Let’s return to two posts from April – because one actually answers the other. Last Friday, I discussed the paradox that while assumptions equalise our world, not all assumptions in that world are equal, and that the dilemma for any brand is to sift the assumptions it must make from those that it must break with.
Efficiency vs distinction.
My sense is that the way to do that is through what I’ve dubbed the Feynman principle – a nod to Sanjoy Mahajan’s post about Richard Feynman mentioned earlier in the month. This principle – you should always question what you do know – focuses on methodically re-litigating assumptions in order to uncover anything that had been missed and thus to extract new value and new possibilities.
But how do you stop this becoming an endless loop of making assumptions then questioning those assumptions?
By introducing answers – but answers that are themselves subject to continuing reappraisal.
In other words, the response to the Feynman principle of ‘never stop questioning’ has to be ‘never stop answering’.
That in turn means that the answers themselves are not definitive. They are both conditional and iterative: always subject to further questioning; and always morphing because of that questioning.
True is true, until and unless proven otherwise. And it is that need to prove, one way or the other, that mitigates assumption.
Systems and frameworks stand between this approach working and anarchy. A systematic approach to questions mean a manageable quantity of questions are being asked and answered at any given point. And the right frameworks ensure that the answers are explored, along with their implications … before new questions are raised.
