Szymon's Zettelkasten

PN: The first principles

Tags: first principles Knowledge learning makePublic

Reference: https://fs.blog/2018/04/first-principles/; First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Know

The first principles thinking is a way of reasoning followed by the greatest minds of our planet.

It's about breaking down each concept into the basic truths and reasoning up from there.

Basic truths are things you cannot break down further. Usually, they are laws of nature, math, or well-established facts.

With those basics truths, you can figure out almost everything and invent new stuff because you have the building blocks of reality. You don't have to rely on memory because you either know how and why something works or you can get to that anyway. You can gain back the curiosity you once had as a child because you have the tools to play with reality.

4 mental models for a better decision making process – Making Headway Blog

“As to methods, there may be a million and then some, but principles are few. The man who grasps principles can successfully select his own methods. The man who tries methods, ignoring principles, is sure to have trouble.” — Harrington Emerson

The opposite to first principles is thinking through analogy. Analogy is when you reason in a particular way because someone else thinks or thought that way. This type of thinking is shallow because it does not take into account the origin and path of development of a particular idea. It's about copying what others are doing with slight variations.

Let's look at the difference between these two types of thinking through an example: the cook who reasons through analogy vs. the chef who uses first principle thinking. The cook knows the recipes well and has sufficient cooking skills to deliver those recipes. The chef knows the recipes as well and also has the cooking skills. So what's the difference? The distinction appears when something goes wrong or changes - for instance, 2 ingredients are not available. The cook will freeze because he won't know what to do. The chef on the other hand will be able to improvise or invent something new to make up for the missing ingredient. Why? It's because the chef knows the flavor profile of all the ingredients in the restaurant. He knows which combinations work well with each other and which don't. He is aware of the texture each meal has to have to taste delicious. In other words, he knows the first principles of cooking. The cook knows only tactics.

Reasoning through first principles is like choosing the fishing rod instead of the fish. It's harder initially and it takes more time, but in the long term, you win because you have the tools to navigate reality.

Relevant notes:

PN: How to reason through first principles: There are several techniques to get to the root cause.

P: Problems contain a gem that can help you grow: Dalio has another approach to principles. He treats them as mental models derived from learnings based on mistakes, failure, and pains he's meeting.

P: Problems are manifestations of root causes:

PN: The dance between extraverted and introverted thinking: Is first principles thinking Ti and thinking through analogy Te? And the question how other functions are represented in such universal concepts like analogy?

TK PN: Integrating first principles thinking into your life:

P: If you don't know the basics then you're just memorizing:

PN: Internalization leads to expertise: experts can break down complicated concepts into their building blocks.

Q: How to learn shit

Building a broad network of ideas through proper learning, one in which you connect new ideas to previous information (i.e., internalization), prevents you from being the "man with a hammer for whom every problem looks like a nail" because you have more tools (or lenses) for understanding reality (PN: The first principles: Each tool can be derived from carefully examining principles that rule existence).

PN: To persuade help the mind save energy

We use those "shortcuts" because usually they work in our favor, therefore, it's worth taking the small risk of being wrong (the opposite to that is thinking through first principles).

P: Discussions are almost as good as writing at shaping thoughts

The act of externalizing your thoughts—even vocally—requires clarifying and completing your ideas, which, similarly to writing, leads to better understanding. What's more, since when you're discussing something you're talking to others (not to yourself like when writing), you must tailor the information to the recipient. Usually, this entails simplifying the information, which often forces you decompose it into its building blocks (PN: The first principles), which usually exposes how much you understand it.

P: Most effective learning comes from doing | Processized

As said in the beginning, to create you need to at least be able to express the book's ideas in your own words —and writing is the best way to achieve that. Writing gives ideas clarity and tangibility (especially if you combine it with first principles thinking or the Feynman technique). Clarity because to be able to write about something you must explain it in your own words, which requires connecting it to what you already know. Tangibility because when you put things on paper (or monitor screen) you can finally see your thoughts. This lays the foundation to start putting knowledge into action