为什么要多读书,而不是依赖媒体?

欢迎关注我们的微信公众号:makerlog

其实主要是特指中文媒体中的(快餐式)评论性文章,还包括知乎,微博,豆瓣,朋友圈,自媒体这些新媒体所传递的内容。

  • 知乎:知乎上很多SB出于炫技(zhuang bi)的需要已经迷失了
  • 微博:其实早都不刷微博了,微博的段子手们都换个马甲跑去朋友圈了
  • 豆瓣:看完电影还是会刷一下豆瓣影评的,至于别的不敢恭维
  • 朋友圈:“干货”,鸡汤,人生感悟,技巧,看多了容易“自嗨”
  • 自媒体:呵呵呵呵

(感叹一句,中文语境下的高质量内容实在不多,注意,我说的是不多。爱钻牛角尖的人请远离此文。)

这里存在一个例外:如果文章是你的朋友写的,或者作者愿意认真和你讨论文中的观点,这是ok的(比如你跟罗振宇或是罗永浩熟到在路边吃大排档闲扯淡,那你就不会烦他,简而言之这里存在一个“信任”的问题)。(这个心态的变化很有趣,我在YC论坛里和一些朋友有些讨论,我认为这是“大杂烩单向交流”与“小圈子互动交流”的区别,想清楚了以后再细谈)

后续又写了一篇文章,专门讨论读书的问题:抛开媒体不谈,聊聊为什么要读书?

现在,言归正传:

这篇文章是源于2014年后半年的个人感悟:理想的读书是在正确的时间,正确的环境,读正确的书。这三点是我在读翻译《Zero to One》这本书所感受到的。

或许给你带来启发的书不必太多,但在你的一生中一定要有那么几本。

这也给我带来一些别的思考:

进一步让我坚信了不要轻信他人的评论(原因比较复杂),比如豆瓣,比如知乎,比如微博,比如朋友圈,比如自媒体。能看到很多观点是有问题的,问题源于多个方面,知识背景,阅历,以及新媒体传播的特殊性。展开说一下。

先说知识背景。主要说的是媒体人,跟国内的教育和训练有很大关系(国外也有类似的情况)。我感受到的情况是,做事情的不读书,读书的不做事,写评论的不专业,专业的不评论。每个人似乎只是掌握很少的一块知识,导致国内的科普书基本上没法看,国内的科技评论除了直接翻译的以外也基本上没法看。比如现在很多人热衷讨论大数据,讨论云计算,讨论可穿戴,但可悲的是,很多人的知识仅仅来自于中文媒体的二手翻译,而写这些文章的人不去读书,不去读论文,也不去请教专业人士。他们自己本身都似懂非懂,今天聊社交网络,明天就成了物联网专家,这是很可笑的事情。同时也会带来几个问题:1)得到毫无指导意义甚至错误的结论;2)方向不够清晰不够长远;3)思考肤浅容易被干扰。简单讲就是浪费大家的时间。国内媒体的素养坦白讲,不是一朝一夕就能提升的,与其依靠不靠谱的二手知识,不如多看看专业的书,多和专业的人士交流,或是读读外媒的长文。

再说阅历。面对同一件事物,不同阅历的人会得出不同的结论。如果你选择去相信带有阅历背景下的人的结论,也是蛮危险的事情。就像胖子说他需要少吃肉,你一个瘦子能跟他学吗?同一件事,不同阅历的人看到不同的东西。这一点似乎宗教上有讲,忘了怎么讲的了。在数学上,也是有类似的结论,比如概率论上的条件概率先验概率。理工科背景的人懂我在说什么,文科背景的人还是从宗教上去理解吧。再把“阅历”这一点展开一下:“读万卷书,行万里路”这句话真的是很有道理。很多时候,经历就像是读书,读书也像是经历,二者是互补的关系,我举两个例子。比如我们读过有很多书,它们的叙事方式就是从某些事例展开类比,从而得出结论(这里指的是非科技类的书)。行万里路的目的之一也是让你经历足够多的事情,可以潜意识里自行类比,从而刺激你的思考产生结论。另一个例子,比如我们往一个罐子里倒东西,我们可以先倒石头,再倒沙子,读书和行路就是这石头与沙子。石头来给我们提供框架,让我们有章可循(有安全感),沙子用来填充细节,二者配合一起,可以很快的把罐子装满。如果我们再用搅拌机(环境),加上胶(思考),就可以得到混凝土(concrete idea!),btw,混凝土的英文单词恰好就是concrete。其实你看,如果有一天当你觉得自己的思维陷入了停滞,或许这是暗示你:需要读书或者上路了

最后说说新媒体的传播特点。新媒体传播的主要特点就是快。传播速度快,出现的快,消失的也快。而主流的受欢迎的媒体也就恰好满足了快的特点(这里有一个因果的关系),比如微博,比如朋友圈,比如知乎,比如某些自媒体。在这类的平台上,想发声并被人听到,那就需要满足适合传播的特征:短的篇幅+结论性的话语。因为在评论中,囿于平台的限制,消息传播的需要,人们需要在很短的篇幅内做利于传播的观点,那就会习惯性的下标签式的结论,耸人听闻的结论,武断式的结论,鸡汤式的结论。它们的共同特点是让读者或听众很爽,有一种掌握人生小窍门的满足感,容易自嗨,但最终难以让你留下深刻的印象或者难以学以致用(你误以为你懂了,其实还差得很远)。至于说短文,它的最大弊端是无法以全局的方式审视某个问题,从而难以得到客观的认知;若是技能类的短文(比如“创业十大法则”,“如何找对象”,“学编程的三大窍门”,“看完这个读懂深度学习”,“五分钟了解互联网思维”,“干货、湿货、精品、大礼包、一定要看、女神/男神告诉你,看懂90后,他们看完都转了/哭了/学了,人人必读,最近很火的,告诉你一个真实的×××,以及冠有’雕爷马佳佳余什么’之类标题的各种言论”等),除了题目比较恶心人以外,它还有“缺乏系统性”的缺点,让你白白浪费时间,不停地原地打转,难以提升(这一点很容易检测:如果你觉得学的很爽没经历什么痛苦,那一定是学习的姿势不对)。当然,新媒体也有好处,它能让你迅速了解跟进一件事情,但这时你要想一想,你真的需要这种快消息吗?人的好奇心确实很难让人不去关注,除了克制和冷静,或者你当时在忙别的事情,实在给不出其他更好的建议,因为我自己做的也不好。另外提醒一点:不可否认的是,我们能从新媒体上快速了解到好的东西(比如一些不错的讲座,访谈,分享,推荐),但同时也会因为信息过载而疲惫不堪,这其中利弊的权衡可以自己来定夺。

这一番思考就回到一个本质的问题,你接收信息的目的是什么?如果你的目的是获取知识,掌握技能,得到启发,那你就要考虑一下你接收信息的渠道是否靠谱是否有效,然后你就会清楚有哪些事情值得做,哪些事情不值得做,哪些能接受,哪些要警惕。

原因很简单:时间是个奢侈品,需要好好利用


One more thing

顺带提一下前几天看的一篇Wired采访拉里佩奇的旧文:Google’s Larry Page on Why Moon Shots Matter

中间有这么两段:

Wired: On the other hand, as the canard goes, the pioneers take the most arrows. Look at the experience of Xerox PARC, where fantastic innovations didn’t seem to help the corporation itself.

Page: PARC had a tremendous research organization and they invented many of the tools of modern computing. But they weren’t focused on commercialization. You need both. Take one company I admire, Tesla. They’ve not only made a really innovative car, but they’re probably spending 99 percent of their effort figuring out how to actually get it out to people. When I was growing up, I wanted to be an inventor. Then I realized that there’s a lot of sad stories about inventors like Nikola Tesla, amazing people who didn’t have much impact, because they never turned their inventions into businesses.

Wired: Why don’t we see more people with that kind of ambition?

Page: It’s not easy coming up with moon shots. And we’re not teaching people how to identify those difficult projects. Where would I go to school to learn what kind of technological programs I should work on? You’d probably need a pretty broad technical education and some knowledge about organization and entrepreneurship. There’s no degree for that. Our system trains people in specialized ways, but not to pick the right projects to make a broad technological impact.

类似的话不是第一次见到了,比如Elon Musk,比如Drew Houston。如果你有兴趣看看美国科技界的这帮人在读什么,这里有个列表。如果你想多了解一些IT从业人士在看什么书,千读做的这份书单很棒!他们在过去的一年里,分享了100本书!微信ID:QianduSV (不是软文,真诚推荐^^)如果想加入到这个读书会里,请和千读创始人联系(微信ID):helen11390(invitation only)

I read a lot of books and talked to lots of people. I didn’t have any one person who was a mentor but I always looked for feedback from the people around me and feedback from the historical context, which is books basically. I don’t read many general business books. I like to read biographies or autobiographies. I think those are pretty helpful, and a lot are not really business. For example, I like Franklin’s autobiography and recent written biography on Franklin is really good. You can see how he.. cause he was an entrepreneur.. he started from nothing.. like a runaway kid basically. Created his printing business, how he went about doing that, and over time he goes into science and politics. I would say certainly that he’s one of the people I most admire. Franklin was pretty awesome, but I think it’s also worth reading books on scientists and engineers. Tesla obviously..

Elon Musk from Foundation 20.

“But the best part was learning all kinds of new things. I lived in my fraternity house every summer, and up on the fifth floor there’s a ladder that goes up to the roof. I had this green nylon folding chair that I’d drag up there along with armfuls of business books I bought off Amazon and I’d spend every weekend reading about marketing, sales, management and all these other things I knew nothing about. I wasn’t planning to get my MBA on the roof of Phi Delta Theta, but that’s what happened.”

Drew Houston from Commencement address at MIT


题图是Hans Hofmann 1962年的这幅作品 Veluti in Speculum,它让我想起The Jam 1982年的一首歌:Carnation,如果你是绿洲的粉,试试这个版本

为什么要有one more thing,hans hofmann的画和the jam的歌?

版本1:因为不想你看了这篇文章之后觉得什么收获都没有而觉得浪费了自己的时间。。。

版本2:我只是想把那些有意思的链接和文字片段存个档 : )


一位朋友留言推荐了本书,简单看了一下书评,很符合这篇文章想探讨的主题。作者是哈佛大学肯尼迪管理学院的Thomas E. Patterson,他的出发点是,既然现在的媒体存在一些问题,我们该如何纠正这个事情?因为用Walter Lippmann(李普曼)的话讲,”democracy falters, if there is no steady supply of trust worthy and relevant news.” Patterson提出了“knowledge-based journalism”的概念,对当前的学院派的新闻教育和训练模式进行了反省。

书名:Informing the news:the need for knowledge-based journalism

作者:Thomas E. Patterson

简介:

As the journalist Walter Lippmann noted nearly a century ago, democracy falters “if there is no steady supply of trust worthy and relevant news.” Today’s journalists are not providing it. Too often, reporters give equal weight to facts and biased opinion, stir up small controversies, and substitute infotainment for real news. Even when they get the facts rights, they often misjudge the context in which they belong.

Information is the lifeblood of a healthy democracy. Public opinion and debate suffer when citizens are misinformed about current affairs, as is increasingly the case. Though the failures of today’s communication system cannot be blamed solely on the news media, they are part of the problem, and the best hope for something better.

Patterson proposes “knowledge-based journalism” as a corrective. Unless journalists are more deeply informed about the subjects they cover, they will continue to misinterpret them and to be vulnerable to manipulation by their sources. In this book, derived from a multi-year initiative of the Carnegie Corporation and the Knight Foundation, Patterson calls for nothing less than a major overhaul of journalism practice and education. The book speaks not only to journalists but to all who are concerned about the integrity of the information on which America’s democracy depends.

有个书评:http://theconversation.com/book-review-informing-the-news-the-need-for-knowledge-based-journalism-21638

中文世界里几乎找不到Thomas E. Patterson的信息,但他似乎已经出了很多书

6 Comments

  1. 刚刚看到你的博客,我会经常来拜读的~!感谢

  2. 好文章,赞一个!楼主的文章引用都好多,读起来根本停不下来,持续关注中~

  3. 请问博主我可以在标明作者是“Tony”,给出原文链接的情况下,转载几段你的文章么?

  4. 不错不错,行文的风格很喜欢。

发表评论

Your email address will not be published.

*

© 2017 Maker Log

Theme by Anders NorénUp ↑