Frequently asked questions about thinking, epistemology, and cognitive tools. 9738 answers
Every category you create determines what you group together and what you separate.
There is no single correct way to categorize — categories serve purposes.
There is no single correct way to categorize — categories serve purposes.
There is no single correct way to categorize — categories serve purposes.
Pick a category you use frequently — in your work, your note system, your daily language. It might be 'urgent,' 'technical debt,' 'A-player,' or 'healthy food.' Write down three things: (1) Who created this category? (2) What purpose does it serve? (3) What does it make invisible? If you struggle.
Treating your own categories as objective features of reality. You will know this is happening when someone proposes an alternative categorization and your first reaction is that they are wrong rather than that they are serving a different purpose. The emotional signature is irritation at.
There is no single correct way to categorize — categories serve purposes.
When you name and define your categories you can evaluate and improve them.
When you name and define your categories you can evaluate and improve them.
When you name and define your categories you can evaluate and improve them.
When you name and define your categories you can evaluate and improve them.
Pick one domain where you currently sort things without written criteria — your email folders, your project labels, your bookmarks, your reading list. Write down the actual categories you use. Then, for each category, write a one-sentence definition that would let someone else sort items the same.
Creating explicit categories and then never revisiting them. The point of making categories explicit is not to freeze them — it's to make them visible so they can be evaluated and improved. If you define your categories once and treat them as permanent, you've just traded one kind of rigidity.
When you name and define your categories you can evaluate and improve them.
Dividing things into only two groups forces a false simplicity.
Dividing things into only two groups forces a false simplicity.
Dividing things into only two groups forces a false simplicity.
Find a decision you recently made using binary framing — approved/rejected, good/bad, yes/no. Write down the actual factors that influenced your judgment. How many distinct dimensions did you compress into two buckets? Rewrite the decision using a scale (1-5 or 1-10) for each dimension. Notice.
Replacing every binary with a spectrum just to feel nuanced. Some decisions genuinely require a binary output at the end — ship or don't ship, accept the offer or decline it. The lesson isn't 'never use binaries.' It's that the reasoning process should preserve information as long as possible.
Dividing things into only two groups forces a false simplicity.
Many things are better understood as positions on a continuum than as discrete categories.
Many things are better understood as positions on a continuum than as discrete categories.
Many things are better understood as positions on a continuum than as discrete categories.
Many things are better understood as positions on a continuum than as discrete categories.