Philosophy

Strawman Direct Translation: Strawman Alternative: Adding a Charge/Accusation (or: Adding a Fault) The act of distorting an opponent’s arguments to make them easier to attack. By exaggerating, distorting, or even completely fabricating an opponent’s arguments, one presents their own position as more reasonable. However, sincere and rational debate is destroyed by this form of argumentation, which is essentially fraudulent. Example: Xiao Ming says: “The state should invest more funds in the medical and education sectors.” Xiao Liang replies: “That’s terrifying! You actually hate the country so much that you want to reduce defense spending, leaving our army defenseless and unable to protect the nation.” ...

For example, I bought a new car and am now waiting for delivery. Naturally, I pay close attention to this matter, going onto the forum every evening to check and research related information. Why do I do this? It is just an ordinary car; it won’t bring any substantial change to my life. I know that as soon as the car is in hand, I won’t pay attention to it anymore. The key point of the problem lies in my obsession with the “desire” for external things. The fixation I have towards external things that bring me happiness and joy is actually a kind of delusion.

I believe that life itself isn’t that difficult; it is ourselves who makes life difficult. I am striving to shed the word “should” in my life. When “should” appears in the mind, what lies behind it is guilt or social conditioning. If you do something because of “should,” it means deep down you don’t want to do it, and going against your own will will make you unbearably miserable. Therefore, I strive to reduce the things I do in life because of “should.”

Don’t spend your time trying to please others. Whether others are happy or not is their problem, not yours.

Being accountable for your unique output (rather than being accountable for the time spent, like an employee), this is the ideal state.

This is the result of being educated with standard answers since childhood. Even when the professor taught the Prisoner’s Dilemma, with all the formulas and mathematics already available, they still hesitate to consider whether gun control can be relaxed.

You’ve already thought of a fallback plan before you even start. Usually, there is no room for experimentation; you only have two choices—to do it or not to do it. If you approach things with a tentative mindset, they are highly likely to end in failure.

This is a free-rider game. One party bears the corresponding cost, and both parties share the resulting benefits. Whether individual rationality and collective rationality conflict depends on the game’s rules. When A < 10, the collective should participate (or contribute). However, due to unequal income distribution, individuals are reluctant to contribute. To resolve this conflict, we should not deny individual interests (let the big pig press the button selflessly), but rather change the game’s rules (if the small pig doesn’t press, it eats a little less). Therefore, while free-riding, don’t forget to give something back to the other party. The willingness of the wealthy to be benevolent cannot exist without the approval (or “likes”) of the poor.

There is a clear lure. The path to the lure is one-way—you can enter, but you cannot exit (sunk cost). The harder you try to break free, the deeper you fall.

You cannot use the reference point the boss gives you; instead, you must provide a reference point for the boss. For example, you tell the boss: “The place next door only sells it for 60 yuan.” The most extreme scenario is whether the boss can give it to me for free. You must push it back to the price point where the negotiation is about to break down. No movement, no price reduction.

The game ending is unrelated to the truth; the game rules determine the outcome. Even if [we] haven’t done it, lying is still the best choice, because lying might lead to immediate release.

It is impossible to make a decision in a vacuum, but the reference point can be controlled.

Under conditions of information asymmetry, the outcome of the game is not determined by the players themselves, but by what they believe others are thinking.

If your perceived foolishness makes the other party willing to cooperate with you, why wouldn’t you be happy about it?

So, the harm done to you is the result of the other party’s repeated deliberation.

This happened in the past, so it will happen in the future.

A major goal of life should be mastering one’s own time. The ideal job is work that utilizes the leverage effect. In this work model, you can control your own time and be responsible for your own output and results. If you bring game-changing opportunities to a company by providing excellent solutions, you are guaranteed financial returns. Especially, if others don’t even know how you achieved it, they must continuously pay you, allowing you to keep providing that product or service. And the reason you can achieve this is because of your obsession, skills, or talent.

Nearly all biases exist to help people make quick judgments when information is incomplete. For important decisions, one must set aside memory and identity, and focus on the issue itself.

A-Q is a typical common man; his status is humble, and he lives in the rural society of the late Qing and early Republican periods. Through depicting A-Q’s image and experiences, Lu Xun expresses his criticism of the contemporary Chinese society and his concern for the fate of the common people. A-Q’s spirit, also known as the “A-Q Spirit,” is interpreted by some as a form of optimism and magnanimity. When A-Q suffers setbacks and oppression, he often uses self-consolation to maintain his self-esteem and confidence. He masks his failures and humiliation through self-deception and self-mockery, enabling him to find a psychological balance amidst adversity. ...