2021年9月9日星期四

写作


无论是商业还是日常沟通,写作都是值得去加强的。

 

我分五个方面谈如何增进。

 

1、情事即世事。每一次写作都是"情书"。古裁今藻。法无定法,了犹未了,没有感情的写作是没有意义的。而过于浓烈的感情也是负担。意在笔先,要平衡这种意气,就跟烤肉一样,七分熟正好。

 

莫问文字短和长,但观意气能终始。没有特别想写就不写。一定不要逼迫自己。就像话剧演员表演一样,你看他们要表演几十场同样的演出,每一次都要有同等质量的感情,如何做到呢?秘诀之一就是保持七分新鲜感。

 

在写作的时候你要有明确的写作对象,也就是对方,在脑子里,无论是爱憎还是哭笑,活生生的人,个体,而不是模糊不清的一副面具。或者仅仅是,"他"。

 

就像你现在,提笔则是具体人物,而不是简单的甲乙丙丁。这是写作中的"人际关联"。

 

人是有血有肉又敏感又粗心的。作为写作者,如果不具体化对方,你会在"情意"上先输一场。至于如何遣词造句那都是更微观的东西。

 

2、你不是为了说服人而写作。而是比较舒坦的表达自己。

 

沈先生在《边城》里说,"凡事都有偶然的凑巧,结果却又如宿命的必然。" 动机太强反而会削弱文字本身的魅力。

 

浸润、沉入、自得、恍然大悟。

 

好的东西都是读者自己摸到的。不需要你不耐其烦,更不需要你预设太多。

 

沈先生有一次跟他的徒弟说,"你写的东西太聪明了。我读起来仿佛是两个聪明脑壳在打架。太辛苦"

 

聪明糊涂两不误。不要太刻意。

 

我写过一段话。"要有内心坚定的理想主义,但别指望周围95%的人能理解你。而且也要允许那剩下的5%质疑或阶段性不坚定。这才是现实主义。 降低预期才能保护你的内在元气,做出来,少解释,少以言语胜人。 "

 

文字胜人不是好事。

 

平静、客观、自然朴素,就好。尤其是去掉那些形容词或修饰。

 

修饰都是为了掩饰空虚。

 

仅仅就中文而言,我们的母语本身即是一幅幅画面。你看看这些字儿:安、宁、容、诚、来、盼、未来、厚度,哪一个不是又简洁又美。

 

文字就是态度。

 

我不排斥各种风格,但我总以为胜人不如自胜。文字和态度最好比较从容,从字和标点的选择都留有余地比较好。也要保持段落之间的距离。就像音乐,它并不逼迫你去这样或那样思考。明亮乐观也好,轻盈也罢。

 

好的文字也是能带来运气的。能带来运气有很多因素,风度就是一种,这其中也包括对"压力"和"偏见"的态度。有运气,有雅量,就是有身位。

 

所以阅读很多,往往在阅读中能体会到作者的身位。

 

天下没有笨人。

 


 3、关于如何呈现得更生动,无非是三个工具:景、数据、引述。

 

取景乃大。

 

如何运用好"景"是写作的一大关键。反面就是"今天万里无云,蓝蓝的天空飘着朵朵白云"。这是"恶文"最典型的手法。

 

借景生情。你要记住,景都是负债,是你借来的。你不拥有景。你没有权利植入你不熟悉的景,或滥用你熟悉的景反复暗示。

 

景就是境。你在描述一个景就像你植入了一幅图。

 

媳妇平时跟我讲构图和光线,我笑着说不懂。我可能更喜欢写意留白。媳妇说境由心生,我说就是啊,不同的人生活在不同的象限里,其实很隔绝,这些年的感觉尤其如此。把自己定位清楚,心里才平静和踏实。更大更宏阔的东西,你影响不了,它们的价值在于映射你目前的状态。不苛全,不迫人。

 

我建议大家读读一些描述非洲的作家。一方面,非洲的景无比丰富,但作家并不贪,你比如说非洲作家米亚·科托,他的文字和文字之间藏着一种无所畏惧的抽离。他是自然主义者。他相信爱恨都是自然选择。你给予就是你归还。 所以他的景充满了迷人的纯粹。很少渲染。

 

而海明威更是写景的高手。乞力马扎罗山的雪。

 

景是服从于整体需求的。除非是技术性需要去描述,建议你像个导演一样,预先把"景"单独预留。

 

最普通的抒情能力来自三样东西:真实、心正笔直、情景同步。

 

同步的意思是,如果觉得很多东西不好表达,不妨放一段景吧。

 

它可以来自回忆、当下或可以想象的未来。这段景就像老朋友,帮你开启或结束一段意思。你甚至可以用景来拉开现实。

 

比如你要表达思念之孤独。你可以穿插带音乐的想象的景。就像"哈马丹",就是"热带信风"。就像你在拉克代夫海的午后,31摄氏度。阳光掠过青蓝不一的海面,温和平缓,无所事事。今天说了很多次你。你和我都喜欢海。但你不在。

 

更多的景是自陈述的。这就涉及文字的神性了,太复杂,我不多说。景里面的文字前呼邪许,后亦应之。神的空间,人的尺度。

 

而有时候把景拟人化也是一种拉近阅读距离的手法。比如我写过:

 

"有一年在宁南固原须弥山石窟。落日黄昏,回望石佛,睥一丝微笑,古时驿路。一时忘了我是行人,还是佛是行人,一切都有声有色苍凉着。夜里去一处酒肆,超乎寻常大的碗几种面条拥挤在一起。蒜和辣都适中,不霸面的原味及暖香。食完出来,寒极,碧蓝天像之下远处是黑嘘嘘六盘余脉。西北。"

 

景就在里面。石佛就在里面。但石佛并不需要你去太过细节描述。因为它是"有声有色"的。

 

写多了景会有工艺美术的感觉。我们更喜欢亲切自然的景。忽然从你心里长出来的景。慢慢掠夺你的影子的景。

 

4、数据是一切文字的伙伴。人类对数字的第一感觉是"逻辑关系",第二是"说服力",第三是,"具体"。在商业写作中尤其。

 

不要滥用。

 

有几个方面你需要额外注意。

 

第一,正因为数字的吸睛力量,一定不要堆砌。太多数字的东西读起来譬如肥人度暑,只令观者眉重。过咯。这一点和引述一样,都是别人的话,名言,很累。不成熟的写作者会自我沉醉于这些"第三方"背书来强调自己。实际效果是反向而驰。

 

第二,最好把数字来源标记出来。可以放在文中也可以置于本页的底部。

 

第三,最好把数字的时效性表达出来。如果是统计类的。

 

第四,前后数字的一致性和协调性。不像文字的模糊感,一旦一篇整体文字里出现前后矛盾,大多来自数字的矛盾。数字是骨头,立论用的。你骨头长歪了,整个形象就完蛋了。而且一般忌讳和数字连在一起的一些表达诸如"大约""可能""好像是""未经核实",等等,会严重削弱数字效果,不如不提。

 

建议每个人都学习最基础的统计学。因为数字方面的错误是当下媒体们犯的最多的错误。经常违背统计常识就直接跳到结论。

 

这里不分你本身的专业,要防忽悠,就得有统计常识。

 

而另外一个层面上,通过数字也能看出作者是否严谨。一个细节都不严谨的人,一定是其他类似的习惯。

 

5、幽默感。

 

人类无论如何理性,依旧一枚倔强而随性的少年。幽默感是很神奇的东西,我以前说过,AI 在未来最主要挑战是直觉、通感、情怯,以及自嘲,等等,这些人类与生俱来的东西。

 

幽默感是人性最直接的内在。是这些东西的集合体。

 

无论处于什么写作目的和对象,适当的幽默感总是好的。

 

但这里有分坏幽默和好幽默。冷幽默和热幽默。

 

坏幽默未必一定就是恶俗的。写作意义上,指的是嘲的过度。

 

"嘲"有五:自嘲、他嘲、空嘲、反嘲、不嘲。自嘲是所有里面最基础的一种嘲。因为它最简单。在任何社交里,"过分认真"等于"高估自我" 。没人喜欢。但自我放低又是操作难度不小的幽默,据说一般人可以自贬10%,超过就得止损。总之,退退没坏处,自嘲是风度。

 

好幽默是发自内心的感觉。推荐大家读读美国作家、导演、艺术家伍迪艾伦的作品。幽默是最好的膳补。伍迪艾伦说过句有趣的话,"我不生气,但我憋出了个肿瘤。" 既然是文字,以及抒发,有情绪还是适当释放的好。也不损气量。

 

冷幽默类似于黑色幽默了。这一点大家肯定不陌生。其实表达无奈也是一种很好的黑色幽默。没有人会苛求你完美,圣人,一定知道答案,一定万事亨通。

 

在写作中能体现这种黑色幽默的能力也是一种释放。在这个媚俗和异化为主流的名利社会,有些"崇高"比"堕落"还坏,有些恶隐藏的比善还深。

 

那就黑色一把自己又何妨?

 

幽默也是一种对自己的仁慈。就算是各种对手,态度上也未必要"啖尽血肉"。丘吉尔说,"我本人是乐观主义者,因为做别的什么者貌似都没用。" 他这句话的深层意思是,我已经原谅了我自己。

 

我最不喜欢的风格之一就是有理不饶人。幽默感可以冲淡这些锋锐。毕竟,谁又是一直正确?

 

最不幽默的就是那些必须不得不去表达的有关的东西。这里不深谈为什么美好的汉语会堕落于此。

 

惺惺相惜的人,只言片语即可沟通。人和人之间固然圈子不同,气场不同,但豁达幽默是一种沟通成本最低的共性。在文字里你可以适当表达,也是一种放低姿态。

 

还是那句话,谁又比谁聪明多少?

 

当然不是所有的文字都丧失原则的去幽默。有一种笔法叫"决绝美学"。记得那句话吗?"老人和蔼,年轻人愤怒,爱也许盲目,但欲望决不。" 我们写作的终极意义,如果有,还是自己。文字的色泽吸收走疲倦,文字的钟声缓慢而节制,最美好的,尽在决绝。最美好的文字,都是你当下情绪的真诚。

 

写了一大堆文字如何如何。并没有要否定你形成自己的风格。

 

艺术作品最大的嘉赏就是诚实。文字也一样。我只是尽可能告诉你如何有效让读者接受,如何组织,并不代表要矫饰。

 

世事一无可说。你依旧要说。

 ​​​




发自我的小米手机

2021年9月1日星期三

Amazon.com: Customer reviews: The Behavioral Investor

Amazon.com: Customer reviews: The Behavioral Investor

🔥 Save unlimited web pages along with a full PDF snapshot of each page.
Unlock Premium →

Top critical review

3.0 out of 5 starsREad Carefully

Reviewed in the United States on February 14, 2019

Mr. Crosby has given us five pieces of advice in this book. They are:
• Systems trump discretion.
• Diversification and conviction can co-exist.
• Prepare for bursting bubbles without being too fine-tuned to them.
• Less is more when it comes to information.
• Look for evidence, theory, and roots in behavior.
While I generally agreed with Mr. Crosby's conclusions, I think there were ways he could have improved his presentation, partially by reversing his fourth piece of advice, at least as it applies to writing the book. I found the book to largely be a well-organized assembly of other people's work, with brief breaks to discuss them. This is where I had a problem. I don't think he looked into some of his research examples deeply enough, violating his fifth principle. I will give three examples, all of which I have encountered before reading his book.
In the first example, page 16, cites a Harvard study in which students were paired and given $100 to divide. Person 1 decided how to split it and person 2 decided whether or not to accept it. If person 2 rejected, neither got anything. Harvard found that fifty percent of the low offers were rejected. Mr. Crosby concluded that even a 99 to 1 offer should be accepted because one dollar was better than none. I disagree totally. Person 2 would either consciously or unconsciously be valuing their self in future negotiations, to their own disadvantage. What would happen if person 2 said no and the exercise was repeated a week later with the same players? Would person 1 ask for $99 dollars again? Certainly not. He might be more inclined to ask for $50 while he might have gotten $60 or more each time. Person 2 would be $48 ahead. Harvard could have run this test better, but Crosby failed to see and discuss the possibilities. What if person 1 had been given a specific amount to ask for and each participant had gone through the exercise a number of times at different amounts so that a statistical analysis could have offered information on optimal behavior in this situation? Would this not be good discussion for the investor, especially when evaluating one's actions when the other person has the hammer? There are more possibilities, but I will move on.

Mr. Crosby cites two pieces of supposed research that claim to prove that people over estimate their own abilities or characteristics. One of his examples involves asking people if they were more athletic than the average person. Eighty percent said they were above average. I have seen this before as it applies to a woman's looks and to good drivers. None of them define terms clearly, define average, or give the person a chance to evaluate themselves in a meaningful way. As far as I know, none of them account for age, change in physical condition over time, and the effects of opinions offered by others? Even if thirty percent (do the math) of the people overestimate their place on the scale, is it because of their ego, or input from other people that helped them form their opinions? How many people tell a woman that her looks are below average, whatever that is, and how much does that impact her view of herself? Mr. Crosby and the researchers have drawn conclusions based on data, not cause and effect. They haven't even done that. Supposedly 70% put themselves on the right side of the line. So, more than two against one made correct evaluations about themselves. That's pretty good.
The third example is on page 154. Mr. Crosby does a wonderful job of telling us how to apply statistical analysis to understanding situations. However, his example is horrible and thus his lesson is limited if not almost useless. He tells us that 1 in 1,000 drivers is intoxicated and that breathalyzers are 95% correct, but that in a random check most of the positives are incorrect and gives us the analysis to back this up. As I said, the math is correct. The problem is that the one in 1,000 average is meaningless in real life. Why would I pay the police my tax dollars to catch one in 1,000 people driving drunk? The distribution of drunk drivers is not spatially or temporally even. The police need to give random checks on Las Vegas Blvd. at 1:00 A.M., not at 10:00 A.M. in your neighborhood. Mr. Crosby failed to realize that broad averages are just that and you need specific, applicable information to do good investment analysis. My suggestion for Mr. Crosby is less examples and more in-depth analysis. Do I recommend this book? Sure, just read it carefully.

Source: https://www.amazon.com/Behavioral-Investor-Daniel-Crosby/product-reviews/0857196863/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_show_all_btm?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=all_reviews
This web page was saved on Wednesday, Sep 01 2021.

Upgrade to Premium Plan

✔ Save unlimited bookmarks.

✔ Get a complete PDF copy of each web page

✔ Save PDFs, DOCX files, images and Excel sheets as email attachments.

✔ Get priority support and access to latest features.

Upgrade now →