But as a reader, I still have to read it. Because as an ordinary person, there should be few opportunities to see similar Chinese documents. I am an ordinary person. In my limited knowledge, there is no such book in the Chinese world. In the western discourse system full of positivism and exploration spirit, such books do exist.
For example, as we all know, there is a famous saying in the Analects of Confucius, learn from it: three provinces a day: do you deceive others? Don't believe in making friends? Can you pass it on? But the information content of this sentence is very limited by hand index. As individuals, we should reflect on ourselves every day. The content of reflection is as follows: Is it loyal enough to work for others? Is it honest enough to associate with friends? Have you reviewed the new knowledge? But can a world as small as dirt really be so simple and pure? What's more, the human world in which we live now has been rolling forward for two thousand years from the era of sage Confucius. Just "Cheating for others?" This sentence is already very inappropriate. As a white-collar and blue-collar worker, if you still want to be "loyal" to your boss, your brain is obviously "rusty". Obviously, it is more correct and feasible to be serious and responsible during working hours and leave the off-duty time to your family and yourself.
? So how to spend every minute of your life? Obviously, complete personalization can never be unified and unified, and there is no fixed answer to this question. But the book Trade-offs still talks about many effective methods.
? Taking Chapter 11 as an example, it is suggested to keep the spirit of dialogue and inquiry in the process of communicating with others. How to implement this spirit? This chapter provides many tiny suggestions.
1. The main obstacle is the solidification of our views.
This may come from an uncompromising and unquestionable commitment to political, social or philosophical positions. We call it the solidification of ideology. However, rational persistence should include recognizing that we may be wrong and that our position or its components may be overturned. Therefore, we should keep an open mind, consider positions that are different from our own views, and seriously consider evidence and arguments that are different from our own views.
2. Ignore other viewpoints
? He may just be unwilling to spend the necessary time and energy to seek other viewpoints, or he may not understand the importance of exploring other possibilities.
3. Want to be right.
? Sometimes, other positions are ignored because people just don't want to hear any conflicting views. He is also hostile to other views and people who hold them.
4. Want certainty
? Refusing to listen to other people's opinions may be due to the desire for certainty to some extent, which seems to be a characteristic of human beings.
5. Equality with our beliefs.
defend
Equating ourselves with our beliefs may lead to another obstacle to the spirit of inquiry-defensiveness. When we regard faith as a part of personality and get a sense of self-satisfaction from holding correct beliefs, we will feel that criticizing our beliefs seems to be a personal attack.
Dewey emphasized the core position of inquiry in acquiring knowledge. He described the possible obstacles to the spirit of inquiry: the least obstacle and trouble is to accept the spiritual imprint that has been engraved. It takes a lot of trouble to give up old beliefs and adopt alternative beliefs. Admit that the belief we once held is wrong, and our conceit often regards it as a sign of weakness. We make ourselves equal to our beliefs, so that these beliefs become wealth. We stood up to defend them and refused to see or listen to different opinions.
7. Group thinking
? In a group environment, the lack of openness to other views may be influenced by other members of the group.
8. prejudice or prejudice
? Another obstacle that the spirit of inquiry may encounter is preconceptions or prejudices. Most of the time, we will start with the existing views on a problem and the knowledge and experience that may affect how we look at it. If we don't realize their existence and let them affect our evaluation of problems unconsciously, we may make some mistakes. When these opinions or experiences lead us to ignore other opinions and distort our judgment, they become prejudice.
? In the first chapter of Young Werther, Goethe also expressed the same view: "Misunderstanding and prejudice often lead to more mistakes in the world than deception and malice".
9. fallacious reasoning
The use of fallacious reasoning also hinders the spirit of inquiry. Fallacy reasoning refers to those arguments with weak logical effect but quite convincing. Persuading people improperly with rhetoric, rather than with logical reason, violates the commitment to reason.
10. Emergency response
? The violation of the spirit of inquiry usually occurs at the climax of the debate. We seem to have a common tendency, that is, to react emotionally and almost automatically under pressure, without taking the time to think about this problem carefully and weigh our reactions.
? In the book, there are ten common wrong ways of thinking that run counter to the spirit of maintaining dialogue and inquiry. Some of them seem to belong to one point, but the author is so meticulous, tireless, or very focused, trying to exhaust all the ever-changing improper thinking. It is precisely because we are careful enough that we can see the shadow of our wrong thinking and its external manifestations.
? Secondly, the magic of this book is that it not only lists the external representations of various wrong thinking modes, but also tells you how to overcome, eliminate or avoid this wrong thinking mode in concrete ways. Does this feel like an instant crush on the famous saying in The Analects of Confucius-a mysterious thing that only an individual's aura can capture?
1. Know your existing opinions or prejudices.
? One strategy is to make us clearly aware of our existing views on a problem and any prejudice we may have. At the beginning of the investigation, we can take notes and write down our initial views and why we have such views, as well as any established views or worldviews that we can use to evaluate the problem.
2. Monitor your inquiries and conversations.
? The next strategy is to monitor your inquiry and dialogue process and check whether there are any solidification, prejudice or other problems that hinder open and fair inquiry.
? Another useful strategy is to take some time to consider our reaction. Ask yourself: Is my response measured and appropriate? Am I overly influenced by the views of this group?
? We should eliminate defensiveness and understand that criticism should not be personal, and critical communication is the way to form a better view. If we successfully cultivate a sense of self-satisfaction, because we understand the truth rather than the right, then being willing to accept other arguments and admit mistakes will become part of our self-identity. Ask yourself: "Do I regard myself as a reasonable person, or do I equate myself with a certain point of view?" This may help to remind us to keep the spirit of inquiry.
? We must also carefully monitor our arguments and avoid using fallacious reasoning. Finding out common fallacies, such as appealing to people, appealing to fashion or jumping to conclusions, and trying to avoid making these fallacies will help to keep the inquiry on the original rational track, thus maintaining the commitment to rationality, which is the characteristic of the inquiry spirit.
? Among them, it is particularly important to avoid the scarecrow fallacy. This is a very common fallacy, which wrongly depicts opposing views and is therefore easy to be criticized. This erroneous depiction may be unintentional or intentional. In any case, this is extremely problematic, because it diverts the discussion from the subject and often makes the opposing views sound absurd. One strategy to avoid the scarecrow fallacy is to understand each other's arguments carefully and amicably before criticizing them.
Evaluate your own point of view.
? A careful and critical evaluation of our own views will help to keep the inquiry open. In order to achieve this goal, it is important to recognize the weaknesses in our point of view. Moreover, openly admitting weaknesses in the debate reflects an attitude of seeking the best point of view.
? Another important and useful strategy is to deliberately seek criticism, refutation and alternative arguments. It is a sign of closure to avoid criticism of one's own views and consider alternative views.
? Inquiry involves making comparative judgments between those competing viewpoints. Therefore, we need to find out what these views are. If we can't do this, we are in danger of ideological solidification.
Third, the most common and simplest way for both sides to maintain the spirit of inquiry is dialogue.
Although inquiries can take many forms, such as some written forms, they often occur in people's actual oral communication.
Not all dialogues are inquiry dialogues. Inquiry dialogue is special, because its goal is to draw a judgment supported by sufficient reasons through collective rational discussion. Therefore, inquiry dialogue needs to meet certain requirements: (1) participants should respect each other; (2) Everyone involved may participate; (3) All participants promised to have a fruitful dialogue.
In practice, we also need to pay attention to the specific details of interpersonal communication contained in the dialogue situation. This is particularly important, because in the face-to-face heated debate on controversial topics, intolerance, personal attacks, feelings of being hurt and the possibility of dialogue breakdown always exist. This book also takes pains to list the wrong inferences that both sides may make in the process of dialogue in response to fallacies.
1 attractive
The key to responding to the fallacy of personal appeal is not to get angry because of personal sarcasm, and not to be distracted by arguing whether this criticism is correct or not. On the contrary, it should be pointed out that such personal comments have nothing to do with evaluating the current problems.
2. Scarecrow
When responding to the scarecrow fallacy, don't respond to the wrong description of your argument. Instead, you should point out its inaccuracy.
3. Wrong causal assertion (in chronological order)
A better response is to question whether there is any evidence of this causal connection.
Step 4 be popular
The fallacy of appealing to popularity can be refuted by not discussing whether everyone really thinks this way or that way, but pointing out that the popularity of a certain point of view is usually not the basis for accepting it.
5. Inappropriate analogy
A problematic analogy can be refuted in this way, indicating that the items used for comparison are not comparable in some aspects. Or provide an alternative analogy to reduce absurdity.
6. The premise of the problem
Verify its assertion.
7. Irrelevant reasons
Directly point out the irrelevant reasons and contents, and return to the discussion topic.
8. Anecdotal evidence and hasty conclusions
The response to this is to point out that we can't make such a summary just by one incident, but we need more evidence.
1. One of the main obstacles to keeping open is the solidification of our views. This may come from an uncompromising and unquestionable commitment to political, social or philosophical positions. We call it the solidification of ideology. However, rational persistence should include recognizing that we may be wrong and that our position or its components may be overturned. Therefore, we should keep an open mind, consider positions that are different from our own views, and seriously consider evidence and arguments that are different from our own views.
2. Ignore other viewpoints
He may just be unwilling to spend the necessary time and energy to seek other viewpoints, or he may not understand the importance of exploring other possibilities.
3. Want to be right.
Sometimes, other positions are ignored because people just don't want to hear any conflicting views. He is also hostile to other views and people who hold them.
4. Want certainty
Refusing to listen to other people's opinions may be due to the desire for certainty to some extent, which seems to be a characteristic of human beings.
5. Equality with our beliefs.
We may feel that our beliefs constitute an important part of our personality. So, we don't want to give them up.
defend
Equating ourselves with our beliefs may lead to another obstacle to the spirit of inquiry-defensiveness. When we regard faith as a part of personality and get a sense of self-satisfaction from holding correct beliefs, we will feel that criticizing our beliefs seems to be a personal attack.
(john dewey emphasized the core position of inquiry in acquiring knowledge. He described the possible obstacles to the spirit of inquiry: the least obstacle and trouble is to accept the spiritual imprint that has been engraved. It takes a lot of trouble to give up old beliefs and adopt alternative beliefs. Admit that the belief we once held is wrong, and our conceit often regards it as a sign of weakness. We make ourselves equal to our beliefs, so that these beliefs become wealth. We stood up to defend them and refused to see or listen to different opinions. )
7. Group thinking
In a group environment, the lack of openness to other views may be influenced by other members of the group.
8. prejudice or prejudice
Another obstacle that the spirit of inquiry may encounter is preconceptions or prejudices. Most of the time, we will start with the existing views on a problem and the knowledge and experience that may affect how we look at it. If we don't realize their existence and let them affect our evaluation of problems unconsciously, we may make some mistakes. When these opinions or experiences lead us to ignore other opinions and distort our judgment, they become prejudice.
9. fallacious reasoning
The use of fallacious reasoning also hinders the spirit of inquiry. Fallacy reasoning refers to those arguments with weak logical effect but quite convincing.
Conclusion: As can be seen from Chapter 11, although this book is wordy, it is obviously more meaningful and operable than The Analects. What needs to be pointed out here is that this kind of continuous and effective dialogue only exists between the two sides who are willing to be reasonable. As the saying goes, if one person on both sides is unwilling to be reasonable, such a conversation ideal can only be wishful thinking.
In real life, many families, especially the one-child families, do not have a very harmonious parent-child relationship. For example, when children come home, parents just say, "Why don't you start studying?" In this way, parents cut off the possibility of dialogue and communication between parents and children. For another example, children want to apply for computer to find information, and talk about a lot of promises not to play games and even effective supervision measures, but parents simply don't listen, just hold inherent prejudice and still follow the old practice of cutting off the power supply of the gateway. Obviously, it is impossible to have an exploratory dialogue.
If children and parents can understand their limitations and the skills of inquiry dialogue, then this book can still be read, and perhaps communication will be more harmonious? Isn't everyone happy to see this?