In a recent post, lessw-blog explores the concept of \"thinking from the other side\" through a seemingly mundane personal experiment: stopping the use of shampoo.
\nIn a recent post, lessw-blog discusses the methodology of challenging established norms in a piece titled \"Thinking from the Other Side: Should I Wash My Hair with Shampoo?\" While the subject matter-personal hygiene-may appear trivial at first glance, the underlying cognitive process reflects a core tenet of rationality and critical thinking: the importance of testing the null hypothesis in daily life.
The post details the author's struggle with deteriorating hair quality despite, or perhaps because of, the use of various dermocosmetic products. When faced with a system that is failing (in this case, hair health), the standard reaction is often additive-to introduce new solutions, treatments, or complexities. However, the author chose a subtractive approach, questioning the historical necessity of the intervention itself. By asking, \"Did humans always need this?\" the author pivoted to a low-risk experiment: washing with warm water only.
This approach highlights a critical blind spot often found in both personal habits and technical development. We frequently accept the \"default setting\"-whether it is a software dependency, a workflow process, or a consumer product-as a baseline requirement without empirical verification. The author's experiment yielded immediate, counter-intuitive results: hair thickness and definition improved after removing the supposed solution.
For readers interested in decision theory and systems thinking, this post serves as an accessible analogy for \"thinking from the other side.\" It encourages a skepticism of industry-standard advice when that advice fails to produce results, advocating instead for a return to first principles. The significance lies not in the hair care advice itself, but in the willingness to endure social friction and defy convention to gather personal empirical data.
The post suggests that this specific experiment is merely an entry point into a broader discussion on how we evaluate necessity and risk. By stripping away modern accretions, we can often discover that the natural baseline is more effective than the engineered solution.
We recommend reading the full post to understand the author's complete reasoning and the detailed outcomes of this subtractive experiment.
Read the full post on LessWrong
\n\n