Skip to content →

Category: Reading

The power of thinking without thinking

Blink: the power of thinking without thinking is another book by Malcolm Gladwell, the author of Outliers: the story of success I just read a few days ago. He is a good writer: he knows how to explains theories with examples and stories that creates resonance to audience. And he knows how to write bestsellers: books should be easy to follow and not too lengthy. This book Blink is a fine example: it’s a less-than-300-page small book.

Compared with Subliminal, this book does not contain too much diving into how human brains work. Instead, it’s all about plain but intriguing stories. It starts by talking about spotting a bogus statue at first sight; then it discusses about how to predict divorces by analyzing how couples talk to each other; then it comes to why we fall for people’s appearances, how newbie police fails to read people’s minds, etc.

This book brings up a theory called “thin-slicing”: getting the big picture without actually going through the whole picture, but through taking a small part of descriptive samples and inferring the correct result using these samples. Thin-slicing is an ability that only through years of practice can it be possessed. It is a state that spontaneous and correct judgement occurs to you even though your consciousness has yet participated in the process. This ability becomes an integrated part of yourself, just like the instinct to avoid coming cars. It doesn’t necessarily deal with reasoning: your success of getting the correct answer does not guarantee that you know exactly why. If you are forced to give reasons, you may not come up with correct ones and they may hazard your first-sight judgement. To reason means to use your conscious mind; but thin-slicing is from deeper than the consciousness — it comes from the unconsciousness of your brain.

However, thin-slicing may not always give us correct results. We usually trust those who are good looking, while this sometimes leads to unpleasant endings, such as choosing the handsome Warren Harding as the president of the US and who make the worst president in US history; Most white people and including some black people, think under their consciousness that the white is a superior; Many treat women as inferior. These are the unconsciousness that we need to prevent, otherwise we are not able to focus on the aspects that really matters.

In summary, use the unconsciousness, but use it properly. Train the mind, so that the pattern recognition engine in our brains gets recognizing what is important and what is not, so that in a blink of time, we can make the best decision without thinking (using our conscious mind).

3 Comments

What sets outliers apart

There is a famous quote from Einstein that goes “genius is 1% talent and 99% hard work”, and the book Outliers: the story of success proves it correct. As many knows that Einstein has an IQ of around 150, however, IQ is not the definite factor towards success, but rather, IQ is not important at all once it reaches a threshold — as long as you have an adequate intelligence, it’s other aspects that really matters. Those aspects include hard work, social savvy, upbringing and the culture one comes from.

This book tells a story of a man named Chris Langan with an IQ of 195, but he ended as as a bouncer at a bar for the most of his life. He is smart, so smart that he understands Principia Mathematica at the age of 16. But he never knows how to deal with people. He lost his scholarship because his mother forgot to fill a form for him and after he confronted his dean he concluded that the professors do not care about the students. And so he quitted. By contrast, the father of atomic bombs, Oppenheimer is not as smart, but he processes a great practical knowledge. He knows how to get away with punishment after trying to poison his tutor at  Cambridge. He also persuaded General Groves to let him participate in the Manhattan Project, despite his poisoning record and affiliations with Communists. It’s obvious that both Langan and Oppenheimer are smart, but in a way they could not be more different in aspects other than intelligence.

The author also elaborates how important diligence is. It’s known that for one to become good at something, he/she has to spend at least 10,000 hours on it. Bill Gates had more than 10,000 hours of experience with computers before he dropped out; the Beatles had more than 10,000 hours of practice before they made a real hit; the same with Steve Jobs, Bill Joy (cofounder of Sun Microsystems), Eric Schemidt, etc. As the book puts it, “no one who can rise before dawn 360 days a year fails to make his family rich”.

However, as important as diligence is, it’s equivalently important to have the ability of seizing opportunities. The computer gurus are typically born in mid 1950s (Bill Gates 1955, Paul Allen 1953, Steve Ballmer 1956, Steve Jobs 1955, Eric Schemidt 1955, Bill Joy 1954);If you look at Chinese Internet gurus, same intersting facts: year in which the founder is born: Baidu 1968, Alibaba 1964, Tecent 1971, Netease 1971, Sina 1969, Sohu 1964, why? Because they all had their 10,000 hours of practice when the personal computer revolution began in 1975 (or internet starts to become popular in China in mid 1990s). It did not happen only in computer industry, but also in other industries such as law, manufacturing, and so on.

The culture you are from and the upbringing shape your thinking and behaviours and in the end how successful you are. It takes three generations for Jews to transform from tailors and garment industry workers to doctors and lawyers. Success is not magic; it’s the hard work passed along generations to generations. Asians are better at mathematics because our ancestors have to calculate carefully when growing rice; and asians are more diligent because our ancestors have to put the hours in hard work so as to survive.

Next time when someone asks how could Chinese economy grow so fast, show him how Chinese work.

Leave a Comment

乌合之众

所谓经典,经久不衰之宝典也。这本来自1895年的法国的书,在100多年之后读起来仍然让人觉得津津有味。作者对社会的剖析入木三分,深刻揭示了社会群体的特性。

群体顾名思义,由一群个体组成。而这群个体走到一起形成一个群体之后,其中的每个个体的特性便不再重要,作为群体中的一员,这个个体可能会完全迷失在群体中间。群体抹去每个个体心智的的差距,使他们的行为趋向一致;每个个体不断相互影响和暗示,相互传染极端思想,使这个群体做出任何单个个体都不会做出的出格事情。书中有个很形象的故事:在一个马戏团里,一匹马将粪便拉在了一位坐着观看表演的女士的腿上。而周围的一群绅士却丝毫没有绅士的表现,一齐大笑起来。试想,如果只有一个绅士在场,会发生这样的情况吗?

群体是不使用理性,不用逻辑思考问题的。在群体之中一个个体的智力会泯灭,群体只能接受感性的,形象的思维。作者认为群体中个人智力的泯灭存在着四个阶段:自我意识模糊,独立思考能力下降,判断力和逻辑在暗示与传染的作用下趋同一致,最后残存的智力被测底反噬。历史上很多不可思议的事件中都能找到这种情形:不管平时多么聪明,在群体中却完全迷失了自我。比如高级知识分子失去独立思考的能力,去做一些违背原则的事情(想想我国几十年前发生的事情)。群体只接受简单的概念和形象,不接受正常逻辑。群体迷恋偶像,创造偶像,并沉浸其中不可自拔。

一个群体需要有领袖,这个领袖往往是这个群体里最极端的个体。只有极端的人才能成为领袖,因为极端的个体可以更好的感染群体,而群体的奴性成就一个领袖,个体成为领袖之后又使得群体和领袖变得更为极端。为了释放这些极端的情绪,这个群体便以残暴可怖的手段去处理异见持有者。

文末作者以悲观的情绪分析了人类历史发展的规律:个体走到一起,团结起来抵御外部入侵;摆脱野蛮,发展个体,形成文明;文明强盛,逐渐复杂,止步不前;走向衰落;群体分崩离析;回归原始。“人们在追求理想的过程中,从野蛮状态发展到文明状态,然后,当这个理想失去优点时,便走向衰落和死亡,这就是一个民族的生命循环过程。”

Leave a Comment

全世界人民都知道

读了这本书,发现李承鹏的杂文水平确实不怎么样,杂文能记成流水账也算是一种境界。文字无端卖弄,莫名其妙的拼凑同音词显得无比做作。在我的印象中杂文应该针砭时弊,把人骂的狗血淋头,把事说得无比通透,把政府批得体无完肤才是。可这本书给人的感觉是完全没有高潮,读罢全文像是听隔壁村大婶絮叨了半天一般,那种想听人骂街而不得的挫败感让人生闷气。

读到书末几篇散文倒是有点感觉,不过大哥,下次能不能一件事情说完就行了,别絮絮叨叨的说上个三五遍好不好?

Leave a Comment

The well known secret

The Secret should be a great book haven’t I read many books about self control, positive thinking and success, etc. Honestly I didn’t find much new in the book. The overall theme is quite clear: embrace your positive thoughts and get rid of negative ones. And I think this Ted talk explains the concept better and is more persuasive. The book is tedious if not boring, like many other books on “success”. I guess the author believes in “repetition is the key of persuasiveness.”

After reading this book, I don’t even bother reading another book of hers: The Power. After skimming through its table of contents, it’s basically the same thing after all. I need examples, logic and insights, instead of pure propagandas!

Leave a Comment

Notes on Big Data

《大数据时代》这本书强调了这个时代数据的重要性,所谓大数据,即全体数据而非抽样数据,大数据强调混杂性而不追求准确性,注重相关关系而非因果关系。在商业中,不仅需要得到大数据,而且需要知道如何利用大数据。例如,如何筛选自己需要的信息,了解自己真正需要什么。在这个过程中重视产生的结果,却不要过分纠结于产生这个结果的原因。本书作者似乎是业界翘楚,书中旁征博引,很有说服力。可以看出来作者Viktor Mayer-Schonberger是Taylorism的坚定信徒,他相信任何事情都是可以用数据测量和表述的。这一点跟《The Shallows》的作者Nicholas Carr的观点不一样,Carr认为并不是所有的东西都是可以测量的。当然Schonberger在书最后也提到了这一点,他也认为我们处理的信息不过是世界的某个投影,大数据也只是一个工具,我们在使用大数据的时候不要自负,要“铭记人性之本”。

《删除》是《大数据时代》作者Schonberger的另一本书,作者这次从用户的角度出发,讲诉在大数据时代中应该做出对自己有利的事情。计算机和存储介质的发明,就意味着数据会被永久存储;特别是近年来各种软件和在线服务的出现,使得人们越来越没有能力控制自己信息的散布,流动,以及存在的时限。很多信息一旦公开(甚至是对少许几人公开),你就没有在将它控制住的能力了,颇有“覆水难收”的味道。书中举了一个在MySpace上贴出自己饮酒照片被上司发现而最终被取消教师资格的女孩的故事;而我前几天发现我的网站被另一个网站做了历史镜像的经历也同样让我不安。一旦信息公布,就不能再收回了。作者在书中给了很多建议,如节制数字化信息的使用,知道自己应该公开那些信息,重视公开信息的后果;重视隐私法律的建立以及提供相应的技术支持;调整大众对数字隐私的认知;等等。同时作者最后还抛出了一个给所有信息都加上一个存储期限的想法,这个不管从技术上还是用户体验上都难以在近期时限。但是,最近确实有类似的在线服务出现,如阅后即焚的聊天服务snapchat,在线文本存储与共享工具pastebin等,同时Google等巨头也一再缩短存储用户信息的时间。随着大众对隐私的觉醒,相信在不久会有更多的服务在信息存储期限上下功夫。下一个会不会是email呢?毕竟我们需要的只是一小部分对我们有用的东西,如果我们都根本不记得邮件里有哪些内容,就让它们被慢慢的遗忘吧。

《爆发》从行为预测的角度讲诉了大数据的用途。这本书看到一半时我觉得这是我看过的最好的业界趋势读物,因为作者巴拉巴西的写作手法很奇特:全书每一章都分为两个部分,前半部分讲技术,后一部分讲历史故事。每看完一章我都想迫不及待的看下一章,颇有章回体小说的味道。但是等我把全书看完之后却还是云里雾里,完全不理解作者的观点是什么,到底人的行为是否可以被准确预测。不过确定的有一点,如书名所诉,我们的行为充满爆发性(Bursts)。我们可以很长时间不写邮件,但是同时也有可能在短时间里写很多邮件;我写博客也是,可能好几个月都不写一篇,有时候又连续几天都写;我好几个月都不看书,一看就连续看好几本;甚至花钱也是,好几天一分钱都不花,也有可能一天花好多……作者认为我们之所以会有这些行为,从根本来讲是因为我们的生物特性中即有爆发性,细胞生成的过程即是由一个又一个的爆发组成的。从行为学上讲,我们会给自己要做的事情安排一个优先级,只有优先级高的事情才会被完成。由此生成的优先级队列就隐含了爆发性,导致我们实际完成事情的时候也是一组一组爆发式的完成的。因为我们的行为不是一个随机过程,所以我们不遵循泊松分布。书中的历史故事也很精彩,讲诉了16世纪发生在匈牙利的一个农民起义的故事。起义领袖赛克勒从发起起义到被捕都发生在很短的时间内,按作者的说法他的起义过程实际上是一个快速燃烧完的爆发点。赛克勒并没有经历太多就变成了起义领袖,由此就注定必败的命运。一切来的太突然了,不是每个人都能把握好自己。所以“天将降大任于斯人也,必先苦其心志,劳其胫骨,乏其体肤”也是不无道理的。一个人需要蛰伏很久,才能从容的面对破茧而出的那一刻。

Leave a Comment

Notes on The Shallows

This book was recommended by several colleagues at Ericsson. After reading it I find it quite worth reading. It is objective, profound in examples and analysis, persuasive, and smooth to read.

The author argues that our brains are plastic; and they are shaped gradually by new mediums, such as printing, radio, computers and the Internet,  throughout the history. When we take advantage of certain technologies, we tend to consider the technology as a part of ourselves. And by heavily relying on those technologies, we gradually loose the ability to do what’s been done by them. When we starts to use clocks, we loose the sense of timing; when we use GPS to guide ourselves, we loose the sense of orientation; after using typewriters/computers, we can no longer writing by hand. Our brains physically change during the course of using tools or memorizing things. Tools shape the way we think and act.

Computers and the Internet make information broadly accessible, however this does not increase our knowledge or problem solving skills. What we have done is just adapting ourselves to the tools. The contents are superflous while we only concentrate on the superficial. We get interrupted.

We mistakenly think ourselves as simulations of computers. However, computers are designed and built to simulate human behaviours but not otherwise. We may take advantage of them, but we should realise there are borders between us and the tools. We should not let them dominate our lives.

In the middle of writing the first two paragraphs of this post: I closed several previously opened browser tabs and took a glimpse over them; checked opened Linkedin to see if there are any interesting news; after two seconds I tried to open facebook and then realised I haven’t open up SSH tunnel yet, so I closed the facebook tab; then I changed the default text editor application for my system; tried to uninstall one of the text editors but aborted the task; navigated to the ebooks I have on my computer and tried to find something I have now already forgotten about; skimmed some books on Python, Ruby, Joomla, LaTex, and finally read one chapter on using regular expressions in Vim; after that I’m back in the browser to record this in my post. This happened probably within 10 minutes and now I have no idea why I interrupted writing this post in the first place. Oh, just now I Googled the word ‘interrupt’ since I couldn’t decide whether to use ‘interrupt’ or ‘pause’.

Indeed computers and the Internet are nice tools, for certain purposes. But they are merely tools. Don’t let them get in your way of doing what you really want and building what you want to become.

Leave a Comment

基因决定公司前途定律

看完《浪潮之巅》,收获不小。这本书讲述了美国各大科技公司的沉浮历史,从科技和商业两方面讨论了它们成功的秘密和失败的根源,提出了不少我很认同的观念。

首先是基因决定定律,一个公司的创始人和早期员工决定了公司的基因,这个基因会在公司成长的过程中不断影响公司做出的决定,从一定意义上来说决定了公司能否成功和公司对员工及社会的影响。苹果是一个设计公司,所以它推出的手机在设计上没有出彩的地方的时候消费者就不会买账;Google是一个做工程的公司,所以它的Android系统做了七年也做不出好的用户体验;爱立信是一个设备提供商,所以它不可能跟最终消费者走的太近,它会更多的考虑运营商而不是最终消费者的利益;微软是卖软件的,所以它在免费在线服务上竞争不过Google跟Yahoo,因为后者提供的服务是免费的……

其次是摩尔定律,反摩尔定律和安迪比尔定律。摩尔定律大家都知道,即每18个月计算机硬件性能提升一倍或者价格下降至原先的一半;反摩尔定律说的是如果一个IT公司18个月之后的卖出产品的数量与现在一样,那么它一年半之后的营业额就会减半;安迪比尔定律说的是英特尔的硬件带来的提升会被微软软件消耗的资源抵消,软硬件产业的发展是相辅相成的。

还有一些管理公司的诀窍。如思科为了留住早期员工让他们进行内部创业,然后再将他们创立的公司收购,从而不断获得新的技术和留住最好的人才;Google初创时期为了让员工充满动力,每周都会公布一周里签下的大合同和公司的运营额以及现金数量等“商业机密”,让每个员工知道公司运营状况;Google用人采取“杀鸡用牛刀”的方式保证产品质量和工作效率;一个公司在IPO之后往往创始人的股权都小于10%;伯克希尔-哈撒韦采用双层股权,A股面值是B股的30倍,投票权是B股的200倍,A股能转为B股而B股不可能转为A股,这样来保证创始人公司的控制;Google也采用双层股权的方式,A股每股一个投票权而B股每股10个投票权,B股掌握在创始人和高管手中而不能流通。

虽然这本书的作者吴军对技术细节可能不太重视(比如他写到IPv6中地址是6个字节48位,实际为16字节128位),但他在Google的工作经验和对公司商业上的看法十分深刻,推荐此书。

Leave a Comment

《活着》的信念

之前看过电影,但对电影情节一点印象都没有了,所以现在再来看书的时候就像是新拿到一本小说一样,一口气看完之后才慢慢回忆起之前电影里面的一些场景。一个人活着,信念是最重要的,对福贵也好,对少年Pi也一样,这个信念的产生并不需要有前提诱因,也不需要有情操来支持它,它是每个人与生俱来的。活着的信念本身是卑微的,关键时刻产生的继续生存下去的动力却是其它信念无法比拟的。

Leave a Comment

Eat that frog

According to this book, the key to success is: clarify your goals and objectives; divide them into smaller tasks; prioritize the tasks; conquer them in an efficient way; take into account your talents and constraints while targeting the tasks; motivate yourself; do not multitask; set deadlines; carry the plan through.

The author is surely correct, however the book does not guarantee success. This book, like other books discussing about success, is pointless, since anyone knows what it takes to succeed — practice — while reading a book is quite a different experience from that.

Leave a Comment

First Love, Last Rites

断断续续看了一周,终于把这本小说看完了。小说并不长,由八个短篇构成。但这本书我是一字一句看完的,而且每天只看一点,所以这么久才看完。

最开始看到书名,以为这本书讲的就是爱情。读完之后发现完全不是这么回事,小说描述的是不同年龄段,不同背景的男人对这个世界的切身感受。有人说这本书过于阴暗,我却不这么认为。即使小说内容和心理描写有夸张的成分,我也相信世界上肯定存在类似于小说中的人物,而且可能还为数不少。

作者就那么娓娓道来,让你触及男人心底最真实和最肮脏的想法,而你却无法回避。人性就是丑恶,纯真爱情就是那么难以企及,性欲也是不可回避的话题。但是越真实的东西越会让人反感,越真实的东西越让人泪流满面。

强烈推荐这本书,不管是男人女人、好人坏人,这本书都值得一读。书中描述的心理,有则改之无则加勉。

 

Leave a Comment

《赤裸裸的经济学》

郁闷了就看书。

《赤裸裸的经济学》用精辟而不乏味的语言给我们展示了什么是宏观经济学。比如:“向联储借钱与25岁以后再向父母借钱一样,你可以借到钱,但最好先看看别的地方有没有钱可借。”

正如作者承诺的,书中没有图形,图标和公式,却生动的描述了经济学的各个方面,内容涉及市场经济,资源分配,经济刺激,政府对经济的干预,信息对称与否,人力资本与生产率,通货膨胀与紧缩,联邦储备,国际贸易和全球化等问题。

书中提到了许多很有意思并值得思考的问题,比如可口可乐在东德的宣传,比如通过提高女性的教育水平来实现人口政策,还有竞争博弈中的囚徒困境等等。

强烈推荐。

 

Leave a Comment

百年孤独:历史政治,人性伦理,亲情爱情的碰撞

诺贝尔文学奖得主的作品果然与众不同,从《百年孤独》这部小说中可略窥一斑。小说才用各种叙事手法,结合神话甚至荒诞的描述方式,叙述了一个家族的百年历史,影射出拉丁美洲的近代史。一旦进入角色便不能自拔,仿佛有一双无形的手拉着你,带你游走江湖,亲历战斗,旁观世态炎凉。

人似乎不能摆脱宿命;孤独,何止百年。

以下摘自加西亚·马尔克斯的《百年孤独》:

他在爱情的沙漠上邂逅过许多女人,他和她们在沿海地带撒下了不少种子,但是他的心里却没留下她们的任何痕迹。通常,她们都在黑夜里来找他,黎明前就离去,第二天已经没有什么东西使他想起她们,剩下的只是整个身体上某种困乏的感觉。

经过多年的战争,奥雷连诺上校虽然应当习惯于这样的声音了,可是此刻他却象青年时代第一次看见裸体女人那样感到膝头发软、身体打颤,他终于掉进了怀旧的圈
套,心里朦胧地想,如果当时他跟这个女人结了婚,他就会是个既不知道战争、又不知道光荣的人,而是一个无名的手艺人,一个幸运的人了。

他不明白,为什么需要耗费那么多的话语来解释自己在战争中的感受,其实只要一个词儿就够了:恐怖。

现在,回忆起往年穷奢极侈的酒宴和放荡不羁的生活,他们不免感到羞愧和懊悔,抱怨两人为最终获得这座无儿无女的孤独天堂所花的代价太大,在那么多年没有生
儿育女的同居之后,他俩在热恋中奇迹般地欣然发现,餐桌边的相爱比床上的相爱毫不逊色。他们感到了这样一种幸福:虽然精力衰竭,上了年纪,却依然能象家兔 那样嬉戏,象家犬那样逗闹。

再过几个月,奥雷连诺第二在临死的床上将回忆起的女儿,就跟他最后一次见到的阿玛兰塔·乌苏娜一样。她身穿一件粉红色绸上衣,右肩上别着一朵假三色茧,脚
上穿着一双精制的薄膜乎底的山羊皮鞋和一双有橡皮圆吊带的丝袜。她身材不高,披着长头发,她那滴溜溜的目光,就象乌苏娜年轻时的目光,她那既无眼泪又无笑 容的告别举止,证明她继承了高祖母的坚毅性格。她听完菲兰达最后的教诲,没来得及放下二等车厢那扇满是灰尘的玻璃窗,列车就开动了。随着列车速度的逐渐加
快,奥雷连诺第二也加紧了脚步,他在列车旁边小跑,拉着菲兰达的一只手,免得她跌跤。女儿用手指尖向他投来一个飞吻,他好不容易赶了上去,挥了挥手,表示 回答。一对老夫妇一动不动地长久站在灼人的太阳下,望着列车怎样变成地平线上的一个小黑点——他们婚后还是头一次手携着手地站在一起哩。

 

Leave a Comment

All grown-ups were once children

读了Antoine de Saiot-Exupery的Little Prince,最开始读着觉得很可笑,因为作者从一个成年人的角度来刻画儿童的想法,其语言比较幼稚,叙事十分荒诞,但是其中却饱含着各种更深一层的意思。读到后面,看着看着强烈的带入感就把我劫持了,小王子的嘴张合之间,让人感到伤感和沧桑。下面摘自《Little Prince》:

– All grown-ups were once children
– although few of them remember it.

– If I try to describe him here, it is to make sure that I shall not forget him. To forget a friend is sad. Not every one has had a friend. And if I forget him, I may become like the grown-ups who are no longer interested in anything but figures…

– And now here is my secret, a very simple secret: It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye.

– “Were they not satisfied where
they were?” asked the little prince.

“No one is ever satisfied where he is,” said the switchman.

– I had drunk the water. I breathed easily. At sunrise the sand is the color of honey. And that honey color was making me happy, too.

– The little prince flushed once more. He never answered questions – but when one flushes does that not mean “Yes”?

– It is just as it is with the flower. If you love a flower that lives on a star, it is sweet to look at
the sky at night. All the stars are abloom with flowers…

– “All men have the stars,” he answered, “but they are not the same things for different people. For some, who are travelers, the stars are guides. For others they are no more than little lights in the sky. For others, who are scholars, they are problems . For my businessman they were wealth. But all these stars are silent. You – you alone – will have the stars as no one else has them”

“What are you trying to
say?”

“In one of the stars I shall be living. In one of them I shall be laughing. And so it will be as if all the stars were laughing, when you look at the sky at night… you – only you – will have stars that can laugh!”

 

Leave a Comment