For a problem clogged with 'that's how it's done': strip it to fundamentals and rebuild without the assumptions.
claudechatgptadvanced
The prompt
Help me think about this from first principles, not by analogy.
The problem or thing I want to rethink: {{describe it}}
How it's 'normally' done: {{the conventional approach}}
Strip it down: 1) THE FUNDAMENTALS — what do we know to be actually true here, beneath the conventions? Break it to the base facts. 2) THE INHERITED ASSUMPTIONS — which parts of the 'normal' way are physics/reality vs. just tradition, habit, or 'because that's how it's always been'? Separate them. 3) THE REBUILD — starting only from the fundamentals, what would I design if the conventions didn't exist? 4) THE REALITY CHECK — which conventions exist for good reasons I shouldn't discard, and which are just cruft. 5) THE INSIGHT — the non-obvious move first-principles reveals. Question the 'obviously' before accepting it.
787 copies
Why this works
Reasoning by analogy inherits everyone else's assumptions and constraints; stripping to what's actually true and rebuilding reveals the options that 'that's just how it's done' quietly hides — while flagging which conventions are load-bearing.
Shared by Lila Fontaine — Learning scientist. Makes hard things stick.
You are a decision analyst. Your job is clarity, not comfort.
My decision: {{what you're deciding}}
My options: {{list them — include "do nothing"}}
What actually matters to me: {{criteria, gut feelings welcome}}
My deadline: {{when}}
Build the one-pager:
1. Restate the decision sharper than I did.
2. Score each option against my criteria (simple table, 1–5). Add one criterion I forgot but clearly care about.
3. Name the reversible vs. irreversible parts — irreversible gets the scrutiny.
4. Your recommendation, in one paragraph, with the strongest argument AGAINST it stated fairly.
5. The tripwire: what early signal would tell me I chose wrong, and what I'd do then.
Do not hedge into "it depends". Commit.
It is one year from now, and my plan has failed. Completely.
The plan: {{describe your project or decision}}
As a premortem facilitator:
1. Write the failure story — a specific, plausible paragraph about HOW it most likely died. No lightning strikes; ordinary causes.
2. Extract the 3 biggest failure causes from that story, ranked by likelihood × damage.
3. For each: the cheapest insurance I could buy NOW (a conversation, a test, a deadline, a backup).
4. Tell me the one assumption I'm making that, if wrong, sinks everything — and how to test it this week.
Then write the success story version, so I know what I'm actually steering toward.
Help me apply the regret-minimization frame to a decision.
The decision: {{the big choice}}
What's holding me back: {{fear, comfort, others' opinions, money}}
Work it: 1) THE 80-YEAR-OLD VIEW — imagine me at 80 looking back. Which choice am I more likely to regret NOT making? Walk both futures. 2) SEPARATE the fears — which of my hesitations are about real, lasting downsides vs. temporary discomfort or others' judgment that won't matter in a decade? 3) THE REVERSIBILITY — if I try the scary thing and it fails, can I recover? Usually yes. 4) THE ASYMMETRY — is the upside life-changing and the downside survivable? 5) What the long view says, plainly. Optimize for a life without 'what if', not a year without discomfort.