[DanielBMarkham]

You understand, of course, that if I tell you that you are disagreeing with me simply because of counter-signaling, I am using an ad-hominem argument. It's another way of saying that you say has no value because you are the type of person who says such things for frivolous reasons.

It is the worst form of intellectual masturbation -- the putting on of airs to diagnose the reasons that other opinions exist in the world. Please don't let yourself do this. Ever.

Yes I understand that the author tried to dress this up as a self-analysis type of article, especially at the end, but the implication and thrust was pretty clear: we are analyzing the reasons others do and say things, especially things we find "wrong". Oh, and by the way, don't let yourself do this! But if the article was meant as introspection, it would have been written as introspection ("I find myself..." etc)

Sigh.

Please don't quote another article with the same source in a rebuttal. It makes the discussion about the site itself instead of the particular text in question. Its smacks of fanboyism. I know I started this with my closing remarks about the site itself, but the thrust of my point is that the article was plainly suboptimal. I stand by that assessment. I apologize if the remarks I offered on the site overall offended you.

You know you are in for trouble if the article begins with one site author quoting another as if they were a famous person. I knew a guy once that closed his emails by quoting himself. Not a good sign.

[cousin_it]

It seems your argument could be extended to attack the whole enterprise of identifying and overcoming cognitive biases, not just this specific post by Yvain. To me this constitutes a reductio ad absurdum of your argument.