I understand the idea of the "bottom line" post a little distinctly. In my understanding it doesn't address the process of arguing (i.e. constructing verbal expressions capable of persuading others).
I have a general objection against this interpretation - it throws away the literal meaning of the EY's post.
But there is also a pragmatic difference, about where to direct the focus of attention when one tries to de-bias one's reasoning. With the three steps as I stated them, I know that I cannot really fix the step 1, beyond trying to catch myself before I commit, as lincolnquirk suggested. Step 2 is comparatively harmless, so it's the step 3 where I must put the real defense.
But most arguments are about complex hypotheses whose justification could be (and usually is) reduced to a chain of elementary inductive steps. For such hypotheses it is certainly feasible (psychologically or otherwise) to arrive at them gradually - guessing and rationalising the irreducible bits which can be easily checked, but not the hypothesis as a whole.
Could you mention specific examples of such complex hypotheses? I mean, where it would make sense to know the conclusion in advance, and yet the conclusion would not be reachable in a single intuitive leap. It seems contradictory.
I have a general objection against this interpretation - it throws away the literal meaning of the EY's post.
The literal meaning of the post, if any, is: no matter of carefully crafted post-hoc justification is going to make your conclusion correct. I don't think your interpretation is closer to it than mine.
Could you mention specific examples of such complex hypotheses? I mean, where it would make sense to know the conclusion in advance, and yet the conclusion would not be reachable in a single intuitive leap.
I am not sure what you mean by "ma...
In the spirit of contrarianism, I'd like to argue against The Bottom Line.
As I understand the post, its idea is that a rationalist should never "start with a bottom line and then fill out the arguments".
It sounds neat, but I think it is not psychologically feasible. I find that whenever I actually argue, I always have the conclusion already written. Without it, it is impossible to have any direction, and an argument without any direction does not go anywhere.
What actually happens is:
It is at the point 3 that the biases really struck. Motivated Stopping makes me stop checking too early, and Motivated Continuation makes me look for better arguments when defective ones are found for the conclusion I seek, but not for alternatives, resulting in Straw Men.