Replying to "Errors Merit Post-Mortems"[Dface]

Other Friendly
61

So there’s the story teller and the other family member. The family member adopted the other position. What is the other position? Is that being against something while the opponent is pro- something? Or is it that the family member was being adversarial? Idk

I forget what gaslight means exactly, but the family member was making it seem that he always had the other position? He(family member) always had that as a belief? Also, the family member would claim that he won the debate and make the storyteller believe that he did? Did the family member also gaslight the storyteller saying that he(storyteller) always held the opposite belief?

That sounds like characterizing somebody else’s debate a different way. It’s like straw-manning so they wouldn’t have to actually engage with what was actually said.

It sounds like the family member was being adversarial and it was hard for them two to cooperate or agree. Is that what made the story teller cut contact? Idk but it makes me think of two people having too much conflict that it may be better if they leave each other alone.

62

I think this could mean that you asked the question and someone gave you the answer but you were still ignorant of the answer.

The other interpretation which I think is right is that you asked a question because you were ignorant of the answer. You already have the question in mind but you don’t have the answer before asking someone else. Why didn’t you know the answer? Do you lack knowledge in a part of the debate topic? That could probably help with coming to a conclusion.

Is the question in the quote related to doing a postmortem? What issue are you trying to learn about? Could there be a faulty thought process or bias or whatever somewhere there? Like, the faulty thought process is using an idea that lacks information your ignorant of. Maybe there’s an issue where you’re being biased and keep avoiding stuff related to what you were ignorant of. Because of the bias you probably keep believing only one side of the argument.

63

Asking what happened there is a fair question. Like, you can get an idea of what happened. I think you could ask about what’s the context. If you don’t do that then mistakes might seem like they happen for no reason. It might be hard to figure out why a mistake happened.

I see that the last sentence of the quote says that maybe you made a mistake. That makes more sense cuz if you didn’t make a mistake then you don’t really gotta postmortem. Postmortems are for mistakes. The purpose of the last question then is to find if you made a mistake or not? Does it do anything else?

I don’t think I ask myself “What happened there?” So that makes me think I’m postmorteming for stuff that isn’t mistakes. I’m not too sure. Also, I don’t really make postmortems on the forum so how would anybody else know?

64

Does “there” mean you being ignorant of the answer to a question you asked? You’re asking what happened when you were ignorant of an answer to a question?

What are some things that could happen? Idk but what are some questions and answers that someone could be ignorant about? You could be having a debate with somebody and they bring up an argument and you ask what the argument means. It could be because your oppenent was unclear or cuz idk maybe you don’t know the definition of a word.

I think it should considered cuz if you did make a mistake then that’s something that can be fixed. Maybe it’s not just the opponent’s fault or nobody’s fault. You got ideas too and you could make mistakes. What are you doing to help with that?

65

It’s interesting that you can postmortem if your understanding is now adequate. That makes me think of someone that keeps asking the same questions and getting the same answers and not learning. Like, what is happening there?

When you ask a question and get an answer that’s not asking yourself questions right? Like, from the postmortem? Cuz if it was then you already started the postmortem at that point. You’re investigating the error. Does asking questions to find an error count as a postmortem? You don’t got the error yet.

I think asking the question and getting an answer is from the debate example in the article. Like, you ask somebody a question and then get an answer you were ignorant of. Idk if the example is just confined to just a debate. You could ask your teacher a question and postmortem that too. Also, can you ask yourself a question and be ignorant of the answer? If you use thinking skills or look online for the answer, can you postmortem that too?

66

I think you would be ignorant of the answer. That’s why you asked the question in the quote.

I forget what “whether” means. It seems like the goal of postmorteming is to check if your understanding is adequate for something. Like, why else would you postmortem in that situation? How is investigating an error and learning more about the issue related to finding out if your understanding is now adequate?

Here’s a def of “whether” from Merriam Webster:

if it is or was true that

I didn’t ask whether they were going

This definition makes sense to me. You could replace “whether” with the words: if it is true. Postmortems do something with finding out if your understanding is good. Like, if you ask later about a question that’s like the same then you’re making mistakes I think.

I think you understanding something adequately is a goal and it’s something you can make errors in. I think that might be related to why you’re able to check if you’re understanding is adequate. Im not too sure. Im kind of confused here.

67

I think if you did make a mistake and you don’t fix the cause then you’re going keep failing at your goals. Im thinking that includes failing at the goal of understanding something adequately. I just don’t know what understanding something adequately means. Like, intuitively, it means that you’re knowledgeable about something. You would know what you’re talking about if someone asked you about that.

I think if you understand something adequately then it’s for a goal. Like, the information you learned isn’t isolated. There’s a reason why it’s adequate. If you’re understanding something adequately then it’s adequate at something. How does it look like when your understanding is adequate now?

68

This quote makes me think that people’s questions are decisive errors. Like, they’re trying to learn something but they have questions about it. There’s a goal there that’s failing. If they effectively answered their questions then there wouldn’t be an error.

When the quote says “discuss”, does that mean that postmortems are a way of discussion? Is doing a postmortem with yourself count as people discussing? Idk but I think since it’s talking about what usually happens that means that’s a problem to work on. You can help with that problem if you postmortem to check whether your understanding is adequate now.

I know there’s the part of doing postmortems where you fix an underlying cause. Can that improve your understanding? Can it help with effectively learning answers to questions you have? Again I think having an adequate understanding is a goal. Do postmortems help achieve that or do they only check if it’s true?

69

If you didn’t make a mistake when you asked a question and got an answer, does that mean you have an adequate understanding now? But if you find out you made a mistake and don’t fix it does that mean you don’t have an adequate understanding?

A part of me thinks finding out if you made a mistake is not the same as learning why you were ignorant of an answer to a question. Like, it’s not the same as asking what happened and finding out if you made a mistake. Idk why im unsure here.

Also, if you postmortem and find out you made a mistake being ignorant, does that also mean you haven’t effectively answered questions you have?

70

I wanna look at the paragraph as a whole:

In the first sentences it says that there’s lots of things that merit postmortems. Thats the topic sentence right? That’s what the paragraph is going to be about. I think after reading the paragrpah you’ll have a list of things that merit postmortems. Here are some:

  • Losing a debate
  • Having an inconclusive debate
  • Asking a question and getting an answer
  • Asking a question and getting an answer and finding a mistake.

I’m not sure about the last two. Like, what about them is meriting a postmortem? Just asking and getting answer to a question? What merits a postmortem? Is it when you find a mistake?

I think asking a question and getting an answer you were ignorant of merits a postmortem cuz maybe there’s a problem here. What if you claim you’re an expert on the topic and you still ask questions to a related topic? If you were ignorant then that’s a bad thing. You were supposed to be an expert.

Another example is maybe you only read books from a library, but you still find that you’re ignorant of many things you ask about. You not using the web could be a problem or maybe your research methods are flawed.

Also, I think it makes sense to postmortem when people don’t usually discuss enough to answer their questions well. You and the other person don’t have infinite time to discuss. You guys might discuss a good amount but not about everything. If you postmortem you can fix mistakes you have about things you were trying to learn. Idk how that has to do with postmorteming whether your understanding is adequate now.

71

I’m going to write about the following paragraph:

Regarding questions: If you were ignorant of something because you hadn’t yet gotten around to learning about it, and you knew the limits of your knowledge, that can be a quick and easy post-mortem. That’s fine, but you should check if that’s what happened or it’s something else that merits more attention. Another common, quick post-mortem for a question is, “I asked because the other person was unclear, not because of my own ignorance.” But many questions relate to your own confusions and what went wrong should be post-mortemed. And if you hadn’t learned something yet, you should consider if you are organizing your learning priorities in a reasonable way. Why learn this now? Why not earlier or later? Have you considered reasoning about that?

I like that this paragraph is about asking questions. I was wondering about postmorteming for that.

First part of the quote:

Regarding questions: If you were ignorant of something because you hadn’t yet gotten around to learning about it, and you knew the limits of your knowledge, that can be a quick and easy post-mortem.

“Regarding questions:” sounds like we’re talking about the topic of questions. I think it means we’re talking about doing postmortems for questions. Like, how should we think of questions and making postmortems for them?

I found a definition of regarding in Merriam Webster:

with respect to : concerning

Saying “with respect to” makes me think that we have a topic in mind(e.g. postmortems) and now we’re relating it to something else. Like, what’s the context of doing a postmortem when a question is involved? What about a question merits a postmortem?

If you were ignorant of something because you hadn’t yet gotten around to learning about it, and you knew the limits of your knowledge, that can be a quick and easy post-mortem.

Can I say that you being ignorant of something cuz you hadn’t gotten around to it, and you knowing the limits of your knowledge is context? In the context of that, a post-mortem can be quick and easy right?

Being ignorant because of x makes me think that there are other reasons you can be ignorant. Are some reasons worse than others? Are you making mistakes being ignorant in all cases?

Also, I think it’s important that you knew the limits of your knowledge. What happens if you didn’t? That sounds like you’re probably overreaching. Like, you could overestimate your knowledge and engage in something too difficult.

72

Video game post mortems example:

73

I’m going to do a deeper analysis and see how there’s examples of postmortems in the video later. My first impressions are that the youtuber is going over his mistakes in fights he’s had in WOW Forever. It seems that he’s analyzing his mistakes and saying what he could do better in each fight.

The first fight starts from 0:47 and ends around 9:05. It also seems that he jumps right into analyzing the next fight afterwards.

I noticed he says a lot what he should’ve done in the first fight. That sounds like if he did do that then it would correct an error. It also means that he made a mistake I think.

At the beginning of the first fight, it seemed like he was trying to check if his way of damaging the enemy’s cat could’ve been better. If there was a better way then I think he has a mistake to work with.

The youtuber also talked about one of his thought processes during the fight. He said if he kept the cat at low health then his enemy can’t use it. I think that means it wouldn’t be good for the opponent to attack with it at low health. Can that thought process be one that’s flawed and cause many mistakes? If a mistake happens later down the line and you postmortem, can it lead to you fixing it?

74

Yes. He also does talk some about what he did well.

yes

yes, if a low health cat goes near him, he can kill it, which is very good for him.

1 Like
75

I wanna try to see how the vid is an example of video game postmortems. Im going to look at the first duel for this reply. I think it may be better to look at the other duels too. I’ll probably find something tho.

From 1:12-1:22, Hydramist says that he should’ve used an ability or attack or something. He says if he did that he wouldve been in better shape. Here’s the youtube transcript(took a pic and asked gemini to turn into text):

So, what I actually maybe should have done is just opened water. Like low key, I think if I open water here and then go on the cat, we’re in much better shape.

Idk if “opened water” was what Hydramist said. Sounded like he said mortared. Mortared sounds like using a mortar from military warfare. You shoot it into the air and it lands somewhere.

The quote might not be part of a postmortem, but it reminds me of one. First of all tho, what does using the mortar or ability do? Does it add in extra damage? I bet it helps win the fight. Maybe it hurts both the cat and the opponent idk. I was thinking tho that suggesting a better move questions what he was doing originally. It’s like what he did was a mistake. He added in “maybe” so that might mean using the mortar is not actually the right call?

Suggesting certain actions is like same as asking why didn’t he do it in the first place? Why didnt he mortar in the beginning of the fight? I think that’s part of asking why many times to get deeper into an issue. He’s not too sure if he should’ve opened the fight with the new way so he said he “maybe should”.

76

He does have a mortar item he can use and it can hit multiple enemies if they are very close together. He has water too, but water is only for mana regen when out of combat, not for an opener.

77

Oh ok, it’s an item. Idk if that’s what Hydramist was talking about. It can hit multiple enemies at once so that might be used for an opening attack. I saw Hydramist use mortar-like abilities in the first duel. Idk if that was the mortar item.

It wouldn’t make sense to me to use water cuz he should be at full mana. It’s the beginning of the fight. Idk if water has secondary effects.

I think Hydramist is in combat when he suggested he should use “water”. It wouldn’t make sense to use that ability at that time.

78

Hydramist says this after according to the transcript:

So, that was a bit silly of me, but my strategy was basically go on the go on the cat and push the hunter because of the change to autoshot where, you know, you can’t just throw him out insta.

In the beginning of the quote, I think he’s saying it was a bit silly that he didn’t open with a mortar? That he didn’t open with the item/attack/ability he was talking about.

Is saying it was silly part of a postmortem? Is that part of the video game postmortem example?

It’s interesting that he says it’s a bit silly like there’s something to investigate there. I don’t know what he means by silly but Im thinking it means stuff should be obvious to him. That reminds me of people doing postmortems from Postmortems Help Address Causes of Errors . I remember the article saying something along the lines that people do superficial postmortems or think they found the explanation to why they messed up but havent done much investigation.

79

I think Hydramist not starting with the opening attack/ability/item, didn’t make his strategy a bad one. He says “but” cuz in spite of him not doing the opening attack he still stuck to a strategy.

Is him stating his strategy part of a postmortem? Idk but a strategy sounds like a plan. If he did lose the battle then I think there could be something wrong with the strategy. There could be a mistake to deal with.

It seems like there was a previous strategy where you go on the cat only. He’s talking about there being a change to the game. Something about that change doesn’t let you throw out the enemy instantly. I think throwing him out is like killing him.

I think going for the cat and pushing the hunter corrects an error you would run into if you were to use the older strategy.

80

Here’s what Hydramist said after:

It actually reduces the hunter’s damage a lot if you press him. That’s kind of what I’m doing here.

I think pressing the hunter is the same as pushing him. He’s pressing the hunter when he does his strategy of going on the cat and pushing the hunter.

Idk what happens if you lower the hunter’s damage. Is that the damage him and his pet are doing? Or is it only the damage the hunter does?

I watched ahead and I saw Hydramist said his strategy didn’t work. He wasn’t able to kill the cat at first so he had to reset. It sounds like if you want to do a good postmortem, it helps to state what your goals and plans are. Stuff that doesn’t lead to you not accomplishing your goal is a mistake.