There is a problem that can occur when you are attempting to check all of your biases when contemplating a serious crime. The risk is, while checking your biases you are exposing yourself to people who would then have the ability to help law enforcement turn you in for that serious crime. And you would presumably be aware of the fact that you can hardly let others capture you, because then you would know that there would be other things that you didn't blow up as part of your plan to save the world because you weren't secretive enough. This means that by checking all of your biases you are boosting the chance of the world be destroyed if it turns out you weren't biased. And it's easy to convince yourself that you can't risk that, so you can't talk to other people about your plans. But you can't thoroughly check your biases by consulting yourself and no one else. It is entirely possible for you to be heavily deluding yourself, having gotten brain damage or gone insane. So you're left with the conflicting demands of "I need to talk with other people to verify this is accurate." and "I need to keep this a secret, so I can implement it if it is accurate." As a side question, does it feel like this has a few points that are oddly similar to Pascal's mugging to anyone else? As an example, they both seem to have that aspect of "But you simply MUST do this, because the consequences are simply to great not do it, even after accounting for the probabilities?"