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.