The Pyramid Principle – Barbara Minto

Pyramid Principle Part 1: Logic in Writing

Why a Pyramid Structure

Sorting into Pyramids
- The mind sorts information into distinctive pyramidal grouping to comprehend it
- Any grouping of ideas is easier to absorb if it is pre-sorted into its pryramids
- Every written document should be deliberately sorted to form pyramids of ideas
Stop at the magic number 7 – this is the limit of ideas the human mind can comprehend at one time
State the logic so it’s clear how the items are organized/categorized
Order from the top down since this is how the reader best remembers and comprehends
Thinking from the Bottom Up
- Ideas at any level in the pyramid must be summaries of the ideas grouped below them
- Ideas in each grouping must always be the same kind of idea
- Ideas in each grouping must always be logically ordered

The Substructures Within the Pyramid

Vertical relationship between point and sub-points (question and answer dialogue)
Horizontal relationship within a set of sub-points (deductive or inductive logic)
The introductory flow

How to Build a Pyramid Structure

The top-down approach
- Fill in the the top box — Draw a box, decide the Question, and write down the answer.
- Match the Answer to the Introduction — Identify the Situation, develop the Complication, and recheck the Question and Answer still follow.
- Find the Key Line — Determine what New Question is raised by the Answer and answer it deductively or inductively
- Structure the Support Point — Repeat the question/answer process at this level
The bottom-up approach
- List all the points you think you want to make
- Work out the relationships between them
- Draw conclusions
Caveats for beginners
- Always try top down first
- Use the Situation as the starting point for thinking through the introduction
- Don’t omit to think through the introduction
- Always put historical chronology in the introduction
- Limit the introduction to what the reader will agree is true
- Be sure to support all Key Line points

Fine points of Introductions

Introductions
- Introductions are meant to remind rather than inform. Start by making a statement about the subject that the reader will agree with.
- They should always contain the three elements of a story — the situation, complication and resolution.
- The length of the introduction depends on the needs of the reader and the demands of the subject.
Common Patterns
- Directives
- Requests for funds
- “How To”
- Letters of Proposal
- Progress Reviews
Transitions
- Referencing backwards — pick up an word/phrase/idea from the preceding portion of the pyramid that you are linking to and use it in your opening sentence.
- Summarizing — If the section is long or complicated, stop and summarize completely before going on.
- Concluding — Not necessary if the introduction and pyramid obey the pyramid rules

Deduction and Induction

Deductive Reasoning: The second point always comments on the subject or predicate of the first
- Make a statement about a situation that exists in the world (any company that meets one of these 3 criteria is worth buying)
- Make another statement about a related situation that exists at the same time (Acme Co. meets all three criteria)
- State the implication of these two situations existing at the same time (therefore, Acme Co. is worth buying)
Inductive Reasoning: The second point can be classified by the same plural noun as the first
- The mind notices several things (ideas, events, facts) that are similar in some way, brings them together in a group, and comment on the significance of their similarity
- The key technique is to find the one word the describes the kind of ideas in your grouping
- Check your reasoning from the bottom up
Use deductive reasoning low in the pyramid as possible (e.g. at the paragraph level); inductive agreements are easier to absorb at high levels

Pyramid Principle Part 2: Logic in Thinking

You can critique four areas:

The general order of the ideas in a grouping
Their source in your problem solving process
Your summary statement about them
The prose in which you express them

Questioning the Order of a Group

Time order — Process (What would I do first? Second?)
- Incomplete Thinking — Are all steps included, and are they in the right order?
- Confused Logic — Does the logic make sense?
- False Grouping — Have any ideas been brought together that don’t belong in the grouping?
Structural Order — Structure (divides a whole into its parts)
- Creating a Structure — Must be MECE (mutual exclusive and collectively exhaustive)
- Describing a Structure
- Imposing a Structure — Use to sort out faulty logic in a grouping. Why this order? Where did these ideas come from?
Ranking Order (Order of Importance) — Class (grouping of like things)
- Creating a Proper Class Groupings — Place in order of the degree each possess the characteristic by which you have classified it, presenting the strongest one first
- Identifying Improper Class Groupings

Questioning the Problem Solving Process

To provide a recommendation, you must have defined clearly five things: (1) the gap between where he is and where he wants to be, (2) the structure that gave rise to that gap, (3) the structure of its underlying processes, (4) the alternative ways the structure could be change, and (5) the changes required to accommodate the alternative you chose.

The Problem Solving Process
- What is the problem?
- Where does it lie?
- Why does it exist?
- What could we do about it? — Possible options
- What should we do about it? — Recommendation
Structuring the Analysis of the Problem
- Five Typical Logic Trees — The value of logic trees lies in the fact that they can often reveal where the problem is, why it exists, and what do do about it all in one picture. The trees all begin at an end result and branch in to causes:
  - Financial Structure
  - Task Structure
  - Activity Structure
  - Choice Structure
  - Sequential Structure
- Once you have displayed the logical relationships between groups of activities to show their cause-effect nature, you can use the concept to question the logic of what you have written

Questioning the Summary Statement

Regardless of the origin of ideas, your summary statement will be either (1) an action statement telling people to do something, or (b) a situation statement, telling people about something. Always ask yourself of any group, “why have I brought together these particular ideas and no others?” The answer will be that they either fall into the same narrowly defined category, and are the only ideas that fall into that same category, in which case your summary point will be a statement about their sameness. Or that they are all the actions that must be taken together to achieve a desired effect, so that the summary point states what that effect is.
Stating the Effect of Actions (Causes)
- Making the Wording Specific
  - Does the same step appear in more than one place?
  - Can I visualize someone taking the action?
  - Will the sub-steps bring about the step above them?
  - Have I kept the subject the same?
- Distinguishing the Levels of Action
  - The technique is to decide roughly what goes with what, and then restate the points to be totally clear
  - Pro tip: You cannot group action ideas by similarly rather than effect
Drawing An Inference from Conclusions (Class)
- Finding structural similarities in the sentences in which the points appear
- Visualize the relationships implied between the parts that are similar (sometimes groupings of situation ideas are really action ideas in disguise)

Putting It Into Readable Words

Do all your conceptual thinking in images rather than words – it is more efficient to do so
To compose clear sentences, begin by “seeing” what you are talking about. Once you have that image, you simply copy it into words
- Create an image with the structure of the relationships being discussed (geometric shapes arranged in a schematized fashion, plus an arrow to indicate direction and interaction). What nouns do we have to hang onto here that are relatively concrete? How might be pictured in relationship with one another?
- Copy the image into words

Pyramid Principle Part 3: Problem Solving in Structureless Situations

Structureless Situations

This is for problem situations where the problem is not that you don’t like the result, but rather that you can’ explain it because:

The structure does not ext exist — as in where you are trying to invent something new (e.g., the telephone)
The structure is invisible — as in the brain or DNA, so you only have the results of the structure to analyze
Because the structure fails to explain the result — as when Aristotle’s definition of force did not explain momentum

This type of problem solving requires the somewhat more creative hypothesizing of scientists and inventors.

Deduction vs. Induction vs. Abduction

Where you start determines the form of thinking you will use:

	Deduction	Induction	Abduction
Step 1	Rule	Case	Result
Step 2	Case	Result	Rule
Step 3	Result	Rule	Case

Abduction Problem Solving Process

Basic Process	Analytical Problem Solving	Scientific Problem Solving
1. What is the problem?	Visualize the difference between the result you get now and the result you want	Define the discrepancy between the result you get and the result you should expect to get given the prevailing theory
2. Where does it lie?	Visualize the structural elements in the present situation that could be causing the result	State the traditional assumptions of the theory that might give rise to the discrepancy
3. Why does it exist?	Analyze each element to determine whether it is doing so, and why	Hypothesize alternative structures that would eliminate the discrepancy and explain the result
4. What could we do about it?	Formulate the logical alternative changes that could produce the desired result	Devise experiments that will exclude one or more of the hypotheses
5. What should we do about it?	Create a new structure incorporating those changes that will produce the result most satisfactorily	Reformulate the theory on the basis of the experimental results