<h1 class= "pgc-h-arrow-right" > one and two thinking</h1>
One day in 1995, Hans was giving a lesson to the students, as usual. In class, Hans explained to his students that the high mortality rates of primitive tribes in remote areas and rainforests were due to their poverty, but even then, fewer and fewer people were living in extremely difficult situations.
Then one of the students raised his hand and said, "They will never be able to live like us." ”
"Who are they referring to by?" Does it refer to countries other than Sweden? He asked rhetorically.
"No, it's a country outside the West."
"What about Japan?"
"No, japanese people also have a Western way of life."
"What about Malaysia?"
"No, Malaysia is not a Western country, all those countries that have not accepted the Western way of life, they will never accept this way of life, you know what I mean?"
"No, I don't understand what you mean, please explain. You're talking about the West and other countries, right? ”
"Yes, that's what it means."
"So is Mexico a Western country?"
The student could no longer answer, and he found himself unable to answer Hans's question with the logic he had just made.
For to divide all countries into Western countries and other countries is in itself a completely wrong view.
When people say "developing country" and "developed country", what they usually really want to express is" and "poor country" and "rich country".
But today's world has changed radically, and this argument only applies to the world of the 1960s, and by the 21st century, most of the world's countries are middle-income countries, and there is no huge gap that divides the world into two groups.
This kind of thinking of Hans students is actually a typical way of thinking in two. Many journalists, politicians, activists, teachers, and academics are accustomed to using these labels.
Because human beings always have an impulse to divide things in two, and the two categories that are divided must be opposed to each other, contradictory, and there is a huge gap, such as dividing people into good people and bad people, developed and developing countries, and so on.
Hans thinks this is the most serious and need to be corrected of all the wrong ways of thinking in human beings.
In response to the instinct of "dividing one into two", the correct approach is:
1. When comparing two sets of data, in addition to the average, you must also pay attention to the actual distribution of the data, such as looking at whether there are overlapping parts of the data.
2. Pay attention to extreme data, but also pay attention to the general situation.
<h1 class= "pgc-h-arrow-right" > negative thinking</h1>
If there were two pieces of news: "Plane Crash" and "Safe Landing of Aircraft", which one would you pay more attention to?
There is a high probability that you will say the former. This is actually the human instinct to be wary of danger. Imagine that in primitive society, if humans saw the beast and did not immediately run away, they could only wait to be eaten. This instinct also makes it easier for us to pay attention to the bad side of things and ignore the whole picture of things.
And this instinct for negative thinking is reflected in three aspects:
First, our memories of past mistakes;
Second, selective coverage of negative news by the media and social activists;
Third, we always feel that as long as something bad happens, we shouldn't think that the world is getting better.
So if you want to overcome negative thinking, you must remind yourself that more bad news does not equal more bad things.
An example is mentioned in the book "Facts":
In 2016, 4.2 million babies died worldwide. At first glance, you will feel that this is a very large number and feel very scary. But in 1950, that number was as high as 14.4 million. So a scary-looking number doesn't mean it's a bad thing, the truth behind it is that the world is getting better.
<h1 class= "pgc-h-arrow-right" > three, straight line thinking</h1>
We all have an instinct to think in a straight line, and this instinct leads us to assume that everything develops according to the laws of straight lines.
Let me give you an example. If a child is born 0.5 meters tall, and by the time he is six months old, he has grown to 0.67 meters, according to this trend, we draw a height growth curve, and we will get this result:
By the time the kid is 4 years old, he'll be 2 meters tall, and by the time he's 10, he'll be 4 meters tall.
We can clearly conclude that this prediction graph is wrong. Because we have first-hand experience with growing tall, and we know that no one in the world can grow up to 4 meters tall. But for many other things, especially those we are not familiar with, it is always easy to conclude that they will develop in a straight line.
This knee-jerk conclusion stems from our instincts. For example, if you see a rock flying towards you, you don't need data, you don't need a chart, your eyes and brain can calculate the extension of the parabola and take evasive actions.
We can easily imagine that this automatic visual prediction ability could help our ancestors survive from harsh environments. This ability still helps us survive today, but it also hinders our prediction of how things will unfold.
The best solution to this instinct is to understand the different curves of the development of things. Hidden in these curves are very interesting social phenomena. The population growth curve, for example, does not grow over time, but gradually slows down.
<h1 class= "pgc-h-arrow-right" > fourth, fear instinct</h1>
Imagine this: you are attracted by the scenery on the edge of the cliff, sticking your body out of the railing, and suddenly the railing shakes violently. What to do? Out of fear instinct, you'll leave right away. So you see, the fear of physical injury, trapping, and poisoning helped the ancestors quickly escape danger and survive better.
To this day, these dangers trigger our fear instincts, which instinctively exacerbate things. For example, after a report of an air crash, many people will feel that it is not safe to fly. But the data shows that the probability of plane crashes in China's major airlines is only one in 200,000 on average. That is to say, when traveling by plane, the safety factor is actually quite high.
To control our fear instincts, we need to calculate the real risk: the real risk = the degree of danger x the likelihood of it happening.
In addition to learning to calculate real risks, we must also understand that the world we feel is more terrifying than the real world, because the information we notice is carefully selected and filtered by the media, and the media deliberately chooses those scary information to attract our attention.
<h1 class= "pgc-h-arrow-right" > five, the illusion of scale</h1>
In the 1980s, Hans worked as a doctor in Mozambique. At that time, local medical conditions were limited, and only normal saline and intramuscular injections were provided in hospitals. One weekend, a doctor friend of his visited him, and a mother holding a baby who had become debilitated by severe diarrhea came to him for help.
When Hans saw this, he immediately inserted a tube in the child's mouth and asked him to take oral salt supplement. The friend was very angry when he saw it, thinking that this was just to save trouble and that the child should be given an intravenous injection.
Hans explained to him: "The current conditions can only do this, if we give the child an intravenous injection, it will take us half an hour, and the nurse does not know how to operate." We shouldn't give every patient our all, because that's tantamount to spending the time and effort we need to save multiple people on a handful of patients. I am responsible for the deaths of children in the entire community, not just these children who came to the hospital and died in front of my eyes. ”
His friend disagreed: your responsibility is to go all out to help patients who come to the hospital, and your claim to be able to save more children outside the hospital is just a false guess.
Hans didn't want to argue with him anymore, but made statistics:
A total of about 3,900 children died that year, of whom 964 were hospitalized, and 52 of the children admitted to the hospital died. The death toll Hans saw was only 1.3 percent of the range of his work.
In this case, Hans was well aware that the infusion treatment of these seriously ill children in the hospital would only save the lives of a small number of children. Far more children can be saved if health care in communities is improved so that dysentery, pneumonia and malaria are no longer major diseases that threaten children's lives.
It is always easy to pay attention to the part and ignore the whole, always notice a single number and misjudge its importance, and always misjudge the importance of a single event or a visible victim. It's one of our instincts.
The media also often caters to our instincts for this illusion of scale. Journalists tend to exaggerate the importance of a single event, fact, or figure. Journalists are also well aware that it is difficult to ignore the individual who is harmed.
To avoid looking at the part and not the whole, you only need to focus on two points: contrast and proportion. The specific way to think about it is as follows:
1. Never think that a single number makes a lot of sense in itself. When you see a number, you should immediately think of comparing it to other numbers.
2. Make use of the two-eight principle. In a set of data, often a few of these things are far more important than all the other things combined. Please pay more attention to these things at this time.
3. Learn to use the proportion and per capita.
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" > six, partial generalization</h1>
Each of us automatically deduces and generalizes in our minds. Induction is absolutely necessary for us because it gives us a structure of thought. However, the wrong inductive classification will lead to the formation of a wrong model in our minds.
If you can constantly question your own classification methods, you can effectively avoid thinking in a partial way. The right thing to do is:
1. Look for differences within the same category, look for similarities between different categories;
2. Pay attention to the majority, pay attention to extreme cases;
3. Don't easily generalize the characteristics of one category to other categories.
<h1 class= "pgc-h-arrow-right" > seven, fate</h1>
Once, Hans went to give a talk at the Almo Hotel in Edinburgh to some investment managers and their wealthiest clients. In his speech, he showcased the world-shaking economic progress that Asia and African countries have made over the past few decades.
After the speech, a gentleman said to Hans: "I looked at the data, I listened to your speech, but I don't think there can be any progress in Africa at all." I've been in Nigeria so I know this, it's their culture, and their culture simply doesn't allow them to build a modern society, never will. ”
This is people's "destiny" instinct. Many people think that the intrinsic properties of some things will determine their fate, and that all backwardness is caused by their inner nature, and this will never change. Yet society and culture are not as immutable as rocks. They are in constant flux.
Take the following example.
Hans's grandfather, who had seven children, never changed diapers for children, never cooked, never cleaned his room, and never talked about sex or contraception. Yet his eldest daughter was very supportive of radical feminists, encouraging condoms in 1930.
When she tried to communicate with her father about the need for contraception, his father became extremely angry and refused to talk about the topic. His values remain traditional machismo.
In 1960, abortion was still illegal in Sweden, and people needed to raise funds to support women to travel far and wide to have abortions in Poland. But these values are no longer accepted by the next generation. In Sweden today, almost everyone supports women's right to abortion.
The above-mentioned patriarchalism is often heard in some countries in Asia and Africa, but this value is not Asian values or African values, which is just a historical value like the Swedish value 60 years ago.
With social and economic progress, these values naturally disappear, and as happened in Sweden, these values are not immutable.
It's easy to understand the psychology of people hoping that what they've learned will never go out of style, and once you've learned something, you hope it will always apply and that you never need to relearn it.
This may apply in mathematics, physics, art, and other fields, but in the social sciences, the most basic knowledge can quickly become obsolete. Therefore, we should continue to pay attention to new data to control our "destiny" instincts.
<h1 class= "pgc-h-arrow-right" > eight, a single perspective</h1>
A man with a hammer in his hand looks like a nail.
Knowledge can sometimes be an obstacle for experts, making them invisible to real solutions. All solutions work well for solving specific problems, but no one solution can solve all problems. The best way to do this is to:
1. Observe the world from multiple perspectives
Don't just focus on the right cases that prove your idea, but discuss it with people who disagree. Discover the inadequacies of your thoughts.
2. Don't think you have any insights outside of your area of expertise
Be humble about what you don't know. It is also important to note that experts also have their limitations.
3. Hammers and nails
When you're proficient at using a tool, you're always going to use it as much as you can. When you spend too much time focusing on analyzing a problem, you may exaggerate the importance of the problem and the solution.
Keep in mind that no single tool is a panacea. If you're always used to using hammers, deal with people who are used to using pickers, wrenches, and tape measures. Listen to people from different fields.
4. Focus on the numbers, but not just the numbers
We can't understand the world without numbers, but with numbers alone, we still can't understand the world. Focus on discovering the real world behind the numbers.
5. Beware of simple ideas and simple solutions
There has never been a shortage of utopians in human history who are full of utopian, simple ideas, and in the end they all bring terrible results. We should recognize the complexity of things, learn to be eclectic and compromise. We should solve the problem on the basis of a specific analysis of the specific situation.
<h1 class= "pgc-h-arrow-right" > nine, blame others</h1>
When bad things happen, people are always trying to find a clear and simple reason to blame others, which is what we call the instinct to blame people.
When things go in a good direction, this instinct is often stimulated as well. We usually think that a person, a group, or a simple cause caused this good result, ignoring the complex truth behind it.
If you really want to change the world, then you have to really understand the world.
To control the instinct to blame others, you should look for the systemic cause behind this, rather than simply looking for a scapegoat.
<h1 class= "pgc-h-arrow-right" > ten, the situation is chaotic</h1>
In times of emergency, it is easy for us to make the wrong decisions. Many merchants play the slogan of "only one day, 10% off", which is to use this instinct.
To control the instinct for impatience, we need to do these 4 things:
1. Take a deep breath
When your restless instincts are awakened, your other instincts are activated, and your brain's analytical abilities stop working. Please give yourself a little time and more information.
In the vast majority of cases, you don't need to act now and will still have a chance later.
2. Insist on understanding the underlying data
If something is urgent and important, then we have to observe it continuously. Be wary of data that is relevant but not accurate, or that is accurate but not actually relevant. Only relevant and accurate data is truly useful.
3. Beware of biased prophets
Any prediction of the future is uncertain. All forecasts must take into account future uncertainties. You should insist on a comprehensive understanding of forecasting that includes multiple scenario analyses.
Never just look at the best or worst. And to check the accuracy of this prediction method by comparing it with the facts that have occurred in history.
4. Beware of excessive actions
Understand as much as possible the consequences and side effects of drastic action. Understand the rationale for this action. Realistic progress should be made steadily and steadily, and the implementation effect should be continuously observed in the process.
Usually a step-by-step approach is always better than drastic action.
To sum up, the above introduces 10 thinking instincts, some of which affect our cognitive framework, and some of which will make our sensibility hijack rationality. But these thinking instincts prevent us from thinking rationally and bias our understanding of the world.
*The article is the author's independent opinion and does not represent the position of the note-taker.