When I reread the Italian political philosopher Machiavelli , I was shocked by his words: "Ninety percent of people learn 90% of their knowledge is useless."
I think I understand what Teacher Ma is talking about. The methodology of the production of many knowledge is very suspicious, such as doing an "experiment" for animals and then using it to explain how humans are; for example, doing "experiment" for a group of people in the laboratory, and then using it to explain how everyone is doing. They do not consider that people are not monkeys at all, and that laboratories are distorted or even highly distorted compared to real life situations.
and even some knowledge is produced, not for use. It may be something that some people make for professional interests, and then others call it "science" to scare people who don't understand. Just like many concepts in society, more than 90% are products of interests and psychology, not rational products of the mind.
For example, some time ago, I read a bestseller book about "addiction" to a certain product written by two Americans. When explaining that a person who likes products can get psychological "rewards", he said this: "Scientific research shows that when people expect rewards, the secretion of dopamine in the brain will rise sharply. The greater the variable of rewards, the secretion of this neural mediator in the brain will be The richer the person will enter a state of concentration. The part of the brain responsible for rationality and judgment is suppressed, while the part of the brain responsible for needs and desires is activated. "
Today, it is very popular to restore psychology and decompose biology and neurophysiology. For example, my anger can be reduced to my brain nerves, what electrochemical reactions have occurred in my brain, and what are the hormones in my body. In this way, it is particularly authoritative and particularly stylish, which is enough to scare me. Its most vulgar version is to say that love is the secretion of dopamine - in the quoted paragraph, if a person has expectations, dopamine will also be secreted.
But what is its use? If you give me a shot of dopamine, will I have love? Am I just looking forward to getting a "reward"? If you can't give me a shot of dopamine, then how can I use to secrete dopamine? Or, I want to fall in love with someone strongly and look forward to "reward", can I control my brain by saying or other technical means: Quick! How much does dopamine produce quickly?
But this idea is too ridiculous. If a shot of dopamine is used, love can be produced. The window for the civil affairs department to handle divorce should be able to provide such services. Whoever wants to get a shot will give him a shot.
From here, we can see that even if the explanation of dopamine theory is correct, it is useless. Moreover, even if it is explained correctly, it is only related to physiology and has nothing to do with love - a simple logical problem is that your physiological explanation of love has nothing to do with love itself. You can measure love physiologically, but it is not love itself, nor does it explain love itself. Whether I have love is not related to dopamine, but to a woman's appearance, personality, and values. My love experience is just my psychological event. What does it have to dopamine? Why bother to pretend to be a big-tailed wolf in the name of science here!
I call it a thinking virus like this that causes knowledge to be useless.
The initial judgment ≠ final conclusion
If life is a journey, then knowledge is what we take. Personality, values, thinking, and logic determine which path we take. Principles and rules are what we can see based on, and methods and mental methods are what we encounter and what we know what to do.
I found that there is a thinking virus that many people have been hit. For example, it is said that "human nature is good" and "human nature is evil". This is to regard the initial judgment as the final conclusion.
I did a special research at a party.I emotionally told the few people who participated in the party that there was a story:
She is beautiful and kind, and is the daughter of the richest man; he is handsome and an ordinary employee of the richest man's capital empire. She was firmly attracted by his handsomeness and simplicity, and he was deeply moved by her beauty and kindness. In the end, the two young people stick to love and belief in the secular portal discrimination, relying on their strong hearts to break through many obstacles, and finally live happily together.
I interviewed them and heard this touching love story I told, what comments would I want to make about it? I emphasize that this story is true.
Their comments are varied. Some express "enviousness", some express "very rare", some express touching, some believe it is the victory of love, and some express blessings. All of the above can be attributed to the category of "optimism". Of course, some people are not optimistic, but there are only two people, and the reason they gave is "not a match".
After the comments ended, I made a summary statement.
I said that fairy tales are only written here, and the next thing is reality. The real version corresponding to the real story of
is the life entanglement between the "Princess" of South Korea's Samsung Group "The Princess" Lee Boo-jin and his security ex-husband Ren Youzai from fairy tales to bloody life. Lee Boo-jin broke through the resistance to reality and married Ren Youzai, but as a "strong woman" and Ren Youzai, who is a "lower man", actually does not have much common language in psychology. In the end, after the marriage lasted for 16 years, Lee Boo-jin sued for divorce, while Ren You-jae asked for 1.2 trillion won (about 6.9 billion yuan) for "breakup fee".
You can see that everyone has forgotten one thing: the story begins after the prince and the princess are happily together in the fairy tale world, and we still think the story is over. In other words, we have forgotten that it is just the initial judgment, and from a mental perspective, we are confused and ignorant of the initial judgment as the final conclusion.
The second thinking virus is that the language is ambiguous.
For example, Jack Ma saw the trend of the Internet in 1997. And until now, his mind is still very top in China. But how do you explain that he once believed in Master Li Yi, Master Wang Lin and Master ? How about your mind at this time? Are you surprised or not?
If we feel ambiguous about the concept of "IQ" (in fact, it is very ambiguous), it may be difficult to react at once. In this case, the concept of "IQ" is a vague whole in our cognition and experience: A=A. So why does A seem to be very powerful at some time, but A seems to be unable to do it again? Is it just to explain that experts also fail? But this explanation is not sufficient, and I don’t see where it can be explained logically. The concept is ambiguous in content, and our thinking level is 100% lower.
But if we learn a decompositional thinking, the problem will be solved.
We can list a formula for IQ: IQ = Knowledge × Intelligence × Thinking × The influence of psychological personality × Experience value. This formula is enough to explain why Jack Ma is also interested in the mystic set, this master and that master. That is the psychological impact.
Getting along with the complex world
When I continue to think about the virus, I thought of the amazing work "The One-dimensional Man" by American philosopher Herbert Marcuse . Although this philosophical book is quite abstract and obscure, I still see myself from this mirror: I am really a one-dimensional person.
I find myself, like many people, lack a kind of thinking: thinking about dealing with this complex world. We really think of the world too simply. But it would be great if this world was so simple. The problem is that it will not take care of our IQ and does not operate as we imagine.
What is "one-dimensional thinking"? This concept is obviously a cool and rude face with "philosophical".
According to my understanding, it probably means "looking at the world without stubbornness, not dualistic thinking, but looking at the world in multiple dimensions". I think you understand, and if you don’t understand, you should pretend to understand.
But after thinking about it, I feel that it is better to give an example.
Take "binary thinking" as an example.
We have heard many stories since we were young. The older versions include "Grandma Wolf" and "Grimm's Fairy Tales", while the newer versions include "Pleasant Goat and Big Big Wolf" which is lower in the middle class contempt chain, and "Adventure Live Treasure" with higher ranking. Of course, movies such as "Avatar" are also adult fairy tales.
The thinking of all these stories is the same, they are good people, bad people, justice and evil. After a series of tests, the protagonist finally defeated evil and justice was fulfilled. Anyway, it’s a bit like the inspirational story of the past: working hard, becoming CEO, marrying a rich and beautiful woman, and reaching the peak of her life.
I have to say that these stories are particularly suitable for our childhood minds. I remember that at that time I developed a habit: whenever I saw a character appear on the screen, I had to look for who is the good person and who is the bad guy. Generally speaking, good people and bad guys have their own characteristics of appearance. Good people have high appearance index, while bad guys are definitely vulgar. The same is true when watching cartoons.
Now we understand that the mind at that time really didn’t have the ability to distinguish more things and could not understand the complexity of the world. In order to gain an understanding of the world and protect ourselves, we must set that she is a good person and he is a bad person, so we have a "good person-bad person" thinking pattern. Using this model, thinking like "justice-evil" and "black-white" will follow, entering our childhood and youth dreams.
What does "mode" mean? I want to explain.
It means to form a conditioned reflex: anyway, if you encounter many people and many phenomena in the future, you will unconsciously use it to condom. For example, if a woman doesn’t like him without a house or a car, she will definitely be a gold-worship girl!
When a person grows up, he can get rid of binary thinking and not imagine the world as so simple. But the problem is that if you have listened to such stories for a long time from elementary school to college, or now you need a bowl of chicken soup for the soul, it is very likely that your mind will be solidified in the childhood stage.
Regarding the complexity of this world, Marcuse teacher reminds us like this:
"We are once again facing one of the most annoying aspects of developed industrial civilization, that is, the rationality in its irrationality."
This is where people and this world are complex! When something is reasonable, it also has its unreasonable points; if you say it is unreasonable, it is reasonable in some aspects.
Take the American police as an example. When four policemen beat black Rodney King in 1992, everyone was very angry and couldn't see the rationality of the police's existence. Is it abusing violence against citizens? However, when a public security case occurs, everyone feels that the existence of the police is too necessary and reasonable.
causes this "irrationality in rationality" and "reason in unreasonableness" because the police have to provide a public product on the one hand: safety; but on the other hand, they are not machines or saints, and they may also abuse their power. Because the existence of police officers is reasonable, they cannot see that they may abuse their power, or because they may abuse their power, they think that their existence is unnecessary, and they are all thoughts that only a childish mind has. Ordinary people can think this way, but political elites cannot think this way.
has an important indicator for officials: their ability to control complex situations. In fact, capital elites, even technical elites, don’t they need such abilities?
Teacher Marcuse mainly expressed dissatisfaction with capitalism .So when he revealed how American society was playing at that time, he also exposed the complexity of many things:
"Can people really distinguish between mass communication as a tool of news and entertainment and mass communication as a medium of indoctrination and manipulation? Can they really distinguish between cars that create pollution and cars that provide convenient? Can they really distinguish between horror and comfort of practical buildings? Can they really defend the country? Can we make a distinction between preventing and making profits for the company? Can we really distinguish between the private fun of improving fertility and the commercial and political functions? "
I can only answer this way; "Teacher, no, we don't seem to be adapted to such complex things in our thinking."
But there is no way, we must learn to get along with a complex world.
Multiple thinking
said straight, using one-dimensional thinking such as binary thinking to see the world, a person actually lives only in concepts and his own world. He is forcing the world to adapt to his IQ.
I want to use black and white thinking to talk about it. People with one-dimensional thinking simplify the world to either black or white. But in fact, black and white are just two extreme states in the world. There is a very broad area from white to black. White slowly turns into gray, and gray slowly turns into black. There are countless nodes in this process, not just white and black. But in this vast area in the middle, it does not exist in the eyes of people who look at the world with dualistic thinking. Since the brain cannot adapt to such a complex reality, then cancel this reality.
Take love as an example. If there is a love-hate entanglement between the two, it is obviously not just a binary option like "love or not love".
Emotions include real self-emotions, fake self-emotions, and character emotions. They are mixed into a kind of "emotion", and the proportions are changing at any time. It is not something that the binary option "love and not love" can clearly describe. Taking two boyfriends and girlfriends as an example, if this man loves this woman in his heart, it is true self-emotion, if he loves a family background, it is false self-emotion, if he loves her because she is his girlfriend, it is character emotion.
Like in the TV series " In the Name of the People", the emotions of secretary Gao Yuliang to Wu Huifen are roughly 20% true self-emotion + 50% false self-emotion + 30% character emotion. Teacher Wu’s emotions towards Secretary Gao are roughly 30% true self-emotion + 30% fake self-emotion + 40% character emotions.
As for Qi Tongwei Director and Liang Lu Teacher, they are not very much like love. The prayer hall knelt down and proposed to Liang Lu, which was a killing of the true self after being brutally hit by reality. There was not much emotion for Liang Lu. Therefore, his emotions towards Liang Lu are roughly: 5% true self-emotion + 80% false self-emotion + 15% character emotions. Liang Lu’s confrontation with the prayer hall may be: 20% true self-emotion + 60% false self-emotion + 20% character emotion. The ratios above
will change in different situations and times.
