Ah, the LW approach. I would argue exactly the opposite: look for examples of successful decision heuristics and emulate those. Check consequentialism only when your rules of thumb disagree.
A more nuanced view of going meta might be the Hansonian method of collecting a large amount puzzles and only going meta to find explanations that leave the fewest mysteries and greatest number of accurate predictions. The exhortation to wait until you have a large collection of mysteries that may have common threads seems to be essential to the way he thinks.
Ah, the LW approach. I would argue exactly the opposite: look for examples of successful decision heuristics and emulate those. Check consequentialism only when your rules of thumb disagree.
A more nuanced view of going meta might be the Hansonian method of collecting a large amount puzzles and only going meta to find explanations that leave the fewest mysteries and greatest number of accurate predictions. The exhortation to wait until you have a large collection of mysteries that may have common threads seems to be essential to the way he thinks.