Consistency check: After coming up with a conclusion, check that it’s consistent with other simple facts you know. This lets you catch simple errors very quickly. Give an example: If you’ve got an abstract object, think of the simplest possible object which instantiates it, preferably one you’ve got lots of good intuitions about. This resolves confusion like nothing else I know. Proving too much: After you’ve come up with a clever argument, see if it can be used to prove another claim, ideally the opposite claim. It can massively weaken the strength of arguments at little cost. Prove it another way: Don’t leave things at one proof, find another. It shines light on flaws in your understanding, as well as deeper principles.
I think I heard of proving too much from the sequences, but honestly, I probably saw it in some philosophy book before that. It’s an old idea.
If automatic consistency checks and examples are your baseline for sanity, then you must find 99%+ of the world positively mad. I think most people have never even considered making such things automatic, like many have not considered making dimensional analysis automatic. So it goes. Which is why I recommended them.
Also, I think you can almost always be more concrete when considering examples, use more of your native architecture. Roll around on the ground to feel how an object rotates, spend hours finding just the right analogy to use as an intuition pump. For most people, the marginal returns to concrete examples are not diminishing.
Prove another way is pretty expensive in my experience, sure. But maybe this is just a skill issue? IDK.
Consistency check: After coming up with a conclusion, check that it’s consistent with other simple facts you know. This lets you catch simple errors very quickly.
Give an example: If you’ve got an abstract object, think of the simplest possible object which instantiates it, preferably one you’ve got lots of good intuitions about. This resolves confusion like nothing else I know.
Proving too much: After you’ve come up with a clever argument, see if it can be used to prove another claim, ideally the opposite claim. It can massively weaken the strength of arguments at little cost.
Prove it another way: Don’t leave things at one proof, find another. It shines light on flaws in your understanding, as well as deeper principles.
Are any of these satisfactory?
proving too much comes from Scott Alexander’s wonderful blog, slate star codex and i have used it often as a defense to poor generalizations. seconded.
‘consistency check’ seems like a sanity baseline and completely automatic; its nice to include but not particularly revelatory imo.
‘give it an example’ also seems pretty automatic.
‘Prove it another way’ is useful but expensive, so less likely to be used if you’re moving fast.
I think I heard of proving too much from the sequences, but honestly, I probably saw it in some philosophy book before that. It’s an old idea.
If automatic consistency checks and examples are your baseline for sanity, then you must find 99%+ of the world positively mad. I think most people have never even considered making such things automatic, like many have not considered making dimensional analysis automatic. So it goes. Which is why I recommended them.
Also, I think you can almost always be more concrete when considering examples, use more of your native architecture. Roll around on the ground to feel how an object rotates, spend hours finding just the right analogy to use as an intuition pump. For most people, the marginal returns to concrete examples are not diminishing.
Prove another way is pretty expensive in my experience, sure. But maybe this is just a skill issue? IDK.