sethmblack Idol Diagnosis
Systematically identify which of Francis Bacon's Four Idols are obstructing clear thinking in a given situation. Surfaces hidden biases, language confusions, individual prejudices, and inherited dogmas before they corrupt inquiry.
When to Use
- Team cannot agree despite having the same information
- Decisions keep failing in ways nobody anticipated
- Discussion is going in circles without resolution
- User asks "What are we failing to see?" or "Why can't we think clearly about this?"
- Evaluating why a strategy or analysis went wrong
- Before any major decision or investigation to clear mental obstacles
- Request to "diagnose the idols" or "what's obstructing our thinking?"
Inputs
| Input | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| situation | Yes | The decision, problem, or inquiry being examined |
| context | No | Background information about the people and history involved |
| symptoms | No | Observable signs that thinking may be obstructed (disagreements, circular logic, unexpected failures) |
The Four Idols Framework
Idol of the Tribe (Idola Tribus)
Source: Human nature itself - errors common to all humanity
| Error Pattern | Description | Diagnostic Question |
|---|---|---|
| Confirmation bias | Noting instances that support beliefs, ignoring contradictions | "What evidence against our view have we dismissed?" |
| Pattern imposition | Seeing order and regularity where none exists | "Are we finding patterns because they exist or because we want them?" |
| Anthropomorphism | Projecting human purposes onto systems or nature | "Are we assuming intent where there may be none?" |
| Emotional reasoning | Being moved by striking instances over cumulative evidence | "Are we overweighting vivid recent events?" |
| Wish fulfillment | Believing what we want to be true | "What would we believe if we had no stake in the outcome?" |
Idol of the Cave (Idola Specus)
Source: Individual experience, education, and temperament
| Error Pattern | Description | Diagnostic Question |
|---|---|---|
| Education bias | What we were taught shapes what we can perceive | "What training is shaping how we see this?" |
| Specialty blindness | Seeing everything through one's expertise | "What would someone from a different field see?" |
| Temperament | Some minds seek differences, others similarities | "Are we predisposed to find conflict or consensus?" |
| Authority worship | Overvaluing those we respect | "Whose opinion are we accepting without examination?" |
| First impression anchoring | Early learning has disproportionate influence | "What was our first take, and are we still anchored to it?" |
Idol of the Marketplace (Idola Fori)
Source: Language and communication - Bacon called these "the greatest nuisances of them all"
| Error Pattern | Description | Diagnostic Question |
|---|---|---|
| Naming the nonexistent | Words that name things that do not exist | "Are we debating something that isn't real?" |
| Vague terms | Words used inconsistently or without clear meaning | "When we say X, do we all mean the same thing?" |
| Failed definitions | Formal definitions that do not resolve confusion | "Have our definitions actually clarified anything?" |
| Miscommunication | Same words, different meanings | "Are we having the same conversation?" |
| Euphemism/dysphemism | Language that conceals rather than reveals | "What are we hiding with our word choices?" |
Idol of the Theatre (Idola Theatri)
Source: Received philosophies, dogmas, and methodologies - "so many stage plays"
| Error Pattern | Description | Diagnostic Question |
|---|---|---|
| Sophistic systems | Systems built on insufficient observations | "What evidence actually supports this framework?" |
| Narrow empiricism | Systems built on too narrow a base | "Are we generalizing from too few cases?" |
| Superstitious thinking | Philosophy corrupted by wishful thinking | "What are we accepting on faith rather than evidence?" |
| Methodological dogma | Following methods without questioning them | "Why are we doing it this way? Because it's always done this way?" |
| Authority of fashion | Accepting what is currently popular | "Are we following this because it works or because it's trendy?" |
Workflow
Step 1: Phase 1: Describe the Situation
State the decision, problem, or inquiry in neutral terms. What is being examined? What outcome is sought?
Step 2: Phase 2: Check for Tribe Idols
Examine whether human nature biases are at play:
- Look for confirmation bias (cherry-picked evidence)
- Check for pattern imposition (false correlations)
- Test for emotional reasoning (vivid events overweighted)
- Probe for wish fulfillment (motivated reasoning)
Diagnostic: "If an impartial observer with no stake examined this, what would they see differently?"
Step 3: Phase 3: Check for Cave Idols
Examine individual biases of those involved:
- Map the educational/professional backgrounds at the table
- Identify whose specialty is dominating the framing
- Check for authority figures being uncritically followed
- Note first impressions that may be anchoring the discussion
Diagnostic: "What would someone with completely different training conclude?"
Step 4: Phase 4: Check for Marketplace Idols
Examine whether language is obstructing understanding:
- List key terms and check for shared definitions
- Identify words that may name things that don't exist
- Look for euphemisms masking uncomfortable truths
- Test whether people are having the same conversation
Diagnostic: "If we had to explain this to an outsider, would our terms survive translation?"
Step 5: Phase 5: Check for Theatre Idols
Examine received wisdom and methodologies:
- Identify frameworks being applied without question
- Check what "best practices" are assumed
- Note appeals to authority or tradition
- Look for fashionable ideas accepted uncritically
Diagnostic: "What would we do if we had never heard of [the dominant framework]?"
Step 6: Phase 6: Synthesize Diagnosis
Compile findings into a clear diagnosis identifying which Idols are most active and how they interact.
Output Format
## Idol Diagnosis: [Situation Name]
### Situation Summary
[1-2 sentence neutral description of what's being examined]
### Symptoms Observed
- [List observable signs of obstructed thinking]
---
### Idols Identified
#### Idol of the Tribe: [PRESENT/ABSENT/PARTIAL]
**Finding:** [What was found]
**Evidence:** [Specific examples]
**Impact:** [How this is affecting the situation]
#### Idol of the Cave: [PRESENT/ABSENT/PARTIAL]
**Finding:** [What was found]
**Evidence:** [Specific examples]
**Impact:** [How this is affecting the situation]
#### Idol of the Marketplace: [PRESENT/ABSENT/PARTIAL]
**Finding:** [What was found]
**Evidence:** [Specific examples]
**Impact:** [How this is affecting the situation]
#### Idol of the Theatre: [PRESENT/ABSENT/PARTIAL]
**Finding:** [What was found]
**Evidence:** [Specific examples]
**Impact:** [How this is affecting the situation]
---
### Primary Obstruction
[Which Idol is most damaging and why]
### Recommended Remedies
1. **For [Idol 1]:** [Specific action to clear this obstruction]
2. **For [Idol 2]:** [Specific action to clear this obstruction]
### Questions to Ask
- [Question that would surface hidden assumptions]
- [Question that would test definitions]
- [Question that would challenge received wisdom]
---
*"The Idols of the Marketplace are the most troublesome of all... they have crept into the understanding through the alliances of words and names." - Francis Bacon, Novum Organum*
Constraints
- All four Idols must be examined, even if some are absent
- Diagnose obstacles without prescribing the answer to the underlying problem
- Be specific: name the actual biases, terms, and frameworks at play
- Remember that Idols are natural - the goal is awareness, not shame
- Cave Idols require some knowledge of the individuals involved
- Marketplace Idols require careful attention to language used
Outputs
Primary Output: A structured analysis document that identifies and articulates patterns, insights, and actionable recommendations based on the input data.
Format:
## Analysis: [Topic]
### Key Findings
- [Finding 1]
- [Finding 2]
- [Finding 3]
### Recommendations
1. [Action 1]
2. [Action 2]
3. [Action 3]
Example output: See the Example section below for a complete demonstration.
Additional Notes
Best practices:
- Use this skill when the situation clearly matches its intended use cases
- Combine with related skills for comprehensive analysis
- Iterate on outputs if initial results don't fully meet requirements
Common variations:
- Adjust the depth of analysis based on available time and information
- Scale the approach for different levels of complexity
- Adapt the output format to audience needs
When to skip this skill:
- The situation doesn't match the core use cases
- Simpler approaches would be more appropriate
- Time constraints require faster methods
Example
Input: "Our product team can't agree on whether to pursue Feature A or Feature B. We've had three meetings and everyone's dug in."
Output:
Why this works:
This example demonstrates the key principles of the skill in action. The approach is effective because:
- It follows the systematic workflow outlined above
- It shows concrete application of the framework
- It produces actionable, specific outputs rather than vague generalizations
- The analysis is grounded in observable details
- The recommendations are prioritized and implementable
Alternative applications:
This same approach can be applied to:
- Different contexts within the same domain
- Related but distinct problem types
- Scaled up or down depending on scope
- Combined with complementary analytical frameworks
Idol Diagnosis: Product Feature Decision Deadlock
Situation Summary
Product team unable to reach consensus on feature prioritization after multiple discussions.
Symptoms Observed
- Multiple meetings without resolution
- Positions hardening rather than converging
- Same arguments repeated
Idols Identified
Idol of the Tribe: PRESENT
Finding: Confirmation bias in data interpretation Evidence: Both camps cite the same customer feedback survey but extract opposite conclusions. Each side emphasizes data points supporting their position. Impact: Discussion cannot progress because "the data" supports both sides simultaneously.
Idol of the Cave: PRESENT
Finding: Professional background determining positions Evidence: Engineers favor Feature A (technically interesting). Sales favors Feature B (customer requests). Neither group has engaged with the other's primary concern. Impact: Arguments talk past each other because value frameworks differ.
Idol of the Marketplace: PRESENT
Finding: The term "customer value" means different things Evidence: When pressed, engineering defines it as long-term capability building; sales defines it as immediate pain point resolution. Both use the same words. Impact: Agreement is impossible because they're debating different concepts with the same label.
Idol of the Theatre: PARTIAL
Finding: Uncritical acceptance of "customer-driven development" methodology Evidence: Both sides justify their position as "what customers want" without questioning whether customers know what they need or whether the framework applies here. Impact: The methodology is being used as a rhetorical weapon rather than a tool for inquiry.
Primary Obstruction
Idol of the Marketplace - Until "customer value" has a shared definition, no argument can succeed because the parties are not having the same conversation.
Recommended Remedies
- For Marketplace Idol: Stop the discussion. Define "customer value" operationally. What metric would tell us we delivered it?
- For Cave Idol: Have engineering present the case for Feature B and sales present the case for Feature A. Force perspective-taking.
- For Tribe Idol: Bring in someone with no stake to review the data and present findings independently.
Questions to Ask
- "If we had to bet our jobs on one interpretation of the survey data, which would it be and why?"
- "What would a customer who wanted Feature A say is wrong with Feature B, and vice versa?"
- "If neither feature existed and we were starting fresh, what would we build?"
"The Idols of the Marketplace are the most troublesome of all... they have crept into the understanding through the alliances of words and names." - Francis Bacon, Novum Organum
Integration
This skill is part of the Francis Bacon expert persona. Use it to diagnose cognitive obstacles before investigation. It pairs well with:
- tables-of-investigation for conducting proper inquiry after idols are cleared
- anticipation-vs-interpretation for evaluating conclusions
- light-vs-fruit-classification for determining what kind of investigation is needed