The Absurd-Scenario Interview (Screening for Second-Order Thinking)
Pose an impossible hypothetical and grade the chain of consequences, not the answer.
- Difficulty
- Easy
- Time to result
- ~days to results
- Steps
- 4
- Confidence
- 94%
Shah's hiring screen for the trait he believes most predicts success. Pose a deliberately absurd hypothetical with no researchable answer, then ask the candidate to work through the consequences across every system — money, law, countries, military, stock markets, social order. You are grading the range and the depth of the causal leaps (if A then B then C), not correctness. In his experience fewer than 10% of very smart people give a good answer.
Origin
Kunal Shah's own interview practice at CRED, derived from his belief that second-order thinking is 'the most powerful trait to predict success of somebody.'
Core principles
- 01The scenario must be absurd so it cannot be researched or pattern-matched to a known case.
- 02There is no right answer; the signal is the range and the chain length.
- 03Second-order thinking = correctly judging the butterfly effect of an event, as closely as possible.
- 04Rotate the scenario — the question can and should keep changing.
- 05Fewer than 10% of really smart people answer well, so this is a genuinely discriminating filter.
How to run it
- 1
Construct an absurd, un-Googleable scenario
Shah's examples: 'if everybody who has taken a COVID vaccine dies tonight, what happens in 12 months from now?' and 'what if arranged marriages were banned in India — made capital punishment — what happens to the country?'
Pro tip The scenario must be extreme enough that no prior case study exists; otherwise you're testing recall.
Watch out Avoid scenarios that map onto a real recent event — the candidate will just recite what happened.
- 2
Force the answer across many systems
Explicitly ask: what happens to money, to law, to countries, to the military, to the stock market, to the order of things? The breadth requirement is what surfaces the range.
- 3
Grade the leaps, not the conclusion
What Shah looks for: the range of things they could go into, and whether they can chain — if this happens, then B happens, then C happens. Depth of chain and breadth of domains are the score.
Pro tip Ask 'and then what?' repeatedly. The point at which they stop is the measurement.
Watch out Do not reward a confident single-step answer, however plausible. One step is first-order thinking.
- 4
Also probe how they make great decisions in their domain
Shah's complementary question type: when someone has had many choices and consistently chose well (great hires, a great spouse), dig into HOW they choose. Most such people have never articulated their mental model and cannot coach it — so you have to excavate it.
Pro tip Expect them to be unable to explain it at first. Keep going; the insights come from the excavation, not the first answer.
In the wild
Shah asks candidates: if everybody who took a COVID vaccine dies tonight, what does the world look like in 12 months? Explain money, law, countries, military, stock market, the order of things.
→ Fewer than 10% of really smart candidates produce a good answer — a strong discriminating signal on second-order thinking.
A second rotating scenario: arranged marriages are banned in India and carry capital punishment. What happens to the country and how does it change from there?
→ Same measurement: the breadth of systems touched and the number of causal leaps made.
Common mistakes
Grading for correctness
There is no correct answer to an absurd hypothetical. Grading for 'right' rewards confidence and penalises exploration — the opposite of what the question is for.
Using a researchable scenario
If the hypothetical resembles a real event, candidates recall rather than reason. The absurdity is load-bearing.
Accepting the first-order answer
'Markets would crash' is one step. Without pushing 'and then what?' repeatedly, you never see whether the chain extends to C, D and E.
Is it for you?
Best for
Hiring managers screening senior product, strategy and leadership candidates where judgment under novelty is the job.
Not ideal for
Roles judged on craft execution or domain depth, and candidates for whom an alienating hypothetical would misrepresent their actual ability.
From the transcript
“I like to ask a hypothetical second-order thinking question. For example, if everybody who has taken a COVID vaccine dies tonight, what happens in 12…”
“I would say less than 10% of really smart people can really have good answers. So, it tells you how good they are in second-order…”
“The range of things that they could go into. And think about if this happens, B happens, and then C happens.”
“it's very taxing to the brain.”
From the episode
Kunal Shah on winning in India, second-order thinking, the philosophy of startups, and more