[jandrewrogers]

This is called "first principles thinking" and is one of the most reliable methods for producing novel insights into a problem space. It is uncommon in practice because it has a high cost both economically, because you are re-deriving everything you think you know from scratch instead of "standing on the shoulders of giants", and socially, because you are deviating from orthodoxy promoted by high-status individuals.

This kind of relentless indifference to conformity is a rare quality in people.

[jacques_chester]

There's also the cost that you are likely to just spin your wheels retreading old ground. Examples to the contrary are notable, but notable because they are rare.

[jandrewrogers]

I made this assumption for many years, and yes, that cost would be high. I eventually discovered that, more often than not, everyone assumed that someone must have already investigated a particular hypothesis but if you tried to identify that "someone" it turned out that they didn't actually exist. After doing this exhaustive search a few times in a few different domains and coming up empty handed, it changed my perspective on the matter, to my great benefit.

Searching for evidence that someone has actually done the work is relatively efficient. It never fails to astonish me the number of times that everyone believes a particular bit of ground has been thoroughly tread yet, if I try to find concrete evidence that someone has done the work, there is no evidence that anyone actually has. There is a strong cognitive bias (I don't know if it has a name) where everyone assumes that someone else has already tried every obvious or reasonable approach and that belief is treated as factual.

[_0ffh]

>if I try to find concrete evidence that someone has done the work, there is no evidence that anyone actually has

Unfortunately, the fact that negative results tend to get little if any publicity works against you here. And it's probably worse outside, not inside of academia. How often would a project team in some big company, or a couple of guys in a garage try out some promising alternative approach to something, fail to realize an advantage over the conventional approach, and then go out of their way to publicize that failure? That would be extra work for no - or even negative - gain.

It might just be meant to be humorous, but even "If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence you even tried" sounds more likely than "If at first you don't succeed, put some extra effort into telling everyone".

[jlevers]

Would you be willing to give an example of an area where it was widely thought that "someone" had already checked all the obvious possibilities, but you were able to find an obvious possibility that actually hadn't been explored?

[jacques_chester]

I think you're arguing for doing surveys of literature, which I would also argue for. My argument was against the veneration of From First Principles, which is largely incompatible with Maybe Someone Already Did That, More Completely, More Correctly, A Long Time Ago, And It's Easy To Check First.

[warent]

This here is the real danger. Many people choose to reinvent the wheel and end up finding out that their approach was actually horribly flawed compared to what already existed, or they turned out not to have the resources to see it through. It takes a brilliant person with a lot of luck to make this work in an advantageous way.

Two great examples come to mind right away, both from Elon Musk. SpaceX was founded on first principles and now he's been able to undercut competitors by an order of magnitude. Conversely, his attempt approaching car manufacturing from first principles in the gigafactory has proven to be a complete disaster.

[Aloha]

I think the older and more competitive a space is, the less likely a first principles approach will bring success.

[ojilles]

Perhaps it’s not the age per se, but the amount of players over time. (Number of car manufacturers >> space companies).

[Aloha]

That was my general point (without making the wording too complex)

[Qwertious]

>Conversely, his attempt approaching car manufacturing from first principles in the gigafactory has proven to be a complete disaster.

Nonsense. What is that based on?

[leesec]

>Conversely, his attempt approaching car manufacturing from first principles in the gigafactory has proven to be a complete disaster.

Lol yes, manufacturing one of the best selling cars in the country was a great disaster.

[cmroanirgo]

There are also the times when you discover a tech, a library, or a language that supposedly solves your issue, but in reality only goes 80% of the way.

Unfortunately, it can take a lot of work to then a) find workarounds (which in my experience tend to become a maintenance nightmare) b) try alternates (which may have other but similar limitations) c) pull out and start doing it yourself anyway.

[r00fus]

So this is a worthwhile investment when the existing solutions are insufficient to the task and there is great opportunity in reshaping the landscape.

[strogonoff]

I find that mentoring a novice apprentice (both teaching general domain knowledge and describing specific architecture decisions in projects they’re getting involved in) is a great way to get back to first principles.

The expected outcome is increased human resource so it somewhat offsets the economic costs.

One caveat is that this process requires the willingness to rethink your own established models, and recognising when they might’ve been outdated or incorrect takes some self-discipline.

[leave_a_legacy]

Mentoring is the fastest way for one to learn or relearn first principles. Explaining an idea to someone requires that you speak to their level of understanding. Thus, explaining a complex idea to someone with understanding of only fundamental truths (novices), requires that you only speak in first principles. If you cannot, you will provide a bad explanation. When you eventually are able to provide a good explanation, you will know you have grasped the fundamental truths of the idea.

[ganzuul]

It is common for the young, remember? It is also why you should vote for the young and idealistic; not cynical old farts like ourselves.

[chii]

and how is that different to the NIH syndrome?

[afthonos]

It’s the exact same thing, but successful. Part of being “brilliant” is knowing when to apply first principles and when to build on what exists.

I put “brilliant” in quotes because unless you can do this consistently, you can also just get lucky...