Grasping a new idea

Whether a concrete example or the underlying principle lands first.

This is a two-poled spectrum — neither end is better. It describes how you'd like an AI to work with you, never who you are. Here are the two poles:

Example first

You understand a new idea faster from a concrete example than from the principle.

You likely lean this way if: you ask for a concrete example before the rule.

Principle first

You'd rather grasp the underlying principle before any example.

You likely lean this way if: you ask me to skip the example and give you the principle first.

Where they meet: Pair the example with the principle — one grounds it, the other generalises it.

How Hunchful asks about it

Does a new idea land faster from a concrete example, or from the principle behind it?

Why opposites can help each other

One reasons from concrete examples, the other from the principle — opposite abstraction levels that make an idea both grounded and general. Classic 'thinks at a different level' unstick.

Put it in a model your AI can read

In a Cognitive Model Protocol model, your position on this axis becomes a revisable hunch — with a confidence, an uncertainty, and a falsifier — that any AI can read and adapt to. Nothing is a fixed label.

Make your model →

Other axes

When things get messy — Synthesize first vs. One step at a time
Facing ambiguity — Make the call, note it vs. Ask first
Answer format — Tight prose vs. Scannable lists
Surfacing uncertainty — Flag it loudly vs. Commit, minimal caveats