特别说明:本文里的ta/对方,是自己（一个个体）遇到的一群人,并不特指某个人.这个群的人数范围是 4-14.本文最重要的作用是,给作者（一个个体）一个值得尝试的原则, 即努力减少「对方不可理喻无法沟通」的默认假设. 以及,比起过度解读本文,可能尝试理解作者的写作动机和所做的尝试,会更容易带来好的运气.
Instructions: The group in this article refers to a bunch of people who I obeserved through several years. There is no intention to complain about someone specifically. The blog aims to plead for a more rational and peaceful mindset in everyday communications.
不知道你们有没有遇见这样的情况？当你和对方阐述冲突性的想法/感受,并且再三调整了自己的说辞,尽量让陈述只涉及具体行为所带来的具体感受,然而对方只回复了 emoji 表情.
Has it ever occured to you that when you split out your true feelings about something you feel uncomfortable. And you try to keep objective and stick to what happened in this single scenario. You carefully avoid using judgemental words. However, other participants didn’t reply for anything. Instead asking you what makes you feel so bad, they just go directly to some emojis with no comments as if they haven’t participate it at all.
That’s ok. Because it is you feelings. Others can not control your feelings. However, they suddenly crush your friends with tons of judgements about you, and avoid talking to you face to face. They turn to your friends instead talk with you.
这时候,你会不会心里有个疑问：ta 为什么不直接和我说？ta 到底是怎样的想法呢?
Would you be curious that WHY does they choose to walk through you but telling your friend about how they dislike you?
One of my friends said,the seeds maybe the presumption they put on me.Through various interations,they may think that it’s a waste of time to talk to me. So they just tell my friends about their judgements.
It seems practical to give up immediately if one believe it’s useless to do so.
It also seems rational to actively bond each other if one believe it’s meaningful to do so.
省略沟通是合理行为,当面沟通也是合理行为.为什么同一个场景里会有 2 种方向完全相反的合理行为呢？
How come two opposite actions both appear to be logical in the same scenario?
通过以上推演,我觉得可能造成这 2 种南辕北辙行为的源头是 默认假设.
Presumption is all things starts.
When it came to communication, it’s easy to understand. I think you are a decent people and I would like to spare your more oppotunities to demonstrate your points. I think you are a vicious people, naturally I would like to withdraw my precious time from your.
这个听起来就是玄学问题. 因为没有办法验证这件事.比如，如果假设对方可以对话，那我和 ta 的对话就能一直保持下去.但是这个保持怎么界定呢？只用文字交流，算不算保持？只用语音交流，算不算保持？甚至，用意念交流,算不算保持？
However, how do I make a presumption? How do I get a conclusion whether they are promising or lazy ones?
Especially, when we in this global crisis, it’s more complicate to know someone face to face and have a cup of tea with them.
菲利普·津巴多的TED演讲《普通人如何变成魔鬼或英雄》里说「你可能无意中迈第出第一步」.(摘录于 ## )
An idea dawned me when I read an artile
about U.S. Patent Polic. Here is the link:###.
是的,我也经常无意之中迈出第一步. 默认假设对方不可理喻无法沟通.结果,我很难再有机会,去更深了解对方,去探索我和对方之间的不一样的可能. 损失某些可能性,对当下的我来说,是个不小的遗憾.
The author said, the fundamental assumption that our patent problems stem from a bad actor (patent troll) that takes advantage of the system.
The author found that transactional costs spent on enforcing a contract is much more than on evaluating a patent. He thought the cost is so unproductive and it’s caused by enforcement and its threat are prerequisites to determine the scope and value of a patent.
The author stand for putting more weight on rational factor and good presumptions on foundamental policy.
I agree with the author. Spend tons of resources to determine whether a patent is infringed and its value needs alternative. Just like communications. Putting major efforts on seek oppotunities for building connections with other could be more promising than tagging others as villaina.
扫码关注 微信公众号 【熊本张】
本作品版权归微信公众号 【熊本张】所有.未经许可,也可以分享至朋友圈并告诉全世界你 “在看”.