Replying to "Postmortems Help Address Causes of Errors" [Dface]

[Dface]

I’m going to write about the following paragraph:

@Elliot

These attitudes help push back against irrational, anti-fallibilist mainstream hostility to mistakes. But they don’t encourage postmorteming. They don’t say that many mistakes are part of an underlying pattern of mistakes, and we should be trying to figure out and fix those underlying patterns, and each data point we get can help us identify a pattern.

I see that there’s attitudes that push back against those mainstream views about mistakes. That doesn’t mean they do things related to postmortems. Like, they don’t encourage them. The attitudes don’t talk about facts about postmortems. That there’s undelrying patterns to mistakes. That and there’s data points about them and that we should fix underlying mistakes.

I think that’s correct cuz I’ve watched some rationality stuff from DD and Sam Harris. I didn’t really know about postmortems being important to rationality. Even when I visited FI and CF groups, I didn’t see postmortems practiced much. Like, the attitudes from other rationality groups were not enough to show that postmortems are important. That’s if it’s reached people there.

I know FI and CF encourage postmortems, but it seems like such a hard concept to get. There’s not much stuff online to learn from that tells you mistakes and their underlying causes are important to learn about. I’m so used to avoiding mistakes and not wanting to deal with them that postmortems is like a foreign concept to me.