THE THREE TYPES OF RATIONALITY AND EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP
The Instrumental/Epistemic split is awful. If rationality is systematized winning, all rationality is instrumental.
So then, what are three types of Instrumental Rationality?
Generative Rationality
What mental models will best help me/my organization/my culture generate ideas that will allow us to systematically win?
Evaluative Rationality
What mental models will best help me/my organization/my culture evaluate ideas, and predict which ones will allow us to systematically win?
Effectuative Rationality
What mental models will best help me/my organization/my culture implement those ideas in an effective way that will help us to systematically win?
Evaluation typically gets lumped under “Epistemics” , Effectuation typically gets lumped under “Instrumentals” and Generation is typically given the shaft—certainly creativity is undervalued as an explicit goal in the rationality community (although it’s implicitly valued in that people who create good ideas are given high status).
Great leaders can switch between these 3 modes at will.
If you look at Steve Jobs’ reality distortion field, it’s him being able to switch between the 3 modes at will, only using evaluative reality when choosing a direction—other times he’s operating on Generative and Effectuative Rationality principles. This allows him to eventually shape reality to the vision he generated using his effectuative principles. By using the proper types of rationality at the right time, he’s actually able to shape reality instead of merely predicting it.
If you look at Walt Disney, he used to frequently say a phrase that indicates he knew how to switch between these 3 modes: He used to talk about he was “actually 3 different Walts: The Dreamer, The Realist, and the Spoiler”. Access to these 3 modes allowed Walt to do things that other’s would have looked at with their Evaluative Rationality and viewed as impossible.”
You can see with Elon Musk too. Look at that the difference between how he acts with budgeting and how he acts with deadlines. When he’s budgeting, he uses his evaluative rationality—when he’s making deadlines, he’s using his effectuative rationality—he knows large visions and hard to reach goals actually help people take better action. You shouldn’t view his deadlines as predictions, but as motivation tools.
Are great leaders then liars? No, great leaders are Kegan 5 players who don’t just say things, but are actually operating through these 3 frameworks (to a first approximation) at any given time. When a great leader is generating, their not worried about evaluating their ideas. When they’re evaluating, theyre not worried about effectuating those ideas. When they’re effectuating, they’re not generating.
They’re using whatever framework can make the most MEANING out of the current situation, both now in the long term. They’re skillfully cycling through these frames in themselves—and outputting the truth of whatever ontology they’re operating through at the given moment.
One of my worries with the talk about Simulacra Levels and how it relates to Moral Mazes is that it’s not distinguishing between Kegan 2 players (who are lying and manipulating the system for their own gain), with Kegan 4.5 players (who are lying and manipulating the system because they actually have no ontology to operate through except revenge and power), with Kegan 5 players (who are viewing truth and social dynamics as objects to be manipulated because there is no truth of which tribe their a part of or what they believe about a specific thing—it’s all dependent on what will generate the most meaning for them/their organization/their culture).
It’s absolutely imperative that you create systems to filter out Sociopathic Kegan 4.5 lizard people if you want your organization to avoid being captured by self-interest.
At the same time, it’s absolutely imperative that you have systems that can find, develop and promote Kegan 5 leaders that can create new systems and operate through all 3 types of rationality. Otherwise your organizations/cultures values won’t be able to evolve with changing situation.
I worry framing things as Simulacra levels don’t distinguish between these two types of players.
I’d like to see it, and even more I’d like to see the tweaking and objections from people who see the levels as exclusive and incremental, rather than filters which can be simultaneously used or switched among as needed.
What happens if you the parts of your mind responsible for generative rationality, the positive optimistic part, takes over without input from Evaluative and Effectuative rationality? It might look a light like Persistent Euphoric States.
One of my worries with the talk about Simulacra Levels and how it relates to Moral Mazes is that it’s not distinguishing between Kegan 2 players (who are lying and manipulating the system for their own gain), with Kegan 4.5 players (who are lying and manipulating the system because they actually have no ontology to operate through except revenge and power), with Kegan 5 players (who are viewing truth and social dynamics as objects to be manipulated because there is no truth of which tribe their a part of or what they believe about a specific thing—it’s all dependent on what will generate the most meaning for them/their organization/their culture).
At the same time, it’s absolutely imperative that you have systems that can find, develop and promote Kegan 5 leaders that can create new systems and operate through all 3 types of rationality. Otherwise your organizations/cultures values won’t be able to evolve with changing situation.
I worry framing things as Simulacra levels don’t distinguish between these two types of players.
This is an interesting concern. I think it’s useful to distinguish these things. I’m not sure how big a concern it is for the Simulacra Levels thing to cover this case – my current worry is that the Simulacra concept is trying to do too many things. But, since it does look like Zvi is hoping to have it be a Grand Unified Theory, I agree the Grand Unified version of it should account for this sort of thing.
THE THREE TYPES OF RATIONALITY AND EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP
The Instrumental/Epistemic split is awful. If rationality is systematized winning, all rationality is instrumental.
So then, what are three types of Instrumental Rationality?
Generative Rationality
What mental models will best help me/my organization/my culture generate ideas that will allow us to systematically win?
Evaluative Rationality
What mental models will best help me/my organization/my culture evaluate ideas, and predict which ones will allow us to systematically win?
Effectuative Rationality
What mental models will best help me/my organization/my culture implement those ideas in an effective way that will help us to systematically win?
Evaluation typically gets lumped under “Epistemics” , Effectuation typically gets lumped under “Instrumentals” and Generation is typically given the shaft—certainly creativity is undervalued as an explicit goal in the rationality community (although it’s implicitly valued in that people who create good ideas are given high status).
Great leaders can switch between these 3 modes at will.
If you look at Steve Jobs’ reality distortion field, it’s him being able to switch between the 3 modes at will, only using evaluative reality when choosing a direction—other times he’s operating on Generative and Effectuative Rationality principles. This allows him to eventually shape reality to the vision he generated using his effectuative principles. By using the proper types of rationality at the right time, he’s actually able to shape reality instead of merely predicting it.
If you look at Walt Disney, he used to frequently say a phrase that indicates he knew how to switch between these 3 modes: He used to talk about he was “actually 3 different Walts: The Dreamer, The Realist, and the Spoiler”. Access to these 3 modes allowed Walt to do things that other’s would have looked at with their Evaluative Rationality and viewed as impossible.”
You can see with Elon Musk too. Look at that the difference between how he acts with budgeting and how he acts with deadlines. When he’s budgeting, he uses his evaluative rationality—when he’s making deadlines, he’s using his effectuative rationality—he knows large visions and hard to reach goals actually help people take better action. You shouldn’t view his deadlines as predictions, but as motivation tools.
Are great leaders then liars? No, great leaders are Kegan 5 players who don’t just say things, but are actually operating through these 3 frameworks (to a first approximation) at any given time. When a great leader is generating, their not worried about evaluating their ideas. When they’re evaluating, theyre not worried about effectuating those ideas. When they’re effectuating, they’re not generating.
They’re using whatever framework can make the most MEANING out of the current situation, both now in the long term. They’re skillfully cycling through these frames in themselves—and outputting the truth of whatever ontology they’re operating through at the given moment.
One of my worries with the talk about Simulacra Levels and how it relates to Moral Mazes is that it’s not distinguishing between Kegan 2 players (who are lying and manipulating the system for their own gain), with Kegan 4.5 players (who are lying and manipulating the system because they actually have no ontology to operate through except revenge and power), with Kegan 5 players (who are viewing truth and social dynamics as objects to be manipulated because there is no truth of which tribe their a part of or what they believe about a specific thing—it’s all dependent on what will generate the most meaning for them/their organization/their culture).
It’s absolutely imperative that you create systems to filter out Sociopathic Kegan 4.5 lizard people if you want your organization to avoid being captured by self-interest.
At the same time, it’s absolutely imperative that you have systems that can find, develop and promote Kegan 5 leaders that can create new systems and operate through all 3 types of rationality. Otherwise your organizations/cultures values won’t be able to evolve with changing situation.
I worry framing things as Simulacra levels don’t distinguish between these two types of players.
P.S. Was thinking about writing this up more coherently as a top level post. Is there any interest in that?
I’d like to see it, and even more I’d like to see the tweaking and objections from people who see the levels as exclusive and incremental, rather than filters which can be simultaneously used or switched among as needed.
What happens if you the parts of your mind responsible for generative rationality, the positive optimistic part, takes over without input from Evaluative and Effectuative rationality? It might look a light like Persistent Euphoric States.
This is an interesting concern. I think it’s useful to distinguish these things. I’m not sure how big a concern it is for the Simulacra Levels thing to cover this case – my current worry is that the Simulacra concept is trying to do too many things. But, since it does look like Zvi is hoping to have it be a Grand Unified Theory, I agree the Grand Unified version of it should account for this sort of thing.