I'm a compatibilist, which just means "I'm not here to argue who's right, I'm here to figure out which parts of who's argument have good evidence or are otherwise useful." Like every good -ism it's a reaction to something—in this case the constant desire to come-up with a new "take" and argue it in opposition to every previous one. This is an extremely common thing for humans to do, but is exacerbated by an academic peer review system that tends to reward the perception of "novelty".

At minimum 10 times a day I am faced with media for which I feel much of what is presented is either straight-up wrong or built on such shaky foundations it is largely unusable. Very rarely am I faced with a piece that is completely useless—most claims to such are really just "torque semantics": the worry that other people's impression will be too favorable if you give your honest assessment, resulting in over-claims in the opposite direction to twist your audience's opinion to the desired location.

What should we do with the usable nuggets? We should harvest them.

Us compatibilists have started a massive undertaking that will never be finished, call it Knowledge Logistics. We would like to figure out better ways to store concepts and evidence so that we may connect different patterns and perspectives from different spaces. Surely there are conceptual technologies in biology and AI that either could use but only one of them knows about?

How do you solve this incredible logistics program? We must start a whole new kind operations research—organization research—this one will give us the "analogous pattern link" to connect different fields where the former gave us the "penny post" that connected all of England.

Where do you start? You start by joining our nomadic fleet of Compatibilist Logisticos. We are scouring the informational universe, sometimes in fleets and sometimes alone, but always with a radio at our control panel. We land down on a new work like an asteroid and see what we can find—and what we are willing to take.

We should be unafraid to catalog everything, carefully outlining what we think is useful. We should be economic, if it is too difficult to draw such outlines, we can leave it to another Logisitco or it may be lost to time—there is too much work and not everything will be saved, but there is no reason not to take the nuggets that might be useful if all we need to do is stop worrying whether they will be misunderstood.

But what if they are misunderstood? We have reached a point in digital collection and annotation where it is easy to include context and comments when we archive a piece. When we do this we get three benefits:

(i) We become used to contextualizing contributions and consider what might have been overlooked in individual contexts.

(ii) We explore the space of ideas 10 times faster because we don't need an individual piece to cite for every idea.

(iii) We create a culture of building-up from imperfect goods, which is all we had to work with in the first place.