Zero to One - Value of Understanding

“Zero to one is about creating something new. One to n is about copying things that work.” — Peter Thiel, Zero to One

While reading the book “Zero to One” by Peter Thiel, I came across this question:

“What important truth do very few people agree with you on?”

You can pause to think for few seconds…

The question is meant to filter for visionaries — people who are not just smart, but also nonconformist, willing to see and say what others miss.

Just like any amateur reader, I started to search my own memory to find the answer to that question: what can it be? To my disappointment, nothing concrete came. But did that mean I was not original enough? Did this mean I am not worthy of being selected for a Thiel Fellowship? Who knows. But I understood a few important things about this question: primarily, that this question has many layers to it, and this debate of self-criticism was taking me away from what was most important.

A strong answer, according to Thiel, would take the form: “Most people believe in x, but the truth is the opposite of x.”

What is most important is to note that this question encapsulates Thiel’s philosophy that groundbreaking ideas often stem from challenging conventional wisdom and thinking independently.

In his words:

“This is a deceptively tricky question. It’s intellectually difficult because the knowledge that everyone is taught in school is by definition agreed upon. And it’s psychologically difficult because anyone trying to answer must say something she knows to be unpopular.”

Not being able to come up with a satisfactory answer as I realized did not mean that I lacked originality. Also it did not mean that someone like me cannot develop an independent thinking process. Because to be able to answer this question, one needs to have the ability to think for themselves which over time with deliberate practice can be developed.

Humans are wired as social creatures and we as Malcolm Gladwell points out default to truth. Which means we consider the information to be correct and then look for evidence to refute that. If ‘enough’ evidence is found, we consider it wrong, otherwise, it is accepted as truth. This might seem silly or dangerous at first glance but serves an important function for maintaining the social harmony. Can you imagine trying to prove each and every stranger you meet that you can be trusted? It will not be efficient for sure. Default to truth is a necessary evil and we are naturally wired for this.

Additionally we look towards others for the signs of socially acceptable behaviour and belief system in order to fit in as part of the group, which in other words is also called social confirmation bias.

The human need for certainty also requires some sort of trusted criteria to base our belief system upon. Our beliefs and justification for that belief give us a sense of order in mind. No wonder we seek justified belief. We need certain type of evidence to support our belief system and by default social confirmation seems to provide that.

Now let’s get back to our original question. Why would someone who challenges the conventional ideas and wisdom be the right type of person to create ground breaking ideas?

Lets understand it by a poem by a Poet named Sabar Ali Sabar:

If I speak a truth—
they shoot it down.
Where is that written?

They follow what’s already penned,
but if I write it down myself,
even then—they won’t accept it.

They ask:
“What you’ve written…
where is that written?”

And the words never spoken—
let no one speak them.
And the truths not yet written—
let no one write them.

Where is that written?

In case you missed it, the key message is that everything is done for the first time…

The path from 0 to 1 is the creation of that something new.

One who cannot trust one’s own judgement and seek confirmation will stay within the confines of what’s known, discovered and exists.

As Elon said in an interview that we should reason from fundamental truths as opposed to reasoning by analogy.

It might seem easy at first sight but we humans need some sort of justification for our beliefs system. Social confirmation and analogy provides that justification or a platform to build our views upon. If Social confirmation is to be removed, it needs to be replaced by something better and more reliable. This is where Framework of Understanding comes into play.

We need a reliable criterion to base our life upon, something from which our values and meaning of life may derive. We all carry borrowed scripts handed off to us by the culture and society that we are born and live in. Many live their lives with those scripts. But there are some who seek understanding, truth seekers creating their own views about life and the world. These are the people who don’t want to be part of group thinking and set out to create their own.

In a 2016 conversation, Jony Ive a visionary designer behind Apple’s most iconic products illuminated the path of the innovator:

“If it hasn’t been done and it’s of value, there’s really good reasons it’s not been done. And so when you’re confronted with those reasons, you’ve got two choices. You can say, ‘Oh, that’s a very good reason, I’m sorry for bothering you.’ Or you can say, ‘I don’t believe that. I’m going to find out more.’”

Innovation by nature demands disobedience. Does that mean that people who are agreeable type are less likely to be innovators? My experience seems to suggest otherwise.

Self belief and disagreement with others is not about arrogance. It is bias for truth. It might seem counterintuitive but bias for truth requires humility to accept one’s own mistakes. It is about recognizing the limitations of our knowledge. So opposite to what popular opinion seems to suggest original thinking is not egocentric but complete opposite of it. It is ultimate form of humility.

We all are blind one way or another. What we see is the little of what exists.

I was born and raised in a culture where the message of being a good kid was to listen to elders and do what your teachers say. Basically, follow the authority and never question them.

We were asked to write an essay in primary school, “Acche bacche,” which means noble boys and their traits. Basically, we were told that to be noble, you need to follow these traits. What a wonderful way to wire kids for conformity.

The mental burden that we have to carry is created by the culture and shared values of those cultures. When we question those values and form one of our own, that distances us from the people that we love and care about. I guess it is the price of originality that one needs to pay. Over time, though, you start to see that there is some reasoning behind everything, even behind wrong values and decisions. So we start to accept them without agreeing to them. That, I believe, is another level of awareness. We no longer try to impose our thinking over others.

Now, innovation and new ideas are not popular. When someone comes up with something new or something that is yet to be realized, it is obvious that people with their thinking would disagree with it. But the true test of right and wrong is against reality. People may think something may not work, so to go past that initial disagreement, self-belief and faith are of paramount importance. To not care how few agree with you, you need something reliable to base your clarity, values, and decisions on. A framework of understanding that is closer to the truth provides that platform.