This is true for me also, and the primary reason I blog. If I weren't doing that, I'd be emailing a friend who'd be interested, or failing that, writing to my diary.

I haven't thought about this before, but it seems like in (pretending to) communicate your assessment of the evidence, that you risk amplifying consistency bias unless you cultivate "I update on new evidence and publicly admit (and diagnose post-mortem) when I was wrong" as a cherished part of your persona.