Generating Thoughts, or, the Feynman Family Phrase
jsomers.net
jsomers.net
The principle flaw of using that technique for decision making is that the n-dimensional consideration space has to be mapped into a single dimension, which can be problematic or impossible. Many intractable debates are the result of inability for two parties to agree on how to map the thought-space (roughly, where each separate aspect of the question is its own dimension) into a simpler (linear) space which facilitates making a decision.
Knowing whether a dinosaur can see into, or get into, your 2nd story bedroom may help for some lines of inquiry, but whenever you instantiate a concept as a less abstract thing, what you gain in intuition, you often lose by introducing artifacts that hold true for the more concrete example but not for the concept itself. This happens all the time in mathematics where a theorem seems to be true when considered in a less abstract simplification, but counterexamples can be found when a more accurate but less intuitive and more abstract conceptual model is used.
That's exactly the place where asking yourself "That would mean that..." is a good idea - this provokes searching for counterexamples.
Edit: When learning math I always try think of a few examples that would fit each definition, and that would not - it makes thinking about that definitions later much simpler.
People that think analytically can really piss people off that aren't as obsessed with detail. I've learned this over time and have to turn myself off every once in a while.
It takes the right environment to excel, and I believe that Richard was blessed with one. But he was also just a remarkable person. Love his books.
It goes both ways - I find it very frustrating when it feels like someone is refusing to answer a simple, specific question. (Of course, he may think I'm nitpicking, or not even understand what I'm saying...)