We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
by only digging into the downside we're doing two things one is we're losing half of our opportunities to learn and the second thing is that we're reinforcing the risk aversion we're saying hey what we really care about is down side outcome so you better avoid those and three is we're completely quashing anybody ever doing anything unexpected
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
I think 90% of my energy goes into thinking about the 10% of the shots I didn't like and I thought that's the right way to do it isn't that making me a better shooter