One thing I've learned to see as a cat "owner" (in reality, they accepted me into their tribe) is house cats have a recognizable behavior cycle (identified by cat behavior expert Jackson Galaxy as, "hunt, cat, kill, eat, groom, sleep, repeat." This about all they do, aside from looking out the window, brooding, and listening to animals in the walls). Although I've long been aware human beings also have a limited repertoire of behavior patterns, both collectively and individually (you know you know someone when you can predict as well or better than he can himself how he will respond in a given situation), I never studied cultural anthropology or sociology or whatever the high-level thinkers about humanity study. I wonder if AI could analyze human behavior patterns more objectively than we can ourselves. Of course, in the current environment, such information would be and probably has consistently been used by the few against the many. We live in a culture where belief in "free will" is near sacrosanct (this allows the powerful to convince the vulnerable that they are to blame for their own plight), but to me Free Will is more like a buffet than an infinite number of options. If the buffet is only serving pancakes, you're not getting a muffin, no matter how hard you will it to manifest. I started reading a book critiquing the concept of free will, and I think it is not so much about preserving or challenging the concept as it is about looking at relationships between environment and behavior. Although the author's approach feels a little reductive to me, I see his point. (Determined: A Science of Life without Free Will, Robert M. Sapolsky).
So, very cool. Thanks for referencing this on The Existentialist Republic.
This is such a great connection. The “buffet only serving pancakes” metaphor is perfect - that’s exactly what I’m talking about with system design.
You’re already thinking structurally. You understand that behavior emerges from the options the system makes available. If the buffet only has pancakes, everyone’s eating pancakes - and blaming individuals for “choosing” pancakes misses the point entirely.
That’s governance architecture in a nutshell: We keep blaming individuals (politicians, voters, whoever) for “choosing” dysfunction, when the system is only serving dysfunction. The menu is the problem, not the diners.
Your point about free will being used to blame the vulnerable for their plight - yes. Exactly. “You chose to be poor” / “You chose to be stuck in a bad system” / “You chose not to fix this” - all of it ignores that the buffet determines what’s available to choose from.
This is why I focus on system design rather than individual choices. We can redesign the buffet. We can add options to the menu. But first we have to recognize that’s what we’re doing - expanding constrained choice, not demanding people choose from options that don’t exist.
You found exactly the right framework. Sapolsky’s work on determinism vs free will maps perfectly onto this - we have agency within constraints, and changing the constraints changes what agency looks like.
Really glad you’re here. This is exactly the kind of thinking this work needs.
Excellent post. I loved this framing: "Thinking architecturally—asking “how should the system work?” before asking “do I like this outcome?”—is unnatural, exhausting, and rare." Looking forward to more!
What if we channel the hero-villain wiring into motivated action.
I've been taking a hard look at myself for how I've been FEELING (uselessly) instead of DOING. (productively). For decades.
I was totally right about my fears! But I didn't DO anything in all those years.
What would happen if we took specific positive action instead of grousing online about our outrages? Ask ourselves: "This is outrageous. So what concrete action am I going to DO about it?"
In this trail-running case, what if we looked up the head of that group in that particular agency, guessed their email, and sent a kind letter laying out concerns and asking to set up a meeting about what specific rule changes could happen. Instead of bitching, connecting and giving input into a system that isn't working.
We can't all take every action, but we could take action on our passiona. Your friend is a trail runner so that would be the thing he spends his energy units on. (Disabled folks call energy units "spoons")
My limited spoons would go to a different cause, based on my interests, but structurally minded people would all be spending spoons on DOING.
This is such a good question, and I'm glad you're asking it. You're absolutely right that I've been "feeling instead of doing" for a long time, as well.
But here's where I think we need to be careful: emailing the agency head about the Sunseri case would still be symptom-level work, not structural work. It's "fix this one injustice" rather than "why does this system keep producing these outcomes?"
If we got Sunseri's case resolved, the underlying architecture would remain unchanged: inconsistent enforcement discretion, unclear trail closure policies, prosecutorial decisions that depend on visibility and vibes rather than consistent standards. Next year, different trail runner, same problem. Or different domain entirely - permit enforcement, regulatory oversight, prosecutorial discretion - same architectural failure.
Structural work looks different. It's less satisfying because it's slower and less heroic:
* Building coalitions around governance reform rather than individual cases
Creating language and frameworks that help people see the architecture (like this essay, like The Villain Trap)
* Supporting organizations working on things like prosecutorial accountability, administrative law reform, consistent enforcement standards
* Showing up at state/local level where governance architecture can actually be tested and refined
The honest truth is: I'm still figuring out what effective structural "doing" looks like. Writing these essays is part of it - creating shared language for the exhausted people who can see the pattern. But you're right to push on the question: "Okay, but what's the concrete action beyond writing?"
That's the work I'm trying to build toward. Finding the leverage points where structural change is possible, not just symptom relief.
What do you think? Am I dodging your question, or does this distinction between symptom-level action and structural action make sense?
And that's the hard part, how do we build toward something that's 10-25 years out? What's the actual work between "essays about structural problems" and "Federal Governance Agency exists"?
"My job is to give the people who CAN think architecturally better tools, better language, and the knowledge that they’re not alone in seeing what they see.
Maybe that’s 1,000 people. Maybe it’s 10,000. Maybe, eventually, it’s 100,000. And among those people are the judges, legislative staffers, think-tank researchers, local activists, and civic engineers who actually move the architecture.
I won’t see most of that payoff. That’s the nature of cathedral work. You lay stones you’ll never see assembled. You plant seeds you’ll never see bloom.
But the alternative is accepting the current architecture as permanent. Accepting that we’re stuck watching the same movie forever, with different faces in the same roles, playing out the same inevitable plot.
Deeply appreciate this.
One thing I've learned to see as a cat "owner" (in reality, they accepted me into their tribe) is house cats have a recognizable behavior cycle (identified by cat behavior expert Jackson Galaxy as, "hunt, cat, kill, eat, groom, sleep, repeat." This about all they do, aside from looking out the window, brooding, and listening to animals in the walls). Although I've long been aware human beings also have a limited repertoire of behavior patterns, both collectively and individually (you know you know someone when you can predict as well or better than he can himself how he will respond in a given situation), I never studied cultural anthropology or sociology or whatever the high-level thinkers about humanity study. I wonder if AI could analyze human behavior patterns more objectively than we can ourselves. Of course, in the current environment, such information would be and probably has consistently been used by the few against the many. We live in a culture where belief in "free will" is near sacrosanct (this allows the powerful to convince the vulnerable that they are to blame for their own plight), but to me Free Will is more like a buffet than an infinite number of options. If the buffet is only serving pancakes, you're not getting a muffin, no matter how hard you will it to manifest. I started reading a book critiquing the concept of free will, and I think it is not so much about preserving or challenging the concept as it is about looking at relationships between environment and behavior. Although the author's approach feels a little reductive to me, I see his point. (Determined: A Science of Life without Free Will, Robert M. Sapolsky).
So, very cool. Thanks for referencing this on The Existentialist Republic.
This is such a great connection. The “buffet only serving pancakes” metaphor is perfect - that’s exactly what I’m talking about with system design.
You’re already thinking structurally. You understand that behavior emerges from the options the system makes available. If the buffet only has pancakes, everyone’s eating pancakes - and blaming individuals for “choosing” pancakes misses the point entirely.
That’s governance architecture in a nutshell: We keep blaming individuals (politicians, voters, whoever) for “choosing” dysfunction, when the system is only serving dysfunction. The menu is the problem, not the diners.
Your point about free will being used to blame the vulnerable for their plight - yes. Exactly. “You chose to be poor” / “You chose to be stuck in a bad system” / “You chose not to fix this” - all of it ignores that the buffet determines what’s available to choose from.
This is why I focus on system design rather than individual choices. We can redesign the buffet. We can add options to the menu. But first we have to recognize that’s what we’re doing - expanding constrained choice, not demanding people choose from options that don’t exist.
You found exactly the right framework. Sapolsky’s work on determinism vs free will maps perfectly onto this - we have agency within constraints, and changing the constraints changes what agency looks like.
Really glad you’re here. This is exactly the kind of thinking this work needs.
Excellent post. I loved this framing: "Thinking architecturally—asking “how should the system work?” before asking “do I like this outcome?”—is unnatural, exhausting, and rare." Looking forward to more!
Thanks, Reynolds! That's something I've felt for a long time but finally found the right words for - glad it landed.
More coming. Appreciate you being here for the build.
What if we channel the hero-villain wiring into motivated action.
I've been taking a hard look at myself for how I've been FEELING (uselessly) instead of DOING. (productively). For decades.
I was totally right about my fears! But I didn't DO anything in all those years.
What would happen if we took specific positive action instead of grousing online about our outrages? Ask ourselves: "This is outrageous. So what concrete action am I going to DO about it?"
In this trail-running case, what if we looked up the head of that group in that particular agency, guessed their email, and sent a kind letter laying out concerns and asking to set up a meeting about what specific rule changes could happen. Instead of bitching, connecting and giving input into a system that isn't working.
We can't all take every action, but we could take action on our passiona. Your friend is a trail runner so that would be the thing he spends his energy units on. (Disabled folks call energy units "spoons")
My limited spoons would go to a different cause, based on my interests, but structurally minded people would all be spending spoons on DOING.
This is such a good question, and I'm glad you're asking it. You're absolutely right that I've been "feeling instead of doing" for a long time, as well.
But here's where I think we need to be careful: emailing the agency head about the Sunseri case would still be symptom-level work, not structural work. It's "fix this one injustice" rather than "why does this system keep producing these outcomes?"
If we got Sunseri's case resolved, the underlying architecture would remain unchanged: inconsistent enforcement discretion, unclear trail closure policies, prosecutorial decisions that depend on visibility and vibes rather than consistent standards. Next year, different trail runner, same problem. Or different domain entirely - permit enforcement, regulatory oversight, prosecutorial discretion - same architectural failure.
Structural work looks different. It's less satisfying because it's slower and less heroic:
* Building coalitions around governance reform rather than individual cases
Creating language and frameworks that help people see the architecture (like this essay, like The Villain Trap)
* Supporting organizations working on things like prosecutorial accountability, administrative law reform, consistent enforcement standards
* Showing up at state/local level where governance architecture can actually be tested and refined
The honest truth is: I'm still figuring out what effective structural "doing" looks like. Writing these essays is part of it - creating shared language for the exhausted people who can see the pattern. But you're right to push on the question: "Okay, but what's the concrete action beyond writing?"
That's the work I'm trying to build toward. Finding the leverage points where structural change is possible, not just symptom relief.
What do you think? Am I dodging your question, or does this distinction between symptom-level action and structural action make sense?
So this ultimately comes back to needing a Federal Governance Agency, and something similar at the state local territorial government levels.
Yep. That's what I keep coming back to...
And that's the hard part, how do we build toward something that's 10-25 years out? What's the actual work between "essays about structural problems" and "Federal Governance Agency exists"?
Still figuring that out.
So powerful.
"My job is to give the people who CAN think architecturally better tools, better language, and the knowledge that they’re not alone in seeing what they see.
Maybe that’s 1,000 people. Maybe it’s 10,000. Maybe, eventually, it’s 100,000. And among those people are the judges, legislative staffers, think-tank researchers, local activists, and civic engineers who actually move the architecture.
I won’t see most of that payoff. That’s the nature of cathedral work. You lay stones you’ll never see assembled. You plant seeds you’ll never see bloom.
But the alternative is accepting the current architecture as permanent. Accepting that we’re stuck watching the same movie forever, with different faces in the same roles, playing out the same inevitable plot.
And I’m not willing to accept that."