Frequently asked questions about thinking, epistemology, and cognitive tools. 9738 answers
Writing down how two ideas relate prevents assuming a connection that does not exist.
Relationships can be causal, temporal, sequential, hierarchical, associative, and more. Naming the type of a relationship determines what reasoning you can perform across it.
Relationships can be causal, temporal, sequential, hierarchical, associative, and more. Naming the type of a relationship determines what reasoning you can perform across it.
Relationships can be causal, temporal, sequential, hierarchical, associative, and more. Naming the type of a relationship determines what reasoning you can perform across it.
Relationships can be causal, temporal, sequential, hierarchical, associative, and more. Naming the type of a relationship determines what reasoning you can perform across it.
Relationships can be causal, temporal, sequential, hierarchical, associative, and more. Naming the type of a relationship determines what reasoning you can perform across it.
Choose a belief you hold about how two things in your life are connected — for example, 'reading before bed helps me sleep' or 'team standups improve collaboration.' Write down the connection, then classify it: is it causal, associative, temporal, hierarchical, compositional, or something else?.
Treating all relationships as the same type — usually causal. When every connection in your mental model is "A causes B," you lose the ability to distinguish influence from structure, sequence from dependency, and correlation from mechanism. The result is a flat map where everything seems to cause.
Relationships can be causal, temporal, sequential, hierarchical, associative, and more. Naming the type of a relationship determines what reasoning you can perform across it.
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.
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.
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.