This article comes from WeChat public account: Mr. L said (ID: lxianshengmiao) , author: Lachel

I like Liu Cixin’s “Three Body” very much. Some people say that the idea that Liu Cixin used in “Three-Body” can be written into a novel without any difficulty. And such ideas, in “Three Body”, actually appeared in dozens or hundreds. It can only be described as “luxury”.

But many people may overlook a detail: Liu Cixin’s “naming ability” in “Three Body” is also the highest level.

For example: Like the “Dark Forest” that many people talk about, even if you have n’t seen the original book, you can imagine a picture just by looking at the name: a crisis-ridden jungle with vigilant eyes everywhere Each creature is hiding itself carefully, for fear of being exposed to natural enemies.

Another example is the “swordman” and the “face wall”: If you have a certain background knowledge, you can immediately reach the “face wall” of the sword of Morcles and Buddhism. Many-like “face wall”, if I write, it may only be written as “secret man”, which means a lot less.

Even if it is a simple “water drop”, the story also has the meaning of “water drop through the stone”-friends who have read the original book must remember the plot of water drops passing through the earth fleet.

As for the “ideological seal”, “dimensional reduction blow”, “light tomb” … the vivid image of the name, need not say more.

So much, not to talk about how good the “Three Body”-although it is really good, but to point out something:

Let’s take the “face wall” as an example. When you read this word, it will have at least three meanings in your heart:

1) TableMeaning : People looking at the wall. This is the most basic and simple layer.

2) Scenarios : 4 executors of the Face Plan. This is the definition in the novel, it is only valid in “Three Body”. For another novel, it is likely to have a new definition, because its “context” has changed.

3) Consensus : an allusion to the “face wall” of Buddhism.

Then, when you read “face wall”, in addition to thinking about these 4 performers, you will probably have a heavy, compassionate emotion at the same time. Where does this emotion come from? It is given by the “consensus” layer.

It is precisely because you understand the allusions of the face wall and the perseverance, silence, and long years behind it that this concept will produce such emotional color in your heart.

This is what I want to express: Consensus is also a kind of information, and it is a more important and powerful message.

1

In fact, this is a very classic technique in branding and marketing.

How can a concept be widely disseminated? On the one hand, it must be simple enough for anyone to understand; on the other hand, it must be complex enough to evoke more imagination and association beyond the literal meaning.

Expressed in Saussure’s theory, that is: its signifier (Sinifer) must be simple enough without thresholds; at the same time, it The (Sinified) must be rich enough to point to a common, closely related, “consensus” that you want.

For example, “U disk survival” is a great concept, easy to understand and vivid. Even if you do n’t haveRegarding the situation, with this name, you can immediately know what it means: plug and play, mobile survival.

Another example is the “check-in” of online lessons, which is also a great concept. It perfectly grafts the attributes of the company’s “attendance check-in”: daily, regular, disciplinary requirements, mandatory … as long as you see this word, you can roughly know what you want to do.

In turn, something like “GMO” is not a good name. why? Because the consensus it points to is mostly cold and frightening-you might think of the genes of the human body, think of labs, hospitals, instruments and equipment … In short, it has nothing to do with “food” And can even be prohibitive.

If you change the name of “genetically modified food”, such as “peiyou special confession”-grafting the concept of “special confession”, dilute its icy technicality, and emphasize its effect, I think, it is very controversial Much less.

Of course, this is a joke.

Don’t think these are just word games, in fact, it’s very important. If a concept points to a consensus that is firmly rooted and anchored in the human brain, it is very difficult to change it.

For example, why does Alipay want to be social, but can’t do it all the time? A big part of the reason is that everyone’s consensus on Alipay is the “wallet”. This is ridiculous: how can I use a wallet to socialize with friends (even strangers) ? Do we meet each other and pull out our wallets, and have more money than anyone else? (or less)

But in turn, WeChat is very suitable for “red envelopes”. The logic behind it points to the Chinese people’s human intelligence and interpersonal relationships for thousands of years. This is a consensus that can be appreciated without explicit expression. Therefore, the WeChat red envelope function has been the most productive highlight in my mind in the past decade.

So, there is an iron rule in brand marketing: Don’t shake the concept inherent in the user’s mind, but based on this concept, guide it with homeopathy and lead the path you want.

Cognition is like an iceberg. The part below the sea, the invisible part, is the real foundation -it determines the part above the sea.

2

Let ’s think further.

When Liu Cixin uses the word “face wall”, what kind of assumptions must he have? He would think: most readers know the “face wall” allusion, otherwise it would be a waste of effort to use the word. right?

This is a very important feature of Consensus:

Consensus is not only “We all know”, but also “We all know each other knows.”

The former can only be called “common sense” (Common sense) , the latter is called “consensus” label = “Remarks”> (Common knowledge) .

This is very important. Take a very classic example: the problem of red eyes.

There are 100 people on an island, 3 of them have red eyes and the others have blue eyes. Status:

1) Everyone does not know the color of their eyes, nor can they look in the mirror.

2) Everyone can see the color of other people’s eyes, but cannot tell him.

3) If a person knows that he has red eyes, he must leave the island that night.


(The original title was suicide, not very harmonious, changed a little)

Suddenly one day, an outside tourist came to the island and said a word in front of everyone: One of you with red eyes .

Assuming that every islander is smart enough and obeys the rules, what will happen on this island?

You can think about it. The following is the reasoning process.

Assuming that only one person on the island has red eyes, call him A. Well, until the tourist says this, A will do nothing-because he cannot see himself,I don’t know if I have red eyes.

But now, A hears this sentence, and according to his observation, the other 99 people have blue eyes. So come to a conclusion: You must be red-eyed. So he will leave the island that night.

This is a case of one person. Now consider the island with 2 red eyes, A and B.

For A, what he saw was 98 blue eyes and 1 red eye. (B) . He would make the above reasoning. Therefore, from his perspective, he thinks that B will leave that night.

But the next day, A will be surprised to find that B is still on the island. So A would immediately think: B didn’t leave, indicating that B saw another red eye. But the other 98 people I saw were blue eyes, so I must be red eyes myself. So, the result is: A and B will leave the next night.

So when the red eyes are 3, the answer is simple: the 3 red-eyed people will leave on the third night.

In this example, what happened before and after the tourists arrived? Why did this change happen to the islanders who were originally peaceful? The reason lies in this: The words of tourists make “the island has red eyes” from a “common sense” to a “consensus”.

Everyone knows “red eyes on the island”, and everyone knows “everyone knows this.”

This is a new message from a system perspective. It is this new information that reduces the uncertainty of the system and changes the state of the system.

If this example is too complicated, you can look at a simple one:

Suppose your department airborne a new leader and you don’t like him at all. One day, everyone went to the party together (without him) , and they chatted more vigorously, and suddenly someone said: The new leader is annoying .

Then you hear everyone echoing: Yes. Yes. I think so.

Will the atmosphere of the entire department be completely different?

(just an example, don’t really do this, be careful someone reports)

Further, for those who have read “Three Body”, the “face wall” will become a concept with “consensus”. If I write a novel with the word mentioned in it, I would reasonably expect that people reading this novel may have a new “three-layer cognition”:

1) Ideology : A person looking at a wall.

2) Context : My definition of it.

3) Consensus : Allusions to the “face wall” of Buddhism;

The response that readers may have, then, may be completely different.

It’s a very interesting way of thinking about what kind of people, what kind of discourse system, and what kind of consensus they evoke.

3

In fact, many cultural circles, subcultural circles, and even small groups rely on this “consensus” to maintain their existence and connection.

For example: when you watch a video at station B, you may see some barrage, which is full of unknown abbreviations, letters, texts … you may find it inexplicable: why do they write this? Is it intentional?

Yes, they are intentional.

Almost every circle will have some secret language system. Using this language system serves two purposes.

One is to convey to those who can understand, to express “we are the same kind of person” and “I am one of you”; the second is to do with those who cannot understand Cut to distinguish “us” and “them”.

This is an objective narrative without any sentimentality. In fact, all circles will have their own set of language systems, occupation, skills, hobbies, values, positions … to strengthen the tightness within the circle.

For example, when I met with a few new friends in the reasoning industry, when I talked about “Best Sellers”, others immediately nodded with understanding-a word that may be unknown to outsiders, in a specific circle, But can convey a consensus of aesthetic preferences and experiencesCheck.

This “consensus” based on a specific circle is called “stalk” in a small group. In a larger scope-for example, a country, a nation, a civilization, it is called “cultural context.”

For example: The British have a habit called “understatement” (understatement) .

A very classic example: During the Korean War, a 650-strong British army was surrounded by 10,000 volunteer soldiers. The US commander asked the British Captain: How is your situation? The captain answered lightly:

“It’s a little tricky here.”

To Americans, this sentence means “somewhat troublesome, but we can fix it,” and ordered them to stay on the ground. As a result, the British army was almost wiped out and only a few people escaped.

Any cultural context is actually based on “there are some hidden rules here, we all know them, and we all know that the other party knows them.” In this case, effective communication can be achieved.

For example, as Chinese, we all know: “The weather is good” means that there is nothing to talk about;

“Did you eat” means just a casual chill;

“Say it next time” means “I’m not interested, I don’t have the next time”;

“We will notify you when there is news”, which means “We don’t want you, but I’m sorry to say it straight.”

Friends who know Japanese will know that Japanese has a habit, and likes to omit the subject, and sometimes even leaves only one predicate verb. This seems unthinkable to people in Western countries, but it is very natural for people of East Asian culture. A large part of the reason is that Japan, like China, belongs to a “High-context culture” country.

In daily communication, people will default to each other “you know what I want to express, and I know you know this”. All communication is based on this premise. Therefore, much information can be relied on contextually and contextually to complete without having to speak out.

This is also a major feature of daily language and daily communication.

4

But this is precisely the biggest obstacle to artificial intelligence.

A simple example. Like this sentence:

Mary saw a puppy on the windowsill and she liked it very much.

Excuse me: What does Mary like? Windowsill or puppy?

For any ordinary person, this question is not difficult. But for computers, this question can’t be answered-artificial intelligence can’t tell what this “it” refers to, because both possibilities fit the grammar.

So how do we know that “it” refers to “puppy”? The reason is: decades of life experience are stored in our brains. In our experience, people are more likely to “like a puppy” than “like a window”;

On the other hand, our experience tells us that when a person sees “a dog on the window sill”, her attention is more likely to be on the dog, and the window sill is just an auxiliary modifier.

Are these rules clearly written? No, you can’t find these rules anywhere, but the brain thinks about it this way: Fine-tune the possibilities based on the observed real world, focusing on the “most probable” object.

This is the “Bayesian brain” hypothesis. Our brain is like a library of probability. According to various materials, we fine-tune the probability of events, and use this to think about new problems and make new judgments.

So, what are these materials? That is, in our daily lives, everyone “knows” each other and follows each other, and they will not speak clearly and directly. Various “consensus”.

But artificial intelligence can never learn this spontaneously. The only way to make it have such a large library of probabilities is to let it grow like a person, learn naturally, interact with the world, obtain a variety of daily knowledge from the interaction, and adjust its probability.

This is called “Moravik’s Paradox” : Artificial intelligence can do precise calculations that humans cannot reach. But for everyday life, it is like a three-year-old child.

Of course, after reading this article, you will find that this is not fair. The reason why human beings are handy and free from obstacles in daily life is because under the sea, they haveA huge, massive “consensus” system is used as the support.

This is also the biggest advantage of the human brain over computers: the brain reconstructs memories and extracts the most important and core information to better understand new situations and solve new problems.

But this skill can sometimes bring bad results.

I mentioned in the old article: When you already have your own position, you can easily misinterpret all the received information according to your position. This is called “motivational reasoning.”

For example: If you are a fan of a certain star, then the external criticism of this star, whether objective or not, is easily understood by you as a deliberate and premeditated “black”.

At this time, it is this probability library in the brain that works: we may have many explanations for the possibility of a piece of information, but the brain will choose the one with the “most probable” one. And, thanks to the high concurrency of the brain, this process is extremely fast and without delay, and you are completely unaware.

It’s the same when you discuss issues with others. If it can’t be based on consensus, then most discussions are invalid-it’s just that both sides are talking to themselves. You have been emphasizing your point, and the other person has been emphasizing his point.

It ’s rare to be able to drop your stance, listen to the other person ’s point of view, and absorb it to correct and adjust the “probability library” in your brain.

So, I said: The core of all discussions must be around consensus; the purpose of all discussions is to reach consensus.

In many cases, the so-called winning or losing is actually self-deception, which is not so important.

5

Finally, I’ve talked so much, let me make a few suggestions. It is also the principle I have always adhered to, and I encourage you.

1) When describing ideas, try to use descriptive sentences to avoid motivational reasoning.

For example: “What you said last night made me feel unpleasant” is better than whispering “Do you have an opinion on me?”

Language communication is always distorted. Many times, speak franklyClearly, it is the best solution.

2) Before communicating, make clear the concepts the two parties need to discuss.

People who know me will know that I have a habit: Before discussing a thing, I always say: Let us define what we are going to discuss.

For example: Is labeling a bad thing? In many cases, it is really not good. But in some cases, it is an effective strategy. For example: in the office, how to increase your value? An effective way is: consciously label yourself some tags you want, and “anchor” others’ impressions of you.

3) When refuting each other, try to reach consensus first.

Daniel Dennett wrote a “Raboport’s Law” in “Intuition Pump”:

How to refute each other effectively?

(1) Clearly reiterate the other party ’s thoughts and make the other party agree that “I just wish to say it like you”;

(2) List the parts of the other person’s point of view that you agree with;

(3) Mention what you learned from the other party;

(4) After completing the above three steps, you can say a rebuttal or criticism.

It is certainly very difficult to do this completely. But I think you can take this rule to heart. When you want to refute the other person, think about it and ask yourself: What percent of it did I do? 80? 50? 30? Still 0?

It may help you calm down and think more rationally.

4) Recognize that the bottom of human cognition is always an iceberg

Fitzgerald once said: Whenever you want to criticize others, you have to remember that not everyone has conditions like yours.

What I want to say is: Be aware at any time: the bottom of everyone’s cognition is always a huge iceberg. It includes not only consensus, but also origin, experience, position, habits, beliefs …

In this, although there is a section “We all know each other knows”, but more, it may be “I thought I knew, but actually I didn’t know”.

Humility, tolerance, acceptance, this is my warning to myself. Also share it with you.

This article comes from WeChat public account: Mr. L said (ID: lxianshengmiao) , author: Lachel