I have a 'calibration' set of puzzles that I do each morning. Put the ol' brain through its paces, if you will. Kakuro, Suduko, Cryptoquote, Jumble. I used to play daily Set. (www.setgame.com) It all boils down to pattern recognition, but I do feel better knowing that that bit of memory is still intact and relatively accessible. ;)

I actually only got to see the first half of this, so I missed "always attack before you are ready." I like it, but how was it justified/explained?

I'm astounded that no one (especially in a blog devoted to rationalism) has mentioned the very obvious motivation for appearing on bloggingheads - self-promotion. Sean Carroll has already said almost everything he's qualified to say on bhtv, with the exception of promoting his upcoming book. He stands to benefit more from the attention/reputation he gains from 'taking a stand' than he does from doing nothing. He loses what? One more interview?

As EY pointed out, there is ample evidence that bhtv does not have a hidden 'religious' agenda. To say that only certain viewpoints have enough merit to be heard was never anyone's decision to make, save Bob Wright and his staff. SC's actions smack of a play for attention - the squeaky wheel, so to speak - that has apparently worked. If SC was so valuable to bhtv that Bob felt pressure at the thought of losing him, than bhtv has bigger problems with respect to its coverage of science.

And let's not kid ourselves - SC can have a 'seen the light' moment at any time and decide that he would prefer to engage in dialogue and attempt to add to the public's knowledge rather than subtract from it. Bob would welcome him back with open arms after reading his ever-so-sincere blog post that reflects his 'changed attitude'. Life goes on as before, except that everyone involved has gotten a little extra attention.

The fact that we are even acting like this has something to do with 'principles' makes me a little ill. The only fact worth noting in this entire debacle is the ease with which Bob is/is not ready to throw his guests and his staff under the bus.

First off, welcome to Less Wrong! Check out the welcome thread if you haven't already.

You have a good writing style, but I hope you'll pardon me if I make a few suggestions based on the usual audience for Less Wrong posts:

Typically, a post of this length should be broken up into a sequence; you run the risk of "too long; didn't read" reactions after 1000 words, let alone 3000, and the conversation in the comments is usually sharper if the post has a single narrow focus. Usually, the analysis of a situation and the recommendations become separate posts if both are substantial.

Secondly, with the notable exception (sometimes) of P.J. Eby, we're often mistrustful of theories borne of introspection and anecdotes, and especially of recommendations based on such theories. There's therefore a norm of looking for and linking to experimental confirmation where it exists, and being doubly cautious if it doesn't. In this case, for instance, you could find some experimental evidence on choking that supports your thesis. This also forces you to think carefully about what sort of things your model predicts and doesn't predict, since at first glance it seems vague to the point of danger. The more specific you can get about these phenomena, the more useful your post will be.