First, return to common sense. In my New Theory of Logic, through the analysis of mathematical logic, I define logic as a method of explaining truth with common sense. So obviously, if you return to common sense, stick to common sense, refuse to accept any seemingly abstruse and philosophical conclusions, but you can't get logic and don't use these conclusions to explain problems, then your logical thinking ability will be greatly improved. Of course, this is not accurate, but it is a substantial recovery. If you don't believe me, you can ask a person who you think lacks logical thinking to start with some common sense he accepts, and you will find that he is not lacking. He lacked it before because he had too much knowledge. Second, use logic flexibly. Being able to think logically does not mean being able to solve difficult problems. Logically speaking, there is a problem of using skills. How come practice makes perfect? Learning mathematics means that you solve more problems, and you know what must happen to solve these problems. This can be called mathematical philosophy. Generally speaking, this is the difference between liberal arts students and science students, not whether they have logical thinking. At the same time, in reality, people think that logical thinking ability is strong, but in fact, thinking ability is strong, and there is no distinction between arts and sciences. Moreover, this idea is not logically obtained, but logically explained. 1, participate in the debate. Ideas are produced in debates, including self-debate and self-debate. For example, regarding whether sovereignty is higher than human rights or vice versa, I think the sovereignty to protect human rights is higher than human rights, and it cannot include the sovereignty that causes the king to enjoy the baby feast. Since sovereignty must be defined, the former can be established conditionally. The reason for this understanding is that this issue is controversial, otherwise it will not be thought about. 2. Stick to common sense. In fact, it is easy for me to draw a personal conclusion about human rights, because no matter what big-name experts say, there is only one reason why I disagree. I insist that no one wants their legal rights to be violated unless they have to. Because of this common sense, it is necessary to analyze sovereignty, for example, the state has the right to retain its army, and its citizens will be required to assume different obligations under different circumstances. It seems to violate human rights in wartime, but it is a payment for everyone's security needs, and sovereignty must be justified. Obviously, it is very important to stick to common sense and draw a logical conclusion. It should be noted that we can't stick to the conclusion of induction, because induction is always a part of inductive things, and it can't be all. Violate some common sense, such as philosophy. China people often use philosophy to explain problems, always from one general to another, so they don't know what to say, as if they can't think logically, which is ridiculous. 3. Dare to question. Including authoritative conclusions and personal conclusions, if the logical explanation is obviously unreasonable. 4. Pursuing truth and upholding justice. This is the most important one if the above objective conditions permit. In nature, the former is necessary. In terms of humanities, both are needed. Because humanistic common sense is actually the requirement of justice, and integrity is wisdom. But it is a pity that, based on the above points, if there is no freedom of speech, freedom of thought and social justice, it will be difficult to gain something and logical thinking will not get much exercise, but I am still willing to get it off my chest. What? People with national confidence and heart failure need a tonic.