I recall thinking this article got a lot right.
I remain confused about the non-linear stuff, but I have updated to thinking that norms should be that stories are accurate not merely informative with caveats given.
I am glad people come into this community to give critique like this.
Solid story. I like it. Contains a few useful frames and is memorable as a story.
I have listened to this essay about 3 times and I imagine I might do so again. Has been a valuable addition to my thinking about whether people have contact with reality and what their social goals might be.
I have used this dichotomy, 5 - 100 times during the last few years. I am glad it was brought to my attention.
Sure, but again to discuss what really happened, it wasn't that it wasn't prioritised, it was that I didn't realise it until late into the process.
That isn't prioritisation, in my view, that's halfassing. And I endorse having done so.
Or a coordination problem.
I think coordiantion problems are formed from many bad thinkers working together.
I mean the Democratic party insiders who resisted the idea that Biden was unsuitable for so long and counselled him to stay when he was pressed. I think those people were thinking badly.
Or perhaps I think they were thinking more about their own careers than the next administration being Democrat.
Yes, this is one reason I really like forecasting. I forces me to see if my thinking was bad and learn what good thinking looks like.
I think it caused them to have much less time to choose a candidate and so they chose a less good candidate than they were able to.
If thinking is the process of coming to conclusions you reflectively endorse, I think they did bad thinking and that in time people will move to that view.
Thinking is about choosing the action that actually wins, not the one that is justifiable by social reality, right?
Error checking in important works is moderately valuable.