121 lines
4.2 KiB
Markdown
121 lines
4.2 KiB
Markdown
# 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?
|