I'm excited to announce my new book, "Good Decisions," with the subtitle "Treating Oneself as a Variable." Reading this book will help you, as the title suggests, make good decisions. However, I personally prefer the subtitle, "Treating Oneself as a Variable," because it can help you achieve a free personality—a freedom that comes from being able to consider yourself as a variable. In this episode, I will share the introduction of this book with you, adapted into a spoken script.

Let's start with the first section, titled "We Are Products of Evolution." Think about it: when we make decisions in our daily lives, do we rely more on reason or intuition? Although most of us consider ourselves "rational economic actors," and most people have learned some basic logic in school, we only use logical reasoning when solving math problems or taking logic exams; it's not typically used in everyday life. After all, logical reasoning can be a headache. Think of terms like syllogism, deduction, modus ponens, modus tollens, and so on. Don't they remind you of the painful experience of studying logic back then?

Why do we dislike logical reasoning? This is because our human cognitive system did not evolve for logical deduction or solving math problems. Except for a very few mathematicians, no one "enjoys" doing math. Logical reasoning is very mentally demanding, and from an evolutionary perspective, making decisions through rational inference is not cost-effective. So, what is the cost-effective way? It is that natural selection has shaped an intuitive system for us. This intuitive system allows us to react directly based on intuition. In our daily lives, we often make judgments without conscious thought; the brain operates automatically, and decisions are made intuitively.

For example, tonight, should I eat KFC or McDonald's? Malatang or fried chicken? Were these decisions made after logical reasoning? No. The reality is, you open a food delivery app, see a place, and just order from it! It's not just small matters like "what to eat tonight"; for many people, even major life decisions like "who to date," "what major to choose in college," or "whether to buy a house" are made based on intuition. We just get a sudden impulse, make a snap decision, and decide to be with someone.

Here, I am not advocating that you should not make decisions based on intuition, but rather based on logical reasoning; that is not the case. In fact, making judgments based on intuition precisely reflects a "sculpting" of our human mind by natural selection. This means that intuition is often very useful for our survival and reproduction. You should know that most of our intuitions are correct. For example, we instinctively pull away from hot objects; we instinctively hesitate when seeing high places like cliffs; we can't help but want to eat delicious food when we smell it; and we instinctively want to win the affection of attractive people. These intuitions are all automatic reactions, without conscious thought.

You should know that no one would make the following rational argument through logical reasoning:

**Argument for Eating**

Premise 1: Eating is necessary for human survival and reproduction. Premise 2: I am a human. Inference 1: I need to eat to survive and reproduce. Premise 3: There is a delicious meal in front of me. Conclusion 2: I need to eat this delicious meal in front of me.

Argument complete! If our human ancestors had made decisions step-by-step through logical reasoning like this, they would have starved long ago. Therefore, intuition is a very effective tool for our survival and reproduction; its advantages are speed, saving mental effort, and saving time. Think about it, if our early hominid ancestors encountered a large tiger, they wouldn't have time for rational analysis; they would instinctively turn and run. Evolutionary scholars have summarized the intuitions directly related to human survival and reproduction into four categories, collectively known as the F4: Feed, Fight, Flee, and the last F-word related to reproduction.

In fact, beyond these F4 instincts directly related to survival and reproduction, our mental judgments and decisions in relatively complex situations are also made intuitively. This is still done to simplify complex situations and process them efficiently. Scholars have thus constructed the concept of "heuristic." In the Chinese world, some translate it as "启发式" (heuristic: a cognitive shortcut or rule of thumb that simplifies complex problems and quickly finds satisfactory solutions), some as "捷思法" (heuristic: similar to "启发式," referring to quick and simple thinking strategies), and others as "探索法" (heuristic: similar to "启发式," referring to methods for finding solutions when information is incomplete). These translations might sound a bit confusing. In reality, what "heuristic" means is a "cognitive routine." If expressed in a more formal way, it can be translated as "cognitive set," or we can say metaphorically that heuristic actually refers to the mental shortcuts in our brains.

When humans encounter complex situations, they still don't reason through rationality but make judgments based on intuition; this is called a cognitive set. The reason for this is still that logical reasoning is too mentally demanding, too costly, and too slow. Thus, natural selection has created certain thinking patterns for us, allowing us to react quickly and directly provide answers to problems. For example, should I hunt on this mountain today or that mountain? This question is so complex; to truly figure it out, I would have to conduct research, gather data through field observations—such as the number of prey, types of prey, danger levels, and so on—and then analyze and infer based on this data. Oh, it's too much trouble! Compared to making decisions in such a rational way, I might as well observe other people in the tribe, especially the skilled hunter in the tribe. Whichever mountain he goes to, I'll just follow. Furthermore, if everyone goes to the same place, there's strength in numbers, and we can catch more prey. Conformity is such a "convenient method."

German psychologist Gerd Gigerenzer, in his book "Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart," points out that cognitive heuristics are not merely second-best decision-making tools due to limited brainpower, but are often more effective than complex logical reasoning in many real-world situations. By simplifying the decision-making process, cognitive heuristics can reduce the errors we might make in uncertain situations and provide relatively reliable solutions when information or resources are lacking. Gigerenzer believes that cognitive heuristics are not a sign of carelessness, but rather a manifestation of the brain's efficient operation.

Nobel laureate in economics and psychologist Daniel Kahneman, in his book "Thinking, Fast and Slow," divides the human mind into two systems: System 1 and System 2. System 1 refers to fast, automatic, and unconscious thought processes, which are intuitive reactions, primarily involving intuition and cognitive heuristics. System 2, on the other hand, is a slow, resource-intensive, conscious cognitive system that reasons through rationality and logic.

System 1 is characterized by quick reactions, while System 2 is characterized by slow thinking. When you use System 2, you need to perform logical reasoning meticulously, which is very mentally demanding, which is why most people dislike doing math problems. We prefer to use System 1 for direct, quick reactions. System 1 dominates our daily lives because it can quickly respond to changes in the environment. In contrast, while System 2 can provide more precise and in-depth analysis, it is time-consuming and effort-intensive, and is usually only invoked when making important decisions or solving complex problems.

Artificial intelligence is very popular now, and to help you understand cognitive heuristics, we can use machine thinking to analogize human thinking. Making judgments and decisions using logical reasoning was the paradigm of the previous generation of artificial intelligence, meaning human experts would pre-program various rules into the machine, and then based on this expert system, the machine would perform logical reasoning. For example, the AI "Deep Blue" that defeated chess grandmaster Gary Kasparov was constructed based on such an expert system. A large amount of hardcoded knowledge was provided by human chess grandmasters. The mental model "Deep Blue" employed during gameplay was equivalent to what Kahneman calls System 2.

However, this type of AI, built on expert systems, could not defeat human players in Go once it transitioned to the domain of Go. This is because Go is much more complex than chess. Chess has approximately 10^40 possible positions, while Go has about 10^170 possible positions. This astronomical number far exceeds the total number of atoms in the universe. No human expert could possibly fully contemplate so many possible positions. Expert systems excel at reasoning within a finite state space, but in a "complex game" like Go, their computational power proves insufficient.

As everyone knows, AlphaGo, which defeated human Go players, is a new generation of artificial intelligence, built on the neural network paradigm. Humans do not need to pre-program Go rules for this type of AI; instead, the machine learns autonomously based on a vast number of game records. It can also continuously improve its strategies by playing against itself. The mental model employed by such a trained neural network when playing Go is equivalent to what Kahneman calls System 1, and is thus more akin to human decisions made based on intuition and cognitive heuristics. For example, why AlphaGo makes a particular move cannot be explained even by the programmers who wrote it; its operation is a "black box." Similarly, human Go masters make their moves based on an intuitive feeling.

Intuitive cognitive heuristics can be understood as neural networks trained for us humans by millions of years of natural selection, with all parameters already tuned. Our brains contain many types of such neural networks, which we can call upon at will and apply in various scenarios. After external information is input to us, we don't know how these networks operate; it's simply a black box operation that directly leads to a decision. In short, the reason we use cognitive heuristics or thinking patterns to deal with complex problems is ultimately because our brain's computational power is limited. If everything required rational thought, our reactions would not keep up with the response speed demanded by the external world. Thus, natural selection has equipped our cognitive system with mental shortcuts; when encountering a corresponding situation, we can simply click.

Alright, after talking so much about how useful cognitive heuristics are, does that mean we only need to rely on intuition and make snap decisions? The answer is: not quite. The advantage of cognitive heuristics is providing quick reactions, but what makes them successful can also lead to failure. The wrong decisions we make in life are also caused by cognitive heuristics. The cognitive heuristics endowed by natural selection were mostly effective in the past, but in the face of relatively complex modern life situations, they often fail or even bring negative effects. This is because our current human cognitive system is "out of sync" with the times.

The various cognitive heuristics in our mental system are products of millions of years of natural selection. In most cases, these mental shortcuts provide intuitive reactions that are correct and beneficial for our survival and reproduction. However, the human species has one unique aspect compared to other animals: our current living environment has undergone drastic changes compared to that of our ancient ancestors. From the East African savannas millions of years ago to today's concrete jungles of skyscrapers, this environmental change could be devastating for many other species. Of course, this demonstrates the strong adaptability of humans, but it also shows that modern humans live in a particularly "awkward" situation.

The "awkwardness" refers to the fact that our modern human instincts, intuitions, and cognitive heuristics were all selected by natural selection to adapt to the ancient living environment. However, environmental changes have been too rapid: the agricultural revolution occurred less than 8,000 years ago, the industrial revolution just over 200 years ago, and the information revolution only in recent decades. While 8,000 years or 200 years might seem like a long time, from the perspective of biological evolution, it's negligible. The evolution of biological instincts is measured in units of at least hundreds of thousands or even millions of years. This has led to what is called "evolutionary lag." In other words, the evolution of human instincts has not kept pace with the rhythm of environmental change, resulting in a temporal lag.

This means that even though we wear suits, ties, and use smartphones today, in terms of our minds and instincts, we are not very different from our ancestors who lived in Africa millions of years ago. Modern humans are essentially primitive people in suits. This creates a dilemma: our minds evolved to adapt to ancient environments, but today we live in metropolises like Beijing and New York, facing an environment where large numbers of strangers collaborate through the internet. So, are our ancient instincts and cognitive heuristics still effective? Can our original neural networks still adapt to our current new situations? The answer is: it's hard to say.

A classic example is the irresistible urge to feast when encountering delicious food. This instinct was very useful in ancient times, as food was relatively scarce and various methods of food storage had not yet been invented. After finally finding a fruit grove or catching prey, one would naturally gorge oneself. This was equivalent to using one's fat cells as a "human refrigerator" to store food. Therefore, the instinct to eat a lot when seeing delicious food was very useful in ancient times. But today, industrially mass-produced food is abundant, cheap, readily available, and also highly nutritious and delicious. In such circumstances, we still apply our ancient instincts, indulging in delicious food, and as a result, obesity-related diseases, including heart disease, high blood pressure, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, and so on, have become the leading cause of death for humans today.

Alright, having discussed how instincts like the F4, such as eating, exhibit evolutionary lag, let's now talk about the thinking patterns of modern humans. In fact, modern human thinking patterns also show a temporal mismatch. There's a typical cognitive heuristic called the "availability heuristic." This refers to how people decide whether something will happen based on how easily related information can be retrieved from their memory. Simply put, if an event leaves a particularly deep impression on me, I will judge it as more likely to occur. This is actually a very useful mental shortcut, as the saying goes, "a fall into the pit, a gain in your wit" or "once bitten, twice shy," which makes sense. If someone has been bitten by a snake, they will always remember the excruciating pain and near-death experience. So, next time they see something similar to a snake, they'll be sure to keep their distance. While this might lead to some statistical false positives, or false alarms, the loss caused by such false positives is still an acceptable misreport compared to actually being bitten by a snake. Therefore, this cognitive heuristic has become a more worthwhile conservative strategy.

But today, we have entered an era where media information is highly developed, even overflowing. And the media has an ingrained nature that is hard to eradicate: it tends to report major events to attract traffic, always keen to create big news stories. For example, the media frequently reports on plane crashes because such events are usually catastrophic, causing numerous casualties, and attracting widespread public attention. In contrast, although car accidents happen frequently—in fact, you should know that car accidents rank 8th among the causes of death for people on Earth—the media reports on car accidents much less often, because they generate less traffic. So, this leaves us with the impression that major catastrophic events like plane crashes happen every now and then, which makes many people afraid to fly. But in reality, flying is the safest way to travel long distances.

This is what is called "cognitive bias." Cognitive bias and cognitive heuristics are essentially the same thing; cognitive heuristics are the cause of cognitive biases, and cognitive biases are a byproduct of cognitive heuristics. These mental shortcuts, which were useful to us in ancient times, can lead to systematic deviations in today's complex environment, making it harder for us to make correct judgments and decisions. This is like in martial arts training, where speed is paramount. Cognitive heuristics, or what Kahneman calls System 1, act without conscious thought—they are quick moves. However, quick moves can also lead to wild punches. Wild punches can not only defeat a master but also lead to various foolish and incorrect moves, disrupting our own martial arts training.

So how should we resist evolutionary lag and reduce cognitive biases? We must remember that cognitive heuristics are neural networks trained for us by millions of years of natural selection. And today, we need to be our own "parameter tuners." Yes, the training of artificial intelligence requires human supervision and adjustment, as machines themselves lack the subjective understanding of task essence, social norms, and dynamic environments. And isn't our own brain the same?

Fortunately, humans still possess the ability to think rationally. Intuition tells us to feast on food, leading us to still love delicious food today. But rationally, we know that to live healthily, our appetite must be restrained. Our rational capacity can adjust the parameters for our inherent cognitive heuristics, thereby optimizing the neural networks that natural selection has trained for us. Learning about cognitive biases means opening the black box of our mental shortcuts, using what Kahneman calls System 2 to, in turn, regulate System 1's instinctive reactions.

Learning about cognitive biases can help us avoid self-deception, because the person most likely to deceive us is ourselves. Inherent cognitive biases can unconsciously induce us to make wrong decisions. Learning about cognitive biases can also prevent us from being manipulated by others, because others might use rhetoric based on cognitive biases to mislead us. It's like needing to understand a disease first to prevent it. Similarly, learning about cognitive biases is to prevent ourselves from being controlled by them, to prevent others from using them to mislead us, thereby reducing the possibility of us being "charged an intelligence tax" by others. Hmph, we are all experienced practitioners; no one should try to prescribe a secret remedy to another.

Therefore, this book will categorize and introduce some typical cognitive biases. These typical cognitive biases can generally be divided into three categories:

The first category consists of biases affecting self-perception. These biases hinder self-reflection and thus mislead one's judgment, including: * Confirmation bias: How we deceive ourselves. * Cognitive dissonance: How we always find excuses for ourselves in contradictions. * Self-serving bias: How we glorify ourselves and blame others. * Dunning-Kruger effect: Why ignorant people are the most confident.

The second category of cognitive biases affects our perception of the world. These biases lead us to misunderstand external reality, thus forming a one-sided worldview, including: * Survivorship bias: The success you see is just the tip of the iceberg. * Focusing illusion: Is what you're focusing on really that important? * Endowment effect: We always overestimate the value of what we own.

The third category of cognitive biases affects interpersonal relationships. These biases hinder our understanding of others, leading to social misjudgments, including: * Fundamental attribution error: Why do we always over-interpret others' actions? * Conformity effect: When group pressure controls your behavior. * Framing effect: Why different ways of saying the same thing have different impacts?

The reason this book selects these cognitive biases is to help you reshape your thinking patterns from the inside out, striving to achieve: first, self-awareness, which means avoiding misleading yourself; second, clear perception of the outside world, which means avoiding being misled by others; and third, enhancing interpersonal effectiveness, which means shaping positive personal influence. If you are interested in this book, please find the purchase link in the pinned comment. The ultimate goal of understanding these biases is not merely to master a few psychological terms, but to enable you to make truly good decisions in real life. Because behind every good decision lies a deep understanding and effective avoidance of cognitive biases in self, the external world, and interpersonal interactions. I hope that through the guidance of this book, you can gradually master this insight and become a clear-headed, rational, and influential decision-maker.

Some listeners might question: "Xia, you're starting to brag just to sell your book. Oh, if I read about these cognitive psychology concepts, I'll be able to overcome cognitive biases? It's true that we need to avoid the negative impacts of some cognitive biases on our decisions, but does knowing mean doing? Can knowing many truths lead to a good life?" Alright, speaking of this, let's move to the last section, which is "Freedom means treating oneself as a variable."

Philosophers throughout history have loved to discuss a big question: Do humans have free will? What is free will? Although various philosophers have diverse opinions, there is a general consensus that a free person uses their own reason to overcome their irrational factors. For example, if someone wants to eat ice cream and immediately goes to eat it, this person seems to have a kind of freedom, but it is not true freedom. This is a kind of capriciousness, which small animals also possess—eating when they want, drinking when they want—and this is precisely a lack of freedom. Because this person who wants to eat ice cream might already be very obese, when they reflect on their obese condition and instead restrain their desire to eat ice cream, that is freedom. The philosopher Immanuel Kant would likely give a thumbs-up to this statement.

Kantian philosophy has always championed the banner of freedom. Kant believed that humans should live according to the laws of reason and not be swayed by irrational desires. Therefore, in Kantian philosophy, there is a classic slogan: "Freedom is self-discipline." Freedom means that we do not obey external natural laws, but rather our own reason commands itself. The unfree state, contrary to self-discipline, is heteronomous, acting in obedience to natural laws external to us. For example, desires like wanting to eat, wanting to drink, or wanting to take advantage of others are not our own reason commanding us, but rather living in obedience to something else's bidding.

But then again, a classic criticism of Kantian philosophy is that Kant placed excessively high demands on human nature. Humans are not machines; we cannot easily overcome our irrationality by pressing a button. For example, regarding weight loss, don't I know I should eat less and exercise more? But exercise is truly tiring, I am truly lazy, and ice cream is truly delicious. Our instincts for pleasure and laziness are hard to change, and our cognitive sets are also hard to change. As we said before, cognitive heuristics and cognitive biases are essentially the same thing; cognitive heuristics are the cause of cognitive biases, and cognitive biases are a byproduct of cognitive heuristics. Those irrational factors are precisely an inseparable part of ourselves. Although they sometimes cause thinking errors, more often they are shortcuts that help us think quickly and make effective decisions; without them, we wouldn't even be able to live normally.

In fact, as the author of this book, even after introducing these cognitive biases, I cannot guarantee that readers, after understanding them, will truly be able to avoid these mental traps in life and let rationality guide their decisions. I myself cannot do it. For example, self-serving bias typically refers to people attributing their successes to their own personality traits and their failures to environmental influences. For instance, if I make a philosophy video that goes viral, I'll think, "Of course, it's because I explained it so well!" But if the video has low viewership, then it must be because the audience is too unsophisticated to appreciate the philosophical question. You see, I know about self-serving bias, but I still inevitably fall prey to it.

Moreover, reading this book is not really about completely eliminating one's irrational factors and becoming a rational machine. This is not only impossible but also utterly boring. As mentioned before, from the perspective of evolutionary psychologists, the irrational factors that philosophers speak of have had adaptive value for millions of years; they are a quick solution to problems of survival and reproduction. There's no need to overcome them, nor is it possible. Again, we are all products of evolution. So, are we forever doomed to be at the mercy of irrational cognitive biases, unable to achieve freedom? The answer is: not at all.

We can still cultivate a spirit of self-reflection. What is reflection? Reflection is looking back at oneself, treating oneself as an other, which is what the title of this subsection means: "Treating oneself as a variable." What does this mean? Simply put, when making any decision, we must consider the influence of our own emotions, desires, and preferences, explicitly incorporating our irrational factors into the decision-making process. From the outset, we must bravely admit that irrational factors inevitably reside within us. As long as one is human, there will be irrational emotions and impulses such as narcissism, regret, cowardice, and admiration, which cannot be completely suppressed by willpower alone.

What we truly need to do is not to deny their existence by burying our heads in the sand, nor to naively believe that we can completely overcome them. Instead, we must first realize: I have an irrational side, and these irrational components of mine are precisely the variables that must be taken into account during the decision-making process. What is this like? It's like when you're making a weight-loss plan, you must consider that your desire for indulgent eating cannot be eradicated, so you need to schedule a "cheat meal." A cheat meal refers to a planned "indulgent meal" during a diet, which breaks the strict daily dietary structure. For example, you can eat high-calorie, high-sugar, high-fat foods like fried chicken, desserts, or hot pot. However, precisely because you deliberately arrange such a cheat meal, your weight-loss plan becomes easier to stick to.

Treating yourself as a variable is like having the designated driver's phone number ready when you're sober, because you clearly recognize that once you drink, you absolutely cannot drive, instead of confidently thinking, "This time I definitely won't get drunk." True wise people never fantasize that they will always remain perfectly rational. Their wisdom lies not in perfect control, but in profound foresight. They know the wind will rise, so they don't foolishly hope it won't come, but prepare sails and anchors in advance. They are not ashamed to admit their weaknesses; instead, they are adept at reserving buffers and escape routes for every potential slip.

Next time you hit a trend and achieve something, when you're feeling smug about it, you might realize, "Could this be self-serving bias?" When your girlfriend or boyfriend of three years leaves you, and you're rolling on the floor, convulsing in the grief of heartbreak, you might suddenly stand up and realize, "Ah, this is the endowment effect, or also known as the sunk cost fallacy." Of course, realizing you're affected by the endowment effect might not stop you from collapsing back onto the floor, rolling and convulsing the next second, but the second time you're rolling on the floor, you'll have a bit more composure, won't you?

Treating oneself as a variable means identifying those irrational factors and giving them names. You see, naming is the beginning of understanding. Just like the purple gold gourd of King Golden Horn and King Silver Horn in "Journey to the West," as long as you can call out the opponent's name, they will be sucked into the gourd. Although in our subsequent thinking and decision-making processes, we will inevitably still be influenced by irrational factors, we know their names: confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, survivorship bias, focusing illusion, fundamental attribution error, self-serving bias, Dunning-Kruger effect, endowment effect, conformity effect, framing effect. Although we don't have a purple gold gourd in our hands, when these biases and effects appear, we can recognize them and be aware that they are influencing us.

Socrates said, "Know thyself." The original meaning of this phrase was to recognize one's own ignorance, or "knowing one's ignorance." However, in this context, we can say, "Know your own irrationality." Only by recognizing the inescapable irrational factors within oneself does the cultivation of rationality truly begin. Baruch Spinoza said, "Freedom is the recognition of necessity." Spinoza's meaning is that true freedom is not about being able to escape the influence and constraints of inevitable natural laws, but rather precisely recognizing that each of us is constrained by passions and natural laws, and there is no escape from this. However, some people are unaware of this fundamental human condition, believing themselves to be unconstrained, thereby creating an illusion of false freedom, which is actually a lack of freedom. True freedom, on the other hand, is precisely recognizing that one is constrained by natural laws. When you realize this, when you treat your own occasional foolishness as a variable, you paradoxically gain a true freedom.

In fact, this is a concept that psychologists and philosophers have loved to discuss in recent years, also introduced in Chapter 7 of this book: metacognition. Metacognition is cognition about cognition. A person with metacognitive ability can step outside their initial reactions to observe and reflect on their own thought processes, avoiding being trapped in a single perspective and narrow judgments. This is about treating "I" as a variable, even seeing oneself as one would see another. When you think independently, you can have a dialogue with another self in your mind—this is metacognition at work. You no longer have only a solitary self; you can learn to simulate an external perspective of yourself, debating with you like a friend, reminding you of potential confusions. As Bian Zhilin's famous poem says: "You stand on the bridge and view the scenery; The sightseer views you from the balcony." A person with metacognitive ability can not only see the scenery but also see the self who is viewing the scenery.

We cannot escape irrational desires, and therefore we are not free. However, this does not prevent us from being able to recognize them. In this second-order sense, humanity possesses its own limited yet great freedom. I hope this book can help you establish such a freedom, one that allows you to treat yourself as a variable. Alright, that concludes today's episode. I hope you enjoy reading!