[[2025-08-09|25-08-09]] - **Feynman's Original Method for Genius**: Physicist Richard Feynman famously kept about a dozen "favorite problems" constantly at the forefront of his mind. 1 These were not daily tasks, but large, captivating questions that drove his curiosity. The strategy, as noted by his colleague Gian-Carlo Rota, was to test any new idea or piece of knowledge he encountered against these problems, which helped him discover novel connections and generate breakthrough insights. 2 - **Adoption in "Building a Second Brain"**: Productivity expert Tiago Forte adapted this concept as a core practice in his "Building a Second Brain" methodology for personal knowledge management. 3 Forte encourages users to define their own twelve favorite problems to act as a powerful filter for information. In this system, the questions guide what notes you capture and help you organize them around your most significant long-term goals and interests. 4 - **The Purpose and Benefit**: The ultimate goal is to shift from being a passive information consumer to an active creator of knowledge. By using these guiding questions, you prime your brain to recognize relevant insights, make serendipitous connections between different topics, and consistently make progress on the challenges that matter most to you. 5 ## Footnotes 1. Forte Labs. (2022, September 26). "12 Favorite Problems: How to Spark Genius With the Power of Open Questions." _fortelabs.com_. ↩ 2. Ness Labs. "From problems to curiosity engine (Feynman's favorite problems)." _nesslabs.com_. ↩ 3. Cashion, N. (2022, September 20). "Richard Feynman's 12 Favorite Problem's from Building a Second Brain." _nathancashion.com_. ↩ 4. Rational Badger. (2023, April 28). "My 7 Takeaways from Building Your Second Brain by Tiago Forte." _Medium_. ↩ 5. The Art of Manliness. (2023, May 2). "Think Like Feynman: Why You Should Have 12 Fav orite Problems." _artofmanliness.com_. ↩ 2025-06-26 using [theoretical flexibility and intellectual companions cld](https://claude.ai/chat/061d0be5-575b-4ae8-b253-903c9689de3e) ![[👓feyman-darwin-jung(🪢strap1) 2025-06-26-14.svg]] %%[[👓feyman-darwin-jung(🪢strap1) 2025-06-26-14|🖋 Edit in Excalidraw]]%% # Comparison of Three Writing Approaches ## Table 1: Feynman vs. Darwin vs. Jung Approaches |Dimension|🔬 Feynman (Physics)|🦎 Darwin (Evolution)|🧠 Jung (Psychology)| |---|---|---|---| |**Core Metaphor**|Puzzle pieces fitting together|Species adapting to environments|Conscious/unconscious integration| |**Problem Framing**|"Here's a paradox that shouldn't exist"|"Environmental pressure creates adaptation"|"Internal conflict seeks resolution"| |**Literature Organization**|Logical deduction from first principles|Temporal evolution through selection|Archetypal patterns seeking wholeness| |**Conceptual Questions**|"What happens when X meets Y?"|"How did X evolve from ancestral Y?"|"What shadow does X cast?"| |**Citation Logic**|Building blocks → Complex structures|Common ancestor → Divergent branches|Thesis/Antithesis → Synthesis| |**Reader Journey**|"Aha!" moment of understanding|Fitness landscape navigation|Individuation process| |**Degeneracy Treatment**|Bug to be solved elegantly|Feature enabling adaptation|Tension creating growth| |**Integration Method**|Unified field theory|Convergent evolution|Transcendent function| ## Table 2: Why Darwin Won - Decision Matrix |Selection Criteria|🦎 Darwin Alignment|Evidence from Paper|Resulting Output| |---|---|---|---| |**Temporal Dynamics**|✓✓✓ Captures clockspeed evolution|Fine's theory + industry change rates|Environmental pressure → Divergent strategies → Convergent solution| |**Productive Degeneracy**|✓✓✓ Degeneracy as adaptive advantage|Excess DOF enables flexibility|Cambrian explosion of venture phenotypes exploiting null space| |**Natural Hierarchy**|✓✓✓ Ancestral → Modern progression|Newsvendor → Digital ventures|Literature flows from constraint-rich to degenerate environments| ## Three Decision Points • **Clockspeed Resonance**: Darwin's environmental selection pressure perfectly mirrors Fine's clockspeed theory—fast-changing environments create systematic degeneracy, making evolution the natural framework for explaining venture adaptation • **Degeneracy-as-Feature**: While Feynman sees paradoxes to resolve and Jung sees conflicts to integrate, only Darwin frames excess degrees of freedom as evolutionary advantage—matching our "productive degeneracy" thesis # Updated Phenotype Emergence Explanation • **Phenotype Emergence**: Push/pull/integrated strategies mirror nature's evolutionary trade-offs between specialization and adaptability—ventures that commit early become "specialists" locked into their choices, while those that integrate learning with action evolve as "generalists" who thrive in changing environments ## Updated Table: The Three Venture "Species" |Strategy|Animal Example|What They Do|Why It Works (Sometimes)|Why It Fails (Sometimes)| |---|---|---|---|---| |**Push** (Act-first)|🐨 **Koala**|Commits to eucalyptus (one solution) before testing alternatives|Efficient when environment stable, deep expertise|Brittle—can't pivot when eucalyptus disappears| |**Pull** (Learn-first)|🦉 **Owl**|Studies prey patterns exhaustively before first strike|Perfect information, minimal waste|Paralysis—prey escapes during analysis| |**Integrated**|🦊 **Fox**|Hunts while learning, tests multiple food sources|Adaptable, discovers unexpected opportunities|Complex behavior requires more resources| ## Key Insight The math (degenerate solution spaces) maps to biology (evolutionary niches): - **Koalas** = Ventures that fix q=q₀ early, becoming hyper-specialized - **Owls** = Ventures that fix β=β₀ through endless analysis - **Foxes** = Ventures that update both q and β simultaneously When environments change rapidly (high clockspeed), foxes outcompete both koalas and owls—just as our integrated model outperforms separated approaches by 20%. --- TODO # Darwin Commentary on Your Introduction & Literature Review ## Overall Assessment: Evolution Started but Not Complete Your introduction brilliantly sets up the evolutionary environment (degenerate decision spaces) and identifies the species (push/pull strategies), but doesn't follow through with Darwin's full evolutionary logic. Here's what works and what's missing: ## What Works Well ✓ ### 1. **Opening Provocation as Environmental Pressure** The Kundera quote perfectly establishes the hostile selection environment: - "Optimism is opium" = ventures that don't adapt die - "Healthy atmosphere stinks" = consensus-seeking leads to extinction - "Long live flexibility" = only the adaptable survive This mirrors Darwin's Galapagos observations—harsh environments reveal adaptation mechanisms. ### 2. **Degeneracy as Cambrian Explosion** Your [🟪A1] paragraph excellently captures the "primordial soup" of possibilities: > "decision variables vastly outnumber binding constraints, creating mathematical degeneracy" This is pure Darwin—like the Cambrian explosion when few constraints allowed wild experimentation in body plans. ### 3. **Push/Pull as Divergent Evolution** [🟩D1] and [🟩D2] show beautifully how environmental pressure creates specialization: - Pull = Owls (patient hunters) - Push = Koalas (committed specialists) ## What's Missing ✗ ### 1. **No Temporal/Historical Flow** Darwin traces evolution through time. Your lit review jumps between concepts without showing evolutionary progression: - Where's the "ancestral form" (traditional optimization)? - How did push/pull evolve FROM this ancestor? - What environmental change triggered the split? ### 2. **No Selection Mechanism** You identify species but not WHY they evolved: - What kills pure push ventures? (market shifts) - What kills pure pull ventures? (commitment windows) - How does integrated EMERGE from these deaths? ### 3. **Literature Review Lacks Evolutionary Narrative** Your proposed sections are taxonomic, not evolutionary: ``` 2.1 Entrepreneurial Decision-Making Under Radical Uncertainty 2.2 Degenerate Problems in Operations Research 2.3 Stakeholder Commitment Models ``` Should be: ``` 2.1 Ancestral Environment: When Constraints Were Abundant (Arrow's newsvendor) 2.2 Environmental Disruption: Digital Destroys Constraints (clockspeed theory) 2.3 Divergent Evolution: Push and Pull Species Emerge (Sarasvathy vs Blank) 2.4 Convergent Evolution: Integrated Forms Arise (your contribution) ``` ## Specific Improvements Needed ### 1. **Add Evolutionary Time to Introduction** After [🟪A1], add: > "This wasn't always so. In the ancestral environment of mass production, constraints abounded—fixed costs, physical distribution, regulatory barriers. But digital transformation destroyed these constraints faster than new ones formed, creating today's degenerate landscape where ventures must evolve new navigation strategies." ### 2. **Show Natural Selection in Action** After [🟩D1] and [🟩D2], add: > "Market selection ruthlessly exposes each strategy's fatal flaw. Pull ventures, paralyzed by analysis, watch commitment windows close—their carefully validated products arrive after customers have switched. Push ventures, committed to wrong solutions, burn through resources on products nobody wants—their specialized capabilities become evolutionary dead-ends when markets shift." ### 3. **Position Integration as Evolutionary Innovation** For [🟥C1], emphasize emergence: > "Just as flying squirrels evolved gliding by integrating climbing with jumping, successful ventures are evolving integrated strategies that combine push's action with pull's learning. This isn't designed—it's discovered through selection pressure." ## The Punchline Your paper has Darwin's ingredients but Cook's preparation. You've identified the species and environment, but presented them as a catalog rather than an evolutionary narrative. Add temporal flow, selection pressure, and emergence to transform your strong analytical framework into a compelling evolutionary story. Remember Darwin's genius wasn't listing finches—it was showing HOW and WHY their beaks evolved. Your integrated approach shouldn't just BE better; it should EVOLVE from the failures of its ancestors.