你想成为一个有深度的思考者吗？看到那些总是能处乱不惊，一针见血，直击本质，一鸣惊人的人，是不是偶尔也会羡慕？如果你曾试图模仿他们。
会发现自己只不过是在东施小平假装思考，永远替代不了真正的思考。其根本原因在于你所看到的这些都只是表现出来的结果。
重点问题在于他们是如何思考的。比如老婆年薪百万，你要不要当全职爸爸？一般人看到这个问题，本能的反应会是要好处是什么什么。
要坏处是什么什么，其实啊这都是非常初级的线性思考。真正的高手看到这类问题会如何思考呢？其实看起来悬壶的深度思考。
是有机可循的，它包括从个体到整体，从单一要素到系统思考，从现象到本质逐步深入层层递进的过程。
当然这些方法看起来还是很抽象，但是思考的本质就是从具体到抽象的还原过程。老婆年薪百万，你要不要当全职爸爸？
真正的高手思考问题往往有三个特征，第一，从个体到整体，第二从单要素到系统思考。第三，从现象到本质。第一个。
从个体到整体，意思是你讨论的对象不仅要包括丈夫、老婆或者孩子中的任何一个个体，还要把整个家庭系统作为一个整体。
去考虑他们的利害关系，任何一方的获益都可能带来另一方的让步，这是需要平衡的。第二，单个要素到系统思考。
是指不仅要考虑这些对象某一方面的影响，还需要动态的考虑这些对象之间的相互关系的变化。比如丈夫做了全职爸爸之后。
妈妈和孩子的亲密关系会不会发生转变？这种转变是好是坏呢？有没有什么对策来平衡？第三，从现象到本质是指。
我们探讨问题啊，不仅仅停留在问题的细节本身，而是要看到这个问题背后所覆盖的问题。即便老婆不是年薪百万，那这个问题所映射出来的哲理对自己的生活有没有启示？
那我们在讨论要不要当全职爸爸的时候，背后是不是隐藏着全职妈妈就很合理的隐含假设。我们是不是本质上在讨论。
家庭角色分工和内心价值排序的问题呢，当然每个人都会得出不同的结论，这取决于你自己的经历和价值观。
重要的是，只要你开始这样思考问题，就已经渐渐远离了简单的线性思考的困局，成为一个会深度思考的人。
前提是摆脱本能的线性的、碎片化的思考方式问题啊，就像一个迷宫。而当你习惯于这样的思考，就等同于。
掌握了迷宫的地图看。
Do you want to be a deep thinker? Seeing those who are always able to deal with chaos without surprises, hit the nail on the head, hit the essence, and blockbuster people, do you occasionally envy them? If you have tried to imitate them.
You will find that you are just pretending to think in Dong Shi Xiaoping, and can never replace real thinking. The fundamental reason is that what you see is just a manifestation of the results.
The key question is how they think. For example, if your wife earns one million a year, do you want to be a full-time dad? When most people see this problem, their instinctive reaction will be what are the benefits.
What is the disadvantage? In fact, this is all very basic linear thinking. How would a real master think about this type of problem? In fact, it looks like a deep thinking about hanging pots.
It is organically followable, and it includes the process from individual to whole, from single element to systematic thinking, and from phenomenon to essence.
Of course, these methods still seem very abstract, but the essence of thinking is the reduction process from concrete to abstract. My wife earns a million a year, do you want to be a full-time dad?
The real master thinking problem often has three characteristics, first, from the individual to the whole, and second, from the single element to the system thinking. Third, from the phenomenon to the essence. First.
From individual to whole, it means that the object of your discussion should not only include any individual among the husband, wife or children, but also the entire family system as a whole.
To consider their interests, the gains of any one party may bring concessions to the other party, which needs to be balanced. Second, single factor to system thinking.
It means not only to consider the influence of one aspect of these objects, but also to dynamically consider the changes in the relationship between these objects. For example, after the husband became a full-time father.
Will the close relationship between mother and child change? Is this change good or bad? Are there any countermeasures to balance? Third, it refers to from the phenomenon to the essence.
When we discuss the problem, we should not only stop at the details of the problem itself, but also see the problems covered behind the problem. Even if the wife does not earn one million a year, does the philosophy reflected in this question have any enlightenment for one's own life?
So when we are discussing whether to be a full-time dad, is there a reasonable implicit assumption behind whether there is a full-time mom. Are we essentially discussing.
Regarding the division of family roles and the ranking of inner values, of course everyone will come to different conclusions, depending on your own experience and values.
The important thing is that as soon as you start thinking about problems in this way, you have gradually moved away from the dilemma of simple linear thinking and become a person who can think deeply.
The premise is to get rid of the instinctive linear and fragmented way of thinking, like a maze. And when you are used to thinking like this, it's the same.
Master the map of the maze.