Thanks for this summary! I found it interestingāperhaps particularly the distinction between primary, secondary, and meta causes, and the discussion of how one can go from considering primary causes to considering secondary and meta causes.
I also find it interesting that it sounds like Michael was able to use the process of writing a philosophy PhD thesis to do work thatās not only directly relevant to specific actions, but also has in fact been acted on (via his creation of a related charity)!
This post also vaguely reminds me of a post I coauthored last year, which might be of interest to some readers: Four components of strategy research. (I say āto some readersā rather than āto youā since I know you already read & commented on the post :) )
The post ā[Outlines] one way to decompose strategy research[.] Specifically, we break it down into the following four components: mapping the space, constructing strategies, modelling causality, and prioritizing between strategiesā.
Thanks for this summary! I found it interestingāperhaps particularly the distinction between primary, secondary, and meta causes, and the discussion of how one can go from considering primary causes to considering secondary and meta causes.
I also find it interesting that it sounds like Michael was able to use the process of writing a philosophy PhD thesis to do work thatās not only directly relevant to specific actions, but also has in fact been acted on (via his creation of a related charity)!
This post also vaguely reminds me of a post I coauthored last year, which might be of interest to some readers: Four components of strategy research. (I say āto some readersā rather than āto youā since I know you already read & commented on the post :) )
The post ā[Outlines] one way to decompose strategy research[.] Specifically, we break it down into the following four components: mapping the space, constructing strategies, modelling causality, and prioritizing between strategiesā.