How do you tell if someone is good? If a person has a body of knowledge that can solve their own problems, he must be a good person. For example, Charlie Munger, regarded as the greatest investment thinker of our time, is said to have hundreds of mental models to deal with various problems in investment judgment; Another example is Ray Dalio, the founder of Bridgewater Foundation. His knowledge system contains more than 500 principles of life and work, and his book Principles is also more than 500 pages long. Of course, there are many famous executives, political leaders, book authors, super-achievers, and so on. That body of knowledge is what makes them successful. If we can borrow their body of knowledge, can we also move up quickly? That's a good idea. Therefore, the knowledge system of learning masters has become a popular way of learning: some people are keen to talk about the concept, mouth is a certain model, as if they know these have a complete knowledge system; Some are relatively diligent, reading books, drawing mind maps, and rejoicing in their ability to put together a "perfect" framework. Some people are so knowledgeable about other people's systems of knowledge that they can even integrate them, feeling like they've seen through everything. Just good to good, reality to reality. After some tossing and turning, they found that they were still plagued with problems and rarely made progress. Except for knowing, everything went on as usual. Finally, they had to put the reason down to this: It is difficult to build a knowledge system, and their current accumulation is not enough, so they will try again after learning more knowledge... In fact, it's so simple to build a personal knowledge system that you may not believe it, but after I say it, you'll know I'm not bragging. After all, it is not only backed by rigorous science, but also by my own practice. Now, let's rub our hands together and start the journey of building a different personal knowledge system. If you look closely at the title of this section, you'll see that I didn't actually write "system of knowledge," but "system of cognition." "Knowledge" and "cognition" are different in my eyes. How can I express this difference? I want to borrow a passage from teacher Wan Weigang. Exam got high marks, not called knowledge; After dinner can talk, this is not called knowledge. In these situations, knowledge is useful, but it doesn't have much to do with specific gains or losses, so it's just mind games. It is only when the situation is uncertain, when no one is telling you what to do, and when bad judgment can lead to bad consequences, that you are knowledgeable enough to dare to take an idea. Note that this is not to say that practical knowledge is knowledge, but rather that knowledge is your knowledge only if it helps you make practical decisions. This explanation moved me deeply because it broke people's stereotype of knowledge. In the previous concept of many people (including myself), knowledge is the concepts, formulas, principles, cases, principles, and so on in books, which are systematic. At that time, we believed at least two things: first, the academic system of knowledge was certain, universal, and available for all to learn and refer to; Second, excellent students or famous teachers must master the knowledge system or framework, see the panorama of knowledge, so they can be more than skilled, so reference to their knowledge system is to take a shortcut. There is so little to refute these two views in the school years that people form a habit of thinking, and in the exploration of their own system of knowledge, they continue this idea without thinking: just find the most authoritative and certain cognitive system to learn and copy. If there is such an idea, it means that we have confused "knowledge" and "cognition", which directly leads to many people taking "finding the optimal cognitive system and learning comprehensively" as the standard, ignoring the difference between other people's cognitive system and their own actual needs, because the purpose of personal growth is no longer "knowing and understanding", but "judging and choosing". As Wan Wei Steel said, the real knowledge is not that you know it, but that you can use it to help you make the right judgment and choice, to solve practical problems. This is the important difference between "academic knowledge system" and "personal knowledge system". Therefore, in the field of personal growth, there is no optimal, most certain, the most authoritative cognitive system, only the most suitable for our current situation. In other words, knowledge does not necessarily give us cognitive ability, and cognitive ability must contain valid knowledge. This part of effective knowledge can help us judge, choose, act, change and solve practical problems, which is also the focus of this section. To avoid confusion, I will use "cognitive system" to refer to "knowledge system". Beginners are eager to have their own cognitive system because they only have fragmented information in their hands, which is difficult to integrate to cope with complex situations. Without awareness, they tend to confuse "learning knowledge" with "learning cognition" and treat other people's cognitive systems with the method of mastering academic knowledge. Therefore, they can't help but indulge in comprehensively mastering and copying others' systems, and even feel that their previous achievements may be wasted if they don't fully grasp each other's cognitive system. There are many people with such thoughts and worries, and they have a common feature is that they are very concerned about the integrity of the form. For example, when discussing reading methods with me, many readers would say that every time they finish reading a book, they would systematically comb out the author's knowledge framework, write reading notes, extract the essence, and draw a mind map. It seems that only by doing this can they mean that they have finished reading a book seriously. Then they ask me: "What mind map tools do you usually use? I often don't know how to answer this question, because I never draw mind maps when I read books, nor comb the author's knowledge framework deliberately. The only thing I have to do when I read is look for the trigger. I would mark the places that touched me, write a lot of thoughts in the margins that I could relate to, and when I finished the book, I would leave it for a few days and ask myself, "What touched me the most about this book?" This point can be a theory, a case, or even a sentence. As long as it really touches me and can make a real change in me, I think this book is worth it. As for the rest, I will forget it, and I don't feel pity at all. What does the author's knowledge and framework have to do with me? A lot of people know my reading method are very surprised, think this method is very unreliable, very wasteful: obviously there is a complete system to refer to, but only pick up a piece or a few pieces of debris, this is not close to the distance? Am I lying to them? If you're feeling that way, don't worry, because there's science behind it. According to the law of the Circle of competence, human abilities cannot be developed by leaps and bounds, but can only be expanded outward bit by bit on the existing basis, and the best area for expansion is at the edge of the comfort zone.

How do you tell if someone is good? If a person has a body of knowledge that can solve their own problems, he must be a good person. For example, Charlie Munger, regarded as the greatest investment thinker of our time, is said to have hundreds of mental models to deal with various problems in investment judgment; Another example is Ray Dalio, the founder of Bridgewater Foundation. His knowledge system contains more than 500 principles of life and work, and his book Principles is also more than 500 pages long. Of course, there are many famous executives, political leaders, book authors, super-achievers, and so on. That body of knowledge is what makes them successful. If we can borrow their body of knowledge, can we also move up quickly? That's a good idea. Therefore, the knowledge system of learning masters has become a popular way of learning: some people are keen to talk about the concept, mouth is a certain model, as if they know these have a complete knowledge system; Some are relatively diligent, reading books, drawing mind maps, and rejoicing in their ability to put together a "perfect" framework. Some people are so knowledgeable about other people's systems of knowledge that they can even integrate them, feeling like they've seen through everything. Just good to good, reality to reality. After some tossing and turning, they found that they were still plagued with problems and rarely made progress. Except for knowing, everything went on as usual. Finally, they had to put the reason down to this: It is difficult to build a knowledge system, and their current accumulation is not enough, so they will try again after learning more knowledge... In fact, it's so simple to build a personal knowledge system that you may not believe it, but after I say it, you'll know I'm not bragging. After all, it is not only backed by rigorous science, but also by my own practice. Now, let's rub our hands together and start the journey of building a different personal knowledge system. If you look closely at the title of this section, you'll see that I didn't actually write "system of knowledge," but "system of cognition." "Knowledge" and "cognition" are different in my eyes. How can I express this difference? I want to borrow a passage from teacher Wan Weigang. Exam got high marks, not called knowledge; After dinner can talk, this is not called knowledge. In these situations, knowledge is useful, but it doesn't have much to do with specific gains or losses, so it's just mind games. It is only when the situation is uncertain, when no one is telling you what to do, and when bad judgment can lead to bad consequences, that you are knowledgeable enough to dare to take an idea. Note that this is not to say that practical knowledge is knowledge, but rather that knowledge is your knowledge only if it helps you make practical decisions. This explanation moved me deeply because it broke people's stereotype of knowledge. In the previous concept of many people (including myself), knowledge is the concepts, formulas, principles, cases, principles, and so on in books, which are systematic. At that time, we believed at least two things: first, the academic system of knowledge was certain, universal, and available for all to learn and refer to; Second, excellent students or famous teachers must master the knowledge system or framework, see the panorama of knowledge, so they can be more than skilled, so reference to their knowledge system is to take a shortcut. There is so little to refute these two views in the school years that people form a habit of thinking, and in the exploration of their own system of knowledge, they continue this idea without thinking: just find the most authoritative and certain cognitive system to learn and copy. If there is such an idea, it means that we have confused "knowledge" and "cognition", which directly leads to many people taking "finding the optimal cognitive system and learning comprehensively" as the standard, ignoring the difference between other people's cognitive system and their own actual needs, because the purpose of personal growth is no longer "knowing and understanding", but "judging and choosing". As Wan Wei Steel said, the real knowledge is not that you know it, but that you can use it to help you make the right judgment and choice, to solve practical problems. This is the important difference between "academic knowledge system" and "personal knowledge system". Therefore, in the field of personal growth, there is no optimal, most certain, the most authoritative cognitive system, only the most suitable for our current situation. In other words, knowledge does not necessarily give us cognitive ability, and cognitive ability must contain valid knowledge. This part of effective knowledge can help us judge, choose, act, change and solve practical problems, which is also the focus of this section. To avoid confusion, I will use "cognitive system" to refer to "knowledge system". Beginners are eager to have their own cognitive system because they only have fragmented information in their hands, which is difficult to integrate to cope with complex situations. Without awareness, they tend to confuse "learning knowledge" with "learning cognition" and treat other people's cognitive systems with the method of mastering academic knowledge. Therefore, they can't help but indulge in comprehensively mastering and copying others' systems, and even feel that their previous achievements may be wasted if they don't fully grasp each other's cognitive system. There are many people with such thoughts and worries, and they have a common feature is that they are very concerned about the integrity of the form. For example, when discussing reading methods with me, many readers would say that every time they finish reading a book, they would systematically comb out the author's knowledge framework, write reading notes, extract the essence, and draw a mind map. It seems that only by doing this can they mean that they have finished reading a book seriously. Then they ask me: "What mind map tools do you usually use? I often don't know how to answer this question, because I never draw mind maps when I read books, nor comb the author's knowledge framework deliberately. The only thing I have to do when I read is look for the trigger. I would mark the places that touched me, write a lot of thoughts in the margins that I could relate to, and when I finished the book, I would leave it for a few days and ask myself, "What touched me the most about this book?" This point can be a theory, a case, or even a sentence. As long as it really touches me and can make a real change in me, I think this book is worth it. As for the rest, I will forget it, and I don't feel pity at all. What does the author's knowledge and framework have to do with me? A lot of people know my reading method are very surprised, think this method is very unreliable, very wasteful: obviously there is a complete system to refer to, but only pick up a piece or a few pieces of debris, this is not close to the distance? Am I lying to them? If you're feeling that way, don't worry, because there's science behind it. According to the law of the Circle of competence, human abilities cannot be developed by leaps and bounds, but can only be expanded outward bit by bit on the existing basis, and the best area for expansion is at the edge of the comfort zone.