There is a lot of argument in this thread that seems to boil down to whether or not this technique (or an analogous technique for another field) is something a

There is a lot of argument in this thread that seems to boil down to whether or not this technique (or an analogous technique for another field) is something a competent person would do. I think that's missing an important point (which is also a point that TFA doesn't cover). Competent people do what makes them productive. If you start worrying about what specific things "the best" do, you're going to end up with a process that works very well for somebody else, and that very possibly won't work for you. You'll optimize for status, but you won't get near your potential. The idea in TFA seems to be clearly worth trying if you have the problem it purports to solve. Maybe it works for you, maybe it doesn't. Maybe it doesn't, but it gives you more data on how your brain works, and helps to come up with something that works better for you. But don't let anyone convince you that because you use this method or that, you're less competent than someone who uses other methods. Results are what matter. (Edit to add: That doesn't mean you shouldn't pay attention to what competent people are doing. They are competent for a reason. But you shouldn't be discouraged if their techniques don't work for you, or if different techniques do.)