Let me be honest with you about something.
For a long time, I thought I was a good thinker. I journaled. I made lists. I held brainstorming sessions where I’d fill whiteboards with sticky notes and walk away feeling like I’d done something serious. And then, a few days later, I’d realise I was still stuck with the same problem — just surrounded by more colourful paper.
The issue wasn’t effort. I was trying hard. The issue was depth.
There’s a version of thinking most of us do on autopilot. It feels like thinking; it looks like thinking, but it’s really just our brain reshuffling the same deck it’s always used. We stay in our comfort zone mentally — pulling from the same experiences, the same frameworks, the same emotional reactions — and then wonder why our solutions keep looking like slightly modified versions of what we tried last time.
Brainstorming helps you move faster. But moving faster in the wrong direction is still getting lost. What changes everything is learning to go deeper — not quicker.
These seven techniques genuinely rewired how I approach hard problems. Not overnight. But they work, and they’re worth your time.
1. Inversion Thinking: Deliberately Imagine Things Going Badly Wrong
Here’s something Charlie Munger — one of the sharpest minds in modern investing — has said in different ways over decades: if you want to succeed at something, first spend serious time figuring out how you’d guarantee failure at it.
That sounds strange. Why would you think about failure when you’re trying to win?
Because your brain lies to you about obstacles. When you think forward — “What steps will lead me to success?” — your mind naturally gravitates toward optimistic, idealised paths. It underweights the messy, embarrassing, boring stuff that actually derails people.
Inversion forces you to look directly at the messy stuff.
Try it almost. Say you need to start a contract-writing business. Forward thinking produces a to-do list — build a portfolio, reach out to customers, and set your costs. Fine. But inversion asks: what would definitely kill this before it gets off the ground? Suddenly you’re thinking about the fact that you have no financial runway, so you’ll panic and underprice yourself within two months. You’re thinking about how you hate cold outreach, so you’ll keep “preparing” instead of actually sending emails. You’re thinking about the one difficult client who will make you want to quit entirely.
Those aren’t pessimistic thoughts. They’re the actual problems. The ones inversion found that optimism would have buried.
Spend 15 minutes on this the next time you’re planning anything important. List every realistic way it fails. Then build your strategy around preventing those things first.
2. First Principles Reasoning: Question Every Assumption You’ve Inherited
Most of what we believe about how things work came from someone else. A teacher, an industry, a tradition, and a “that’s just how it’s done”. We absorb these assumptions so early and so thoroughly that they stop feeling like assumptions. They start feeling like facts.
First principles reasoning is the practice of interrogating every one of those inherited beliefs until you find bedrock — something you can actually verify from scratch.
The example that made this click for me was Elon Musk’s thinking on electric vehicles. For years, the auto industry’s logic went: battery packs cost around $600 per kilowatt-hour, so affordable electric cars are impossible. Musk didn’t accept that. He broke the battery down into its raw components — lithium, cobalt, nickel, and aluminium — looked up what those materials actually traded for on commodity markets, and found the number came out to roughly $80 per kilowatt-hour. The rest of the cost was manufacturing inefficiency and supply chain markup that nobody had seriously challenged.
Once you see it that way, the question stops being “why are EVs expensive?” and becomes “why is nobody rethinking the manufacturing process?”
That shift — from accepting conclusions to questioning the reasoning underneath them — is what first principles gives you.
A good way to start: take any belief you hold about your industry, your problem, or your situation, and ask “where did this come from?” If the honest answer is “Everyone assumes this” or “I read it somewhere years ago”—that’s your invitation to dig.
3. Steelmanning: Get Inside the Head of People You Disagree With
Steelmanning is the discipline of constructing the strongest possible version of a viewpoint you currently reject — and then genuinely defending it.
Not reluctantly. Not with scare quotes and eye-rolls. Actually defending it as you believe it.
This is uncomfortable, which is exactly why it’s powerful.
When we think about views we disagree with, we almost always reach for the weakest version — the version held by the least informed, least thoughtful person on that side. It’s easier to dismiss. It lets us feel smart without doing real work. But with this additional approach, we in no way, in reality, comprehend what we’re disagreeing with.
Here’s the take to look at: are you able to explain, in simple language, why sensible and affordable human beings maintain the other view? Not “a few human beings think…” but truly walking through their common sense, their evidence, and their lived experience that makes their function make sense?
If you cannot, you do not completely apprehend the problem. You only understand your side of it.
Try this exercise: the next time you have a strong conviction about something — a business decision, a political view, a relationship dynamic — write one full paragraph arguing the opposite position. Make it good. Make it the strongest version of that argument you can construct.
What you’ll find is one of two things. Either your original position holds up better when tested this way. Or you realise it had more holes in it than you thought. Either outcome is useful.
4. The Five Whys: Keep Digging When Your First Answer Feels Sufficient
Toyota’s production system gave the world a lot of things. One of the most underrated is this deceptively simple method developed by the company’s founder, Sakichi Toyoda: when a problem appears, ask why it happened. Then take that answer and ask why again. And again — until you’ve gone five layers deep.
The chain matters more than the number. Here’s what it looks like in real life:
My innovative task has stalled. Why? I haven’t sat all the way down to work on it in three weeks. Why? Because I hardly have power for it at night, but I’ve been staying up watching TV. Why? Because I feel overstimulated after work and want to decompress. Why? Because my activity includes regular interaction and I have no quiet time during the day. Why? Because I never protected my lunch break, and it got colonised by meetings.
The surface problem looked like a discipline issue. The real problem is a structural one — a calendar and boundary problem. Those require completely different solutions. “Try harder to be disciplined” wouldn’t have fixed anything. Reclaim your lunch hour” might actually work.
Most of us stop at the first or second why because the later answers are less comfortable. They implicate our choices, our systems, and sometimes other people. But that discomfort is the signal — it means you’ve hit something real.
5. Analogical Thinking: Steal Brilliant Solutions From Unexpected Places
Every field has accumulated knowledge. Most people only draw from their own.
Analogical thinking is the habit of asking, ‘Has some version of my current problem already been solved somewhere else – even in a completely unrelated field?’
History is full of examples in which the great answer came from nowhere close to the apparent vicinity. George de Mestral, a Swiss engineer, invented Velcro after spending too much time selecting burr seeds off his dog’s coat during hikes. He looked at the seeds underneath a microscope, understood the hook-and-loop mechanism, and spent the subsequent decade identifying a way to reflect it in material. The problem he solved — strong but reversible fastening — had been waiting in nature for millions of years. He just knew to look.
The Wright Brothers were not skilled aeronautical engineers. They were bicycle mechanics who studied birds and tried to recognise wing-warping. Nature had been flying long before humans tried to copy it.
The bridge between fields is usually a structural similarity — two problems that look nothing alike on the surface but share the same underlying shape.
To use this in practice, discover ways to describe your trouble in the most usual, area-impartial manner possible. Instead of “how do I get more email subscribers?” Strive: “How do I get strangers to commit to a relationship with something they slightly understand?” That framing opens up everything — trust psychology, product sampling, speed dating, trial memberships. You now have a much wider solution space to borrow from.
6. Deliberate Constraints: Remove Options Until the Interesting Ones Appear
This one will feel counterintuitive if you’ve ever been told that good ideas need space and freedom to emerge. They don’t, actually. They need pressure.
When you can do anything, your brain picks the easiest thing. It goes for the first available answer, the familiar template, the solution you’ve already used before. That’s not laziness — it’s performance. Your mind would not waste energy on issues that seem solvable with much less effort.
Constraints break that pattern. When the easy alternatives are off the table, your mind has no desire, however, to go somewhere it hasn’t been.
Dr Seuss wrote Green Eggs and Ham on a bet. His editor wagered he couldn’t write a kids’ ebook using a vocabulary of the 50 most effective phrases. Seuss took the bet. The result became one of the best-selling children’s books ever written. The constraint didn’t limit the creativity — it forced a different kind of creativity entirely.
Formula 1 racing has demonstrated this for decades. Every time the FIA bans a dominant technical design, teams don’t just rebuild what they had with different materials. They innovate in directions they never explored when the old solution was available.
Your version of this: pick one meaningful constraint and apply it to a problem you’re currently wrestling with. Cut your budget in half and see what you actually need versus what you’ve assumed you need. Set a hard word limit on the proposal and discover which parts you actually believe. Pretend your most relied-upon tool doesn’t exist and see what you build instead.
7. Socratic Questioning: Be Your Own Toughest Interviewer
Socrates spent his life asking questions. Not providing answers — asking questions. He would corner people who seemed very certain about something, and through a series of precise, patient questions, he would help them discover that their certainty was sitting on a foundation of unexamined assumptions.
It worked so well that Athens eventually put him on trial for it.
The same method, turned inward, is one of the most powerful tools to be had for all of us trying to think more clearly.
The core move is straightforward: when you observe yourself holding a sturdy perception or making an assured choice, slow down and go observe it in the manner a sceptical buddy might.
Ask: What precisely am I claiming right here, and have I been precise about it? Ask: What might change my mind about this? Ask: What’s the exceptional proof towards my position, and how much have I considered it? Ask, ‘If I’m wrong, what would that seem like from the outside? ‘
Most folks keep away from those questions, not because we cannot ask them but because we do not want to. A notion you have held for a long time seems like part of you. Questioning it feels risky. Socratic questioning asks you to sit in that soreness long enough to discover if the belief definitely holds.
The payoff is real: the choices that continue to exist in this form of interrogation are simply strong. The ones that don’t survive it were always going to fail eventually – it’s better to find out now.
Why None of This Is Quick (And Why That’s the Point)
I won’t pretend these techniques are easy or fast. They’re not designed to be.
Brainstorming is fast. It gives you a feeling of productivity – a whiteboard full of ideas, a notebook page covered in bullet points – and then it lets you go back to normal. That’s its appeal and its limitation.
Deep wondering is slower, messier, and more ego-threatening. It asks you to question what you observed you already know, shield what you would as an alternative dismiss, and dig into issues long past the point where a first answer is regarded. It feels less like progress and more like getting lost inside a problem.
But that’s the feeling. Underneath it, something different is happening. You’re not simply locating a solution—you’re understanding the problem in a way you couldn’t before. And the solutions that come from that sort of information are qualitatively unique from the ones that come from a short brainstorm.
Pick one of these seven techniques. Apply it to something real — a decision you’re sitting on, a problem that keeps coming back, a belief you’ve never examined. See what happens to your thinking when you go one layer deeper than you normally would.
That layer is where the actually useful stuff lives.
+ There are no comments
Add yours