8 ms·

Elon Musk on First Principles

189 points by npostolovski 13y ago

TheSOB88 13y ago
I've been waiting for someone to put a name to this kind of thinking.
saraid216 13y ago
A similar theme, but on game design, can be found here: http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1013804/MUD-Messrs-Bartle-and-Trubshaw http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1013804/MUD-Messrs-Bartle-and-T...
ChuckMcM 13y ago
I'm a big fan of reasoning from first principles, but in practice it tends to work out more like 'total honesty' does with your spouse. Which is to say, not always all that great. I tend to be a reasoned sort of guy, this doesn't mean I don't say stupid things, I do, but when called on those things I can tell you how I reasoned to them and you can help me see the error in my reasoning. When someone can't reason from such a basis, and they are insisting on some plan or assertion based on their 'gut' I find it very hard to accept that as acceptable. When they won't even talk about how one might reason to the point, I find it unacceptable. Some people are very invested in being "right" and letting them know they may not be right is taken as an attack on their person rather than their reasoning. One of the smartest guys I met at Google had this issue. You could do ok with the Socratic Method (asking questions that might lead them to understand where they were mistaken) but even that was dangerous if done in a group context (since the audience could figure out they were wrong before they could come up with a rationale). When someone works with me to explain their reasoning I really appreciate and respect them for that.
- redmaverick 13y ago
  >> When someone can't reason from such a basis, and they are insisting on some plan or assertion based on their 'gut' I find it very hard to accept that as acceptable. When they won't even talk about how one might reason to the point, I find it unacceptable. Not all people rely on linear and logical problem solving abilities. People who are creative tend towards "gut/intuition/instinct". Take for example Magnus Carlsen, who is the highest rated chess player of all time. He does not calculate logically which move to play next. Using his vast experience, he knows intuitively the best possible move to make next. Likewise there are chess grandmasters who are more methodical and calculating. “The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.” ― Albert Einstein
  - Radim 13y ago
    Occult drivel. Where on earth did you read that about Magnus Carlsen? To say good chess players (not to say grandmasters, let alone world champions) don't calculate moves borders on insulting.
    - redmaverick 13y ago
      According to Kasparov, Carlsen has a knack for sensing the potential energy in each move, even if its ultimate effect is too far away for anyone — even a computer — to calculate. In the grand-master commentary room, where chess’s clerisy gather to analyze play, the experts did not even consider several of Carlsen’s moves during his game with Kramnik until they saw them and realized they were perfect. “It’s hard to explain,” Carlsen says. “Sometimes a move just feels right.”
      - Radim 13y ago
        Now, that concept I'm familiar with. In fact, I think that's a rather common feeling, not even exclusive to chess or pros. Intuition (whatever that is) plays a great role, especially at the top level.
        Double_Cast 13y ago
        "Noobs use approximately 95% calculation and 5% intuition, whereas a grand master has a ratio closer to 40% calculation and 60% intuition." I vaguely paraphrased this from a paperback chess guide of mine (hopefully more credible than the internet). According to my guide, grand masters can effortlessly memorize the positions of realistic matches. But for "nonsensical chess matches" where the positions were randomly generated, the masters were just as bad at recall as the noobs. From this data, my guide inferred that masters rely on recalling attack-patterns from their experience more than brute-force calculation. Similar to how a tourney-strength player has openings memorized by heart, I imagine that a master recognizes common middle-game patterns like the back of his hand.
        13y ago
- drone 13y ago
  > I tend to be a reasoned sort of guy, this doesn't mean I don't say stupid things, I do, but when called on those things I can tell you how I reasoned to them and you can help me see the error in my reasoning. ... When they won't even talk about how one might reason to the point, I find it unacceptable. I'm not sure that the outcome would be different in this case, whether you reasoned by analogy or by first principles. Neither accept a complete lack of reasoning, and both expect some basis for that reasoning.
- jonnathanson 13y ago
  "You could do ok with the Socratic Method (asking questions that might lead them to understand where they were mistaken) but even that was dangerous if done in a group context" This is very true, and I've learned it the hard way. I do not advise using the Socratic Method to dissect the reasoning of a "needs-to-be-right" personality in a group setting, particularly if that person happens to be your superior. It's been my experience that these personalities will feel under attack, and possibly even attribute personal/political motivations to you. When removed from a group (i.e., to your point, an audience), the Socratic Method works a lot better. It allows the recipient of the questioning to save face. He or she will be much more likely to engage in a real dialogue.
  - gnaritas 13y ago
    The problem is the Socratic Method should only be used on someone who accepts that you're trying to teach them something. It's insulting when used in another context.
    - Tenhundfeld 13y ago
      Strictly speaking, I think you're right, but many people use the phrase Socratic Method to mean any interaction in which you use questions to influence someone's thinking. Feigning ignorance (or playing dumb) can be an extremely effective tactic in this area. Start with a simple question that is almost embarrassingly simple and then angle follow-ups towards the actual problem/inconsistency/concern/whatever. You often don't even need to ask follow-up questions; overly simple questions get people thinking about their core assumptions, which is often the root of the problem. Or their answer reveals flawed core assumptions, which is equally good.
      - gnaritas 13y ago
        I agree, but people quickly figure out you're trying to manipulate them and they still get angry. It's pretty rare that someone changes their mind based on your questioning their assumptions even if feigning ignorance.
- vbtemp 13y ago
  > in practice it tends to work out more like 'total honesty' does with your spouse. Which is to say, not always all that great. Spoken like a true wise man.
- ademarre 13y ago
  I think there's a difference between working with first principles to develop an idea, and reasoning with first principles to explain the developed idea to others. When it comes to explaining the idea to others, using a first-principles line of reasoning is only one of your options.
thangalin 13y ago
"Reasoning from first principles: What’s the least information I need to collect from the user to make the app functional?" Functional web apps do not need any user information. People should be able to use the app without having to submit any contact details. An account is created for them automatically, and, presuming they like the app, they can provide contact details later. Similarly, most apps do not require passwords at all. E-mail authentication provides a better security layer than forcing users to pick yet another (insecure) password. The algorithm for using the site becomes: 1. System creates an account with a unique account ID if the user has no site cookie. 2. User, upon being impressed, provides e-mail and name. 3. User can sign in later using their e-mail address. 4. User receives an e-mail with a login link to click. Most users these days will already have their e-mail application open (be it Outlook, GMail, etc.), so leveraging all the work that has gone into making e-mail secure is a win.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- Aqueous 13y ago
  This works if the ultimate goal is to sign them up for a free account. But what if the goal is to convert them to a paid account after a certain trial period? A user can just clear their cache or cookies and use it free indefinitely.
  - robotresearcher 13y ago
    Persistent state (e.g. documents, settings) only available to signed-in users?
  - thangalin 13y ago
    In freemium models, some features are free. People should be able to use the app without submitting contact details. I did not state that all features had to be free. Enough features should be available that users can quickly understand premium account benefits. Deciding what features to make free vs. premium can be a difficult business decision. Then, unlock premium features for registered (paying) accounts. (Trial periods require superfluous tracking code that offers little business value, if any.) See: http://www.forbes.com/sites/brettnelson/2013/07/23/the-freemium-model-top-flaws-and-potent-fixes/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/brettnelson/2013/07/23/the-freem...
011011100 13y ago
Did you really have to come up with a name for it: "reasoning from first principles"? Does it not bother anyone else that this is just "thinking"? I mean, if you can deal with the cost of re-engineering the battery, then why not? Is this not common sense?
- adwn 13y ago
  Reasoning by analogy is also "thinking". What's wrong with giving different names to different ways of approaching a problem?
  - 011011100 13y ago
    Because it formalizes thought and encourages people to use templates rather than actually thinking about it themselves. If you're "solving problems" by always referring to your sheet of "problem solving approaches", then you're doing it wrong. You might still be successful in solving a problem, but you've effectively turned yourself into a robot.
    - drone 13y ago
      Anyone operating in a template-driven manner is not reasoning by first principles. I'm not sure what legs your argument has, we might as well say that speaking an existing language like English, French, or German makes us robots by forcing us to communicate within a well-defined and rigorous communication structure. The fallacy of an individual with regards to reasoning is not a function of the fact that methods of reasoning are identified - they are failures of the individual to effectively apply their own creativity. Don't blame the linguistic constructs.
      - 011011100 13y ago
        "Anyone operating in a template-driven manner is not reasoning by first principles." I'm saying that when you want to solve a problem, you don't use a checklist of which "reasoning from first principles" is an item. "reasoning from first principles" would be the template. It's an approach that someone spoonfed you. There is no contradiction here because we're speaking about the type of approach, not the particular sequence of steps you use to arrive at the solution. Of course you can be creative with these steps once you know the type of approach you're taking. "I'm not sure what legs your argument has, we might as well say that speaking an existing language like English, French, or German makes us robots by forcing us to communicate within a well-defined and rigorous communication structure." Natural language is well-defined and rigorous? That's not true. "The fallacy of an individual with regards to reasoning is not a function of the fact that methods of reasoning are identified" I don't care that it's labeled, per se, as long as people are discouraged to act like I mentioned. If the act of identifying and labeling thought patterns promotes laziness, then I am justified in being against it. But anyway, that's an empirical claim and you haven't provided any real reason for why you think it's false.
j45 13y ago
Musk's thoughts are a great read -- thanks for sharing this. Much innovation lies at the intersection of a mindset existing in possibilities, fuelled by creativity and ignoring what has, or hasn't been done before and really cut to the root of why people desire something or have a particular need.
swalsh 13y ago
A few years ago i went to this talk where the founder of Kiva Systems (automated warehouse systems) was giving a talk. He was mentioning how he came up with the idea, and it was actually quite a structured approach. He altered the parameters to the theoretical maximum (what if the warehouse was an infinite size) what would the solution be? What he eventually came up with is the system they have today. Structural thinking, the way Musk talks about is really useful. It is not intuitive to move the shelves instead of the warehouse picker, and thinking by analogy probably wouldn't have lead to that moment of inspiration.
- kiskis 13y ago
  that kiva system is very cool, here is a tedx video about it, and some words about the theoretical min-max parameters mentioned. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szU2-1infqc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szU2-1infqc
codex 13y ago
Reasoning from first principles is a symbolic approach. Reasoning by analogy is the intuitive approach. Both have their place. Intuitive thinking works especially well on fuzzy problems with incomplete and/or conflicting data, where a statistical approach is likely best. Reasoning from first principles is indeed hard, but the reason it's so little used is because it often doesn't produce real world results.
krmmalik 13y ago
I'm someone that has thought like this for most of my life, the biggest problem I have however is persuading others to do the same. Take for example a client, I'm helping them with improving their email marketing. I ask them do they really need a huge disclaimer at the end of each email? They dont budge. Or say - I'm working on a mobile app and try to persuade my co-founder that we should consider doing things one way and then his response "but xyz company is doing it this way. so should we".
cbhl 13y ago
I have this habit of highlighting text as I read, and on this website, I find that the text is gray and the highlight is a very similar shade of gray. Does this bother anyone else?
- ademarre 13y ago
  Hear, hear! Yes, I do that too and noticed the same when reading from microlancer.com. I think it drives my coworkers crazy when they're looking over my shoulder reading from the same screen.
- Elrac 13y ago
  Yes! I came here to opine that in an ideal world somebody would slap the site designer for his lousy color choice. All the more ironic that this is a developer trying to tell us about innovative and creative thinking.
aridiculous 13y ago
Reasoning from first principles is ahistorical, and that is why it so rarely works in the real world. Political and social constructs inherited through time (like, say, the law) will butt heads against a "pure" new solution. You need the resources (and determination, will, etc) to overpower colossal systems we've arrived at through the progression of history. If you're going to hit homeruns like Musk, I think you must "reinvent the wheel" like he does. But he has resources to fight those battles, and you -- probably -- don't. When he didn't have those significant resources, like when he started Paypal from first principles, he had an entire cultural shift as his economic lever: he was only able to compete in the online banking and credit card industry because it was an Internet wild west. I'm not sure that reasoning from first principles is the right first step for someone with no assets now that the internet has legal and corporate oversight swimming through it. But what do I know :P
- wwkeyboard 13y ago
  I think "standing on the shoulders of giants" is the cliche you're looking for. - Looking over the examples from the blog post, those aren't really from 'first principles'. They are assuming cars and an internet and other huge innovations. I think the real message should be 'double check your assumptions'.
  - graeme 13y ago
    The parent is referring to a different phenomenon. "The weight of history" might be a way of describing it. In many domains you can't just start over fresh. "Standing on the shoulders of giants" refers to the idea that we owe much of our knowledge to those who came before us. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_giants http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_gi...
    - stonemetal 13y ago
      Does that make the "The weight of history" equivalent to "The weight of giants"? That is to say we owe much of our knowledge to those who came before even if that knowledge is wrong.
xzephyr 13y ago
The so-called reason by analogy is just gradient descent to approach local optima in optmization. The "by first principle" is just providing an approximate (ideally convex) model and solve it analytically for global optima. The problem is generally very hard (#P hard), both for formulating the problem and solving it. Global optimum of course in theory is better, but the quality of your objective function and constraints could easily offset this advantage. If you can come up with a simple linear programming problem for the battery example - that's great, but most likely you won't due to the prescence of competitor, market and policy constraint.
- possibilistic 13y ago
  I love this explanation. Do you happen to blog about optimization topics?
  - jrsnyder 13y ago
    Seconded.
  - xzephyr 13y ago
    Ah, sorry no. I'm just interested in AI in general and constrained optimization has been the what I found to be the most general model for solving and giving insights into AI problems or any problems that require "intelligence".
  - NamTaf 13y ago
    If you're asking waht I think you're asking, then what you're then looking for is called 'numerical analysis'. Specifically, the grandparent was describing this [1]. Here is an OCW link for a good primer in to various introductory numerical analysis processes for Engineering [2]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradient_descent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradient_descent [2]: http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mechanical-engineering/2-993j-introduction-to-numerical-analysis-for-engineering-13-002j-spring-2005/ http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mechanical-engineering/2-993j-int...
    - xzephyr 13y ago
bsdetector 13y ago
technical innovations that many thought impossible, like producing battery packs more cheaply than ever before. Really? Many people thought that cheaper battery packs were actually impossible? Maybe the rest of the article says something important, but when the second sentence is tripe like that I'm not going to stick around to find out.
- eruditely 13y ago
  What he said isn't even that big of a deal, the issue is more with you than with him. You actually just said that even if something important could be understood you will let your pettiness get in the way.
- eruditely 13y ago
  What he said isn't even that big of a deal, the issue is more with you than with him. You actually just said that even if something important could be understood you will let your pettiness get in the way.
codex 13y ago
It's funny that the example given is of Musk reasoning to how batteries can be much cheaper than they are. And yet Tesla buys their raw batteries from third party manufacturers just like almost all other EV manufacturers. So I'm a bit confused as to the value of this particular example. Furthermore, batteries still do not cost anywhere close to what Musk predicts. Perhaps that's because he completely ignores manufacturing costs in his analysis. The price of a sewing needle costs a lot more than the cost of the raw materials.
samolang 13y ago
Reminds of a quote (falsely?) attributed to Henry Ford. “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.”
diminoten 13y ago
This reminds me of the S/N Meyers-Briggs definitions (Sensing vs. Intuition)[0]. Sensing is about analogy; we go with what exists, what I can upvote/pin/like/snap, and I improve upon it. I iterate until I've created something that we know already exists but in an improved way. We take what exists Intuition is about what this article calls "first principals"; we notice the trends, the underlying reasons why we upvote/pin/like/snap and try to create something that satisfies that need. Or we find a new need and try to fill it. Doesn't matter. So Elon Musk is saying something entirely[1] un-new[2] - that N types work better in entrepreneuring than S types. Common theory, no clue if it holds water. [0] - http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/sensing-or-intuition.asp http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-bas... [1] - http://www.keirsey.com/4temps/inventor.asp http://www.keirsey.com/4temps/inventor.asp [2] - http://www.businessinsider.com/myer-briggs-personality-styles-and-entrepreneurship-2010-11 http://www.businessinsider.com/myer-briggs-personality-style...
tempestn 13y ago
There's a great example of this kind of thinking on the homepage right now: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6736001 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6736001. The last sentence in the article: “But first, this problem needed someone like Jorge,” he said. “An obstetrician would have tried to improve the forceps or the vacuum extractor, but obstructed labor needed a mechanic. And 10 years ago, this would not have been possible. Without YouTube, he never would have seen the video.”
DigitalJack 13y ago
"Problem: Creating a website that allows customers to buy a new car at a low price and have it home delivered, sparing them the pain of a stressful dealership visit and price negotiation." That's not a problem. That's a solution.
6ren 13y ago
1. reasoning from first principles is a really cool, powerful and awfully difficult. Most importantly, it forces you to consider what the question actually is (see Douglas Adams). 2. the BOM cost is an interesting perspective, but is a terrible example of the above, because it doesn't go back to what the problem really is (energy), and also excludes every solution except batteries made of the same materials, and therefore likely based on the same principles. 3. the analogy to BOM for software is information (what do we know? what do we want?). While this is closer to true first principles than BOM, it assumes the problem statement, and thus precludes reconceptualization - changing the specification, changing the requirements, changing the context. BTW describing a startup as the "x of y" is a way to communicate it succinctly, and not necessarily what it really is. It's ad copy.
dgmdoug 13y ago
I think the most dangerous thing here is the branding of research as something new, that Musk has invented. I worked in academic and industrial research for a number of years, and any work that was worth it's salt typically went back to first principles to make its point. The problem with this is that it's hard and time it's time consuming to do this. Most companies and people don't have the time to go back to first principles for every product they build, and it would not be financially viable to do so if they did. So we compartmentalise and we make assumptions about the outcome based on prior knowledge to assess the risk of the project. Software development is illustrative of this point. Let's say you are developing a beautiful front end for your product. You use a toolkit, based upon an existing language, which eventually will get interpreted/compiled down through multiple existing systems and run on the processor of your computer. If I wanted to go back to first principles and make the whole thing faster, do I optimise my code the language, the compiler, the browser, the os stack, the hardware stack, CPU assembly? No, as I'd no longer be a front end developer. Research is hard, expensive, and by it's nature, high risk. If Musk can sit on his pile of money and do it, great for him, but for most, going back to first principles for everything is not a viable option.
pencilcheck 13y ago
Reasoning from analogy is the wrong way of saying what people have in mind when they provide examples to explain what it is. To me, it sound more like reasoning form what already works. In most examples I have seen, it is mostly about solving a problem using existing solutions/packages available and add your own flavor to it. That's why the "analogy" thinking because that's how the idea is presented, people pitch the idea using other's solutions. But what Elon Musk is different from others is that his thinking is stemming from scientific research more than you think it is. It is asking about the right question by digging deep into the core of the problem until you cannot dig any further. For example, in Elon Musk's example of battery, you first start with a goal: how to build an electric cars that is cost effective. You break the goals down into smaller problems, and you could recognize that battery is the biggest contributing factor in providing the solution to this goal, then you ask, why is the cost of battery so high yet it yield so little? Then you break the problem down into further smaller problems such as the cost for each component that comprised the battery, then you keep reasoning from there until you can find a ground where you can start reasoning back up. Personally I think the name "First principle" is also misleading since it is not mainly about principles, but more about asking the right questions.

189 points by npostolovski 13y ago

I've been waiting for someone to put a name to this kind of thinking.

A similar theme, but on game design, can be found here: http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1013804/MUD-Messrs-Bartle-and-Trubshaw http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1013804/MUD-Messrs-Bartle-and-T...

ChuckMcM 13y ago

I'm a big fan of reasoning from first principles, but in practice it tends to work out more like 'total honesty' does with your spouse. Which is to say, not always all that great. I tend to be a reasoned sort of guy, this doesn't mean I don't say stupid things, I do, but when called on those things I can tell you how I reasoned to them and you can help me see the error in my reasoning. When someone can't reason from such a basis, and they are insisting on some plan or assertion based on their 'gut' I find it very hard to accept that as acceptable. When they won't even talk about how one might reason to the point, I find it unacceptable. Some people are very invested in being "right" and letting them know they may not be right is taken as an attack on their person rather than their reasoning. One of the smartest guys I met at Google had this issue. You could do ok with the Socratic Method (asking questions that might lead them to understand where they were mistaken) but even that was dangerous if done in a group context (since the audience could figure out they were wrong before they could come up with a rationale). When someone works with me to explain their reasoning I really appreciate and respect them for that.

redmaverick 13y ago
>> When someone can't reason from such a basis, and they are insisting on some plan or assertion based on their 'gut' I find it very hard to accept that as acceptable. When they won't even talk about how one might reason to the point, I find it unacceptable. Not all people rely on linear and logical problem solving abilities. People who are creative tend towards "gut/intuition/instinct". Take for example Magnus Carlsen, who is the highest rated chess player of all time. He does not calculate logically which move to play next. Using his vast experience, he knows intuitively the best possible move to make next. Likewise there are chess grandmasters who are more methodical and calculating. “The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.” ― Albert Einstein
- Radim 13y ago
  Occult drivel. Where on earth did you read that about Magnus Carlsen? To say good chess players (not to say grandmasters, let alone world champions) don't calculate moves borders on insulting.
  - redmaverick 13y ago
    According to Kasparov, Carlsen has a knack for sensing the potential energy in each move, even if its ultimate effect is too far away for anyone — even a computer — to calculate. In the grand-master commentary room, where chess’s clerisy gather to analyze play, the experts did not even consider several of Carlsen’s moves during his game with Kramnik until they saw them and realized they were perfect. “It’s hard to explain,” Carlsen says. “Sometimes a move just feels right.”
    - Radim 13y ago
      Now, that concept I'm familiar with. In fact, I think that's a rather common feeling, not even exclusive to chess or pros. Intuition (whatever that is) plays a great role, especially at the top level.
      - Double_Cast 13y ago
        "Noobs use approximately 95% calculation and 5% intuition, whereas a grand master has a ratio closer to 40% calculation and 60% intuition." I vaguely paraphrased this from a paperback chess guide of mine (hopefully more credible than the internet). According to my guide, grand masters can effortlessly memorize the positions of realistic matches. But for "nonsensical chess matches" where the positions were randomly generated, the masters were just as bad at recall as the noobs. From this data, my guide inferred that masters rely on recalling attack-patterns from their experience more than brute-force calculation. Similar to how a tourney-strength player has openings memorized by heart, I imagine that a master recognizes common middle-game patterns like the back of his hand.
        13y ago
drone 13y ago
> I tend to be a reasoned sort of guy, this doesn't mean I don't say stupid things, I do, but when called on those things I can tell you how I reasoned to them and you can help me see the error in my reasoning. ... When they won't even talk about how one might reason to the point, I find it unacceptable. I'm not sure that the outcome would be different in this case, whether you reasoned by analogy or by first principles. Neither accept a complete lack of reasoning, and both expect some basis for that reasoning.
jonnathanson 13y ago
"You could do ok with the Socratic Method (asking questions that might lead them to understand where they were mistaken) but even that was dangerous if done in a group context" This is very true, and I've learned it the hard way. I do not advise using the Socratic Method to dissect the reasoning of a "needs-to-be-right" personality in a group setting, particularly if that person happens to be your superior. It's been my experience that these personalities will feel under attack, and possibly even attribute personal/political motivations to you. When removed from a group (i.e., to your point, an audience), the Socratic Method works a lot better. It allows the recipient of the questioning to save face. He or she will be much more likely to engage in a real dialogue.
- gnaritas 13y ago
  The problem is the Socratic Method should only be used on someone who accepts that you're trying to teach them something. It's insulting when used in another context.
  - Tenhundfeld 13y ago
    Strictly speaking, I think you're right, but many people use the phrase Socratic Method to mean any interaction in which you use questions to influence someone's thinking. Feigning ignorance (or playing dumb) can be an extremely effective tactic in this area. Start with a simple question that is almost embarrassingly simple and then angle follow-ups towards the actual problem/inconsistency/concern/whatever. You often don't even need to ask follow-up questions; overly simple questions get people thinking about their core assumptions, which is often the root of the problem. Or their answer reveals flawed core assumptions, which is equally good.
    - gnaritas 13y ago
      I agree, but people quickly figure out you're trying to manipulate them and they still get angry. It's pretty rare that someone changes their mind based on your questioning their assumptions even if feigning ignorance.
vbtemp 13y ago
> in practice it tends to work out more like 'total honesty' does with your spouse. Which is to say, not always all that great. Spoken like a true wise man.
ademarre 13y ago
I think there's a difference between working with first principles to develop an idea, and reasoning with first principles to explain the developed idea to others. When it comes to explaining the idea to others, using a first-principles line of reasoning is only one of your options.

thangalin 13y ago

"Reasoning from first principles: What’s the least information I need to collect from the user to make the app functional?" Functional web apps do not need any user information. People should be able to use the app without having to submit any contact details. An account is created for them automatically, and, presuming they like the app, they can provide contact details later. Similarly, most apps do not require passwords at all. E-mail authentication provides a better security layer than forcing users to pick yet another (insecure) password. The algorithm for using the site becomes: 1. System creates an account with a unique account ID if the user has no site cookie. 2. User, upon being impressed, provides e-mail and name. 3. User can sign in later using their e-mail address. 4. User receives an e-mail with a login link to click. Most users these days will already have their e-mail application open (be it Outlook, GMail, etc.), so leveraging all the work that has gone into making e-mail secure is a win.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
Aqueous 13y ago
This works if the ultimate goal is to sign them up for a free account. But what if the goal is to convert them to a paid account after a certain trial period? A user can just clear their cache or cookies and use it free indefinitely.
- robotresearcher 13y ago
  Persistent state (e.g. documents, settings) only available to signed-in users?
- thangalin 13y ago
  In freemium models, some features are free. People should be able to use the app without submitting contact details. I did not state that all features had to be free. Enough features should be available that users can quickly understand premium account benefits. Deciding what features to make free vs. premium can be a difficult business decision. Then, unlock premium features for registered (paying) accounts. (Trial periods require superfluous tracking code that offers little business value, if any.) See: http://www.forbes.com/sites/brettnelson/2013/07/23/the-freemium-model-top-flaws-and-potent-fixes/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/brettnelson/2013/07/23/the-freem...

011011100 13y ago

Did you really have to come up with a name for it: "reasoning from first principles"? Does it not bother anyone else that this is just "thinking"? I mean, if you can deal with the cost of re-engineering the battery, then why not? Is this not common sense?

adwn 13y ago
Reasoning by analogy is also "thinking". What's wrong with giving different names to different ways of approaching a problem?
- 011011100 13y ago
  Because it formalizes thought and encourages people to use templates rather than actually thinking about it themselves. If you're "solving problems" by always referring to your sheet of "problem solving approaches", then you're doing it wrong. You might still be successful in solving a problem, but you've effectively turned yourself into a robot.
  - drone 13y ago
    Anyone operating in a template-driven manner is not reasoning by first principles. I'm not sure what legs your argument has, we might as well say that speaking an existing language like English, French, or German makes us robots by forcing us to communicate within a well-defined and rigorous communication structure. The fallacy of an individual with regards to reasoning is not a function of the fact that methods of reasoning are identified - they are failures of the individual to effectively apply their own creativity. Don't blame the linguistic constructs.
    - 011011100 13y ago
      "Anyone operating in a template-driven manner is not reasoning by first principles." I'm saying that when you want to solve a problem, you don't use a checklist of which "reasoning from first principles" is an item. "reasoning from first principles" would be the template. It's an approach that someone spoonfed you. There is no contradiction here because we're speaking about the type of approach, not the particular sequence of steps you use to arrive at the solution. Of course you can be creative with these steps once you know the type of approach you're taking. "I'm not sure what legs your argument has, we might as well say that speaking an existing language like English, French, or German makes us robots by forcing us to communicate within a well-defined and rigorous communication structure." Natural language is well-defined and rigorous? That's not true. "The fallacy of an individual with regards to reasoning is not a function of the fact that methods of reasoning are identified" I don't care that it's labeled, per se, as long as people are discouraged to act like I mentioned. If the act of identifying and labeling thought patterns promotes laziness, then I am justified in being against it. But anyway, that's an empirical claim and you haven't provided any real reason for why you think it's false.

j45 13y ago

Musk's thoughts are a great read -- thanks for sharing this. Much innovation lies at the intersection of a mindset existing in possibilities, fuelled by creativity and ignoring what has, or hasn't been done before and really cut to the root of why people desire something or have a particular need.

swalsh 13y ago

A few years ago i went to this talk where the founder of Kiva Systems (automated warehouse systems) was giving a talk. He was mentioning how he came up with the idea, and it was actually quite a structured approach. He altered the parameters to the theoretical maximum (what if the warehouse was an infinite size) what would the solution be? What he eventually came up with is the system they have today. Structural thinking, the way Musk talks about is really useful. It is not intuitive to move the shelves instead of the warehouse picker, and thinking by analogy probably wouldn't have lead to that moment of inspiration.

kiskis 13y ago
that kiva system is very cool, here is a tedx video about it, and some words about the theoretical min-max parameters mentioned. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szU2-1infqc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szU2-1infqc

codex 13y ago

Reasoning from first principles is a symbolic approach. Reasoning by analogy is the intuitive approach. Both have their place. Intuitive thinking works especially well on fuzzy problems with incomplete and/or conflicting data, where a statistical approach is likely best. Reasoning from first principles is indeed hard, but the reason it's so little used is because it often doesn't produce real world results.

krmmalik 13y ago

I'm someone that has thought like this for most of my life, the biggest problem I have however is persuading others to do the same. Take for example a client, I'm helping them with improving their email marketing. I ask them do they really need a huge disclaimer at the end of each email? They dont budge. Or say - I'm working on a mobile app and try to persuade my co-founder that we should consider doing things one way and then his response "but xyz company is doing it this way. so should we".

cbhl 13y ago

I have this habit of highlighting text as I read, and on this website, I find that the text is gray and the highlight is a very similar shade of gray. Does this bother anyone else?

ademarre 13y ago
Hear, hear! Yes, I do that too and noticed the same when reading from microlancer.com. I think it drives my coworkers crazy when they're looking over my shoulder reading from the same screen.
Elrac 13y ago
Yes! I came here to opine that in an ideal world somebody would slap the site designer for his lousy color choice. All the more ironic that this is a developer trying to tell us about innovative and creative thinking.

aridiculous 13y ago

Reasoning from first principles is ahistorical, and that is why it so rarely works in the real world. Political and social constructs inherited through time (like, say, the law) will butt heads against a "pure" new solution. You need the resources (and determination, will, etc) to overpower colossal systems we've arrived at through the progression of history. If you're going to hit homeruns like Musk, I think you must "reinvent the wheel" like he does. But he has resources to fight those battles, and you -- probably -- don't. When he didn't have those significant resources, like when he started Paypal from first principles, he had an entire cultural shift as his economic lever: he was only able to compete in the online banking and credit card industry because it was an Internet wild west. I'm not sure that reasoning from first principles is the right first step for someone with no assets now that the internet has legal and corporate oversight swimming through it. But what do I know :P

wwkeyboard 13y ago
I think "standing on the shoulders of giants" is the cliche you're looking for. - Looking over the examples from the blog post, those aren't really from 'first principles'. They are assuming cars and an internet and other huge innovations. I think the real message should be 'double check your assumptions'.
- graeme 13y ago
  The parent is referring to a different phenomenon. "The weight of history" might be a way of describing it. In many domains you can't just start over fresh. "Standing on the shoulders of giants" refers to the idea that we owe much of our knowledge to those who came before us. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_giants http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_gi...
  - stonemetal 13y ago
    Does that make the "The weight of history" equivalent to "The weight of giants"? That is to say we owe much of our knowledge to those who came before even if that knowledge is wrong.

xzephyr 13y ago

The so-called reason by analogy is just gradient descent to approach local optima in optmization. The "by first principle" is just providing an approximate (ideally convex) model and solve it analytically for global optima. The problem is generally very hard (#P hard), both for formulating the problem and solving it. Global optimum of course in theory is better, but the quality of your objective function and constraints could easily offset this advantage. If you can come up with a simple linear programming problem for the battery example - that's great, but most likely you won't due to the prescence of competitor, market and policy constraint.

possibilistic 13y ago
I love this explanation. Do you happen to blog about optimization topics?
- jrsnyder 13y ago
  Seconded.
- xzephyr 13y ago
  Ah, sorry no. I'm just interested in AI in general and constrained optimization has been the what I found to be the most general model for solving and giving insights into AI problems or any problems that require "intelligence".
- NamTaf 13y ago
  If you're asking waht I think you're asking, then what you're then looking for is called 'numerical analysis'. Specifically, the grandparent was describing this [1]. Here is an OCW link for a good primer in to various introductory numerical analysis processes for Engineering [2]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradient_descent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradient_descent [2]: http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mechanical-engineering/2-993j-introduction-to-numerical-analysis-for-engineering-13-002j-spring-2005/ http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mechanical-engineering/2-993j-int...
  - xzephyr 13y ago

bsdetector 13y ago

technical innovations that many thought impossible, like producing battery packs more cheaply than ever before. Really? Many people thought that cheaper battery packs were actually impossible? Maybe the rest of the article says something important, but when the second sentence is tripe like that I'm not going to stick around to find out.

eruditely 13y ago
What he said isn't even that big of a deal, the issue is more with you than with him. You actually just said that even if something important could be understood you will let your pettiness get in the way.
eruditely 13y ago
What he said isn't even that big of a deal, the issue is more with you than with him. You actually just said that even if something important could be understood you will let your pettiness get in the way.

codex 13y ago

It's funny that the example given is of Musk reasoning to how batteries can be much cheaper than they are. And yet Tesla buys their raw batteries from third party manufacturers just like almost all other EV manufacturers. So I'm a bit confused as to the value of this particular example. Furthermore, batteries still do not cost anywhere close to what Musk predicts. Perhaps that's because he completely ignores manufacturing costs in his analysis. The price of a sewing needle costs a lot more than the cost of the raw materials.

samolang 13y ago

Reminds of a quote (falsely?) attributed to Henry Ford. “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.”

diminoten 13y ago

This reminds me of the S/N Meyers-Briggs definitions (Sensing vs. Intuition)[0]. Sensing is about analogy; we go with what exists, what I can upvote/pin/like/snap, and I improve upon it. I iterate until I've created something that we know already exists but in an improved way. We take what exists Intuition is about what this article calls "first principals"; we notice the trends, the underlying reasons why we upvote/pin/like/snap and try to create something that satisfies that need. Or we find a new need and try to fill it. Doesn't matter. So Elon Musk is saying something entirely[1] un-new[2] - that N types work better in entrepreneuring than S types. Common theory, no clue if it holds water. [0] - http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/sensing-or-intuition.asp http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-bas... [1] - http://www.keirsey.com/4temps/inventor.asp http://www.keirsey.com/4temps/inventor.asp [2] - http://www.businessinsider.com/myer-briggs-personality-styles-and-entrepreneurship-2010-11 http://www.businessinsider.com/myer-briggs-personality-style...

tempestn 13y ago

There's a great example of this kind of thinking on the homepage right now: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6736001 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6736001. The last sentence in the article: “But first, this problem needed someone like Jorge,” he said. “An obstetrician would have tried to improve the forceps or the vacuum extractor, but obstructed labor needed a mechanic. And 10 years ago, this would not have been possible. Without YouTube, he never would have seen the video.”

DigitalJack 13y ago

"Problem: Creating a website that allows customers to buy a new car at a low price and have it home delivered, sparing them the pain of a stressful dealership visit and price negotiation." That's not a problem. That's a solution.

6ren 13y ago

1. reasoning from first principles is a really cool, powerful and awfully difficult. Most importantly, it forces you to consider what the question actually is (see Douglas Adams). 2. the BOM cost is an interesting perspective, but is a terrible example of the above, because it doesn't go back to what the problem really is (energy), and also excludes every solution except batteries made of the same materials, and therefore likely based on the same principles. 3. the analogy to BOM for software is information (what do we know? what do we want?). While this is closer to true first principles than BOM, it assumes the problem statement, and thus precludes reconceptualization - changing the specification, changing the requirements, changing the context. BTW describing a startup as the "x of y" is a way to communicate it succinctly, and not necessarily what it really is. It's ad copy.

dgmdoug 13y ago

I think the most dangerous thing here is the branding of research as something new, that Musk has invented. I worked in academic and industrial research for a number of years, and any work that was worth it's salt typically went back to first principles to make its point. The problem with this is that it's hard and time it's time consuming to do this. Most companies and people don't have the time to go back to first principles for every product they build, and it would not be financially viable to do so if they did. So we compartmentalise and we make assumptions about the outcome based on prior knowledge to assess the risk of the project. Software development is illustrative of this point. Let's say you are developing a beautiful front end for your product. You use a toolkit, based upon an existing language, which eventually will get interpreted/compiled down through multiple existing systems and run on the processor of your computer. If I wanted to go back to first principles and make the whole thing faster, do I optimise my code the language, the compiler, the browser, the os stack, the hardware stack, CPU assembly? No, as I'd no longer be a front end developer. Research is hard, expensive, and by it's nature, high risk. If Musk can sit on his pile of money and do it, great for him, but for most, going back to first principles for everything is not a viable option.

pencilcheck 13y ago

Reasoning from analogy is the wrong way of saying what people have in mind when they provide examples to explain what it is. To me, it sound more like reasoning form what already works. In most examples I have seen, it is mostly about solving a problem using existing solutions/packages available and add your own flavor to it. That's why the "analogy" thinking because that's how the idea is presented, people pitch the idea using other's solutions. But what Elon Musk is different from others is that his thinking is stemming from scientific research more than you think it is. It is asking about the right question by digging deep into the core of the problem until you cannot dig any further. For example, in Elon Musk's example of battery, you first start with a goal: how to build an electric cars that is cost effective. You break the goals down into smaller problems, and you could recognize that battery is the biggest contributing factor in providing the solution to this goal, then you ask, why is the cost of battery so high yet it yield so little? Then you break the problem down into further smaller problems such as the cost for each component that comprised the battery, then you keep reasoning from there until you can find a ground where you can start reasoning back up. Personally I think the name "First principle" is also misleading since it is not mainly about principles, but more about asking the right questions.