I do remember there being a discussion here about that general phenomenon in the context of PCT. Someone explained it by an analogy to an approximating function. You have a “function”—the number of areas an idea is applicable to. You then estimate how widely applicable it is. It turns out you underestimated—it’s more general than you thought. If this happens more than once, you try to err in the opposite direction, overestimating its generality.
Then, I remember pjeby agreed with this comparison to PCT. I’ll try to find that discussion.
(Avoided making wisecrack about omg, there’s something PCT can’t explain, &c.)
ETA: Oops, first instinct and wisecrack were more appropriate...
ETA: Oops, first instinct and wisecrack were more appropriate...
It is always more fun when wisecracks can double as literal truths so I appreciated your analysis. I actually think your PCT model fits reasonably well to at least part of the phenomenon and it would quite probably be a useful tool to consider when trying to recalibrate your hammer use.
I do remember there being a discussion here about that general phenomenon in the context of PCT. Someone explained it by an analogy to an approximating function. You have a “function”—the number of areas an idea is applicable to. You then estimate how widely applicable it is. It turns out you underestimated—it’s more general than you thought. If this happens more than once, you try to err in the opposite direction, overestimating its generality.
Then, I remember pjeby agreed with this comparison to PCT. I’ll try to find that discussion.
(Avoided making wisecrack about omg, there’s something PCT can’t explain, &c.)
ETA: Oops, first instinct and wisecrack were more appropriate...
It is always more fun when wisecracks can double as literal truths so I appreciated your analysis. I actually think your PCT model fits reasonably well to at least part of the phenomenon and it would quite probably be a useful tool to consider when trying to recalibrate your hammer use.