maodun-techuxing

"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 people and the feudal system is resolved by the method of democratic revolution... To use different methods to resolve different contradictions is a principle that Marxist-Leninists must strictly abide by." — On Contradiction (August 1937)

1. There is no one-size-fits-all methodology in the world. Different types of problems require different solutions, which is an ironclad rule.
2. Judging the "nature" of a problem is a critical step. Problems that seem similar on the surface may have completely different natures—employee turnover could be due to salary, management, or growth opportunities, and a one-size-fits-all approach won't work.
3. Establish a three-tier cognitive path: "general - specific - more specific". First understand the general laws (industry trends), then grasp the specific laws (company stage), and finally delve into the more specific laws (specific scenarios).
4. Copying others' successful methods (dogmatism) is the most common and dangerous trap. You may not have the prerequisite conditions that made others successful.
5. Copying your own past successful experience is equally dangerous—when the environment changes, the applicable conditions of the method also change.

• Problem: Some party members copied the experience of the Soviet civil war or the Northern Expedition to guide China's revolutionary war, resulting in repeated failures.
• Method Application: Mao Zedong established a three-tier cognition: general laws of war (commonality of war) -> specific laws of revolutionary war (individuality of revolutionary war) -> more specific laws of China's revolutionary war (uniqueness of China's conditions). None of the tiers can be skipped.
• Conclusion: China's revolutionary war has its own special laws—the enemy is strong and we are weak, encircle cities from the countryside—so we cannot copy the Soviet model of urban uprisings.
• Result: The strategic route established based on this analysis ultimately achieved national victory; the dogmatic route that copied Soviet experience led to a 90% loss of revolutionary forces from 1931 to 1934.

• Problem: Dogmatists within the party treated Marxism-Leninism as a formula to apply, while empiricists rejected theoretical elevation.
• Method Application: Mao Zedong used the comparison between the Soviet civil war and China's revolutionary war to illustrate: the same principle must be applied differently under different specific conditions.
• Conclusion: "The universality of contradictions resides in the particularity of contradictions"—general principles can only be implemented through specific analysis.
• Result: On Contradiction became a philosophical weapon to correct dogmatism and empiricism.

1. Copying Best Practices: The team wants to apply a methodology from a well-known company (OKR, Agile, Growth Hacking, etc.) without analyzing the particularities of their own conditions. Users will say: "Google/ByteDance/Ali does it this way, we should too".
2. Past Experience Fails: A method that worked last time doesn't work this time, and the team is confused. Users will say: "This worked for us before, why isn't it working now?" "The industry has changed but our method hasn't".
3. One-Size-Fits-All Decisions: Using the same set of methods for all customers/markets/teams, with mixed results. Users will say: "Why does this method work for Team A but not Team B?"
4. Difficulty in Methodology Selection: 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 is suitable for us?"
5. Consultants/Experts Selling Universal Solutions: External consultants or industry experts recommend "one-size-fits-all" solutions. Users will say: "The expert said we should do this".

• vs Contradiction Analysis Method: This skill focuses on "which method to use for resolution", while the latter focuses on "which problem is the most important"
• vs Seeking Truth from Facts Information Processing Method: This skill is a framework for methodology selection, while the latter is an information processing framework
• vs Practical Epistemology: This skill makes nature judgments before action, while the latter enhances cognition after action

• Ask three-tier questions about the current problem: (1) What category of general problem does this belong to? (2) What is different under the special conditions of our company/team? (3) What are the more special factors in the current specific scenario?
• Completion Standard: Clearly state "Our problem seems like type X, but because we have ___ conditions, its nature is closer to Y".

• Take the methodology you plan to use and list its implicit prerequisites (under what conditions is this methodology effective?). Compare them one by one: Does our situation meet these prerequisites?
• Stop Point: If key prerequisites are not met, immediately stop applying the methodology and proceed to Step 3.

• Based on the nature analysis in Step 1 and the prerequisite comparison in Step 2, adapt and transform the methodology: retain the core principles, adjust specific practices to match your own conditions.
• Completion Standard: Produce an "Adaptation Note"—"The original method requires ___, our conditions are ___, so we adjust to ___. The reason for adjustment is ___.

1. Truly Universal Problems: Some problems are indeed universal (such as basic code specifications, financial compliance), which do not require special methodologies and can be solved directly with universal solutions.
2. Extreme Time Constraints: If immediate action is required, first execute according to the universal solution, then conduct particularity analysis during post-event review.
3. Verified Repeated Scenarios: If this is the Nth time dealing with the same type of problem and the previous method has been proven effective, there is no need to re-analyze every time.

• Dogmatism (ce01): Becoming more stubborn after being "theoretically armed"—treating methodology as a belief rather than a tool, and when faced with reality that contradicts the theory, first doubting reality rather than the theory.
• "Formalization" Trap (ce22): Abandoning proven effective practices in pursuit of "looking professional". After winning with guerrilla tactics in the startup phase, completely abandoning them in favor of seemingly professional but ineffective large company practices when scaling up.
• Formalism (ce15): Evaluating methodologies in an all-or-nothing manner—either accepting them entirely or rejecting them entirely, refusing to acknowledge that every methodology has its scope of application and limitations.

• While Mao Zedong emphasized "analyzing specific conditions", he himself made dogmatic mistakes in certain periods (such as applying mass movement methods to solve economic problems during the Great Leap Forward). Lesson: Anti-dogmatism itself cannot be dogmatized—sometimes simple solutions to simple problems are optimal.

• Contradiction Analysis Method (depends-on): The principle of contradiction particularity is an extension of the Contradiction Analysis Method—first use the Contradiction Analysis Method to find the main contradiction, then use the principle of particularity to analyze the unique nature of that contradiction and select an appropriate solution.
• Practical Epistemology (composes-with): Particularity analysis requires practical verification—after judging the nature of the problem, it is necessary to return to practice to test whether the method is suitable, and the two form a closed loop of "nature judgment → practical verification".