<\/a><\/noindex>Now that you have read this, you might be thinking \u2013 ah, I already know this. Try to remember this the next time you write a comment like \"there's nothing useful here,\" or discuss the benefits of something with someone, or even ponder the benefits in solitude. I assure you, it is extremely difficult to remember the subjectivity of benefits. It is always much easier to consider benefits as an objective property of the object of study \u2013 an article, a book, a movie, a tool, etc.<\/p>\n
I am not opposing myself to you \u2013 it is equally difficult for me to remember the subjectivity, the relativity of benefits at the right moment. We are in the same boat, and there are about 7 billion of us in it.<\/p>\n
What does \"subjectivity\" mean? It's simple. There is an object \u2013 an article, a book, a movie, a tool, a methodology, etc. There is a subject \u2013 you, or I, or Gena, or a wonderful moderator of one platform. And here the object and the subject meet \u2013 Gena read the article. And draws a conclusion.<\/p>\n
The traditional conclusion of the average Gena is that the object has no value. Let\u2019s skip the cases when Gena is not adequate \u2013 let him be a perfectly reasonable person, a quality subject. What is missing in the phrase \"the object has no value\"?<\/p>\n
From the perspective of the subjectivity of benefits, two words are missing \u2013 \"for me.\" The object has no value for me. It sounds less fatal, doesn't it? After all, besides Gena, the article is read by Vasya, Seryozha, and Vika. Suppose Vika says otherwise \u2013 \"the object has value for me.\"<\/p>\n
If unhappy individuals, due to some strange twist of fate, meet in the comments of an object, sparks may fly, negative comments may appear, and personal attacks may arise. However, all it takes is to clarify when expressing an opinion that there is either benefit or no benefit \"for me,\" and it seems like there will be nothing to argue about. The final verdict \u2014 whether there is benefit or not \u2014 will simply not happen because it wouldn\u2019t make any sense.<\/p>\n
Of course, someone will still write that there is no benefit, but everyone else will immediately understand \u2014 the person is just trying to attract attention to themselves. Because the discussion is no longer about ruining the author's mood, as it typically was. If we're honest, the person is disparaging everyone present. To simplify, they are saying: \"you are all wrong.\"<\/p>\n
After all, the contradiction is clear. One person says, \"I found benefit here for myself.\" Thus, there is benefit. Another says, \"there is no benefit here at all.\" Therefore, the first person, who found benefit, is wrong.<\/p>\n
And what about the author? This guy is completely on the sidelines. If we view benefit as a subjective phenomenon, then the author is not part of this equation at all. Yes, they created the object. But when the subject arrived, the author is already gone.<\/p>\n
Of course, he might try to chase the setting sun by providing additional explanations in the comments, but in my opinion, this is a mistaken position \u2014 the author will never learn to write good texts if he retains the thought in his subconscious, \"oh, I\u2019ll just explain later in the comments if needed.\" But this applies only to articles. Books are far less affected, as they undergo editing. In implementation projects, which are also objects for extracting benefit, the author may stick around for months alongside the subject, helping them to derive benefit.<\/p>\n
So, the next time you contemplate or write about the benefit of something, try adding two magical words: there is no benefit for me in the object.<\/p>\n
But that\u2019s not the whole truth either. Aren't you bothered by the word \"no\" in the phrase \"there is no benefit in the object\"? Perhaps, Gena hurried?<\/p>\n
Extraction<\/h4>\n \nThere is a common phrase \u2014 to extract benefit. It is so commonplace that the meaning embedded in it is no longer perceived. Now stop, and reflect on this phrase and what it entails.<\/p>\n
For example, you read an article. You know that reading can be done in many ways. You can skim through it, glancing at only the highlighted phrases. You might read it while thinking about something else and completely miss the meaning. You could focus on the author's writing quality. Or you could read just to find something to comment on. You might read thoughtfully, analyzing each example and conclusion. You can print it out and read it with a pencil, making notes in the margins and highlighting what seems interesting. After reading, you could write a summary, pinpointing the main idea of the article. And so on.<\/p>\n
What\u2019s the difference? It lies in the goals and the effort. I won\u2019t discuss the goals right now, as they are not relevant to this article. Let\u2019s assume that our subject, the reader, has the goal of gaining benefits.
There\u2019s another common expression\u2014\u201cchewed up and put into your mouth.\u201d If we continue this analogy, you are your body, and the object from which you need to extract benefits is the food placed into you. Your task is not just to pass the object through your system, but to extract the maximum\u2014proteins, fats, carbohydrates, vitamins, trace elements, etc.<\/p>\n
Part of this work is done automatically, thanks to intestinal microflora. However, you will have to do most of the work. First, your teeth, tongue, and salivary glands need to work. Then, your esophagus will have a bit of a struggle. Next, your stomach will spend several hours mixing this mass from wall to wall while simultaneously performing chemical processing with gastric juice. Then, several sections of the intestines will activate, each performing its function, including the physical one\u2014pushing the food further. Lastly, a catharsis will occur.<\/p>\n
Everything your body does with food is about extracting benefits. Yes, sometimes the only benefit your body gets from processing food will be its rapid expulsion from the body\u2014well, some foods just work that way. However, in most cases, extracting benefits will require some effort.<\/p>\n
Now imagine that, like a human body, you stopped making an effort to derive benefit. You began by not chewing and swallowing \u2014 similar to people in a coma or those consciously deciding to starve themselves. What happens next?<\/p>\n
It depends on your environment. If there are people who want to help you, they will either insert a tube into your throat for liquid food or feed you forcibly. In other words, they will make the object easier to benefit from. They will do this for you because that object is no longer 'digestible' for you. Just like I find articles in Chinese indigestible, no matter the benefit hidden within \u2014 I simply can\u2019t even start to derive any advantage.<\/p>\n
If, in addition to refusing to chew food, your body turns off all other stages of processing it, then that's it. Books say that the intestines will still function as they have their own nervous system, but the intestines alone aren't enough.<\/p>\n
To derive benefit from food, the body makes colossal efforts. There\u2019s no way around it. We're just so used to it that we don\u2019t perceive these efforts as efforts.<\/p>\n
To derive benefit from other objects, the effort must come from you. Well, you certainly have a choice, unlike your body, but the formula remains the same: if you want benefits \u2014 you have to make an effort to obtain them.<\/p>\n
Let\u2019s return to the end of the previous section: 'there is no benefit in the object.' Now that we understand that deriving benefit requires the subject's effort, we can modify the phrase: 'I couldn\u2019t extract any benefit from the object.' Although, that still sounds mild. In most cases, it sounds like: 'I didn\u2019t try to extract any benefit from the object.' And to add \u2014 ', but I dare say there is no benefit there.'<\/p>\n
Agree, 'I couldn\u2019t extract any benefit' sounds somewhat different from 'there\u2019s no benefit here.' It seems less absolute, tendentious, and self-assured. But that\u2019s not the main point.<\/p>\n
The main thing is that the subject of conversation radically changes, becoming an active beginning, the center of finding and obtaining benefits. Now it\u2019s not an object, but a subject. The person is no longer talking about the object, but about themselves and their ability to extract benefit.<\/p>\n
Pretty much like this. Grandpa bought a smartphone. He fiddled with it, poked around, tried this and that \u2014 nothing worked.
In the second case, he says: man, what a thing, but I lack the brains to use it, it's heartbreaking. Now what feelings? Do you want to help him? And what is the opinion about the smartphone?<\/p>\n
For a long time now, I've been trying not to write comments like 'this is useless material.' The aim, so to speak, is mercantile \u2013 maybe someone thinks about its usefulness just like I do. Then they\u2019ll read my comment as if saying, 'I\u2019m an idiot who can't understand the material and extract any benefit from it.' Many already consider me an idiot, and I don\u2019t want to exacerbate it.<\/p>\n
But, as you understood, there's still more.<\/p>\n
Location of usefulness<\/h4>\n \nEarlier, I used fairly primitive definitions of usefulness and its location. I mentioned that usefulness exists in the object, while the subject cannot extract it.
Any system consists of objects, their properties, and connections. In our case, the system is simple \u2013 an object and a subject with their properties, and a connection between them. A connection arises when you study the object and continues to exist for some time. How long depends on you (memory, interest in the material, etc.), and the techniques for placing the object in space (reminders about new comments, etc.).<\/p>\n
So, where is the usefulness? If we believe what is written in this article, a simple conclusion emerges: usefulness is a property of the object. It is a static property with some value. But if the property is static, then it does not depend on the subject, right? For example, this article has a usefulness of 100 units, whatever that means.<\/p>\n
Then we take our second thesis: usefulness must be extracted from the object, and the ability to do this extraction belongs to the subject, not the object. So, the ability to extract usefulness is a property of the subject. Isn\u2019t that how it works?<\/p>\n
But it seems that's not a complete explanation. Earlier, we discussed how one can read an article and how different results can be obtained. Therefore, the same subject can extract varying amounts of usefulness from the object, depending on their internal state. Isn\u2019t that so?<\/p>\n
There are two options here. Either we stop considering the subject as static, endowing it, like in React, with props and state, or we move the previous paragraph from the subject to the connection. Let the connection have properties as well. That seems more logical.<\/p>\n
The connection is a way for you to explore a specific object, its characteristics, the efforts made, etc. The quality of the connection determines the amount of benefit you will derive from the object.<\/p>\n
Now let's take a step back and try to understand what doesn't fit into this model. Let's recall the movie \"A Beautiful Mind,\" which seems to be based on true events. For those who don\u2019t remember, I will describe one scene.<\/p>\n
The main character of the film is John Nash, a future scientist and currently a Princeton graduate student. He is trying to come up with some theory of equilibrium, but nothing is working out. He goes to a bar with friends, where some girls come in \u2013 one beautiful and a few pretty ones. The friends start arguing about who will court the beautiful one, recalling Adam Smith's lessons about competition as the driving force of trade.<\/p>\n
Suddenly, John has a revelation. If everyone rushes to the beautiful girl, they will get in each other's way, and she will end up with no one. The pretty girls will feel insulted and leave. The guys will be left without girls. But if everyone goes for the pretty ones, ignoring the beautiful girl, everyone wins. All the guys will have girlfriends, and no one will feel let down. Well, except for the beautiful girl who might be upset.<\/p>\n
After this realization, John jumps up, thanks the beautiful girl, and runs off. The beautiful girl, of course, has no idea why she was thanked. This situation, if we are to believe the film, helped John get unstuck and complete the theory for which he later received the Nobel Prize.<\/p>\n
So, let's return to our model. The subject is clear \u2013 it\u2019s John. The object is clear \u2013 the girls, the guys, and in general \u2013 some kind of problem. The connection is also clear \u2013 John was a witness, and almost a participant in this situation. And most importantly, the benefit that John was able to derive is clear.
Earlier we discussed that benefits are derived from the object. However, it is evident that in this case, the object did not have the benefit that John derived. Let me remind you \u2013 he got unstuck in a theory that none of the bar participants knew about.<\/p>\n
Neither the guys, nor the girls, nor the bartender, nor the bottles were aware of this theory and the dead point. This information was not present in any part of the object.<\/p>\n
A slippery question \u2013 was there any benefit in the subject? If we believe various theories, the brain knows the answers to all questions. But there is no way to verify this theory, so I suggest we consider that there was probably information in the brain, but since it wasn\u2019t extracted before encountering the object, it\u2019s easier to assume that it doesn\u2019t exist.<\/p>\n
You have probably found yourself in such a situation often, and I frequently see comments like \u2018it was spinning in my mind too, but I couldn\u2019t formulate it\u2019 or \u2018this exact key thought was missing to move forward, but I knew it!\u2019.<\/p>\n
So, John did not derive any benefit from the object, nor from the subject. What remains is the connection. Could he have gained benefit from the connection?<\/p>\n
He was not at the bar for the first time, and the girls come regularly; once, John even tried to talk to them, but it didn't go well. Such a connection, or similar situations, had occurred before. It\u2019s likely the issue is not with the connection.<\/p>\n
Then what is it? Let\u2019s return to systematic thinking, which says \u2013 hey, guys, don\u2019t try to find the answer by looking at the objects and connections separately, that\u2019s not always helpful. There\u2019s also such a thing as emergent properties. These are properties that appear in an integrated system, and they cannot be seen by examining objects and connections separately \u2013 as we reviewed above.<\/p>\n
Emergent properties, so to speak, are properties of the system as a whole when it\u2019s functioning. Of course, if you dig deeply and thoroughly, you will find where these properties originate. But, most likely, the reason for their emergence will turn out to be complex. It will involve the properties of the object, the properties of the subject, and the properties of the connections. The stars aligned, in short.<\/p>\n
So, the benefit arose from nowhere. And this happens very often.<\/p>\n
You are reading a text about cyclists in Amsterdam, and you remember that you forgot to take the salary certificate from work for your visa application \u2013 you want to go to the sea in Greece this summer. The text had nothing about the visa, Greece, you, or the sea.<\/p>\n
You are watching the movie 'The Matrix' and decide to quit smoking. In 'The Matrix', nobody smokes. No one discusses the benefits of healthy eating \u2013 on the contrary, they occasionally munch on cookies.<\/p>\n
I, along with my daughter, am listening to the audiobook 'Neznaika in the Sunny City' in the car, and I realize why the head of the department, where I am implementing changes, is resistant. This information was not present in Neznaika.<\/p>\n
I am listening to Metallica's song 'Ronnie Rising Medley' (from the tribute album 'This is Your Life', dedicated to Ronnie James Dio) on my way to work and decide to quit my job. I have no idea what the song is about since I don't know English.<\/p>\n
You understand that in any of the examples, if you take a closer look, you can trace the chain of reasoning and understand how the initial information led to a conclusion, decision, or action. That is to say, to a benefit. You can do this if you are the subject.<\/p>\n
Similarly, with some effort, you can construct this chain in any system where a benefit has occurred. Sometimes it's interesting for entertainment, but you can't do this all the time. Too many such situations arise every day, including unconscious ones. Even for you.<\/p>\n
But the most important thing is that the chain will be different each time. This chain is the emergent property. Unique, emerged once, an unrepeatable miracle. Today, an object evokes a feeling, decision, thought, or insight in you, and a year later \u2013 nothing, or something entirely opposite.<\/p>\n
Therefore, I suggest not to look for causal links too often and insistently. It\u2019s better to accept and utilize the fact: benefit can arise anywhere, at any time, and in any combination.<\/p>\n
The benefit does not reside in articles, books, movies, tools, methods, companies, friends, organizations, communities, or social networks. The benefit does not reside in you. The benefit does not reside in the way and behavior with which you read articles and books, watch movies, use tools and methods, hang out with friends and companies, work in organizations, and participate in communities and social networks.<\/p>\n
The benefit does not reside anywhere at all. Benefit arises when an object and a subject converge, and a connection develops between them.<\/p>\n
It sounds somewhat silly and naive, doesn't it? It's as if benefit is a miracle, heavenly manna that descends under some mysterious circumstances. What should we do now? Study and wait? What is happening with these systems?<\/p>\n
No, understanding how to gain benefits through systems actually helps to correctly set priorities and find leverage. Remember, systemic thinking is not only about analysis (why is it like this?), but also about changing systems. If the system for gaining benefits is not working, it needs to be changed.<\/p>\n
This is what we will tackle next time. We will also discuss the idea that there is no benefit in merely obtaining benefit. Perhaps we will talk about Bruce Lee.habr.com<\/a><\/p>","protected":false,"gt_translate_keys":[{"key":"rendered","format":"html"}]},"excerpt":{"rendered":"\u042d\u0442\u043e \u2013 \u0441\u0430\u043c\u0430\u044f \u043f\u043e\u043b\u0435\u0437\u043d\u0430\u044f \u0441\u0442\u0430\u0442\u044c\u044f \u0438\u0437 \u0432\u0441\u0435\u0445, \u0447\u0442\u043e \u0432\u044b \u0447\u0438\u0442\u0430\u043b\u0438. \u041f\u043e\u0442\u043e\u043c\u0443 \u0447\u0442\u043e \u043e\u043d\u0430 \u043e \u043f\u043e\u043b\u044c\u0437\u0435 \u0438 \u0435\u0435 \u043f\u043e\u043b\u0443\u0447\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0438. \u041d\u0430 \u0435\u0435 \u043d\u0430\u043f\u0438\u0441\u0430\u043d\u0438\u0435 \u043c\u0435\u043d\u044f \u043d\u0430\u0442\u043e\u043b\u043a\u043d\u0443\u043b\u043e \u043e\u0431\u0449\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 \u0441 \u043c\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e\u0443\u0432\u0430\u0436\u0430\u0435\u043c\u044b\u043c \u043c\u043e\u0434\u0435\u0440\u0430\u0442\u043e\u0440\u043e\u043c \u043e\u0434\u043d\u043e\u0439 \u0438\u0437 \u043f\u043b\u043e\u0449\u0430\u0434\u043e\u043a, \u0433\u0434\u0435 \u044f \u043f\u0443\u0431\u043b\u0438\u043a\u0443\u044e\u0441\u044c. \u0410 \u0434\u043e \u043d\u0435\u0435 \u2013 \u043f\u043e\u0447\u0442\u0438 \u043a\u0430\u0436\u0434\u044b\u0439 \u043a\u043e\u043c\u043c\u0435\u043d\u0442\u0430\u0440\u0438\u0439, \u043a\u043e\u0442\u043e\u0440\u044b\u0439 \u0432\u044b \u043e\u0441\u0442\u0430\u0432\u043b\u044f\u0435\u0442\u0435 \u043a \u043c\u043e\u0438\u043c \u0441\u0442\u0430\u0442\u044c\u044f\u043c. \u0410 \u043c\u0435\u0436\u0434\u0443 \u0434\u0435\u043b\u043e\u043c \u2013 \u043f\u043e\u0447\u0442\u0438 \u0432\u0441\u0435, \u0447\u0442\u043e \u044f \u0432\u0438\u0436\u0443 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false,"gt_translate_keys":[{"key":"rendered","format":"html"}]},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[702],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-35228","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t