Can first principles lead to oversimplification of complex problems?

Absolutely, and this is precisely the trap many fall into when applying first principles.

To draw an analogy, it's like learning martial arts. First principles teach you the "technique of generating power" – how to unify your waist and stance, drawing strength from the ground. This is fundamental, no doubt. But if you think understanding this power generation alone will allow you to defeat everyone, you're gravely mistaken. Because real combat is a complex system, involving timing, distance, your opponent's reactions, your own stamina, and even whether your feet might slip.

If you only focus on "power generation" as the first principle, you might arrive at an oversimplified conclusion like, "as long as I'm strong, I'll win."

Therefore, the dangers of first principles thinking lie in:

1. Mistaking the "First" Principle: You might believe you've found the most fundamental law, but it could just be an intermediate layer. For instance, if you consider "human nature is inherently evil" as a first principle and design all systems based on it, problems are bound to arise, as you'd be ignoring the aspects of human nature that lean towards goodness and cooperation. Which one is truly "first"? That itself is difficult to define.

2. Ignoring Emergence: The difficulty with many complex problems isn't in individual elements, but in the "emergent" phenomena that arise from the interaction of numerous elements. Just as a single water molecule is simple, countless water molecules gathered together, under different temperatures and pressures, form solids, liquids, gases, and even complex ocean currents and weather systems. If you only analyze a single water molecule (H₂O), you'll never understand how a typhoon forms. Looking only at individual "bricks" prevents you from comprehending the grandeur and complexity of a "cathedral."

3. Overly Long Derivation Path with Too Many Intermediate Variables: First principles aim to derive a completely new solution B from a fundamental point A. However, if A and B are vastly distant, with countless variables and steps in between, each step of the derivation could introduce a slight deviation, leading to a wildly inaccurate final result.

How to avoid these pitfalls?

The key is not to stop after breaking down a problem into its most basic elements. You must also recombine them and carefully consider their interactions.

Applying first principles isn't about becoming a "nitpicker" who only dismantles things, but about using a deeper understanding to "reconstruct" after decomposition. It's a complete process of "deconstruction-reconstruction." Many only complete the first step, appearing profound, but actually oversimplifying complex problems, which is, of course, dangerous.

So, the tool itself isn't flawed; the problem lies in the user's ability to wield it. Used well, you're an Elon Musk; used poorly, you might become the person with a hammer, seeing every problem as a nail.