Continuing the discussion from Postmortems Help Address Causes of Errors:
I want to write about this aritcle to learn more about errors. I wrote some replies already so I’ll reply to those too to compare.
Errors happen a lot. They happen when you do difficult things. They happen rarely when you’re really good at something. If you don’t run into any errors then I don’t think there’s a chance to improve that and yourself.
If you investigate the error then you may find the cause. Is that different than investigating the cause of the error?
Errors have a cause that could be investigated. That’s like being a detective and finding who was the killer. They find stuff out through clues and get to the bottom of things.
What does the cause of an error look like? Is it an idea? Is it a policy? How do you know something was the cause vs. just something that resulted? You gotta have reasons for that. I think looking up what the definition of cause would be good here.
You could change how a plan or action happens so you don’t run into the error. What’s being discussed in the quote above looks different tho.
There’s a cause that makes other errors happen not just one error. Also, you can make more than one change. It’s not just one change to prevent the errors from the same underlying cause.
You could make changes to the errors I think or you could make changes to the underlying cause. The latter sounds like less work. It may be more work to investigate the cause, but it’s more worth it.
Here’s part of my response from last time:
I think I got the wrong idea about what “prevent” means. I got a bad connotation of the word. That or I got the wrong meaning of it. You’d still want to accomplish your goal, you wouldn’t just completely give up. Now tho I think you could also think about many clear goals to choose a goal that doesn’t fail at the same error.
“This” is an idea. It’s the sentence before the quote. “This” is investigating an error’s cause and making changes to prevent the errors. I get it more now what a postmortem is. I thought it was just investigating the cause of the errors. I definitely would want to make the changes too. Otherwise, why am I investigating so much?
What are root words btw? I think I remember those from school. I remember words like suffix and prefix. I think those are root words. Imma look it up rq…Ok after looking it up I figured “post” meant after and I looked up “mort” which I found out was death. Those are the root words
What if you treat a postmortem like it’s an easy to fix when it’s hard to understand? I think you gotta for sure know what the cause was cuz you could think you did a good postmortem and the cause is unaddressed. It could be worse cuz now it’s going to be ingnored more. The postmortem “addressed” it
Can you start with easy postmortems? What kinds are those? It would be good to start there. I think tho it’s hard to for sure know if an error is going to be deep or not. Still I think you could get some practice working on the easy postmortems
If you do a quick and easy postmortem then you’ll find the cause of the error and make changes to prevent the errors. I wonder if how easy the postmortem is relates to how deep the error was.
The next sentence after the quote above:
those quick and easy postmortems don’t have to be a big deal. That or the errors aren’t a big deal. idk
I think I run into the cause of the error being hard to understand but mostly cuz I don’t get the concept of something causing an error.
What would make an error’s cause hard to understand or fix? I think hard to understand would look like getting to the bottom of what’s causing the error. Like, it may seem more than one thing is causing the error when it’s not. It would be hard to decide in that scenario. There’s a whole thing about correlation does not equal causation so that’s something important to be aware of.
How would it look like for it to be hard to fix the cause of an error? I think if you change something it could mess up other things. Like, in coding. What if the cause is really deep? I think how deep an error is is the right topic to talk about.
I’m going to write about the following paragraph:
The first sentence:
Oh ok, the way errors are connected to problems is that they’re evidence about the problem. Is that different than ‘evidence of the problem’? What’s the difference between ‘of’ and ‘about’? I’m thinking ‘of the problem’ means that you have a problem already set up. You got a specific problem in mind. If you get evidence about the problem then your mind isn’t made up yet about what the problem is. The problem can be bigger than you thought. The error could be evidence of that.
Ok, I see that the problems are described as “in our heads.” That’s a prepositional phrase describing where the problems are at. That’s significant cuz you could deal with a problem with somebody else, but your problem and their problem can be different in your heads. I don’t think they’d be so far off if it was an easy problem but it can happen. You guys could be in disagreement about what something means or how the problem is set up.
When I think about “problems in our heads.” I think about ongoing problems. Stuff that we’ve dealt with for a while already. We just haven’t been aware of them yet. Maybe we picked up a hint here or there but haven’t identified them yet.
Errors are mistakes you make. Often they come to mind cuz they result in failure at the goal. We may not know why they happen but we know there’s something to fix there. Maybe you run into too many errors and so have to probably be less ambitious with your goals. You can choose a goal that doesn’t fail cuz of an error.
Why are errors evidence about a problem? Idk but they convey information to us i think. When error x happens goal y fails. When error x does happen something else happens that looks part of the problem… Idk how to phrase that, but maybe you can learn more about the problem from that.
A problem is something that can be fixed or made better. How does that relate to an error? How does something being problematic relate to all this? Can solutions have errors in them? Or only plans or actions?
Are thinking problems a category of problems? It’s a kind of problem. What makes a problem a thinking problem? How do they relate to all kinds of problems? Are all problems a thinking problem? They’re in our heads so we think about them. Even if it’s subconscious or not.
Us being not aware of thinking problems is an issue. That’s something to work on. That’s what postmortems are for. I think they help us find the problem.
Also, us not being aware of thinking problems sets up the problem in two parts: There’s identifying the problem and then fixing it. If we knew all our problems then we can just get right to fixing but that’s information we don’t know about. Is learning about problems knowledge about the problem? That way it helps us solve the problem better? Karl Popper dealt with that in a way when solving induction. He had to reformulate the problem first before finding a solution for it.
It’s also important to note that the thinking problems in the quote are “important”. They may be holding us back in some ways that prevents us from reaching our goals. I think they’re related to us making many of our errors.
Discovering an error seems like you’re finding out about it for the first time. Maybe you start a new hobby or a class at school and you run into an error there. You discovered it. That makes me like errors more cuz they’re not just gonna stay there, you can learn more about them. They aren’t set in stone.
I think saying “there’s a chance” means that you may not be successful. You may not be successful in what’s described in the quoted sentence. Maybe you won’t find an important thinking error. Maybe the thinking error isn’t all that important? Or it’s not even a thinking error?
For this part: “that investigating it will help us understand an important thinking error.” that talks about the chance. The error might end up helping you find an important thinking error. You can always investigate the error but there’s a chance you might find something important.
Investigating the error is what helps you understand an important thinking error. How do you understand an important thinking error? I think you learn about the important thinking error. How does the problems in our head fit here? Idk
I’m going to write about the following paragraph:
First sentence:
What is a straightforward correction? What’s an example of that? It’s hard to think of some. I could think about typing. Are there any straightforward corrections you can make there? Maybe you can correct an error to pass a typing test. But does that address the cause of the error? You might correct the error for a specific goal but what about a wider goal? What about for correcting a word when you type something philosophical or complicated? Idk
The following describes just making a straightforward correction:
When you just make a straightforward correction, you correct the error you made in one case. You don’t correct the error made in the kinds of categories or cases described in the quote. What’s the difference between this one case vs. broader categories or patterns of cases? Idk but the straightforward correction only corrects the error in the one case; it doesn’t correct the error in a broader category. Why? What’s broader mean? What’s a broader category? I think there’s pizza and its broader category is food. Pizza is a kind of food.
Let’s say you correct the error of not remembering your left and your right while driving. You do that by looking at your left or right hand. Doing that lets you know which is right and which is left. Ok, lets say you can’t look at your hands when doing something else that requires you to know your left and your right. That’s a different case. The broader category I think here is activities that require left and right knowledge. It’s not just driving now. Driving is part of that category.
The last part of first sentence quote:
I can see how you can improve significantly. If you investigate and find out an important thinking error then you will improve way more than if you just fixed it for one case. That’s gonna help you out in the long run. How much is that improvement really tho?
I think this all relates to learning to not be a perfectionist. If you fix your errors so you can figure out easy problems automatically then you don’t have to make so many of those kinds of errors. You won’t have to focus so much attention on errors that you can easily fix now. You can focus more on the harder stuff.
Yeah, I don’t think you’ll make much intellectual progress either. Unless you’re automatically correcting so many errors already, if you don’t postmortem you’re gonna keep focusing on making small changes. You’re gonna let go the opportunity to make big changes to fix underlying errors. I think ‘underlying errors’ may be the incorrect term, but you won’t make changes to fix important thinking errors.
I think if you never postmortem it’s like the same as postmorteming rarely. I think that’s cuz doing it rarely is so close to zero. It’s like your doing it zero times. There’s not much chance to actually improve at it and you won’t be as successful cuz it may be your first time.
I think when the quote says “you shouldn’t expect to” make much intellectual progress, that means what reason do you have you’ll improve much? If you’re not really fixing errors well then what are you doing to help with that? If you do have something helping you make intellectual progress then that’s good. Doing postmortems sounds important to do tho.
Does investigating the causes of errors also mean your making changes to fix them? Investigating causes of errors sounds good in itself cuz you can set up the problem and you can get to work on it. You’re not so left out on the dark about why so many errors happen. You’ve done the research and picked up on the clues.
Also, investigating is one of the main ways to become a better thinker? That makes me think that’s how you become a rational person. You’re building up knowledge like that. You’re refuting bad ideas and getting smarter. It’s the opposite in a way to supporting all your main ideas. Trying to make your ideas be more credent.
Im going to write about the following paragraph:
The first sentence:
I was thinking lately that the underlying cause of an error could equal a thinking process, method, policy, habit or pattern you use repeatedly. The underlying cause of an error isn’t just a cause; it isn’t just an action or force. It could be a policy or habit you have. That could cause the error you ran into a specific case.
What kind of errors are we talking about in the quote above? I know “Many” is modifying “errors” does that mean that some kind of thinking process or policy can cause all those errors? I think yeah since we’re talking about fixing categories of errors and not just in a single case. The thinking process can cause errors in a bunch of cases.
It’s interesting that the thinking process or habit or whatever is used repeatedly. There should be a way to notice it then. It’s not completely invisible. I think if you investigate then you can find the underlying cause of the error. Maybe it’s so automatic that it’s hard to become aware of the cause.
This sentence is connected to the last with “And”. How? Idk. Since we’re talking about errors, that includes many of the errors caused by the thinking process we use and the thinking process itself. If that thinking process is making so many errors then there’s an error in it too. At least one error.
I think the quoted sentence is setting up the problem of fixing important thinking errors. There’s not just a thinking process to fix but also many errors to identify. There may be many errors caused by a thinking process but also a majority of errors we’re unaware of. If you want to get to work on fixing the thinking process then you’re gonna have to investigate the errors you make too.
Third sentence:
Getting a limited amount of data like that sounds like math. It’s like stuff is being plot in a graph and we can know what each data point is about. Each point on the graph has some information that we can discern.
Why do we get limited amount of data?Is that data from an error? I think it’s limited cuz there’s not that much info we get when we make an error. It’s how you interpret it is what helps I think.
The following hyphen describes that limited amount of data:
So the data is in the form of known errors. It’s interesting that the data is in a certain form. That’s a kind of information I think. Also, “known errors” is described as well. It’s where we actually learn we were wrong. I don’t know what that means exactly but I think that’s answering a yes or no questions. Like “Are you wrong? Yes or no?” I think we know we were actually wrong when we’re doing a goal and then our attention comes to something that caused failure at the goal. We automatically think we’re wrong there I think. Something is going wrong.
How do you actually learn you were wrong? I think there could be a conflict that comes up or we run into a problem. Maybe when find out that we learned wrong information from a biased news sourced. We learned that we were wrong there. Ok, that’s a known error. That’s a data point you can use. For what? Idk I think for investigating underlying errors.
Ok that limited data helps us figure those underlying errors. I still don’t think I know what data means. Or limited data. But I think we don’t know many of the ways we’re wrong so there’s not much information we have that we can use to figure it out. We can use what we have to find out about deep errors.
That’s interesting that how we think could have errors. That could cause many mistakes we make. What does it mean “how we think”? How does that look like? Are they like ingrained ideas in us? What is an ingrained idea? Are they things we accepted a long time ago? Maybe they worked in the past but now they could be updated cuz there’s errors in them.
Known errors are valuable. They’re valuable data. So when you make an error I think you’ll kind of know you did. You got a data point there you can use. You can use it to help you figure out errors in your thinking. Is there something else that helps figure out those underlying errors?
It makes sense why stuff doesn’t get fixed. Like you could be making many errors on the daily that you thought look easy to you. You kind of fixed these errors in things you do, but you still encounter them while doing something else. There’s more going on than just fixing a mistake. You can get knowledge about your thinking problem so you can fix it. Mistakes aren’t just ends of the road and not something you don’t have to take seriously as much. They’re entire things you can investigate. You do that til you get to the truth.
I think we should too. It’s like a whole field of science or practice. You can learn a lot from errors. Dealing with the error and moving on as fast as possible is like dealing with an under researched science. You think you got a good idea about it so you move on and it makes it hard to make progress in life.
Im thinking when you give attention to errors you’ll get more practice to how much you give. You’re gonna learn along the way if a postmortem is easy to do or requires more investigation. I think you could be making a lot of errors right now so there’s some valuable data there to get started on. It’d be nice to start somewhere easy. I think it helps if you’re able to judge success or not.
I’m going to write about the following paragraph:
First two questions:
I think for the first question you might not know so well what an error is. Thats why there seems to be so little. It may be part of the reason. I dont think that could stop u from doing postmortems tho. Thats still a skill you can work on. You can learn more about errors doing tht too i think.
For the second question I think you may be really busy or not have much time. It would be nice dedicate a good chunk of your time to doing postmortems. How much tho? Idk i think as long as you dont get stuck too much then youre good.
Next sentence:
You dont have much data and dont often get to investigate it. That leaves with fewer opportunities to postmortem. It makes somewhat sense to me to put extra effort into those opportunities. What I get concerned about getting stuck and not making much progress. Thats a side issue tho. If you can make progress then it would be good to put extra effort.
What does it look like to put extra effort into the opportunities you do get? I think you would ask more questions. You would try to find more ways to think about the problem so you can solve it. You would take put more effort per time you spend on the postmortem. That ratio would be different than if you spent less effort with more time
I think if you critically review your ideas you can find errors and make criticisms. You’re going over your ideas, and that lets see if you made an error. You can make a criticism and find why an error happens. Idk if finding errors and making criticisms = critically reviewing your ideas. Those seem like the product of reviewing.
The quote above says, “You should also consider”. “should” means that since you’re in a situation where you don’t get many chances to postmortem, whatever’s described in the quote above would be a good approach. If you do the approach I think you get a benefit. The approach has to do with critically reviewing and getting criticism. So that has to do with errors.
Saying this: “consider spending more time critically reviewing your ideas” has to do with you not having many chances to do postmortems. Does not having many chances mean that you don’t have much time? It may mean that. What does spending more time mean? I think more time than you usually would.
When the quote above says this, “seeking out more criticism.” That sounds beneficial cuz you now have a starting to point to postmortem your errors. Criticisms point out errors so that can give you an opportunity to do a postmortem. Criticisms also say why an idea/plan/action fails at a specific goal. You can use that to identify the idea you used that had an error. You can learn more about the error like that I think.
First question:
There seems to be a bottleneck if you’re trying to expose your ideas to criticism. I think that has to do with there not being many opportunities to postmortem. If you expose your ideas more to criticism then you can be aware of more errors. I think it would be good to know what’s an error here cuz you can look at them more objectively and get that you can work on them. You can view them as things you can investigate rather than them just being personal flaws.
If you expose your ideas to criticism then you’re literally getting more criticism. That’s I think what you want if you don’t have many chances to postmortem. Criticisms will let you know about an error you may have. I think you gotta be kinda good at interpreting criticisms. Like do you know how one applies to you? Do you get what the criticism is saying?
Blogs and forums are mediums you can use to talk about your ideas. If you talk about your ideas then they can more exposed to criticism. Now, it’s not just you that can point out errors there’s others that can help. Maybe you’ll notice something you didn’t see on your own.
Also, since your writing your ideas out, they’re now in an explicit form. Maybe seeing your writing will let you notice an error more easily. That’ll give you more opportunities to postmortem.
What does reconsider mean? I think that’s when you think something over again. Imagine you have a set routine that you do that you’re already auto-piloting. If you reconsider it or a part of it, you’re snapping out of that auto-pilot a little.
There may be some things you do that don’t provide good critical feeback? I think I may know some stuff that doesn’t. I think just writing an essay on your own in a sense may not provide good critical feedback. Like, if you’re not really good at them and you’re not improving much on your own, you can ask a writer or tutor for help. They can let you know some of the stuff you’re doing wrong. Is that good critical feedback? Kinda cuz then you can see what you’re missing and it can aid your thinking process.
What is good critical feedback? That sounds like something that’ll point out an error for you. It wouldn’t be super wrong, like it wouldn’t be off-base or untrue. It could be good in the sense that it helps you figure out you’re making an error. Are people good at finding errors? I think good critical feedback could give you more info about the errors you’re making. How will that give you more chances to postmortem tho?
I’m going to write about the following paragraph:
First question:
I think I have this problem. Like I think I know about a lot of errors. It seems like so many that I don’t know which ones to work on. It’s kinda hard to know which are good errors to work on. I don’t know if I have the same problem of not having time to postmortem them all. I think it makes sense that I don’t have enough time to postmortem them all cuz it’s so many. I could work on one error or another and I could keep going but I don’t know if I can get to them all. It seems like a lot of work.
Would finding about your errors be like that you see you made an error while typing? What if you mistyped a letter going 80 wpm that got you to miss 100% accuracy? Is that an error? What if you make many errors while trying to type 100+ words a minute. Are those errors? Are those from overly ambitious goals? I think you could make so many errors in a scenario where you’re doing something really hard. You could be overwhelmed by them. Is that what finding the errors and not having time to postmortem them all means?
What if I’m writing for CF, what would an error look like there? Idk I don’t really look too much for errors to postmortem here. I think I find something I could improve and I work on that. It’s hard to think of errors I did that I tried to improve. I wonder if that’s a problem. How do I know if I really fixed the underlying cause? Did I move on too quickly?
I wanna draft a mini-project about learning the quote above:
Project Summary:
Figure out what a quote means through grammar, definitions, or naming examples. This is a mini-project draft about exploring some possible goals and criteria for failure.
Goal:
What would be some goals of mine while reading the quote? One is find what “That” means. That could be a grammar goal. Grammar lets me know about references. If you know what a what’s being referred to then you can know what a sentence is saying. Maybe a related goal could be how stuff from programming is related to references.
Another goal is figuring out what “sign” means. What is the definition of it? Does that help with understanding the sentence? How does the word “sign” relate to the other words in the sentence? Like, what words usually go with sign in a sentence? For example, ‘are’ is usually in the middle of a sentence and it links two things. You should see a subject to the left of it and a complement to the right.
Another goal for the word “sign” is to use my own words to describe what I think “sign” means. Use other concepts I learned to think of approximations of the word “sign”. What is an approximation?
Another goal that seems hard to achieve is figuring out what “flawed underlying thought processes” are. Sub-goals could be figuring out what a thought process is, what makes a thought process underlying, and what does a flawed thought process look like?
Success criteria (& optional failure criteria):
Failure critieria for Goals:
For the goal of finding what the reference “That” means, failure would look like including a word that “That” does not refer to. Failure would also look like if you include a wrong word then the statement that “That” would be in would not make sense. I think for me it’s kinda intuitive to tell here what would not make sense.
Failure for the goal of defining “signal” would look like not consulting a dictionary or finding an online definition. Im thinking tho that there’s a chance you may figure out what the word means through context clues but how accurate would that definition be? Another thing that would look like failure is leaving out a concept that’s makes the deinition too disctinct. From what? Idk. I think it would be so distinct that if you how “That” is a sign, you would find disagreement from other forum members. You might find disagreement about it from the article’s author. It’s hard to tell what’s failure criteria for definitions.
For “flawed underlying thought processes”, there could be failure criteria about naming a thought process. It would look like naming something that’s not a thought process. If you give a rock as an example as a thought process then that would be failure. Failure would look like naming a singular word like ‘error’; that’s not a thought process cuz it’s not specific enough to describe it. I could think of many meanings of what ‘error’ means; it wouldn’t tell me that’s a thought process. There’s not enough context. I think not providing an explanation or not saying why an example is a thought process is failure. Why? idk I think if your example is not that self-explanatory, then it would be hard to know how that thing is an example.
What would failure criteria look like for figuring out what makes a thought process underlying? It would look like describing a thought process that’s not underlying. I think figuring out what underlying means can be part of the failure criteria. Like, if you go that route and you try to figure out what are non-underlying thought processes, you can use that to know if you’re right. There’s a lot of failure that could happen there.
Big picture goal, why you want to do this, or CF relevance:
Learn to use projects while writing about CF. See its benefits and how it could work.
Plan:
I think I’m going to make one plan for the goal of finding what “That” refers to. The plan would be reading the sentence before the reference and finding each of its words. After that write out each word that’s included. Use quotations in the form of block-quotes or parentheses.
Now that I think about the plan above, I think I might be making an error using references. The fact that I usually have to write out what each means tells me that it’s not intuitive enough. I think tho it’s helpful for me to write what’s being referred to. It makes things more clear. I just think that if I have to write it out so often then part of me doesn’t know what it is. If the goal was to have in mind what a reference is referring to then I could be failing that goal.
If it’s true that you have some of those flawed thought processes then you dont gotta postmortem everything. You would be having so many errors coming that you would notice. It looks like a good idea to postmortem every error you run into, but you got so many you dont have time for them all. You already got enough errors to investigate, you can start with those. Your problem isnt that you dont get enough chances to postmortem.
I think I have the problem in the quote cuz I notice a lot of errors to posmortem. I think I have flawed underlying thought processes. I think thats when i do philosophy sometimes or do some hobbies. Can it change to not having enough chances to postmortem? Does it have to be one or the other? Some areas in life is one and other areas have the other problem?
Working on one postmortem at a time is like working on 3 mini-projects at a time. It’s reasonable not start so many mini-projects that youre not gonna finish. You can learn bits and pieces with incomplete mini-projects, but youre not gonna get that combined result. Maybe all incomplete mini-projects add up to some knowledge but something sounds wrong about that.
Also, what if you start a mini-project about postmortems? That way you know youre successful or not. You could have failure crtieria so you can know what failure looks like. Maybe it could be not identifying an underlying thought process. Like, if it was a deep error and you didnt find an underlying thought process then you failed.
What could some goals be for a postmortem mini-project? It’s hard to think of some but it would have to be about finding causes of errors. Or making a good criticism. Or it would be like find the cause of the error and fix it.
Does getting involved in a discussion equal replying to a CF article? You might not get any replies back. I think if youre replying to philosophy writing then you’re getting in a discussion. Youre getting involved. If it was a popular subject in the forum then you’ll for sure have replies and have your ideas get feedback.
“fewer discussions” does not necessarily mean zero. Instead of 10 discussions, it could be 3-5? I think it would depend on your problem. What if youre making so many errors when getting involved in 1-2 discussions? Would you have to stop getting involved in them? Completely stopping sounds wrong. Maybe you would have to get involved in easier discussions?
When you’re replying to a discussion are you technically sharing ideas for feedback? If you’re replying to a philosophy forum then youre sharing your ideas. The forum may be set up to learn and practice rationality. You would be getting feedback there. If you’re in a rational forum discussion then I think you gotta take part in trying to be rational. So when you share your ideas you should expect feedback.
Last part of the quote above:
This is why you get involved in less discussions and share fewer ideas for feedback. I think you might already have enough criticism. You know about enough errors to get started on a postmortem.
I think you dont want to ask for more criticism cuz it can have a negative effect. What effect? Idk My question is if you already have enough criticism then why are you asking for more?
I wonder what uses are there for sharing your ideas from the postmortem. Also, what ideas could they be about? Ideas about the underlying cause? Ideas about fixing the underlying error? Also, what would critical feedback do? Is that what’s useful?
What is “other criticism”? Is that criticism that warrants another postmortem? Would criticism help with investigating an error? Does that count as other criticism? Does all this have to do with you being the one investigating errors? Like, you gotta figure out what’s success or failure including in postmortems. I dont think you gotta do it alone but it still has to make sense to you.
I’m going to write about the following paragraph:
First sentence:
I think I have this recency bias. How large? Idk but if an error is too old I forget about it and try to focus on new errors. I see them as still fresh and “more important” to work on. Now, that I think about it, what’s fresh is memory of the error. I don’t think one error is more important to work on than a past error cuz they could involve the same underlying cause. Having so many errors and forgetting to fix some sounds like a problem. Like, it sounds good to investigate and fix a current error cuz you’re probably doing the related activity more, but it doesn’t sound good that errors pile up to postmortem.
What is a large recency bias? I think that would be something like in my example. It’s favoring to mainly work on errors that are new. What’s the difference between past errors and new errors? Why should you avoid the large recency bias? Maybe you don’t have to treat every single error equal regarding their age. You just shouldn’t deny all errors from the past for being too old. Idk
Second sentence:
Yeah, you can go back to the other errors after that. Does it help to write about errors or document them? I never really thought about investigating past errors. Can you partake in the activity of the past error to refresh your memory? You probably didn’t fix the underlying thought process so it’s still there. That if you rarely postmortem.
Yeah, you can come back to those. If you investigate those errors and fix them, then you can fix the same underlying causes you would encounter doing other things. Can some of those underlying causes not just be flawed thought processes? They can be other things that cause streams of error? Is an ongoing stream of errors the only concern if you have so many errors to postmortem?
What would that criticism look like? Is it from other people or from yourself? It sounds useful to have them set aside to postmortem later. You don’t have to keep feeling like you’re gonna be making the same old mistakes and staying stuck. You can make progress if you postmortem errors.
I think this would be the case for me. It’s hard to know if I made any big changes to my underlying thought processes. It’s hard to know what big error I fixed that has been causing so many of my errors.
If you made relevant changes like in the quote above, does that necessarily mean good changes? What if you made your problem worse? You made changes that makes your situation different. Idk
I think I have some criticism from a few years ago. I think one in mind was when reading an article and misinterpreting it. That could probably still be relevant. Did I make relevant changes since then? Idk but I started trying to read more and write more. I also tried to take CF writing more seriously and not jump to conclusions.