-
2026-03-15
-
I’ve just added the below to Consensus-ism home page:
- I’ve been on an “improving my thinking” project
- One outcome of this is realising how imprecise my writing has been up until now, how bad I’ve been at constructing logically coherent arguments and models
- As such - it is not very clear that the consensus-ism model is a patchwork of stuff, mostly notes that I took when listening to other people, stuff that I didn’t properly ingest and grok and make sense of
- As such, I don’t see this model as finalised, ready for sharing or use. I mean, it can be shared, and you can squint at it and maybe vaguely get some of it. But it’s not a polished, neat model with no flaws. It’s profoundly flawed right now. It was written prematurely, by a guy who didn’t know how to spot his own confusion.
How can I improve the model?
- My current hunch is that, learning formal logic, and then constructing the model in a more rigorous way, as a series of propositions?
- Like what Wittgenstein did with his Tractatus:
- 👆 page 1 of the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
- And then, write about the model in a way that can be understood by others (as of course, the essentially UX of the tractatus is dreadful)