Inversion is solve forward by asking how to fail. It sits in the Cognition dimension (COG) of the Human Behavior Taxonomy™ as element HBT-COG-0412, within the Reasoning family. The core principle: solve forward by asking how to fail. In incentive terms, it matters because it changes the payoff people perceive before they choose — which means it can be designed for, or exploited.
Scientific Definition
Solve forward by asking how to fail.
Plain-English Definition
Solve forward by asking how to fail.
Feynman Explanation
Don't ask 'how do we win?' Ask 'how would we guarantee we lose?' Then avoid that.
Core Principle
Solve forward by asking how to fail.
Mechanisms
Pending editorial review.
Solve forward by asking how to fail.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Pre-mortems and stress-tests on flagship initiatives.
Inputs (Triggers)
Pending editorial review.
Outputs (Behaviors)
Pending editorial review.
Behavioral Signature
Don't ask 'how do we win?' Ask 'how would we guarantee we lose?' Then avoid that.
Examples
- Charlie Munger: 'All I want to know is where I'm going to die, so I never go there.'
- Pre-mortems and stress-tests on flagship initiatives.
Pending editorial review.
Original analysis from The Incentives Lab — how this element behaves inside real payoff structures.
Why this element matters to incentive design
This is one of the elements leaders describe as a values gap. It is a payoff gap. The mechanism underneath it is straightforward: solve forward by asking how to fail. You can recognize it in the field by its signature: don't ask 'how do we win?' Ask 'how would we guarantee we lose?' Then avoid that. Every element in the Cognition dimension changes the perceived payoff of an action before the action happens, which is exactly where incentive design has leverage.
How it gets exploited
Left undesigned, pre-mortems and stress-tests on flagship initiatives. It is amplified whenever pre-mortems and stress-tests on flagship initiatives. Inside organizations that shows up as pre-mortems and stress-tests on flagship initiatives. The pattern is the same one Goodhart's Law describes: the measurable proxy attracts the effort, and the purpose behind it quietly loses funding.
How the Lab designs around it
The redesign move is to run an 'evil twin' exercise: how would a saboteur kill this plan?. Measure the behavior, not the sentiment. A survey will tell you how people feel about this; only observed action tells you whether it changed.
Famous Experiments
Pending editorial review.
Design Principles
- Run an 'evil twin' exercise: how would a saboteur kill this plan?
Measurement Approaches
Pending editorial review.
Evidence
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
The Perverse Incentive Lens™
How this behavior is exploited — and how to redesign around it.
- Run an 'evil twin' exercise: how would a saboteur kill this plan?
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Interactive Mini Network
Click any neighbor to re-center the graph and follow the threads of connection.
Knowledge Graph Neighbors
Auto-linked to the rest of the Human Behavior Taxonomy by family, domain, dimension, and shared keywords.
Deriving general rules from specific examples; the leap from instance to concept.
The brain evolved to reason adaptively, not always truthfully, to reduce the cost of errors.
We solve problems by adding, even when subtracting would be better.
Assuming that if one option is true, another must be false, when both can be true.
Presuming a purposeful actor behind events that may have no actor at all.
What cannot be settled by experiment is not worth debating.
A finite set of well-defined instructions for solving a problem or performing a computation.
Every model simplifies reality; some are still useful.
Researchers favor conclusions aligned with their school, team, or sponsor.
Using personal stories or isolated examples instead of evidence.
Claiming something is true or better because most people believe it.
Assuming something is true because it is probable or possible.
Where Inversion is cited in the corpus
Essays, field guides, and diagnostics from The Incentives Lab that apply this element.
- EssayGoodhart's Law in the Real World
How measurable proxies capture judgment.
- EssayThe Perverse Incentives Hiding in Your KPIs
Cognitive shortcuts turned into scorecards.
- EssayAI Agents Inherit Your Incentives
How this element propagates into automated systems.
- ReferenceThe Periodic Table of Human Behavior
The full 1,267-element map this page belongs to.
- ReferenceThe incentive glossary
Definitions for every mental model, bias, and fallacy in the corpus.
Questions about Inversion
- What is Inversion?
- Inversion is solve forward by asking how to fail. It sits in the Cognition dimension (COG) of the Human Behavior Taxonomy™ as element HBT-COG-0412, within the Reasoning family. The core principle: solve forward by asking how to fail. In incentive terms, it matters because it changes the payoff people perceive before they choose — which means it can be designed for, or exploited.
- What is an example of Inversion?
- Pre-mortems and stress-tests on flagship initiatives. The Incentives Lab catalogs everyday, organizational, and historical instances of this element on its Human Behavior Taxonomy™ page (HBT-COG-0412).
- How is Inversion exploited?
- Pre-mortems and stress-tests on flagship initiatives.
- How do you design around Inversion?
- Run an 'evil twin' exercise: how would a saboteur kill this plan?
- Which behavioral dimension does Inversion belong to?
- Inversion is classified in the Cognition dimension (COG) of the Human Behavior Taxonomy™, family "Reasoning", class "Mental Model". Its permanent identifier is HBT-COG-0412 and its evidence grade is B.