I have for over a year now pondered how to clear up the massive inferential distance that has developed between me and many of the esteemed posters here regarding Craig Wright and his ideas. What a horrendous task to spill so much ink and my only prize even if I succeed is to have defended a very flawed human. As they say, small minds discuss people.
This is generally true. However, as I have been met with concerned reactions for my beliefs about this man over and over here, in this case I see no way around it. Please don't take it personally if I end up more curt than usual. Too many blandishments and circumlocutions for the sake of politeness will make this post (or these posts) intolerably long to read, but rest assured I retain the utmost respect for my fellows in this classic thread.
Let's get the elephant in the room out of the way first:
Yes, folks, it's true. I not only believe beyond all reasonable doubt that CSW is the main part of Satoshi, but that he is 20 years ahead of anyone else in this space. I also contend that it is bleetingly obvious if you simply look without letting your preconceptions distort your view.
Hah, well that is the problem, isn't it? "Simply looking" is not something most people are equipped to do. It's not just a talent; it's a disposition I have cultivated since early childhood and it has cost me dearly. Humans are not designed to simply look, to really observe, to remain open to possibilities even when the possibility itself is disgusting. If we were, society would unravel. Instead the efficient thing to do is to rely on heuristics. Good preconceptions. They help you live an effective life. Where they fail is in analyzing the oddball cases like Craig Steven Wright.
Worse, there is so much to "simply look" at. This is a man with hundreds of papers, thousands of controversial claims about Bitcoin, and a frequently cavalier and almost always vexing style of speaking replete with obscure hints and what, I guess, he deems as traps for the self-proclaimed expert. (He is a dick like that.)
I assess thinkers as a hobby. See where they make errors and what kind. I do have a mental file on all of you, yes, but I wouldn't be here if I didn't think most here were exceptional thinkers I am glad to know. My assessment on CSW, sure to surprise everyone, is that his weaknesses in thinking are very few, almost the fewest of anyone I have studied (David Hume may be less). I can list his main intellectual weaknesses on one hand: 1) He should read some more Hayek and take the maturation time of spontaneous orders more seriously. 2) He has some minor semantic blur that he compensates for in hackier ways that I'd prefer (still in the top ~0.1% on avoidance of word-based errors). And that's about it. His personality flaws are numerous, but that is another story and must be kept separate. His writing and speaking style can be - sorry Craig - fucking atrocious but sometimes
quite good. The variability is one of the perplexing things about him, but I'll get to that later.
Now comes the herculean task of explain convincingly
why. Why have I reached the above conclusions while many or most (though conspicuously not nearly all) very smart people in this space have decided he is a blowhard who is generally full of shit and has offered nothing of value.
A few general considerations before we get into specifics. Most importantly, provisional reasoning, which is the key error most CSW-critics fall into and underpins all the rest:
Secondly, since everyone seems to have a different degree of knowledge about the facts around the man, the nature of this process is that I must proceed by making partial claims. For example, I have to first show he likely has a bunch of degrees,
certifications (I believe he is the world record holder for SANS/GIAC certs, and there are
more than I care to dig up), and
patent applications (for those who still doubt this) before I get into the question of what value they are, why he didn't go out of his way to verify them at first (another big-picture clue to an unbiased observer, especially in hindsight), whether a rumor about such-and-such a cert is true, lapsed certs, and the whole debate about patents. I will be making claims but of necessity they will leave unanswered questions as I can only chip away at each piece by piece. Questions are encouraged!
Finally, his personality will likely be a recurring topic, as his abrasiveness makes the necessary "suspension of disbelief" for a sound provisional reckoning as described above very difficult. What do you do with a man who has an odd love-hate relationship with whether you like him, believe him, think he is smart, or think he is Satoshi? Unlike most intellectuals, he seems (
most of the time; he is only human) unconcerned with the usual academic status signals.
The plagiarism is probably my favorite example. It is so alien to most people who are smart enough to try evaluating his claims that it creates a big inferential distance challenge in itself. All the usual assumptions fly out the window. You have to pin down a few things you definitely do know, such as that he would obviously realize he would be checked on such things, especially after the first time, and that it would be easy to rewrite or obscure
if he cared. To overreach by assuming he is so much a fool as to not even be able to do
that, whereas the ostensible reason for an academic to plagiarize in the first place is to
gain recognition, turns the microscope onto the investigator more than Mr. Wright. Provisional thinking must be bias-free, until the end, and that is a massive and obvious bias to hold. Don't just rid yourself of the bias, pull on that thread. See where it leads. What are the origins? Keep track. Be curious!
I contend that the right thing to do here is to
first wonder why the heck he would be so cavalier about plagiarizing, not to conclude he somehow thought he could get away with it after being called out on it so many times. (That claim leads to no big pictures that make any sense.) The reason becomes clear as you get a broader view of the man's work. 10 years ago on the InfoSec mailing lists he was constantly harping on how security is statistical and economic. He was relentlessly business-oriented despite his love of academic study.
Provisional reasoning note: If you got an image of some doofus reading tomes with no understanding and BSing his profs,
think which scenario you are in. The one where he is or the one where he isn't [the main part of Satoshi]? If you auto-switched to the one where he isn't when you were meant to be in the one where he is, RED ALERT, you are far from being able to evaluate this man without heavy bias. It will take a total revamping of your thinking and probably a long break before you'll be ready. The two scenarios must be evaluated with the premise
never doubted until the very end. If you are on board with this provisional reasoning process, this is the inescapable conclusion. Again this is because piece can build on one another.
Paradigm shifts are of this nature as well, one reason it is so incredibly hard for Core people to come around - each step looks ridiculous on its own and they soon give up their investigation in to the big blocker position as sheer lunacy. Another thing where provisional reasoning is essential: investing. Bull scenario and bear scenario must be evaluated without doubting each until the end. You must almost root for the bull for an hour, then root for the bear for an hour, thinking through all the implications. Finally comparing the big pictures for their persuasiveness at the end. Equivocation midway through makes a complete mess of the process, leaking bias all over the floor and walls.
-- CONTINUES, yes you might want to grab a cup of tea --
