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