How, not why

My son got one of those brainy wooden puzzle toy where different pieces fit together in a unique way and you got to figure out the mechanics of how to solve it by configuring it and moving it around. Me being me, I attacked it methodically, shaking this way and that, trying to break down the problem into steps, figure out the problem. Managed to solve it a few times, got a good idea of the mechanics, but I could never figure out how to repeat it. The kid too, until he started playing with it and solved it right there by spinning it. Even though he didn’t understand why it happened. But he could repeat it again and again. Once you know the trick, the toy is solvable every single time.

I think most of us adults always try to get a good or complete understanding of the cause and effect, knowing why something happens, before we start on solutioning, on how to solve it. I don’t know about you but I definitely, absolutely, 100% do.

It’s so commonplace to think this way. Cause, therefore effect. Problem, then solution. Very scientific method, very corporate strategy 101… right?

But maybe the why doesn’t matter as much as we think it does. Maybe the how is enough.

Once we know how to solve a problem, does it matter whether we know the why? Because oftentimes in real life things are not so cut and dry, and the why might be unreachable, especially in a chaotic environment. And besides, let’s be practical. Unless you’re an academic and your job depends on you knowing, most of the time all we wanted was to solve the problem, not prove we know why. What’s the value of knowing if we can’t solve it (like me with the wooden puzzle toy)?

Sometimes, all we needed was to play with the problem, solve it, and then move on.

Just the how, not why.

How > why