In defense of "strong opinions weakly held"

I think it's a shame that the practice of "strong opinions weakly held" is so controversial.

It's not surprising, I suppose. The term has been badly misappropriated and misinterpreted.

But the original concept is powerful:

I have found that the fastest way to an effective forecast is often through a sequence of lousy forecasts. Instead of withholding judgment until an exhaustive search for data is complete, I will force myself to make a tentative forecast based on the information available, and then systematically tear it apart, using the insights gained to guide my search for further indicators and information. Iterate the process a few times, and it is surprising how quickly one can get to a useful forecast.

In a nutshell: most interesting + valuable problems can't be solved in a formulaic, step-by-step way—at least not in a reasonable amount of time. You need creative leaps.

Saffo's SOWH approach is a disciplined way to leap first, then build the bridge. It lets you get to places you couldn't get otherwise, and still build on a firm foundation.

Most of the criticisms of SOWH fall into one of these two categories:

• "Assholes use SOWH as air cover for being assholes, so I don't like the term." (See also, Radical Candor.)
• "Humans are bad at disciplined thinking, and SOWH just makes it worse."

IMO, neither of these is a reason to reject SOWH, just a reminder to be empathetic and disciplined when you use it.

That said, I've found that there are some really interesting (and sometimes toxic) group dynamics that show up around forecasting (not just the "strong opinions" variety.) I might write about this some other time.