I’ll add: something I appreciated about your (Leif’s) letter is the section setting out your views on ‘good judgment’. I agree that that’s an important topic, and I think it’s helpful for people to set out their views on how to develop it.
In case you’re not aware of it, I recently wrote a second post critiquing an aspect of your WIRED article—Good Judgment with Numbers—this time critiquing what I took to be an excessively dismissive attitude towards quantitative tools in your writing. (I agree, of course, that people should not blindly follow EV calculations.)
As before, I’d welcome substantive engagement with this critique, if you have any further thoughts on the topic.
I’ll add: something I appreciated about your (Leif’s) letter is the section setting out your views on ‘good judgment’. I agree that that’s an important topic, and I think it’s helpful for people to set out their views on how to develop it.
In case you’re not aware of it, I recently wrote a second post critiquing an aspect of your WIRED article—Good Judgment with Numbers—this time critiquing what I took to be an excessively dismissive attitude towards quantitative tools in your writing. (I agree, of course, that people should not blindly follow EV calculations.)
As before, I’d welcome substantive engagement with this critique, if you have any further thoughts on the topic.