Chapter 175 Overthinking and Deviating from the Essence

You're overthinking it. This is a topic for everyone, and you can't use your individual examples to illustrate it.

Green Pepper smiled, seeing through their little scheme.

Then, getting to the point, he said:

"A watch is an object that everyone can come into contact with."

I will wear it if I need to, and I won't wear it if I don't need to.

Is the problem really that simple?

However, since when did wearing this become a "must-have" in the eyes of many people?

It's perfectly acceptable for someone with money to wear a nicer piece of clothing; it's a symbol of status.

Those who don't have money really need and really like wearing it, but this can become a "criticism" in the eyes of some people. The reason is simple: they have a mobile phone.

Since you can check the time with a mobile phone, wearing this without money is just "pretending to be rich".

What? You can't wear a phone if you have a phone but no money? Who made that rule?

The birth of a product, regardless of its rise and fall, will leave its unique traces of time and the users who favor it.

It's a perfectly normal thing, so why has it evolved into this kind of perception?

To put it bluntly, it's because of stupidity, and the distorted view of "addition" that stems from stupidity.

Because in the past, only those with certain means could afford to wear watches, many people retained the impression that a watch was a symbol of status.

This concept is particularly prominent in the eyes of some people who have low self-esteem.

For example, someone who is poor but insecure might see someone wearing a watch and start to scrutinize why that person is wearing a watch.

If this person meets his standards, he will say, "Look at him, no wonder he's wearing such a nice watch."

If it doesn't meet his standards, he'll scoff and say, "You're just trying to look cool when you're not even dressed up. Look at the cheap stuff you're wearing."

For example, someone who is rich but insecure might say, "Now that I'm wealthy, I'll get a nice watch and wear it so people will know I'm not what I used to be."

Even though I never liked wearing watches in the first place, I still have to take out my wrist to check the time from time to time.

Therefore, regardless of one's social standing, in the eyes of someone with low self-esteem, a watch has essentially lost its original purpose as a timekeeping tool.

It is precisely because this inferiority complex and distorted value system exists in the population that, like a rat dropping spoiling the whole pot of porridge, everyone has developed a cognitive bias regarding wearing watches.

Take four-wheeled vehicles, for example. Their original purpose was as a means of transportation to improve travel efficiency.

Because the first-generation product was so expensive, people without money couldn't afford it, and only the wealthy could drive it on the road.

People's perception gradually shifted to the idea that only wealthy people drive cars.

Although cars are now commonplace, this stereotype still exists, albeit in terms of price.

The better the car you drive, the wealthier you are.

[Remember the fastest online novel website: 20 ...

This is understandable, but isn't the essence simply that "more rice means a higher standard of living"?

But many people don't think that way. Instead, they think that people who drive nice cars are big shots and can't be messed with.

When more people think this way, the result on the road is that many high-priced cars arrogantly cut in and blatantly give way.

Those who can't drive well avoid it, while those who drive well feel good about themselves.

It's absolutely ridiculous that he can't develop any wisdom; all he grows is a base, lowly nature.

People without money are afraid of being "splattered," while people with money are full of self-superiority.

Therefore, when faced with the word "splash," there is no distinction between poverty and wealth, only between perception.

So listen up, those of you who frequently type comments online like, "Are people who can afford nice cars not as smart as you?" You are the epitome of being "scumbags."

Watches and cars are just examples; the same applies to all aspects of life.

Because people lack wisdom, they tend to measure things by their so-called price, rather than their essence.

For example, if two people do the same good deed, but one person with money does it, netizens will say, "You're so virtuous, you deserve to be rich."

As for those who have no money, many people would think that they have lived an honest and hard-working life and have accumulated a lot of good character, so it is understandable that they cannot make money.

Does this have anything to do with having money or not? Isn't it essentially just a matter of being kind or unkind?

Similarly, is there a direct connection between intelligence and stupidity, and whether someone has money or not?

As we've already stated, the answer is, of course, no.

This kind of basic and erroneous view of "addition" has indirectly led to the coldness of human relationships and the growing indifference of human warmth.

If civilization continues to develop in this way, I fear that when two good friends meet and greet each other, they will look at each other as if they were fish on a chopping board, secretly calculating their options beforehand.

First, observe the level and value of the other person's clothing and appearance.

Next, assess the other party's capabilities and the value they can bring to you.

His eyes were filled with nothing but the value of rice.

This kind of "friendship with money" mentality has even been touted by some self-media as some kind of life value science, which teaches you to associate with people who can bring you more "bonuses," and so on.

Aren't friends just friends? Why complicate such simple things?

A distorted and warped understanding!

After saying all that, Qingjiao dared not say anything more, because his phone received a picture message: Qiuyue had sent him a three-piece set of "keyboard, durian, and water cup".

If he were to say it again, he would definitely swear again, but fortunately, he has given enough examples.

So he changed the subject:

"Okay, that's enough examples. All those examples were just to tell you one thing."

Inadequate teaching has resulted in students having high levels of intellectual and moral development, but their wisdom and insight are alarmingly low.

The most direct impact is that people living under a civilized society lack independent thinking.

Many people simply parrot what others say and echo others' opinions.

Let me give you two examples, one at a lower end and one at a higher end.

At the lower end, take some housewives for example. They'll always say something like, "Look how so-and-so made so much money."

What's wrong with you? Why don't you look at the ancient emperors and tell your man to follow in their footsteps?

To put it bluntly, they know their own limitations, but they just refuse to use their brains to analyze what they should do. Instead, they want to copy others' homework, copying the homework of those they can compare themselves to.

For example, scientists have shown that many animals are colorblind, unable to distinguish certain color systems in their eyes.

I first saw this question in a street vendor magazine when I was a teenager, but my first reaction was that I didn't really believe it.

Even if you have a reasonable explanation, I still won't believe you.

Scientists believe that those animals' eyes lack certain cells that prevent them from refracting the corresponding color system.

My point is, how do you know that animals rely on just a few cells to break down color systems? What if they have other structures in their brains that break down color systems?

Scientists' evidence is that when animals are induced to distinguish colors by food, they are given food if they do correctly, but cannot distinguish certain colors.

My view is that animals have those color systems in their consciousness, but they are born with other functions in their brains, and because of those functions, they cannot activate that color system function.

Just like a person's sixth sense, a person can see in all directions and hear in all directions, but the sixth sense can only be passively activated under specific conditions.

Conversely, some animals can easily sense magnetic fields, but can only passively activate their ability to distinguish all colors under specific conditions.

Some people might say I'm just arguing, that others have done scientific research, and that I'm just daydreaming.

Then I say, I'm not arguing. Unless you possess those animals and tell me in person what color you saw, this kind of research can be considered conclusive.

Instead of relying solely on the research of a few scientists to draw definitive conclusions.

Even Dungo's three laws of the universe are not entirely applicable to the entire universe, let alone your meager research.

I'm using this high-level example to tell everyone something.

Nothing in this world is absolute; it may have a wide range of applications but cannot cover everything.

Blindly believing in science is also a form of superstition.

The reason for blindly believing in science is the same as the reason for blindly believing in metaphysics.

Because you cannot verify the existence of certain things, you can only listen to what people with more authority than you say.

"People say it, but you don't even have the brain to think for yourself, or the courage to think about it from the other side; you just habitually follow the crowd."