95% of people don't do this, it's incredible. I am an engineer who has been working in sales (business development) and applied basic first principles thinking in my job and grew my business by about a million £'s per year. By just thinking about this for a second, you can put yourself ten times ahead of people. Here are some of my axioms: - a company is a machine for generating money. Every employee or action can be measured or estimated by it's impact on generating money. If you can't measure it easily directly, like for someone working in HR, then apply heuristics or use estimates from studies. - before doing any task, you should ask yourself "what is the objective?". This can get rid of a lot of bullshit meetings and tasks. - What is your customer's objective? They also work for a money making machine. Work out how you can help them make money, either through new revenue or reducing costs, and then prove it to them so they buy your products.
really interesting, thank you! Interesting to see your example of "first principles thinking in action"! I just like it when we can apply models to our daily lives and get value out of it.
Actually, it was Aristotle who demand this concept of first principle digesting from his works on metaphysics. He sought that metaphysics is so complex and universal, he decided to break them down from the most basic aspects! But, actually it's Socrates who really laid out the concept, though not explicity implied, but his dialectic method is a tool of first principle thinking, by keep on asking question to the bare minimum until there are no more if possible!
We fear and dont like truth and secrets.. so focus on art and creation.. it will open your imagination. Its powerfull along with knowlede. Real with understanding
I have come to the conclusion that you need a balance of both types of thinking to be the most efficient in the world. You attain unique insights from first principles, but if you take it to the extreme, like it was always in my nature to do, you become mired in conceptual knots no one can untie, before you take any action on anything. Acting here and now is most important in your personal life, and you best guide to that is what other have done successfully. Either that or you take a shot in the dark and discover your own path along the way.
Hey , i just found your channel as it was in my suggestions by the algorithm and wanted to let you know that your content is a treasure .... It's neatly presented and i really like the simplicity in your explanation..........!! All the best wishes to you and looking forward to more content ...
It is 10 times more difficult to un learn than to learn something new. This is the biggest problem I think. We are conditioned by past learning. Not knowing causes fear. Better a stupid certanty than none at all.
The most difficult part about first principles thinking is finding the actual fundamental truths on which to base things on. This is what philosophy has been struggling with since the last two millennia.
nice channel. really happy that the algorithm made the suggestion to me, it seems that it serves really the human in the first place ;) are you german btw?:)
Hi, I'm just curious. Would it be less imprecise to say that the "fundamental truths" in this context are "highly indicated assumptions" instead of "highly probable assumptions"?
As far as my understanding goes, both words are aimed at the degree of likelihood (evidence to be likely "true" as far as our current knowledge goes (so not with 100% certainty)). "probable" implies a higher likelihood than "indicated". Your point is, that to say "indicate" is less imprecise than "probable". I would say both words are on the same "likelihood scale". Just that "indicate" presents "less likelihood" and "probable" is "more likelihood". When we aim at the "fundamental truth", don't we want the highest likelihood ("probable") we could possibly know at the moment? (All under the assumption that the "fundamental truth" is the "truth" as far as we know it with our current knowledge) So in my opinion, the word "probable" might be more precise... I hope my point is presented clearly, have the feeling that I could answer better, but don't know how at the moment. This is just my opinion and I'm here to be corrected. Thank you for the interesting question!
I’ve always said we have to let nature teach us.... let nature do the talking. I am a complete nobody and I mean that, but I’ve learned a lot through being inquisitive and watching nature. But most of all? Humility and an open mind - it all starts there. I love nothing more in life than for someone to come along and explain that I’m wrong and demonstrate why I am wrong...... Id’d buy them dinner. Lol. More often in world, people like us are demonstrating to the world how it really works. Most of them are completely disinterested, however the odd one takes a curious look. Wasted life. I could’ve done really well in physics. Anyway, excellent work pal. Subscription added. (Two beers while writing this so please excuse any mistakes)
Thank you for your words. Thanks for the comment overall. Thanks for the sub. Humility and an open mind - it all starts there -> hit the nail on the head, in my opinion. Especially for the topic of knowledge.
could it be that inductive reasoning is one part of first principles thinking? FPT consists of two processes, deconstructing and reconstructing. Could it be that inductive reasoning is the reconstructing part?
@@invisiblecompass Correct, since inductive reasoning is responsible for forming concepts and theorize, which means that it must refer to this type of reasoning. The interesting part is that deconstruction isn't necessarily linked to deductive reasoning, because the deduction should come through applying the new born theory. Therefore, the question arises what type of reasoning (if at all) is the deconstruction part?
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 🧠 *First principles thinking involves breaking down complex problems into fundamental truths, as practiced by Richard Feynman and Elon Musk.* 00:28 📚 *The approach is about understanding and challenging current assumptions to reconstruct a solution from basic truths.* 01:23 🤔 *The process starts by asking "why?" to uncover fundamental principles, avoiding reasoning based on authority.* 02:17 ❓ *Continuously asking "why?" leads to discovering first principles, which is especially effective for innovative endeavors.* 03:13 ⚖️ *First principles thinking is not practical for every decision; it's demanding and used for complex problems.* 03:42 🔄 *Reasoning by analogy involves solving problems based on similarities to known solutions, which is more common but less innovative.* 05:04 👩🍳 *The chef (first principles thinker) versus cook (analogy reasoner) metaphor illustrates different approaches to problem-solving.* 06:21 📖 *Richard Feynman's approach to first principles thinking is showcased through his atomic hypothesis in "Six Easy Pieces."* 08:32 📈 *Applying first principles thinking to CZcams algorithm optimization involves focusing on viewer needs and behavior rather than just technical aspects.* 10:54 🎯 *Focusing on the viewer, rather than just keywords, is a more effective strategy for CZcams content creators.* 11:48 💡 *First principles thinking is valuable for complex or new problems, providing deeper understanding and learning opportunities.* Made with HARPA AI
Physics won't get you far in life problems. You need other things. Idiots nowadays think physics is answer to need to look smart. Most physics is even wrong, never mind it's inapplicablity to most problems
"Most physics is even wrong".. Like what? ... "Most" isn't the thing you should use here... Physics won't get you far in life.. Yes, that's why we have other fields of science... Philosophy is helpful but shouldn't be the only thing... Most problems have been answered by other fields but the base is physics... For eg - physics doesn't answer human behavior because it's not what physics studies... Human behavior is now answered with psychology which uses neuroscience, sociobiology... These two subjects use a lot of fundamental fields in biology like molecular biology, genetics, etc... Neuroscience also uses biophysics.. Molecular biology uses chemistry to give reasons for why it happens this way... Genetics also uses chemistry to give reasons for why it happens this way.. Chemistry uses physics to give reasons why it happens this way... Yes, at higher emergent level physics is not the answer.. It will be classified as a " bad answer" .. What is the reason for the variation? Evolution.. More precise crossing over... This is now genetics... But if you want to know what caused this phenomenon in genetics.. We tend towards biochemistry which uses chemistry... To know what caused this thing to happen in chemistry.. We tend towards physics... This is why physics is the most fundamental science.. Only crackpots say most physics is even wrong..
95% of people don't do this, it's incredible.
I am an engineer who has been working in sales (business development) and applied basic first principles thinking in my job and grew my business by about a million £'s per year.
By just thinking about this for a second, you can put yourself ten times ahead of people.
Here are some of my axioms:
- a company is a machine for generating money. Every employee or action can be measured or estimated by it's impact on generating money. If you can't measure it easily directly, like for someone working in HR, then apply heuristics or use estimates from studies.
- before doing any task, you should ask yourself "what is the objective?". This can get rid of a lot of bullshit meetings and tasks.
- What is your customer's objective? They also work for a money making machine. Work out how you can help them make money, either through new revenue or reducing costs, and then prove it to them so they buy your products.
really interesting, thank you! Interesting to see your example of "first principles thinking in action"!
I just like it when we can apply models to our daily lives and get value out of it.
1. First principles thinking.
2. Ask WHY.
3. Reason by Analogy.
4. Cook vs Chef example.
There are two basic types of thinking: analitic and synthetic. Once understood the problem, to make sameting new, the approach must be synthetic
I just looked it up shortly and it looks very interesting. Will look deeper into it. Thanks!
Man, you are doing a great job. Keep it up, we certainly need more of this in the world
thank you so much for your supportive words, means a lot to me!!
Actually, it was Aristotle who demand this concept of first principle digesting from his works on metaphysics. He sought that metaphysics is so complex and universal, he decided to break them down from the most basic aspects! But, actually it's Socrates who really laid out the concept, though not explicity implied, but his dialectic method is a tool of first principle thinking, by keep on asking question to the bare minimum until there are no more if possible!
We fear and dont like truth and secrets.. so focus on art and creation.. it will open your imagination. Its powerfull along with knowlede. Real with understanding
I have come to the conclusion that you need a balance of both types of thinking to be the most efficient in the world. You attain unique insights from first principles, but if you take it to the extreme, like it was always in my nature to do, you become mired in conceptual knots no one can untie, before you take any action on anything.
Acting here and now is most important in your personal life, and you best guide to that is what other have done successfully. Either that or you take a shot in the dark and discover your own path along the way.
very interesting! a balance sounds good. I can understand you taking things to extremes and feeling paralyzed...
Hey , i just found your channel as it was in my suggestions by the algorithm and wanted to let you know that your content is a treasure .... It's neatly presented and i really like the simplicity in your explanation..........!!
All the best wishes to you and looking forward to more content ...
quality information , thank you ❤
thank you for the comment! happy you got value out of the video!
Great stuff. Will read the book - Six Easy Pieces - now.
Enjoy it!
It is 10 times more difficult to un learn than to learn something new. This is the biggest problem I think. We are conditioned by past learning. Not knowing causes fear. Better a stupid certanty than none at all.
Woah, your channel has a lot of potential, great content!!
thank you so much!! means the world to me!
The examples really help getting a feeling for this kind of thinkig. Thank you!
glad they helped!
A very nice video.
thank you so much, means a lot!
The most difficult part about first principles thinking is finding the actual fundamental truths on which to base things on. This is what philosophy has been struggling with since the last two millennia.
crediting elon musk for being the mind behind his companies is one of the biggest L's i have ever seen bro
nice channel. really happy that the algorithm made the suggestion to me, it seems that it serves really the human in the first place ;)
are you german btw?:)
thank you for the comment, much appreciated!
Und ja :)
Hi, I'm just curious.
Would it be less imprecise to say that the "fundamental truths" in this context are "highly indicated assumptions" instead of "highly probable assumptions"?
As far as my understanding goes, both words are aimed at the degree of likelihood (evidence to be likely "true" as far as our current knowledge goes (so not with 100% certainty)). "probable" implies a higher likelihood than "indicated".
Your point is, that to say "indicate" is less imprecise than "probable". I would say both words are on the same "likelihood scale". Just that "indicate" presents "less likelihood" and "probable" is "more likelihood". When we aim at the "fundamental truth", don't we want the highest likelihood ("probable") we could possibly know at the moment? (All under the assumption that the "fundamental truth" is the "truth" as far as we know it with our current knowledge) So in my opinion, the word "probable" might be more precise...
I hope my point is presented clearly, have the feeling that I could answer better, but don't know how at the moment. This is just my opinion and I'm here to be corrected. Thank you for the interesting question!
Every video a little bit smarter :)
means a lot, thank you, as always!
I’ve always said we have to let nature teach us.... let nature do the talking. I am a complete nobody and I mean that, but I’ve learned a lot through being inquisitive and watching nature. But most of all? Humility and an open mind - it all starts there. I love nothing more in life than for someone to come along and explain that I’m wrong and demonstrate why I am wrong...... Id’d buy them dinner. Lol. More often in world, people like us are demonstrating to the world how it really works. Most of them are completely disinterested, however the odd one takes a curious look. Wasted life. I could’ve done really well in physics. Anyway, excellent work pal. Subscription added. (Two beers while writing this so please excuse any mistakes)
Thank you for your words. Thanks for the comment overall. Thanks for the sub.
Humility and an open mind - it all starts there -> hit the nail on the head, in my opinion. Especially for the topic of knowledge.
this is basic inductive reasoning.
Elon out here rebranding math 😂
could it be that inductive reasoning is one part of first principles thinking? FPT consists of two processes, deconstructing and reconstructing. Could it be that inductive reasoning is the reconstructing part?
@@invisiblecompass Correct, since inductive reasoning is responsible for forming concepts and theorize, which means that it must refer to this type of reasoning. The interesting part is that deconstruction isn't necessarily linked to deductive reasoning, because the deduction should come through applying the new born theory. Therefore, the question arises what type of reasoning (if at all) is the deconstruction part?
@@sonicmaths8285 really good question. Unfortunately, I don't know the answer. Interesting to think about!
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 🧠 *First principles thinking involves breaking down complex problems into fundamental truths, as practiced by Richard Feynman and Elon Musk.*
00:28 📚 *The approach is about understanding and challenging current assumptions to reconstruct a solution from basic truths.*
01:23 🤔 *The process starts by asking "why?" to uncover fundamental principles, avoiding reasoning based on authority.*
02:17 ❓ *Continuously asking "why?" leads to discovering first principles, which is especially effective for innovative endeavors.*
03:13 ⚖️ *First principles thinking is not practical for every decision; it's demanding and used for complex problems.*
03:42 🔄 *Reasoning by analogy involves solving problems based on similarities to known solutions, which is more common but less innovative.*
05:04 👩🍳 *The chef (first principles thinker) versus cook (analogy reasoner) metaphor illustrates different approaches to problem-solving.*
06:21 📖 *Richard Feynman's approach to first principles thinking is showcased through his atomic hypothesis in "Six Easy Pieces."*
08:32 📈 *Applying first principles thinking to CZcams algorithm optimization involves focusing on viewer needs and behavior rather than just technical aspects.*
10:54 🎯 *Focusing on the viewer, rather than just keywords, is a more effective strategy for CZcams content creators.*
11:48 💡 *First principles thinking is valuable for complex or new problems, providing deeper understanding and learning opportunities.*
Made with HARPA AI
You russian bro?
German :)
@@invisiblecompass Ist ja lustig, denn da sind wir schon zwei
Physics won't get you far in life problems. You need other things. Idiots nowadays think physics is answer to need to look smart. Most physics is even wrong, never mind it's inapplicablity to most problems
"Most physics is even wrong".. Like what? ... "Most" isn't the thing you should use here...
Physics won't get you far in life.. Yes, that's why we have other fields of science... Philosophy is helpful but shouldn't be the only thing...
Most problems have been answered by other fields but the base is physics... For eg - physics doesn't answer human behavior because it's not what physics studies... Human behavior is now answered with psychology which uses neuroscience, sociobiology...
These two subjects use a lot of fundamental fields in biology like molecular biology, genetics, etc... Neuroscience also uses biophysics.. Molecular biology uses chemistry to give reasons for why it happens this way... Genetics also uses chemistry to give reasons for why it happens this way.. Chemistry uses physics to give reasons why it happens this way...
Yes, at higher emergent level physics is not the answer.. It will be classified as a " bad answer" .. What is the reason for the variation? Evolution.. More precise crossing over... This is now genetics... But if you want to know what caused this phenomenon in genetics.. We tend towards biochemistry which uses chemistry... To know what caused this thing to happen in chemistry.. We tend towards physics...
This is why physics is the most fundamental science..
Only crackpots say most physics is even wrong..
Can you give me an example of the kind of problem you're talking about?
I do agree most of the physics is wrong, if you look at space time continuum
It is obvious who is the idiot here!
It is obvious who is the idiot here!
Others immitate me and steal my ideas. I dont mind. It means I'm amazing