Is it right to read books, work out, meet people? I mentioned before that there is a certain type of person who always talks about reading, meeting people, working out, and health preservation—it's like you agree that they are always doing "definitely the right thing," but there's an indescribable feeling, like, for example, reading books—what kind of books? What changes after reading? They will tell you that "a scholar's aura comes from within," that reading shouldn't be so utilitarian, maybe it won't be useful today, but it might be useful tomorrow.

Such things.

Do you say they are wrong? Of course not. But what about cost-effectiveness? Probability? Setting these aside, just talking about "might be useful in the future," or the purely idealistic "do good deeds without asking about the future," that also has problems—the biggest problem is, after doing it for a long time, it seems like nothing has changed, maybe just a slick mouth, talking about how I just met so-and-so, or what was said in which book.

Who benefits from doing these things? People who already have a solid career foundation. If you say reading and learning improve cognition without being utilitarian, well, it is also utilitarian. Its utility lies in the fact that the more capable the person, the more substantial their work, the higher the cost-effectiveness of reading, and the faster their cognition improves. Because they can easily make analogies, suddenly read something, immediately get inspiration, and instantly solve a long-standing specific problem—he might not be reading for that purpose, but some seemingly unrelated things often have internal connections. Sometimes, just a slight insight can directly solve a big problem.

And those without a solid foundation, unemployed people, for example, college students with nothing on hand, haven't done much work, just graduated and want to become better through "reading," but it's unlikely. Because they lack a sense of experience, there are no highly valuable problems waiting to be solved; nor can they solidify what they've learned into their own cognition by solving a specific problem.

So, the seemingly ambitious state of reading and meeting people every day also depends on the person. For those with a solid career foundation, cognition improvement is definitely faster; but for the underdog, the most important thing isn't reading, meeting people, or mingling with big shots, but focusing on one thing, putting all your energy into it, and achieving results. Those vague feelings of patriotism, romantic love, scholarly spirit—they have nothing to do with you. The underdog's identity can only be shed through accomplishing things, not through reading and meeting people. And to achieve a "small success" in one thing, you only need to be very persistent, not necessarily have high cognition.

So, is cognition the determinant of wealth, or is wealth the determinant of cognition? They influence each other, but usually the starting point isn't cognition, because cognition alone can't directly bring money—cognition must be applied to a specific matter, combined with action, to generate income; money, although it can't directly bring cognition, focusing entirely on building your career foundation can greatly enhance your cognitive improvement efficiency.

People who have studied for a long time may not necessarily build their own career foundation, but those who have already established a foundation can become very capable with just a little learning—that's the difference. #Gate广场五月交易分享