This is a negative review of an admittedly highly-rated post. The positives first; I think this post is highly reasonable and well written. I'm glad that it exists and think it contributes to the intellectual conversation in rationality. The examples help the reader reason better, and it contains many pieces of advice that I endorse. But overall, 1) I ultimately disagree with its main point, and 2) it's way too strong/absolutist about it. Throughout my life of attempting to have true beliefs and take effective actions, I have quite strongly learned some distinction that maps onto the ideas of inside and outside view. I find this distinction extremely helpful, and specifically, remembering to use (what I call) the outside view often wins me a lot of Bayes points. When I read through the Big Lists O' Things, I have these responses; * I think many of those things are simply valid uses of the terms[1] * People using a term wrong isn't a great reason[2] to taboo that term; e.g. there are countless mis-uses of the concept of "truth" or "entropy" or "capitalism", but the concepts still carve reality * Seems like maybe some of these you heard one person use once, and then it got to go on the list? A key example of the absolutism comes from the intro: "I recommend we permanently taboo “Outside view,” i.e. stop using the word and use more precise, less confused concepts instead." (emphasis added). But, as described in the original linked sequence post, the purpose of tabooing a word is to remember why you formed a concept in the first place, and see if that break-down helps you reason further. The point is not to stop using a word. I think the absolutism has caused this post to have negative effects; the phrase "taboo the outside view" has stuck around as a meme, and in my memory, when people use it it has not tended to be good for the conversation. Instead, I think the post should have said the following. * The term "outside view" can mean many things that can