When answering a question, different people perform differently.
The first type doesn't understand the question or the cause and effect; they just parrot others and make arbitrary claims.
The second type solves one problem with one solution, understanding its cause and effect, giving an answer with one set of "because... therefore...", but only for that one problem.
The third type solves one problem with multiple solutions, with more perspectives and approaches, but when the question changes, they're back to square one.
The fourth type extrapolates from one instance to others, not limited to a single problem, and can connect it to similar problems.
The fifth type of person summarizes formulas, patterns, and principles, and uses them to solve and explain more problems.
We only need to understand their general meanings and relationships with one another to find a path toward cognitive advancement. Not knowing the causes and effects means you have not grasped the method; having one solution to one problem means you have grasped one method; having multiple solutions to one problem means you have deeply grasped the method but not the underlying principle. Being able to draw inferences from one example means you have deeply grasped the principle but not yet understood the underlying way. Summarizing principles means understanding the underlying way and comprehending its logic—at that point, you understand all things.
In theory, structural levels can also be regarded as principles. Having no structure means having no principles; having a single structure means knowing a little about the principles, while having multiple structures means knowing many principles but not seeing how they connect. An interconnected structure means you have connected these principles, while expanding into abstract structures means you have summarized the principles underlying them.
When you face a problem or phenomenon and give an answer or express an opinion, you can ask yourself whether that opinion merely came from something you heard or was directly given to you by someone else, without your having gone through the process of proving it yourself. If so, then to improve your understanding, the next step is to personally examine the logic behind that opinion—to know not only what it is, but also why it is so.
Provide more supporting evidence through other avenues—for example, besides the direct cause of an incident, can the underlying root causes, the release of personal emotions, the pursuit of group interests, institutional changes, economic fluctuations, and so on all point to the view you hold? When you have gained a thorough understanding of something and your level of insight has reached a new height, that understanding may still be limited to a single event and not yet extend to the field as a whole. At that point, if you want to further improve your level of understanding, you can try using these principles to answer other related questions. After becoming a researcher in the field, you can then try to abstract these experiences, perspectives, knowledge, and ways of thinking into your own theoretical system, principles, creeds, formulas, or models, and then extend them to other fields to improve your understanding of those fields or attain the wisdom of drawing inferences across the board.
SOLO taxonomy theory, also known as the Structure of Observed Learning Outcomes, focuses on observing cognition rather than making definitive judgments about it. Observation is based on performance, and performance can be deliberately designed or may fall short due to poor performance, so a person's actual cognition and the cognition they demonstrate are sometimes inconsistent. Therefore, don't hear someone say that you can't do something and conclude that you really can't, nor do you need to prove to others whether you can or cannot. You know your own capabilities—that's enough.