3 Simple Habits to Improve Your Critical Thinking

by?Helen Lee Bouygues

A few years ago, a CEO assured me that his company was the market leader. “Clients will not leave for competitors,” he added. “It costs too much for them to switch.” Within weeks, the manufacturing giant Procter & Gamble elected not to renew its contract with the firm. The CEO was shocked — but he shouldn’t have been.

幾年前，一位CEO很有自信地告訴我，他的公司是所在市場(chǎng)的領(lǐng)先者。他還對(duì)我說(shuō)：“客戶是不會(huì)轉(zhuǎn)去競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手那里的，因?yàn)閾Q公司的成本太高了?！比欢坏綆字?，制造業(yè)巨頭寶潔公司卻選擇了不與他的公司續(xù)約。這位CEO對(duì)此震驚不已，但實(shí)際上，這件事不應(yīng)該讓他感到意外。

For more than 20 years, I've helped struggling organizations. Sometimes they reach out because they have been mismanaged. Sometimes they have not stayed in front of changing technologies. In a few cases, members of the senior team were simply negligent. But in my experience, these organizational problems shared a root cause: A lack of critical thinking.

這20多年來(lái)，我一直都在幫助陷入困境的組織。他們會(huì)來(lái)找我，有時(shí)是因?yàn)榻M織的管理不當(dāng)，有時(shí)是因?yàn)樗麄儧]有處在新技術(shù)的前沿，甚至有幾家組織出現(xiàn)了高管團(tuán)隊(duì)成員失職的情況。但是，以我的經(jīng)驗(yàn)來(lái)說(shuō)，這些組織發(fā)生這類問(wèn)題，都是由同一個(gè)根本原因造成的，那就是：批判性思維的缺乏。

Too many business leaders are simply not reasoning through pressing issues, taking the time to evaluate a topic from all sides. Leaders often jump to the first conclusion, whatever the evidence. Even worse, C-suite leaders will just choose the evidence that supports their prior beliefs. A lack of metacognition — or thinking about thinking — is also a major driver, making people simply overconfident.

面對(duì)各種緊急的問(wèn)題，有太多商業(yè)領(lǐng)袖不會(huì)理性地思考，也不會(huì)花時(shí)間從各個(gè)方面進(jìn)行評(píng)估。很多時(shí)候，領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者會(huì)在缺乏確鑿證據(jù)的情況下妄下結(jié)論。更糟的是，有些C級(jí)高管只會(huì)選擇相信那些與他們之前的想法一致的證據(jù)。另一個(gè)主要原因就是元認(rèn)知（對(duì)思考的思考）的缺乏：一旦缺乏了元認(rèn)知，人們就會(huì)變得太過(guò)自信。

The good news is that critical thinking is a learned skill. To help people get better at it, I recently started the nonprofit Reboot Foundation. Based on my personal experience as well some of the work of our researchers, I've pulled together three simple things that you can do to improve your critical thinking skills:

好消息是，批判性思維是一門可習(xí)得的技能。我整理出了三個(gè)簡(jiǎn)單的做法，這些做法是以我個(gè)人的經(jīng)驗(yàn)和我們的研究人員的一些研究成果為根據(jù)的。

1.?Question assumptions /?質(zhì)疑假設(shè)

2.? Reason through logic/?用邏輯進(jìn)行推理

3.? Diversify thought?/?運(yùn)用多元化思維

Now, you might be thinking, “I do that already.” And you probably do, but just not as deliberately and thoroughly as you could. Cultivating these three key habits of mind go a long way in helping you become better at an increasingly desired skill in the job market.

這個(gè)時(shí)候，你可能會(huì)想：“這些方法，我已經(jīng)在用了呀！”就算如此，你也有可能用得不夠刻意、不夠徹底。如今，批判性思維能力受到了越來(lái)越多雇主的青睞；只要培養(yǎng)起這三個(gè)重要的思維習(xí)慣，你將能有效地提升這一技能。

Question assumptions

質(zhì)疑假設(shè)

When I work to turn around an organization, I'll typically start by questioning the firm’s assumptions. I once visited dozens of stores of a retail chain, posing as a shopper. I soon discovered that the company had presumed that its customers had far more disposable income than they really had. This erroneous belief made the company overprice its clothing. They would have made millions more each year if they had sold lower-priced shirts and pants.

我在整頓一家公司的時(shí)候，通常會(huì)先質(zhì)疑公司的假設(shè)。有一次，我喬裝成了購(gòu)物者，走訪了某個(gè)零售連鎖店的數(shù)十家商店。我很快就發(fā)現(xiàn)，顧客的實(shí)際可支配收入比公司的假設(shè)少了很多。這一錯(cuò)誤的假設(shè)，導(dǎo)致公司給服裝定下了過(guò)高的價(jià)格。要是公司的襯衫和褲子的價(jià)格低了一些，他們每年就會(huì)多賺數(shù)百萬(wàn)美元。

Of course, it's hard to question everything. Imagine going through your day asking yourself: Is the sky really blue? What if the person next to me isn't my colleague but her twin sister? How do I really know that the economy won't implode tomorrow?

當(dāng)然，要質(zhì)疑所有的假設(shè)是很難的。想象一下，你一整天都在問(wèn)自己：天空真的是藍(lán)色的嗎？如果我身旁的那個(gè)人不是我的同事，而是她的雙胞胎姐妹，那我該怎么辦？我要怎么確定經(jīng)濟(jì)不會(huì)明天就崩潰？

The first step in questioning assumptions, then, is figuring out?when?to question assumptions. Turns out, a questioning approach is particularly helpful when the stakes are high.

所以，質(zhì)疑假設(shè)的第一步，就是弄清楚什么時(shí)候才要質(zhì)疑假設(shè)。事實(shí)證明，在高風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的情況下，質(zhì)疑的做法特別有效。

So if you are in a discussion about long-term company strategy upon which years of effort and expense will be based, be sure to ask basic questions about your beliefs: How do you know that business will increase? What does the research say about your expectations about the future of the market? Have you taken time to step into the figurative shoes of your customers as a “secret shopper”?

所以，如果你正在參與有關(guān)公司長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)策略的討論，而這一策略將耗費(fèi)多年的努力和大量的資金，你就要針對(duì)自己的想法提出一些基本的問(wèn)題：你怎么知道業(yè)務(wù)會(huì)增長(zhǎng)？是否有研究支持你對(duì)未來(lái)市場(chǎng)的展望？你有沒有偽裝成“秘密購(gòu)物者”，從顧客的角度看待自己的業(yè)務(wù)？

Another way to question your assumptions is to consider alternatives. You might ask: What if our clients changed? What if our suppliers went out of business? These sorts of questions help you gain new and important perspectives that help hone your thinking.

另一個(gè)質(zhì)疑假設(shè)的方法，就是考慮替代方案。你可以問(wèn)問(wèn)自己：要是客戶換去了其他公司，怎么辦？要是我們的供應(yīng)商倒閉了，怎么辦？提出這類問(wèn)題，能幫助你獲得新的重要觀點(diǎn)，從而磨煉你的思考能力。

Reason through logic

用邏輯進(jìn)行推理

Years ago, I took on the task of turning around the division of a large lingerie company. The growth of one of its major product lines had been declining for years. No one could figure out why.

幾年前，我接下了整頓一家大型內(nèi)衣公司的某個(gè)部門的任務(wù)。多年來(lái)，這個(gè)部門的一個(gè)主要產(chǎn)品線的增長(zhǎng)一直都在下滑，但沒有人想得出原因何在。

It turned out that the company had made the reasoning mistake of over-generalization, drawing a sweeping conclusion based on limited or insufficient evidence. Namely, the company believed that all of their international customers had similar preferences in lingerie. So it shipped the same styles of brassieres to every store across Europe.

原來(lái)，公司在推理上犯了以偏概全的錯(cuò)誤，也就是說(shuō)，公司在證據(jù)有限或不足的情況下，草率地下了結(jié)論。公司以為所有的國(guó)際顧客對(duì)內(nèi)衣的偏好都是相似的，于是就向歐洲各地的所有商店供應(yīng)了相同款式的胸罩。

When my team started talking to staff and consumers, we realized that customers in different countries reported very distinct tastes and preferences. British women, for example, tended to buy lacy bras in bright colors. Italian women preferred beige bras, with no lace. And those in the United States led the world in sports bra purchases.

我的團(tuán)隊(duì)跟員工和消費(fèi)者交談后發(fā)現(xiàn)，不同國(guó)家的顧客的品味和偏好截然不同。舉個(gè)例子：英國(guó)女性喜歡購(gòu)買色彩鮮艷的蕾絲胸罩；意大利女性則喜歡沒有蕾絲的米色胸罩；而運(yùn)動(dòng)胸罩在美國(guó)的銷量領(lǐng)先于世界。

For this lingerie company, improving their reasoning helped the firm dramatically improve its bottom line. The good news is that the formal practice of logic dates back at least 2,000 years to Aristotle. Over those two millennia, logic has demonstrated its merit by reaching sound conclusions.

推理能力的提升，讓這家內(nèi)衣公司的利潤(rùn)增加了許多。好消息是，邏輯的正式實(shí)踐至少可以追溯到兩千年前亞里士多德的時(shí)代。在這兩千年里，人們運(yùn)用邏輯得出了合理的結(jié)論，可見邏輯思維是有效的。

So at your organization,?pay close attention to the “chain” of logic?constructed by a particular argument. Ask yourself: Is the argument supported at every point by evidence? Do all the pieces of evidence build on each other to produce a sound conclusion?

所以，每當(dāng)有人向你提出論點(diǎn)時(shí)，你要密切注意這個(gè)論點(diǎn)所依賴的“邏輯鏈”。你要問(wèn)問(wèn)自己：這個(gè)論點(diǎn)的每一個(gè)環(huán)節(jié)是不是都有證據(jù)支持？所有的證據(jù)是不是環(huán)環(huán)相扣，從而得出合理的結(jié)論？

Being aware of common fallacies can also allow you to think more logically. For instance, people often engage in what’s known as?“post hoc” thinking. In this fallacy, people believe that “because event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X.”

此外，只要對(duì)一些常見的謬誤有所了解，你的思維也將會(huì)變得更有邏輯性。舉個(gè)例子：很多人的思維受到了“后此謬誤”的影響。所謂后此謬誤，指的是“由于Y發(fā)生在X之后，所以Y一定是由X造成的”的錯(cuò)誤推理。

So, for instance, a manager may believe that their sales agents rack up more sales in the spring because they're fired up by the motivational speeches offered at the annual sales conference in February — but until that assumption is tested, there's no way the manager can know if their belief is correct.

舉個(gè)例子：一名管理者可能會(huì)認(rèn)為，他的銷售代理在春季的銷售額有所增加，是因?yàn)樗麄儏⒓恿硕碌哪甓蠕N售會(huì)議，受到了激勵(lì)演講的啟發(fā)。但是，除非對(duì)這一假設(shè)進(jìn)行測(cè)試，否則這名管理者不可能知道這個(gè)想法究竟正不正確。

Seek out diversity of thought and collaboration

多元化的思維和合作

For years, I was the only female partner on McKinsey's transformation team. And today, while I serve on more than a half-dozen corporate boards, I am typically the only Asian and the only woman in the room during meetings.

我曾經(jīng)是麥肯錫公司轉(zhuǎn)型團(tuán)隊(duì)中的唯一一個(gè)女性合伙人，而且這個(gè)局面持續(xù)了很多年。如今，我是超過(guò)六個(gè)企業(yè)董事會(huì)的成員，但是每次開會(huì)的時(shí)候，我通常都是房間里的唯一一個(gè)亞洲人、唯一一個(gè)女性。

By virtue of my background and life experiences, I tend to see things differently from the people around me. This has often played to my advantage. But I'm not immune to groupthink, either. When I'm around people similar to me for whatever reason — age, politics, religion— I try to solicit different points of view. It makes me a better thinker.

由于我的背景和生活經(jīng)歷跟別人不一樣，所以我看待事物的角度也跟我周圍的人不一樣。雖然這一點(diǎn)常常讓我處于優(yōu)勢(shì)，但是我也不是不會(huì)陷入群體思維的陷阱。所以，當(dāng)我周圍的人在某些方面（比如年齡、政治立場(chǎng)、宗教）跟我相似的時(shí)候，我就會(huì)試著征求不同的觀點(diǎn)。這樣做能讓我成為更好的思考者。

It's natural for people to group themselves together with people who think or act like them. This happens especially readily online, where it's so easy to find a specific cultural niche. Social media algorithms can narrow our perspectives further, serving up only news that fits our individual beliefs.

思維和行為相似的人聚集在一起，本來(lái)就是很自然的事情，特別是在網(wǎng)上，因?yàn)槿藗兒苋菀拙湍茉诰W(wǎng)上找到特定的小眾文化群體。社交媒體算法也會(huì)使我們的觀點(diǎn)進(jìn)一步變得狹隘，因?yàn)樗粫?huì)提供一些與自己的想法一致的新聞。

This is a problem. If everyone in our social circles thinks as we do, we become more rigid in our thinking, and less likely to change our beliefs on the basis of new information. In fact, the more people listen to people who share their views, research shows?the more polarized their views become.

問(wèn)題就出在這里：如果我們社交圈子中的人的想法跟自己一樣，我們的思維就會(huì)變得固化，即使面對(duì)新的信息，我們的想法也會(huì)變得更不容易改變。事實(shí)上，研究表明，人們?cè)绞锹牭絼e人表達(dá)出與自己相同的觀點(diǎn)，他們的觀點(diǎn)就越會(huì)變得兩極分化。

It's crucial to get outside your personal bubble. You can start small. If you work in accounting, make friends with people in marketing. If you always go to lunch with senior staff, go to a ball game with your junior colleagues. Training yourself this way will help you escape your usual thinking and gain richer insights.

所以，不要把自己隔離起來(lái)。你可以從小的方面做起。如果你從事會(huì)計(jì)工作，那就去跟從事營(yíng)銷的人交朋友。如果你總是跟資深的人員吃午飯，那就跟資歷較淺的同事一起去看球賽。這樣的訓(xùn)練方法，能幫助你擺脫平時(shí)的思維，從而讓你得到更豐富的洞察力。

In team settings, give people the chance to give their opinions independently without the influence of the group. When I ask for advice, for instance, I typically withhold my own preferences and ask team members to email me their opinions in separate notes. This tactic helps prevent people from engaging in groupthink.

你也要給予團(tuán)隊(duì)成員獨(dú)立發(fā)表意見的機(jī)會(huì)，不讓他們受到團(tuán)隊(duì)的影響。舉個(gè)例子：當(dāng)我向團(tuán)隊(duì)成員征求意見時(shí)，我通常會(huì)隱瞞自己的偏好，然后要求大家分別用電子郵件把自己的想法發(fā)給我。使用這個(gè)策略，能夠避免群體思維的發(fā)生。

While these simple tactics may sound easy or even obvious, they're rare in practice, particularly in the business world, and too many organizations don’t take the time to engage in robust forms of reasoning. But the important work of critical thinking pays off. While luck plays a role — sometimes small, sometimes large — in a company’s successes, the most important business victories are achieved through thinking smart.

雖然這些簡(jiǎn)單的策略聽起來(lái)容易做到，甚至是顯而易見的，但是很少有人付諸實(shí)踐，特別是在商界中，而且很多組織也不肯花時(shí)間進(jìn)行扎實(shí)的推理。但是，批判性思維的采用是一項(xiàng)重要的工作，它能讓你得到回報(bào)。雖然運(yùn)氣對(duì)一家公司的成功起到了可大可小的作用，但是公司在業(yè)務(wù)上的最重要的勝利，是通過(guò)明智的思考取得的。

海倫·李·布依格（Helen Lee Bouygues）|文

海倫·李·布依格是巴黎瑞布基金會(huì)（Reboot Foundation）的總裁。她曾經(jīng)是麥肯錫公司的合伙人，并且曾在十多家公司短暫擔(dān)任過(guò)首席執(zhí)行官、首席財(cái)務(wù)官或首席運(yùn)營(yíng)官。

歐明謂 |譯? ? ?周強(qiáng)|編校