It seems to us that we have thought everything through well, we have our own opinion. But is it really ours? Why are we irrational? What's happening to our IQ?
It seems to us that we have thought everything through well, we have our own opinion. But is it really ours? And didn't the brain decide to take a shortcut?
They are behind everyone's shoulders. Individual, for example, stupid purchases or quarrels with a partner and pointless defending one’s opinion, and collective: stupid choices, decisions that we regret as a society (“who chose him like that anyway?!”). What's happening to us? Why, if we are not so stupid after all, do we often make idiotic decisions?
Why are we irrational? What's happening to our IQ?
Scientists reassure: the level of intelligence measured by tests is growing. Since the beginning of the 20th century, in Western countries its coefficient has increased by three points every ten years. This pattern was noticed and described by New Zealand scientist James Flynn, which is why it is called the “Flynn effect.” We have become smarter than our grandfathers: we are developing new skills in response to technological progress and a changing social environment. Knowledge of at least one foreign language is becoming widespread, people are learning to use complex computer programs and mastering programming languages.
We owe this to technological progress and the spread of education. Innovative thinking and the ability to solve problems are now at a premium, thanks to which we successfully function in changing conditions, and civilization develops.
However, intelligence does not exclude stupidity, no matter how paradoxical it may sound. Professor Keith Stanovich, in particular, studied this phenomenon. The scientist outlined his conclusions in the book “Rationality Quotient”, in which he separates the level of intelligence and the ability to behave rationally.
There is a fairly small set of cognitive skills that we call intelligence, but this is not the same as smart, rational behavior in the real world, he explains. Stanovich even created a special term to describe actions that do not correspond to the level of our intelligence, calling them irrational. What causes them? Because of emotions and the shortcuts our brain takes.
Rational thinking is a fairly young phenomenon from an evolutionary point of view. It cannot override the much older emotional part of the brain. And it is emotions, not reason, that guide our choices, even in such serious matters as financial investments and politics. However, they are often hidden from consciousness, and we are not able to clearly describe them. Different parts of the brain are responsible for feelings and reason. The prefrontal cortex, which is considered the seat of consciousness and intelligence, rather only learns after the fact that the lower structures of the limbic system of the brain have managed to resolve. They in some way present her with a fait accompli. The subcortical centers appeared first, and only later did new structures develop on them. They act simpler and faster. Why? This gives us the ability to make decisions quickly and without thinking in situations in which there is no time to think. Fear tells us to fight or flee. Anger tends to take risky steps, sadness leads to hesitation. Scientists have noticed that unhappy people behave more rationally than happy people. They called it depressive realism. But this does not explain our stupidity.
A lack of rationality most often arises due to the fact that the brain, in order not to waste time analyzing the situation every time, has created a system of mental shortcuts for itself: it has formed cognitive schemes for regular use. We think we have analyzed something, but in fact we have used a diagram. Is this bad? Without this mechanism for detecting connections and patterns, we would not be able to function normally. Therefore, we have developed the ability to catch impulses from white noise that allow us to create certain patterns.
The fact that this sometimes leads to excessive simplifications and even the use of stereotypes does not bother us at all. The brain makes sure that we are happy with ourselves and think that we are rational.
A simple example: everyone knows perfectly well that smoking is harmful to health, however, many of us remain heavy smokers. How do we deal with this dilemma? This is explained by Leon Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance. The researcher noticed that a person cannot stand contradictions and tries to eliminate them every time they appear. Cognitive dissonance occurs when we are simultaneously faced with two contradictory facts, opinions, feelings: I want to smoke, but I know that it is harmful. We feel discomfort and try to change one of these elements. We usually use the following techniques: we try not to attach importance to information about the dangers of smoking (psychologists call this mechanism the process of denial); we are looking for data that can confirm our idea that it is not so harmful at all (justificatory thinking); we say that others do it too or try to force inconvenient facts out of memory. Sometimes we argue with ourselves: in fact, I smoke little and don’t puff at all. All these reasonings occur automatically and lie outside the rational sphere. They are controlled by emotions: after all, we really want to smoke.
The “totalitarian ego” comes into play. This is an efficient mechanism by which memory miraculously adapts facts to needs. She behaves like the historians of a totalitarian country who rewrite history to better suit the current moment.
As we change our political preferences over time, the old ones begin to resemble today's ones more and more, at least that's how we remember them. We often exaggerate the obstacles that prevented us from doing something we should have done in the past.
Our ego finds mitigating circumstances, arguments that will give a rational appearance to our little shames and drown out remorse. Thanks to this, we can live at peace with ourselves. But what about the situation when we make stupid decisions despite the seemingly rational warnings of experts? How does irrationality work in this case?
The influence of acquaintances and family, often implicit, can play a role here. It's very easy to get caught up in looks. Experts are distant strangers, and I must function in my environment. What do they know, these smart guys? Since my friends do this, I will follow their example. The theory of social influence speaks about this. One of the leading experts in this field, Robert Cialdini, placed signs in hotel rooms asking people not to wash their towels too often. Some signs explained this request as being environmentally friendly (wash less frequently to use less detergent), while others said it was because most guests do so. What was the outcome? The second argument turned out to be 30% more effective.
We like to think that we are perfect. Well, or almost perfect. In a sense, this is true, but certainly not in matters of thinking. Here people often become hostages of illusions and psychological phenomena, which can only be recognized if one knows about them.
So, let's go!
Ambiguity effect
The ambiguity effect is a phenomenon in which people make decisions based on what they know about the outcome. If a person is presented with a choice and knows the outcome of one of the options, then he will choose it, regardless of how profitable the other option may be. For example, when it comes to investing in the stock market, people will invest in old, well-known stocks first rather than in new technologies that can bring both unprecedented gains and huge losses.
IKEA effect
Another terrible sweater knitted by your grandmother for the New Year is greeted with a smile and warmth, although you would never buy one in a store. This is a prime example of the so-called IKEA effect. The phenomenon is expressed in the fact that people often disproportionately value the value or significance of the things they are involved in creating. The phenomenon got its name from the Swedish company IKEA, which sells furniture that must then be assembled by hand. Often such furniture is more expensive than ready-made furniture, but it is appreciated because people like to create something with their own hands.
Rhyme
People regard rhyming phrases as more truthful and more accurate. This is also true of catchy phrases that, as they say, “stick to the tongue.” For example, study participants found the phrase “financial success makes people healthier” unlikely, while the phrase “getting richer is healthier” resonated strongly. When the slogan of a product rhymes, the product is more credible.
Clustering illusion
The clustering illusion is when people see patterns in a set of random occurrences, even when there is no relationship between them. Our brains need coherence in the story it tells itself about the world. Therefore, we tend to look for connection and logic where in fact there is only a set of random events. For example, when the number “1” comes up three times in a row in a lottery, then for the fourth draw most people will mark one on their tickets.
Empathy deficit
This is a recognized problem. People judge everything “from their own perspective” and do not try to put themselves in the place of another person. This effect often leads to parents underestimating the needs of their children. Children perceive the world very differently than adults, but adults often forget to take this into account. Peltzman effect
Named for University of Chicago professor Sam Peltzman, the effect results in too many safety devices and too many safety regulations causing more accidents and injuries due to a sense of false invulnerability. When a person feels invulnerable, they make riskier decisions. For example, wearing belts and a helmet can lead to more dangerous driving because people begin to feel completely protected.
Just World Hypothesis
Terrible things happen every day, and often nothing can be done about it. This leaves people with only one option - to attribute everything to the general atmosphere of modernity, to which even clearly bad concepts are attributed.
This is why people assume that female victims of sexual assault or domestic violence are “the ones to blame” or caused it. Belief in a just world often means that people tend to look for justifications where there are none.
Time saving effect
It is logical to assume that if you drive faster, you will get to your final destination faster and save a lot of time. The reality is much more complicated. Psychological research has found that people tend to significantly overestimate how much time can be saved by speeding up. Apparently, the problem is that the brain cannot accurately estimate speed, since evolution has not yet taken into account the fact that people can move faster than running.
Dunning-Kruger effect
The Dunning-Kruger effect is a psychological paradox. People who have a low level of qualifications make wrong conclusions and also make bad decisions, but cannot realize their mistakes due to their low qualifications.
Such a lack of understanding of their mistakes leads to the fact that mistaken people are convinced that they are right. Accordingly, this leads to increased self-confidence and a sense of superiority. Paradoxically, competent people actually tend to doubt themselves and their abilities and decisions.
Asymmetrical dominance and the decoy effect
This effect occurs when people choose one of two options by comparing both with a third. Let's give an example of choosing between two restaurants. One of them has very good food, but it is a long way to get to it. Another one is nearby, but the food is not that good. Quite a tough choice, right?
Until a third option appears - a restaurant with really bad food somewhere between the two original restaurants. Comparing the first two options with the third completely changes the result. Initially, the question was: quality of food or distance to the restaurant. With the additional option, the question becomes “which restaurant is better than the other two,” and the obvious choice becomes the restaurant that has better food than the average restaurant, and is closer to that.
The unfortunate fate of many people is a consequence of the choice they did not make.
They are neither alive nor dead. Life turns out to be a burden, a pointless pursuit, and deeds are only a means of protection from the torments of existence in the kingdom of shadows.
(E. Fromm)
Tell me, have you ever had to make a choice?
Stupid question, right?
It is clear that everyone had to make certain choices very often, and sometimes even too often.
Anyone who has made a difficult choice at least once knows that it is not the easiest thing.
It is impossible and unnecessary to teach a person to make the right choice.
The only question is that a person understands where there is actually Choice, and where there is the Only True Decision, and “choice” is just an illusory wall in front of him, creating “suspense” and ambiguity in any situation.
Please note that when you are faced with some ambiguous situation that requires you to make a balanced decision, then your internal tension (or even suffering) arises precisely from the fact that you find yourself in a kind of limbo - a state of chaos. Having already encountered this chaos, you refuse to solve it qualitatively.
This is a very important point: Suffering occurs when a person refuses to make a choice.
This is a real psychological problem - an internal contradiction, a clash of opposing desires, none of which a person can or does not want to completely abandon.
Remember that you cannot forgive and take revenge at the same time. You won’t be able to escape from loneliness to friends and at the same time maintain the illusion of your strength and independence. You won’t be able to get the person back and maintain your unapproachable position at the same time. But you can always do one thing - namely, make the Only Right Decision, and then all the chaos will stop and your life will immediately move on.
It turns out strange, but as a result we will not even talk about choice, but rather about what this Choice can do to us, and in particular bad things.
The most important thing is to anticipate the traps that are created by Illusory choice.
Let's start, as always, with an example to understand the essence of our conversation.
The dog is sitting near the table, you are at the table, there is a sandwich on the table. The dog wants to steal the sandwich, but understands that he will be punished. And so she sits and sits between two fires and suddenly begins to frantically scratch behind her ear. She can neither remain indifferent nor react and chooses the third path, which is no longer relevant to the matter at all.
This is a displaced activity - doing something that is not directly related to what you really need. This is what is driven into the gap between biological (“I want”) and social (“I need”) motivation. Writers, for example, begin to write something completely different from what they should, photographers begin to shoot something not related to the order.
But for some reason our Peter does not follow his wife’s persistent recommendations.
Peter's brain begins to reason about what he can look at the TV or look at the wall. Making an (illusory) choice between the wall and the TV, Peter, of course, chooses the TV. At the same time, Peter will end his reasoning here. The choice has been made, the choice is logical - watching TV is better than watching the wall.
In this choice there were no suggestions from his wife, because it is difficult for our Peter to take advantage of them at the moment; instead of this boredom, he made an illusory choice in which he chose what he wanted (or considered necessary) to do.
In this example, you can see how a person loves to create excuses for his weakness. The brain will always find and tell us a Choice Without Choice that is simpler and easier, but this will not necessarily be the best solution of all possible options.
When we make a decision, we often, instead of looking at the whole picture, can only limit ourselves to the fact that what we are going to do is better than something else and that’s all (as in our example with Peter).
Let's now consider an example with a girl named Tanya.
The girl Tanya loves milk chocolate very much, but at the same time she wants to go on a diet. Chocolate and diet are not very compatible, which means our Tanya will have to make a choice. It would seem that Tanya can either continue to eat her favorite milk chocolate and forget about the diet, or go on a diet and forget about her favorite milk chocolate.
Instead, Tanya may, having contrived (and made an illusory choice), go on a chocolate diet, i.e., without making any real choice from the initial decisions, still make a completely different choice, which, in truth, may lead her after a certain time to diabetes mellitus
Alternatively, our Tanya can, without bothering too much with the real choice, find a random article in a search engine that chocolate does not interfere with the diet at all and, with a smile on her face, begin to actively lose weight with chocolate in her hand.
A person encounters a real choice that does not suit him, closes his eyes to it and finds, out of nowhere, an unknown solution that may have nothing in common with the real situation.
Cunning parents sometimes say to their child: “Will you do your homework before lunch or after lunch?”
They only give him a choice about when to complete his lessons, not allowing him to make an independent decision about whether to complete his own homework.
From such situations of “light suggestions” long and branchy roots and roots very often grow.
In the future, the person tells himself that “I will do the work tomorrow or the day after tomorrow, well, in general, someday - I have a choice - a whole week!” The week is coming to an end, and not a single Decision has been made from the rich Choice.
Many would be surprised to learn that they very often act exactly like Peter and other people from our examples.
A person needs to solve some problem, but very often, instead of a direct and obvious solution (which he knows and is absolutely sure that it is correct), he begins to create illusory alternative (more often than not meaninglessly opposite) versions of this very choice, or even go into complete confusion. different choices with new data and options.
And then you get endless dilemmas between NEED AND WANT (followed by freezing in place without any progress), when you just had to start doing something with DO, but think carefully about I WANT.
The Right Decision is very often indeed Choice, and Choice is always EITHER OR.
A real choice always involves the loss of something else, albeit a minor one, but a loss. Very often this relative loss of what is the victim of the right decision is what frightens people initially, leading them astray.
“If there is something bad, then its opposite is necessarily good!”
There is a Good Right Decision that does not need reverse polarity, because it can lead you to an average choice that will no longer be 100% good.
As the saying goes, “You don’t have to be NOT stupid to be smart.”
Everyone knows that being smart, healthy and happy is very good and everyone wants it, but wait... I am sure that each of you can easily name the advantages of being stupid, sick and sad (for example, “life is always easier for a fool” , “people who are sick and sad are often given sweet and pleasant sympathy”, etc., etc.).
Why do you need an illusory second pan of scales where it is not needed?
To be happy or not to be is NOT a choice.
Happiness, wisdom, health - these are all the only right decisions!
Why do you need negative energy where you don’t have enough positive energy yet?
People are sure that when they are lazy to get up in the morning, they can show willpower and get up. But think for a minute... that a person, it turns out, endows Laziness in this case with quite a lot of energy, he has many secondary benefits, justifications and fixations on this Laziness. He just needs to solve the problem of what makes him lazy, so as not to constantly cause himself in the morning a strange choice between I Want and I Need (where I Need will be “I don’t want to get up so early, but I have to go to work”, and I Want will be “I want to continue sleeping”) , I don’t want and won’t go to any job”).
After all, constantly making such a choice, a person will eventually stop loving his work or study, because it constantly forces him to abandon the “I Want” and step over himself, realizing the “Need.”
A completely healthy and rational person who knows what he wants, knows where he is striving and knows why he is doing something does not need to force himself by willpower to get up in the morning, he already knows that this is required for his life and calmly ( or even with pleasure) gets up with a smile on his face.
It’s not for nothing that people say “He who gets up early, God gives to him.” The essence of folk wisdom is simply observing those people who get up early and easily, because they are always successful, cheerful and focused on success.
You can become aware of any hidden influences and incomprehensible (sometimes automatic) decisions. If something is affecting you, you may well become aware of it and remove the influence of it. The idea of a hidden influence that you fundamentally cannot understand is an invention of people who do not wish you well at all.
If you are too lazy to get up in the morning and it puzzles you, think and find specific reasons for this, at least be aware of them, so that you do not confuse yourself that work or study is completely bad, most likely, there is a much more common reason for morning laziness (for example, an annoying workplace situation or some angry person)..
The law of life is that a person can find out everything that is truly significant to him and that can influence him. Otherwise, it cannot influence him in principle.
There are no “black forces” that you cannot feel, explore, see and realize;
you can discover the nature of all that whoops and creaks at night if you just go and look.
If you are constantly faced with some ridiculous choices, instead of calmly making the right decisions; deal with this chaos of scattered little things separately, consider both sides of the choice - decision, think about what makes you think about the other (“dark”) side of this choice. Don't deny something, just decide it and stop confusing yourself and leading a good person like you astray from the right path!
Remember that it is never too late to find your own path and your right decision in any situation, the main danger is the fear of turning back and telling yourself that the world that you built for yourself was illusory and prevented you from seeing things as they are In fact.
Every day we make many important decisions. Should I buy a car, move to a new job, or break up with my boyfriend? Should I fire my subordinate? Should I open my own business? One of the most common approaches is to analyze the pros and cons. However, psychologists have proven the ineffectiveness of this method. It turns out that we are all prone to the same biases that cause us to make poor choices.
Why we make mistakes and how to learn to make the right decisions, you will learn from the book “ Thinking Traps ". Below are a few ideas from it.
Alternatives
We ask: " Should I break up with my partner or not?" - and they should ask: " How can I make our relationship better? "We ask: " Should I buy a new car or not?" - but not: " How to spend money to bring the greatest benefit to your family? » Frameworks that imply choices in a narrow spectrum prevent us from making decisions. Scientific research confirms this.
You always have more options than you think.
Some economists take it for granted that consumers calculate opportunity costs. One magazine article wrote: “ When decision makers look at a display of beluga caviar, they consider how many hamburgers they could buy for the same money. They intuitively take opportunity costs into account».
But marketing professor Frederick Schein doubted it. He and his colleagues designed a study to test whether consumers actually automatically calculate opportunity costs.
One of the questions in the study was: “Imagine that you managed to earn extra money and decided to spend it on certain things. But during a trip to the store, you come across a sale on a new movie. It stars one of your favorite actors and is your favorite movie genre (eg comedy, drama, thriller, etc.). You have been thinking about buying this particular film for a long time. It's on sale for a special price of $14.99. What would you do in such a situation? Circle one of the options below.
1 . Buy entertaining film.
2 . Don't buy entertaining film."
With this alternative, 75% bought the video and only 25% passed it by. You'd probably consider buying it for a while and make a positive decision: after all, it's your favorite actor (Leonardo DiCaprio!) and your favorite subject (sinking ship!).
Later, the researchers asked the same question to another group of people, but with a slight change (in bold here):
1 . Buy entertaining film.
2 . Don't buy entertaining film. Save $14.99 on other purchases.
Of course, what was highlighted in bold could not have been printed. This is obvious, and the reminder is even a little offensive. Do we really need to remind people that they can use their money to buy other things than a movie? However, when people were shown this simple and obvious alternative, 45% of people decided not to buy. The alternative almost doubled the likelihood that a person would pass by the cinema!
This study has very good news. It shows that even a faint hint of an alternative can be enough for you to make the right decision. Every time you make a choice, think about how you can increase the number of options.
Bias
Since pros and cons are created in our heads, it can be very easy for us to influence arguments. We think that the comparison is objective, but in fact the brain carries out a special order from our intuition.
In life, we are accustomed to quickly gaining an understanding of a situation and then looking for information to confirm our understanding. And this destructive habit, called confirmation bias, is the second enemy that prevents you from making good decisions.
Here's a typical result from one of many studies: In the 1960s, when medical research on the dangers of smoking was not yet so clear-cut, smokers were more interested in reading articles titled “Smoking Doesn't Cause Lung Cancer” than those titled “Smoking.” leads to lung cancer."
Imagine that a new restaurant has just opened near you. It serves your favorite dishes, leaving you excited and hopeful. You look for reviews of a restaurant online and find a handful of good ones (four out of five stars) and a handful of bad ones (two stars). What reviews will you read? Almost certainly positive. You want the restaurant to be great.
Observations by psychologists have confirmed that this effect is very strong. Based on 90 studies involving 8,000 people, we can come to the conclusion that we are twice as likely to favor confirming information than disconfirming information. Confirmation bias is stronger in emotional domains such as politics. The same thing can be seen when people have a strong underlying desire to believe someone. Confirmation of biases is also enhanced if people have already invested time or effort into the issue.
How then to evaluate the options?
The first step is to heed the advice of Alfred Sloan, former CEO of GM, and develop discipline. It starts with a willingness to disagree constructively. Consider possibilities that are contrary to your initial instinct.
You can even apply the principle consideration of the opposite "to your personal life. One team of researchers became interested in the question of why some people find life partners easily and others do not. To this end, they conducted a survey among women who were preparing for marriage. To their surprise, 20% of women reported that when they first met their future spouse, they did not like him (which means there are millions of other people who meet their future spouse and leave because bias caused them to give up on the relationship too early) .
Emotions
The third enemy of solutions is instant emotions. When we have to make difficult choices, our emotions run high. We constantly replay the same arguments in our heads. We are tormented by certain circumstances. We change our minds every day. If the solution were a table, then none of the numbers would change (because there was no new information coming in), but in our heads it looks different. We've kicked up so much dust that we can't see the way forward. These are the times when we need perspective the most.
When people talk about the worst decisions in their lives, they often remember that at the moment they were in the grip of an emotion (anger, lust, anxiety, or greed). But we are not slaves. Emotions pass pretty quickly. That is why folk wisdom says: “The morning is wiser than the evening.”
« I will think about it tomorrow ", - said the heroine of the novel " gone With the Wind" Well, that's quite reasonable.
However, “sleeping with the problem” is not always enough. This requires strategy. We must subdue immediate emotions and cravings in favor of long-term value. The tool with which we can achieve this was invented by Susie Welch, who wrote articles on business. It is called 10 /10 /10 .
To use the method 10 /10 /10 we must consider our decisions within three different frameworks. How will we feel about them in 10 minutes? And in 10 months? And in 10 years? Three time frames are an elegant way to force us to distance ourselves somewhat from our decisions.
Consider the story of a woman named Annie who was tormented by her relationship with Carl. They had been dating for nine months. Annie said, "He's a wonderful person and in many ways exactly the kind of life partner I'm looking for." But she was worried that their relationship was not developing.
She was about to take her first long vacation with Karl and was wondering whether she should “take the next step” during the trip. She knew that Karl was in no hurry to make decisions. Should she be the first to say, “I love you”?
Annie used the 10/10/10 method. “Within 10 minutes of confessing, I would be nervous, but proud of myself for taking the plunge and taking the risk. Ten months later I would hardly regret it. I really want this to work. After all, those who don't take risks don't drink champagne. What about 10 years? Regardless of his reaction, it's unlikely to matter after all this time. We'll either be happy together or I'll be in a happy relationship with someone else."
Please note that with the tool 10 /10 /10 The solution turned out to be quite simple: Annie must take the lead. Having done this, she will be proud of herself and believe that she will not regret it, even if the relationship ends up going wrong. But without the conscious analysis of 10/10/10, the decision seemed difficult. Short-term emotions—nervousness, apprehension, and fear of a negative response—were distracting and inhibiting.
Irina Balmanzhi
Publication Website " OMART.A.SATT"
Wrong decisions, mistakes in people, miscalculations in projects, the consequences of excessive trust - have one reason. We don't see the real state of things. Where do we get this from? This is how we were taught... This is how we learned...
There is no need to deceive me. I myself am happy to be deceived...
The defense mechanism of our psyche is responsible for not seeing the real state of things. If we don’t know how to react correctly, it’s easier to push it out of our attention. If you didn’t notice, there’s no need to react.
The most difficult thing for a person is to evaluate a person. Subtle manifestations of another person’s attitude towards us, his actions, intonations, are sometimes so obvious that it is simply impossible not to notice them.
But... we don't notice! Why? The habits of perceiving everything one way and not another are to blame for everything. We all tend to avoid acute, conflict situations. So it turns out that we incorrectly assess situations and people who let us down. And we hope and trust them.
The problem that we are let down, betrayed, deceived is our problem, not those people who let us down. We ourselves allow ourselves to be let down, betrayed and deceived, not wanting to understand people. Avoiding learning to see what lies on the surface.
A clear day hides better than a dark night. /Treatise “San shi liu ji”/
World chess champion Garry Kasparov was once asked: “How many moves ahead are you thinking?” Many assumed that he would give some incredible figure for an ordinary person. The answer was unexpected for many and showed people why they play chess worse than Kasparov. He said: “The main thing in chess is not how many moves ahead you think, but how you analyze the current situation.”
The success of this method lies in the fact that, without objectively knowing his situation, an ordinary person begins to calculate moves that turn out to be erroneous in principle due to the lack of reliable information in assessing the situation.
Applying the same strategy to life, it is useful to appreciate how often we, instead of objectively assessing what is happening, try to calculate moves forward, and how often later these moves turn out to be moves not forward, where we wanted, but to the side.
Those who try to foresee everything lose their vigilance. /Treatise “San shi liu ji”/
To see the real situation clearly means to let the moves reveal themselves. Anyone who says that he does not know what to do next simply does not know what is happening to him now. He doesn't have enough information to make a decision.
Anyone who says that he often makes mistakes in people simply does not know how and where/what and when to look at a person (listen, analyze) in order to correctly evaluate him.
The better we see reality (obvious and hidden), the fewer mistakes we make.
Imagine that you began to see and notice important little things more by 10%... 20%... 50%... Imagine how your life will change when such changes occur in you...
If you like these changes, we invite you to the next training seminar by E. Romanova
