Table of Contents
The Game Maker: The Power of Thinking Frames
The three authors of The Makers: The Power of Thinking Frames are Kenneth Cukier, editor of The Economist; Viktor Mayer-Schönberger, professor at the Institute of Networking Studies, Oxford University, U.K.; and Francis de Véricourt, professor at the European Academy of Management Sciences, U.K. The first two have also collaborated on another acclaimed book, Big Data, and the first two have worked together to create a new book. The first two have also collaborated on another well-known book, Big Data.
In the AI boom in recent years, many people will ask this question: if everything is handed over to AI, what do human beings have to do? In fact, if we think about it deeply, we will find that AI is only doing data analysis, option recommendation, and work based on the existing data, but it does not have the ability to "ask questions" AI can help us find solutions to known problems, but we are actually living in a world that is constantly evolving, and there are new problems occurring every day.
Even in the more advanced world of AI, the job that will not be replaced will be to collect, switch, and use different thinking frameworks to define the problem, or to define the direction of action. The so-called "game makers" are the ones who ask new questions in a rational way, tell others (or AI) what the real problem is, and use mental modeling to create a situation. This book is about how to utilize the Thinking Framework to become a good situation maker.
See below for more details.
What is a frame of mind?
Human behavior is based on reasoning, and similar to simulated reality, we use our imagination to simulate situations and evaluate options for action. Therefore, the model a person uses to simulate the world in his or her thinking has a profound effect on his or her behavior.
When you need to make a big decision, you may find that your decision is not only based on objective logic, but also on some more fundamental reasons, such as the way you look at the current situation and the way you recognize the world works. This underlying cognitive factor is made up of various mental models.
How we understand the world is influenced by how we 'believe' the world works.
Our imagination of the world can be described as a mental model, and the framework of thinking can be described as the overall cognition of our problems and environment, and the concrete presentation of a part of our mental model. For example, a democracy and an autocracy are two very different frames used for governmental governance. Frames of thought are the basis for thinking about the problems we face. In life, we often have to react to the unknown, and since we can't take into account all the visible factors at the same time, our mind tries to simplify the information we gather and to anticipate and make decisions about the situation at hand. That is, we use one frame of mind to evaluate different solutions, and when we pick a different frame of mind, we have a different perspective. When we choose a different frame of mind, we have a different perspective. People using different frames of mind may have very different judgments about whether a solution is good or bad.
The human mind uses a framework of thought to get to the point and filter out the noise, otherwise the complete information would be so overwhelming that it would overload the mind. It is by building a mental model of the world that we feel in control and know how to act.
Without a framework for thinking, it is difficult to clearly link our goals and values to possible courses of action.
What are the different outcomes of using different frames of thinking? One example is that the World Health Organization (WHO) and Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) used the same data during the Ebola outbreak, but came to completely different conclusions: during the Ebola outbreak in 2014, WHO considered the number of cases to be small, similar to past outbreaks, and therefore considered the outbreak to be limited to the local area and did not require a rigorous international response, whereas MSF noted that a few villages were spatially farther away, and therefore MSF, on the other hand, noted that several villages were spatially distant and therefore believed that the information was incomplete and that the actual spread of the disease must have exceeded the information available, and called for stringent measures to be taken immediately. The two sides were initially at loggerheads, but in the end, MSF was proved right. In fact, the main reason for the difference in thinking between the two sides is the difference in the initial thinking framework. In WHO's thinking framework, the problem has been simplified to the point that there is no possibility that the completeness of the information is a problem, while MSF is skeptical about the information.
Many issues in the world are thorny because people use different thinking frameworks and have different views. For example, is the focus of "one country, two systems" one country or two systems? People from different camps have different answers. Should I wear a mask for vaccination? People who think in terms of public hygiene and health and those who think in terms of freedom also have different answers.
What is a game maker?
There is more than one framework for thinking. Often, we naturally look at the goal and situation to determine the right framework, or even to modify an existing one. Broadly speaking, there are no more than two situations in which a framework for thinking can be applied.
- Use thinking frameworks to reduce cognitive load and make decisions efficiently in familiar situations.
- encountered, a new framework was chosen to arrive at new options.
The frames of thinking that we are accustomed to do do not necessarily reflect reality. For example, history is full of frames of thinking that seemed reasonable at the time but were later discarded, such as that the earth is flat. Therefore, the ability to create or switch frames of thinking is especially important when the problem we face is something we have never seen before. If we deliberately master the ability to think in different mental models, explore options, and apply anticipatory skills before making a decision, we may be able to create a new situation.
A "framer" is someone who specializes in creating a framework for thinking. A framer knows how to select and apply a framework for thinking as a basis for decision making and action.
Relying on a framework for thinking allows us to learn from individual experiences and identify generalized rules that can be adapted to other situations, even situations that have not yet occurred.
When faced with a major challenge, the ability to start with an idea, and then to change perspectives, opens up new paths and answers. It is not the new technology that should be praised here, but the human ability.
Creating the right framework for thinking unlocks new solutions.
One example of a breakthrough in drug discovery is mentioned in the book: the traditional approach to drug discovery has been to try to find similar molecular fingerprints for substances that have worked in the past, but the resulting drugs are prone to drug resistance. Scholars like Barzilai have restated the problem using a new framework of thinking, changing the focus from finding similar molecular structures to finding the desired effect (killing bacteria), and using AI to do it.
One of the elements that made people like Buzz Lightyear successful was their mastery of a kind of cognitive freedom. And they had this freedom not because they read a book, followed a tradition, or did something obviously sensible, but because they utilized a unique cognitive ability that all human beings possess.
How do you become a good game maker?
To be a good game maker, you must diversify your available frames as much as possible.
The more diverse a person's frame of mind, the more likely he or she is to pick a better one.
The goal we should be aiming for is pluralism of frameworks: nurturing difference, celebrating difference, rather than wanting everyone to have a homogenous view of the world.
One of the most common things that a good game maker does is to switch frames in and out of an existing repertoire. Everyone has their own repository of thinking frames, and the richness of the repository determines how easy it is to find the right frame for a given situation. If the repository is too similar, it can also make it difficult to adapt to new situations. Therefore, a good game maker must constantly enrich his or her frame inventory, be curious, and collect more and more frames through cognitiv foraging. What is cognitive foraging? Cognitive foraging is the practice of looking at how others have framed an issue and learning from what they have done. It can also mean looking for new ways of thinking, understanding new perspectives, and actively exploring new ideas and experiences.
If you want to be a game-maker, you have to be ready to learn from the best: ready to open your mind to new perspectives and new frameworks of thinking.
When the situation is so unique that there is no good framework, have the courage to jump into the unknown and be prepared to accept new concepts. When faced with a new problem, consider borrowing old frameworks from other fields or try to invent new ones.
- Borrowing from existing frameworks (Repurpose)
This means borrowing frameworks from other fields and adapting their use. It's an efficient way to create a framework rather than inventing one from scratch, but it also requires curiosity, skill, and ability to work in different fields.
Switching to another field's framework library and finding a new framework that fits the current situation is like standing on someone else's shoulders.
- Inventing the New Framework (Reinvent)
For particularly new problems, for which there is no existing correct framework, we must devise new frameworks on our own. Those who can create new frameworks will be celebrated, because new frameworks can change the world. Einstein, for example, created a new framework for physics when he proposed the theory of narrow relativity.
How do you create a new framework for thinking?
There are three elements to building a new framework for thinking: causal thinking, creating counterfactuals, and setting the right constraints.
Causal reasoning is the foundation of human cognition. Humans excel at identifying patterns, understanding analogies, and transmitting abstracted models of causality to others, thus enabling them to outperform lower-order organisms.
Being able to translate a current situation into an abstract concept that applies as a whole gives a person a tremendous advantage.
Creating a counterfactual can be a way of imagining a parallel reality that slightly changes the known world. It's basically asking yourself, "What would happen if something changed?" What would happen?".
Counterfactuals are ways of enabling us to see beyond reality.
Although it is important to create counterfactuals, it is counterproductive if they are too far removed from reality. Therefore, we should limit our imagination to keep counterfactuals in a feasible state, so that they are not too wildly unrealistic. Parallel realities must be imagined in such a way that they help to achieve a goal, and if they do not have a goal, but just invent all kinds of parallel realities at random, the result will usually be meaningless.
You have to choose the mental model, choose what limitations to have, and then use it to think about various counterfactuals.
Frames are also boundaries, without which we may come up with wild ideas and may well fail to find truly effective options at all.
The frameworks that humans have developed for thinking are useful precisely because they allow our minds to function in a structured, purposeful, and limited way. You could say that this "frame" is the secret.
We must focus on the right kind of restriction. The choice of soft limits is an art, but we can focus on limits that meet three principles.
- Principle of variability: Focus on what we think we can change, or what we can influence. For example, if we have a question about how to get to the city, we would think about what kind of transportation we would use, not about sprouting wings and flying across the city.
- Principle of Minimum Variation: Let there be as few variations as possible. As the saying goes, simplicity is beauty, and it is often better to make the conditions of a problem seem simple rather than very complex. It may be easier to delete something that is known to exist in reality than to imagine something that does not exist.
- Consistency: Restrictions must not contradict each other.
We apply the various constraints not to create a maximum number of different counterfactuals, but rather to quickly identify the most efficient and reasonable number of options; the real goal is to "narrow the search".
Conclusion
It's not easy being a good game maker. It is a job that is easier said than done. The book "The Game Maker" talks about many principles and directions, but the very concept of a frame of mind can be described as an abstract framework. It is a challenge for everyone to practice, collect, and switch between frames of thinking.
Going back to the original discussion, just how different is a human being from an AI? Perhaps the establishment of a framework for thinking is a good answer, but only if people are willing to take responsibility and have the courage and imagination to take on this role. In the future, will most people recognize the nature and importance of thinking, and commit themselves to a reasonable definition of constraints? Or will most people fall into the trap of blindly consuming content? This is another question that we should continue to observe and explore.
Thank you for reading this post. If you like my post, please follow up withFacebook Fan Specialist,Twitter,IGThe
