magfrump comments on Sequence introduction: non-agent and multiagent models of mind

[magfrump]

in retrospect it looks like understanding cognitive biases doesn’t actually make you substantially more effective

I’m not convinced that this is true, or that it’s an important critique of the original sequences.

Looking at the definition of agent, I’m curious how this matches with Cartesian Frames.

Given that we want to learn to think about humans in a new way, we should look for ways to map the new way of thinking into a native mode of thought.

I was very happy to read this pingback, but it’s purely anecdotal. There are better sources for this idea.

Overall as a sequence index, it’s not clear to me whether this post makes sense for inclusion. I can imagine a few possibilities

1. Most of the rest of the sequence will be included in the curation, and

   1. This post lays out motivations and definitions that aren’t repeated in the sequence, or

   2. The rest of the sequence will function fine without this post

2. Only the sequence index will be included

   1. The motivation and definitions provide the most value

   2. The post summaries contain most of the value of the sequence

3. A small subset of posts in the sequence will be included

   1. The subset is standalone ideas

      1. The index serves as motivation, connecting tissue, and a reference point

      2. The index isn’t included and the posts stand alone

   2. The subset excludes tangents and only includes a central theme

      1. the index motivates and ties the included posts together

      2. the index isn’t necessary as the posts have their own flow

Overall I don’t know what to expect from the context of curating this post. Would be interested to hear more from people who have spent more time with the sequence.