The two stooges also have their own strengths, and their skills are specialized. Zhuge Liang will be worse than two stooges in some respects.
Debate materials:
During the two thousand years of feudal rule, there were many ultra-stable things deposited in the depths of our ideas. Among them, I feel that there is an idea of valuing quantity over quality, or I can call it "quantity complex".
Tired of quantity, it has caused many misunderstandings.
One of the misunderstandings is that quantity replaces quality. Simply seeking more, greedy for more, especially in many fields, praise quantity, while ignoring or ignoring quality. In short, it is based on quantity, and I always feel that "Han Xin points soldiers-the more the better", and I always want to use quantity to illustrate the problem.
For example:
In terms of population, blindly believe that many people are very hot and powerful, regardless of the quality of the population. The so-called "everyone gathers firewood with a high flame" is also based on the premise that "everyone gathers firewood with a high flame". As for what firewood is, whether it is dry or wet, I won't ask. In fact, in order to achieve the goal of "high flame", the first thing that comes to mind is not quantity but quality, so there is no need for "everyone" to "collect firewood". In the current words, it is enough to find a few people to get gasoline.
On the family side, people pursue and praise the children and grandchildren, seven sons and eight husbands, thirteen Pacific Insurance, etc. And numbers are the first thing to talk about. Whether they succeed or not is another story. Let's start with the numbers.
When a person is proved to have knowledge, he is said to have knowledge. In fact, reading five cars is not necessarily learned, but also depends on what books he reads, how he understands and whether he can apply them to practice.
To describe a person's achievements in writing, he is said to be equal in writing. In fact, even if you write as much as your height, if everything is mediocre, what is your achievement?
When describing a powerful military force, we are talking about millions of soldiers and thousands of soldiers. In fact, the victory or defeat of the war does not depend entirely on the number of people. As a strategist, Cao Cao himself defeated Yuan Shao with a small number of troops in the battle of Guandu, but he still couldn't get rid of this digital complex. In a letter to Sun Quan before Battle of Red Cliffs, he exaggerated the number of his army, saying that "today's water conservancy army is 80 million". As we all know, the result is still a fiasco.
When you described the harvest, you said you came back with a full load. As for the full load of goods, I won't go into it.
When explaining the seriousness of a person's crime, we often don't focus on the seriousness of his crime, but first grasp the figures, list and even piece together the so-called top ten crimes; The word "countless books" only refers to its quantity, not its plot.
When commending a person, ten contributions are often listed. In fact, the value of credit lies in size, not in quantity, that is, quality rather than quantity.
As for the "Great Leap Forward" period, in order to catch up with Britain in steel production, the whole people "made a big steel smelting", and the quality was not mentioned at all, and the lesson was more profound.
Examples are numerous.
We China people are not without quality concept, which is proved by some sayings, such as "It is better to eat a basket of rotten apricots than to eat a mouthful of fresh peaches", "It is better to abuse what is lacking", "The soldiers are not as good as the essence", "Veterans come out, and one is the best", "Take one as ten" and "Better troops and simpler administration". However, the idea of number first and quantity first mentioned above is often more dominant, which often causes us a lot of great losses in practice. Fortunately, we now understand the importance of quality and re-examine the issue of quantity.
The second misunderstanding is that quantity trumps quality. The most typical way is to get used to "sea tactics", "big corps fighting" and "collective creation". The most typical idea is "two heads are better than one." In fact, Zhuge Liang is composed of his own qualities, and cobblers are also stipulated by their own qualities. The different qualities between them cannot be replaced and transformed by quantity. Just as a hundred mediocre writers can't top a Lu Xun, a hundred heads are still heads, and they can't top a Zhuge Liang. It's no good beating quality by quantity. Engels has long criticized this "pure quantity" view as "one-sided, numerical view".
The third misunderstanding is to seek quality by quantity. Think quantity first, quality second; I believe that the quantity of nature produces quality, and the good will inevitably appear. The principle from quantitative change to qualitative change is often cited. In fact, to correctly understand the dialectical relationship between the unity of opposites of quantity and quality, at least two issues need to be clarified. First, there must be certain preconditions for quantitative change to qualitative change. It has a certain category and cannot happen between anything. 1000 mice, even if you add 1 10,000 mice, you still can't qualitatively change a cat. Second, from quantitative change to qualitative change, there must be a considerable process, that is, first of all, the quantity in constant motion, not the static quantity, and the gradual development and change of movement should take a long time. For example, in recent years, in literature, the number of publications has soared, while there are few excellent works, and the quantitative change is very large, even unprecedented, but it has not caused a qualitative change in literary level.
Of course, in many aspects, a certain amount is absolutely necessary and indispensable, and some problems must be explained and proved by numbers and quantities, which is self-evident common sense. But then again, first of all, you can't put aside quality and make up a few things casually, and secondly, you can't exceed the limit, not the more the better. As for fraud, "officials in figures" belong to another kind of problem.
There is an old saying in China that "two heads are better than one", which means that wisdom comes from the collective. In the 1920s, social psychology experiments also proved that many people make great wisdom. As far as common sense is concerned, the group should exert its wisdom beyond the individual. But many times, two stooges are two stooges, three stooges are two stooges, and five stooges are two stooges. No amount of stooges can compare with Zhuge Liang-just like two glasses of water or even more at 50℃, they will never reach the boiling point when mixed together at 50℃; Just like countless zeros add up, the result is still equal to zero.
It is true that we must admit that cobbler and Zhuge Liang are equal in personality (all men are born equal), and being a cobbler and governing the country are just different in social division of labor; We must also admit that there are many people and many ideas, so the strength of three cobblers must be greater than that of one cobbler, but we must never compare cobblers with Zhuge Liang at random, because the value of capable people is by no means the sum or overlap of cobblers in a simple sense. Zhuge Liang can't be compared only by the number of people-let alone three or five cobblers, even no amount of cobblers can compare with Zhuge Liang; No amount of cobblers can become Zhuge Liang.
The cobbler has an admirable ambition of "trying to compete with Mr. Wolong", but the comparison method and result must be convincing. In Zhuge Liang's life, which cobblers can match? He "plowed through Long Mu" and decided the "three-point strategy". Can one hundred ordinary farmers do this? He invented the "profit and loss crossbow" and "wooden ox flowing horse" Can a hundred ordinary carpenters do it? He persuaded Sun Quan to resist Cao Cao. Can this be done by a hundred ordinary lobbyists? He "legislated to rectify the army" and "worked hard until he died". Can this be done by a hundred ordinary politicians who set foot in officialdom? This and so on are enough to show that Zhuge Liang's ability is by no means comparable to that of cobblers, whether it is thirty or thirty, or three hundred, three thousand or even thirty thousand.
It is very confusing and ridiculous to look at quantity without considering quality. If three cobblers can really match Zhuge Liang, aren't there as many cobblers at the intersection of the street, and Zhuge Liang is everywhere? Why did Mr. Liu Xuande wronged himself to "look after the hut" and just hire three (or more) cobblers?
If the demand for cobblers only stays in quantity and ignores the consideration of their quality, then three cobblers will never stand Zhuge Liang. A cobbler with the highest skill and the best technology is nothing more than a cobbler after all. What he is proficient in and good at is nothing more than polishing shoes and mending leather goods. Obviously, these are not enough to replace Zhuge Liang's great cause. In the world, quantitative changes are taking place at any time and anywhere, but a large part of quantitative changes will never produce qualitative changes. China's ability to build an atomic bomb is inseparable from the patriotic feelings of the older generation of scientists, the revolutionary spirit of hard struggle and the professional knowledge of atomic bombs; Similarly, the improvement of rice can not be separated from Mr Yuan Longping's wisdom, experience and painstaking efforts. Without these qualities, not to mention three or even n million cobblers, it is impossible to develop atomic bombs and hybrid rice.
There is also a story of "three monks" in China: one monk carries water to eat, two monks carry water to eat, and three monks have no water to eat. This story also falsifies from one side that "three heads are better than one." Smart Americans have turned the story of "Three Monks" into the American version of "Washington Cooperation Law": one person perfunctory, two people shirk each other, and three people will never accomplish anything.
Abraham, the first 16 president of the United States? Shortly after abraham lincoln took office, he called a meeting of six assistants. Lincoln put forward a very important bill, but the aides disagreed, so seven people argued enthusiastically. After listening carefully to the opinions of six other people, Lincoln still felt that he was right. When the final decision was made, six aides unanimously opposed Lincoln's opinion, but Lincoln still said, "Although I am the only one who agrees, I still want to announce that this bill has passed." On the surface, it seems a bit arbitrary for Lincoln to flatly reject the opinions of the majority, but isn't the so-called discussion the most reasonable one from all kinds of opinions? Since I am right, how can I give up my principles because of the different opinions of six "two stooges"? Marshal Zhu De famously said, "Truth is often in the hands of a few people." The truth contained in this sentence has been accepted by many accomplished people of insight and proved by countless facts.
A recent article published in Scientific American magazine also falsified that "two heads are better than one". American psychologist Stephen? Herzog and lavr? Herzweig believes that to be creative, you must go it alone. According to their research, the superiority of swarm intelligence must be based on two premises: the knowledge stored by team members is related to the problem to be studied; Everyone in the team has different opinions and can contribute different wisdom to the research. People are bound to make mistakes. The problem is that if everyone makes the same mistake, such a team will not be able to discuss meaningful results.
If it is a job where creativity is not dominant, such as heavy manual labor, it is really impossible for a person to surpass a large group of people anyway; But if creative work is the main thing, people should not believe that a small group (or a large group) of people with average ability can surpass genius in some ways, let alone believe that a team should be built around those mediocre people. Liu Xuande is worth seeing. If he also believes the story that "three heads are better than one Zhuge Liang", he will not only ruin his bright future without any suspense, but also ruin Zhu Gekongming, a legendary figure famous for his wisdom in ancient China history.
People believe the old saying that "two heads are better than one" only because it compliments the mediocre and incompetent majority and conforms to the Ah Q spiritual victory law of disappointed groups. Here, I appeal to the old and new cobblers: please spend more time thinking about how to make leather goods better or polish leather shoes brighter, which is certainly much more realistic and meaningful than boasting about the last Zhuge Liang!