Conversely, if you have to choose between two theories, prefer the one that doesn't center on you.
This is exactly my primary article of faith in life. (By faith I mean the stuff I fill the missing gaps in my knowledge with in order to make actionable decisions.)
Nay:
See randomness.
1. I'm not sure what this even means. How does one learn to see randomness and just what are they seeing when they see it?
2. It's not the positive version of "stop inserting yourself in the chain of causality". (Is there even a positive way to say "stop doing that thing you're doing"?)
Comments
Great little essay until the last line.
Yay:
Conversely, if you have to choose between two theories, prefer the one that doesn't center on you.
This is exactly my primary article of faith in life. (By faith I mean the stuff I fill the missing gaps in my knowledge with in order to make actionable decisions.)
Nay:
See randomness.
1. I'm not sure what this even means. How does one learn to see randomness and just what are they seeing when they see it?
2. It's not the positive version of "stop inserting yourself in the chain of causality". (Is there even a positive way to say "stop doing that thing you're doing"?)
I say pick b.
b is not random. It's just not about you.
I'm not sure what this even means.
I meant you should actively seek out ways in which you're seeing patterns where there aren't any.
Ok, I see what you're getting at.
"Bias: your pattern recognition is overzealous" would be a great companion essay, which I would love to read. Especially ideas for countering it.
A line from that essay showing up at the end of the "Bias: you think it's about you/your species, but it isn't" essay seems quite.. random.
Sorry.
"Miss pareidolia" isn't quite as catchy as "see randomness."