Pattern Inversion Experiment
Name the pattern running through your work, then deliberately build its opposite
- Difficulty
- Moderate
- Time to result
- ~months to results
- Steps
- 6
- Confidence
- 83%
Rubin's method for breaking sameness starts with recognition rather than novelty-seeking. Look back at your work and notice the pattern running through it. That gives two legitimate choices: double down and, through recognising it, go deeper into that pattern, which can itself be interesting; or recognise it and ask what it would be like to go in a different direction. If your work tends to be dark and has been dark repeatedly, the question is simply what the light version would be like. Nobody knows the answer in advance, which is the point. The mechanism's real payoff is asymmetric: even if you run the experiment and dislike the results, returning to the dark work gives you a different relationship to it and lets you do something new, more securely on the thread than you ever understood it before.
Origin
Extracted from The Tim Ferriss Show
Core principles
- 01You cannot break a pattern you have not named
- 02Doubling down and inverting are both legitimate answers
- 03A failed experiment still changes your relationship to the original
- 04Range is built by leaving the groove, not by widening it from inside
- 05The opposite is a question, not a prediction
How to run it
- 1
Look back at the body of work
Review what you have actually made over time rather than what you intend to make next.
- 2
Name the pattern
State the thread that runs through it in one plain sentence: dark, ironic, maximal, funk with rap vocals, whatever it is.
Pro tip Ask someone who knows your work; patterns are much easier to see from outside.
Watch out A pattern you cannot name is a pattern you will keep repeating by default.
- 3
Choose deliberately between the two moves
Decide consciously whether recognising this pattern means going deeper into it or trying its opposite. Both are real options with no right answer.
- 4
Define the opposite concretely
Work out what the other end of the seesaw literally is for your medium, so the experiment has a target rather than a vague intent to try something new.
Watch out Vague novelty produces work that still rhymes with your default.
- 5
Run it as a real experiment
Make an actual piece in the opposite direction, committed enough that the result is informative.
Watch out A half-hearted attempt teaches you nothing about the direction, only about your reluctance.
- 6
Return and observe the change
Go back to your original thread and notice what is different. Rubin's claim is that even a failed experiment lets you re-enter the old work with new vocabulary and a firmer grip on it.
Pro tip Write down what you now notice in the old mode that you did not before.
In the wild
Rubin's illustration is direct: if you look back at your work and see that it tends to be dark, and you have done dark, dark, dark, dark, the question becomes what the light version would be like. Nobody knows. He frames it as the other end of the seesaw. Even if you run that experiment and do not like the results, when you come back to working in the dark you have a different relationship to it and can do something new, more firmly on the thread than you understood it before.
→ Range increases whether or not the experiment produces work you want to keep.
Ferriss reframes the mechanism and Rubin agrees: if you are always in the cave and want to describe the cave and its darkness, you will have a broader vocabulary and more personal experience to draw on if you spend some time walking around in the sunlight and then go back into the cave. Rubin's addition is that on returning you notice completely different things.
→ The original subject becomes describable in ways that were invisible from inside it.
Common mistakes
Chasing novelty without naming the default
Trying something new without identifying the existing pattern usually produces a variant of the same thing, because you have not located what you are moving away from.
Treating a disliked result as a failure
Rubin's whole point is the asymmetry: the return trip is where the value lands, even when the experiment itself does not work.
Assuming inversion is always the right move
Doubling down and going deeper into a recognised pattern is an equally valid choice, and for some artists the correct one.
Is it for you?
Best for
Anyone with enough of a body of work for a pattern to exist, who senses they are repeating themselves.
Not ideal for
Artists whose deliberate strategy is consistency, where the audience wants the same thing every time.
From the transcript
“If your work tends to be dark, you've done dark dark dark dark dark, what would the light version be like?”
“Breaking out of it even as a failed experiment can help you get firmly back on the thread in a way maybe more secure than…”
From the episode
#649: Rick Rubin, Legendary Producer — Timeless Methods for Unlocking Creativity, Secrets Hidden in Plain Sight, The Future with AI, Helpful Distractions, Working with Strong Personalities, Breaking Out of “The Sameness,” and More