I’m going to write about the following paragraph:
The first sentence:
I think I know that CF has many different parts. Like, decision making math, resolving conflicting ideas, postmortems, debate trees, etc. I think those could be scored separately like you could have 15 skill in postmortems and have 0 skill in debate trees. Idk if one builds on the other. Idk what is layered.
Second sentence:
Ok, you can learn one part of CF and if you have difficulties there you can learn other parts of CF. I wonder what “reach difficulties” means? Is that when you can’t easily learn CF based on prerequisites? I think the difficulty would spike cuz your CF skill in one part is getting close to your prerequisite.
I think you could run into a part of CF that’s harder to learn than other parts. Like, I know you can learn a CF part easily based on prerequisites, but what if you run into a hard concept? Will you need a higher prerequisite there? You could tell you need more prerequisite based on how hard something is to learn?
The last part of the quoted sentence above:
I like that it follows the model. What if a part of CF is at 0 and when you learn it and reach a difficulty, can you switch to other parts that are easier? If CF parts can be scored separately then I think there could be another part that’s at 0 that you can learn too. You’re following the principle from the model but doing it on a smaller scale I think. You don’t have to keep working on very difficult things everyday.
When you move back to prerequisites do you just do those for a period of time? Like, can you revisit CF after you do a short amount of perquisites? What if you only spend an hour on prerequisites? Can you switch to CF real quick and then go back to prerequisites? I think it’s hard for me to know when to cycle.