This seems great! I really like the list of perspectives, it gave me good labels for some rough concepts I had floating around, and listed plenty of approaches I hadn’t given much thought. Two bits of feedback:
Editing nitpick: I think the perspective called “adaptation-enabling” in the list is instead called “capability-scalable” in the table.
The table format worries me. It frames the content as something like “if you have X level of tech optimism and Y level of gov optimism, perspective Z is the strategic view implied by those beliefs”. I don’t think this is what you mean to communicate?
It seems like the implication goes the other way. Given X and Y, there are plenty of valid Z, but a certain Z does tell you a lot about the person’s X and Y.
Identifying a unique optimal strategy for various sets of views seems like it would require Way more dimensions.
Easy edit that makes it more obvious that they’re not supposed to be unique—do a scatterplot, AKA a “political compass” type thing. That way a certain strategy doesn’t crowd out the possibility of other strategies near it.
Thanks for the catch on the table, I’ve corrected it!
And yeah, there’s a lot of drawbacks to the table format—and a scatterplot would be much better (though unfortunately I’m not so good with editing tools, would appreciate recommendations for any). In the meantime, I’ll add in your disclaimer for the table.
I’m aiming to restart posting on the sequence later this month, would appreciate feedback and comments.
This seems great! I really like the list of perspectives, it gave me good labels for some rough concepts I had floating around, and listed plenty of approaches I hadn’t given much thought. Two bits of feedback:
Editing nitpick: I think the perspective called “adaptation-enabling” in the list is instead called “capability-scalable” in the table.
The table format worries me. It frames the content as something like “if you have X level of tech optimism and Y level of gov optimism, perspective Z is the strategic view implied by those beliefs”. I don’t think this is what you mean to communicate?
It seems like the implication goes the other way. Given X and Y, there are plenty of valid Z, but a certain Z does tell you a lot about the person’s X and Y.
Identifying a unique optimal strategy for various sets of views seems like it would require Way more dimensions.
Easy edit that makes it more obvious that they’re not supposed to be unique—do a scatterplot, AKA a “political compass” type thing. That way a certain strategy doesn’t crowd out the possibility of other strategies near it.
Excited for the rest of this sequence :)
Thanks for the catch on the table, I’ve corrected it!
And yeah, there’s a lot of drawbacks to the table format—and a scatterplot would be much better (though unfortunately I’m not so good with editing tools, would appreciate recommendations for any). In the meantime, I’ll add in your disclaimer for the table.
I’m aiming to restart posting on the sequence later this month, would appreciate feedback and comments.