How can you change your life?
According to the Law of 28,
That way, 80% of the people become marginal, what if they complain, fight, conflict?
Someone has come up with a way.
What are these nipples? It’s like in the vent industry.
Development of content-based industries,
In this way, they will not be able to fight, they will expect the media to think for them, they will be given all the power to think of entertainment and so on.
When people lose their ability to think in depth, they are vulnerable to deception, and, more importantly, a great saying is probably to say that the shortcut to the world is to have their own perspective.
But ask yourself, do you have an opinion or an opinion? Are these views deep enough and rational enough?
There are several characteristics of low ability to think:
The first feature,
Since the media writers, which you usually read, are the publicists who love to write stories.
Because they know people who like to read articles on their phones don’t like to think. People who don’t like brainwashing only understand stories, so they write stories in the public domain every day, trying to attract unthinking fans, eventually making them come out.
Seeing and listening to a story is a habit that humans have developed since childhood, but we can’t just read and listen to a story. When you see something that requires brain-thinking, or something that’s a little bit difficult, do you think about it or turn it over?
Can you still read those in-depth articles? Or are you immersed in stories made up every day?
Has your ability to think been destroyed?
Some people like to substitute emotions for their own thinking.
“Mom must be good for us, so Mom is right, so listen to Mom. This is a serious confusion between emotions and logic. “Mother loves me for my own good. I’m particularly moved.” It’s emotional. But “because Mom loves me, she’s right. I want to hear it.” It’s a mistake of logic.
There’s no logical connection between “you’re good for me” and “I’m going to listen to you,” and it doesn’t mean you’re right to be nice to me, or to do something to hurt me for my good.
The fourth feature, which can only be taken from its own perspective.
You tweet, “It’s too hard for your mother-in-law and your daughter-in-law” and there’s gonna be someone who says, “I get along well with my mother-in-law.”
It’s the same type of person who replaces it with the cases he’s seen, the whole picture.
“Our economy is now in recession, so let’s not resign, and it’s getting harder to find work. I’m sorry.
This is a simple example of what I would like to say, too many words in life, giving a hypothetical premise and then making recommendations.
In this sentence, “China’s recession” is a hypothesis.
Many prefer to take the hypothesis as an outcome and begin to deduce other things from the assumption, which is not necessarily proven in itself, and which is not credible if the assumption is wrong.
What should be done in a company where employees are lazy and poorly performing?
In the opinion of the sales director, it was the lack of motivation on the part of the salesman, so he tried every day to give the salesman chicken blood, slogans, training, bonuses, and went on without effect, even if the staff looked passionate.
Why?
Some things are merely a phenomenon that cannot be addressed as a cause. My friend, who is the manager of the client service department of a company, has a very high rate of separation, and the newly recruited employees will be leaving within almost three months, and the boss blames her for not being trained, but rather for the management of the sales staff: sales often exaggerate with customers, and ultimately lead to excessive complaints and pressure on clients, leading to frequent departures.
If you don’t study well, you can’t go to college. If you can’t go to college, you must be a failure. It’s called taking probabilities as necessary, and it’s also a sign of low thinking.
How can we build the capacity to think in depth? How exactly did our views come about? Why do some people look so thoughtful?
In the first phase, when knowledge is lacking, information is lacking and capacity is inadequate,
These intuitive prejudices may be the result of listening to other people ‘ s words, or of vague perceptions of their past experience. Prejudice will one day be challenged. You used to think that a divorced child had to be humbled and unhappy, and one day you saw another saying: that a child with an unsound family is better off growing up.
At this point, a debate is taking place in your mind, seeing different points of view, to choose which one to believe.
This is the second stage in the formation of the view.
In the rest of my life,
This is the third stage.
Finally, after having finally accumulated a great deal of experience, and having seen a lot of points of view, you have developed a more shared view, and you have the courage to express your thoughts.
But this view is not unbreakable.
You’ve been through the process of overturning prejudice, so you don’t exclude others from challenging your point of view, and at this point you’ll be the one who has ideas and is not stubborn. So if we want to think in depth, we have to put our prejudices to the challenge.
My mother would never change her prejudices in her life, as she had no opportunity to reflect on any other arguments, and at her age she had stopped studying.
What’s a push-up thinking?
The study found that in one country, the crime rate of A people is 23 per cent higher than that of B people, which means that for every 100 B people, there are 123 A people.
What do you think when you see that?
And you’d say, “Yeah, well, the A people have a low level of education, they’re particularly violent, they love to rob, they love to have babies.” I’m sorry.
You’ll come up with your own thoughts on this finding.
In the absence of any other perspective, there is a good chance that intuitive prejudice is present in the brain.
Let’s look up, why is there a high rate of human crime in that country?
The key to the push-up thinking is that when you look at the information, you do not follow the information and say emotions, but rather, inversely, inferences.
Why is there a high crime rate among ethnic groups?
Because in one country, the crime rate among young people is higher, and it’s simple, young people are more impulsive, while A young people of ethnic origin are more young than B young people of ethnic origin, and the result is that there are more A criminals of ethnic origin than B. In other words, the high crime rate is not because he’s an A race, but because most young people are an A race. After the above deduction, you might review yourself as if “A race was wrong.” At this point, different viewpoints collide in our minds and have begun to challenge prejudice.
Let’s move on. Why is there so many As?
Twenty-thirty years ago, A people had a very high birth rate, and for some reason, they had a special child.
When you move up one step at a time, you find the cause one after another, and eventually you find the source of the problem, and you understand it more deeply and think more deeply.
So, when we look at similar news stories later, do not blindly be carried away by information, most of which is highly instructive and inflammatory, and they say that they want you to think so.
The problem could be solved in the way that it had been deduced.
The manager found oil stains on the floor of the workshop, and he did the following:
First, find someone to clean the ground. Checked out where the oil leak had been, and found that a machine had leaked, and then asked the workers to fix it and then no more.
Following the discovery of the oil spill in the machine, the reason for the continued detection of the spill was that one of the screws was found to be substandard and that the Procurement Department was required to repurchase the new screws to prevent the spill from occurring.
If you think in depth, you can solve the problem from the source.
In both cases, it was mainly the chain of causes approach, which required you to ask why, to ask why, and to find out the root causes of the matter before drawing conclusions.
The causal chain approach was a push-up approach and other ways.
The second, referred to as retroactive sources of evidence and reliability.
Today, I’m telling you in a country where A people have a 23% higher crime rate than B people, and this is the conclusion of a psychologist.
You don’t have to decide. You can think up. Is the information I’m talking about reliable, for example, is it true? Who’s the psychologist? Does he have authority? Did I say anything wrong?
The third method of push-up is called the temporal and spatial retroactive approach.
I saw reports two days ago that rapes in India are highly probable, but I will not immediately conclude — “India is a mess”. I’d like to see if India has always been like this. Has this been the case in history? If India is not historically a country with a high rate of rape, then what are the factors that have changed?
It’s also easy for you to figure out the root causes and to think in depth.
In addition to historical retroactivity, parallel comparisons can be made.
The news about the Chinese medical difficulties is reported once in a while, the yellow steaks are not registered, the doctors are not very good, there is no bed in the hospital, etc. Seeing this news, don’t complain.
Is it always so hard to get a doctor in Chinese history? If it’s easy, why is it so hard? It can be compared in parallel. Is it so hard to see a doctor in China? Why is it not difficult for other countries, or is it harder for other countries to see patients than China?
At this point, it is easy to form deep thinking.
These are the three paths I have given you about push-up: the first path, the chain of retroactive causes, why then; the second path, the source and reliability of retrospective evidence, to see whether the evidence provided is accurate or inaccurate; and the third path, the temporal and space retroactive approach, which was not the case in the past, and we can also look in parallel at what other objects of comparison are doing.
It’s a different way of thinking than thinking up. It’s called thinking down.
What do you mean, a push-down thinking?
Recently, many people have been calling for restrictions on the remuneration of stars to participate in reality shows, accusing them of being overpaid and of participating in a show equaling the life of 10 scientists.
Seeing such figures is creepy and angry and inevitably leads to the conclusion that “stars should not be paid that much, but should be limited in their pay to up to half a million.” I’m sorry.
It’s really time to think down, and think about what would happen if it really limited star pay.
Stars only get half a million, but many people will watch his show, and the more the fire gets, the higher the ratings, the better the ads, the more the ads are, the more the ads are, the more expensive the TVs are.
So who’s the ultimate beneficiary of the restriction?
The law does not impose a ceiling on advertising fees on television stations, so as long as there is a high ratings rate for this programme, the television channel will be able to bargain with many advertisers, and eventually it will choose the most paid advertiser.
That’s not what we want. So what? The price of the television bill? Assuming the maximum is a million, which one should be chosen?
You pick someone, you make money?
The advertiser is so happy that he’s gonna have to spend 10 million dollars on the ad. Of course, one million dollars may not be available, and when so many advertisers think that a million is worth, you’re sure to rob them. Would any advertiser be willing to pay an extra million to the TV director as a bribe, or two million.
It’s certainly wrong to let a bribe happen, so it’s not feasible for the advertiser to pay him more taxes after he benefits, and eventually to turn that money into a tax?
Or don’t limit the income of a star. He can pay $10 million, then he can pay taxes directly.
What’s going to happen if we tax stars?
Is there a possibility of tax avoidance, like the signing of a Yinyang contract or something? It would not be feasible to monitor the taxation of these stars, would it be costly?
I don’t know what’s best, but when you think down, your thinking is starting to get deep.
The essence of push-down thinking is the assumption.
You can assume that’s the result, and then you can deduce what happens next and what’s the problem. What happens if you limit the pay of a star? What would happen to a heavy tax without limiting star pay?
In a step-by-step scenario, it is possible to produce the answers you want.
In the process, thinking begins from one point to one line, one line to one face, one face to one ball, and you think more and more and more.
These are two directions of deep thinking that I share.
Think deep or not, the brain must be open. A man with no open mind likes to draw conclusions everywhere, and once he does, thinking stops. And I often say to myself, “I cannot say what is absolutely right, and it can change. That’s why I’m going to turn myself down one by one and get closer to the truth.
In our age, too much information, without the ability to think in depth, will be beaten repeatedly, like a gyro, and today it is agitated, and tomorrow it will come to a price.
In our time, the problems are becoming more complex, and every one of them is in its system, and if only the symptoms are seen, the problems will not be solved and, ultimately, the costs will be paid.
The conclusion is that whoever is stupid and loses.
Don’t let your ability to think deeply be destroyed or lost.
How can you change your life? – The answer to the salt selection.
I don’t know.
Keep your eyes on the road.
