It’s easy to criticize the type of “fake” planning that systematically avoids/defuses criticism rather than aiming for success i.e. appearing blameless for a loss versus actually trying to win. But I think there’s a lot of traction to be gained from refusing to lose in any silly way; it means you have to dovetail a lot of reasonable strategies, that you could be criticized for missing eg “why didn’t you just try…” Trying EVERY post facto obvious thing is harder than it sounds and quite powerful (time permitting). Universal search/learning algorithms including market mechanisms like logical induction tend to have this form! So I don’t think this heuristic comes (only) from social approval or moral mazes. In my own research process, I think of it as “being professional.” It’s not the same as being brilliant, but it’s much easier to pull off consistently (if slowly) and it gets results.
It’s easy to criticize the type of “fake” planning that systematically avoids/defuses criticism rather than aiming for success i.e. appearing blameless for a loss versus actually trying to win. But I think there’s a lot of traction to be gained from refusing to lose in any silly way; it means you have to dovetail a lot of reasonable strategies, that you could be criticized for missing eg “why didn’t you just try…” Trying EVERY post facto obvious thing is harder than it sounds and quite powerful (time permitting). Universal search/learning algorithms including market mechanisms like logical induction tend to have this form! So I don’t think this heuristic comes (only) from social approval or moral mazes. In my own research process, I think of it as “being professional.” It’s not the same as being brilliant, but it’s much easier to pull off consistently (if slowly) and it gets results.