Deep thinking has two directions: the first direction, which is called a push-up thinking; the second direction, which is called a push-down thinking.
In the wrong direction, the harder it is, the easier it is to go south. Congratulations, you’re one step closer to truth, and it’s easier for you to understand when you’re in trouble, saving time in advance to get to the right side and quickly find the right solution.
I believe that many people feel that today, when the Internet and mobile phones are so well developed, we have fewer and fewer opportunities to think in depth. Our lives may have been filled with cell phone games and some microblogging information, and the ability to think in depth has deteriorated.
A while ago, I saw a scary article called “Your deep-thinking ability, how it was destroyed step by step.”
The article mentions one thing: in 1995, a conference was held in San Francisco, United States, which brought together more than 500 political and economic elites from around the world, as well as such great elites as Lady Thatcher and George W. Bush.
These elites are talking together about how to deal with globalization, and they all feel that if globalization continues, it will create a serious gap between the rich and the poor, and that global wealth will eventually be concentrated in the hands of 20 per cent of the people.
But then, 80% of the people are on the edge. What if they’re upset, they want to fight, and they’re in conflict with the 20%?
One of them came up with a method called “Put a nipple on the 80 percent.” What are these nipples? For example, the excretion industry, the development of gambling, pornography, and games, which involve 80 percent of the people in these excise industries, and let out the extra energy.
And there’s a nipple called the development of the sex industry, like looking at the edges of some star, the short parents, and drowning 80% of the people. In these pleasures and comforts, they drown in these satisfying industries, thus losing their head and their ability to think in depth. In this way, they slowly lose their enthusiasm in the entertainment that they have designed for them, they don’t fight, they don’t think, they expect the media to think for them, they judge for them, etc.
This strategy is the famous nipple strategy.
The article says, “Does this strategy work now? It worked, because a lot of people don’t think.
Before sharing specific methods, let me share with you the process, which is how our ability to think and our views are formed. Why do some people look like they’re thoughtful, thoughtful, thinkable?
As a general rule, our views are formed through four steps:
The first step, when we do not know anything, when there is a lack of knowledge, information and capacity, we have an intuitive feeling about one thing.
For example, I had a hunch that it was right, I had a hunch that you were right, but let him say why, he didn’t know.
So the first step in the formation of our view is intuition, which can easily bring something called prejudice.
Some people are prejudiced that if a parent is divorced, the character of the child must be impaired, or if born in a poorer family, the child must be humbled.
All of these are prejudices, intuitives are prejudices, and prejudices are the result of their own instincts, which replace and summarize the facts themselves, so that they are followed by prejudices.
One day, your prejudices will be challenged, for example, when you always think that a child with an unsound family must be humbled and unhappy. And one day, you saw another saying, and in the course of your studies, you saw a psychologist who said, “A child whose family is not healthy is happier when he grows up.” I’m sorry.
This is when you have to debate in your own mind, because you have a different point of view, and you have to choose which one you believe, and you start to have judgment.
And in the rest of your life, you’ll see a lot of different views in your brain, and slowly you’ll be afraid to talk, to be sure, and you’ll be the kind of person who doesn’t seem to be so critical.
It’s actually a good thing to prove that your vision is being opened, and you’re going from a state where you can talk, you can say anything, to a state where you can’t say, be careful.
Finally, you’ve come up with a lot of experience, and you’ve come up with a lot of ideas, and you’ve come up with a lot of ideas, and you’ve finally got to talk again. This view is relatively balanced and stable, as it goes through the whole process of thinking, from intuition to prejudice, to debate and, finally, to the formation of its own views, which will not change for some time.
But the idea itself is open, because you’ve been through a process of self-demarcation, so you don’t exclude others from changing your point of view in the future, and then you’ll be a man of opinion and look open.
This is the process by which I have shared my views: the first step, the hunch, when we don’t know anything, and we don’t know anything, the hunch is biased; then prejudice is challenged and self-debrised; and finally, we will form our own perspective and become a person who seems to be very opinionable but peaceful.
What we’re going to share with you is two directions of deep thinking: the first direction, called push-up thinking; the second direction, called push-down thinking.
First of all, what’s a pushover? Before I start with that concept, let me share a case.
One study found that in the United States, black crime was 23 per cent higher than white, which means 123 black crime per 100 white crime.
When you see that, normally, what do you think?
You’ll be influenced by that, and you’ll say, “Yes, it’s the case that blacks are of low quality, have low levels of education, are particularly violent, love to rob, and love to have children. Anyway, you’ll be affected by that.
The reason I’ve just said, you haven’t seen any other point of view, so what’s going on in the brain is the intuitive bias.
Let’s look at why black Americans have high crime rates. At this point we need a new way of thinking, a push-up approach.
When we saw this sentence, we did not follow its conclusion; instead, we pushed the phrase “why”, which is going up.
Why? Because in the United States, youth crime rates are higher, young people are more impulsive, and black young people are more numerous than white young people, with the result that there are more black criminals than white criminals. In other words, the high crime rate is not because he is black and white, but because of the high crime rate among young people.
We’d like to say, “It’s as if black people have been wronged. At this point, there are different points of view in your mind, which have challenged your prejudices, and you’re like, “As if I was wrong, it’s not because black people are poor, they have a high crime rate. I’m sorry.
Why do you think so many young black people? You found it possible that 20 or 30 years ago blacks had a high birth rate, and for some reason they had a special child.
And when you move up one step at a time, you find the cause, you eventually find the source of the problem, you know it more, and you finally have a deep thought.
So, when we look at cases and news like this, we cannot be carried away with information, most of which is highly instructive, highly inflammatory, so to speak.
For example, every time we see a story about a rape in India, we want to say that India is a mess, and that’s what the people who write it want to see.
So we can’t always be dominated by information and think about it. Why do you think India has such a high rate of rape? And then looking up, looking at the source of the problem, it’s a process of deep thinking.
On the contrary, if you’ve been guided by information to draw conclusions, you’ll think more and more superficially and you’ll believe everything you see.
That’s what we’re talking about. It is called the chain of causes, which requires you to ask why and ask why the root causes can no longer be invoked before drawing conclusions.
The second is called tracing the source of evidence and reliability.
You told me something today, saying that in America, black people have a 23% higher crime rate than white people, and you said that this was the conclusion of a psychologist’s study.
I’m going to push back at this time, and I’m going to push you to suggest whether this data is real and reliable, so it’s easy to think more deeply.
So push up, there’s more than one path, find the chain. There’s another way we’ll see if you give us the source and the reliability of the evidence. Is it reliable or unreliable?
The third path, known as the historical process.
Sometimes when we see this view, it’s particularly easy to believe it immediately. Before we do, ask ourselves, has it always been this way? Is there a difference in the past?
For example, when we see a high probability of rape in India today, we can ask ourselves, has it always been the case in the past? What if history is different? It’s also easy for you to figure out the root causes and to think in depth.
Now that there’s one way to go, there’s a parallel.
Today, for example, you have been told that China has been particularly difficult to see, as has been the case in the past, and that there may have recently been a new view that foreign countries are actually more difficult to see than China.
This is a way to think, because when you see an article about how hard it is to see a patient in China, don’t let him draw conclusions from it. Should you either push it up at this time? If it was easy, why?
You can push around, only in China? Why is it not difficult for other countries, or is it even harder for other countries to see a doctor than China? At this point, it is easy to form deep thinking.
The above is the three paths that have been provided for 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, to look back at historical processes, which was not the case in the past, and we can look in parallel at other contrasts.
And there’s a way of thinking, called the push-down.
What’s called a push-down thinking, not what we just said, is that when you see a message, you’re guided by it, you’re incited, you’re going to come to a conclusion. In that case, we’ll be the kind of people we’re talking about who’s less able to think.
So, for example, there’s been a lot of people who have recently been calling for restrictions on stars’ access to reality shows, and it’s too high, and they’re getting tens of millions on a show, and it’s equivalent to 10 scientists working their whole lives.
When you saw the number, it was so scary that you were just agitated, you came to the conclusion, “You should not let the star get that much, you should limit it to 5 million. I’m sorry.
At this point, we’re going to have a push-down thinking, and we’re going to think about what would happen if we really limited the pay of the stars? Stars can only take 5 million, but he’s a very busy man, and many people watch the show, and he’s able to get the ratings. After that, they went to buy the business, so many of the ads were willing to go to the show.
So many advertisers, which one should the producer choose? Definitely chose to give him the most money. That’s why this group took a lot of money, but it didn’t give these stars the money.
We thought, “Well, it’s not possible to limit the number of advertisers to the maximum amount of money they can invest, so that the group can’t make that much money. I’m sorry.
And who will oversee the process? Who’s going to help you pick out the advertiser? Is there a problem with regulation in this process? Will there be some kind of money or gift?
When you think about it, there are other problems, which are complicated and deepened, not a process of drawing conclusions, of intuitive prejudice.
And you thought, “No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. I’m sorry.
If you want to tax him, ask what’s going to happen. Have you thought about it? Is there any way to avoid taxes? Is it possible to get a star to sign some yang contract?
I don’t know which method is better, nor is it the right answer to discuss it with you, but I just want to tell you that when you think down, your thinking is starting to get deeper, and the essence of the thinking down is called hypothetical.
You can assume that’s the way it is, and then you can deduce what happens next and what’s the problem?
I’ve just given you two points: one, you can assume what happens when you limit the pay of a star; the other, what happens when you collect their heavy tax.
In this process, it’s possible to produce the answers you want.
For example, you find it better to charge a tax on a star than a tax on an enterprise, or a tax on a group. Taxes can also have a series of problems. Would you like to look into them and see what would happen if they were always so heavy?
In any case, thinking begins to change from a dot to a line, a line becomes a face, a face becomes a spherical, and your thinking becomes more solid and deep.
These are the two directions of deep thinking that you share.
The ability to think in depth is very important, because it is only when you have a vision of the world that you are connected to it. That’s what I’ve heard recently: your shortcut to the world is to have your own perspective.
But ask yourself, are there any views or opinions? Are these views and opinions sufficiently deep and rational? Not necessarily.
Can you see if you belong to 80% of the people or 20% of the people? Eighty per cent of the people are those who have lost their ability to think in depth and drown in entertainment information.
Several characteristics of low ability to think:
First, I love to hear stories and read them.
They love to write stories in the media, which is the public sign you usually read. Because they know that people who don’t like brainwashing tend to read stories, the more they can be fooled, the more they work to attract fans like that to write stories on their own public names every day.
It’s a habit to read stories and hear them. What we loved most when we were children was to listen to stories and to see them, but we cannot just read them and hear them, and we cannot be filled with them.
In other words, it’s important to look at something that requires our thinking. Instead of looking at something that’s a little bit difficult, you turn over and look at some stories right now to fill your daily void.
Can you still read those in-depth articles? Or are you immersed in stories made up every day?
If you’re stuck in someone else’s story, it’s probably the 80 percent of the people, the ones whose ability to think has been destroyed.
Second characteristic, emotional.
This group of people replaces their thinking with emotions, and the first thing that happens is emotions, not brains. He can do anything when he’s emotional, and he can say anything.
Many people write deliberately to incite the reader, and an emotional person is the most easily agitated, as long as there is something in the article that can incite him, such as national feelings, patriotism, etc., and he is the only one to blame.
The third characteristic of low ability to think is that it is easy to move emotions, which are unclear from logic.
Like, “Mom must be good for us, so Mom’s right, so listen to Mom. I’m sorry.
That’s a serious mix of emotions and logic, “Mother is good for me, loves me, I’m particularly moved,” that’s emotion. But “Mom loves me, so everything is right and I’m going to listen.” It’s logical.
We can’t mix emotions with logic, and sometimes when two people argue, I’m particularly anxious. One of them says, “I don’t want to tell you this, I say it’s for your own good.” I’m sorry.
There’s no logical relationship between “you’re good for me” and “I want to hear you.” One is about emotion, the other is about logic, not one thing. You may be wrong about being nice to me, and you may be hurt by being nice to me, even though you have feelings for me.
And then down, the fourth feature, especially the one about experience. And what I’ve been through, “I used to be myself” is a sign of the lower ability to think.
By way of example, you tweet “It’s hard for a mother-in-law and a daughter-in-law” and there’s a man below who contradicts what you’re saying and says that he’s really good with her.
Seeing today that one of the XX people may have done a bad thing, tomorrow comes to the conclusion: “All XX people are bad.” I’m sorry.
This is to replace the whole with one’s own case, to be partial, to start with one’s own experience, so it is easy to be the kind of person I just said. And when people say something, he says I’m not, and that’s typical of the low-thinking.
And down, the fifth feature, it’s very good to see assumptions as results.
A group of people said, “We in China are in recession, so we don’t work now, we should start a business right away. I’m sorry.
That was a false statement, but you see it, and we hear it often in life. It’s to give you the assumption that China is in recession, so what should we do?
You want to hear it? See if he’s right, and many people think it’s the result: “This is China, so what should we do? I’m sorry.
Many prefer to treat assumptions as results, starting from assumptions to inferences about other things, which are not necessarily proven in themselves. So one of the manifestations of the low ability to think is to use assumptions as an outcome.
In the future, the sixth characteristic of low capacity is considered, with the phenomenon replacing the cause.
To give you an example, what is the reason why a factory is bad, not very productive and not well sold?
You find one reason for this, because the staff is not motivated and active. The solution was to encourage staff to shout slogans every day, give them chicken blood and give them bonuses. After all the measures went down, you found that they didn’t change, even if your workers looked passionate.
Why?
Because that’s not why you found it. It’s just a phenomenon. Perhaps the reason for the poor performance of the plant is the poor quality of the product, the poor sales and the low motivation of workers. Thus, the low motivation of workers is not a fundamental cause, but a phenomenon, and the underlying causes are different.
Many times, it is easy for us to address the phenomenon as a cause, leading to a mistake in our thinking and a visible phenomenon.
The seventh characteristic takes probabilities into account.
If you don’t study well, you won’t go to college, you won’t find a job, you won’t marry your daughter-in-law.
These are called probabilities, which are inevitable, and which are also manifestations of poor thinking.
There are, of course, many other expressions of low capacity to think, because, in our society, deep thinking is rare, shallow thinking is common and the ability to think is declining.
If characteristics are to be found, a set of characteristics can be identified, which explains precisely the importance of developing a person ‘ s ability to think in depth.
Thinking about the depth of this thing, it comes from its openness. A closed person, such as the one we have just mentioned, who draws conclusions from personal experience, is not likely to produce in-depth thinking.
I am here to share with you a principle that, if you want to be deep, you should not always be able to draw conclusions and remain open.
And I often say to myself, “I can never say what I say is absolutely right, and it can change. That’s why I’m going to turn myself over one step at a time and get closer to the truth.
Record number: YX11nqAPENq
I don’t know.
Keep your eyes on the road.
