Thanks for the feedback. I tend to be an abstractor, as I think of it: gathering data and building abstractions that structure it. This means my output tends to be to tell you about cool abstractions I figured out.
I'm less excited about performing the opposite task, which is presenting raw data for others to build abstractions on. I mostly only do it when I feel like, rhetorically, I'm going to lose the reader if I don't. I freely admit this is a weakness on my part and I'm trying to get better about providing data in posts, but I admit I'm not excited about it.
If you want something more like Chapman's most recent post, Kegan's In Over Our Heads is really good: it tells a stylized story of a person going through the struggle of the stage 3 to 4 transition and is based on an amalgamation of real stories (aggregated and anonymized for privacy). Or, alternatively, I've gotten a lot of milage out of both slice-of-life type stories that follow realistic characters and reading memoirs and other true stories from people. I have to do the work of applying whatever theory I'm trying to work out to the story, but learning more about the experiences of many people is the raw data necessary for making sense of a great many theories (and for formulating your own!).
My perhaps extremely obvious question is, why is this necessary?
I'm not opposed to finding new ways to explain old ideas to Western audiences, but why do we need to dress it up in the language of complexity theory? All Buddhist theory ultimately exists for the purpose of helping point people to the way to awaken for themselves. Maybe there's some people who need it explained in terms of complexity theory to make sense of it, but I suspect there's other, more familiar and more accessible metaphors that would help a larger number of people. Also, as ever, there's some risk in misunderstanding when translating to another ontology, and I'm not sure if translating to complexity theory results in conveying the same connotations, which might result in subtle confusions that are hard to tease out.
What I'd like to point you to is my book, Fundamental Uncertainty. Alas, it's still in revisions and not published yet, though I did put the first draft up on LessWrong to get feedback. It ultimately makes this case, but does so by gently building up to it. If you want to skip ahead, most of the "rationalist are screwing up; here's how to do better" content is in Chapters 8 and 9 (though because I target a wider audience, rationalists are not explicitly named).
An older post that I no longer fully endorse that's in the vein you're looking for is: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/5LP6Jc8ztwcyb296X/outline-of-metarationality-or-much-less-than-you-wanted-to
But maybe the best take on this is not mine, but David Chapman's Meaningness. I'd recommend starting with this essay.
Sadly, it's too abstract a warning shot.
I think a real warning shot that's actually registered as such by the public and politicians would have to be something that involves a lot of people dying or a lot of economic damage. Otherwise, I have a hard time seeing a critical mass of people finding motivation to act.
Well, as I say in my example above, literally build a bot that plays a game.
Most of the loops end up much shorter, though, like "upgrade this package dependency, keep fixing bugs in the build until the build passes", but sometimes these changes are kinda weird, so I try to get Claude to do what a human would do, which is keep trying things it thinks might work to get the build to pass.
Or, one I haven't done but might: keep adding tests until we hit X% coverage (and give some examples of what constitutes a good test). This one I expect to work better than you might think, since Opus is getting reasonably good at not specification gaming and trying to actually do what I mean, which Sonnet frequently still goes for.
1You need a clear measure. For example, let's say you want to build a scripted bot that can play a novel game for which there is not an off the self solution. You could try to train a neural net, but Claude can write code, so you fill in Y with "writing a bot that plays game Z".
This sort of strategy is obviously heavily dependent of the availability of a good evaluation method and a clear scoring mechanism. As such, it doesn't work for most problems, since most problems don't have such large search spaces.
Yes, Opus 4.5.
Perhaps a point of terminology, I'd say vibestemics is itself about the fact that your epistemics, whatever they are, are grounded in vibes (via care). However, this is tangled up with the fact that to believe that this core vibestemic claim is true is to automatically imply that there is no one right epistemic process, but rather epistemic processes that are instrumentally useful depending on what you care about doing (hence the contingency on care).
The specific vibe of the post-rationality is, as I would frame it, to value completeness over consistency, whereas traditional rationality makes the opposite choice (and pre-rationality doesn't even try to value either, except in that it will try to hallucinate its way to both if pressed).
My general philosophy on cooking is "if it can't be cooked it in the microwave, then I ain't cooking it", so this post is right up my alley!
I'm guessing you never tried to cook eggs in a microwave before. The exploding egg problem is relatively well known. The typical solution is to puncture the egg to release the steam that builds up between the white and the yolk, since that's what causes the explosion. They even sell special dishes for making poached eggs in the microwave.
Also, pasta is incredibly easy to cook in the microwave. Again, they sell a special dish for it, which is basically just a long plastic rectangle so you can cook long noodles. Shorter noodles are also allowed. The main challenge is keeping the thing from boiling over, which can be achieved with a combination of salted water, oil, and not trying to cook too much at once. Pasta will cook in water that's not at a roiling boil, though it takes longer, but the end result is about the same.
Rice, potatoes, carrots, and lots of other things are also quite easy to cook in the microwave. Even fish is pretty easy to cook in one, although I don't recommend it because it makes a lot of fish smell (unless you like that).