Conspiracy theorists and social stupidity

Recently, the Canadian arrested Huawei executives, and Zhang Shousheng died. I found that many people think that these two events are deeply related, even the same person behind the scenes. The former naturally has American factors, and if the latter is murder, I'm afraid it can only be hehe. You know, amazing hypothesis needs amazing evidence, please show me the evidence. Why do you have such an idea? Because they all believe in conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theory sounds terrible, Gao. Please accept my knees. In fact, don't listen to conspiracy theorists, he is the real ignorant generation. Because they simply don't understand or don't want to use their brains to understand the complexity of the world, and they can't endure everything for no reason, and they feel uncomfortable. How many brain cells will you save if you have a hand behind your back every time.

Once you get used to it, you can use it well, so everything is a conspiracy theory. As Bonhofer said, these people are just playing recordings, and they never respond to specific things. Again, you might as well see how many people in your circle of friends are clamoring not to buy an Apple phone to buy Huawei's. Hey, man, we're not talking about the economy today. You have me and I have you, and how many jobs have Apple's industrial chain pulled in China? Let's start with the simplest. Even if the two families fight, you know that you want to divide each other and fight for one party and one faction. Do you want to fight a country with one heart and one mind, or a country with many differences? If you don't buy apples, you can't buy millet, vivo, OPPO and hammer. These phones all use Qualcomm chips and Google systems. You should make a demonstration to let these manufacturers buy Huawei's Kirin series chips and build their own domestic systems. If they can't get it out, they can use the function machine ten years ago. It is a cowardly mentality to resist a person at every turn. If you have this idea from 1840 to 1945, forget it. Now is a new era, and now China is the absolute main force and beneficiary of globalization. Do you think our attitude towards Japan in China still can't move the embassy to demonstrate and smash Japanese cars? I am too lazy to talk to you. Why? It's not a lump at all. This is the confidence of the strong. The confidence of another strong person belongs to Huawei. Huawei is awesome enough to make outsiders awe and even awe. A very important aspect is that Huawei never relies on the pity of the great you and who.

Conspiracy theories often seem to have clear logic and smooth causal chain, and it is naturally effortless to understand. People who believe in conspiracy theories have defects in their basic understanding of the world. They don't know how complicated the world is. There are so many variables in an event that it can't be controlled by the initiator. Just like fighting a war, every war is fought according to the design of one side. Let's discuss it with a concept used by the US military.

VUCA is a concept used in American military training, which refers to four states or four characteristics that commanders face on the battlefield:

For the initiators of conspiracy theories, the country they are facing is VUCA, and rash action will only cost them more than the gain.

For those who believe in conspiracy theories, their thinking is in a chaotic state of VUCA, so they urgently need conspiracy theories to clear the fog for them, so they enter a cognitive game state.

Napoleon likes to talk to a soldier alone when he reviews the army, but generally because time is tight, he almost always asks three simple and rigid questions:

How old are you?

How many years have you been in my army?

Which of my two world wars did you take part in?

There was once a soldier in Napoleon's army who didn't know much French. Because of the sudden incident, the soldier's companion told him: If Napoleon asks you these three questions, whether you understand them or not, you are right to answer them like this:

The first question, you answered "25 (I am 25 years old)";

The second question, you answered "3 (I have been in this unit for 3 years)";

The third question, you answered "Du (participated in two world wars)".

Of course, these three questions are all answers in a set order.

Napoleon asked the soldiers during the parade, but he reversed the order of the questions:

Napoleon: How long have you been in my army?

Soldier: 25.

Napoleon: 25 years? (Thinking) My army hasn't been 25 years ... How old are you?

Soldier: Three.

Napoleon (surprised): Are you crazy or am I crazy?

Soldier: Both (both).

This is a joke. It seems that soldiers are stupid. You don't have to take it seriously at all. But, think about yourself, is this the case many times? For example, teachers, how many teachers in China are scripted now? The teaching plan has been going on for decades. For example, the first reaction of conspiracy theorists is that the United States or an American organization, the black hand behind the scenes, is playing dirty tricks again.

Conspiracy theorists, the fundamental problem is to ignore new information and stick to existing knowledge. In other words, there is only knowledge stock, but no knowledge increment. There is a solution to this disease, and that is dialectics.

Dialectics is to prove an unknown conclusion and cognition through debate, but it is not a conclusion and cognition that appears out of thin air. It is the cognitive result of quality dialogue between two people or one person's two selves. It can be seen that the core is that you should look at yourself objectively.

Without objectification, there can be no iteration; Without iteration, there can be no real cognition.

As long as you start a dialogue with yourself, you may have a cognitive increment, and this process is no longer a state of playback.

Patients with serious conspiracy theories are likely to "talk to themselves", which will not only not alleviate but also strengthen their beliefs. Some people say that "90% conversations are invalid" because they are seesaws and games without logic and rules. For example, scientists were murdered by the CIA, which makes sense on the surface. In fact, this is an imaginary seemingly reasonable logic, that is, looking for logic where there is no logic and forcibly establishing relationships where there is no relationship. At this time, you need other people's help.

To communicate, there must be rules and logic. Rapoport's rule is a good trick.

Lapoport's law has four steps:

Step one:

Before you refute the other person's point of view, you should repeat the other person's idea very clearly, vividly and fairly, so as to achieve such an effect: after listening to your retelling, the opponent will say in his heart, "Thank you, I really wish I could express it like you just now."

Step two:

You should make a list of things that you agree with each other's point of view-first, I agree with you; Second, what do I agree with you? Third ... make this list as clear as possible, and have enough quantity to make the other person feel that you are his other self.

Step 3:

You should also emphasize "how the other person's point of view has improved my understanding of the problem", that is, what you have learned from the other person's point of view-this is to express your cognitive increment.

This can't be done by courtesy. You must have a deep understanding of the other party's point of view. After listening to the other party's point of view, you must substantially correct some of your own points of view so that the other party can really feel what you have learned from his point of view.

These three steps are like playing chess: set a hidden goal-the point you disagree with the most, and then enclose it. When you want to eat a piece, you must enclose it. If you can't surround this area, it may escape at any time.

Step 4:

Start explaining where you disagree with the other person, so that the other person feels that "you are him" and he is in a state of introspection-your behavior unconsciously brings the other person into a state of introspection or "self-dialogue". The views you disagree with will be highlighted in the background of your many identical views, and the other party will enter a state of self-correction, and then it will be easy to achieve * * * knowledge-this * * knowledge is a cognitive increment.

That's easy to say, but it's hard to really convince a conspiracy theorist. There is another passage from Peng Hofer, you might as well have a look:

-On Stupidity Excerpted from Hoff's Letters in Prison.