How to Think in Layers: Applying the Reasoning Funnel to Complex Problems

Abstract problems can be intimidating. When the stakes are high, whether in security, business, or even everyday decision-making, it’s easy to fall prey to snap judgments or information overload. The Reasoning Funnel offers a structured way of thinking in layers, guiding us from raw observation to clear communication.

To illustrate, let’s walk through an example. Imagine you are leading a corporate investigation. An employee has been leaving work early without permission. The surface-level fact seems simple, but the underlying reasons could be anything from disengagement to a personal crisis. How do you avoid jumping to conclusions? This is where the funnel applies.

1. Observation and Gathering Data

The first stage is to collect verifiable facts. You note that the employee has left early three times in the past two weeks. Surveillance footage confirms this, and swipe card logs back it up. At this stage, you resist explaining the behaviour and you only gather what can be measured. Decision science shows how easily confirmation bias (Nickerson, 1998) distorts what we see; disciplined observation prevents you from selecting only the details that match your suspicions.

2. Orientation and Framing Context

Facts must be placed within the right frame. Does the company culture tolerate flexible hours? Is there a history of similar behaviour in the department? Orientation avoids misinterpretation by situating data in context. Research on framing effects (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981) demonstrates that the way we frame information drastically changes the conclusions we reach.

3. Hypothesis Formation and Proposing Explanations

Now you generate possible explanations. The employee could be disengaged, dealing with health issues, or attending to childcare responsibilities. Instead of settling on one, you hold several in play. This mirrors the principle of Bayesian reasoning (Griffiths, Kemp, & Tenenbaum, 2008), where hypotheses are treated as probabilities that can be updated rather than certainties. 

4. Deductive Filtering

Some explanations collapse quickly. You check HR records and find no pattern of disciplinary issues, making “chronic disengagement” less likely. Childcare issues, however, appear more plausible after noting school pick-up times in the employee’s schedule. Deductive filtering reflects the use of bounded rationality (Simon, 1957), eliminating options that fail logical or factual tests so limited cognitive resources can focus on what remains. 

5. Evidence Testing and Analysing Data

The remaining hypotheses are tested against hard evidence. You interview colleagues, analyse time sheets, and speak confidentially with HR. Patterns emerge: the employee always leaves early on Tuesdays and Thursdays. This stage draws from the scientific method and signal detection theory (Green & Swets, 1966), where reasoning balances the risks of false positives (seeing a problem where none exists) and false negatives (missing a genuine issue). 

6. Revision, Rejection and Adjusting Hypotheses

The evidence forces adjustments. You discard the disengagement theory entirely and refine the childcare hypothesis. After further inquiry, the employee confirms that they are temporarily covering after-school care due to a partner’s illness. This flexibility illustrates adaptive expertise (Hatano & Inagaki, 1986), the ability to revise models when the environment changes. 

7. Conclusion and Reasoned Judgment

You now have a conclusion: the behaviour is not misconduct but a temporary adjustment to family responsibilities. This is not absolute certainty by any stretch of the imagination, it is the best-supported explanation given the available evidence. Decision science frames this as satisficing (Simon, 1956): making a good-enough judgment that balances accuracy with practical constraints.

8. Reporting and Clear Communication

Finally, you communicate your reasoning. You prepare a report outlining the observations, the context, the tested hypotheses, and the final judgment. HR and management can now act with confidence, granting a temporary flexible schedule. Clear reporting reflects principles from cognitive load theory (Sweller, 1988), ensuring complex reasoning is communicated without distortion or overload.

Why This Matters

By applying the Reasoning Funnel, what began as a suspicious observation became a reasoned, fair, and actionable conclusion. The funnel does its best to protect against bias, forces us to adapt as evidence shifts, and ensures our final judgment can be understood by others. Complex problems do not require faster thinking; they require layered thinking. And in that layered process, clarity emerges. Fast/speed risks depth!

When people bypass the funnel, they often leap straight into emotive, irrational judgments. Irritation, fear, or suspicion take the place of reasoning, and communication quickly collapses into accusation. In such a state, no one is listening, neither actively nor passively, and without listening, nothing is truly understood. Problems remain unsolved, relationships fracture, and poor decisions multiply.

The Stoics warned against this trap. Epictetus reminded us that “we are disturbed not by things, but by the view which we take of them.” Seneca cautioned that anger is never useful, for it makes us slaves to impulse rather than masters of judgment. By refusing to listen, we fall into exactly this enslavement. The Reasoning Funnel provides a discipline that restores freedom: it forces us to pause, to weigh, to hear, and to act with clarity rather than emotion. In a noisy world, this is not just a method of thinking, it is a practice of resilience and wisdom. If the reasoning funnel is too much, which for some, it might be, then practise pausing before speaking/acting. That moment can be where a critical thought is created.