马未都武志红批生肖迷信与MBTI标签化 警惕自恋泛滥破坏社交体面

马未都与武志红批生肖迷信与MBTI标签化：警惕过度自恋破坏社交体面 无论是传统生肖宿命论还是现代流行的人格测验，将人性僵化归类并滥用“做自己”话术，不仅无法决定现实命运，反而容易诱发漠视他人的病态自恋；健康的心理成熟在于克制自我执念并维系社会合作。 节目上半段由马未都主讲十二生肖的起源与流变，结合睡虎地秦简考古发现、时辰学说漏洞以及帝王禁令，破除“十羊九不全”等民间迷信，并探讨农耕生肖与游牧星座的文化差异。下半段转向现代性格测验与命理心理学，武志红与窦文涛等嘉宾深入剖析MBTI流行背后的自我认同渴望、心理学常模缺陷与商业滥用风险。众人进一步延伸至紫微斗数、铁板神算的因果观，反思过度“做自己”导致的社交失范，提出消解自我执念、在体面与合作中安顿身心的处世智慧。 马未都指出生肖按动物活动时辰归类的传统学说存在逻辑缺陷，例如夜行动物老虎在清晨寅时实为归巢歇息，并倡议借鉴好莱坞工业标准打造本土十二生肖IP大片。 (0:00) 1975年睡虎地秦简出土物证显示先秦时期生肖系统已具雏形，而家猫因迟至南北朝才随佛教传入中国，故未被列入十二生肖。 (5:52) 民间“十羊九不全”的生育偏好引发出生率人为波动与教育资源失衡，但历史数据显示慈禧执政48年、唐太宗及曾国藩等人均属羊，反驳了生肖宿命论。 (20:16) 心理学嘉宾剖析当下流行之MBTI测试在缺乏中国本土常模下的局限，并警惕网络上泛滥的“做自己”话术导致社交体面与合作精神缺失。 (25:45)

节目围绕生肖文化的历史源流、性格测试与命理玄学的心理机制，以及现代人际交往中的“自我”边界展开探讨，指出无论是古老图腾还是流行测试，本质上都是人类在应对不确定性与孤独时投射心理需求、寻找认同的工具，应当以因果规律与理性自省取代盲目宿命论与过度标签化。 十二生肖的结构考据与民俗辨析 (0:00) 马未都分析了十二生肖的内在构成，将其划分为七种家养牲畜（“正规军”：牛、马、猪、羊、鸡、狗、兔）、四种野生动物（“野战军”：贴近人居的鼠、蛇与远避山林的虎、猴）以及一种图腾神兽（龙）。针对民间流传“依据动物时辰活跃规律排定生肖”的说法，马未都指出该逻辑难以自圆其说——例如寅时（凌晨3至5点）实为夜行猛兽老虎返巢安歇之时而非猎食高峰，《水浒传》中武松过景阳冈申时后封山的禁令亦印证了老虎傍晚出没的真实习性。考古出土的云梦睡虎地秦简证明，战国晚期已存在十二生肖体系雏形；而猫之所以缺席，是因为汉代及以前中国本土尚未驯化家猫，汉阳陵大规模陶俑随葬坑中亦无猫的身影，家猫实为南北朝时期方沿佛教路线自埃及系传入中国保护佛经。 针对民间“十羊九不全”等忌讳在羊年生育的迷信，马未都通过史实予以驳斥，指出唐太宗李世民、努尔哈赤、曾国藩、李鸿章以及掌控大清政权达48年之久的慈禧太后均属羊。他批评盲从生肖吉凶会导致严重的社会资源失衡：许多家庭在马年扎堆避孕、猴年盲目抢生，不仅造成避孕用品市场剧烈震荡，更在数年后引发入学阶段的学位挤兑，反而使属羊的孩子享有相对宽松的成长与竞争空间。 命理占卜的心理投射与因果反思 (35:20) 六十甲子纪年由十天干与十二地支的最小公倍数组合而成，在古代人均寿命较短的背景下，迈过一甲子被视为得享遐龄的重大关口。民间由此衍生出复杂的属相相克口诀与八字神煞推算，现代年轻人则热衷于紫微斗数与塔罗占卜。窦文涛分析，现代人在情感挫折中沉迷塔罗占卜，往往并非真正在意预测的精准度，而是将其作为抵御孤独的替代性陪伴——在现实社交圈缺乏倾听耐心时，占卜话术提供了不带道德批判的理解与心理确认。 然而，过度沉溺命理批语容易陷入虚妄。马家辉以“铁板神算”董慕节为黄霑批命的过往为例指出，即便算命先生准确推断出黄霑六十五岁后的盛名，但对其七十三岁后的运势语焉不详，而黄霑最终恰于七十三岁因病离世。马家辉强调“相信算命，不如相信业力”，黄霑生前每日抽三包烟的不良生活习惯正是不可逆转的现实因果。窦文涛援引古训“善易者不卜”，认为真正参透大道与因果法则的君子无需占问吉凶，只要行事合乎道义，纵使前途险阻亦会躬身践行。 流行性格测试的慰藉与标签化陷阱 (25:45) 针对以MBTI为代表的性格分类测试，心理学家武志红与窦文涛指出，学术心理学界通常更倾向于实证基础坚实的大五人格模型，而MBTI虽源自荣格的三维心理类型学说，但未经本土标准常模校订的直接翻译常充斥双重否定，导致本土受众理解受阻。这类测试之所以风靡，在于其语言体系温和正面，从未给测试者扣上贪婪或吝啬等道德劣评，甚至为过去在传统教育中被批评为“不合群”的内向性格（如梁朝伟等典型代表）赋予了正向价值与身份认同。 但嘉宾们警示，切忌将性格模型绝对化与标签化。纪录片《性格测试背后的黑暗秘密》曾披露部分西方企业滥用MBTI筛选员工，导致求职失败者心理崩溃自杀；严肃心理学界亦常将其视作不具严格科学性的禁忌。武志红强调，人类极为复杂，“每个人都是一个例外”，过度套用16种类型去框定鲜活个体容易走向狭隘；而将自身性格缺陷（如拖延或刻薄）完全归咎于测试标签、甚至以此为借口抗拒成长与矫正，则是本末倒置。 亲密关系机制与社交体面的边界 (43:20) 在探讨人际吸引力时，武志红指出人们在交友与职场中共事倾向于在同一人格象限内寻找相似者以降低沟通成本，但在恋爱中往往渴望跨越象限寻找相反特质，借助荣格所谓的“阿尼玛”或“阿尼姆斯”潜意识原型拓展精神空间。然而，即便性格习惯高度互补，维系长久关系的底线仍必须是价值观的高度一致。陈鲁豫则对“灵魂伴侣”等脱离现实的预设标签表示反感，主张相处舒适、沟通顺畅与亲密感比崇高的概念更为真实；面对困境时，她推崇“这也终将过去”（This shall pass too）的隐忍态度，主张坚强不是杜绝绝望，而是敢于在绝望中忍耐并等待痛苦随时间自然消解。 针对互联网上泛滥的“拒绝讨好”与“一定要做自己”等口号，嘉宾们进行了深刻反思。窦文涛与马未都批评许多人以“做自己”和“性格直率”为借口，公然抛弃了成年人在公共交往中应有的体面、克制与礼貌。马未都指出，高情商的体贴与适度利他实为一种促成良好互动的“合作型人格”，能令宾主尽欢；许多现代人的痛苦本质并非遭受怠慢，而是过度自我中心与自恋，沉溺于受害者叙事。成熟的人际相处之道在于既保留自我的舒适，又能让身旁的人感到自在。 从古老的十二生肖图腾到当代的MBTI测试，人类借助分类系统认识自我与世界，但任何测评与玄学都无法替代现实层面的因果律与行动力；健康的处世之道在于借助工具觉察内省，在面对苦难时坚信时间的力量，并在尊重自我边界的同时恪守人际交往的克制与体面。

马未都、窦文涛、武志红与陈鲁豫等人在节目中围绕十二生肖的历史流变、命理玄学与现代流行性格测试（如MBTI）展开深度对谈，剖析了传统民俗与现代心理标签背后的文化演进、社会心理机制以及人际交往的处世智慧。 生肖起源、结构平衡与历史流变 (0:00) 马未都回顾了十二地支与生肖的对应关系，反驳了依据动物昼夜生物习性来排定座次的说法。他指出，若以子时鼠活跃来推导寅时属虎并不成立，因为夜行性的老虎在清晨寅时已归巢休息，如《水浒传》中景阳冈在未时后便禁止上山防虎。生肖系统在结构上呈现高度平衡，包含七种家畜（牛、马负责劳作，鸡负责产蛋，狗负责看家，猪、羊提供肉食，以及家养兔）、四种野生动物（近人的鼠、蛇与远山的虎、猴）以及一种神话生物（龙）。龙的标准形态直至宋代及以后才完全定型，而在1975年出土的湖北云梦睡虎地秦简中，地支辰位甚至为空白，午对应鹿，未对应马，戌对应老羊，印证了生肖体系从先秦图腾崇拜逐步演化整合的历程。此外，家猫源自古埃及并经佛教路线于魏晋南北朝时期传入，西汉阳陵陪葬坑中便全无猫的痕迹，因此战国时期已定型的生肖中绝不可能出现猫。 农耕时空、皇帝政令与民俗误区 与发源于游牧狩猎、仰望星空以指引迁徙的西方星座相比，中国十二生肖植根于定居农耕文明，更注重配合天干地支形成的六十甲子周期进行长期农事规划与长幼年龄推算。个人对属相的情感认同在历史上曾被皇权放大为国家政令，例如宋徽宗因自身属狗而下令全国禁止杀狗，明武宗则因宠幸刘妃在正德十四年南巡仪真期间严禁民间养猪与杀猪，直接扰乱了农耕社会的肉食供应与祭祀秩序。在民间，属相相克口诀演化出诸多非理性迷信，尤以对“羊年出生”的偏见最为典型。马未都列举慈禧太后（执政48年，统治时长在帝制史上仅次于康熙、乾隆与汉武帝等人）、唐太宗、努尔哈赤、曾国藩及李鸿章等属羊的名人反驳此说，并指出这种偏见导致避孕套销量在马年激增而在羊年断崖式下跌，人为制造了生肖出生人口洪峰，甚至导致后续入学资源分配严重失衡。 从MBTI到玄学：现代标签与心理慰藉 (25:45) 讨论转向MBTI等西方心理测评在中国流行时的水土不服与心理机制。武志红指出，未经本土化常模修订的问卷常因双重否定句式造成答题偏差，心理学界普遍认为大五人格模型在实证上更严谨，但基于荣格类型学的MBTI以其对称美学和中性词汇更易被大众接纳。MBTI通过将内向等曾被传统教育视作社交缺陷的特质赋予正面认同，帮助青年群体缓解自我怀疑。窦文涛与现场嘉宾探讨认为，当代人对占星、塔罗牌乃至紫微斗数的沉迷，本质上源于深层的孤独感与寻求心理确认的需求。但盲目依赖测试不仅可能导致标签化，在企业招聘中滥用测试更引发了伦理争议。马家辉强调“相信算命不如相信业力”，以名嘴黄霑生前日抽三包烟最终应验寿数为例，说明现实的生活方式与因果规律远比命理测算更为决定性，真正悟透义理的君子“善易者不卜”。 苦难耐受、边界感与“做自己”的误区 (49:10) 在探讨个人心智与亲密关系时，武志红指出恋爱中人们往往跨越人格坐标原点寻找互补的阿尼玛或阿尼姆斯原型，但长久维系的前提必须是核心价值观一致；陈鲁豫则警惕浪漫化的“灵魂伴侣”预设，主张立足于具体的相处与沟通。面对人生的创伤与重压，真正的坚强并非麻木不仁，而是如鲁豫所言深知“现实中无人可依，一切终将过去”，学会在绝望中耐心等待时间冲淡痛苦。窦文涛结合自己通过注意力转移与神经性耳鸣共存的经历，佐证了接纳身体与生活不完美的必要性。最后，嘉宾们集体反思了互联网上泛滥的“做自己”和“拒绝讨好”口号。窦文涛与马未都批评许多人将MBTI或个性当成社交失礼的挡箭牌，强调健康的社交必须兼顾成年人的体面与对他人感受的照顾，把自身痛苦完全归咎于外界忽视往往是因为过度执着于自我，在尊重自我边界的同时让彼此舒服才是成熟的合作之道。 无论是古老的十二生肖图腾、命理占卜，还是现代的流行人格测试，工具的价值均取决于使用者的理性与悟性。过度沉溺于标签只会助长自我中心的狭隘与宿命论的消极，唯有立足现实因果、在人际互动中兼顾体面与共情，才能实现心智的真正成熟。

[61:28] 武志红: 一个人如果是生活在幻想中，而且这个幻想既不符合他自己的现实，也不符合这个世界的现实，那这就是心理问题，严重的时候甚至是精神疾病。 [63:21] 窦文涛: 走过这30年社会，我发现我看惯了的人，反而是把自己感受放在别人感受之上的人并不少，很多。

[0:00] Zi (Rat), Chou (Ox), Yin (Tiger), Mao ( [0:02] Rabbit), Chen (Dragon), Si (Snake), Wu [0:04] (Horse), Wei (Sheep), Shen (Monkey), [0:06] You (Rooster), Xu (Dog), Hai (Pig). See [0:08] , I can recite it; I've been memorizing [0:10] these since I was a child. But it's [0:12] strange, our question is, why isn't the [0:15] cat among these 12 signs? Why is there [0:18] no cat? In our 12 Chinese zodiac signs, [0:21] the rat ranks first. There are various [0:23] theories for why the rat is first; one [0:25] says that back when they were lining up [0:27] , the rat went to the front and said, " [0:29] I'm the biggest, I should be first." [0:32] People then asked, "How do you know [0:34] you're the biggest?" The rat said, " [0:35] Let's test it. Let's parade through the [0:38] streets, and you'll see everyone saying [0:40] , 'Look how big it is.'" So the rat [0:42] stood on the ox's back and started the [0:44] parade. As they traveled through the [0:47] streets, everyone said, "What a big rat [0:49] !" And that's how the rat ranked first. [0:53] That rat happened to be the biggest of [0:55] the rats, so people said "what a big [0:57] rat," while that ox wasn't the biggest [0:59] of the oxen, so it ended up ranking [1:00] second. That's one theory; it's quite [1:03] imaginative. Another theory is [1:06] relatively more scientific. It suggests [1:11] that since the midnight "Zi" hour is [1:13] when rats are most active, they are [1:15] busiest at this time. Rats only come [1:20] out at night, and you don't see them [1:21] during the day, right? So at night, [1:25] sometimes when you come home late—in [1:27] the past when I walked home at night, I [1:29] could always see rats in the alleys, [1:31] right? But if you say the order is [1:34] based on this, the rat fits, but the [1:36] other animals don't, so this theory [1:38] seems scientific but is actually quite [1:40] forced. For example, "Yin Tiger." The [1:44] Yin hour refers to 3:00 AM to 5:00 AM. [1:48] At that time, tigers are heading home [1:50] to sleep. Tigers are nocturnal and [1:54] active when it gets dark. If you read " [1:58] Water Margin," specifically the part [2:00] where Wu Song crosses Jingyang Ridge, [2:02] it says no one is allowed up the [2:03] mountain past the Wei hour. The Wei [2:06] hour is 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM; after 3:00 [2:09] PM, a tiger might come out, which is [2:11] when Wu Song went up and encountered [2:13] the tiger. Tigers are active at dusk [2:16] and hunt at night, returning to sleep [2:18] in the morning. So, trying to view [2:22] tigers based on the rat's activity is [2:24] confusing and inaccurate, so these [2:26] theories are basically nonsense. So, [2:30] why is there such an order for these 12 [2:32] zodiac signs? To be honest, despite so [2:36] many scholars studying it for so long, [2:38] there is no convincing answer. To put [2:41] it simply, let's take a closer look: [2:43] seven of the 12 Chinese zodiac animals [2:45] are domestic animals. What are domestic [2:49] animals? They are animals that we [2:51] humans raise for a specific purpose. [2:53] This kind of raising is common, not [2:55] like keeping pets today; for instance, [2:56] some people keep snakes now, which was [2:58] unheard of in ancient times. So, what [3:00] were the main ones? There’s the ox, [3:03] rabbit, horse, sheep, chicken, dog, and [3:06] pig. The ox and horse were for labor, [3:10] the chicken for laying eggs for us to [3:12] eat, the dog for guarding the house, [3:13] and the pig and sheep for meat. And so [3:18] on. These seven animals were primarily [3:20] domestic, while the other four are wild [3:22] animals. For example, rats and snakes [3:27] were relatively closer to humans in the [3:29] past; you might see them where you [3:31] lived, whereas monkeys and tigers were [3:33] further away—especially the tiger. [3:37] It’s quite ferocious. That’s why [3:39] people in the past would turn pale at [3:41] the mention of a tiger. Seven plus four [3:43] equals eleven, so one is missing: our [3:45] mythical creature, the dragon. This [3:47] dragon is very interesting; this [3:49] combination is very interesting. With [3:52] this combination—seven "regular army" [3:55] animals, four "field army" animals, [3:57] plus a mythical beast—you can see [3:59] what a great pairing this is. It's a [4:02] fantastic mix. I’ve always wondered, [4:05] why hasn't anyone written a script and [4:07] made a blockbuster called "Chinese [4:09] Zodiac" to take to the international [4:11] stage? We shouldn't wait for Hollywood [4:14] to make a movie called "Chinese Zodiac" [4:16] and then have a realization, saying, " [4:18] Oh, such great subject matter, and we [4:20] didn't make it ourselves," right? We [4:22] definitely need to make our own [4:23] blockbuster and call it "Chinese Zodiac [4:25] ." With all 12 animals on stage, think [4:27] about how interesting their composition [4:29] is—some are close to humans, some [4:31] aren't, and some make you terrified, [4:33] like the snake, since most people fear [4:35] snakes. And then there's this mythical [4:37] creature, the dragon, which even [4:39] foreigners can accept. Look at movies [4:45] like "Monkey King: Hero is Back"; if [4:47] there’s a dragon, then include a [4:49] dragon. Look at other movies; there’s [4:58] a film that was well-made recently, I [5:00] watched it, called "Zootopia." It’s [5:03] good, but what makes it the most [5:05] interesting? In this animal city, all [5:08] animals are true to their actual [5:10] proportions, which defies tradition. In [5:13] the past, we would scale down large [5:15] animals and enlarge small ones to match [5:17] . But not anymore; a rabbit is just [5:19] that small, a shrew is just that big, [5:22] and a giraffe is that tall. It makes [5:25] filming very difficult, but this [5:26] challenge actually makes it look great. [5:29] For example, a rabbit and a lion boxing [5:31] each other—that feels incredible. We [5:34] should use our imagination, the [5:36] imagination of the Chinese people. If [5:39] you’re really stuck, come to me. [5:41] Anyone who wants to write a script, [5:43] come see me. Let’s make a movie, a [5:46] Chinese animated blockbuster called " [5:48] Chinese Zodiac," telling the story from [5:50] ancient times to the present. So, when [5:52] did the 12 Chinese zodiac animals first [5:54] appear in our history? There is a [5:56] theory that they date back to the Book [5:58] of Songs. It contains a phrase: "On a [6:00] lucky day, Wu stands for horse." It [6:03] suggests the "Wu" hour on a lucky day [6:05] is a good time for horses, thus linking [6:07] "Wu" and the horse. This theory is a [6:10] bit far-fetched, but whether it’s [6:12] forced or not, "Wu" and the horse are [6:14] paired up. During the late Warring [6:19] States period, in the Zhou Dynasty, we [6:21] know that the Hundred Schools of [6:23] Thought had all formed their own [6:24] complete doctrines. So, by the late [6:29] Warring States period, many things had [6:31] basically taken shape. Our 12 zodiac [6:35] animals were established during this [6:36] time. Why? There is evidence. In 1975, [6:40] Qin bamboo slips were unearthed in [6:42] Shuihudi, Yunmeng, Hubei—these were [6:44] records from the Qin state and dynasty. [6:47] They provide further proof. Since these [6:49] Qin slips contain text, they are [6:50] indisputable evidence that the 12 [6:52] zodiac animals already existed around [6:54] the Spring and Autumn period. The [6:57] records on these bamboo slips are [6:58] roughly the same as those we use today. [7:01] For example, Zi is the Rat, which is [7:03] the same; Chou is the Ox, also the same [7:05] ; Yin is the Tiger; and Mao is the [7:07] Rabbit. The first four are exactly the [7:09] same. But when it gets to Chen, the [7:11] Dragon, it is left blank. This is very [7:14] interesting. The concept of the "Dragon [7:16] " was actually formed gradually after [7:18] the Han and Tang dynasties. A truly [7:20] complete concept of the dragon, [7:22] including its image, didn't emerge [7:23] until after the Song Dynasty. The later [7:26] you go, the more the dragon looks like [7:28] a dragon. The further back you go, the [7:29] more the dragon looks like a beast. I [7:31] have mentioned this before. In the [7:33] bamboo slips, the "Chen" is actually [7:35] left blank. I'm not sure why, but [7:38] perhaps the concept of the Dragon [7:39] didn't exist at the time. For instance, [7:42] in our early terminology, it was [7:44] different, and for "Si," it was written [7:47] as "Chong"(insect/worm). What is "Chong [7:49] "? It means "long insect"(snake), right [7:52] ? So, "Si" for snake is "long insect."" [7:55] Wu" should correspond to the Horse, but [7:57] here it's not a Horse; it's a Deer. [7:59] Following that, it should correspond to [8:01] the Sheep, but it's matched with a [8:02] Horse instead. Then "Shen" corresponds [8:04] to the Ape—Ape and Monkey are the [8:07] same thing. "You" corresponds to the [8:09] Rooster; these are all consistent. When [8:11] it gets to "Xu," which should [8:12] correspond to the Dog, it's matched [8:14] with an old sheep. It’s strange; why [8:16] would this sheep specify an age like " [8:18] old sheep"? "Hai" is still the Pig. [8:21] Here, we just have an extra Deer and a [8:23] missing Dog. Later, in the course of [8:25] history, this was adjusted. From this, [8:28] we can accurately conclude that our [8:30] Zodiac culture gradually emerged during [8:32] the Spring and Autumn period and was [8:33] basically completed by the Warring [8:35] States period. What was the basis for [8:37] its emergence? We will discuss that [8:39] later. By the Qin Dynasty, with the [8:41] bamboo slips, it was basically [8:43] established. Then, by the Han Dynasty, [8:46] it became very common. In ancient times [8:49] , the common people greatly revered [8:51] these animals. Why did they worship [8:54] animals? It is because our [8:57] understanding of nature was limited and [8:59] we lacked today's technology. For [9:03] example, a child born today is [9:05] surrounded by the technological [9:06] achievements of the past century, right [9:08] ? In the past, that wasn't the case. A [9:12] child was born only to their mother and [9:14] basic living conditions. You couldn't [9:16] see airplanes, trains, cars, computers, [9:19] or anything modern; you only saw things [9:21] from the natural world. When you [9:24] occasionally saw animals, there were [9:26] aspects you couldn't understand—their [9:28] mystery, their invisibility, their [9:30] stealthiness like the weasel, or [9:31] animals with immense abilities like [9:33] jumping high or flying far. These [9:36] experiences naturally led to totemistic [9:38] sentiments. For example, our ethnic [9:40] minorities, such as the Mongols, [9:42] Uyghurs, and Tibetans, all have 12- [9:44] animal systems for keeping track of [9:46] years, which are largely similar to our [9:48] Zodiac. These totemistic sentiments [9:51] clearly had to be linked to our ancient [9:53] method of using the Heavenly Stems and [9:55] Earthly Branches for keeping time. [9:58] Right, the Heavenly Stems and Earthly [10:00] Branches are our oldest method of [10:01] keeping years and are still used today. [10:03] What are the Heavenly Stems? Jia, Yi, [10:05] Bing, Ding, Wu, Ji, Geng, Xin, Ren, Gui [10:08] . What are the Earthly Branches? Zi, [10:10] Chou, Yin, Mao, Chen, Si, Wu, Wei, Shen [10:13] , You, Xu, Hai. 10 and 12 form a basic [10:16] unit, and this basic unit is called the [10:18] least common multiple, which is a [10:20] scientific term. When you study [10:23] mathematics, you must learn about the [10:24] least common multiple. These two [10:27] numbers definitely have a least common [10:29] multiple, which is 60. In ancient times [10:31] , people had short lifespans, and 60 [10:33] years was a cycle. Back then, a full [10:36] cycle of 60 years was a significant age [10:38] ; living past 60 was considered [10:40] long-lived. "Few reach seventy since [10:42] ancient times," as Du Fu said. In the [10:45] Tang Dynasty, reaching 70 was indeed a [10:47] rarity. So people were very happy once [10:50] they passed 60; for example, Emperor [10:52] Kangxi reigned for 61 years. When his [10:54] cycle came around again, in the 61st [10:56] year, he would commission a piece of [10:58] porcelain. Since he ascended the throne [11:01] in the Xinchou year, when the Xinchou [11:03] year returned, he would have porcelain [11:05] fired with the inscription "Xinchou Zhi [11:06] " to mark this cycle. As for the zodiac [11:10] , we are taught it from a young age. I [11:14] don't know if children nowadays can [11:15] recite it, so when I had a son, I [11:17] taught him. How did I teach him? It was [11:20] easy to teach my son: "Dad belongs to [11:22] the Goat sign, right?""Remember, since [11:24] Dad is a Goat, you are a Pig." It's [11:26] very clear—Goats and Pigs are [11:28] compatible. My son loved learning it [11:30] and would ask everyone he met. When I [11:32] took him to visit the neighbors, he [11:34] would walk up and ask, "Uncle Wang, [11:35] what is your zodiac sign?" Then Uncle [11:38] Wang would ask, "What is your dad's [11:40] sign?" Uncle Wang was a year younger [11:41] than me, so he asked, "What does your [11:43] dad belong to?" He replied, "My dad is [11:45] a Goat." Then he asked, "And what comes [11:47] after the Goat?" My son answered, "A [11:49] leg comes after the Goat." I told Uncle [11:52] Wang he belonged to the "Goat Leg." [11:55] Children's thinking is different from [11:56] adults '; what do we mean by culture? " [11:59] Monkey after Goat" is culture, while " [12:02] leg after Goat" is just normal, logical [12:04] thinking. Regarding the zodiac, [12:07] everyone is relatively sensitive about [12:09] their own sign. For instance, some [12:12] people have an inexplicable sense of [12:14] kinship with their zodiac animal. If [12:17] someone is a Dog, they might say, "I [12:19] must be kind to dogs," right? Some [12:21] people are born in the year of the Pig, [12:23] so they just love pigs. For example, a [12:25] person born in the year of the Snake [12:27] might always say, "I hate it when [12:28] people eat snake meat." Yes, it is a [12:30] simple kind of cultural sentiment. This [12:33] kind of simple cultural sentiment isn't [12:35] just found in ordinary people; emperors [12:37] have it too. Take Emperor Huizong of [12:39] Song, for example; he was the emperor [12:41] with the highest artistic attainment in [12:43] Chinese history. No other emperor’s [12:45] artistic skill could surpass his. [12:48] Creating one's own calligraphy style is [12:50] a remarkable feat. Those who could do [12:54] so in Chinese history can be counted on [12:56] one's fingers—it's just those few, [12:58] isn't it? For instance, the Yan style [13:01] of Yan Zhenqing, the Liu style of Liu [13:03] Gongquan, the Ou style of Ouyang Xun, [13:05] and the Slender Gold style of Emperor [13:06] Huizong. Just imagine, could someone [13:08] from the Song Dynasty really compete [13:10] with Tang Dynasty regular script? The [13:11] people of the Tang Dynasty had [13:13] basically perfected all variations of [13:14] regular script; there was nothing left [13:16] to add. Yet when it came to Huizong, he [13:18] managed to create the Slender Gold [13:20] style. Just think about his level of [13:22] artistic achievement. What was the [13:23] Chinese zodiac sign of Emperor Huizong? [13:25] He was born in the Year of the Dog, so [13:27] he forbade the killing of dogs. An [13:28] emperor had that power; if he was born [13:30] in the Year of the Dog, then no dogs [13:31] could be killed. In the early Ming [13:33] Dynasty, there was Zhu Yuanzhang. Since [13:35] his surname was the same as the word [13:36] for "pig," there was a saying that he [13:38] avoided killing pigs or even eating [13:40] them, but this was never evident among [13:42] the common people. It wasn't until the [13:45] mid-Ming Dynasty, during the Zhengde [13:47] era of Emperor Wuzong, that he grew [13:48] fond of an Islamic concubine named [13:50] Consort Liu. Historical records only [13:53] refer to her as Consort Liu, her given [13:55] name is unknown. Because he liked her, [13:59] he issued an order, and this decree is [14:01] documented in the official history of [14:02] the Ming Wuzong era. In the 14th year [14:05] of the Zhengde reign, the emperor was [14:06] on a southern tour during the winter of [14:08] the twelfth lunar month. In Yizhen— [14:10] which is modern-day Yizheng—he issued [14:11] an order banning the raising and [14:13] slaughtering of pigs among the common [14:14] people. It was truly an absurd affair. [14:19] You know, for us agrarian people, [14:21] livestock was an important source of [14:22] meat, though many in the interior lived [14:24] their whole lives without eating beef [14:26] or lamb, as oxen were for labor and [14:28] sheep weren't kept. In Zhen County, [14:34] during a specific ritual, they only [14:36] offered pig heads and excluded others, [14:38] which is considered quite absurd in [14:40] history. Some connect this to the [14:46] zodiac, but I believe the zodiac [14:48] culture is directly tied to agrarian [14:50] life because the animals featured are [14:52] extremely common, mostly domesticated, [14:54] plus some worshipped creatures like the [14:56] dragon. Constellations are different; [15:02] although we discovered them 3,000 years [15:04] ago, Western culture stems from nomadic [15:06] roots. Shepherds lived by herding, [15:11] which differs from the stationary, [15:12] lifelong settlement of agrarian life. [15:17] Nomadic cultures had to keep moving, [15:19] whether hunting or herding, so they [15:21] looked to the stars to judge seasons [15:23] and time. Agrarian cultures, by [15:27] contrast, generally looked further [15:29] ahead. Therefore, we had to buy land [15:32] and own property, making us very [15:34] material-oriented. To observe annual [15:36] changes, we need to look at least a [15:38] year ahead. Sowing in spring and [15:41] harvesting in autumn requires looking [15:42] at the whole year, while the West [15:44] focuses more on the short term. That is [15:49] why we Easterners care a lot about a [15:50] person's age; if people are too shy to [15:53] ask how old you are, they will ask what [15:55] your zodiac sign is, whereas Westerners [15:57] focus on your personality. So our [16:01] constellation culture leans more toward [16:03] describing personality. I have many [16:06] friends who love studying [16:07] constellations and talk about them [16:09] endlessly. Sometimes I test them by [16:12] asking, "Look at that person, what's [16:14] their sign?" They always walk up and [16:16] ask, "What month were you born?" I say, [16:18] "What kind of expert are you?" If you [16:21] were a real expert, you would know [16:22] their sign after chatting for a couple [16:24] of sentences. According to their [16:27] theories, there are all sorts of [16:28] factors influencing these signs. Today, [16:32] especially among young people, [16:33] constellations are very popular, but [16:35] unfortunately, we won't discuss that [16:37] today—we only talk about the zodiac. [16:41] The zodiac has had a major influence on [16:43] our culture; in the past, it was very [16:45] simple, initially just for keeping [16:47] track of the years. One is the [16:48] historical way of recording years, [16:50] which isn't necessarily about the [16:52] zodiac; it's based on the Heavenly [16:54] Stems and Earthly Branches. But for us, [16:56] asking about your zodiac sign is really [16:58] just asking for your age. I always say, [17:00] you can't hide your age by ten years. [17:02] You might look younger than others, but [17:04] you can't be off by ten years. So, if [17:05] you let me look at a person today, I [17:07] bet my estimate of their age won't be [17:09] off by more than ten years. So [17:11] sometimes I see people talking about [17:12] some celebrity who is fifty or sixty [17:14] years old and still like a young girl, [17:16] and I think they’ve truly never seen [17:18] a young girl—a young girl definitely [17:20] doesn't look like that. No matter how [17:22] much you tighten your skin or try to [17:24] look youthful, your movements will give [17:26] you away. The movements of a child [17:29] versus an adult, or a young girl versus [17:31] an old woman, are completely different. [17:33] Just talk about things appropriate for [17:35] your age. No matter how much you want [17:36] to be young—I want to be young too, [17:38] I'd love to go back to being twenty— [17:40] it's just impossible. That’s why in [17:41] the past, the first thing people asked [17:43] was what zodiac animal you were. They [17:44] weren't actually trying to learn your [17:46] age; what mattered most was whether [17:48] there were any taboos between your [17:49] zodiac signs. We used to call this [17:51] superstition. For example, there's a [17:53] rhyme that goes: "White horses avoid [17:56] black oxen, rats fear sheep, tigers [17:58] clash like knives, dragons shed tears, [18:00] and gold fears...""Dogs and monkeys [18:02] can't make it to the end." Whether you [18:04] believe it is up to you; if you believe [18:06] it, it exists, and if you don't, it [18:07] doesn't. For instance, they say snakes [18:09] and tigers clash like knives, though [18:11] some say it's dragons and tigers. " [18:12] White horses avoid black oxen" means [18:14] those born in the Year of the Horse and [18:15] the Year of the Ox can't be together, [18:17] right? So what can they do? People used [18:19] to say cats and dogs were natural [18:20] enemies, but I often see videos now [18:22] where cats and dogs are cuddling while [18:23] they sleep, which shouldn't be possible [18:25] . So, these conflicts between zodiac [18:28] signs are basically groundless, but [18:30] they do have an impact on our cultural [18:32] psychology. For example, some elderly [18:41] people whose children have fallen in [18:43] love, or were introduced by matchmakers [18:45] , or met on dating websites—once they [18:47] ask about the zodiac signs and find a [18:49] conflict with our traditional culture, [18:51] they feel uneasy. Culture has this [18:58] power; it can make you feel very happy, [19:00] or it can make you feel very conflicted [19:02] . Years ago, I had a strong realization [19:07] : in rural areas, everyone is very [19:09] concerned about zodiac signs, whereas [19:11] people in cities generally aren't. So [19:16] in the countryside, no one asks how old [19:18] you are; they just walk up and ask what [19:20] your zodiac sign is, right? No one asks [19:23] how old you are, but in the city, older [19:25] people will ask how old you are today. [19:28] "How old are you, kid?" People say, " [19:30] I'm 15, I'm 16." They all state their [19:32] age, while people in rural areas place [19:35] more emphasis on this type of cultural [19:37] inheritance. Today, whether you call it [19:41] superstition or not, let me first tell [19:43] you that in theory, for every 12 people [19:46] born, we should cover all 12 zodiac [19:48] signs, right? With our population of [19:52] 1.35 billion in China, there should be [19:55] 110 million for each zodiac sign. A [19:58] little more, a little over 10 million, [20:00] if you average it out. Right, but today [20:02] there are some artificial factors. For [20:05] example, in the Year of the Dragon, the [20:07] Year of the Monkey, or the Year of the [20:09] Pig, many more babies are born, while [20:11] the Year of the Goat has very few. In [20:14] the past, it was said that being born [20:16] in the Year of the Goat in the twelfth [20:18] lunar month was bad, especially for [20:20] women, with sayings like "ten goats, [20:22] nine incomplete" or "empty rooms." [20:24] Whenever the Year of the Goat [20:26] approaches—well, last year was the [20:27] Year of the Goat. During the Year of [20:31] the Horse before that, Durex condoms [20:33] sold very well; people didn't want to [20:34] conceive in the Year of the Goat, so [20:36] business was good in the Year of the [20:38] Horse. Come to think of it, last year, [20:43] the Year of the Goat, we know pregnancy [20:45] lasts ten months, so once summer passed [20:47] in the Year of the Goat...Condom sales [20:48] dropped, as people were rushing to get [20:50] pregnant so they could give birth in [20:52] the next year. This is all a part of [20:55] our cultural psychology. It drives [20:57] those companies—the ones making these [20:59] tools—crazy. It's feast or famine, [21:02] with demand fluctuating, which isn't [21:04] very good. You say it's bad to be born [21:06] in the Year of the Goat, especially for [21:08] women—but it depends on how you look [21:10] at it. Let's take an extreme example. [21:13] Empress Dowager Cixi. The saying "ten [21:16] goats, nine incomplete" only became [21:18] popular toward the end of the Qing [21:20] Dynasty. Because Empress Dowager Cixi [21:22] was born in the Year of the Goat, [21:24] people made up this saying about "ten [21:25] goats, nine incomplete." Empress [21:27] Dowager Cixi, this old lady, was also a [21:29] young girl once. Would you say her life [21:32] was bad? First, she married an emperor. [21:34] Second, she gave birth to an emperor. [21:37] Third, she even enthroned two emperors. [21:39] Though she wasn't the emperor herself, [21:41] she held more power than the emperor. [21:43] Empress Dowager Cixi ruled for 48 years [21:45] . Just think, how long is a 48-year [21:47] reign? In Chinese history, the number [21:51] of emperors who exceeded this duration [21:53] is limited. The longest was Kangxi with [21:56] 61 years, then his grandson Qianlong, [21:58] and Emperor Wu of Han with 54 years. [22:00] Below that, there are two with 48 years [22:02] : Emperor Wu of Liang and the Wanli [22:04] Emperor of the Ming Dynasty, who [22:06] reigned for 48 years. If you look at [22:08] those ahead of her, there are only five [22:10] , with two tied with her, effectively [22:12] putting those 48 years in a tie for [22:14] fourth place. Ahead are 61 years, 60 [22:16] years, and 54 years—those are the [22:18] emperors. Look at her luck; she wasn't [22:21] the main empress, not the primary queen [22:23] . Giving birth to a son makes the [22:26] mother honored by the child, but the [22:27] main empress didn't have one; what does [22:29] it matter to you if she did? It matters [22:31] not at all. Whether or not you're [22:33] recorded in history is hard to say, and [22:34] those who don't read history wouldn't [22:36] even find you, right? If you had given [22:38] birth to a daughter, history would have [22:39] been completely rewritten; one must [22:41] have that skill—hitting the [22:42] historical target with every single [22:44] shot in life. Look at Empress Dowager [22:47] Cixi: her father died when she was 19, [22:50] her husband when she was 26, and her [22:52] son when she was 40; from that [22:54] perspective, that was fate. From that [22:58] angle, it was very unhappy, which is [23:00] where the saying "ten sheep, nine [23:02] incomplete" comes from. I think someone [23:05] like Cixi, if taken as a model for a [23:07] woman born in the Year of the Sheep, [23:09] must have lived a very successful life. [23:14] In those turbulent final days of our [23:16] feudal society, she ruled for 48 years; [23:18] the only one who could compare or rival [23:20] her would be Wu Zetian. There are many [23:24] famous people in history born in the [23:26] Year of the Sheep; we think of great [23:28] figures like Emperor Taizong of Tang [23:30] and Nurhaci, the founding emperors, or [23:32] Li Hongzhang and Zeng Guofan from the [23:34] late Qing Dynasty—they were all born [23:36] in the Year of the Sheep. There is [23:38] nothing wrong with it. So, this idea of [23:40] avoiding childbirth in the Year of the [23:43] Sheep, I think, makes no sense. Because [23:47] of this dislike for having children in [23:48] the Year of the Sheep, right? It leads [23:52] to a very uneven distribution of social [23:54] resources and intensifies social [23:56] competition. So, whenever it's a year [24:00] like the Year of the Rat, Dragon, or [24:02] Monkey, everyone crowds to have [24:03] children, and six years later, school [24:05] enrollment becomes very tight, while [24:07] children born after the Year of the [24:09] Sheep find school enrollment much [24:10] easier. Therefore, resources must be [24:14] balanced; only with balance can we [24:16] avoid waste. We've talked for so long, [24:19] but we haven't addressed the initial [24:21] question: why is there no cat in the 12 [24:23] Chinese zodiac signs? Cats are very [24:25] close to humans, aren't they? [24:27] Theoretically, they are pets that could [24:28] have been included. Many of our past [24:31] pets weren't really considered domestic [24:33] , like cows, horses, pigs, or sheep. [24:36] Even with lenient standards, maybe [24:38] chickens made the cut, but ducks rarely [24:40] did; ducks aren't exactly part of the [24:42] zodiac either. So, why is that? It’s [24:46] very simple. For Chinese people, [24:48] keeping cats as pets is a very recent [24:50] phenomenon. It’s believed they [24:52] arrived in China during the Northern [24:54] and Southern dynasties via Buddhist [24:56] channels, so early cats must have been [24:57] kept by temples. Is there any evidence? [25:00] Yes, we have evidence. We don't see any [25:03] images of cats in artifacts prior to [25:05] that period, nor are there any written [25:07] records. If you have a chance to go to [25:10] Xi'an, be sure to visit Emperor Jing of [25:12] Han's tomb. It unearthed a vast array [25:15] of animals—cows, horses, sheep, pigs, [25:17] dogs, chickens, and ducks—everything [25:20] humans raised, even fish, but there [25:22] were no cats. We simply cannot find [25:24] images of cats in other artifacts. [25:26] Think about it: the twelve zodiac signs [25:28] were already established during the [25:29] Warring States period, but the cat [25:31] didn't make the list. The "cats" we [25:33] refer to are domesticated ones, which [25:35] weren't brought to China from Egypt. [25:38] Since Chinese people hadn't seen or [25:40] raised cats, the concept didn't exist, [25:42] which is why there's no cat in the [25:44] zodiac. [25:45] >> It says that perhaps humanity can be [25:47] divided into eight types, but every [25:49] individual is an exception. [25:51] >> Exactly. Right? [25:53] >> Yes, and I took a look at the test you [25:55] sent me. I found that it doesn't quite [25:59] fit the way we Chinese think. It's [26:02] obvious, since these two are Americans. [26:04] >> Right. [26:05] >> First of all, it's better suited for an [26:07] English-speaking context. It’s more [26:08] suited to the mindset of people in an [26:10] English-speaking environment. For [26:11] Chinese people taking it, it's [26:13] incredibly convoluted. [26:14] >> Hmm. There are many double negatives, [26:17] and if you haven't gone through [26:19] experiences like the Gaokao or the [26:20] TOEFL, you’d be completely confused [26:22] by these questions. So, it's a more [26:26] rigorous test. It has to be like this. [26:28] If it’s coming to China, to be [26:29] Sinicized or adapted for Chinese [26:31] culture, you have to establish a sample [26:33] of Chinese people. And the sampling [26:34] must be very scientific, based on the [26:36] demographic structure of the Chinese [26:38] population—sampling different types [26:39] of people from every region. Only after [26:41] building such a foundational sample and [26:43] then modifying it according to the [26:44] specific characteristics of the Chinese [26:46] people can you call it localized. For [26:48] example, this is built on the [26:49] foundation of Jung’s theory, right? [26:51] Jung originally divided human [26:53] personality into three dimensions, [26:54] right? But in the end, it added another [26:56] dimension to the JKP, bringing it to [26:58] four dimensions. With these four [27:00] dimensions, you have 2 times 2 times 2 [27:02] times 2, which makes 16 personality [27:04] types. In my opinion, I don’t think [27:06] human beings can really be divided into [27:09] 16 such specific types. [27:11] >> I’ve heard from you psychologists [27:13] that what seems a bit more reliable is [27:14] something called the Big Five, right? [27:16] >> Oh, right, the Big Five. The Big Five. [27:19] Which five are you referring to? [27:20] >> It’s a classic theory. I can check my [27:22] phone and read it to everyone. It [27:24] mentions extraversion, I think [27:26] neuroticism, and what is it— [27:27] conscientiousness? Anyway, there’s [27:30] another one, but I don’t quite [27:31] remember, it’s something like that. [27:33] Because for me, I tend to prefer [27:35] abstract thinking, and I feel that the [27:37] Big Five theory lacks a certain [27:39] theoretical aesthetic. See, I can't [27:40] even remember those five dimensions. [27:42] But look at Jung’s theory—first, [27:44] introversion and extraversion. It’s [27:46] about whether our energy is directed [27:48] outward or inward. In my view, that’s [27:50] why everyone keeps saying you’re an [27:51] introvert, at least in some aspects. [27:54] But look at our conversation now, your [27:56] energy is clearly directed outward, [27:57] that’s very obvious. There’s one [28:01] thing I think is correct, and I suspect [28:03] you’re also an introvert, meaning you [28:04] recover your energy by being alone. [28:08] >> To get some rest, right? But look at my [28:10] closest friend, he is a very typical [28:12] extrovert. [28:13] >> He gains energy from being around [28:15] people. [28:15] >> After he finishes work, he has to go [28:17] dancing, go clubbing, or just hang out [28:19] with people. He considers that his way [28:22] of relaxing and resting, and that is [28:23] indeed the difference between him and [28:25] me. Yes, yes. [28:27] >> So, you see, first we talk about [28:29] extroverted and introverted sensing. [28:32] Listening to this classification, [28:34] it’s very clear, right? Then there's [28:36] "sensing" and this... "intuition," [28:38] because my pronunciation is a bit poor. [28:41] >> Hebei English, our English is the same. [28:43] >> Right, what this "sensing" refers to is [28:45] , you see everything right in front of [28:47] you—your sight, hearing, smell, taste [28:49] , and touch are all wide open. I’m [28:51] particularly attentive to these [28:52] concrete details, and often, I just get [28:54] stuck in these details and can't get [28:55] out. Intuitive, they see a few details [28:57] and they already grasp the big picture. [28:59] So, sometimes seeing just one detail [29:01] suddenly pierces through to the essence [29:03] of something. You see, there is also a [29:05] kind of aesthetic to this, right? It is [29:08] , and then looking at this next part, [29:10] it’s "T," which is "thinking," right? [29:13] And "F," which is "feeling." It’s " [29:15] feeling.""Feeling" and "sensing," to be [29:17] honest, I’ve never quite [29:18] distinguished them in English, but " [29:20] feeling"... [29:22] >> Actually, there’s no essential [29:23] difference; we call it denotation and [29:25] connotation, the overall meaning is [29:27] quite similar, though there are subtle [29:29] gaps in the core; it gets translated as [29:31] "emotion." Yes, actually, from our [29:34] Chinese perspective, you say "sense" [29:35] and "feel," to sense it versus to feel [29:37] it from an emotional perspective—what [29:40] essential difference is there? And even [29:42] if there is a difference, so what? [29:44] Because maybe I am truly quite arrogant [29:46] . It goes back to that saying: I know [29:48] my own personality best. Or rather, I [29:50] know my own destiny. Someone once said, [29:53] "Let me read your palm," and the other [29:55] person replied, "Do I still need to [29:57] have that fortune-told?" I know my own [30:01] destiny; I've walked this path to age [30:03] 30, 40, 50. If I still didn't know my [30:07] own personality and my own destiny, [30:08] that would be too ridiculous, it [30:10] wouldn't make sense. But you want me to [30:12] play along? Sure, let's play for a [30:15] night; I’ve even done those MBTI [30:17] things. So that is an arrogant point of [30:21] view, but the non-arrogant part is that [30:23] I think it’s also quite fun and [30:25] convenient. Young people say everyone [30:29] is still lost, and doing this is like [30:31] understanding yourself, understanding [30:33] your type, and knowing what’s next— [30:35] the next step. Once I know whether [30:43] you're an I or an E, besides being able [30:45] to interact and cooperate with your [30:46] personality, it feels like—at least [30:48] for me—I might have compulsively [30:50] distorted things, wanting to change you [30:52] . It's a bit like many women, you know [30:59] ... [30:59] >> Who says women want to change you? Or [31:01] are you saying that, teacher? [31:03] >> No, I mean men want to change women, [31:05] and women want to change men too, you [31:07] know? Like a lady trying to turn a [31:10] playboy into a gentleman. What I mean [31:13] is that it's a mistaken way of thinking [31:15] ; I'm not just singling out women. [31:16] >> We women have long since wised up; we [31:18] don't even want a playboy who turns [31:20] over a new leaf. [31:21] >> Whether you change or not is up to you; [31:22] I'll just do what I should. Don't try [31:25] to go around changing other people. But [31:29] , this MBTI often becomes a temptation, [31:31] making you feel like you should [31:32] simultaneously go along with them while [31:34] also challenging and changing them. [31:38] >> Yeah, for me, it's the complete [31:40] opposite: it's not about changing them, [31:42] but rather, as soon as I identify it, I [31:44] want to change myself. [31:45] >> For example, if I say I'm a P-type, and [31:47] I love being late. I make a resolution [31:49] that starting tomorrow, I won't be late [31:51] anymore. And the result? [31:52] >> And the result? [31:53] >> Ah, I wasn't late today, today... [31:55] >> Is it because you decided to change [31:56] yesterday? [31:57] >> I arrived earlier than all of you today [31:58] , right? [31:59] >> I was definitely earlier than you. [32:00] >> You have to put on makeup, though. [32:02] Regarding the sustainability of this [32:03] change, "mountains and rivers are easy [32:05] to change, but nature is hard to alter. [32:07] " [32:07] >> I actually really believe that people [32:09] can change. [32:11] >> People can change. [32:12] >> It just depends on how big your [32:13] determination is, and because of what, [32:16] right? I think you have every [32:17] possibility. The human mind is actually [32:20] like a novelist's, hmm. [32:22] >> It has a hundred personalities; [32:24] otherwise, you wouldn't be able to [32:25] understand any character in your own [32:27] novel. It's inside you. [32:29] >> It's just a matter of what's manifest [32:31] and hidden, strong and weak, or your [32:33] conscious choices—what you embrace, [32:35] what you identify with. I feel that on [32:39] one hand, people have this inertia that [32:41] you can see, but on the other hand, I [32:43] think it's precisely because I can see [32:45] it that I can change myself. But [32:49] personality really doesn't have a good [32:51] or bad side. When you talk about work, [32:53] being late is generally not good, but [32:55] look, I am—perhaps like Teacher Wu— [32:57] someone who is never late. While not [32:59] being late is a good thing, as far as [33:01] personality goes, it shows that my [33:03] personality isn't relaxed enough. [33:05] >> It’s actually very tiring, I’ve [33:07] realized that. Initially, one of the [33:09] parts I really liked about you, Wentao, [33:11] was that I felt you were easygoing. But [33:14] you really shouldn’t, you shouldn’t [33:16] encourage that kind of lateness. But [33:18] what I mean is, I’m never late for [33:20] work or for things that matter, but for [33:22] casual things, like us grabbing a meal, [33:24] can’t I just relax? I mean, don't be [33:27] so rigid and demanding, not allowing [33:28] yourself to ever be late. [33:30] >> Yeah. [33:30] >> It’s hard to change one’s nature; [33:32] habits are hard to break. [33:33] >> That’s the so-called "character is [33:35] destiny," right? In the past, many kids [33:38] might have been ashamed to admit they [33:39] were introverts, because growing up, we [33:41] were taught that not fitting in or [33:43] having poor social relations was a flaw [33:45] . My first-grade teacher’s comment on [33:47] my report card was, "You need to [33:49] improve your social relationships."" [33:50] >> Hey, look, you're so antisocial." [33:52] >> As a child, I was completely baffled, [33:54] but now I’d just think, well, I’m [33:56] an introvert. It’s pretty cool, [33:58] actually. Even Tony Leung is an [34:00] introvert; I feel a sense of pride in [34:02] that. It helps many kids validate [34:04] traits in their personality that might [34:06] have been considered negative, which is [34:08] its positive effect. [34:09] >> You put it that way, it’s not really [34:11] ... [34:12] >> Let me ask you, for instance, if you [34:14] saw a psychological description of [34:15] yourself, [34:18] >> even if a psychologist described you [34:20] perfectly, when you really identify [34:22] with it, what do you feel? [34:25] >> It depends on what they’re saying. If [34:26] it’s something general, I’d be like [34:28] , "Oh wow, they really hit the nail on [34:30] the head regarding my personality." [34:33] >> If it’s something I don’t mind, [34:35] like if someone said, "You seem like a [34:37] perfectionist, or perhaps a bit closed [34:39] off, reserved, or overly rational," [34:40] I’d accept that. But if it touches on [34:45] my inner core—things people naturally [34:47] resist or don't want to face, like dark [34:49] thoughts or vulnerable wounds—I might [34:51] be extremely resistant. I would stop [34:55] them before they could make that [34:56] judgment, using my own way to shut it [34:58] down, like, "Don't say any more." [35:01] >> I don’t want to hear it, let’s [35:02] leave it at that. I would definitely do [35:04] that. [35:04] >> Wouldn't you feel moved? [35:06] >> I wouldn't. Why would that be moving? I [35:08] mean, why would I be moved? I don’t [35:10] understand. No, we’re talking about [35:12] companies using this for hiring, which [35:14] is one side of the issue, but as far as [35:16] I know, young people in China mainly [35:18] use it for entertainment. But the [35:20] question is, what is behind all this [35:21] entertainment? I have a theory. [35:24] >> Hmm. [35:25] >> It all comes down to loneliness. How [35:28] should I put it? You see, when we talk [35:32] about this, I get attention. I get a [35:37] sense of validation for myself, even— [35:40] you know, someone once told me about [35:42] Tarot cards. [35:44] >> You know, there was someone who went [35:45] through a breakup, and at night, they [35:47] would watch Tarot card readings all [35:49] night long, night after night. Back [35:51] then, those fortune tellers would go on [35:53] and on, and you know, online there are [35:55] often questions like, "Is that person [35:57] thinking of you at this very moment?" [36:01] or "In three months, will they have [36:03] found another partner?" or "Should you [36:06] try to talk to them one more time and [36:09] fight for it, or just give up?" Later, [36:12] my friend realized, and said, "Oh, this [36:14] is just my way of getting through a [36:16] breakup." He said, what is he actually [36:19] feeling? It’s not about whether these [36:22] Tarot readers are right or wrong, but [36:23] that they are talking about what’s on [36:25] my mind; he said it’s precisely [36:27] because my head is full of this. But [36:30] who can I even talk to about it? Which [36:32] friend has the patience to listen to [36:34] you? He said sometimes, whether it's [36:36] Tarot or whatever, you know? It’s [36:39] like finding a kind of warmth, like, " [36:41] Oh, I'm not that lonely; I'm not the [36:43] only one struggling and enduring this [36:45] alone," as if someone is actually [36:47] talking about the same things that are [36:49] on my mind. [36:50] >> Right, people need to have their own [36:51] unique personality and unique existence [36:53] , but at the same time, they need to [36:55] find their own kind. [36:56] >> It’s a sense of certainty. It’s [36:57] because, because a person really [36:59] doesn't know what they are like, who I [37:01] am. We really want to know who we are [37:04] with absolute clarity, but that’s not [37:06] easy, so we can only know who we are in [37:08] a rough, vague way. Of course, there is [37:10] a test that tells you what you are like [37:12] , and MBTI does have that advantage; [37:14] it’s not discriminatory. [37:15] >> Is there also a sense of belonging? [37:17] >> Yes, there is also a sense of belonging [37:18] —you belong to this category. No, [37:20] it's more than that. Just now the [37:22] teacher mentioned "certainty," but I [37:24] feel it's not just certainty, it's [37:25] affirmation. It won't tell you that you [37:29] are a stingy person. Or that you are a [37:32] greedy person, or a lecherous person. [37:36] It doesn't use that kind of language; [37:38] it uses positive terms, it seems to [37:40] lean toward the positive, giving you [37:42] confirmation of who you are. Since we [37:45] were young, even I haven't been one to [37:47] fit in, and it got to the point where [37:48] my daughter was also told by her [37:50] teacher that she doesn't fit in. It [37:51] seems like I don’t have a friend who [37:53] hasn’t been criticized by a teacher [37:54] for being "unsuitable"; actually, it's [37:56] the teacher's own language. A critique [37:58] of their vocabulary. [37:59] >> They can't find the language to [38:00] describe it. But since Wentao just [38:03] mentioned Tarot cards, I thought of a [38:05] pretty fun experience. There was also [38:07] mention of astrology, right? I'm more [38:10] old-school; I use Zi Wei Dou Shu. [38:12] >> Oh, they do Zi Wei Dou Shu over in Hong [38:14] Kong. And it's a funny experience, like [38:17] in my "Life Palace," there's a "Gyro" [38:20] star. [38:21] >> Spinning around and around. If you have [38:24] this star in your Life Palace, what [38:25] does it signify for you? Being [38:27] indecisive. "Three minds and two [38:31] meanings" is usually seen as a bad [38:32] thing, like being hesitant, but I [38:34] interpret it as my thoughts being very [38:36] thorough and meticulous. I won't be [38:40] impulsive or only look at one side; I [38:42] consider all aspects. It spins a lot, [38:46] so I've let go of the anxiety and worry [38:48] associated with that. When I encounter [38:51] things, I wonder, should it be A or B? [38:54] Should I choose A or should I choose B? [38:58] After stressing over it for a long time [39:00] , I remind myself that this means I [39:02] have to go through this stage, so what [39:04] should I do? Stay calm and composed. [39:07] Don't be so restless. Anyway, I think [39:11] the more I contemplate, the better it [39:13] is. This can guide me and help me think [39:16] . So the brilliance of application lies [39:19] in the person, right? Some people turn [39:22] it into superstition or negative energy [39:24] , but as long as you know how to use it [39:26] , right, any tool can be used to [39:28] improve or adjust yourself. And at this [39:32] moment, we see Teacher Ma and Teacher [39:34] Cai's mastery. He sees the benefits of [39:36] mastery, thinking those previous things [39:37] weren't high-level, and that Zi Wei Dou [39:39] Shu is high-level. He wants to become [39:41] enlightened; he studies this. [39:42] >> He feels like this...he feels that MBTI [39:45] stuff... [39:45] >> Is something he doesn't accept, so [39:47] that's why Ma Lu... [39:48] >> No, no, I must clarify. From the start [39:51] of the episode, I never said I didn't [39:53] accept it. [39:53] >> Because with mastery, sometimes there's [39:55] a sense that you're "here," and that [39:57] other stuff is "here," so you might [39:59] look down on it a bit. [40:00] >> But when it comes to Zi Wei Dou Shu, [40:02] look at Teacher Ma talking about it; [40:04] the feeling is different. He's learned [40:06] this stuff, you see, and then he... [40:08] >> There's an emotional connection. [40:09] Teacher, I'm not rejecting it. Because [40:12] that thing, Wentao emphasized Jung's [40:14] quote—that everyone is an exception [40:16] —it's very important. At my stage and [40:19] age, okay, does Zi Wei Dou Shu have a [40:21] connection to me? [40:22] >> I would say I also have an emotional [40:24] connection to Zi Wei Dou Shu; to be [40:26] precise, it's a feeling of anticipation [40:28] . Back when we were in Hong Kong, a Zi [40:30] Wei Dou Shu master gave me a reading. [40:33] So, Luyu, you really...I'm a potential [40:35] stock, just wait, don't mind that I'm [40:37] getting old. He said that I wouldn't [40:40] make much money in my life, but after [40:42] 64... [40:44] >> What about it? [40:45] >> I'll strike it rich. How much money? [40:48] >> Well, just think, he usually reads for [40:51] those Hong Kong tycoons. So, Luyu, [40:53] don't talk about your garage, you... [40:56] >> You help me suggest a garage, you [40:57] suggest a garage for me. [40:59] >> It’s only a few years away, it’s [41:00] just a few years. [41:01] >> I can spoil it for you, can I pour some [41:03] cold water on him first? [41:04] >> Can you let him have his moment for two [41:06] days? [41:07] >> Fine, if you don't want me to say it. [41:08] >> Otherwise, he'd build one for me. [41:10] >> No, I can't help it. [41:12] >> Dong Mujie, you know that Iron Plate [41:14] Divine Calculation master. Yeah, I [41:16] heard. [41:17] >> He passed away a while ago, at 101. [41:19] Some things were accurate, some weren't [41:21] . One of the things you mentioned—he [41:24] gave Huang a reading. Huang’s reading [41:29] predicted what he’d do every year, [41:31] and it was quite accurate early on, [41:33] even predicting a career peak after 65. [41:38] Great fame and influence, roughly until [41:41] age 73. It was vague, essentially [41:45] saying "we'll see when we get there." [41:48] As it turned out, Huang passed away at [41:50] 73. [41:51] >> Should I laugh or cry? [41:53] >> Right, so that's why I'm pouring cold [41:55] water on it. Of course, there is karma. [41:59] Whether it’s fortune-telling or [42:01] astrology, believing in metaphysics [42:02] isn't as good as believing in karma. [42:06] Take Huang as an example—he smoked [42:08] three packs of cigarettes a day. How [42:10] could he not die? He made it to 63, [42:13] okay? That’s human karma. Even if [42:16] you’re fated to live to 75, so what? [42:19] >> Speaking of age, our former colleague [42:21] from the PR department in Beijing—I [42:23] won't mention their name—said they [42:25] once went to ask someone... [42:27] >> They asked, "Can you look at my future? [42:29] " and were told, "You'll hit a hurdle [42:32] in your 70s, but you'll get past it." [42:36] Then they asked about the next hurdle, [42:37] and were told, "Your 80s." And then [42:40] what? There wasn't one. We laughed [42:42] ourselves to death hearing that back [42:44] then. [42:44] >> That’s Mencius, right? 73 and 84. [42:47] >> But then, come to think of it, that’s [42:49] fine, living into your 80s is good [42:50] enough. "All things are empty," right? [42:52] But karma is not empty. People used to [42:56] say that those who are good at the I [42:58] Ching do not divine, because those who [43:00] truly understand its principles don't [43:02] need to use divination. [43:05] >> Seeking the path, right? Even if the [43:08] fortune-telling is bad, as a good [43:10] person, as a man of virtue, right? You [43:12] still have to do it. Should you just [43:15] give up because of that? [43:16] >> Hmm. [43:17] >> He has a different set of values. Of [43:20] course, Professor Wu, I still have a [43:22] question for you. "Birds of a feather [43:25] flock together." What is the benefit of [43:27] humans being divided like this? [43:29] >> Hey, at this point, when I make friends [43:31] , birds of a feather flock together, [43:32] but when people fall in love, it [43:34] becomes different. Have you noticed [43:35] that when they fall in love? People [43:37] look for someone different from [43:38] themselves. [43:39] >> I can't say everyone does, but looking [43:40] for someone different is very, very [43:42] common. Hmm. [43:43] >> It's my own, simple theory I've [43:44] constructed, a human coordinate system. [43:47] We have a vertical axis, the dimension [43:49] of being, and a horizontal axis, the [43:51] dimension of relationship. If someone [43:53] is in this quadrant, when we interact [43:55] —for example, making friends or [43:57] working together—we look for someone [43:59] similar. That's simple. But when [44:02] falling in love, we hope to cross the [44:04] origin and find someone the exact [44:05] opposite. Because there's a benefit to [44:09] this: it expands your mental space [44:10] significantly. Of course, according to [44:14] Jung, every man has an anima inside, [44:16] and every woman has an animus. So, it's [44:19] the feminine, and every man wants to [44:21] find a feminine archetype, while every [44:23] woman looks for a masculine archetype. [44:26] >> I only know Armani. [44:27] >> Right, that’s what I thought of too. [44:29] >> Anima and... [44:30] >> Anima is the feminine archetype. [44:32] >> Yes, yes, yes. [44:33] >> What is the feminine archetype? [44:35] >> Right, it's that a man looks for a...[ [44:37] well], it's not perfection, he seeks [44:39] someone who complements him perfectly. [44:43] You see, why look for a complement? [44:46] When he is at this position, and he [44:48] finds someone over here, his mental [44:50] space...I am very grateful for it. If [44:54] they were like me, talkative and always [44:56] interrupting, we would have fought [44:57] already. But there is one thing that [45:02] must be aligned, something that makes a [45:04] relationship lasting and clear—what [45:05] is it? Values. " [45:08] >> Fried" values, "fried" views. [45:12] >> How do I "fry" it clean? [45:14] >> It's okay, you have subtitles, just [45:16] kidding, just kidding. [45:17] >> Values, "v-a-l-u-e" values. For example [45:22] , both people believe in what is good, [45:24] what is beautiful, what is just, what [45:26] should be done, and what should not be [45:28] done. If there’s a huge gap in your [45:32] fundamental connection, you won't last [45:34] long, and it won't be comfortable [45:36] either. You can compromise on anything [45:39] else, but values are non-negotiable. [45:42] Just like Wentao said, I might not [45:44] calculate well, but I believe a [45:45] gentleman should act this way. That’s [45:48] a clash of values—yes, a total clash. [45:51] >> You’ve completely exhausted the [45:52] definition of a gentleman. [45:54] >> Well, I was being deliberately [45:55] provocative, you see. [45:57] >> Luyue, don’t you want a soulmate? [46:02] >> I just think we shouldn’t burden [46:03] ourselves with too many labels or too [46:05] many definitions. I feel that as long [46:09] as you two are compatible and [46:11] comfortable in daily life, can talk [46:12] things out, and are intimate, it [46:14] doesn’t matter what kind of partner [46:16] they are. You should just keep the [46:19] right to define it for yourself. I [46:21] think the biggest problem arises [46:22] because, before anything even happens, [46:24] we preset so many standards and [46:26] concepts. It’s like, I haven't even [46:29] met anyone, yet I'm already looking for [46:31] a "soulmate." That’s where all the [46:33] trouble begins. I think a crucial part [46:37] of the design is whether we are truly [46:39] deciding with our own consciousness and [46:41] minds, or whether, when it comes to [46:42] love, you’re inexplicably drawn to [46:44] someone—does that feel like it’s [46:46] not really your choice? So, of course, [46:49] you could say, as Luyun mentioned, that [46:51] it's decided by your own autonomous [46:53] consciousness and heart. But actually, [46:55] I see some common ground between you [46:57] two, which is the desire for [46:59] self-control. [47:00] >> You’re increasingly grouping those [47:02] two together, aren't you? Are they [47:04] soulmates? I’m especially resistant [47:06] to having many concepts forced into my [47:08] life. I’ve never thought about who my [47:10] soulmate is; that term simply isn’t [47:12] in my daily vocabulary or scope of [47:14] thought. [47:15] >> That sounds so lonely—what if you [47:17] find a soulmate one day? [47:20] >> I’ve never thought about that, but if [47:22] someone can eventually walk with you to [47:24] the end, or at least for a very long [47:26] time, they must more or less meet [47:27] certain criteria of a soulmate. I just [47:30] don't think it has to be all of them— [47:32] definitely not all of them. [47:34] >> Let me ask you another question. Do you [47:36] —because I’ve always felt you’re [47:38] actually...I don’t know if you’re [47:40] strong or not, but I think you are—do [47:42] you feel that you never need to seek [47:44] help from others for any of your own [47:45] psychological issues? It’s like, [47:48] I’ll just handle it all myself. No, [47:49] it’s that you don’t know how to ask [47:51] for help. I saw this in the ISFP [47:53] profile later on—that you’re not [47:54] very good at reaching out to the [47:56] outside world for help. This is exactly [47:58] what I really wanted to ask Professor [48:00] Wu. I find it quite despairing: do [48:01] people actually need to understand [48:03] themselves? Yes, you need to, like you [48:05] said, to find a sense of identity, [48:07] belonging, and certainty. But the [48:09] problem is, once you identify it and [48:10] are certain, you know where the issue [48:12] lies, but you are actually helpless to [48:14] change it. Of course, if we just [48:16] roughly understand ourselves, label [48:18] ourselves, and categorize, we get an [48:20] instant sense of certainty. That is [48:22] exactly the limitation of MBTI or other [48:25] such tests. When we are able to [48:27] understand ourselves in such a refined [48:29] way, I think it is a wonderful thing. [48:32] But yes, I feel I understand myself [48:34] quite well. I can’t say 100%, but I [48:36] feel I know myself to a great extent. [48:39] However, as Mentao said, what if you [48:41] need to seek help from the outside [48:43] world? [48:44] >> You wouldn’t know how. [48:45] >> If there were more people like him, [48:47] you’d all be unemployed. [48:48] >> For example, right now I might feel [48:50] there are some issues, and I’m just [48:52] here, forced to endure it alone and [48:53] sort it out myself, not knowing how to [48:55] express it to the outside world. [48:57] That’s a question of capability. [48:59] It’s like heaven closed that door on [49:00] me from birth. [49:01] >> Well, Luyu, you go ahead and say [49:03] something. [49:03] >> Oh great, now three people are starting [49:05] to analyze me. How terrifying. [49:07] >> I’m—I’m just in awe. [49:08] >> One twisted person analyzing another [49:10] twisted person. Luyu just said [49:12] something that moved me deeply. Because [49:16] you immediately and firmly said that I [49:18] am strong—you just said it, and I was [49:19] so moved, because being strong is [49:21] something I’ve always wanted to be [49:23] but couldn't. So, while I’m moved, [49:29] I’m curious: do you think this [49:30] strength…is it something you had [49:32] since childhood, or did something [49:34] happen later on in your life? [49:39] >> Can this be trained and forged? [49:41] >> It’s about the original family, right [49:43] ? He studies this. [49:44] >> I think the vast majority of [49:46] personality, say 70-80%, is something [49:48] you are born with. [49:50] >> It is very rare for someone who was [49:51] severely weak as a child to become [49:53] extremely strong as an adult; that [49:54] rarely happens. [49:55] >> It is impossible to be forged into [49:57] someone strong through intense life [49:59] stimuli or those "hardships of the soul [50:01] " that heaven supposedly puts you [50:02] through. It’s impossible. You find [50:04] that these people already had a strong [50:06] sense of identity, and it just so [50:07] happens that heaven tested them further [50:09] , making them even stronger. [50:10] >> Let me ask it the other way around: for [50:12] instance, if some things happen now, [50:14] like setbacks in your career. [50:18] >> Or perhaps emotional trauma. Okay, most [50:21] people would cry or seek help, saying [50:23] things like "do me a favor" or "lend me [50:25] some money." But you say you're very [50:30] strong and don't easily ask for help, [50:32] so what do you do to deal with these [50:34] setbacks and difficulties in life? [50:38] >> I don't try to change anything, I just [50:40] carry it on my own. [50:43] >> Hmm. [50:44] >> Your ultimate logic is knowing that, in [50:46] reality, no one can truly be relied [50:48] upon. This will all pass eventually. [50:52] The only reason it hasn't passed yet is [50:53] that the time hasn't come. [50:56] >> Mm-hmm. When I was young in English [50:59] class, my teacher wrote a phrase for me [51:02] : "This shall pass too"—it means this [51:04] , too, will pass. [51:06] >> The teacher meant that when good things [51:08] happen, don't get too carried away, [51:09] because they will pass. Conversely, bad [51:12] things will also pass. So, that has [51:14] always been a belief of mine. [51:17] >> You asked if there's a method—being [51:18] strong doesn't mean you won't feel [51:20] despair. Being strong means that when [51:23] you are in despair, just go ahead and [51:25] be in despair. One day you will stop [51:27] feeling despair; I think that is what [51:29] being strong is. [51:30] >> Right, that’s why I often get intense [51:32] . Every time I hear people mocking " [51:35] chicken soup for the soul," saying, "Oh [51:37] , you write this kind of chicken soup [51:38] ..." [51:40] >> I get quite unhappy. "Chicken soup for [51:43] the soul" is actually useful. Why call [51:45] it "chicken soup for the soul"? Just [51:47] because a profound sentence is repeated [51:49] by others, you call it that? Because [51:52] it's useful, and because it’s often [51:53] true. For example, Luyu, for me, this [51:57] is already a method. When I face [52:01] setbacks or difficulties, I just think [52:03] about my teacher—no, Luyu's teacher [52:05] — "This shall pass too." Everything [52:09] will pass. Just by thinking of this [52:13] sentence, I gain the strength to push [52:15] through, or I think of another: time [52:17] can ease your pain, so the time just [52:18] hasn't come yet. [52:22] >> But someone like Teacher Wu might have [52:24] a third sentence, like, "Did you lack [52:26] love as a child?" or "Did you reach out [52:28] for help as a child and get no response [52:30] ?" The original family—the original [52:32] family makes a big difference. If we [52:34] were to chat, I would talk about this [52:36] in great detail. First, I would ask you [52:38] questions properly, and of course, [52:40] sometimes I would use my own senses to [52:42] feel what your state is like. Look at [52:44] this self-proclaimed spiritual master; [52:46] you see, he’s an amateur, and he just [52:48] says, "This must be a surrogate speaker [52:50] ." I've been studying with you for a [52:51] long time. [52:52] >> But there was a sentence that really [52:53] moved me the other day. I was doing a [52:55] podcast a couple of days ago, and I [52:57] interviewed this person named Zhang [52:58] Chun—you might know her. [53:00] >> She said that back when she was feeling [53:01] incredibly distressed and depressed, [53:03] her brother patted her on the head one [53:04] day and said, "Just stay alive, and you [53:06] have nothing to fear." [53:07] >> Uh-huh. [53:08] >> That sentence really struck a chord [53:10] with me. If we’re talking about this, [53:14] I think I’m the type of person who... [53:16] I’m someone who wants to resolve my [53:18] own suffering. [53:21] >> A few years ago, I had this [53:22] nerve-related tinnitus. [53:25] >> This subjective tinnitus—you know, [53:27] when it first starts, some people just [53:29] can't stop thinking about it all night [53:31] long. But most people, or a significant [53:36] portion, eventually get used to it over [53:38] time; it's the same principle as your [53:40] situation. For one thing, you don’t [53:44] need to worry; human adaptability is [53:46] truly amazing. In the end, I remember [53:49] there was one time when the noise in my [53:51] ears was just unbearable. I felt like [53:55] —at that peak of intolerance—I [53:57] grabbed a pair of scissors. I had [54:00] self-control, though; I grabbed the [54:02] scissors, then let go, and they just [54:04] clattered to the floor. [54:07] >> Then, later, my brother had a talk with [54:09] me. So sometimes, that kind of "chicken [54:11] soup for the soul" isn't useless; it's [54:13] just that you haven't looked at the [54:15] problem that way before. He said, " [54:16] Wentao, I dare say that more than half [54:19] the people in this world have some kind [54:21] of hidden ailment." [54:23] >> Look at some people; don't they walk [54:24] with a limp sometimes? Some people, [54:27] like our father who was injured abroad [54:29] —he was like that his whole life. He [54:32] said that before, you were just too [54:33] used to being perfectly healthy. [54:37] >> So you aren't used to having something [54:38] called "aftereffects" that stay with [54:40] you forever. He said that, in reality, [54:44] if you ask around, some people have [54:46] nerve pain, others have all sorts of [54:48] issues. When he said that, I... [54:52] >> Well put. [54:53] >> I suddenly felt like, "Oh." And you [54:56] know, when this kind of problem first [54:58] starts, there’s this psychological [55:00] state— [55:02] >> Sick people end up feeling jealous of [55:04] healthy people. I’ve experienced that [55:07] myself. When my tinnitus was at its [55:09] worst, I remember watching TV dramas. [55:14] I’d look at the actors’ ears and [55:16] think to myself, "Their ears are fine, [55:17] they don’t have tinnitus." You get [55:20] that, right? Yes, it's very torturous. [55:22] But look at the outcome, right? It [55:24] might just be a brotherly perspective [55:25] like that. [55:26] >> So how did you get better? How did you [55:27] eventually get better? [55:28] >> I didn’t. The illness just stayed, [55:30] and I learned to live with it. [55:31] >> So, you still have tinnitus from time [55:33] to time now. [55:33] >> Subjective tinnitus is very mysterious. [55:35] >> What do you mean by—I don't... [55:37] >> Subjective, what is subjective tinnitus [55:39] ? Objectively, this sound doesn't exist [55:41] . This reflects how human sound and the [55:43] brain work, as well as human sound and [55:46] imagery. [55:46] >> Mm. It's not that the outside world is [55:48] like this, the reason you perceive it [55:50] this way is that the outside world only [55:52] has vibrations, vibration waves. It is [55:54] your brain that translates it into this [55:56] sound, but sometimes something goes [55:58] wrong. There is no sound in the outside [56:01] world, but your brain—who knows, it's [56:03] still an unsolved mystery—will [56:05] produce a sound, but why is it called " [56:07] subjective"? For instance, I'm talking [56:09] to you right now. [56:10] >> Mm. [56:10] >> If I'm not conscious of it, it [56:12] disappears. [56:13] >> Mm. [56:14] >> But if you ask me if it's there, I [56:15] listen and it's there. See, this is [56:17] what you mentioned in psychology [56:19] regarding attention; you think of it, [56:21] and it's there. But as soon as your [56:23] attention is drawn to something else, [56:25] you don't know if it's there or not, [56:26] it's basically gone. So you think yours [56:29] is purely subjective. Actually, I've [56:31] had issues with my ears since my third [56:32] year of high school; I used to think I [56:34] had a mental illness. [56:35] >> Mine isn't a mental illness; it's [56:37] really that my ears are damaged, my [56:38] ears are broken. [56:39] >> So, Wentao, you... [56:40] >> Look, we really are like brothers, both [56:42] from Hebei. [56:42] >> You just said. [56:43] >> Right, both from Hebei, I think. Your [56:45] psychologist told you that, right? Yes, [56:47] so this... [56:48] >> Because my brother had tinnitus a year [56:50] before me, didn't he? I want to say [56:54] that I often remind young friends when [56:56] they ask me, "Uncle Ma, I'm so troubled [56:58] , how do I get through the difficulties [57:00] in life?" I say, "Young friend, your [57:04] difficulties won't end with this one." [57:08] I remind them to think of a phrase, [57:10] like a motto, to write a motto for [57:11] yourself and keep it in your heart. [57:15] When you face difficulties, think of [57:17] this motto. For example, it could be " [57:20] this too shall pass," or something like [57:22] "who isn't sick?" Don't let yourself [57:24] get too caught up in the sickness. Then [57:27] young people will usually ask me, " [57:29] Uncle Ma, what's your motto?" I say, " [57:31] Please read my novels." I really do [57:34] tell them that, because the protagonist [57:36] in my novel has a saying. It's a dirty [57:40] word, so I can't say the whole thing. [57:44] If you take out the dirty part, it's [57:46] just "whatever," it's about not taking [57:48] things too seriously. Oh, my English! [57:54] >> I even use that old-fashioned Cantonese [57:56] phrase: "Just let it be." [57:59] >> Understand? Soy sauce rice, essentially [58:01] meaning when you're poor and don't have [58:03] any side dishes. [58:05] >> A bowl of white rice with some soy [58:07] sauce on top, just eating it like that, [58:09] simple rice. That's my, that's my [58:12] mantra; whenever I face any [58:14] difficulties or worries. I think about [58:17] the past, I remind myself of simple soy [58:19] sauce rice; whatever, it's better to [58:21] just live on like this. Yes, but one [58:27] must speak dialectically; it is very [58:29] useful, but I think we must also be [58:31] wary of oversimplification and labeling [58:34] ; I feel labeling is everywhere now, [58:36] and you even see it in novels. [58:41] >> Sometimes on the internet, for example [58:43] with this MBTI, a lot of it is pirated. [58:45] It’s not, it's not the official [58:47] version, and it's not just this one, [58:49] there are too many. You know, all kinds [58:51] of things on the internet claiming to [58:53] be psychological tests; I think Tencent [58:55] even banned an account with millions of [58:57] followers. They just make an image, [58:59] write a few labels on it like "a [59:01] romantic,""a careful person,""an [59:03] impulsive person," and it just goes [59:05] viral. [59:06] >> It goes viral, and in the end, because [59:08] of illicit gain, it gets banned, you [59:10] know? [59:11] >> Tencent banned a lot of these; in 2021, [59:14] there was a documentary called "The [59:16] Dark Secret Behind Personality Tests," [59:18] right, the dark secret. It was about [59:21] MBTI, not PMBTA; it was an [59:23] investigative documentary, mainly about [59:25] how big American companies use MBTI to [59:28] test people, and a boy supposedly [59:30] committed suicide. [59:31] >> Mhm. [59:32] >> It’s said that because of it, right, [59:34] during his job hunt, many things [59:36] suddenly turned red, and he seemingly [59:38] failed all the key parts. Mhm. [59:40] >> Anyway, related to that, a boy [59:42] committed suicide. And the MBTI [59:44] organization later opposed making such [59:46] a documentary, but look, in mainstream [59:48] foreign media, people have already [59:50] started questioning whether companies [59:52] should use this for testing. [59:55] >> Yes. [59:56] >> And I remember The Washington Post said [59:58] that in your professional field of [60:00] psychology, mentioning MBTI is a taboo; [60:01] people don't seem to want to talk about [60:03] it. Right, that is to say, serious [60:06] psychologists are not really...unless [60:09] you're not serious. [60:11] >> I am interested in everything, I am [60:13] interested in everything, but regarding [60:15] all these tests, like CPF or EP or [60:16] whatever, I don't really agree with [60:18] them either. [60:19] >> For instance, if I ask a young person [60:21] looking for a job, right? They want to [60:24] do this work. But, but, all the [60:27] personality tests, even psychologists, [60:29] tell him that his personality is better [60:31] suited for another job. So, which job [60:34] should he actually do? [60:35] >> Actually, regarding this, I am [60:37] >> Do the job that pays the most. [60:39] >> Exactly. [60:40] >> You finally get it. Wait for me, 64, 4. [60:43] First of all, personally, I think—I'm [60:46] just speaking in the current Western [60:48] context. I feel there is a mutual [60:49] selection between companies and [60:51] employees, and that should be the [60:52] standard. Since it's mutual, why should [60:54] only employees be able to choose [60:56] companies, and not companies choose [60:57] employees? Regardless of whether a [60:59] company's methodology is right or wrong [61:01] , let me give you an example: with my [61:02] personality, if you made me do sales or [61:04] PR, that would be a huge problem. But [61:06] if you let me do strategy, writing, or [61:08] analysis, that is excellent. But what [61:10] if your personal passion is to work in [61:12] PR? [61:13] >> Then there is a very important point [61:15] here: if you don't understand yourself [61:17] and pursue that passion—if it's just [61:18] a superficial passion—you will be [61:20] full of frustration. If it comes from [61:22] deep within, it's very different. When [61:25] we talk about goals, where do they come [61:27] from? [61:28] >> Your heart. Is this your heart? [61:31] >> Heart, where is your heart? Brother. [61:35] Again, a bit more to the left, a bit [61:37] more to the left. This, this is the [61:39] heart, the heart is right here. Yes, [61:41] because when we talk about vision [61:42] versus goals, there is a very big [61:44] difference. Many people's goals are [61:46] just what they think they want, but [61:48] when you truly chase a goal that [61:50] doesn't match your personality, your [61:51] body will actually resist it. But there [61:55] really are people who have an extremely [61:57] unrealistic dream and are convinced [61:59] that they are the "chosen one," I'm [62:00] serious. We have met such people, and [62:03] you just don't have the heart to... [62:05] Burst their bubble. They are convinced [62:07] they are the next Wang Baoqiang. [62:09] >> Or the next Jet Li or Donnie Yen. [62:12] >> They are convinced, even though they [62:14] are young and their hair is already [62:15] falling out, and you just can't bring [62:17] yourself to say they really can't do it [62:19] . [62:20] >> Then how can you be so sure they can't [62:21] do it? I'm just curious. If you want to [62:23] be Wang Baoqiang, Jet Li, or Donnie Yen [62:25] , you need to have the skills, right? [62:27] >> Hmm. [62:28] >> You need to have been trained since [62:29] childhood, and they're already, say, in [62:30] their thirties. [62:31] >> Hmm. [62:32] >> All this evidence suggests that the [62:34] probability is low. [62:35] >> But they are truly fixated on the idea [62:36] that "you guys just need to give me a [62:38] chance." He is willing to live on bread [62:40] and water for this. So, what would you [62:41] do in that situation? There really are [62:43] such people. I think at this point we [62:45] have to ask whether a person is living [62:47] in reality or in fantasy—is that a [62:49] huge issue? So, if you live in fantasy, [62:51] and it doesn't align with your own [62:52] reality or the reality of the world, [62:54] that’s a psychological disorder, and [62:56] in severe cases, even a mental illness. [62:58] If there’s this kind of conflict, [62:59] they should come to see you, right? If [63:02] it’s too severe, seeing us won't work [63:04] , because our work relies on the person [63:06] still being able to engage in dialogue, [63:07] knowing they have a problem, and being [63:09] willing to explore their "self." Only [63:12] then can they see us. If a person has [63:14] issues but insists they don't, then [63:16] usually they have to see a psychiatrist [63:18] for medication. You see, I still think [63:21] of that quote by Jung: everyone is an [63:24] exception, even though humanity can be [63:26] categorized. I have a feeling now that [63:29] therapy was originally one-on-one. [63:33] >> Yes. [63:33] >> But a lot of things said by therapists [63:35] in one-on-one sessions have now become [63:37] public discourse online. [63:39] >> Hmm. [63:40] >> And it's become absolutely overwhelming [63:42] . You know, when it becomes like this, [63:44] it tends to go a bit too far. You see [63:48] everyone saying "I have a [63:49] people-pleasing personality," and then [63:51] everywhere you look, even the other day [63:53] I saw you saying you have to "be [63:54] yourself." [63:57] >> You have to respect your own feelings. [64:00] The other day, I even saw a short video [64:02] where even someone as respected as Elon [64:04] Musk said his life lesson is: don't [64:06] care about how others feel. This advice [64:10] is very useful for those with low [64:11] self-esteem or a people-pleasing [64:13] personality, right? But when it’s [64:17] said so much in the media, one day I [64:19] suddenly felt like it was being taken [64:21] too far. It’s as if they’re saying [64:25] everyone in this world puts other [64:27] people’s feelings above their own, [64:28] right? Is the world really that [64:32] wonderful? In my own experience, I feel [64:35] that the other side is equally true. [64:40] Having walked through society for 30 [64:42] years, I find that the people I see who [64:43] put their own feelings above others'... [64:48] ... [64:48] >> are not few at all, in fact, they’re [64:50] numerous, right? So, are the sages [64:53] wrong to say "be yourself and ignore [64:56] others"? I find myself a bit doubtful. [65:01] Over all these years of getting along [65:03] with friends, I’ve realized that the [65:05] wonderful life we share is because we [65:06] put our friends 'feelings above our own [65:08] . We are considerate people who respect [65:14] each other's feelings, thinking, "I'm [65:16] fine, as long as you are happy." [65:19] >> I feel like the people around me enjoy [65:21] living this kind of life with friends [65:23] like us. [65:24] >> On the contrary, the kind of people [65:26] >> that I’ve pushed away or distanced [65:28] myself from are those who only care [65:29] about their own feelings and ignore the [65:31] feelings of others. [65:33] >> Right? Why does it seem like the whole [65:35] society is made up of people like that [65:37] now? I’d say, is it really that [65:39] wonderful? [65:40] >> Mm, I agree. I really identify with [65:42] that point. Now that MBTI has become so [65:47] popular, everyone thinks, "Because I'm [65:49] special and unique, I need to be myself [65:51] , so I can ignore the basic social [65:53] decency that an adult should have in a [65:56] normal social setting.""I, I'm just a [66:00] very straightforward person, don't take [66:02] it personally, let me say something you [66:04] might not want to hear." [66:05] >> Could you please just not say it? [66:08] >> So I really agree with what you said: [66:10] in many cases, we can keep our [66:12] eccentricities, because everyone has [66:14] their own quirks. You can be yourself, [66:18] but when we are adults in a public [66:20] setting, besides your eccentric self, I [66:22] think we should still respect the [66:23] social decency expected of an adult. To [66:27] be honest, I even have a bit of a [66:29] people-pleasing personality, but this [66:31] has brought me endless joy in life. I [66:34] don't feel like I'm distorted or [66:36] unhealthy; you can make your friends [66:37] and guests happy. It’s very happy, I [66:40] have many friends, and friends help me [66:42] a lot. Isn't this a good relationship? [66:44] But that’s only if you don’t [66:45] distinguish between specific people. [66:47] This is only one part of it. If you ask [66:49] about "pleasing," it’s because people [66:51] with high EQ have this trait. You think [66:53] you are pleasing others, but while you [66:55] are pleasing others, you are also [66:57] basically comfortable yourself. So [66:59] comfortable. [67:00] >> In many cases, they might emphasize [67:02] that you shouldn't let people with [67:04] ulterior motives take advantage of your [67:06] people-pleasing personality. [67:07] >> Right, so you have to analyze specific [67:10] issues specifically, yes, yes, yes. [67:12] >> And the key lies in the word "pleasing. [67:13] " If you show this kind of behavior [67:16] because you like coordination and [67:18] interaction, and it makes you happy, [67:20] then it could be called a "cooperative [67:22] personality"—communication. [67:24] >> Because this means there is you and me, [67:25] you are within a relationship, while [67:27] narcissism is being infatuated with the [67:29] other while losing yourself; these are [67:31] two completely different things. [67:32] >> But I feel that Manager, what you said [67:34] —I’ve found that in my life, if [67:35] some of the friends I meet are [67:36] exceptionally selfish and completely [67:38] self-centered, I will gradually [67:39] distance myself from them. Exactly, [67:40] those kinds of people will eventually [67:42] fail; you can't teach them that way. [67:44] >> Many people say, "I am myself, I want [67:46] to transcend the self," right? [67:49] >> You are 25%narcissistic, I’d say the [67:52] other 75%is just being yourself. [67:56] >> Well, a lot of people talk about " [67:58] transcending the self." Many years ago, [68:01] I had a subordinate who said, "I want [68:02] to transcend the self, I want to do [68:04] this and that to transcend my self." I [68:08] was standing nearby with a sharp tongue [68:10] —I was 30 years younger then—and I [68:12] said, "Your starting point for the self [68:14] is so low, how hard can it be to [68:15] transcend it?""And what if you do [68:18] transcend the self?" Wow, even today, I [68:22] still feel guilty when I think about it [68:24] ; I must have hurt my subordinate's [68:26] feelings. So, the self has levels and [68:32] different categories; don't take the [68:34] self too seriously or heavily—instead [68:36] , view it with ease. How to make [68:41] yourself feel at ease while also making [68:42] others feel at ease, I think that is [68:44] more important. [68:46] >> Honestly speaking, I think we should [68:48] analyze specific problems individually. [68:51] Many people I’ve met in my life, I [68:53] feel their problem isn't that they’ve [68:55] been wronged by others' neglect or [68:57] others 'feelings; actually, their pain [68:59] lies precisely in the fact that they [69:01] value themselves too much. [69:03] >> Their lack of harmony with others and [69:05] their pain stem from the fact that you [69:07] have no idea what others are thinking [69:08] of you. You only care about what you [69:11] think, so when you face setbacks, you [69:13] feel wronged and think, "Look at me." [69:16] Actually, it’s not like that. I think [69:19] you need to understand others' thoughts [69:21] more, otherwise, there wouldn't be such [69:23] a profession as a host. [69:25] >> Right? Our profession is to put the [69:27] guest above ourselves, so should we [69:29] only think about ourselves? [69:31] >> This is different; if you put others [69:33] above yourself, but you no longer exist [69:35] , that’s when the real problem begins [69:36] .