# Top-down and bottom-up By:: [[Brian Heath]] 2022-09-03 Some people believe in the top-down approach. Start with the big objective and then drill down into the details. The benefit of top-down is that you have a clear goal and alignment, but the downside is that the top may be completely ill-conceived because no one thought about the details. For example, let's solve [[poverty]], but then we realize how incredibly complex that problem is. Others believe in the bottom-up approach. Start with the details and build a solution up. The benefit here is that the solutions generated may be unique and more authentic, but the downside is the endless rabbit holes and lack of alignment. For example, what are the building blocks for predicting the stock market? The layers of "bottom" [[complexity]] are never-ending. Both of these approaches are models of the world and, as we know, [[all models are wrong]]. So, which one is the most [[Trust and models|useful]]? Ultimately, I think neither is useful by itself. Especially, if you care about solving a problem. That doesn't mean you can't use these models as [[marketing]] gimmicks to convince stakeholders of the [[value]] of [[All action, no progress|progress]]. They have their place, but strictly following either of them is doomed to failure and no one has ever successfully executed just one of them. It's just not how the universe and our brains work. The world is infinitely complex and our brains simply can't keep track. Computers help, but, in [[Comparison]] to the world, computers are barely a drop in the ocean. Consider for a moment that a super-efficient computer the size and age of the earth would take approximately 10²⁷ times longer than the current age of the earth to calculate all of the possibilities of a chess game (the calculations are [here](https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2121&context=etd_all)). We simply can't imagine how long that is. The top-down approach ignores the complexity of the world and the bottom-up approach is equally naïve from the other direction. As with most things, moderation and balance is the answer. [[Life]] exists somewhere in the middle and our brains are conveniently able to jump from model to model and from paradox to paradox without skipping a beat. This is truly a marvel and utterly baffling if it wasn't so natural. We can embrace one way of thinking for a [[purpose]] and then completely disregard it for another way. So, why not embrace this approach when attempting to solve a [[Selecting a Problem to Study|problem]]? Human ingenuity and creativity live in and bridge the top-down and bottom-up. As a person and an analyst, don't fight your [[nature]] and the nature of the universe by only leveraging one way of viewing the world. #### Related Items [[Top-down]] [[Bottom-up]] [[Analytics]] [[Computers]] [[Problem Solving]] [[Models]] [[Paradox]] [[Systems Thinking]]