There is one type of opinion that I would be very afraid to express publicly. If someone I knew as a subject matter expert and sane person came up with an idea that sounded absurd, I would be very reluctant to say, "This will never work."
Anyone who has studied the history of ideas, and especially the history of science, knows how big things start. Someone comes up with an idea that sounds crazy, most people reject it, and then it gradually takes over the world.
Most incredible-sounding ideas are actually bad and can be safely discarded. But not when they are offered by sane experts in their subject area. If the person proposing the idea is sane, then he knows how implausible his idea sounds. And nevertheless, he still offers it. This suggests that he knows something that you do not know. And if he has deep domain expertise, that's probably where this idea comes from.
It's not safe to dismiss such ideas, and they have a disproportionately high chance of being interesting. When an ordinary person comes up with an implausible idea, that implausibility indicates incompetence. But when a serious expert in his field suggests this, the situation is reversed. There is a kind of efficient market at work here: on average, ideas that sound crazy, if proven to be fair, will have the most impact. So if you can rule out the theory that the one proposing an unlikely sounding idea is simply incompetent, its unlikely becomes an argument, not that it’s boring, but that it’s fun. [one]
There is no guarantee that such ideas will work. But they don't always have to work. The main thing is that they are a good bet - they have a sufficiently high expected value. I think they have it on average. I think if you bet on a whole package of unlikely-sounding ideas from serious experts in their fields, you will be on the whole in the black.
The reason is that all people are too conservative. The word "paradigm" is used too often, but in this case it is justified. Everyone is in the grip of the current paradigm. Even people who have new ideas initially underestimate them. This means that even before they get to the public offering stage, they have already subjected them to an overly stringent filter. [2]
The wise thing to do in response to such an idea is not to make statements, but to ask questions, because there is a real mystery here. Why did this smart and sane person come up with an idea that seems so wrong? Is he or you wrong? Some of you are definitely wrong. If you are wrong, it would be nice to know about it, because it means that there is a hole in your model of the world. But even if they are wrong, it should be interesting to know why. You, too, have to worry about the trap the expert falls into.
This all seems pretty obvious. But there are many people who do not share my fear of rejecting new ideas. Why are they doing this? Why risk looking like a jerk now and a fool later, instead of just condemning a new idea?
One of the reasons they do it is envy. If you come up with a radical new idea and it succeeds, your reputation (and perhaps your wealth as well) will increase proportionately. Some people are jealous if this happens, and that potential jealousy will grow back into the belief that you must be wrong.
Another reason people reject new ideas is because it's an easy way to appear experienced. When a new idea first comes up, it usually seems rather weak. It's just a chick. The received wisdom is in comparison with him - an adult eagle. So it's easy to launch a devastating attack on a new idea, and anyone who does will seem smart to those who don't understand this asymmetry.
This phenomenon is exacerbated by the difference between rewarding those who work on new ideas and those who attack them. The reward for working on new ideas depends on the value of the result. It's worth working on something that only has a 10% chance of success if it makes things more than 10 times better. Whereas the reward for attacking new ideas is roughly constant; such attacks seem to be about the same clever, regardless of the target.
People will also attack new ideas if they are interested in old ones. It is not surprising, for example, that some of Darwin's harshest critics were churchmen. People build their careers on ideas alone. When someone claims they are deceitful or outdated, they feel threatened.
One of the worst things about denying ideas is "factionalism." That is, when we automatically reject some idea, simply because it belongs to another “faction”. But the worst thing you can do is reject an idea simply because it belongs to a specific person.
But the main reason that leads prudent people to reject new ideas is the same reason that keeps them from putting forward those ideas - the pervasiveness of the existing paradigm. It doesn't just affect HOW we think. It can be compared to the Lego constructor from which we build our thoughts. Very few manage to break out of the existing paradigm. And even they first have to suppress their intuition, like a pilot flying through clouds - he needs to trust his instruments, not his sense of balance.
Paradigms not only characterize our current thinking. They also vacuum up the crumb trail that led to them, making our standards for new ideas incredibly high.
The existing paradigm seems to us, its descendants, so perfect that we imagine that it should have been immediately accepted as soon as it was discovered. Whatever the church thought about the heliocentric model, astronomers should have been convinced as soon as Copernicus proposed it. In fact, this was not at all the case. Copernicus published the heliocentric model in 1532, but it was not until the mid-17th century that the balance in the scientific structure changed in its favor. [four]
Few people understand how unstable ideas only appear. Therefore, if you are thinking of generating new ideas on your own, one of the most valuable things you can do is teach how they look when they first appear. Read something about new ideas and try to get into the heads of the people of the day. What picture did they see when a new idea was half finished, and even its creator was not completely sure of it?
But you don't have to dwell on the story. You can watch big ideas being born around you right now. Just find a sane expert in your field who suggests something that doesn't sound right.
If you are good as well as wise, you will not only resist attacks on them, but you will even encourage them. Generating new ideas is a lonely business. Your support is important to these people. And if you help them, you will probably learn something along the way.
Notes (edit)
[1] I am not suggesting that this principle goes far beyond mathematics, engineering, and the natural sciences. In politics, for example, crazy ideas are usually as bad as they sound. Perhaps this is no exception, because the people who voice them are not subject matter experts; politicians are experts in political tactics - how to get elected and how to pass legislation, but not in the world in which politics operates. Perhaps no one could.
[2] This “paradigm” meaning was defined by Thomas Kuhn in his Framework for Scientific Revolutions, but I also recommend his book The Copernican Revolution, where you can see how he develops this idea.
[3] This is one of the reasons people with Asperger Syndrome have the advantage of discovering new ideas. They always fly instruments.
[4] Hall, Rupert. From Galileo to Newton. ed. Collins, 1963. This book penetrates especially well into the heads of contemporaries.
Thanks to Trevor Blackwell, Patrick Collison, Suhail Doshi, Daniel Gackle, and Jessica Livingston for proofreading the drafts.
Thanks to everyone who took part in the collective translation.
Follow the YC Startup Library news in Russian in the telegram channel or on Facebook .