Where We've Changed Our Minds

1. Our Philosophy on Changing Minds

At Open Angle Post, we believe that changing one's mind in response to new evidence is a strength, not a weakness. Intellectual honesty requires us to update our views when we learn new information, identify errors in our reasoning, or discover that our analysis was incomplete or incorrect.

This page tracks significant revisions to our interpretations and analyses. By documenting when and why we've changed our minds, we:

• •Demonstrate intellectual honesty and accountability
• •Show our process of learning and improving
• •Help readers understand the evolution of our thinking
• •Hold ourselves accountable to accuracy and truth
• •Model the kind of intellectual humility we value

We are not afraid to admit when we were wrong. We are committed to learning from our mistakes and improving our analysis over time.

2. What Counts as a "Changed Mind"

Not every edit or update represents a change of mind. We document significant changes that involve:

• •Substantive changes to our analysis or conclusions: When we revise our interpretation of events, our assessment of significance, or our predictions about what comes next
• •Corrections of factual errors: When we discover we had incorrect information or misunderstood facts
• •Changes in confidence levels: When we significantly revise our assessment of how certain we are about our analysis
• •Major updates based on new evidence: When new information substantially alters our understanding or conclusions
• •Revisions to key takeaways: When we change what we identify as the most important points readers should understand

We do not document minor edits such as:

• •Typos, grammar corrections, or stylistic improvements
• •Adding new information that supplements but doesn't contradict existing analysis
• •Formatting changes or structural reorganizations that don't change meaning
• •Minor clarifications or elaborations that don't change conclusions

3. How We Document Changes

When we change our mind on a significant issue, we document it with:

• •Date of change: When the revision was made
• •What changed: A clear description of what we previously said or concluded
• •What we now say: Our updated analysis or conclusion
• •Why we changed: The new evidence, reasoning, or information that led to the revision
• •Link to revised content: Direct links to the updated article or section

All changes are also tracked in our revision history system, which provides detailed diff views of what changed and when.

4. Reasons We Change Our Minds

We change our minds for various valid reasons:

• •New evidence emerges: Important facts or information come to light that change our understanding
• •Events develop: Situations evolve in ways that require updating our analysis or predictions
• •We discover errors: We identify mistakes in our reasoning, facts, or understanding
• •We learn from feedback: Readers, experts, or new perspectives help us see something we missed
• •Better sources become available: More reliable or comprehensive information comes to our attention
• •We recognize blind spots: We identify ways our analysis was limited or incomplete (see our Blind Spots page)

Changing our minds based on new evidence is not inconsistency—it's intellectual honesty and a commitment to accuracy.

5. How Readers Are Notified

When we make significant changes to our analysis, we notify readers through:

• •Revision notices: Prominent notices on revised articles explaining what changed and why
• •This page: Significant changes are documented here with full context
• •Revision history: All articles include revision history that shows what changed and when
• •Email updates (when applicable): For subscribers, we may notify about major changes to analyses they've engaged with

We do not silently revise our conclusions. Readers can always see what we said before and what we say now.

6. Examples of What Gets Documented

Here are examples of changes we would document on this page:

• •We initially assessed an event as having "high significance" but later determined it was "medium significance" based on subsequent developments
• •We predicted one outcome but events unfolded differently, requiring us to revise our "What's Next" analysis
• •We identified a factual error in our reporting and corrected it, acknowledging the mistake
• •We changed our assessment of a key player's motivations based on new information or expert feedback
• •We revised our confidence level from "high" to "medium" after learning about important uncertainties we had missed

7. Revision History

8. Relationship to Revision History

This page focuses on significant changes in our thinking, while our revision history system provides technical documentation of all changes:

• •This page: High-level summaries of significant changes in our analysis, conclusions, or key takeaways, written for general readers
• •Revision history: Complete technical record of all changes to articles, including minor edits, with diff views showing exactly what changed

Both systems work together to provide transparency: this page for understanding the evolution of our thinking, and revision history for seeing the complete change record.

9. Contact Us

If you believe we should revise our analysis or have evidence that contradicts something we've published, please contact us:

Please include the specific article or topic, what you believe needs revision, and any evidence or sources that support your position. We review all feedback and will revise our analysis when warranted.