Blog

The Question is the Answer

Oftentimes the question is more important than the answer.

“If I had an hour to solve a problem, I’d spend 55 minutes thinking about the problem and 5 minutes thinking about solutions.” – Albert Einstein.

This quote emphasizes the importance of asking the right questions and deeply understanding the problem before rushing to a solution. It aligns with the idea that the majority of the answer lies in properly defining and framing the problem.

Let’s take a look at this through the lens of AI chat programs.

With AI chat programs, the value has shifted from the solution to the question being asked, which is called the prompt. Compared to the question, the answer is relatively free. It’s the question that matters the most because it informs the answer. In that way, the question is the answer.

This is because the quality of the output heavily depends on the clarity, context, and precision of the prompt, which is what some people now call “prompt engineering”, which contains the following attributes:

1. Framing the Problem: The way you phrase your prompt often determines whether the AI fully understands the intent behind your request. A well-structured prompt leads to more relevant and actionable responses.
2. Iterative Refinement: Crafting AI prompts is often an iterative process, much like problem-solving. You refine the input until it aligns with the desired output, emphasizing the importance of the question.
3. Creativity and Precision Balance: Sometimes, the creativity or flexibility of an AI’s solution stems from how open-ended or detailed the prompt is. The better the question (or prompt), the more nuanced or insightful the output can be (like an “idea tree”).

In the world of AI, crafting the perfect prompt has become an art and science of its own, echoing the idea that the solution’s quality depends largely on how well the problem is framed. It’s not just about what the AI can do but how effectively it’s asked to do it.

Questions as Functions

Let’s look at another example in mathematics. Imagine a function, which is agnostic to the output. Compared to the function, the answer is relatively free. However, oftentimes the function itself was difficult to create.

In mathematics, crafting a function can often be much harder than simply using it to produce an output. Take Einstein’s equation, E=mc², for example. It looks incredibly simple, but it contains a depth of understanding that embodies a large sum of mathematical principles. This is similar to how asking the right question or crafting the perfect prompt for AI leads to better answers.

1. Function as the “Question”

• In mathematics, a function represents a structured way of mapping inputs to outputs. However, defining the function often requires deep understanding, creativity, and problem-solving to ensure it models the desired relationship or behavior correctly. Similarly, creating a prompt or framing a problem for AI requires clarity and precision, as it determines how the “mapping” (or solution) will work.
• The function doesn’t “care” about the output—it’s a generalized mechanism. Its value lies in its ability to transform various inputs effectively.

2. Input as Context

• Once the function exists, the inputs determine the outputs. The challenge of crafting the function mirrors the effort in refining the prompt. A robust function (or prompt) will handle a wide variety of inputs gracefully, just as a well-posed question will yield rich, meaningful answers.
• The output of a function is often trivial to compute once the function is defined. Similarly, generating an answer from an AI becomes straightforward once the question is properly framed. The hard part is designing the system (or question) that leads to that ease.

4. Higher-Order Functions and Flexibility

• In mathematics, higher-order functions (functions that take other functions as input) are incredibly powerful but also abstract. These resemble the art of refining prompts for AI to create meta-level queries or cascading effects, where the crafting process is even more intricate than the outputs themselves.

Why This Matters

The intellectual and creative weight of problem solving often lies in defining “the question” (the function or the prompt) rather than solving individual instances. Once the question, function, or system is in place, solutions can be generated repeatedly with minimal effort.

This underscores the idea that the solution is often secondary to the process of structuring the problem—whether in mathematics, AI, or any other creative or problem-solving domain.

Let’s take a look at a few philosophical, scientific, and problem-solving methodologies:

1. Socratic Method / Inquiry-Based Learning

• Definition: A form of inquiry and discussion where asking the right questions leads to deeper understanding and discovery. This is an educational approach where questions drive the learning process, encouraging learners to explore, investigate, and construct knowledge.
• Relevance: In the Socratic method, the question itself is often more important than the answer, as it shapes the journey of exploration and critical thinking. Inquiry-Based Learning emphasizes that the quality of the question determines the depth and relevance of the discovery. The idea is that the answer lies in crafting the right question.

2. Epistemological Pragmatism

• Definition: A philosophy that prioritizes practical inquiry and problem-solving. The formulation of a question or problem is key to uncovering truth or utility. It’s like a  “function” for evaluating truth, where the input is an idea, belief, or hypothesis, and the output is determined by how well it works or aligns with practical outcomes.
• Relevance: Epistemological Pragmatism often focuses on actionable questions, suggesting that answers are less important than how the question frames the pathway to discovery or progress. If the idea consistently works and adapts under real-world conditions, it’s considered “true” within the scope of its application.

3. First Principles Thinking

• Definition: Breaking down a problem into its most fundamental parts to rebuild understanding from the ground up. This method is often used by Elon Musk and is famously key to how he decided to start SpaceX, reasoning that the sum of the parts and the labor to make them were less expensive than buying a pre-built rocket.
• Relevance: By asking foundational questions, this approach ensures that the framework (or “function”) is correct, leading to solutions that are both accurate and scalable. It is also occasionally a remedy for “planting a new idea tree”.

This is chapter 6 of my book, Think Again, on Amazon Kindle.

In order to understand an idea, people need to work through the layers of understanding in a simplified, but similar way to how you first did when you discovered the solution. This allows them to test each step along the way until they reach a deeper proof that confirms the idea’s validity. This process is akin to constructing a logical proof, even if it’s done intuitively rather than formally. It is “standing on the shoulders of giants”.

When an answer seems overly simple, people may instinctively doubt it because they haven’t worked through the “proofs” that make the simplicity credible. As they reason through discussion, they’re effectively piecing together the mental  steps that satisfy their need for validation. This pattern reflects the cumulative nature of knowledge—each new idea builds upon what is already understood, creating a foundation for accepting new truths.

Mental scaffolding and informal proofs of understanding can provide the structure that makes it easier for others to accept new ideas based on previously accepted knowledge.

To lead a person up to an idea (rather than presenting it outright as a solution) is to build up to it with a mental scaffolding, like an informal math proof, to lead the listener through the process you took to get to the answer. Formal math proofs build upon axioms, but in other areas of life, we don’t have the benefit of those axioms so we have to rely on other building blocks.

In some ways, all reasoning relies on a foundation of prior knowledge and collective beliefs. This concept of mental scaffolding and informal proofs provides us a mechanism to build complex ideas from simpler ones (like the process I’m doing right now in this book).

But mental scaffolding and informal proofs are just one way to help you disseminate your ideas and prevent initial rejection. Here are some other strategies counteract these biases:

1. Start from First Principles – First Principles thinking periodically breaks down ideas into their core components, questioning assumptions and working back from foundational truths (similar to Working Backwards or Reverse Engineering, which will be discussed later). By resetting to first principles, they can “replant” the Idea Tree when needed, creating space for innovation.

2. Build in Discussion and Dialogue – Discussing ideas with others can not only satisfy their need for understanding and ultimately accepting the answer, but it also aligns with one of the the 48 Laws of Power by Robert Greene, “Law 31: Control the Options: Get Others to Play with the Cards You Deal,” which emphasizes the importance of framing choices and influencing decisions before they are publicly debated or decided upon.

3. Seek Elegant Simplicity, not Complex Compromise – Encourage readers to actively seek solutions that are both simple and profound. Explain that simplicity doesn’t mean sacrificing quality; rather, it requires distilling the core of the solution. Recognizing elegant simplicity allows us to see the strength in straightforward answers.

The main idea is to occasionally reflect on how you engage with ideas. Challenge yourself and others to think differently about simplicity and to approach solutions with a mind open to the elegance within straightforward answers.

This is chapter 5 in my book, Think Again, on Amazon Kindle.

Have you ever had an idea rejected at first, only to have someone come back to it later and realize its truth? This can be due to The Simplicity Paradox or Initial Rejection Bias.

Initial rejection bias is the phenomenon where the first idea is dismissed by a person or group simply because it is first. And when coupled with the innate suspicion that something simple must be incomplete or inadequate, it further moves a person to reject it.

This can happen with a partner when choosing a name for a baby or with a group of people suggesting places to eat. Often the first thing suggested is rejected due to initial rejection bias.

“The tallest poppy gets cut down” is a proverb that describes the common psychological and social behavior that is often rooted in status quo bias, fear of standing out, or social conformity. Oftentimes the initial proposal is dismissed simply because it’s the first to “stand out.” Additionally, there’s anchoring resistance, where groups avoid the first idea because they worry it will set a fixed direction (a “trunk”) too early.

People often believe the “best” idea must come after careful deliberation. While this is sometimes true, this can lead to good ideas being thrown out in favor of further brainstorming, even when the first suggestion might have been sound.

Only when the initial rejection bias is removed is the group able to accept it, because they have understood what the solution means. Only through exploration and discussion can the group unpack the “deceptive depth” of the simple solution, revealing that its elegance actually stems from a well-rounded understanding—thus overcoming the initial bias.

Knowledge or understanding is often built layer by layer, drawing on foundational ideas that have already been established—similar to how formal proofs build upon axioms and previously proven theorems. In informal reasoning, people rely on a kind of mental scaffolding or internal “proof” process where they validate new ideas based on established beliefs, past experiences, or accepted truths.

Occam’s Razor asserts that simplicity often holds the best answer, yet highlights how simplicity must first prove its merit before being accepted. The idea is to reason to a solution through proofs in a “standing on the shoulders of giants” type of way. We’ll cover that in the next chapter.

This is chapter 4 in the book, Think Again, on Amazon Kindle.

Have you ever been part of a group that dismissed an answer because it seemed too simple?

While simplicity is often the hallmark of great ideas, it’s not always easy to recognize. Simple solutions can appear deceptively shallow, leaving us feeling that something so straightforward must lack depth. This bias against simplicity is powerful; in many cases, we reject the simplest answers before fully understanding their value. I call this The Simplicity Paradox.

Once an idea is accepted, it becomes entrenched, but, when ideas are still in their “seed” stage, they’re often brushed aside, especially if they appear too simple.

This phenomenon has been referred to in other areas as “elegant simplicity” or “deceptive simplicity”, which is similar to the heuristic, “Occam’s Razor”, which is where simpler explanations are often preferred, but only after fully understanding the complexities involved.

The Simplicity Paradox states that simplicity often masks the underlying complexity and effort required to truly understand and express something. The paradox lies in the idea that achieving simplicity often demands a deep, complex journey of learning and refinement.

A person with deep understanding can make even complex ideas seem straightforward in their essence. Albert Einstein: “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” (SEE E=mc².) Blaise Pascal, a French mathematician, physicist, and inventor once said, “I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter.” 

Richard Feynman,an American theoretical physicist, also spoke about this idea, emphasizing clarity and simplicity as markers of genuine understanding. Feynman emphasized the importance of truly understanding a subject in order to explain it clearly, and he developed what’s known as the Feynman Technique for learning. He believed that if you can’t explain something in simple terms, then you don’t fully understand it.

In his teaching, Feynman encouraged people to break down concepts to the simplest language possible. He argued that, when you really grasp something, you can communicate it without jargon, in a way that anyone can understand. His approach was to keep digging deeper until every aspect of a concept could be explained simply, showing that true mastery means seeing through the complexity to the underlying simplicity.

I remember when I first started a job at a software company and I asked my manager what our software did. He simply said, “It’s field service software.” Not knowing what that meant, I asked him to explain it and then when I, explaining it to others, it would take me around 5 minutes to explain it until one day I too just began saying “It’s field service software.” This is because I finally had the depth of understanding as to what those words mean.

Language itself embodies this paradox, as each word seems straightforward but carries layers of meaning shaped by collective agreement and individual interpretation. It’s as if each word is a distilled vessel of thought, simple on the surface but rich in the depth and history of human understanding.

But what happens when you know you’re right, but your idea is still rejected outright?

This is chapter 3 of Think Again, available on Amazon Kindle.

Have you ever had someone who didn’t understand why something was the way it was so they wanted to rebuild it? The act of rebuilding it helps them understand it, and they end up building something similar. Oftentimes, as a business analyst I was asked to build something only to discover that it had already been built sometime in the past (I called that an “archelogical find”).

And the solution is temporary because the next person or group to encounter that problem or system will have to learn it too. If the first person or group had just learned or kept the original system operating, it wouldn’t have needed to be rebuilt. I call this the “reinvention fallacy”.

The reinvention fallacy is  the act of reinventing something to understand it, which can often take the same amount of effort (or more). This is because they either won’t take the time to learn it or they have a bias that because they don’t understand a system, it must be wrong.

Here are a few cognitive biases and psychological tendencies that explain why this happens:

1. Ego-Centric Bias: The assumption that because you don’t understand something, it must be flawed or poorly designed. This bias leads to dismissing the value of existing systems in favor of creating new ones.
2. Not-Invented-Here (NIH) Syndrome: A tendency to distrust or undervalue solutions or systems created by others and instead prioritize rebuilding or creating something from scratch, even if the existing solution is adequate.
3. Curse of Knowledge (Inverse): This occurs when someone lacking knowledge assumes the system is overly complex or broken, rather than recognizing their own learning gap.
4. Action Bias: A preference for taking action (e.g., rebuilding a system) over inaction (e.g., learning the existing one), even if action isn’t necessarily the optimal solution. This bias can create a false sense of productivity.
5. Dunning-Kruger Effect: In its early stages, this effect could explain why someone underestimates the complexity of an existing system and believes they can create something better without fully understanding the original.
6. Reinvention Bias: This is the “grass is always greener” tendency to favor starting over rather than learning or adapting what’s already there, driven by the mistaken belief that rebuilding will lead to better outcomes or deeper understanding.

But what happens when an idea is first getting started? Oftentimes there is just as much resistance to an idea first getting established. We’ll cover that in the next few chapters.

This is chapter 2 of Think Again, available on Amazon Kindle.

Imagine a logo of one of your favorite brands. More likely than not, it has changed slightly over time, but maintained some elements about it, as if it is on an evolutionary path. Rarely, if ever, is the brand and logo wholly re-invented to look and feel different.

Now there are many branding and marketing reasons for this having to do with brand recognition and goodwill, but it’s a great metaphor for when this type of effect happens in other areas of our everyday lives.

Once an idea is first introduced it often mutates and grows from that first introduction and rarely if ever gets readjudicated or reasoned back from first principles to reimagine it. In this way, the idea is like a tree that once planted, only has one “trunk” and is rarely if ever “replanted”.

I call this “The Idea Tree”.

This concept is a form of idea entrenchment or conceptual path dependency. Both terms describe how ideas, once established, tend to grow and branch without returning to their roots for reevaluation.

Ideational inertia is another way to think of this concept, which borrowing from physics, when objects are in motion, they tend to continue along their established paths unless acted upon by a force (such as critical reassessment).

In either case, without “replanting” ideas, they often keep expanding from a single, possibly outdated “trunk”. This is why reimagining from first principles (and other heuristic thinking methodologies discussed later) are so valuable.

Idea Entrenchment

Idea entrenchment describes the process by which ideas become firmly established and resistant to change. Once an idea becomes entrenched, it’s often taken as a given and rarely questioned, leading people to build upon it without re-evaluating its initial assumptions. This can occur due to familiarity, tradition, confirmation bias, or even from heuristic shortcuts themselves.

Changing foundational ideas requires significant effort.

In psychology and sociology, this concept is linked to cognitive rigidity, where thinking patterns become fixed. In organizations or societies, entrenched ideas might lead to institutional inertia, where the established ways of thinking or acting persist even if they no longer serve the original purpose.

The Remedy

So what’s the remedy for this? We can look to mental shortcuts, ideas from a heuristic way of thinking to occasionally reimagine from first principles – but another method is to occasionally ask yourself: what could we stop doing, start doing, or change?

This is often referred to as a “stop-start-continue” analysis. This framework is widely used in personal reflection, team retrospectives, and strategic planning. It prompts a person to reevaluate their current actions, identify new opportunities, and retain valuable practices, making it a powerful tool for breaking entrenched ideas and routines.

When paired with reimagining from first principles, stop-start-continue can help a person systematically identify areas for improvement or innovation, creating a balanced approach to rethinking entrenched ideas that have gained ideational inertia. It offers a structured way to question and adjust practices without the overwhelming task of reinventing everything at once.

Revisiting from first principles and the occasional stop-start-continue analysis can help teams and individuals see whether their initial “trunk” of an idea tree still aligns with current goals or whether “replanting” could yield something more impactful.

However, you may find that some ideas do not need to be revisited, but still do get revisited due to a lack of institutional knowledge or a bias against established systems and processes. We’ll cover that in the next chapter.

This is chapter 1 of Think Again, available on Amazon Kindle.

Rethinking, Refining, and Communicating Ideas That Stick: A Guide to Understanding, Shaping, and Sharing Ideas with Clarity and Purpose

What makes an idea stick? Why do some ideas grow and evolve, while others get rejected outright? And how can you communicate your ideas in a way that makes them truly resonate?

In Think Again, you’ll explore the life cycle of ideas—from their inception to their acceptance or rejection. Drawing on concepts like The Idea Tree, The Simplicity Paradox, and initial rejection bias, this book reveals the hidden forces that shape how we think about and share ideas.

Discover practical tools for rethinking entrenched ideas, reimagining from first principles, and overcoming biases that block innovation. Learn how to craft your ideas for maximum impact using strategies like stop-start-continue analysis, mental scaffolding, and Feynman-inspired clarity. Whether you’re solving a problem, designing a brand, or presenting a vision, Think Again provides the mindset and methods to refine and share your ideas with confidence and simplicity.

Perfect for creatives, leaders, and thinkers, this book is your guide to understanding the power of ideas and mastering the art of effective communication in a world where clarity is king.

Buy Think Again on Amazon Kindle.