The structure of thought determines how far you can see.

Detecting existing mental structures: First, you need to recognize and reveal your own pattern of thought, find out its specific form, and make it explicit. If you discover that your thought structure is unclear, you should make it clearer, and this is the process of explicit mental structuring.

Reconstruction and Visualization: Furthermore, reconstruction is also known as the visualization of explicit thinking structures. Once one’s own way of thinking is identified and clarified, for example, if the thinking structure is unclear, then it should be made clear. Following this, the presentation, also known as the visualization of structural thinking, is performed. If the logical structure has been identified and there is a desire to store and transmit it, visualization can be an effective choice. Many masters’ theories and methodologies employ models, as they present in a highly visualized manner.

Structural Decomposition: When facing a problem, the first step is to simplify the issue through structural decomposition. Take learning to cook as an example, Western cooking often explicitly indicates the precise amount of salt required, while Eastern cooking typically relies on “appropriate amounts” or “a little bit.” This reflects not only a difference in cooking styles but also the different modes of thinking shaped by Eastern and Western cultures. Western thinking tends to favor analytical decomposition, while Eastern thought places more emphasis on the perception of holistic systems. Both approaches have their advantages and disadvantages, but structured thinking favors the Western method of analytical decomposition.

Illustrative Analysis: When encountering a problem, one should first seek its inherent structure. For example, the riddle of “how to put an elephant into a fridge” can be broken down into three steps using Western structured thinking: open the fridge door, put the elephant into the fridge, and close the fridge door. By segmenting the problem this way, you’ll find that except for the second step which might pose a problem, the first and the third steps are not difficult to accomplish. Continue breaking down the problem, and eventually, a solution will be found.

Evaluating the Truthfulness of Information: When receiving information, one should judge its truthfulness by identifying its structure. Common methods include: confirming conclusions, looking for reasons supporting the conclusions, and the specific facts behind those reasons. With this method, one can construct a tree diagram or a pyramid structure chart, with the central idea at the top, supported reasons in the middle, and facts at the bottom. In practice, it is often found that many pieces of information either have facts without reasons, or conclusions without foundations. This indicates that most people lack systematic thinking training.

The Effect of Structural Thinking: For instance, around 2015, I developed a structural thinking course for children, attended by hundreds of thousands of kids. Parents reported after the course that it taught their children to think independently and express themselves clearly. However, this could also bring about “pain” for the parents—one parent said in the course feedback that when she wanted her child to join the Olympiad Mathematics class, the child used the newly learned thinking skills to resolutely and justifiably refuse.

Faced with her child’s doubts about joining the Olympiad Mathematics class, a mother felt helpless and was stumped by the child’s questioning: “Mom, can you tell me three reasons why you want me to attend the Olympiad Mathematics class?” The child’s probing question put her into deep thought, and she did not come up with an answer until after a night of thorough discussion. The next morning, the mother listed three reasons for attending the Olympiad Mathematics class and explained them in detail to the child. After listening carefully, the child showed affirmation for the mother’s reasons and expressed willingness to try the Olympiad Mathematics class.

The article points out that structured thinking is not limited by factors such as age, experience, education, or IQ. It is an intellectual habit. When a person develops such a way of thinking, their problem-solving abilities become clearer and they can easily focus on the main points of the issue.

What to do when faced with unclear information expression in communication? Just remember the four characters of “argument by analogy.” Start with the narrative; give your conclusion first to directly address the concerns of the listener. This is exemplified by a head teacher, Mr. Zhang, who, when informing a parent about their child’s act of valor, took a roundabout way to reveal the outcome, causing the parent great anxiety.

It’s not just in everyday communication that the principle of leading with the conclusion is highly valued, it is also given great importance in media, government work reports, and the consulting industry. Newspaper headlines, the beginnings of government reports, and consulting firm PPT slides are all carefully crafted to lead with key points, enabling readers or audiences to quickly grasp core information.

The concept of “structured thinking” originates from McKinsey & Company—a well-known consulting firm. McKinsey’s style of PPT presentation places particular emphasis on presenting central ideas, ensuring that each page’s title accurately summarizes the core content.

Upon noticing three consecutive points, we might instantly associate them with something they represent, even though no one had previously explained their significance. This is thanks to the brain’s innate ability to categorize similar features, which also means that categorizing similar items makes them easier to remember. Imagine if you listed ten items while reporting to your boss, could you really expect them to remember all of it? Studies show that the human brain can only effectively process a limited amount of information at a time, typically defined between 5 and 9 items, with 7 being a threshold; beyond this number, the burden on memory increases. Therefore, whether reporting in written or oral form, it’s best to keep it to 7 items or fewer.

Through efficient categorization, complex problems can become simple and clear. However, how can we ensure that categorization is both clear and accepted by the recipient? This is where the well-known MECE principle comes into play, which includes two key points: Mutually Exclusive and Collectively Exhaustive. The problems encountered in work reports or blind spots realized during problem analysis can often be traced back to an oversight of these two principles. “Collectively Exhaustive” implies thoroughness, while “Mutually Exclusive” ensures clarity.

To achieve the effect of being Mutually Exclusive and Collectively Exhaustive, let’s look at a specific example. Imagine you need to drive a truck carrying goods from Beijing to Shanghai, and on the way, you encounter a tunnel with a 3-meter height restriction, but the total height of the truck and cargo is 3.05 meters, what should you do? First, we set the goal—to deliver the goods to Shanghai. Facing the height restriction, we have two options: one is to try to pass through the tunnel, and the second is to take a detour. Specifically, adjusting the tunnel height includes deflating the tires or adjusting the suspension system; adjusting the cargo height might involve rearranging or transporting in batches; taking a detour might involve changing modes of transport or finding alternative routes. Without structured thinking, we might only come up with a few solutions, but by applying the MECE principle, we can expand to more viable options. However, there is still a gap between understanding the principle and actual practice. For instance, during a training session, a participant claimed to have three points of view, but in reality, their second and third points discussed different aspects of the same issue, showing that simply listing points does not equate to strictly following the MECE principle.

Furthermore, when thinking or articulating a problem, logical progression is crucial, which requires us to establish the order of issues through comparison. Looking back at the conversation between the two younger monks and their master about chanting scriptures and smoking, although the two disciples made the same request, they received completely opposite responses due to the different order of questioning. This reveals that different orders lead to differences in structure, which in turn changes the nature and evaluation of the matter itself.

The value of substances composed of the same elements can vary greatly, as demonstrated by the example of graphite and diamond, highlighting the importance of the key dimension of order in structure. In our cognition, order is generally divided into three categories:

Understanding and applying these three types of order is crucial for structured expression in both articulation and thinking processes.

Presentation: Structural thinking often needs to be understood and restructured in the process of contemplation, and theoretical models are usually difficult to visualize. In this case, a method known as “visualization” makes the structure visual. Its advantage is that, compared to text, images can convey richer information. For example, a simple tool called “Structure Compass,” which is mainly divided into three parts: “Complement” relationship, “Achieve” illustration, “On” packaging:

1. First is to clarify the relationships between the main points of expression, and the compass summarizes up to 16 types of relationships.
2. Next, choose the appropriate type of illustration based on the relationship.
3. Finally, refine the viewpoints by simplifying, referencing, analogizing, and integrating etc., to make the expression more concise, clearer, and easier to remember.

For practical application, as an example: Suppose there are several underground facilities with internet access requirements, such as residential buildings, office buildings, etc. The network needs of these similar venues are not the same, and their access strategies and costs also differ. The resulting strategy from discussion may be difficult to remember, but if it is processed visually, we can find that there is a filtering relationship among the three points. We can then draw it as a funnel shape and name it the “3S model,” since the beginning of each main point starts with the letter S.

In history, many people have also summarized their experiences into specific models, such as PDCA, 3C, 4P, etc. These all fall under the category of structured thinking. Currently, learning thinking models is very popular; in essence, a thinking model is a framework or structure of thought. Structured thinking, which is the ability to build personal thinking models, can help you transform ideas into structured models.

How can we train our structured thinking? How can we make our thinking more structured? The answer is deliberate practice. Effective training methods include:

• When talking about important matters, try to distill three key points. This might be difficult at first, but over time, you will develop a habit of structured thinking.
• Note that these three key points need to follow the principles of argumentation and analogy, that is, based on a conclusion supported by three reasons, with each reason further supported by three facts.

In fact, the articulation and explanation of things seem simple, but are far from easy in practice. This process requires us to gradually master through deliberate practice and to enhance our skills as the difficulty increases over time. For this, I suggest taking a 28-day plan, which is four weeks, to improve your logical structured thinking ability in phases.

In the first week, we focus on practicing “conclusion first”: when asked about something, strive to summarize and refine your views to ensure clarity and conciseness.

Entering the second week, we add the practice of “evidence” on the basis of the conclusion: not just having a viewpoint, but also learning to find reasonable grounds that support the conclusion.

In the third week, the focus is on “classification”: ensuring that the three reasons provided follow the MECE (Mutually Exclusive, Collectively Exhaustive) principle, are organized and do not overlap.

The fourth week’s practice is “comparison”: learn to order the reasons based on their chronological order, structural arrangement, and importance for clear hierarchical differentiation.

It should be clear that it’s not always necessary to strictly follow the “three points of argument” pattern; it’s just a method that helps train structured thinking. Through this series of exercises, we can gradually improve our clarity and efficiency in logical expression and thinking.

By deliberate practice, we can gradually master the ability to handle complex logical structures, which is crucial for personal development. So begin your practice, and wish you success!