I did try to take all the available evidence and update properly on everything. But maybe some motivated stopping on not trying even longer to come up with a concrete example of what I’d have expected to see from orcas.
These sound good, and maybe you have in mind the same thing I mean, but to clarify, I mean like: Do biased thinking in both directions. I.e. be a lawyer for each side in turn. (Don’t only do this of course, also do other things like neutral integration / comparison etc.)
So like, you get your model / argument that says orcas are smart (or that this is a good project). Then you put on the anti hat, and try really hard to find counterarguments—e.g. by thinking of them, and also by motivatedly looking for information that would give a counterargument.
To do this properly you may have to unblend from your wanting X to be true.
These sound good, and maybe you have in mind the same thing I mean, but to clarify, I mean like: Do biased thinking in both directions. I.e. be a lawyer for each side in turn. (Don’t only do this of course, also do other things like neutral integration / comparison etc.)
So like, you get your model / argument that says orcas are smart (or that this is a good project). Then you put on the anti hat, and try really hard to find counterarguments—e.g. by thinking of them, and also by motivatedly looking for information that would give a counterargument.
To do this properly you may have to unblend from your wanting X to be true.
Yeah I’ve really started loving “self-dialogues” since discovering them last month, I have two self-dialogues in my notes just from the last week.
Ah, thx! Will try.