Frequently asked questions about thinking, epistemology, and cognitive tools. 1431 answers
Your default assumptions about human nature shape every interaction.
Pick three people you interact with regularly — a colleague, a family member, a friend. For each, write down your default assumption about their motivation. Not what they do, but why you assume they do it. ('She argues because she needs to be right.' 'He's quiet because he doesn't care.' 'They.
Believing you see people clearly while everyone else operates on assumptions. The most dangerous person-schemas are the ones that feel like perception rather than interpretation. When you say 'I'm just being realistic about human nature,' you're describing a schema — not reporting a fact. The.
Your default assumptions about human nature shape every interaction.
How you model time determines how you plan and prioritize.
Your risk model determines what you attempt and what you avoid.
Pick one decision you've been avoiding or delaying. Write down the risk as you currently perceive it — what could go wrong, how bad it would be, how likely it is. Now rewrite the same risk through three different lenses: (1) What is the cost of inaction — what happens if you do nothing for another.
Reading about risk schemas intellectually and concluding that yours is already well-calibrated. The most dangerous risk schema is the one you have never examined. You will know you have examined yours when you can name at least three decisions where your risk model produced a suboptimal outcome —.
Your risk model determines what you attempt and what you avoid.
There are limits to how much you can observe your own thinking — know these limits.
Improving your meta-schemas improves everything built on top of them.
Concepts are nodes and relationships are edges — together they form a graph.
Open your note system and find two notes you believe are related but haven't explicitly linked. Before creating the link, write one sentence describing the relationship: what exactly connects these two ideas? Now create the link with that sentence as the anchor text or annotation. You've just.
Linking everything to everything. When links are cheap and undisciplined, they become noise. If every note links to fifteen others with no annotation or rationale, you've built a hairball, not a knowledge graph. The failure is treating links as decoration rather than claims. A link without a.
Relationships between ideas deserve as much attention as the ideas themselves.
An idea connected to nothing else is either missing links or not worth keeping.
Open your knowledge system — Obsidian, Notion, a folder of text files, whatever you use. Find every note with zero links in either direction. Sort them into three piles: (1) connect — the idea is valuable and you can link it to at least two existing notes right now, (2) incubate — the idea might.
Hoarding orphans out of a vague sense that you might need them someday. This is the knowledge management equivalent of keeping broken appliances in the garage. Every orphan node adds noise to searches, clutters graph visualizations, and dilutes the signal density of your system. The cost is not.
An idea connected to nothing else is either missing links or not worth keeping.
Ideas that link separate areas of your knowledge graph are especially valuable.
Ideas that link separate areas of your knowledge graph are especially valuable.
What seems contradictory is often two statements true in different contexts.
What is true at one level of abstraction may not be true at another — check which level each claim operates at.
Before resolving a contradiction make the strongest possible case for each side.