check in for a clean slate for more being alive on Sunday

[Ultimately_Untrue_Thought.git] / content / drafts / the-two-type-taxonomy-is-a-useful-approximation-for-a-more-detailed-causal-model.md

diff --git a/content/drafts/the-two-type-taxonomy-is-a-useful-approximation-for-a-more-detailed-causal-model.md b/content/drafts/the-two-type-taxonomy-is-a-useful-approximation-for-a-more-detailed-causal-model.md
index c37695a..c7659e7 100644 (file)
--- a/content/drafts/the-two-type-taxonomy-is-a-useful-approximation-for-a-more-detailed-causal-model.md
+++ b/content/drafts/the-two-type-taxonomy-is-a-useful-approximation-for-a-more-detailed-causal-model.md
@@ -12,9 +12,10 @@ Concepts and theories are good to the extent that they can "pay for" their compl
 
 Moreover, if relativity hasn't been invented yet, it makes sense to stick with Newtonian gravity as the _best_ theory you have _so far_, even if there are a few anomalies [like the precession of Mercury](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Perihelion_precession_of_Mercury) that it struggles to explain.
 
-The same general principles of reasoning apply to psychological theories, even though psychology is a much more difficult subject matter and our available theories are correspondingly much poorer and vaguer. There's no way to make precise quantitative predictions about a human's behavior the way we can about the movements of the planets, but we still know _some_ things about humans, which get expressed as high-level generalities that nevertheless admit many exceptions: if you don't have the complicated true theory that would account for everything, then simple theories plus noise are better than _pretending not to have a theory_. As you learn more, you can try to refine more complicated theories that explain some of the anomalies that looked like "noise" to the simpler theory.
+The same general principles of reasoning apply to psychological theories, even though psychology is a much more difficult subject matter and our available theories are correspondingly much poorer and vaguer. There's no way to make precise quantitative predictions about a human's behavior the way we can about the movements of the planets, but we still know _some_ things about humans, which get expressed as high-level generalities that nevertheless admit many exceptions: if you don't have the complicated true theory that would account for everything, then simple theories plus noise are better than _pretending not to have a theory_. As you learn more, you can try to pin down a more complicated theory that explains some of the anomalies that looked like "noise" to the simpler theory.
+
+What does this look like for psychological theories? In the crudest form, when we notice a pattern of traits that go together, we give it a name.
 
-What does this look like for psychological theories?
 
 [If a category seems to come into types, you can reify those as separate sub-categories, like bipolar I and II. The idea that there's something to the idea that bipolar I and II are "different", is s]