Thinking and Decision-Making

Let's put it this way: it's like cooking. Most people who start businesses are like "cooking by recipe." They look at what successful companies in the market are doing, then imitate them, perhaps twea...

Hello, this is an interesting question. I'll try to explain my understanding in simple terms, hoping it helps you. In essence, "First Principles Thinking" simply means "digging to the root, returning ...

To avoid oversimplification, the key isn't to make problems more complicated, but to ensure your "simplification" is of high quality. This might sound a bit convoluted, so let me explain with an analo...

Of course, and they are an absolute perfect match. Used separately, each is powerful; combined, their power is immense. Let me use a simple analogy to help you understand: building a car.

This is an excellent question because it touches upon a core contradiction in how we think and act. It's like wanting to build a ship for a long voyage, but being unable to be 100% certain if the wood...

They are not contradictory at all; they are complementary and very closely related, like a set of tools in a toolbox, each with a different purpose.

This is a very interesting question. To explain it clearly, we first need to talk about how people usually make decisions. Most of the time, we make decisions based on "experience," "common sense," or...

Simply put, relying on "analogical reasoning" is like "copying homework." Think about how we usually solve problems. Most of the time, we observe how others do things, and then we follow suit, perhaps...

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.

Absolutely not. They are a collaborative relationship, not a substitute for each other. You can think of it this way: First-principles are like the underlying logic of a recipe, such as the Maillard r...

Hello, this is an interesting question. I'll try to explain it with a real-life example, which might make it easier to understand. Imagine you want to figure out: "If I add yeast, will the bread defin...

Haha, that's an excellent question, and one that many people easily confuse. I'll do my best to explain my understanding in plain language. You can think of it this way: Empirical Formula = The 'Trade...

Hello, that's a great and very representative question. I'll try to explain it in simple terms so you can grasp why this thing is so important in theoretical physics.

Let's put it this way: first principles themselves are not a tool to "eliminate" uncertainty. Quite the opposite, they "predict" the inevitable existence of uncertainty from the most fundamental level...

It depends on the situation. Within a certain scope, it absolutely is; but in a broader context, it is not. You can understand it this way: imagine "first principles" as the fundamental rules at the b...

Let's put it this way, it's like learning to cook. If you just follow a recipe step by step—for instance, if it says "add a spoonful of salt," you add a spoonful.

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...

Absolutely, and the differences are quite significant. I'll try to explain it to you in plain language. You can imagine "First Principles" as the "foundation" of a house.

This is a very interesting question. I think Plato's Theory of Forms can be seen as a very ancient, very philosophical "spiritual ancestor" of First Principles Thinking.