Writing as metacognition vs. writing as "content"

Why should we write anything when AI can do it for us? If you replace the word "write" in that last sentence with "think," the answer should be obvious. But it's the same thing in both cases. When often kid ourselves into assuming that our own understanding of a situation is very thorough and accurate, even if we can't put that understanding into words. That's an example of what psychologists call the "illusion of explanatory depth." Writing is a way to see for ourselves exactly what we know well enough to explain. That can be a humbling experience, and that's a good thing. Of course, we can refine our writing strategies to engage and persuade readers later. But there's a reason to write that has nothing to do with persuading others. Writing is a way to get our own thoughts outside our own heads so that we can see just how incomplete our understanding is before we rush off to act on it.
The post from the Farnham Street blog is available here: fs.blog/why-write/
Parrish and company have also expanded on the ideas in that post in a longer post here: fs.blog/writing-to-think/
Along the same lines, I also recommend his post about critical thinking here: fs.blog/how-to-think/