Iāll add: something I appreciated about your (Leifās) letter is the section setting out your views on āgood judgmentā. I agree that thatās an important topic, and I think itās helpful for people to set out their views on how to develop it.
In case youāre not aware of it, I recently wrote a second post critiquing an aspect of your WIRED articleāGood Judgment with Numbersāthis 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, Iād welcome substantive engagement with this critique, if you have any further thoughts on the topic.
Iāll add: something I appreciated about your (Leifās) letter is the section setting out your views on āgood judgmentā. I agree that thatās an important topic, and I think itās helpful for people to set out their views on how to develop it.
In case youāre not aware of it, I recently wrote a second post critiquing an aspect of your WIRED articleāGood Judgment with Numbersāthis 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, Iād welcome substantive engagement with this critique, if you have any further thoughts on the topic.