Psychology

To be a winner, or to avoid being a loser? Being proactive can yield greater rewards, but in the long run, it is not always beneficial. When luck is bad, one may encounter developments that are less than expected, leading to frustration. Short-term success is generally recognized, yet there is insufficient attention paid to its persistence and stability in the records. Timing the Offensive-Defensive Shift Few people (if any) have the ability to instantly adjust tactics to match market conditions, so investors should stick to one method, hoping that this method can apply to various different scenarios. ...

What you need is not massive action, but massive patience. Money moves from the pockets of the impatient to the pockets of the patient. Speculation might earn huge profits once or twice, but in the long run, it is not replicable, not sustainable, and is even destined to fail. True success relies on compound interest, on daily incremental progress, and on sustainable development.

The desire to earn more, the fear of missing opportunities, the personality trait of comparing oneself to others, the influence of the group, and the dream of successful investment—these factors are almost universally present. Therefore, they have a profound collective influence on most investors and the market, resulting in errors that are frequent, widespread, and repeatable. Seven Mindsets Leading to Erroneous Decisions Many people possess enough talent to analyze data, but few can deeply observe things and withstand the powerful influence of the psychological aspect. In other words, many people will reach similar conclusions based on their own analysis, but due to different psychological influences, they will take drastically different actions based on those conclusions. The biggest investment bias does not come from information or analysis, but from mindset. ...

The Basic Potential of an Excellent Merchant Always maintain interest in others, focus your interest and energy on them, initiate conversations centered around others, and conduct exchanges revolving around other people. Achieving this while also mastering the boundaries—asking questions that everyone finds comfortable, rather than feeling constantly scrutinized and uncomfortable—is quite difficult. ...

Human Vulnerabilities: Greed: The unlimited desire for wealth, profit, and benefits, making one easily attracted to temptations like “get rich quick,” “insider information,” and “low risk, high return.” Influencers utilize this psychology by offering giveaways, benefits, and “secret” investment tips. Sloth: The unwillingness to put in effort, craving easy success, happiness, knowledge, etc. The content provided by influencers—such as “learn in one click,” “easy weight loss,” and “passive income techniques”—directly exploits this tendency. Hypocrisy: Saying one thing but meaning another; concealing true thoughts to maintain an image or benefit. Influencers may package their persona or engage in false advertising, and some audiences will selectively believe what they wish to believe. Need for Face/Prestige: Valuing one’s image in the eyes of others, fearing embarrassment, and craving respect and envy. Influencers create an “elite” or “high-class” image, or satisfy vanity by using content like “check-ins” or “showing off.” Competitiveness: The desire to surpass others and gain a sense of superiority, fearing being surpassed. Influencers may create conflict or spark topics, triggering “defense” behavior among fans. Schadenfreude/Joy in Others’ Misfortune: The secret pleasure derived from the misfortune of others. The reason influencer content featuring “public downfall” (scandals), negative news, or controversies gains traffic is partly due to catering to this dark psychology. Lust: A strong desire for sensory stimulation, especially sexual. Some influencers attract attention through suggestive content or vulgarity. Pride/Arrogance: Having an inflated sense of self-worth, being resistant to different opinions, and being easily charmed by flattery. Influencers may cultivate an “superior being” posture, and some audiences are happy to worship this “master.” Envy: Feeling dissatisfaction or pain because others possess what one desires. The superior lifestyle displayed by influencers may trigger envy in some, but it can also transform into attention. Anger/Hatred: Intense negative emotions that are easily incited and exploited. Influencers may attract traffic by creating conflict or attacking specific groups. Fear: Worry about danger, the unknown, or loss. Influencers create anxiety and sensationalize crises, then offer a “solution” (which is often a product or service). Fear of the Unknown/Superstition: People feel uneasy about phenomena they cannot explain or about the future, making them prone to believing superstitions or seeking psychological comfort. Some influencers cater to this by using content related to horoscopes, tarot cards, or Feng Shui. Fear of Death: Although rarely mentioned directly, the fear of aging, illness, and death drives people to focus on health and longevity secrets. Influencers may provide related products or information. Need for Belonging: The desire to be a part of a group and gain recognition and support. Influencers build fan communities, emphasizing shared values and goals, thereby increasing fan loyalty. Excessive Sympathy/Savior Complex: Over-sympathizing with the weak or victims, making one easily moved by sentimental stories or pleas for help. Influencers may use this for marketing or guidance. Hyper-Conformity: Not just following the crowd, but sacrificing one’s independent thought and judgment to fit in. The “trends” or “hot spots” created by influencers easily lead some people to blindly follow. Cognitive Miserliness: The tendency to use simple thinking methods and avoid complex thought. The information disseminated by influencers is often simplified and labeled, catering to this psychology. Reinforcement of Confirmation Bias: People tend to accept and believe information that aligns with their existing beliefs. Influencers cater to this by providing content that matches the fans’ existing knowledge, solidifying their biases. Desire for Simple Answers: When facing complex problems, people tend to seek simple, direct answers, even if those answers are not comprehensive or accurate. Influencer content like “solve it in one move” or “learn in three steps” exploits this. Need for Certainty: People dislike uncertainty and hope that things are predictable and controllable. Influencers may provide “predictions” or “analyses” that seem to bring certainty. Novelty Seeking: People are easily bored with repetitive content and crave new, stimulating, and unusual things. Influencers must constantly create new content and topics to maintain appeal. Desire for Easy Pleasure: People tend to seek simple, direct pleasures, such as entertainment or sensory stimulation. Influencer content like funny videos and lighthearted skits satisfies this need. Escapism: The desire to temporarily escape the pressures and troubles of reality. The entertainment content and fictional stories provided by influencers can satisfy this need. Need for Control: The desire to have a certain degree of control over one’s life and environment. In the information-overloaded digital world, choosing which influencers to follow and which comments to post is also a way of expressing control. Preference for Stories and Narratives: People are more likely to accept and remember information presented in a story format. Influencers attract audiences by sharing personal experiences or fabricating stories. Desire to be Understood and Valued: Everyone hopes their thoughts, feelings, and experiences are understood and recognized by others. Influencers cater to this need by sharing personal stories, expressing views similar to those of their fans, and even seemingly “listening” to fan comments, making fans feel “seen.” Tendency towards Group Polarization: When people gather with those who share similar views, their views tend to become more extreme. Influencers create an “echo chamber,” reinforcing shared fan cognition and inciting conflict, thereby strengthening fan loyalty. Desire for Participation and Control: Even small actions, such as liking, commenting, or voting, can give people a sense of participation and a degree of control. Influencers utilize polls, comment section interactions, and challenges to make fans feel like they are part of the content creation process. Admiration for “Success” and “Elites”: People are easily attracted to those who display success or elite status and crave learning their “secrets.” Influencers deliberately cultivate a glamorous image and share “success experiences,” even if those experiences are not real or universal. Obsession with “Insider Information”: People believe that possessing information others don’t know brings an advantage. Influencers create the illusion of “exclusive leaks” or “insider information,” making fans feel they possess some kind of privilege. Cognitive Inertia from Information Echo Chambers: Long-term existence in an information echo chamber causes people to increasingly reject information contrary to their views, becoming more stubborn. Influencers exacerbate the echo chamber effect through precise pushing, making fans more likely to accept the content they are fed. Blind Faith in Authority: Even if the influencer is not a professional, once they gain a certain level of attention in a field, they are easily viewed as an “authority.” Fans are more likely to believe what they say, even if the statements lack scientific basis. Moral Superiority: People like to feel they are standing on a moral high ground; criticizing or blaming others brings a sense of superiority. Influencers attract traffic by creating “moral role models” or attacking “morally corrupt” behavior, allowing fans to resonate with them. Desire for “Rebellion” and “Individuality” (Even Performative): Especially among younger demographics, striving to be different is a common psychological need. Influencers may attract audiences who crave individuality by adopting “anti-traditional” or “revealing the truth” stances, even if this “rebellion” is carefully packaged. Need for Companionship and Emotional Comfort: In a society where loneliness is increasing, the seemingly friendly interactions and positive image of influencers can provide emotional comfort and companionship to some. Overzealous Pursuit of “Sincerity” and “Authenticity” (Sometimes Deceived by Feigned Sincerity): People crave seeing genuine humanity, but they are also easily deceived by carefully designed “sincerity.” Influencers create an “authentic” image by showcasing “flaws” or “mistakes.” Desire to be Heard and Have a Voice: For those at the bottom of society, effective channels for expression are often lacking. The influencer platform provides a seemingly accessible platform to express one’s views and gain attention. They may participate in the influencer’s “power game” through comments and likes, as if they themselves possess a certain influence. Seeing Influencers as “Spokespersons” or “Saviors”: Some ordinary people may view influencers as “spokespersons” who can represent their interests or even hope that the influencer can change their circumstances, generating a sense of illusory power. Gaining a Sense of Collective Power Through “Taking Sides” and “Supporting”: Ordinary people may feel powerless in real life, but online, by supporting a certain influencer and participating in the fan group’s “battle,” they gain a sense of collective power and belonging. Greed: This can be analyzed in more detail across different forms of greed, such as the desire for material wealth, the craving for the halo of “success,” or even the desire for information possession. Need for Face/Prestige: This can emphasize how influencers utilize the “hierarchy of contempt” effect, allowing some fans to gain a sense of superiority by following them. Competitiveness: This is not only reflected in fan “defense” but also in maintaining and competing for the influencer’s own “status.” Fear: This can be analyzed more specifically regarding the types of anxiety created by influencers, such as appearance anxiety, body anxiety, class anxiety, and knowledge anxiety. Hyper-Conformity: This can emphasize how influencers utilize the “herd mentality” and the “bandwagon fallacy” to guide fan behavior. Reinforcement of Confirmation Bias: This can analyze how influencers solidify fans’ inherent beliefs by selectively presenting information and blocking dissenting opinions. ...

Recently read Enough_ True Measures of Money, Business, and Life by John C. Bogle, which gave me a deeper understanding of the essence of the market. Rather than technical analysis and frequent trading, it is about long-term commitment to corporate value. I want to organize these thoughts for future review and hope they can inspire friends who are exploring the path of investing. Let’s dive into some insightful quotes about investing and what they truly mean. ...

Superficiality, Hindering Deep Analysis: Problem: Simply stating that “everything has two sides,” much like applying a label, stops further thinking and exploration. Without deeply digging into what those two sides are, the specific conditions that generate them, and which side is more important in a specific context, and how to weigh them. Analysis: This assertion simplifies a complex issue into a simple formula, masking the deeper causes, mechanisms, and impacts behind the problem. It easily satisfies people with a surface-level understanding, lacking the drive to trace the roots, ultimately leading to a shallow grasp of the issue and preventing the proposal of effective solutions. For example, when discussing the impact of a policy, if one only says “it has pros and cons” without analyzing what the specific benefits are, what the specific drawbacks are, and what impact they have on different groups, the actual effectiveness of the policy cannot be assessed. Relativism Run Amok, Blurring Objective Standards: Problem: Overemphasizing “duality” easily slides into relativism—the idea that “nothing is absolute”—believing that every viewpoint has its own rationality, thereby blurring objective standards of judgment and the lines between right and wrong. Analysis: While acknowledging that the world is complex does not mean abandoning judgment of right and wrong, the existence of “duality” does not equate to “duality being equal.” In fields like ethics and scientific truth, objective standards exist. Overemphasizing relativity weakens our ability to distinguish truth from falsehood, good from evil, and can even provide seemingly rational explanations for immoral behavior. For instance, just because a certain cultural custom has its “reason for existence,” one cannot assume that every custom is equal, while ignoring whether it infringes upon human rights. Defending Errors, Escaping Responsibility: Problem: Utilizing a “dialectical view” to find excuses for obvious wrongdoings, suggesting that as long as one can find even a small “positive” aspect, it can offset the negative impact, thereby escaping responsibility and condemnation. Analysis: This assertion confuses merit and fault, blurring boundaries that should be clearly distinguished. Even if a person or action contributes in certain aspects, this cannot be used to deny or mitigate the harm caused by their error. For example, the statement, “Although he embezzled, he also contributed to the local area,” attempts to use a local, unrelated “contribution” to mask the essence of his corruption and the damage it caused to society. Hindering Action, Leading to Indecision: Problem: Always thinking that “everything has two sides” might cause people to focus too much on potential negative consequences, amplifying risks, and thus making it difficult to make a decision, leading to missed opportunities. Analysis: Rational decision-making requires weighing pros and cons, but overemphasizing “duality” can lead to mental rigidity, trapping one in a dilemma of “half good, half bad,” preventing focus on the main contradiction and the ultimate goal. For example, if an entrepreneur is always thinking about various possibilities of failure in starting a business, while ignoring potential opportunities, they may never take the first step. Being Used for Thought Control: Problem: Those in power use the “dialectical view” to demand that individuals simultaneously accept contradictory viewpoints, such as “must… and must…” (both… and…), which appears comprehensive on the surface but is actually designed to maintain their rule, suppress dissent, and strip away the ability to think independently. Analysis: In this scenario, the “dialectical view” becomes a tool used to create cognitive dissonance, forcing people to submit to the authority’s logic, even if that logic is chaotic and contradictory. It strips the individual of the ability to judge right from wrong, making it difficult for them to question unreasonable phenomena. For example, certain propaganda slogans might simultaneously emphasize “hard work and struggle” and “life happiness,” yet fail to provide a concrete path to achieving this balance, leaving people feeling confused and powerless. Creating False Equality, Masking Power Asymmetry: Problem: When there is a clear gap in power and social inequality, using “everything has two sides” to blur the actual status and situation of both parties, thereby masking the interests of the dominant side and ignoring the plight of the weaker side. Analysis: This assertion appears objectively neutral, but it ignores structural inequality. For example, in a labor-management dispute, saying “the boss and the employee both have their difficulties” seems balanced, but it ignores that the boss controls the means of production and decision-making power, while the employee’s bargaining power is relatively weak. This discussion of “duality” is actually defending the stronger party and maintaining the unfair status quo. Weakening the Necessity of Value Judgment: Problem: Overemphasizing “duality” easily makes people feel that everything is “more or less the same,” without clear distinctions between superior and inferior, thereby weakening the willingness and ability to make clear value judgments. Analysis: This leads to a blurring of the lines between good and bad, superior and inferior, good and evil, increasing tolerance for errors and injustices. For example, when facing a controversial technology, if one only emphasizes that it “has both convenience and risk,” without deeply assessing whether the risk far outweighs the benefit, it can lead to blind promotion and potential harm. Becoming a Rhetorical Device, Not a Tool for Thinking: Problem: The “dialectical view” and “everything has two sides” are sometimes simplified into a catchphrase, merely to appear “objective” and “profound,” lacking genuine thought and analysis. Analysis: In this case, “dialectics” becomes a label, a universal phrase that can be used to handle various situations, but it lacks deep logic and argumentation behind it. People may habitually throw out these concepts without seriously considering the essence of the problem and its solutions, hindering the development of critical thinking. Being Abused Under Information Asymmetry: Problem: The party that holds the information advantage may deliberately present only the side favorable to them, and then use “everything has two sides” to imply that there is “another side,” but in reality, that other side may be intentionally hidden or distorted, thereby misleading the public. Analysis: In this scenario, “duality” becomes a tool for manipulating public opinion. For example, some merchants might promote the advantages of a product, and then use “any product has its limitations” to mask its serious flaws, using information asymmetry to mislead consumers. Cultural Inertia and Conservatism: Problem: Overemphasizing the “dialectical view” is sometimes used to oppose any form of change or innovation, because any new thing inevitably carries uncertainty and potential risk. Analysis: This way of thinking easily falls into conservatism, fearing the “other side” that change might bring, even if not changing might bring greater harm. For example, when facing a reform measure aimed at solving social injustice, some people might use “any reform has pros and cons” to obstruct its implementation, while ignoring that not reforming might lead to further intensification of social contradictions.

The essence and the terrifying aspect of Newspeak, as designed in 1984, lies in its silent manipulation. Orwell’s profound insight is in revealing the power of language to shape thought. Newspeak is not merely about deleting vocabulary; its ultimate goal is to destroy the capacity for independent thinking. The Essence of Newspeak Language Controls Thought: The core of Newspeak in 1984 lies in limiting people’s ability to express complex ideas by simplifying language. For instance, by eliminating the word “freedom,” it becomes difficult to discuss the concept of “intellectual freedom.” Silent Control: Instead of explicit violence, control is exerted through subtle, gradual linguistic manipulation, making independent thought progressively impossible. ...

When receiving information, immediately activate the “Critical Thinking Radar”: “Sentence Integrity Check”: First, examine the structure of the sentence. Actively look for the subject: Who is making this statement? If the subject is missing, ask yourself: Who is performing this action? Who is the recipient of this state? Identify passive voice and generalization: Be wary of excessive use of passive voice (e.g., “The problem has been solved,” without specifying who solved it) and generalization (e.g., “People believe,” without specifying which people). This is often done to obscure responsibility or create the illusion of universal consensus. Rapid questioning to dig into the intent and impact behind the information: “Why am I seeing/hearing this?” (Tracing the information source): What channel delivered this information to me? (Advertisement, news, social media, friend recommendation, etc.) Does this channel itself have a bias or vested interest? Did I actively search for it, or was it passively delivered to me? “Why has it gained such high traction in the current information flood?” (Analyzing the propagation dynamics): Does this information cater to a specific social emotion or anxiety? Does it use narrative methods or emotional language that is easily relatable? Are there signs of artificial promotion (e.g., massive shares, bot comments)? “Who benefits from this?” (Stakeholder analysis): Who will benefit from me accepting this information? (e.g., the merchant selling the product, the institution promoting the view, the group seeking political support, etc.) Is this benefit a direct economic gain, or an indirect social or political influence? Is there a clear conflict of interest? “What is this information ignoring? / What is it hiding?” (Identifying information gaps): Does this information only present one side of the facts? Have important background information or counter-evidence been omitted? Is ambiguous or misleading language being used to conceal the truth? “What is the purpose of this information? What does it want me to do?” (Behavioral guidance analysis): Does it want me to purchase a certain product or service? Does it want me to accept a certain view or stance? Does it want me to take a specific action (e.g., vote, donate, share)? The significance of focusing on “specific people”: Trace the source: Instead of passively accepting “Studies show,” ask: Which research institution? Which researcher? What is their methodology? What is their past research record? Is there a conflict of interest? Evaluate expert qualifications and stance: When you hear “Experts believe,” ask: Which expert? What is their professional background and qualification in this field? Have they publicly declared their stance or vested interest? Be wary of anonymous “experts” and “studies”: “Experts” who are unwilling to disclose their specific identity, or “studies” from unknown sources, often have lower credibility. Slow down the reaction speed, avoid emotional decisions: Don’t immediately believe or share: Give yourself time to think and verify. Be wary of tactics that create urgency and moral coercion, such as “limited-time offers” or “If you don’t share, you’re not Chinese.” Control your emotions, preventing judgment from being swayed by fear, anger, anxiety, etc. Actively seek multiple information sources for cross-verification: Don’t rely on a single source. Look for sources from different backgrounds and perspectives to compare. Pay attention to the views of authoritative institutions and professionals, but maintain a critical eye. Cultivate the habit of questioning authority and “common sense”: Dare to challenge so-called “expert opinions” and “universal knowledge.” Use evidence and logic to test the truthfulness of information, rather than blindly trusting authority or what is habitually accepted. The debate between Einstein and Bohr fully illustrates the following points: Even in the most advanced fields, there are different viewpoints and interpretations: Science is not monolithic; even authoritative scientists may hold different understandings and explanations when facing complex problems. Scientific progress is often achieved through this debate and questioning. “Authority” does not mean absolute correctness: Both Einstein and Bohr are authorities, but their views are not entirely correct, or rather, they are exploring different facets of the truth. Their debate encourages people to think about and understand quantum mechanics more deeply. Selective citation can be misleading: As you mentioned, advertisers or anyone with a specific stance can completely selectively cite the views of Einstein or Bohr to support their own arguments while ignoring the other party’s voice. This creates the illusion of “authoritative support” for the audience, making them believe that a certain view is absolute truth. Common propaganda tricks: Seeking “favorable experts”: They will look for experts whose views align with their product or philosophy and heavily promote these experts’ “authoritative endorsement.” Ignoring or diminishing opposing views: For experts or studies with different opinions, they will selectively ignore them or use various means to diminish their credibility. Creating the illusion of “scientific proof”: They will use vague phrases like “Scientific research shows,” or “Certified by XX authoritative institution,” leading consumers to believe that their product or philosophy is fully supported by science, when in reality, it might just be taken out of context or citing a controversial study. ...

How to Distinguish Between Seeking Advice and Seeking Validation: Observing their behavior, language, and reactions is key: Focus on the Problem: Advice-Seeker: Usually describes the problem clearly and asks specific questions, such as: “Should I choose A or B?” or “Is there a better solution?” They are focused on solving the problem. Validation-Seeker: Tends to narrate their experiences and feelings, emphasizing their difficulties and grievances, such as: “You know, this is so unfair!” or “I really did my best!” They are focused on emotional expression and having their feelings understood. Listen to Their Reaction to Advice: Advice-Seeker: Will listen attentively to your advice, may ask further questions, or express differing opinions, but overall remains open and willing to explore solutions. Validation-Seeker: Regarding your advice, they might find various reasons to refute or deny it, such as: “I know you’re right, but the situation is different…” or “I thought about it already, it won’t work…” They don’t seem genuinely interested in solving the problem, but rather in having their ideas and actions affirmed. Note Their Questioning Style: Advice-Seeker: The questions asked are usually open-ended, aiming to seek more information and possibilities, such as: “What are your thoughts?” or “Do you think there’s anything else to consider?” Validation-Seeker: The questions asked often have a pre-set answer; they want you to affirm their ideas, such as: “Don’t you think my doing this is very right?” or “Shouldn’t it be this way?” Observe Their Body Language and Emotional Expression: Advice-Seeker: Usually appears relatively calm, maintains frequent eye contact, and focuses on discussing the issue. Validation-Seeker: May have larger emotional fluctuations, are more prone to agitation, and may have less eye contact, focusing more on emphasizing their own feelings. Try Offering Different Perspectives and Solutions: Advice-Seeker: Will show interest in the different perspectives and solutions you provide, even if they don’t completely agree, they will seriously consider them. Validation-Seeker: May feel displeased or defensive about opinions that contradict their own, and will find reasons to stick to their view. ...

Cracks Beneath the Shadow of Nineteen Eighty-Four: The Possibility of Big Brother’s Rule Collapsing George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four depicts a totalitarian world—Oceania—where Big Brother is omnipresent and power is gripped like steel, suffocating the populace. The novel ultimately concludes with Winston’s complete surrender to “Big Brotherization,” seemingly foreshadowing the futility of individual resistance. However, if we delve into the intrinsic logic of this meticulously constructed totalitarian regime and imagine its possible evolution under high-pressure rule, we might glimpse a faint glimmer of hope, suggesting that the seemingly indestructible fortress of Big Brother will eventually crumble. ...

The Brainwashing of Children: A Cornerstone of the Party’s Strategy The brainwashing of children to betray their parents is a cornerstone of the Party’s strategy, and it yields several significant benefits for Big Brother and the Party’s control: Here’s a breakdown of the benefits: 1. Elimination of Dissent and Thoughtcrime: Internal Spies and Early Detection: Children, thoroughly indoctrinated from a young age, become the perfect internal spies within the family unit. They are highly attuned to any deviation from Party orthodoxy, any flicker of independent thought, or any sign of “thoughtcrime” in their parents. This allows the Party to detect and crush dissent at its earliest stages, before it can spread or organize. Preemptive Suppression: The fear of being denounced by one’s own children creates a climate of constant self-censorship. Parents become hyper-vigilant about their words, actions, and even thoughts around their children, stifling any potential rebellious ideas before they can even be voiced. Undermining Family Loyalty: The family unit, traditionally a source of love, loyalty, and independent values, is deliberately targeted. By turning children against their parents, the Party destroys this vital social structure and ensures that the primary loyalty of individuals is directed solely towards Big Brother. ...

Does the Ministry of Truth Personally Curse Big Brother? This is a very good question, as it touches upon the core operational mechanism of the “Two Minutes Hate” in 1984. On the surface, the broadcast of Emmanuel Goldstein cursing Big Brother might seem to weaken Big Brother’s sacred status, but in reality, this is one of the key strategies the Ministry of Truth uses to maintain its rule. Here are several explanations for why the Ministry of Truth does this, and how this action actually helps solidify the image of Big Brother: ...

You are not invincible. If you admit that luck brought you success, the key to dealing with failure is to structure your financial life in a way that, even if you make a terrible investment or mess up your financial goals, it won’t crush you. This way, you can hang in there until the goddess of fortune arrives. First, the hardest financial skill is stopping the chase after achieving the goal. ...

Preface I originate from Planet B-614, and currently serve as a “Blue Star Observer.” As a “Blue Star Observer,” my primary mandate is indeed to record and research, rather than to intervene or judge based on human emotion. 1. Recording and Research: Objective Documentation: Like a scientist, I record observed phenomena, including the behavior of dictators, the reactions of the populace, and the functioning of social structures. My records strive for objectivity, avoiding the use of highly emotional vocabulary in favor of neutral, descriptive language. In-Depth Study: I do not merely remain at the surface level of observation; I delve deeply into the underlying causes of these phenomena. For instance, studying how a dictator acquires and maintains power, why the populace accepts indoctrination, how this political structure formed on Blue Star, and what impact it will have on Blue Star’s future. Data Analysis: My research may involve collecting and analyzing various data, such as the public happiness index, economic development status, and frequency of social unrest, allowing for a more comprehensive understanding of the operational laws of Blue Star society. Pattern Recognition: One of my goals is to identify the various patterns and laws present in Blue Star society. Dictatorship may not be an isolated event, but a pattern that recurs under specific conditions. Indoctrination may also be a common method of social control. 2. Absence of Compassion (Toward the Oppressed): ...

Don’t care about what the NPCs think of you Don’t care about the image you have in the NPCs’ minds NPCs have no human rights, and are not worth pity And don’t try to befriend the NPCs; gear is your friend

Market Crashes Are Not Something You Should Avoid A market crash is a cost that must be paid to gain market returns, and you absolutely should not try to evade it. You also cannot evade it; if you try to cheat, you will be severely punished for it. You will lose many high-quality assets at the low point. Volatility is Akin to a Fee, Not a Fine. Market returns are never free, and they will never be free. They demand a price from you, just like any other product. You are not being forced to pay, just as you are not being forced to go to Disneyland. You could go to a local county fair for only ten dollars, or stay home for free. You might be just as happy, but usually, you get what you pay for. The market is the same. The cost of volatility/uncertainty—that is, the price of obtaining returns—can be called the entrance fee, allowing you to acquire returns far greater than those offered by low-cost parks like cash and bonds.

Thank you very much for your further elaboration! You emphasized the satisfaction derived from your past investment achievements, and the deeply ingrained concept of “avoiding lifestyle creep,” which allows me to understand your confusion more precisely. Your current dilemma is completely understandable, as it touches upon the core of personal growth and value transformation. Your successful investment history has shaped your source of fulfillment, and your principle of “avoiding lifestyle creep” has historically been the foundation of your success. Now, you are feeling a new need, but your past tenets seem to be hindering your acceptance of this change. ...

Cognition and Strategy in Stock Market Investing: Being an Observer The most foolish thing an adult can do is preach to others After deeply observing multiple stock trading groups, I have gained a deeper understanding of the essence of investing and the collective behavior within the market, leading to my own investment principles and thoughts. The investment market is like a bathtub, where the fish swim around—noisy and chaotic. I realized that a true investor should not jump into the tub to swim with them, but rather stand at a higher dimension, observing calmly and planning rationally. Here are my thoughts: ...

The purpose of conformity is to avoid the complete loss of social support When peers who hold the same dissent provide a certain level of social support, the loss of group social support is not absolute. However, when the originally supportive peers abandon the participant and begin agreeing with the majority opinion, the power of the majority reasserts its maximum efficacy—the rate of conformity rises again to 30%. Therefore, in the situation set up by Asch, the primary force at play is undoubtedly normative social influence rather than informational influence. ...