Just ... It is our readers who suffer. They read the books jointly recommended by the big cows, but they learned the wrong knowledge and became leeks to be slaughtered.
Therefore, we must learn to question and master the skills of critical thinking by learning to question, so that we will not be cut by the big cows and become a member of the mob.
Stakeholder is the core concept of this book, and it can even be said that this book is centered around this concept. What is at stake? Simply put, it is honor and disgrace and * * *. If things are done well, there will be gains, and if they are not done well, there will be losses.
When Keyboard Man pointed out the maze, he didn't show any interest. When you are forced to donate, you donate someone else's money, and the risks are all on others. You can enjoy the moral sublimity brought by criticizing others and leave at the same time. It is difficult for such a person to give you useful advice, even if he thinks he is doing a good deed.
To learn to question, we must first learn to judge. "Staying at stake" is a good judgment angle. For some friends who have some savings but no financial knowledge, it may be a good choice to ask the fund manager to help manage the assets. But in fact, you and the fund manager not only have no "interests", but also have conflicts of interest. The fund manager draws profits from your transactions, that is, the fund manager makes money whether you make money or not. Moreover, the fund manager may not want you to earn too much money, because if you have more money, you may choose to quit the fund investment, so the fund manager will not get the money.
"Stakeholder" is the standard to judge whether what a person does is beneficial to you. In the future, when you meet an insurance salesman, a financial expert or a health care product salesman to recommend products to you, you can suddenly ask, "Do you or your family use such a good product?"
In order to learn to question, we need to deeply understand the concept of "stakeholders", and then we will understand "stakeholders" from three angles.
The sentence "ass decides head" is actually reasonable. A person's position, camp or occupation in society often determines that he can only say something beneficial to himself but not necessarily true.
A typical example is that China's tough attitude is always shown in the US presidential election. Because the president is responsible to the voters in his own camp, his own interests are more important than the national interests. So even though the United States has gained a lot in globalization by relying on its multinational companies in the past few decades, Trump still promotes "America first".
If a stranger's suggestion goes against his fundamental interests, you can almost ignore it. After all, there is no free lunch.
The "agent problem" is a typical example. Devil economics reveals such a phenomenon with data: the salesmen of real estate agents always hope that customers can sell their houses as soon as possible, instead of expecting to help customers sell their houses at higher prices.
On the surface, the intermediary will get more commission for helping customers sell higher-priced houses, which should encourage intermediary salesmen to have more motivation to help customers sell higher-priced houses. In fact, the benefits of helping customers sell higher prices are not as good as selling the house immediately, and the benefits of taking the next order early are great. So even if you wait patiently for a while, you can help customers get higher quotations, and the salesman asks customers to sell the house early. However, the customer listened to the salesman's advice and hurt his own interests.
Step 3 analyze its behavior
When others give you a bunch of advice that seems to be beneficial to you, but in fact they have never implemented the advice given to you, you need to be vigilant.
For example, some so-called environmentalists preach the seriousness of "global warming" every day, so they call on everyone to save energy and reduce emissions, but they can still drive cars that exceed emission standards. A typical example is former US Vice President Al Gore, who often blames China for global warming, calls on the world to save energy and reduce emissions, and won the Nobel Peace Prize for his progressive ideas. But Gore will never tell you that he is enjoying the life of champagne by the heated swimming pool of a house covering an area of 10,000 square meters.
The same is true of the goddess bitch, who is often satirized. She cries out every day to change others and the world, but when it comes to changing herself, she can often come up with another set of standards to defend herself. Therefore, when foreign media advocate fairness, freedom and equality in their eyes in the future, we must remain calm, learn to question and dare to question. After all, it's easy to stand and talk.
We learn to question not only to learn to think critically, but also to bring changes to our lives. In this way, we will no longer be other people's leeks, so that we will no longer listen to other people's suggestions, so that we can learn to distinguish the truth. If critical thinking is a unique set of martial arts secrets, then learning to question is the basic method to support this set of martial arts.
Q: Can we try to use this method to judge other people's product promotion now? Where do you think it can be used?
Do you think there is anything worth improving in this method?
Postscript (same as postscript); Police sergeant