Law of the Instrument
Years back while trying to prepare for a competitive exam, me and a friend got stuck with a quant problem for over 30 minutes. We tried the technique that was taught to us (the only one we knew) but we couldn’t crack it. We googled for about 10 minutes and soon left in frustration with an intention to come back tomorrow and see if we can work it out.
About an hour after I reached home, I received a text from my friend with the words - “My little sister figured it out.” The 12-year old apparently solved the problem within a couple of minutes.
While we were both looking at the problem purely through the lens of the technique we were taught, my friend’s sister had no such constraints.
With fresh eyes came a different perspective and the problem was solved.
What we experienced that day was a manifestation of a fairly popular phenomenon called the Law of the instrument, made popular by Abraham Maslow.
Law of the instrument is a very important meta-bias to consider when working with mental models or even decision making in general. Having an understanding on the impact of this bias in formulating solutions or arguments is critical to being a rational thinker.
Popularised by Charlie Munger in his speech, this law has now found application in fields ranging from investing to computer science.
So what is the Law of the Instrument?
In essence, the law states that people with specialised skill sets will look to solve the problems presented to them within the context of the same skill sets. For example, if your app is not doing well and you ask your graphic designer then chances are he is going to explore design solutions while ignoring or second fiddling marketing solutions and vice versa if you ask a marketer.
Today’s decision economy is a lot more sophisticated than what we have had before and it is only going to get more complex, hence it is important for you to acknowledge that narrow viewpoints can only take you so far. As Charlie Munger states in his speech, it is important to have multiple perspectives and models while working on a solution.
The Comfort Zone
Most of us would actively avoid possible solutions because we are not familiar with the skills/perspective needed for it. We are so used to not engaging in things that have an element of risk that we avoid even attempting to learn something new.
A common example of this law can be seen in the lack of new technology adoption among a lot of software developers. This is very limiting to both the developer’s and the company’s ability to innovate and be at the cutting edge of new technology.
A better approach would be to keep looking for a better choice even if we lack familiarity and need to learn new approaches/tools for it.
Overcoming the law of the instrument
This law is deep rooted in our approach and thinking, so there are a lot of proactive measures that need to be taken. You can start by asking these questions:
Am I the right person to solve this problem?
Does my core expertise/skill set form the basis for a possible solution?
What skill set/expertise closely align with possible solutions to the problem?
Do I know someone who has encountered the same/similar problem?
Are there other stakeholders interested in a solution?
Who are the other stakeholders who might have insights into the problem?
People who are advising me, do they have an incentive? If yes, what is it?
People who are advising me, are their experiences relevant to the problem?
What situational context should I take into account while working on a solution?
Can I pay a professional to solve this? If yes, why am I not?
Once you’ve answered these questions, you should ideally arrive at 3 options:
I am the person to solve this.
There is someone better who can solve this.
I need more context into the problem.
With the second option your work is simplified since you just need to find someone suitable.
The first and third options however require further introspection and investigation.
(Option 1) I am the person to solve this.
Take the first principles approach and get to the root of the problem
Eliminate/account for variables and do a cost-benefit analysis
Employ second order thinking to reduce number of possible solutions
Play devil's advocate to the proposed final solution
Employ with caution and diligence
(Option 2) I need more context into the problem.
Start by assessing the knowledge gap
Acquire first-hand information from someone close to the problem about the problem
Consider disciplines that’ll provide context and understand their basics
Get the opinion from an unaffected/unbiased party after sharing the first-hand information
With your learned context try and fill the gaps of the solution proposed by the unbiased party
Ask someone with context to the problem to play devil’s advocate to your duct-taped solution
Short list the approaches using second order thinking
Employ with caution and diligence
These are just some ways you can avoid the law of the instrument from hindering your decision making ability. You can always make it more sophisticated depending on the level of context available to you.
So that is it. What did you think of this law? Did you find this useful?
If yes, reply back to this email with a “yes”
If not, don’t do anything.
The feedback is important to me, so a simple reply goes a long way in helping me formulate future content. Thanks for reading.
Keep it rational.