As far as I can tell, this post successfully communicates a cluster of claims relating to "Looking, insight meditation, and enlightenment". It's written in a quite readable style that uses a minimum of metaphorical language or Buddhist jargon. That being said, likely due to its focus as exposition and not persuasion, it contains and relies on several claims that are not supported in the text, such as: * Many forms of meditation successfully train cognitive defusion. * Meditation trains the ability to have true insights into the mental causes of mental processes. * "Usually, most of us are - on some implicit level - operating off a belief that we need to experience pleasant feelings and need to avoid experiencing unpleasant feelings." * Flinching away from thoughts of painful experiences is what causes suffering, not the thoughts of painful experiences themselves, nor the actual painful experiences. * Impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and no-self are fundamental aspects of existence that "deep parts of our minds" are wrong about. I think that all of these are worth doubting without further evidence, and I think that some of them are in fact wrong. If this post were coupled with others that substantiated the models that it explains, I think that that would be worthy of inclusion in a 'Best of LW 2018' collection. However, my tentative guess is that Buddhist psychology is not an important enough set of claims that a clear explanation of it deserves to be signal-boosted in such a collection. That being said, I could see myself being wrong about that.

I still broadly agree with everything that I said in this post. I do feel that it is a little imprecise, in that I now have much more detailed and gears-y models for many of its claims. However, elaborating on those would require an entirely new post (one which I currently working on) with a sequence's worth of prerequisites. So if I were to edit this post, I would probably mostly leave it as it is, but include a pointer to the new post once it's finished. In terms of this post being included in a book, it is worth noting that the post situates itself in the context of Valentine's Kensho post, which has not been nominated for the review and thus wouldn't be included in the book. So if this post were to be included, I should probably edit this so as to not require reading Kensho.