[ncr100]

Fair. YW.

Being a deep thinker, which I assume you are, leads to those results, in my view.

It sounds like you don't want to just "do the punchline" either, that you want to lay it out and moreover you want to share kind of the experience of unrolling your thoughts, so it really makes sense that you're not just sharing the punch line.

I mean that's my interpretation and you know I haven't really met you so take what I'm saying with a mountainous size grain of salt.

[godelski]

  > Being a deep thinker

I think I'm just unsatisfied with "because" lol. Realistically I think I'm just asking "why" a few more times.

  > you don't want to just "do the punchline"

I think the punchline is not only non-obvious, and actually counterintuitive or easy to disagree with (if it was obvious, we wouldn't have the issues, right?). So I think just stating it would likely be ineffective. So then it becomes about how show the logic. Which if disagreed upon the steps or assumptions, I'm more than happy to update.

  >  I haven't really met you

Actually that's why I find this particularly helpful. Different kind of bias. I do not find these conversations difficult in person, but it is harder in comments. Maybe just blog form is best for online.

And thanks for the comments. They do give me a bit to think about.