May 9, 2026
FAFO, but make it innovation
We see something that works, and then we understand it
Turns out the big breakthroughs may come from messing around first and explaining later
TLDR: Lemire argues that real progress often starts with trying things that work before anyone fully understands them. Commenters loved the attack on overthinking, but some pushed back hard, saying school and real work are totally different games.
A spicy little idea from Daniel Lemire has the comments section doing what it does best: turning a thoughtful essay into a mini culture war. The core claim is simple: in real life, people often stumble onto what works first and only figure out the theory later. In other words, progress is less "genius has a perfect plan" and more "well... that weird trick worked, now let’s find out why." Lemire dunks on the school-style belief that you must fully understand something before doing it, and commenters were instantly split between "finally, someone said it" and "hold on, that comparison is bogus."
The loudest pushback came from readers saying school exams and real jobs are not remotely the same thing. One commenter basically said, at work you can research, test, ask coworkers, and iterate; on an exam, you’re trapped with your brain and a ticking clock. Ouch. But the pro-"doism" crowd was loving it. People cheered the anti-"thinkism" message with homespun one-liners like learning happens by "doin’ stuff" and even dreams of remaking education around building, repairing, and experimenting instead of memorizing. One especially charming comment turned fixing broken things into a philosophy of life: part brain, part wrench, part vibes.
The funniest mini-meme? "Thinkism" itself. Readers treated the word like they’d just discovered a perfect insult for bloated meetings, giant organizations, and every person who thinks another slideshow will solve reality. Even when they disagreed, the crowd seemed united on one thing: nobody trusts pure armchair genius nearly as much as they trust someone who actually tried the thing.
Key Points
- •The article argues that practical success or observation often comes before formal understanding in innovation.
- •It uses the pendulum clock preceding later theoretical work by Hooke and Newton as an example against a linear model of innovation.
- •The article compares the linear innovation model to the waterfall model in software engineering, where design is expected to precede implementation.
- •It describes “thinkism,” a term attributed to Kevin Kelly, as a belief that abstract thinking alone can solve problems without sufficient practice or experimentation.
- •The article concludes that breakthroughs are more likely to come from observing and trying new things, and that AI should not be expected to solve every problem through knowledge and reasoning alone.