3 ms·
This article is really the same thing as Elon Musk's "think from first principles", except Musk's formulation is much better imo.
by KaoruAoiShiho 7y ago
This article is really the same thing as Elon Musk's "think from first principles", except Musk's formulation is much better imo.
- libertine 7y agoIn my opinion the byproduct of first principles thinking is precisely the opposite of meta : you wouldn't get a meta, but several metas for the same game, since you built your conceptualization from the fundamentals which are established truths. Metas seem to be built around constrains, limitations, exploits, or other forms of disruption that are introduced in the game in a cyclical fashion (new rules, new laws, new markets, new medium, new tools, etc).
- KaoruAoiShiho 7y agoTotally disagree. First principle thinking is a clearer formulation of what the author wanted to achieve with the meta concept. For example in the marketing example where the meta dictates movement from adsense to xyz platforms you can also get there by first principles, which is finding the most cost effective way to reach the audience. When you're thinking from first principles you are not disregarding the current conditions, including constraints, you are just not allowing yourself to be a lazy and are constantly reevaluating the situation from base. Many people love to talk meta but they end up with a hazy understanding of fundamentals and end up behind the curve, very detrimental. First principle thinking just avoids these issues. BTW. Games are not perfectly analogous to IRL. Games can sometimes be (imo poorly) designed to function completely based on a fluctuating rps system that forces a meta, where if everyone goes rock you'll have the highest percentages going paper. IRL doesn't really work that way. Pikemen beats cavalry, cavalry beats swordsmen and swordsmen beats pikemen, but guns beat all 3 and it's completely OP.