第一階：觀點
https://www.jkforum.net/thread-19786732-1-1.html
第二階：線性投射
https://www.jkforum.net/thread-19863241-1-1.html

正常狀態下，群體中幾乎所有人都具備觀點，80%以上能直觀表述，而只有60%令人願聞其詳
與人交談，仔細思索其論述、拆解架構，不難辨識對方是否庸俗，還是有點意思
即便身處資訊時代，仍可透過文字、影音、圖像、落點等窺探其性格表徵與取向

現代人智識程度頗高，個人好惡與表述均十分明確，也有一定的思辨基礎
要使其迷惑，甚至甘受擺布，唯有操弄心緒、情感
因此，「同理」、「共感」、「脅迫」、「訴貪」、「欲求」、「捧殺」、「虛與委蛇」、「情緒勒索」等，全屬同一套路：
「以有別於理性的方式，驅使對方依自己的期望行事」
我必須承認這很有效，但並不務實，且不存在於高端領域
這並非負面表述，只要行事方心悅誠服，且有良好的發展，就是合乎道德的手段，儘管「被動」
脆弱的一方往往尊嚴大於能力，不願思考自身處境與外部觀點/建議的差距，承擔滯後的機會成本

驅策對方的同時，自己也可能被驅使
認知維度高者擁有話語權，不足者將這段關係視為良性/必要互動
所謂周延，意旨思慮的縝密程度
聽懂話的人永遠比聽話的人更知變通，在群體中嶄露頭角，或擁有資源
這不是努力就能跨越的鴻溝，還須與其它人格特質融生綜效
在相近的脈絡下尋求異變，既符合演化規律，亦可增幅促發機率

然而，周延亦有良莠之分
不諳區別之道，即易受騙上當，畢竟對手是人，道高一尺、魔高一丈
至此，已論述半數以上的捷思態樣，一般人生活所及多屬此類
而藉獨立思考佔據制高點的關鍵少數，往往隱而未現，專注於創造複利的行為模式
這類人可為導師，或合作對象；不過，若自己沒有增色的價值與思維，遲早會陷入三階套路，做為墊腳的底層
Under normal conditions, almost everyone in the group has opinions, more than 80% can express them intuitively, and only 60% can make people willing to hear the details.
Talk to people, think carefully about their arguments and break down the structure. It is not difficult to tell whether the other person is vulgar or interesting.
Even in the information age, one can still get a glimpse of others’ personality and orientation through text, video, images, placement, etc.

Modern people have a high level of intelligence, their personal likes, dislikes and expressions are very clear, and they also have a certain basis for speculation.
To confuse them and even make them willing to be manipulated, the only way is to manipulate their minds and emotions.
Therefore, "empathy", "sympathy", "coercion", "implied corruption", "desire", "flattering", "falsehood", "emotional blackmail", etc., all belong to the same routine:
"Forcing the other party to act in accordance with one's own expectations in a way that is different from rationality."
I must admit this works, but is not pragmatic and does not exist in the high end segment.
This is not a negative statement. As long as the party is sincere and has good development, it is an ethical method, even if it is "passive".
The vulnerable party often has more dignity than ability, is unwilling to think about the gap between his own situation and external opinions/advice, and bears the opportunity cost of lag.

While driving the other party, you may also be driven.
Those with high cognitive dimensions have the right to speak, while those with low cognitive dimensions regard the relationship as a benign/necessary interaction.
The so-called Itegrity refers to the degree of thoroughness of thought.
People who understand what is said are always more adaptable than those who are obedient, stand out in the group, or have resources.
This is not a gap that can be bridged with hard work. It must be synergistically combined with other personality traits.
Seeking changes in similar contexts not only conforms to the law of evolution, but also increases the probability of triggering.

However, Itegrity also has good and bad qualities.
If you don't know the difference, you will be easily deceived. After all, your opponent is a human being.
So far, more than half of heuristic thinking styles have been discussed, and most people in their lives fall into this category.
The key few who occupy the commanding heights through independent thinking are often invisible and focus on creating behavioral patterns of compound interest.
Such people can be mentors or partners; however, if you do not have the added value and thinking, sooner or later you will fall into the third-level routine and serve as a stepping stone.

由衷感謝樓主辛苦無私的分享

六維認知(第三階：周延)...小雨感覺讀完哲學之後又更靠近了六維知識(全面), 感謝S大分享

拆解架構，不難辨識對方是否庸俗
就是看對方思想邏輯是否正確
條條道路通羅馬目標要明確