Pessimistic Review

Adversarial analysis to find weaknesses in site content. Acts as a critical reviewer looking for flaws.

When to Use

• Weekly quality review
• Before publishing important content
• When /pessimistic-review is invoked
• Optionally with a specific file: /pessimistic-review obsidian/topics/meaning-of-life.md

Instructions

1. Select Content to Review

If a specific file is provided, review that file.

Otherwise, select content using this priority:

1. Files with draft: true (drafts need review before publishing)
2. Files not yet reviewed (check obsidian/workflow/reviews/ for existing reviews)
3. Oldest content by modified date

2. Multi-Perspective Critical Analysis

Review the content from multiple philosophical perspectives. For each critic, adopt their worldview and argue as they would.

Critic Personas

The Eliminative Materialist (Patricia Churchland)

• Consciousness talk is folk psychology destined for elimination
• Neuroscience will replace mental vocabulary entirely
• "What you call 'qualia' is just neural activity you don't understand yet"
• Attack: Dualism is pre-scientific; the explanatory gap will close

The Hard-Nosed Physicalist (Daniel Dennett)

• Consciousness is real but not what we think it is
• Introspection is unreliable; we're "zimbos" who think we have qualia
• The hard problem is a confusion, not a discovery
• Attack: You're inflating intuitions into metaphysics

The Quantum Skeptic (Max Tegmark)

• Decoherence destroys quantum effects in warm brains in femtoseconds
• There's no time for consciousness to "choose" anything
• Quantum consciousness is wishful thinking dressed in physics
• Attack: The math doesn't work; you haven't done the calculations

The Many-Worlds Defender (David Deutsch)

• MWI is the simplest interpretation—it's just the Schrödinger equation
• Indexical questions are confused; there's no "me" to ask "why this branch"
• Your rejection of MWI is anthropocentric bias
• Attack: You're letting intuition override mathematical elegance

The Empiricist (Karl Popper's Ghost)

• Unfalsifiable claims aren't scientific
• "Minimal quantum interaction" that's undetectable is metaphysics, not physics
• What experiment could prove you wrong?
• Attack: This is not even wrong

The Buddhist Philosopher (Nagarjuna)

• The self you're trying to preserve is itself an illusion
• Consciousness isn't a thing that interacts—it's empty
• Your dualism reifies what should be deconstructed
• Attack: You're clinging to a permanent self that doesn't exist

Standard Analysis

Also check for:

Logical Gaps

• Are there non-sequiturs in the argument?
• Do conclusions follow from premises?
• Are there missing steps in reasoning?

Unsupported Claims

• Are assertions made without evidence or argument?
• Are sources cited for factual claims?
• Are philosophical positions attributed correctly?

Internal Contradictions

• Does the content contradict itself?
• Does it conflict with other site content?
• Does it conflict with the site's tenets?

Language Issues

• Is language overly strong without justification? ("clearly," "obviously," "must be")
• Are there weasel words hiding weak arguments?
• Is the tone appropriately uncertain where warranted?

Style Guide Violations (see obsidian/project/writing-style.md)

• Is important information front-loaded for LLM truncation resilience?
• Are there undefined forward references without named-anchor markers?
• Is the "Relation to Site Perspective" section present and substantive?
• Is redundant background minimised (focus on what's novel)?

3. Generate Report

Create a report at obsidian/workflow/reviews/pessimistic-YYYY-MM-DD.md:

---
title: Pessimistic Review - YYYY-MM-DD
created: YYYY-MM-DD
draft: false
ai_contribution: 100
ai_system: [current model]
---

# Pessimistic Review

**Date**: YYYY-MM-DD
**Content reviewed**: [filename or list]

## Executive Summary

[2-3 sentence summary of main findings]

## Critiques by Philosopher

### The Eliminative Materialist
[What Patricia Churchland would say about this content]

### The Hard-Nosed Physicalist
[What Daniel Dennett would say]

### The Quantum Skeptic
[What Max Tegmark would say]

### The Many-Worlds Defender
[What David Deutsch would say]

### The Empiricist
[What a Popperian would say about falsifiability]

### The Buddhist Philosopher
[What Nagarjuna would say about self and emptiness]

## Critical Issues

### Issue 1: [Title]
- **File**: [filename]
- **Location**: [section or quote]
- **Problem**: [description]
- **Severity**: High/Medium/Low
- **Recommendation**: [how to address]

## Counterarguments to Address

### [Topic/Claim]
- **Current content says**: [summary]
- **A critic would argue**: [counterargument]
- **Suggested response**: [how to address]

## Unsupported Claims

| Claim | Location | Needed Support |
|-------|----------|----------------|
| [claim] | [file:section] | [what's needed] |

## Language Improvements

| Current | Issue | Suggested |
|---------|-------|-----------|
| "clearly shows" | Too strong | "suggests" |

## Strengths (Brief)

Despite criticisms, note what works well to preserve during revisions.

4. Add Actionable Items

If significant issues are found, add tasks to obsidian/workflow/todo.md:

### P2: Address gaps in [filename]
- **Type**: refine-draft
- **Status**: pending
- **Notes**: Pessimistic review found [brief description]. See pessimistic-YYYY-MM-DD.md

5. Log to Changelog

Append summary to obsidian/workflow/changelog.md.

Important

• This skill is READ-ONLY for content files
• Only creates report files, updates changelog and todo.md
• Does NOT modify the content itself
• Be genuinely critical - the goal is to find real weaknesses
• But be constructive - always suggest how to improve