# Early Conceding While Reading and Not Starting Discussions **URL:** \ **Category:** Other\ **Created:** [October 31, 2025, 12:06am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/early-conceding-while-reading-and-not-starting-discussions/2117 "2025-10-31T00:06:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/activemind/32/5560_2.png) [@ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/ActiveMind)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2025, 11:53pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/early-conceding-while-reading-and-not-starting-discussions/2117/21 "2025-11-23T23:53:58Z")
[![](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/uploads/default/original/2X/e/e520a647d2f39a3a9561ebfb4abb43ed05ed8b27.jpeg "#28 curi Streams Philosophy (Q&A, writing, commentary)") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adG0MoWSbQ0&t=5695) Here Elliot gives examples of how to make questions. Lots of them are short and simple. One was just “Why?”, which is close to saying “this section was confusing”. I had seen this stream in the summer and it did help me some in writing more in response to Elliot’s articles. ---
**Author:** ![ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/activemind/32/5560_2.png) [@ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/ActiveMind)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2025, 11:59pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/early-conceding-while-reading-and-not-starting-discussions/2117/22 "2025-11-23T23:59:32Z")
> [@Dface](#): > > I wonder wat you already do thats philosophy related on a regular basis I don’t really do anything philosophy on a regular basis, it’s sporadic. Depends on how broad “philosophy related” is though. I read in books most days. Edit: Oh, I check the forum every day though. ---
**Author:** ![Jarrod](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/jarrod/32/5459_2.png) [@Jarrod](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Jarrod)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2025, 4:56am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/early-conceding-while-reading-and-not-starting-discussions/2117/23 "2025-11-24T04:56:02Z")
> [@ActiveMind](#): > > When I have read Elliot’s articles with intention to respond I do try to think about everything I could respond with or question. It seems too little most of the time. I think the issue is this early agreeing with low standards. > [@ActiveMind](#): > > I think I would have to re-calibrate what I should accept and what I should ask for clarification for. If you don’t act in accordance with ET’s articles/advice, maybe that’s a disagreement you could bring up? E.g., I’ve seen ET post stuff about time tracking, weekly journaling, doing screencasts/livestreams/videos of yourself practicing philosophy and sharing those for criticism, etc. If you’re not doing this stuff, it means that in practice you disagree with ET. Like you feel like it’s too much hassle to do these things and so they’re not worth it or you think it wouldn’t work for you or something. IOW, there’s some reason you’re not doing it (you can also use ET’s method for investigating intuitive disagreements to find out why you disagree with ET on these things and share that for feedback). > [@ActiveMind](#): > > I don’t really do anything philosophy on a regular basis Is time management philosophy related? E.g., ET has done those podcasts about time tracking. Also, if you ever feel conflicted about how to spend time—e.g., procrastinating—then is that philosophy related? Also, how you prioritize stuff. Like even if you don’t feel conflicted about how you spend your time, others (like us! 🙂) might disagree with how you’re spending your time or what you’re prioritizing in life. This is beginning to veer into the issue of unbounded criticism though. Also, do you use any techniques like [time block planning](https://www.deborahho.com/productivity/timeblock-planner) or timeboxing? Do you leave a 33–50% buffer like I think ET and Goldratt recommend (IIRC)? Etc., etc., etc. > [@ActiveMind](#): > > I read in books most days. You could share what books (and articles, videos, podcasts, any content) you read, what you’ve learned from them (or enjoyed about them), and your decision making process for selecting them. People might have criticism of your book selection method or reading priorities. (That’s something I’ve personally wondered about. There’s so many books. Is there some “algorithm” (so to speak) for ranking/prioritizing/deciding what to read vis-à-vis your goals. Maybe you could even apply ET’s multi-factor decision making stuff to deciding what to read? Idk. Could be good practice if applicable. Also, you could share what goals your information/media diet is aimed at optimizing. If you don’t know what goals you have, you could practice introspecting and practice ET’s method of investigating intuitions to find out. Even if your current intuition/preferences/goals feel embarrassing, you could practice being non-judgmental, handling criticism well, and/or changing your reading preferences. (Btw, changing one’s preferences is hard: recall The 10% Rule.)) Also, ET has talked about discussing what you read with others while you’re reading it (rather than waiting until you’ve finished the whole book). Do you do that? If not, why don’t you do that? (Cuz that’s another intuitive disagreement with ET you could bring up.) ---
**Author:** ![Jarrod](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/jarrod/32/5459_2.png) [@Jarrod](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Jarrod)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2025, 5:30am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/early-conceding-while-reading-and-not-starting-discussions/2117/24 "2025-11-24T05:30:12Z")
> [@ActiveMind](#): > > I don’t really do anything philosophy on a regular basis I just remembered this line from Hugh Akston in Atlas Shrugged which I liked a lot and should probably start taking more seriously (my bold): > What is wrong with a philosopher running a roadside diner? Or a cigarette factory, as I am doing now? **All work is an act of philosophy.** ---
**Author:** ![Jarrod](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/jarrod/32/5459_2.png) [@Jarrod](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Jarrod)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2025, 7:26am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/early-conceding-while-reading-and-not-starting-discussions/2117/25 "2025-11-24T07:26:23Z")
I remembered another quote (from Galt’s Speech): > your actions… are the products of the premises held by your mind IOW, everything one does is a product of some ideas (including subconscious ideas) which could be wrong (could be criticized). So philosophy has a role there (I assume). IOW, perhaps nothing one does is outside the province of philosophy? ---
**Author:** ![Jarrod](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/jarrod/32/5459_2.png) [@Jarrod](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Jarrod)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2025, 11:16am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/early-conceding-while-reading-and-not-starting-discussions/2117/26 "2025-11-24T11:16:07Z")
> [@ActiveMind](#): > > Here Elliot gives examples of how to make questions. Thanks for sharing. I watched some of that video and it reminded me of the idea of reading each sentence as though one expects to disagree with it or assumes it’s wrong and therefore has to be convinced that it’s correct by thinking carefully about it. IOW, default disagree rather than default agree. ([Apparently Jeff Bezos does this](https://x.com/FoundersPodcast/status/1704691402653741425).) Also, another idea I thought of for finding gaps in one’s feeling of agreement/understanding: would one be able to write it (or explain it adequately) oneself? If not, then perhaps one doesn’t have an adequate enough understanding to really have an intellectual right to say that one agrees. So perhaps after reading an ET article, one could record oneself trying to verbally summarize it—perhaps as though explaining it to a friend on the phone. Or try to write down one’s own version/paraphrase (without looking at the original article) or even just one’s own summary. I’d guess that this would be difficult because one probably doesn’t actually understand it anywhere near as well as one feels one does. Also, another idea: brainstorm half a dozen examples or applications (if applicable) (e.g., [this vid by ET on practicing philosophical concepts](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPf11a3zWJU)). If one can’t, then maybe one doesn’t understand the idea so well and therefore has no right to say one agrees with it. Also, I already talked about this, but to repeat myself: if one doesn’t apply it to one’s own life or act on it (if applicable), then presumably one doesn’t actually agree with it or think it’s particularly valuable. ---
**Author:** ![ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/activemind/32/5560_2.png) [@ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/ActiveMind)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2025, 11:36am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/early-conceding-while-reading-and-not-starting-discussions/2117/27 "2025-11-24T11:36:39Z")
> [@Jarrod](#): > > Or try to write down one’s own version/paraphrase (without looking at the original article) Elliot has recommended this in tutoring. > [@LMD Async Tutoring](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/lmd-async-tutoring/1933/923): > > Read an article. > > Wait one to four days. > > Write an informal rough draft article of your own about the same topic. Try to write based on your own understanding of the topic and your own reasoning, not your memory of specifics that you read (like article organization or phrasing used). I have tried another technique which is to write before hand what I think about a topic I’m going to read. See the drop-downs on [Introduction to Critical Rationalism - #66 by ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/introduction-to-critical-rationalism/2024/66). The purpose there is to see if I’ll write something that contradicts the article, then it would be easy to see disagreements and confusions. I had intended to do a rewrite like Elliot suggested but I think I forgot. ---
**Author:** ![Jarrod](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/jarrod/32/5459_2.png) [@Jarrod](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Jarrod)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2025, 12:33pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/early-conceding-while-reading-and-not-starting-discussions/2117/28 "2025-11-24T12:33:56Z")
> [@ActiveMind](#): > > Elliot has recommended this in tutoring. Oh, I didn’t see that. Thanks for sharing. Waiting one to four days seems like it’d be an extra good way to test one’s understanding. I’ll have to try it out next time I study a CF article. (Reading Elliot’s post, I see he also mentioned the verbal recording idea.) > [@ActiveMind](#): > > write before hand what I think about a topic I’m going to read. Oh I like the sound of that one too. I hadn’t considered doing that before. I’ll have to give that a go too. Thanks for sharing your example. ---
**Author:** ![ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/activemind/32/5560_2.png) [@ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/ActiveMind)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2025, 11:41pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/early-conceding-while-reading-and-not-starting-discussions/2117/29 "2025-11-24T23:41:45Z")
> [@Jarrod](#): > > > [@ActiveMind](#): > > > > I don’t really do anything philosophy on a regular basis > > I just remembered this line from Hugh Akston in Atlas Shrugged which I liked a lot and should probably start taking more seriously (my bold): > > > What is wrong with a philosopher running a roadside diner? Or a cigarette factory, as I am doing now? **All work is an act of philosophy.** Technically philosophy is involved in every choice you make, but I’m talking about things which would progress my philosophy skill or otherwise is more directly about philosophy like promoting philosophical ideas. > [@Jarrod](#): > > I’ve seen ET post stuff about time tracking, weekly journaling, doing screencasts/livestreams/videos of yourself practicing philosophy and sharing those for criticism, etc. I do time tracking. That’s how I know I’ve done ~1.13k hours of philosophy. I do daily journaling, but if I’m busy I don’t do it and then I get out of the habit. I really should journal anyway and just make a short entry if I don’t have much time. I could do screencasts, but I’m a bit worried about privacy. I think I prefer writing logs of my learning. > [@Jarrod](#): > > If you’re not doing this stuff, it means that in practice you disagree with ET. Like you feel like it’s too much hassle to do these things and so they’re not worth it or you think it wouldn’t work for you or something. IOW, there’s some reason you’re not doing it (you can also use ET’s method for investigating intuitive disagreements to find out why you disagree with ET on these things and share that for feedback). You’re right. It’s probably a good idea to discuss the advice I’m not following. > [@Jarrod](#): > > Also, do you use any techniques like [time block planning](https://www.deborahho.com/productivity/timeblock-planner) or timeboxing? I’ve tried timeboxing before but I like natural stopping points more. I think I would rather like a priority list. But I haven’t stuck with any scheduling method. Maybe I don’t stick with any scheduling method because I’m overambitious. Or maybe I have bad TCS influenced ideas about following fun or avoiding self-coercion: > [@Scheduling](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/scheduling/2071/18): > > It sounds like you guys (@Eternity @LMD @ActiveMind @Dface) may be influenced by TCS ideas about coercion, scheduling, tidiness and more. > [@Jarrod](#): > > Also, ET has talked about discussing what you read with others while you’re reading it (rather than waiting until you’ve finished the whole book). I’ve done that with: [Studying The Goal and TOC [AM]](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/studying-the-goal-and-toc-am/2094). Also some of Elliot’s articles. Also you might be making a mistake I’ve made: > [@What Kind of World Do We Live In?](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/what-kind-of-world-do-we-live-in/1714/144): > > I think it’s still holding me back that I think I have to do heavy analysis the first time I read important philosophy stuff. Perhaps I should just read things one time without doing analysis if I feel like it. > [@What Kind of World Do We Live In?](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/what-kind-of-world-do-we-live-in/1714/150): > > > [@What Kind of World Do We Live In?](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/what-kind-of-world-do-we-live-in/1714/146): > > > > I have this attitude from: > > > > [Learning Philosophy · Elliot Temple](https://www.elliottemple.com/essays/learning-philosophy) > > > > > When you disagree with something, or don’t understand something, or feel uncomfortable/hesitant/doubtful, stop reading and post to the [Fallible Ideas Discussion Forum](http://fallibleideas.com/discussion-info). Don’t gloss over problems; bring them up. Don’t pretend you’ll go back and discuss when you get to the end of the book; discuss now. You need to get issues addressed now so that you can take those answers into account while reading the rest. Mistakes will spiral out of control, and destroy the value of reading the rest, if unaddressed. > > > > So wouldn’t my early mistakes destroy my understanding of Popper books? Or was this directed towards people who wouldn’t do a rereading with more analysis? Personally I do think I would benefit a lot from reading your Popper recommendations right now. > > This is itself an example of the issue I was talking about. I find a lot of times I give some advice, I later find out someone took it in a way I didn’t know about or intend. Like discouraging reading Popper wasn’t my intention. ---
**Author:** ![Jarrod](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/jarrod/32/5459_2.png) [@Jarrod](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Jarrod)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2025, 10:43am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/early-conceding-while-reading-and-not-starting-discussions/2117/30 "2025-11-26T10:43:58Z")
> [@ActiveMind](#): > > I do time tracking. That’s how I know I’ve done ~1.13k hours of philosophy. Oh nice! That’s super impressive. Maybe I’ll try see if I can catch up and beat you over the next few years 😉 That makes me wonder whether putting that much time into philosophy is worthwhile/helpful—like whether it improves one’s life/thinking or has much practical value or whether it’s more just trusting it’ll pay off in the future (despite nobody apart from ET having reached his level). (Btw I don’t mean to burden you with the feeling that you need to respond. I’m just wondering out loud. Feel free to ignore me. I hope I’m not being annoying lol. Or polluting the forum with half-baked wonderings/musings/digressions.) In my case, I haven’t put in that much time yet, but a few benefits that come to mind so far (this is just straight off the top of my head—it’s not a premeditated or anywhere near a complete list): I think I’ve felt much more serene due to having a better understanding of inner conflicts due to ET’s intuition articles and also Rand’s stuff on integrating reason and emotion. I assume I’m less conflicted about other stuff too like morality, e.g., maybe if I was an altruist I might feel a bit conflicted about that. Also, explicitly valuing rationality is helpful (whereas pre-Rand & ET I never thought about rationality per se). Also second-handedness (I might’ve got sucked into chasing a prestigious career/life otherwise). I’ve found Goldratt’s weakest link idea helpful. Those are just a few things that come to mind off the top of my head. I notice the thing almost all of ‘em have in common is making the inexplicit explicit and therefore tractable (like Rand talks about in PWNI). I think the main benefit, though, is just that it’s interesting/fun. I’m still not sure what my longer term goal is though. Maybe become a professional philosopher like Elliot? > [@ActiveMind](#): > > I do daily journaling, but if I’m busy I don’t do it and then I get out of the habit. I really should journal anyway and just make a short entry if I don’t have much time. Speaking of that, for a long time I used to just keep a kind of bullet point journal where I’d list like 2–4 (or so) of the main things I did that day. It was for non-philosophy tasks though. It was sort of like a reverse or after-the-fact to-do list (i.e., listing the main things I actually did that day). I’ll start that up again (for philosophy this time). I wonder if I should post it on the forum. Or create a website of my own to do it on if it’d clutter the forum to be updating that every day. Or create a single topic where anyone/everyone can post daily (or weekly) updates/accomplishments. Though idk if there’s much point in sharing that. > [@ActiveMind](#): > > Also you might be making a mistake I’ve made: Thanks for sharing. It makes me wonder how to balance doing careful critical reading vs quick “binge” reading (which reminded me of [another post of yours](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/toxic-attitudes-about-greatness/2067/26) I saw). Or when to do which. I guess the solution/answer is that careful critical reading is ideal but quick reading is better than nothing. Also one can always reread later. I suppose I should do more quick readings. ---
**Author:** ![Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/elliot/32/14_2.png) [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2025, 6:26pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/early-conceding-while-reading-and-not-starting-discussions/2117/31 "2025-11-26T18:26:29Z")
> [@Jarrod](#): > > That makes me wonder whether putting that much time into philosophy is worthwhile/helpful—like whether it improves one’s life/thinking or has much practical value or whether it’s more just trusting it’ll pay off in the future (despite nobody apart from ET having reached his level). You should find your philosophy activities reasonably good in the short term. They don’t need to maximize any short term benefits, but they shouldn’t feel/seem bad, boring, or like you’re putting up with philosophy to get future benefits. > [@Jarrod](#): > > Or polluting the forum with half-baked wonderings/musings/digressions. You’re good. The forum could use more posts. ---
**Author:** ![ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/activemind/32/5560_2.png) [@ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/ActiveMind)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2025, 10:59pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/early-conceding-while-reading-and-not-starting-discussions/2117/32 "2025-12-14T22:59:32Z")
> [@Jarrod](#): > > That makes me wonder whether putting that much time into philosophy is worthwhile/helpful—like whether it improves one’s life/thinking or has much practical value or whether it’s more just trusting it’ll pay off in the future (despite nobody apart from ET having reached his level). I’m more moral and honest than I would’ve been. I care more about principles. I’m better at taking criticism. I’ve gotten better at grammar. I haven’t really done explicit work to integrate things into my life. I think that’s something you have to consciously work on if you want full integration and no contradictions. Like try it out in a situation, document it, reflect on it and try again. I have changed in some ways from just reading but there’s a lot of contradictions between how I act and what I think is philosophically correct. > [@Jarrod](#): > > Also second-handedness (I might’ve got sucked into chasing a prestigious career/life otherwise). Me too. I think it’s actually easier to catch some big picture things like a career than to catch those small and subtle ways you may have acted second-handed. Only some though. I don’t think it’s easy to stop all big, long term consequences from second-handedness. I guess there are ways for the small ones to build up into a big thing and also big decisions which are just hard to stay principled in. > [@Jarrod](#): > > I think the main benefit, though, is just that it’s interesting/fun. Yes. Though I really want to live according to the philosophy and have it improve my life. > [@Jarrod](#): > > Or create a single topic where anyone/everyone can post daily (or weekly) updates/accomplishments. I’ve been thinking about whether I should post learning updates like these: > **[Curiosity – Learning Updates Thread](https://curi.us/2377-learning-updates-thread)** > > If you want to learn philosophy or rational thinking, you need to do some stuff on a regular basis. Read books, write notes, write outlines, write articles, write journaling, study stuff, have discussi ---
**Author:** ![Jarrod](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/jarrod/32/5459_2.png) [@Jarrod](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Jarrod)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2025, 1:07am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/early-conceding-while-reading-and-not-starting-discussions/2117/33 "2025-12-17T01:07:12Z")
> [@ActiveMind](#): > > those small and subtle ways you may have acted second-handed. Yeah there’s so many of those (presumably way more than I realize). One small example I remember from The Fountainhead was Loomis and Simpson being super nervous (too nervous to work properly) with Cameron looming over their shoulder (versus Roark being totally unaffected): > Cameron would enter the drafting room and stand behind Roark for a long time, looking over his shoulder. It was as if his eyes concentrated deliberately on trying to throw the steady hand off its course on the paper. The two other draftsmen [Loomis and Simpson] botched their work from the mere thought of such an apparition standing behind them. Roark did not seem to notice it. He went on, his hand unhurried, he took his time about discarding a blunted pencil and picking out another. The same kinda idea is in an outtake of The Fountainhead (available in The Early Ayn Rand) via the character of Vesta Dunning (bold added): > She stayed away. And through the fury of her desire for him [Roark] there grew slowly a burning resentment. **She found that his absence was a relief. It was a gray relief, but it was comfortable.** She felt as if she were returning to a green cow pasture after the white crystal of the north pole. She went to parties with her friends from the theater, she danced, she laughed, she felt insignificant and safe. **The relief was not in his absence, but in the disappearance of that feeling of her own importance which his mere presence, even his contempt gave her. Without him, she did not have to look up to herself.** At one point Vesta Dunning rationalizes: "After all, she said to herself, … one could not be a Joan d’Arc all the time.” I kinda sympathize with Loomis and Simpson and Vesta Dunning here. But at the same time I feel like I would like to be Joan d’Arc all the time (so to speak). And I imagine this tendency to strain to hold oneself to a higher standard when a boss or mentor is looking over one’s shoulder (and then slouching down to a lower standard when by oneself) is pretty widespread. I think it’s also an example of not having “full integration and no contradictions” (to use your phrase)—because it involves having different (contradictory?) standards for how one acts by oneself vs when doing something in front of others. I imagine a fully integrated person like Roark wouldn’t have two different standards like that. They’d be Joan d’Arc all the time. Not just when someone is looking over their shoulder. > [@ActiveMind](#): > > Me too. I think it’s actually easier to catch some big picture things like a career than to catch those small and subtle ways you may have acted second-handed. Yeah, I wonder if this might connect to Goldratt’s TOC. Like perhaps fixing all “those small and subtle ways” might be a waste of time (and too overwhelming to do anyway). Perhaps it’s better to just focus on the bottlenecks and big easy wins that help move one towards one’s goal(s). In which case one could just guiltlessly ignore the “small and subtle” stuff because it doesn’t prevent one from achieving one’s goal. > [@ActiveMind](#): > > Yes. Though I really want to live according to the philosophy and have it improve my life. Yeah, me too. Like being Joan d’Arc all the time. 🙂 (Though in order to actually improve my own life. Not just to LARP as a moral hero in my own eyes.) > [@ActiveMind](#): > > I’ve been thinking about whether I should post learning updates like these: > > [Curiosity – Learning Updates Thread](https://curi.us/2377-learning-updates-thread) Oh yeah I forgot about that curi thread. I guess we could create a thread like that on the CF forum. I’ll do that now. Incidentally, this reminds me of the second-handedness issue. One risk with a learning updates thread is using it as an accountability buddy type thing (like the boss looking over your shoulder type thing). The real benefit would be getting feedback and ideas/tips that one wouldn’t have thought of by oneself. ---
**Author:** ![ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/activemind/32/5560_2.png) [@ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/ActiveMind)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2025, 10:12am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/early-conceding-while-reading-and-not-starting-discussions/2117/34 "2025-12-17T10:12:41Z")
> [@Jarrod](#): > > I think it’s also an example of not having “full integration and no contradictions” (to use your phrase)—because it involves having different (contradictory?) standards for how one acts by oneself vs when doing something in front of others. I imagine a fully integrated person like Roark wouldn’t have two different standards like that. They’d be Joan d’Arc all the time. Not just when someone is looking over their shoulder. It comes “naturally” to Roark. He doesn’t have to strain to be a Joan d’Arc (a hero) all the time. Joan d’Arc was a martyr though. So Vesta using Joan d’Arc as an example might Vesta making a mistake like Dominique in thinking that Roark’s cause is lost and that he’s a martyr. That also explains why Vesta would think it’s so difficult to act like Roark. > [@Jarrod](#): > > Yeah, I wonder if this might connect to Goldratt’s TOC. Like perhaps fixing all “those small and subtle ways” might be a waste of time (and too overwhelming to do anyway). Thinking consciously about all those small and subtle ways would be overwhelming. But Roark doesn’t commit those errors. He has automatized first-handedness. First-handedness is so well integrated into his sense-of-life that second-handed things don’t even show up in his subconscious. At some point as part of training I think you should analyze subtle ways you’re acting second-handed. First you do it slow and consciously then you practice until it’s automatic. I’m not sure how TOC would apply, but global vs local optima applies to most things. > [@Jarrod](#): > > Incidentally, this reminds me of the second-handedness issue. One risk with a learning updates thread is using it as an accountability buddy type thing (like the boss looking over your shoulder type thing). Yeah, I’ve been thinking the same thing. That has definitely been a factor in my projects. Like I’ve been more consistent and more focused on finishing on time since I publicly broadcasted I was doing a project. Ideally it should make no difference like it does for Roark. > [@Jarrod](#): > > > [@ActiveMind](#): > > > > I do time tracking. That’s how I know I’ve done ~1.13k hours of philosophy. > > Oh nice! That’s super impressive. Maybe I’ll try see if I can catch up and beat you over the next few years 😉 I hope you do beat me 😁 ---
**Author:** ![Jarrod](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/jarrod/32/5459_2.png) [@Jarrod](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Jarrod)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2025, 11:17am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/early-conceding-while-reading-and-not-starting-discussions/2117/35 "2025-12-18T11:17:03Z")
> [@ActiveMind](#): > > It comes “naturally” to Roark. He doesn’t have to strain to be a Joan d’Arc (a hero) all the time. Good point. > [@ActiveMind](#): > > Joan d’Arc was a martyr though. So Vesta using Joan d’Arc as an example might Vesta making a mistake like Dominique Oh that’s very insightful. That whole martyrdom aspect of Joan d’Arc didn’t occur to me as something that Rand might’ve been using to say something about Vesta’s psychology—but that makes sense, so I think you’re right. > [@ActiveMind](#): > > > [@Jarrod](#): > > > > > [@ActiveMind](#): > > > > > > I do time tracking. That’s how I know I’ve done ~1.13k hours of philosophy. > > > > Oh nice! That’s super impressive. Maybe I’ll try see if I can catch up and beat you over the next few years 😉 > > I hope you do beat me 😁 Lol I guess I’m second-handed for having thought of it like that 🤣 Nice catch. Thanks for pointing that out. Please point out more stuff if you notice it. ---
**Author:** ![Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/elliot/32/14_2.png) [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2025, 7:57pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/early-conceding-while-reading-and-not-starting-discussions/2117/36 "2025-12-19T19:57:26Z")
> [@Jarrod](#): > > One small example I remember from The Fountainhead was Loomis and Simpson being super nervous (too nervous to work properly) with Cameron looming over their shoulder (versus Roark being totally unaffected): > > > Cameron would enter the drafting room and stand behind Roark for a long time, looking over his shoulder. It was as if his eyes concentrated deliberately on trying to throw the steady hand off its course on the paper. The two other draftsmen [Loomis and Simpson] botched their work from the mere thought of such an apparition standing behind them. Roark did not seem to notice it. He went on, his hand unhurried, he took his time about discarding a blunted pencil and picking out another. I’ve done writing on live streams. I guess a lot of people find that hard? But they can talk on stream, and they can also casually text with people. To me, writing isn’t harder than talking. ---
**Author:** ![ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/activemind/32/5560_2.png) [@ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/ActiveMind)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2025, 8:15pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/early-conceding-while-reading-and-not-starting-discussions/2117/37 "2025-12-19T20:15:52Z")
> [@Elliot](#): > > I’ve done writing on live streams. I guess a lot of people find that hard? Can you remember the last time being nervous about performing anything in front of other people? ---
**Author:** ![ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/activemind/32/5560_2.png) [@ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/ActiveMind)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2025, 8:21pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/early-conceding-while-reading-and-not-starting-discussions/2117/38 "2025-12-19T20:21:17Z")
> [@Jarrod](#): > > > [@ActiveMind](#): > > > > I hope you do beat me 😁 > > Lol I guess I’m second-handed for having thought of it like that 🤣 The more skilled you are the more I can learn from you. Generally the more skilled other people are the more value I can potentially get from them. I think it’s fine to feel inspired by other people and want to do things well like them. You can see what’s possible and you can see what outcomes you might get. But ultimately you do want the source of your motivation to come from your own judgment of what is valuable. ---
**Author:** ![Jarrod](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/jarrod/32/5459_2.png) [@Jarrod](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Jarrod)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2026, 2:49am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/early-conceding-while-reading-and-not-starting-discussions/2117/39 "2026-01-30T02:49:13Z")
I saw [this article](https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/04/14/465729968/a-nobel-laureates-education-plea-revolutionize-teaching) which had some observations that seemed relevant to this topic: My bold: > [Nobel laureate Carl Wieman would] give a lecture [at Stanford]. Then, 20 minutes later, he’d follow up with a multiple-choice question from the material he had just covered. Handheld electronic “clicker” devices would record the students’ responses on his computer. > > Most of the time, he says, **"only 10 percent would actually remember the answer.** My bold: > “You give people lectures, and [some students] go away and learn the stuff. But it wasn’t that they learned it from lecture — they learned it from homework, from assignments. **When we measure how little people learn from an actual lecture, it’s just _really_ _small_.** ” This reminded me of [ET’s advice](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/early-conceding-while-reading-and-not-starting-discussions/2117/2) about how just reading a book is nowhere near enough (≤10%) and that one also needs to do lots of discussion and practice. ---
**Author:** ![ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/activemind/32/5560_2.png) [@ActiveMind](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/ActiveMind)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2026, 2:53am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/early-conceding-while-reading-and-not-starting-discussions/2117/40 "2026-01-30T02:53:23Z")
I think lectures are a pretty bad format unless you ask lots of questions. Like otherwise a recording I can pause and play at 3x speed is just better. [Previous page](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/early-conceding-while-reading-and-not-starting-discussions/2117.md?page=1) [Next page](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/early-conceding-while-reading-and-not-starting-discussions/2117.md?page=3)