We’ve all had experiences where we are wrestling with a difficult question or problem. There are so many angles, so many different facets to consider, that the whole thing seems difficult to untangle. We follow one thread, only to find it’s related to other problems—endlessly. Then, when we are talking to someone about it, they summarize the problem in such a way that it no longer seems overwhelming. A simple phrase or insight helps the pieces fall into place, offering clarity into the problem and a way forward.
Imagine a scenario where we’ve spent months trying to figure out why a relationship feels strained. There are disagreements about money, communication, time, expectations, and old resentments. A friend listens and says, “It sounds like you’re both waiting for the other person to change before you’re willing to be vulnerable.” Suddenly, all the individual conflicts look like variations of the same problem. The insight is simple, but gives us a clear lens through which to view the problems, arguments, and disagreements.
Or imagine two coworkers who repeatedly argue about decisions. Every disagreement seems to be about something different—timelines, priorities, communication, quality, or authority. A manager realizes, “You don’t actually disagree about the work. You disagree about who gets to decide.” Suddenly, a series of seemingly unrelated conflicts has a common structure. Once we see the underlying pattern, the individual pieces become easier to understand. Without that insight, we are left chasing threads, trying to make sense of each problem separately. One marker of deep understanding, then, is the ability to articulate a complicated problem relatively simply.
But being able to say something simply is not synonymous with having deep understanding. When organizations are failing, the problem is sometimes labeled “a communication problem.” This sounds clarifying, but it can explain almost anything– therefore almost nothing. Missed deadlines, resentment, poor decisions, and duplicated work can all get labeled as a problem with “communication.” Saying there is a communication problem implies that the answer is “better communication,” but that is so vague it is meaningless. Poor communication may instead be the result of misaligned incentives, unclear authority, conflicting goals, inadequate resources, or poor leadership. The simple label can actually prevent us from understanding the problem and figuring out how to move forward.
Recognizing the underlying pattern around vulnerability or decision-making is different. It distills multiple complex, seemingly unrelated situations into a short insight that helps us understand what is happening and therefore offers a path forward. Saying something is a communication problem might be true on the surface, but does not help us see what is underneath. It gives us an answer without giving us much insight.
Distillation and simplification can look similar from the outside because both produce a more concise explanation, but they come from different processes. Simplification reduces a complicated idea by removing or collapsing some of its elements. Sometimes this is helpful, but when we oversimplify, we may treat multiple causes as one, overlook exceptions, collapse meaningful distinctions, or choose one variable and treat it as the whole story. The resulting idea may be easier to understand and may contain some truth, but it obscures rather than illuminates the underlying problem. Oversimplification gives us the feeling of understanding without doing the work of understanding. It removes complexity without knowing whether the complexity we removed actually matters.
Distillation, by contrast, happens when we understand something well enough to identify its essential structure without losing the complexity that matters. It preserves the relationships that are important and strips away what is incidental. A distilled idea becomes a useful lens: once we have it, the individual facts and complications become easier to understand because we can see how they fit together. The distinction isn't between complex and simple thinking. It is between clarity that comes from ignoring complexity and clarity that comes from understanding it. Oversimplification tends to close inquiry; distillation gives us a clearer place from which to continue it.
Making complex things simpler can be helpful. For example, if we think about addiction, the simple answer is to stop using drugs. Saying this is a huge oversimplification of the complex biological, social, behavioral, and cultural forces that drive someone to use. When offered as an explanation, it is not helpful. But “stop using” can be useful as an organizing principle. If it is a starting point for understanding what needs to change, it gives us a place from which to work backward: What drives us to use? What makes using more likely? What needs to change?
This is where simplification can become distillation. After wrestling with the complexity, we can identify a simple principle that organizes it rather than pretending the complexity isn't there. We don't need to understand every part of a difficult problem before we can begin to act. But we do need to understand enough to know which parts matter. A useful organizing principle doesn't eliminate complexity; it gives us a way to move through it. It tells us where to look, what questions to ask, and what to do next.
Most complicated problems benefit from having multiple explanations and multiple organizing principles. Oversimplification tends to make us think we've found the explanation and eliminates the need to look further. Distillation gives us one useful way of seeing the problem while leaving room for other useful ways of seeing it. One lens doesn't have to explain everything.
We can always make something simpler by leaving things out. We can find an explanation quickly, especially when it confirms what we already believe. The harder work is to stay with the complexity long enough to understand its structure. Sitting with that complexity is difficult and confusing and often uncomfortable. But it is only through that process that we can determine what is essential and what is incidental.
Good thinking does not make everything simple. Instead, good thinking looks at something genuinely complicated and helps us say: Here is the part that matters. Start here.
Love,
Doc
Forwarded this email? Sign-up here
See past posts here.