Arguments can prove too much as well as too little.
Selection bias doesn't explain everything, but it explains more than it seems like it should!
I notice an annoying empirical regularity. (The films I want to see at the cinema are the ones most likely to be sold out. Buses take too long to arrive, and when they do they come in twos or threes. Things go wrong most often when I'm trying to get something done in a hurry.) Chances are it's neither coincidence, nor reality magically conspiring against me — instead there's usually some mundane, obvious-in-hindsight explanation. The game theoretic analogue of this rule is Scott Aaronson's observation that a situation often sucks because its not sucking wouldn't be a Nash equilibrium.
I'm not as smart as I like to think I am. Knowing that, I've gotten into a habit of trying to work out as many general principles as I can ahead of time, so that when I actually need to think of something, I've already done as much of the work as I can.
What are your most useful cached thoughts?
A few of the rules-of-thumb I've already pre-cached include:
That should be a reasonable but not overwhelming sample of the sorts of ideas I mean, and am hoping to evoke more of with this post.