The mental disorders of this era – the damaged luck that turned me into a psychopathy For failure, we are all mentally handicapped, and the logic of the desperate desire for success holds.

The mental disorder of this era — the damaged luck that turned me into a psychopath

We are all mentally handicapped when it comes to failure, and the logic holds for an extreme desire to succeed. If one is born to be successful, then it is not too difficult to understand that the losers are mentally ill, and the fact is that the high incidence of mental disorders and animal experiments, social phenomena all reflect the opposite of the pathological pursuit of success - the losers have become psychopathic. We are following Japanese culture and seeing failure as a disgrace, and the consequences of such a thing will be a pathological society. We should remember our own culture that failure is the mother of success.

If the masses are a more intelligent group, what is harming this group? The development of the world is driven by history, and history is logically change, the development of change, which is applicable to individuals and groups, and the process of change producing results we understand as luck, or change itself should be regarded as luck. For example, we have a new idea that is not just a change, but also luck — an imbalance in trajectory.

However, both our psychology and intellect have difficulty accepting repeated attempts, or acknowledging that failures are necessary for life; human beings like not only certainty, but also stability, both physical and psychological structures need a stable internal environment, and those who calmly try to change the world or others become winners. When it comes to failure, we are all mentally handicapped.

Yet "you have to love failure," this counterintuitive view is the Mark Spitznagord motto, and American culture advocates encouraging failure, unlike European and Asian cultures that treat failure as shame and embarrassment. America's expertise lies in taking these small risks for the rest of the world, which is why the country has an extraordinary ability to innovate. Once you have an idea, implement it, and then "perfect" the idea or product.

People are often ashamed of failure, and the consequence of doing so is that the strategies they employ are less volatile, just as the stability of poverty is based on the stability of the structure of thinking. Shame on failure carries the risk of great losses – if you don't move against the tide, you will retreat, and risks and opportunities coexist. Japanese culture has a pathological adaptation to randomness, but it is impossible to understand that bad results can come from luck, so failure can seriously damage a person's reputation. And for Chinese culture, this phenomenon is becoming more and more serious, our moral benchmark is being linked to interests and success, losers not only mean failure, but also mean personality problems - people are social people: I think you think I am, when success has a fixed cognitive standard, the loser will be a total failure, self-doubt people if they are abandoned by social cognition, will definitely enter the psychology of self-proof prophecy: I and society together think that they are losers, I suspect that I have a problem, Then I became a real psychopath.

In a society where interests are solidified, if people hate volatility or have to like stability, it will lead to major strategies – people don't know what they can do, and if you don't believe in applying, you know that I am right. The key question is not what you can do, but whether society needs you to do so and whether it can accept a high probability of failure. Behind stability lies a huge risk. As for how to solve these problems, it is left to people to understand with their own wisdom. The point of my discussion today is: if the change in randomness is luck, luck is fair to everyone, it is a greater equalizer than wisdom, then what affects our luck. Fear of failure is a factor that affects luck, so how do external conditions hurt luck?

The like effect, the Matthew effect, the universal language effect, the talent priority connection model, the structural position contribution model, the power law distribution, the thought contagion model, the broadcast model These theories, models, knowledge, and experience all tell us the same truth - the world is unfair, the winner may be replaced, but the loser will lose very steadily. There is a kind of thing in human nature that allows us to avoid losses in advance, people always overestimate the happiness utility of loss and gain, this mechanism may lead humanity to a more favorable future, but in the modern environment it faces great risks, and the mechanism of our pursuit of happiness makes us unable to perceive the potentially huge risks that this mechanism brings. For example, environmental crises and long-term health risks, we just want more.

The recognition of the importance of success as quickly as possible in a research career arises primarily from a misconception about the persistence of the effect, especially when he is reinforced by bias, and a large number of counterexamples suggest that this is an age fallacy: in short, early success is necessary, including early recognition of this.

If the screening of the college entrance examination can make people have a lifetime of luck, smooth sailing, occupy a solid position in the social structure, and these positions have a contributing role in themselves, rather than the role played by this person. This mechanism is the same fallacy as the one that a five-year-old fights and eventually wins can occupy a solid position of interest for a lifetime. These people are just as blindly and invisibly topped to high positions as academic papers, right position contributions, and the mechanism of being liked. This is also the reason why the world is unfair. But in the realm of free competition, there is luck that is fairer than wisdom, and the luck brought about by these random changes is fair to everyone and gives people the possibility of success.

Luck is the big equalizer, because almost everyone benefits from it, and if you only protect the big companies, you will kill potential newcomers in the cradle. Everything is temporary. It is also unfair to distribute benefits according to people's abilities, because no one can choose their own abilities, we just think that we can choose our own abilities. A more random and changeable society can be reshuffled, and such a society is more equitable.