Strategic Shrinkage

Cutting as Deep as Necessary (Friday Bonus)

In theory, at least, I expect you know there’s much that you don’t know. There’s simply too much to know when considering all extant knowledge to realistically know very much of it at all. The next step in humility, well-characterized by the graphical “Dunning-Kruger” curve is what you, in practice, know you don’t know. This is achieved as you begin to learn more about a topic, at which point your understanding of your own deficiency expands significantly, while your knowledge of the subject expands slowly – I expect knowledge actually works more like a never-ending series of Dunning-Kruger curves, but that’s a discussion for another time.

The next item under “knowledge” is that affirmative knowing what you do know. Of the set of all knowable information the amount you do know is extremely minute. What’s worse, however, is that much of what you know is also wrong.

This is true for everyone, from the smartest to the dumbest, youngest to oldest, and from the most ignorant to the wisest. That’s because even the best model of the world is going to be rife with all the flaws of humans: bias, rational errors, bad presuppositions, etc. However, while alike in imperfection the differences between a low-fidelity and a high-fidelity model are stark. It is the difference between pain and pleasure, suffering and satisfaction, and liberty and tyranny.

It should be apparent, then, that though a perfect-fidelity model of the world is an impossibility for man, we can, and should, always be seeking a more perfect knowledge. This is necessary, as every action taken predicated on bad knowledge has an extremely high probability of resulting in bad outcomes and were all getting awfully tired of bad outcomes.

Our present times are an exceptionally difficult time for knowledge generally. The information environment is so thickly polluted that it could be cut with a knife. Our times are also extremely stark for their need of a higher fidelity model of the world. The consequences are beginning to stack up, and if it keeps going this way you’re going to have a bad time.

I tend to think of most of the goings-on in the world today as purposed actions, and I mentally sketch them with that assumption. Now, it’s entirely possible – likely, even – that some of these things are organic, emergent phenomena. However, I think most aren’t, and it’s far better to misattribute malice than incompetence when in a state of war.

To this I would like to introduce you to a concept I’ve been toying with that I’ve tentatively titled “looping” (perhaps there’s an existing name for this I’m unaware of. I’m sure somebody will let me know). I like this term because the manner in which I sketch this process mentally looks quite a lot like a drawing of a magnetic field, with the representation of infinite lines of magnetism extending outward as loops, drawing in attractors, and capturing them within its near orbit.

---

This post is a Paid Subscriber Post from

Michael Belcher

generously offered to our audience for free. Please consider subscribing to his substack.

---

Take CS Lewis’ quote about the devil “sending errors into the world in pairs…” and what we understand about the dialectic. Now, add in what we’ve come to know about “controlled opposition,” with Lenin’s telling quote, “the best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.” Now, consider how these two items might be used to, serially, divert people off of the path of truth and back to a controlled narrative.

You might, for instance, consider the well-known Communist mass-line narrative of “environmentalism.” Now, how might we “loop” both sides of the dialectic into a controlled narrative – perhaps even the same narrative? Well, we could push a “climate change” narrative to appeal to the Left, as they’ve done for many, many years, to keep that segment controlled along the narrative arc. How do we capture the Right along the same narrative?

We’d do well to look at things that have long appealed to the Right, such as conservationism, a distrust of centralized power, such as in major multinational corporations, and a concern for the tendency of new technologies to run amok, as in bioengineering. We might then send out a figure in a long-time “Democrat” to publicly rebuke the stances of the modern Democratic party while also appealing to these conservative-coded items, as in pollution, food engineering, vaccine safety, and so on, in order to “loop” these persons away from reality and back onto a common narrative.

Now, don’t misunderstand this point. A high-fidelity model of the world is going to affirm dangers of bioengineering, call vaccine safety seriously into question, and seek to mitigate the very real externality of pollution. However, there’s a real way to view these items – way that is inherently observable, rational, and testable – and there’s a “narrative” way to view them, and if its being pushed by talking heads, celebrities, and life-long Progressives who have suddenly “seen the light” and now seek to lead the opposition against the Democrats you can be reasonably certain you’re dealing with the latter.

Now, we must discuss what we should do about it, and it’s going to be uncomfortable. We must discuss purposely shrinking your perspective in order to know what you can grasp and discern firmly, with high certainty, excluding other items, and working outward from these things to discern more and flesh-out your mental model. This means purposely letting go of significant portions of your worldview that have been built on a shaky foundation in order to rebuild it on rock.

I know this hurts. The very first time you do it will likely hurt the worst, as you’ll need to cut the deepest – perhaps all the way down to the level of faith. If done correctly, however, each subsequent occasion will be easier, as you will not need to cut quite as deep, the set of known-knowns increases, the set of known-unknowns likewise increases, and the set of known-but-in-error decreases as your discernment improves. As you do this you should become more comfortable admitting there’s quite a lot you don’t know, and you should, more and more, avoid jumping on each “new thing” to express an opinion that you, if you’ll admit it, really haven’t earned yet.

Failing to do this means every time you push yourself to the edges of what you “understand,” in order to discern a new situation, or information operation, you’re already sunk yourself (and, by extension, us). You’re building a second, third, and fourth story on your sandcastle, but the tide is already washing away your ground level.

This is an uncomfortable process. I’ve done it several times before, and I’m doing it again now. It’s painful – it literally involves letting go of a piece of yourself. It’s frightening to admit that there’s an awful lot you don’t actually know, especially when you thought you did yesterday.

The difference between winners and losers is the willingness to accept that discomfort today in exchange for a better tomorrow. If you allow yourself to go through this you will be better for it, ultimately, as you reestablish your foundational beliefs, understandings, and knowledges, and upgrade your model of the world to a higher fidelity model.

On a small scale the difference for you is likely between failing and flourishing. On a grand scale, for all of us, the difference is between freedom and slavery.

---

Michael Belcher lives in New Hampshire where he serves as an elected Representative to the NH House, leads the Counterspell Group, and operates a modest homestead in the mountains.  He can be found on X @MikeBelcher14 or at his website: https://counterspellgroup.com/