Dface's Discussion of "Judging and Fixing Your Own Errors"

[Dface]

Imma write about the collapsed paragraph below:

Summary

@Elliot

Critical Fallibilism looks at many more specific goals with unambiguous criteria for success, like “Get sushi for dinner”, “Get pizza for dinner” or “Spend under $10 on dinner”. For each of those goals, you would be able to confidently judge whether you succeeded or not. You’d be able to tell if there’s an error/failure or not. Those dinner goals are about as easy to judge as “Is that a cow or a chicken?”.

First sentence:

@Elliot

Critical Fallibilism looks at many more specific goals with unambiguous criteria for success, like “Get sushi for dinner”, “Get pizza for dinner” or “Spend under $10 on dinner”.

“Get sushi for dinner” is more specific cuz now we’re talking about what kind of food to get. Now we can tell if this goal fails cuz of an error. There could be an error like maybe being allergic to seafood. Now you know that sushi isn’t good for dinner.

Unlike the original broad goal, “Get sushi for dinner,” doesn’t really sound unclear. I know what sushi is and i know when dinner is. I’m not wondering “what kind of dinner?” or “what kind of food?” I’m not wondering “what do certain words in the goal mean?”

I thought, “Get pizza for dinner” and the other goals in the quote above were ideas that could or could not fail at a goal. I think any idea can be converted into a goal no? Idk about that.

The success criteria for this goal is unambiguous:

@Elliot

“Spend under $10 on dinner”.

cuz if your receipt says 11 dollars then you failed. Or if you spend more than 10 dollars and you see that reflected on your bank then you failed. I think it may be better tho to talk about the goals more objectively. I wonder if it’s ok to say that a goal failed rather than you failed. These goals might not even be yours yet

Where is the unambiguous criteria in the quote above? Is it the critieria of spending under ten dollars?