从来没有买过玩具给子女，不是因为自己小时侯没有玩具而报复自己的小孩，而是觉得小孩原本是不需要玩具，每个小孩天生都是具有无穷无尽的创造力，给他白纸及笔，会画出超有创意的画，给他空瓶子废纸盒，会创造出令人赞叹不已的作品。
这种创造力是怎么消失？家长买玩具给小孩，因为省心，不用找废物也省了弄完后散乱。开始去学校上学，老师说的都是“对”的，所有东西都有标准答案，好学生只需要背住老师要的答案，在考卷上写出，老师会表扬你，爸妈会奖励你。喜欢问问题及不回答老师要的标准答案后果会很惨，我们都是这样一天一天的给“教育”到没有创造力。有没有不一样的老师？当然有，但是太少了，在受这么多年教育中，只有一位高中的历史老师是鼓励我们去独立思考，这老师原来是银行高管，但对教育有极大热情而放弃高薪来教书。想起他，就会想起《死亡诗社》这电影，那几个经典画面及台词：
“Boys,you must strive to find your own voice. Because the longer you wait to begin, the less likely you are to find it at all.
你们必须努力寻找自己的声音，因为你越迟开始寻找，找到的可能性就越小。”
“I stand upon my desk to remind myself that we must constantly look at things in a different way.
我站到桌上是想提醒我自己，我们必须时刻用不同的角度看待事物。”
“We don't read and write poetry because it's cute. We read and write poetry because we are members of the human race. And the human race is filled with passion. And medicine, law, business, engineering, these are noble pursuits and necessary to sustain life. But poetry, beauty, romance, love, these are what we stay alive for.
我们读诗、写诗并不是因为它们好玩，而是因为我们是人类的一分子，而人类是充满激情的。没错，医学、法律、商业、工程，这些都是崇高的追求，足以支撑人的一生。但诗歌、美学、浪漫、爱情，这些才是我们活着的意义。”
“ No matter what anybody tells you, words and ideas can change the world.
不管别人怎么说，文字和思想的确能改变世界。”
电影中John Keating(Robin Williams扮演的老师)的下场也解释了现有的教育制度不可能有更多这类真正懂教育的老师。作为帮凶的父母，也是受这些“正统”的教育长大，但墨守成规的思想还有更根深蒂固的原因；人类的基因给programed编程了“怕危险”这代码，我们祖先的一些惨痛经历通过DNA一代一代传到给我们，这条代码是：冒险=危险=痛苦。所以父母不让自己小孩去冒险是爱的表现，也是人之常情，听话的小孩长大了活成了父母的模样，或小时候讨厌的成人的模样。如果全人类都是这样，我们要逐步回到原始人的生活状态，但还好世界也有不听话的小孩，长大了还不听话反而有机会成为带领人类向文明前进的伟人、英雄、天才、精神领袖。我们衷心的敬佩及感谢这些伟人，但同时每天在杀这些伟人，不单以老师、长辈、家长、朋友名义在杀戮别人，还杀了那个自己，每个人都可能是英雄及伟人，这不是心灵鸡汤，看过我前几篇简书都知道我多反对心灵鸡汤，这是读过历史上众多伟人的传记后的结论，这些人都是智商超高吗？当然不是，很多连情商都不高，放在传统的教育体制内，都不是好学生，他们都不是循规蹈矩的人，记得97年那个令Apple起死回生的广告吗？
“ Here's to the crazy ones.
The misfits.
The rebels.
The troublemakers.
The round pegs in the square holes.
The ones who see things differently.
They're not fond of rules
And they have no respect for the status quo.
You can praise them, quote them, disagree with them
disbelieve them, glorify or vilify them.
About the only thing that you can't do is ignore them.
Because they change things.
They invent. They imagine. They heal.
They explore. They create. They inspire.
They push the human race forward.
Maybe they have to be crazy.
How else can you stare at an empty canvas and see a work of art?
Or sit in silence and hear a song that's never been written?
Or gaze at a red planet and see a laboratory on wheels?
We make tools for these kinds of people.
While some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius.
Because the people who are crazy enough to think that they can
change the world, are the ones who do.
向那些疯狂的家伙们致敬，
他们特立独行，
他们桀驚不遜，
他们惹事生非，
他们格格不入，
他们用与众不同的眼光看待事物，
他们不喜欢墨守成规，
他们也不愿安于现状。
你可以赞美他們，引用他們，反对他们，
质疑他們，颂扬或是诋毁他们，
但唯独不能漠视他们。
因為他們改变了事物。
他们发明，他们想象，他们治愈，
他们探索，他们创造，他们启迪，
他们推动人类向前发展。
也许，他们必需要疯狂。
你能盯着白纸，就看到美妙的画作么？
你能静静坐着，就谱出动听的歌曲么？
你能凝视火星，就想到神奇的太空轮么？
我们为这些家伙制造良机。
或许他们是別人眼里的疯子，
但他们却是我们眼中的天才。
因为只有那些疯狂到以為自己能够改变世界的人，
才能真正地改变世界。”
从小喜欢看伟人传记，就是好奇这些人是怎么保存创造力？想起几年前看Elon Musk(马斯克)的一采访视频，Elon一开始说了自己的成长经历及创业，没有什么特别，之前都看过的报道，直到采访者问一很cliché的问题：“你会给年轻创业者什么建议？”以为他也会给cliché的答案，但他说自己创业用First Principle(第一原理)的方法论来代替Analogy(推论)，网上找到他的原话：
“I think it’s important to reason from first principles rather than by analogy. The normal way we conduct our lives is we reason by analogy. [With analogy] we are doing this because it’s like something else that was done, or it is like what other people are doing. [With first principles] you boil things down to the most fundamental truths…and then reason up from there.” 我们运用「第一原理」而不是「推论方式」去思考问题是非常重要的。我们在生活中总是倾向于推论方式——别人已经做过了或者正在做这件事情，我们就也去做。「第一原理」的思考方式是一层层剥开事物的表象，看到里面的本质，然后再从本质一层层往上走。Elon还补充一句“Its take a lot more mental energies 这要消耗大量的脑力”。他还举了汽车电池的例子(附一)，推论方式又简单又方便，但应用到创新的产品及服务，往往失败于不顾细节，用第一原理必需用苏格拉底式提问(附二)，这是需要消耗大量脑力的原因。
之前一次看到First Principle是初中时候的事情，从小给爷爷奶奶迫去教堂，在爷爷奶奶过世后不单不去教堂还怀疑起基督教信仰，那两年把图书馆(还好是小图书馆)内所有关于哲学宗教的书都看了。当看到亚里士多德的书关于第一原理的表述：「在每一系统的探索中，存在第一原理，是一个最基本的命题或假设，不能被省略或删除，也不能被违反。」这不是我苦苦追寻的“真理”吗？
但身边没有一个朋友或同学对追寻真理有兴趣，只能跟书籍做朋友。想不到三十年后再次听到这词是从一个企业家口中，而且还把它运用到极致。
如果Elon Musk果真是(我相信是)运用First Principle就成功的创立了Paypal,SpaceX,Tesla, Solar City,Hyperloop，那其他创业者为什么学不到？就好像乔布斯的传记及演讲已成为创业者的圣经，但为什么不是到处都是乔布斯及马斯克，学习有这么难吗？学习不难，是unlearning(忘却已学的)难，凡是“思维模式”的东西，如电脑的操作系统，原来是Windows想换成Mac,只能重装，跟旧硬件不太兼容，原来的软件也都不能用。买一台新的Macbook更简单，但人的脑怎么换？
每次听见有人模仿乔布斯说“stay hungry stay foolish”及马斯克说“First Principle”都不禁想起几年前朋友送我一台外壳是Macbook的Windows手提电脑。
(附一)
同一个访谈中，马斯克举了以下这个例子：
比如，一些人会说，那些电池组非常昂贵，而且会一直这么贵，大概是600美元/千瓦时。因为它过去就是这么贵，它未来也不可能变得更便宜。那么我们从第一原理角度进行思考：电池组到底是由什么材料组成的？这些电池原料的市场价格是多少？电池的组成包括碳、镍、铝和一些聚合物。如果我们从伦敦金属交易所购买这些原材料然后组合成电池，需要多少钱？天啦，你会发现只要80美元/千瓦时。
(附二)附件太大，不翻译了，你们当学英语吧
THE SIX TYPES OF SOCRATIC QUESTIONS
Due to the rapid addition of new information and the advancement of science and technology that occur almost daily, an engineer must constantly expand his or her horizons beyond simple gathering information and relying on the basic engineering principles.
A number of homework problems have been included that are designed to enhance critical thinking skills. Critical thinking is the process we use to reflect on, access and judge the assumptions underlying our own and others ideas and actions.
Socratic questioning is at the heart of critical thinking and a number of homework problems draw from R.W. Paul's six types of Socratic questions:
1. Questions for clarification:
Why do you say that?How does this relate to our discussion?"Are you going to include diffusion in your mole balance equations?"
2. Questions that probe assumptions:
What could we assume instead?How can you verify or disapprove that assumption?"Why are neglecting radial diffusion and including only axial diffusion?"
3. Questions that probe reasons and evidence:
What would be an example?What is....analogous to?What do you think causes to happen...? Why:?"Do you think that diffusion is responsible for the lower conversion?"
4. Questions about Viewpoints and Perspectives:
What would be an alternative?What is another way to look at it?Would you explain why it is necessary or beneficial, and who benefits?Why is the best?What are the strengths and weaknesses of...?How are...and ...similar?What is a counterargument for...?"With all the bends in the pipe, from an industrial/practical standpoint, do you think diffusion will affect the conversion?"
5. Questions that probe implications and consequences:
What generalizations can you make?What are the consequences of that assumption?What are you implying?How does...affect...?How does...tie in with what we learned before?"How would our results be affected if neglected diffusion?"
6. Questions about the question:
What was the point of this question?Why do you think I asked this question?What does...mean?How does...apply to everyday life?"Why do you think diffusion is important?"
