Thanks for sharing and engaging with the comments.

> Also, I am an IC, not a manager.

I think this understates the power dynamics involved. At your level, being an IC doesn’t mean you aren’t in a leadership position, and feedback from you can still carry substantial weight.

Psychological safety is a worthy aim, but it cannot be assumed, nor will everyone experience it equally. I’d be wary of relying on it too heavily here.

> There are many ways to think and there isn’t one that is more correct than others.

Charlie Munger once said "The right way to think is how Zeckhauser plays bridge. It's just that simple." He managed to boil it down to a single way to think. You disagree?

> The goal of this post was to communicate to the team the way I think

For that you use internal communication channels.

Though we've known for a while that no one at Anthropic is capable of doing any proper communication.

I appreciate you took the time to answer my post. Since you like honesty, let me say that I think your framework isn't terribly useful and, for most people, somewhat condescending coming from people in a leadership capacity. There's nothing wrong with your advice, but it's kind of generic and childish, like "in order to think, you have to think" with a hint of "move fast" corporate drivel.

I've worked in this culture. I was an IC, tech lead, lower and upper management in medium to large AAA tech companies, household names, that had the same sort of feedback focus.

I think the all-in feedback culture is overall a net negative because it invites this kind of micro-criticism, rules-driven feedback sharing.

Given that, all I can say is that while you're appear to be well intentioned, I would at most share your framework once or twice and stop pushing it, assuming you're doing that (it sounded like it). I can see most people being annoyed but this kind of framework and that's why my reply was so upvoted.

Quick feedback: this framework feels like a not so well thought out extension of polya’s how to solve it to “do things fast” in a credible looking way.

Harder feedback: the writeup feels like a quickly hacked together memo, which claims it is “self healingly” good. Because it has this throwaway quality I’m not sure what is the goal? Shall I engage with it seriously, when the lead dev didn’t seem to put in the effort? But if I don’t engage with it seriously it means that I have to follow this patchy fremwork?