Topic Summary:
I’ll be getting quotes from the article and replying to them. I think I’m going to also reply to the comments. There’s comments about actual intellectual postmortems. Here’s the article:
Goal:
Learn about postmortems, like how to do them or how a good one looks like.
CF Relevance:
Postmortems are part of CF
Here’s the title with the first paragraph:
Errors Merit Post-Mortems
After people make errors, they should do post-mortems. How did that error happen? What caused it? What thinking processes were used and how did they fail? Try to ask “Why?” several times to get to deeper issues than your initial answers.
The word postmortem seems to have a dash in between. What’s the correct phrase? Also, what does the title mean? What does it mean when something merits another thing? Like, there’s good reason for something to take place? What’s the definition? Here’s the definition from Cambridge dictionary:
If something merits a particular treatment, it deserves or is considered important enough to be treated in that way:
That’s cool that it says that something merits a particular treatment. For the article’s title, you can say that errors merit a particular treatment. Idk how much sense that makes cuz it sounds like a medical treatment. The particular treatment could be the postmortem. Postmortems investigate errors and fix them.
I know errors are important, like when we talk about errors, we’re not talking about small errors. If you’re having so many errors then you might be doing overly ambitious stuff or already have enough to investigate. When you make an error that for sure merits a postmortem cuz usually there’s an underlying cause. I think this has to do with generally seeing mistakes as a fairly big deal. Here’s part of the og quote:
Most mistakes come from underlying causes. That cause most likely caused a mistake you made. I think it makes sense then that a mistake merits a postmortem.
Here’s the first sentence of the top quote:
After people make errors, they should do post-mortems.
Saying they “should” means there’s reasons for it. Does the quote apply to everybody? Like, let’s say a person with 2-3 jobs? Or someone who’s in college studying for a degree? Should couples in relationships do postmortems? I think postmortems are good to get to the truth. If you get to the truth then you can understand things better and make better projects.
What about people doing overly ambitious stuff? Like, get rich projects? Should they do postmortems? I think the fact that you investigate errors is good in itself cuz you’re curious about them. You can figure out maybe that you make so many errors and that you’re really lost on something. Maybe, the get rich project isn’t a good idea?
How DID that error happen? Also, how is this related to doing a postmortem after making mistake? Maybe, if you know that the error wasn’t a big deal you could move on. But if you don’t then why not? If you don’t know how the error happened, I would ask, “do you know how other errors happened?”
I think it’s good to ask how an error happened. Cuz that’s knowledge about a problem. I think that’s knowledge about your errors. That’s useful information cuz it helps solve the problem of why you make mistakes. That or the problem of how to fix many of the mistakes you make.
I like thinking about this question from the perspective of someone who doesn’t read philosophy. I think they would ask something caused it? Like, they would be slightly curious about something causing the error. Talking about something causing an error is stuff that not a lot of people talk about. It’s like stuff that would take place in essays and higher academia. What about it applying to real life? People make mistakes there. Why not learn about postmortems for those?
I think if you asked the question in the quote after making an error then that’s valid. Like, are errors deeper than what they seem? One could think that errors are small and you need to think about the big stuff only. There’s unknown stuff about “small” errors that don’t get addressed in life.
This part was the hardest for me to understand. Like, it was hard to get what caused many mistakes. I thought the cause is what caused it. Like, there was something between the thought process and the mistake that was the actual issue. That rather than a thinking process being faulty and causing a mistake. I still think tho that I don’t know too much about the causes of errors but I do know some now.
What is a thinking process? That sounds related to computation. Like, adding 2+2 is a thinking process. Like, that goal uses the thinking process of addition. Your addition can be off and you might end up subtracting the numbers instead. How? Idk it’s hard to think about thinking processes and how they fail.
What does it mean to ask, “how did they fail?” Like, it sounds that that thinking process is an error. Cuz it fails at a goal it’s an error. That’s similar to the idea about how one piece of info may be knowledge for one context but not another. Like, using a fork may be good for eating, but not for traveling to work. Also, if you ask how did the thinking process fail? You could answer that with more than one answer. Like, if you know a thinking process is faulty and you kind of get how it works then you could think of other things where it would fail at. I think that’s part of this same article.
I’ve seen this work with other forum members. How does asking “Why?” work to get to deeper issues? What about the word why does that? I think I know it intuitively but it’s hard to know out loud. When you ask why, you think about reasons for something or maybe an underlying process. Like, why does the sun rise from the east and fall in the west? You can talk about concepts related to space and objects there to answer. Like, there are processes at work that cause the sun to rise and fall like that. Is that similar to asking “Why?” for a mistake?
It’s interesting that you get to deeper issues than your initial answer. That seems like the goal. You may get to deeper issues about a mistake but that doesn’t necessarily mean that you fix your mistake. That’s the investigation phase. You learn more about the issue. It seems that the initial answer was insufficient to explain the issue about your errors. That’s similar to getting evidence about the problem in our heads. It’s from the following quote:
I think if you ask “Why?” several times you understand problems in your head. Like, you might not be aware of them, which is why you’re asking “Why?” several times. If you knew then you’re initial answer would have been sufficient.
Second paragraph of the article:
And then, especially, what other errors would that cause also cause? This gives info about the need to make changes going forward, or not. Is it a one-time error or part of a pattern?
This paragraph is connected to the last. The last paragraph started the investigation I think. This one seems to be more specific about what to do. It asks questions like the last paragraph does.
The first sentence:
And then, especially, what other errors would that cause also cause?
Why say “And then” and “especially,”? “And then” says that there’s additional things to do after. That’s after asking “Why?” several times and ‘how did an error happen?’. In the previous paragraph, I think you’re understanding the issue, and in this one you’re trying to see how important it is to fix an error…idk for sure
I think you can get an idea about the many mistakes a cause makes. “especially” makes it seem important to learn about the other mistakes. I think it lets you check if that cause you have in mind is correct. If it is then it’ll be good to fix that cause.
Oh ok, answering the question from the quote’s last sentence gives you info. That info is about some kind of need. What does “the need to make changes going forward, or not.” mean? Does that mean if there is or isn’t a need? I think that comma after “going forward” is important. I think “not” negates that need. You’re always going forward, but what are you going to spend your time on? Is there a need or not? If yeah, then there’s changes we gotta make. The next question helps with understanding the sentence:
Going forward, if we’re dealing with a one-time error then we don’t need to make changes. That error is not going to happen again. If it’s part of a pattern then there’s a need. You’re going to keep failing at goals cuz of the cause and so have to figure out how to fix that problem.
Does asking how an error happened or asking “Why?” several times give info about the need to make changes? Does that stuff tell you if an error is a one-time error or part of a pattern? So if you’re doing a postmortem, at some point you still wouldn’t know to make changes or not? Should you not assume some stuff while doing an investigation?
I’m gonna write about the following paragraph:
Effective post-mortems are something people generally don’t want to do. What causes errors? Frequently it’s irrationality, including dishonesty.
The first sentence:
Effective post-mortems are something people generally don’t want to do.
Effective post-mortems sound good. I don’t remember if the article already talked about fixing errors but that’s a part of them. Postmortems may take a long time I think if you’re new to them. Like, you may not know if you’re dealing with an easy or hard postmortem. You might end the investigation too early or spend too much time on something.
The postmortems in the quote are effective cuz you got to the cause of the error and you fixed it. You fixed many errors that’s why it’s effective. That rather than focusing on fixing individual cases. You can fix a lot of errors like this but not as many as fixing the cause.
Effective post-mortems are something people generally don’t want to do. I don’t think people at work or in school or at home want to do those kinds of postmortems. Are there different kinds of postmortems? Like, a quick one? Or an incomplete one? I think people could start those and would want to do some kind of small postmortem but that sounds different than effective postmortems. Those are the ones I think people find boring or too much work to do.
Why does the second sentence follow the first? Idk but that’s like the topic of effective postmortems. It makes sense to talk about the causes of errors cuz what makes a postmortem effective? You investigate to find the cause first. If you don’t find it then that’s a big part of what makes them effective.
What causes errors?
What does cause errors? I remember reading in the CF article about postmortems that there’s a thought process or policy or habit causing them. They’re like an idea that’s mistaken…This isn’t that intuitive to me.
I can think of an example: let’s say you got a listening comprehension problem that caused you to hear how to do a math idea incorrectly. Now whenever you do something that involves the math idea it’ll be mistaken. You’ll probably see a lot of errors going on when you gotta use it. If you fix that cause then it’ll fix many of the math errors. I don’t know how close this is to actual underlying causes. I would question why you heard that problem wrong?
Frequently is a lot. I think that’s important. If you learn more about irrationality or maybe your own, then you’ll understand the causes of errors. I think that’s what postmortems are for.
Are patterns of error the same as irrationality? I remember the other CF article talked about thought processes or biases being the cause. How different is that? Here’s a CF article talking about causes of errors:
I think “come from” means ‘are caused by’. That’s why there’s so many errors that come from those kinds of thinking processes, methods, policies etc.
I don’t know too much about thought processes to compare to irrationality or dishonesty. Irrationality or dishonesty just seem like errors tho too. Like, an idea or plan is failing at a goal there. I think if someone claimed they’re dishonest and they did something that didn’t reflect that, then they’re in use of an idea that conflicts with that. Idk.
Maybe we can talk about irrationality. I think part of that has to do with looking at different perspectives in an unbiased way. If you’re looking at an an idea with bias then you’re making a mistake. Is that irrationality? Like, you’re making mistakes while thinking. Not too sure
I for sure don’t think that irrationality is just human nature or a negative trait that’s unfixable. Irrationality seems like a criticism cuz if you say someone is being irrational then that’s a kind of criticism. It also seems like a category of error, like there’s different kinds of errors you can make. In the top quote, it does say that irrationality includes dishonesty. Irrationality is a set.
I’m going to write about the following quote:
Lots of things merit post-mortems other than losing a debate. If you have an inconclusive debate, why didn’t you do better? No doubt there were errors in your communication and ideas. If you ask a question, why were you ignorant of the answer? What happened there? Maybe you made a mistake. That should be considered. After you ask a question and get an answer, you should post-mortem whether your understanding is now adequate. People usually don’t discuss thoroughly enough to effectively learn the answers to their questions.
The first sentence:
Lots of things merit post-mortems other than losing a debate.
I agree you can postmortem after making a mistake in a videogame, at work, in school, or while writing. If you make a mistake then you can postmortem. Most mistakes are caused by an underlying error so they merit a postmortem.
I don’t usually do postmortems when I make a mistake. I do something small where I try to investigate the issue in my head. Doing that helped me see how much I need to learn about my mistakes. I think I was in the habit of just assuming an issue was a cause. Like, if you did find the cause then it would be causing many of your errors. I think it’s gotta be a thought process or pattern no? That’s different than an issue. Idk
Are postmortems usually done in debates? Is that why the quote talks about not just doing them while losing debates? If they do that’s interesting cuz you got people actually doing postmortems. How much do they learn from doing that? I bet probably a lot if they do effective postmortems. I think there’s social dynamics to debates so that might get involved a lot too. Idk
The second sentence answers the question I think. Like, if there are errors then there’s stuff you could improve on. Also, I think the sentence dispels the idea that there’s nothing that went wrong. Like, sometimes people say there’s nothing better they could do when they actually made errors.
An inconclusive debate is different than a losing one. There was no winner there. You could do a postmortem there too. I think it may be enticing to just do postmortems when losing to an opponent, but it’s also valuable to do them when no one wins. What about when you win? Are you trying to be a better debater or not? I think there would for be errors in that debate too.
I like the question about why didn’t you do better in the quote. A part of me thinks that an inconclusive debate is out of your hands at that point. Like, you can’t change the outcome. There’s “nothing” you could do to make it conclusive. It’s done.
You were a part of that debate so you were doing a project. You used ideas or plans to achieve a goal. If your goal was to win then why didn’t you? If you tried to explain an argument well then why didn’t that happen? I think there’s a responsibility there for the outcome, like you can make things better.
For the better kind of debates, cooperative truth-seeking ones, then your goal shouldn’t be to win. Rather your goal should be to reach a conclusion and you should be indifferent to whether you “win” or “lose”.
Because when you “lose” you definitely learned something new, but when you win you might or might not have learned anything new.
The reason it’s “might or might not” is because even though you keep the same conclusion about the debate topic you might have leaned new arguments, understood it deeper, learned tangential things, etc.
It might be out of your hands to get your debate partner to agree about the conclusion of the debate because they are irrational, dishonest, dumb, etc. But I think @Elliot was talking about whether the debate was objectively/impersonally conclusive. So even if your debate partner wasn’t good enough to realize you were right you could on your own make an objective case on the debate topic such that the debate is objectively conclusive.
You can read Elliot on objectively reaching conclusive debates: Curiosity – Claiming You Objectively Won A Debate
I also think concluding that the answer to the debate is unknown would also count as being a conclusive debate. The debate could be on some topic that’s at the frontier of our knowledge so it’s hard to figure out for anyone. The conclusion could then be:
We don’t know either way yet. We have to do further research/debate/thinking before we can know.
I say that because I could imagine someone objecting that we can’t always reach conclusions in debates because it requires too much creativity/intelligence to know the answer. But then we can just conclude it’s unknown for now.
So yeah, I think you could always do better than an inconclusive debate.
Oh ok cooperative truth seeking debates are the better debates. What are the other debates? Are those the ones where one is trying to win? It’s intuitive to me that they’re trying to win. Is that a social dynamics thing?
What makes cooperative truth-seeking debates the better debates? They have the upside of truth-seeking. Like, if you didnt truth-seeking then thatd make the debate be about something else. Also, the debates being cooperative seem like an upside. I imagine in those you don’t use ad hominems and you dont socially bash the other person. What else makes them cooperative?
I kind of could see that the debate’s goal shouldn’t be to win. Like, both parties should win. If they’re involved in truth-seeking then both sides could learn if they’re right or wrong. Those are the debates we would do here on the forum.
Reaching a conclusion makes it less about you and more about your ideas. What kind conclusions can you reach? That you’re right or wrong or that it’s inconclusive? Do both sides reach one conclusion? I imagine if they’re not cooperating a lot, they don’t end up with one conclusion.
Do both debate participants reach a conclusion. It is a conclusion and not conclusions. Sometimes your partner isn’t cooperative so you come up with a conclusion yourself. I think thats the cooperative part of the debate where you and your partner work together to conclude stuff.
Also, what would “win” or “lose” look like? I think when you try to win you’re trying to show that you’re more correct than your partner about something. Like, you could tally the amount of things you got correct over them. Another thing is checking who got the audience to applaud more. That or who got their point across better. Are those examples of ‘winning’ in debates?
How do people “lose” in debates? If you appear to not have a good counter argument to the audience. That or getting the most amount of boos. Or maybe saying you made a mistake or dont know something.
If you’re trying to win in a debate, what are you doing that for? What does that have to do with reaching a conclusion? What are your goals there and are they related? Maybe you have personal goals or are into the social dynamics in the debate. Is there superiority complexes in debates? I think i might have tht like I want to show im smarter than someone else. Tht sounds problematic.
Why should you be indifferent to that? I think it’s probably not related to reaching a conclusion. Maybe whether you win or lose doesnt help. What are upsides and downsides to it? And does any of that help?
Im thinking if you try to “win” or “lose”, it’ll get in the way of having a productive debate. Like, if you’re trying to reach a conclusion, that has to be about finding the truth. If you’re partner is mostly concerned about winning then they wont cooperate. It’ll make it harder to find the truth. Responses would be more focused about scoring points to win than knowing what’s right or wrong.
Also, I think debates are more about your ideas and less about you. If you make it about you trying to win, then you might “die” in the place of your ideas. Maybe one participant does have better ideas than the other, but what does that have to do with an issue? If it’s relevant then good if not either person could still be wrong.
When you “lose” do you definitely learn something new? Is that because you made an error that you learned about? You could find an area of improvement.
I think if you view the quote above with truth-seeking debates in mind, then it makes more sense. If you lose then you and your debate partner come to a conclusion. I think that helps you learn how you were wrong and what ideas to improve on. If you win then your ideas might remain unchanged. Like, they didn’t get criticism and so you dont learn anything. You might have other goals tho where you learn more about debates, but I think that’s different.
What does learning something new mean? Can you learn and it’s not new?
That’s interesting your conclusion about the debate topic is the one tht may change if you lose. At first, I thought people were more secluded from each other that their personal conclusion is different than the debate conclusion. If debates are done right then that will help a lot of people. Like, you don’t just have to truth seek by yourself. You can involve someone else.
Also, I didn’t ask why “might or might not”? Like, you could learn something new or not. Why? Idk. I thought maybe you learn how to debate better or about people in debates. The following is about why “might or might not”:
So you could keep the same conclusion about the debate topic, but other stuff can change. Like, you can have new arguments about the debate topic; you learned those. You could also learn more about the topic.
How do you understand something in a deeper way? And what are tangential things about the topic? Like, they’re slightly related but there’s another issue involved?
That conclusion seems like it can happen even without your debate partner agreeing. Like, there’s gonna be a conclusion by either side anyway, but if one is irrational or dishonest then that won’t change it. The conclusion is objective. Can a third party reach a conclusion? I think yeah cuz a topic is being discussed. One can assess what was refuted or not.
I think @ActiveMind is saying that just cuz one side doesn’t agree with the conclusions that doesn’t make it an inconclusive debate. What was I trying to say? Idk I think it was kind of hard to express what I meant in my quote. I also didn’t have cooperative truth-seeking debates in mind. I remember I was thinking in the lines of there being no winner, like that’s what inconclusive meant.
Ok, so debates can be objectively conclusive. I think that’s related to someone disagreeing about the conclusion from them being irrational. If the debate wasn’t conclusive and if someone claims the conclusion, then the person disagreeing wouldn’t be wrong about it.
If the debate is inconclusive then does that mean it’s hard to know who the winner is? Like, it’d be hard to know if you should change your conclusion about the debate topic. I think that’s the whole point of the conclusion. It’s to see if someone’s view is right or not. A conclusive debate means you get a conclusion about it. That’s gotta involve at least one participant’s idea about the topic. No?
I think I can tie all this to the og quote from the article:
I think having a conclusive debate means it involves people coming to a conclusion. If you gotta conclude stuff when no one else could, then why didn’t you do better? I think at least one person can come to a conclusion. That means you made mistakes during the debate. What were they?
I think I remember either this article or another debate article talking about concluding a debate. Like, if you can’t even conclude a debate then that might be a problem…I don’t remember the exact words.
Why does the question in the quote ask why? I forgot… Ok, after looking at the og quote again, asking why you didn’t do better is part of a postmortem. Like, if you ask why you didn’t do better then you’re asking about a problem. You’re asking why you failed at something or something didn’t go as planned. You’re getting deeper into the issue.