Three basic common sense suggestions

Principle of content quality judgment

On the so-called literary judgment

The benefits of formatted writing

Why do you have to write?

main body

Aesthetics often does not need to know the principle, but those who create beauty must have methodology, otherwise it is impossible to continue to create, right? When we go to a restaurant to eat, whether it is delicious or not often requires us to have superb cooking skills first, but a chef is a person who must know how to make delicious food.

One or three basic common sense suggestions

Looking at other people's articles, we all seem to know the quality of that article naturally. But once what we write is in front of us, it seems that our IQ is not enough in an instant.

Is your writing good enough?

I write all the year round and often face this problem, because the world doesn't always give me direct causal feedback; On the contrary, it always surprises me: what is carefully written has no expected response at all, while what is casually made is flying all over the sky. ...

I have experienced many examples myself, such as the article "Let go of your ineffective social interaction". To tell the truth, that article is really not the most proud one in my whole book "Taking Time as a Friend". And the result? Over the years, people have been flying around and vomiting blood, so I just recommended this article ... and the title was taken out of context by others, which was not my intention at all!

Therefore, the first suggestion is: write more, write more, write more. ...

This is the same as the secret of Japanese baseball player Wang Zhen's intelligent hitting the most home runs: swing more. Writing more about it is not only for the author to constantly hone his writing skills, but more importantly, only in this way can he jump out of "how do I know what others want?" ! "This strange circle.

The second suggestion is: seriously consider the audience attributes of the selected categories.

I personally chose the category of "growth methodology" many years ago. After this choice, judging whether your writing is good or not, or whether the reader feels good, there is a very simple basis for judging: is this article really useful to the reader?

Note that it is not "feeling useful" but "really useful". Such a simple judgment basis is actually not as simple as it seems-because you are accidentally turned around by those who "think your article is useless" and "think those useless things are useful", and writing those "useful" things for attention or communication is actually not only useless but even harmful. ...

If you write prose or poetry, perhaps artistic conception is the most important; If it is a short story, perhaps creativity is the most important; If it is reportage, then perhaps truth is the most important; If it is a script, the structure may be the most important ... In short, as long as the category and reader group are determined, the judgment basis can always be found through this simple question: "What is the most important for readers?"

When I write reasoning articles, I always seriously think about three elements:

Simplicity and complexity

Known and unknown

Secondary and important

Have I shown the readers that something that seems simple is actually very complicated? Or on the other hand, have I simplified complicated things? Have I made readers realize that something that seems to be known is actually unknown? Or on the other hand, have I made readers realize that some seemingly unknown things have long been known? Have I made readers realize that something is extremely important? Or on the other hand, have I proved to readers that what they have always valued is actually secondary? In a word, it is the truth anyway.

This simple self-questioning often works well. Of course, everyone saw it.

This leads to the third suggestion: writing is a two-way communication rather than a one-way expression. Most people always mistakenly think that writing is an expression, and then they will get angry when they encounter bad reviews, thinking that the other party "doesn't know the goods" ... This is actually very naive-the other party has no obligation and responsibility to understand the goods!

The biggest difficulty in communication is to understand each other. The real difficulty in writing lies in whether the author has the ability to make his words accurate enough not to be misunderstood, appropriate enough not to hurt the innocent, complete enough not to hesitate to miss or offend a certain kind of people ... even millions of readers ... I think it is cheap that I have been a teacher and have enough experience to understand, discover, handle and even design in advance to deal with those seemingly inexplicable reactions, instead of standing there in a daze: "Ah? ! How can anyone do this! "

I have an analogy. In fact, not many people can really understand it: speaking and writing in public is basically a game of "finding the greatest common divisor" This is why most writers don't actually realize that there is a glass ceiling. I have always felt that the glass ceiling of an author lies in a factor that most people have never thought of: you can have as many readers as you can understand.

Therefore, I always say that it is not so easy to be an online celebrity. If you don't have some training and accumulation in advance, and really give you10 million fans directly, you may lose everything tomorrow because of saying the wrong thing. Can you believe it?

To sum up, the following three aspects need in-depth thinking:

Write more, write more, write more.

Seriously consider the audience attributes of the selected categories;

Writing is a two-way communication rather than a one-way expression.

Second, the content quality judgment principle

Next, let's look at it from the content point of view. How to judge the quality of our articles? I use two basic principles to judge my own articles:

Logical rigor

Wonderful debate

Strict logic seems to be the basic requirement, but it is really difficult to do it. Especially when we write it and publish it-you know, a considerable proportion of readers don't believe that their logic training is flawed, which is actually amazing. On the other hand, logical thinking is far more difficult than most people think.

In my opinion, the so-called logical reasoning has three levels:

Formal logic (formal logic)

Informal logic (informal logic)

Cognitive bias correction (cognitive bias correction)

Formal logic is what we first learned in school, such as syllogism, major premise, minor premise and conclusion; When the major premise and minor premise are correct, the conclusion must be correct. ANOTher example is the logical judgment of OR and not. A belongs to B and B belongs to C, so A must belong to C. ..

Even the most basic formal logic, about 70% people will never understand it (costello &; Keane, 2000). Formal logic deals with "inevitability" reasoning. After one or two thousand years of research, human finally found that this kind of logical reasoning is not enough in reality-1) because it is not necessity but "possibility" that is more common in reality; 2) Inferring "known conclusion" from "known premise" is of little significance. What we need to explore is the "unknown" ... so, another logic discipline has emerged, called "information logic" (translated into informal logic for the time being). Interested friends had better read through two pages on Wikipedia:

Informal Logic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_logic

List of fallacies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Not knowing English is really a disadvantage. Alas, I have always advocated that "even dumb English" is of great significance.

People are generally afraid of "uncertainty" and "unknown", so most people actually "follow their feelings" and "listen to their inner voices", and finally avoid learning informal logic from their bones, and even have a clear understanding of the world they live in.

This hurdle is hard to cross, really hard. But this is not over yet, there is still a hurdle behind, a very high threshold: the correction of cognitive bias. The existence of human cognitive bias and its research began with 1972, and it is only forty years now. The founder of this field is Daniel Kahneman, the author of The Speed of Thinking. ("Thinking: Fast and Slow")

Interested friends had better read through two pages on Wikipedia:

Cognitive bias: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias

List of cognitive biases: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

In this world, 70% of people can't recognize the following simple formal logic errors:

If p and then q,

Q, therefore, p.

Then a higher proportion of people will fail the more difficult informal logic, and it will be even more difficult to correct the cognitive deviation in the next step ... (1-0.7 = 0.3) to the third power, which is equivalent to about 2.7%, shows how difficult it is to master the simple four words "strict logic"-certainly only a few people can master it. In fact, because there are three levels, the latter two are much more difficult than mastering formal logic, so it is likely that the proportion of people who finally fully master it is actually less than one thousandth. ...

Oh, by the way, there is another accident that needs to be dealt with constantly and must be dealt with (who let you choose to speak publicly and publish articles? ): People with poor logic have a big temper.

As we said before, writing is actually a two-way communication rather than a one-way expression. Therefore, on the one hand, logical rigor is a requirement for ourselves, on the other hand, it is also a great challenge: how to make more readers with imprecise logic really understand what you said without causing unnecessary emotions? Difficult!

Wonderful argument is actually the most difficult part, and literary talent, grammar and diction are relatively irrelevant. Again, limited by space, I only share one part that I personally think is the most important: how to find wonderful examples (evidence)?

Wonderful examples (evidence) are preserved, not discovered. When we want to prove an idea, we often suffer from no good examples at all. This is because it was wrong from the beginning, and many people finally somehow fantasized that "it is good to have a ready-made material library"-in fact, the material library has always been there. How can libraries, Internet and search engines have larger and better material banks than libraries and Internet?

The secret lies in: long-term systematic collection and collation of evidence (examples). The word "long-term" has killed 90% of writers-most people can't get rid of the dilemma of "memorizing Buddha's feet" in their lives. Want to "systematize", at least two things must be done:

Know what you want.

Want to know where the things in your hand can be used?

In fact, examples and evidence are flying all over the sky. Most people just don't think carefully about what they want. Good examples and good evidence always pass by without trace.

For example, I have long pondered "fate", so I have saved countless examples of good luck and bad luck. One day I was writing about how to turn bad luck into good luck. ",the optional example can simply be a big basket. When I quoted an example from the success equation to prove that "some things are pure luck", I needed an example to prove that "some mistakes are pure bad luck" (isn't this the most commonly used means of saying things on both sides), so I rummaged through the big basket and found that the lottery prize involved in an example was actually the same as the previous one! This is a pleasant surprise to me. When readers read this, they will be surprised by some authors as I was many years ago: "How did he manage to find this kind of thing? " !"

If you have enough examples and evidence, then there is a lot of room for "wonderful", otherwise it is completely impossible. When writing the above article, I also mixed up another example of playing another good luck and bad luck with the same person with great interest. In the end, it was useless, because it was wonderful, but it was easy to distract people.

A Japanese, an employee of Mitsubishi Corporation, is on a business trip in a foreign branch. On the last day of work, he found that he had forgotten his work permit, so he went back to get it. There is another problem on the way, and he is sure to be late. But it was because he was late that he saved his life, because the city where the employee worked at that time was called "Hiroshima" ... You guessed it, the atomic bomb destroyed the whole city, and this Japanese named Natsuo Yamaguchi came too late to save his life. Stepping on the body all the way, Yamaguchi has only one thought, go home! But where do his family live? Nagasaki ... When he rushed back to Nagasaki to rest and went to work in Mitsubishi, the boss was very angry and thought Yamaguchi was lying. "How can a bomb destroy a city?" As soon as the voice fell, a white light appeared ... Nagasaki Prefecture disappeared. But Yamaguchi was not killed ... and lived to 20 10. (See: https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Yamaguchi)

You see, many people ask me, how did you "create for a long time?" I can't always make it clear in one or two sentences: writing is not difficult, what is difficult is correct thinking and systematic accumulation. Again: "What jobs have you done that others can't see?"

I told the students this truth when I was lecturing in New Oriental more than ten years ago. Good examples have been preserved, not imagined or suppressed-in fact, many students are disgusted because they want a so-called "examination skill" to quickly solve their current embarrassment. They are confident, "This is why I paid to come to New Oriental!" I don't care. I just said I was sure it was right. Some people just look for liars, nicknamed "he will feel uncomfortable if others don't lie to him." Cheat whoever you like. I am too lazy to do it.

Third, about the so-called literary judgment.

After talking about basic knowledge and content quality, let's take a look at the so-called literary talent. I never think what I write is literary, because I spend little time on it. But I did study how to improve the so-called literary talent. Then I found two elements that I think are the easiest to grasp and the most effective:

rhetoric

rhythm

There are many kinds of rhetoric, and I only use one: "analogy"-Fortress Besieged is my only textbook in this field. The advantages of analogy are rarely discussed in depth. In my opinion, analogy is a very special and effective "communication" tool. I find the known point of the other party (the so-called "other party" is actually a lot of people), and then use that known point to let the other party know the unknown point of the other party-how subtle! And "How do you know what is unknown and what is known?" It still depends on accumulation and experience! Some people can be unpredictable through long-term patient communication and observation.

About analogy, there is a more detailed discussion in Freshness-Seven Years is a Life. Interested friends can study-yes, study, not extensive reading.

Rhythm is actually learned in elementary school. It is said that you should polish it more when writing, but it is not intentional. In my opinion, there are only two aspects (both are the easiest to grasp), rhyme and rhythm. We don't have to stick to the rhyme of every sentence when we speak, but there are always one or two places to pay attention to rhyme when writing articles. This is not only a basic skill, but also the easiest choice to add points. I know a Weibo red man, starting point. According to my assessment, she is a writer who pays attention to the rhythm of words. In my spare time, I often ponder over her words for fun. The so-called rhythm, implemented in words, is long and short sentences and meaning groups-this is also an important factor that is particularly easy to master but few people pay attention to. If you try to ponder for a while, anyone can learn.

In fact, most things that are understood as "literary talent" are actually the result of thinking and habits. Two days ago, I saw such a copy, and investment requires investors to think independently:

..... If you are lazy to study and refuse to think independently, there is an e-rental treasure next door!

This kind of "literary talent" can finally be displayed because the author knows the importance of rhyme, so he has long formed the habit of thinking about it involuntarily when writing, and the author also knows the necessity of "wonderful pen and flowers", so when giving examples, he knows "to find examples that keep pace with the times when necessary" and "to have the best effect of surprising readers", etc ... Are these more the results of thinking and habits?

Fourth, the benefits of formatted writing.

Finally, talk about the so-called formatted writing.

Many people do not despise format writing, thinking that "you must be creative every time"-in fact, format writing does not exclude creativity.

The most extreme way of "formatted writing" is "adaptation". Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet has been adapted (or "fine-tuned") many times. Over the years, at least twenty or thirty movies and stage plays have been adapted from this story every year all over the world. Each one has a little touching creativity. For example, the starting point of Romeo's "The Book of Filial Piety" may be changed to "The New Story". For example, the story happened on 20 16, which is the modern version, or the story happened in 2036, which may be the science fiction version. ...

The most powerful formatting writing is usually to abstract the structure and elements to the extreme and then format them. This is an important reason why there are many types of films: martial arts films, horror films, revenge films, underworld films, gambling films, romantic films, comedy films ... these are actually "models of format creation". For example, Inception, which everyone likes to watch, is a genre film, a thief film. Routine is very common:

A person with stunts is caught in a dilemma for various reasons, and there is only one way out: to complete a seemingly impossible theft task. ...

He can't complete the task independently, so he has to form a gang, usually with various tricks, and then pave the way for some "technical details" to the audience through some dialogues in the recruitment process. ...

Then I met all kinds of troubles along the way, almost succeeded but failed, almost completely failed, then reversed like "God never shuts one door but he opens another" and finally succeeded unexpectedly. ...

Of course, you can continue to improve it. Anyway, the routine is "routine", and it's good to be a little surprised.

Fictional writing is so, what about non-fiction? Think about it, all papers have a routine:

Put forward a point of view;

Explain the significance of this view;

Prove this view;

Refute the doubts about this view;

Clarify the super significance of this view. ...

It can be even simpler. All the articles I wrote "Seven years is a lifetime" are exactly the same routine. Simply put: clarify an important concept.

After the expansion, it is still a routine:

What concept am I talking about?

Why is this concept important?

How is this concept widely misunderstood?

What is this concept actually about?

What is the significance of the concept of positive solution?

How to use this concept correctly?

What's terrible about misusing this concept?

What other important concepts does this concept have to do with?

And I have a system to support this mode of writing:

The so-called cleverness means that a person has clear, correct and necessary concepts in his mind, and has established clear, accurate and necessary connections between these concepts.

Furthermore, it defines progress and growth: the so-called progress and growth is nothing more than constantly acquiring new important concepts and associations and constantly updating existing concepts and associations. This process is unlikely to be completed in an instant, only by accumulation-this is a long-term struggle.

So, I can even organize a club to carry out "large-scale formatted writing": everyone wants to grow up, so grow up together. Get rid of loneliness, get rid of external blows, encourage each other and share with each other. Everyone shares their newly acquired concepts and associations, the process of acquisition (including bitterness and joy), and the feelings after acquisition ... record and share the whole process through collective "formatted writing".

Large-scale formatted writing with clear goals and standards will eventually form the so-called "book of creation"-what I wrote is only a starting point, and I believe that what you write together will be better, more valuable and more meaningful than what I write alone.

Of course, this is an attempt-an unprecedented attempt. Doing such "innovative" things is usually not fully understood by the outside world. Fortunately, I have very rich experience in this situation, and I know that it is impossible to do such a thing by external encouragement, but only by my own determination and the mutual help of my peers. The biggest gain and feeling from watching The Walking Dead is:

How to become a comrade-in-arms? Only those who actively contribute and sacrifice can have comrades-in-arms and teams-otherwise, they will collapse sooner or later. ...

5. Why do you have to write?

As mentioned earlier, "writing is not a one-way expression, but a two-way communication". This leads to another question about the essence-what is the purpose of communication? From this, we can further deduce the essential purpose of writing: writing (in fact, public speaking is the same), and the essential purpose is to have an impact.

Only when it has an impact can communication be considered as having a role, otherwise it will be a pile of words, whether there are usable words, whether there are valuable words or not, and whether there are meaningful words. ...

I seriously wrote an article "How did I manage not to explode articles for a long time ...", which mentioned my views on "attention" and "influence" and my analysis and thinking about them. Note that I don't think that "attention" is completely worthless, and even it is often valuable. However, there is a premise that attention produces value: the attention attracted must be large enough to begin to produce great value. On this basis, it will be more valuable if it can attract a lot of attention for a long time.

The value generated by attention is basically like a "compound interest curve"-it is really meaningful to reach the "turning point" because getting attention itself has a cost. Before the inflection point, the return may actually be negative. ...

If you pay attention to influence, then you should at least ask yourself one question: What will happen to my readers after reading this article?

Sometimes, the answer will make you feel "must write"-yes.

There is a famous book called Ask the Right Questions, which I think is very good, but I always think the more important skill is "How to ask yourself the right questions?" If you ask yourself the right questions, you will have the opportunity to think of the right basis, make the right judgment, make the right choice, and then trigger the right action.

Don't mistake this for a one-off event. I tell you with my own practical experience that it will be at least a lifetime (seven years) for myself. Look at what I wrote at the beginning and what I write now, and you will probably have a general idea. ...

In fact, there are many choices, as well as the reasons, purposes and means of those choices. It should be noted that every seemingly simple choice will form a so-called "style" after the final superposition of multiple dimensions. Therefore, it is useless to learn from others' appearance. It is important to know what you choose every time-what is the most important? What's the most important thing for me? What is the most important for readers? -these three things don't necessarily coincide ... in the end, everyone will form a different style and have a strong personal imprint.

Since you can see this, give yourself a compliment!