Thank you for doing this work. I think that a graphical representation of the scope of the challenge is an excellent idea, and merits continuous effort in the name of making communication and retention easier.
That being said, I have questions:
1) What is the source of that text document? The citations consist almost exclusively of works concerning nanomachines. None of the citations concern biases, and do not reference people like Bostrom or Kahneman despite clearly being familiar with their work (at least second hand).
2) Am I correct to infer that the divisions along the X and Y axis are your own? Could you comment on what motivates them?
Also, I have suggestions:
Without having read the text document first the numbers confuse, and they are distracting to navigating the image. What do you think of: A, removing the numbers entirely; B, renumbering the text file and the image so the image provides the organization?
What do you think of a way to distinguish between biases that operate individually versus on a group? In example, #51 at (Underestimation, Heuristics) reads “An overly simplistic explanation is the most prominent.”, which for an individual could be considered a special case of the Availability Heuristic. Argument against similar problems is found in arguing from fictional evidence, or alternately a form of information hazard. If the prominence of the explanation is the problem, that is a group failing rather than an individual failing.
I also think this warrants a pass for spelling and grammar, but that is merely a question of housekeeping. Would I be right to guess that English is a second language?
Thanks for your comment. I think if the document as draft, and I published it to get some valuable feedback.
In the text version of the document there is literature after each chapter, and Kanneman is there, may be not as often as he should be.
But most biases was “reinvented” by me, as well as idea to use X and Y axis for typology and timing.
It is interesting idea to add collective biases.
I am also thinking about adding a block of biases which impede scientific research, like publication bias. It will be collective biases.
My first language is Russian and I used the help of an editor to spell-check and rewrite some parts of the map.
Thank you for doing this work. I think that a graphical representation of the scope of the challenge is an excellent idea, and merits continuous effort in the name of making communication and retention easier.
That being said, I have questions:
1) What is the source of that text document? The citations consist almost exclusively of works concerning nanomachines. None of the citations concern biases, and do not reference people like Bostrom or Kahneman despite clearly being familiar with their work (at least second hand).
2) Am I correct to infer that the divisions along the X and Y axis are your own? Could you comment on what motivates them?
Also, I have suggestions:
Without having read the text document first the numbers confuse, and they are distracting to navigating the image. What do you think of: A, removing the numbers entirely; B, renumbering the text file and the image so the image provides the organization?
What do you think of a way to distinguish between biases that operate individually versus on a group? In example, #51 at (Underestimation, Heuristics) reads “An overly simplistic explanation is the most prominent.”, which for an individual could be considered a special case of the Availability Heuristic. Argument against similar problems is found in arguing from fictional evidence, or alternately a form of information hazard. If the prominence of the explanation is the problem, that is a group failing rather than an individual failing.
I also think this warrants a pass for spelling and grammar, but that is merely a question of housekeeping. Would I be right to guess that English is a second language?
Good work!
Thanks for your comment. I think if the document as draft, and I published it to get some valuable feedback. In the text version of the document there is literature after each chapter, and Kanneman is there, may be not as often as he should be.
But most biases was “reinvented” by me, as well as idea to use X and Y axis for typology and timing. It is interesting idea to add collective biases.
I am also thinking about adding a block of biases which impede scientific research, like publication bias. It will be collective biases.
My first language is Russian and I used the help of an editor to spell-check and rewrite some parts of the map.