Invert, always invert
Charlie Munger liked to repeat a story about a country fellow who said: “I wish I knew where I was going to die, and then I’d never go there.” It sounds like a joke, but hidden within it is one of the most useful ideas about thinking clearly. It also has a surprisingly distinguished pedigree.
When Carl Jacobi was working on elliptic integrals, a notoriously difficult area of mathematics, he found that turning the problem around — asking it backwards rather than forwards — made it far easier to solve. That single inversion helped open up a new branch of mathematics. The same move appears elsewhere. While other physicists tried to make Maxwell’s theory of light fit Newtonian mechanics, Einstein did the reverse: he treated the fixed speed of light as untouchable and reshaped space and time around it. That inversion became his special theory of relativity.
During the Second World War, Charlie Munger worked as a meteorologist, and came to see that the real point of the job was not to draw weather maps but to keep the pilots who relied on them alive. Rather than asking how he could keep them alive, he inverted the question and asked how he might get them killed. The answer came easily: give them a forecast that led them to carry too little fuel, or send them into icing their aircraft could not survive. Once he could see the ways a pilot might die, he kept them well away from those conditions. Munger carried the same habit into his long and highly successful investing career, where he often urged others to “invert, always invert” — a phrase he attributed to Jacobi, though no reliable source confirms that the mathematician said it.
The benefit of inversion is that it opens up new possibilities. Sometimes one of them is a new problem that proves easier to solve than the original, as when Jacobi turned the elliptic integral inside out. But just as often, the benefit is simpler: preventing stupidity beats chasing brilliance. Success is frequently a matter of not doing obviously foolish things. Do not build what nobody wants. Do not compromise your integrity. Do not bet on what you do not understand. Inversion is intellectual humility in practice. Instead of asking how to be a hero, ask how not to be a fool. Do that consistently, and success has a way of showing up on its own.
One caveat is worth raising. Inversion can look like an invitation to negative thinking. Munger dwelling on how he might kill his pilots, rather than on how he might keep them alive, sounds like a recipe for pessimism, even paralysis. But that misses the point. Inversion is not brooding over what might go wrong and then bracing for it; it is identifying what might go wrong so that you can act to prevent it. The mood is not despair but vigilance. You catalogue the ways to fail precisely because you intend not to.
None of this means inversion is a reason to think small or play it safe. The habit scales, all the way up to a global business empire. A.P. Møller, who in 1904 founded the firm that would become the shipping giant Maersk, built his entire company around a single principle: rettidig omhu, a Danish phrase usually rendered in English as “constant care”. He sent his ships across every ocean and through dangerous waters; he did not keep them idle in harbour. But he did insist on seeing what could go wrong and taking pains, in advance, to prevent it, and he expected everyone in his company to think the same way.
In a famous letter to the management of Lindø, a struggling shipyard, Møller set out the same doctrine. Inversion runs through every line: for him, success came not from a brilliant plan but from foreseeing what could go wrong and preventing it in time.
“Constant care from everyone, in matters great and small and always, is a necessary condition for the company’s success. Everyone should expect that every mishap, every damage or loss, every accident, for which the opportunity is created by a lack of constant care, will by necessity always occur; sooner or later; sometimes quite quickly, sometimes later, but expect it to happen sooner or later. This is my observation through many decades of experience, and the shipyard’s management and staff should learn from it. Also for the enrichment of their own lives and work. The argument of habitual thinking, It worked before, so it will probably work again, is not rooted in life’s realities.”
A.P. Møller
He was, in effect, telling them why the shipyard was struggling, so that they could fix it. This is what inversion looks like in practice: not a brilliant plan of what to do, but a humble list of what to stop doing.
Which brings us back to the country fellow from the beginning of this essay and his unusual wish. He wanted to know the one place he was sure to die, so that he could stay away from it. That is the whole of inverted thinking, and the striking thing is how far it scales. The country fellow used it to guard a single life. A P Møller used it to build and protect a shipping empire, asking not how his company would thrive but how it might falter, and guarding against that in advance. Charlie Munger even used it on an entire subcontinent: the way to help India, he argued, is not to ask, “How can I help India?” but, “How can I hurt India?” Find what would do the worst damage, and then make sure to avoid it. One life, one company, one civilisation: the same move at every scale. Do not ask only how to succeed. Ask how you would fail, and go the other way.
Share this essay