Practical Skills

I don't think so. They are more like partners than substitutes. Let me use an analogy to help you understand: Evidence-based medicine is like "cooking by following a recipe.

This is an interesting question, a bit like asking, "Is there a universal formula for cooking?" Let's discuss it. First, what are "first principles"? Simply put, it's about breaking something down to ...

Let's put it this way: First principles are like throwing out all the preconceived notions in your head about "this is how painting should be" or "this is how music should be," and then asking yoursel...

This is an interesting question, let's discuss it. I think overcomplicating it can easily lead to getting lost in the details. Simply put, using "first principles" to judge whether a system is good or...

Of course, we can talk about it; this is a very interesting question. We can imagine a civilization as an incredibly complex game or a giant company.

This is an interesting question. If I were to give a direct answer, it would be: In sociology, there isn't a single, universally accepted "first principle" like F=ma in physics or 1+1=2 in mathematics...

In my opinion, these two are fundamentally different things, so it's not about one replacing the other. They are more like two tools with different purposes in a toolbox.

Hello, this is an interesting question. I'll try to explain my understanding in plain language. Let's forget about complex psychological terms for a moment and imagine "first principles" as a tool tha...

Ah, this is an excellent and very practical question. It's essentially an 'existential question' that everyone who gets things done, be it engineers, product managers, or entrepreneurs, faces daily.

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" (...

Absolutely, and this situation is very common in both life and work. Simply put, a "pseudo first principle" is an "assumption" disguised as a "fundamental truth.

Ha, this is actually a very interesting question, showing you've thought deeply. It's not complicated; I'll give you an analogy, and you'll understand.

Let's put it this way: applying "first principles" to building rockets or electric vehicles is incredibly powerful because it deals with problems in the physical world, where there are standard answer...

This is an interesting question, and I'll try to share my thoughts on it. Simply put, first principles thinking is like peeling an onion: you strip away layers of a problem until you reach the most co...

我个人觉得，这就像问“是不是所有菜都能用最基础的油盐酱醋和原材料做出来？” 理论上，好像是的。只要你有最基础的食材（鸡、蛋、面粉、番茄）和调味料，你就能组合出无数种菜肴，从炒鸡蛋到法式大餐。这就是“第一性原理”的思路——抛开现有的菜谱（现有的解决方案），去分析食材最本质的特性（物理、化学性质），然后重新组合，创造出新的东西，甚至是颠覆性的东西。

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,"...

Absolutely, and this is precisely the trap many fall into when applying first principles. To draw an analogy, it's like learning martial arts.

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.