one of my methods for developing my base of knowledge is what I like to call "quasi-scientific experimentation" where you have a theory about which you make predictions and the more "surprising" data you later find to validate it improves the likelihood of it being correct
-
Show this thread
-
this can be distinguished from confirmation bias because it depends on specifying (at least to yourself) those observations you believe follow from the theory, which means you could later come across data you were personally ignorant of that falsifies the theory
1 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
tell me
@eigenrobot is this rationalism oh yeah also@nosilverv you're my other (post)rat buddy2 replies 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread
Replying to @ne0agent1c @nosilverv
Ive done something like this before, in my thread hypothesizing about HR and woke capital I think it's fair in an out-of-sample prediction sense at least Even just thoughtfully worrying about the issue probably helps :)
9:01 PM - 13 Sep 2020
0 replies
0 retweets
1 like
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.