I think there’s a terminological issue. What you have here is a new graphical notation for (certain kinds of statements about / structures involving) biases, not a way to visualize them. To me, at least, visualizing something means displaying the thing in a way that lets you see that thing itself more clearly; but here, the point isn’t to see the biases more clearly—what you’re trying to clarify is a larger structure in which the biases are largely-unanalysed elements.
The criticism you got was mostly saying “this so-called way of visualizing biases doesn’t actually show you anything about the biases”—which is correct but, if I’m understanding you right, largely misses the point because the goal was never to provide a tool for understanding biases better; what you want to understand is bad habits, case histories, and the like. Biases are components of those things; you want a notation that includes a way of representing biases; but this isn’t a visualization of biases any more than the usual notation for electrical circuits is a visualization of (say) resistors.
Fair enough! I think the circuit analogy is fitting; the primary analysis is at a system-level scale rather than an individual unit scale. That said, my goal would be to turn it into a tool for better understanding and changing biases themselves (without losing the higher-level functionality). Some people have offered some ideas on how that might be done, and that’s exactly what I’m hoping to get out of sharing here.
I think there’s a terminological issue. What you have here is a new graphical notation for (certain kinds of statements about / structures involving) biases, not a way to visualize them. To me, at least, visualizing something means displaying the thing in a way that lets you see that thing itself more clearly; but here, the point isn’t to see the biases more clearly—what you’re trying to clarify is a larger structure in which the biases are largely-unanalysed elements.
The criticism you got was mostly saying “this so-called way of visualizing biases doesn’t actually show you anything about the biases”—which is correct but, if I’m understanding you right, largely misses the point because the goal was never to provide a tool for understanding biases better; what you want to understand is bad habits, case histories, and the like. Biases are components of those things; you want a notation that includes a way of representing biases; but this isn’t a visualization of biases any more than the usual notation for electrical circuits is a visualization of (say) resistors.
Fair enough! I think the circuit analogy is fitting; the primary analysis is at a system-level scale rather than an individual unit scale. That said, my goal would be to turn it into a tool for better understanding and changing biases themselves (without losing the higher-level functionality). Some people have offered some ideas on how that might be done, and that’s exactly what I’m hoping to get out of sharing here.