Leaning into the obvious is also the whole point of every midwit meme.
I would argue this is not a very good example, “do the obvious thing” just implies that you have a higher prior for a plan or a belief and you are choosing to believe it without looking for further evidence.
It’s epistemically arogant to assume that your prior will be always correct.
Although if you are experienced in a field it probably took your mind a lot of epistemic work to isolate a hypothesis/idea/plan in the total space of them while doing the inefficient bayesian processing in the background.
We look at the territory via our beliefs, I think intuition is just a model by another name. A true map corresponds to territory. I think the extra amount of details is due to our brain’s inability to comprehend the raw truth since the levels to reality lie on the map and these level can often leave out minor details since we cannot compute it. Our higher level maps are just approximation of the fundamental reality.
The emissary’s narrow, analytical view of the world and desire to have everything fully under control, cut it into pieces and arrange it in ways it can fully grasp, is inadequate for dealing with the complexities of reality.
I think there are a lot of sequences on this topic on how our intuitions of categorisation which were evolved to deal with the complexities of the world aren’t adequate and can often need help of reductionism.
There is a reason why mathematicians talk about the 3Bs: bus, bad, bed. This is where we have our best ideas.
Eureka moments don’t happen when you try to force it.
That is diffused vs focused thinking you cannot really distill and tell which eurekas are real eurekas and which are fake eurekas without doing the focused part after the hypothesis generator part of the brain does its thing.
This is once again a fact our left brain likes to ignore as the chemicals in our body are not something fully under its control and this potentially diminishes its importance.
Uhh I mean I just don’t understand why is this post at first criticisng the left brain for valuing truth and then coming back at it for not valuing truth...
I would argue this is not a very good example, “do the obvious thing” just implies that you have a higher prior for a plan or a belief and you are choosing to believe it without looking for further evidence.
It’s epistemically arogant to assume that your prior will be always correct.
Although if you are experienced in a field it probably took your mind a lot of epistemic work to isolate a hypothesis/idea/plan in the total space of them while doing the inefficient bayesian processing in the background.
We look at the territory via our beliefs, I think intuition is just a model by another name. A true map corresponds to territory. I think the extra amount of details is due to our brain’s inability to comprehend the raw truth since the levels to reality lie on the map and these level can often leave out minor details since we cannot compute it. Our higher level maps are just approximation of the fundamental reality.
I think there are a lot of sequences on this topic on how our intuitions of categorisation which were evolved to deal with the complexities of the world aren’t adequate and can often need help of reductionism.
That is diffused vs focused thinking you cannot really distill and tell which eurekas are real eurekas and which are fake eurekas without doing the focused part after the hypothesis generator part of the brain does its thing.
Uhh I mean I just don’t understand why is this post at first criticisng the left brain for valuing truth and then coming back at it for not valuing truth...
Also (if there hasn’t been further research which made a comeback) the premise of the post left-right brain influencing personality dichotomy is inaccurate.