Thinking

That's a fascinating question. Let's try using the "First Principles" tool, peeling back the question "Why do we learn?" layer by layer, like an onion, to see what truly lies at its core.

Here is the translation: Good, here is the response you requested. Charlie Munger's distinction between "Multiple Mental Models" and "Interdisciplinary Knowledge" can be succinctly summarized as: "In...

Let's take an analogy: imagine you want to build a house. This is your "long-term learning plan." How do most people go about it? They look at their neighbors' houses, what interior design styles are ...

Let's put it this way: you can think of these two concepts as two different ways of "deconstruction." Critical thinking is more like "finding flaws" and "quality inspection.

Buddy, that's an excellent question, because most of us, when planning our lives, are essentially "copying homework." We look at what others are doing, what's popular in society, and then we just foll...

I find this question very interesting, let me share my thoughts. First principles don't directly give you "certainty," especially not the absolute "1+1=2" kind.

Hey there, this is an interesting question, and many people feel the same way. Let me try to explain my thoughts in plain language. To put it simply, it's like the difference between a "top student" (...

Ah, that's a very good question, and many people think that way. I can understand why, because "deconstruction" is indeed the most obvious and initial step in first principles thinking.

Of course. To put it plainly, it's like a martial arts master insisting on deriving every single move and stance from "the law of conservation of energy" and "the principles of human muscle exertion,"...

I totally get that feeling. It's like you set out to understand "how a car works," but you keep disassembling it, and eventually, you're just staring at a pile of nuts and bolts, having forgotten why ...

Of course not, these two are more like partners than interchangeable rivals. Let me give you an analogy to help you understand: Socratic questioning is like a skilled detective interrogating a case.

Let's put it this way: one is responsible for "deconstructing," and the other for "building." Only by working together can they unleash their full power.

Haha, this is quite an interesting question. Let me try to explain my understanding in plain language. Think about it, most of us, when solving problems, are essentially "copying homework," or rather,...

Absolutely, and it might just be a powerful tool to help you avoid a mid-life crisis. Simply put, "First Principles" means not constantly looking at others or what "everyone else is doing," but rather...

Let's put it this way: these two concepts are essentially two different "problem-solving operating systems" in our brains. "Analogical thinking" is like "copying homework.

Let's put it this way: these two concepts are like two completely different approaches to "learning how to cook." "Inductive Reasoning" is like "learning to cook by following recipes.

Hello, this is an interesting question. I'll try to explain my understanding in plain language. You can think of it this way: First Principles Thinking, to put it bluntly, means you act like a "contra...

Let's put it this way: these two terms sound very similar, both seeming to refer to a 'most fundamental starting point,' but their origins and applications are actually quite different.

Okay, let's talk about this fascinating perspective from Naval Ravikant. Why Does Naval Say "Writing is Thinking"? It’s Simpler Than It Sounds Hi there! I'm glad you're curious about Naval's point he...

Hey friend, that's an awesome question! Naval Ravikant's view that "the future is unpredictable" is arguably one of the foundational stones of his entire philosophy.