HiFi Information Gathering
Gather better information by testing an assumption on a small scale, examining a source’s incentives, and asking how someone reached a recommendation. These practices can reveal evidence and assumptions that a confident opinion alone leaves hidden.
THE IDEA
Making Sure You Get HiFi Information
High-fidelity (HiFi) information helps reduce uncertainty about a decision. Three practices can improve the information you gather: testing assumptions, examining sources, and asking about reasoning.
Safeguard 1: Run an Experiment
A small experiment can test an assumption before a larger commitment. Define the question, what you will observe, and how much time or money you are prepared to risk.
The account describes Tuft & Needle testing a mattress business idea before building a product. They set up a simple landing page, ran Facebook ads, and accepted orders for foam mattresses that didn’t exist yet. The account says they refunded the orders and used the response to support a launch. The test supplied evidence of purchase interest under those conditions, while leaving questions about production, costs, and repeat demand.
Experiments can take many forms depending on the decision—prototypes, A/B tests, pilot programs, or pre-sales. The key is to design a test that yields actionable data with minimal risk.
Safeguard 2: Evaluate Source Motivations and Incentives
When you must rely on others’ information (because verifying everything firsthand is impossible), critically assess the lens through which they view the situation. Consider:
- Limited perspective – Every person has a blind spot; their view is shaped by their role, experience, and access to information.
- Motivations – How does the source benefit from the information they provide? What outcome do they desire?
For instance, when selling a house, each party offers a different estimate of your net proceeds: the bank, real estate agent, buyer’s agent, friends, home inspector, online tools, and tax authority. Each sees only a slice of the picture and has incentives that colour their assessment. To build a clearer reality, treat each perspective like a set of glasses: try them on to understand what that person sees and what they might miss. Compare the estimates, identify what each includes, and check the assumptions that explain their differences.
When gathering perspectives:
- Withhold judgment as long as possible. Arguing or correcting people shuts down the flow of information.
- Ask questions, stay curious, and seek to understand their experience—even if you disagree.
Safeguard 3: Ask Process-Oriented Questions
Ask how a person reached a recommendation. Which variables did they consider, what evidence did they use, and what would change their view? A recommendation can be useful, but its reasoning helps you judge whether it fits your situation.
Compare two approaches to hiring a software developer:
- Person A asks a developer friend, “Whom should I hire?”
- Person B asks, “What skills matter and which can be learned on the job? Why? Where do I find the best people? How do I test these skills?”
Person B is seeking criteria for evaluating candidates as well as possible names. The answers can be checked and adapted to the role.
Three question types reveal these deeper principles:
- Variables and relationships – “What variables would you use to make this decision? How do they relate?”
- Unique insight – “What do you know about this problem that others miss based on your experience?”
- Process mapping – “What would be your step-by-step process for deciding if you were in my shoes?”
These questions make the advisor’s reasoning available for examination, including assumptions you may need to check.
When to use it
Validating a startup idea through a smoke test or pre-sales before building the product.
Hiring for a role outside your expertise by interviewing experts about their evaluation principles, not just candidate names.
Selling a major asset (home, business) by synthesizing perspectives from multiple stakeholders with conflicting incentives.
Evaluating conflicting expert advice on health, finance, or strategy by focusing on the process and evidence behind each recommendation.
FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE
In practice
Validating Market Demand with a Low-Risk Experiment
In the story, Tuft & Needle accepted mattress orders through a landing page before producing the mattresses, then refunded the orders. This gave the founders evidence that some people would place orders at the advertised terms, without establishing that the entire business would succeed.
Seeing Multiple Perspectives When Selling a House
When selling a home, the bank, real estate agent, buyers, inspectors, and online estimators all provide different valuations. Each has a limited perspective and incentives (e.g., an agent wants a quick sale). By ‘trying on all the glasses’—understanding each viewpoint and its blind spots—a seller can piece together a more realistic picture of their expected proceeds.
Learning Principles Instead of Asking for a Recommendation
A task force hiring a developer can ask an experienced developer for names and for evaluation criteria: which skills matter, where to find candidates, and how to assess their work. Examining the reasoning helps the task force compare applicants rather than rely on one recommendation.
A MOMENT TO REFLECT
Put it to work.
Think of an important decision you face. What small, low-risk experiment could you run this week to gather HiFi data about your assumption?
Consider a recent piece of advice you received. What were the speaker’s motivations and blind spots? How might the information have been different if you had asked about their process rather than their conclusion?
When was the last time you formed an opinion based on someone else’s facts mixed with opinions? How could you have ‘tried on their glasses’ without immediately accepting their view?
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Source texts
- Clear Thinking Turning Ordinary Moments into Extraordinary Results (Shane Parrish)