Is [favor] nd
This is the most useful article you've ever read. Because it is about the benefits and its receipt.
I was prompted to write to her by communicating with the highly respected moderator of one of the sites where I publish. And before it - almost every comment that you leave to my articles. And in between times - almost everything I see at work every day. And before the current work - the previous one, and before it - another one, and so on until that very point where I understood what is the use and how to extract it.
The most important thing that you should know about the benefits - it is subjective, or relative.
')
Now you have read it, and you think - yeah, I already know that. Try to remember this when next time you write a comment like “there is nothing useful here,” or to discuss with somebody the benefits of something, or even to think about the benefits alone. I assure you, it is extremely difficult to remember the subjectivity of use. It is always much easier to consider the benefits as an objective property of the object of study - an article, a book, a film, an instrument, etc.
I do not oppose myself to you now - it is just as difficult for me at the right moment to recall the subjectivity, the relativity of good. We are in the same boat, and we have about 7 billion in it.
What does “subjectivity” mean? It's simple. There is an object - an article, a book, a film, an instrument, a technique, etc. There is a subject - you, or me, or Gena, or a wonderful moderator of one site. And the object met with the subject - Gene read the article. And makes a conclusion.
The traditional conclusion of the average Genes - in the object there is no use. Let us omit the cases when Gena is not adequate with us - let him be quite a decent man, a quality subject. What is missing in the phrase “there is no use in the object”?
Based on the subjectivity of the benefit, two words are missing - “for me”. The object has no use for me. It doesn't sound so fatal, does it? After all, besides Genes, the article reads Vasya, Seryozha and Vika. Suppose Vika says otherwise - “in the object there is a benefit for me”.
If the unfortunate, by a strange coincidence, meet in the comments to the object, then sparks can fly, the minuses turn red and the transitions to the individual. And it is enough, when expressing one's opinion, to clarify that there is a benefit or there is no “for me”, like, it seems, there is no way to get to the bottom. And the final verdict - is there a benefit, or not - simply will not follow, because there will be no point in it.
Of course, someone still writes that there is no use, but everyone around you will immediately understand - a person simply attracts attention to himself. Because we are not talking about spoiling the mood of the author, as it usually was. The man, if you face it, throws mud at all those present. If you simplify, he says: "you are all wrong."
After all, there is a contradiction. One says - "I found a favor here for myself." So, there is benefit. Another says - "there is no use here." So the first one who found the benefit is not right.
And what about the author? And this guy is generally on the side. If you look at the benefit as a subjective phenomenon, then the author does not participate at all in this equation. Yes, he created an object. But when the subject came, the author is no longer around.
Of course, he may try to catch up with the setting sun, setting up additional explanations in the comments, but this, in my opinion, is an erroneous position - the author will never learn to write good texts, if the thought “well, then I will explain, in the comments, if anything". But this only applies to articles. Books - to a much lesser extent, because edit them. In implementation projects, which are also objects for gaining benefits, the author generally sticks out for months alongside the subject, helping him to benefit.
So, the next time you argue or write about the benefits of something, try adding two magic words: there is no use in the object for me.
But this is not the whole truth. Are you not confused by the word “no” in the phrase “there is no use in the object”? Maybe Gena hurried?
There is such a common phrase - to benefit. So ordinary that the meaning inherent in it is no longer perceived. Now stop, and think about this phrase and what stands behind it.
For example, you read some article. You know that you can read in very different ways. You can quickly, diagonally, paying attention only to phrases highlighted in the font. You can read, all the time thinking about something else, and not understand the meaning of what you read at all. You can read, paying attention only to the literacy of the author. You can read only in order to find what to cling to in your comments. You can read it thoughtfully, analyzing each example and conclusion. You can print, and read with a pencil, making notes in the margins and highlighting what seems interesting. After reading, you can write your own abstract, highlighting the main meaning of the article. Etc.
What is the difference? In order and effort. I will not discuss goals now, they are not related to the topic of the article. We assume that the reader, our subject, has such a goal - to get the benefit.
Then there are efforts. Efforts to benefit. This is perhaps the most difficult and unpleasant in obtaining benefits - you need to try to get it.
There is another common expression - "chewed and put in your mouth." If we continue this analogy, then you are your body, and the object from which to benefit is the food that you have been placed in. Your task is not just to pass the object through yourself, but to get the maximum out of it - proteins, fats, carbohydrates, vitamins, microelements, etc.
Some of this work will be done by itself - for example, thanks to the intestinal microflora. But you will have to do most of the work. First, work your teeth, tongue and salivary glands. Then the esophagus will suffer a moment. Then a few hours later, the stomach will throw this mess from wall to wall, at the same time performing chemical treatment of food with gastric juice. Then several sections of the intestine will work, each of which will fulfill its function, including the physical one, to push the food further. And finally, catharsis will occur.
Everything that the body does with food is a benefit. Yes, sometimes it happens that the only benefit from the body's work will be its speedy removal outside the body - well, there is such food. But, in most cases, for the benefit will have to tinker.
Now imagine that you, as a human body, have ceased to make efforts to gain benefits. They started with the fact that they stopped chewing and swallowing - like people who are in a coma or who consciously decided to starve themselves. What will happen next?
Depends on your environment. If there are people who want to help you, you will either be inserted into the throat of a tube for feeding liquid food, or they will be forced to feed you. That is, they will make the object simpler to benefit. Moreover, they will do it for you, because this object is no longer in your hands. In the same way, for example, I am too tough for an article in Chinese, no matter how useful it is there - I just can’t even start taking advantage of it.
If, besides refusing to chew food, your body turns off the rest of its processing, then that's all. In the books, however, they say that the intestines will still work, because it has its own nervous system, but its intestines are small.
To benefit from food, the body makes tremendous efforts. Without this in any way. We just got used to it, and do not perceive these efforts as efforts.
In order to benefit from other objects, efforts will have to be made to you. Well, that is, you, of course, have a choice, unlike your body, but the formula remains the same: if you want benefits, make an effort to extract it.
Let's return to the ending of the previous section: “there is no use in the object”. Now, realizing that the efforts of the subject are needed to gain benefits, we can modify the phrase: “I could not extract any benefit from the object”. Although, it still sounds soft. In most cases, it sounds like this: "I have not tried to extract any benefit from the object." Well, after - “but I dare to say that there is no use there”.
Agree, "I could not get the benefit" sounds a little different than "there is no use here." It seems to be not so absolutely, tendentious and self-confident. But that's not the point.
The main thing is that the subject of conversation, the active principle, the center of finding and receiving benefits, radically change. Now it is not an object, but a subject. The person is already talking not about the object, but about himself, and his ability to gain.
Like that. Grandpa bought a smartphone. The grandfather rummaged, stumbled, and so, and in some way.
In the first case, he says: pah, a demonic invention, no sense from him! What are your feelings for grandpa? Want to help him? What do you think about the smartphone?
In the second case, says: damn, such a thing, but my brain is not enough to use, it is a pity to tears. Now what feelings? Want to help him? And what is the opinion of the smartphone?
For a long time, just in case, I try not to write comments like “this is useless material”. The goal, one might say, is a mercantile - suddenly, someone thinks about the benefits in the same way as I do. Then he will read my comment, as “I am an idiot, unable to understand the material and benefit from it.” And so many people consider me an idiot, I do not want to aggravate.
But, as you understand, and this is not all.
Above, I used, in general, fairly primitive definitions of the benefits and its location. I said that there is a benefit in the object, but the subject cannot extract it.
But everything is somewhat more serious. Recall systemic thinking.
Any system consists of objects, their properties and connections. In our case, the system is simple - an object and a subject with its own properties, and a connection between them. Communication arises when you study an object and continues to live for a while. Which one depends on you (memory, interest in material, etc.), techniques for placing an object in space (reminders of new comments, etc.).
So, where is the use? If you believe what is written in this article, then a simple conclusion suggests itself: use is a property of the object. Static such property, with a certain value. But if the property is static, then it does not depend on the subject, right? For example, this article has a benefit of 100 units, whatever that means.
Then we take our second thesis: the benefit from the object must be extracted, and the ability for this very extraction refers to the subject, not the object. Hence, the ability to benefit is a property of the subject. So it turns out?
But it seems that this is not a complete explanation. Above, we discussed how to read the article, and how different results can be obtained. This means that the same subject can, depending on his inner state, extract a different amount of benefits from the object. Right?
There are two options. Either we cease to consider the subject as static, giving it, as in a reactor, props and state, or we transfer the previous paragraph from the subject to a link. Let communication be properties too. So it seems more logical.
Communication is the way you study a particular object, the characteristics of this method, the effort applied, etc. The quality of communication depends on the amount of benefits that you extract from the object.
And now we take a step aside, and try to understand what does not fit into this model. Recall the movie "Mind Games", seemingly based on real events. Who does not remember, I will tell one scene.
The protagonist of the film - John Nash, a future scientist, but for now - a graduate student at Princeton. Trying to come up with some theory of equilibrium, but nothing happens. She comes with friends to the bar, girls come to the same place - beautiful and somewhat cute. Friends are beginning to argue about who will take care of the beautiful, remembering Adam Smith’s lessons about competition, as the engine of commerce.
On John comes the insight. If all rush to the beautiful, then they interfere with each other, and it will not get to anyone. And pretty girls will be offended and leave. The guys will be without girls. And if everyone goes to the cute, ignoring the beautiful, then the winner is everything. All guys have girls, no one offended anyone. Well, unless, beautiful will take offense.
After this conclusion, John jumps up, thanks for the beautiful and runs away. Beautiful, naturally, has no idea why she was thanked. This situation, according to the film, helped John get off the ground and finish the theory for which he subsequently won the Nobel Prize.
So, back to our model. The subject is understandable - this is John. The object is clear - girls, boys, and in general - some kind of task. The connection is also clear - John was a witness, and almost a participant in this situation. And most importantly - the benefits that John was able to extract are clear.
Attention, the question: where did he benefit from?
Above, we have discussed that benefit is derived from an object. But it is obvious that in this case there was no use in the object that John gained. Let me remind you - he got off the ground in theory, which no one of the participants in the situation in the bar knew about.
Neither the boys, nor the girls, nor the bartender, nor the bottles knew about this theory and the dead center. This information was not in any part of the object.
Slippery question - was this good in the subject? If you believe different theories, the brain knows the answers to all questions. But there is no way to test this theory, so I suggest that we assume that there was information in the brain, but since it was not retrieved before the meeting with the object, it is easier to assume that it is not there.
You, probably, often found yourself in such a situation, and in the comments I often see such things - it seems, “I also turned in my mind, I could not formulate”, or “well, it was this key idea that was not enough to move, but I’m not knew!
So John did not benefit from the object, and not from the subject. Remains a connection. Could he have benefited from the connection?
In the bar, he was not the first time, and the girls go there regularly, once John even tried to talk to them, but nothing happened. Such a connection, that is, a similar situation, has arisen before. Probably not the issue.
Then what? Let's go back to systems thinking that says - hey guys, don't try to find an answer by looking separately at objects and connections, this is not always useful. There is such a thing - emergent, or emerging properties. These are the properties that appear in the included system, and they cannot be seen, looking at the objects and connections separately - as we considered above.
The emergent properties, so to speak, are the properties of the system as a whole, when it works. Of course, if you dig deeply and thoroughly, we will find where the legs of these properties grow from. But, in all likelihood, the cause of their occurrence will be complex. The case will be in the properties of the object, and in the properties of the subject, and in the properties of connections. The stars came together, in short.
So, the benefit came out of nowhere. And it happens very often.
You read the text about cyclists in Amsterdam, and remember that you forgot to take a salary certificate for a visa at work - you want to go to Greece in the summer. The text was neither about the visa, nor about Greece, nor about you, nor about the sea.
You watch the movie "The Matrix", and decide to quit smoking. In the "Matrix" no one smokes. Nobody argues about the benefits of a healthy diet - on the contrary, they periodically eat cookies.
I, along with my daughter, listen to the audio book “Dunno in the Sunny City” in the car, and it comes to me why the head of the department where I implement the changes resists. There was no such information in Dunno.
On my way to work, I listen to the Metallica song “Ronnie Rising Medley” (from the tribute album “This is your Life” dedicated to Ronnie James Dio) and decide to quit my job. And what do they sing in the song - I have no idea, because I do not know English.
You understand that in any of the examples, if you look at it, you can trace the chain of conclusions and understand how the source information led to a conclusion, decision or action. That is, to benefit. You can do this if you are a subject.
In the same way, it is possible, if desired, to build this chain in any system where gaining has happened. Sometimes it's fun for fun, but you can't do it all the time. Too many such situations occur every day, including the unconscious ones. Even you.
But most importantly - the chain will be different every time. This chain is an emergent property. A unique, one-time, unique miracle. Today, an object causes you to have a feeling, a decision, a thought, an insight, and in a year - nothing, or just the opposite.
Therefore, I propose not to look for cause-effect relationships too often and aggressively. It is better to accept and use the fact: the benefits may arise even where, at least when, and at least in some combination.
The benefit does not sit in articles, books, films, tools, methods, companies, friends, organizations, communities, social networks. The good does not sit in you. The benefit does not fit the way and behavior with which you read articles and books, watch movies, use tools and techniques, hang out with friends and in companies, work in organizations, participate in communities and social networks.
Benefit does not sit anywhere. Benefit arises when an object, a subject converges, and a connection arises between them.
It sounds silly and naive, doesn't it? It seems like, use is a miracle, manna from heaven, which comes down like a Blue Bird, for if you do not understand what set of circumstances? What to do now? Study and wait? What kind of garbage is obtained with these systems?
No, just understanding how to get benefits through the system allows you to correctly place accents and find leverage. Remember, after all, systemic thinking is not only analysis (why so?), But also a change in systems. If the benefit system does not work, it must be changed.
This is what we will do next time. And let's talk about the fact that there is no benefit in obtaining benefits. Perhaps we will talk about Bruce Lee.
I was prompted to write to her by communicating with the highly respected moderator of one of the sites where I publish. And before it - almost every comment that you leave to my articles. And in between times - almost everything I see at work every day. And before the current work - the previous one, and before it - another one, and so on until that very point where I understood what is the use and how to extract it.
First and foremost
The most important thing that you should know about the benefits - it is subjective, or relative.
')
Now you have read it, and you think - yeah, I already know that. Try to remember this when next time you write a comment like “there is nothing useful here,” or to discuss with somebody the benefits of something, or even to think about the benefits alone. I assure you, it is extremely difficult to remember the subjectivity of use. It is always much easier to consider the benefits as an objective property of the object of study - an article, a book, a film, an instrument, etc.
I do not oppose myself to you now - it is just as difficult for me at the right moment to recall the subjectivity, the relativity of good. We are in the same boat, and we have about 7 billion in it.
What does “subjectivity” mean? It's simple. There is an object - an article, a book, a film, an instrument, a technique, etc. There is a subject - you, or me, or Gena, or a wonderful moderator of one site. And the object met with the subject - Gene read the article. And makes a conclusion.
The traditional conclusion of the average Genes - in the object there is no use. Let us omit the cases when Gena is not adequate with us - let him be quite a decent man, a quality subject. What is missing in the phrase “there is no use in the object”?
Based on the subjectivity of the benefit, two words are missing - “for me”. The object has no use for me. It doesn't sound so fatal, does it? After all, besides Genes, the article reads Vasya, Seryozha and Vika. Suppose Vika says otherwise - “in the object there is a benefit for me”.
If the unfortunate, by a strange coincidence, meet in the comments to the object, then sparks can fly, the minuses turn red and the transitions to the individual. And it is enough, when expressing one's opinion, to clarify that there is a benefit or there is no “for me”, like, it seems, there is no way to get to the bottom. And the final verdict - is there a benefit, or not - simply will not follow, because there will be no point in it.
Of course, someone still writes that there is no use, but everyone around you will immediately understand - a person simply attracts attention to himself. Because we are not talking about spoiling the mood of the author, as it usually was. The man, if you face it, throws mud at all those present. If you simplify, he says: "you are all wrong."
After all, there is a contradiction. One says - "I found a favor here for myself." So, there is benefit. Another says - "there is no use here." So the first one who found the benefit is not right.
And what about the author? And this guy is generally on the side. If you look at the benefit as a subjective phenomenon, then the author does not participate at all in this equation. Yes, he created an object. But when the subject came, the author is no longer around.
Of course, he may try to catch up with the setting sun, setting up additional explanations in the comments, but this, in my opinion, is an erroneous position - the author will never learn to write good texts, if the thought “well, then I will explain, in the comments, if anything". But this only applies to articles. Books - to a much lesser extent, because edit them. In implementation projects, which are also objects for gaining benefits, the author generally sticks out for months alongside the subject, helping him to benefit.
So, the next time you argue or write about the benefits of something, try adding two magic words: there is no use in the object for me.
But this is not the whole truth. Are you not confused by the word “no” in the phrase “there is no use in the object”? Maybe Gena hurried?
Extract
There is such a common phrase - to benefit. So ordinary that the meaning inherent in it is no longer perceived. Now stop, and think about this phrase and what stands behind it.
For example, you read some article. You know that you can read in very different ways. You can quickly, diagonally, paying attention only to phrases highlighted in the font. You can read, all the time thinking about something else, and not understand the meaning of what you read at all. You can read, paying attention only to the literacy of the author. You can read only in order to find what to cling to in your comments. You can read it thoughtfully, analyzing each example and conclusion. You can print, and read with a pencil, making notes in the margins and highlighting what seems interesting. After reading, you can write your own abstract, highlighting the main meaning of the article. Etc.
What is the difference? In order and effort. I will not discuss goals now, they are not related to the topic of the article. We assume that the reader, our subject, has such a goal - to get the benefit.
Then there are efforts. Efforts to benefit. This is perhaps the most difficult and unpleasant in obtaining benefits - you need to try to get it.
There is another common expression - "chewed and put in your mouth." If we continue this analogy, then you are your body, and the object from which to benefit is the food that you have been placed in. Your task is not just to pass the object through yourself, but to get the maximum out of it - proteins, fats, carbohydrates, vitamins, microelements, etc.
Some of this work will be done by itself - for example, thanks to the intestinal microflora. But you will have to do most of the work. First, work your teeth, tongue and salivary glands. Then the esophagus will suffer a moment. Then a few hours later, the stomach will throw this mess from wall to wall, at the same time performing chemical treatment of food with gastric juice. Then several sections of the intestine will work, each of which will fulfill its function, including the physical one, to push the food further. And finally, catharsis will occur.
Everything that the body does with food is a benefit. Yes, sometimes it happens that the only benefit from the body's work will be its speedy removal outside the body - well, there is such food. But, in most cases, for the benefit will have to tinker.
Now imagine that you, as a human body, have ceased to make efforts to gain benefits. They started with the fact that they stopped chewing and swallowing - like people who are in a coma or who consciously decided to starve themselves. What will happen next?
Depends on your environment. If there are people who want to help you, you will either be inserted into the throat of a tube for feeding liquid food, or they will be forced to feed you. That is, they will make the object simpler to benefit. Moreover, they will do it for you, because this object is no longer in your hands. In the same way, for example, I am too tough for an article in Chinese, no matter how useful it is there - I just can’t even start taking advantage of it.
If, besides refusing to chew food, your body turns off the rest of its processing, then that's all. In the books, however, they say that the intestines will still work, because it has its own nervous system, but its intestines are small.
To benefit from food, the body makes tremendous efforts. Without this in any way. We just got used to it, and do not perceive these efforts as efforts.
In order to benefit from other objects, efforts will have to be made to you. Well, that is, you, of course, have a choice, unlike your body, but the formula remains the same: if you want benefits, make an effort to extract it.
Let's return to the ending of the previous section: “there is no use in the object”. Now, realizing that the efforts of the subject are needed to gain benefits, we can modify the phrase: “I could not extract any benefit from the object”. Although, it still sounds soft. In most cases, it sounds like this: "I have not tried to extract any benefit from the object." Well, after - “but I dare to say that there is no use there”.
Agree, "I could not get the benefit" sounds a little different than "there is no use here." It seems to be not so absolutely, tendentious and self-confident. But that's not the point.
The main thing is that the subject of conversation, the active principle, the center of finding and receiving benefits, radically change. Now it is not an object, but a subject. The person is already talking not about the object, but about himself, and his ability to gain.
Like that. Grandpa bought a smartphone. The grandfather rummaged, stumbled, and so, and in some way.
In the first case, he says: pah, a demonic invention, no sense from him! What are your feelings for grandpa? Want to help him? What do you think about the smartphone?
In the second case, says: damn, such a thing, but my brain is not enough to use, it is a pity to tears. Now what feelings? Want to help him? And what is the opinion of the smartphone?
For a long time, just in case, I try not to write comments like “this is useless material”. The goal, one might say, is a mercantile - suddenly, someone thinks about the benefits in the same way as I do. Then he will read my comment, as “I am an idiot, unable to understand the material and benefit from it.” And so many people consider me an idiot, I do not want to aggravate.
But, as you understand, and this is not all.
Location of use
Above, I used, in general, fairly primitive definitions of the benefits and its location. I said that there is a benefit in the object, but the subject cannot extract it.
But everything is somewhat more serious. Recall systemic thinking.
Any system consists of objects, their properties and connections. In our case, the system is simple - an object and a subject with its own properties, and a connection between them. Communication arises when you study an object and continues to live for a while. Which one depends on you (memory, interest in material, etc.), techniques for placing an object in space (reminders of new comments, etc.).
So, where is the use? If you believe what is written in this article, then a simple conclusion suggests itself: use is a property of the object. Static such property, with a certain value. But if the property is static, then it does not depend on the subject, right? For example, this article has a benefit of 100 units, whatever that means.
Then we take our second thesis: the benefit from the object must be extracted, and the ability for this very extraction refers to the subject, not the object. Hence, the ability to benefit is a property of the subject. So it turns out?
But it seems that this is not a complete explanation. Above, we discussed how to read the article, and how different results can be obtained. This means that the same subject can, depending on his inner state, extract a different amount of benefits from the object. Right?
There are two options. Either we cease to consider the subject as static, giving it, as in a reactor, props and state, or we transfer the previous paragraph from the subject to a link. Let communication be properties too. So it seems more logical.
Communication is the way you study a particular object, the characteristics of this method, the effort applied, etc. The quality of communication depends on the amount of benefits that you extract from the object.
And now we take a step aside, and try to understand what does not fit into this model. Recall the movie "Mind Games", seemingly based on real events. Who does not remember, I will tell one scene.
The protagonist of the film - John Nash, a future scientist, but for now - a graduate student at Princeton. Trying to come up with some theory of equilibrium, but nothing happens. She comes with friends to the bar, girls come to the same place - beautiful and somewhat cute. Friends are beginning to argue about who will take care of the beautiful, remembering Adam Smith’s lessons about competition, as the engine of commerce.
On John comes the insight. If all rush to the beautiful, then they interfere with each other, and it will not get to anyone. And pretty girls will be offended and leave. The guys will be without girls. And if everyone goes to the cute, ignoring the beautiful, then the winner is everything. All guys have girls, no one offended anyone. Well, unless, beautiful will take offense.
After this conclusion, John jumps up, thanks for the beautiful and runs away. Beautiful, naturally, has no idea why she was thanked. This situation, according to the film, helped John get off the ground and finish the theory for which he subsequently won the Nobel Prize.
So, back to our model. The subject is understandable - this is John. The object is clear - girls, boys, and in general - some kind of task. The connection is also clear - John was a witness, and almost a participant in this situation. And most importantly - the benefits that John was able to extract are clear.
Attention, the question: where did he benefit from?
Above, we have discussed that benefit is derived from an object. But it is obvious that in this case there was no use in the object that John gained. Let me remind you - he got off the ground in theory, which no one of the participants in the situation in the bar knew about.
Neither the boys, nor the girls, nor the bartender, nor the bottles knew about this theory and the dead center. This information was not in any part of the object.
Slippery question - was this good in the subject? If you believe different theories, the brain knows the answers to all questions. But there is no way to test this theory, so I suggest that we assume that there was information in the brain, but since it was not retrieved before the meeting with the object, it is easier to assume that it is not there.
You, probably, often found yourself in such a situation, and in the comments I often see such things - it seems, “I also turned in my mind, I could not formulate”, or “well, it was this key idea that was not enough to move, but I’m not knew!
So John did not benefit from the object, and not from the subject. Remains a connection. Could he have benefited from the connection?
In the bar, he was not the first time, and the girls go there regularly, once John even tried to talk to them, but nothing happened. Such a connection, that is, a similar situation, has arisen before. Probably not the issue.
Then what? Let's go back to systems thinking that says - hey guys, don't try to find an answer by looking separately at objects and connections, this is not always useful. There is such a thing - emergent, or emerging properties. These are the properties that appear in the included system, and they cannot be seen, looking at the objects and connections separately - as we considered above.
The emergent properties, so to speak, are the properties of the system as a whole, when it works. Of course, if you dig deeply and thoroughly, we will find where the legs of these properties grow from. But, in all likelihood, the cause of their occurrence will be complex. The case will be in the properties of the object, and in the properties of the subject, and in the properties of connections. The stars came together, in short.
So, the benefit came out of nowhere. And it happens very often.
You read the text about cyclists in Amsterdam, and remember that you forgot to take a salary certificate for a visa at work - you want to go to Greece in the summer. The text was neither about the visa, nor about Greece, nor about you, nor about the sea.
You watch the movie "The Matrix", and decide to quit smoking. In the "Matrix" no one smokes. Nobody argues about the benefits of a healthy diet - on the contrary, they periodically eat cookies.
I, along with my daughter, listen to the audio book “Dunno in the Sunny City” in the car, and it comes to me why the head of the department where I implement the changes resists. There was no such information in Dunno.
On my way to work, I listen to the Metallica song “Ronnie Rising Medley” (from the tribute album “This is your Life” dedicated to Ronnie James Dio) and decide to quit my job. And what do they sing in the song - I have no idea, because I do not know English.
You understand that in any of the examples, if you look at it, you can trace the chain of conclusions and understand how the source information led to a conclusion, decision or action. That is, to benefit. You can do this if you are a subject.
In the same way, it is possible, if desired, to build this chain in any system where gaining has happened. Sometimes it's fun for fun, but you can't do it all the time. Too many such situations occur every day, including the unconscious ones. Even you.
But most importantly - the chain will be different every time. This chain is an emergent property. A unique, one-time, unique miracle. Today, an object causes you to have a feeling, a decision, a thought, an insight, and in a year - nothing, or just the opposite.
Therefore, I propose not to look for cause-effect relationships too often and aggressively. It is better to accept and use the fact: the benefits may arise even where, at least when, and at least in some combination.
The benefit does not sit in articles, books, films, tools, methods, companies, friends, organizations, communities, social networks. The good does not sit in you. The benefit does not fit the way and behavior with which you read articles and books, watch movies, use tools and techniques, hang out with friends and in companies, work in organizations, participate in communities and social networks.
Benefit does not sit anywhere. Benefit arises when an object, a subject converges, and a connection arises between them.
It sounds silly and naive, doesn't it? It seems like, use is a miracle, manna from heaven, which comes down like a Blue Bird, for if you do not understand what set of circumstances? What to do now? Study and wait? What kind of garbage is obtained with these systems?
No, just understanding how to get benefits through the system allows you to correctly place accents and find leverage. Remember, after all, systemic thinking is not only analysis (why so?), But also a change in systems. If the benefit system does not work, it must be changed.
This is what we will do next time. And let's talk about the fact that there is no benefit in obtaining benefits. Perhaps we will talk about Bruce Lee.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/455756/
All Articles