The Anti-Algorithm
Deliberately diversify your inputs to escape cognitive path dependence
- Difficulty
- Easy
- Time to result
- ~weeks to results
- Steps
- 5
- Confidence
- 68%
Vestigial pattern bias (and the related Einstellung effect and path dependence) describes how the approaches that once brought success rigidify into a cage: we keep solving problems the old way because it no longer occurs to us there is another way, like a fish that cannot perceive water. Modern recommendation algorithms make this worse by flooding you with more of whatever you already consume, narrowing your probability space. The anti-algorithm is a deliberate counter-practice: consciously do things against your own nature to keep your range of possible inputs as wide as possible. Alternate opposing news sources on consecutive days, go to the primary source rather than others' characterisations of it, second-guess habitual choices, and test desk-born ideas by walking. The aim is to stay exposed to new ways of seeing so your methods never quietly ossify.
Origin
Gurwinder Bhogal and Chris Williamson develop this from the concepts of vestigial pattern bias, the Einstellung effect and path dependence, with Gurwinder describing the concrete anti-algorithm habits he uses to counter them.
Core principles
- 01Recommendation algorithms narrow your probability space by feeding you more of what you already consume.
- 02We become blind to what we are familiar with, like a fish that cannot see water.
- 03The methods that got you here rigidify and block better alternatives (vestigial pattern bias).
- 04You learn most from people you assume you disagree with.
- 05Deliberately second-guessing your routines widens the range of ideas you can reach.
How to run it
- 1
Spot your rigidified patterns
Identify the methods and feeds you use by default without questioning them. Familiarity makes them invisible, like water to a fish, so this takes deliberate attention.
- 2
Alternate opposing sources
Consciously rotate between opposing viewpoints. Gurwinder reads a left-leaning outlet one day and a right-leaning one the next so he is never imprisoned within a single narrative.
Pro tip Read the New York Times one day, the Wall Street Journal the next, to keep shifting between narratives.
- 3
Go to the primary source
When you have only ever heard others characterise someone's ideas, read that person directly. You will often find the steelman rather than the straw man you were fed.
Pro tip Gurwinder read Judith Butler firsthand rather than commentary and found the ideas less crazy than critics portrayed.
- 4
Second-guess your routines
Deliberately break habitual choices. If you feel like visiting a certain website, visit a different one; vary routes and methods to avoid a fixed routine.
- 5
Walk to vet your ideas
Test ideas that arrive at your desk by going for a walk; keep only the ones that still convince you afterward. Movement reliably surfaces more and better ideas.
Pro tip Nietzsche distrusted any idea not arrived at while walking; use walking as a razor on desk-born ideas.
In the wild
Gurwinder deliberately reads a left-wing outlet like the New York Times one day and a right-wing one like the Wall Street Journal the next. Constantly shifting between narratives stops him being encapsulated inside a single worldview and keeps him exposed to competing framings of the same events.
→ He avoids being imprisoned within one narrative and gets a more balanced view.
Having spent years reading what people said about Judith Butler, Gurwinder went to her actual writing. He found her worldview less extreme than critics had made out and learned ideas his usual reasonable circle would never have exposed him to, precisely because he sought the source itself.
→ He replaced secondhand straw men with the real ideas and learned things his circle could not have given him.
Common mistakes
Letting the algorithm choose
Following recommendation feeds funnels you into ever-narrower content, shrinking the probability space of ideas you can ever encounter.
Mistaking familiarity for optimality
Clinging to the method that once worked, out of scarcity mindset, blinds you to better alternatives and keeps you stuck in the same league.
Is it for you?
Best for
Writers, thinkers and anyone who senses their routines and information diet have narrowed their thinking.
Not ideal for
Situations demanding deep focus on one proven method, where deliberate variety would only add noise.
From the transcript
“it is important for no other... reason than to simply keep your probability space as wide as possible to do things against your own nature…”
“if I read... the New York Times then the following day I will read right wing news so I will read like The Wall Street…”
“he said that he didn't trust any idea that he didn't come out with unless it was while he was walking”
From the episode
18 Psychology Lessons To Understand People Better - Gurwinder Bhogal - #662
Gurwinder Bhogal