You can't assess in detail whether a predator is hungry, lame, etc. Predators won't wait for you to perform such an analysis. Likewise, the brain tends to form a perceptual conclusion (good guy or

You can't assess in detail whether a predator is hungry, lame, etc. Predators won't wait for you to perform such an analysis. Likewise, the brain tends to form a perceptual conclusion (good guy or bad guy) as quickly as possible and then fill in the details with this initial impression.

Can you imagine a newspaper article starting like this: "The author of this article is Gemma Socks, who does not like the way women are treated in TsaTsa..."

In some cultures, such as the Zulu culture, men wield spears and wear leopard skin leggings at tribal gatherings. They may be fierce, but it's not them who actually run things and make the decisions, it's the women. Things are often not as they seem to a reporter.

This is a very important role of the square frame. So far, we have considered different viewpoints, biases, and neutrality. Now we want to consider how different perspectives can be formed from the same perspective.

Readers or listeners will choose to analyze the information they receive in a variety of different ways. They try to develop different perspectives on things from the same perspective.

More and more companies are simply collecting information and feeding it into computers. Computers then analyze the information, make decisions and develop strategies for the company. This growing habit is very dangerous.

We need to analyze information in different ways. Computers can't do that, so companies are stuck with old concepts. Only humans can choose to analyze information in different ways.

Research shows that smoking large amounts of marijuana increases the likelihood of developing schizophrenia. Therefore, marijuana is regarded as a disease-causing culprit. But looking at it differently, it's also possible that people with schizophrenia tendencies prefer marijuana and therefore use it more. This schizophrenic tendency then develops into schizophrenia.

Someone once told me that Harvard University has trained a large number of outstanding talents, and its teaching technology must be very good. But I think if a lot of outstanding people walk into an arch, then there will be a lot of outstanding people coming out from the other side of the arch, and the contribution of the arch is very small.

People often assume that the spikes on the desert cactus are meant to deter animals from eating the cactus. But this may not be the case. These small spines can keep stationary plants in close contact with the air, which can reduce the transpiration and evaporation of plant water.

As people become more and more accustomed to inputting all information into computers, it becomes increasingly important to analyze information in different ways and from different aspects.

The square framework really asks us to pay attention to the degree of bias or neutrality in the information. Is the information objective or subjective? We can't do anything about the information, but noticing biases in it can affect how we use it.

We also would not choose to use a source that always provides one-sided information.

The square framework also means that we ourselves can choose to analyze the information in different ways (i.e. from other sides of the square).

"There are data and there are conclusions. If you use the square framework, you can analyze it in different ways and come to different conclusions."

"There is only one way to understand the data ?"

"This story looks balanced, use your square frame and see if you can spot any bias." "My square frame tells me that this information is one-sided. . The real question is whether we can use it." "Before coming to a conclusion, let's analyze this report using a square frame."

"My square frame tells me that this is very one-sided. But I don't see what the other side is."

As we get used to feeding information into computers and relying on computers for analysis, it will become increasingly important to analyze the information in different ways.

Evaluating the neutrality of information can seem like a waste of time when there is little neutrality.

At the same time, it is useful and important to detail the nature and strength of any bias. Without such instructions, our use of the information would be difficult and dangerous.

If square frames become a long-term habit for readers, then perhaps newspaper editors need to put more effort into providing a balanced view, which is a difficult thing to do. Otherwise, readers will turn to publications that provide more balanced views.

In traditional Chinese philosophy, there are many discussions about "the middle", such as "the mean" and "zhongzheng". Interpretations of the word "中" mostly focus on the literal understanding of "impartiality" or "neither left nor right", and it is rare to see "中" understood from a philosophical perspective. Another meaning of the word "中" lies in our understanding of the nature and objectivity of the world. In fact, this is not inconsistent with "impartiality" and "neither left nor right". Of course, the true nature of a thing requires objective description and restoration. Any subjective color will lead to it being biased or biased, left or right. The processing of information has always required a "struggle" with various subjectivities.

Many of Edward DeBono's views have a "middle" color, including his six thinking hats, which emphasize the "middle" of the entire thinking process. "Middle" is a kind of balance, and balance does not necessarily mean "neither left nor right." The weighing pole is the best example. The square thinking framework once again emphasizes de Bono's focus on objectivity and balance.

To some extent, the square frame that focuses attention on opinions does overlap with the circular frame mentioned above that emphasizes accuracy, because it seems that both parties are pursuing the accuracy of information. . The key is that the square framework considers more the impact of people's subjective factors on information neutrality.

The question is, do you believe that to be true? Before I learned about thinking methods and brain structure, I didn’t like this kind of mystical “secret book”. But after understanding the structure and workings of the brain, I believe that law is true. It all stems from the way our brains work—paradigm systems and information self-organization.

The so-called paradigm refers to the "answer" pre-buried in your mind. Perhaps it is an information search goal, or a concept that your subconscious mind agrees with in advance.

There is an interaction between attention and paradigm. Regarding the law of attention, I mentioned it before, which means that if you pay attention to something, it will become more. If you don’t believe it, try it now and see how many dark blue cars there are on the street. From the moment you start paying attention to dark blue cars, you will find that there are more and more such cars. After you have been observing for a while, I suddenly ask you, how many white cars are there? Most people will find that they "didn't see" a white car at all. In fact, it’s not that there are no white cars passing by, it’s just that we didn’t pay attention to look for white cars.

The law of attention and the law of attraction roughly mean the same thing. What you believe in, you will pay attention to. Whatever you pay attention to will become more abundant. If you think the world is bright (white cars), the more bright you will see (white cars), this information will enter your brain and form opinions that will affect your behavior. Then, the law of attraction comes into effect.

Of course we should maintain a positive attitude towards our own lives, but when we process information at work, any "attraction" may be harmful. An overly "positive" mentality leads to blind optimism. Or an overly "negative" mentality leads to a negative judgment of information, which will have an impact on decision-making. What the square framework is concerned with is how to minimize this impact.

In this regard, DeBono made two important suggestions:

First, you must be careful of all adjectives that induce you to be biased;

Second, if you have trouble being objective, then be subjective to the end.

The first suggestion is easy to understand. Mark all the adjectives in the report you face. The purpose of these adjectives is often to induce others to agree with the author's point of view. For example, "poor", "evil", "ridiculous", "bad", etc.

You can practice with a news report. If a piece of news makes you have strong emotions, whether it is sadness or anger, then the first thing you have to do is to write the article Underline all the adjectives to see to what extent the article leads you to subjective judgment.

The second suggestion may seem a bit strange, but it is actually a wise approach. If we cannot look at information objectively, how can we move from a subjective perspective to objectivity? This method is to preset different roles, so that each role can interpret the information as subjectively as possible, and then place all the subjective views in parallel. When you can see enough "subjective views", then you also This is how you look at the information comprehensively and objectively.