You wrote this comment in an adversarial tone but I Just Agree With You.
Indeed, this is an alternate formulation of the thesis of my post, and even uses language I used when characterizing the post itself to someone in the office ~2 hours ago.
Hm, I think the thing I disagree with, and was trying to argue against was that it is a good idea in the first place to even try to have a political map at all, nevermind to try to unwarp it.
The post is meant to be somewhat agnostic on the question—conditional on one has a map, here’s a common failure mode. It’s also meant to point in the direction of ‘reconsider the value of your map’.
Separately, I think I ~endorse your first comment, but I also think there are cases in which you should definitely have a map (eg you are attempting to achieve political ends). So I think your second comment is somewhat overstated.
You wrote this comment in an adversarial tone but I Just Agree With You.
Indeed, this is an alternate formulation of the thesis of my post, and even uses language I used when characterizing the post itself to someone in the office ~2 hours ago.
Hm, I think the thing I disagree with, and was trying to argue against was that it is a good idea in the first place to even try to have a political map at all, nevermind to try to unwarp it.
The post is meant to be somewhat agnostic on the question—conditional on one has a map, here’s a common failure mode. It’s also meant to point in the direction of ‘reconsider the value of your map’.
Separately, I think I ~endorse your first comment, but I also think there are cases in which you should definitely have a map (eg you are attempting to achieve political ends). So I think your second comment is somewhat overstated.