They are all commentators. Why is the gap so big?

Last weekend, I went to Xi, where I met two lecturers in the Terracotta Warriors Museum and Shaanxi Museum respectively. The lecturer of Shaanxi Bo spoke for an hour as agreed, but the time was well controlled, not more than one minute, but basically all of them were scripted and calm. You can't find out what's wrong with her, but it always feels like we're dealing with a translator, not a person. The most wonderful thing is the commentator of the Terracotta Warriors. In her early thirties, she came up and said she was a career planner. Besides explaining, she has to deal with complaints. How hard is it to complain about customers? Later, she forgot the middle words and said, "I can't help but talk about my feelings, but I came at last." I really don't want to listen casually. "

Hesenberg once acted as an audience himself. After listening to the words of a similar "fortune teller", he thought that such a "public" commentator could not be recognized and respected by the public. So in his opinion, what is a qualified commentator? He took the ancient bone needle introduced by China General History Exhibition on the second floor of the National Museum as an example to illustrate.

The standard explanation is: from the bone needle, we can know that 30 thousand years ago, cavemen were able to sew clothes to cover their bodies with bone needles as tools and animal skin and tendons as raw materials.

Hesenberg's explanation is to expand people's knowledge of when to start wearing clothes. First, use direct thinking-take out physical evidence. Look for fossils of clothes worn by primitive people to study, because the skins and plant fibers worn by primitive people are organic, not to mention hundreds of thousands of years, and they will rot in a few years, so it is impossible to find physical objects. Then use indirect thinking-take circumstantial evidence. Anthropologists began their research with the parasite lice. Africa where Homo sapiens lives is very hot. You have to take off your body hair to get dressed. Over time, lice can only survive in undiluted body hair, forming head lice and crabs. When these two kinds of lice are separated, it means that they shed their body hair. Through genetic research, it was found that it was 6,543.8+200,000 years ago, which was a major breakthrough, but it was 6,543.8+200,000 years ago. We should also study lice. After people put on clothes, head lice will fall on clothes, forming body lice that can hook plant fibers. By studying the time when body lice appeared, we know that people began to wear clothes 6.5438+0.7 million years ago.

Hesenberg therefore concluded that a qualified commentator should meet three conditions:

1, from the perspective of natural science;

2. There is complete information to prove the authenticity;

3. Have your own feelings, experiences and ideas.

The third point is the most important in Hesenberg's view, because it is fundamental to keep the position of the interpreter instead of replacing people with interpreters.

Obviously, Hesenberg's "qualification" is the "excellence" of most critics. It is beyond the ability of most commentators to have such a rich knowledge reserve, add a lot of their own expansion and thinking to the interpretation of standards, and show profound scientific research results in easy-to-understand and logical language. Therefore, I visited Weibo in Hesenberg and found that he spent a lot of time in the library, but he was not an otaku. He loves fitness, and his appearance and figure are excellent. Because of his writing style, he has millions of fans, so he earns a lot of extra money. However, his sideline in scientific writing and the main business of museum lecturers not only do not conflict, but complement each other.

Obviously, Hesenberg is an elite among speakers, and he can write high-value speeches.

In fact, around us, yesterday was repeated every day, and people who didn't make progress, didn't think and didn't make progress abound. They complained that the unit gave too little money, and they felt at ease when they went to work to do WeChat business, and unconsciously turned themselves into a photo.

Just like the two commentators I mentioned earlier, in their view, according to the interpretation of standard words, or tucao, they have finished the work of organization and explanation, so it is natural to get money at work.

The job income of commentators should not be high, but it is just an excuse for these people not to make progress. Just think, a 30-year-old man has worked for at least 8 years, isn't it enough to study the history he explained? However, it is this inertia that stifles their will, which makes them open the window of their comfort zone now, but closes the door of their future opportunities. I don't know that they may be replaced by commentators at any time, and they will not be recognized and respected by any passengers, let alone realize wealth freedom on their own. Obviously, these heavy losses are undoubtedly invisible to them.

I think each of us in the workplace should always ask ourselves three questions: