Not sure why we think normal evolution wouldn't just route around such problems.

A Nobel prize was given for related research to Daniel Kahneman.

If you think it doesn't apply to you, you're definitely wrong.

Uhhhhhh...

I guess they mean "in operation"? Not sure how it could do anything but remain in flight.

He single handedly wrote his own C++ front-end and then proceeded to implement a butt load of extensions which other members of the committees poo-pood as being to hard to implement in the compiler.

Every couple of weeks he implements something new. He's a real joy to follow.

I really hate when people use very uncommon terms without defining them. (or sometimes even people's names)

It's not that I couldn't make a guess based on context, but it's distracting, and I feel like my eyes must have skipped over something and I often keep going back over the text to see what I must have missed reading.

I imagine this is sometimes caused by sloppy editing, especially when they refer to a last name of a person who has yet to be introduced in the article, but I think sometimes it's a deliberate choice and I object.

Just as you can learn to wiggle your toes independently, or play the piano, or learn a new language, which require wiring new pathways, it's possible to learn to wire new pathways to non-motor areas of your brain. But it likely requires the same amount of effort.

I believe that developing the ability to mentally visualize more vividly is the explicit goal of some certain kinds of meditation. If you're interested you might look into "fire kasina".

Sure it didn't stop the destruction, but I don't think that was ever in the cards. But it might have helped by some amount even if small. 1%? 2%? 6%?

If it reduced destruction by 2%, would that have made the campaign worth it?

I think there's a chance it did do some good in that it was in enough awareness to end up somewhere on a foreign policy agenda higher than it might have otherwise been, and thus policies might have been negotiated in trade agreements, treaties, company due diligence source tracing, etc.

I don't think that most people who use "whataboutism" are actually arguing that the "whatabout" logically negates the adversary, but rather politically negates the adversary. I.e. "you might be right about my behavior, but why should I pay the cost of changing if you don't yourself change".

If it's approached as a political argument rather than a logical one, or rather that the politics are acknowledged, then it's easier to get around it and return to the logic part: e.g. "You're right that there are things I do that might need to change, and I'm willing to talk about that. I'd like to address this first."

There are also reasons to address both things at once as admitting fault early results in ceding bargaining power to the adversary when there's not trust that they'll be as honest in their own assessment once you've been honest with your own.

- causation is difficult to establish

- symptoms can sometimes themselves be a proximal cause

- treatment of symptoms is one way to determine causation

Typically someone wants to know the most basic question before devoting time to diving into the docs.