I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that.

Often when communicating with people of the older generation, whether they are of the uncle and aunt generation, or of the grandparents' generation, or some people of the same generation, sometimes I always hear some familiar words:

I've traveled more roads than you've traveled bridges, and I've eaten more salt than you've eaten rice.

I've been through this phase of your life before, you won't think so later.

You're still young, so don't listen to the old man.

Here, I would like to start by recognizing the rationality behind the three statements above.

Because although people have different experiences, the kernel or some of the reasoning is the same. I am sure there are some people who have gained a lot of experience and lessons through their own experience as well as reflection over the years.

And these experiences and lessons may be that we do not have, if we know in advance then it will allow us to avoid repeating some of the mistakes.

This is why in ancient times, the older the old man, the more status in the village, because the storage and acquisition of knowledge was not as convenient as it is now, and the experience was passed on from generation to generation by word of mouth, and the old man had a lot of experience.

This is the rationality of the above three sentences.

Now, let's talk about the irrationality.

I'll share my thoughts on the following points.

① How to make it easier for others to accept our kindness.

② How we can distinguish between good and bad intentions.

③ It is knowledge, not age, that deserves to be honored.

① How to make it easier for others to accept our good intentions.

Let's start with the assumption that the old man who teaches us is thinking of passing on his experience to us out of goodwill.

Then to say the three words at the beginning is to tell the other side in a state that they can't reach for the time being: you're not old enough, so you don't understand, but I've experienced it, so I understand.

This sentence contains the denial of the status quo of the other party, the total denial of the efforts made by the other party in the past, and the disapproval of the personal particularity.

Then, imagine how strong the other person's heart needs to be to take the essence of your words and discard the dregs in this kind of denial.

I've always felt that the term reverse psychology was coined.

At its core, it's a kind of youthful denial in which older people impose on the young person, based on their past experiences, that they can only go in the direction that TA thinks is right as a young person who is just beginning to understand the world struggles to make sense of it.

And to describe it in such negative and negative terms as reverse psychology is itself a form of verbal innuendo and denial.

Using such ingrained literal influences to make people naturally feel what's right and what's wrong.

It's like saying the word "hunger" and thinking of eating. Words have taken on meanings beyond words.

I won't deny the good intentions of old people who want young people to live what they think is a perfect life.

But the "degree" of interference should be well grasped, too much is the reverse psychology, less may happen irreversible mistakes.

Methods, to share the gesture, to recognize each other's efforts and special gestures, then the other side may also accept. Wrong approach, and either the relationship drifts apart, estranged in this denial. Either it backfires, and the other person will go in the opposite direction of what the Old Ones taught to prove right in order to prove that they are not wrong.

Perhaps the old men would say, "O this foolish young man, O this childish young man, O this miserable young man, O this ignorant young man.

But you are the old man, shouldn't you be more mindful and methodical than the young? Isn't the young man's experience just less than yours? Why can't you choose a better way instead of asking the young to accept your way of education? Isn't this asking a childish person to accept your methods wholeheartedly, while you, as the old man instead refuse to change?

If you are right, then how do you prove that you are right? By the fact that you need me to accept your good intentions in their entirety, and you don't take into account the naivety of the young, and don't think about changing your methods, but just stand on the high ground of "rightness" and use methods that are unacceptable?

Isn't it possible that you, as an older person, could have used a way that would have made your ideas more acceptable to this naive young man?

② How do we distinguish between the good and the bad intentions of the other person.

Our assumption just now is based on the assumption that the old man's intentions are good. Then there is also the case that the old man's intentions are bad. So what makes this statement?

There are times when some people, at a certain age, stop exploring the outside world, pursue change, and settle for the status quo. At this point, if TA goes to affirm the lifestyle of other people, then it will show that the lifestyle that TA himself has chosen is not right. At this point, in order to feel comfortable living the way you do, and to be happy, you need to deny the way others live in order to affirm the way you do.

i.e. You are all wrong, only I am right. If you think you're doing it right, then it's just because you're young, so you don't understand.

For example:

You are young and do not understand, wife and children hot bed this kind of life is good, to toss those meaningless, grab to find a wife to have a child, safe and sound on it. What's the use of studying? You are too young.

That's malicious.

③ It's knowledge, not age, that deserves to be honored.

If a person, every day, sleep and wake up to eat, eat and play games to watch TV, play tired to sleep, sleep and wake up to eat again. This way they live to be 30, 40, 50, 60 or 70 years old.

Such a person, is it worthwhile to honor the old? Is it worthwhile for us to learn from the experience?

Worth it.

But the "honor" here is not to respect, but to take care of the inconvenience of their old age. Rather, it is about maintaining a basic level of courtesy as a human being.

Isn't the behavior of a small minority of older people in our society nasty and disgusting enough?

Bus, subway seat. Square dancing. Blackmail. And so on and so forth.

We must not naturally, naturally assume that because TA is older than us, he or she is experienced, virtuous, and has a vast heart. This is an illusion brought to us by our primitive genes.

All older people, in fact all people, deserve a minimum of courtesy and respect. But the older people who really deserve our respect are those who are truly virtuous, cultivated, and knowledgeable.

I call those who are full of guns and say that the other side is childish, but they have not seriously explored the world and the inner self: the long years of stupidity.