Why my rough drafts eschew generic caveats and qualifications

Gall's Law

personalmba.com said: "Gall's Law states that all complex systems that work evolved from simpler systems that worked. If you want to build a complex system that works, build a simpler system first, and then improve it over time."

All worldviews are incomplete and wrong. Textmind's goal is cognitive evolution. Competitive organisms lack extraneous components. Thus to compete in an ecosystem, Textmind atomic headings are reduced to their essentials.

An evaluation of the plausibility and utility of an atom is superfluous to that atom. Every time the atom is encountered, its utility and significance should be evaluated afresh against the local context. This requires only the naked idea.

If a prior evaluation of the atom is pre-inserted, then the prior evaluation must also be evaluated. Evaluating evaluations becomes recursively complex. Nuance piles atop hedge until the cost of comprehending it exceeds the truth derived.

The simple solution is to either delete the evaluation or else make it a separate heading. After one has read enough of one's own outdated nuanced garbage, one gets tired of deleting it and simply stops writing it.

Nuance is for decisions and polished publications

Realize that almost any statement can be found false in some context. Thus contextualization to a specific purpose saves many words.

The time to write with holistic nuance is when supporting a decision. The decision determines the scope of the nuance, preventing infinite equivocation. The contextualization provided by the decision also saves a huge amount of qualificatory verbiage.

A document polished for publication also has a defining context: audience, occasion, time, intent, etc.

Ego protection is inefficient

There's a temptation to add caveats to avoid being wrong later. This merely degrades one's cognition, increasing the probability of future shame.

Ideas are hard enough to grapple with. Don't introduce extraneous social or ego concerns to muddy the process.

It is possible to string mealy-mouthed words together interminably. Therefore such words should only be used when they increase rather than diminish the information conveyed.

Processing thousands of thought headings written over years quickly teaches one the uselessness of low density info. One can only delete so much of that crap before one stops writing it.

That way, when I do encounter my rare caveats, I know they convey something definite and significant. It is worth taking the time to understand the nuance.

Textmind's stone tumbler

Textmind headings are like a stone tumbler. Thoughts jumble against each other, losing all that is extraneous. They acquire the glossy sheen of brevity. Ego protection is futile amid the merciless impacts.

The dispassionate cyborg-like clash of heading atoms produces a mind that transcends the petty defensiveness of the individual thought.

To maximize the bonding potential of such ideas, they must be starkly stated. This minimizes the overhead of handling.

T3 posts are for me, not you

T3 posts are written for the author, not the reader.

A rough draft is just a longer version of a Textmind atomic thought heading. Rather than a single thought, it conveys a train of thought.

I don't care whether it's good or bad, true or false. I only care about whether the thought should be developed and written out or not.

It should be written if it improves the clarity of my thought.

An idea that is probably bad and wrong, but takes an essay to express, is an idea worth writing. It is complicated, and it is in my head for a reason.

If it is stupid and wrong, then writing it down in its strongest form will enable me to reject it more quickly. Since elaboration is already done, all that remains is evaluation.

Flights of fancy find floating islands

It was obviously wrong and insane for Europeans to sale westward into the deep Atlantic, which is why the Americas went undiscovered until Columbus.

An absurd idea may lead to startling discoveries, simply because competition is low.

Elaborate then evaluate

Including a bunch of premature squid ink clouds clear thought. Only a fool judges a matter before it is heard. Hear the idea out.

An exploratory essayist doesn't know where he's going. A Textmindist doesn't know what juxtapositions will ensue, what thought atoms the future will bring.

Some of my ideas are foolish, and others wise. Discerning between them is much more reliable after they're developed than before.

A muddle of contradictory suppositions, qualifications and caveats isn't worth developing. It's better to merely note relevant facts without adding premature analysis.

Ideas cannot be evaluated before they're expressed. Trying to do so often leads to error.

Doing two things separately is exponentially easier than doing them simultaneously. Separate elaboration from evaluation.

Nothing superfluous should be added to the idea. Include no prejudicial language. Let the idea stand for itself, as clearly and distinctly as possible.

If it is wrong, succinctness will help it evolve and correct, when its flaws become known with certainty. If it is worthless, stating it in succinct and forceful form will hasten its rejection.

If it is right, then it needs no weaseling.

Case study: COVID19 opinion evolution

When I first started paying attention to COVID19 conspiracy theories, I noticed the claim that Wuhan was the only BSL-4 lab in China.

This was a gigantic indicator that COVID19 escaped from said lab.

However, other possibilities existed. Was the lab really in Wuhan, or just the province? Was it really BSL-4? Were there really no other such labs? Internet disinfo was rampant.

It didn't affect my life either way, but I needed to write something to move on mentally. So I filed the claim as a thought-atom in Textmind.

Then I wrote out the novel argument in my head for why COVID19 was not a lab release:

The virus is real. It's from similar viruses in bats AND pangolins. How is that possible? Because evolution is a web, not a tree. China's unsanitary conditions of inter-species jostling are ideal for the generation of new plagues. It's no coincidence that the COVID-19 outbreak centered on a wet market in winter in China's smoggy 9th most populous city.


As you can see, this guess was just a small part of a longer argument. Not worth elaborating on.

Now I've written out my novel argument, and am tracking the key counter-claim. No further work required.

I did zero investigatory work on verifying the BSL-4 issue. Instead, I just continued to read my RSS feed news as usual.

The BSL-4 claim remained durable and moved up the chain to more credible sources, and no one contradicted it. I accepted the claim. Ergo, COVID19 came from the Wuhan lab.

Deliberate bio-weapon remained a negligible probability, leaving the thesis of my essay untouched. It turns out China was doing risky gain of function research in response to the fact that it was already a plague factory. An indirect causal step from terrible sanitation to viral inception.

I only publish my longform thoughts on T3, so the Textmind atom tracking the BSL-4 claim wasn't published with the essay.

Yep, that's how T3 works. Weird, and not reader-friendly. Hence the "Rough Drafts" prominently featured at the top.

I've started publishing key Textmind headings to Discord or appropriate social media, in an effort to improve reader-friendliness.

I'll create a T2 blog later, which is the normal kind of blog. But that takes work, and blogging isn't important right now.

Publish At: Author:Leo Littlebook

Read more posts by this author

comments powered by Disqus