(This is all me thinking about the problem, and I make no claim that others will align with me on these.)
Grant-making
Typically, clusters of applications are assessed in 1 rung lower time-frames? Some topics get bumped up to same-tier of 1-tier-higher assessment, if assessors feel it advised.
ex: 10E4 is scheduled such that one can submit a grant application, do a 10E3 round, and come back to an answer.
cont ex: If the grant-making is running late, there are a bunch of 10E2 jobs opened up to help speed finishing it along? (The number of these is tracked, and marked on the 10E3 assessor’s record, but this is generally considered better than running late.)
Low-order grant-making is mostly fast-turnaround for small amounts of money, and involves a lot of funding-based-on-past-accomplishments. About 1⁄2 of it gets funded informally by random friends, drawing from built-up social credit.
Involves “rant-branch” and “brief-branch” application rounds (about 10x as many are funded through brief-branch). Rant-branch has higher word limits, and slower turn-around.
Rant is for “this is a potentially-valuable idea I haven’t distilled yet, is it worth putting in additional time to investigate/summarize/distill it?” It’s reasonably common for it to get funded to 1 tier higher than the original grant-seeker lodged.
Your first round of 10E1s are funded by the state. There are also periodic “jubilees” where everyone gets a free 10E1 (solving starter problems)
High-order grant-making is slower in turnaround, and includes a lot of questions about order-of-magnitude and scope-of-problem/scope-of-potential-solution.
Writing summary sequences or field-wide Review articles are one potential way higher-order people demonstrate legible competence.
Some 1E(x) people spend their lives dedicated to distilling ~1-10 1E(x+1) persons for the sake of 1E(x-1) (sometimes called ghostwriters)
Some even-less-ordered thoughts on this:
There’s probably some kind of rotating board full of scattered pre-structured 1E1 and 1E2 job listings that people have pre-funded, which fast-turnaround people can pull from if they don’t have a unique 1E1 or 1E2 idea themselves.
(1E0 might be too small for this? Hm.)
Similarly, 1E2s can pool together the resources to fund a 1E3 on an issue they find relevant. This has somehow been streamlined, method TBD.
Somebody needs to be able to restructure and break a subset of 1E(x) problems into 1E(x-1) and 1E(x-2) jobs.
People who do this successfully, should probably gain a fair amount of prestige for it (especially if they break it into a smaller time-block in total, or have enabled substantial parallelization of something time-sensitive)
1E(4)s and higher often develop obnoxiously dense tangles of infralanguages and jargon, as a manner of course. This is treated as normal. 1E(4)s who remain legible to 1E(2)s (especially those who are able to translate other 1E(4)’s work to something similarly legible) are called “bridges,” and are appropriately prized.
This overlaps some with ghostwriters, but is also its own distinct sub-category of researchers. (It’s important that bridges aren’t all subordinated into 1E(3) work.)
There are occasionally bridge & ghostwriter conferences, which tend to be followed by a tidal wave of applications to write or update various dictionaries and encyclopedias.
Similar to the current world: Some fields/jargon-sets/infralanguages that have solved the onboarding problem, are widespread enough to have their own conferences, specialized grant ecosystems, assigned ghostwriters, etc.
Just distilling some relevant intuitions:
(This is all me thinking about the problem, and I make no claim that others will align with me on these.)
Grant-making
Typically, clusters of applications are assessed in 1 rung lower time-frames? Some topics get bumped up to same-tier of 1-tier-higher assessment, if assessors feel it advised.
ex: 10E4 is scheduled such that one can submit a grant application, do a 10E3 round, and come back to an answer.
cont ex: If the grant-making is running late, there are a bunch of 10E2 jobs opened up to help speed finishing it along? (The number of these is tracked, and marked on the 10E3 assessor’s record, but this is generally considered better than running late.)
Low-order grant-making is mostly fast-turnaround for small amounts of money, and involves a lot of funding-based-on-past-accomplishments. About 1⁄2 of it gets funded informally by random friends, drawing from built-up social credit.
Involves “rant-branch” and “brief-branch” application rounds (about 10x as many are funded through brief-branch). Rant-branch has higher word limits, and slower turn-around.
Rant is for “this is a potentially-valuable idea I haven’t distilled yet, is it worth putting in additional time to investigate/summarize/distill it?” It’s reasonably common for it to get funded to 1 tier higher than the original grant-seeker lodged.
Your first round of 10E1s are funded by the state. There are also periodic “jubilees” where everyone gets a free 10E1 (solving starter problems)
High-order grant-making is slower in turnaround, and includes a lot of questions about order-of-magnitude and scope-of-problem/scope-of-potential-solution.
Writing summary sequences or field-wide Review articles are one potential way higher-order people demonstrate legible competence.
Some 1E(x) people spend their lives dedicated to distilling ~1-10 1E(x+1) persons for the sake of 1E(x-1) (sometimes called ghostwriters)
Some even-less-ordered thoughts on this:
There’s probably some kind of rotating board full of scattered pre-structured 1E1 and 1E2 job listings that people have pre-funded, which fast-turnaround people can pull from if they don’t have a unique 1E1 or 1E2 idea themselves.
(1E0 might be too small for this? Hm.)
Similarly, 1E2s can pool together the resources to fund a 1E3 on an issue they find relevant. This has somehow been streamlined, method TBD.
Somebody needs to be able to restructure and break a subset of 1E(x) problems into 1E(x-1) and 1E(x-2) jobs.
People who do this successfully, should probably gain a fair amount of prestige for it (especially if they break it into a smaller time-block in total, or have enabled substantial parallelization of something time-sensitive)
1E(4)s and higher often develop obnoxiously dense tangles of infralanguages and jargon, as a manner of course. This is treated as normal. 1E(4)s who remain legible to 1E(2)s (especially those who are able to translate other 1E(4)’s work to something similarly legible) are called “bridges,” and are appropriately prized.
This overlaps some with ghostwriters, but is also its own distinct sub-category of researchers. (It’s important that bridges aren’t all subordinated into 1E(3) work.)
There are occasionally bridge & ghostwriter conferences, which tend to be followed by a tidal wave of applications to write or update various dictionaries and encyclopedias.
Similar to the current world: Some fields/jargon-sets/infralanguages that have solved the onboarding problem, are widespread enough to have their own conferences, specialized grant ecosystems, assigned ghostwriters, etc.