The Great Library Report Issue One Chapter Three: Personal#
date: January 20, 2023
slug: 17
status: Published
tags: The Great Library Report
type: Post
I. Temporal Rationality#
How to measure the quality of time—using the accumulation of reusable assets as a standard. The more reusable high-quality assets produced in a unit of time, the more valuable that time becomes. Labor that requires intense focus, consumes a lot of energy, lasts a long time, but yields little knowledge for inheritance and sharing should be avoided as much as possible. Activities that do not accumulate should be minimized—such as driving, playing games, or watching soap operas. For unavoidable matters, one should pursue specialization to improve its output ratio—such as eating.
II. "True and Effective"#
We often habitually pursue the "true," such as what constitutes true love/friendship/effectiveness/reliable sources. The "true" is like setting the precision of a calculation to infinity and then calculating 1/3, which consumes a lot of energy.
What does "effective" look like? Calculating 1/3 to 0.3333 3333 3333 is sufficient. There are no excessive measurements or speculations, just simple and effective. I do not need that much precision in my life. For example, the current state of Zhihu is chaotic, with effective high-quality content drowned in a sea of low-quality information. Pursuing the "true": Why is Zhihu so terrible, utterly worthless? Is there no pure land on the internet? Pursuing the "effective": The answers to this question can be categorized; what are the general characteristics of each category? What is the role of low-quality answers, and where can high-quality answers be applied...
"It's not that it can't be used."
III. "Independent Thinkers"#
People are not nodes in a thought cluster connected by telepathy; there is fundamentally no function of "non-independent thinking." You receive input, you calculate, you output. Where is anyone else in between? In other words, "independent thinking" actually refers to a type of thinking with special characteristics, not a way of thinking, but a standard of quality for certain thoughts.
Descriptions of independent thinking in the public opinion arena often resemble a form of "rebellion":
People want to confirm their existence through difference. Thus, they regard all thoughts that yield the same results as others as invalid, and only those that yield different results as evidence of their "independence" from others. In fact, that is not what is called independent thinking, but rather "thinking that can prove I am also an independent individual," abbreviated as "independent thinking."
This is not "daring to be different," but "fearing to be the same."
Ultimately, it is merely a symptom of the adolescent phase of thought.
It's like someone eager to sell cigarettes promoting "smoking demonstrates masculinity." In reality, what real connection does smoking have with masculinity?
An independent personality indeed does not fear being different and often has obvious differences, but being different cannot be regarded as an absolute identification standard for independent personality. Because being different is innate; everyone is absolutely different, and it is impossible to be otherwise. Being a person means being different; since "independent individuals" are also people, they will naturally be different as well. That is not the so-called "characteristic" of an "independent personality." Those who are labeled as having "independent personalities," and whose thinking is respectfully termed "independent thinking," are not so because they are particularly different, but because they are perceived as very successful, excellent, and elite. Their status, influence, and especially their sexual resources are enviable.
People desperately want to possess the same things, thus fantasizing that they can transfer the other's charm to themselves through the cheapest imitation sorcery. It is sad—its principle is no different from drawing tiger stripes on oneself to pretend to be a reincarnated tiger. At this point, being referred to as "independent thinking" is merely this "tiger stripe painting."
When we say who is an independent thinker, we are actually worshipping that person's thinking quality; the issue is not about being different, but about being sound, self-annotating, and having explanatory power.
Being sound means there are no internal logical contradictions or disconnections. Self-annotating means it is not determined by other literature that it cannot annotate itself. More specifically, it is like having a document that says, "The previous document was very correct," but I do not know what the previous document means. Having explanatory power means that this internal consistency, independent of external references, can explain reality, thus allowing people to have optimistic expectations about its predictive ability.
IV. How to Avoid Being Influenced by Others' Emotions#
Why do others affect our emotions? My current understanding is: others' foolish words, nonsensical talk, slanderous and provocative remarks, ridicule, and hearsay may influence our "definition" of certain things.
For example, if someone insults me: "You are an idiot in science," my emotions are unlikely to be affected because they are speaking the truth; if someone insults me: "You are an idiot in the humanities, especially in history and economics," but provides no evidence, only emotional output, I probably won't be affected because it is unprovable; if someone insults me: "You are an idiot in the humanities, especially in history and economics," and provides various logically coherent and well-supported materials, then I will likely be affected.
The first two situations do not affect my definition of myself or certain things, but the last one may lead to feelings of frustration and lower my self-assessment.
Therefore, to minimize the influence of others on one's emotions, one should continuously improve their breadth and depth of knowledge, learn to "question," and distinguish between facts, opinions, beliefs, and positions.
V. The Internet is Dead and Reliable Sources#
We must admit that in the current era of highly developed internet technology, obtaining high-quality information from the internet is more difficult than in the "previous" internet. Has our internet lost the ability to produce high-value information? No, it is that the entry threshold for the internet has lowered, and valuable information is drowned in a vast amount of low-value information. The density of valuable sources has decreased, which does not necessarily mean that their absolute number has decreased. A glass of water with a salt content of 20% and a pool of water with a salt content of 1% does not mean that the salt has decreased; the main issue is that you have to put in more effort to collect it. Therefore, in the end, the problem ultimately boils down to "how to effectively improve collection efficiency."
Further questions arise: How should I choose my list of sources? Who should I pay attention to?
If you pay attention to the right sources, the internet is a good place; if you pay attention to the wrong ones, the internet is a bad place.
i. The Quality of the Source Itself#
1. Look at the New Information Content#
The correctness of the source itself is not that important; what matters is whether it introduces new perspectives, new arguments, new information, and whether it provides keywords that I can further search and understand. Digging and verifying that information should be my own responsibility. An author who can provide me with new leads to follow is already valuable enough.
2. The Knowledge Scope of the Source#
True certainty does not come from perfect self-calculation, but from multiple unrelated perspectives converging. This means that the more fields an author spans, the more their judgment on a matter, if derived from cross-validation across these fields, is worth considering. Authors who cross multiple fields likely have this subconscious habit of cross-field validation.
Conversely, if an author's own field is too narrow, they often form a low-level self-consistency, being overly stubborn about a few terms in their specialty. They often do not realize that if I cannot validate from other fields and perspectives, it is often because my understanding of my own specialty is too shallow.
3. The Update Frequency of the Source#
Updating too quickly is not necessarily better, as my daily reading volume is limited; if this source is too large, it will crowd out space for other sources, hindering the breadth of knowledge.
ii. The Style of the Source#
1. First Exclude Sarcasm#
Sarcasm is an absolute exclusion criterion.
No one can deny its high entertainment value, but precisely because of this entertainment value, I need to be cautious. Those who constantly rely on the "art" of sarcasm as a selling point for their answers are not lacking in value; the key is that they are unreliable—they can easily exaggerate or distort facts. Conversely, if I find myself lacking joy to the point of being desperate for such entertainment, what I should do is not seek more cheap anesthetics, but rather start looking for genuine solutions that can improve my situation, things that can enhance my work efficiency, gain market recognition, and achieve social status, to maintain my disinterest in such low-level entertainment. Enjoying sarcastic content is a blatant attempt to rationalize one's negative adaptive behavior through others' "cursing." If done for too long, one may lose the ability to climb out of this velvet-lined coffin. The darkness of the world is likely a result of digging one's own grave.
2. Look at the Maturity Level of the Source's Author#
This maturity level mainly refers to their ability to see hope.
Maturity has two levels: one is the ability to see problems, and the other is the ability to see hope and solutions. Both need to be highly regarded. This is simple; seeing problems is easy for someone with a bit of experience and intelligence. If I only focus on those who can see problems but lack the ability to see solutions—or even hope—I may enjoy the resonance of "Indeed, this expert is as dissatisfied as I am, which means my dissatisfaction is very reasonable," but
I will also increasingly be infected by despair.
If the experts I look up to cannot handle it, how can I? Therefore, sources that only point out problems without providing methods or even hope should not be completely disregarded (after all, they have some warning function), but at least should maintain a 1 ratio with sources that can provide methods and hope. Otherwise, it would be better to book a depression bed early. Why is this considered a dual level of maturity? Because the latter is less likely to panic in the face of problems and is more likely to remain calm and not overreact. This gives a subjective feeling of greater maturity.
3. Look at the Author's Motivation#
This does not mean that utilitarian motives—such as gaining traffic, selling products, or earning a sense of glory—are unfeasible; this is human nature, but it should not be excessive.
iii. Observe the Behavior of Related Individuals#
What are the dynamics of people who agree with this source? What commonalities do they share? What is their psychological state like? Are they healthy? What are the dynamics of those who oppose this source? What commonalities do they share? What is their psychological state like? Are they healthy?
This signal is extremely important and can provide an objective warning for oneself.
For example, if I strongly dislike a respondent and see a flood of negative comments, I can click on the profiles of the negative commenters to see a large number of "three-no" users. Then, looking at the dynamics of the negative commenters, if their main focus is on gaming and anime, and they like sarcastic answers, while their own answers are often sharp and contentless, and they appear to be pessimistic, irritable, and depressed, I need to be cautious because at this moment, my views align with theirs; I should think carefully about what this means. Similarly, looking at the dynamics of users who support and defend them, I should also check their answer counts, answer quality, and the tendencies of their likes. Sometimes, I may see another group of similarly "three-no" irritable users. This indicates that this respondent likely has a high probability of negativity. It's just that the negativity is directed in different ways. Only when I see that most users who support them are relatively rational, with a significant proportion providing substantial content and appearing experienced, emotionally stable, mature, and optimistic, can I consider it a green light for safe attention. I am here to find supporting driftwood, not to find lead balls that will drag me down to the sea, right?
iv. Finally, Make Good Use of Blocking#
Do not randomly click on keywords that will attract the recommendation algorithm; promptly block unwanted keywords to some extent to train the algorithm and suppress the amount of ineffective information received. Using RSS to organize sources is a good method to filter out noise and distractions.
VI. Beware of Being Moved#
Being moved and similar emotions are a human psychological reflex system; we become angry when attacked, feel close when met with kindness, and experience joy when our psychological peers receive good returns. For example, seeing a fluffy young animal with a large head-to-body ratio evokes a protective and affectionate instinct, and so on. These instincts are designed to give individuals with underdeveloped brains the most basic social functions, allowing them to effectively seek benefits and avoid harm, even without education, literacy, or understanding of any cultural traditions. This instinct is very strong and has a physiological basis in hormones and genes, with a high cost of change.
If a society establishes customs and norms that deviate too far from these instincts, it will incur significant additional costs. If these costs cannot yield sufficient benefits to offset them due to special adaptations to the environment, such a society will ultimately fail and collapse.
However, this mechanism also has a significant hidden danger:
It is a backdoor for manipulating people.
Skillfully using these emotional buttons can largely control people's emotions like manipulating machinery, and through these emotions, control people's decisions and behaviors.
To possess a genuine personality and ensure that people can only respect your will and interests without harboring other delusions, one must start with "controlling and managing one's own emotions," beginning with establishing the instinct to view "intentional emotional manipulation" as an extremely dangerous malicious invasion.
To change my decisions, there is only one legitimate way: logical persuasion.
Deliberately moving people is a moral corruption. Although I cannot deny that this method is indeed effective, I should strive to avoid it. Anyone who chooses to manipulate my animal instincts, especially with clear subjective intentions as a proactive strategy, is my enemy.
At the same time, I cannot regard "moving people" as an optional method. This is moral corruption; not deliberately moving people should be a principle. But this does not mean I will not be "moved"; the premise of adhering to these principles is precisely the ability to see through who is appealing to emotions. Knowing how to do evil, but restraining myself from doing evil for profit.
Being moved can serve as a significant weight on the scale, but the scale itself must be rational deliberation and calm calculation.
The feeling of being moved is wonderful, but this wonderful feeling comes at a cost, especially for many women.
VII. Steps for Sister Leng to Answer Questions / How to Solve Problems Encountered#
Typically, the questions I choose to answer are those that currently have no answers, few answers, or have clearly incorrect answers, with at least part of the question and its supplementary explanations involving resources I have previously read, such as books or other media.
To solve any problem, the first step is to define the problem. Complex problems can be broken down into several smaller, easily definable issues. I read the question several times, extract the information within, and look for factual or logical errors, simply recalling whether I have answered something similar before.
- If the questioner has a clear error in defining the overall question or part of it, pointing out the error is a feasible answer.
- If I have answered it before, I can search for past answers on the mobile version of Zhihu, copy and paste, and make some modifications. Ideally, this can achieve a continuously iterative improvement in Fibonacci answers.
- If I have not answered it before, I will search for concepts, news, papers, hypotheses, theories, etc., mentioned in the question, and see how related articles generally discuss them. I will extract information from newer articles, looking for factual or logical errors. I will organize the information obtained for the next steps.
- Organizing information should start from data, looking for possible connections and clues.
To solve a specific small problem, I can formulate a feasible plan or scheme under current conditions, execute the plan or scheme, evaluate the results, and reflect. These steps can be repeated until a seemingly feasible result is obtained.
- If other answers are clearly incorrect, I can start from their errors and combine the above methods.
VIII. Beware of the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Life Expectancy#
From a health perspective, we do not know whether the pandemic will improve.
1. COVID-19 has a significant ability for reinfection. Based on three years of practice abroad, although the probability of reinfection in the short term is not high, it is entirely possible to be infected once a year.
2. What is the extent of the damage caused by long-term multiple reinfections of COVID-19?#
Since the global pandemic has only lasted three years, current research can only be based on the fact that very few people have experienced multiple reinfections. Our academic community has yet to reach a unified, authoritative answer. However, if humanity cannot completely defeat the COVID-19 virus within the next ten to twenty years, considering the current rapid mutation rate of the virus, it is possible that a significant proportion of people may experience dozens of reinfections. What changes will occur in the average health status and life expectancy of this group of people?
Before COVID-19, the only diseases that could cause repeated infections of twenty or thirty times or more were colds/influenza, gastrointestinal infections, and superficial wound infections. The damage capability of COVID-19 far exceeds these infections. On the other hand, ancient infectious diseases that were more severe could kill people after far fewer than twenty or thirty infections. Therefore, humanity's response to infectious diseases has indeed entered an unprecedented phase with no experience to draw upon.
In the past two years, the average life expectancy in the United States has dropped by two years. Will people in the twenty-second century look back and see that COVID-19 could reduce average life expectancy or average healthy time by ten years or more? If so, it would be difficult for people today to accept.
3. We currently lack effective vaccines and treatments.#
Preparing for the worst, humanity may not be able to resolve the COVID-19 pandemic in the short term (at least within the next ten years).
Therefore, I must regrettably lower my life expectancy by ten years, which means that many of my life plans will need to be advanced or accelerated, many topics that I previously thought had ample time must now be considered, and many areas of interest may need to be temporarily set aside.