I like this article for having a amusing stories told with cute little diagrams that manage to explain a specific mental technique. At the end of reading it, I sat down, drew some trees, nodded, and felt like I’d learned a new tool. It’s not a tool I use explicitly very often, but I use it a little, using it more wouldn’t hurt, and if it happens to be a tool you’d use a lot (maybe because it covers a gap or mistake you make more) then this article is a really good explanation of how to use it and why.
It’s interesting to compare this to Goal Factoring. They aren’t the same, but they rhyme more than a little to me, both breaking apart what you actually want and how you might get what you want. Between the two, Goal Factoring appeals more to the creative munchkin in me, the kind that giggles at figuring out how to hack the process and get all of advantages of say, grading classes, without paying any of the drawbacks. Finding the root for the tree doesn’t come with that feeling of being unorthodox and clever; every time I’ve used it I come away with what feels like common sense.
“A tool where ever time I use it I come away with what feels like common sense” is, when you put it in those words, actually a stronger recommendation than I originally intended to give but it’s true. I wouldn’t be surprised if finding the root for the tree doesn’t create any noticeable improvement for half the people who use it. It’s not revolutionary or groundbreaking. Nevertheless, this is the kind of article I want more of on LessWrong; a technique for making better decisions, explained clearly and straightforwardly, packaged in a neat mostly self-contained package.
I like this article for having a amusing stories told with cute little diagrams that manage to explain a specific mental technique. At the end of reading it, I sat down, drew some trees, nodded, and felt like I’d learned a new tool. It’s not a tool I use explicitly very often, but I use it a little, using it more wouldn’t hurt, and if it happens to be a tool you’d use a lot (maybe because it covers a gap or mistake you make more) then this article is a really good explanation of how to use it and why.
It’s interesting to compare this to Goal Factoring. They aren’t the same, but they rhyme more than a little to me, both breaking apart what you actually want and how you might get what you want. Between the two, Goal Factoring appeals more to the creative munchkin in me, the kind that giggles at figuring out how to hack the process and get all of advantages of say, grading classes, without paying any of the drawbacks. Finding the root for the tree doesn’t come with that feeling of being unorthodox and clever; every time I’ve used it I come away with what feels like common sense.
“A tool where ever time I use it I come away with what feels like common sense” is, when you put it in those words, actually a stronger recommendation than I originally intended to give but it’s true. I wouldn’t be surprised if finding the root for the tree doesn’t create any noticeable improvement for half the people who use it. It’s not revolutionary or groundbreaking. Nevertheless, this is the kind of article I want more of on LessWrong; a technique for making better decisions, explained clearly and straightforwardly, packaged in a neat mostly self-contained package.