You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Strangeattractor comments on Open thread, June 27 - July 3, 2016 - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: Clarity 27 June 2016 01:46AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (79)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Sable 27 June 2016 10:41:47PM 9 points [-]

Addressing 1) "Learning when you're wrong" (in a more general sense):

Absolutely a good thing to do, but the problem is that you're still losing time making the mistakes. We're rationalists; we can do better.

I can't remember what book I read it in, but I read about a practice used in projects called a "pre-mortem." In contrast to a post-mortem, in which the cause of death is found after the death, a pre-mortem assumes that the project/effort/whatever has already failed, and forces the people involved to think about why.

Taking it as a given that the project has failed forces people to be realistic about the possible causes of failures. I think.

In any case, this struck me as a really good idea.

Overwatch example: If you know the enemy team is running a Mcree, stay away from him to begin with. That flashbang is dangerous.

Real life example: Assume that you haven't met your goal of writing x pages or amassing y wealth or reaching z people with your message. Why didn't you?

Comment author: Strangeattractor 28 June 2016 09:51:35AM 3 points [-]

I read about pre-mortem-like questions in a book called Decisive: How to Make Better Choices in Life and Work by Chip Heath and Dan Heath.

Comment author: Sable 28 June 2016 11:37:25AM 2 points [-]

That's probably it; I read it recently. Thanks!