Zhang Wu Chang: Thinking Method November 27, 2004 (on) Ja Schumpeter, Ja Schumpeter, has criticized Newton in class, accuseing this physics genius such as fake programs, only consulting the door thinking, no He thinks about the reasoning method to leave the future! This criticism is a bit reason. But Newton's physical achievements in physics is what he thinks in the two years of escaping the plague; there is no significant discovery - although it is a flower, this "one now" is not the same. Einstein's thinking method, often seeing: Unfortunately, he talent, far super world, to learn. Some friends think that Since Einstein will be relatively contemporated, they can still be treated. But what I can do with Einstein, what are they doing? Do not self-strength, this is the most! Einstein's thinking approach is likely to be a thought obstacle to the extraordinary person. I not only dare not compare with Newton or Einstein, it is half a genius. But because of this, I can write a way to think about the practical thinking. My thinking method is learned back. A generic thinking method can learn, other Vanfei can also learn. The genius thinking is that genius patents are not related to us. When I read a book, I have never shortage the habit of learning to learn the teacher's thinking. All the tests to be tested have been examined, I will transfer them to the students. Once, J. Hirshleifer asked me later: "You listen to me six semester. Do you have not learned?" I replied: "Your economy I have already learned from your works, I listen to your class and economics - I want to learn what you think. "My habit of stealing" Thinking "has implemented many years, repeated encounters And master friends, is the luckiest thing in my peace. Among these teachers and friends, it is a lot of a lot of genius or quasi-talents. I am carefully observing their thinking method, and I have to learn from a non-genius to learn, and I have become very practical. But because of the people who steal "thinking", I met the methods of people as they were used. Although these people are economic scholars, they think about the same way in the world, and the portal is self-sufficient. It can also be a practical thinking method as a practical thinking method. First, who is not important, if you follow another person to analyze or debate, he often emphasizes a point of view or discovery is his, or put "yourself" on the problem, then you can affirm He is a low hand. Thinking is that it should not be seen around. To "out of the wind" or "Life" is a human condition, but in the process of thinking, the "own" point of view does not have a special location. "Life" is a matter of answers. In reasoning, you have to objectively measure different views. Some people think that the victory of the Buddha's victory, the strong words will protect their own point of view, this is wrong. The thoughts of Buddhies are so fast, but he admits it faster! Because he is too fast, it often gives people an impression that there is no mistake. In the master I know, there is no reason to add "I" plus the weight. Afterwards, "Same" is another thing. Similarly, there is no authority or a master in academic activity - these just admire their name; we don't be scared by the name. Any master can be wrong, so their views or theories can only be considered and measured by us, and they cannot be found. Of course, the presentation of the master is deeper, it is worthy of our special attention. We should understand the masters of the masters, and we should measure it carefully.
But we can't see the masters, it is right. The master and the low hand, mainly the former is in-depth and wide, and the skin is shallow and narrow. I have always admired Smith, Minier Marshall and others. However, when I study the theory of the agriculture, I took their kindergage theory and didn't put their big name in my heart. If it is not the case, I can't overthrow their theory. Second, the problem is to be reached, it is important, it is important, there must be a problem with the possibility of different answers, and the answer is often over half. In the article "Method of Reading", I said the principle of ask for school. In order to ask questions, there is a point to supplement. First, the problem should be a needle to see the blood this is the good play of the Buddha's people. You asked him a question, he likes to answer this: "And let me change your question." He changed, it will directly reach the center of gravity you have to ask, it is very clear. Our Van Fu is the simulation method of practicing, that is, try to ask a question to ask questions, and the focus of the business. for instance. When Verdin explained a French scholar's monetary theory, I asked: "His main purpose is for a long time, and people think it is dull?" Buddhaly the Answer: "You have to ask, the more time. The less value is the value of the time on the margin? "He didn't need to answer me in the" Diminishing Marginal Rate of Substitution "," said the law of Diminishing Marginal Rate of Substitution, the answer has emerged! Second, the problem should be asked, this is the expertise of A.a.alchian. Talking about the theory of monetary, he asked: "What is a currency? Why don't the market do not need to make currencots?" When the economics community is difficult to measure, Ai Zerren asked: "What is a function? What is Measure? What guidelines do we decide to decide whether it is measured? "This is a question of child. Later, I Zhiren found the world-famous answer. The measurement is not external to the criteria as a measure of the number, and the function is only a random name of these numbers. Suppose everyone has increased this number, it has become the principle of function. If this procedure can successfully explain human behavior, it is useful, and the function is not related to social welfare! My own agricultural theory is asked by several shallow issues. Traditional theory, it is that since the harvest of land planting is to give a part to the landlord, then the landlord leases the rent, as the government tax, the farmers will reduce labor, thus causing production. I asked: "Since the production is declining, the rental value should be reduced, why do the landlord does not choose other non-book-based rental rented?" I asked: "If I am the landlord, what will I do? If I am a farmer, What will I do again? "Third, to determine the importance of the problem, in the master I know, the important part of the problem is a practice, and Herkela is preferred to put this measure before every consideration. The student asked him a question, he might answer: "This problem is not important." So think no longer think. It is considered an important issue, he plays up from the seat! The importance of judging the problem is not difficult.
You have to ask: "If this question has an answer, what do we know?" If you know that there is nothing to do with other knowledge, or knowing the changes you can't understand, that is not enough. There are many problems not only not important, but also stupid. What is a stupid problem? If the problem can only have an answer, there is no other possibility, that is, the stupid problem. Have an example. Economics is based on a "personal struggle" hypothesis; this suggests that personal production will reduce production costs as much as possible. There is a scholar to make an article and ask if the personal production cost will be too high? But based on this author's own assumption, "too high" is impossible. Buddhies will review the comments: "Stupid problems, get stupid answers, is the news that should be reported!" Method (middle) Third, do not give the premonition of the specification; but If step by step is logical, it is not logical, and thinking will be suppressed. It is of course contradictory, and I don't know the so-called way; but the logic wants to think about the way, hunch is erased, so I can't think of what else. Logic - especially mathematics logic - is a deep learning, but if the logic is the mainstay, it will hang. I read the letter of Einstein and Logic Master Portica (K.Popp9R) debate. They argued that the problem of scientific methodology. In this debate, I thought that Park Bai won the battle; but in the scientific contribution, he was borrowed. Logic is the correctness of the reasoning, but is not the root of ideas (IDEA) or insight. Scientific methodology is to confirm the existence of theory, but it itself is useless. Thoughts who insist on the correct way to infer the way are committed, they cannot be accepted by science, just a self-comfort of some people who have a big contribution. I have encountered a lot of this kind of person. They have real studies in their chests, and their thoughts - the missing is imagination. Purely, add the imagination to multi-party scrutiny, there is a probably, and then re-proven to logic, it is the most effective way of thinking. As long as the theoretical or insights get the specifications of logic and methodology, it is important to think about it. The disputes that advocate "Deductive Method" or "Inductive Method" should not be listening. Apple fell to Newton's head (or Newton Midnight Dream), and the theory of extravagance. Who dares to take care of him correctly. There are some unique scholars, the ability of its logic reasoning is inextristic; their important scientific contribution is revised by future generations. The early economists in the UK Malthus (Tmalthus), the ability of reasoning is not the general college students! Modern Hayek and Schulz (T. Schultz) were gainted by Nobel Prize, and they did not have people. This visible idea (IDEA) is the primary and logical. Get a slightly founded premonition, don't give up because there is no logical support. In the scholars I know, I have the best to push Gauss (ROASE). No matter where I put any more comments, he immediately replied: "It seems to be" or "it seems wrong". There is a hypothetical answer first, and then slowly will premonce from head analysis.
Once, at a meeting, some people proposed that the price of the landlord will be the market price of the patent. It lacks market competition. It is a waste of society. I have a shake: "How can I? The wheat is all all of me. I have to open the ground to different farmers' cultivation; the farmers will compete in the market after the harvest, then the wheat price is the market price under competition. "Gauss is immediately I said, "You seem to be right." After three days, I said when I met Gabes, "he said:" You seem to be right. "I asked him what did I do?" He said, "Mai's market price." After a few months, in the chat, Gauss's old matter reprifted: "I think you are right at the price of wheat." For one, it is not your own premonition, it is indeed Famous style is worthy of our way. Another late master friend, named Jiali (R. Kessel), is a well-known pre-homogeneous talent. In 1974 (his first year) I was fortunate to get together for a few months, I could admire his inexplicer. There is a motto: "No matter what a premonition is not reasonable, it is always better than a little opinion." He emphasized: "If you don't have some insights in your hand, then you can't win." The premonition is that every important discovery is missing - from there, there is no specification, sometimes it is not clear. In thinking, premonning is the beginning of a road - how far, go there, it is difficult to know in advance - but not trying. Logic on the road is on the road, and it will be able to separately separate. After walking, the second step may be more clear. Good premonition, the road can go, the more far, the more it is, the more it is, and it will be expanded. The premonition of "no interest" is the opposite. Don't think that I emphasize the importance of premonition, there is a meaning of derogation logic and scientific methodology. I used to be a student in Ghana, how can I see these knowledge? What I want to point out is that logic is used to assist the development of the premonition, and it can be erased. Fourth, the conversion angle can be more than half of the problem, it is necessary to use a number of different angles to be ideal, in other words, the same problem, can be used to try to analyze. In this regard, the master I know is like a way - they are neither easy to give up a way to go, and they don't ink the rules, and use multiple different perspectives as much as possible. The conversion angle has the following effects - First, Moutal Block is a very difficult thinking, it is often every person. Shallow and important discovery, often a smart talents may not think of brains! But if you turn your mind's angle, you may open it. The answer you can't think of, most of which is not too deep, but because the angle used is difficult to see shallow side. Important examples are incompetent. A factory is damaged for the production of contamination of adjacent properties. For a long time, economic scholars have suggested that the Government use several ways to suppress the production of the factory, thereby reducing the loss of neighboring property. This old problem arrived in Gauss's hand, he turned his angle: "Pressing factory production, it is equal to the neighboring owner's damage to the factory, what should be suppressed?" Gauss Law is here of. Another example is about the "Corporate Finance" in the world in the world for nearly a year.
This is the first time in which the founder Scharhu (W.Sharpe) is in the case of risk, the market price of the asset is determined in principle. Although this principle has a significant shortcoming, it is an important issue that is unable to resolve at the time when it is a master, and a slightly managing answer has been well known. The starting point of Schalbo's "solving" is to turn a well-known curve to the time. Second, the angle can measure the answer from an angle that it seems to be a right answer, but it may be wrong with one angle. Any thorough answer must be found in several different angles. If you don't veto this tentative answer if you do different angles, we can increase confidence in answers. Of course, reliable answers are also tested by logic and facts. Third, the perspective is in the process of thinking, the details and the big requirement is a complementary short, regardless of how the details are thoughtful, there is a difficult insights in the big need, and the thinking people may abandon. But in the big thing is right, the details of the details are just the problem of time - even if it is wrong, there is often no nature. In this regard, it is difficult to know if we are completely regardless of the details. With reliable and reproducible details, accuracy is much higher. At a concentration of thinking, the head wear a magnifying glass and attaches importance to the details - this is a general habit. The people who are good at thinking will soon be able to make a long time to consider the overall consideration. Method for thinking on March 23, 1984, the example of the example is the example of the symbol reasoning, or the symbols can also be used; some people are not needed, but they are just the discipline, add some assumptions, even if it is reasonable. The latter is an unhappy debate after the meal, and it is not serious thinking. Thinking scientific thinking, using examples of far wins. Mathematics is a language that is combined with a symbol; strictly, any language character is a symbol. The picture is no symbol, but it is also a way to express. Expressing the picture with a lot of words, it will be an example. Thought is abstract. To confirm the correctness of abstract ideas, mathematics is very useful because it is the most rigorous language. But effective thinking is to abstract extensive. The picture is more close to the reality than the symbol, so it is easier to remember; so in thinking, with an example is a symbol. Economic scholars who have been famous for the good use of mathematics, such as Sen Musun (K.Arrow), Uzha Hua (H.uzawa), Santges (J.Stiglitz), It is to help think with example. The mathematical date is a big thing. Other people who are kind to seriously thinking, and use examples more comfortable. Some scholars are just using symbols or less examples, but it is important to discover. The Chinese heavens are famous, but the ability to use examples is relatively weak. I really don't understand this (maybe the example of Buddhism is too abstract, causing adverse effects; this question should be invited to answer). Seeing my opinion, Han Yi is still going, but the examples used by Mencius and Sun Yat-sen often seem to be, not, I don't know how to make a master, it is not difficult to understand. People who use the examples of the examples are stupid and stupid. There are several basic method of forming the way with example, and you can see your personal imagination. Trying these methods are listed below. First, the example is to be simply assisted with example assistance, the important feature of theory is to be included in the example. The usual method is to delete the branches in the example, so that the focus is highlighted, and the focus is parallel to theory and theory. Simplified examples should have guts, but also have imagination.
In the history of economics, the simplified examples are the most skillful D.Ricardo - so the Guangbo of Li Jia Tu's economic model has not yet no one can look back. That is to say, the example is simple and harmful, the easier the complex theory. Second, the example is that all available examples are simplified. Take strict criteria, no example is true. However, some examples are aerial pavilions, and their non-authenticity and simplification; another type of example, but it is not true because the facts are simplified - we call the latter as "instance". Pure examples of fantasy are easy to change, easy to change to an appropriate, is helpful. But there must be the theory of practical applications, you must have instance support. People who know the world can first come from the false examples, and then find examples of examples; those who empirize the workers are often able to save this step. Experience has a lot of help to think, because of the examples. Third, examples of the example to be novel, not only lack of attractive; thinking about, the neighboring examples will easily trigger novel ideas. The first one is talented in a flower than the beauty. The factory pollutes the neighbors, and it is novelty when she is used; much more, the inspiration is weakened. Gauss was analyzed on the same problem. The emissions of dentist tools and neighbors were used, and the shadow of the building reduced the sun in the neighboring pool. These more novelty examples have inspired a new insight. Fourth, we must generalize the generalise, Chinese people are particularly weak, and the facts cannot explain the facts; too many theories are equal to no theory. Separate each example, the theory and insights become complex, and Inadvertently turned into facts to explain the facts. Inciting multiple different examples as the same type, is generalized, is an important way to seek general theory. Marx took the road of Li Jia Tu, separated capital and land and religion. So Marx's capital is lack of generality, so that the remaining value is homeless. Li Jiatu never believes that the value is single from labor; he wants to know his theory of the theory of the generalization of different resources. This is difficult to solve the I.f isher. On the issue of social cost, there are too many examples used by Hypego, so that his theoretical fuzzy is unclear, and it will not become before and after. This problem arrived in Gauss, and he believes that everyone has an impact on others in the society; he then summarizes all the acts of people into property rights. In the other extreme, too general theory, because there is no exception, there is no interpretation. A practical theory is that there must be the possibility of factual overturning. Therefore, it is necessary to summarize and classify. The classification method is to open the details, focus on difficult to coexist between different examples. Separate an example, we should also find other examples with this example. There is no "unclear" example in the world. If some live, this example is not available to use the theoretical explanation - this has become a scientific thing. Fifth, to try to find a reverse example, think about the example of support; but the admission is part of the thinking - the test is trying to find a reverse example. Handlers such as G.Stigler, Bega (G. Becker), who joked with auto-evidence when debate. Reliable theory, it is necessary to have an example of anti-expert example - but if the inverse is example, the theory is overthrown. Sixth, Best I can temporarily put on the human brain is an unpredictable function - even the brain that the computer can think of, the function is of course much more complicated than the computer.
