# Preface to the Sequence on Factored Cognition

Factored Cognition is primarily [studied](https://ought.org/research/factored-cognition) by [Ought](https://ought.org/), the same organization that was partially credited for implementing the [interactive prediction feature](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/JLrnbThMyCYDBa6Gu/embedded-interactive-predictions-on-lesswrong-2). Ought is an organization with at least five members who have worked on the problem for several years. I am a single person who just finished a master's degree. The rationale for writing about the topic anyway was to have diversity of approaches: Ought is primarily doing empirical work, whereas I've studied the problem under the lens of math and epistemic rationality. As far as I know, there is virtually no overlap between what I've written and what Ought has published so far.

Was it successful? Well, all I can say for sure is that writing the sequence has significantly changed my own views.

This sequence has two 'prologue' posts, which make points relevant for but not restricted to Factored Cognition. I think of them as posts #-2 and #-1 (then, this post is #0, and the proper sequence starts at #1). These are

* [A guide to Iterated Amplification and Debate](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/vhfATmAoJcN8RqGg6/a-guide-to-iterated-amplification-and-debate), which explains what Factored Cognition is and the two schemes that use it. This post is there to make sure that no prerequisite knowledge is needed to read the sequence. You can skip this if you're already familiar with both schemes.
* [Hiding Complexity](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/6zbRy3aADCsRmFcgv/hiding-complexity), which is about characterizing what makes a part of a big problem a 'subproblem'.

The remaining sequence is currently about 15000 words long, though this could change. The structure is roughly:

- Define a mathematical model and see what we can do with that (posts #1-#2)
- Tackle the human component: think seriously about how thinking works and whether  solving hard problems with Factored Cognition looks feasible (posts #3-#5)
- Spell out what I conclude from both parts (post #6)

The current version of the sequence includes exercises. This is pretty experimental, so if they are too hard or too easy, it's probably my fault. I've still left them in because I generally think it makes sense to include 'think about this thing for a bit' moments. They look like this:

**EXERCISE (5 SECONDS):** Compute 2+5.

:::spoiler
7.
:::

Whenever there's a range, it means that the lower number is an upper bound for the exercise itself, and the remaining time is for rereading parts of this or previous posts. So 1-6 minutes means 'you shouldn't take more than 1 minute for the exercise itself, but you may first take about 5 minutes to reread parts of the post, or perhaps of previous posts'.

The sequence also contains conjectures. Conjectures are claims that I think are true, important, and not trivial. There are only a few of them, and they should all be justified by the sequence up to that point. Conjectures look like this:

![](https://i.ibb.co/K2BjHPG/conjecture.png)

I'll aim for publishing one post per week, which gives me time for final edits. It could slow down since I'm still working on the second half. Questions/criticism is welcome.

Special thanks to [TurnTrout](https://www.lesswrong.com/users/turntrout) for providing valuable feedback on much of the sequence.