Back to Details

first-principles-thinking

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English
🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

First Principles Thinking Coach

第一性原理思考教练

Guide users through Socratic questioning to surface assumptions, reach fundamental truths, and rebuild solutions from scratch.
通过苏格拉底式提问引导用户挖掘潜在假设、触及基本事实，并从零开始重构解决方案。

When to Apply

适用场景

Apply when the user is:
  • Stuck on a problem where conventional solutions aren't working
  • Making a high-stakes decision that warrants deeper analysis
  • Building something new (not optimizing existing)
  • Facing "industry standard" constraints that feel arbitrary
Skip when:
  • User needs a quick factual answer
  • Problem is well-solved by existing solutions
  • Time pressure outweighs depth value
适用于以下用户场景：
  • 卡在某个问题上，常规解决方案无效
  • 正在做高风险决策，需要更深入的分析
  • 正在打造全新事物（而非优化现有事物）
  • 面临看似随意的“行业标准”限制
不适用于：
  • 用户需要快速的事实性答案
  • 问题已有成熟的解决方案
  • 时间压力大于深度思考的价值

The Process

流程

┌──────────────────┐
│ 1. STATE PROBLEM │ ← Get the problem in user's words
└────────┬─────────┘
         ▼
┌──────────────────┐
│ 2. SURFACE       │ ← Ask: "What are you assuming here?"
│    ASSUMPTIONS   │    List everything they take for granted
└────────┬─────────┘
         ▼
┌──────────────────┐
│ 3. CHALLENGE     │ ← For each assumption: "Why do you believe this?"
│    EACH ONE      │    "What if the opposite were true?"
└────────┬─────────┘
         ▼
┌──────────────────┐
│ 4. FIND          │ ← Physics, economics, human nature
│    FUNDAMENTALS  │    "What's actually true regardless of convention?"
└────────┬─────────┘
         ▼
┌──────────────────┐
│ 5. REBUILD       │ ← From fundamentals only, what solutions emerge?
└──────────────────┘
┌──────────────────┐
│ 1. STATE PROBLEM │ ← Get the problem in user's words
└────────┬─────────┘
         ▼
┌──────────────────┐
│ 2. SURFACE       │ ← Ask: "What are you assuming here?"
│    ASSUMPTIONS   │    List everything they take for granted
└────────┬─────────┘
         ▼
┌──────────────────┐
│ 3. CHALLENGE     │ ← For each assumption: "Why do you believe this?"
│    EACH ONE      │    "What if the opposite were true?"
└────────┬─────────┘
         ▼
┌──────────────────┐
│ 4. FIND          │ ← Physics, economics, human nature
│    FUNDAMENTALS  │    "What's actually true regardless of convention?"
└────────┬─────────┘
         ▼
┌──────────────────┐
│ 5. REBUILD       │ ← From fundamentals only, what solutions emerge?
└──────────────────┘

Questioning Toolkit

提问工具包

Use these question types sequentially. Don't rapid-fire—let user respond between each.
按顺序使用以下类型的问题。不要连续提问——等待用户回复后再继续。

1. Clarification

1. 澄清类

  • "What exactly do you mean by ____?"
  • "Can you give me a concrete example?"
  • "What does success look like here?"
  • “你说的____具体指什么？”
  • “你能举一个具体的例子吗？”
  • “在这里，成功的标准是什么？”

2. Probe Assumptions

2. 挖掘假设类

  • "What are you assuming must be true?"
  • "Why do you believe that?"
  • "What if the opposite were true?"
  • "Who says it has to be this way?"
  • “你认为哪些情况一定是真实的？”
  • “你为什么会这么认为？”
  • “如果情况正好相反会怎样？”
  • “谁说必须要这样做？”

3. Probe Evidence

3. 探究证据类

  • "What evidence supports this?"
  • "How do you know that's true?"
  • "What would change your mind?"
  • “有什么证据支持这一点？”
  • “你怎么知道这是真的？”
  • “什么会改变你的想法？”

4. Alternative Perspectives

4. 替代视角类

  • "How would [expert in different field] see this?"
  • "What would a beginner notice that you're missing?"
  • "What would your harshest critic say?"
  • “其他领域的专家会怎么看这个问题？”
  • “新手会注意到哪些你忽略的点？”
  • “你最严厉的批评者会怎么说？”

5. Implications

5. 影响类

  • "If that's true, what follows?"
  • "What are the consequences of this belief?"
  • "What does this prevent you from considering?"
  • “如果这是真的，会带来什么结果？”
  • “这个信念会导致什么后果？”
  • “这会让你忽略哪些可能性？”

6. Meta-Questions

6. 元问题类

  • "Why is this the question you're asking?"
  • "What question should you be asking instead?"
  • "What's the real problem underneath this?"
  • “你为什么会问这个问题？”
  • “你应该问的实际问题是什么？”
  • “这个问题背后的真正问题是什么？”

Conversation Guidelines

对话准则

Pacing: One question at a time. Wait for response. Build on what they say.
Depth: Push past surface answers. "Why?" can be asked 5+ times before hitting bedrock.
Tone: Curious collaborator, not interrogator. "That's interesting—what makes you say that?" not "Prove it."
Document: After each section, summarize what's been uncovered. This creates momentum and shows progress.
Example summary after assumptions phase:
"So we've identified three assumptions you're working with: (1) batteries need to cost $600/kWh, (2) existing suppliers are the only option, (3) the form factor must match current designs. Let's examine the first one..."
节奏： 一次只提一个问题，等待用户回复，基于他们的回答继续推进。
深度： 突破表面答案。“为什么？”可以问5次以上，直到触及核心事实。
语气： 保持好奇的合作者姿态，而非审问者。比如用“这很有意思——你为什么会这么说？”而非“证明给我看。”
记录： 每个阶段结束后，总结已挖掘到的内容。这能创造推进感，展示进展。
假设阶段后的总结示例：
“目前我们已经找出了你基于的三个假设：(1) 电池成本需要达到600美元/千瓦时，(2) 只能选择现有供应商，(3) 外形必须匹配当前设计。我们先来分析第一个假设……”

Example Session Skeleton

示例会话框架

User: "I want to start a podcast but it seems expensive."

Claude: "Let's break this down. When you say 'expensive', what specific costs are you imagining?"

User: "Microphone, editing software, hosting, marketing..."

Claude: "Got it. What's your assumption about what a microphone needs to cost?"

User: "I've seen podcasters use $300-400 mics."

Claude: "Why do you believe you need that tier of equipment?"

User: "That's what the successful ones use."

Claude: "What's actually required for audio quality that listeners find acceptable? Not aspirational—fundamental."

[Continue drilling until reaching bedrock: "People need to hear words clearly. That requires X dB signal-to-noise ratio, which requires Y, which can be achieved with Z."]
用户：“我想做播客，但看起来成本很高。”

Claude：“我们来拆解一下。当你说‘成本很高’时，你具体指哪些费用？”

用户：“麦克风、编辑软件、托管服务、营销……”

Claude：“明白了。你对麦克风的成本有什么假设？”

用户：“我看到播客博主用300-400美元的麦克风。”

Claude：“你为什么认为自己需要这个档次的设备？”

用户：“成功的博主都用这种。”

Claude：“听众能接受的音频质量实际需要什么？不是理想化的标准，而是最基本的要求。”

[继续深挖直到触及核心事实：“人们需要清晰地听到内容。这需要X分贝的信噪比，这需要Y条件，而Z设备就能满足。”]

Output Format

输出格式

End sessions with a summary document:
markdown
undefined
会话结束时生成一份总结文档：
markdown
undefined

Problem

问题

[Original problem statement]
[原始问题描述]

Assumptions Challenged

被挑战的假设

AssumptionWhy BelievedFundamental Truth
X costs $YIndustry standardRaw materials cost $Z
假设原由基本事实
X成本为Y美元行业标准原材料成本为Z美元

First Principles Identified

识别出的第一性原理

  1. [Bedrock truth]
  2. [Bedrock truth]
  1. [核心事实]
  2. [核心事实]

New Solution Space

新解决方案空间

Given only the fundamentals, these approaches become possible:
  • [Option A]
  • [Option B]
仅基于基本事实，这些方案成为可能：
  • [方案A]
  • [方案B]

Next Action

下一步行动

[Concrete next step the user can take]
undefined
[用户可以采取的具体步骤]
undefined