Thread

1. bob1029 · 1790352678 · focus · HN ↗

   Higher order thinking is more important and rare.

   An aggressive first principles approach often leads otherwise well-intentioned technologists into strategic / ideological dead-ends.

   Do we do things because it's the "right thing" to do in the moment, or because of the final outcome that will eventually result?

   The most ideal answer is somewhere in the middle. I am far more interested in the total area under the curve than a single instant in time.

   In lieu of intentional higher order thinking, simply working backward from your customer on a regular basis will generally accomplish the same outcomes.

   1. ksclk · 1790375010 · focus · HN ↗

      What is the difference between first principles and higher order thinking?

      1. itishappy · 1790375416 · focus · HN ↗

         First principle: How can we accomplish X?

         Higher order: What if we accomplished X?

         1. procinct · 1790389338 · focus · HN ↗

            Thinking from first principles would likely start with “Do we need X?”

            1. itishappy · 1790397107 · focus · HN ↗

               Fair point, I'm skipping over the need itself. The titular first principle.

               First principles: "We need X, how can we accomplish that?"

               Higher order: "We need X, what would accomplishing that do for us?"

               1. BoiledCabbage · 1790477650 · focus · HN ↗

                  Yet another incompatible definition - here first principles thinking is define as "how do reach a solution?". If that were true, then it wouldn't be any different from "problem solving".

                  1. itishappy · 1790479099 · focus · HN ↗

                     That's more-or-less the definition, no? First principles thinking and higher order thinking are both methods of problem solving.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.