Which details did you find excellent or helpful? What might you do differently, now that you’ve read the post?
In terms of adding substance, it generally helps my own reading to know pieces of content others are stealing, since often those help me, too. (Though there’s nothing wrong with just saying what you said.)
I enjoyed the specific examples; I was a little wary after the Watch Out Politics Ahead disclaimer, but the actual examples chosen were presented in a way that made their applicability to the topic obvious, and reduced their potential impact as mind-killers. (However, take this evaluation with a grain of salt: most of the examples reflected my current political positions, so they might not seem as ideal to another.)
I also liked that the proposed solutions took human biases into account, with suggestions that go beyond just identifying a common error. The first solution puts forward a specific suggestion for working around the given bias. The others propose doing some bias jujitsu, and putting the akrasic parts of our minds to work for us. This can be easy to overdo, but despite that I think it’s a very useful technique, especially for newcomers who may not be as used to trying to pick apart their own thought processes.
On that note, I really want to see this article on the front page because I think the topic overall would be of particular interest to newcomers. It requires no prerequisites (though it also links liberally to related sequence and non-sequence posts) or unusual terminology, and provides concrete near-mode problems and solutions.
Which details did you find excellent or helpful? What might you do differently, now that you’ve read the post?
In terms of adding substance, it generally helps my own reading to know pieces of content others are stealing, since often those help me, too. (Though there’s nothing wrong with just saying what you said.)
I enjoyed the specific examples; I was a little wary after the Watch Out Politics Ahead disclaimer, but the actual examples chosen were presented in a way that made their applicability to the topic obvious, and reduced their potential impact as mind-killers. (However, take this evaluation with a grain of salt: most of the examples reflected my current political positions, so they might not seem as ideal to another.)
I also liked that the proposed solutions took human biases into account, with suggestions that go beyond just identifying a common error. The first solution puts forward a specific suggestion for working around the given bias. The others propose doing some bias jujitsu, and putting the akrasic parts of our minds to work for us. This can be easy to overdo, but despite that I think it’s a very useful technique, especially for newcomers who may not be as used to trying to pick apart their own thought processes.
On that note, I really want to see this article on the front page because I think the topic overall would be of particular interest to newcomers. It requires no prerequisites (though it also links liberally to related sequence and non-sequence posts) or unusual terminology, and provides concrete near-mode problems and solutions.