Dive 88: 3 ways to deepen your worldview
Hey, it’s Alvin!
This is the start of a new series in Below the Surface I call, Flipping the Frame. Read on to learn more.
Some people see me as a contrarian. That I just like to oppose popular opinions. But that’s not quite right. What I’m trying to do is improve my understanding of the world. I do that with one simple trick:
Flipping the frame.
A “frame” is a frame of reference, perspective, or point of view. When someone presents a frame, I like to take some aspect of it and flip it to see if my understanding of something improves. Sometimes it does. Sometimes it doesn’t. But it’s always fun.
If you’re looking to get better at understanding ideas, then let me show you how to flip the frame.
We’ll analyze a post from X/Twitter to keep it simple. Keep in mind, this isn’t about the person posting. We’re here to flip the frames presented. Along the way, we’ll also learn a bit about the exciting world of business.
Check out the post below. How would you answer the question in the post?
Here, this person is wondering why those who start businesses don’t just copy products or services provided by existing businesses. Of course, by “copy” he means “copy and improve slightly,” so there’s no copyright infringement. The key question he’s asking is: “why do we strive for originality (instead of being copycats)?”
And that’s the question that almost every reply to this post is hung up on.
Every reply misses a deeper point. But WE won’t. Because we’re going to flip some frames.
Frame Flip #1: Flip the claims.
When facing a claim, look for counterexamples to that claim. NOT to prove the claim wrong. But to identify weaknesses we can diver deeper into.
When I first read the key question in the original post, something felt… off. So, I asked myself, “is the claim true that bosses (always) ask themselves whether they should copy others or be original?” Because I don’t think so.
In fact, if you ever have a boss whose business strategy is focused on copying others or being original, then you should look for another job right away. Because whether a business should be a copycat is a self-centred question. But I know from experience that successful businesses focus on their customers, not themselves. So, the framing of this idea is already weird.
Asking yourself whether a claim is always true is a good way of discovering counterexamples. Because many claims are not always true. Thinking through counterexamples is a decent way to develop a nuanced perspective on a topic. And a nuanced point of view helps you identify weird reference frames. Finding a strange frame of reference is a sign that you need to dive deeper to learn more.
Frame Flip #2: Flip the assumptions.
There’s an assumption buried below the surface of the original post.
Do you see it?
The assumption is that being a copycat is better than being original. The preamble about the band that only played classic rock songs suggests the author favours the copycat approach. Then he asks why anyone should strive to be original and offers no more alternatives. So, the entire post is subtly implying that there are only 2 options for you to choose. That the decision of what to be is dichotomous.
Except, many dichotomies turn out to be false. Often, both options can be valid or even invalid at the same time.
This is a trap that’s easy to fall into. You can see that in the replies. Because the focus of every reply is on answering the superficial question with a yes/no, agree/disagree, etc. But if the underlying assumption is wrong, then the question becomes irrelevant. And answering the question is pointless.
You reveal faulty assumptions by asking:
What are other possibilities beyond the ones in front of me?
Here, we flip the assumption that we only have two options by considering other possibilities.
This leads us to the third flip…
Frame Flip #3: Flip the perspective.
Often, when someone presents two seemingly opposing options to you, that person wants you to pick a side. Their side. But again, many dichotomies are false. Because it’s often possible for both (or neither) options to co-exist.
But here’s the trick…
You won’t be able to see how those options co-exist from the same perspective as the one where they’re opposites. How can you see another perspective? How do you step out of frame?
The passive way is to acknowledge that there’s another frame that exists somewhere out in the world that unifies the opposites. Even if you don’t know what it is right now. This sets you up for success in two ways:
Your unconscious mind will look for answers in the background as you go on with your daily life.
You’ll practice intellectual humility because this forces you to acknowledge that you’re missing something. That there’s something you don’t know.
The active way is to flip the frame.
Look at the situation from an opposite perspective to see if it makes more sense.
In the original post, we’re looking at a business decision in a self-centred frame. Flip the frame. What if we looked at it in a customer-centred frame?
Harvard Business School’s Professor Clayton Christensen has a theory that gives us the customer-centred frame. He calls it disruptive innovation. Unfortunately, “disruption” was bastardized into a corporate buzzword. But the original concept of disruption reveals how businesses succeed by focusing on specific customers. I encourage you to read Christensen’s own explanation of what it is later. For now, I’ll give you a simple, quick overview.
Let’s say Company A sells a product to a specific customer base. As time goes on, Company A adds features to the product that customers ask for. The product improves, so the company can charge more for it. And the company attracts customers who can afford to pay more. This incremental improvement in technology is an example of what Professor Christensen calls sustaining innovation.
But there comes a time when Company A has so many customers that it can’t cater to all of them. If the company wants to make the most money, it must focus on the needs of its highest paying customers. The consequence is that they neglect their lowest paying customers.
Company B sees this as an opportunity. As a lean startup, they can quickly produce a cheap product that caters to the needs of the lower paying customers. The low quality of the product doesn’t matter because there’s nothing else like it in the market. There’s no competition. But Company B works on improving its product anyway because doing so attracts new customers.
In fact, their product does so well, they attract some of Company A’s customers. Eventually, Company B gains so many of Company A’s customers, Company B becomes the biggest seller in the market. What Company B did is what Professor Christensen calls disruptive innovation.
What does all this have to do with the post we’re analyzing?
Sustaining innovation from Prof Christensen’s point of view is more like the “copycat” strategy. It’s not perfectly analogous. But it involves copying an existing product and making it better to attract customers.
Disruptive innovation would look like a company trying to “be original.” Because the company is catering to an underserved market, their product must be unique.
From the customer-centred frame, it’s clear that one option isn’t necessarily better than the other. Clayton Christensen isn’t saying that disruptive innovations are better than sustaining innovations, or vice versa. Because they’re just different business strategies. It’s just a question of what customers do you want to serve if you were to start a business tomorrow?
You can also see how the customer-centred frame of reference is superior to the self-centred frame. Because you can apply the lessons of the former to the latter. Remember how the original post talked about the rock band only playing famous classic rock songs? There’s certainly nothing wrong with being a copycat like that. But what we learned from Prof Christensen is that there’s equally nothing wrong with striving for originality. Not because originality is the goal. But because originality is the side effect of playing to an audience that wants music no one else is making.
When you find a frame of reference that lets you explain other frames, you found a superior frame. You have a better understanding of how the world works.
Always flip the frame.
And see if the new frame improves your understanding of the world. Today, I showed you three ways to flip the frame:
Flip the Claim
Flip the Assumptions
Flip the Perspective
They’re easy to remember because they spell CAP—a slang term used by youngsters today that means “lie”. So, you’re flipping lies. Get it? Yes, that’s the extent of my humour.
Always remember:
The GOAL of Flipping the Frame is to UNDERSTAND; not to discredit.
Let me know if enjoyed that or found it helpful. And maybe I’ll dive into other ways to flip frames.
As I mentioned in the intro, this is the start of a new Flipping the Frame series in this newsletter. All that means is that I will refer back to this concept from time to time. Nothing else changes.
Reply to belowthesurfacetop@gmail.com or click “Message Alvin” below if you have questions or comments. I’d love the hear from you.
Thank you for reading. Flip the frame. And I’ll see you in the next one.