Very interesting analysis, thank you! This unrolling technique seems to be quite useful, at least in some situations, where, as you said people are “generally open minded enough to be willing to try out a “weird conflict resolution technique I’m experimenting with”″.
One comment I have is that this is not what I understand metacognition is like, thinking about thinking about thinking … . This appears to me more like a linear chain of inferences than a stack of them. So, in a comp-sci terms, you go through the list, rather than unroll a stack. The difference is that to get to “Bailey observes (1.1), and feels it was bad,” one does not have to pop every single level from the stack, but can actually go through the chain of inferences back and forth from any element. Or at least that is what it seems like to me.
As for your point that people shy away from posting “mediocrely-explained ideas”, I agree, especially if the ideas are not in the mainstream. *looks at the backlog of a dozen drafts* nope, totally not what I am doing.
As for your point that people shy away from posting “mediocrely-explained ideas”, I agree, especially if the ideas are not in the mainstream.
This might not be a bad thing. Idea inoculation is a known concept in sociology, and it can make sense to not post an explanation of something if you think that it will cause people who have heard your explanation to discount future versions of that idea.
There are terrible people who, instead of solving a problem, bungle it and make it more difficult for all who come after. Whoever can’t hit the nail on the head should, please, not hit at all.
Very interesting analysis, thank you! This unrolling technique seems to be quite useful, at least in some situations, where, as you said people are “generally open minded enough to be willing to try out a “weird conflict resolution technique I’m experimenting with”″.
One comment I have is that this is not what I understand metacognition is like, thinking about thinking about thinking … . This appears to me more like a linear chain of inferences than a stack of them. So, in a comp-sci terms, you go through the list, rather than unroll a stack. The difference is that to get to “Bailey observes (1.1), and feels it was bad,” one does not have to pop every single level from the stack, but can actually go through the chain of inferences back and forth from any element. Or at least that is what it seems like to me.
As for your point that people shy away from posting “mediocrely-explained ideas”, I agree, especially if the ideas are not in the mainstream. *looks at the backlog of a dozen drafts* nope, totally not what I am doing.
This might not be a bad thing. Idea inoculation is a known concept in sociology, and it can make sense to not post an explanation of something if you think that it will cause people who have heard your explanation to discount future versions of that idea.
To quote Nietzsche: