One. Four. Five.

I used to think that your methodology was justified due to the prima facie good result that came of it, but after further thought, I beg to differ. I am not saying that one can ascertain with certainty the outcomes of specific methodologies, but with the help of probabilistic causation, I believe that alternate methods may have led to a more rewarding outcome. The current result may still be one that people admire, be proud of, and even be jealous about, but if one were to know the full scope of the result, I feel that one cannot help feel that it is not as positive an outcome as previously thought.

Why did I change my mind? It is not because my original analysis of the result was flawed, for I knew accurately what the result consisted of. It was merely that I had underestimated the importance of a certain characteristic that the result blatantly lacks. A characteristic that I have recently learnt the importance of, and that before I did not even know existed. I knew what the result consisted of, what I did not know was what it did not consist of.

It has been an enlightening experience, one which has lead me to the conclusion - I disagree.