How to learn to see through the essence behind things?

In this era, almost everyone wants to have the ability to think directly to the essence, thus becoming the "person who can see through the essence of the problem in one second" in The Godfather.

However, it is easy to see through the essence in one second.

At the very least, you have to go through the following three stages:

The first stage: Do you have to know what "essence" is? What are you thinking about in The Nature of Thinking?

The second stage: you should learn the specific method of "seeing the essence through the phenomenon"

The third stage: you should keep practicing and finally internalize it into a natural ability.

Every stage mentioned above is not easy. What we are going to talk about today is the first stage, that is, you have to know what the essence is. You know, in the "nature of thinking", what are you thinking about?

Otherwise, where should you start thinking?

First, think about the nature of three things

Let's look at the following three paragraphs first:

The first paragraph: Liu Run, the founder of Five Minutes Business School, wrote in the book "New Retail": "The essence of new retail is more efficient retail."

The second paragraph: The philosopher Wang Dongyue once said: "The reason why Confucius has a' world outlook' is essentially because China has been a unified country for a long time."

Paragraph 3: Earlier, economist Wu Jinglian said in a video speech that although reformers in China's business and political circles have made a lot of contributions to promoting reform and development, they also have a prominent shortcoming: "They closely followed the changing situation and did not study the basic problems behind it deeply enough." The problem brought by this kind of shallow taste is: "without in-depth study of the essential problems, the methods to solve problems are often practical."

You see, in these three paragraphs, the word "Jing" appeared once respectively.

But if you read it carefully, you will find that they are not the same. They don't mean the same thing.

In the first paragraph, the "essence" of new retail is: What is the fundamental attribute of new retail? In other words, the word "essence" here answers "What is the fundamental attribute of this thing?" This question.

The second paragraph of Essence says: What is the root of "Confucius has a world view"? In other words, the word "essence" here answers "What is the root of this matter?" That is, "what is the most fundamental reason for this?"

The third paragraph "Essentials" says: We should think about what are the basic and unchanging things behind the ever-changing situation. So the word "essence" here answers "What is the underlying logic behind this phenomenon and problem?" This question.

Although the same word "Jing" is used here, it represents different meanings.

One is to talk about the fundamental attributes of things, the other is to talk about the most fundamental reasons that lead to problems, and the other is to talk about the underlying logic hidden behind phenomena.

But if you think about it carefully, these three things have one thing in common: whether it is the fundamental attribute of things, the root of problems, or the underlying logic behind phenomena, they are actually the "fundamental" exploration and pursuit of everything, and the deep thinking about why things exist and why they become "it".

So, what is "essence"? See through the essence for a second, what do you see?

In "Touching the Essence", I summarized "essence" into three things, namely: the fundamental attribute of things, the root of problems, and the underlying logic behind phenomena.

Based on the above analysis, I give the definition of essential thinking: essential thinking is the thinking ability to see the fundamental attributes of things, see through the root causes of problems and understand the underlying logic behind phenomena through complex phenomena.

Next, I will explain them one by one.

Second, the first layer of basic thinking:

The fundamental attribute of things

A long time ago, because of the need of my work, I read a lot of books about strategy, which taught me many ways to make a strategy, but I feel that I have never grasped the root of strategy and can't think of the key to it.

When I put it into practice, I found that the summarized methods could never be applied to reality. I was in a hurry and didn't know what to do.

Why is this happening?

I learned later that it was because I never understood the fundamental attribute of "strategy".

What is the fundamental attribute of strategy? Is it called strategy to write a bunch of plans? Or set a goal called strategy? Is it a strategy to put forward a vision? Or propose a mission called strategy?

Neither. The fundamental attribute of strategy is "choice", and a good strategy represents "good choice".

Therefore, when I don't understand the fundamental attribute of "strategy", I can't tell the difference between strategy and goal, I can't make a good strategy, and I can't tell why some strategies are good and others are poor.

And this is why we must first understand the fundamental attributes of a thing.

If you don't understand the fundamental attributes of things, you can't answer the question "what is it";

If you don't understand what it is, you can't answer why and how.

If you can't answer "why" and "how to do it", naturally you can't solve the problem and judge the trend.

So when we study a thing, know a thing, discuss a theory, solve a problem and judge a trend, we must start with thinking about the fundamental attributes of things.

Thinking deeply about the fundamental attributes of things can be said to be the "initial starting point" for us to think about every major issue.

However, what is the fundamental attribute of things?

The fundamental attribute of a thing can be equal to its essence, that is, the fundamental reason why a thing can become it.

For example, once we know that the essence of a stool is something to sit down and rest, we will know that the metal thing to sit down and rest is also a stool, and the ice thing to sit down and rest is also a stool.

Then, you may ask: how do I know that I have found the fundamental attribute of things?

When you can do any of the following two things, you will find the fundamental attributes of things:

Give a clear definition

Make a subtle analogy.

1. What is "give a clear definition"?

Plato, an ancient Greek philosopher, made a joke because he wanted to define "person".

He said, "Man is an animal without feathers and upright feet."

So the philosopher Diogenes took a plucked chicken, looked at Plato and said, "This is the man you are talking about." .

This is an interesting joke, but it actually comes from Plato, one of the greatest philosophers.

Why is this happening?

The fundamental reason is that Plato did not find the fundamental attribute of "man", so he could not give a clear definition of "man".

But later, Plato's student Aristotle did it. He gave a definition of "man", which is concise and direct in essence, that is, man is a rational animal.

This is a clear definition. When you can give a clear definition, you will understand the fundamental attribute of this thing.

2. What is a "subtle analogy"?

Being able to make subtle analogies means that you can equate the fundamental attribute of an abstract thing with the fundamental attribute of common things in life and work. Only in this way can you make a subtle analogy.

Herari, the author of A Brief History of Mankind, made a very subtle analogy. He said: "The terrorist is like a fly, just trying to destroy a porcelain shop, but it doesn't have that great power, so it gets into the bull's ear, drives the bull crazy, and then rushes into the porcelain shop."

In this metaphor, Herari compares terrorists to "a fly trying to destroy a porcelain shop", which is very subtle, and the subtle reason is that he sees through the fundamental attributes of terrorists-their thin self-ability and very huge goals.

Does that mean that as long as we make an analogy, we have the ability to think in essence?

That's not true.

For example, it is a bridge between unfamiliar things and familiar things, which may or may not be accurate; Subtle analogy is a bridge between the basic attributes of unfamiliar things and those of familiar things.

Therefore, only subtle comparison is the embodiment of essential thinking ability.

In The Elephant and the Rider, the author writes:

We may not be able to completely control our behavior. We don't have a "top decision maker" who can decide our own behavior.

On the contrary, the real self is made up of many parts, and each part has its own ideas. Even, sometimes the opinions of various parts conflict with each other.

Among the various components of the self, some are our internal automation systems, including inner feelings, instinctive reactions, emotions and intuition. The other part is rational thinking and rational requirements.

I don't know how you feel when you see this passage. Do you think these two parts described by the author are somewhat complicated and need to be chewed repeatedly to understand?

Indeed, the author later made a very subtle analogy:

Their relationship is like an elephant and an elephant rider. In most cases, this elephant rider is just an elephant consultant. When the elephant and the elephant rider agree, or the elephant has no desire of its own, the elephant rider can command the elephant; And when the elephant really wants to do something, the elephant rider can't beat it at all.

Through this analogy, did you immediately understand? It turns out that our inner automation system is like an elephant, while the rational part is like a man riding an elephant.

Therefore, when we follow the internal automation system without any consciousness, reason can do nothing at all. Many times, whether we should go right or left, and what kind of decision we should make, are actually decided by this elephant. Reason is only the person riding an elephant, and it will only play a role occasionally.

What a subtle analogy!

Therefore, whether to give a clear definition and make a subtle analogy is the gold standard to judge whether you can tell the fundamental attributes of things.

Third, the second layer of basic thinking:

The root cause of the problem

In the era of navigation hundreds of years ago, the crew of the voyage were often troubled by scurvy.

After a long time at sea, the crew's gums and skin began to bleed, the skin became pale, the eye socket was sunken, and then the teeth fell off, which may eventually lead to death. It is estimated that during the 300 years from 1500 to 1800, the terrible scurvy killed 3 million sailors.

At that time, people didn't know what scurvy was all about, but people intuitively judged that it was probably related to diet and was caused by malnutrition. Because this kind of situation only happens to the crew who are sailing, and there is a lack of fresh vegetables and fruits at sea.

Until 1747, due to a pure accident, James Linde, a Scottish naval doctor, discovered that eating citrus could cure scurvy. So he did an experiment and found that oranges and lemons were really effective in treating scurvy.

Therefore, the British invented the method of mixing lemon juice with rum for long-term preservation. So at the beginning of the19th century, the British navy bid farewell to scurvy completely.

This accidental discovery enabled the British navy to solve the problem of scurvy. So no one has ever thought about why oranges and lemons can cure scurvy.

Who knows, one hundred years later, scurvy once again troubled the British fleet.

At first, the crew of the fleet was equipped with Spanish lemons, but later, because of a cheaper West Indian lemon, the acidity was the same as that of Spanish lemons. So the fleet was equipped with West Indian lemons instead.

Later, in order to prevent the lemon from going bad, the fleet squeezed the lemon into juice and cooked it before taking it on board. The reason for the change is that they found that the acidity of these two lemons, whether lemon or lemon juice, is the same.

Who knows, this change has caused a large area of scurvy.

The doctors on board can't understand this phenomenon. They think that since it is also sour lemon juice, it should be able to prevent scurvy, but why does scurvy come back?

It was not until 1930 that this problem was finally solved.

At that time, Hungarian scientist Szentgyorgy Albert successfully isolated vitamin C, and people woke up like a dream. It turns out that it is not oranges and lemons or their sour taste that plays a role in scurvy, but vitamin C in them.

Now, you can answer why the juice boiled by West Indian lemons can't resist scurvy.

Because the vitamin C content of West Indian lemons is only 1/4 of that of Spanish lemons, and in fact, no matter how much, as long as the lemon juice is cooked, the only remaining vitamin C in it will be completely destroyed, and scurvy will naturally come back.

It can be seen that only by finding the root of the problem can we really solve the problem effectively.

It is very important to think about the root of the problem, not only because we can really solve the problem only by finding the root of the problem, but also because we can only make a correct explanation of the reason to avoid making the same mistake next time similar problems appear.

When I give one-on-one counseling to counselors, I often encounter this situation: after encountering setbacks in my work (such as being fired by my boss, pushed out by my colleagues, or broken up), many counselors will blame themselves for these problems.

They will say that all this happened because they were too bad, they didn't work hard and they weren't good enough. As a result, they have been stuck in this corner and continue to suffer, thinking that they will never find a good job or a good lover, never be happy and never succeed.

This is a wrong interpretation of the root of the problem, which directly leads to their wrong way of thinking, and this wrong way of thinking makes them fall into greater pain. Therefore, they can never start a new life.

So, what kind of correct explanation should the root of these problems be?

In fact, the causal relationship between things is complex and diverse. A phenomenon may be caused by one reason or many reasons. For example, the leaves of plants can carry out photosynthesis because of sunlight, carbon dioxide and water. This is the complicated reason.

Therefore, in most cases, no matter the problems in work or intimate relationship, they are not caused by a single factor, and their diversity should be considered.

Only in this way can we clearly and accurately see the complex reasons behind the problem and solve the problem effectively. And this way of thinking can also make you have profound insight and mature mind while making continuous progress.

It can be said that if we ignore the diversity of the root causes of the problem when thinking about the essence, it may lead to very serious consequences. Just like the reason for the poor growth of crops, it may be insufficient water, too much chemical fertilizer, or diseases and pests.

If we don't realize the diversity of the root causes of the problem, only paying attention to one of them, such as only paying attention to fertilization, will inevitably lead to the consequences of reducing production.

Therefore, when thinking about the root of the problem in essence, we should not only think about the superficial reasons, but also think about the deep reasons; We should not only consider a single cause, but also consider a combination of causes.

Fourth, the third layer of essential thinking:

The internal logic behind the phenomenon

What is the underlying logic behind the phenomenon?

The word underlying logic has been overused now, but few people can give it a clear definition. As a result, many times when people use this word, they make a wrong explanation and application.

But in fact, the underlying logic is a very powerful word.

For example, in business, there is a deep and wide logic, that is, the existence of business is the benefit of consumers. What does this logic say?

What it says is that an enterprise can exist because people who buy this commodity can benefit from it, no matter whether it sells socks or courses.

Therefore, if you can't keep warm by buying socks, or if you wear socks, you can't learn anything by buying courses, and your life hasn't changed, then the business itself is worthless, no matter how flashy its propaganda is, it will definitely die out after a long time.

This is the deeper and more widely used logic behind all businesses.

At that time, all the group buying websites in China were modeled after Groupon, the first group buying website in the United States. Groupon's philosophy is that merchants come first and consumers come second, so its gross profit can be as high as 40%.

However, Wang Xing, the CEO of Meituan, later thought that Groupon's ideas and strategies were wrong, because they violated the essence of business, that is, completely violated the logic we just said.

As a result, Wang Xing began to do the opposite, and determined the strategy of Meituan as: consumers first, businesses second.

Because the gross profit is very low, it needs a large number of consumers to buy to maintain this model, and it also needs very refined management. Adhering to this strategy and mode, Meituan has gone through a very difficult road.

But it is precisely because of the belief and follow-up of this logic that Wang Xing and Meituan finally became the winners of the Hundred Regiments War.

This kind of logic hidden behind a series of phenomena or methodology is deeper and more widely used, which is what I call bottom logic here.

Rui Daglio, the author of Principles and the founder of bridgewater, said: "The operation of everything depends on the hidden principles, that is, a series of causal relationships determine the direction of the world. If you explore causality-though not all, it is better to be most-then you undoubtedly have the key to the world's treasure chest.

What he said here is "the principle hidden in it" and "a string of causality", which also represents what I call "the underlying logic".

It can be said that although the world we see and hear is complex and changeable, there are often reasons, logics, principles and causality behind it, just like "invisible hands", and these "invisible hands" are "bottom logic".

In other words, the underlying logic is the Tao behind thousands of "skills" and the underlying laws behind thousands of phenomena.

To put it bluntly, the underlying logic is the commonness behind different phenomena and methodologies, the invariance behind changes, and the fundamental reasons for the effectiveness of those methodologies. If the underlying logic is wrong, the methodology related to it is useless.

By the same token, if you master a basic logic, it is equivalent to mastering a lot of methodologies, because you can change a lot of methodologies through deduction and innovation.

Of course, the underlying logic is also hierarchical. If you can master the underlying logic, it will be very powerful. And if you only master the shallow underlying logic, then your transplantation and application of it will be limited and narrow.

These are the three things mentioned in The Essence of Thinking. When you can learn all the thinking methods of these three things, it is equivalent to mastering a golden key to open the world.

At this time, you will have the thinking power to directly attack the essence.