I think I’d say all the ingredients in Double Crux already existed, but
a) it’s actually useful work simply to notice that the status quo doesn’t result in people steering towards cruxes, so you need some kind of innovation to help people steer that way
b) the specific operationalization of the Double Crux technique is a decent attempt at helping people steer that way, even if it’s not quite right, there have been innovations since then, and it’s sort of a training wheels you eventually move on from.
I think I’d say all the ingredients in Double Crux already existed, but
a) it’s actually useful work simply to notice that the status quo doesn’t result in people steering towards cruxes, so you need some kind of innovation to help people steer that way
b) the specific operationalization of the Double Crux technique is a decent attempt at helping people steer that way, even if it’s not quite right, there have been innovations since then, and it’s sort of a training wheels you eventually move on from.
Also see Eli’s updated post on how he describes the doublecrux pattern: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/hNztRARB52Riy36Kz/the-basic-double-crux-pattern
I see. It sounds like we agree then and there isn’t really anything important about it that I’m missing.
To tell whether or not you are missing something, someone would need to observe what you actually do when you try to do double crux.