Let me tell you that a human being is not good with “logical thinking”.


Daniel Kahneman, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics, throws the following question.

Two premises and a conclusion. Try to determine, as quickly as you can, if the argument is logically valid.Does the conclusion follow from the premises?All roses are flowers. Some flowers fade quickly.Therefore, some roses fade quickly.


The answer is “No” without any doubt.

However, almost all people could answer “Yes”.


Kahneman says “a plausive answer comes to mind immediately”.

Overriding it requires hard work – the insistent idea that “it’s true, it’s true!” makes it difficult to check the logic, and most people do not take the trouble to think through the problem. (snip)When people believe a conclusion is true, they are also very likely to believe arguments that appear to support it, even when these arguments are unsound. 


Here is the important fact; “a human being isn’t good with “logical thinking”


You might see “a cautious person”, but he/she is just trying to be cautious.

Anybody has the human brain structure that struggles with logical thinking”.


I often meet a person who is good at his/her work, but lacks logical consistency.

For example, a competent manager who has a good intuition often has trouble explaining how he/she has come to the conclusion. People around the manger get confused by what he/she says because it doesn’t make any sense.


At the same time, we can gain “logical thinking skills” with training.

A manly person would say “I don’t need logical thinking”.


However, you would probably need logicality at various work situations.


Now let’s discuss how to gain it.

An example is a class of National Language.


You are given a question such as “Explain why the character took this action.”

This kind of question can be an exercise.


You answer this kind of questions again and again, saying “because it is…..”

Your answer will be marked good or bad, and you eventually learn whether it is logical or illogical.

That is the beginning of training.


The other exercise is “summarize what is the author wants to discuss.”

Many people fail to summarize articles, and write down what he/she thinks instead.

“Never guess what the author wants to claim. What’s not in the article is merely your opinion. Find the answer from the article.”


Your teacher of National Language would point out.

By the time you notice “it is a self-satisfied way of thinking…” you learn the difference between “other’s opinion” and “your opinion.

You probably get training at your college as well.


In my school days, my professor criticized my paper.

“Your paper doesn’t consist as academic writings. Your opinions, advanced researches and subjective data are all mixed up.”


You shouldn’t write this kind of paper on your own way. Academic writings require logical exposition. To make it clear, you can follow a typical structure.


It consists of the following;

1. Advanced researches (Facts)

2. Thesis and your hypothesis (Your opinion)

3. Experiments and the data of its result (Facts)

4. Conclusion (Your opinion)

You have to write those in order.


To gain the skills more, you can read many papers, follow the leaf of persuasive writing, and rewrite after your professor marks your paper. These training strengthen your writing skills and logical thinking skills after all.


“Logical thinking skills” are based on those simple training.

It is often said “school education isn’t practical”. Actually it has many ideas that help students to gain skills in real world.

“To write and think logically” is different from human intuition, and definitely requires a certain period of training. It’s not something you can gain quickly just because somebody tells you “you’re a working adult now. Be logical”.


Some “workshops” or “readings” are not good enough.


After all, if your subordinate or new team member is “illogical”, you have to give him/her training with patience, like school education.