I had a problem I was trying to work out. I thrashed about on it for a long time without making apparent progress. I decided I could ask a forum of people more experienced in this.
So I began I composing the question. I didn't want to seem like a total noob, so I set about forestalling the obvious suggestions by explaining what hadn't worked. I sort of set up an imaginary interlocutor and had it suggest things. Eventually, it suggested something and instead of my showing why it didn't apply to my situation, I showed that it did. So I copied the solution out of the forum post box and closed the browser window.
Now, the process of composing this question wasn't exactly quick or easy, but it did take a lot less time than I'd been using before.
I wonder if I can replicate this on purpose. I imagine writing to (or start writing to) someone more knowledgeable than me whom I don't want to seem stupid to, and explain the problem. It seems a lot like just writing a summary of the question for myself, but by giving it that additional purpose, it became more focused and self-critical.
Or maybe there's nothing to it, and I got lucky that I happened to be sitting on everything I needed and was one inference away from the answer.
I got lucky that I happened to be sitting on everything I needed and was one inference away from the answer.
Even so, finding a way to make the missing inference is not necessarily trivial.
This is the public group instrumental rationality diary for October 1-15.
New this month: If you have preferences about the future frequency of rationality diary posts, please express them in the poll below!
Thanks to cata for starting the Group Rationality Diary posts, and to commenters for participating.
Immediate past diary: September 16-30
Rationality diaries archive