How to think? It is better to teach mermaid than to teach people to fish. Professor Zhang Wuchang sums up several methods that ordinary people think about and tells us how to think about the world from the phenomenon.
Editor’s note: This article is from WeChat public account “Noteman” (ID: Notesman), author Zhang Wuchang, authorized to reprint.
It is said that J.A. Schumpeter once criticized Newton in the classroom, accusing the physics genius of the false exchange of thinking only behind closed doors, and not revealing his method of thinking and reasoning to the future generations!
This criticism is a bit reasonable. But Newton’s great achievements in physics were conceived in his two years of escaping the plague; there was no major discovery afterwards – although it was a short-lived one, it was a “one-off”.
Einstein’s method of thinking, often seen: unfortunately his talent is high, far beyond the secular, to learn and can not learn.
Some friends think that since Einstein can think of relativity without using information, they can still reason. But what can Einstein do, what do they have to do with them?
Not self-reliant, this is the most! Einstein’s way of thinking is probably a mental barrier to the pretentious person.
I don’t dare to compare with Newton or Einstein, but half a genius is not. But for this reason, I can write a practical way of thinking.
My way of thinking is to learn back. A way of thinking that ordinary people can learn, other ordinary people can learn. The genius thinking method is the genius patent, and has nothing to do with us.
When I was studying at a university, the habit of never skipping classes was to learn the teacher’s way of thinking. All the tests to be tested have been tested, and I will turn to listening.
On one occasion, J. Hirshleifer asked me after class: “You have been listening to me for six semesters. Isn’t the economics I know you have learned yet?”
I replied: “I have learned from your work in your economics. I have heard that your class has nothing to do with economics. I want to learn the way you think.”
My habit of stealing “thinking” has been practiced for many years. It is the luckiest thing in my life to meet the Ming Master and the Master Mingyou. Among these teachers and teachers, it is considered to be a genius or a quasi-genius.. I carefully observe their methods of thinking, and learn from those who are not geniuses to use, and become practical after a long time.
But because there are many people who have been “thinking” by me, I have integrated the methods of each person as my own use.
Although these people are mostly economists, the world’s thinking and reasoning are the same, and the strong portal is self-contained. I have integrated the general idea of ordinary people as a practical way of thinking, as follows.
1. Who is who is not important
If you are analyzing or debating another person, he often emphasizes that a certain point of view or discovery is his, or put “self” on the question, then you can be sure that he is a low hand.
Thinking should never be left to stereotypes. It is human nature to “out of the limelight” or “leadership”, but in the process of thinking, the “self” view cannot have a special position. “Leadership” is after the answer.
In reasoning, you have to measure different points of view objectively.
Some people think that Friedman is victorious and arrogant to defend his point of view. This is wrong. Friedman’s thoughts are lightning fast, but he admits it faster! Because he admits too fast, he often gives the impression that he has not admit his mistake.
In the high hands I know, there is no reason to add “self” to the weight. It is another matter to “learn” afterwards.
Similarly, there is no authority or master in academics – these are just the names of admirers; they are not to be intimidated by fame. Any master can be wrong, so their views or theories can only be considered and measured by us. We can’t believe it.
Of course, the inferences of the masters are more in-depth and deserve special attention.
We should have a more detailed understanding of the master’s opinion and measure it with less care. But we can’t be both a master and a right one. The difference between the master and the low hand is mainly that the former is deep and extensive, and the latter is superficial and narrow.
I have always admired Smith, Mill, and Marshall. But when I studied the theory of tenant farmers, I treated their tenant theory equally, and did not put their big names on their minds. If not, I would not be able to overthrow their theories.
Second, the problem must be reached, shallow, important,
There is a possibility to have different answers
The question is well asked, and the answer is often over half. In the article “Methods of Reading”, I talked about the subject of the question when I was studying. Using questions as a guide to thinking,There are a few points to add.
1. The problem needs to hit the nails
This is Friedman’s masterpiece. (Note Jun Note: Milton Friedman, winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, is known for advocating a free market economy.)
You ask him a question. He likes to answer this question: “And let me change your question.” (Let me rephrase your question.) When he changed, he went straight to the center of gravity you want to ask, very clear.
The emulation method of our ordinary people is to try to ask a question in several forms to find the key point.
Give an example. When Friedman explained the monetary theory of a French scholar, I asked: “Whether his subject matter is long and things are the same, people feel dull?”
Friedman A: “You have to ask, is the more time, the less time value is at the margin?”
This change goes straight to the law of Diminishing Marginal Rate of Substitution in economics. He doesn’t need to answer me, the answer has emerged!
2. Ask questions lightly
This is the specialty of A.A.Alchian. (Note Jun Note: Amen Albert Alchin, founder of Modern Property Economics, Emeritus Professor of Economics at UCLA.)
Talking about monetary theory, he asked: “What is money? Why is the market not using potatoes as a currency?”
When the economics community used the measure of difficulty as a hot debate, Alchin asked: “What is utility? What is measurement? What criteria do we use to determine that something is measured?” The way children ask questions.
Later, Alchin found a world-famous answer. The measure is nothing more than an arbitrary method of adding numbers as a measure of measurement, and the function is simply to arbitrarily name these numbers.
Assuming everyone has to increase this number, it becomes a functional principle. ThisAn arbitrary method can be useful if it can successfully explain human behavior, and the function itself has nothing to do with social welfare!
My own tenant theory is asked by several shallow questions. The traditional theory assumes that since the harvest of land planting is to distribute part of it to the landlord, the landlord collects the rent by means of sub-accounting, just as the government collects taxes, which will reduce the labor of the peasants and thus reduce the production.
I asked: “Since production declines, the rental value should be reduced. Why do landlords not use other non-sub-account collection methods?”
I ask again: “What if I am a landlord? If I am a farmer, what will I do?”
3. To determine the importance of the problem
In the hands of the high school I know, it is customary to measure the importance of the problem. Hercula prefers to put this measure before all considerations. (Note Jun Note: Jack Hercula, Professor of Excellence in Economics and Honorary Retired Professor at UCLA.)
The student asked him a question. He might answer: “This question is not important.” So I thought about it again. Think it is an important issue, he will stand up from the seat!
It’s not difficult to judge the importance of the problem. You have to ask: “If this question has an answer, what do we know?” If the knowledge is not related to other knowledge, or if the known knowledge cannot be changed, the problem will be insignificant.
There are many problems that are not only unimportant, but also stupid. What is a stupid question? If the question can only have one answer, there is no other possibility, that is stupid.
For example, economics is based on the assumption that “individuals strive for benefits”; this implies that personal production will reduce production costs as much as possible.
A scholar has made a big fuss about whether the individual production costs will be too high? But based on the author’s own assumptions, “too high” is impossible. Friedman commented: “Stupid question, get a stupid answer, it is a report!”
Three, don’t kill the hunch
Logic is the specification of reasoning; but if step by step is logical first, non-logic is not, thinking will be suppressed.
The reasoning that is not logical is of course contradiction, and I don’t know what it is; but the way of thinking that I don’t want to think about without logic is often smeared, so that I can’t think of anything.
Logic—especially mathematical logic—is a deep learning, but if it is based on logic, it will be self-defeating.
When I was studying, I read a letter from Einstein and the logic master K. Popper. They are arguing about the issue of scientific methodology.
In this debate, I thought that Popper was the winner; but in the scientific contribution, he borrowed the nameless.
Logic is the correctness that can help reasoning, but it is not the root of thought or insight. Scientific methodology is used to confirm the existence of theory, but it is not useful for explaining phenomena.
Those who insist that ideas that are not inferred in the right way are rules and cannot be accepted by science are merely self-comforts of some people who have difficulty contributing.
I have encountered a lot of this kind of person. They all have a practical study and a quick thought–the lack of imagination is imagination.
Purely from the hunch, plus the imagination to multi-discipline, with the probabilities, and then repeatedly confirmed by logic, is the most effective way to think. As long as the theory or insights obtained are logical and methodological, it doesn’t matter how you think about it.
Those who advocate deductive or inductive law should not listen.
Apple fell to Newton’s head (or Newton’s dream at midnight), and the gravitational theory came to light. Who dares to control whether his method of thinking is correct.
There are some unique scholars whose ability to logically reason is really unremarkable; their important scientific contributions have been modified by later generations.
The early British economist T. Malthus, his reasoning ability is not comparable to that of ordinary college students!
The Nobel Prize-winning Hayek and T. Schultz in modern times, the reasoning is not extraordinary.
This visible idea is the first and the logic is second. Get a slightly prescient hunch, don’t give up because there is no logical support.
Among the scholars I know, the use of premonition is the first to push Coase. (Note Jun Note: Nobel Economist, the originator of new institutional economics, Professor of the University of Chicago, Chicago, one of the representatives of the Chicago School of Economics.)
Whether IAsking him any special opinions, he immediately replied: “It seems to be right” or “It seems to be wrong.” First have a hypothetical answer, then slowly analyze the hunch from scratch.
At one meeting, at a meeting, it was suggested that the price of agricultural products of the big landlord would be the market price of the patent. Without market competition, there was a waste of society. I rushed out: “How come? If all The land where the world can grow wheat belongs to me. I must rent the land separately to different farmers. After the wheat harvest, the farmers will compete in the market, so the price of wheat is the market price under competition.”
Coase immediately said to me: “You seem to be right.”
After three days, when I met Coase again, he said, “You seem to be right.”
I asked him what I was right? He said “the market price of wheat.” A few months later, in the chat, Coase said: “I think you are right at the price of wheat.”
Inferring to a premonition that is not your own, it is indeed a famous style, it is worthy of us to follow.
Another deceased friend, named R. Kessel, is a well-known predator in the industry.
In 1974 (one year before his death) I had the privilege of meeting him for a few months, and I could appreciate his hunch that I didn’t know where to come from.
Carsou has a motto: “No matter how unpredictable a premonition is, it is always better than a little opinion.”
He also stressed: “If there is no point in the hands, then you can’t win anything.”
The hunch is that every important discovery is not enough – there is no certain specification from where to come, and sometimes it is not clear.
In thinking, the hunch is the beginning of a road–how far you can go, where to go, it is difficult to know in advance–but you can’t walk it. When you follow this path, the logic draws a line on the road, separating the feasible and infeasible.
The first step is taken, and the second step may be clearer. The characteristic of a good premonition is that the road can go further and further, and the more clearly it goes, the more it will become. The premonition of “nothing” is the opposite.
Don’t think that I emphasize the importance of premonition, it is the meaning of demeaning logic and scientific methodology. I used to be a student of Carnap. How can I despise these studies? (Note notes: Carnap, a representative of empiricism and logical positivism, one of the leaders of the Vienna School.)
I want to point out that logic is used to assist the development of the premonition.I have erased the hunch.
Fourth, the conversion angle can be more effective.
Any question of thinking can be inferred from many different angles. In other words, the same problem can be tried with different hunches.
In this respect, the masters I know are exactly the same – they don’t easily give up a path that they can work, they don’t stick to the rules, and they use as many different angles as possible. The conversion angle has the following performance.
1. Maosai can be opened
Mental Block is a difficult mental barrier that is difficult to explain and is common to everyone.
Slight and important discoveries, often a clever and intelligent person may be struggling to think of it! However, if you change the angle of thought a little, you may be able to open it.
Unexpected answers, most of them are not too deep, but because the angle used is difficult to see the shallow side. The list of important examples is too numerous to mention.
A factory is damaged by the pollution of neighboring properties for production. Economists have long suggested that the government use several methods to suppress the production of factories, thereby reducing the loss of neighboring properties.
This old problem came to Coase’s hand. He reversed the angle: “Reducing factory production is equivalent to damage to the factory by neighboring owners. Which party should be suppressed?” Coase’s law is This comes out.
(Notes: Coase Theorem, as long as the property rights are clear and the transaction cost is zero or small, then the final result of the market equilibrium is efficient, realizing the resources, regardless of who gives the property rights at the beginning. Pareto optimality of configuration.)
Another example is “Corporate Finance” which has been popular in the world for more than a decade.
The fame of one of the founders, W. Sharpe, is the first time in principle that the market price of an asset is determined in the presence of risk.
Although this principle has obvious shortcomings, it is enough to make a well-known answer to an important question that was not a problem at the time. The starting point of Sharpo’s “resolving the case” was to reverse a curve that was well known at the time.
2. Angle can be measured
The answer is the right answer from one point of view, but it may be wrong to change it.
A tentative answer to any reasoning can certainly be measured in several different angles. If the different angles do not veto this tentative answer, we can increase confidence in the answer.
Of course, reliable answers still have to be tested by logic and facts.
3. The angle is far and near
In the process of thinking, the details and the majors are complementary and short-lived. No matter how thoughtful the details are, there are difficult opinions in the big things, and the thinkers may have to give up.
But the idea is right in the big picture, the addition of the details is only a matter of time – even if the details are wrong, it is often innocuous.
The difficulty in thinking about this is that if we completely ignore the details, we will have a hard time knowing the big things. With reliable and important details, the accuracy is much higher.
A concentrated set of thoughts, the head is wearing a magnifying glass, paying attention to details – this is a general habit. People who are good at thinking will push the problem as far as possible from time to time for overall consideration.
5. Example far wins symbol
Examples can be used in reasoning, and symbols can be used; some people do not need to use them. Just follow the matter and add some assumptions at random, even if it is reasoning. The latter is an inadvertent debate after a meal, and it is not a serious thought.
Scientific thinking, using examples is far better than using symbols.
Mathematics is a language that is a combination of symbols; strictly speaking, any language is a symbol.
The picture is unsigned, but it is also a way of expression. Using a large number of words to express the picture is an example.
Thoughts are abstract. To prove the correctness of abstract ideas, mathematics is very useful because it is the most rigorous language. But the effective way of thinking is to realistically abstract.
The picture is closer to reality than the symbol, so it is easier to remember; so in thinking, using the example is far better than using the symbol.
Economists who are famous for making good use of mathematics, such as P. Samuelson, K. Arrow, H. Uzawa, J. StiGlitz) and others are all examples to help think.
After mathematics, it is a matter of great aftermath. Other people who use less mathematics and are good at thinking are more comfortable with examples.
Some scholars only use symbols or use less examples, but it is rare to have important findings.
The Chinese are well-known for their high talents, but their ability to use examples is weak. I really don’t understand this point (probably the example of Buddhism is too abstract, causing adverse effects; this question should be answered by Yi Yifei).
In my opinion, Han Feizi is still decent, but the examples used by Mencius and Sun Yat-sen are often plausible and unintelligible; they cannot be mastered by reasoning experts. It is not difficult to understand.
People who use examples well, stupid and stupid. There are several basic methods for using examples. Whether you can make good use of it depends on your personal imagination. These methods are now listed as follows.
1. The example should be simple and appropriate
With example-assisted reasoning, the important features of theory are all included in the examples.
The usual way is to delete the branches in the example to make it more prominent, so that there is a parallel comparison between the examples and the theory. Simplify the example with courage and imagination.
In the history of economics, the most powerful example of simplifying the example is Ricardo. (Note Jun Note: David Ricardo, one of the main representatives of British classical political economy, is also the completion of British classical political economy.)
Therefore, the broadness of Ricardo’s economic model has not yet been seen. That is to say, the more simplified the example, the easier it is to deal with complex theories.
2. Examples should be true and false
All available examples are simplified.
Measured by strict guidelines, no single example is true. But some examples are castles in the air, whose non-authenticity has nothing to do with simplification; another example is the fact that it is unreal because of the fact that it is simplified – we call the latter “instance.”
The purely imaginative example is easy to change, and it’s easy to change it to fit, which is helpful for reasoning. But to have a theory of practical application, there must be instance support.
People who know the world can start with fake examples, and then find case assistance; people who do more empirical work can often save this step. Experience is a great help for thinking, because the examples know much more.
3. Example to be Novel (
The well-known examples are not only unattractive; in thinking, more novel examples are easier to trigger novel ideas.
The first one to be a genius with a flower than a beauty is less creative.
The example of a factory polluting neighbors, Pigou used to be novel; when used more, the inspiration is weakened.
Coase analyzed the same problem, using the sound of the dentist’s tools and the shadows of neighbors and buildings to reduce the sunlight in the adjacent pool. These more novel examples have inspired a bit of new insights.
4. Generalize the example (Generalise)
This point, the Chinese are particularly weak, and the facts cannot explain the facts; too many theories mean no theory.
These examples are treated separately, and theories and insights become complex and they are justified. Inadvertently became a fact to explain the facts. It is an important method to seek general theory by summarizing many different examples into the same kind and generalizing them.
Marx took Ricardo’s path and conceptually separated capital from land and labor. Therefore, Marx’s capital theory lacks generality and makes the surplus value homeless.
Ricardo himself never believed that value came from labor alone; he couldn’t figure out how to generalize different resources and know his theory. This difficulty has to be solved clearly by Fisher. (Note Jun Note: Owen Fisher, the first-ranked economist in the United States, a pioneer in econometrics, a professor at Yale University.)
On the issue of social consumption, the examples used by Pigou were so classified that his theory was ambiguous and inconsistent.
The problem is in Coase’s hands. He thinks that everyone in society has an influence on others, no matter what they do; he then sums up all behaviors that affect people into property rights.
At the other extreme, too general theory, because there are no exceptions, so there is no functional explanation.
There is a practical theory that there must be a possibility of being overthrown by facts. For this reason, examples should be summarized and classified.
The method of classification is to open up the details and focus on the difficulty of coexistence between different examples.local. To separate an example, we should also look for other examples that are generic to this example.
There is no instance of “unable to generalize” in the world. If there is, this example cannot be explained theoretically by logic – this becomes something other than science.
5. Try to find a counterexample (Counter Example)
Think about finding examples of support, but research is part of thinking—the proof is to try to find examples of counter-evidence.
G. Stigler, G. Becker and other masters like to use counter-arguments during the debate. A reliable theory is that there must be imaginable counter-evidence examples – but if the proof is an instance, the theory is overthrown.
Six, it will be put on hold for a while.
The human brain has an elusive function—a brain that even a computer can think of, and its function is of course much more complicated than a computer. I can’t think of it when I think hard. When I don’t want it, the answer comes out. It is a common thing.
What we can be sure of is that the answer that came out inadvertently must be an old question that I had thought about before. The deeper you think about it before, the more chance you will have to work without any effort.
Thinking at night, dreaming at night, can be trusted.
The problem of puzzling, time is not wasted. Putting the problem aside and thinking over it later can be awesome.
I don’t think about the answer anymore, I might get it unintentionally.
My price control article has been written for 3 years. The company’s principle has been written for 12 years, and the jade market research has not been written for 9 years… These and other articles add up to at least a hundred years! It’s not an exaggeration, it’s just a matter of waiting for the time to mature.
Bega’s article, good is a lot of work. Gauss has several articles that have been waiting for more than 30 years: he is 74 years old this year, and he can’t wait for a big loss in economics. But people have laws, and waiting is an important step in thinking.
Scientific thinking is a profession. As with other professions, practice makes perfect. What can be comforted is that no matter how esoteric the question seems, good answers tend to be shallower than imagined.