It's also important to avoid bad shoulder advisors. I've spent several years trying to reduce the influence of miniature copies of abusive family members on my thinking.
EDIT: The most effective counter I've found for this is to 1) Notice that the thought I just had is actually coming from a bad source, 2) Remind myself that that person wanted me to believe/act that way for selfish and narcissistic reasons, and I shouldn't take their advice for the same reason I wouldn't take moral suggestions from people who go around kicking puppies.
This was a significant lesson I learned between the ages of 13 and 23. I have repeatedly removed bad advisors from my shoulder.
A model that pops up in several places (e.g. this book, this paper) is that these kinds of shoulder advisors show up as a kind of a preventative measure. If there are real people who would criticize or berate you for doing specific things, then your brain learns to predict when they would do that, and starts creating that criticism internally. That way, the inner critic may prevent you from doing the thing and thus spare you from being punished by the external critic who's being modeled.
In that case, one approach is to simply try to talk to your inner critic and ask it what it's trying to achieve and what it's afraid would happen if it didn't say the things it did. Sometimes it may be possible to get it to notice that e.g. avoiding the abusive family member's judgment isn't very important anymore, because you're no longer living with that person, getting it to ease off.
I've done it twice, very explicitly. (Probably more implicitly.)
Here's some thoughts, tuned specifically to the cases I had.
Oh, I notice that I also have done this sort of thing with a bunch of recent tv/films/content.
There's a habit of modern content that, when it gets politicized, will "mimic argument". It will pretend to show sincere dialogue and debate, but it will fully swing the deck against one side and in favor of the other, and straightforwardly imply that the other side is unethical.
I can watch political art that I disagree with, I can even put up with good art that has bad political art inside of it, but when it attempts to distort what good faith dialogue is in order to win an argument, I just turn it off. I don't want to simulate that character/perspective or have a dialogue with them/it in my head.[1]
I can immediately think of four times I've done this with shows/content I otherwise greatly enjoyed and admire. I just don't want to learn to simulate them.
———
[1] Writing this out, I realize it's straightforward darkside epistemology.
Maybe that is one way how entertainment manipulates public opinion: By creating memorable (=easily emulable) characters that become shoulder 'influencers' that promote the official narrative right in the heads of the populace.
I'm fascinating by the mechanisms here! You said:
This is not schizophrenia (though for all I know it may use some of the same hardware, or may be a low-key, non-pathological version of schizophrenia in the same way that a healthy self-preservation instinct could be thought of as a low-key, non-pathological version of a phobia or an anxiety disorder).
This accords with my own sense.
My current central model for schizophrenia starts with Sapoloski's evolutionary hypothesis (sorry for youtube, it works at 1.75X and I just rewatched all of it to make sure I'm not wasting too much time), which links with how cluster A personality disorders are heritable and occur more frequently in people with schizophrenic parents/cousins.
On this model, a few of these genes make you a tribally useful shaman or successful leader, and get positive selection (hence why the individual alleles exist at non-trivial levels), but too many all at once in the same person can predispose one to fall into a dysfunctional mental attractor.
Cluster A disorders (classicly, the 3 on the left in the diagram below) are then maybe "very mild 'schizophrenia', with enough perks to make up for the down...
Just a little bit of context here. I tend to be the kind of person who is generally able to cope DURING an traumatic event but then it may or may not take an emotional toll after the fact. That's context.
Post- COVID American 6 month lock down (that's what it was for me), during 2021, I became majorly depressed and basically.... well, i guess the word would be ""broke". the best way my phsycologist and i can figure out how to explain it was that my personality fractured. not in terms of voices in my head exactly but i had a sort of ego death where i dissolved into a personal set of shoulder Advisors, demons, and other assorted folk who instead of talking to me were talking to each other. there was no me to talk to. but in more tangible terms my head couldnt cope with itself and my personality just became a set of shoulder personas.
The way i see this article, the shoulder advisor thing works because on a meta level you are in fact that smart. you can make better decisions/ notice more things/ do more things if you have a "trigger" that lets you bring that pattern into a higher level, more in control space. people are relatable in the sense that we relate to people pretty well a...
Thanks for this great post!
TL;DR for my own thoughts:
Shoulder advisors seem to mirror a common machine learning technique, ensembling, which combines multiple ML models to get better overall performance than any individual model can reach. E.g., an ensemble of ERNIE models holds the current first place on the GLUE leaderboard (a metric for evaluating the general capabilities of language models). Shoulder advisors let you sort of ensemble thoughts across different personalities. Ensemble approaches are most helpful when the ensembled population is diverse and each model tends to specialize in particular types of tasks. That matches your usefulness criteria fairly well.
If we extend predictive processing theory to internal personality traits, then our own personalities are generated by a predictive process, presumably one that bootstraps itself by predicting beha...
Two anecdotes:
...
I recall when I was 18 years old or so, and I'd been arguing with a very religious friend throughout high school. I would rehearse arguments with him in my head, preparing for the next time we'd meet and I'd tell him all the reasons I thought his beliefs didn't make sense.
And for the first couple years of this, in the arguments in my head, I'd always say things like "have you considered point X" and imaginary-friend would say "oh, man, you're right. I am wrong." But then, eventually, I hit points where I'd say "what about X?" and then my imaginary friend would say "so? X doesn't matter, because [counterargument]".
This was a neat thing to discover about my ability to model people. (It also was relevant to the entire "does God exist?" debate – an eventually cruxy point for me is that you totally can build up simulations of people in your head, and I'd expect that to be hard to distinguish from God speaking to you)
...
More recently, I received benefit from asking my own future self for advice. (In fact, I asked multiple future selves who might evolve in different directions). One future self responded with some concrete, compassionate advice about how one of my coping mechanisms wasn't actually helping with my core goals.
Curated. This is a clear articulation of a rationality skill that I've never seen or heard explained elsewhere. Someone I'm close to gained a shoulder advisor in the last few years that was a dramatic breakthrough for them, but I never thought of it as something accessible to most people, yet this post updates me that there's a lot of value here for many (perhaps myself included).
Many people have multiple shoulder advisors. ... It's quite common in my experience for people to have shoulder copies of their parents, or their best friends, ...
Is this really the case?
I recently discussed inner monologue with a friend a he was doubtful whether this was real or just something made up. He didn't doubt that people could imagine something like it but not as something in the way you describe here. I can relate to his view because I also don't have a persistent inner monologue - though I can bring it up.
If you asked people neutrally what goes on in their mind I guess the results would look a lot like Galton's experiments about mental imagery (mentioned e.g. in the SCC post Generalizing From One Example): Some would say nothing, some would answer like my friend, most would report some inner monologue, and a some would have a lot of inner voices.
How solid is your evidence?
It's definitely the case that many people do (and also definitely the case that many people don't!).
My evidence is:
I started developing (and sharing) my explicit concepts of shoulder advisors well after encountering the stuff about some people not having visual imagery, or some people not having inner monologues, or some people not having a persistent sense of self across time, or Scott Alexander's "Different Worlds," and so forth. Like, from the start I've been quite aware of the fact that this won't be uni...
Update: I polled some people and for what it's worth this is the result:
Kids' answers (ages 10 to 15):
I mostly don't have inner monologue either, but I also don't feel like that's an requirement for having shoulder advisors. Shoulder advisors can talk in conceptese, in my experience.
(I don't have shoulder copies in the strong and vivid sense that Duncan describes, but I sometimes get vague feelings that seem like they are the outputs of the same kind of process. E.g. reading an article and thinking "I feel like Duncan would be interested in this", seeing a particular plush toy and thinking "my friend S would find this one adorable", or preparing for a fraught conversation with someone and doing a simulation in my head of what I'd expect them to say in response to various things that I could say. Also I'm getting a weak sense of what you might reply to this comment, now. :-) )
Just to make explicit a connection that seems obvious to me but I'm not sure how obvious it is to others: the existence of this phenomena fits nicely together with a global workspace model of the mind, where the brain may spawn new subroutines that plug into the workspace and then learns various rules for when to activate them, as well as fine-tuning their properties when the system becomes aware of a mismatch between the model's predicted outcome and what-the-target-person would actually have said.
Two shoulder advisors I have found helpful this year:
"it is a straightforwardly observable fact that, for many people, their shoulder advisors occasionally offer thoughts and insights that the people literally would not have thought of, otherwise."
How can this be observable, let alone straightforwardly?
Two additional beneficial outcomes of attempting to boot up / improve shoulder advisors:
Anecdotal, but the friends of mine who simulate people / hear others' voices tend to be among the most thoughtful and socially-buttery-smooth people I know.
Oh, I just realized this post is new, and not one of the 8 year old posts I keep coming across and want to participate in.
I don't think this technique works for me, at all. For several reasons. And reading through the comments section, I feel like other people can't imagine my failure case (e.g. the people surveying others about whether they do / can do this - "Can you imagine your friend saying this?")
I'm visually aphantasic, I cannot conjure a visual image at all except in some phases of sleep, or sometimes under extreme tiredness while 'awake' (I hypothesize those mental states are closer to sleep than normal waking awareness anyway). This means the 'visual image' part falls apart instantly. I can, however consciously control my auditory perceptions with extremely high fidelity.
This means I can easily make a voice in my head say anything in a specific person's voice, but that can only happen with my conscious input. These voices are purely puppets, or more accurately, just 'voice filters' I can put on my 'internal voice'.
I believe I've never 'heard' anything other than what actually happened or came directly from (or through) my internal train of thought, with rare exceptions of...
On more self reflection, and reading a bunch of posts in the subagents tag, and looking into tulpas again, I believe I just don't have the mental architecture for this kind of thing.
I hypothesize that this skill requires thinking of yourself as a personality, but I don't see myself that way. I see my 'self' as my central attention. I don't believe I have software subagents, I believe I have hardware submodules with some configuration overlays at most. There's no 'default personality'. I switch how I interact with people based on context fluidly.
I don't believe my architecture is flexible enough for this, as I can't even write fictional characters that are not a version of my mind with masked knowledge and hidden or exaggerated traits (and otherwise with a manipulated context). I don't argue with people in my head, I don't do 'what ifs' of conversations, I don't imagine what a person would say in some situation.
One practice I've been doing a bit since January has been something called Ideal Parent Figure Protocol, which includes guided meditations (e.g.) for imagining yourself as a child with the kinds of idealized parents who are always perfectly supportive and understanding and available, to correct for any emotional lacks created by the ways in which your real parents were just human and non-perfect. One of the parts of the practice is something called "microhits", which basically means making your ideal parents your shoulder advisors so that they'll be available for emotional support whenever you need it. (I haven't gotten this very strongly, but I've heard people say it's really powerful if you do get it to work.)
For some time, I have tried to create mental models of other people to improve my social skills, better tune my communication, and predict reactions. It was always very difficult to put myself in other people's shoes. For a long time, I didn't understand what that even was supposed to mean. Your instructions have been extremely helpful and I managed to bring up boot up (at this point one piped up and said "call it 'boot up'") some advisors easily.
It is easiest to let the advisors just be there and act without speaking. Smiling, noding, moving.
Emulating by ex-wife - at least her speech - is relatively easy. I'm not sure what to make of it; we are well cooperating co-parents, maybe there will be parenting advice that will simplify things.
Among the advisors that I brought up the most vivid were instances of myself. The first tries were rather boring because the copies didn't speak up but just thought and observed. Only when I changed the frame to include thoughts did this lead to some cool interaction. The copy was disoriented at first, explored the environment, asked for access to senses, and brought up nested instances at which point I decided to write up the experience.
You might want to add a disclaimer when not to try this or what the risks are. Meditation risks have been discussed on LW before. I don't want to overblow this, I think it is pretty safe. But it is an experimental meditation practice and you could link to the risks section of SSC Book Review The Mind Illuminated or offer to help if anything unexpected happens.
Also, your mileage may vary. You couldn't sell me on all the nice points you listed - having a lot of time to work on it I arrived at a stable inner life via other means. What sold me on your practice was your aside
... not to mention that having robust copies of my actual friends and colleagues has much better equipped me to interact with those friends and colleagues
My own personal experience following this post: I don't have enough training data for most of the people I'd like to emulate. When I think of the people I know irl that is like to learn from, I've spent about ten hours 1-on-1 with each of them; not enough to have a solid mental model of what advice they may give. At the same time, part of why I value their advice is that I can't predict it; they have wisdom and experience that I don't. Often, I'll ask them for advice and be surprised by their answer. When I tried to create a shoulder advisor of one of them, it didn't work; I just didn't know enough about them to accurately understand what they were thinking in a certain situation.
Still a great post, though; just didn't work for a specific use case of mine.
I really liked this post since it took something I did intuitively and haphazardly and gave it a handle by providing the terms to start practicing it intentionally. This had at least two benefits:
First it allowed me to use this technique in a much wider set of circumstances, and to improve the voices that I already have. Identifying the phenomenon allowed it to move from a knack which showed up by luck, to a skill.
Second, it allowed me to communicate the experience more easily to others, and open the possibility for them to use it as well. Unlike many less...
So uhh
I've been doing a bit of coaching for people recently
And then when I was thinking that I'm not going to do [THING] yet, I'm going to wait until I'm in a better position to do so, suddenly I had the experience of a shoulder advisor materializing that was me in coach mode being like "okay so do you have some actual criteria for what counts as being in a good enough position"
That was a very peculiar experience
(probably I'd have had that thought anyway but reading this post primed me to have it be accompanied by a mental image of myself standing on my own shoulder)
Great post. Two comments:
The popular saying "What would Jesus do?" suggests many devout Christians use Jesus precisely as a shoulder advisor - no doubt frequently & with intense seriousness. Hence they may well have useful insights into the technique.
Also:
It's important to be clear that the experience of "hearing the voices" actually happens, in many people. This is not a metaphor, and it is not hyperbole or exaggeration. I'm not saying that people tend to hallucinate actual sounds—that probably would be schizophrenia.
I read a book about Jaynes' bicame...
On the having a shoulder Duncan, I explicitly tried to do this upon listening to you being interviewed by Spencer Greenberg. Sadly, digital Duncan doesn't exist in large enough quantities to emulated. So for those of us that don't happen to live (I assume) in the Bay Area, can Duncan increase how many podcast or video's he's on? Having a shoulder Duncan sounds really useful to a large number of people you interact with and enlarging that pool purposely seems to be a pretty good idea. Food for thought?
My longest talk
My Harvard talk
My badly-in-need-of-updating website which happens to have a "writing" tab F U L L of stuff
You can find a couple others on Youtube by searching "Duncan Sabien."
Also you can get people to invite me to podcasts and I'll often say yes. =P
This phenomenon is also why we have the term "role model." Successful examples of people similar to us are extremely valuable, and it is in fact very difficult to succeed without such examples.
Thank you for writing this, it really got me thinking. I'm one of those people who don't really have a firm cast of shoulder advisors. In fact, when I saw this appear in fiction (and in particular in HPMOR), I kind of assumed it was just a convenient narrative device and not something real people actually do. I suppose I should read HPMOR again and try to figure out what other blatantly obvious advice I've missed.
This does seem like a extremely useful skill to have, so I'd like to practice it if possible. I just tried to imagine one of these shoulder advis...
A related (ADDED: but more intrusive and risky) technique is called Tulpa and was discussed earlier in this post: How Effective are Tulpas?
I am comfortable with having a comment making the (objectively correct) claim that tulpas are related in a narrow and technical sense. They seem to be playing in a similar space, are probably using the same mental architecture, etc.
I would not be comfortable with having a comment leaving the (unjustified, imo) impression that tulpas are substantively similar.
Like, it may be that tulpas get a bad rap, but from what I know of them, they're much more like inventing a shoulder advisor and then ceding control to it entirely because you think it can run your life better than the core you, and that's way more extreme and requires a lot more assumptions to justify than the thing I'm recommending with shoulder advisors. Their common-use definition is a thing that feels risky in a way that shoulder advisors do not, and feels like it requires warnings that I don't think shoulder advisors require.
EDIT: Also, afaik tuplas are much more built-from-the-ground-up, rather than being keyed into a set of recorded experiences from either real people or detailed fictional characters. Having to ground out a mental construct in either actual reality or plausible near-reality seems like a big safeguard.
Even if I'm wrong about what tulpas really are in practice: to the extent that my understanding and my brief description above matches other people's general impression, I want to be pretty firm that that thing is not closely related to shoulder advisors in spirit.
One of mine is a (real actually) gander whose name is Жирний (Fatty). The fictional him is more optimistic / not-depressed than me; a generous, unsophisticated, slightly egotistical, proud of his flock, kinda shy, but of times wordy, magnificent bird. He just never hesitates to be kind to others when my self-image would invent a carload of reasons not to.
I love how Jean-Luc Picard was selected to be one of your advisors. He is also among my best candidates :).
What is the largest number of advisers you have known people to actively use? I am a bit reluctant to cut it down to four or five.
Simulated intelligence is real intelligence. Although probably nobody is going to simulate the person/figure properly, the typical LW reader will actually occasionally outperform the actual person/figure.
Not sure to what extent shoulder advisors outperform deliberate thinking, especially compared to other CFAR handbook techniques.
I was thinking about something just now and tried to imagine some concept advising me (like morality play style, like getting advice from Temperance or something; the example isn't important and is distracting) and I realized something.
Those of you who experience this phenomenon naturally: where do you experience it? When I tried just now, I noticed my brain trying to create the presence directly side-behind my head. After this post and realizing people literally had the experience of being talked to or advised by entities, it didn't occur to me:
Do you exp...
This makes me think "tulpamancy-lite". Not that that's a bad thing - perhaps it's like a safer tulpamancy. Some thoughts:
...(It's just such little mannerisms that allow a shoulder advisor to be "really real"—to bring it to life, give it a personality separate from, and not dependent on, your brain's main central personality. Again, I don't have a sound explanation of the mechanics, but it works.) Would it be useful to have a shoulder-advisor not constrained by having to relate to a real example? Or perhaps, without that link it will just tend to become mor
Motivation for post: As a former CFAR instructor, longtime teacher, and rationality pundit, I find myself giving lots of advice in lots of different contexts. I also try to check in from time to time to find out which bits of advice actually proved helpful to people. Over the years, I've heard from a genuinely surprising number of people that my (offhand, very basic, not especially insightful) thoughts on "shoulder advisors" were quite useful to them, and remained useful over time. So: a primer.
The term "shoulder advisor" comes from the cartoon trope of a character attempting to make a decision while a tiny angel whispers in one ear and a tiny devil whispers in the other.
Many people have multiple shoulder advisors. Some, no doubt, carry a literal metaphorical angel and devil around with them. Others may sometimes hear the whispers of some of their favorite beloved fictional characters. It's quite common in my experience for people to have shoulder copies of their parents, or their best friends, or their romantic partners, or particularly impactful teachers or bosses or mentors.
This is not schizophrenia (though for all I know it may use some of the same hardware, or may be a low-key, non-pathological version of schizophrenia in the same way that a healthy self-preservation instinct could be thought of as a low-key, non-pathological version of a phobia or an anxiety disorder).
Rather, there is simply some kind of subroutine in the brain of most humans that is capable of taking in training data and learning what a given person (or character, or archetype) would say, in a given situation. It's predictive software, likely evolved in response to the need to model other chimps in the ancestral environment, and strongly selected for due to the fact that being able to model those other chimps accurately generally paid off big.
It's important to be clear that the experience of "hearing the voices" actually happens, in many people. This is not a metaphor, and it is not hyperbole or exaggeration. I'm not saying that people tend to hallucinate actual sounds—that probably would be schizophrenia. But in the same way that most people "hear" their own thoughts, people also "hear" the voice of their dad (or "see" his facial expression), offering thoughts or advice or reacting in real time to the current situation.
(Note that you don't need to "demand" that your advisor communicate in words! Often it's both easier and also just as useful to simply let them be present—to "see" their facial expressions and body language, imagine their nonverbal reactions, let yourself be aware of and attentive to them in the same way that you (likely) are aware of or attentive to other actual humans in the same room as you. Think of how, for instance, someone at a party might say something that causes your eyes to dart over to a friend, to see their reaction—you can do the same thing with your simulated friend.)
If you already have this experience: you can curate and improve your council of shoulder advisors, and this post will give you some pointers on how. If you do not already have this experience: you can most likely learn how to, if you want, and even a weak or limited or unreliable version of the skill has proven valuable for people.
Why would I want this?
In essence: good shoulder advisors allow you to be (at least marginally) smarter and more creative than you-by-yourself are capable of being.
I don't have a rigorous or technically valid explanation as to why, but it is a straightforwardly observable fact that, for many people, their shoulder advisors occasionally offer thoughts and insights that the people literally would not have thought of, otherwise. Novel ideas, useful perspective shifts, apt criticisms of one's own actions or intentions, that sort of thing. It's generally well-understood that "two heads are better than one," especially in times when one is stuck or uncertain, and shoulder advisors can be genuinely almost as good.
("One-point-seven heads are better than one.")
Having the right shoulder advisor "show up" at the right moment can be every bit as impactful as having an actual friend or mentor in the room. And since shoulder advisors take up zero space and can be called upon at any hour and can include people you could never actually call upon in real life (such as Master Yoda or President Obama or Dwight K. Shrute or Mister Rogers or any number of Lannisters), even small improvements in:
... can be tremendously valuable. My own cast of shoulder advisors have:
... not to mention that having robust copies of my actual friends and colleagues has much better equipped me to interact with those friends and colleagues, by giving me a head-start on how they'll respond to any number of things.
Selection criteria: emulability and usefulness
Step one, acquire shoulder advisors. Step two, use them skillfully.
This section is for step one. In order to use shoulder advisors, you have to have shoulder advisors, and whether you're building up a whole shoulder council for the first time or just trying to expand and curate an existing ensemble, some appointees are going to prove much more valuable than others.
Assume you had no preexisting council, and were brainstorming a list of possible advisors with the intent to winnow it down. You might try writing down four or five names for each of the following categories:
Once in possession of a list of ~40 names, I claim the next step is to filter it based on the presence of two qualities: emulability and usefulness.
Emulability is the degree to which your brain can, or could likely learn to, successfully boot up a copy of this person and "just push play" on it, such that the copy in a sense "runs itself." Authors sometimes talk about their characters "coming to life," and producing their own dialogue or wresting the story in an unexpected direction or even verbally arguing with the author inside their head—this is high emulability. You want the sense that you're not making up or imagining what the person would say, via an act of explicit concentration, but rather that it's just auto-completing in the same way that a catch phrase or advertising slogan auto-completes.
In practice, emulability is often immediately obvious; you can just pluck a name off the list, imagine them sitting beside you (or reading over your shoulder, or lounging on the other side of the room) and just see how they react to what's happening to you right this second, and the claims that they hear me making.
(This is what happens to Hermione above, as soon as she bothers to check. If attempting to bring someone into your current physical surroundings doesn't work, you could also try imagining specific scenarios, like throwing a water balloon at someone or showing up late to a thing, and see if your shoulder candidate has a characteristic response.)
In the event that this kind of imagination is not yet easy for you, though, there are a couple of qualities you can use to assess the emulation potential of a given shoulder-person, before putting in a bunch of effort.
The first of these is total training data. People you've interacted with 100x more than average will tend to be more emulable just because you've absorbed more instances of "X happened, and they responded with Y."
(Note that as far as your brain is concerned, it makes zero difference whether the person under observation is real or fictional. I've seen more of Miles Vorkosigan's reactions to a wide variety of stimuli than I have of many of my actual coworkers.)
The second major component is something like uniqueness or quirkiness or internal consistency. If someone has a very specific vibe, it's easy to vividly imagine their particular responses. Ditto if someone has strong opinions, or narrow special interests.
("I saw this video of a rocket launch and immediately thought of you, but then I got this mental image of your face looking very unimpressed, actually, and I genuinely wasn't sure why. What does real-you have to say?")
Boring(-to-you), quiet, unopinionated, and "normal" people are thus quite hard to emulate, but that's okay because even if you could emulate them, you wouldn't get much out of them most of the time. You're looking for the kind of people who have the potential to change your course—to think of things you wouldn't, make suggestions that aren't obvious, say the things you need to hear.
Which brings us to our second major filter: usefulness.
When I ran through the brainstorming list above, pretending that I'd never had any shoulder advisors at all, I got about 40 names, and when I filtered for emulability, I had maybe a dozen left.
Predictably, on that list were "Mom," "Dad," and "Ender Wiggin." But if I were actually creating a council of shoulder advisors from scratch, I wouldn't necessarily want Mom or Dad or Ender to be on it. I grew up with all three of those people having a deep influence on me—their perspectives and philosophies are already largely baked into "my whole deal," and not the sort of thing I need help keeping in the forefront.
Similarly, I don't really need more Tyler Durden or Mad-Eye Moody; I think I'm doing pretty okay on cantankerous pessimism and niche charisma.
Instead, a far more interesting person to have on my shoulder is one who can remind me of virtues I don't have down pat. One who can snap me out of my normal patterns, cause me to smack my own forehead and mutter a rueful "of course."
For me, that list looked more like my friend Matthew from high school, who is soft-spoken and charitable and the-sort-of-Christian-the-Jesus-depicted-in-the-Bible-would-actually-like, and Jean-Luc Picard of the starship Enterprise, and an old colleague from Seattle, and the comedian Dave Chappelle. These people were not only emulable but also truly different from me, which meant that if I could successfully add them to my shoulders, they would have the potential to catch things my regular algorithms would miss.
By "usefulness," then, what I am trying to gesture at is "I suspect my life would benefit from small, well-timed injections of this person's way-of-being." If you are (according to yourself) too timid and hesitant, then you might look for people who are avatars of boldness, or who tend to be encouraging and supportive and make you feel confident, or who are eccentric and surprising. If you are (according to yourself) too reckless and unreliable, then you might benefit from shoulder advisors who are avatars of caution, or who tend to pipe up with nervous hesitations, or who are good at noticing the little details before they turn into big problems.
(And if you don't know what your flaws are, or how best to go about improving yourself according-to-your-own-values, then maybe you're looking for people who are generally insightful and clear, or who are good at turning uncertainty into concrete and actionable suggestions, or who are (perhaps) somewhat scathing and unafraid to utter harsh truths.)
Improving the effectiveness of the council
Taking as given that you have some number of shoulder advisors who are either active or who you intend to start consulting, what next?
The key value of a good shoulder advisor is that they say the thing you need to hear, at the moment you need to hear it. It doesn't take much to tip a tough decision from one direction to the other, or to start (or break) an affective spiral or chain of if-then behaviors. A shoulder advisor is a specific instantiation of the general wish "if only I'd thought of X before Y happened"—you're trying to make it more likely that you will, in fact, remember X, especially where X is something not particularly native to your current way of doing things.
Taking the second part first, there are two ways to make sure that you hear from your shoulder advisors at the critical moment:
... there's a little bit of magic in both of these; I'm more telling you where to put your effort and not how that effort should look. A full attempt to lay out how to build habits-of-mind goes beyond the limits of this introductory primer.
By far, though, it's the second strategy that I and others have found disproportionately impactful. Explicit, intentional checks can only ever cover a small fraction of the times when people could really use a little extra insight.
However, doing the explicit thing is a good way to bootstrap to the automatic version, especially if you set aside five minutes to do a one-time brainstorm on "when do I wish my shoulder advisors would show up?" Note that you can make a limited commitment, and that almost any amount of explicit practice will pay off, on the margin—if it sounds like too much to do five checks a day for three months, try doing one check per day for one week (or whatever).
(As with exercise, the best plan is one you'll actually follow through on, not one which sounds virtuous and doesn't work out. Also, for the record, that line was literally just delivered to me by my shoulder Eli Tyre.)
A couple of tips, as you explore this space:
Once you've got a cast of characters who are willing to show up at all (or at least one solid imaginary friend), then you can worry about nudging their contributions in an actually useful direction.
My favorite techniquelet here is to refer back to the source material. It's amazing how quickly the human brain will update its model of another human, if you actually go back and check.
(Yes, my shoulder Nate actually says the word "lol" out loud, like it rhymes with "doll." He does this because the real Nate does this, and my brain recorded it.)
If at all possible (especially in the early days), get your real advisors to not only correct your shoulder advisor's core thoughts and ideas, but to flesh out why they think what they think, and where your shoulder copy went wrong/what it doesn't seem to understand.
If your shoulder advisor is fictional, this is somewhat harder to do, but a good substitute is to write down a draft of their first contribution, then review it a day or two later with a critical eye. Even moreso than copies of real people, your fictional shoulder advisors are free to mutate in whatever direction is useful for you.
(One thing I've had fun with is pitting them against each other—not by simulating an argument directly, where I imagine two sides of a debate, but rather by having both of them fight to convince me, or by having each of them arguing their conflicting judgment of the situation. Having an optimist and a naysayer is a pretty good dynamic, and it's not hard for most human brains to pattern-match what each of those would say next, to the other.)
Ultimately, the idea is to give regular feedback to whatever part of your brain is running the emulation. Upvotes for what works and feels true, downvotes for what doesn't, but most importantly, more training data. It's fine if your shoulder advisor gets frustrated and impatient as you ask it to say more and more words—let it be frustrated and impatient in whatever way is characteristic for that individual, and just keep recording.
Downloading yourself
Again, the above was more a set of trailheads or threads-to-pull; there's not really a standard canon of advice here yet. Hopefully, it's enough to get people started (and hopefully readers will leave further tips and advice in the comments).
There was one last piece of the overall picture that I wanted to touch on, at least briefly, and it's this:
You, too, can be a shoulder advisor.
My friend Nate and I both live in each other's heads, and we both furthermore have a vested interest in our mental clone copy. Nate wants my shoulder Nate to be as good of a Nate copy as it can be; I want the same for his mental Duncan. In part, this is for weird TDT-esque considerations, but mostly, it's just because I like my friend Nate, and he's my friend at least in part because of the impact I have on him, and if he's got a copy of me on his shoulder I can go on having that impact even when I'm not actually in the room.
You can in fact deliberately install yourself in other people's heads, if they're at all inclined to let you; some of my best lectures while at CFAR included me doing exactly this. The key, as with developing your own shoulder council, is to focus on making yourself emulable. Making your outputs reliably generable from inputs, having a specific and legible style or vibe. If you've only got an hour, this usually means being pretty blunt and repetitive and keeping things simple:
[5 minutes pass]
[10 minutes pass]
[40 minutes pass]
By this point, I get a message roughly once a quarter, from former students or former workshop participants or people who saw me at a conference or talk, letting me know that their shoulder Duncan appeared for them in a pinch, and that they were (usually) quite glad that he did.
If you have more than an hour to interact with someone, you can be a bit less cheesy than the above example, and encourage the same sort of feedback loops I described earlier, from the other side—Nate, for instance, often asks for the specific wording of his shoulder advisor, if I can remember it, and remarks on that wording as if he were disagreeing with shoulder Nate in a casual conversation, correcting and improving it.
(It's just such little mannerisms that allow a shoulder advisor to be "really real"—to bring it to life, give it a personality separate from, and not dependent on, your brain's main central personality. Again, I don't have a sound explanation of the mechanics, but it works.)
You can often make this happen by simply asking your friend or colleague or coworker to predict what you'll say, in response to a given question or prompt—
(Asking them to predict is in general better than asking them to guess.)
—and as icing on the cake, this has the added benefit that, not only are they refining their specific model of shoulder-you, they're also secretly practicing the general skill of booting up a shoulder advisor at all.
Speaking of which ...
Recap & Conclusion
This section is left as an exercise for the reader—try booting up a shoulder Duncan and see what parting words he has to offer, before you (hopefully) leave a comment down below. And if your shoulder Duncan doesn't have anything at all to offer, see if anyone else feels like chiming in.