When I was a sophomore, I happened to read a book in which one of the words touched me, “It’s hard to make money in a business that is encouraged by policy, but they can make money up there.” Why do you say that?
The first reason is that there is a willingness to inflow capital without any policy incentives in the lucrative sector. As long as it’s not for the loss of money, there will be an influx of people.
The second reason is that, when policies encourage, there is a hive. The influx of all would create excessive competition and the loss of profits would be immediately reduced.
So, we can run upstream in an encouraging direction, which makes it more profitable. Because there are enough entrepreneurs in this industry, we can get enough profits to stand up upstream.
Is the gold hunter making money? No, they sell jeans, shovels, hotels, people who work for gold. For me in second grade, that knowledge is too powerful.
In the 14th and 15th year, the government encouraged “public innovation, entrepreneurship.” When I passed the school hatching base, I found it all full in less than six months. An increasing number of start-ups are foreseen in the future.
So I started thinking, how do I get up to these companies? I see several directions, one for business incubators, one for software outsourcing and one for product promotion. The first two require capital, while the cost of product promotion is lower.
So I got two other partners to start the campus promotion. And it proves that knowledge is power!
In those two years, mobile phone applications, public and APP, were very hot. The projects we’ve promoted include Uber, Tink, HUGO glasses, car coming, who to learn from, wing pay, Guangzhou eating and drinking, part-time cat.
Although most of them were “disappeared”, they were rich. Each application is replicated in thousands.
The three of us, in about six months, earned 200,000. I’m satisfied with my sophomore. This basically solved the financial problems of my university.
And then, as a result of these experiences, I am more convinced of the value of knowledge and thought. So I read more books and learned more.
At the same time, I was learning to share some knowledge, and there were several publishers that came to me to sign books.
I went to one of the more reliable publishers. So, I published my first book, “Absolute instinct: how to fight your habits.”
Because of the impact of electronic media, now a paper book sells 10,000 books is a best-selling book, 30,000 copies is an IP best-selling book, and my book, which sold 100,000 copies at the time, was translated into the Taiwan and Thai versions. More than 400,000 drafts were paid in front and after.
Knowledge is power, and for most people it is the right bullshit. But to me, that’s my life! It was knowledge that made me successful in starting a business from poverty and then becoming a writer.
I have to admit, I’m a very lucky man. But it’s a lot of deep thought!
A point was made in Richard Paul ‘ s book ” Thinking and Position ” , where low-quality thinking leads to low-quality life.
Because a low-quality thinker often faces three dilemmas:
More deceiving experiences.
Because low-quality thinkers can neither distinguish between the good or the bad of others nor the true or false of information. Even worse, they simply didn’t realize that, and they were tricked into “helping with money.”
More troubles and accidents in learning and working
Because low-quality thinkers, they can’t see the nature of things, they can’t find the key to the problem. So, doing the same thing, they need more time and more mistakes.
More disputes.
Because low-quality thinkers are always self-centred, arrogant and paranoid. While they practice so-called “independent thinking”, they are always wearing coloured glasses, and they are even less able to accept ideas they do not like.
So, low-quality thinkers, they look “bad luck”! Because they’re always deceived by others, they’re subject to a lot of “accidents” when they do things, or they’re at the crossroads of their lives, and they choose the wrong path.
If we can improve our ability to think, many of the things that seem like “bad luck” are entirely avoidable. It is easier to get so-called “good luck” when we can look at the world in a more substantive and profound way. This is also important for in-depth thinking.
How, then, should we develop our ability to think in depth? And here we recommend nine super-simplistic and practical ways of thinking.
Metacognitive Thinking
Low-quality thinkers not only make more mistakes, but also fail to realize their mistakes.
It’s like when kids lie, they always swear, and sometimes they’re very proud of their intelligence. And in the eyes of adults, the children’s lies always seem to be full of holes.
Many people think the same thing as children, that is, thinking in the right way, from their own perspective. This has led them to insist on the wrong thing, or to “swindle people and help people.”
And to be a high-quality thinker, what is most needed is a meta-cognitive thinking, that is, thinking.
Most people think every day, but they know nothing about the process of thinking. That is exactly what we are, always making mistakes without knowing.
In order to improve the quality of our thinking, we must know what troubles, problems and difficulties we face in our thinking.
We need to analyze our thinking:
Is the source of the information reliable?
What else do you know about yourself?
Is there enough evidence to support your inference?
Is it self-centred?
Is it a point of view or a fact?
Is it possible you’re wrong?
By reflecting on the process of thinking, we can look for our own thinking gaps. It is also only by being aware of its own mental flaws that the results of our thinking can be brought closer to the truth.
Accumulation of thinking
Thinking is the process of information processing. In-depth thinking is the fine processing of information, which leads to more comprehensive, more specific and closer to the truth than others.
In that case, the basis for thinking is information. If you lack sufficient knowledge and experience, or if both are wrong, then it is impossible to think about the truth.
For example, even an experienced old judge who does not know the whole truth or is not familiar with the law can make the wrong decision.
Therefore, if we are to be able to think in depth, we must do three things: cumulative, cumulative or cumulative.
In almost every field, those who can become experts and see at first sight the problem, they have accumulated over a dozen decades of knowledge. Moreover, they must have enough information to analyse the situation.
There is no alternative to being on the ground and no alternative to the accumulation of knowledge.
Learning to think skills only accelerates the formation of in-depth thinking capabilities. Without a rich body of knowledge as a basis, this ability to think is like the “airhouse attic” and it’s useless.
It’s like a man with a strong critical thinking, but without enough knowledge, he turns into a “spray” — seeing everything is wrong, and when you ask him exactly what it is, he doesn’t know.
It is therefore important that we have a cumulative mind, to be friends with time, to be patient in learning in our field and to collect quality information. That’s the key to deep thinking.
Analytical thinking
Any whole can be broken down into multiple parts and dimensions and then analysed. Low-quality thinkers always want to find a panacea to explain what they know.
High-quality thinkers, on the other hand, tend to divide a whole into different parts, different dimensions and different situations.
For example, many online Internet trials are basically “starting with the death penalty and not going to top it.” For example, what is often mentioned as “trafficking in children, all capital punishment”.
Should we think that a heavier penalty would avoid child trafficking? If child trafficking is punishable by death, will the traffickers do something worse to “exhaust evidence”?
That is why, in addition to the dimension of the severity of punishment, we need to reflect on another dimension of punishment — the certainty that criminals are arrested.
If a child is trafficked, the death penalty is imposed, and the probability of being caught is only 10 per cent, it is very difficult to effectively stop the crime, after all, to buy and sell for 300 per cent of the profits.
But if, on the other hand, child trafficking is sentenced to 10 years, but with 80 per cent of the chance of being caught, it is likely that the traffickers will choose to give up because they know that it is very difficult to escape capture. This is also why the prevalence of closed-circuit television has significantly reduced crime rates.
If we want a real insight into the nature of things, we can never see them in a dimension, let alone in a complex one, as a whole, without specific analysis.
We can see the essence of a seemingly holistic thing as it becomes more and more nuanced.
Multi-angle forensic thinking.
Many phenomena are disguised. In the animal world, it’s a disguise, it’s a trade competition, it’s a cover-up in human relationships. There is a great deal of false information, both in nature and in society, that affects our right judgement.
So, how can we see through this? We can use multiple angles to justify thinking.
Multi-perspective thinking is a very useful way of avoiding much false information. There’s a saying in America: “If something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, screams like a duck, it’s a duck.” I’m sorry.
It’s actually a multi-dimensional idea that judges it as a duck by combining physical information, behavioral information, sound information, etc.
One angle is deceptive. If it just looks like a duck, it could be a duck doll; if it just walks like a duck, it’s probably a duck walking clown; if it just screams like a duck, it could be a tape.
The idea of multi-dimensional evidence is simple, but most do not have it. In many Internet hotspots, public opinion is often reversed. Because the first words of these “reverse public opinion” are not based on many angles, mostly family words. Therefore, we have no way of knowing the authenticity of this information.
However, many people continue to transmit these deceptive messages without evidence, contributing to public opinion. Then, when information from another angle is put before the public, we may see the opposite.
However, previously false information had spread all over the web, and the truth had been concealed from those false information, with little support.
When we want to call for the authenticity of an important information, we should do so through as many channels as possible and in many ways as possible.
Biology
Biology, in fact, looks at other things in the way of an analysis of biology.
First, we must accept the relevance of things.
Biology is characterized by relevance. The environment and the environment, biology and biology, and information and information are all an organic whole that interacts with one another.
Similarly, when we analyse things, we have to look at them in the context of interrelated thinking, and we have to do a comprehensive analysis of the factors of influence, not just one element, but the whole picture.
Secondly, we must accept change.
Biologicals have evolved, fast or slow, more or less. Similarly, there are many things that change in life.
We must constantly learn to observe these changes and at the same time we need to update our own perceptions and avoid looking at things with too old a mind. Only then can we reduce wrong thinking.
Third, we must accept “special circumstances.”
There are a lot of “special cases” in biology, like the “special cases” in English syntax and the “bugs” in computer programs that cannot be avoided.
And you don’t know why they exist or why they’re so different. You can only accept this “special case” that comes from somewhere.
Biology is actually a system thinking. In our analysis and reflection, we must recognize the interconnectedness, dynamic developments and complexity of things.
Kelly three-factor model.
To see the nature of things, we can use the Kelly three-factor model. These three factors are, respectively, accident, stability and group consistency. Stability can be divided into internal and external stability.
Coincidence is well understood, i.e. the phenomenon caused by the factor of chance. Stability is the result of a fixed factor, inherent stability is the underlying cause of change, and external stability is the external cause of the problem. Group coherence refers to whether other individuals have the same problems as particular individuals.
We use an example of how these three factors influence our judgement on results.
If one of your company’s new colleagues, he’s only half a year late, what do you think? We would consider this to be an accident, caused by special circumstances.
If this colleague has been late for six months, what do you think is the reason? You would think that there must be some stabilizing factors that have led to this situation, possibly because the colleague had a poor sense of time or because his family was too far away from the company.
In order to distinguish between internal mechanisms or external influences, you also need to assess whether this colleague is responsible for other things.
If this colleague did everything but belated, you would think it was external influence that made him often late. On the contrary, this colleague is dragging and making mistakes in other things, and you’re thinking, “Always late.” This is a matter of his own inner nature.
If, in addition to this colleague, many other colleagues were to be late, what would you think was the reason? You might wonder if the company’s location is too biased or if it’s in bad shape. Otherwise, so many should not make the same mistake.
This process of reflection is the key to helping us find the problem by using the information of coincidence of results, stability and group consistency. It is very helpful to see the truth.
Need thinking
The human mind is becoming increasingly scarce and shallow because its environment is too simple and too closed.
If a person can cope with everything in a simple way, then he lacks the need to foster in-depth thinking.
For example, isolated tribal groups, who simply learn to hunt enough to survive, do not require much thinking skills. Therefore, neither do they think about science, let alone develop a technological civilization.
And if you want to develop your own deep thinking, you can try to be in a complex and volatile environment. The complexity of the environment becomes a necessity for our deep reflection.
In complex environments, we see more different people and more possibilities. These complexities can become elements of thinking, helping us to build a deeper system of thinking.
In complex environments, the link between things is more fluid. In the search for causality and in the search for mechanisms of influence, we have to abandon the practice of “image the essence”. It is also a process of in-depth thinking.
In a complex environment, the issues we need to address are also more complex. To better adapt to the environment, we will slowly develop the capacity to address complex issues. The ability to think can also be improved in the resolution of problems.
5why analysis
If we want an in-depth analysis of the nature of things, we have to use another tool — 5 Why analysis.
5 Why analysis is, in fact, a process of asking “why” questions about a question, in-depth analysis of the simple question, and finding a more substantive reason for it, and thus efficiently treating it.
When we look in depth, we find a lot of things that are common, with particularly sophisticated mechanisms and principles.
5 Why analysis does not mean that I have to ask five questions about why, but rather that I keep in mind a central idea: that there are mechanisms behind the phenomenon, and there are bigger questions behind the problem.
For example, my cousin always learns with his chest and his body on his back, and his uncle keeps forcing him to stand up. The results are also clear and have no effect.
In my contact with my cousin, I found that the hunchback was just a phenomenon, the real reason being that he had to look in the eye, he had to stretch his head and read and write on his back. So I asked my uncle to give him a pair of glasses, and his bad habits with low chests showed signs of improvement.
In fact, if we look into this, we’ll find that near-sightedness is also a sign. In fact, too long old lights in the study room lead to dim lights, cousins learn in dizziness, and lack of natural light leads to high eye pressure. So to solve this problem, we’re going to need another LED light.
As a result, we found that using 5-Why analysis to solve problems is far from relevant, but more effective. If the problem is solved according to the uncle’s approach, I think there may never be a solution to the cousin’s learning position.
But by looking for the essentials, we can come up with a cure for the symptoms and the root causes, and thus achieve greater control over things. In this process of thinking, we will slowly become a man of insight into the future.
Math thinking
If philosophy is the father of the subject, mathematics is the mother of the subject. Almost every discipline uses mathematics. In fact, mathematics is a tool that helps us analyse and understand things.
By way of example, you want to understand why wealth has the mathematical effect, i.e., the stronger the strong, the weaker the weaker, then you need to understand this by using the Paretto distribution.
Or if you want to understand why this society is getting more and more involved, you need to use the theory of prisoner dilemmas in game theory.
Or, if you want to understand why the celestial bodies function continuously, you need knowledge of quantum mechanics and relativity.
The greatest benefit of mathematics is precision. It helps us to reflect reality and problems more accurately than it does with vague feelings. Without this tool of mathematics, it is difficult to understand and analyse these phenomena and to understand things in depth.
Moreover, for some complex things, small differences can make a huge difference.
A dish may become extremely difficult to eat because of different salinity; a formula error may lead to a collapse of computer programs; a parameter error may lead to a satellite launch failure; a drug ratio may turn into a poison…
Therefore, in order to understand things more accurately and in depth, we must learn the relevant mathematical knowledge. It is also possible to understand things objectively, accurately and effectively only if there is a better application of mathematics.
In short, to develop a habit of in-depth thinking requires both the skills of our thinking and the accumulation of sufficient knowledge, as well as the loopholes and pitfalls of our thinking.
It is only in this way, one step at a time, that we will be able, slowly, to discover the essence, approach the truth and see the truth. Record number: YX11XbpNYMz
I don’t know.
Keep your eyes on the road.
