I've been thinking about a phenomenon recently:
Why can we excel in activities like piano, table tennis, and problem-solving,
But in football, native innovation, and complex system building, we often find ourselves lacking?
I think this boils down to a kind of 'square inch law'.
The temptation of finite games
with 88 keys on a piano, a table tennis table with boundaries, and a Go board of 19x19?
The commonality in these fields is: closed rules, full information games, and immediate feedback.
This is a linear 'square inch world'.
Chinese people have a traditional mindset that is harmful, believing that effort can be quantified, and then it becomes a competition of who works harder.
Here, input and output are highly positively correlated.
As long as you are willing to put in the time, you can infinitely approach perfection.
We love to compete because we are obsessed with this 'certainty' of security.
The fear of complex systems.
In contrast, in some complex systems like football and the ecosystem construction of Web3.
This is an open system, filled with high entropy (chaos) and randomness.
There are no standard answers here; 1 + 1 may be less than 1, or greater than 10.
In such a complex system with multi-line operations, merely 'execution' has diminishing marginal effects.
It requires architectural ability, a tolerance for error mindset, and the ability to make decisions in chaos.
Tactical diligence and strategic laziness.
We often use tactical diligence (competing for scores and proficiency within established rules),
To cover up strategic laziness (avoiding thinking about complex systems).
It is the same in the Web3 world:
We must be wary of whether we are just becoming a 'skilled interactive machine'.
While ignoring the need to understand those grand narrative logics and non-linear market games.
Stepping out of the small space and embracing chaos may be the key to breaking the deadlock.
The phenomenon of 'involution' that is commonly present in current society.
Everyone is deeply trapped in the underlying logic.
1. The cultural genes and path dependence behind the 'small space'.
Chinese people have a harmful traditional thought that effort can be quantified.
1. The ghost of the imperial examination system: the worship of standard answers.
Our cultural genes have been deeply influenced by the imperial examination system for over a thousand years.
The imperial examination is essentially the largest 'small space game'.
Closed rules: the exam scope is limited to the Four Books and Five Classics.
Linear returns: 'In the morning, a farmer, in the evening, a scholar'; as long as you memorize and understand those few books, you can achieve class mobility.
This historical memory is ingrained, leading us to unconsciously seek that field with a 'standard answer'.
We fear things without boundaries because a lack of boundaries means we cannot control our fate through mere 'diligence'.
2. A social environment with an extremely low tolerance for error.
Why are we obsessed with the 'certainty of security'? Because our social environment often has a very low tolerance for error.
In an environment where resources are relatively scarce and the population is large, competition is often a zero-sum game.
'One step behind leads to being behind every step.'
This makes people hesitant to easily attempt high-risk, high-uncertainty 'complex systems' (like native innovation or football, which relies heavily on teamwork and chance).
In the 'small space', although it is tiring, at least it won't look very 'ugly' when we 'die', and we may even achieve success as defined by the secular world.
Stepping out of the small space to innovate can lead to an abyss if it fails.
2. Linear thinking vs. systemic thinking.
'Finite games' versus 'complex systems' reveals the conflict between two entirely different thinking paradigms.
1. The comfort zone of linear thinking (The Linear Comfort Zone).
Piano, problem-solving, table tennis; their underlying logic is a linear causal relationship: input (practice time) ≈ output (skill/score improvement).
This mindset is very suitable for the early assembly line operations and imitative economy of the industrial age.
It cultivates individuals with extremely strong execution and strict discipline.
We enjoy the pleasure of watching the progress bar fill up little by little; it is a low-level dopamine satisfaction.
2. The lack of systemic thinking (The Lack of Systemic Thinking).
Football, the Web3 ecosystem, native innovation; these are typical complex adaptive systems (Complex Adaptive Systems).
Emergence: the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Eleven stars coming together do not equal a strong team (counterexamples abound).
Non-linearity and chaos: a small variable (like an unexpected slip on the football field, or an emotional tweet in the Web3 market) can trigger significant chain reactions.
What is needed is 'ecological niche' rather than 'ranking': in complex systems, success is not about being first, but about finding your unique, irreplaceable position.
What we lack is the ability to handle chaos, embrace uncertainty, and understand multi-variable dynamic games.
We are used to doing 'fill-in-the-blank questions', but are not good at doing 'open-ended discussion questions', let alone 'creating questions' ourselves.
3. Tactical diligence and strategic laziness: a collective psychological defense mechanism.
Everyone is accustomed to using tactical diligence to cover up strategic laziness.
This is essentially a psychological defense mechanism.
When faced with grand, complex, and uncontrollable situations, humans instinctively feel fear and anxiety.
To alleviate this anxiety, we choose to retreat to our familiar, controllable 'small space', crazily engaging in repetitive labor.
Self-narcotization: 'Look, I work so hard, 16 hours a day, so I'm not wrong.'
Avoiding responsibility: strategic thinking requires bearing significant decision-making risks.
If I am just an executor, then the strategic failure is not my responsibility.
This mentality manifests in the workplace as 'performative overtime'.
In the Web3 field, it manifests as a 'skilled interactive machine'—mechanically interacting with hundreds of airdrops daily.
Yet we have never thought about what pain points this protocol actually addresses, and whether its token economics are sustainable.
4. How to break the deadlock: from 'winners' to 'players'.
If we acknowledge that the 'small space principle' is the root of our current predicament, then the key to breaking the deadlock lies in breaking the physical and psychological 'small space'.
1. Transitioning from 'finite games' to 'infinite games'.
Philosopher James Carse pointed out in (Finite and Infinite Games) that finite games aim to win (achieve high scores, win gold medals); infinite games aim to continue the game (establish ecosystems, promote civilization).
We must shift from pursuing a single-dimensional 'win' to pursuing multi-dimensional 'value creation' and 'sustainable development'.
2. Cultivating 'negative capability'.
This is a concept proposed by the poet Keats.
Refers to 'the ability to exist and make a living in uncertainty, mystery, and doubt, rather than impatiently pursuing facts and rationality'.
In complex systems, we must learn to coexist with chaos and not rush to conclusions or set standards.
Maintaining sharp observation in the fog, rather than frantically tapping the sewing machine just because the road is unclear.
3. This is even more true in the Web3 industry.
Web3 is essentially a massive, open socio-economic experimental field.
Refusing to be a 'human mining machine': do not just focus on the immediate Gas fees and airdrop expectations.
Enhancing the architect's perspective: study how DAO's governance structure handles conflicts of interest, think about how DeFi Legos stack risks, and understand how cultural consensus behind NFTs is established.
Finding non-consensus opportunities: the real big opportunities are never within the 'small space' where everyone is competing, but in those undefined, chaotic margins.
The extreme involution within the 'small space' allows us to reach world-class levels in certain specific fields, but it also locks our imagination and creativity to a ceiling.
We are too good at answering questions posed by others, yet often forget how to ask our own questions.
In an era where AI is about to replace most linear jobs, continuing to stay in the 'small space' of involution will inevitably lead to elimination.
Only by embracing complexity and mastering chaos, moving from tactical diligence to strategic awakening, can we survive in the future.
More airdrop activities focus on #welinkBTC .
Focusing on Web3, blockchain games, AI, and AirDrop investment opportunities 🫙 monitoring 100 crypto influencers across the internet 🔥 let's traverse the bull and bear $BNB .
