Talking past one another So my problem with the substantial advice on thinking that you give in this post is that… I don’t disagree with it. Nor do I really think that it contradicts anything that has been said on LW. In fact, if it was somewhat polished, cut into a set of smaller posts and posted on LW, I expect that it might get quite upvoted. One thing that has started to increasingly bother me in this debate is that you seem to be saying essentially “yes, Bayesianism is nice, but there’s a lot more to rationality too”. And - like I hinted at in my earlier comments, but could have emphasized more - I’m not sure if you would find anyone on LW who would disagree! Eliezer spends a bunch of posts talking about how wonderful Bayesianism is, true… but while he certainly does make clear his position that Bayesianism is necessary, I challenge you to find any where he would claim that it is sufficient. And ultimately there isn’t that much content on LW that would talk about Bayesianism as such - I would in fact claim that there are more posts on LW that are focused on providing “heuristics for informal reasoning”, like in this post, than there are posts talking about Bayesianism. Given that, I find that this post is somewhat talking past the people who you are responding to. As I see it, the argument went something like this: You single out Bayesianism, one specific aspect of the stuff that’s spoken about on LW, and write something-that-looks-like-a-critique of it Seeing this, people respond, “if not Bayesianism, then what?” In response, you say “all of human intellectual effort!” and offer an (interesting and valuable!) list of useful heuristics that go outside Bayesianism, and which few LWers would probably disagree with. This seems to me similar to this (hypothetical) debate: Somebody writes what looks like a critique of modern physics, choosing to focus on the laws of thermodynamics Physicists, seeing the post, respond “if not our current laws of thermodynamics, then what?” The person, in response, says “all of physics!” and offers an (interesting and valuable) list of observations from classical mechanics, quantum mechanics, etc, which few physicists disagree with. The physicists explain that they don’t actually disagree and they actually do research a lot of other physics too, and then it turns out that there’s no real disagreement after all and everyone goes home happy?