The Profoundly Knowledgeable

These people are usually very knowledgeable about Roman history, and they know the origin of every crop like the back of their hand, often discussing questions such as "how big were Zheng He's ships when he went to the West" and "in what field will the next technological revolution take place? "I also know a lot about the Three Kingdoms, Water Margin, and Dream of the Red Chamber, and I know exactly who committed adultery with whom.

These are the things I do not understand, so with them, I always feel very frightened.

The problem is that, as a Ph.D. in liberal arts, I seem to have an obligation to be knowledgeable. I am expected to understand the differences between the Australian and Canadian electoral systems, explain the role of Central Asia in the evolution of the human race, and speak eloquently about the historical significance of the year 1492. But I don't know that much, I'm just human.

I also attempted to be knowledgeable, and from time to time, I would hold a thick history and geography science book at night and gnaw on it, hoping to "inadvertently" quote from it in a conversation the next day. Then I found that generally speaking when I read 100 pages, I forgot the first 50 pages, and when I went back to review the first 50 pages, I forgot the first 100 pages, so I turned around, panting, and finally managed to remember all 100 pages in general, but after a month, I even forgot the author of the book.

It's amazing how knowledgeable people are. Their brains are like spider webs that stick to all the little insects of knowledge. My brain, on the other hand, is a watermelon rind, and all the knowledge slips away without a trace once I step on it.

Realizing this, out of jealousy, I began to spread the "irrelevance of knowledge and wisdom" theory around. My view is this: knowledge is just information, but wisdom is insight. An old lady in the countryside who can't read or write may see things very deeply, and a person who reads a lot of books may analyze problems like shit. I even invented a more evil "knowledge-wisdom negative correlation theory", after witnessing some knowledgeable but logically confused people, I very much generalized: knowledgeable people often do not need to be very logical to win a debate, because they can constantly argue their points through examples. Most of the less knowledgeable people are dumbfounded by their inability to give examples to the contrary so that the logic of the knowledgeable people is not honed, but in fact, examples are not a rigorous scientific method of argumentation.

I was very heartened by this conclusion and gained great psychological comfort.

But the problem was that since these were all sophomoric arguments, they did not win anyone's sympathy. People still expected me, a doctor of arts, to understand the differences between the Australian and Canadian electoral systems, to explain the role of Central Asia in the evolution of the human race, and to explain the historical significance of 1492.

I then saw myself one day standing on a podium and being laughed at for lacking some sort of common sense.

It seemed the only way to count on the chip. The newspaper said that one day, mankind would invent a chip that would insert an encyclopedia into the brain, and you could google the chip with your brain and be as knowledgeable as you wanted to be. How I look forward to this! I hope that one day I can walk into a stationery store and say: Miss, I buy a brain hard drive.

The lady said: What kind do you want, we have external, built-in, 40G, 100G ......

I interrupted her: the largest size, external!