Everything that turned out well in my life followed the same design process

我生命中所有顺遂的事都遵循同样的设计过程

Paris’s Giacometti Institute Recreates the Artist’s Studio | Condé Nast Traveler

巴黎贾科梅蒂基金会重现艺术家工作室 | 《悦游》 Condé Nast Traveler

Giacometti’s studio

贾科梅蒂的工作室

• If I look at things that have turned out well in my life (my marriage, some of my essays, my current career) the “design process” has been the same in each case. It has been what Christopher Alexander called an unfolding.¹ Put simply:
  • I paid attention to things I liked to do, and found ways to do more of that. I made it easy for interesting people to find me, and then I hung out with them. We did projects together.
    • I kept iterating—paying attention to the context, removing things that frustrated me, and expanding things that made me feel alive.
    • Eventually, I looked up and noticed that my life was nothing like I imagined it would be. But it fit me.

• 如果我回顾生命中那些进展顺利的事情（我的婚姻、我的一些文章、我目前的职业），每种情况下的“设计过程”都是一样的。这就是克里斯托弗·亚历山大（Christopher Alexander）所说的展开（unfolding）。¹ 简单来说：
  • 我关注自己喜欢做的事，并寻找方法多做这些事。我让有趣的人更容易找到我，然后和他们混在一起。我们一起做项目。
    • 我不断迭代——关注背景，剔除令我沮丧的事物，扩大让我感到充满活力的事物。
    • 最终，我抬起头发现，我的生活与我曾经想象的完全不同。但它非常适合我。

Human nature is not a machine to be built after a model, and set to do exactly the work prescribed for it, but a tree, which requires to grow and develop itself on all sides, according to the tendency of the inward forces which make it a living thing.
—John Stuart Mill

人性不是一架按模型建造、并被设定去执行规定工作的机器，而是一棵树，它需要根据使其成为活物的内在力量的倾向，向四面八方生长和发展。
——约翰·斯图亚特·密尔（John Stuart Mill）

• When you design something, a useful definition of success is precisely that— the form fits the context —as Christopher Alexander argued in Notes on the Synthesis of Form (1964). This is true of relationships, and essays, and careers: you want to find something that fits.
  • A glove is well-designed if it fits the hand nicely.
    • A relationship is healthy if it fits the personalities and needs of the people involved (and the resonance between them).
    • An essay is good if it fits a context made up of 1) the truth, 2) the intellectual needs of the writer, and 3) the reader’s mind. The better the form fits that context—the truer, more insight-generating, and resonant it is—the better the essay.
• The useful thing about defining good design as a form-context fit is that it tells you where you will find the form. The form is in the context.
  • To find a good relationship, you do not start by saying, “I want a relationship that looks like this”—that would be starting at the wrong end, by defining form. Instead you say, “I’m just going to pay attention to what happens when I hang out with various people and iterate toward something that feels alive”—you start from the context.
• The context is smarter than you*.* It holds more nuance and information than you can fit in your head. Collaborate with it.
• If you want to find a good design—be that the design of a house or an essay, a career or a marriage—what you want is some process that allows you to extract information from the context, and bake it into the form. That is what unfolding is.
• It is a feedback loop between you and the context. By gradually adjusting the thing you are designing and observing how well it fits the context, you create a feedback loop that embeds the context’s knowledge into your design. Your design ends up smarter than you.
• See also:
• The opposite of an unfolding is an unfounded vision. A dream that springs, not from a careful understanding of a context, but from a fantasy: if you could just make it into another context your problems would go away.²
  • Applying to university, I looked in the catalog and thought, Oh, wouldn’t it be cool to be a diplomat! I spent half a year applying to the political science program and going through all sorts of schlep. Then, after 18 months, I realized I didn’t like it at all. It had been a vision. I panicked, dropped out—and then came up with a new vision.³
• Instead of trying to force a vision, here is how you can lean into unfolding.
  • You observe the context (when applying to university, trying to figure out what my career should be, this would have meant, among other things, observing what kind of tasks I liked doing again and again and again; what kind of people I want to surround myself with; how the job market looks; and what I am interested in).
    • You form a mental model of the context (a guess about what kind of work I should do).
    • Then you use that guess to decide how to take your next small step in the context (“Maybe I should email someone who does the kind of work I’m considering and ask them what it is like?” “Maybe I should do a small project in my spare time?” “Maybe trial and error is a waste of time right now, and I would do better by figuring out who is the best at doing this, and study them?”).
    • Acting like this produces new information, and you update your understanding.
    • Repeat from the top.
• Having spelled this out, I can see several ways to get better at unfolding. Anything that increases the rate and resolution of information you get from the context will help. And anything that makes it easier for you to act on the context.
• Here are some questions to ask.
  • Can I increase the amount of information I get from the context?
    • Are you looking for a partner? Talk to people who are happily married and ask them what they did. Run experiments. Are you unsure about having a kid? Ask if you can babysit your cousin’s kid.
    • My preconceptions are a filter that reduces the amount of information I get from the context. How can I filter less?
    • A common reason we filter information and become blind to the context is that we bundle things when we think. Thinking about our career, we might think in abstractions like “a job.” But really a career is made up of a bunch of different things: a salary, an identity, relationships, status, a sense of meaning, and so on. It is often easier to find a fit if you unbundle these things, and think about the parts that matter to you individually. Do you actually need more status? Or can you find a better fit if you go low status? Maybe you would have more time to write if you took a high-paying job, consulting part-time, instead of funding your writing by selling pieces to magazines? - By unbundling things, by seeing through the abstractions, you get more information. You can use this information to unfold in more fluid ways—which to less perceptive people will look incomprehensible, like you are walking through walls, or like you are cheating. This is the hacker mindset.⁴ - It will be easier if you can overcome your social fear of looking stupid or incomprehensible. Wanting to be understood by others, or not wanting to contradict ourselves and our established identity—these are major blockers to unfolding. - Another common reason the feedback loop of unfolding often works poorly is that people have decided on a solution already. They have turned on their confirmation bias. They have decided that a certain solution is off-limits. Let’s say you are 34 and haven’t found a partner but want kids. If we unbundle this, it is clear that the problem of having a kid and the problem of love are not the same thing, so you could solve your problem by having a kid with your best friend instead. But this feels weird. It is not the vision you have for your life. And it seems dysfunctional. Observe that feeling—it is, perhaps, a part of the context. There is some information there. But to unfold, do not write off any solutions. Leave them all on the table; let them combine and recombine. Many good ideas look bad at first. To increase the rate at which you understand the context, you want to develop a certain detachment. When the context thrashes one of your ideas, you want to say, “Oh, that’s interesting.” It takes practice. But it is worth getting better at. Reality is shy—it only reveals itself to those who, like honest scientists, do not wish it to be something else. Venkatesh Rao has a good description of this mindset.⁵
    • Can I increase the speed and precision with which I act on the context?
    • A painter does not want technique to get between them and the canvas. The faster you can collide your ideas against reality, the faster you get feedback. By increasing the speed at which you can act on the context, trying new things will become cheaper for you—and so you will take more risks, and extract more information from the context. Write faster, prototype faster, ask for feedback faster. Velocity is underrated. It sounds crass and careless—speeding up. But it doesn’t have to be. When I improve my listening skills, for example, I increase the velocity at which I can get to the heart of what my wife is thinking about. Dropping the cost of mutual understanding means that the kinds of conversations that we would previously only have had if we had the whole day off—now we can do those over lunch. This is lovely. Not everything can be sped up like this (a shared history can’t, nor virtue), but where it is possible, speed lets you learn and unfold to a deeper level.
• If you cycle through this feedback loop ferociously for ten years, you will end up with a well-designed life. It will not look like you imagined it would. It will have unfolded around you, and you will struggle to wrap your head around how you ended up where you did.
• You will have lost track of all the experiments and insights that led you to a fit. But the good news is that you don’t have to remember. The form does.

• 当你设计某样东西时，成功的一个有用定义正是——形式契合背景（the form fits the context）——正如克里斯托弗·亚历山大在《关于形式合成的笔记》（1964）中所论证的那样。这同样适用于人际关系、文章和职业：你想要找到某种契合的东西。
  • 如果手套能很好地贴合手部，那么它的设计就是成功的。
    • 如果一段关系契合相关人员的个性和需求（以及他们之间的共鸣），那么这段关系就是健康的。
    • 如果一篇文章契合由 1) 真相、2) 作者的智力需求以及 3) 读者的心智所构成的背景，那么它就是优秀的。形式越契合背景——越真实、越能产生洞见、越能引起共鸣——文章就越好。
• 将优秀设计定义为“形式与背景的契合”，其妙处在于它告诉了你从哪里可以找到这种形式。形式就隐藏在背景之中。
  • 要寻找一段好的关系，你不是从“我想要一段看起来像这样的关系”开始的——那是从错误的一端开始，即定义形式。相反，你会说：“我只是去关注我和不同的人相处时发生了什么，并朝着感觉有生命力的方向迭代”——你是从背景开始的。
• 背景比你更聪明。 它包含的细微差别和信息比你脑子里能装下的还要多。与之协作。
• 如果你想找到一个好的设计——无论是房子的设计、一篇文章、一份职业还是一段婚姻——你想要的是某种能够让你从背景中提取信息并将其融入形式的过程。这就是“展开”。
• 这是你与背景之间的反馈循环。通过逐渐调整你正在设计的东西，并观察它与背景的契合程度，你创造了一个反馈循环，将背景的知识嵌入到你的设计中。你的设计最终会比你更聪明。
• 另见：
• “展开”的反面是“凭空的愿景”。这种梦想并非源于对背景的仔细理解，而是源于一种幻想：如果你能直接跳入另一个背景，你的问题就会消失。²
  • 申请大学时，我看着目录心想：噢，当一名外交官该多酷啊！我花了半年时间申请政治学专业，经历了各种麻烦。然后，18 个月后，我意识到我一点也不喜欢它。那曾是一个愿景。我惊慌失措，退了学——然后又提出了一个新的愿景。³
• 与其试图强加一个愿景，不如尝试这样去倾向于“展开”：
  • 观察背景（在申请大学、试图弄清楚我的职业生涯应该是什么时，这意味着，除其他外，观察我喜欢一遍又一遍做的是什么样的任务；我想让什么样的人围绕在身边；就业市场是什么样的；以及我对什么感兴趣）。
    • 形成背景的心理模型（关于我应该做哪种工作的猜测）。
    • 然后利用这个猜测来决定如何在背景中迈出下一个小步（“也许我应该给从事我正在考虑的那种工作的人发邮件，问问那是种什么体验？”“也许我应该在业余时间做一个小项目？”“也许试错现在是浪费时间，我最好先弄清楚谁最擅长做这件事，并向他们学习？”）。
    • 这样的行动会产生新信息，然后你更新你的理解。
    • 从头开始重复。
• 阐明了这一点后，我看到了几种改进“展开”过程的方法。任何能提高你从背景中获取信息的频率和分辨率的方法都会有所帮助。以及任何能让你更容易对背景采取行动的方法。
• 这里有一些可以问的问题：
  • 我能否增加从背景中获取的信息量？
    • 你在寻找伴侣吗？去和婚姻幸福的人聊聊，问问他们是怎么做的。进行实验。你不确定要不要孩子？问问能不能帮你表亲带几天孩子。
    • 我的先入之见是一个过滤器，减少了我从背景中获取的信息量。我该如何减少过滤？
    • 我们过滤信息并对背景视而不见的一个常见原因是，我们在思考时喜欢把事情捆绑在一起。思考职业时，我们可能会用“一份工作”这样的抽象概念。但实际上，职业是由许多不同的东西组成的：薪水、身份、关系、地位、意义感等等。如果你把这些东西拆解开来，思考对你个人而言重要的部分，通常更容易找到契合点。你真的需要更高的地位吗？还是说如果你选择低地位的工作能找到更好的契合点？也许如果你找一份高薪的兼职咨询工作，而不是通过向杂志投稿来资助写作，你会有更多的时间写作？ - 通过拆解事物，通过洞察抽象背后的本质，你会获得更多信息。你可以利用这些信息以更流畅的方式展开——在洞察力较弱的人看来，这可能显得不可思议，就像你在穿墙而过，或者你在作弊。这就是黑客思维。⁴ - 如果你能克服害怕显得愚蠢或不可理喻的社交恐惧，事情会变得更容易。想要被他人理解，或者不想否定自己和已建立的身份——这些都是“展开”的主要障碍。 - “展开”反馈循环运作不佳的另一个常见原因是，人们已经决定了一个解决方案。他们开启了确认偏误。他们认定某些解决方案是禁区。假设你 34 岁，还没找到伴侣但想要孩子。如果我们拆解这个问题，很明显，“生孩子”的问题和“爱情”的问题并不是一回事，所以你可以通过和最好的朋友生个孩子来解决你的问题。但这感觉很奇怪。这不是你对生活的愿景。而且看起来很不正常。观察那种感觉——它也许是背景的一部分。那里有一些信息。但要实现“展开”，不要排除任何解决方案。把它们都留在桌面上；让它们组合、重组。许多好主意起初看起来都很糟糕。为了提高理解背景的速度，你需要培养一种超脱感。当背景击碎了你的某个想法时，你要说：“噢，这很有趣。”这需要练习。但值得去改进。现实是羞涩的——它只向那些像诚实的科学家一样、不希望它变成其他样子的人展示自己。文卡特什·拉奥（Venkatesh Rao）对这种心态有很好的描述。⁵
    • 我能否提高对背景采取行动的速度和精准度？
    • 画家不希望技巧阻碍他们与画布的接触。你的想法与现实碰撞得越快，你获得反馈的速度就越快。通过提高对背景采取行动的速度，尝试新事物的成本对你来说会降低——因此你会承担更多风险，并从背景中提取更多信息。写得更快，原型制作更快，请求反馈更快。速度被低估了。听起来“加速”显得粗糙且草率，但事实并非如此。例如，当我提高倾听技巧时，我提高了洞察妻子想法的速度。降低相互理解的成本意味着，以前只有在休息一整天时才会进行的对话，现在我们可以在午餐时完成。这很美好。并非所有事情都能这样加速（共同的历史不能，美德也不能），但在可能的情况下，速度能让你学习并展开到更深的层次。
• 如果你疯狂地循环这个反馈循环十年，你最终会拥有一个设计良好的生活。它看起来不会像你想象的那样。它会在你周围自然展开，你甚至难以理解自己是如何走到今天这一步的。
• 你会忘记所有引导你走向契合的实验和洞见。但好消息是，你不需要记住。形式记得。

See also, part 2:

另见，第二部分：

As always, a big thank you to the paying subscribers who fund my work. I wouldn’t have been able to keep going for so long without you. If you want to support Escaping Flatland, I am not yet fully funded (ie I can’t afford to write as much and as ambitiously as I want):

一如既往，非常感谢资助我工作的付费订阅者。没有你们，我无法坚持这么久。如果你想支持《逃离平原》（Escaping Flatland），我目前尚未获得全额资助（即我还无法负担像我想象中那样多且有野心的写作）：

Another way to help out is to share the essays with people you think will find them valuable—in your group chat at work, on social media, by printing it out and mailing it to your grandfather, etc. Do not underestimate this. It is how almost all of you ended up here.

另一种提供帮助的方式是将这些文章分享给你认为会觉得它们有价值的人——在你的工作群聊中、在社交媒体上、或者打印出来寄给你的祖父等。不要低估这一点。这几乎是你们所有人来到这里的原因。

Finally, I’d like to say a special thanks to Spencer Kier who helped me figure out what to do with this piece. And, as usual, the best ideas were Johanna’s.

最后，我要特别感谢 Spencer Kier，他帮我理清了这篇文章的思路。而且，一如既往，最好的点子来自 Johanna。

Warmly
Henrik

祝好
Henrik

Further, when I say that you should be vary of visions I do not mean that you should never take a leap to a new context (move to a new city, start a new career). What I say is that if you do, you want to make contact with the new context as soon as possible, preferably in a small, low cost way (go to the new city for a week, talk to someone who has the career you are considering switching into, doing a small weekend project).

此外，当我说明你应该警惕“愿景”时，我并不是说你永远不应该跨越到一个新的背景（搬到新城市，开始新职业）。我想说的是，如果你这样做，你希望尽快与新背景接触，最好是以一种小规模、低成本的方式（去新城市待一周，与从事你考虑转行的职业的人聊聊，做一个周末小项目）。

For example, in 2020, Johanna and I left Sweden for Denmark. We had reached an impasse where we could not proceed by rearranging our lives piece by piece and hope that we would get the outcome we wanted—because we wanted to homeschool our daughter, Maud, and that is illegal in the context where we lived, in Sweden. We needed to take a leap. But this leaps sprang from unfolding in our context. Deciding to homeschool was the result of years of reading and thinking and working in schools. And when we had ruled out that there was a path to what we wanted in Sweden, we spent two years traveling to four countries to talk to people who homeschooled or ran democratic schools. We mapped the context. Then we found this island—it fit. We traveled here twice. Then we rented an apartment for nine months. And eventually, we bought a farm.

例如，在 2020 年，Johanna 和我离开瑞典前往丹麦。我们当时陷入了僵局，无法通过一点点重新安排生活来获得我们想要的结果——因为我们想在家教育我们的女儿 Maud，而这在我们居住的瑞典背景下是违法的。我们需要一次跨越。但这次跨越源于我们在原有背景下的“展开”。决定在家教育是多年阅读、思考和在学校工作的结晶。当我们排除了在瑞典实现目标的路径后，我们花了两年时间旅行到四个国家，与在家教育或经营民主学校的人交谈。我们绘制了背景图。然后我们发现了这个岛——它很契合。我们来过这里两次。然后我们租了九个月的公寓。最终，我们买下了一个农场。

Having lived here for four years now, we’ve seen a lot of other homeschooling families who come here in a non-unfolding way. They come here with a romantic vision of island life and homeschooling. But they haven’t explored the financial and emotional strains involved in homeschooling, and they haven’t thought about what it means to live on an island far from everything—yet the first thing they do is to buy a house. The house is in the wrong part of the island. It is moldy. After a year, they run away to some other island hoping that will be better, or they divorce, or they burn out. Don’t try this at home*.* There are ways of unfolding big leaps.

在这里住了四年后，我们看到许多其他以非“展开”方式来到这里的在家教育家庭。他们带着对海岛生活和在家教育的浪漫愿景来到这里。但他们没有探索在家教育涉及的财务和情感压力，也没有思考住在远离一切的岛屿意味着什么——然而他们做的第一件事就是买房。房子在岛上错误的位置。房子发霉了。一年后，他们逃到另一个岛屿，希望那里会更好，或者他们离婚了，或者精疲力竭。请勿在家模仿。大规模的跨越也有“展开”的方法。

In each case, the fundamental principle is that the hacker asks: “here I have a system W, which pretends to be made out of a few Xs⁠; however, it is really made out of many Y, which form an entirely different system, Z; I will now proceed to ignore the X and understand how Z works, so I may use the Y to thereby change W however I like”.

[…]

In speed running (particularly TASes), a video game pretends to be made out of things like ‘walls’ and ‘speed limits’ and ‘levels which must be completed in a particular order’, but it’s really again just made out of bits and memory locations, and messing with them in particular ways, such as deliberately overloading the RAM ⁠to cause ⁠memory allocation errors, can give you infinite ‘velocity’ or shift you into ⁠alternate coordinate systems in the true physics⁠, allowing enormous movements in the supposed map, giving shortcuts to the ‘end’⁠ of the game.

[…]

In robbing a hotel room, people see ‘doors’ and ‘locks’ and ‘walls’, but really, they are just made out of atoms arranged in a particular order, and you can move some atoms around more easily than others, and instead of going through a ‘door’ you can just cut a hole in the wall⁠⁠ (or ceiling) and obtain access to a space. At Los Alamos, Richard Feynman⁠, among other tactics, obtained classified papers by reaching in underneath drawers⁠ & ignoring the locks entirely.

[…]

These sorts of things can seem magical (‘how‽’), shocking (‘but—but—but that’s cheating!’ the scrub says), or hilarious (in the ‘violation of expectations⁠ followed by ⁠understanding⁠’ theory of humor) because the abstract system W & our verbalizations are so familiar and useful that we quickly get trapped in our dreams of abstractions, and forget that it is merely a map and not the territory, while inevitably the map has made gross simplifications and it fails to document various paths from one point to another point which we don’t want to exist.

在每种情况下，基本原则是黑客会问：“这里我有一个系统 W，它假装是由几个 X 组成的；然而，它实际上是由许多 Y 组成的，构成了一个完全不同的系统 Z；我现在将忽略 X 并理解 Z 是如何运作的，这样我就可以利用 Y 来随心所欲地改变 W”。

[…]

在速通（特别是 TAS）中，视频游戏假装是由“墙壁”、“速度限制”和“必须按特定顺序完成的关卡”之类的东西组成的，但实际上它同样只是由比特和内存位置组成的，以特定方式干扰它们，例如故意使 RAM 过载以导致内存分配错误，可以给你无限的“速度”，或者将你转移到真实物理中的替代坐标系，从而在所谓的地图中实现巨大的移动，提供通往游戏“终点”的捷径。

[…]

在抢劫酒店房间时，人们看到的是“门”、“锁”和“墙壁”，但实际上，它们只是由按特定顺序排列的原子组成的，你可以比其他原子更容易地移动某些原子，与其穿过“门”，你可以直接在墙上（或天花板上）挖个洞来进入空间。在洛斯阿拉莫斯，理查德·费曼除了其他策略外，还通过从抽屉下面伸手进去并完全忽略锁来获取机密文件。

[…]

这类事情可能看起来很神奇（“怎么做到的‽”）、令人震惊（“但——但——但那是作弊！”菜鸟会这么说），或者滑稽（在“预期违背紧随以理解”的幽默理论中），因为抽象系统 W 和我们的言语化是如此熟悉和有用，以至于我们很快就陷入了抽象的梦想中，忘记了它仅仅是地图而非疆域，而地图不可避免地进行了粗略的简化，并且未能记录从一个点到另一个点、我们不希望其存在的各种路径。

[…] a domain-specific ability to see reality in unsentimental ways, and act on reality in appropriate ways.

Appropriate needs some qualification. I don’t mean socially appropriate, technically appropriate or somebody else’s idea of what’s appropriate in a given situation. I mean in the sense of the zen idea of the ripples in a pond in response to a tossed stone being appropriate.

The stone-in-the-pond metaphor describes behaviors that are neither under-reactions, nor over-reactions, nor irrelevant or superfluous in relation to the situation. The pond is your mind and the ripples are your subjective experience of what you’re doing. The ripples are completely determined in a physics sense, but paradoxically, are completely free in a subjective sense. You suffer no anxiety due to dissonance between expectations and reality. There are three principal components to this non-dissonance:

• Knowledge: In part this sense of freedom is due to knowledge: you’re less torn by anxious attachments when you recognize how something must naturally and necessarily unfold. If you fire somebody, they’re going to be upset, and if you know that ahead of time, you can be all pond-like about it. Knowledge is freedom from getting mad at facts.
• Detachment: Detachment does not mean you don’t care what happens. It just means you don’t care whether a specific thing happens or not. You want to know the outcome of the coin-toss (you care), but you don’t care whether it is heads or tails even if you’ve bet on heads (you’re not attached to a specific outcome). The important thing is that something happens, which means you’ve successfully kept play going, but without keeping score.
• Emotional Self-Management: I like to think of this as accepting the emotions you have instead of having emotions about having emotions in an endless stack. Yeah, the tooth is about to get painfully pulled. Fear. Not fear, plus anxiety about fear, plus guilt about anxiety about fear, plus shame about displaying guilt about experiencing anxiety about having fear. This is emotional focus. Instead of retreating from an emotion through layers of additional emotions until you find one you can deal with, you experience the actual emotion for what it is.

[…] 一种特定领域的能力，能够以非感性的方式看待现实，并以恰当的方式对现实采取行动。

“恰当”需要一些限定。我不是指社交上的恰当、技术上的恰当或别人认为在特定情况下恰当的想法。我指的是禅宗里那种投石入水后池塘泛起涟漪的“恰当”反应。

“投石入水”的隐喻描述了既非反应不足、也非反应过度，且与情况并非无关或多余的行为。池塘是你的心智，涟漪是你对自己所做之事的直观体验。涟漪在物理意义上是完全确定的，但矛盾的是，在主观意义上是完全自由的。你不会因为预期与现实之间的失调而感到焦虑。这种“非失调”有三个主要组成部分：

• 知识： 这种自由感部分归功于知识：当你认识到某件事必须如何自然且必然地展开时，你就不会被焦虑的执着所撕裂。如果你解雇某人，他们会很难过，如果你提前知道这一点，你就可以像池塘一样对待它。知识是从对事实的愤怒中解脱出来的自由。
• 超脱： 超脱并不意味着你不在乎发生什么。它只是意味着你不在乎特定的事情是否发生。你想知道硬币投掷的结果（你在乎），但即使你押了正面，你也不在乎它是正面还是反面（你并不执着于特定的结果）。重要的是某些事情发生了，这意味着你成功地让博弈继续进行，而没有计较得分。
• 情绪自我管理： 我喜欢把它看作是接受你所拥有的情绪，而不是对“拥有情绪”这件事产生无休止的情绪堆叠。是的，牙齿即将被痛苦地拔掉。恐惧。只是恐惧，而不是恐惧加上对恐惧的焦虑，加上对焦虑的内疚，加上对表现出内疚的羞耻。这就是情绪聚焦。与其通过层层额外的情绪从某种情绪中退缩，直到找到一个你能处理的情绪，不如直接体验这种情绪的本质。