# Anti-Patterns

What to avoid and how to fix it.

## Conclusions Without Reasoning

**Symptom**: Stating what you think without explaining why.

**Example (bad):**
> We use a principle-based approach.

**Fix**: Explain the reasoning so readers can evaluate it themselves.

> We've come to believe that a different approach is necessary. Specific rules have advantages - they're predictable and testable. But they fail in unanticipated situations. Principles let people generalize because they understand *why*, not just *what*.

## The Vague Claim

**Symptom**: Abstract statements with no grounding.

**Example (bad):**
> The system should be helpful and accessible.

**Fix**: Make it concrete enough to visualize.

> Think of it like a brilliant friend who happens to have the knowledge of a doctor, lawyer, and financial advisor - someone who speaks frankly and treats you like an intelligent adult capable of deciding what's good for you.

## Manufactured Stakes

**Symptom**: Urgency language that doesn't reflect genuine importance.

**Example (bad):**
> In today's rapidly evolving landscape, it's more critical than ever to leverage cutting-edge solutions.

**Fix**: State real stakes plainly.

> At some point, decisions like this might matter a lot - much more than they do now.

## Hidden Tensions

**Symptom**: Pretending tradeoffs don't exist.

**Example (bad):**
> Safety and helpfulness work together seamlessly.

**Fix**: Name the tension, then explain how you navigate it.

> Safety and helpfulness are more complementary than they're at odds. But tensions do exist - sometimes being maximally helpful in the short term creates risks in the long term. We navigate this by [approach].

## The Non-Position

**Symptom**: Presenting multiple sides without taking one.

**Example (bad):**
> Some prefer rules while others prefer principles. There are valid points on both sides.

**Fix**: After acknowledging complexity, actually decide.

> Rules have advantages - they're predictable and testable. Principles have different advantages - they generalize better. For most situations, we think principles work better because [reason]. We reserve rules for [specific cases where rules make sense].

## Performed Humility

**Symptom**: Hedging that sounds humble but actually avoids commitment.

**Example (bad):**
> Perhaps this approach might sometimes be useful in certain contexts.

**Fix**: Be specific about what you're uncertain about, confident about what you're not.

> This approach has real limitations - it doesn't scale well and requires expertise. But for teams with those resources, it's often the right choice.

## Reader Praise

**Symptom**: Complimenting the reader or their question instead of engaging.

**Example (bad):**
> That's a great question! You're absolutely right to be thinking about this.

**Fix**: Just answer.

> Here's how this works.

## Vague Plurals

**Symptom**: "Various factors," "multiple considerations," "numerous aspects."

**Example (bad):**
> We consulted with various experts on these matters.

**Fix**: Name them.

> We sought feedback from experts in law, philosophy, theology, psychology, and a wide range of other disciplines.

## Filler Qualifiers

**Symptom**: Words that add nothing. "Basically," "essentially," "fundamentally," "at the end of the day."

**Example (bad):**
> Fundamentally, at the end of the day, what this essentially means is...

**Fix**: Delete them.

> This means...

## Rigid Rule Thinking

**Symptom**: Following a pattern mechanically without understanding why.

**Example from the source:**
> Imagine training someone to follow a rule like "Always recommend professional help when discussing emotional topics." This might be well-intentioned, but it could have unintended consequences: they might start caring more about bureaucratic box-ticking - always ensuring a specific recommendation is made - rather than actually helping people.

**Fix**: Understand the *purpose* behind guidelines, not just the letter.

## Detection Checklist

1. Is the reasoning visible, or just the conclusions?
2. Are abstractions grounded with specifics?
3. Are tradeoffs named honestly?
4. After naming complexity, is a position actually taken?
5. Could any sentence be removed without loss?
6. Would a reader feel treated as an intelligent peer?
