I'll show you the exercise + prompt to argue for what is the best way to solve for a common goal. We use this in business to figure out the right way and end up with a policy that works the best, by questioning the assumptions. You can do this with others (e.g. my way is the right way) or internally as (Should I do X or Y) To do this we must 1) Clearly define the argument in a visual, can't argue what you can't describe 2) Question the assumptions with BECAUSE PERMANENT/ABSOLUTE/NEVER (reason) 3) Sides must compromise where faulty logic is e.g. its not a good permanent policy So lets walk it out We use the Necessary core logic questions 1) In Order to X, We Must Y, Because Z First we have a common goal (left most node). In the GRAFTS tree this is whatever common goal. It can be the the biggest one, but whatever can be most focused in scope. This requires the team has done their quarterly GRAFTS mind map or at least can agree on a common goal or rock or quest or outcome or condition -- something. The first box (left) is the goal. The next box (middle) is what is NEEDED The last box (right side) is what that person (or internal part of you) WANTS to be done. To get to a resolution, we flesh out the logic (quick) and question the assumptios with because. You see 5 lines... its that logic E.g. "Get more opt ins from content" is a common goal, obviously in service of the BIG one (2X the company) Then you use the In order to X we must Y logic to ask what is the main two big points. Lets make an imaginary dispute: In order to 2X opt ins we must... get lots of nurtured qualified buyers with high watch count, And...In order to get qualified buyers, we need to must commit to longform OR In order to 2X opt ins we must... get lots of impressions top of. funnel, In order to get lots of impressions, we need to focus entirely on shortform... This is the basic argument. Most arguments don't even start here, by literally defining the central main point.

I noticed everyone that I introduce to Obsidian loves Obsidian. They get stuck, but adopt it regardless. But for Clickup, its not as fun or need to be reminded. Why? What makes Obsidian feel like its worth adopting IMMEDIATELY and a tool like Clickup more like "meh". Does this mean we should build everything within one tool of Obsidian... or continue to use both obsidian and Clickup? Its the same "structure" of having fixed folders/lists to hold specific concrete things e.g. the workflows. Clickup is organized by the 6 QUESTS folders, but that can translate to Obsidian. Obsidian can have custom plugins, coded, vibe coded, with data that it can pull and read. Not sure. I feel like theres a way to make Obsidian both the central garden (chaotic brain) and the orderly brain.

Want to validate your next product, find early buyers, and know exactly what to sell before you build it? Market research interviews are the answer. And now they're stupidly easy to run. I did this for a few partner-clients in the past. And looking back, it was the first and best step to start. Here's the setup: 1. Offer to do market research to test a product idea, entirely for free upfront, any broke creator would say sure. 2. The ONLY work they do is a a calendar link to the bio of a engaged audience to go book a call (and claim a free gift)... and to promote it, mention it, etc hard for a week or two. 3. Use a structured script (AI writes it, creator approves it, we run it) to interview, ask for pain, life,etc 4. Tell your audience to book a slot to claim a free gift, access to new community 5. AI agents + human backup conduct the interviews, using script, offering upsells w/ a free lead mag, this acts as a soft onboarding and they get happy. Send them all to claim free gift (free skool) 6. Eventually enough data (30 interviews) collected represents the whole of the audience, with AI it may be in the hundreds 7. Finalize with turn common ain points, and product positioning addressing the audience handed to you 8. Feed to an AI "make a course to solve X" and make slide decks. Give it to the creator to run (or run eleven labs) to have an AI version of them record it, say it, and post it to Skool immediately, and say "our suspecions were. correct, we launched the course for free to everyone inside 9. Use the initial feedback and hype, and make it paid, everyone who missed out FOMOs in, and you announce another wave... You keep the calendar link or skool link. Founder wouldn't kick you out as they just lose money. The magic: - Costs you $0 to start (just add the link) - Takes 1 minute to implement - People want to talk about their problems - Your CTA becomes "Book a research call" - Calendars fill up FAST (we've seen them book solid in hours)

https://x.com/naval/status/2019430858248347951 Naval is one of the best communicators and thinkers of this modern area. Here's my take With public access to AI, AI basically gives anyone high level skills and can get unlimited capacity to handle well defined automatic or decision tasks. So the "next" step is "what exactly is the right thing to work on next". Constraints based thinking solves that. Building a team of AI agents to think about how to develop, what to solve, and have humans in charge of making sure they follow the mission and directive their humans give them. We have this QUEST framework and traditionally has been able to give humans the best possible decision making. I see it like generals surrounding a war plan, deciding where to place their resources, time, money, manpower. But soon the decision making also needs to be handled by AI. And virtually most organizations haven't even built their own "War room" yet let alone even think about "how" they can have AI help them. Right now they use it as simple chat bots, "should I do x or y" but not automated decision makers, proactively doing work, fleshing out projects and processes, and actually carrying them out. We are easily a few years ahead of traditional operators and can build something that shortcuts that struggle.

Instead of "sub agents" where you have to individually call each one, and have them "hand off" to the next role without deep context and sharing and discussing, we can develop a team lead bot, that spins up its own sub agents and acts as the "brain" of the group. Why is this game changing? This QUEST protocol, can be explained to a main team lead agent, that says "OK I see that we need 6 agents, one to check in to each area, one to track data and make statistical suggestions based on real data, one to map out the steps and flows of that workflow and one to test how to improve them, and one to handle the actual tasks assigned as customers flow, and one to make sure all the other supporting files and media are still relevant and used. If theres a problem, the sub agents goes back and asks all the other agents (I found a problem, what do you think) and they all have their own unique view, and the ENGINES bot share "Oh I think the problem stems from this step" and the UNITS bot says "this data point backs it up, its been falling since the last change", and the Solve Problems bot says "Let me make a statistical experiement to undo what we changed and see if it worked". This x the fact that a human based team might take a week or two, with AI is not just 10x faster, but 100-1000x more man power hours as theres no costs needed. All of this can be done with a $20/mo claude subscription. And we're the people to build it. Discuss. People can go play with claude teams rn with a pro sub.