Progress runs observation-first: working things get discovered, then formalized – not the reverse – making “thinkism” a reliable failure mode in R&D and org design.
Key Takeaways
The “linear theory of innovation” (understand then build) is historically backwards; pendulum clocks preceded Newton’s mechanics by years.
“Thinkism” (Kevin Kelly’s term) – solving by abstract thought alone – works in school and bureaucracy but fails in research and development.
Waterfall software design is the engineering equivalent: designing every UML detail before implementation mirrors the same flawed assumption.
Recipe for breakthroughs: maximize observation and experimentation, minimize upfront abstract reasoning.
Expecting LLMs to cure diseases by “reading all scholarship” repeats the thinkism error – knowing more is never sufficient when the world outpaces any model.
Hacker News Comment Review
Thin discussion so far; one commenter independently coined a parallel concept (“mythe du cerveau”) for the same failure mode in large French engineering organizations, confirming the pattern is recognized across cultures.
A commenter pushes back on the school-vs-work analogy: at work, engineers can run experiments and do research, making the comparison less clean than the article implies.
Notable Comments
@vlovich123: challenges the article’s school/work contrast – engineers at work have research time and experimental latitude that students don’t, weakening the analogy.
@cdavid: asks for org-level references on fighting thinkism beyond the Godin (2017) MIT Press book cited in the article.
