# Multidisciplinary teams need to leverage different paradigmatic lenses [[Paradigms are lenses for looking at the world]]. Multidisciplinary lens leverage happens in one of two ways - introducing new “huh, that’s funny” observations or different problem-solving pathways. Paradigms dictate `what is to be observed and scrutinized.` We’re very good at accepting in-paradigm explanations or just assertions that something isn’t worth scrutinizing even when they don’t mechanistically explain everything. It’s easy to shrug and say [animals falling from the sky must be because of weird weather](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rain_of_animals) in the same way that you would formerly say “animals falling from the sky must be because of Witchcraft.” Whether a paradigm’s determination that a phenomena is explainable and uninteresting dances along the edge of of epistemological naval-gazing. However, it is practically true that it’s human nature to literally stop seeing unexplainable things after a while and to treat byproducts as uninteresting garbage, leading to situations where a new paradigmatic lens asks “The process produces *that*??” “Oh yeah, we just throw it away.” [[The ability to say ‘huh that’s funny’ is important for discovering new phenomena]], but if you can’t either exploit it or use it to build better theory, [[Phenomena-based cycles]] will stall out. One discipline’s trash may be another’s treasure. This as old as humanity - the butcher’s garbage is the cheesemaker’s treasure. Graphite shavings turning out to be amazing lubricant, oil byproducts turning into hydrocarbons, etc. This ability to bring different sense-making apparatus to the table is one area where [[§Multidisciplinary Teams]] are valuable! The other way that an array of paradigmatic lenses can be valuable is through different ways of solving problems. A variety of problem solving-hats is a more commonly assumed benefit of multidisciplinary teams, so I’m not going to go too much into it here. These two reasons that multidisciplinary teams can be valuable have several upshots. Many people assume that the value of multidisciplinary teams is that there are just different sets of knowledge in the room. Those different sets of knowledge are worthless unless they come with new problem-solving approaches or focuses on what’s important. Thus, in constructing a multi-disciplinary team, it’s important to focus on different knowledge bases, but different paradigmatic backgrounds. You can approximate multiple paradigmatic focuses without a multidisciplinary team. ‘Fresh eyes’ equate to *no* paradigmatic focus, which can point out glossed over phenomena. Fresh eyes can come from someone who just has less experience (which is why you shouldn’t just dismiss people with no experience) or by forcing yourself to [[Explain it like I’m Five]]. Multiple paradigms are only useful if they can be leveraged to say “huh, that’s funny.” The ability to notice weird things decreases the more the data is processed through another lens. Thus, it’s important for a multidisciplinary team to consist of people who on one side are willing to walk others through the (close-to) raw observations and on the other side people who are willing to grapple with the rawness. This admonition is related to (I believe) [[Andy Matuschak conversation 9 May 2021]] and [[Michael Nielsen characterizes institution building as making previously illegible things legible]]’s point that collaborations are only valuable if the different members at least understand the other’s disciplines a little bit. ### Related * [[Phenomena-based cycles are stuck]] * [[Workshops could be a way to start small building a private ARPA]] * [[New ideas need to come out of a single mind]]