Ah, a /thought/ board! I see there is not much going on here, so I will proceed with a guide on how to think.
How to think?! Thought is free, how can someone impose rules on thought?! Sure you can tell someone to think about Something, but How to think? Blasphemy!
1. There are different types of thinking.
Much like we approach say - a cup of coffee, a mathematics exercise or a casual discussion with our friends - so we must differentiate between different Objects and different Fields.
An Object will be anything we choose to think about, analyse, deconstruct, conceptualize, clarify, explore, paraphrase, relate, reduce, use as a basis for dialectics etc.
A Field will be a collection of Objects, which for our or general purposes we group together.
Some Fields like - the compositions of Dmitri Shostakovich, or algebraic-geometry, or developmental psychology, or woodwork - lend themselves naturally to a Field, where relations and context forms naturally and deeply; while something like - the alcohol drunk last night, or the names of previous girlfriends, or the chairs in one flats - are most likely random, and are forced groupings and relations, of which the analysis only lends insight into the arranger .
2. The act of thinking is not daydreaming or couch philosophy.
Look at this photo of Jean Sartré, look at any philosophers desk - you will see paper and pen. Have you ever tried writing a coherent series of thoughts down? Do you know how to phrase a sentence? or a paragraph? Do you have a dictionary? What do you read? Have you read philosophy? Are you interested in something?
If you can answer these questions positively and elaborate on them, you are a cultured man. If not, you are not a culture man,, yet. Philosophy, much like jazz improvisation, has a sort of paradoxical association with it - while actual philosophy is quite strenuous and requires effort, the "philosopher" is a guy who writes outlandish gibberish and then sells books ( the jazz artist just plays whatever he feels like). This is nothing like it, sadly it has penetrated the field so much, it is becoming impossible to distinguish proper gibberish from gibberish.
3. How to think.
What are you thinking about? Clarify it.
Are there Objects similar to the actant? Substitute, see if it follows.
Is the questions Field valid for the Object? (f.e. can a chess piece can be used in poker)
No? The question is nonsense, try figuring out how to paraphrase.
What assumptions are you making? Throw them out, tweak them.
Can you clearly phrase your thoughts? If not, then keep clarifying.
Problem or question too difficult? Try simplifying.
Are your ideas tied together? Relate them.
Do you know what Field you are thinking in? Google it, read what others have thought.
Do you keep a track of your thoughts? Only throw out what's wrong.
Do you correct your thoughts? Judge and deliver.
Do you dedicate time to thinking? Spend an hour doing so.
Do you know what assumptions you make in thinking? Try to avoid making extra ones.
Are you critical? If you don't critique, you can't be sure if you are correct.
Are your arguments within the Field? It doesn't work.
Are you getting depressed?
If you are thinking sense, then your thoughts represent a fact in some regards. If you are sad about a fact of life, you are too idealistic. Your ideals must be a goal to reach, not something to cry about. If you are not an idealist, you have no sense to be blue, since you are thinking in facts, they are facts, if you are sad about a fact, you are disillusioned with reality and you should try thinking about how a fact is not something that has direct impact on you and how your happiness is more worthy than the limits of reality.
Good luck!
P.S. Everything written here is wrong; when what is written here is mastered and attended to then one must realize the invalidity of the method and continue how one sees fit.
P.P.S. Wittgenstein