The sequences can be distilled down even further into a few sentences per article.
Starting with “The lens that sees its flaws”: this distils down to: “The ability to apply science to our own thinking grants us the ability to counteract our own biases, which can be powerful.” Statement by statement:
A lot of complex physics and neural processing is required for you to notice something simple, like that your shoelace is untied.
However, on top of noticing that your shoelace is untied, you can also comprehend the process of (noticing your shoelace is untied) - i.e. by listing the steps through which light reflects off your shoelace and your visual cortex engaging, etc.
The ability to consider the steps of our own thinking appears to be uniquely human.
If we recognise that our process of comprehension and understanding is potentially flawed, you can choose to consciously counteract it.
Science is repeatedly and deliberately making measurements of our own observations over time, attributing theories to those measurements, and constructing experiments to produce further measurements to potentially disprove those theories.
The ability to apply science to our own thinking grants us the ability to counteract our own biases, which can be powerful.
One example of reflective correction is correcting for optimism by noticing that optimism is not correlated to good outcomes.
The tool I am using to distill the sequences is an outliner: a nested bulleted list that allows rearranging of bullet points. This tool is typically used for writing things, but can similarly be used for un-writing things: taking a written article in and deduplicating its points, one bullet at a time, into a simpler format. An outliner can also collapse and reveal bullet points.
The sequences can be distilled down even further into a few sentences per article.
Starting with “The lens that sees its flaws”: this distils down to: “The ability to apply science to our own thinking grants us the ability to counteract our own biases, which can be powerful.” Statement by statement:
A lot of complex physics and neural processing is required for you to notice something simple, like that your shoelace is untied.
However, on top of noticing that your shoelace is untied, you can also comprehend the process of (noticing your shoelace is untied) - i.e. by listing the steps through which light reflects off your shoelace and your visual cortex engaging, etc.
The ability to consider the steps of our own thinking appears to be uniquely human.
If we recognise that our process of comprehension and understanding is potentially flawed, you can choose to consciously counteract it.
Science is repeatedly and deliberately making measurements of our own observations over time, attributing theories to those measurements, and constructing experiments to produce further measurements to potentially disprove those theories.
The ability to apply science to our own thinking grants us the ability to counteract our own biases, which can be powerful.
One example of reflective correction is correcting for optimism by noticing that optimism is not correlated to good outcomes.
The tool I am using to distill the sequences is an outliner: a nested bulleted list that allows rearranging of bullet points. This tool is typically used for writing things, but can similarly be used for un-writing things: taking a written article in and deduplicating its points, one bullet at a time, into a simpler format. An outliner can also collapse and reveal bullet points.