Previous: The Specter of the ~Traaans Villain~
Here, in its entirety, is Ziz’s notorious email:
Subj.:
Bad local optimum, meta burn out, socially imposed metacognitive blind spots, bad counterfactuals generating your feelings because of (in metacognitive blind spot) seeking and enforcing power as a Schelling point for "cooperation" instead of justice, enforcing metacognitive blind spots on everyone else to justify this, holding and misusing a shared strategic resource and subverting exits to the social matrix, power being used to justify power, abuse and betrayal of trust, punishing meta discussion of considering alternatives to metacognitive blind spot ridden social optimum, choosing Val's option 3, metacognitive blind spots about the abstract concept of metacognitive blind spots
Body:
This is a topic I thought I could start throwing thoughts as part of at you because I believed that the conversation would not end at any second, because you made me believe that. Please name some times when we can talk about this topic. It is currently too late to not have defected.
***
The *first* 3 times we read this zissive (Ziz missive), we'll admit: w/ sinking hearts, we wondered if Gwen might be missing a potential motive for Anna's "fear":
The fact that this is a fucking bonkers email.
Now, would Anna be *right* to equate bonkersness w/ violent tendencies? No! Does Anna seem like the sort of lady who'd do so anyway? Yes!!
Gwen, for her part, seems unfazed. *She* runs over lines from that wily subj. & says, "check, check, check...": Ziz is indeed, w/in the rarified lingo of the Rationalists, informing Anna that she *sees* her transphobery, & her BETRAYAL of CFAR’s stated mission— to use reason, logic, & evidence to improve understanding of the world, & ultimately, to save it from demonic AI.
***
...We get the sense that Gwen is used to translating for Ziz. But from our unenlightened, non-STEM-whiz perspective, her credibility is rather hanging in the balance.
Heads aspin, we took the matter to Chat.
We pasted the email & asked the vital q.:"What would the meaning of this be to a Rationalist at CFAR?"
To our astonishment, Chat, like Gwen, was unfazed:
This sounds like a critique of a self-reinforcing social or epistemic failure mode within a rationalist community.
Breaking it down:
✅ Bad local optimum: The group or individual has settled into a stable but suboptimal equilibrium, preventing better strategies from emerging.
✅ Meta burnout: Exhaustion from too much self-reflection or attempting to optimize meta-level reasoning.
✅ Socially imposed metacognitive blind spots: The group enforces gaps in self-awareness, making it hard to recognize certain structural issues.
✅ Bad counterfactuals generating your feelings: Emotional responses are shaped by flawed imagined alternatives, possibly due to biases in reasoning.
✅ Seeking and enforcing power as a Schelling point for "cooperation" instead of justice: The group prioritizes power consolidation over fairness, using coordination as a justification.
✅ Enforcing metacognitive blind spots on everyone else: The system resists attempts to notice or question these blind spots, maintaining stability at the cost of epistemic clarity.
✅ Holding and misusing a shared strategic resource and subverting exits to the social matrix: Some people control a valuable resource (like knowledge, reputation, or institutional influence) and prevent others from leaving or reforming the system.
✅ Power being used to justify power: The existing power structure perpetuates itself with circular reasoning.
✅ Abuse and betrayal of trust: Authority figures or the system itself violate trust in ways that reinforce its dominance.
✅ Punishing meta discussion of considering alternatives: Open discussion of alternative approaches is suppressed, preventing reform.
✅ Choosing Val's option 3: Likely a reference to something within rationalist discourse (perhaps from Valentine Smith or other CFAR-adjacent thinkers), where "option 3" could mean choosing to uphold the flawed system rather than reforming or exiting.
✅ Metacognitive blind spots about metacognitive blind spots: A deep, recursive failure to notice the mechanisms preventing people from noticing errors in thinking.
& Chat concludes:
Overall, this describes a system where rationalist ideals are undermined by power dynamics, leading to a stagnant and self-reinforcing social equilibrium that resists critical reflection. It critiques how rationalist spaces can fall into epistemic traps despite aiming for truth-seeking.
…which is exactly what Gwen said it said!!! 😂😂😂😂
***
To recap: is Ziz's email inherently "angry/threatening"?
Do we think it would inherently make Anna fear for her physical safety & go
No! Ziz's email is... not what *we* would write... but it's not yeep-able in & of itself.
As w/ many things Ziz, we say 👏 to the inspiration, & 😑 to the execution.
…If Ziz had asked *our* advice, we might have recommended she write:
Subj.: Following up on our conversation at the schmancy conference
Body: Hi Anna! I was hoping we'd get a chance to continue our talk at the schmancy conference, but things got interrupted, and I didn't get to follow up before you left. I'd love to pick up where we left off— if you're open to it, maybe we could continue the conversation over email or set up a time to chat. Looking forward to hearing from you! Best, Ziz
Be that as it may...
Could Anna's fear & trembling suggest that she knows *Ziz* knows— & may plan to expose— her transphobery and her inadequate innovation of “mental tech"? ✅ YES
Could Anna's fear & trembling suggest she may be haunted not by Ziz, but by that ferocious SOTTWV*? ✅ YES
In the immortal words of Gwen: check, check.
*****
Next: Clapback to the Clapback