In group discussions, how can students use first principles to question the validity of their peers' views?

Hello, this is a very interesting question. Using "first principles" might sound profound, but simply put, it's a way of thinking that digs deep into the root cause, like a very curious child constantly asking 'why?', but doing so at a more sophisticated level.

In a group discussion, when a colleague proposes an idea, for example, "We should focus the project on developing an app," don't just say "I agree" or "I disagree." You can try this approach:

Step One: Ignore the Conclusion, Find the Foundation First

Don't immediately think about whether "building an app" is a good conclusion. Instead, consider: what "foundation" (underlying assumptions) is this conclusion built upon?

You can ask:

"That's an interesting idea. I just want to confirm, are we all assuming that 'users prefer using an app to solve this problem'? Is this a confirmed fact, or is it an assumption we're making?"
"What is the fundamental goal of doing this? Is it to convenience users, to collect data, or to make our project look impressive?"

You see, these questions aren't attacking their viewpoint, but rather working with them to confirm if the starting point of their idea is solid. Often, a seemingly great suggestion might have no real foundation, being based merely on "I thought," "I feel," or "that's what everyone else does."

Step Two: Break Down 'High-Level' Concepts into Plain Language

Many ideas contain trendy but vague terms, such as "empowerment," "closed-loop," "ecosystem," and so on. First principles thinking aims to peel back the layers of these words and see what's truly inside.

When a colleague says: "We should build a content ecosystem through this app."

You can bring them back to earth by asking more specific questions:

"If we break down the term 'content ecosystem,' what exactly does it refer to? Does it mean users posting their own content, or us inviting influencers to write articles?"
"If we don't build an app, and instead use a public account or a website, can we still achieve this 'content ecosystem' we want? If not, what is the most core, irreplaceable thing that an app offers compared to those alternatives?"

This is like disassembling a "cool sports car" (the idea) into its most basic parts (wheels, engine, chassis), and then examining whether these parts are essential and if they form the best combination.

Step Three: Re-think from the Origin, Are There Other Paths?

Once you've clearly understood the "foundation" and "parts" of the other person's idea, you can then try to start from the most original need and see if there are other possibilities.

You can guide the discussion like this:

"Okay, now we all understand that our fundamental goal is 'to allow users to record their thoughts anytime, anywhere.' So, let's assume mobile apps don't exist yet. To achieve this goal, what would be the simplest, most direct method? Would it be a webpage, a WeChat mini-program, or even just a small notebook they can carry around?"

The benefit of doing this is that it frees everyone's thinking from the inertia of "which solution should we choose?" and brings it back to the origin of "what problem are we actually trying to solve?" Starting from the origin, people might discover a path that no one had considered before, but which is simpler and more effective.

To summarize:

Using first principles in a discussion isn't about arguing or showing off, but rather to make the discussion deeper and the conclusions more solid. The key is for your attitude to be sincere, to ask questions with the mindset of "let's understand the problem more thoroughly together," rather than "I want to prove you wrong."

You can often start your sentences with phrases like: "I have a question I'd like to clarify...", "Let's take a step back and look at this...", "If we were to think about this from scratch...". This way, your "digging deep" won't be off-putting; instead, it will encourage the entire team to engage in higher-quality thinking.