How to apply first principles to distinguish between genuine and false innovation?

Using "first principles" to judge if something is truly groundbreaking isn't as mysterious as it sounds. Don't overcomplicate it; simply put, it's a way of thinking that involves "stripping away the superficial to see the essence."

Let me give you an analogy: you watch a magic trick and find it amazing. But if you were the magician, knowing the mechanisms, techniques, and principles behind it, it would just be a combination of skills to you. First principles thinking gives you this ability to "see through the magic."

So, how do you apply it? You can ask yourself these questions:

1. What fundamental problem does this "innovation" solve?

Many so-called "pseudo-innovations" don't solve real problems; rather, they just add some embellishment to existing solutions.

• Pseudo-innovation: Take a "smart water bottle," for example, that lights up to remind you to drink water. The problem it aims to solve is "forgetting to drink water." But think about it, is this truly a "fundamental problem" that requires a several-hundred-yuan cup to solve? Your phone, your watch can set reminders, and even your own physiological response to thirst is the best reminder. So, it's more like a "feature" than a "breakthrough."
• True breakthrough: Consider mRNA vaccine technology. The fundamental problem it addresses is "how to quickly and effectively enable the body to produce immunity against a specific virus." Traditional methods involve injecting attenuated or inactivated viruses, which are slow to produce and carry higher risks. mRNA technology bypasses the virus itself, starting from the most basic logic: "Can I just give the body a set of 'instructions' (mRNA) to let the body produce a specific viral characteristic (antigen) itself, and then generate immunity?" This completely changes the game; it solves the problem from its very root.

2. Does it eliminate any "taken-for-granted" steps or costs?

Genuine breakthroughs often destroy or reshape an industry's cost structure, making previously indispensable elements unnecessary.

• Pseudo-innovation: For instance, most "new retail" concepts merely involve making physical stores look nicer and adding an app for online ordering. But you still have to rent premises, hire staff, procure goods, and manage inventory. None of the core cost components are eliminated; only the experience is optimized.
• True breakthrough: Take digital cameras. The fundamental problem they solve is "recording images." Before them, people took it for granted that "photography = film + developing." But digital cameras, starting from first principles, recognized that the essence of recording images is "capturing light signals," not necessarily through chemical reactions. So, they replaced film with electronic sensors (CCD/CMOS), directly eliminating the massive and expensive "film developing" industry. This was a dimensional reduction attack.

3. Is its implementation based on "analogy" or "physics/facts"?

This is the most crucial point. Pseudo-innovations are often products of "analogical thinking," while true breakthroughs stem from "first principles thinking" (or "physical thinking").

• Pseudo-innovation (Analogy): You'll often hear statements like: "We're the 'Uber for pets'," or "We're the 'Netflix for education'." This model involves observing someone else's success, then projecting oneself into it, thinking, "Since A succeeded in domain X, my B can also succeed in domain Y." Its starting point for thinking is others' success, not the essence of user needs.
• True breakthrough (Physics/Facts): Take Elon Musk wanting to build rockets. He didn't start by asking, "How much does it currently cost to build a rocket?" Instead, he asked, "What is the actual cost of the raw materials (physical cost) to build a rocket?" He calculated that material costs accounted for less than 2% of the total rocket price. So, where did the remaining 98% come from? It came from manufacturing, organization, and the "conventional wisdom" of "single-use." Thus, starting from physical laws, he challenged the assumption that "rockets cannot be reused," ultimately creating reusable rockets and reducing costs by an order of magnitude. His starting point for thinking was physical laws and facts themselves.

To summarize, here's a simple framework to help you judge:

Next time you encounter an "innovation," use these three moves to "strip it down to its essence":

1. Ask about the essence: Is the problem it solves a real, fundamental need? Or is it a pseudo-need that has been created?
2. Look at the steps: Does it make a previously "essential" step, cost, or role "optional"?
3. Examine the foundation: Is its logic built on the analogy of "others do it this way," or on the physical or factual laws of "how the world truly works"?

Pseudo-innovations often involve patching up existing paths and putting on a nicer package. True breakthroughs, however, directly ask: "Why must we take this path?" and then proceed to dig a new tunnel, or even invent a teleportation gate.