In-depth long text, with the simplest way to help you improve your analytical ability, it is recommended to collect it first and then look at it carefully.
In order to make it easier for you to read, I will comb through the structure for you
01What is in-depth analysis?
02What hinders our analytical ability?
03 Two methods that take you to in-depth analysis
It is recommended to read the full text, and you can also look directly at the final methodology when the time is tight.
We are constantly analyzing every day. For example, when we hear a loud noise in the distance, we think, "Did something happen somewhere?" "When we find that the navigation shows that a certain section of the road is very congested on the way to work, we think, 'I might be late.' The essence of these analyses, which "inexplicably loud bang = accident" and "road congestion = delay in work," is to correspond what is in front of us to a concept that already exists in our minds.
Often, this habit of analysis is difficult for us to generate new ideas. Matching new situations with known answers, past experiences, is not really in-depth analysis.
Deep analysis allows us to repeatedly analyze in our minds when we encounter the unknown "What is it?" "Why?" "Is that right?" "Is there a better way to cope"... By observing and analyzing from all angles, while looking for its connection to known content, try to see if there are new discoveries. Although this process is time-consuming, the result is likely to be that you have discovered something entirely new and unknown.
I interpret this process of associating the known from the unknown as "analysis" and the process of discovering the unknown from the unknown as "deep analysis". In other words, "deep analysis" is the act of fully exploring without omitting the thought process to derive one's own new discoveries.
For example, when artificial intelligence (AI) came out, many people defined it as a computer adding data, believing that AI is a computer that makes various decisions based on big data. Because computers and big data are already well known. But people who can do deep analysis will try to find new discoveries, in addition to looking for common ground between artificial intelligence and what they already know in their hearts. They will analyze "Why do computers plus big data create a fear of being replaced by machines?" "Does AI have other capabilities that scare humans?" In order to find the answer to the question, they will ask professionals for advice, read professional magazines, and even buy AI products for practical experience... After experiencing such an analysis and research process, these people are likely to find that artificial intelligence will only pose a certain threat to humans when the catalysts such as human brain chips and deep learning algorithms are available, and their understanding of artificial intelligence is far more than most people.
Diving into the deepest part of the mind, in-depth analysis and re-analysis, is the most important thing to exercise diligently. But in real life, we are often limited by the following two wrong thinking habits, so that we miss the training of in-depth analysis again and again.
Habit one: Content with past stereotypes
There is no doubt that deep analysis is time-consuming and labor-intensive. Usually, in order to reduce the workload, our brains often unconsciously settle for past stereotypes.
Content with past stereotypes, there are two meanings.
The first layer is content with ordinary solutions. At this point, our most typical performance is often like this: when we encounter new knowledge, new tasks, and new problems, the brain is always habitually lazy, so that the way to understand and deal with this problem is always stuck in the past cognition and solution. "How has this problem been solved before?" "What did other people do?" The practice of borrowing from others' routines and applying past experience is not easy to make mistakes, but it also solidifies thinking in essence, making it difficult for us to follow the old ways, it is difficult to solve problems creatively, and its effect is certainly not ideal.
The second meaning is habitual defense. As a very common psychological phenomenon, habitual defense means that when a person feels that his point of view or cognition is being challenged, the first reaction is not to analyze "what the truth is" and "whether the challenge is reasonable", but to immediately habitually think that "I dare to disagree with my point of view, and do it!" thus immediately began to refute.
Habit of Thinking Two: Emotional Analysis
Emotional analysis, that is, when encountering things, move emotions first, do not use brains, do not move logic. People who are accustomed to emotional analysis are easily instigated by others to draw some superficial conclusions, or conclusions that others want to draw.
Every day we see all kinds of emotionally inflammatory articles on the Internet, which will blame social problems on the sinister nature of, the gap between rich and poor, moral degeneration... These views are often inflammatory, and can easily constitute the worldview of the mentally immature population, leading them to choose to guess and understand the society in the most emotional way when analyzing.
For a while, house prices in Xiamen and Zhengzhou rose particularly fast, and the media vigorously disseminated some inflammatory views, "the more people who speculate in houses, the richer they get", "people who just need more and more can't afford to buy houses", "House prices are just being speculated by rich people"... Many people's emotions are immediately stirred by these views, and they hate the people who speculate in houses to the bone.
But is it really that simple? There are many reasons for the rise in house prices in addition to personal factors, for example, the high debt of local governments does not allow them to reduce land transfer fees, and financial groups do not want house prices to fall in order to prevent bad debts in order to prevent mortgage supply... Any social problem is a systemic problem that affects the whole body, and it is not as simple as the media instigated.
Therefore, if we feel more from an article or a book is indignation, excitement, anxiety, excitement and other emotions, rather than data analysis, objective combing, it is very necessary to pay attention to the analysis: is the author's point of view valid? Is the author deliberately stirring up emotions in the reader? At the same time, we must remind ourselves that once we are immersed in a certain emotion, our analytical and judgmental abilities will inevitably be greatly weakened.
The level to which we can learn is positively correlated with the amount of energy we put in. In other words, how much brain power is spent, how much effect is gained. Many times, indulging ourselves in a more comfortable state of analysis, always following the habit, our brain's analytical ability will be as loose and weak as a muscle that is difficult to exercise. In order to make this muscle strong and powerful, it is necessary to constantly train the thinking of green light thinking and reverse thinking.
1. Green Light Thinking: Distinguish "me" from "my opinion, my behavior."
Green light thinking is relative to red light thinking, people with red light thinking, the first reaction when encountering different views is habitual defense, they are not willing to accept new things, it is easy to have negative resistance, and the growth rate is usually very slow. And people with green light thinking, when they encounter different views, the first reaction is to think that new views must be useful, they treat new views and new things with an open mind, and take it as an opportunity for their own growth and improvement, so that they can progress very quickly.
How do you cultivate green light thinking? Personally, I like one of the methods proposed by Cheng Jia in the book "Study Well": to distinguish "me" from "my opinion, my behavior". In other words, when we encounter different points of view, don't interpret it as a challenge and denial to us personally.
For example, if someone says to me, "Your project is doing too badly!" Suppose my first reaction was that he was targeting me, accusing me, and then immediately scolding back emotionally: "Your project is just bad!" This is typical of understanding other people's questioning of "my opinion, my behavior" as a question of me as a person, and I am using red light thinking.
But if I could tell the difference between "what others are accusing me of doing, not me," my first instinct would be to analyze, "Is this project doing well?" What's not going to be done well? How can it be improved? "At this time, I have the green light in my thinking, I can actively accept different views and different opinions, and take the opinions of others as an opportunity for my own inspiration and growth, thus promoting self-improvement."
Jobs once said, "I especially like working with smart people, because the biggest benefit of working with them is not having to think about their dignity." "Smart people are not without dignity, but they can divide "me" and "my point of view" in their work, and can objectively look at the opinions put forward by others when they encounter different opinions.
2． Reverse Thinking: Is it right to analyze this big premise forward?
Green light thinking is only the first step to eliminate stereotypes and overcome emotional reactions, to improve the depth of their analysis, but also to have reverse thinking. Simply put, reverse thinking is not to blindly follow the views of others, and before endorsing a point of view and behavior, try to analyze the big premise that produces this view and behavior.
For example, in the past, humans thought that God was the dominant being, so when a natural disaster occurred, they thought that God was punishing themselves. Therefore, in order to avoid natural disasters, we must make sacrifices to God. "People believe that God is the dominant being" is the big premise of "we must sacrifice", but if we analyze it forward, re-analyze this so-called big premise, and even question and correct it, just like modern people no longer believe in the existence of God, then when natural disasters arise again, we naturally will not think that God is punishing mankind, and naturally we will not solve this problem in the form of sacrifice.
For another example, Professor Wang Dingding, an economist at Peking University, discussed in his blog the question of "why the use of high-speed rail construction to drive the development of new cities will fail". At that time, experts planning high-speed rail believed that building high-speed rail in the suburbs could drive the economic development of the suburbs. However, the result of the media survey is that "the vast majority of new areas that rely on high-speed rail construction are very depressed." What's the problem? Let's first look at why experts are proposing to build high-speed rail in the suburbs.
First, experts hypothesized a big premise: building high-speed rail in the suburbs can drive the development of new cities.
Then, based on the big assumption of the hypothesis, the experts suggested: invest heavily in the construction of high-speed rail in the suburbs.
But in the end, the result of this action is that many new areas that want to rely on high-speed rail development are depressed.
Why is there such a big difference between assumptions and results? If analyzed in a conventional order, many people may look for reasons from actions, for example, did not develop the surrounding land when building high-speed rail? However, if we use reverse thinking to analyze - the big premise that experts assume that "the construction of high-speed rail in the suburbs can drive the development of new cities" is "right?" In fact, the vast majority of China's cities are outflows, which means that the opening of high-speed rail will only make it easier for the population of these cities to migrate out, rather than forming new urban areas. Now we have found the reason: the real problem is not actually in action at all, but the big premise that the experts assume is itself wrong.
This is the meaning of reverse thinking: to really understand the truth of things and find the fundamental problem, we can't play it down mechanically like a tape recorder, at the push of a button, and we can't analyze it without thinking about what we see. Instead, we should think backwards: Is this big premise right? Is the other side right to base this view? With this reverse thinking consciousness, we are more likely to make new discoveries outside of the ordinary people's point of view.
In the face of this chaotic world of continuous change, the brain's preference for fast analysis often immerses us in the habit of "not using our brains", we are accustomed to getting something for nothing, we are used to paying a small cost to harvest a variety of instant feedback, we are used to swallowing the information instilled by the outside world in the learning process, we become more and more sluggish, lazy, do not love analysis, day after day in the same place.
However, in the face of this real world of not advancing or retreating, I sincerely hope that everyone can look at themselves and everything around them from a higher perspective and a deeper dimension, try to violate their own "human nature", embrace opposing views, try to doubt external information, try to make their own judgments, and try to get out of the habit of not using their brains.
Because to a large extent, how far a person can go in the real world depends on how deeply he goes in analytical thinking.
If you are inspired by reading it, please like and follow!