Frequently asked questions about thinking, epistemology, and cognitive tools. 4568 answers
Some relationships have direction — A causes B is different from B causes A.
Some relationships have direction — A causes B is different from B causes A.
Choose a system you participate in — your team, your family, your professional network, a project you manage. List ten relationships within that system. For each one, ask: does this relationship have a direction? Write an arrow (A -> B) for directed relationships and a line (A -- B) for undirected.
Treating all relationships as undirected by default. This is the symmetry assumption — the implicit belief that if A relates to B, then B relates to A in the same way. You'll recognize this pattern when you assume that because you trust someone, they trust you; that because you depend on a tool,.
Some relationships have direction — A causes B is different from B causes A.
Not all connections are equally strong — quantifying strength improves your model.
Not all connections are equally strong — quantifying strength improves your model.
Not all connections are equally strong — quantifying strength improves your model.
Not all connections are equally strong — quantifying strength improves your model.
Pick a domain where you maintain relationships — your professional network, your knowledge base, your project dependencies, your personal contacts. List ten relationships in that domain. Now assign each one a strength score from 1 (weakest) to 5 (strongest) based on explicit criteria you define..
Treating all relationships as binary — either connected or not. You'll recognize this when your maps, lists, or mental models show connections without any indication of how strong, reliable, or significant each one is. The result is flat thinking: you treat a casual acquaintance's opinion with the.
Not all connections are equally strong — quantifying strength improves your model.
Identifying what must come before what prevents attempting things out of sequence.
Identifying what must come before what prevents attempting things out of sequence.
Identifying what must come before what prevents attempting things out of sequence.
Identifying what must come before what prevents attempting things out of sequence.
Choose a skill you are currently trying to learn or recently struggled with. Write it at the top of a page. Now work backward: what must you be able to do in order to perform this skill? For each sub-skill, ask the same question — what must come before this? Keep going until you reach things you.
Skipping prerequisites because they feel too basic. You will recognize this pattern when you repeatedly fail at something 'simple,' when explanations that should make sense remain opaque, or when you can follow a procedure but cannot adapt it to new situations. The deeper failure is confusing.
Identifying what must come before what prevents attempting things out of sequence.
Knowing what enables what reveals where small actions create large effects.
Knowing what enables what reveals where small actions create large effects.
Knowing what enables what reveals where small actions create large effects.
Choose a goal you are currently pursuing — a project, a habit, a skill, a life change. Write it at the top of a page. Below it, list every condition you can think of that would make progress on this goal easier, more natural, or more likely. Don't filter — list environmental conditions, skills,.
Confusing correlation with enabling. Two things that tend to appear together are not necessarily in an enabling relationship — one may not actually create the conditions for the other. You will recognize this failure when you invest heavily in a condition that you believed was enabling, but.