The reference you recommend seems to advocate changing one's attitude be engaging in a sequence of biases.

It's engaging in System 1 thinking, which of course has a different set of biases than System 2 thinking. The object is to activate the relevant System 1 biases, and then update the information stored there.

one should express their dislike in terms of their pettiest reasons, and identify with that expression.

Absolutely. How else would you expect to reconsolidate the memory trace, without first activating it?

Rather than seeking out one's true objection, ...

You mean your System 2 explanation whose function is to make your System 1 bias appear more righteous or socially acceptable. That "true objection"?

And one should "Simply pick a person or situation and write, using short, simple sentences", discouraging deep explanation, which in turn discourages deep understanding. An important filter is bypassed, allowing the bad reasons to mix with the good.

Precisely. We don't want System 2 to verbally overshadow the irrational basis for your reactions, by filtering them out and replacing them with good-sounding explanations.

The question "What is it that they should or shouldn’t do, be, think, or feel?" in the context of asking one's opinions is a setup to appear to commit the Mind Projection Fallacy.

Actually, it's an attempt to identify what conditioned standard or ideal you believe the person is violating, creating your irrational reaction.

Priming someone to say "X should" when they mean "I want X to" so you can later say "In reality, there is no such thing as a 'should' or a 'shouldn’t.'" is a sneaky debating trick.

Of course it's a debating trick. If fair, logical reasoning worked on System 1, there'd be no need for mindhacking, would there?

Of course one can not absolutely know that it's true, one should not assign probability 1 to anything.

And you are discussing this with System 2 reasoning - i.e., abstract reasoning. When you ask yourself this question about a specific thing, e.g., "can I absolutely know it's true that Tom should listen to me?", it is a request to query System 1 for your implicit epistemology on that particular topic. That is, how would you know if it were true? What if it weren't? How would you know that? In the process, this retrieves relevant memories, making them available for reconsolidation.

You are confusing a concrete system 1 practice with abstract system 2 reasoning. Again, if the two were the same, we would have no need for mindhacking, and the Dark Arts could not exist.

(That being said, I've honestly never found this particular question that useful, compared to questions 1, 3, and 4.)

Does one have a large accumulation of evidence that causes one to have high confidence that it's true? That seems like a more reasonable question

Indeed. However, if you were to translate that to a System 1 question, it'd be more like, "How do I know that it's true?". That is, something closer to a simple query for sensory data, than a question calling for abstract judgment. (I've actually used this question.)

which one of course should apply to one's true objection.

One's "true objection" is of course in most cases an irrational, childish thing. If not, one would likely not be experiencing a problem or feelings that cause you to want to engage in this process in the first place.

Then the question is asked: How do you react, what happens, when you believe that thought? which would be fine if it were setting up to ask, "Is that reaction constructive? Are there more constructive ways you could react?". But instead, the follow up is: Who would you be without the thought?

Again, we need to distinguish System 1 and 2 thinking. "Is that reaction constructive?" and "Are there more constructive ways you could react?" are abstract questions that lead to a literal answer of "yes"... not to memory reconsolidation.

"Who would you be without that thought?" is a presuppositional query that invites you to imagine (on a sensory, System 1 level) what you would be like if you didn't believe what you believe. This is a sneaky trick to induce memory reconsolidation, linking an imagined, more positive reaction to the point in your memory where the existing decision path was.

This question, in other words, is a really good mind hack.

Mind hacking questions are not asked to get answers, they are questions with side-effects.

Hm, who would I be if it didn't bother me to have my face burned. Probably the sort of person who doesn't avoid being touch in the face by hot pokers.

You are equating physical and emotional pain; the Work is a process for getting rid of emotional pain created by moral judgments stored in System 1, not logical judgments arrived at by System 2.

And finally, there is the "Turn it around" concept. Now, holding oneself to the same standards one expects of others is good, but a big problem comes from asking one to "find three genuine, specific examples of how the turnaround is true in your life". This is advocating the Confirmation Bias. One is encourage to find supporting evidence for the turn around, but not contradicting evidence.

On the contrary, it is countering confirmation bias. Whatever belief you are modifying has been keeping you from noticing those counterexamples previously. Notice, btw, that Katie advises not doing the turnarounds until after the existing belief has been updated: this is because when you firmly believe something, you react negatively to the suggestion of looking for counterexamples, and tend to assume you've done a good job of looking for them, even though you haven't.

So instead, the first two questions are directed at surfacing your real (sensory, System 1) evidence for the belief, so that you can then update with various specific classes of counterexample. Questions 3 and 4, for example, associate pain to the belief, and pleasure to the condition of being without it, providing a counterexample in that dimension. The turnaround searches provide hypocrisy-puncturing evidence that you are not really acting to the same standards you hold others to, and that your expectations are unrealistic, thus providing another kind of counterexample.

If I have a problem with someone for being a chronic liar, it does not make sense for me to think it is OK because I can recall three time she told the truth, or three times I told a lie.

You will not arrive at useful information about the process by discussing it in the abstract. Pick a specific situation and belief, and actually try it.

What does make sense is to notice her unusually high proportion of lies to honest statements, and to not believe what she tells me without corroboration, and maybe even associate instead with others who reliably give me truthful information.

Sure. And if you can do that without an emotional reaction that clouds your judgment or makes you send off unwanted signals, great! The Work is a process for getting rid of System 1 reactions, not a way of replacing System 2 reasoning.

If this is the sort of mind hack you advocate, it is no wonder that people express skepticism instead of trying it. After all, our sister site is not called "Embracing Bias".

Mind hacking is working on System 1 to obtain behavioral change, not engaging in System 2 reasoning to result in "truth".

That's because, when your System 2 tries to reason about your behavior, it usually verbally overshadows system 2, and ends up confabulating.... which is why pure system 2 reasoning is absolutely atrocious at changing problematic behaviors and emotions.

(Edit to add: Btw, I don't consider The Work to be a particularly good form of mindhacking. IMO, it doesn't emphasize testing enough, doesn't address S1/S2 well, and has a rather idiosyncratic set of questions. I personally use a much wider range of questions and sequences of questions to accomplish different things, and last, but far from least, I don't unquestioningly endorse all of Katie's philosophy. Nonetheless, I recommend the Work to people because, performed properly it works on certain classes of things, and can be a gentle introduction to the subject. Another good book is "Re-Create Your Life" by Morty Lefkoe, which provides a difference evidence-based reconsolidation process, but The Work has the advantage of having a free online introduction.)