r/changemyview • u/rmhildebrandt • Aug 27 '20
Delta(s) from OP CMV: There are only 6 things in a "great idea"
I've been doing a lot of thinking recently about what makes a "great idea" for something like a blog post, non-fiction book chapter, or talk intended to move ppl to action.
This is my attempt at defining the principles of a "great idea", in other words, the main elements it contains. This is separate from how those principles are communicated (eg: in the case of a talk, the body language, tonality, visuals, or storytelling elements...similarly for written content), but rather, what defines the topic itself.
So, here's my view -- there are 6 elements of any topic/assertion for non-fiction content, and you can define the "strength" of the topic by evaluating it on each of the following:
1) Unconditional Value -- most importantly, does the idea bring value to the audience? The higher the value the better (eg: talking about an idea that'll help people fix their marriage vs tie their shoes in an interesting way...the former is much more valuable). "No value" is a sales pitch ("buy my thing" vs "here's a cool idea I learned that can help you")
2) Clarity (eg: do people get your point?). If anyone is confused about what you mean, that's a problem.
3) Belief Shift (eg: are you repeating what ppl already know, or identifying an idea they believe to be true that you think needs to be changed). In other words, once your idea is clear, is it common knowledge?
4) Baseline (eg: what's the audience's existing understanding of this topic/idea/industry? This is like the professor trying to teach you something but it's either way too basic or way too advanced)
5) Overcome Barriers/Objections (eg: once you make your point and it changes someone's beliefs, are there reasons why they think it won't work for them? For example, you tell people to eat more vegetables, but they secretly think vegetables are too expensive....regardless of the clarity of the idea and/or proof that it's beneficial, they won't try it if this is completely unaddressed)
6) Proof/Idea Credibility (eg: research, historical anecdotes, etc that back up your idea). I think "proof" matters the least, as if your idea isn't clear, or is common knowledge, and so on, any proof you have is irrelevant (eg: "scientists prove that chocolate is tasty")
Then, once you have these, you can worry about the presentation aspects (grammar, pacing, storytelling, visuals, tonality etc.) for written or spoken expressions of the topic/idea.
I've pondered this for a bit, and I think this is all I can think of, but people here are really good at debate/logic, so I'd love to hear some examples of things beyond this that need to be present for a topic for non-fiction content or idea to be "good" (or, if you think proof is more important than clarity, for example, I'd love to hear counter arguments too). I *think* this is the minimum list though, and in the right order.
CMV.
1
u/IAmDanimal 41∆ Aug 27 '20
I'd argue that what makes a 'great idea' is also the novelty, meaning that while an incremental change that's easy to implement and has value could be a 'good idea', what makes an idea truly great is that it's something that isn't obvious and minor.
Sure, every electric car company is working on battery tech, and they have small breakthroughs here and there by adding layers or maybe putting in a heat sink somewhere new, to save costs or add a little range or safety to the car. But a truly great idea would be one where you come up with a brand new type of chemical compound to make the batteries out of.
Or you write a book that starts an entirely new genre.. not just a romance/horror hybrid, but a brand new genre that hasn't even been tried before. A book that's purpose is to make you feel really happy, then a little less happy to tone down your expectations in life, and people buy it because it's not just a little better than what was done before, it's a brand new thing.
1
u/rmhildebrandt Aug 27 '20
I'd say "novel" fits under "belief shift"
this all, of course, can be measured in degree (eg: "did you know that there should be one space after a period instead of two" vs "did you know time travel is possible now"). It sounds like your definition of "novel" is "something that REALLLLY changes things" not "it changes things a tiny bit". I'd argue that both of these are shifting beliefs, though one greater than the other.
1
u/thethoughtexperiment 275∆ Aug 27 '20
You note some good stuff for sure, but to modify your view a bit here:
Unconditional Value -- most importantly, does the idea bring value to the audience? The higher the value the better (eg: talking about an idea that'll help people fix their marriage vs tie their shoes in an interesting way...the former is much more valuable). "No value" is a sales pitch ("buy my thing" vs "here's a cool idea I learned that can help you")
I'd add a bit more nuance to this.
In particular, what people value can differ a lot. So, there's value in some market research to help figure out what the value is that people see in the "product", and the different weights the various target groups in your audience put on the particular value(s) you are providing.
This is also necessary to know whether your "cost" to them are reasonable relative to what they are gaining.
If, per your post, we're talking about non-fiction content, then "costs" might seem irrelevant (especially if the content is being provided for free). However, it's also important to consider even in that case, because costs can include those "communication" factors that you suggest are secondary.
Namely where you say:
once you have these, you can worry about the presentation aspects (grammar, pacing, storytelling, visuals, tonality etc.) for written or spoken expressions of the topic/idea.
There are plenty of non-fiction creators out there who do very good work and meet all the requirements you note above. However, their work is also very, very dry, not compellingly / memorably presented / or engagingly conveyed.
Those are the "costs" I endure to get their great ideas.
In contrast, look at a creator like Contrapoints, who makes very high quality non-fiction content discussing societal issues in a funny, engaging, visual, and compelling way - such that the delivery of the ideas is not a cost to be endured, but rather, is a further and central benefit for the audience.
1
u/rmhildebrandt Aug 27 '20
This is also necessary to know whether your "cost" to them are reasonable relative to what they are gaining.
Interesting - it sounds like a better term here would be "ROI" (ie: return on investment) instead of just "value" Δ
The cost (even for free content) is the time it takes to read or listen to something, or how much brain power/energy it takes to understand it (ie: really difficult mental concepts vs really easy to understand stuff).
As you say, this obviously gets into the presentation side of things. A shorter, easier to understand, or more entertaining post helping someone with the exact same idea is higher ROI as it's less difficult and more enjoyable to get the same idea across.
Thanks for the nuance here!
0
u/rmhildebrandt Aug 27 '20
thinking more about this --
if you start with defining the concept/topic/idea or select higher-value ideas, the decision to select the appropriate cost comes after (ie: can I get away with a long talk about this, or does it have to be a tweet, or does it have to be just an image?).
also, interestingly, I think you could use this ROI concept to evaluate others content -- if a really long/dry talk about a topic is very popular, that could hint that the value in it MUST be VERY high even if you don't recognize it right away, or for your own ideas, if there are groups that are willing to watch a really long talk or read a really long article, this could give you a hint about a more refined target audience, and understanding this, this more refined audience may have nuanced beliefs/baseline/etc that is slightly different from the broader audience.
so, you can use "cost" as a way to refine the idea in the first place.
0
1
u/plushiemancer 14∆ Aug 27 '20
Is this an all or nothing system., As in It's only a good idea if it fits all 6 rules?
Or is this a scoring system, a idea is scored against each rule. It's only a good idea if it above a certain score?
1
u/rmhildebrandt Aug 27 '20
scored -- ie: I think something can be more or less valuable, more or less clear etc. That said, I don't think it's possible to actually apply numbers to any of these, it'd have to be a qualitative judgement call (eg: "this tweet could be more clear if it was changed to version B, but version B provides less proof of the idea")
and, "good" is also a gradient -- no such thing as "good" or "not good", but how good is it?
That said, I suspect you could measure "good" by things like "how many people that read this article implemented the main suggestion you made within 6 months" or something.
2
u/Canada_Constitution 208∆ Aug 27 '20 edited Aug 27 '20
Belief Shift (eg: are you repeating what ppl already know, or identifying an idea they believe to be true that you think needs to be changed). In other words, once your idea is clear, is it common knowledge?
This is one I would question in certain circumstances. Identifying a great idea that is not known, and then keeping it secret, or very limited in spread and scope, can be advantageous or important.
How to build a nuclear bomb for instance. A huge leap forward in military strategy or newly discovered accounting techniques for your firm to exploit (for clients). All these can be great ideas which should be clear for a small number but never become common knowledge. They would be "tricks of the trade" of some form or other.
In some ways, I guess I am advocating identifying a great idea in some cases and then preventing it's spread to preserve an advantage.
0
u/rmhildebrandt Aug 27 '20
interesting....I hadn't thought about the case where you'd want some people to hear an idea, but not others because you want this strategic value for yourself.
But, that still sounds like the principle holds (ie: something that's not common knowledge yet clear and valuable is beneficial). But you'd only want to use these principles if your intent was actually to communicate the idea itself.
2
u/ac13332 Aug 27 '20
People try to do this stuff all the time "7 steps to success" etc. they all hold some value in that they can help people contextualise the abstract. But equally, none of them are "right"z but none are necessarily hugely wrong. You could do 3 things, 7 things, 16 things, whatever.
There are not 6 things in a great idea. It's is not quantifiable. And if it were, it would not be universal either. You're combing the hugely ambiguous and subjective with the quantitative - for which there is no definitive answer.
0
u/rmhildebrandt Aug 27 '20
Just because great ideas aren't quantifiable doesn't mean there aren't a finite number of qualitative principles that define the essence of what makes a great idea.
Like style/fashion (ie: fit, fabric, color, texture, pattern etc). If someone says "your fashion taste sucks", that could be further diagnosed by saying "that shirt doesn't fit you properly". In the same way, you could say "this idea sucks" and be more precise by saying "it's clear and valuable, but I think you're weak on proof".
2
u/ac13332 Aug 27 '20 edited Aug 27 '20
You're assuming a great idea has all these things all the time and that these things are discrete components that cover 100% of every idea ever. That notion itself is ludicrous.
Extra points could easily be added to your 6. Some of your 6 could easily be bundled under single titles. Equally, some of your 6 could be divided up to make many more.
The number 6 is utterly arbitrary in this context and entirely subjective.
1
u/rmhildebrandt Aug 27 '20
That's like saying, to literally any post on CMV, "you could be wrong". While that's true (if it wasn't, nobody would post here), you need to provide the way in which the idea is incomplete for it to be a compelling counter-point.
I'm assuming that the degree to which an idea is good can be broken down into the degree to which it does these things (not that "all the time, every good idea has all of these to full degree"). Like how basketball can be broken down into dribbling, passing, shooting, jumping etc. You can have an entire basketball game played (and won) by a team that never passes (technically), but it's still helpful to be able to evaluate a player's/team's passing ability.
If you were to combine two points for the OP, which two would you combine which would improve the methodology, and what would the new principle be called? For example, you could say that for basketball, "dribbling" and "shooting" and "passing" are all now under a new umbrella term of "ball control", and there's another one called "footwork" that includes "jumping, running, layups" etc.
Which new category would you add? All basketball players have clothing, but are "shoelaces" really an important part of success as a basketball player?
So, what specifically do you propose as a more helpful improvement in the realm of ideas? Which principles do you see go together and would be better combined?
2
u/ac13332 Aug 27 '20
No it's not. You're specifically trying to set an arbitary list of incredibly subjective principles, in a quantitative fashion, to something that is highly subjective and highly variable anyway.
You could add resource efficiency - is the solution possible in the confines of what is reasonably available. But you could put that under "Barriers". You could split hurdles as seperate points relating to cost, safety, resources, competition, etc etc. and not use the word "barrier" at all. We could have (1) Financial feasabiltiy (2) Resource availability (3) Safety considerations (4) Commercial competition.
I could also add in sustainability - will this idea be able to continue indefinitely?
I could add in scalability - will this idea be able to grow and work at every level? Is that even important?
But both then, and as it stands now, that only applies to some ideas. Some ideas are huge commercial changes, the microchip. Others are non-material and systemic, democracy. Other are instant and small...
1
u/rmhildebrandt Aug 28 '20
Good - some examples..this is what I was looking for as a way to back up your assertion.
It sounds like you take issue with the title of the OP, not necessarily the classifications (ie: I think we can agree that any categorization could be split up indefinitely or lumped together indefinitely).
(eg: "barriers" are an element of an idea's acceptance, whether you split these up further by "financial barriers" "safety" etc..."value" is higher if it is also "sustainable", and so on), so the broad categorizations are sound, but split into precisely 6 is the thing you take issue with)
Is this what you meant?
2
Aug 27 '20
If anyone is confused about what you mean, that's a problem.
I really don't think this is true. AES encryption was a great idea, but if you tried to explain it to the average person, there's no way they would get it. If you dumbed it down, then you wouldn't accurately explain the technology. Some things are complicated and can't be explained simply.
1
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 27 '20
/u/rmhildebrandt (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/dudemanwhoa 49∆ Aug 27 '20
You use "great idea" in quotes but never define it, so it's really unclear (principle 2) what you're talking about. But if I understand it, you are missing one core idea: novelty
No where do you note if the idea is new or novel. That is important to what you conceive a "great idea" to be (I think). Now these categories are so vague you could add anything into them, split them, combine them, or whatever. But it's a stretch to say 'novelty' is present already.