>The ability or inability to describe an idea in simple terms has no relation to the validity of the idea.
Maybe not in physics, but in politics and business it does - those fields like to seem more complex than they are so they fake it, which is much more difficult to do with simple language.
"Just say no to drugs" - simple terms. Is it a valid social policy given other ways to reduce drug use?
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Simple terms. Does it lead to a workable political system?
"Three-strikes law". Simple idea. Does it lead to good social policy?
"Zero tolerance." Another simple idea. Does it lead to good social policy?
"White man's burden." Does it justify the American colonization of the Philippines and other countries?
"Curse and mark of Cain" as used by many religious groups to explain the lower social standing of those with black skin. Valid idea?
"Free silver at a ratio of 16 to 1" - one of the famous slogans of the Populist movement in the US in the late 1800s. Easy to say. Good economic policy?
Or do you prefer "Bad money drives out good" - Gresham's Law - as your economic policy?
Gersham's law is actually fairly valid, as well as being simple. The difference is that it isn't a statement of intent, it's a description of an inevitability.
My point was that "A therefore B" isn't useful if the noise level is so high that it can't be used to make a meaningful decision.
Otherwise the advice reduces to "don't trust long explanations". But if 1% of long explanations are valid and 2% of short ones are valid, then the statement is both true, and worthless as a way to detect validity.
I disagree. I think we have more understanding of the physical world (physics) then we do the complex human interactions that make up society (politics) and the economy (business). To me the fact the latter fields are not well described alludes the them being more complex.
Everything can be initially described by an elevator pitch. That's never the whole explanation, it's just a sense that there's something in the idea (or not), and allows the listener to decide whether it's worth pursuing the long discussion.
It's not a guaranteed indicator, but the chances are better that a good elevator pitch is good because it describes something good.
>If Zappos has a unique take on how to replace middle management, let's all hear it.
I think their idea is in this book, mentioned in the article, that they asked all zappos employees to read: http://www.reinventingorganizations.com/