R — Original Text (Reading)
"Contradictions of different natures can only be resolved by methods of different natures. For example, the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is resolved by the method of socialist revolution; the contradiction between the masses and the feudal system is resolved by the method of democratic revolution... To resolve different contradictions by different methods is a principle that Marxists-Leninists must strictly observe." — "On Contradiction" (August 1937)
I — Methodological Skeleton (Interpretation)
- There is no universal methodology in the world. Problems of different natures require solutions of different natures; this is an iron law.
- Judging the "nature" (quality) of a problem is a key step. Problems that appear similar may be completely different in nature—an employee's resignation may be due to any one of compensation, management, or room for growth, and cannot be handled with a one-size-fits-all approach.
- Establish a three-level cognitive path of "general-special-more special": first understand general laws (industry trends), then grasp special laws (company stage), and finally go deeper into more special laws (specific situations).
- Copying others' successful methods (dogmatism) is the most common and most dangerous trap. You may not possess the preconditions that made others successful.
- Copying your own past successful experience is equally dangerous—the environment has changed, and so have the conditions under which the method applies.
A1 — Application in the Book (Past Application)
Application 1: The Strategic Problems of China's Revolutionary War — Three-level cognitive path
- Problem: Some people in the Party copied the experience of the Soviet civil war or the Northern Expedition to guide China's revolutionary war, and suffered repeated failures.
- Method use: Mao Zedong established three levels of cognition: the general laws of war (the commonality of war) -> the special laws of revolutionary war (the individuality of revolutionary war) -> the more special laws of China's revolutionary war (the uniqueness of China's conditions). No level can be skipped.
- Conclusion: China's revolutionary war has its own special laws—the enemy is strong and we are weak, encircling the cities from the countryside—and the Soviet model of urban uprising cannot be copied.
- Result: The strategic line established on the basis of this analysis ultimately achieved nationwide victory; the dogmatic line that copied Soviet experience led to a 90% loss of revolutionary forces from 1931 to 1934.
Application 2: On Contradiction — Opposing dogmatism and empiricism
- Problem: Dogmatists in the Party applied Marxism-Leninism as a formula, while empiricists refused theoretical elevation.
- Method use: Mao Zedong used a comparison between the Soviet civil war and China's revolutionary war to show that the same principles must be applied in different ways under different concrete conditions.
- Conclusion: "The universality of contradiction resides in the particularity of contradiction"—general principles must be grounded through concrete analysis.
- Result: On Contradiction became a philosophical weapon for correcting dogmatism and empiricism.
A2 — Trigger Scenario (Future Trigger)
- Copying best practices: The team wants to apply a methodology from a well-known company (OKR, Agile, growth hacking, etc.), but has not analyzed the particularity of its own conditions. Users will say: "Google/ByteDance/Alibaba does it this way, so we should do it this way too."
- Past experience fails: The method that worked last time does not work this time, and the team is confused. Users will say: "We succeeded by doing it this way before, why doesn't it work now?" "The industry has changed but the method has not."
- One-size-fits-all decisions: Using the same set of methods for all customers/markets/teams, with uneven results. Users will say: "Why does this method work for team A but not for team B?"
- Difficulty choosing a methodology: Facing multiple management/product/marketing methodologies and not knowing which to choose. Users will say: "There are so many methods, which one should we use?" "Which method suits us?"
- Consultants/experts selling universal solutions: External consultants or industry experts recommend "one-size-fits-all" solutions. Users will say: "The expert says we should do it this way."
Language signals: When users mention words such as "best practices," "industry benchmark," "others do it this way too," "standard practice," "universal solution," etc., this skill should be activated for nature analysis.
Distinction from adjacent skills：
- vs Contradiction Analysis Method: this skill focuses on "what method to use to solve it," while the latter focuses on "which problem is most important"
- vs Seeking Truth from Facts Information Processing Method: this skill is a methodology selection framework, while the latter is an information processing framework
- vs Practical Epistemology: this skill makes a nature judgment before action, while the latter improves cognition after action
E — Executable Steps (Execution)
Step 1: Problem nature analysis
- Ask three layers of questions about the current problem: (1) What category of general problem does this problem belong to? (2) Under the special conditions of our company/team, how is it different? (3) In this current specific situation, what more special factors are there?
- Completion standard: Be able to clearly state, "Our problem looks like a type X problem, but because we have ___ conditions, its nature is closer to Y."
Step 2: Comparison of preconditions
- Take out the methodology you plan to use and list its implicit preconditions (under what conditions is this methodology effective?). Compare them one by one: does our situation satisfy these preconditions?
- Stop point: If key preconditions are not satisfied, immediately stop applying it and move to Step 3.
Step 3: Adaptive modification
- Based on the nature analysis in Step 1 and the precondition comparison in Step 2, make adaptive modifications to the methodology: retain the core principles and adjust the specific practices to match your own conditions.
- Completion standard: Produce an "adaptation statement" — "The original method requires ___, our conditions are ___, therefore we adjust it to ___. The reason for the adjustment is ___."
B — Boundary
Scenarios not to use
- When it is a truly universal problem: Some problems are indeed universal problems (such as basic code standards, financial compliance), and do not require a special methodology; just use the universal solution directly.
- When time is extremely urgent: If action must be taken immediately, first execute according to the universal solution, and do the particularity analysis later during the retrospective.
- Repeated scenarios that have already been verified: If it is the Nth time handling the same type of problem, and the previous method has been proven effective, there is no need to re-analyze every time.
Failure modes (from counterexamples)
- Dogmatism (ce01): After acquiring a "theoretical armament," one becomes even more stubborn instead—treating methodology as a faith rather than a tool, and when facing a reality that does not match the theory, first doubting reality rather than the theory.
- "Formalization" trap (ce22): Abandoning proven effective practices in pursuit of "looking professional." Guerrilla tactics won during the startup phase, but after scaling up, everything was abandoned in the name of "formalization" and replaced with big-company practices that looked professional but were actually ineffective.
- Formalism (ce15): Evaluating methodology in black-and-white terms—either fully accepting or fully rejecting it, refusing to acknowledge that every methodology has its scope of applicability and limitations.
Author's blind spots
- While Mao Zedong emphasized "concrete analysis of concrete situations," he himself also made dogmatic errors during certain periods (such as applying the mass movement method to solve economic problems during the Great Leap Forward). Lesson: Anti-dogmatism itself cannot be dogmatized—sometimes the simple solution to a simple problem is the optimal solution.
Related skills
- Contradiction analysis method (depends-on): The principle of the particularity of contradictions is an extension of the contradiction analysis method—first use the contradiction analysis method to find the principal contradiction, then use the particularity principle to analyze the unique nature of that contradiction and choose an adapted solution method.
- Practical epistemology (composes-with): Particularity analysis requires practical verification—after determining the nature of the problem, one must return to practice to test whether the method is adapted, and the two form a closed loop of "nature judgment → practical verification."