Yes. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context/p1

Here is an example of how to understand knowledge, and a reasonable approach to inductive thinking. It is not only a theory, it is something I put into practice with great success in my life.

How can I think through a thought without breaking my own structure of thinking or undoing my own reasoning? — GreekSkeptic

You do not need to undermine your own reasoning if you follow Aristotle's method of deliberation. You do not even need to sacrifice your moral principles. Think of your goal first -- what is the end of your proposal? Then compare two or more alternatives or choices and weigh them against your moral principles or reasoning and against your goal. Third, think of the quality of your thinking -- is it good to you but offends others? Does it satisfy others but undermine your preferences?

There are no steps in thoughts. Some ideas might come to you sooner than other ideas. You're not assembling a machine where there's a user's manual to follow step by step.

I wonder... is there a way, a certain order of steps maybe, that leads the mind toward the best possible conclusion — even if only for now? How can I think through a thought without breaking my own structure of thinking or undoing my own reasoning? I hope you understand what I mean. — GreekSkeptic

There are no steps in thoughts. Some ideas might come to you sooner than other ideas. You're not assembling a machine where there's a user's manual to follow step by step. — @

Thoughts and ideas come to mind in a myriad of ways. Perhaps the steps you are looking for would be the ways to check up if your conclusion is valid. I don't think there's one optimal way to do it (and likely not even theoretically). You are not a machine like @L'éléphant said, you are capable of understanding and changing your own "algorithms".

There's just guidelines like if you think you have made a new conclusion finding, check if anybody has made the same conclusion or something similar to it. Any other person ever lived not to have thought about what you are thinking would be strange. Or tell the conclusion to people and if ALL disagree / don't understand / don't follow your reasoning and there really is nobody that agrees with you, perhaps the problem is in your conclusion.

No, but the skill that will perhaps curry favor with others is emotional self-control.

With thinking, I recommend familiarizing yourself with analysis and deduction to increase your bullshit detector powers. The more access to info you have, the more important this becomes...

Question, doubt and speculate.

Avoid conclusive answers outside of abstract structures.

How can I think through a thought without breaking my own structure of thinking or undoing my own reasoning? — GreekSkeptic

I don't think I have structured thinking. It is normal for me to think of both sides of an argument, not because I want to, but it just happens. And there is information I just do not comprehend, such as advanced math and government forms. One of the most important things for us to know is how to build a sustainable economy in a world of finite resources. I don't see a lot of practical thinking. We had coins that had value because of the metals in them, and have shifted to valueless coins, and amazingly, no one seems aware of why that matters.

I think for most people, emotions determine what they think, not logic based on accumulated information.

It is normal for me to think of both sides of an argument, not because I want to, but it just happens. — Athena

A very good way of judging the verity of ideas, etc., or so I find.

I wonder... is there a way [...] that leads the mind toward the best possible conclusion — even if only for now? — GreekSkeptic

Is there a right way to think?

He's among my favorites, so here’s yet one more of his poems:

"Think as I think," said a man,
"Or you are abominably wicked;
You are a toad."

And after I had thought of it,
I said: "I will, then, be a toad." — Stephen Crane

An analysis: Blind obedience to authoritarian others who will vilify you strictly due to your lack of obedient conformity to their authoritarian ego’s whims and mindsets is always unethical, for it can only empower unethical powers in the world. Therefore, if it ever comes up, choose to be vilified on account of the thoughts you yourself deem to be virtuous (authentic, earnest, rational, etc.) rather than conforming to such despotic egos’ wants.

Not that this covers all bases on the matter, but that’s a key way to properly think.

could you further elaborate on the poem? I didn't quite catch the meaning... sorry

How can I think through a thought without breaking my own structure of thinking or undoing my own reasoning? — GreekSkeptic

Establish and maintain consistency/coherence(lack of self-contradiction).

It is normal for me to think of both sides of an argument, not because I want to, but it just happens. — Athena

I, too, have this personal trait. Particularly in political conversations. But also as a mathematician, attempting to conjure up counterexamples before committing to a lengthy proof.

I have a few personal simple rules for reacting to day to day stuff.
I have two people I care about and would do anything for. Anyone else my involvement is subject to conditions.
I give everyone I like total respect and expect it back. If i get disrespected that person is off the team. I only have people in my life that bring joy and interest.
Most people I am indifferent but pleasant to and very few people I actively dislike. The people I dislike are not in my life for[ seconds to decide to do something or then it is filed as irrelevant. So much clarity when confronted with something that is a pain.
This is obviously in the very personal sphere but it certainly works for me.

How can I think through a thought without breaking my own structure of thinking or undoing my own reasoning? — GreekSkeptic

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Blind obedience to authoritarian others who will vilify you strictly due to your lack of obedient conformity to their authoritarian ego’s whims and mindsets is always unethical — javra

Hmm interesting characterisation. I'm unsure I would go as far as unethical, but there definitely seems to be something "wrong" with, for example, the political dichotomy in the US. Something truly aberrant in the thinking that leads to adherence to either party on "party lines" rather than on issues.
I guess one problem with this (although, I imagine you're answer is simply "yeah, that's right" lol) is that there's also non-authorities that lead to this same thing. I'm always, in these contexts, taken back to Mill:

"Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression; for though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself.

Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own"

On Liberty

Fear of rejection seems a more motivating issue than fear of imprisonment.