This sounds like it might be 80% integrated. It’s not.
Yesterday I thought about your earlier post and tried to come up with problems that might be due to anti-boi/unflawed ideas.
This suggests that you’re in a good position to do that analysis. You’re not.
Yeah!
The 4 sections of the post all open with agreement. That makes it sound like you agree more than you do. It gets in the way of discussing remaining disagreements.
When reading your post the first time, I had some thoughts about retconning
Those thoughts, like the previous analysis, are an attempt at fairly sophisticated philosophy.
They aren’t worthless. There are decent ideas in there.
But basically the error rate is too high to engage with. I think there are too many errors to comment on, and they’re local errors anyway. That’s a theme I see in your recent posts.
What can be done? Dig deeper for underlying causes instead of dealing with whatever comes up. Look at the bigger picture. Make a plan.
What sort of plan? Improve foundational knowledge. The steps are:
First, you learn to do something at all, once, successfully. Second, you learn to do it repeatedly and improve your success rate. Third, you learn to do it efficiently (using less resources, e.g. less time and attention) and achieve mastery.
Let’s call the steps (initial) learning (1), practice (2) and automatization (3) (which is also a practice step, but I wanted short, unique terms).
In our tutoring sessions, we made some good progress on learning (1).
We made a little progress on practice (2) because we did it some during sessions. But you didn’t do enough practice (2) outside of sessions. You need a lot more practice (2).
Practice (2) will uncover some errors in learning (1). So you’ll go back and improve learning (1), too. But I think you know enough learning (1) to do some practice (2).
After more practice (2) and learning (1) would come automatization (3). You shouldn’t begin automatization (3) until after the first two steps are close to complete so that you don’t form bad habits. Automatizing errors sucks.
After automatization (3) would come more layers of knowledge. You do 1-3 (all three steps) for some stuff, then you repeat for some more advanced stuff, then repeat again for more advanced stuff, etc. You’re multiple iterations of 1-3 away from effectively having some of the discussions and thoughts you want to have. You don’t seem to recognize and take seriously this situation.
You know some stuff, but you’re unreliable at using it even when consciously trying. Practice (2) makes the knowledge reliable for conscious use. Automatization (3) makes it reliable for subconscious use, which lets you put your conscious attention on something else such as learning higher level stuff.
Broadly, other people are in similar situations or earlier (they might still need more learning (1)).
What sort of material should you do 1-3 with first? As before, I suggest grammar, text analysis and writing, including using trees for all of those. They can be done partly in order (grammar then reading then writing) and partly simultaneously (that’s an example of going a few layers past an unfinished layers being OK). Concepts related to IGCs might come next.
Everything else being equal, math is a better starting point than English. But I’ve made more material about English and we’ve worked on English before. Your interests are another factor.
Going back through all our tutoring videos would be a good way to work on this stuff, in addition to doing practice (2). It’s also a way to find things to practice.
However, you haven’t been doing this for the last year. (Neither have other people that I’ve made similar suggestions to.) So maybe you must first address scheduling, motivation, energy budgets, project management, etc. We talked about those issues in the tutoring videos too, so you could get some ideas there.
So far, you haven’t shown the ability to work on philosophy stuff consistently over time on your own initiative. I also don’t think you’ve ever been very consistent at writing forum posts regularly for more than a couple months. The temporary spurts of energy approach doesn’t work well, especially with bringing up new stuff when you return instead of continuing to build on prior stuff. Lots of people seem to like/use the temporary spurts of energy approach, and like to switch topics a lot without completing much. I think that’s a bad idea if one’s goal is to get good at philosophy and rationality skills.