Far-Analogy Ideation
Most ideation transfers solutions from near domains (products like yours), which yields obvious, low-novelty ideas. Far-analogy ideation deliberately reaches to distant domains - nature, other industries, games, history - and transfers the deep relational structure of a working solution there, not its surface features. The originality comes from the distance; the validity comes from mapping structure, not surface similarity. The output is a far-analogy transfer sheet of candidate mechanisms to adapt. The failure to avoid: surface-matching (“both involve networks”), which produces cute-but-useless analogies and carries none of the benefit.
When to Use
Section titled “When to Use”- Near, obvious solutions are exhausted or all look alike.
- You want genuinely original approaches, not incremental variations.
- The problem has a clear underlying structure that can be stated abstractly.
When NOT to Use
Section titled “When NOT to Use”- An obvious near solution already exists and works (far analogy is overkill and riskier).
- When you need to converge and decide (use a decision skill).
- When only a surface match is available (a forced, surface-level analogy is worse than none).
- Execution tasks with no real ideation need.
Instructions
Section titled “Instructions”When asked to ideate by far analogy, follow these steps:
- State the deep structure. Abstract the problem to its relational core, stripped of domain surface (“an entity must attract the right partners at low cost, then convert low commitment to high”). This is the step that makes the analogy valid.
- Reach to distant domains. Find 2 to 3 domains far from the problem where that same structure is solved (biology, other industries, games, history). Deliberately avoid near, same-industry sources.
- Map mechanism to mechanism. For each, describe how that domain solves the structure - the mechanism, not the surface. Flag if a mapping is structural vs at risk of being surface-level.
- Transfer and adapt. Turn each mechanism into a concrete candidate idea for the actual problem.
- Shortlist as candidates. Select the most promising, flagged as candidates to test (not answers), noting what would have to be true.
- Emit the transfer sheet per
references/TEMPLATE.md.
Output Format
Section titled “Output Format”Use the template in references/TEMPLATE.md. The deliverable is the structure, the distant sources, the transferred mechanisms, and adapted candidates, not prose.
Quality Checklist
Section titled “Quality Checklist”Before finalizing, verify:
- The deep relational structure is stated abstractly before any analogy.
- Source domains are genuinely distant, not near/same-industry.
- Mappings are mechanism-to-mechanism (structural), with surface-only matches flagged or rejected.
- Each idea is a candidate to test, not presented as the answer.
- The output is the transfer-sheet artifact, not prose.
Evidence
Section titled “Evidence”Tier S. Distant analogies produce more original and novel solutions than near ones across creativity and design studies, and analogical transfer is a well-studied innovation mechanism (Gentner structure-mapping; Gick & Holyoak 1980; Dahl & Moreau). The honest failure mode is built in: surface-feature mapping carries none of the benefit and some risk, so the method requires mapping deep structure. Evidence is for human ideation, transferred to AI use, not AI-validated. Full grading: evidence/dossier.md.
Examples
Section titled “Examples”See references/EXAMPLE.md for a completed transfer sheet.
Deep dive: worked example
Section titled “Deep dive: worked example”A full worked run (the shared Northwind scenario)
Far-Analogy Transfer Sheet - Worked Example
Section titled “Far-Analogy Transfer Sheet - Worked Example”A completed run of think-far-analogy-ideation, on the shared Northwind scenario. This is the quality bar a generated sheet should meet.
Northwind is a B2B SaaS whose growth ideas all look alike (free tier, ads, outbound). Here the skill reaches to distant domains for genuinely different acquisition mechanisms.
Problem (surface)
Section titled “Problem (surface)”- How does Northwind get more qualified B2B accounts to adopt the product?
Deep relational structure (abstract, domain-stripped)
Section titled “Deep relational structure (abstract, domain-stripped)”- An entity must get the right partners to discover it, self-select as a good fit, and move from low commitment to high commitment, at low cost to the entity.
Distant sources and transferred mechanisms
Section titled “Distant sources and transferred mechanisms”| Distant domain | How it solves the structure (mechanism) | Structural or surface? | Candidate idea (adapted) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coral reef cleaning stations (biology) | A fish offers a service (cleaning) that attracts exactly the species that benefit; the service itself does the qualifying | Structural (the offer self-selects the right partner) | Ship a genuinely useful free tool (not a free tier) that only ICP-fit teams need - the tool self-qualifies users |
| Open-source projects (other industry) | Convert users to contributors via a laddered path: use -> report -> contribute -> maintain; commitment rises in small steps | Structural (graduated commitment ladder) | A graduated adoption ladder: free utility -> shared template -> team workspace -> paid, each step a small commitment increase |
| Apprenticeship/guilds (history) | High commitment is earned through staged proof and reputation, not bought upfront | Structural (earned access) | Invite/earn-based access that raises perceived value and filters for serious teams |
Shortlist (candidates to test)
Section titled “Shortlist (candidates to test)”- Self-qualifying free tool (from the reef) - a narrow tool only ICP teams need - would have to be true: such a tool exists cheaply and the teams who want it are our ICP. Stronger than an open free tier because the offer does the qualifying.
- Graduated adoption ladder (from open source) - would have to be true: each rung delivers standalone value and a measurable step-up in commitment.
Note: the value is reaching past the near, same-industry options (everyone’s “free tier”) to a structural mechanism - the offer that self-selects the right partner - that reframes the whole acquisition approach. The mappings are structural (self-selection, graduated commitment), not surface (“coral is colorful like our brand”), which is what makes them worth testing rather than cute.
Grounding: the full evidence dossier
Section titled “Grounding: the full evidence dossier”What the research does and does not show, with graded sources
Evidence Dossier: Far-Analogy Ideation
Section titled “Evidence Dossier: Far-Analogy Ideation”Single source of truth for the
far-analogy-ideationskill. The SKILL.md, sidecar, and evals derive from this. A strong-evidence anchor and the first S-tier ideation method in the library.
| Skill | thinking-framework-skills.far-analogy-ideation (installable name think-far-analogy-ideation) |
| Family | divergent-ideation |
| Evidence tier | S (cognitive science of analogical transfer) |
| Confidence | High that distant analogies yield more original solutions; with a real failure mode (surface mapping) |
| Status | draft (authored 2026-05-31 from the discovery corpus) |
1. The mechanism (what actually does the work)
Section titled “1. The mechanism (what actually does the work)”Most ideation transfers solutions from near domains (other products like yours), which yields obvious, low-novelty ideas. Far-analogy ideation deliberately reaches to distant domains (nature, other industries, games, history) and transfers the deep relational structure of a working solution there, not its surface features. You map the problem’s underlying structure (“X must attract the right Y at low cost, then convert low commitment to high”), find a distant domain where that same structure is solved (a coral cleaning station; a dating app’s graduated reveal), transfer the mechanism, and adapt it. The originality comes from the distance; the validity comes from mapping structure, not surface similarity.
2. Lineage
Section titled “2. Lineage”- Dedre Gentner’s structure-mapping theory of analogy; Gentner & Smith (2013) on analogical reasoning; Gick & Holyoak (1980) on analogical transfer (the radiation/fortress problem); Dahl & Moreau on far analogies producing more original new-product ideas.
No trademark. Named descriptively.
3. What the evidence shows, and what it does NOT show
Section titled “3. What the evidence shows, and what it does NOT show”Strongly supported (the S): distant/far analogies produce more original and novel solutions than near analogies, across creativity and design studies. Analogical transfer is one of the better-studied mechanisms of innovation.
The honest failure mode (built into the method): people (and models) tend to map on surface features (“both involve water”) rather than deep structure, which produces cute-but-useless analogies or, worse, misleading ones. Far analogies are also harder to retrieve and transfer than near ones. So the evidence supports far analogy done as structure-mapping; a surface-matched analogy carries none of the benefit and some risk.
4. Transferred-evidence flag
Section titled “4. Transferred-evidence flag”The evidence is from human ideation and reasoning, not AI-augmented use. Transferred, not AI-validated. The AI value: a model is unusually good at retrieving distant domains (it has read everything) but also prone to surface-matching; this skill forces it to state the deep structure first and map mechanism to mechanism, and to flag ideas as candidates.
5. When it works / when it fails
Section titled “5. When it works / when it fails”Works best when: near, obvious solutions are exhausted or all look alike; you want genuinely original approaches; the problem has a clear relational structure to map.
Fails or misleads when (poor-fit / anti-patterns):
- Surface-feature mapping instead of structural - the central failure (matching “both are networks” rather than the actual mechanism).
- Forcing a cute analogy that does not really transfer.
- An obvious near solution already exists and works (far analogy is overkill and riskier).
- Treating the analogy as the answer rather than a source of candidate mechanisms to adapt and test.
- When you need to converge and decide (use a decision skill).
6. Output artifact
Section titled “6. Output artifact”A far-analogy transfer sheet: the problem’s deep relational structure stated abstractly; 2-3 distant source domains where that structure is solved; the mechanism each suggests; and the adapted candidate ideas (flagged as candidates to test, with a note on whether the mapping is structural or risks being surface).
7. Sources
Section titled “7. Sources”- Gentner, D. - structure-mapping theory; Gentner & Smith (2013).
- Gick, M., & Holyoak, K. (1980) - analogical problem solving (radiation/fortress).
- Dahl & Moreau - far analogies and originality in new-product ideation.
Verification status: the “distant analogies -> more original solutions” and “surface vs structural mapping” findings are well-attested in the analogy literature. Keep the surface-mapping failure mode prominent; it is what separates the evidenced method from a party trick.