I’m in the same boat as Mr. Hen. I haven’t thoroughly read it yet because honestly it looks long. Your recommendations look obvious at first glance, which lessens the incentive to read deeper.
I would have moved the three general mistakes to the beginning and tightened up their description a little more. That would do a better job of drawing people into the article, and then you could describe how the three mistakes manifest themselves in the specific biases. Is there a (representative!) anecdote that could liven it up?
I wonder if it would be worthwhile for some of the less experienced writers to set up an informal draft exchange. It’d be nice to have another set of eyes look over an article before posting it. I don’t have plans for any articles in the near future, but if anyone wants me to look over a draft , feel free to pm me.
The third and especially the second mistakes seem nontrivial to me (at least, I thought about them explicitly and written them down only about a month ago, which gave me the idea of writing this article).
Just to be clear, upon actually reading them, I agree with you. It’s just that on first glance they don’t look like anything new and are buried fairly deep in the article, so they are easy to pass over. That’s why I think it might have gone over better if you had lead with them.
I’m in the same boat as Mr. Hen. I haven’t thoroughly read it yet because honestly it looks long. Your recommendations look obvious at first glance, which lessens the incentive to read deeper.
I would have moved the three general mistakes to the beginning and tightened up their description a little more. That would do a better job of drawing people into the article, and then you could describe how the three mistakes manifest themselves in the specific biases. Is there a (representative!) anecdote that could liven it up?
I wonder if it would be worthwhile for some of the less experienced writers to set up an informal draft exchange. It’d be nice to have another set of eyes look over an article before posting it. I don’t have plans for any articles in the near future, but if anyone wants me to look over a draft , feel free to pm me.
The third and especially the second mistakes seem nontrivial to me (at least, I thought about them explicitly and written them down only about a month ago, which gave me the idea of writing this article).
Just to be clear, upon actually reading them, I agree with you. It’s just that on first glance they don’t look like anything new and are buried fairly deep in the article, so they are easy to pass over. That’s why I think it might have gone over better if you had lead with them.