I was unlucky, my body was injured, and many things were unlucky for a long time. It's still me this year.

I was born in 1989 ~ As peers, we have many similar troubles.

I read a book called Confused Brain before, which talked about why our brains are always confused, forgetful, distracted, inefficient, etc ... There is a passage about why we feel that all bad things happen to us. In fact, the main reason is related to what we are concerned about. People are psychologically willing to accept what they have determined. When they feel that something good is about to happen, they will pay special attention to the upcoming good, and vice versa.

So keep a happy mood, live every day positively, and good luck will come to you naturally ~

The following is the third chapter of "confused brain"-faith may be useful to you ~

Faith (1)

Would you believe me if I said that's the description of you? In fact, this is a psychologist named BertramForer's imitation of the constellation. Flo's point of view is that we tend to interpret general and universal descriptions too far-fetched and think that we are talking about ourselves-even if it is not the case. To make matters worse, if such an ordinary vague description contains several positive personality characteristics, we are more likely to fall victim to this kind of trap. This is how TV evangelists and late-night messages catch us-trying to give people the feeling that they are only targeting a single audience, not the whole group. We are completely willing to be fooled. This chapter will discuss the reasons in essence.

Holding clear beliefs and the ability to talk about, evaluate and think about these beliefs, such as language, are recent products of evolution and development. It is ubiquitous in humans, but extremely rare in most other species, and may even not exist at all. However, this new product is difficult to completely eliminate the defects. Our ability to accept faith is not an objective machine. We acknowledge the facts and use the word "truth" to encode their authenticity. The energy of faith is full of accidents, engraved with the scratches of evolution, mixed with emotions, emotions, desires, goals and simple egoism. Based on the characteristics of memory, it is incredibly fragile. And evolution seems to have taken a shortcut without good design, so we can believe it at will. To sum up, although we can believe in a powerful system, these beliefs may still be vertical and influenced by superstition and false inference. This is no small matter: beliefs and the way we evaluate them through the nerve center lead to family conflicts, religious disputes and even wars.

Basically, people who have traded by faith should firmly grasp the source of their beliefs and have very strong evidence to support their beliefs. Does my belief that Colgate is a good toothpaste brand come from: (1) my test results published in ConsumerReports; (2) My love for Colgate; (3) How do I compare Colgate with other famous brands? I should be able to tell you, but I can't

Because beliefs are mainly composed of ready-made "components", which have evolved for other purposes, we often forget where our beliefs come from, if we ever knew them. To make matters worse, we usually don't realize how much we are influenced by irrelevant information.

For example, students think that professors with better image have higher teaching level. If we hold a positive view of a certain aspect of a particular person, we will automatically make a positive summary of his other personality characteristics. This is the psychological "halo effect". On the contrary, if you observe negative characteristics, you will think that all personality characteristics of a person are negative, similar to the "tuning fork effect." For another example, the following research is really sad. There are two pictures of children, one is beautiful and the other is opposite. Show the subjects one of them. Later, the subjects were told that the child, let's call him Julian, had just wrapped a stone in a snowball to hit other children, and then asked them what they thought of the child's behavior. People who hate photos describe Julian as a villain who should be sent in; Those who saw the beautiful photos made much milder judgments, such as thinking that Julian was just "unlucky". Many studies show that attractive people can get more opportunities in job interviews, promotion, entrance interviews and other occasions. Every case has become an example of how aesthetics intervenes in the process of belief generation.

Similarly, we are more likely to vote for candidates who "look more capable" than others. Merchants know very well that if attractive people drink a certain brand of beer, consumers are often more willing to buy it; We also want a pair of sneakers worn by successful athletes like Michael Jordan. Although it may be irrational for hordes of teenagers to flock to a certain brand of sneakers in order to be "like Jordan", ironically, it is entirely reasonable for Nike to invest millions of dollars under the halo effect to ensure the popularity of Michael Jordan's legend in the air.

A recent study is particularly shocking. If McDonald's packaging is used, children aged 3-5 will give higher evaluation to carrots, milk, apple juice and other foods. People rely on clothes to make their horses lean on their saddles, and carrots are packed in polystyrene. We are born gullible fools.

Halo effect (and its opposite) is actually just a special case of many common phenomena: almost any thought floating in our hearts, even a few words, will affect our perception and view of the world. For example, if you please remember the following words: furniture, confidence, corner, adventure, chair, desk, intelligence, TV. (Are you ready? If you really want to try to remember them, the following content will be more interesting. )

Now, let's look at a character description about a man named Donald:

Donald spends most of his time looking for what he likes to call it. He climbed Mount McKinley, kayaked across the rapids of the Colorado River, participated in DemolitionDerby, and sailed an unfamiliar speedboat. He faced the risk of injury and even death countless times. Now he is looking for a new one. He thought, maybe he can fly down at high altitude or sail across the Atlantic.

Faith (2)

Now, to test your comprehension, please sum up Donald in one word. The word that pops up in your mind is … (see footnote). If you remember a slightly different list of words: furniture, conceit, corner, recklessness, chair, table, cold, TV, then the first word that comes to mind is probably different-not "adventure" but "recklessness". Donald may be reckless and adventurous, but the connotation of each word is very different, and people often choose the one that has been memorized (in this case, cleverly inserted into the word memory list) to describe it. In other words, your impression of Donald is influenced by a little bit of completely irrelevant information (words in the memory list).

Another phenomenon called "focusing illusion" shows how easy it is to manipulate people just by directing their attention to a certain information point or other information. In a simple but very effective experiment, college students were asked to answer two questions: "Generally speaking, how satisfied are you with your life?" And "How many dates did you have last month?" One group of students listens to the questions in this order, and the other group listens to the questions in the opposite order, asking the second question first. In the group that first heard the question about happiness, people's answers to these two questions were almost irrelevant; Some people who rarely date report feeling happy, while others who date frequently feel sad, and so on. However, by changing the order of questions and focusing people's attention on romance, they suddenly can't see happiness outside their love life. People who keep dating feel happy, while people who seldom date feel sad. Order is important. When dating is the first priority (not happiness), people's judgment is closely related to the number of times they date. This may not come as a surprise to you, but the important thing is that our beliefs do have such plasticity. Even at some point, our inner self-awareness may be influenced by the correct focus.

The fundamental reason is that every belief has to be filtered by unstable background-related memory. Either, we directly recall an early belief; Or, we measure our beliefs according to the memories we can remember.

However, few people realize the extent to which beliefs are polluted by changeable memories. Take a classmate who heard the dating question for the first time as an example. They probably think they are trying to answer questions about happiness objectively; Only students who are unusually self-aware will realize that the answer to the second question may be biased by the answer to the first question. This just makes psychological pollution very hidden. Our subjective impression is that we are objective, which hardly conforms to objective reality. No matter how hard we try to be objective, because people's beliefs are formed by memory, they are bound to be influenced by all kinds of trivial details that we can't perceive.

From an engineering point of view, if we add the function of searching the memory directory in our association-driven memory during the evolution process, human beings will probably be much better than now. The survey data will be the most accurate if it is intercepted in a representative part of the crowd, so people's beliefs based on a balanced collection of various evidences will be the most reliable. But, alas, evolution has never shown the intention of establishing an unbiased sample like statisticians.

On the contrary, we usually regard the recent memory or the most memorable memory as more important than any other information. Think of a recent experience of mine. I drove across the country and didn't know when I would get to the next motel. When the traffic is smooth, I will think, "Wow, I'm crossing the state at 80 miles an hour. I can get there in an hour." When the traffic slowed down due to road construction, I thought, "Oh, no, it takes two hours to get there." But the funny thing is, I won't take the average of these two numbers. I wouldn't say, "The traffic is good or bad. Considering the best and worst cases, it will definitely take an hour and a half on the road. "

Some of the most common interpersonal frictions in the world come directly from the same type of failure, which makes us wonder to what extent our own experiences can represent reality. When we argue with our spouse or roommate about whose turn it is to wash the dishes, we may (unconsciously) think more about the time we wash the dishes (compared with the time our spouse or roommate washes the dishes). After all, our memories are mainly formed on our own experiences. We seldom make up for this imbalance, so we begin to believe that, on the whole, we have done more, and finally we think we are blameless. Research shows that in fact, in any cooperation plan, from taking care of the family to writing academic papers with colleagues, the total contribution of each individual's self-feeling exceeds the total amount of work completed. We don't remember what others have done, but we remember what we have done-which leads to everyone (even those who are lazy and absent-minded! ) I feel that others have taken advantage of me. Recognizing our limitations in information sampling allows us to be as generous as possible.

Mental pollution is so powerful that even completely irrelevant information can lead us by the nose. In a groundbreaking experiment, psychologists amos tversky and Daniel Kohman spin a lucky wheel with the number 1~ 100 on it, and then ask the subjects a question that has nothing to do with the numerical results of the wheel: What is the proportion of African countries in the wheel? Most participants in the experiment don't know the exact answer, so they have to rely on estimation-it's fair. But the results of their estimation are obviously influenced by the numbers on the wheels. When the number on the wheel is 10, the representative answer to the question is 25%; When the number on the wheel becomes 65, it means the answer is 45%.

This phenomenon, which is now called "anchoring and adjustment", occurs again and again. Try this: add 400 to your last three digits. Answer the following questions: When did Europe end its history of being ravaged by Xiongnu? If the mantissa is added to 400 and the result is less than 600, the average guess is 629 AD, while if the mantissa is added to 400 and the result is between 1200 and 1399, the average guess is 979 AD, which is 350 years later than the former.

What's going on here? Why does the rotation of a yard or fortune wheel affect our belief in history or member States? In the process of anchoring and adjustment, people start from a random starting point until they find the answer they want. If the number that jumps out of the wheel of fortune is 10, people begin to ask themselves, perhaps unconsciously, "Is 10 the possible correct answer to this question?" If not, they will keep looking until they find a value that seems to be true (say, 25). If the number that pops up on the wheel of fortune is 65, they may think in turn, "Is the answer 65 feasible? What about 55? " The trouble is that an arbitrary starting point will lead us to a barely plausible answer, a low starting point will lead people to the lowest possible answer, and a high starting point will lead people to the highest possible answer. Neither of these strategies will lead people to the most reasonable results-between the lowest and highest possible answers. If you think the correct answer is a number between 25 and 45, why say 25 or 45? Maybe it is better to guess 35, but the psychological characteristics of the anchor mean that few people do it.

Faith (3)

Anchoring has aroused great concern in psychological literature, but secondary or even irrelevant information will pollute beliefs and judgments, and anchoring is by no means the only example. Let's look at another example. Let people hold the pen gently with their teeth, and don't let it touch their lips. Compared with people who are asked to keep their lips closed and hold pencils, the former can get more fun from cartoons. Why is this happening? Look at yourself in the mirror and follow the following instructions: hold a pen with your teeth, "gently, don't let it touch your lips." Now, look at the shape of your lips. You will see the corners of your mouth rise, just like a smile. Therefore, relying on the power of memory associated with the background, rising lips often automatically trigger happy thoughts.

A series of similar experiments require people to write down the names of celebrities with their non-dominant hands (right-handed, that is, left hands) and classify them as soon as possible (like it, dislike it, like it or not doesn't matter). When doing this, (1) press the palm of the dominant hand down on the desktop, or (2) push the palm of the dominant hand up on the desktop. People with palms up will list more names of people they are sure of; People with palms down will list more names of people they deny. Why? People with palms up are active "approaching" posture, while people with palms down are "avoiding" posture. Data show that such subtle differences often affect our memory and ultimately our beliefs.

Another source of pollution is psychological shortcuts. People tend to think that familiar things are good. For example, a strange phenomenon called "just familiarity" effect: If you ask people to evaluate things like China's calligraphy, people tend to prefer things they have seen to things they have never seen. Another study was conducted in at least 12 different languages. The results show that people have an amazing attachment to the letters in their names, and people prefer words containing these letters to words without them. One of my colleagues even pointed out with some indignation that people love famous paintings not so much because they are beautiful as because they are familiar with them.

From the point of view of our ancestors, the preference for familiar things is completely reasonable. What our great-great-grandmother is familiar with won't hurt her, and what she is unfamiliar with may hurt her. Compared with the two, the former is a safer bet. By choosing familiar things in the usual way, our ancestors are very adapted to the preference for familiar things: creatures who like ordinary things have more offspring than those who are extremely fond of novelty. Similarly, we will increase our desire for delicious food under pressure, and most of these foods are familiar to us. Besides, it is easy to imagine a suitable explanation.

In the field of aesthetics, there is nothing wrong with favoring what you are already familiar with-it doesn't matter whether I like this China Chinese character better or not. Similarly, if my love for disco music in the 1970s only comes from familiarity, not from donna sommer's superb musical skills, it is true.

But our dependence on familiar things is also problematic, especially when we don't realize the extent to which it affects our rational decision-making. In fact, its consequences will have a significant global impact. For example, people tend to choose existing social policies rather than those that have not been implemented, even if there is not enough data to prove the usefulness of existing policies. People often use simple inspiration: "If you are already on the job, you must be useful" instead of focusing on costs and benefits.

A recent study shows that people are willing to do so even if they don't know what policies are being implemented. A group of researchers in Israel decided to use many policies and local regulations that most people know little about. In fact, subjects know so little about these policies and regulations that it is easy for experimenters to convince them of everything they say. Then, the researchers tested people's dependence on what they believe. For example, let the subjects evaluate whether the policy of feeding stray cats is feasible or illegal? The experimenter told half of the subjects that it is legal to feed stray cats at present, and told the other half that it is illegal to feed stray cats, and then asked them whether they should change their policies. Most people agree with the current policy and give more reasons for supporting the current policy and opposing the competition policy. The researchers found that the experiment of fabricating technical teaching rules also had the same result. Should students receive five hours or seven hours of teaching? The current policy is X. ) The same "familiarity" reasoning also applies here. Of course, in the real world where the stakes are higher, this also explains why parish priests are almost always in a favorable position in elections. As we all know, even the parish priest who died recently defeated his living opponent.

The more threatened we are, the more inclined we are to stick to familiarity. Think about our desire for delicious food. The same is true of other things. When people are threatened, they tend to pay more attention to their groups, goals and values than usual. For example, laboratory research shows that if people are asked to think carefully about their own death ("Write down in detail what will happen if your body dies …"), people tend to be more friendly to people of the same faith or race than usual, but more negative to outsiders. Fear of death also often polarized people's religious beliefs: patriotic Americans are more afraid of using the American flag as an ashes sieve after knowing that they will die (compared with patriots in the control group); The piety of being asked to seriously think about his death cannot allow others to use a cross instead of a hammer. A charity record: When we think of death, we will be more generous. Another study shows that when a crisis occurs, everyone tends to hold a negative attitude towards ethnic minorities; Strangely, this applies not only to members of the majority group, but also to people who are members of the minority group themselves.

People will even like, or at least accept, a ruling system that may threaten their own interests. Psychologist john joe Lester pointed out, "Many people who live under the feudal system, crusade, slavery and apartheid think that their system is flawed but spiritually feasible and (sometimes) better than other foreseeable options." In a word, psychological pollution will become a very serious thing.

Faith (4)

Each of the above examples involving psychological pollution-focusing illusion, halo effect, anchoring and adjustment, familiarity effect-emphasizes an important feature that will be mentioned many times in this book: as a rough guide, our thoughts can be divided into two branches, one is fast, spontaneous and largely unconscious; The other is slow, thoughtful and critical.

The former, which I classify as ancestor system or reflex system, seems to be able to work quickly and automatically without our consciousness. The latter, because of its deliberation, careful consideration and repetition of facts, tries to use it to reason (sometimes smooth, sometimes not smooth)-I call it a thoughtful system.

The reflex system is obviously older. In fact, it exists in almost all multicellular organisms in some form. Many of our daily behaviors are caused by it, such as automatically adjusting the pace when walking around on the uneven ground, quickly recognizing old friends and so on. Think carefully, the emergence of the system is much later. It considers the logic of our goals and choices. Only a few species, perhaps only humans, have this gene.

The best we can say is that these two systems depend on completely different neural matrices. Part of the reflex system depends on ancient brain systems, such as cerebellum and basal ganglia (related to motor control) and tonsil-like (related to emotions). At the same time, the careful thinking system seems to be mainly concentrated in the forebrain, in the prefrontal cortex; Although this part is also found in other mammals, it is much smaller.

I describe the latter system as "thoughtful" rather than "reasonable" because there is no guarantee that a thoughtful system can be carefully considered in a truly reasonable way. Although this system is basically quite clever, its reasoning ability is still not ideal. In this respect, the deliberation system can be regarded as similar to the Supreme Court: its resolutions may not always be practical, but at least it tries to make accurate judgments.

On the contrary, the reflection system should not be unreasonable; Undoubtedly, it is less imaginative than the deliberate system, but if it is completely unreasonable, it probably will not exist. Many times, it deals with what it can do well, even if (almost) its judgment result is not the product of careful consideration. Similarly, I want to warn you not to equate the reflex system with emotion.

Although it looks attractive. Although it can be proved that many emotions (such as fear) are reflective, gloating, that is, building happiness on the pain of your opponent, is not. In addition, a large number of reflex systems have little to do with emotions, if any; When you stumble on the stairs, you will instinctively grab the railing. The reflex system obviously "appears" to save us-but it may be without any emotion. What the reflex system (actually a complete system) does is to make immediate judgments based on experience (with emotion or other), not on emotion itself.

Even though the deliberation system is more sophisticated and can be regarded as the latest technology of evolution, its decision-making is almost always based on the second-hand information processed by the ancestral system that is not objective enough, and it has never really been properly dominated. As long as we want, we can make careful reasoning, but in a computer jargon, it is "garbage in, garbage out." There is no guarantee that the information transmitted by the ancestral system is fair and just. To make matters worse, when we feel stressed, tired or uneasy, the careful thinking system should play a primary role, but it ignores us when we need it most, leaving us at the mercy of the low-level reflex system.

In our ancestral system, the subconscious has a great influence, so that when we consciously control the situation, the result is counterproductive. For example, a study asked people to make quick judgments under time pressure. Those who were told to suppress sexist thoughts (which may be the product of the reflex system inherited from their ancestors) actually became more sexist than the control group. To make matters worse, evolution has put reasoning ability on the level of relevance-driven memory, leaving us with an objective illusion. Evolution provides us with tools for deliberation and reasoning, but it cannot guarantee that we will not be disturbed when using these tools. It seems that people's beliefs are based on objective and solid facts, but our ancestral system often shapes our beliefs in subtle ways that we have never noticed.