shishiqiushi-sigao

R — Original Text (Reading)

"To fully reflect the entire thing, its essence, and its internal laws, it is necessary to go through a process of thinking, to transform and process rich sensory materials by discarding the dross and selecting the essential, separating the false from the true, connecting the dots, and seeing the essence through the appearance, to form a system of concepts and theories, and to leap from perceptual knowledge to rational knowledge." — On Practice (July 1937)

I — Methodology Framework (Interpretation)

1. Original information (user feedback, data reports, market observations) is only "sensory materials" and does not equal cognition. It must be actively processed to become a basis for decision-making.
2. Processing is divided into four progressive steps, none of which can be skipped:
   • Discard the dross and select the essential: Filter out noise and retain key signals. Only 50 out of 1000 feedbacks may be valuable.
   • Separate the false from the true: Identify and eliminate false/distorted data. Water army comments, self-indulgent research, and polished reports are all false information.
   • Connect the dots: Establish connections. Causal and correlational relationships between user feedback and usage data, between competitor dynamics and market trends.
   • See the essence through the appearance: Dig from surface phenomena to underlying laws. The deep meaning behind "users say they want X" is "users actually need Y".
3. The four steps are not completed in one go but iterated repeatedly. Each iteration deepens cognition.
4. Skipping the previous steps to jump to conclusions ("I think it's just like this") is subjectivism; stopping after only the first two steps (having clean data but no insights) is empiricism.

A1 — Applications in Works (Past Application)

Application 1: On Protracted War — Refining strategic judgments from chaotic intelligence

• Problem: In the early stage of the War of Resistance Against Japan, information was chaotic—some said China was doomed, some said victory could be achieved in three months, and battlefield news was mixed.
• Method Application: Mao Zedong processed all information about China and Japan using the four steps: discard the dross and select the essential (filter emotional remarks, retain hard data) -> separate the false from the true (exclude false battle reports and exaggerated propaganda) -> connect the dots (establish correlational analysis of the two sides' strengths/weaknesses, size, progress/regression, more support/less support) -> see the essence through the appearance (dig from surface military strength comparison to underlying laws of war nature, popular support, and international structure).
• Conclusion: Three stages of protracted war, and final victory belongs to China.
• Result: The prediction in On Protracted War was basically verified by the actual process of the eight-year war.

Application 2: Rectify Our Study — Promote cognitive upgrading with comparative methods

• Problem: Party cadres treated information with a subjectivist attitude—drawing conclusions without investigation, making judgments by cutting off history.
• Method Application: Mao Zedong proposed that "seeking truth from facts" means "facts" = all objective things that exist, "truth" = internal connections of things, "seek" = to research. He used vivid metaphors of "reed on the wall/bamboo shoot in the mountain" to let cadres self-check the quality of information processing.
• Conclusion: Only information processed through "seeking truth from facts" can serve as a basis for decision-making.
• Result: Rectify Our Study became a programmatic document for the Yan'an Rectification Movement, promoting the whole Party's transformation from subjectivism to seeking truth from facts.

A2 — Trigger Scenarios (Future Trigger)

1. Flood of user feedback: After product launch, a large number of user feedback is received, mixing emotional complaints and rational suggestions. Users may say: "Users are saying all kinds of things" "Too much feedback to go through" "Don't know which to listen to and which not to".
2. Data conflicts: Different data sources provide conflicting signals—sales say the market is good but retention data is declining, users say they are satisfied but renewal rate is dropping. Users may say: "Data is conflicting" "Don't know which data to trust".
3. Overload of competitor information: Competitor dynamics are frequent, industry reports are too many, with large information volume but few actionable conclusions. Users may say: "Read a lot of reports but don't know the conclusion" "Competitor information is too messy".
4. Distorted reports: Subordinates report "only good news, no bad news", data is polished, and real problems are covered up. Users may say: "Always feel the reported content is not true" "Data looks good but problems are hidden".
5. Insufficient decision-making information: Need to make judgments with incomplete information, and infer from limited clues. Users may say: "Not enough information but must make a decision" "Only can judge based on these clues".

• vs Investigation Research Method: This skill = information processing (what to do after obtaining raw materials), the latter = information collection (how to obtain good raw materials)
• vs Practical Epistemology: This skill = technology for single-round cognitive processing, the latter = philosophical framework for multi-round cycles
• vs Contradiction Analysis Method: This skill = general steps for information processing, the latter = analysis framework for finding bottlenecks

E — Executable Steps (Execution)

Step 1: Discard the dross and select the essential + Separate the false from the true (Information Cleaning)

• List the source of all original information. Label each piece of information with: (1) Source credibility (2) Whether cross-verification is possible (3) Whether it is emotional/subjective.
• Filter out: Emotional expressions, unverifiable single-source information, obviously polished/denigrated data. Retain: Cross-verifiable hard data, signals consistently pointed to by multiple sources.
• Completion standard: The volume of original information is reduced to less than 20%, and all remaining information has source labels and credibility ratings.

Step 2: Connect the dots (Establish Connections)

• Classify cleaned information by dimensions (user side/product side/market side/competition side), and find cross-dimensional correlations and causal chains.
• Draw an information correlation diagram: A changes -> B changes -> C changes, and identify key transmission paths.
• Completion standard: At least 3 cross-dimensional correlation relationships are found, and each correlation is supported by at least 2 independent pieces of evidence.

Step 3: See the essence through the appearance (Dig into Essence)

• Ask "why" at least 3 times for each key correlation: Why do users do this? Because ___. Why ___? Because ___. Why ___?
• Distinguish surface needs (what users say) from deep needs (what users actually need), and confirm that you have found the latter.
• Stop point: If after 3 rounds of questioning it still only repeats the surface reason "because users like/dislike", it means the information depth is insufficient, and you need to return to Step 1 to supplement deeper information (user interviews instead of questionnaire data).
• Completion standard: Produce a "surface-deep" comparison table, and each deep insight can guide a specific action decision.

B — Boundaries (Boundary)

Scenarios not to use

1. When information is already clear: If data is already structured and causal chains are clear, there is no need to go through the four-step method; make decisions directly.
2. When quick response is needed: Use intuition and experience to make immediate judgments in emergencies, and review with the four-step method afterwards.
3. Creative work: Scenarios requiring divergent thinking such as design and creativity—four-step method will suppress creativity.

Failure modes (from counterexamples)

• Stereotyped Party Writing (ce08): Information processing becomes a formalistic performance—reports get longer but lack core conclusions, list phenomena with A/B/C/D but lack causal analysis. "Put on airs to intimidate people"—use authoritative tone instead of real analysis.
• Empiricism (ce02): Stop at the "discard the dross and select the essential" stage, satisfied with clean original data but not conducting in-depth thinking of "connecting the dots, seeing the essence through the appearance". The result is having data but no insights.
• Misled by surface phenomena (ce23): Skip the "see the essence through the appearance" step, treat temporary phenomena as long-term trends. One defeat leads to thinking "it's all over", one victory leads to thinking "unstoppable".

Author's blind spot

• Mao Zedong emphasized "seeking truth from facts" but believed false per-mu yield data during the Great Leap Forward (the "separate the false from the true" step failed). Lesson: The position and wishes of information processors will affect the judgment of "separating the false"—the more you want to believe in information, the more strictly you need to verify it.

Related Skills

• Practical Epistemology (composes-with): The "seeking truth from facts" information processing method is a specific operational technique for the leap from "perceptual knowledge → rational knowledge" in practical epistemology. Practical epistemology provides the overall framework for cognitive cycles, while the four-step "seeking truth from facts" method provides specific steps for information processing in a single cycle.
• Investigation Research Method (composes-with): The investigation research method is responsible for "collecting high-quality first-hand information" (raw material acquisition), while the "seeking truth from facts" information processing method is responsible for "processing raw materials into decision-making basis" (raw material processing). First conduct investigation and collection, then process with "seeking truth from facts", forming a complete information processing chain.