Author: Wang Tao source: pure science (id:chunkexue)
1? Conspiracy and conspiracy theory
During the publication of my “invisible war” and other articles, some netizens believed that this was a “conspiracy theory”. Conspiracy theory is also a word often mentioned by people, but people use it casually without exact scientific standards. There are many conjectures that can indeed be called conspiracy theory, while some obviously belong to the category of competitive strategy, but they are often wrongly accused with “conspiracy theory”. It is indeed difficult to distinguish between the two, because they are often difficult to have sufficient direct evidence and may be full of fog.
Can there be a scientific method to distinguish conspiracy theory from real strategy? This article is to solve this problem. First, let’s talk about “conspiracy” and “conspiracy theory”.
The word “conspiracy” is opposite to “Yang Mou”. “Strategy” refers to strategy. “Yin” means hidden, that is, it is difficult to have direct and public evidence. In particular, since it is strategy, it is to achieve a certain purpose. The hidden things can be behavior, purpose and motivation. If the word “conspiracy” is understood in a neutral way, its original meaning only refers to the strategy whose purpose or behavior is hidden. We can use a neutral academic term to define it, which is called “competitive strategy of hiding purpose or behavior”. Since the purpose and motivation are hidden and covered up, people may think it is not aboveboard. Therefore, the word “conspiracy” often has a derogatory meaning. For example, “conspiracy” refers more to improper strategies. However, what is hidden may not necessarily be illegitimate. Do not say that the underground parties in the war years were hidden. Even now in the normal market environment, a considerable number of trade secrets are hidden and undisclosed. These can not be said to be “illegitimate”.
Whether justified or illegitimate, conspiracy still refers to an objective fact, but it is often difficult to obtain direct evidence for this fact, and its facts are difficult to be directly confirmed. When the word “conspiracy” is added with a “theory”, the “conspiracy theory” has the meaning of “not objective”, “not fact” and “speculation”. For example, the “moon landing conspiracy theory” means that the view that “moon landing is false” is just a kind of speculation, and the evidence it provides is groundless. We should realize that the concept of “conspiracy theory” itself can also become a commonly used Conspiracy (or conspiracy) means: because conspiracy is often difficult to have direct evidence, if we want to deny a correct judgment of our own real conspiracy, we can say that it is “conspiracy theory”. For example, to say that the United States promoted the war between Russia and Ukraine is a conspiracy theory, which means to deny the accusation of the United States’ conspiracy to promote the war between Russia and Ukraine. The United States has already directly admitted it, and many Chinese are denying it for the United States.
A special manifestation of the lack of understanding of conspiracy and conspiracy theory is that some things that are close to being recognized (or even unanimously recognized by the academic community) as conspiracy are not conspiracy in fact. For example, in my book beyond war, I discussed in detail an incident that is generally considered a conspiracy, but it is not a case of conspiracy. In World War II, the intelligence of the Japanese army’s sneak attack on Pearl Harbor was uncovered by the Chinese Kuomintang intelligence department at that time and passed on to the United States. At that time, President Roosevelt had relevant information on his desk, but he did not make preparations in advance based on it. In a large number of serious academic monographs, it is generally believed that Roosevelt’s conspiracy. In order to suppress intelligence, others deliberately let the Japanese attack succeed, thus stimulating Americans who generally want to stay out of the war. In “beyond war”, I proved that this was not a conspiracy based on the general laws of surprise attacks. The fact is that Roosevelt himself did not believe in these intelligence, rather than deliberately releasing water for the Japanese army. Because there are so many similar information, more than 99.99% of them are false. Even today it is the same. For example, when was the international intelligence that the PLA was going to attack Taiwan interrupted? Just this year, two rounds of information broke out that the PLA would attack Taiwan. One was that the PLA would attack Taiwan after the Winter Olympics, and the other was that the PLA would attack Taiwan during the chaos of the Russian Ukrainian war. Everyone knows that one day the people’s Liberation Army will attack Taiwan. The only problem is that the time point is not clear, so people can make any analysis, guess or the information from which channel indicates that the incident will occur at a certain time point. At last, when it really happened, the intelligence or speculation that happened to run into it was finally regarded as a fairy. Researchers are likely to have the so-called “survivor bias”. Therefore, after any major event, they can always find information that reminds or hints that such a major event will occur in advance. But the problem is that it is extremely difficult to analyze the correct information from a large number of true and false information in advance. Before the operation of the Barbarossa plan in World War II, a large number of intelligence was transmitted to the high level of the Soviet Union, and these intelligence were ignored. In fact, before that, there were all kinds of intelligence that Germany was going to attack the Soviet Union every day. Stalin had long known that the Soviet Union and Germany would fight sooner or later, but the previous intelligence was false. It’s just that these false information are rarely noticed. If you look up the media information of the previous 20 years, you may find the information that the PLA is going to attack Taiwan every year. Nothing has happened since then. No one cares about these information. The information on the PLA’s two attacks on Taiwan this year is incorrect. Is there any concern afterwards? Not at all. Half of this year has not passed, and these have been forgotten.
Another interesting thing is that Americans especially like to talk about the conspiracy theory of their own government. In almost all major historical events, Americans may think it is the conspiracy of the US government. For example, in addition to the Japanese conspiracy to sneak attack Pearl Harbor, there are also the US lunar landing, the assassination of a number of US presidents by “people with abnormal nerves”, and even the 9 / 11 incident. Some Americans believe that it is the conspiracy of the US government. However, the US government has never clarified these conspiracy theories, and this is a real big conspiracy in itself. In contrast, the Chinese government can never accept that others say it has a conspiracy. If someone accuses China of a conspiracy, the Chinese authorities usually come forward immediately to publicly clarify it. People who always engage in conspiracy like others to say that they engage in conspiracy every day, and they all say that things that are obviously not conspiracy are very unreliable and wronged on him. In this way, it is difficult for people to understand what the real conspiracy of the US government is, and even sympathize with them because they are “often wronged by conspiracy theories”. Conspiracy theory is also often used as a tool to deceive. Many people want to deceive the Chinese to go left, and they will say that the right is an American conspiracy.
Therefore, if there is no scientific analysis method for competitive strategy, conspiracy theory itself is a commonly used competitive strategy. In fact, it is already a conspiracy.
2? How to find scientific discussion basis for real competitive strategy
Let’s use some specific cases to illustrate, which may make this problem easier to understand.
1. game games
There are many game games, such as Chinese chess, military chess, go, chess, etc. the two sides playing chess are a kind of game behavior. Obviously, the purpose of both sides of the game is to surpass each other in the process of playing chess. To be rude is to “kill the other” or even “kill the other”. However, during each move, your phased goals and specific killing moves will be hidden as far as possible, not exposed to the other party, or even deliberately mislead the other party. As the process of playing chess proceeds, many previous strategies will be revealed through specific actions, but they may not be discovered until the end. Even if it is discovered later, in order to cover up his superb chess score or strategy for a long time, he can interpret a certain step as another strategy and purpose. Obviously, in every step of playing chess, both sides are trying their best to defeat each other, eating each other’s chess pieces, killing each other, misleading each other, etc. As long as this game relationship is formed, all behaviors and thoughts are for the ultimate purpose of surpassing each other. Is it because some processes can not see clearly or know what the other party thinks and plans in his mind, that it can not prove that the other party’s purpose to kill himself does not exist? Is it conspiracy theory to say that the other party is going to “die”? Obviously, it is not only not a conspiracy theory, but also the most normal game logic to treat all the actions of the other party as conspiracy. To play chess is to kill the opponent. Every step must be “conspiracy”, “misleading” and “trap” And all the other side’s behaviors and all the consequences must be regarded as “conspiracy” by the other side, which is the basic quality and thinking of a normal chess player.
If someone thinks that “don’t think people are so evil, they just want to play chess”, or even “people come to play chess to make you play better, to make you win other people, or even to lose chess to you”, do you think there is something wrong with this brain?
All actions in war are also games, and all actions of the enemy should be regarded as conspiracy. You should be able to identify the enemy’s plot, see through the dense fog of the enemy’s tactics, and in turn set up various plots for the other party This is the normal military thinking. If someone thinks that the enemy’s purpose in the war is only to liberate himself and to bring development and happiness to himself, don’t treat others as so evil, or you don’t have direct evidence to prove that the enemy in the war has a conspiracy against you, so you can’t think that the enemy has any conspiracy, otherwise you are a conspiracy theory Do you also think this person has a brain problem? Game is a game of pure conspiracy. Once you enter the state of pure game, don’t tangle with specific direct evidence. You must analyze and judge everything of the other party as conspiracy, which is in line with normal thinking and logic. Although we need to do our best to obtain direct evidence of the other party’s conspiracy through various intelligence warfare, this intelligence warfare itself is a conspiracy that needs to be kept secret as much as possible.
As for China today, do we need to regard Kenyans’ behavior as a conspiracy against China? It can not be said that there may not be any at all, but on the whole, we do not think so, because the relationship between China and Kenya is not a game relationship, but mainly cooperation and partnership. Therefore, when international diplomats explore and develop diplomatic relations, they will first tell the other party that “there is no fundamental conflict of interest between us”, which means that both sides fully show their hearts: we will not be a game and competition relationship, but can make friends fully.
2. Yin in enterprise marketing and competition
There are mainly two kinds of marketing ideas for enterprises: one is represented by Philip Kotler, which can be called “customer satisfaction school”, that is, the purpose of marketing is to meet the needs of customers and make customers satisfied (see his “marketing principles”). The other is represented by Reese and trout, which can be called “competitive school”, that is, the purpose of marketing is not to meet customer needs, but to defeat competitors (see their book “marketing war”). In the first internal marketing training textbook competition and strategy I compiled for ZTE that year, I systematically summarized all these different marketing theories and practical experience in marketing activities. Whether it is customer satisfaction or victory over competitors, there may be competitive strategy, or even hidden competitive strategy (conspiracy). Even if the product technology is completely to meet the needs of customers, a certain degree of competition and game relationship will be formed with customers in business negotiations, but the degree of competition will be weaker than that of pure competitors.
There is also cooperation in competition, and there will also be competition in cooperation. This is the real world.
3. jungle law and multi party alliance partnership competition relationship
Some people often use the jungle law to express the competitive relationship of human society, but this is not completely accurate and strict. We suggest to use the expression “multi party alliance partnership competition relationship”.
Multiple parties. Game and competition are probably not two sides, but “many sides”, and both of them form a game relationship. This multi-party game is obviously much more complicated than the game between the two sides. Either side has to deal with not only one side, but also many other players at the same time.
Joint. In multi-party games, in order to enhance their competitive advantage, some of the players often give up or temporarily give up the competitive relationship between the two, and form a union or even an alliance to unite against the other party or parties. This was the case in China during the spring and Autumn period and the Warring States period, as was the case for a long time in European history. The reason why the term “alliance” is used here rather than “alliance” directly is that it has a lot to do with the foreign policies adopted by China and many countries. In the original multi-party game, some players are often forced to form a close alliance, close to a family, and gain strong strength together, so as to deal with others together. However, the real world is often not always in the most intense game state. A big problem of alliance relations is that any inappropriate competition behavior of any party will often drag all alliance members into a competition of the highest intensity (such as war). As in the past, if any one of the brothers fought, all the others had to go along with him, no matter who started the fight, whether it was reasonable or not, and whether his brother was wrong first. Therefore, now “non alignment” is a relationship that has been widely recognized internationally. China now has “no upper limit” for friendship, but in any case, there is no upper limit, and even it can be infinitely close to forming an alliance at a certain point in time, but it will not develop into a substantive and legal alliance to avoid the problems caused by a complete alliance. Now the NATO military alliance has tied many countries together. Any country, especially the leader, has to follow the alliance without principle. Alliance can be an alliance relationship, or a non alliance but relatively close cooperation relationship in strategic security.
partner. The partnership is a non aligned, non strategic security, and mutually beneficial conventional cooperative relationship, mainly in the economic and other fields.
Competition. It can also be called game, which is the relationship between conspiracy and conspiracy.
The relationship of multi-party alliance partnership competition is the closest model description to the real world human society. With such a scientific model, we can easily analyze various interrelations, including conspiracy and conspiracy theory.
3? How to locate the essence of the current Sino US relations
The relationship between China and the United States has experienced ups and downs. From the two extremes of alliance to war, as well as each relationship state in the middle, it has almost been traversed, and has jumped back and forth between the two extremes. Therefore, views such as “China US relations can never go back to the past” and “China US decoupling theory” can not completely and accurately reflect the actual development history of China US relations. China US relations will always be in history and will never be able to jump out of history. The only thing that can be confirmed is that it is impossible for China and the United States to return to the status of allies. Any state of Sino US relations is history, and there is a corresponding past for reference. Therefore, it can be summarized into two points from a historical perspective:
First, there can never be no relationship between China and the United States. Even if all Americans immigrate to Mars, the Chinese will follow and have relations with Americans on Mars. Therefore, it is absolutely impossible for China and the United States to completely break away from relations.
Second, the relationship between China and the United States is always in history, wandering between the two extremes of allies (no longer including allies) and war, as well as various states between them. Even if there might still be war between China and the United States, it would not have been once or twice.
In reality, China and the United States have fallen into a state of mainly competition and game, especially the United States regards China as a major competitor. There has been a large amount of public evidence to prove this, which is fully proved by the words and deeds of government officials and parliamentarians, including the US president, and the continuous introduction of China related bills. This is our basic understanding and orientation of the reality of China US relations.
In that case, all the thoughts and actions of the United States today are basically conspiracy and conspiracy against China. This does not require other direct evidence to make basic judgments. If we think that it is conspiracy theory to analyze a certain act of the United States as a conspiracy, it also belongs to the brain—— If today’s American strategists do not plot against China every day, it is their “dereliction of duty”.
Even if it is not necessarily a conspiracy against China, we should first look at and analyze it from the perspective of the possibility of conspiracy. After a conspiracy screening. After screening, it may be found that many strategies and behaviors are only for solving the problems of the United States, not for China. For example, the United States has just declared a national power emergency. It should vigorously develop power, including importing a large number of solar power generation equipment from Asian countries to increase power supply. This is likely to be a purely American solution to its own problems. However, even if such an act is carried out, we should carefully consider whether it is a conspiracy against China from the perspective of conspiracy. Or, even if its initial purpose and behavior are purely to solve its own problems, will American politicians take the opportunity to make use of the issue to harass China. Even though we have done a lot of analysis, the results show that it is unlikely to be aimed at China, and we can not think that conspiracy analysis is wrong, that is, conspiracy theory. The only reason for this is that the current situation between China and the United States is mainly a game and competition relationship. If the Chinese do not think so, it would be a dereliction of duty as a Chinese. Of course, this is not absolute and permanent. If the United States declines greatly in the future, no longer poses a threat to China, and no longer uses the game and competitive relationship to position China, of course, we will make adjustments accordingly, but obviously not today.
All acts of the United States, even those that have not yet appeared, should be positioned and analyzed from the perspective of conspiracy. If they are not, they should be treated as yes first. This is not because we don’t like the United States, but just because China and the United States are sitting in front of the chessboard. Both sides are already rivals in front of the chessboard. Even very good friends should try their best to “kill it” since they have sat in front of the chessboard together. Otherwise, they look down upon each other and are “not enough friends”. We should not only treat everything in the United States as a conspiracy first, but also exhaust all the strategies and wisdom of the Chinese nation for the use of the United States. All the thoughts and actions of the Chinese people now must also be a conspiracy and conspiracy against the United States, and give him 100% of all the art of war and wisdom. Not today, but when? It would be a dereliction of duty and a sin for the Chinese people today if they did not exhaust their strategies for the United States. And if you really like America and really think of it as a friend, you have to do so.
Therefore, it is possible to apply conspiracy theory to those who analyze other countries, but it is absolutely impossible to apply it to those who analyze American conspiracy. Whether the analysis of American conspiracy is right or wrong, it can never be a conspiracy theory. That’s why.
4? Basic methods of competitive strategy
1. game logic
According to the above analysis, does it mean that as long as you shout “this is an American conspiracy” when you encounter anything related to the United States? Of course not. Everything must be done in a methodical and professional way. If you haven’t done this major and learned the corresponding methods, it can only be a flood of empty conspiracy theories.
I have worked in the enterprise for decades, and my main work is to formulate and implement various competitive strategies. Therefore, I am a professional. This is the fundamental reason why my analysis is different from that of many people. After doing this job for a long time, as long as the other party makes a move, or even hasn’t made a move, they will know exactly what the other party wants to do. Why can this be done?
There is a chess manual when playing chess. If you play more chess, the chess manual in your mind will be richer and more perfect. The more expert you are, the more moves you can see. Chess score is a kind of logical basis, and the thinking process based on it can be called game logic. Game theory is actually the study of game logic, but it does not completely contain all game logic. Game logic is a process of circular causality, and its basic idea is as follows —— According to the basic chess score, repeatedly and back to the point of view of both parties involved in the game (such as a and b).
According to the current chess game, if a wants to defeat B, what killing moves can a choose from.
How will b respond to each possible move of a and what judgments will b make to a? And then what kind of tactics to take.
For step B, what judgment will party a make about Party B’s current move and his previous move habits, and what countermeasures will be taken, or what traps will be set according to Party B’s move habits to mislead and confuse Party B to make wrong judgments.
Party B will also analyze and think about Party A’s moves, as well as Party A’s thinking and habits, and then set traps for his moves and habits of thinking, or crack the traps and misleading set by Party A against Party B’s habits, or even make Party A mistakenly think that the traps he set have been successful, and in turn mislead him into the traps of Party B.
Does the above feel a little brain burning or too convoluted? But game and competition are the process of circulating cause and effect. Continuous transposition thinking and round-trip game thinking are the basic skills of all competitive strategies. It is very difficult to fully consider the problem from the standpoint of the other side of the game, but after repeated training, the logical thinking mode of the game can be established. Why can I make accurate judgments about many behaviors in the United States (even behaviors without direct evidence)? Because I fully consider the issue from the standpoint of the United States. If I were to sit in the position of American strategist and want to kill China, what would I do? By asking this question, we can find out the corresponding possible strategic choices, and the strategists of the other side often make the same choice. There is no right or wrong problem, just a game logic. If I were the other side, I would do the same, even more accurate and ruthless than the other side. Only in this way can we “hold each other to death”.
2. economic principle
No matter who you stand on, you must follow some basic principles of rationality or economy. For example, some pseudo historical theorists believe that the pyramids in ancient Egypt were built by modern Westerners and have not such a long history at all. Why build these buildings? Because they felt inferior in the face of the history and culture of the Chinese nation at that time, they had to build these magnificent buildings to give themselves confidence. What is the problem with this analysis? These scholars have neither basic game logic thinking nor basic economic principles.
They are thinking purely from their own standpoint, and have not learned to think from the standpoint of Westerners. What would we do if we felt sorry for ourselves in front of the west?
Say something confident and reasonable. In this way, the cost is the lowest and the effect is the fastest. Although the final effect may not be the most thorough.
Work hard and build yourself up, so as to fundamentally enhance your self-confidence.
The above are all possible choices with different degrees of economic rationality. So, will we choose to go to Myanmar to build a huge dam that will take 50 years and the cost of several years’ total revenue, but will ultimately be useless to achieve the goal of enhancing the self-confidence of the Chinese people? It’s impossible. Why? First, the cost is too high. The second is to build it in Myanmar. Even if this thing can really enhance people’s self-confidence, it will only enhance Myanmar people’s self-confidence. How can it enhance Chinese people’s self-confidence? If Europeans want to build pyramids to enhance their self-confidence, they should choose to build them in Europe. How could they go to Egypt and spend so much money to build pyramids? These are completely unreasonable in terms of game logic and economy.
Although people may make mistakes in their economic judgment of doing things. But if you can’t do something by yourself, you will certainly think it is a stupid thing. Don’t easily imagine that others will do it. The analysis of game logic is to think carefully all the time. If you want to think what the other party will do, will you do it yourself. Only when you stand on your own position and will make an economic and reasonable choice, can you have the basic premise to judge that the other party is likely to do it.
Then why does this kind of pseudo historical view appear? If people make a little in-depth summary, they will find that this kind of view came after China put forward the four self-confidence, especially the Chinese cultural self-confidence. What should we do to stop Chinese cultural self-confidence? If you don’t come out and say that your Chinese culture is not good, you are not confident. Nowadays, if anyone says so, not only few people believe it, but it is easy to be blocked. However, if the public opinion is filled with extreme, abnormal and ironic wrong “cultural self-confidence theory”, people will have the impression that your Chinese cultural self-confidence is such a ridiculous thing.
3. result analysis and inspection
In the complete chain of competitive strategy, there are four links: the original motivation and purpose, the strategy to achieve the purpose, the behavior to achieve the strategy, and the result of the behavior. These four links should be consistent from the corresponding side of the game, but they are often inconsistent due to the influence of various factors.
Whether the strategy promoted by the original motivation and purpose can really achieve the corresponding purpose itself has a logical rationality problem. Strategy is to control some factors to achieve the expected results, but from the law of things’ development, can controlling these factors really bring corresponding results? They are not so absolute in principle, because there are many factors that affect the results, and there are always factors that cannot be controlled. Once these uncontrollable factors exceed expectations, the results will be inconsistent with the expected strategy.
With a strategy, it must be realized through action. However, is it firm in realizing corresponding actions, and does it accurately reflect corresponding strategies and intentions? If there is a deviation between the two for various reasons, or even just the understanding of the doer executing the strategy, the two may be inconsistent, of course, with the final result.
One party’s action will not promote the development of things in a one-way causal way, but will inevitably trigger the other party of the game to make a targeted response. The other party’s reaction may not be completely controlled by himself, and may even inspire the other party to make targeted reactions far beyond the usual response. Therefore, the result of a bad game behavior is not to go in the direction you expect, but to stimulate the other party’s over reaction and make things go in the opposite direction. The third law of Sino-US relations, the “law of containment and counter reaction”, refers to the containment of China by the United States, which has stimulated China’s extreme counter reaction, thus not only making the United States unable to achieve its original goal, but also making things develop in the opposite direction. The United States wants to block the development of communication and other industries by sanctioning Chinese chips. However, such sanctions will inevitably lead to China’s extremely strong reverse behavior to break the United States’ sanctions. The result is to greatly promote the development of China’s chip industry.
Therefore, we cannot take the inconsistency between the result and the conspiracy as evidence to deny the existence of the conspiracy. For example, it is not true that some people deny that the United States has engaged in biological warfare in the COVID-19 by claiming that millions of people have died in the United States. The reason is that the conspiracy and the result may be consistent, or possibly inconsistent, or even completely opposite.
On the other hand, for ourselves, the most important thing is the result. Whether the result is beneficial to us is what we need to care about most. Since the other party’s purpose is to produce adverse results for us, so long as the other party’s behavior is likely to produce adverse results for us, we must resolutely stop it. Even if it is really good intentions, it may do bad things. In itself, it is a conspiracy, which is more likely to produce harmful results.
The result is the only criterion for testing all strategies. Whether conspiracy theory is not important, what really matters is the result.