Day 165 is your cognition encapsulated?

I have often heard the word "bag" at work in the last month or two. At first, it seemed to me that this was a word often mentioned by the development team. Why is it repeatedly mentioned in a product team?

So I Baidu, and then combined with the usage scene of packaging ... Oh ~ ~ it turned out to be a "fool tutorial" ... Oh, no, it's simpler than a fool tutorial, and it's directly a "fool hands-on method". And many of the functions and programs I use every day are actually "stupid tools" packaged for me.

Well, I accidentally called myself a fool ... again, the so-called packaging is a complete scheme, which ignores the internal production process and can be directly operated through the results.

Hmm (expressing hesitation, etc.) ... but strictly speaking, it should be a technical term of forced pull-out and applied to a brand-new environment.

It may be better understood that the "PUA" referred to by thousands of people is the result of a kind of packaging. According to known cases, it seems that almost anyone with the most basic foundation can successfully deceive one or even several objects through PUA.

Ah ~ Speaking of PUA, there is a word that everyone must be familiar with, called "routine".

Summarize a routine, and then this routine can be used by almost anyone, and the probability of success is high, then it can be called a good packaging result.

If understood in this way, each of us has experienced the process of "packaging".

The simplest one, a cliche: "mindset".

Stereotype is a very clear packaging result.

What? You call mindset a derogatory term? No, no, no, mindset is the smartest way for the brain to work.

Just like going out with your ID card, mobile phone and key wallet (the so-called "reaching for money"), going to a familiar restaurant to order "old three things", washing your body or face or head first when taking a shower, covering yourself with a quilt, adding clothes or turning on the heating when it is cold, these things are actually done with a fixed mind.

All the things that we can easily do without thinking about how to do in advance are done through fixed thinking-on the contrary, when we really want to think, there will be "Yi? Why did I do this at the time? "

As for why this is the smartest way to operate the brain, it is because the mind set can do something relatively simple, everyday, but with high frequency for us. It can greatly reduce our energy consumption, so that we can focus on what we can't do simply by thinking set.

Of course, even if it is difficult, as long as we do enough and are skilled enough, we can make the mindset work and reduce energy consumption.

For example, when knitting sweaters, novices must concentrate on knitting sweaters, and each stitch should be carefully read to ensure that there will be no mistakes. Even so, the sweater is crooked.

But an old hand can laugh and laugh while watching TV, and Cai Cai will play the sweater.

Everything that can be called "skill" follows this logic. When we can freely use "skills" without thinking too much, psychology calls it "automation" of skills.

Some people may agree that this is "practice makes perfect"!

Strictly speaking, the bag is "cooked" and "clever" is a new bag. After all, not everyone who sells oil can pour oil from Kong Fangjun's square hole, and it won't stain Kong Fangjun at all-of course, the guest may be worried that Kong Fangjun has stained the oil.

Even, the vast majority of oil sellers would never have thought of this "coincidence".

Because the action of pouring oil has been "packaged", as long as you do it every day, you can make money-wow, it's good to have no involution.

So what about the oil sellers today?

At present, everyone is surrounded by information, and the best way to avoid brain explosion is to have a set of thinking patterns ... Ah no, we have a better name, called "thinking mode". Through different thinking modes, we can better screen out all kinds of information that we need and are valuable to ourselves from the massive information, and then profit from it.

And our mode of thinking, that is, our cognition of information, is actually going through the process of being encapsulated.

The most obvious encapsulation phenomenon is called "meme", which is called "meme" in English and "stem" in network language.

A stalk can encapsulate a lot of information. As long as we understand and see this stalk, the content inside will be completely "unpacked" and we can understand what others are saying without further explanation.

For example, some time ago, it was very popular to "behave yourself" and "have no martial arts".

No matter what kind of environment you are in, we will see the unique memes in this environment more or less, and then what may happen is that cognition is encapsulated, and cognitive isolation is successfully carried out from those who are not encapsulated, that is, "forming a small circle" and then "enclosure germination" begins.

There may be a sense of superiority (because others can't understand what they say is informative), a sense of identity (because everyone will be happy to use this word together), a sense of boredom (when people who don't understand it start to abuse it), and a sense of shame (when we start to get tired of this circle).

This is the result of "encapsulated by encapsulated results": we may accidentally become "trapped people" and completely take "what" as "why".

This situation is actually hard to avoid. The basic attribute of culture is its powerful subtle influence, and "meme" and "stalk" are the smallest unit of cultural products.

Today's information technology has created the most appalling packaging environment for us: information cocoon-that is, because we always tend to receive the content we like (emotionally), all kinds of apps always only push the content that meets our favorite, and our thinking will always be verified in our own cocoon, whether it is right or wrong, so that we will never achieve the purpose of "listening at the same time".

Everyone knows the truth of "listening while being black". The problem is that the information we can receive has long been "biased". How can we "combine"?

Moreover, there are so many people on the Internet, not to mention memorizing words, and they can give us eight different ways to write them. It is no problem to tell us the same thing ten times, and it can also make us feel that we have gained new knowledge every time, and it is easy to have the illusion of "concurrently".

In the end, we may even feel that we are quite logical.

I remember a dialogue in a cartoon about the apocalyptic catastrophe faced by mankind many years ago:

"Since we are all elites, why should we mix with those ordinary people?"

"Because people from the same environment will die in the same way."

This is the result of encapsulation, which in turn encapsulates the result of cognition, which is hard to avoid.

It is not that being encapsulated is a mistake, but the result of using encapsulation must have its limitations.

Originally, the function of packaging is to enable primary school students to do what college students can do.

But for college students, it may be impossible to package a series of contents.

The education system is actually a kind of encapsulation, so that even the worst people can do what they should do with their academic qualifications.

Then we can see that it is the people who package the content who really master the knowledge and can be "smart" to the maximum extent.

For example, people who make teaching materials, such as PUA tutors, such as people who know how to use knowledge, such as …

But it doesn't matter.

What matters is whether we are such people-we must have insight into whether the relationship between ourselves and what we do is encapsulated or decide how to encapsulate it.

Gamers like to say, play games, don't be played by games.

The same is true under the topic of packaging. We should package the results, not be encapsulated by them.

For example, don't use one or two labels to help you define, but use multiple labels to help you compare the results.

From this perspective, what we need to do more is to consciously refuse to be encapsulated by external information.

Because the key point of packaging is "not caring about the implementation method", that is, ignoring the "why" process, we can do things with it, but never think in its way.

For example, if we want to retouch a picture, we can use B6 12, Tian Tian P picture, Meitu Xiu Xiu, or even Photoshop. Of course, we can, but don't think that this is all about photography.

If it is defined by the method of "art and Tao", no matter how clever the packaging is, it is only a kind of "art" and can never be regarded as "Tao"

At the same time, you don't have to force yourself to master a lot of "skills", because Tao is the basis of skills, and skills are "unchanged from ancestors."

Then, find your favorite and most practical "technique", then sink and disassemble it, and finally find its root, that is, your own Tao.

Through repeated practice and verification of this "Tao", we can package all kinds of "techniques" ourselves.

Aha, then we can form a tribe to teach. (hmm? )