alecodes/void
2
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 9 Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions
void/Readwise/How to Think in Writing.md
aleidk b69830a7fd update
2024-09-22 21:24:13 -03:00

6.1 KiB
Raw Permalink Blame History

How to Think in Writing

rw-book-cover

Metadata

Note

Este articulo habla sobre cómo utilizar la escritura como un medio para realizar un análisis crítico de nuestros propios pensamientos e ideas y obtener su completo potencial.

Utiliza un metodo kinda like Phoenix Wright cross examination:

  • hacer nuestros pensamientos solidos y especificos al escribirlos
  • Decantarlos hasta poder obtener una conclusión, una conjetura o una hipótesis
  • Desafiar esta conclusion intentando probarla verdadera o falsa, buscando sus fallas y grietas. Con "pressionar" (follow up questions)
  • Esto nos proveerá más información, más pensamientos y más ideas que pueden re-definir nuestra conclusión [!tldr] Writing helps refine thinking by making ideas more precise and complete. Without writing, one may not fully form or realize the limitations of their ideas. By unfolding and probing claims through writing, one can discover flaws, refine understanding, and reach deeper insights.

Highlights

Ideas can feel complete. It's only when you try to put them into words that you discover they're not. So if you never subject your ideas to that test, you'll not only never have fully formed ideas, but also never realize it. View Highlight)

Good thinking is about pushing past your current understanding and reaching the thought behind the thought. View Highlight)

When I write, I get to observe the transition from this fluid mode of thinking to the rigid. As I type, I’m often in a fluid mode—writing at the speed of thought. I feel confident about what I’m saying. But as soon as I stop, the thoughts solidify, rigid on the page, and, as I read what I’ve written, I see cracks spreading through my ideas. What seemed right in my head fell to pieces on the page. View Highlight)

a conjecture,” a qualified guess based on limited information. A hypothesis. View Highlight)

Forcing the diffuse ideas and impressions in your head into a definite statement is an art form. You have to grab hold of what is floating and make it rigid and sharp. It can feel almost embarrassing–revealing your ignorance with as much vulnerability as possible. View Highlight)

By unfolding I mean “interrogating the conclusion to come up with an explanation of why it could be true.” What premises and reasoning chains leads to this conclusion? The explanation isn’t meant to prove that your conclusion was right. It is just a way of unpacking it. View Highlight)

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) unfolding a claim through an explanation is progress. Even if the explanation is wrong. View Highlight)

Once I unfold my understanding in writing, I often see holes right away. I start correcting myself and discarding ideas already while typing. I cut ideas that are obviously flawed. I rewrite what feels ambiguous to make it sharper–more precise, concrete, unhedged, and true to my understanding. View Highlight)

I tend to go through my list of premises and assumptions and ask follow-up questions to myself, to further unfold my conclusion. View Highlight)

Now that I have spelled out my position and fixed the obvious flaws, I start probing myself more seriously to see if I can get the argument to break down. View Highlight)

If one of the premises I have unfolded is a factual claim, I’ll spend a few minutes skimming research in the area to see how well my position holds up. View Highlight)

But often the type of problem I like to think about is too personal and messy and qualitative to be resolved cleanly through a statistically significant study. What I do in these situations instead is to consider counterexamples. ... I like to visualize concrete situations when I make an argument ... When I have a concrete situation in mind, I can ask myself, “What is a situation where the opposite happened? Why was that?” I can list the characteristics of the situation that inform my conclusion and then systematically look for cases that have other characteristics.

Counterexamples are useful in two ways. Either you find a counterexample that a) proves one of the premises wrong but b) does not change your mind about the conclusion. Lakatos calls this a local (and non-global) counterexample. This means there is something wrong with your unfolding. ... Local counterexamples help you improve your explanation and get a better understanding.

Other times, the counterexample you find undermines the whole idea—a global counterexample. You unfold your conclusion and discover that one of the premises does not hold up, and there is no way to patch it. The fracture spreads right up to the conclusion. Now—this is what we have been longing for—there is a big hole of confusion where before there was a mental model. It is time to replace it with something more subtle and deep that incorporates the critique. View Highlight)