There is usually a couple votes worth of variance, especially when a post first comes up. I live a bit too far from other LWers to implement this myself, but upvoted for taskifying very well.
The first improvement I would like to see is some references for the claims about cannabis. They’re common enough, and research on such things is notoriously hard to come by, which is why I still upvoted without, but it would make the point much stronger.
The next suggestion I’d make is that your “solving quantum physics problems” example could probably be replaced by something that general LWers could do.
Otherwise this seems like a good discussion post and I’d love to see someone else try this and report back on it.
Hmm, disagree. This book is an adequate taskification of results-focused meetings. Compared to that, the above post leaves me with an impression of 1) brainstorm, 2) ??? 3) Profit! A large part of the post is about the non-conventional advice to use THC, and that could use more scholarship: the THC-creativity link has been investigated, and I would expect a LW post making substantive claims about it to point to some relevant papers.
The above post leaves me with the impression of a particular structure for group brainstorming. I say it is taskified very well because I could easily (i.e. within 2 hours probably) implement the procedure and notice the difference and attempt to measure the results compared with brainstorming without following the procedure.
I agree that it needs more scholarship; but I expect different things out of discussion posts than I do out of published books.
There is usually a couple votes worth of variance, especially when a post first comes up. I live a bit too far from other LWers to implement this myself, but upvoted for taskifying very well.
The first improvement I would like to see is some references for the claims about cannabis. They’re common enough, and research on such things is notoriously hard to come by, which is why I still upvoted without, but it would make the point much stronger.
The next suggestion I’d make is that your “solving quantum physics problems” example could probably be replaced by something that general LWers could do.
Otherwise this seems like a good discussion post and I’d love to see someone else try this and report back on it.
Hmm, disagree. This book is an adequate taskification of results-focused meetings. Compared to that, the above post leaves me with an impression of 1) brainstorm, 2) ??? 3) Profit! A large part of the post is about the non-conventional advice to use THC, and that could use more scholarship: the THC-creativity link has been investigated, and I would expect a LW post making substantive claims about it to point to some relevant papers.
The above post leaves me with the impression of a particular structure for group brainstorming. I say it is taskified very well because I could easily (i.e. within 2 hours probably) implement the procedure and notice the difference and attempt to measure the results compared with brainstorming without following the procedure.
I agree that it needs more scholarship; but I expect different things out of discussion posts than I do out of published books.
Yes, sorry, I’m fleshing it out now. This is the discussion area for unfinished ideas, isn’t it? I’m taking everyone’s criticisms into consideration.