Cognitive distortions are bugs in our minds, algorithms that appeared for a good purpose - to protect the brain from overload. But it turned out that not all protection is equally useful. Sometimes these algorithms work where they shouldn't and cause us to make mistakes.
We have already talked about thinking errors due to which we do not understand anything. They help you filter information and not go crazy from the constant flow of new knowledge. Today we’ll look into the distortions that help us cope with the sad fact that we don’t think well.
The world is huge, a person studies all his life and still knows very little about it. We simply do not have time to learn everything about the world around us. But you have to live somehow. And our brain draws its own picture of the world, as if writing a science fiction book. We exist within it.
Sometimes this picture is very different from reality. To act correctly, you need to go beyond the canvas.
Let's figure out what mechanisms prevent this.
We see logic where there is none
We make up the world like a mosaic. The faster it comes together, the easier it is for us. Therefore, sometimes we fold the pattern at our own discretion.
Anthropomorphism
We attribute human characteristics to groups of people, animals, and even natural phenomena. And then we think that they can really behave like people. Do you remember how in fairy tales the heroes constantly communicated with the wind, the sun, and gray wolves? In some form, we have not escaped this mythical perception.
Pareidolia
This is a visual illusion when, in a jumble of random lines, dots and shapes, we see some kind of completed object. When a monster “crawls out” at you from the darkness under the bed, and the lunar landscape forms into the figure of a hare, this is pareidolia.
Clustering illusion
We find patterns where there are none. “I wore this sweater to interviews twice, I received an invitation to work twice. And for the third interview I put on a shirt, everything was bad. So the sweater is lucky.” Not really.
Illusory correlation
This is also about searching for non-existent patterns. We easily notice things that stand out from others: pictures in text, colored posters on gray walls, a tall person among short people. But this is not enough for us.
If we notice two outstanding things, we will try to find a connection between them and we will find it, even if there is none.
Distortion works when we form opinions about people, especially foreigners. For example, we meet a New Zealander, which in itself is unusual. It turns out that he loves coffee obsessively. Our brain will think that he is a coffee fan because he is from New Zealand.
Underestimation of sample size
This is a distortion that shows that we are completely incapable of handling statistics. Statistics work well with large samples, but poorly with small ones. But we cannot evaluate this and expect that the same principles apply in small groups as in large ones.
This also works in the opposite direction. For example, a poor student was abandoned by two girls for wealthy guys. The student decides that all women are materialistic and think only about money. And he makes mistakes for the rest of his life.
Fallacy of sufficient cause
This is a distortion that is associated with the inability to think logically. There is such a law: if one object has property A, and the second object does not have such a property, then these objects are not the same thing. For example, a bicycle has pedals, but a scooter does not. This means that a scooter is not a bicycle. Logical? Exactly as long as we know everything about objects. But if our knowledge is not enough, the law fails.
For example, my money was stolen. I know that a thief is a criminal. And I know that my friend Sasha is not a criminal. So Sasha didn't steal my money. Therefore, I will be very surprised when the police find what was stolen from Sasha’s house.
Player error
It seems to us that a chain of random events influences the next event. If a coin lands tails up five times, then the sixth time will definitely be heads. In fact, the probability of getting heads is 50%. The same as it was when the coin was tossed for the first time.
Novelty effect
It seems to us that recent events affect the world more than those that happened long ago. For example, on Monday you went to the pool, on Tuesday to the gym, on Wednesday you got sick. You will most likely decide that you caught the infection at the gym, although you could have caught it in the pool.
Recommendations
Working on self-esteem
This will help you become more resilient so as not to fall into a sacrificial position.
It is not necessary to show willpower and so on, it is important to accept yourself as you are. Study your character traits and not demand the impossible
The people around you are interesting because they are different. Creative people seem unique and special. But our only difference with them is that they let go of control and allowed themselves to be natural, despite the condemnation and opinions of others.
Focusing on yourself and your desires is very important. Because no one will live your life except you. Therefore, you should work where you like, even if it does not coincide with the expectations of your wife or parents. Rest in such a way as to restore resources and have fun, and not maintain the status of a person with an active position, for example, and drive yourself to parties, trainings, exhibitions, etc. every weekend.
And in order to allow you to be who you are, the first thing you should do is love yourself. Then you will quickly find a place in the sun. If you don't know where to start, you can read the article located here.
Restrictions
Have you seen the movie “Always Say Yes” with Jimmy Carrey? The main character decided to change something in his life, because depression and routine consumed him so much that nothing made him happy at all. He simply stopped refusing, no matter what offers he received. And believe it or not, he not only managed to bring drive, but also achieve success.
We don’t recommend doing so radically, you never know what comes into anyone’s head. But it’s worth forgetting about phrases like “I can’t do it,” “I can’t do this,” “it’s pointless.” After all, the main principle of non-standardism is to act not as usual, but in a new way. Human psychology is such that he is capable of doing the impossible if only he believes that everything will work out for him. Any restrictions are only in our head.
Horizon
Remember what you were like as a child? Yes, children are different, but most love to experiment, because how else can they explore the world, besides asking endless questions to their parents? It was for this reason that someone took apart radios, cars, dolls and teddy bears. To find out how everything works there. Then, as we grow up, we slow down the impulses of curiosity, even in those places where it is required.
If you don’t want to learn something new or take up a hobby, you can simply go to a restaurant that you haven’t visited before. Take a walk through an unfamiliar area, if it is not possible to at least go on an excursion to the neighboring region. As a last resort, just change your usual route to work. Your brain is instantly activated, and this is exactly what is needed to change your thinking style even slightly.
Expand your horizons, so you will always be on your toes. Agree, it’s not difficult to devote 5 minutes a day to learning something new, right? Even if it’s just one foreign word. In a year, with this minimal regimen, you will be able to significantly expand your vocabulary.
Workout
Solve problems and puzzles that are aimed at developing the right hemisphere of the brain. It is responsible for our creative part of personality, speech and even intuition, the ability to “understand” people.
Listen to classical music, watch comedy shows, do yoga, after all. Sports and humor have a beneficial effect on our mental abilities and help change the type of thinking.
You will find examples of interesting and exciting tasks if you follow this link.
Advice
Be sure to train your brain, especially with non-standard tasks. In my opinion, this service is best to cope with this task. There you will find a lot of online simulators for developing your brain.
We think in patterns
Our brains hate the unknown. We must know everything and understand everything. Therefore, any new information urgently needs to be compacted into the system that is familiar to us. And if information contradicts our beliefs, then we can easily come up with some explanation for this, and no one will convince us otherwise.
Fundamental attribution error
When we think about others, we attribute their actions to personal qualities. For example, why did a colleague yell at me? Because he's an asshole. And when we think about ourselves, we explain behavior by external factors. Why did I yell at my colleague? Because he's an asshole.
The consequence is a group attribution error. We attribute properties of the entire group to each of its representatives, and vice versa. Remember the New Zealander who loved coffee? We'll think that all New Zealanders love coffee.
Stereotyping
It's so difficult to get rid of attribution errors that we ask every New Zealander why he suddenly doesn't like coffee? We know they are all coffee lovers there.
Functional fixedness
If we know how to use an object, then we cannot use it otherwise. What can you do with an empty aluminum can? Crumple and discard. Or construct a burner from it. When we overcome this distortion, true creativity begins.
Moral trust effect
Reputation-related effect. If a person has been an example in something for a long time and makes the right decisions, then this is taken for granted. And the person himself begins to believe that his decisions are good only because he made them.
Belief in a just world
We believe that all the villains will get what they deserve, and the truth will one day win, people will treat us the way we treat them, and all offenders will be punished by karma/god/the universe/spaghetti monster. This is a distortion of the cause-and-effect relationship, which we interpret in such a way as to make our lives calmer and more pleasant.
Submission to authority
We tend to do what bosses, authorities, and generally superior people tell us to do, and we follow orders even if we don’t agree with them.
Examples
Broad conclusions about a person based on minimal information do not stand up to criticism. Examples of stereotypical thinking can be conclusions about intellectual level - this often applies to blondes (even a huge number of jokes) and athletes (often explained by inability to do something). Such conclusions are enshrined in the popular worldview and, as a result, even after numerous scientific refutations, continue to guide people.
Tourists acquire stereotypical knowledge of countries by seeing them only from a bus window, visiting famous places and listening to historical reports. The real country remains unexplored, because there are practically no locals in tourist places, the cuisine is adapted for Europeans, and everyday life is hidden by historical facades - this is what creates the feeling of the picture. This applies not only to countries, but also to entire nations - the Japanese are considered smart, Russians are careless, and gypsies are considered thieves. These are all examples of stereotypical thinking that relate to the nation, but have nothing to do with a specific person.
A woman freely dismantling a car on the highway causes either surprise or indignation; some may joke that she will break it, and all only because the stereotype of girls’ inability to drive is firmly established. Those who cannot earn enough money on their own consider the rich to be thieves and only because several bribe takers or criminals have been declassified. It is easier for a person to explain someone else’s success by unseemly behavior, and to somehow whitewash himself, than to accept responsibility and take a broader look at what the other did that he himself could not. This also includes the belief that a beautiful girl cannot be smart, and even if she has a PhD, then this is a purchased job, and her position is under the patronage of her lover. This is a vivid example of how the rational mind begins to serve the stereotypical mind, continuing to look for justifications and support for its concept, because otherwise something inside will collapse (excuses, self-image, habitual doing nothing) and a new one will fall in (responsibility, the task of thinking, admitting the impossible, learning other's).
Patterns control us
We love templates so much that we create them almost instantly and don’t even intend to revise them.
Halo effect
The overall impression of a person influences everything we think about him. Beautiful people seem smarter, neat people seem more professional. So they fall in love at first sight, and then ask where the brains were.
Bias in assessing the homogeneity of another group
People whom we do not consider “ours” seem more the same to us than they are. Hence the jokes about how Koreans pass control using only one passport.
Distortion in favor of one's group
People whom we consider “ours” seem better to us than others. This works both on a large scale (urban people are not like that, our people are more cheerful) and on a small scale.
We can refuse other people's inventions and achievements only because they are foreign.
The cheerleader effect
If a person is part of a group in which everyone is similar in some way, he looks more attractive. We wrote in detail about this effect and how to use it.
Devaluation of opinion
We cannot perceive information in isolation from the person presenting it. And if something is said by “our” person, then we perceive the proposal as sensible, and if it is “stranger”, then we look for shortcomings in it.
“Let's decorate the office for the holiday!” - says a colleague. If it's a designer who is reputable, then it's a great idea. And if this is a newcomer from the security department whom no one knows, then there is absolutely no need to waste time on such nonsense.
What prevents us from going beyond our usual thinking?
There are three main obstacles that prevent us from breaking out of the boundaries of our standard thinking:
Barrier No. 1
. Previously, for many, the breadth of thinking was associated with some crazy ideas, the implementation of which did not bring anything useful or good into our lives. Below we will look at several recommendations that are aimed at those areas where, by concentrating on them, we can make a qualitative leap in our thinking.
Barrier No. 2
. Due to the fact that we receive payment for our work precisely for certain actions, and not for our thoughts, many people are not inclined to spend extra time on abstract thoughts. And it is precisely this obstacle that is one of the most “slowing down” us in going beyond stereotyped thinking.
Barrier No. 3
. If you decide to apply a non-standard solution to a problem in your work environment, you are always taking a certain risk. And since in many companies the rewards for such decisions and the risk to which you expose yourself are unfavorably correlated, many people prefer to stick to familiar ways of solving problems.
We don't know how to count
The subconscious does not like numbers; it likes everything to be “by eye” and “approximately”. Therefore, we round and simplify any numerical values.
Denial of probability
Our brain does not know the theory of probability at all. Therefore, when a decision needs to be made, and knowledge is insufficient, small risks are either ignored altogether or overestimated. All terrorist actions are based on this effect. We are much more likely to get hit by a car on our way to work than to be hit by an explosion on the subway. But an explosion is an event that has a strong effect on emotions, and now we are afraid to go to a concert, but we are not afraid to cross the road in the wrong place.
Another example: the population was warned about an impending hurricane, but most did nothing to prepare for it. A person who has never experienced an emergency cannot imagine it, so he ignores its likelihood.
Survivor Mistake
If a person was able to survive a disaster, then he will think that he survived because he did everything right, although hundreds of factors could have influenced his fate, and many people who acted the same way as himself died.
Denomination effect
We have a hard time spending a large amount of money on one purchase, but we easily spend the same amount on several small ones. We just can’t imagine that a lot of small bills add up to waste. This is one of the reasons why you should keep a financial diary.
Basic mistakes
It is not uncommon for some beliefs to become distorted by the cognitive thought process. And then patterned deviations in thinking appear. For example, there are known cases of people’s tendency to deny the opinions of strangers who do not belong to their group, and to completely agree with like-minded classmates, even if their statements are unfounded and unjustified.
There are many errors associated with cognitive bias. We will list the most common of them.
All-or-nothing thinking
Some people, especially perfectionists, tend to go to extremes. They believe that if a task is not 100% completed, then it is not ready. The foreman showed up late when called, which means he is a bad specialist, and you should no longer use the services of the company where he works. If a person on a diet accidentally ate a pie, then there is no longer any point in sticking to the diet, since all efforts are reduced to zero.
Generalization of special cases
Any accidental misconduct is a reason to unreasonably transfer an isolated incident to a cumulative action. A single event leads people to conclude that this always happens. Or, conversely, never. A person who did not submit a report on time worries that now he will never be promoted. The employee fulfilled the order poorly, which means he is a bad worker and always copes poorly with all tasks.
Overdramatization
Sometimes some minor incident turns into a disaster. A novice athlete received a slight injury during a jump, after which he decides that this sport is not suitable for him, since he is unlikely to be able to land correctly.
Over time, a person begins to see positive aspects and learns to remove himself from any unpleasant situations.
Labeling
Often, in groups, a stable opinion about a person is consolidated because of a single specific event. For example, a colleague got drunk at a corporate party. He is labeled a drunkard. Although in fact, this could be an isolated incident that will never happen again. Another employee was lost in his own thoughts and did not greet others. He was immediately considered an arrogant ignoramus.
Labels generate negative emotions and distort reality. We must learn to objectively assess the situation, without relying on a single fact. A person who is late once does not always demonstrate his indiscipline. You need to be able to separate emotions from specific phenomena.
Unfounded conclusions
Sometimes a person takes on the function of conjecture and tries to read the thoughts of another person, concluding that she has a negative attitude towards her person. A person unreasonably believes that he is being treated poorly.
Often people, without any reason, predict future events that are not in their favor. For example, during his speech the speaker made several mistakes, which gave him reason to believe that now he would never be invited to the conference.
Denial of the positive
Some people do not want to notice their own successes and achievements. It seems to them that they are not worthy of praise, since any person could cope with the task no worse
In this case, it is important to realize that everyone deserves recognition from time to time. And this does not imply his arrogance and pride
We think we know everything about everyone
The only person you can say anything about with certainty is you. But we live among people, so we need to somehow explain their actions. Therefore, we constantly attribute our thoughts to other people and expect our own behavior from them.
Curse of Knowledge
If a person knows a lot about a topic, he thinks that others know as much. He is unable to look at the problem through the eyes of an ill-informed person. That’s why some teachers know how to explain a topic, while others don’t; some write excellent technical assignments, while others are indignant that these performers again mixed everything up and didn’t understand anything.
The illusion of transparency
We overestimate our ability to understand other people and think that others know a lot about us. “Everyone is looking at me! They know for sure that I was poorly prepared! That one over there rubbing his hands, I know for sure, he’s going to kill me now!”
Spotlight effect
We overestimate attention to our own person. Since we are always the most important to ourselves, it seems to us that other people are constantly thinking about us or paying attention to our actions, as if we were actors in the spotlight. In fact, those around us don’t really care about us, they are busy with themselves.
Status quo
This term refers to the situation before an event occurs. Simply put, this is the original state of affairs. The thinking trap called “status quo bias” prevents us from committing to change. This is why we continue to work in the wrong jobs, be in the wrong relationships, etc. We are accustomed to a certain algorithm of actions (and some for our whole lives!), even if we don’t really like it. But we are so afraid of change that we are ready to endure it. After all, changes require us to rebuild, adapt to new conditions, and morally and physically. Here everyone makes a decision for themselves - to come to terms with the current situation, closing off further prospects for themselves, or to overcome themselves and make a little effort to reach a new level of life.
We believe that feelings don't change
We project all our knowledge and beliefs onto the past and into the future, as if everything we know now was known before, and nothing will change over time.
Know-it-all effect
Every time we say “I knew it,” we are at the mercy of this effect. It seems to us that everything that happened could have been predicted in advance. In fact, this became possible only now, when everything has already happened.
End of story effect
We know we have changed a lot. Every year added something to the experience, the events left a mark in my memory. But we are confident that this will not happen again in the future, and we will remain the same as we are now.
Deviation towards the result
We judge decisions not by how justified they were at the time they were made, but by the results those decisions led to.
Kolya and Vasya went to training, but Kolya is doing well, and Vasya dropped a weight on his leg and now walks in a cast. Vasya thinks that training was a bad idea and he should have stayed at home.
Embellishing the past
We look at the past from the perspective of the present. And things that seemed bad, terrible, disgusting are no longer so terrible. “I had this too, and it’s okay, I live.”
Recommendations for Maximizing the Results of Thinking Outside the Box
Going beyond standard thinking should be quick, but at the same time anticipate future events. Try to start thinking unconventionally not only when solving current problems, but also when thinking about how you want to see your future. Work on the system as a whole, don't limit yourself to just its contents.
Your thinking should be able to cover the entire breadth of your goals. When choosing a subject for your thoughts, you do not need to limit yourself to any boundaries
For example, when solving a cost problem, pay attention to sales too. If you have no idea where you are going, you could end up anywhere
But if you clearly know where you must go, then you will not open new horizons.
Try to think outside the box in all areas of your life. If you want to make a qualitative breakthrough in your thinking, act within the widest possible boundaries. Focus not only on solving the problem, but also on ways to prevent it in the future.
Encourage holders of tacit knowledge to overcome the framework of standard thinking. Qualitative breakthrough is possible only when deep knowledge is combined with creative, out-of-the-box thinking. Knowledge in itself is valuable, as is out-of-the-box thinking. But when one is supported by the other, the chances of success increase significantly.
Identify and become aware of the boundaries that prevent you from going beyond your usual limits. In every area in which you have to look for ways to solve problems, identify the boundaries that limit you. Be specific about them, perhaps even in writing. And then think about whether it’s worth sticking to them or whether you’re capable of more.
Stop thinking mechanically. When a company constantly adheres to the same rules, without making any adjustments or changes, repeating the same truths and postulates, employees develop mechanical thinking. To empower employees to think outside the box and focus on goals, remove some of the boundaries that limit them.
When achieving each new goal, do not focus on your past success. Many who have achieved success probably have their own set of rules and laws, thanks to which they achieved this success. And trying to achieve new heights, out of habit they continue to adhere to the same rules. Break down those boundaries that are stopping you from discovering new horizons.
Reduce the risk of unconventional thinking. Every unconventional idea should have minimal risk. Use the “carrot and stick” method, where the carrot should go to those who think outside the box, and the stick to those who do not want to go beyond the usual boundaries.
Build a strong foundation. Every new idea that comes into your head is a combination of several ideas, at least two. If the final idea is divided into parts, they will be something like “semi-finished” finished ideas. Use them as the foundation for creating your own breakthrough.
Adhere to the principle “morning is wiser than evening.” Don’t think that brilliant ideas should come to you instantly. By allowing yourself to think carefully about a problem, your ideas for solving it will be much more effective. We often say and hear phrases such as “I need to think about this,” “I need to digest this,” “let’s come back to this a little later.” Approach solving problems consciously; rushing in this matter will not lead to success.
How to get rid of stereotypical thinking
Getting rid of stereotypes begins with the realization that no one’s opinion can be exclusively correct and become the truth for your worldview. Even those truths that some time ago were undeniable for everyone are being revised, scientific discoveries show the inconsistency of knowledge and open up new points of view. It is necessary to constantly keep this in mind and question every spoken fact, especially those that are presented without argumentation, but emotionally.
Study the opinions of other people, from different specialties and areas; do not re-read the same works and argue with others. You can get rid of stereotypical thinking if you listen to the point of view of others, ask questions, discuss everything that happens around you. There is no need to raise global philosophical topics or scientific achievements in simple conversations - just discuss a film or a new book and then the world of another person will open up, noticing what eludes you. Everyone is subject to stereotypes, only when faced with strangers do we get the opportunity to destroy our own stereotypical thinking.
The desire to learn new things destroys stereotypical thinking. This may be travel, not necessarily abroad, introducing you to other people’s cultures and new ways of reacting. Visits to the exhibition open up horizons for the manifestation of one’s creativity; new books raise new socio-psychological questions. The more time is spent on arranging the space for receiving new information, the more likely it is that there will be no room left for stereotypical thinking. People who prefer the same cafe fall into the category where it is tasty only there, while those who set themselves the goal of trying all the dishes in different places admit that they can cook it with different shades.
Choose your social circle, getting rid of those who simply impose their opinions on you and, on the contrary, communicate more often with those who ask questions and lead discussions. The more a person himself is influenced by stereotypes, the higher the likelihood that he will forcefully draw you into this circle, and those who seek the truth and strive to constantly be surprised by the new will develop this in you too.
Do not believe either gossip or stories about others - if the information does not allow you to live in peace, then it is better to double-check it directly than to support the opinion of another person and his conclusions. Another excellent practice is to look for your own stereotyping, when your global judgments (usually looking like everyone is bad or smart, someone is beautiful, and someone is stupid) often occurs. Find out where you personally have such confidence, and it may turn out that this is what your relatives said or this was what was accepted in the society of your childhood. Arrange practical experiments and check how these beliefs really work, perhaps you will even be convinced of their validity, but most likely some will fall away, bringing the development of the skill of critical judgment.
Peculiarities
Cognitive science (from the Latin cognitionis - knowledge) combines cognitive psychology, linguistics, neurophysiology, as well as the theory of cognition and artificial intelligence. The development of this science continues in several directions. They take as a basis the concept of biological evolution of Jean Piaget, the theory of rational thinking with the inclusion of the process of transforming external actions into internal mental functions of Lev Vygotsky and the information approach to the system. The mechanism of the brain structure is studied using a tomograph and other modern scanning methods.
Cognitive thinking is inextricably linked with the cognitive process. It is responsible for forming concepts, making decisions and developing reactions.
In psychology, there are 3 types of such thinking.
- The visual-effective type is aimed at solving certain problems related to constructiveness, production and organization of activities. It is characteristic of children under 3 years of age, whose cognitive process is inextricably linked with the use of their hands.
- The visual-figurative view transforms generalized thoughts into specific images. It develops in children from 4-7 years of age. At this time, the connection between consciousness and practical movements is not as strong as before.
- Abstract thinking is associated with abstract reasoning. It is observed in schoolchildren and adults, who can operate with generalized concepts, devoid of direct clarity and images.
The nature of cognitive styles of thinking has not yet been fully studied. Let's look at some of them.
Representatives of the simple style of cognitive thinking interpret ongoing processes in a simplified form. Those with a complex style tend to be multidimensional when perceiving existing concepts and identifying many interrelated aspects in them.
Those with concrete mental activity do not tolerate uncertainty and depend on status and authority. They have black and white thinking and stereotypical decisions. People with abstract cognitive thinking are prone to risk, independence, and flexibility
They are characterized by an extensive combination of concepts.
People with an analytical style pay attention to the differences in objects, focus on their distinctive features, the smallest elements. The synthetic style is characteristic of individuals who tend to focus on the similarity of information and find common features in them.
Those with an impulsive style tend to make instant decisions when given a choice.
Haste often leads to mistakes. Those with a reflective style act at a slower pace when making decisions, so the occurrence of errors is minimized.
Some people have a broad attention span, focusing on many details at once. Such individuals are able to scan the displayed situation. Other individuals can only superficially, fragmentarily characterize the facts and phenomena that catch their eye. They have the ability to have narrow control, which is called the focusing style.
Tolerant subjects are able to accept ambiguous events that do not correspond to a person’s ideas. They can analyze them based on their characteristics. Intolerant people are not ready to receive educational experiences that contain information that contradicts their knowledge.
Consequences
Living in a blinkered state or being overly extravagant in making decisions is everyone’s business. But it’s still better to find a middle ground. Otherwise, it’s easy to bury talent in the ground – both your own and your child’s. And sometimes not only your own. How many teachers do not give the opportunity to create freely, how many act exclusively within the framework of methodological recommendations! As a result, Petya, who was the best student in the first grade, is no longer interested in anything by the end of the third. He is bored in class, he does not want or even cannot become like everyone else.
A similar thing can happen to a talented young employee who is trying to prove to more experienced colleagues that using an old computer program is irrational. When everyone, right down to management, asks him to mind his own business for the hundredth time, he will stop doing it. And he will either merge with the gray mass of his colleagues or find another job.
A wife who is trying to prove to her family that it is not at all necessary to clean every weekend, it is better to spend them outdoors (at the theater, museum, cinema), when faced with misunderstanding, she will either run away or become a housewife in the worst sense of the word. And then the probability that her husband will run away from her is very high. And then - stress, depression, alcohol and other troubles.
Development
Cognitive thinking develops with the help of inner speech, therefore, the thought process depends on language. Language and thought are inseparable. They must be trained daily, otherwise it is difficult to achieve good results.
This type of thinking is well developed:
- games of checkers, chess, backgammon, poker;
- assembling puzzles, Rubik's cube;
- solving crosswords, puzzles, charades;
- solving mathematical problems;
- various games of “words”, “city”;
- learning a foreign language with establishing connections with the native language, searching for associations;
- reading books with analysis of each page read and fantasizing about future events.
Synchronized drawing helps improve motor skills and improve eye coordination. You should take a large sheet of paper and a pencil in both hands. Then you need to simultaneously begin to mirror objects. With both hands you need to draw circles, ovals, triangles, squares, rectangles and other objects.
The next task comes down to continuously writing eights. First, they are drawn alternately with the left and right hands, then simultaneously with both hands. Then, along with the eights, the lowercase letter “a” is written, followed again by the numbers “8”. In the same way, the following letters of the alphabet are written interspersed with eights.
All training exercises help maintain brain tone throughout the day, increase performance, and maintain a clear and sharp mind until old age.
battle of Borodino
From official history we know that on June 24, 1812, Napoleon, leaving Warsaw with his six hundred thousand army, invaded Russian territory. Instead of going to the capital St. Petersburg, Napoleon's troops went to Moscow. In the twentieth of August, 135,000 Napoleonic soldiers (according to the average estimate of dozens of different “researchers” from many countries), not counting the 1,500-strong cavalry corps and about 15,000 non-combatants (support personnel) found themselves near Borodino.
Could this happen?
Answering this question, let us remember that according to official history, in 1812 there were no railways in Russia, and there was no road or air transport. All transportation of goods, including by the French army, was carried out on carts drawn by horses.
Let's simplify Napoleon's problem to the limit . To do this, let’s assume that there was a straight, flat, three-lane, safe road from Warsaw to Borodino. Only those who participated in the battle and the convoy necessary to support them walked along it. The remaining ¾ of the army went somewhere in a roundabout way. Along the entire road to Borodino there were abundant pastures, sufficient for tens of thousands of horses, used between transitions. After all, horses capable of carrying 600 kg each would not have enough food for the entire journey, even one way, if they carried only it and only for themselves, and they also had to carry food for the soldiers, ammunition, tents and other equipment. Along the road, in the right places, there were reservoirs for watering and bathing horses, as well as sources of drinking water for people, at least in a volume of 300,000 liters/day. There were also no problems with areas for instantly organizing halts and overnight stays.
At least three lanes of the road are needed so that a column of infantry and horses, pulling cannons and carrying ammunition, move along one, cavalry and a convoy with non-combatants move along the second, and horses with freed carts return along the third.
The length of the column of soldiers, four in a row, and the depth of each row is one meter - 135,000/4 = 33.75 km. Let's add to it teams with 587 guns and at least one cart with ammunition for each, that is, 1174 teams with a norm of 10 m in length for each. This is another 11.74 km. The total length of the continuous column “to Borodino” is 45.5 km. She didn’t have any hitches or problems along the way; the whole movement went perfectly. All the people and horses were healthy, well-fed, watered and full of strength.
The distance between Warsaw and Borodino is about 1200 km. Let us assume that Napoleon was able to repeat every day the army speed record he achieved (according to official historians) in the Ulm maneuver in 1805, 25 km/day. That is, it would have taken him only 48 days from the moment the column completely left. He managed to arrive in Borodino by August 24 with a reserve. And this is taking into account the fact that the rearguard of the column left Warsaw only at the end of the second day from the start of the campaign.
What happened on the Borodino field
As official historians say, having gathered at the site of the impending battle, the Russian and Napoleonic armies positioned themselves as shown on this “map”:
To further simplify the tasks of Kutuzov and Napoleon, we will assume that the Kolocha River and its tributary are inconspicuous streams that do not interfere with the military advance of troops. In addition, despite the close proximity of the troops (the distance between them was about two lengths of Red Square in Moscow), the opponents did not interfere with each other in building redoubts and flushes for the placement of artillery. The local skirmish on the eve of the main battle was conventionally “reconnaissance in force.”
And now, the morning of the battle. Troops at their starting positions in battle formation. In total there are about 265,000 people, not counting another 30,000+ non-combatants/militia and cavalry on both sides. The combat formation differs from the stationary one in that the intervals between the rows are greater, so that the soldiers can take weapons, extended by bayonets, at the ready, without injuring those standing in front of them.
The guns are positioned and loaded. There are so many of them (587 versus 640) that, being evenly distributed along the entire front line, without squeezing redoubts, flashes, batteries into the frames, between the centers of their muzzles the French would have approximately 5.6 m, and the Russian army only 5, 15m. That is, artillery crews would literally stand shoulder to shoulder, and not “on top of each other” within batteries, redoubts, and flushes.
The size of the field on which they will face is approximately 10x10 of Moscow's Red Square in its current form. To imagine the picture “before the battle”, take a look at the photograph of the location of a stationary, relatively compact, formation of 13,000 people (1/20 troops in Borodino) at the Victory Parade on 05/09/2019.
If a battle had taken place under such conditions, then after the first volley of grapeshot from all the guns on each side, the first rows of the formations of both armies would have been almost completely mowed down. The following ranks, marching almost shoulder to shoulder with their neighbors in ranks, would have to walk over the bodies of the killed and wounded from the previous ranks. They would not have had the space or time to go around those lying and sitting. A few more friendly volleys of artillery that did not have time to come into contact with the enemy would have littered the entire space that was between them before the shooting began with the bodies of the killed and wounded.
If we imagine that the troops did come into contact, then the artillery would become useless, since the shells would fly towards their own. Less than half an hour would have passed (this is with a large margin) before both armies would have suffered unacceptable losses, and the battle would have stopped. There could be no talk of any twelve hours of battle, as stated by official history. Although, if Napoleon, Kutuzov and their generals were inveterate butchers and used reserves as barrage detachments, then perhaps the mess would have continued for some time. But even historians who take an official position do not talk about such characteristics of military leaders.
***
Additional confirmation of the fabulousness, and not the reality, of the Battle of Borodino can be considered:
- The extreme complexity of solving the logistics and organizational problems of the Napoleonic army for arriving in Borodino even in the idealized simplified conditions described above.
- The strangeness of death, embalming and the leisurely and adventurous burial of each in parts: Kutuzov, Barclay de Tolly, Napoleon and, perhaps, some of the other military leaders who were allegedly there.
- Negative attitude of L.N. Tolstoy to his novel “War and Peace”, who visited Borodino while writing the book, and refused to award the Nobel Prize for it.
- There are no traces of battle on the Borodino Field.
- The list goes on for a long time. Let's stop there.
***
This example of breaking a thought pattern was chosen because of its simplicity, due to the large number of details invented by historians. Details, the far-fetchedness of which lies on the surface. Pick a little and they fall apart.
Not only the Battle of Borodino was invented. Almost the entire world history, which seems so harmonious and consistent to us, has been distorted. This worldwide fictional history project is brilliant. A huge amount of systematic work has been done within its framework. But it was performed by people whose knowledge was also limited. They could not take into account and agree on all the nuances and details. Therefore, for those who are not lazy to check what they heard/read and have knowledge that the authors of specific historical tales lacked, it is relatively easy to identify lies by asking the question: “What must be true for what they saw/read/heard to be true?”
The cognition technique is described in more detail in the article “ The easiest way to effective cognition .”
