Assumptions, Observations and Direction

One can often make assumptions based on visible and obvious factors.

For example, in evolutionary biology, it is reasonable to assume that species in which males have significantly larger craniums than females will, with some probability, exhibit behavioral patterns that fundamentally differ from species where the sexes have equal cranial size, or where the female is larger.

Such conclusions are not definitive, and they should not be, since definitive conclusions based on assumptions can lead to narrow vision, extremism, and stagnation.

Assumptions can, however, serve as starting points for further exploration. They make it possible to formulate hypotheses, test them against real-world observations, and gradually increase understanding.
To avoid the classic pitfalls, this process must be cross-disciplinary, spanning multiple fields of knowledge.

Ask a biologist about a specific behavior, and you will receive an explanation grounded in biological frames of reference.
Ask a behavioral scientist the same question, and you will get a different answer.
A neurologist will contribute with yet another perspective.
And so on.

The same applies to most domains influenced by more than a single factor.
Physics. Psychology. Engineering. Mechanics.
There is rarely only one correct answer.
The truth most likely resides somewhere within a combined mixture of all the answers received.

My ambition is to draw from as many disciplines as possible in order to form my own working hypotheses. This applies whether I am designing steel structures, welding a hinge, replacing a bearing, tying up a tarpaulin, analyzing human behavior, or reflecting on geopolitics.

Connecting observed behaviors and subsequently formulating a reasonably sound assumption is often not particularly difficult.
What is difficult is accepting that behaviors are rarely isolated to a single area of life. They tend to manifest across multiple domains. Sometimes in entirely unexpected ways.
This is difficult because genuine acceptance requires the ego to be completely removed from the equation.

We have a responsibility to observe these connections without assigning value to them.
But we also have a responsibility not to turn them into definitive truths.

The true cause is rarely self-evident.
And without a clear cause, it becomes difficult to identify a why.
And without a why, understanding becomes limited.
And without understanding, solutions tend to become cosmetic — aimed at symptoms rather than underlying problems.

The only reasonable approach, therefore, is to test, observe outcomes, note changes, adjust input parameters, and then test again.

It is in the observation and adjustment stages that the ego and our values will offer the most forceful resistance against clarity. And it is precisely then that crossing disciplinary boundaries becomes most important, effectively performing a sort of mental triangulation.

Just as one uses a compass and nautical charts to triangulate lighthouses, beacons, and landmarks in order to determine position.

It does not matter where we think we are if the result from the triangulation indicates otherwise.
What ultimately matters is whether we continue to steer in the direction we believe is correct, or whether, after establishing our position, we choose to steer toward the direction that the chart shows to be free of hidden grounds.