:PROPERTIES:
:ID: 4cd857d6-b081-4bc5-9fdf-4a3af61bd9a0
:END:
#+TITLE: How to solve problems

[[file:..][..]]

DRAFT

As of 2023-01-02, this page works better as an outline (list of lists), than a proper article.
So I don't recommend reading this page as an article.

So, what's a good way to read it, then?
Just read the source!

Here's the source:

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/teodorlu/play.teod.eu/master/how-to-solve-problems/index.org

* Rationale
** Philosophical foundation
*** Modernism: Objective truth is obtainable
*** Nietzche & Taleb: Truth is subordinated utility
*** Deutsch: utility and truth must be interpreted through theory
** Defining "solve" and "problem"
* Recipe: How to solve problems
** Human relationships
*** Trust
*** Shared sense of quality
*** Shared intent
** The problem space
*** "solving" a "problem"
- A well defined problem
- Contextual utility
- Ideal
*** A bimodal strategy opens the space between ideal and utility
*** Contextual utility is wide, specific
*** Balancing specific contextual utility and long term vision
*** An initiative can improve one or more cases of contextual utility
*** Problem space, contextual utility, solution space
*** Solutions are options
*** Growing problems, collecting contextual utility, building knowledge
** Solutions are options to address contextual utility
*** Tension between contextual utility and solutions
*** Product as a collection contextual utility
*** Product as abstraction general tools from contextual utility
**** Product design
** How to grow problem options
** How to grow solution options
** Obvious problems: person struggles to achieve goal in specific context
** Wicked problems: it's hard to pinpoint what's wrong
*** Problem: lack of trust
Definition:

- People don't want to help each other.
  Instead, they want to pursue individual inerests.

Impact:

- lack of incentives to cooperate
- potential for deceit
- potential for miscommunication
*** Problem: lack of shared intent
Definition:

- People don't know what other people need and hope to achieve

Impact:

- People go in different directions
- Rework is likely
*** Problem: lack of shared sense of quality
Definition:

- People don't have a shared aesthetic / sense of "good"

Impact:

- Communication is reduced to either contextual utility or abstract theorizing
- No shared space to pursue mastery destroys motivation
*** How to build trust, shared sense of quality and shared intent
Trust, shared sense of quality and shared intent are all connected.
If I'm not willing to help you (trust), I will not care about your goals (shared intent).
If I don't care about your goals (shared intent), I won't get up close to your sense of quality.
If you don't trust me, you won't tell me your goals or your taste.
** Is it confusing? Make it explicit.
*** Confusing contextual utility? Enumerate it.
Contextual utility is specific.
In contrast to an abstract sense of quality, contextual utility is bound to time, place, people and goals.
Use that.
Don't reduce situations before you understand them.
Collect each context.

Each case of contextual utility is an option you may choose to address.
How valuable is it?
For whom?
Is it hard to solve?
Does it align with your vision and the problem space you care about long term?
*** How can you solve it?
** Product discovery: trust, quality, intent, contextual utility, problems space, solution space
Woah.
** OGGPOW: One Good Goal Plus Options and Wip
*** One good goal keeps you moving
*** A bucket of options is latitude for action
*** Manage work in progress, don't get stuck
** Good product discovery is to work effectively with options
** Good Project management is to limit WIP to reach goals.
** Modeling knowledge
In [[id:bd1be8c0-9227-4f87-9e9e-86b0f5903d5d]["Strong opinions loosely held" is an excuse for sloppy thinking]], I proposed a taxonomy of knowledge:

- Knowledge
  - Fact
    - Observation
    - Implication
  - Judgment
    - Aphorism
    - Contextual utility

Seeing these categories at 2022-12-31, I feel myself hesitating.
Where's the quality?
Is it unnamed?
Let's see where it fits.

- observing quality :: You can observe your own reactions to quality in real time.
  To signify an observation of quality in time, put a timestamp on it!
  Then you've bound that judgment to a place and a time.
  That will come in handy later.
  You'll wonder what you were thinking.
  What you meant.
  Why.
  And you might want to change your mind.
- implied quality? :: I don't really see implication and quality as being connected.
- quality encoded as aphorism :: Perhaps you can formulate what you /really/ think is good as an aphorism.
  People have done that before.
  There's a list in [[id:93ea907e-9dcb-4c6b-af7d-d9bc22c34d57][Aphorisms]], scroll down to the bottom.
- contextual utility --- the meat :: This is the easy one!
  If quality as observation and quality as aphorism is hard, just focus on contextual utility.
  It tends to be easy to talk about.
  Good for someone somewhere at some point in time tends to be good.
  At least that's a worthwhile contribution to the discussion.

And perhaps quality doesn't fit into a box.
At least some part of it.
Silent, nameless.
* Examples
* .

[[http://localhost:9945/how-to-solve-problems/][local preview]] | [[https://play.teod.eu/how-to-solve-problems/][view on the web]]