Solve Problems, Don't Win Arguments
Change the question and find the smallest high-leverage lever instead of fighting head-on
- Difficulty
- Moderate
- Time to result
- ~ongoing to results
- Steps
- 5
- Confidence
- 70%
Sutherland argues we have educated, promoted, and selected people for the ability to win arguments, a completely different skill set from solving problems. The argument-winning mode is dogmatic, absolutist, and drawn to the most polarizing framing because conflict is inherently interesting to audiences and journalists. The problem-solving mode is oblique, open-minded, and Darwinian: it studies how things got the way they are and looks for the trim tab, the smallest intervention with the biggest downstream effect. When two parties are stuck on a divisive question, the move is to change the question and solve something adjacent instead. 'Dare to be trivial' is the working mantra, because in complex systems the highest-leverage points are often surprisingly small and non-controversial, unlike the grand debates that merely signal tribal allegiance.
Origin
Rory Sutherland's next book centres on this distinction; he frames it through Buckminster Fuller's 'trim tab' and his behavioral-science practice mantra 'dare to be trivial,' shared on Modern Wisdom.
Core principles
- 01The mindset for winning arguments is dogmatic; the mindset for solving problems is oblique and open
- 02Think like Darwin, not Newton: study how things change, not universal laws
- 03In a complex system the smallest intervention can have the biggest effect
- 04When two sides deadlock, change the question rather than push harder
- 05Head-on confrontation and purity spirals are usually counterproductive
How to run it
- 1
Name the goal
Ask whether you are trying to win the argument or solve the problem. They are different skill sets and only one produces outcomes.
Watch out Winning to signal you are a devoted acolyte of a tribe is the failure mode, not the goal.
- 2
Switch to Darwin mode
Study how the situation got the way it is and where it could go next, instead of imposing a top-down universal theory.
Pro tip Things are the way they are because they got that way; that forces the useful question of how to move from here to somewhere better.
- 3
Change the question
When two people are deadlocked on a divisive question, drop it and solve an adjacent problem both sides actually care about.
Pro tip Cyclists and motorists both hate potholes; bind them over that instead of fostering mutual hostility.
- 4
Find the trim tab
Look for the smallest point of intervention in the system where a tiny change produces the biggest turn.
Pro tip Dare to be trivial: cheap, non-controversial local fixes often unlock big problems that head-on assault cannot.
- 5
Refuse the purity spiral
Resist becoming absolutist to win peer respect; the media and tribes reward the most polarizing framing, which is the hardest to solve.
Watch out Focusing on the most divisive part of a problem maximises attention but minimises solvability.
In the wild
Rather than fanning hostility between cyclists and motorists by focusing on where they most disagree, Sutherland suggests binding them over a shared enemy: potholes, which force motorists to replace tyres and terrify cyclists. Changing the question turns two warring tribes into allies on a solvable, non-controversial problem.
→ A depolarizing reframe that unlocks cooperation instead of entrenching conflict.
John Major was ridiculed for a hotline to report traffic cones blocking roads where no works were happening. Sutherland argues it was a genuine trim tab: a small, non-controversial fix to something that annoys many people constantly, the opposite of grand divisive politics.
→ A mocked micro-intervention that actually solved a widespread irritation.
Common mistakes
Engaging on the most polarizing framing
Media, journalists, and peer groups reward absolutism, so people gravitate to the exact framing that is least solvable and most tribal.
Arguing to signal, not to solve
People end up arguing for whatever most annoys the opposing tribe rather than what actually works, prioritising identity over outcomes.
Is it for you?
Best for
Strategists, leaders, and creatives facing problems that head-on debate has deadlocked.
Not ideal for
Situations demanding a single provably-correct answer, such as physics or engineering tolerances.
From the transcript
“do you want to win arguments or do you want to solve problems”
“we have a kind of Mantra in our Behavioral Science practice which is dare to be trivial”
“your job is to look for the point of intervention in the system where the smallest change has the biggest effect”
From the episode
Hidden Psychology Of The World’s Best Advertising - Rory Sutherland - #735
Rory Sutherland