The New Knowledge Test
Screen candidates on whether they generate original ideas, not on credentials.
- Difficulty
- Easy
- Time to result
- ~days to results
- Steps
- 6
- Confidence
- 78%
The mechanism narrows the intelligence question to one observable: is this person generating new knowledge? The screen works through open questions with no correct answer, so a rehearsed candidate has nothing to recite. Peter Thiel's question asks what important truth very few people agree with you on. A softer variant asks what you care about that is not currently possible. The most disarming version asks for a unique theory the candidate has developed about one of their hobbies, because someone who genuinely creates knowledge will have formed novel theories about squash within the first hour of learning it. The theories do not have to be right; novelty is the signal, not correctness. Two further filters sit alongside it: self-motivation, because someone who has to be pushed and flogged does not belong in an early-stage startup, and low ego, because high-ego people destroy the functioning of a team regardless of raw ability.
Origin
Extracted from the Naval podcast episode Curate People, which frames the test against Warren Buffett's energy, intelligence and integrity criteria, Joel Spolsky's smart and gets things done, and Peter Thiel's secret question.
Core principles
- 01The only significant intelligence test for a candidate is whether they generate new knowledge.
- 02Someone who does not create new knowledge is doing a job that should be automated.
- 03Everyone has the capacity to create new knowledge, just in different domains.
- 04Original theories show up fast, even in trivial hobbies.
- 05Self-motivation is a separate and equally hard requirement.
- 06Low ego is what makes the resulting team manageable at all.
How to run it
- 1
Replace the intelligence question
Stop asking whether the candidate is smart in the abstract and ask instead whether they are generating new knowledge, which is a concrete and observable behaviour.
- 2
Ask the secret question
Ask what important truth very few people agree with them on, to find out whether they hold ideas of their own rather than inherited consensus.
Pro tip This question is originally an investor's tool for finding a unique bet; in hiring you are only using it to detect independent thought.
- 3
Ask the impossibility question
Ask what they care about that is not currently possible, which surfaces where their imagination actually runs.
- 4
Ask for a hobby theory
Ask whether they have formed any unique theories about a hobby, however trivial. Someone who generates knowledge starts theorising within the first hour of learning something.
Pro tip This question is hard to rehearse for, which is exactly why it works.
Watch out Do not grade the theory for correctness; you are measuring whether novel theories appear at all.
- 5
Test for self-motivation
Establish whether they need direction and follow-up or whether, once they know the destination, they will figure out how to get there themselves.
Pro tip Asking what did you get done this week is a manager's question; leadership means giving direction and letting them run.
Watch out If they have to be told when to march and pushed along, they do not belong in an early-stage startup.
- 6
Screen for low ego
Check how they handle credit, disagreement, and interpersonal friction. Low ego people care more about the work than about politicking.
Pro tip You can manage thirty or forty low-ego people but only a handful of high-ego ones.
In the wild
A candidate is asked whether they have any unique theories about a hobby. They start explaining their own ideas about how squash should be played and taught, ideas they formed almost immediately after taking the sport up. None of the theories are verified and some are probably wrong. The interviewer treats that as irrelevant: the fact that novel theories exist at all, in a low-stakes domain nobody prepared them to discuss, is the evidence that this person generates knowledge by default.
→ Original thinking is confirmed in a domain the candidate could not have rehearsed.
A candidate for a distribution role has no formal marketing credentials but describes how they worked out a way to get attention on a platform that did not exist as a channel two years ago. The interviewer counts this as new knowledge: the target is always moving, and figuring out how to hack a platform to get a message out is itself a creative act, in the same category as writing code or a proof.
→ A non-credentialed candidate clears the intelligence screen on demonstrated novel insight.
Common mistakes
Grading theories for correctness
The test measures whether original ideas are produced at all. Rejecting a candidate because their squash theory is wrong discards exactly the signal you were looking for.
Using the secret question as an investor would
Thiel's question exists to find a unique bet a business is making. In hiring it is only a probe for independent thought, so demanding a market-grade insight misapplies it.
Ignoring motivation once intelligence clears
Creativity without self-motivation still produces someone who must be pushed constantly, and motivation is the one thing that cannot be fixed later.
Is it for you?
Best for
Founders and hiring managers screening for early-stage roles where the work is undefined and the person must invent their own path.
Not ideal for
Highly proceduralised roles where consistent execution against a defined standard matters more than novel thinking.
From the transcript
“there's really only one significant test for a candidate, which is are they generating new knowledge?”
“I will sometimes ask people whether they have any unique theories that they've come up with about their hobbies.”
“The other thing I look for in people is being self-motivated.”
From the episode
Curate People