Smart people know how to use the system engineering way of thinking to analyze the affairs they observe and contact into small links, study the relationship between each link and the impact of all links on the whole; and then use He researched the links to achieve the purpose of his own imagination. The following is a compilation of the thinking styles of smart people that I made for you. I hope you like it.

The way of thinking of smart people

1. Expectation management? Thinking in interpersonal relationships

In interpersonal relationships, there is such a thing Phenomenon: If a hooligan suddenly does a good deed, he will quickly establish a good impression. However, some comrades usually perform extremely well and use their best skills, but the leadership's requirements are getting higher and higher. Suddenly, they cannot satisfy the leadership, and negative evaluations will follow. (The incompetence trap in psychology).

The same is true in relationships. A good man usually has a perfect image, but if he suddenly makes a mistake, he will be infamy forever (a certain trend in the entertainment industry). Some scumbags suddenly do one or two things to improve their image, and they will receive rave reviews. .

What this requires us to do in daily life is to learn to hold back our ultimate moves, moderately suppress our desire for expression and vanity, and take action at critical moments.

2. Model thinking

Model thinking is the ability to refine our knowledge points and thinking processes in processing work into models.

For example, there is a very popular course in university courses called "Mathematical Modeling", which is to build mathematical models of problems encountered in life for quantitative analysis and interpretation.

When encountering psychological problems, you can establish a mental model of who did what, why, when and where?

The SWOT model analysis method commonly used in enterprises: S ( Strengths) are advantages, W (weaknesses) are disadvantages, O (opportunities) are opportunities, and T (threats) are threats. Using this method, we can conduct a comprehensive, systematic, and accurate study of the situation in which the research object is located, and then formulate corresponding development strategies, plans, and countermeasures based on the research results.

3. Systems Thinking

Great people all focus on relationship analysis rather than element analysis. A thing is always a collection of two dimensions at the same time, a collection of relationships between internal elements, and a component element of a larger system of its own.

Systematic thinking is to recognize the relationship between these two dimensions. Consider the totality of the interconnections and interactions between systems and elements, elements and elements, systems and environments. It has the characteristics of integrity, structure, three-dimensionality, dynamics and comprehensiveness.

IV. Leverage thinking

Many people like to use Archimedes’ famous saying: “Give me a fulcrum and I can move the earth!” to describe the leverage effect. In the eyes of talented people, levers can not only move the earth. All information, matter and energy can be leveraged.

5. Unfeeling thinking

That is to cultivate a strong sense of self-worth and identity that does not take pleasure in things or feel sad about oneself, and does not depend on the external environment.

Many times when we live in the world, we always care too much about others’ evaluation of ourselves. Any behavioral motivation is to satisfy our weak self-esteem. This is a manifestation of a low sense of self-identity. In our daily lives, we show off, spend extravagantly, cannot withstand temptation, and indulge in superficial tastes all illustrate this point.

However, for some more successful people, their sense of value identity comes entirely from within. For example, when Li Ka-shing was young, in order to steal his studies, he eliminated all interference. His inner values ??were high and strong, and he was not affected by any outside world. influence, they believe that all efforts and contributions are for their future selves. This type of person has profoundly learned the rules of the world and is able to achieve self-discipline, independent thinking, and a strong sense of purpose.

6. Value thinking

When looking at things, never get angry at the facts, but think about the value of the event itself. As the saying goes: Children see right and wrong, adults see benefits. Don't make value judgments blindly.

For example, if you know the news media, you will know that the original intention of many media is to attract attention and stimulate the spirit. So there is absolutely no need to be filled with righteous indignation over some headline-grabbing news event.

Another example is the example of the evaluation methodology mentioned by Zhihu’s outstanding person? Mining Copper?: Use two-dimensional thinking to consider, one is the income value, and what this event will bring to me The size of the benefit (cognitive, emotional, material, and physical benefits can all be included), and the second is the half-life of the benefit, which is the rate at which the benefit decays over time. Events with a long half-life will have a longer lasting impact on us.

We should focus more on doing things with high return value and long half-life and low return value and long half-life. The judgment of return value and half-life comes from our inner judgment of our own value identity. For example, in the eyes of talented people, there is only one type of valuable job-hopping: if your ability has been improved to a considerable level, you will find a larger platform or be poached.

7. Political Interpersonal Thinking

We all sometimes suffer from social phobia. Apart from confiding our true feelings to friends who we know well, we are always timid in front of strangers. Cowardly.

In fact, we are all in a political network. The content of the conversation is often secondary, and the political relationships among the crowd are most important. Sometimes, everyone needs to wear a mask, and the ritual of conversation outweighs its practical effect.

Language is a tool to establish political relationships. When we ask for help, it is a political relationship. The conversation between father and son is a political relationship. The degree of intimacy between men and women is also a political relationship.

8. Insight into the hidden world

There is a famous "iceberg theory" in psychology. What things present to us is often only a very small part, the largest part. Usually covered up.

We must learn to develop insight into the hidden world. For example, when we read, we often only see the surface of some articles, while talented people will think about problems in the "author mode": the background of writing, The motivation for writing, the means of writing, the strategies of writing, etc. Once we master this skill, we will achieve twice the result with half the effort in the learning process.

9. Threshold self-control thinking

Threshold: the minimum stimulus intensity required to release a behavioral response.

For example, in the last century, we Chinese people had a very low trigger value for desire. When we saw a woman wearing a cheongsam on the street, we would have wild thoughts. However, in the current Internet age, educational films from island countries are overflowing. Everyone finds it boring to open a computer screen full of reproductive organs. In fact, it is because our threshold for physical desire has increased.

Another example is that many single rotten girls are addicted to Korean idol dramas and cannot extricate themselves. As time goes by, the brain’s subconscious standards for mate selection increase. In the end, they end up alone until they grow old, still struggling to pursue good looks. A long-legged oppa who has a high IQ will also take care of people.

What this phenomenon tells us is to learn a certain degree of abstinence, self-control and self-discipline.

What is the difference between the way smart people think when they encounter problems and us?

Smart people are more insensitive to difficulties, which means they can face them more easily Steep learning curve. For example, if the learning curve is regarded as a steep slope, they can reduce the inclination angle by 30 degrees. Although they may not go fast, it will be easy. For example, if I also have no programming foundation, I would think rainmeter programming is too troublesome and give up, but classmate L thinks it is easy and spent one night to complete it. Although I was able to create a desktop after spending one night, I deeply realized that his and I had different understandings of "difficulty".

The same process applies to ps, matlab, c, fortran, latex, etc., as well as asymptotic method, laser diagnose, etc. Even though I can learn the same things in the same amount of time as a smart person, these things are difficult for me but not difficult for them. And often they can learn more and more thoroughly in less time. I think the fundamental reason is that they are too accustomed to this level of learning curve and have experienced hundreds of battles. But the good thing about this is that it can be practiced later. After being abused, I saw many things that were very troublesome and wanted to give up. I thought that if the classmates around me saw this, they would think it was very simple, so I gritted my teeth and learned it, although it was very painful to learn. . .

The second point is that they can maintain clear thinking and focused thinking for a longer period of time. When the logical chain of something is very long, I often have to break it many times and review it many times before I can connect the thread. However, some people can peel off the cocoon, slowly figure out the logic step by step, and directly deduce it. result. For example, for a mathematical proof question, I know the conditions and conclusion, and I need to write the proof process. Then I started to think about starting from the conditions, maybe using theorem A, then I still need to prove B, then C, then D. Then it is a bit difficult, so take it easy first. Then working backwards from the conclusion, I should have used theorem E, but I still need to prove F, and then. . . Then it broke.

I can no longer figure out what I am proving. My mind is confused. I have insufficient memory: I have forgotten the previous ones; the main frequency is not enough: I can’t push the latter ones. Then I review the reasoning over and over again. Only when you are familiar with the previous steps can you continue. But these questions are very easy for some people. They can easily tell you the questions when they first see them. The mind is very clear, well-organized and logical, and cannot be refuted. I have asked about the thinking process in detail many times, and my final feeling is that smart people only need the most basic lemma to fly into the sky with logic, but I need a real ladder. This can be seen not only when facing difficult problems, but also in many details of life. For similar examples, see "Utopia".

The third point is that they have seen more essential things, or they are used to grasping more essential things. For them, the kinematics of physics only says one thing, that is, f=ma, and the rest is just mathematics; convection, conduction, and radiation are, in the final analysis, something similar to "If it is not equal, it will sound." If the equation cannot be remembered, it is common sense. Just push it and push it out; fluid mechanics is finally the vortex that is rubbed out; first-order partial differential equations are streamlines and so on. They do not memorize formulas or inferences. Common sense plus mathematics constitute their entire physics framework.

The final state is that they stand firmly on common sense, relying on their strong absorptive ability and clear logic to ride through the dust until they are invisible to the naked eye. The difference in how smart people think

The difference is that smart people have a more scientific, precise, and efficient "abstract map" in their minds. What is stored in this map is not landmarks, boundaries, or lines. Rather, it is concepts, knowledge, facts, and procedures. The biggest difference between them and ordinary people is that they not only have a good map with rich and complete information, but also are able to efficiently extract and combine information from these maps.

From the limited expression of the question, I would like to first define the term "smart" mentioned in my answer below:

Criteria for evaluating "smart" or not It does not rely entirely on IQ, but on whether it can solve the unique problems it faces more efficiently and accurately.

"Smart" people are not smart in every aspect of life. I prefer to regard them as "experts" in one or more fields.

Genetic factors will not be discussed here.

Next, let’s first understand the difference between the two.

When a train was crossing a bridge across a valley, a passenger on the train dropped a stone from the window. Where will the stone fall?

This experiment was conducted on college students by McCloskey and Kaiser in 1984.

The correct answer is - falling in a parabola. In addition to gravity, the stone also has an initial speed in the same direction as the train that needs to be considered.

One-third of the students thought that the stone would fall vertically. In fact, I thought the same thing when I was reading the book and saw this experiment - it's not very smart.

In the minds of "smart people", in the process of effectively solving problems (especially problems in areas of expertise), the differences between ordinary people and ordinary people may be as follows:

Information related to identification problems: When I was in high school, there was a geometry question in a math exam, and many top students in math got it wrong. The reason is surprisingly simple - a piece of seemingly important information given in the question stem actually has nothing to do with solving this question at all. Many people who use this condition in their problem-solving process in a careful and abrupt manner on weekdays have actually ended up doing the wrong problem. There is generally no nonsense in exam questions, but many difficult problems in practical life are complex and simple at the same time. Smart people can better extract the information that is truly relevant to the problem in the current problem situation.

Semantic understanding: For example, my wife scolded me: Don’t you know that you are not cruel, ruthless, or unreasonable at all!? If I can react quickly and should respond reasonably, then I am smart. people. Smart people have a kind of instant intuition about the words in many situations, which is similar to "Put your butt out and you know what shit to poop", and then suddenly realize the solution. It would be better to kill me than show me the source code. If you let @赵世奇 do it, the situation should be much better, because he is an expert in this area and I am not.

Overall characterization: Understanding one sentence may not necessarily mean that you understand the whole problem. In many cases, you cannot get the whole picture at a glance. Smart people will mobilize more content in the "mental map" to solve problems reasonably. For example, you can calculate the problem of chicken and rabbit in the same cage by relying on basic mathematical knowledge such as linear equations of two variables, but there is a smarter solution: there are 15 chickens and rabbits, and 40 legs are , how many chickens and rabbits are there? Assuming that the chickens and rabbits are well-trained, blow a whistle and lift one foot, 40-15=25. I blew the whistle again and raised one foot again, 25-15=10. At this time, the chicken sat down on the ground, and the rabbit still stood on its two feet. Therefore, there are 10?2=5 rabbits and 15-5=10 chickens.

Problem classification: Just like finding "Beijing" on the world map, you need to first find the approximate location of "China". In the mental map, when looking for issues related to "prenatal depression", smart people will not immediately locate the knowledge system and the overall representation mentioned above directly to "meteorology". Correspondingly, they will directly locate it. To "psychology", it can even directly pinpoint "clinical psychology", thereby increasing the efficiency of problem solving. This is the time to test the information content and accuracy of the mental map in your mind, and your understanding of your own mental map. During the experiment, some students realized that this question was about testing the concept of "acceleration of gravity" after reading the first few words of the question, and then deliberately paid attention to the concepts related to acceleration of gravity during the process of reading and solving the question. information, and even proactively look for missing information indirectly. At the same time, some students did not activate the relevant mental map until they had finished reading the entire question. However, at this point, there are two additional points that need to be mentioned: First, problem classification training can help improve performance. In 1995, a study by Mr. Zhang Qinglin from my alma mater, Southwest University, proved that a group of students who completed 36 simple math problems (addition, subtraction, multiplication and division) and then classified them were better at solving similar math problems than students who completed these problems alone. Do better in the test.

Second, overconfidence may lead to failure to classify the problem. For example, your girlfriend comes to you and says that XX bought a new bag and shows it off all day long. You mistakenly classify the problem as "needing sex", so you and your girlfriend complain about XX. , in fact, it may be that the girlfriend also wants a new bag - taking it for granted, causing the problem to be classified incorrectly, and it is time to improve the accuracy of the mental map.

Analogical thinking: This is a bit like people using bats to develop sonar. Smart people are people who are good at solving problems through case analogies. Gick and Holyoak's 1983 study found that providing subjects with two similar problem situations was more helpful for subjects to understand and solve problems than providing only one situation.

The amount of information in the mental map: My mother once praised a distant uncle of mine: "XX is really smart and plays mahjong so well." ?My primary school teacher also praised one of my classmates: ?XX is really smart and can play chess much better than ordinary adults. ?Even on the train, the guy on the lower berth praised the guy on the opposite side: ?Brother, you are so smart. I have never seen a better player in Landlord than you. ?In 1973, Simon and Chase conducted a special scientific study on chess masters and chess novices - chess masters can quickly recall 50,000 different typical chess positions, and they can recall each of them in a few seconds. The position of a chess piece, and the possible direction of operations. --I think the same applies to Mahjong, chess, and Landlords. In their minds, the cards and chess games are like the words stored in our minds. Just like if I ask you what is the word for "banana", you can quickly tell it is "banana" instead of "nababa". Therefore, smart people all have something to offer - it is not all about talent.

Contents of mental maps: Smart people have a structure that is more suitable for solving problems and extracting information from mental maps. Just like the administrative division map cannot answer your question about the altitude of a certain place very well. Smart people's information is stored in a better way. In his experiment, Chietal asked college students and their professors to classify some basic physics problems. One of the typical structures of college students' classification relies on the tools involved: use of inclines, use of wooden blocks, use of levers, and use of waves. . Their professor's classification method is much more noble and cool: energy conservation problems, coordinate transformation Newton's principle problems, acceleration-related Newton's principle problems, and Newton's principle problems under force balance conditions. Which one do you think is more smart? So, which one is better if you want to be smart?

Productive Thinking Programs, from Covington. It is mainly for children to improve their problem-solving abilities through detective stories.

Pattern of Problem Solving, from Rubinstein. It is mainly prepared for college students and relies on 10 weeks to improve problem-solving skills through problems mainly from the fields of engineering and mathematics.

CoRT (Cognitive Research Trust), from De Bono. It mainly deals with specific problem situations that students may encounter outside school.

Instrumental Enrichment, from Feuerstein in Israel, is currently the most well-known and widely researched thinking skills course, mainly for teenagers with certain cognitive or emotional disorders.

In my opinion, the gap between ordinary people and so-called "smart people" is about the same. Again, the "smart people" here are not really successful people who have become famous, but refer to relevant experts in a specific field who have a problem-solving ability that exceeds that of ordinary people.

Zhang Zishuai

When I was at Peking University, I heard Professor Zhang Weiying lecture on game theory. To be honest, he was not very good.

When I was abroad, I listened to many lectures by Nobel Prize winners. To be honest, they were no more vivid and exciting than those given by a lecturer when I was an undergraduate.

At the beginning of this year, after I listened to the speech of Akira Suzuki, the winner of the 2010 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, I went to find him backstage and asked cautiously, "Excuse me, how can I become as good as you?" Chemist? I have asked similar questions to many people who have made outstanding contributions in various fields, including Zhang Weiying and Lang Xianping mentioned above.

I can’t remember the original words of Professor Akira Suzuki, but they are probably: “Learn to see the essence through phenomena?”

A truly smart person is sensitive to things but slow to deal with them. In other words, what is better than us is: through phenomena, trying to explore the root causes of things from a comprehensive perspective.

Just like when I was younger, I would always make grand remarks first when something happened, and I was very angry in book business. This is probably the case. Slowly, I discovered that even the smallest thing in life, from the cause to the process to the results and impact, as well as the future experience and lessons, can be summarized and reflected on, how can it be concluded in one or two sentences?

When we have accumulated enough knowledge and have enough predictions about similar events in the past, then we can have a relatively accurate idea. Don’t talk about this process, just look, think, and listen. To settle and reflect.

Don’t be the first to speak out, make a decision and act later, that’s all.

?You may also like:

1. Smart famous quotes

2. Smart and capable famous quotes

3. Women are smart Collection of classic quotations

4. Collection of 50 brain teasers to challenge smart people

5. Facial analysis of smart people

6. Smart people Principles of communication and doing things

7. 2015 Sichuan College Entrance Examination Essay Sample: Be an honest and smart person

8. A letter from parents to their daughter in love