The knight in the big world of American TV series

Chapter 2395

America needs good news!

Why does the golden retriever in that dimension always win? Even the smallest thing gets publicized as a victory for him, with phrases like "win," "medium win," "big win," and "super big win"!
This is the art of winning!
The term "Winning Studies" might sound like a philosophical concept at first glance, but it's actually a product of the internet age. Who doesn't enjoy reading feel-good stories? Who doesn't love "rags-to-riches" tales in short videos? As long as it makes people feel "satisfied" and provides "emotional value," it's considered a successful form of "Winning Studies." Politicians, media outlets, and online influencers are all exploiting this emotional fast food to create showcases of "Winning Studies." For example, American politicians always emphasize that their country is the most powerful in the world, constantly promoting how advanced their system is and how prosperous their economy is. Indian influencers are also frantically posting stories of "India's rise" on social media to garner traffic. Even the luxury goods industry is embracing "Winning Studies," selling bags made from a few pieces of fabric for hundreds of thousands of dollars, making consumers feel like they've "won."

The world is undergoing rapid change, with increasingly fierce competition and mounting pressure. Previous lifestyles are being disrupted, and individuals struggle to foresee the future amidst these changes. The uncertainty and uncontrollable risks of the future fuel existential anxiety about the present. "Winning Theory" offers individuals the illusion of "everything being under control," fulfilling their need for stability amidst change. It tells them that things are alright now, everything is manageable, and there's no need to be anxious. Winning Theory itself is a psychological defense mechanism against uncertainty; its essence is an anesthetic.

The popularity of "Winning Theory" is closely related to current cultural trends. The culture of instant gratification prevails, with people pursuing speed and craving immediate results. Winning Theory simplifies complex, unseen problems into simple, localized games of winning and losing, making victory clearly perceptible and satisfying people's needs for fragmented perception and instant gratification. However, Winning Theory itself is not wisdom; it's more like an anesthetic. While it may alleviate anxiety, it cannot solve problems and may even exacerbate them.

The background to the rise of Winning Theory is quite simple.

Nationalism and populism are currently expanding globally, as evidenced by two recent landmark events: one is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where India purchased a plane that crashed, resulting in a loss for India. However, Indian leaders have never publicly acknowledged this, instead simply declaring their unilateral victory.

Another is Trump's "win theory." If you open the White House website now, every news article, regardless of its content, concludes with "win." Trump doesn't want to emphasize his achievements; he only wants to emphasize winning.

Many people might subconsciously find the actions of India and the United States laughable, because the essence of this approach is to ignore objective facts and pander to domestic nationalist sentiments without any bottom line. It is essentially internal propaganda rather than factual reporting.

The concept of "win-win" itself is not problematic; rather, it acts as a buffer.

Just think about it: in a climate of rampant nationalism, the political actions of every country will inevitably be hijacked by nationalism. And when nationalist sentiments are mixed into a country's political behavior, its actions can often become irrational. What happens when a country's diplomacy shifts from being driven by national interests to being driven by "win-win" principles? Take the United States as an example. Without "win-win" principles, Trump's carefully crafted image of being uncompromising means he can only go down one path to the bitter end, making any agreement on tariffs impossible.

But in reality, Trump doesn't really want to win; he just wants to win the "study" movement. Regardless of whether he wins or not in the end, as long as he promotes the "study" movement in his propaganda, he can give voters an explanation.

From this perspective, Win-Win Studies has largely eased domestic tensions, because you don't need to win for the sake of winning; you just need to find a narrative for Win-Win Studies.

This also reflects the international situation as we see it. You'll find that, except for a few cases, the international conflicts have all eased up in the end.

This is where Winning Principles come in.

Countries don't necessarily need to actually win; they can use propaganda to quell domestic nationalist sentiments. However, it's important to note that this quelling is actually only temporary.

Because the battlefront is there, you can temporarily promote the "Winning Theory" to the public as a battle report, but the battlefront will eventually be presented to everyone, so in the end, the public will realize what's happening.

Why did the study of winning emerge?

To realize one's political ideals, under the influence of elections, the first step is to come to power. If you can't even get to power, how can you talk about realizing your political ideals? Mearsheimer has been talking for half a century and is still a fringe figure in politics, while Sachs at least participated in some aspects.

There are several basic prerequisites for the emergence of Winning Theory:

First, it meets basic living needs.

Second, electoral politics.

Third, there is a history of winning at mahjong.

Fourth, there is a desire for instant gratification.

The first point is easy to understand: physiological needs, safety needs, social needs, respect, and self-actualization. Physiological needs are fundamental. With the rapid development of modern technology and greatly increased productivity, basic physiological needs are no longer an issue for most countries, especially in the United States. The concept of electoral politics is also easy to understand. If a country is governed by elites, then no matter how populist the country is or how much the people want to win, it has absolutely no impact on the actual political situation. The third point is more important and is a significant dividing line between Europe and the United States. Compared to the United States, the atmosphere for winning in Europe is weaker, with only one exception: Britain. The two most important events in modern politics—the Cold War and World War II—laid the foundation for today's political landscape. Britain was the precursor to the United States, and the United States is Britain's successor. The British Empire once possessed a quarter of the earth's land, won World War I, won World War II, and inexplicably won the Cold War. This allowed Churchill to stand with Roosevelt, and Thatcher with Reagan. Under these circumstances, it is perfectly reasonable for the British to want to win again. A review of the history of Brexit makes this clear: the British believe that Britain's current state is due to immigration. Americans believe that America's current state is due to foreign factors, and on this point, Britain and the US are aligned. Therefore, Britain wants Brexit, and the US wants to abandon international free trade—the reasons are exactly the same. Note that "win" here doesn't refer to actual events. Some might immediately think of Britain losing almost all its colonies after World War II, causing its international standing to plummet. This is irrelevant because "win" is a feeling, not an actual outcome.

Fourthly, the desire for instant gratification. Today, I explained the essence of winning theory on social media, and someone countered, "However, people's hearts are like water. If they were complacent after winning yesterday, inflation will rise today, and Trump will still suffer the same fate. The Democrats were also influenced by ideology in the first place, but they still lost the election."

This statement seems correct on the surface, but if you think about it carefully, a president's term is only four years, and a person can only live for less than 100 years. Only a tortoise can live for 10,000 years. If you can win a game, why not? Isn't that a waste?
Moreover, Americans value instant gratification. "Titty" entertainment has been prevalent in the US for so many years; do you expect Americans to be exam takers? That's ridiculous! Isn't that why the US has such a rampant drug problem?
Therefore, the essence of winning lies in:
How to help voters win at mahjong.

If we can let voters feel the joy of winning as quickly as possible.

How to make voters feel like they've won in the fastest and lowest-cost way.

A single, impactful message is what voters truly desire.

This is the basic logic of winning.

Why is psychology more useful than reality?

The Golden Retriever is a phenomenon, reflecting the psychological perception of the American people rather than reality. Humans are creatures that tend to avoid difficulties and enjoy instant gratification. There's a famous line in *Scent of a Woman*: "Now I've come to a crossroads in my life, and I always know which path is right. Without exception, I know it all, but I never take it." Do you know why? Because it's too difficult.

The solution to America's problems lies not in acknowledging them, but in shirking responsibility.

For example: America's math wars.

In October 1957, the Soviet Union launched the first artificial satellite, Sputnik 1, which alarmed the Americans and sparked a nationwide craze for STEM education. Mathematics, as the most important subject, also received attention. Mathematicians initially wanted to add modern mathematical abstract concepts to primary and secondary school mathematics, taking a leap from practical arithmetic to abstract concepts. However, this was too big a step and backfired. The project failed within a few years.

After failing, they began to "go back to basics." From the 70s to the 80s, math scores across the United States plummeted, college admission standards were lowered again and again, and the US performed terribly in international math competitions. Thus, the math war began.

In the 80s, a peculiar teaching method emerged in the United States: constructivist mathematics education. How does it differ from traditional mathematics?
Traditional mathematics: teachers teach from textbooks, students are required to fully understand definitions and concepts, memorize them, and do a lot of practice problems. They must first develop calculation skills before they can understand mathematical concepts. Yes, it's the kind of test-taking style that's common in small Chinese towns.

Constructivist mathematics education posits that education is not passive acceptance; teachers guide students in constructing knowledge. Students don't need to memorize formulas or practice countless exercises. Instead, teachers guide students, providing appropriate problem scenarios or examples to encourage reflection, ultimately allowing students to gain new knowledge through their active construction. Mathematics is no longer dry and boring, but challenging and stimulating. Students can derive the formula for the area of ​​a rectangle and the area of ​​a parallelogram themselves. Thus, a grand mathematical revolution began. As for the results… well, the idea was good, but in practice: students did engage in lively discussions and were indeed active in class, but most of the time it was ineffective. The mathematical formulas were right there, yet they insisted on reinventing the wheel. It's not just people bringing up their family background; I have two kids, and if you ask them what they want, they just want to play all day, not study, not want to go to school, just play. That's their wish. As for wanting to be a scientist or an astronaut when they grow up—believe me, that's just fooling their parents. This actually highlights a core question: Is education painful? Is learning mathematics painful? The education sector wanted to avoid the pain and make math education very easy for children. The results were obvious.

This isn't the end of the story. While math problems are piling up in the US, the left, represented by the New York Times, has come up with a new concept: "Is Algebra Necessary?" and "The Trouble of Exam Mania."

All these articles point to one core question: Why should children suffer during their education?
When identity politics and mathematics combine, this monstrosity emerges: "Mathematics is Racism" Crowds Rampage in Seattle and Portland

If American conservatives are using religion to mislead Americans, making them believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old, then progressives are doing the same. They claim the problems of Black people aren't Black, and that Black people's poor math skills are all blamed on racism. Similarly, the outflow of American manufacturing isn't due to the dollar's hegemony, poor education, or inadequate infrastructure; it's all the fault of unscrupulous capitalists and the deep-seated problems within the government.

If we then introduce the "institutional determinism" theory from political science and economics, and use a three-part reasoning, then the reason why the United States is the way it is today becomes very clear:

First, America is great because of its system.

Second, it is obvious that the American system will not change.

Third, if that's the case, then why do I work so hard to learn math? Because I can win even if I'm just lying down.

Considering America's past, for example, Vance's mother, who knew nothing, yet her family earned $10 a year—this is what Vance himself said in his book. If someone like Vance's mother could earn $10 a year, wouldn't Americans be complacent? If the system fostered American greatness, Americans wouldn't need to suffer or endure more. America would be born to win, always winning, winning until the very end. If it can't win, then it's not America's fault, it's all the fault of foreign countries. The political mainstream is also promoting anti-intellectualism. In fact, not only in America, but also in Europe, the political mainstream is promoting anti-intellectualism and populism, fabricating all sorts of rhetoric to mislead people. This problem started with praising the Magna Carta and the Mayflower.

Similarly, during Sleepy Joe's era, the US economy was in such a state, with typical car sales at such a low level, yet major US financial media outlets were still shamelessly touting a booming US economy. How could such a booming economy lead him to lose all the swing states, the presidency, and Congress?
It's nothing more than Sleepy Joe trying to promote his winning strategy, but failing.

For example, there's a puzzling concept in modern diplomatic theory: values-based diplomacy. This "values-based diplomacy" is the mainstream Western diplomatic theory, but a closer look at the definition of "diplomacy" reveals that it fundamentally contradicts it. Diplomacy is the process by which nations negotiate issues such as peace, culture, economy, technology, trade, or war through diplomats. It inherently involves negotiation and compromise. Adding a set of values ​​implies no compromise. If there's no compromise, what's the point of diplomacy? Diplomacy is necessary precisely because our values ​​differ; if our values ​​were the same, what would diplomacy be about? It's not just diplomacy; it includes things like environmental protection, which are often ingrained in our minds. For instance, the previous German government blew up a coal-fired power plant that had only been under construction for six years before leaving, simply because of environmental concerns.

Germany happens to be a country where energy is particularly expensive.

The UK's inexplicable Brexit. Honestly: how many countries are qualified to say that American populism is rampant? So now the US Secretary of Labor is going further, demanding that garment factories in Vietnam and Cambodia be moved to the US.

Don't tell me if it's realistic or not, just tell me if I won or not?
This is why the White House website is filled with things like: This is the choice of the American people, the American people love this. The American people want to win, and you can't take away what the American people love.

Just like Sleepy Joe said, this is what the American people deserve.

So, regardless of how much benefit the so-called airborne carrier fleet can actually bring, just ask yourself: have they brought any profit?

As for the amount of profit, and how it compares to that of a certain mysterious Eastern superpower, that's not something you should know.