It’s certainly a much fuzzier form of evidence than commonly presented in scientific studies and meta-studies, but from a Bayesian standpoint the details of the process are not completely uncorrelated from other things, so they present at least some amount of evidence. Given, that evidence may be slight.
BTW, regarding:
Does the fact that you often paused the video to reflect on what was said a sign that you’re a deep and insightful thinker, a sign that you’re slow and can’t process information efficiently, a sign that you’re easily distracted, a sign that the information in the video was either extremely dense or extremely poorly explained, or something else entirely?
My own opinion is that this is evidence of (and due to) the density of the material, as well as the quantity of thinking done and my level of interest. (I would agree that it’s not much evidence for quality of thinking done.)
My own opinion is that this is evidence of (and due to) the density of the material, as well as the quantity of thinking done and my level of interest. (I would agree that it’s not much evidence for quality of thinking done.)
Yeah, I was deliberately being uncharitable for the purpose of making the point. And I agree that at least some of the details contribute evidence that there was insight to be found, I just disagree with you on which and how much of that detail does so.
As for the key insights you had at each point, I didn’t mean so much for you to present the intermediate insights you had at each point (because that’s clearly not the thrust of these posts), but rather to work out what the core part of each stage of your journey was and present those as clearly as possible, only putting in as much detail as is necessary to carry those central points.
This is good advice though. I don’t think I’m going go back and make large revisions to the post (could change my mind on that), but if I were writing it again for the first time I would probably cut down the amount of detail.
It’s certainly a much fuzzier form of evidence than commonly presented in scientific studies and meta-studies, but from a Bayesian standpoint the details of the process are not completely uncorrelated from other things, so they present at least some amount of evidence. Given, that evidence may be slight.
BTW, regarding:
My own opinion is that this is evidence of (and due to) the density of the material, as well as the quantity of thinking done and my level of interest. (I would agree that it’s not much evidence for quality of thinking done.)
Yeah, I was deliberately being uncharitable for the purpose of making the point. And I agree that at least some of the details contribute evidence that there was insight to be found, I just disagree with you on which and how much of that detail does so.
This is good advice though. I don’t think I’m going go back and make large revisions to the post (could change my mind on that), but if I were writing it again for the first time I would probably cut down the amount of detail.