One common rationality technique is to put off proposing solutions until you have thought (or discussed) a problem for a while. The goal is to keep yourself from becoming attached to the solutions you propose.
I wonder if the converse approach of “start by proposing lots and lots of solutions, even if they are bad” could be a good idea. In theory, perhaps I could train myself to not be too attached to any given solution I propose, by setting the bar for “proposed solution” to be very low.
In one couples counseling course that I went through, the first step for conflict resolution (after choose a time to discuss and identify the problem) was to together write down at least 10 possible solutions before analyzing any of them. I can perhaps see how this might be more valuable for conflict resolution than for other things, since it gives the other party the sense that you are really trying.
However, it seems plausible to me that even in other contexts, this could be even better than avoiding proposing solutions.
Of course, solution does not have to refer to a proposed action, the same technique could be applied to proposing theories about the cause of some observation.
You have to be clear about what it means to “work,” I think brainstorming is viewed as a tool for being creative. I am proposing it as a tool for avoiding inertia bias.
My guess is that both brainstorming and reverse brainstorming (avoiding proposing solutions) are at least a little better than the default human tendency, but I have no idea which of the two would be better.
It seems like the answer to this question should be very valuable to CFAR. I wonder if they have an official stance, and if they have research to back it up.
If all solutions were equal, and there was a good way to check if something is actually a valid solution, then I feel like the question about biases is not all that meaningful.
I am trying to come up with the best solution, not just the first one that pops into my head that works.
I am trying to come up with the best solution, not just the first one that pops into my head that works.
That is rather hard, because in the general case you need to conduct an exhaustive search of the solution space. “The best” is an absolute—there’s only one.
Most of the time people are satisfied with “good enough” solutions.
One common rationality technique is to put off proposing solutions until you have thought (or discussed) a problem for a while. The goal is to keep yourself from becoming attached to the solutions you propose.
I wonder if the converse approach of “start by proposing lots and lots of solutions, even if they are bad” could be a good idea. In theory, perhaps I could train myself to not be too attached to any given solution I propose, by setting the bar for “proposed solution” to be very low.
In one couples counseling course that I went through, the first step for conflict resolution (after choose a time to discuss and identify the problem) was to together write down at least 10 possible solutions before analyzing any of them. I can perhaps see how this might be more valuable for conflict resolution than for other things, since it gives the other party the sense that you are really trying.
However, it seems plausible to me that even in other contexts, this could be even better than avoiding proposing solutions.
Of course, solution does not have to refer to a proposed action, the same technique could be applied to proposing theories about the cause of some observation.
Thoughts?
This is commonly known as brainstorming, around since the 50s.
Apparently the evidence on whether it actually works is contradictory.
Ah, yes, I should have remembered that, thanks.
You have to be clear about what it means to “work,” I think brainstorming is viewed as a tool for being creative. I am proposing it as a tool for avoiding inertia bias.
My guess is that both brainstorming and reverse brainstorming (avoiding proposing solutions) are at least a little better than the default human tendency, but I have no idea which of the two would be better.
It seems like the answer to this question should be very valuable to CFAR. I wonder if they have an official stance, and if they have research to back it up.
It’s pretty straightforward: discover a valid solution to the problem presented.
If all solutions were equal, and there was a good way to check if something is actually a valid solution, then I feel like the question about biases is not all that meaningful.
I am trying to come up with the best solution, not just the first one that pops into my head that works.
That is rather hard, because in the general case you need to conduct an exhaustive search of the solution space. “The best” is an absolute—there’s only one.
Most of the time people are satisfied with “good enough” solutions.