>>Avoid information overload by keeping the system focused.

Then it uses headlines and toggling for further reading. I like when I see something doing what it says.

Combined with Bisociation: (A blending of elements drawn from two previously unrelated patterns of thought into a new pattern.) Which seems like what happens non-stop when you're on LSD; everything seems connected. The explanation of what this is and how it creates "serendipity" is rather spot on for what manic states feel like, too.

The layout and aesthetic choices of the site/content is really pleasing and it has references. Nice job, T.

> bisociation

Is this like a club for buffalo or something?

It's where buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo.

> Bisociation works by attempting to form a connection between a target concept and a random stimulus concept.

> * Pick a target concept.

> * Randomly pick a stimulus concept.

> * Attempt to form an association or connection between the concepts.

Metacognition seems like a technical term which isn’t defined. This is just dozens of bullet points.

Is it when you have a thought about a thought? Seems too pedestrian for that.

Thank you for the Wikipedia link.

To be honest, why don’t you look up terms you’re unfamiliar with yourself first before asking such a question? It doesn’t take more than 10-20 seconds.

Yes, I was sarcastically thanking you for linking to Wikipedia, a practice that people do out of spite and condescension.

“Meta” is such a signal for armchair pseudo-technicality in the blogosphere. So no, I won’t just read Wikipedia because I don’t trust that some random, unprompted bullet list will adhere to standard references; they could just as well be referring to whatever term they invented on their blog about 200 blog entries ago.

What makes matters worse is that the apparent meaning here is “thoughts about thoughts”. Which is useless considering that thoughts often follow each other in a train of associations (train of thought). So what then distinguishes thoughts from metathoughts? They’re all associated with other thoughts.

You wrote “Metacognition seems like a technical term which isn’t defined”, which reads like you weren’t familiar with the term. It’s not a particularly exotic or ill-defined term.

Metacognition doesn’t just mean thoughts about thoughts, it means perception of and thinking about the process of your own thinking, about its mechanisms. It’s recognizing and reflecting about how your mind works.

It seems to me the author of the article is using “metacognition” in the normal meaning, so I’m not sure what the problem is.

Don't think it's deeper than that, it does just mean thinking about thinking. Which is exactly what the author is doing in this post.

Grand word, pedestrian practice.

The whole page feels like the output of a stream of consciousness writing exercise, complete with the expected qualities of being incoherent, maundering, abstract, and hollow.

There can be pleasure in imagination and invention, of course, but in my view this is onanistic drivel. I would not be surprised if this came from GPT-3.