For instance, someone might believe that sign-up walls make for a bad product for a variety of philosophical reasons, but they justify this decision outwardly by pointing to some data from one product's blog about their A/B test on the subject.

That data is not the reason they decided to ditch sign-up walls. It's just the reason they’re giving to others (and often, themselves) about why they made the decision. This behavior represents a sort of homage to science… while simultaneously violating its core principles.

  • this is different to confirmation bias / positive bias - famous example of giving 2-4-6 as a positive example and asking someone to find out the rule by providing more examples - almost everyone looks for positive examples confirming their idea (4-8-12 for example), instead of looking for negative examples that could give more info (if 2-4-5 is also ok, then it changes what I think about a lot)
  • I think I'm not different here, relying on intuitions most of the time, but I should be more conscious in presenting them as intuitions, instead of looking for positive examples to scientifically confirm what I'm trying to say/do

Future Of Coding

Thinking by Writing

  • I think there should be some friction to adding new notes, which forces me to re-read and re-think through the material - there's a difference between quick inbox capture, and long-term storage, the friction of migrating from inbox to long-term storage might be a good thing; Tom MacWright has similar intuitions:

    I think there's some notetaking/databasing ideology in which any "friction" between your brain and the notebook is viewed as bad. Which imho is a faulty idea: choosing words and structure in order to represent your thoughts is not a chore, it's part of forming the thoughts

    — Tom MacWright -

Szymon Kaliski © 2020