> What? This means you'll tend to look for reflections of your _personal_ gifts / lack of them, within government. "Gifts" is synonymous with your preferred pe

> What? This means you'll tend to look for reflections of your _personal_ gifts / lack of them, within government. "Gifts" is synonymous with your preferred perspectives on things. E.g. if you are attuned to watching for moral quality, you'll naturally develop gifts in that area and look for matching gifts/blindspots in that area on the part of your government. Or if you are yourself a deep thinker, you'll bias yourself toward pointing out fluff--this phenomenon is generally independent of, and out of proportion to, others' perspectives, like even if they say "hey let's ask for clarity before throwing out critique" or whatever, you may tend to go "nah I just got a feeling" and make a judgment call because this feels right to you. So to develop a circumspect (higher quality) POV on government & processees, you'll want to cover that blind spot by looking at objective measurements, for example. That could look like asking "how could I measure that," rather than rewarding subjective bias. Then with subjective bias, working in parallel to the objective improvements, you also want to integrate subjective means for raising the quality level. Please see profile--I lean toward not giving specifics / examples for this stuff anymore because it's a waste of my time & experience. I stare at relevant 3rd party data/charts which connect back to archetype (housing charts, broader national/intl economy, and so on) and make charts all day, and broader 1Y+ charts speak for themselves in a lot of cases (long-term cyclical reversion to mean for example). Accordingly, broader comments are intentionally broad and such comments will naturally seem fluffier.