Thinking From First Principles: Smartcuts Miniseries Pt.3 with Shane Snow

Click a logo to listen on your platform of choice or scroll down to listen here on the site:

I’m extra excited about this one.

So a lot of you know that I have listened to Shane Snow’s audiobook Smartcuts many times and how much I was looking forward to having him on the show for the first time back in April. Well the only thing better was when he agreed to come back and do entire deep dive miniseries into the stories of those who have built these skills of avoiding unnecessary work and, instead of slowly climbing the “supposed to” ladder, building their own ladders to success faster, as well as how-tos of for how the rest of us can do the same thing.

A new episode of the miniseries will be out each Friday for the next 6 weeks.

If you missed the first time he was on the show you can listen to it here.

Thanks for Listening

Jess

P.S. If you like the episode please shoot me an email and let me know what you liked about it: Jess.Larsen@GraystokeMedia.com

Bio:

Shane Snow is an award-winning journalist, explorer, and entrepreneur, and the author. He speaks globally about innovation and teamwork, has performed comedy on Broadway, and been in the running for the Pulitzer Prize for investigative journalism.

Snow has helped expose gun traffickers, explored abandoned buildings around the world, eaten only ice cream for weeks in the name of science, and taught hundreds of thousands of people to work better through his books, including the business bestseller Smartcuts.

Snow's writing has appeared in GQ, Fast Company, Wired, The New Yorker, and more. He is also a board member of the media technology company Contently, and the journalism nonprofit The Hatch Institute. Make sure to check out ShaneSnow.com Follow him on LinkedIn.

Here is the auto-generated transcription of this episode:

Jess: Welcome to Innovation and Leadership, I'm Jess Larsen. This is episode three of our mini series with Smartcuts author Shane Snow. If you don't know about Contently and the tech brand he built and the many other books he's written, please go to Shanesnow.com and check all those out. But picking off, picking up where we left off last in the mini series, Shane, can you kind of give us the premise and maybe set up this episode for us?

[00:00:25] Shane Snow: Absolutely. So we've been talking about thinking differently and how to actually do that, solve problems better and be innovative. And in the last episode we talked about the scientific method as the basis for that. So in this episode, I want to talk about how the scientific method starts with observation, which seems like the easiest part, but is actually, I would dare say the most crucial because if you get this part wrong,

[00:00:57] then you're starting from the wrong foundation, and really what the scientific method is about specifically around observation, is separating the info gathering stage from the ideation stage or debate stage where you're really getting into the details of what you're going to do. This is about bringing in inputs

[00:01:17] and deciphering the right inputs so that you can set yourself up to solve problems in really awesome ways. So the whole thing falls apart in the scientific method if you don't make the right observations or if you make the wrong interpretations of the observations, which is actually the easier thing to do.

[00:01:37] And some people would call this stage data, but I think that data implies sort of massive amounts. Like we've seen this thing happen a thousand times, so now we can be sure of it. I like to stick to observation because you know, Sherlock Holmes, the great problem solver, his data in double quotes was the breadth of observations that he made.

[00:01:57] It was not the number of times he observed the same murder. It was the number of details he observed about that murder. So first principles thinking is really what we're talking about here in this episode, and this is about making sure you're working off of the right observations when you're trying to solve a problem or when you're trying to build something like a startup.

[00:02:18] So it's about assessing situations based on their fundamental principles. And this way of thinking is really what makes the difference between someone who is good at strategy and someone who is good at stealing moves from other people. That's the difference between thought leaders and innovators and copycats.

[00:02:38] So the last analogy I want to use before we dive in is if you're fighting a war, you want to know what the bad guys are up to before you make your move. You want to observe what they're doing so that you can counter them. You know, war is like problem solving. I don't like war, but I think Warren analogies are really useful.

[00:02:58] So you send Scouts out to observe, you get intelligence. and some zoo who wrote the art of war, he actually spelled out this first principles thing when he said that you want to learn the principle of the enemies activity or inactivity, forced them to reveal themselves so as to find out their vulnerable spots.

[00:03:18] So the idea is not to figure out what the opposing army is doing is to figure out why they're doing it. That makes the difference between a strategist and someone else. So if you think of a coach, you know, who just sees other teams and good plays that they make and stills those plays, but doesn't understand why those plays work, what is the psychology that makes the tricky move in football or basketball actually effective against the other team?

[00:03:44] The coach that understands that underlying principle is the one who in the long run, will be able to outsmart the other guy. So we're not necessarily talking about war or sports, we're talking about outsmarting hard problems. But that's what this is about, is figuring out the underlying fundamental whys and with fundamental observations before we start coming up with the plays that we want to run.

[00:04:08] Jess: I love it. Well I think maybe the first place to go there is, nobody thinks assumptions are good. I mean, I don't think I know anybody who thinks assumptions are good, but can you dive deeper into the problem of assumptions?

[00:04:23]Shane Snow: Sure. I will say, you know, I bag on assumptions a lot in, in smart cuts, you know, right from the beginning.

[00:04:29]I talk about how innovation is about rejecting assumptions that everyone else is making. And it's about breaking rules that aren't really rules but look like rules. And I will say before I go into my spiel on assumptions that I do, however, hate the cliché, but you know what assume means? It means that you're making an out of you.

[00:04:50] And me. Like I hate that cliche cause it's, I like puns, but I'm so sick of that one. But, it is really easy to look foolish when you make assumptions and when you work off of assumptions that turn out to be true. So you know, kudos to whoever came up with that pun. But, reasoning from first principles and getting observations, right, is about stripping away assumptions.

[00:05:13] And, and I think one of the best ways to explain why this is important and why this is more, there are more assumptions than you think in the world and sort the story of newspapers and, and the size of newspapers. So I don't know. Do you still read physical newspapers, Jess?

[00:05:32] Jess: No, but I like the assumption that you think I read them in the first place.

[00:05:36] It makes me feel good about myself. I do have my, I do have my wall street journal subscription digitally, and I'm, you know, I do check Bloomberg a lot, but not the physical.

[00:05:49]Shane Snow: so first of all, you know, I mean, one of the reasons why we're having these conversations is because you're

[00:05:56] such a good example of someone who thinks in these ways and you have so many stories, so good on you for calling me out about that assumption that you still read newspapers. But you can see how easy it is in everyday life to build in assumptions into what we think are good. you know, good avenues of, of questioning or thinking.

[00:06:15] So, anyway, the story of newspapers that I like to tell is back in the day, Oh, I forget how many years ago now, but you know how the big newspapers that you hide behind, if you're a spy at a cafe, right? Like, there are these broadsheets he opened them up. They, you know, they take up like feet of space.

[00:06:35] New York times is a broadsheet Wall Street Journal is a broadsheet, you know all of the big newspapers, all used to be broad sheets and, and the newspapers that were smaller. Where the tabloids tabloid actually is the size of paper. But all of the newspapers that were like shady were tablet size and all the newspapers that were respectable were the large, broad sheet size.

[00:06:58] And in the UK, there was a major newspaper that realized it was spending a lot of money by printing in broadsheet size. And someone, and you know, in their accounting department or wherever, started making the case for switching to tablet side, it w they would save a ton of money if they just printed on normal size of pieces of paper and said these enormous ones and, cause the printing machines and all that were just outrageous.

[00:07:25] And they said, no, people don't respect tabloid size newspapers. That's just, it conveys a level of credibility at the bigger size. And this is how all other newspapers do it. Well, they, the accountant's one and they switched to tabloid size and guess what? Their circulation did not go down. And in fact, it kept going up.

[00:07:47] People still respected the newspaper just as much and they had no problems. And when you dig into why that, you know, that assumption ended up being false, that, you know, people respect the broadsheets more and they believe those more than tabloid size, people don't believe tabloid size newspapers.

[00:08:04] The source of that assumption was back in the 1800s when London placed a tax on newspapers based on how many pages they had. And so what the newspapers did, as they all just made their pages enormous. So you have a 10 page newspaper that has enormous pages that cost you way less than taxes than a 50 page newspaper that's easy to hold in your hands.

[00:08:28] And that was the reason that the broadsheets came about. And then 150 years later. No one remembered that that was the reason that pages were so big. They just assumed that it was because people respected and believed those big page newspapers. So this is a story about the problem with best practices is often best practices have come about for reasons

[00:08:54] that we don't understand or that we don't really know or for reasons that at the time they happened were good reasons. You know, it's a pretty clever hack to get around, you know, the newspaper tax by making huge pages, but that is no longer applicable in the year 2000, when there's no such tax anymore, you know, things had changed.

[00:09:14] And so the idea of starting with the problem with assumptions and problem solving, I think it was really powerful because a lot of things that go into why the world works the way that it, that we see at work, our observations on it are for reasons that are now out of date. Whether technology has changed, our society has changed or taxes have changed, or whatever it is.

[00:09:36] And so all the time when smart people go about solving problems, they look to how other people have solved problems as the starting point. And often that starting point, the best practice is built on assumptions that no longer need apply. So the history of innovation, it's very clear that people who make breakthroughs and change the game are the ones who are willing to question the way everyone else is doing things.

[00:10:03] And that often boils down to assumptions. So that's the starting point. And then the question, you know, is how do you break down, you know what assumptions are, how do you know when you're making assumptions? And this in part is just about habits. But I have a little kind of rhetorical habit, I guess, or game that I like to do, just to, I get myself into, to constantly try to identify what's an assumption and what's not.

[00:10:38] And I actually forget where this comes from. It comes from some, actually classic book about having, hard conversations without pissing people off. It’s a segment of that, and I forget what book it is, but it's the habit of when you are speaking to someone saying, my story is whenever you don't exactly know the truth.

[00:11:02] So, what I mean by this is a lot of times we will observe something and then we will immediately decide something about that. And we treat that decision as truth, but it's actually an assumption. So if I, you know I notice right now, that's why I have my webcam on and you have your webcam off while we're having this conversation.

[00:11:25] So that's the observation. But I could very easily jump to the conclusion that you have your webcam off because you didn't, get dressed this morning. Or, you know, you have a background that is like really crazy looking and you're embarrassed and you know, I could easily make that assumption is that, you know, maybe it's even a good assumption, but if I don't tell myself, I don't actually say that it's an assumption.

[00:11:51] I'm going to start to believe potentially that that is an observation. So, you know, Jess leaves his webcam off. Jess doesn't have a good background for his webcam or he doesn't look great in the mornings or whatever. That becomes the observation that then I operate on when I, you know, I'm scheduling a meeting with you and say, I want to introduce you to an investor.

[00:12:10] We'll better not do it in the morning. I better make sure that Jess is in his office. But that's, that's all a story. So if I, instead of, if I catch myself. And I actually do this all the time to the point that the people in my life, you know, they hear what I'm doing when I do it, but it actually becomes contagious and they do it around me too.

[00:12:31] I say, you know, I notice that your webcam is off, Jess, and my story is that you don't have a good background going on. What's the real story. Or, I don't even have to say that, but it creates an entry point where I'm no longer making an accident accusation or, you know, treating something as fact.

[00:12:49] And when you frame it as your story, you can turn your webcam on right now. And you could be in a TV studio looking great oil in your hair, whatever, a three-piece suit, you could be wearing a clown costume. And, you know, in my, my observation in quotes would be wrong. You know, that assumption. And it would be a lot easier for me to let go of that preconceived assumption if I framed it as my story rather than I've solidified it into fact.

[00:13:19] So I think this habit in general, I think is a good habit just as humans when dealing with each other. Someone does something and it strikes you as a, you know, nefarious or as, having a certain intent or whatever. Stop yourself before you turn that into then observation, separate the observation from your story about it and even say, my story is this.

[00:13:42] And you know, when I do workshops about this, I actually have people go around and circle and do a game. I show pictures, yellow Lamborghini, name a fact. What's your observation about the story about this yellow Lamborghini? And then what's the story about it? And then go around the circle and people say, you know, it's yellow.

[00:14:02] My story is that, that the owner is rich or it's a, it's a Lamborghini. My story is that it's really fast. And then you go around and you say, well, what's an alternate story to that story? Well, you know, my story was that it's really fast, but another story could be that it's actually a Toyota Camry that someone put a Lamborghini shell on.

[00:14:22] It may be less likely, but suddenly what you've done is you've divorced observation from assumption. And that is an extremely good habit and a good starting point for, you know, if you're doing a deliberate problem solving process, being able to dig into first principles. But like I said, it's, it's really good in social situations too, for you to not, make assumptions about people in their intentions as well.

[00:14:45] Jess: I love it. I love it so much, you know it's funny. Because, you didn't list maybe just as on mute eating breakfast and me, so, you know, it's funny about that. We actually started this as a video show, but people were in Wi-Fi so often that they would break up so much that it was, you know, the video wasn't good, but it also deteriorated the audio quality.

[00:15:12] Right. Well, after years of doing it on Skype, we switched to Zoom. And now he switched to Squadcast, which could, which could record natively at your end, and that would no longer be a problem. It's like your, it's like your newspaper example, right? Because the audio and video is being recorded at your end.

[00:15:31] I no longer need to do what we've done for the last 380 episodes because we've switched to new software in the last three weeks. Right? however, I don't have a three-piece suit on. And this morning I thought for the first time, you know, he's got a camera and I should change mine. And then I thought, Oh, I probably should have filmed this somewhere else if I was going to do that.

[00:15:48] So it's funny that, it's funny that you bring all those things up, and yet I think there's something so respectful and something so magnetic for truth. When you basically out yourself that these are my assumptions. Instead of making an accusation and claiming you've got the truth, right, because humans rebel so much at being told something.

[00:16:11] If there's any slight hitch in your accusation, I'm going to ignore the 99% you're right on and zero in on the 1% that I disagree with you on. And you'll talk about the 99% I'll talk about the 1% and we were certainly not making progress or innovating or creating a new ladder to our future. Right?

[00:16:29] Shane Snow: Yeah. And even in your problem solving process, if you stop, it's all the time in business. I've seen it happen in my company a million times. A million is hyperbolic, but, you make the case for something, you know, and you're building out the case for a strategy. And then it turns out that one of your assumptions

[00:16:48] that you're making in this case is flawed. And then, you know, people use that to then they make the assumption that the whole thing is flawed. And so you lose your case, or you know, that, that's the implication that like, Oh, this whole thing, you know, is built on sand. And so then you do whatever you can, you know, whatever mental gymnastics you need to, to make your flawed assumption true

[00:17:11] So, you know, you use intellectually dishonest, arguing tactics, or you go and you hunt for data that proves that your thing is true. You know, I really hate to talk about, politics in these kinds of concepts, but the one that's really egregious right now is, you know, with the Corona virus, there's so much science that, you know, that, that people are talking about.

[00:17:34] And the fact that people are arguing in politics about scientific facts, speaks to this exactly. If you were as a politician, you say, this is what's going to happen. The virus will disappear, or this thing is a miracle drug that's going to cure the virus. Then when scientists say, actually this miracle drug that you say causes heart problems, and people who are, you know, certain, have certain conditions and so you should, we shouldn't take it.

[00:18:01] Then you have the decision of either like trying to sort of scramble so that people believe, don't disbelieve everything you've said, which you know, sucks for you, or you double down and try and do anything you can to make this, this drug that you just promoted become true as you know, the miracle drug.

[00:18:22] So, like I said, I hate to talk about it in politics, but it's striking to me that the news that I, you know, I read this morning about how, you know, the president of the United States started taking this unproven drug in order to get people to calm down about, the scientific reports that it causes some people heart problems is a way to win the argument rather than a way to get at the truth.

[00:18:48] And the fact that they did a press conference about it, like, but it's also, it's, you know, not, not even to pick on him, it's what we all do. When we get to hasty about treating assumptions as facts, as we paint ourselves into these intellectual corners where then, you know, we'll do whatever it takes, or we suffer these catastrophic losses of, you know, of people's faith in us.

[00:19:11] And in my company is seeing people, you know, spend months of work on building out a plan for solving a hard problem. Only to have some executives say, Oh, well, that one thing you said is actually not true about our customers. And then the CEO ends the meeting and everyone goes away. And then this poor person who does have some really good ideas in their strategy is crushed and goes back to their desk and quits.

[00:19:36] That's a real story, you know? And, and so that's, I think on the social side of it, being charitable to people, letting them have benefit of the doubts, you know, so that they can back away from things that they assumed that turned out to be wrong. That's really good. But also for yourself, setting yourself up and other people up by framing assumptions as things that you can let go of and say phase two and that's the whole, my story is I think that's crucially important.

[00:20:02] You can see how it can be devastating from a reputation standpoint and lead you to do shady things as well as from a problem solving standpoint leave you to abandon observations that are good or, you know, or experiments that are still worth pursuing.

[00:20:20] Jess: You know, it's interesting how often I'd heard the term first principles thrown around and how much I didn't want to look down that I didn't really understand what they were saying.

[00:20:29] I was making these like, vague guesses. Right. But two things really helped me. one your, interview you did at Columbia University with billionaire Peter Thiel, where you guys talked about that. And then just last week when you got me in to read, that book, The Great Mental Models, their chapter on first assumptions, again, it just helped me recognize what you're really getting at is, and you can correct me if you want, but is this idea of

[00:20:58] it is so efficient to take assumptions and previous learnings and these things and bake them into what we're going to do next. And so it's so tempting to rely on assumptions. And this is, you know, this is the Jess version of it, but tell me if you see it differently, that it really is this idea of getting radically self-honest about stripping, like about confronting every aspect

[00:21:22] of our premise or a hypothesis or whatever we're doing here, and, and getting like really brutal about, is that an objective fact or is that an assumption? And putting them into categories so we can go test the assumptions. Is that, is that close?

[00:21:39] Shane Snow: That's, I think that's exactly right. And, you know, and the psychology that prevents us from doing that is really interesting.

[00:21:47] That, you know, because our validity, as you know, in our job or our ego or whatever is on the line sometimes. if we don't put those two things in different categories, then it does set us up to, to make things harder on ourselves. But that's exactly what it is. And then, I mean, I resonate with what you're saying about, you hear it invoked, but then how do you actually do it.

[00:22:14] is the harder part. And I am the same way, the, the whole theme of this series, right? Like think different. Think innovatively. Yeah. It's easy to invoke that is a lot harder to execute that. So, but it's, I think you're exactly right. And in terms of the efficiency thing, one of the things that I think is counterintuitive and that I think, you know, people may push back on when they hear this, especially at first is I think when

[00:22:40] I actually, I'm quite confident when it comes to this first principles thinking that one of the things that gets in our way is actually analogies. Analogies are really good for that efficiency thing, and really great for making persuasive arguments. In fact, you know, at the beginning, you know, you'll remember I used the analogy of going to war and sun zoo and studying your opponents, as the entree for this thing too.

[00:23:07] To persuade you and the audience that this first principles thinking is really important. Analogies are great for that, but they're actually not great for getting at the truth of things for particular situations. So different problems to be solved are different than other problems that are hadn't been solved.

[00:23:29] They may have lots of similarities, but it's the subtle ways that things are different that make the difference. When you're trying to break new ground and, you know, be truly what's, what that buzz word thought leader is. If you want to explore beyond the paradigm that everyone, you know, is operating within, then you cannot be constrained to analogies of just how, that we would use in explaining things.

[00:23:55] Does this start to make sense how I'm sort of bagging on analogies, but, but the connection here that I'm trying to make?

[00:24:04] Jess: Yeah. I feel like what you're saying is I, and it's interesting you bring up the thought leader aspect, at least interesting to me, because when you think about, you know, the nth at the time, you've seen something on the LinkedIn post or in, you know, in the business media elsewhere, and it doesn't change your life at all.

[00:24:23] It's typically a repetition of something that's maybe been over simplified or that's had the cliché analogy, that might be a good jumpstart to a concept, but doesn't fully encapsulate it. And you know, I'm a real audio book nerd. Most of our listeners know that. It really drives me nuts when people use the same example in like 40 different books about the marshmallow test at Stanford or something, and you're like, really?

[00:24:52] Jess: You know, A, it's got its limitations, B, it's been played out to death. Right? Where what you're saying, what, what you're saying resonates to me of like, if there is somebody who I'm going to deeply follow, you know, I brought up Howard Marks. I'm a fan of him. Warren buffet says, if he sees a memo from Howard Marks in his email, that's the first thing he opens, right?

[00:25:10] Here's a guy who is so, he thinks so hard and so deeply about the precise truth rather than. Rather than saying, the past says this is it, so that's it. He's so willing to question his own assumptions that he comes up with things that are drastically original and helpful and is a super legitimate thought leader in a space full of literally tens of thousands of people with advanced degrees.

[00:25:40] And so as you were saying that, it just really appealed to me of this idea of if we were going to do that in our own industry that this idea of, questioning, you know, questioning. Is that a factor? Is that an assumption and this kind of thing? It creates the difference that's actually valuable. I don't know. Do you see it differently?

[00:26:00] Shane Snow: Yeah, I like that the way that you're putting that. So yesterday I participated in a virtual event where I had a 10 minute speech about intellectual humility, which as you know, is one of my favorite topics. And there was another speaker there who really smart person, who I respect a lot.

[00:26:22] But they, they started their talk with an analogy that actually really bothered me. And I think it was an example of the danger. So they said, let's pretend that every night before you went to bed, you drink a bottle of wine and that you actually kept a bottle of wine next to your bed all night within arms reach of you. And then first thing in the morning, as soon as you get up, you drink a bottle of wine and then you keep that bottle of wine with you all day long.

[00:26:54] What would we call you? An alcoholic, you would have, we'd say it's an addiction, so why don't we call smartphones what they are, an addiction. And that's a very powerful analogy, and it's persuasive in many ways. You know, I understand why you would use that if you want to convey the seriousness of just how hooked we are on our phones.

[00:27:23] However, it's a false analogy in many ways. It's only a good analogy from the point of view of you keep this within arm's distance and you use it at night, you know, and the first thing in the morning and last thing at night. That's the only place where that analogy is actually appropriate because using your smartphone does not impair your thinking like alcohol does, and it doesn't destroy your liver.

[00:27:52] And it doesn't lead to a lot of the negative effects that, that drinking that much wine does. And it's a, it doesn't make you fat. You know, there's all sorts of things that you could take from that analogy that are wrong, including that is the type of addiction and the nature of addiction between a substance you ingest,

[00:28:15] the main object that you use is very different. The principles that phone operates on your brain and that alcohol operates on your brain are so different that if you were to use the alcohol analogy and trying to solve the problem of, you know, say you decide that there, the observation is being on your phone takes you away from time with your family or whatever.

[00:28:39] You know, drinking lots of wine could do that too. However, a lot of people drink as a social activity. It's already been announced. It breaks down. But if you're trying to solve the problem of how do I spend more time with my family and be less distracted by my phone, then using that bottle of wine analogy is a terrible place to start.

[00:28:58] And so this is, I think a, you know, a dramatic example, but it's, it's so common. It's like this guy is a big deal. And I think, you know, I don't want to bag on him too much. Here's why I won’t say his name, in case anyone does happen on that talk because he's making some good points. However, the danger is the analogy that's so effective for getting people to think about something and to be persuaded about something is often actually the opposite of effective for solving a problem.

[00:29:28] Because the details are the things that matter. And it gets at your story with, with Mr. Marks, about how being willing to question these things, is, is what makes the difference who the leaders are. For me, I actually, I tell myself being like, eh, it's bad to be too proud of yourself. I think, that I was proud of myself for immediately saying, well, let's back up and question this assumption.

[00:29:51] And I ended up, you know, ranting about it to my wife, but I, I was proud about it. The fact that I immediately started questioning that, as the basis for, for this argument that he's making them. Cause I think that, you know, they didn't say indicates that in general, I'm doing a better job at you know, I trying to get to the core of things, to the first principles of things rather than building off of, you know, what's already been built, such as an analogy.

[00:30:16] Jess: You know, it's so interesting to me. I feel like this is just a big Howard Marks commercial coming from me, which I do endorse the guy. Where does she go get his books? But you know, I think what's so interesting about what you're saying, what you're saying is something that I've seen him do and Warren Buffet do, but Howard will, he'll jumpstart a conversation with an analogy and then he'll immediately bring a level of intellectual humility and intellectual honesty to it, and immediately follow up with, and here's where that, here's where that analogy breaks down.

[00:30:47] And he starts talking about where the different, you know, like. Listen, I feel like I have some consults, compulsive behaviors around my phone. I get nervous if I show up, you know, how my phone to my wife to watch a video or something and then she doesn't hand it back and it's been a few minutes.

[00:31:01] And where is it? You know, like, right, like I think that I have some compulsive behaviors about my phone, and yet there are massive breakdowns in a chemical dependency. You know, an alcoholic chemical dependency compared to the level of compulsivity I feel about my phone. Right. And, and when the analogy is the end of the story, instead of, you know, step one in a thousand step journey, anyways, I don't know if that's where you're going with it, but that's where I feel like,

[00:31:31] Shane Snow: well, I like that. Yeah. I liked that a lot. I think, you know, if I were to give like some general advice it would be if you're using analogies to persuade people and they're not going to be critical thinkers, and you're sure of whatever it is you're trying to persuade them, then use it as the tool that you're going to use it as.

[00:31:51] But if you're using analogies as a way to get people to care about something, so you can then actually truly break some new ground. Then identifying where the analogy breaks and actually just being forthright about this as an analogy so that we can understand the importance. And now we're going to get rid of that analogy.

[00:32:11] I think that's really good. It's like use it when it's efficient for doing what it's good at. But don't use it as a way to make more efficient a thinking process that you actually want to be thorough.

[00:32:25] Jess: Hmm. You know, what occurs to me as you say that is this idea of, you know, I do find analogies really helpful when trying to help someone see things my way, or trying to get them to wrap their head around a mental model in the first place, you know? But it does not invite me to a place of intellectual curiosity. It does not, I even noticed what it does to myself. I'm in this mode of, I have the truth and I've been parting it to you rather than let's go on or discovery together.

[00:32:58] To see if the data supports my hypothesis, just cause like a frame of mind that I'm in. Well, and I want to talk about this. So let's say that I recognize certain ways I've been approaching a situation. I've been bringing assumptions with me, and I've been maybe even trying to convince people to see it my way with some analogies.

[00:33:16] But instead I want to start reasoning from first principles and I want to start breaking down the problem into inarguable fundamental pieces. Talk to me about that.

[00:33:28]Shane Snow: I'm so glad you used the word inarguable because I think it's such a good word to have in mind when you're thinking about this process, what are the, the, not assumptions, the observations that are in arguable that, you know, and I'll get to this later if we have time.

[00:33:46] A kind of a corollary to the, my story is habit, but if the world's greatest computer could record it and verify that it is a fact, that's inarguable, right? It can be seen, measured, taste, whatever it is. And, even that is not the perfect analogy because, some inarguable things are also abstract, you know?

[00:34:10]but the steps. There's really two steps to reason from first principles. The first is to break down, and then the second is to build out. So breaking down a problem into its inarguable fundamental pieces. I think for, I'm a kind of visual thinker. So for a visual thinker like me, I like to actually use separate sticky notes to put down the different pieces of, you know, of the problem.

[00:34:39]And, and if you can just break whatever the situation is into its component parts and identify the assumptions themselves, you know, list out the assumptions. But really, and I'll get you a couple of stories that can actually help this be more concrete. But really what you want to do is you want to separate rules and practices from principles.

[00:35:03] That's the key. So, principles first principles are like the why, you know, the strategist, again, to use an analogy, the strategist who understands why things are being done is the way that they are. It's understanding why the newspapers switched to the big paper size, not, and separating that from the rule.

[00:35:23] So it, you know, for me it's like actually list these out. You know, I have stacks and stacks of sticky notes that, I mean. The audience can't see it. But you could see, I think my wall is full of sticky notes. I got, you know, piles of books and sticky notes in the corner there. My process is actually like quite literally, breaking things down into their component parts.

[00:35:42] But it's really getting clear on what are the rules, what are the practices and what are the principles? And a story of this inaction from history that I think explains this really well is the story of I think one of the most innovative people in all of the history of humankind who happened to be quite a murderer, also happened to be a murderer, was Genghis Kahn.

[00:36:07] So Genghis Kahn actually super misunderstood. a lot of what pop culture paints Genghis Kahn, as actually was like his sons, the warlords that, after he died kind of like were, or a lot less principled than he was. But Genghis Kahn did take over the modern or take over the, the known world, and there's this great book called Genghis Kahn and the making of the modern world.

[00:36:29] And it's named that because the innovations that he set about in society actually did pave the way for modern society. So getting this kind of a super innovative, and a couple of stories about how he took over the world, starting from literally nothing but rags are instructive about this rules versus principles thing and really understanding the difference.

[00:36:55] So Genghis Kahn he grew up on the steps of Mongolia, wasn't called that at the time, but in a little clan and the little tribe, in this area where there were hundreds of other clans and tribes, and the way that things worked was, family ties. And family hierarchy was this very rigid system, that just had all of these rules for, you know, who you had to marry, in order to, you know, and at what time in order to become part of the family in order to get protection.

[00:37:26] There was this whole practice around, at a certain age, like 16, you out with your buddies on horses and you steal some girls to be your wives, and then, if you want it to like, basically screw over the other tribe. The thing you did is you ambushed them in a certain kind of ambush and stole their wives.

[00:37:44] And then the rule was once you had your wife stolen, then you were basically like the lowest class. And you got treated like from then on and you couldn't like do anything. And this is just the way it was and the society was structured this way. And when Genghis Kahn had his wife stolen from him.

[00:38:03] He didn't do what everyone else did in this society, which is like, there's sort of this, this like waiting period where if you can go and steal your own wife or whatever, you can then be a member of the society again or else you're now like a, like a surf like mud digger type, that everyone, you know, rejects and you can't have any this way.

[00:38:26] Instead of doing that, which is what the rules were, he snuck back to the camp of the guys that had stolen his wife and killed them and took his wife back, which, you know, not saying that murder is the takeaway from the story. but he recognized that that rule was stupid and that he wanted his wife back.

[00:38:44] And what this whole incident made him realize is that all of these rules about family ties and the way that you got married and your status and all that, what they really were about was loyalty. So that these people were surviving in this harsh environment, could survive together, get the resources they need and protect themselves from people who wanted the resources that if you had loyalty among each other and you could trust each other in a group, then you could survive better.

[00:39:16] And so all these rules were really about that. But what he recognized is, what I need is that loyalty factor and that trust factor. So how can I get that without all these stupid rules that involve kidnapping wives and you know, and these weird status things. And so what he did is he basically recruited all of these outcasts who are at the mercy of this awful system and basically said, I don't care who your family is practically

[00:39:46] like, I don't even want to know as long as you're loyal to my group. Then we're going to look out for each other and we're going to do what it takes. And so what ended up happening is he ended up getting basically taking over all of these tribes because people would rather be part of his group and loyal to him cause he was so focused on that principle.

[00:40:06]then be treated like garbage or be at the mercy of all these rules. They liked fewer rules and more principles. And the rules that actually he created around this principle were basically like, if you betrayed anyone then I'll kill you. If you betray my enemy, I will kill you. If you betray me, I will kill you.

[00:40:24] Just don't betray people. That's the principle guys, it's be loyal. Don't betray people and people like that. So much better that he basically took over all of the tribes and United, the Mongolian people. That's the first one. The second one is when he went, then went about taking over the world,

[00:40:41]they’re the known world at the time. There was this very specific way that Mongol warriors fought, you know, the way that they charged them to battle on their horses with their sort of sword, like weapons. And they were very good archers and they were really aggressive and they were good at fighting because of that, but they did not have the technology that the Chinese had and the Persians had.

[00:41:03] And so when they went up to battle against them, what Genghis Kahn did is he, it's actually kind of simple when you think about it now. He rejected the way we fight the rules for how a Mongol warrior fights in favor of the goal is winning. So we will do whatever it takes to win, you know, and, and he did all these things that now you see movies and you're like obvious.

[00:41:27] But at the time, you know, I think it was the 1300s was not obvious. It was like dig a trench, put a bunch of sharp sticks in it, go to attack, and then run away like a bunch of cowards. And then when they run after you, they fall into the hole with all the spike sticks. And then you go and you just sort of walk in and take over their city.

[00:41:45] And so he was like, the principle is, we gotta win. The principle is not, don't look like a coward, which was, that's a rule. And so a lot of his fighting strategy was like, it just rejected all of the stuff about, you know, these rules for looking good or whatever in favor of these principles. And then the other thing, the last thing I'll say on my Genghis Kahn monologue,

[00:42:07] is that he, every time he took over a city or you know, a population, he would kill the rulers and basically say to the people, you're loyal to me now, and if you're loyal to me, then you know, we're good. If you betray me, then I'll kill you. Same speech every time. it's about loyalty. You guys like, I don't care if you're Chinese, I don't care if you're Muslim.

[00:42:27] He actually, freedom of religion was basically like invented by him in society. He was like, I don't care about any of that. As long as you're loyal, that's the principle. Make your own rules about what you do with God, I don't care. And also every time you take over a place, the first thing he would do is have his guys go round up any scientists, engineer, strategists, and say, teach us how you fight.

[00:42:54] Give us your knowledge. And at first, a lot of the Mongols were like, pissed off about all of these things. So like, no, but we're warriors and we ride up and we, you know, we use horses and sorts, he’s like, nah, these guys know how to do like fire napalm stuff. We're going to do that now. And that, and so basically, he added cognitive diversity to his army and his pool.

[00:43:15] He did not care about the way things were done. All of the rules that, you know, the generals and strategists and smart people came up with. The principle was combine any knowledge you can so that we can win. And, and this is how he took over the world. And every time he'd come to a new city, he's in Persia.

[00:43:31] He's in, you know, in elsewhere in the middle East. And they just didn't know what they were up against, you know, his enemies because he was always going to outsmart them from a problem solving standpoint. And it was because he was so focused on first principles. And then, you know, after he died.

[00:43:50] His sons were rich, spoiled warlords that, you know, that then did a lot of awful, atrocious things beyond just kind of killing the ruling class and absorbing the people. And, so we get the myth, the myths around Genghis Kahn as well, but this is the idea. You identify what are the rules and, you know, even better if you can dig into the history of how they became rules, why they’re rules and really

[00:44:15] dig into the underlying principle of why those were created in the first place. And then forget the rules. Focus on how you can, with your new knowledge or technology or people that you have, how you can accomplish that principle instead. So that's step one. I'll take a pause there in case you have a reaction Jess.

[00:44:34] Jess: no. it is interesting for me though, just a slight observation of, you know. Cause there's many things Genghis Kahn did that I'm obviously uncomfortable with on a morality level and integrity level, right. and, and it's interesting, I, was I got to go to Nigeria with, and I was teaching a program with the United States special operations command cause Nigeria was standing up their special operations command.

[00:45:03] And it was basically this like week long thing about here's the mistakes we made in Afghanistan, here's the mistakes we made in Iraq, hopefully you don't have to make those same mistakes with Boko Haram. Okay. And, this 25 year SEAL who I had a lot of respect for, basically was like extolling to me the virtues of Genghis Kahn at the time.

[00:45:21] I'm like, hold on, you know, like it had, so, like I had this cognitive dissonance of like, yes, but I feel like he made wrong moral decisions so often. Does that mean I can't learn? And it was like this, can I recognize that? I think he made wrong moral decisions and there could still be lessons to learn from what he's done.

[00:45:43] Shane Snow: That’s exactly right. Yeah. That that is, you know, and that, that dissonance, this, you know, we talked about this before, being able to hold two things in your head at the same time to say he was a murderer to civilian and he was really smart and we can learn from some things. I think that is really. You know, someone who is truly trying to solve problems will be agnostic as to the source of good ideas.

[00:46:10] And, you know, if that good, if there's a good idea in the mix of a thousand bad ideas, recognizing that and being willing to use it. Even if, you know, people might criticize you, and this happens in politics all the time. It drives me crazy, but it's like the, you know, whoever's on your, the team that you're not rooting for.

[00:46:27] Everything they do is bad. Are you serious? You can't, you can't support anything they do. Like there isn't one smart thing or one noble thing or one thing to be learned from one, you know, I, I think that's a, that's it's a counterproductive thing. I will also say, and I can't believe I'm going to use the phrase in Genghis Kahns defense, but in Genghis Kahn’s defense, there were a couple, there was one principal that I, I do really respect and his principle was, human life is valuable.

[00:46:56] And it's valuable in itself. So he, even though he killed a lot of people, he had a rule based on that. Human life is valuable of no torture. He had a rule of no, of minimize the losses of innocence. Anyone who's not a combatant, make sure they don't get killed or injured or raped or like that was a rule of his.

[00:47:20] And of course, you know, when his armies and his sons were often distant lands, they did all those things. But if he found out about them, then the punishment was severe. if you torture, you know, the ambassador for some, some enemy of his, he would have you killed. And it really was this focus on, you know, if human life is valuable, then we're not going to care.

[00:47:43] If we look ridiculous or stupid or cowardly when we fight this battle, if it means that fewer people will die for us to win. So, you know, I think that he had some moral things that were like dastardly and horrific, but a lot of the, like the torture and the slaughter of innocence and the, you know, the violation of innocence was actually

[00:48:08]against his own principle and just kind of what their society became after that. So it's interesting to even tease apart that, that it's like, Oh, maybe he, maybe our conception of him on that level actually is a, could be wrong as well. At least this is according to historians who study him and also he was still a murderer, horrible guy.

[00:48:30] That instead of, you know, re kidnapping his wife, he just killed everyone who was involved. Like that's obviously not the right thing to do. I shouldn't say obviously, but you know, from, if you do value human life, like that violates his own principle. So there's, you know, inconsistencies abound. But point is, what you're getting at is, I don't think we should get too excited about him in his entirety as an analogy, but I don't think that

[00:48:58]it's wise to, if you see a lesson that can be learned from someone even as, you know, as murderous as him, to just not take that lesson, as one of your inputs just because of its source. I think that's, that's also not wise.

[00:49:11] Jess: I love it. Well, so if I am, let's say I'm practicing this, I'm trying to

[00:49:19] you know, myelinate the neural connections in my brain. So I've got the muscle memory to get myself to do this more often so I get better at it, right? Pushing myself outside the comfort zone. And I am successful, or at least I believe I'm successful in breaking down the problems into these inarguable fundamentals, the objective facts, and then separating out, you know, I've got my list of facts, I've got my list of assumptions.

[00:49:42] How do I then build like concrete reasoning from there?

[00:49:48] Shane Snow: Yeah. So I'll, I'll just share three quick stories of different ways to do this. And I think each illustrate, different strategies or, you know, perhaps even principles about building out from first principles. First story is, you know, Elon Musk is famous for, you know, he talks a lot about using first principles.

[00:50:06] He, you know, with cars, with rockets, with solar energy, has consistently as an industrialist use first principles as the reasoning for, or as the method for innovation. And you know, when he was working on a Tesla in the early days, people basically said, this is a ridiculous idea because battery packs are really expensive.

[00:50:33] They're heavy, they're expensive. You can't get the battery power that you need. Power car for a cost that makes. Selling the car, building the car, it makes sense at all for people. It's constrained by the cost of batteries. You know, it's a $600 per kilowatt hour for batteries right now, and it's not going to get that much better in the future, which first of all, is a bad assumption, but we're not going to invent better batteries in the future.

[00:50:59] Bad assumption you know, to predict the future like that. But he said, well, what are the first principles of battery packs? Battery power? What are the material constituents of batteries and what's the stock market value of those constituents? So you said, you know, batteries made of cobalt, nickel, carbon, polymers for separation, and basically like an enclosure to seal it all up.

[00:51:28] Those are the fundamental components of a battery. So let's break that down and say if we bought all of those components separately on the London metal exchange or whatever the, you know, the stock exchange for buying those, those commodities would be, how much would it cost to get all those materials?

[00:51:48] They did the math and said, Oh, that would be $80 per kilowatt hour, which is way less than 600. So now the problem to solve is what's a clever way to combine all those materials into the shape of a battery that costs less than $600? Well, that's, that's actually a much easier problem to solve than, you know, how do you, how do you make a $600 battery kilowatt hour battery work?

[00:52:13] So it's now starting at the batteries, starting at like literally the raw materials for the battery. He did the same thing with, with SpaceX where, you, you want to make rockets so that you can go to space. So they actually can eventually go to Mars. And, he looked at all the components that go into a modern rocket.

[00:52:28] And, you know, first thing he, that he saw as a space shuttle has like four different size parts. There's the plane, then there's the two side boosters. And then there's the one huge booster. These are all made in different assembly lines and all the parts come from all suppliers all around the world who are all making a profit.

[00:52:44]and he said, well, what are the constituent parts of a rocket? And what if we could make it in the simplest assembly line possible. What's the simplest way to assemble a rocket in one go? This is like kind of a like almost like an essentialism approach. You know what's the simplest way to do it? But he was like, if we make the rocket all one diameter, so it's like, there's no different size diameter of booster parts, then we can make that all in the same assembly line.

[00:53:11] And instead of getting parts from all over the place, let's make our own parts. And that's, that takes a lot of thinking. There's not really any shortcuts there. However, once he built that out, he was able to make a much less expensive rocket, a much more powerful rocket, now rockets that he can reuse. So that's, that's one way to, to build out as you literally take the components that would go into it, and reassemble them in a different way.

[00:53:35] Take the all the parts off of the table, figure out what they're each used for and build up from there. Another example, specifically on this essentialism idea is break apart the problem you're solving and figure out what is the fundamental thing that the existing solution is trying to solve.

[00:53:57] So, you're trying to solve a problem, be innovative. You're trying to invent a better machine than what's out there. Figure out what the number one point of that machine is, what the fundamental purpose of it is, ignoring what all the parts do, what all the rules are and you know, and the components actually do, and boil it down to the goal.

[00:54:22] So my favorite example of this is there's something called the embrace warmer. Basically a team of engineers and designers started by, someone who's a friend of mine now, her name's Jane Chen. Basically we're trying to reinvent the infant incubator to keep newborn babies alive if they're born prematurely and a, and an incubator basically has like a thousand, you know, component parts and it costs 20 grand.

[00:54:48] And every modern hospital has one, but you don't have one if you're in a poor village in Pakistan. And so she wanted to make an incubator that they could afford in the poor village in Pakistan. And they could not take the, you know, the linear approach or the logical approach of make a more efficient incubator, which is basically a glass box with all this monitoring equipment.

[00:55:10] And, you know, all of that. And so they, they were forced to say, well, what is, what is the number one thing that keeps a baby alive if it's born prematurely? And, you know, or, or what is it at all? What are the principles of what keeps the baby alive? You know, forget the device, the machine. And it turns out that in 90% of cases, the number one thing, the only thing is just heat, being the temperature you should have been had you stayed inside of your mother, you know, for that extra two months or whatever.

[00:55:38] And that, you know, the, you also need food and all that, but it's, you know, you don't need a whole incubator to provide food for, you know, a baby. But keeping a baby warm in the exact right temperature. That's the problem to be solved. So observing that, that was the observation and that became the first principle.

[00:55:57] And so they then, from that first principle, they threw out the window an incubator, and they basically made a sleeping bag that, that has a little heating pad in it that keeps the baby the exact right temperature. And it's so simple that you don't need to know how to read to use it. So all these villages, and you know, in rural India and Pakistan

[00:56:14] can use it without instruction manuals. And so that's, that's another way to, to build out from first principles is boil down the fundamental goal, or, you know, the problem would be solved and then come up with ways to solve it fresh third methodology. Once you've broken that, it problem down.

[00:56:35]and to go from first principles is an analogy. Yeah. As I've bagged on analogies and then hypocritically used them. And the analogy is just in the name, it's a, what I call a Snowflake method, and this comes from novel writing, but it's extremely useful for, you know, say nonfiction writing or for building out plan for anything.

[00:56:56] It's instead of looking at, you know, the, all of the component parts of what you're trying to do, you take whatever it is that you're trying to accomplish, and you boil it down to one sentence and you work as long as possible on getting the one sentence right. So the sentence description of, I mean, this works often best with, if you're talking about content or you're talking about marketing or you're talking about, you know, persuasion or whatever it is.

[00:57:28] But for me, you know, I'll, I'll use the example of writing a nonfiction book instead of planning out the whole book and, you know and writing up a pitch, I spend months on the one sentence description of the book, cause it forces you to boil the book down to its ultimate goal and essence.

[00:57:47] And so it's basically what would the New York Times, right? And it's one sentence description on the best seller list. It became a best seller. So you iterate on that. And spend all of that thinking power on that one sentence. And once you get that right, then you turn that one sentence into a paragraph, you build on the fundamental thing, and then you iterate and iterate and work on that paragraph that's a little bit more descriptive, more detailed

[00:58:11] so you're building out that snowflake. And then once you have the paragraph, then you write up one page about this and you're writing the same thing, but what, you know, you're just, you're building out the details. That'd because you spend so much time upfront working on that thing in its most microscopic form

[00:58:32] it forces you to approach it from the most fundamentally useful angle. So then once you have the page description of your novel or nonfiction book or project or whatever it is, then you write a one sentence description of each chapter and you go through the process again, this chapter is this one sentence and work on that.

[00:58:52] Then it's this paragraph, then it's this whole page, and then you write the whole book. So this is the building out process of the first principles thing. If you try to tackle the project, in a bigger way, you write out, you know, the page long description first. Then what's likely to happen is as you start working on writing the whole book, you get halfway through and you may realize, Oh no, the way that I'm framing this fundamentally, it needs to change the umbrella for this topic actually is not the one that I'm writing about.

[00:59:26] You either have to go back to the start and rewrite the book, or you do what a lot of people do is you work with what you've got and you're now you're working off of, you know, a not ideal platform. And you do your best and you write out the book, and then you try to persuade people that the way that you did it is the right way, and then it becomes a much harder marketing challenge.

[00:59:46] So if you remember from that Peter Teal, interview that I did, that is about his book, which is, you know, talks a lot about 10X thinking and some of that first principles, he, he talked about how it's so much easier to sell something that is 10 times better of a solution than everyone else's than something that's just a little bit better of a solution.

[01:00:13] You know, a sales person would love to have the product that's 10 times better than everyone else's product that's, you don't even have to do any work. It's doing all of the hard work upfront, that hard inking to make the product that's 10 times better. That actually is where all the, you know, the work goes in and makes the sales person's job easier.

[01:00:32] That's what this snowflake idea is, is you're spending so much time making sure you have the fundamental observation, right that then you build it out from there. So are those helpful, those, those examples?

[01:00:46] Jess: Super helpful. I feel like, I don't know. I feel like we could do an hour and a half just on that.

[01:00:51]I've got so many things I want to talk about, but in the name of time. I think, I think it might actually be more helpful to talk about one of my favorite fictional characters, because I know that you can basically wrap all this stuff up when it comes to Sherlock Holmes. So I'm thinking about everything we've covered so far.

[01:01:12] Can you give us your, you know, I know you've got some stories about Sherlock Holmes and Einstein and some other people and how that all relates here.

[01:01:21] Shane Snow: Sure. So, there's two. So Maria Konnikova is one of my favorite writers and a friend of mine who actually has a new book coming out, that is how she used psychology to become a poker world poker champion, which is amazing.

[01:01:36]anyway, so she wrote this great book that I, we've talked about before called Mastermind, How to think like Sherlock Holmes and she breaks down in the book two M's that are crucial for, how Sherlock Holmes did what, what we're calling the observation stage of the scientific method. And that make the difference between a Holmes and thinker and you know, everyone else.

[01:02:01] And the two M's, they're actually simple. It's motivation and mindfulness. You have to be motivated to do what, you know, that Einstein quote, that I showed last time to spend 55 minutes thinking about the problem and five minutes thinking about the solutions, you have to be really motivated to do the hard thinking instead of just the hard work, which actually ends up being the easier path.

[01:02:25] And Sherlock Holmes was really motivated by this. But the thing he was also motivated to do is to do whatever it takes to get the observations and to think about things in the right way, even at the cost of how it looked to other people. So, you know, you're talking about the thing with the, you know, the special forces soldier talking about Genghis Kahn, you know, in a lot laboratory way, and you being uncomfortable with that, totally normal.

[01:02:55] And yet recognizing that there's something potentially to be gained from studying Genghis Kahn. Someone could, I mean, someone could even listen to this interview and be like, and come to the conclusion that that Shane Snow is a piece of garbage because, he's, he's way too into Genghis Kahn. I don't care if you come to that conclusion, first of all, that's the wrong conclusion.

[01:03:18] But I don't care because I care more about the lessons you can learn from that. Sherlock Holmes especially didn't care. There's this quote because it's sort of ridiculous in the BBC version with Benedict Cumberbatch when, one of the detectives that he's working with is like, you're a psychopath. And sure.

[01:03:36] Like Holmes says, I'm not a psychopath. I'm a high functioning sociopath. Get the details right. And it's like that. Also, like you don't have sociopath is not good. Also, they're kind of the same thing, but like, like that's not good, but he doesn't care what he looks like so long as he solves the case. So I think the motivation to,

[01:03:57] your motivation to get to first principles and to be, do the brave thing of looking bad by questioning assumptions and questioning what you used to think. Even you have to have that motivation, in order to do any of this. And I think it's easier to have that motivation if you kind of fancy yourself a little bit like Sherlock Holmes and, you know, you can say

[01:04:20] the smartest people that we look up to do exactly that. They don't care what they look like as long as they are, are trying to get to the truth. And they don't care if they were wrong before, as long as they become right eventually. Or they discover what is right. So that's the first one as sort of like a conclusion to all of this.

[01:04:38] And then the second one is mindfulness, which is a practicing, paying attention to the details and practicing paying attention to. What's the observation and what's the story? And, you know, and practicing and bulking the story and, and to do that, you know, we talked about this a little before. You can do things like mindfulness meditation.

[01:05:03] You can build habits like that, but I haven't, that I think is quite easy and fun is a game that I sort of like to play with myself, which is called computer says yes and what computer says yes, it is. And I actually have like a little, and online, like interactive sort of thing that you can do.

[01:05:20] It's basically a type form that walks you through this game. Basically what computer says yes is given anything that you observe, would a computer say, yes, this is a factual inarguable observation or what a computer say does not compute. So, you know, right now I'm looking at, plants in my living room.

[01:05:41] The plant is, I could say this plant is really tall and has big green leaves. Would computer say yes to that? A computer that analyze this plant would say plant has green leaves. Yes. Peter says, yes, plant is really tall. Does not compute because really tall is relative. It's not really tall compared to, you know, a Redwood.

[01:06:06] Oh, it is really tall compared to like a cactus, you know, like a little succulent cactus that's sitting next to it. There's not really tall, a computer couldn't say that this tree is really tall. It could say that this tree is five feet tall. basically is, it's about looking at the world and observing what is a comparison that is not in arguable and what is fact.

[01:06:31]and what is assumption that is not an arguable and what is actual scientific observation? So, I can send you the link actually if you want to share it with people to the computer says yes, game, but this idea that you gotta be motivated to do the hard mental work, even if it makes you look bad.

[01:06:49]and you have to start becoming aware of what are factual observations and what are observations that can be argued with. The ones that you can't argue with are the first principles that should be the things that you focus on and build up from there. But ones that you can't argue with are the ones that you then take through this.

[01:07:08] The rest of the scientific method you question, you try to figure out whether they're inarguable or not, whether they can be true and can be helpful.

[01:07:18] Jess: You know? I think that's one of the most helpful things you've taught me. I think that that gives such a capacity for objectivity. You know, I think about my business partners at our Graystoke investment fund.

[01:07:35] I think about people that I work with on our charity, Child Rescue, you know, like so, so many parts of my life, I could play that game with folks. And it starts being an emotional conversation about, am I right or are you all right if, if we play this, and I'm just going to put words in your mouth and you correct me here, but it's almost like if we could play computer says yes to separate out the facts and the assumptions and to bring that intellectual honesty, and intellectual humility.

[01:08:05] It's like a way to save face, to bring intellectual humility and me acknowledging, yeah, I guess the plant isn't really tall. That's probably not the right way to describe it, right. Because it becomes about the data and said about was just right or was the other person. Right. And it's, it's fascinating because it's easy to learn.

[01:08:22] I can do it with my junior high, you know, I could do it with my nine-year-old. Do you know what I mean? So quick to learn and almost the format of it functionally lets everyone save face to get on the same page.

[01:08:37] Shane Snow: Yeah.

[01:08:37]Jess: what a, what a like an efficiency. What a gift. What an opportunity to make progress while inviting cooperation.

[01:08:46] Shane Snow: Yeah. I love the way that you put that it's even treating it as and, and using entry points like your computer says yes. As a way to treat this as a collaborative game, right. Really, truly, and this is why when I built on Smartcuts in our book dream teams, it's all about this idea that together we can be smarter than, you know, than we can be individually if we do the right things.

[01:09:17] But we have to start treating the problem as a game that we are together trying to find the solution for them. We'll get to this when we do the episode on disproving hypotheses. You know if someone has an idea and then you shoot holes in it and try and disprove it, that could make them feel bad.

[01:09:38] You know, it could, you could get involved or, you know, especially if you're the one with the power, it could really make them feel uncomfortable. But if you pull them into the game of how can we together try to disprove that, then it's no longer personal. And then you're, you're showing them that you're, you want to make use of their thinking, and it's not about who's right.

[01:09:57] It's about together getting to the right thing. So that's where, you know, the Sherlock Holmes analogy, I think a is not the right one. I mean, in many ways he does bring Watson along, you know, into, for the ride. But Watson has kind of the observer, Sherlock Holmes was not so collaborative. Right. But so we're not going to be him.

[01:10:18] But if together we play the Sherlock Holmes game, that's a lot more interesting than trying to be the one who's, who comes up with the right answers and who is right. Because then, you know, once again, like I keep mentioning, then there becomes this pressure for you to not back down when you are wrong about something or when you mis assume something and to double down.

[01:10:42] So that you don't appear weak or you know, we're dumb or whatever. And so turning it into a collaborative game, even if the stakes are really high, you know, it's, it's no true game if you're trying to say premature babies lives, but the collaboration aspect and the component parts of, you know, what's inarguable, what would computers say yes to?

[01:11:02] What's my story? How can we together disprove these things? That being the game as a being a really useful way to approach problems.

[01:11:11] Jess: You know, it's interesting. There's so many disagreeable things about Sherlock Holmes and the way he disregards other, and certainly the way Benedict Cumberbatch played the part in the BBC series, you know, very highly disagreeable in so many ways.

[01:11:26] Right? So many disagreeable things about choices Genghis Kahn made. I mean, the other one I would put in this category is Steve Jobs. You know I do not. have much respect for the way he mistreated so many people. Right. And does that mean that I can't, like, you know, cherry pick and take the cream of like, here's the guy who is willing to question how things have to be, here is a guy who was willing to not accept

[01:11:58] this is how it's always been. So this is how long it's gonna take. You know, like. You know, I guess for me in summary for all of this, and I'd love to see if you see it differently, I feel like, again, read your books multiple times, watched your keynotes. We've had all these conversations, but for me, this session, a different analogy came to mind, which will not be perfect as we previously mentioned, but for me is like almost a mental map for, to walk myself back through is

[01:12:30] I feel like in certain ways what I got maybe to a different level is this idea that if I wanted to be able to follow your advice, it's almost like I need to look at how it's always been done. So I'm looking at the investment space and how you raise money so you can buy big commercial real estate buildings or whatever.

[01:12:47] Right? And it's almost like I need to reduce it back to the most basic ingredients of this recipe. And then play like invent a sport, play a game with the team on do they really have to be recombined in the order that they have been for the last number of decades or, or asking like, do they, do they need to be like, do the methods of cooking or delivery?

[01:13:14] Do those, do those even require all these ingredients. Right? If, if I'm trying to deliver the same amount of nutrition in an appealing way, that will magnetically attract people to want it. Like are the ways, it's almost like by breaking them down into the separate ingredients, it makes it easy to question.

[01:13:37] Is that, is that ingredient required? Are there replacement ingredients? Do we can that ingredient be skipped? I mean, like I feel like your book so often is about this idea of skipping unnecessary work, right? And over time, as we work to specialize as humans, we typically add complexity, right? And over time, separating out the unnecessary complexity.

[01:14:03] When we've got this whole mental map of how this works. That that complexity can be baked in where what you've just taught us today, and you know, computer says yes and separating our piles and like I like seeing, you're like 250 post it notes on your window there when you moved your webcam. It's, to me, it's like a simple, repeatable, unintimidating way to break it into the individual ingredients to then question, do we need all these?

[01:14:31] Do they have to be combined this way? Do we. Anyways, so, yeah, I'd be interested to have you weigh in on my analogy there.

[01:14:39]Shane Snow: I love it. I think it, it comes back to, you know, the Steve Jobs thing, I think is a really interesting example of what we do. So often. It comes right back to the very first thing we talked about today.

[01:14:52] A lot of people look at Steve Jobs as this transformative, innovative leader, which he was, change the world, built a, what's now a trillion dollar company, right? And they say, well, he was brusque with people and he was a jerk. And so to be an innovative leader, I need to be also brusque and a jerk. And if you break down the pieces of what made him successful, it's really hard to come to that conclusion.

[01:15:18] That was, you know, part of his sort of struggle with character, I think, that, when you really strip things away, you're not just copying the move you a, you can realize that that's a false thing to take out of it just in the way that, you know, your podcast is number one in innovation, right?

[01:15:37] And then, in iTunes and other podcasts, you know, and say it one day, it becomes a number one podcast on Apple entirely. And other podcasts start to look at what you're doing. And they'll say, you know what? The best way to do a podcast is for the host to not have their camera on, but for the guests to have their camera on, but that's going to be just because of, you know, how you did it, not every component of how you did it is the thing that makes the difference.

[01:16:06] Right? And so I think giving yourself permission and then actually the challenge even to break things apart and to look at them, skeptically, from that point of view and to say. You know, Steve Jobs was great, was great, and he was a jerk. And so what can I learn from that, I think is enormously useful.

[01:16:29]and, yeah, I mean, I guess in summary, if you were, Oh, actually I do have one last thing before we go. I just finished season one of The Wire. And, speaking of real estate, I know nothing about commercial real estate. That's not my jam, but one of the things that the bad guys were doing.

[01:16:46] That was really clever is they were buying real estate in these really crappy parts of town that they knew. The shady thing is they knew that those parts of town were going to be redeveloped or gentrified, but they specifically were buying properties that they knew that the government would have to pay them to demolish.

[01:17:03] So they'd buy these crappy properties and not rent them out so that they could make the money from the demolishing. And anyway, and that itself is sort of like a really interesting example of this lateral thinking that, you know, the principle is, I mean, I'm going to get this wrong because I'm not a real estate person, but from what I take away from this is the principle is that owning that, you know, square of land, it gives you, is valuable and gives you potential value.

[01:17:32] And then the game is what are all the ways that we could get value out of this. Do we have to just build a brand new building, or can we actually leave this crappy building and just not have anyone live in it so that we can get paid when it gets turned down? Once again, don't take, you know, the bad guys on The Wire as like your marching orders for how you should build your business, but take the approach that they took as a smart way to rethink problems. Anyway,

[01:18:04] Jess: there's a couple of folks I actually really admire with, with related thinking to that. One is the CEO of Brookfield. you know, they've got like $500 billion in asset management. They're one of the largest commercial real estate owners, and he says, you know, he is such a  of Warren Buffett of like, go buy things that are unfashionable.

[01:18:24] You know, like, don't, you know, the best way to buy with a margin of safety is if you can buy real estate building for less than it's a replacement cost. Things like this. Right? But, when you're buying things that are unfashionable, it really does take much deeper thinking to think, is this unpopular

[01:18:40] for a reason that I shouldn't buy it just to be a contrarian? You know, but he says like retail malls are the most hated form of commercial real estate right now. Everybody thinks Amazon is going to wipe them out. And it's like the, the general wisdom is malls are a terrible business to be in, right?

[01:18:59] And he says, that is so great for us because what's being discounted is that it has to stay a mall. And then it can't be turned into apartment complexes above trendy restaurants with self storage units and last mile commercial industrial space for Amazon to deliver to the neighborhoods right there.

[01:19:21] And he's like, look, these moles are next to major arteries and you know, middle upper class neighborhoods. Like, what is that proximity worth if it's not just full of like the gap and failing clothing stores, right?

[01:19:35] Shane Snow: Yeah. And you have a huge amount of surface area on the roof that's pretty high up that you can put solar panels on and even you know generate your own electricity for the neighborhood.

[01:19:43] There's all sorts of things you could do with that if you think of it as that just having to be a mall.

[01:19:48] Jess: well, and with changes in autonomous driving, the likelihood that they need that much, parking lot space. Seems like it's, it's going to be reduced. And so, you know, buying something as a multiple of a parking lot and then being able to turn it into really nice apartments with walking distance, amenities, like that's a pretty big arbitrage to buy parking lots, right?

[01:20:10] Shane Snow: Oh yeah, I would do that.

[01:20:13] Jess: I know. Let's go buy parking lot together. So the other one is a very similar, it's the guy who bought Sears when they were on their way down. And everyone's saying like, what a mistake, you know, this is so likely to go bankrupt. What are you thinking? And he said, I sure hope not.

[01:20:29] But you realize I bought the whole company for significantly less than the real estate was worth. If Sears dies, do you realize the square footage I own in so many ideal locations in ideal cities. To your point

[01:20:43] Shane Snow: that's, that's the breaking down the first principles, right? It's like saying the battery is cobalt and aluminum and yeah, it's really, really good. A example of exactly what we've been talking about.

[01:20:58] Jess: We'll do you want to give anybody a sneak peek for what's coming next?

[01:21:01] Shane Snow: Sure., and then I have to run to my next meeting. Unfortunately, I wish, I wish we could do this for hours. So in the next episode, we're going to build on this observation stage of scientific method and first principles thinking and go into second order thinking, which is really about asking the right questions and thinking about what are the right questions for the long term domino effects of what we can be doing.

[01:21:30] Not just solving the acute problem, but solving the bigger picture problem. Setting that up so that when you get to the actual problem-solving phases of brainstorming ideas and debating and hypotheses and coming to conclusions that you're attacking the right problem. And that is all built on these observations that we're making.

[01:21:55] So that's what we're going to dig into, is how to think about the right problem to attack before you get to attacking.

[01:22:02] Jess: I love it. Everybody tune back in for that one. Shane, as always, thanks for giving us so much time.

[01:22:08] Shane Snow: Thank you so much, Jess.

[01:22:09] Jess: Bye everyone.