5.c 成功学的方法缺陷——个案分析

“成功学”的书籍都可以做到引人入胜，是不争的事实。这些书籍之所以可以做到这点，是因为书中总是可以做到随处可见生动而又具体的所谓“案例”。

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20111113103737/http://www.lixiaolai.com/archives/442.html

Make Time Your Friend 5.c: The Method Flaw of Success Studies: Case Analysis

> By Li Xiaolai · 2008-05-19 · [Original (web archive)](https://web.archive.org/web/20111113103737/http://www.lixiaolai.com/archives/442.html) (Chinese)
> Our translation from the Chinese original.

It is an indisputable fact that books of "success studies" all manage to be engrossing. The reason these books manage it is that they always manage to have vivid and concrete so-called "cases" to be seen everywhere in them. This way of reasoning presumably originates from the "case analysis" teaching method pioneered by Harvard Business School in the mid-eighties at the end of the last century [Translator's note: so in the original; the Harvard case method in fact dates from the 1920s].

> In fact, when Harvard Business School was just starting out, the professors quickly found that there were simply no suitable existing textbooks. So the first solution they thought of was to go and interview top businessmen, and then come back and record in detail what exactly those outstanding leaders were doing and how—these were the so-called "cases" (case). These professors then found that they couldn't just read out the records of these "cases" by rote, because in fact there was simply no established "standard" for measuring "what will succeed and what will fail." So the way the professors guided students was to have them first read these "cases" carefully, then prepare carefully for class discussion and propose further courses of action. Basically, to this day this is still how this so-called "teaching model" is used [[1](#footnote_0_442 "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_study")].

The "case analysis method" (case study method) is indeed a relatively advanced teaching method, but like all teaching methods it has its own limitations—it easily falls into some common fallacies. And in "success studies" books, the "case analysis method" (case study method), which business schools "admit is flawed but have to use," is often used as a method that is right and proper by nature. So all kinds of logical fallacies are everywhere.

The most common is "hasty generalization." That some experience worked for some person doesn't mean it will work for everyone. For example, Edison's words are often quoted by all kinds of success books:

> [Translator's note: quoted by the author: a passage as given in success books; not Li Xiaolai's own words.] Edison lived to 84 and made more than 1,100 inventions in his life. About the reason for his success, he once said: "Some people think that the reason I've achieved things in many matters is that I have some 'genius'; this is not correct. Any clear-headed person, if he is willing to act with effort, can achieve as much as I have." Edison's famous saying is: "Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration." [[2](#footnote_1_442 "In fact, this saying has been taken out of context; the original should be: genius is 99% perspiration plus 1% inspiration, but this 1% of inspiration is far more important than the 99% of perspiration. Some people even doubt whether Edison ever said it at all……")]

"Acting with effort" is not the only cause of success. For example, something obvious and crucial but not often mentioned is that Edison was fortunate to be born in a country "with a relatively well-developed system of intellectual property protection." If we trace it further, there's one most important reason for Edison's great success—he was lucky, and had a great mother. Edison started school at 8, but after only three months of schooling was dismissed by his teacher as a "retard" and driven out of the school gate—in any country, a little kid who idly runs off to the henhouse to hatch eggs with his own body may be considered a "retard" by most teachers. From then on, his mother was his "home tutor." Thanks to his mother's good teaching methods, he developed a strong interest in reading. "He not only read widely, but read ten lines at a glance and could recite whatever he had read once." Just suppose for a moment that Edison had been born in China at the end of the last century……

In fact, there are also other people in this world who adopted a behavior pattern exactly opposite to "acting with effort" and likewise achieved things or succeeded, though their success took different forms. After Warren Buffett buys stocks he thinks worth holding, he takes only one action that amounts to "making no effort, taking no action"—"waiting for the time to sell"; and for the stocks of some companies like Coca-Cola, Buffett simply does nothing at all after buying. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi's strategy of "non-resistance, non-cooperation" was also action exactly opposite to "acting with effort."

Note, I'm not saying "one shouldn't act with effort"—I'm someone who believes "effort is what we ought to make." I even think Buffett's "holding forever" after buying is also an action that takes effort to stick with, and Gandhi's "non-resistance, non-cooperation" is an action that takes even more mental power to practice.

What I want to say is that Edison's "case" can only tell us that Edison was very hardworking, very diligent, loved work and loved life. But this "case" can't prove that each of us, merely by being "very hardworking, very diligent, loving work, loving life" like Edison, can achieve as much as he did.—Obviously many other factors also need to come into play [Translator's note: the original writes 其作用, with 其 ("its"); 起作用 ("come into play") is meant; translated by the intended sense]. Whether Edison was an especially hardworking person essentially has little to do with us; we should still make an effort when we should, and shouldn't give up making an effort merely because others do or don't.

Success gurus say, "If you want to succeed, imitate successful people!" It seems a great many people really never understood the story of "Dong Shi imitating Xi Shi's frown." However, at the root, it's not because the story of "Dong Shi imitating the frown" is too hard to understand, but because nobody believes he is "Dong Shi." If thinking oneself "Dong Shi" is really too hard, then seeing clearly that one isn't "Xi Shi" should surely [Translator's note: the original has a stray 中 here (西施"中应该), which makes no sense; translated by the intended sense] be obvious, shouldn't it? A psychologically healthy person should not only be able to see the real world clearly, but also have enough ability to perceive the real self. Erasing differences and refusing limitations are both pathological psychology and behavior.

Another, more hidden logical error is "holding in one direction only." Many assertions hold only in one direction. For example, the sentence "many students can't understand English spoken at normal speed with standard pronunciation" holds in one direction only. Reversed, it's absurd—is English that students can't understand (English) necessarily spoken at normal speed with standard [Translator's note: the original writes 纯种 ("purebred"); 纯正 ("standard, pure") is meant; translated by the intended sense] pronunciation?

The most obvious example related to "success studies" is "So-and-so succeeded because he persevered! So whatever you do, you must persevere. As long as you persist to the end, you will surely succeed!" Encouraging others is a virtue, but bewitching others is wicked. Who says persisting to the end will surely succeed? You're joking. Try persisting to the end in developing a "perpetual-motion machine" or an "elixir of eternal youth" and see. Whoever likes persisting can go persist. The precondition for persisting to the end leading to success is that the intended goal is not only realistic but feasible, and then the method had better be correct too. In short, blind persistence mostly comes to no good end.

Another example that makes one not know whether to laugh or cry is this widely circulated story:

> [Translator's note: quoted by the author: a widely circulated story; not Li Xiaolai's own words.] A pastor was preparing the draft of his sermon, but his little son was making a racket nonstop beside him. The pastor, at his wits' end, casually picked up an old magazine, tore the brightly colored illustration—a map of the world—into pieces, threw them on the floor and said: "John, if you can put this map together, I'll give you 25 cents." The pastor thought this would make John spend a whole morning, so that he himself could calm down and think. But in less than 10 minutes, his son knocked on his door, holding the completely assembled map. The pastor was very surprised that John had put the world map together so quickly, and asked: "Child, how did you put the map together so fast?" "Ah," said little John, "it was easy. On the other side there was a picture of a person; I put the picture of this person together and then turned it over. I thought if this person was right, then the world would be right too." The pastor smiled, gave his son 25 cents and said to him: "Thank you! You've prepared the topic of tomorrow's sermon for me: if a person is right, his world will be right."

Then those who finish telling this story will say, meaningfully:

> [Translator's note: quoted by the author: the moral as told by those who retell the story; not Li Xiaolai's own words.] This story teaches us: if you want to change your world and change your life, you should first change yourself. If your mental attitude is positive, your life will also be happy; if your mental attitude is negative, then life will also be sad.

But in fact this is a completely logically muddled explanation. Even if the conclusion is correct, people capable of thinking should reject such logically muddled arguments. The principle this story can tell us logically is: "Look at it from a different angle, and perhaps you can find a very simple method to solve a complex problem." And the pastor's conclusion, and the conclusion retold by the success gurus who retell this story, "if a person is right, his world will be right," is nothing but a switching of concepts; it doesn't even count as "reasoning by analogy." In my words, this is a donkey's lips not matching a horse's mouth in the truest sense, or "a donkey's lips fitted to a horse's mouth"—either way it's wrong!

There's certainly nothing wrong with inspiration, because people do need encouragement, but you can't talk nonsense. As I grow older I've come to hate many inspirational books more and more, and even feel that much of the time "success gurus" simply equal "charlatans." And in a certain sense they're even more hateful than charlatans, because a swindler in the end only cheats you out of one thing; if you're clever you may not be cheated, or even if you are, you can find ways to make up the loss. But certain success gurus are different: they take your money, gain your trust, and then turn you into a bigger fool. Of course, if you're clever, all you can do is be so angry you laugh helplessly.

The killer is that such logical muddle can actually bring pleasant surprises in understanding. So most people involuntarily accept it without discrimination. But what's the use of stupidly accepting a correct conclusion? This really is a meaningful story, and many interesting and beneficial conclusions really can be drawn from it. But please, can we first be people capable of logic and then talk?

Besides "hasty generalization" and "holding in one direction only," "success studies" books don't even lack naked, shameless logical muddle. The "success studies" example of naked logical muddle that impressed me most is an example about "attitude changes everything." I know, and believe, that "sometimes a change in attitude alone really can bring different results." However, I think that using the following logic to make me accept it, or make anyone accept it, is not only impossible but even immoral.

> [Translator's note: quoted by the author: a passage circulating in success books; not Li Xiaolai's own words.] If the letters A to Z are assigned the scores 1 to 26 respectively (A=1,B=2…,Z=26), then:
>
> - Your knowledge (KNOWLEDGE) gets 96 points (11+14+15+23+12+5+4+7+5=96)
> - Your effort (HARDWORK) gets only 98 points (8+1+18+4+23+15+18+11=98)
> - Your attitude (ATTITUDE) is what governs your whole life, because 1+20+20+9+20+21+4+5=100

Please, how about a bit of basic logic? In fact, calculated this way, there are plenty of words whose result equals 100:

> alienation (estrangement)
> apoplectic (stroke patient)
> boycott (joint boycott)
> cacophony (noise, harsh sound)
> chimpanzee (chimpanzee)
> connivance (indulgence)
> coyness (shyness)
> flurry (flustered)
> frisson (trembling)
> impotence (impotence)
> inflation (monetary inflation)
> pussy (kitty; <slang> vulva/vagina)
> socialism (socialism)
> status (standing, position)
> stress (pressure)
> surcharge (overload, additional fine, extra charge)
> syndicate (consortium)
> tuppence (something trifling)
> turkey (turkey, a useless thing)
> Wednesday (Wednesday)
> wholesale (wholesale)

What's listed above is only a small portion of the more than a thousand nouns I found in the BNC English word list. Oh right, the adjective useless also comes to 100 by this calculation. Postscript: having just finished writing, I casually searched Google for "KNOWLEDGE 11+14+15+23+12+5+4+7+5=96″. The results were especially worth savoring: the first 150 results almost all came from Chinese websites. Only from page 16 of the search results did some English websites start to mention this baffling calculation; at result 151 of the Google search I saw a piece that pointed out bullshit = 103, and went on to say, "So, it stands to reason that hard work and knowledge will get you close, attitude will get you there, but bullshit will put you over the top." There's an even funnier one: the author went on to point out another word: **asskissing=127**!

---

Footnotes:

1. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_study> [[↩](#identifier_0_442)]
2. In fact, this saying has been [taken out of context](http://www.lixiaolai.com/?p=158); the original should be: genius is 99% perspiration plus 1% inspiration, **but this 1% of inspiration is far more important than the 99% of perspiration**. Some people even doubt whether Edison ever said it at all…… [[↩](#identifier_1_442)]