To improve our logical expression and solve confusion and disorganization in thinking, first, we need to understand a term: Structured Thinking.

Benefits of Structured Thinking

Structured thinking is a concept proposed by McKinsey & Company, it discusses an organized and systematic approach. McKinsey has a very famous principle called the Pyramid Principle, which even has an associated book.

What does it mean? Simply put, they believe that anything can be boiled down to a central thesis, which can be supported by three to seven arguments.

These primary arguments themselves can also be a thesis, then supported by second-level arguments branching out into shapes like a pyramid, hence the name “Pyramid Principle”.

For every layer of the pyramid, there is a particularly stringent requirement called ‘MECE’, which stands for mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive. In other words, these arguments must be independent of each other, not overlapping, but when put together, they are completely exhaustive and leave no room for omission.

The principle of ‘no omission’ ensures accuracy. As McKinsey provides consulting services and helps identify problems in other companies, nothing can be missed. By ‘not overlapping’, unnecessary efforts can be avoided.

Therefore, when they write something, especially when they write consultation reports, they have to write in accordance with the MECE principle.

In the process of speaking, when we argue a point, we don’t necessarily need to exhaust it without omission, but this structure is very classic.

For instance, if my colleague is familiar with the pyramid structure, he would use another method when reporting to me.

He might say: ‘Look, this is our sales situation last month. Whether it is good or bad.’ As a boss, what I am worried about is the performance last month, overall, is it good or bad, give me the point first.

Then you can provide the evidence. The reason for the poor performance is that we had fewer promotional activities last month and only had three, shown as the three rises in this graph.

And we also had a big drop, which is the second argument, and then tell me why.

Expressing it in the structure of the pyramid enables me to patiently listen and feel that he has shared the key points I want to know in a timely manner.

The pyramid structure is indeed a classic and useful one, mastering the pyramid structure can help those who are verbose, without a focus or level in speaking, to basically handle most situations in life.

Whether you have to report to the company, or discuss where humans come from and what the meaning of life is, you can use the pyramid structure to describe and express these. Even if you decide what to eat in the morning and what to buy when you go shopping, you can use the pyramid structure to express it.

If time is insufficient and the listener is impatient, when you speak, just state what your central thesis is, and then mention the primary argument.

If there is enough time and we have to make a detailed report, we may need to clarify the secondary or even tertiary arguments.

Expressing in this way ensures that at least you can clearly state what you mean. Therefore, the pyramid principle is definitely a weapon in our communication, dialogue and writing.

Under this principle, we only need to remember two sentences:

• Conclusion first, state the central thesis first.

• The arguments are independent of each other and do not overlap.

If you remember these two, we can basically speak more structured, layered and clear when expressing.

How important it is to express in a structured way, because speaking is linear, meaning it passes as soon as you finish listening to a word, so if you speak particularly randomly, it is difficult for others to understand.

It would be best if you had an expression structure while speaking, which is related to the characteristics of speech.

But the second reason I’m sharing today is that when we think about things, for example, when I ask you: Why do people get married?

Your brain is actually fragmented in thinking, you may think: marriage is for having children, if you get married, you can find someone to spend your life with.

All of these are fragmentary, messy, your thoughts in your brain are strung together.

So, you need to have a structured way of thinking, pick out a structure for those thoughts, first state what your main view is, and then discard some of the less important bits, laying out the important arguments one by one.

Only by expressing in this way can you clear up your thoughts and let others understand your true thoughts.

This is actually related to our way of thinking and the process of our own thinking, so you must have structured thinking, and then you can express in a structured manner.

Three Steps to Train Structured Thinking.

So, how should we train this kind of thinking? There are three steps.

The first step is called Chunking.

First, you need to have the ability to chunk. This ability of chunking is not only related to your expression, but also related to your reading comprehension and your memory ability. In my opinion, all these three abilities need to use chunking.

For example, we just said that the pyramid structure can help you solve small problems in life, such as what to buy when you go to the supermarket today?

You might say: I go to the supermarket, I want to buy coriander, I want to buy ginger, I want to buy cooking wine, buy cabbage, buy tomatoes, and buy some oranges.

If you say it this way, it’s hard for others to remember, and it doesn’t seem clear.

You should say: I am going to buy three things at the supermarket today. Firstly, I need to buy condiments, secondly, I need to buy vegetables, thirdly, I need to buy fruits. So when I get to the supermarket, I need to go around by each area.

If you express it this way to me, I will understand more clearly.

These are all details of life. We may not notice them usually, but the expression of chunking is indeed clearer.

What are the standards for chunking?

The standard we just used for chunking is category, which is the first one.

Time can also be used as a standard for chunking. For example, if I ask you: what did you eat today?

Then you can tell me: I ate steamed buns and porridge this morning, I ate something for lunch, and something for dinner.

This way of expression is chunking according to time.

Also, when my colleague reports to me about our company’s sales last month, he can report to me in this way. Firstly, the categories of what we did well and what we did not do well last month; and also chunk by time, the sales situation last month could be broken down into three stages.

Do you find that expressing it this way is clearer?

So, the ability to chunk is the basis of our structured thinking.

This is the first one, called the ability to chunk, and the process of chunking can not only help you express more clearly, but also help you make trade-offs. In fact, there are a lot of unimportant details, and you will find that these can’t be included in your chunks.

For example, in our last month, there were three good places and four not-so-good places. But some mediocrities were discarded and not worth mentioning.

But if you say it all at once from beginning to end, you will say it, and others will find it verbose to listen.

So, the process of chunking can help you make trade-offs and sideline some not-so-important content, then categorize the important content through chunks.

The second step is to Refine.

We have broken down the content into chunks. For example, last month’s sales situation can be divided into three stages: the growth stage, the plateau stage, and the decline stage.

The second thing I need to do is summarize a concise sentence or keyword for each chunk, which is what is the main content of this chunk.

Keywords and brief phrases can remind you of what to talk about when you see these keywords and phrases, and they can make clear the topic of this part, so others can know more clearly what the emphasis is in this part.

So when you express yourself, whether you need to make a PPT or not, many people think that only when I make a PPT, do I need to give each PPT a title to tell others what this chapter is about.

But actually, in the process of speaking, your brain can figure out the theme sentence and key words of this chunk through your training, slowly and without you having to write it down.

The third step is to order.

When you have chunked your content and refined keywords and theme sentences for each chunk, at that point, you need to sort it out in your mind. How should I specifically say it?

Through chunking, refining, and ordering, we have completed a very layered and clear expression.

How does this ability come about?

It is trained through a lot of reading, memorization, and recapitulation.

However, if you are in a hurry, like you are about to make a speech or report, and you are a person who speaks without levels and is verbose, what should you do?

The first method is called drawing your logic diagram.

Think about when we usually argue a topic, for example, this topic is: why I think pigs should be kept as pets.

Then I want to list all the ideas under my viewpoint.

For example, pigs have fur, rabbits have fur, cats have fur, so they are kept as pets. I think pigs have fur, so pigs should also be kept as pets. Pigs are easy to raise, the cost is low, pigs can also be put in a pen, and they don’t need to be walked every day.

In short, list all your ideas, maybe ten, twenty, a lot. It doesn’t matter, list all you can think of.

Draw these thoughts into a mind map, you can use mind mapping tools, or you can use Baidu mind mapping. These are some small pieces of software that are easy to start with.

The advantage of using them is that when you go to delete and move in the next step, it would be easier. If you do it yourself, it is not easy to move back and forth.

So you have to draw all your thoughts into the mind map. After that, the second step is to organize these thoughts and do the chunking.

For example, you can say pigs are cheap to buy. If you buy a dog or a cat, it costs over a thousand dollars. But a pig only costs a few tens of dollars and is also easy to raise. The feed is priced low.

Actually, these all belong to a category. They all say that the cost of raising pigs is low. You need to categorize them together.

So, categorize all your ideas, because while thinking, one thought might encompass another, and it’s also possible that all the ideas are very detailed but they have common points.

You need to organize your thoughts by chunking.

After the organization, you will find that some of the ideas are not very important and can’t be categorized, so you can delete them.

Then the third step is to refine each chunk.

For example, we just mentioned that pigs are cheap to buy, cheap to feed, when pigs get sick, veterinarians for pigs are cheaper than vets for cats, etc.

You refine these thoughts into a point, called “low cost of raising pigs”.

After the “low cost” point is refined, you can think more about whether there are any other cases, any other evidence that you know, or that everyone is familiar with, you can add them as you see fit, depending on the time.

At the last step, look at your viewpoint and the summarized arguments, and do a sequence, that is, which should be said first, and which should be said later.

This is the process of forming an expression, a speech.

Logical Thinking Must Be Applied for Concise Expression.

But have you noticed that these methods I told you can only ensure that you speak clearly, but they cannot guarantee that what you said makes sense.

Taking the pig topic as an example, why should pigs be bred as pets?

You gave three reasons, 1. Pigs are cheaper and the cost of raising them is lower; 2. Pigs can be raised in a pen. If you raise a wild horse, it needs a prairie, you certainly can’t keep it as a pet; 3. Pigs are more aesthetically pleasing, some Dutch pigs are very cute and fun.

So you believe that these three points are the reasons why pigs can be considered as pets.

Indeed, you spoke very clearly, but it is not necessarily convincing. Because pigs are not cheap, and it has little to do with them becoming pets.

You can’t say, just because pigs are quite cheap, we should keep them as pets. In fact, there are many cheap animals, can all be kept as pets?

There might be another reason that is more convincing, pigs are not aggressive. I believe that a condition that must be met to keep a pet is that the pet can not be attacking. You can’t keep a Northeast tiger at home.

So remember, if you want to achieve concise expression, you must at least ensure that the logic is smooth. Many people speak illogically, for example, the other day, I saw a franchise meeting. It was very grand and glorious, but the words spoken by the people on the stage were illogical.

He hoped that the people at the scene would take the distribution of this product and join his company, but he kept saying how difficult it was to manage this brand, under the pressure of everyone, and having gone through hardships. Then finally he said to everyone: I hope you can join me.

I thought: there is no relationship between your viewpoint and your arguments. Whether you have it hard or not, has no connection with whether others should join.

Some of the logical errors when speaking are not so serious, such as appeals to authority. This error is actually a serious logical error.

Is what a certain expert says always right? Or seeing some brand endorsed by celebrities, does endorsement by stars mean it’s good?

Appealing to authority is a logical error, but it is persuasive. The audience will buy your story.

However, if your logical errors are so serious that others find it absurd after listening, or they doubt you and want to challenge you, then you’re done.

Most Common Logical Errors

There are a few serious logical errors that you absolutely should not make.

The first is irrelevance.

The example of the franchise meeting I just mentioned is the first type, called irrelevance.

That is, your story, or your argument, has nothing to do with your theme.

This error may sound childish and foolish, but indeed many people are making it. The story they tell has nothing to do with their ultimate point.

So among all the logical errors, I think this is the most important one, called irrelevance.

The second is false attribution.

The cause and result are mismatched, which can be broken down as follows:

The first situation is a common error, which is attributing multiple causes to a single one.

I read a book before, it said that Taiwanese painter Tsai Chih Chung sleeps at five or six o’clock when the sun sets, gets up at one in the morning, and works until two in the afternoon. He only eats one meal a day and is in good health. Then my friend came to a conclusion: See, eating one meal a day is good for health.

His good health and longevity might have to do with him eating only one meal a day, but there are other reasons.

For example, he has a good mentality, and where he lives is relatively good. So we can’t attribute multiple reasons to a single one. In doing so, people will find you arbitrary, unpersuasive, and logically erroneous.

This is the first situation of false attribution, attributing multiple causes to one cause.

The second situation is treating the accidental as necessary.

For example, this morning when I went out, I made a wish and hoped to make a fortune. Then in the afternoon, I found 100 yuan on the street. Did I pick up the 100 yuan because of the wish I made? This is treating the accidental as necessary. The connection between them is just a coincidence. If you speak to others in this way, they will feel that your logic is flawed.

The third situation of false attribution is “broken cause.”

For example, you say the reason you’re not happy after you grow up is because your parents didn’t treat you well during your childhood. But in fact, you’ve encountered a lot of other things after your childhood. For example, your marriage failed, and your job search didn’t go well — in short, you’ve been out of luck everywhere.

If you use a cause from many years ago that has been disrupted as a reason to explain, others will also think there is a problem when they listen.

These are the three types of false attribution errors we commonly see: attributing multiple causes to a single one, broken cause, and mistaking the accidental for the necessary.

The fourth is “overgeneralization.”

Sometimes, we really want to persuade others so much that we will use some extreme words.

For example, “No man is good.” When people hear this, they subconsciously want to refute you.

And then there is, “Only by following me can you make money.” Can’t you make money following others?

So be careful with these extreme words, do not overgeneralize.

Because, one bad consequence brought by overgeneralizing is that if there is any counterexample in the mind of the person listening to you, they will think you have a problem with your logic and will not believe what you say.

The fifth is “unclear concept.”

For example, I think our company should cultivate more management talents, what is “more”? What is “management talent”?

If you always use such vague and ambiguous concepts to talk, it is easy to have a dispute during the process of communicating with others.

If you are a boss and you speak so ambiguously, in general, your subordinates will not execute and not take responsibility.

These are some of the serious logic mistakes we mentioned. There can be over 20 types of common logical errors, but we can’t go over them one by one today. The most important one is the first one we mentioned today, called irrelevance.

In the process of speaking, we are not able to exhaust all the reasons and evidence, as suggested in McKinsey’s Pyramid Principle.

However, when we speak, we must ensure that there is a connection between our points and evidence. This is the most basic requirement for us to achieve at the level of logic.