OTT Issue #17: The Simplest Explanation Is Probably a Lie

Hello, and welcome to an episode of deeply ironic stuff you probably didn’t know.?

As I began this week’s newsletter, which is about the appeal of simplicity contrasted with the usefulness of contradiction, I was on the hunt for a good grounding concept to kick things off.??

I thought of the phrase known as?Occam’s razor, which is often written something like, “the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.” It seemed like a useful starting point, but I wanted to do some fact checking before just running off with it as my opener.

Turns out, this simple and easily accessible phrase isn’t really Occam’s razor. Well…it sort of is…but not really. This week's issue is all about contradiction, after all. Let me explain.??

William of Ockham, the 14th-century English philosopher and theologian to whom this problem-solving principle gets attributed, actually put it much differently: “Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity” (or?Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, for those of you fluent in Latin).?

There are lots of different formulations of this same idea that pre-date William, going back at least to Aristotle. His version went, “Nature operates in the shortest way possible.”?

Other examples of the principle of parsimony (a less simple alias for Occam’s razor) include:

• Other things being equal, we may assume the superiority of the demonstration which derives from fewer postulates or hypotheses.?
• It is vain to do with more what can be done with fewer.?
• We consider it a good principle to explain the phenomena by the simplest hypothesis possible
• A plurality is not to be posited without necessity

For a principle about simplicity, this got real complicated real fast. Let’s recap:?

I went on the hunt for a good way to emphasize the value of simplicity, only to discover that one of the most well known phrases about simplicity has a deeply complicated backstory.?

Irony is fun.?

In this case, it’s also instructive (bonus!). Because by embracing the complexity beneath the surface, I gained a deeper understanding of the principle of parsimony (and the multiple spellings of “Occam”).?

Which brings us to the complement to Occam’s razor: Matthew McConaughey’s new children’s book advocating for the beauty of contradiction.?

The website for?Just Because?asks, “Have you ever thought there was more than one right answer to a question? That’s because contradictions are all around us. And they make us who we are.”

I first discovered the existence of this book thanks to?this adorable YouTube video, which I wholeheartedly suggest you go watch right this very second. With lines like, “Just because I’m finished doesn’t mean that I am done. / Just because you got the gold doesn’t mean that you won.” and “Just because I forgive you doesn’t mean that I still trust / There’s what you do and what I do and yours is not my must.” I was immediately in love.?

Not only is it a micro-crash course in key components of emotional intelligence,?Just Because?advocates for the embrace of the blurriness, messiness, and uncertainty that are all around us all the time.?

There’s more than one right trail for you, your team, and your organization to be on right now.?

There’s more than one right route off that trail and toward the better future you want to build.?

There’s more than one right way to start, continue, and end every kind of journey.?

Latching on to a singular choice and holding on for dear life might feel comforting, but the chances are very good that you’re squeezing the life out of that option with your inflexible, crushing grip. Hearing, acknowledging, and understanding multiple interpretations – even (especially?) those that are blatantly contradictory to yours – will improve your chances of finding the best next step.

Not only that, letting go of the need to be right will make you a more effective coalition builder, a more successful change agent, and a generally happier human.?

So let’s get on board the contradiction train.?

Let’s high five Occam’s razor when it tells us that the simplest explanation is usually the right one, while also being the byproduct of a supremely complicated backstory.?

Let’s approach a seemingly crazy org design concept with open minded curiosity.?

Let’s poke and prod at our own feeling of certainty, knowing that it’s probably hiding some unseen (and therefore highly dangerous) contradictions.?

Simply,?

Andrea