←back to thread

Ask HN: How to Learn 'To Think'?

61 points cannnot_think | 1 comments | 22 Oct 24 00:05 UTC | HN request time: 0.242s | source

I am writing this desperate to find out what to do. Most of my life, I have been 'listening' passively, without thinking. I don't have an internal monologue. I had a neuropsych evaluation which commented on my poor memory and inability to think.

How do I learn how 'to think'? How do I learn to create an internal dialogue to comment on my surroundings and tasks?

I am hoping for a book recommendation, or maybe a blog post. I've heard that Ulysses is a stream-of-consciousness book, but I have not checked it out.

I would hope that books help - but I have read a lot of books and still don't think. I am hoping for a tutorial or something to practice.

Show context
treetalker ◴[22 Oct 24 07:18 UTC] No.41911969[source]▶
There are many ways of thinking, and not all involve the use of articulated language. It sounds like you may be seeking to improve your critical-thinking skills.

Many community colleges offer critical-thinking courses, so that could be an option.

There are many books on critical thinking. One with exercises that I can recommend is Kirby’s and Goodpastor’s “Thinking” (which could be used as a course book for a critical-thinking skills course). You might also check out books by Rolf Dobelli, Peter Bevelin, and Donella Matthews.

Farnam Street (fs.blog) and sites like it champion the idea of using mental models to think. Farnam Street has lots of good, free materials that you can start with and try to start using in your daily life. The site also recently put out a series of books called “The Great Mental Models”.

But mental models can be found everywhere. For example, I frequently use Nassim N. Taleb’s mental models of “robustness,” “antifragility,” and “skin in the game.” Likewise, I use the concept of expected value when making decisions.

Another good book with easily implemented mental models is “Judgment and Managerial Decision-Making”.

There are tons and tons of books in this space, and you will find many recommendations of good ones here on HN. Just search for book recommendations (an evergreen topic here) and you’re bound to find some.

But if I understand your post correctly, you seem to be trying to learn how to articulate your thoughts more. You could start with the simple but powerful practice of asking yourself, what is this person/book/podcast/etc. saying? Is it true / do I agree with it? Why or why not? And what of it / why does it matter? (These questions are similar to those suggested in Mortimer Adler’s “How to Read a Book”, which is another title I commend to you.)

Take notes when listening and reading, and try answering these questions out loud or in writing after hearing or reading something. It’s a practice, and engaging with the habit intentionally and repeatedly over time will help you to improve your skills.

In this regard, I can suggest the following practice too. Copy the text of a piece of writing and dump it into a plain text file. Open it with an editor like Sublime Text (which I like because it, and other text and code editors, makes it easy to move lines of text around). Then, put every sentence on its own line. (If you’re handy with computers, you can do this quickly with regex, or even find-and-replace.) Next, try rewriting each sentence to simplify it and to restate it in your own words. Then rearrange the lines to restructure the argument in the way that makes the most logical sense. Finally, you can analyze it and write out your reactions to it, or your counter-arguments.

By using this process, you’ll probably discover that many people have little idea of what they’re talking about, and that they articulate their thoughts poorly. You’ll also discover that much of what they say is opinion, and that they use various tricks to hide or warp ideas. On this note, studying Western rhetorical tradition may prove very helpful in your quest to learn how to think better (plenty of theoretical and how-to books there, going back to the Ancients!).

At any rate, you’re in good company here: HN is full of people who think about thinking and strive to think better themselves. I’m sure you’ll find many useful posts and comments from past discussions, as I have. It’s a lifelong journey that has no clear endpoint. That’s the challenge and the beauty of it!

Good luck, and let me know if you think I can be of assistance.

PS: Other writers and thinkers to definitely check out on these topics: Charlie Munger; Richard Feynman; Daniel Dennett (“Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking”).

replies(1): >>41912578 #
BOOSTERHIDROGEN ◴[22 Oct 24 09:20 UTC] No.41912578[source]▶
Did you process the mental models in real time, or do you just need some time?
replies(1): >>41914687 #
1. treetalker ◴[22 Oct 24 14:30 UTC] No.41914687[source]▶
If I understand your question correctly, you’re asking how I go about applying the mental models, and whether it happens instantaneously or takes concerted effort and time.

The answer would be “both” or “it depends”. Sometimes the model to use is obvious and jumps right out at me, and the application could be either instantaneous or take effortful time and action. For example, if I am starting a business that has a probability of success or failure, I might instantly recognize that I have a survivability problem on my hands: the business has to stay operational to continue to have a chance to really take off. Thus I might instantly recognize and apply the model of robustness. But then I might ask myself how to go about achieving that. There, I would apply a commonly used model — inversion — and ask myself, instead, what could I do to ensure that the business would fail? Generating those ideas of activities and choices to avoid would take some time.

Likewise, if I want to know how opening this business might compare to other options, I might apply the model of expected value (essentially basic probability). Knowing to use that model is nearly instantaneous, but applying it and calculating the EVs takes time and effort.

In the example above, inversion and expected value are part of a “frequent” or “standard” list of models that I apply to many situations as lenses of analysis. You can generate and implement such a list yourself: it’s basically a way of looking at reality from many different angles. And the more angles you build into your analysis, the more insight you’ll tend to gain when evaluating important decisions.

But sometimes I run into a problem that I haven’t encountered before. There, I might start playing around with different models to see if doing so gives me a foothold. For example, I might analogize and ask, “what if this thing were a rock and were exposed to incredible pressure over a geologic period of time? How might it change?” Or: “What might happen if I were able to evolve this (idea, system, etc.) over many generations by deselecting unfit parts of it over several generations?” (Essentially applying the model of Darwinian evolution.) Such applications can take hours or could happen in several sessions over days, weeks, months, or even years.

In the last example, it can be helpful to collect, list, and organize the key mental models from as many disciplines as possible, and either run down the list and apply each one to gain insight; pick one at random to apply; or just go with your gut if one feels right to apply. Inspiration and play can and do inform the process!

As a final example, I might have domain-specific models and routines that I apply. If I’m evaluating an appellate law case, I might use the models of timeliness, preservation, waiver, and a series of models specific to prospective-clients (conflict of interest, ability to pay, use of past attorneys, personality) to evaluate whether the case is one I can take and one that I should take. Then, if the client wants a contingency fee agreement, I would apply the model of expected value and then a series of domain-specific models to evaluate probability of success and the probable amount of my fee at the end of the day. Knowing the models to apply and how to apply them is a matter of expertise, which we develop through a combination of study, experience, past failures, and systematic efforts and modifications to improve performance in the future. Some models apply often, some rarely; and sometimes even the same model can either be applied almost instantly or else require a slow, methodical, and laborious process — a process that itself might require the application of other “sub-models”.

I hope my answer has gone in the direction that you intended, and that it is somewhat helpful to you.