4 ms·

I don't see any conflict between your prescription and breaking step 2 down into as many microtasks and unit tests as necessary, which seems to be the thrust of

• roenxi 2y ago
  Carlsmith is breaking reasoning up into thinking that feels "Real" and "fake". This distinction is fundamentally flawed; good thinking has no consistent feeling. All ends of the spectrum are powerful for getting to the truth as long as someone is intellectually honest. You can wring a lot of complex and accurate thought out of sloppy intuition and heuristics backed by a little formal proof afterwards. If I use a heuristic (rote v new in the essay) that is perfectly real as long as the heuristic is accurate. The mind can only think in heuristics, philosophically. We can challenge why any particular heuristic is wrong but reality is too infinite for a finite mass to comprehend without them. Or "no bullshit", which - in a philosophical essay - is self-defeating to identify as anything less than critical. I'm saying that while thinking about thinking is great fun, the distinction he is drawing looks to me like it is on the verge of morphing into a framework for smart people to rationalise their biases. Complex spectrum around thought usually are. If you argue politics a lot then you see that sort of construct regularly; people have these beautiful mental prisons they built for themselves to prove their opponents are all communists/nazis/aliens/reptiles. On that subject I must be the only person I know who understands when those labels are appropriate. I don't get why it is so hard for everyone else. The communists are anyone I'm arguing with.