> An idea is a set of smug certainties that allow you to stop looking, listening and learning. Observation is the antidote to those certainties. Ideas are rigid, observations adapt. Ideas make you seem smart, observations make you smarter ...But for a writer, the most important distinction is this: Ideas are generic, and observations are specific.
This seems obvious and is not was I was expecting. I think of ideas as being new vs ideologies or beliefs.
I don't think the distinction between observation and interpretation is natural to many and I often get into challenging situations trying to separate them in discussions.
What the author of this post calls an “idea” is actually a causal inference; and the ability to make accurate causal inferences is necessary for survival.
The world is a dynamic, dangerous, and unforgiving place. Being able to understand the underlying causes of certain events; and then predict them and intervene before they occur is very beneficial for survival. It’s why people have been trying to figure out how the universe works for all of history.
Now we can talk about the appropriate amount of confidence one should have in their causal inferences; but saying “causal inferences bad” is hyperbole and not very useful or informative.
There's a bit of truth yet we model the world through ideas.. I guess the important part is having an iteration process to prune or refine ideas through test/observation (science etc). It's also quite delightful to test an idea even if it failed.. it's a piece of knowledge still. And it frees you into seeking new better ideas.
This seems obvious and is not was I was expecting. I think of ideas as being new vs ideologies or beliefs.
I don't think the distinction between observation and interpretation is natural to many and I often get into challenging situations trying to separate them in discussions.