How to think in writing
Importance: 6 | # | henrik-karlsson, writing, thinking
When I sit down to write, the meadow is still engulfed in darkness under a sky where satellites pass by, one after the other. My thoughts are flighty and shapeless, like dreams; they morph as I approach them. But when I open my notebook and write, it is as if I pin my thoughts to the table. I can examine them. ...
Since the goal is to find flaws in our guesses (so that we can change our minds, refine our mental models and our language, and be more right) stretching a claim thin through an explanation is progress. Even if the explanation is wrong.
You are interested only in proofs which ‘prove’ what they have set out to prove. I am interested in proofs even if they do not accomplish their intended task. Columbus did not reach India but he discovered something interesting. —Lakatos
Super useful and well written as always. Henrik provides a couple of concrete techniques to write for thinking better:
- go as far as possible with an idea/hypothesis/conjecture you have and make a strong and concrete case for it
- concrete is important because the core value of writing comes from pinning down thoughts - handwaving possibilites should be minimized
- you are not looking to be right, you are looking to learn and refine your ideas
- the mere act of having to concretely write down the idea and put thoughts into words is a lot of effort and is fruitful by itself and you have concrete words etched in ink or silicon to hold yourself accountable
- find counter examples
I make extensive use of the counter examples technique. I try to lay down a hypothesis and then think of counter evidence. Kinda comes naturally after having scrolled through hackernews comments for so long now.
Writing down concrete ideas while trying to reduce ambiguity is not something I do concisouly. I am usually trying to accurately represent my state of mind. And as the state evolves so does the ink. I do spread ideas thin - but it's handwavy a lot of the times. Henrik provides plenty of examples where one escapes ones own words by handwaving away what they actually meant. I observe this with myself as well. Making a concious effor to minimize this should bode well.
It is useful to take a hypothesis and make as strong a case for it as possible, write it down, leave little room for ambiguity. Then find counter evidence, refine, repeat. This is usually how anyone hardens ideas. Very bayesian. It is also useful to do this when you think the idea is wrong or only right in 80% of the cases. Wrong ideas are ofcourse worth writing and talking about.
Gwern has a confidence tag - to indicate how likely he thinks it is that the ideas in the post are to be true. There's also a lesswrong post/comment about how simple ideas that explain say 80% of observations and cannot account for the rest are super useful - I can't find it right now.