Before you can improve your self or your life, you apparently have to know how to think...
I had to analyze analysis in order to be able to research self help as a subject and 1) prove that it worked or not, 2) see if there was an underlying system which enabled its efficacy where it did.
More specifically, you have to know how to analyze the world around you.
And you're in luck - I was able to simplify analysis so anyone could understand and use it to improve the quality of their own life...
But for you, the hard work has been done.
This post, like the video, is built to condense the material of an entire book down into a few hundred words - and get the book to get a broader explanation of this - but here we go:
The bulk of analysis is done by Scientific Method, which assumes you are thinking logically.
Logic by definition: "Logical thought is apparently bases on the comparison of two datums, which predicts a third datum."
Purpose of analysis: "Analysis is observably based on the purpose of finding more optimal solutions." Or, solutions which more closely approach the expected results (so as to not exclude makers of atomic weapons and news agencies with their "narratives".)
Analysis actions, regardless of which method of analysis you use: "Analysis observably compares two patterns, which predicts a third."
Common actions of analysis:
1) Observe the existing scene.
2) Posit an ideal for that scene.
3) Compare available data.
4) Compare the results.
(A note on this video - this is probably the first point that I brought up the point of the smallest system being built of four interactive elements - based on Buckminster Fullers' observation that the tetrahedron - which he used to build his geodesic domes - is the smallest 3-D object, the hydrogen atom being the smallest element.)
And a sidebar: Faith is a given in any analysis - do you trust the data you are observing? The logic definition of faith is: "I believe."
The Rules for Analysis:
1) Anything can be compared to anything.
2) Comparisons make their own rules.
2a) An analysis using one comparison doesn't necessarily get accepted in another field.
(And that last explains Thomas Kuhn's "paradigm shift".)
These rules were inspired by the Humanities use of comparisons to explore different societal situations in fiction. Witness "High Noon" and the western format exploring a parallel scene unfolding in politics at the time. Or how Star Trek, with the first inter-racial kiss, used Sci-Fi to explore the "strange new worlds" of various cultural situations - and it's noted that the "good guys" always won out on that show.
Art, having a definition of "...the quality of life", would then back right into analysis, as that ideal is the purpose of analysis - so it supposes that some analysis preceded the result.
Taking that further, you would see that "speculative analysis" is possible - using "wild imagination" as a means of comparing just about anything to anything and getting a completely new result - what fiction and fantasy writers do consistently.
And as well, your intuitional guides may be giving you "food for thought" - or analysis - if you would only listen more closely to those "serendipitous synchronicities" happening all around you. (To the degree which you start exploring living as a continuing series of miracles, then you can start living a much higher quality of existence - and life itself can become art...)
So there you have plenty of diving boards to jump off in order to amuse yourself from here on out.
Feel free to disagree with me. And feel free to buy and read the book "Go Thunk Yourself, Again!" for yourself to get more of the background on it. My most controversial essays were published here - all just examples of logical analysis to test these rules and definitions against.
Have fun with all this.