I would expect someone who’s really excellent at Looking would be better at tracking what actually matters.
Sidestepping cognitive biases requires something else. Like, you can be tracking what actually matters instead of what you think matters, but still get surprised by your systematically overoptimistic estimates about how long things will take. If you notice that affects what you care about in a way that matters, then you probably have to actually do something about your thinking.
Things like survivorship bias also require noticing when something true and important is hidden. Tracking that is a matter of rejiggering the mind to notice where this bias arises and adding corrective factors.
…but if a master Looker[1]does not care about these effects, they might in fact use examples that arise from (say) survivorship bias precisely because they make the point the Looker does care about. And they might dismiss and be disinterested in corrections to their thinking, basically for the same reason someone writing a text message might find it annoying for someone to correct their grammar & punctuation.
So I daresay that really grokking Looking runs the risk of making one enact biases more.
…because much of the time they just don’t matter for what you actually care about.
I would expect someone who’s really excellent at Looking would be better at tracking what actually matters.
Sidestepping cognitive biases requires something else. Like, you can be tracking what actually matters instead of what you think matters, but still get surprised by your systematically overoptimistic estimates about how long things will take. If you notice that affects what you care about in a way that matters, then you probably have to actually do something about your thinking.
Things like survivorship bias also require noticing when something true and important is hidden. Tracking that is a matter of rejiggering the mind to notice where this bias arises and adding corrective factors.
…but if a master Looker[1] does not care about these effects, they might in fact use examples that arise from (say) survivorship bias precisely because they make the point the Looker does care about. And they might dismiss and be disinterested in corrections to their thinking, basically for the same reason someone writing a text message might find it annoying for someone to correct their grammar & punctuation.
So I daresay that really grokking Looking runs the risk of making one enact biases more.
…because much of the time they just don’t matter for what you actually care about.
I’m avoiding terms like “enlightenment” or “enlightened” because of serious overloading here. I’m just talking about skill with Looking here.