Why do critics argue that 'first principles' are merely a repackaging of 'genius intuition'?

Hey there, this is an interesting question, and many people feel the same way. Let me try to explain my thoughts in plain language.

To put it simply, it's like the difference between a "top student" (who achieves through diligent study) and a "natural genius" (who seems to grasp things effortlessly).

"First Principles Thinking", ideally, is a methodology, like a secret martial arts manual. Regardless of your natural talent, if you practice according to it, you can improve your skills. Its core idea is: don't mind how others have done it, and don't mind what things currently look like. Instead, let's break things down to their most fundamental, irreducible units (like laws of physics, basic human needs, material costs, etc.), and then, starting from these "building blocks," reconstruct an optimal, most efficient "structure."

Look at Elon Musk wanting to build cheaper rockets. He didn't think about how to make existing rockets a bit cheaper. He directly asked: "What is the cost of the raw materials (aluminum, titanium, copper, etc.) to build a rocket?" He calculated that material costs only accounted for 2% of the total rocket price. So, what was the remaining 98%? It was the huge costs incurred because "that's just how it's always been done." So, he started from that 2% of raw materials, re-thought how to combine them, and that's how he came up with reusable rockets. This process sounds very "scientific," very "logical," right? Like solving a physics problem.

What is "Genius Intuition"? It's more like a "natural genius's" flash of inspiration. If you ask them how they solved a difficult problem, they might scratch their head and say, "I just looked at it and felt that this was the way to do it." This kind of intuition cannot be taught or learned; it's like a talent. Take Steve Jobs, for example. Much of the time, he relied on his superb aesthetic sense and insight into human nature, directly "feeling" that "the iPhone should look exactly like this," without complex formulas or derivations.

So, why do critics say the former is just a packaging of the latter?

The problem lies here:

1. The starting point is too hard to find: The first step of "First Principles Thinking" – "finding the most fundamental units" – is extremely difficult for ordinary people. Amidst countless pieces of information and knowledge, how do you know which is truly "first principle"? Which is the "basic building block" that cannot be broken down further? Yet, those "geniuses" seem to grasp that most crucial "building block" instantly, purely by "intuition." Therefore, this most critical first step itself requires "genius intuition" to complete.

2. The results look the same: Whether through tedious first principles analysis or a genius's flash of inspiration, what is ultimately presented to the world is a disruptive, seemingly "out-of-the-blue" brilliant idea. We outsiders don't see how much data Musk's team crunched behind the scenes; we only see, "Wow, the rocket was recovered!" That "wow" moment, and the "wow" moment when Steve Jobs unveiled the iPhone, feel similar – both seem like magic.

3. The spokesperson effect: The people who constantly talk about "First Principles Thinking" are precisely recognized geniuses like Musk. This makes it hard to distinguish whether he succeeded because the method is great, or because he was already great, so whatever method he advocates seems right. Critics might feel that this is just a genius giving their inexplicable "intuition" and "insight" a more scientific, rational-sounding "packaging" to make their success seem less "mystical" and more convincing.

So, to summarize: A "scientific method" that claims to have steps and logic, but whose most critical initial step relies heavily on talent and intuition, and whose most successful practitioners happen to be geniuses. This inevitably leads people to feel that this "methodology" might just be dressing "genius intuition" in the emperor's new clothes, making it sound more advanced and replicable.