I guess this is also an implicit feature of Aagaard's discussion of putting the pieces on the right squares.  If your pieces are well-positioned and well-coordinated, then the tactics will sort themselves out...

A few weeks ago I purchased CM 9000 and I have gone through most of Waitzkin's annotated games in his Psychology of Competition course.  Upon going through his games, I noticed several tendencies which I have been trying to implement in my own games, and I think it is helping me to improve.   

One thing I noticed is that often when Josh Waitzkin is annotating the game he will notice not only immediate tactics, but elements in the position which can bring about future tactics.  He would often say stuff like "my knight is attacking his bishop, so in all tactical variations this is something for my opponent to consider".  I used to just look at positions for any immediate tactics and occasionally I would have one, occasionally my opponent would have one.  But from a few recent games I have had, I have noticed something in the position which could lead to a tactic later on, and about 10 moves later, my opponent walks into this tactic.  I often see thought processes for move making which list things like look for tactics, check for blunders, check your opponents threats, evaluate positionally, look for plans, etc.  But isn't there an extra step that has to do with looking for factors that could bring about future tactics?  Am I correct in assuming that such a step is the foundation of prophylactic play?

Also, I am beginning to realize more and more how much psychological state has to do with blunders.  I recently had a game where my opponent blundered a rook.  Objectively speaking, they just left it en prise and they could have kept it on the board though they would have had to defend for the next few moves.  However, I suspect the real reason for the blunder was that they had been attacking for the last 10 or 15 moves, and suddenly I started to counterattack.  So they couldn't make the transition from offense to defense fast enough.  And it seems that more and more I am starting to find that bad play is sometimes the result of mental state, rather than not knowing the correct technique.  I think that having the ability to make quick transitions is an important skill (for example, if you are winning the game, make a mistake and the position is even, having the ability to realize that you may now be playing for a draw, rather than a win; not pursuing failed plans).   

This might sound like some sort of advertisement, but I feel that these two abilities may be important for an improving intermediate.  Does anyone have any feedback or addditions from their own experiences?