Why convinient reasoning isn’t insight generation

An insight is:

• New information
• Executable
  
• Causes action
• Profit results
  

With that piece of jargon unpacked, the next one is ‘convenient reasoning’.

Convenient reasoning is:

• An existing heuristic, hunch, feeling, belief, or instinct
• The seeking of validation or evidence
• Evidence to the contrary or modifying the position will be rejected

Convenient reasoning differs from a hypothesis. A hypothesis is rejected if it’s proven wrong.

No amount of evidence to the contrary will ever deter a convenient reasoner.

Building cases in support of a project, plan, or prospect is an incredibly important skill. Rallying persuasive evidence is a key part of that. A whole industry was built around the provision of convenient facts.

It’s an essential skill.

Perhaps there would be fewer disasters if, during the research portion of building a case, evidence – if it’s a valid insight – could actually alter the case being mad for the better.

The difference would be research for the sake of supporting a supposition, and genuine insight generation.