Branched from an EA discussion.
Debate topic, quoting Corentin Biteau (CB):
As for me personally, I'm not sure that I will use it now - as I feel like I agree with the points you make, I'm less busy than you so I answer to everything even if I don't agree with it, and I already try to do all you said in my mind.
(which might sound like from the outside exactly like bias- but I feel like I have a track record of changing my viewpoint on complicated topics as I got better information, even for some core questions like "Is industrial civilization good?" or "Is capitalism good?").
Elliot Temple (ET) disagreed:
It does sound like bias to me, as you predicted. And I don't think trying to do rationality things in your mind is adequate without things like written policies and transparency. So we have a disagreement here.
This came up regarding ET's article about his experiences with his debate policy, and his advocacy of written rationality policies analogous to the rule of law.
ET claims precommitting to written policies, along with transparency, can help combat bias. CB expressed partial agreement but thought that having no written policies is fine, for himself, due to a good track record and ample time available to answer critics.
CB began the debate by writing about his information gathering methodology.
EDIT: I added CB as a co-author on this post with permission. The initial debate summary above was written by ET.