markitechture

Hypothesis and Action

‘Don’t be an attorney, be a judge.’

‘Agree before you disagree.’

‘Take the conversation up a level.’

If following these pieces of advice are second nature to you, perhaps this framework for general business/product strategy may hold some appeal. My hope is that it is equally applicable to product managers, developers, marketers, executives - anyone on whom an organization relies for core value creation, discovery, and development. Those working in startups and operating companies alike may find some takeaways that are immediately applicable.

Action without hypothesis

AKA: Instinct. The ‘gut call.’

Acting without reviewing ones assumptions is dangerous, but without any question better than not acting at all. After all, smart people internalize their observations and form hypotheses without acknowledging the formation. Therefore acting on instinct simply represents the shadow twin of acting with hypothesis: acting with an implicit hypothesis.

The major danger in action without hypothesis is the risk of failure without learning. Naturally the other side of this outcome is succeeding without knowing why. In the former case, one continues on to the next opportunity or decision leaving behind the past failure and gaining nothing from it. In the latter case, one is clearly disadvantaged in the pursuit of further, related success.

Hypothesis without action

AKA: Laziness. Arrogance. Fear. Cynicism.

If you detect this, in yourself or in your team, eliminate it. There is perhaps nothing more treacherous than the presence of intelligence without willingness to act.

Ideas without advocates are wounded, flightless birds.

In yourself, or in others:

… if the source of inaction is laziness, eliminate it immediately.

… if the source of inaction is arrogance, challenge it publically.

… if the source of inaction is fear, support may be missing in the family and/or in the workplace. Fear paralyzes, and often refuses to make its presence obvious. Therapy, soundness of mind, significant moments of success in life or work, removal of debt, or other major pursuits/events may be required to mitigate deep-seeded fear. In many cases it will never be eliminated; tread carefully, and eliminate decision making related to your work that is tainted with fear.

… if the source of inaction is cynicism, eliminate it immediately. Remove the person from their position (including especially if the person is you). Cynics are cancerous. Not only will their work be of severely limited value, their every moment in discussion, debate, or personal contribution at work will color the perspectives of those around the cynic. The enthusiasm and expectations of the talented team members are your most valuable asset, do not squander it.

Hypothesis and blind action

AKA: Founder’s Syndrome.

In the case where the hypothesis has been formed and made explicit, and the willingness to act does not suffer the gauntlet of common personal psychic barriers listed above, the most value can be created. In this case, though, we find a common plot hole: hypothesis begs action, but the action does not continually inform the hypothesis to create a self-healing whole. The two do not live as one.

The remedy is simple …

Hypothesis, Action, and Validated Learning: The Virtuous Cycle

AKA: Product Management. The Lean Startup. Kaizen.

1. Dream and define.
2. Build and expose.
3. Watch and measure.
4. <repeat>

Never wait. There is no waiting in this case, ever. There is always work: something to build, something to show, something to use, someone to ask, something to absorb.

This virtuous cycle is a machine in pure perpetual motion.

Often people who watch professional poker for the first time are astounded by how much ‘unknown’ information a world-class player has access to. Life and business are similarly a game of incomplete information, and the elite card player offers us unique insight into the cognitive process that reveals this immensely valuable, unknowable information.

Firstly, this information is indeed unknowable. That’s okay. Even our modern ‘objective’ science represents nothing deeper than a robust dashboard knowledge of our immediate surroundings. All we can ever hope to know is, “What happens if you push the red button? What happens if you push the blue button?” Categorically, we will never see to what the buttons are connected.

So back to our card players.

World-class players are separated from the rest of the world by two things:

1. Their ability to form educated hypotheses
2. Their willingness to act boldly

A common misconception is that math plays a large part in poker. In some games this is quite true, in games without betting limits (the only games to which I refer in this piece) the math is extremely simple*.

So we return to action and hypothesis. Card players need the emotional fortitude, courage, and risk profile to act when their hypotheses lead them to believe they have an advantage. Generally, people already assume this is the case: poker players are ballsy gamblers.

The relationship of hypothesis to value creation, and the discipline to build and maintain hypotheses is perhaps the largest area of opportunity to learn from card players. Often people complain of the boredom of cards, that there are long stretch of time where they are not involved. These people are shitty card players. When you are involved in a hand, you must bring to bear all mental faculties, and more importantly, all observed data that will inform your hypotheses as you act boldly, ultimately wagering your own funds.

The manner in which your opponent will respond to a given situation is the key piece of information. If you know this, you often can determine 1) to what they are reacting (reverse-engineering their hand by observing their betting patterns and 2) how they will react to your actions.

So, what value have you created by knowing what your opponent has, and how they will react to various actions on your part? You can win a hand whether you have the winning cards or not. You can make the most money when you do have the winning hand. And about a million other ways.

Summary

Dream, act, watch … and change your mind.

————————————-

@markitecht

————————————-

* since very few cards are involved in these games, the core relevant calculations revolve around the likelihood of a given card or class of cards being dealt next. There are (roughly) 50 cards in a deck, so the likelihood is simply 2%. The 3 of hearts being dealt as the fourth shared card in the center of the table? 2%. The likelihood of a club (assuming you hold two, and two already appear - you wouldn’t care otherwise)? 18% ( (13-4)*2)%. Beyond this core calculation, no-limit games often require the player to determine if they have:

1. A chance to win a big stinking shitload of money if they make a hand, or
2. No such chance.

?