than one of domination.
When I talk of empathy here, I do not mean niceness. I literally mean the ability to understand how others are thinking and feeling.
It is much closer to a skill and a habit like brushing your teeth than to a natural disposition or a personality trait.
Rationalism
When empathetic, Rationalism focuses on what it is good at. Such as:
Discovering new things by extrapolating from what we already know through other means.
Red-teaming what we already think to be true. Finding flaws that were not considered before through formalisations and stress tests.
Playing around with models and theories in a safe way. Mathematics often help us discover more intuitions about a topic we thought we had already internalised.
Looking at Authority, it understands that it is a system that saves us from having everyone constantly re-demonstrate everything. It realises that there was some Authority in Rationalism all along. All scientists are dwarves who stand on the shoulders of giants, the latest links in a chain that spanned generations of minds, who have carefully collated cognitive compendiums for centuries.
Looking at Intuition, it understands that it looks at human nature. We can not operate in the world based on a mathematical algorithm. Rationalism is costly, not everything can be carefully inspected under its microscope. While paying that cost for some important decisions might make sense, it can only be paid because Intuition constantly takes care of all the rest.
Authority
When empathetic, Authority focuses on what is good at. Such as:
Building common knowledge across people.
Agreeing on nice codes and standards whenever they make people's lives easier.
Aggregating what has stood the test of time.
Looking at Rationalism and Intuition, it sees the other side of the same coin. Evolution requires both a strong filtering environment and a constant stream of new possibilities. And so does finding Truth.
Looking at Rationalism specifically, it sees methods that help it improve itself. Most Authority structures are organic: little Rationalism, structure or reason went into them. However, the few truth-finding structures combining Authority and Rationalism, such as Courts or Academia, are some of humanity's finest jewels.
Looking at Intuition, it understands its limits. Human experience is too vast and different to be entirely ruled over by Authority. While one can defer to Authority for many choices, in the end, the very choice to defer or not to Authority falls under the realm of Intuition.
Intuition
When empathetic, Intuition focuses on what it is good at. Such as:
Contradictions.
Uncertainty and unknowns.
Unformalised knowledge or plain lack of knowledge.
Interactions with the real world.
Looking at Rationalism and Authority, it sees the world beyond itself. There is more to Truth than what feels true.
Looking at Rationalism specifically, it learns about whole new ways to conceive of what is true, independent of feelings. Truth can be established through facts, extrapolation, proofs, and debates. After meditating on it for a while, Intuition will naturally start capturing shards of Rationalism.
Looking at Authority, it realises its own shortcomings. It realises it is naturally incoherent. It might feel great when left to itself, but it needs Authority and Rationalism to keep track of the tally of how predictive it actually was and steer it.
Elements of a Synthesis
No Synthesis
I do not have a synthesis of Rationalism, Authority and Intuition.
To develop such a synthesis, we could refine these frameworks into more precise ones and then recombine them more naturally and precisely.
To be fair, I do not think there is a good synthesis for either Rationalism, Authority or Intuition; separately, they are already confused. So, one that combines all of them is a tall order.
But in the meantime, I'll share some elements.
Some Elements
Mathematical proofs are not definitive, and mathematical papers regularly contain incorrect proofs. However, a field of mathematics focuses on ironclad proofs, formally verified theorem proving. Theorem provers come in many forms, such as interactive proof assistants or automated theorem provers. However, their usage is even more restrictive than that of regular maths.
It is easy to develop models of various situations. This is the main tool of Rationalism. The models can be informal or mathematical. However, ensuring that the models match reality is a hard and separate skill.
From the point of view of Authority and Intuition, even with empathy, Rationalism proofs can make a claim at most plausible. No proof will ever make them probable. For Authority, to perceive a claim as probable, it needs to be substantiated by a track record or a reputation. And for Intuition, it needs to make sense.
When a framework is dominant, it takes itself as the ground truth. However, empathy can help it reflect and notice that it is not fixed and can be improved. When improving itself, considering the other frameworks is fruitful as they can cover its blind spot.
For instance, building skills involves rewriting one's Intuition. Doing this coherently and efficiently requires a healthy dose of Rationalism. Otherwise, following their Intuition and never reflecting, one will become a scrub.
In general, considering models' boundaries is necessary to synthesise them. Their realm of application. Their domain. When do each of them apply, and to what extent? Is there a good general principle hidden beyond the individual models and their domains?
Conversely, it is also important to think about their overlap. When do they yield different predictions on the same questions? In that case, is there an obvious way to refine them into smaller sub-domains, or is it genuinely hard? In the latter case, it might mean that an edge case of the frameworks has been hit and that the frameworks themselves should be improved before aiming for a synthesis.
Another way to think about boundaries and domains is through roles and responsibilities. In an ideal universe, what would be the roles of Rationalism, Authority, and Intuition? I mentioned it a bit when I stated that, for instance, Authority is good at building common knowledge. One could say it is its main responsibility to find truth.
An interesting edge case between boundaries is when Rationalism has fully explained a topic, but Intuition is still dissatisfied.
Sometimes, Intuition is just lagging. In maths, we have to accept that there are many things we'll never perfectly understand with an a-ha moment, and we just get used to them over time. Even if we see the full proof, we must rehash it many times for each step to become natural. Until we do so, it will feel dissatisfying, and that's part of the thing.
Other times, Intuition is dissatisfied, but for good reason. It turns out that we were confused and did not actually understand what was going on. We all remember times when we should have followed our Intuition instead of listening to an Authority or Rationalism. That there is no general criterion to distinguish between this situation and the previous one indicates a major problem to be solved if one is attempting a full synthesis.
Even worse, Intuition can be changed through incorrect pseudo-rational methods. This is the entire field of persuasion: managing to change Intuition through word-like, argument-like, pseudo-rational tools.
So far, I have talked about these frameworks in terms of Truth Finding. Indeed, ideally, we would all think separately about our beliefs, our values, our policies and our social groups. Unfortunately, in our brains, all of those are jumbled. This is a big obstacle for synthesis, as any synthesis of the Truth Finding frameworks must start with splitting Truth Finding away from that jumbled mess.
Concretely, there are too many stories pitting these frameworks against each other. The nice Authoritative elites vs the Intuitive animal-like masses. The Rationalist nerds vs the Authoritative institutions vs the well-adjusted Intuitive normies. The colourful, Intuitive human nature vs uncaring grey Authorities. And of course… The underdog Rationalist vs the stupid unchanging Authority.
These stories are major themes of our civilisation. Coming up with a synthesis of Authority, Intuition, and Rationalism will require defeating the attraction to those stories. We just love pitting them against each other.
Conclusion
No conclusion here. Just exposing thoughts.
Cheers, and have a nice day!