Why Do I Always End Up Paying 'Without Realizing It'? N 'Wow' Moments from Re-reading 'Influence'

Why did I read this book?

This book claims to be “the only book Buffett and Munger recommend to their shareholders,” and it was also an early selection from a book club I joined called Onenewbite. At the time, I happened to have the opportunity to read it in the original English. I remember not wanting to read on my phone or tablet because I felt it would damage my eyes, so I made a big “investment” in a secondhand Kindle. To read the English version, I tinkered with it for a long time—like figuring out what format books should be in, what format dictionaries use, how to get them, and how to import them into the Kindle. Instant learning and application, haha.

Because I did so much prep work to read “Influence,” it left a super deep impression. Add to that the pain of reading it: it was senior year winter break, reading two or three hours a day, slowly making my way through it. Honestly, it felt pretty painful because I had to constantly look up words. I chose a book that didn’t match my vocabulary level, and the Kindle’s pronunciation feature was limited, so I’d look at the phonetic symbols to see how words were pronounced, then try to remember the general meaning. Everything was very tricky. I even wrote a very detailed reading post for this book, using these principles one by one to analyze high school education. Looking back now, I find what I wrote quite funny (this seems to happen a lot, haha—looking back always makes me laugh).

📖 The 7 Principles in the Book (and My “Three Categories”)

The 7 principles:

• Reciprocity

• Liking

• Social Proof

• Consistency

• Authority

• Scarcity

• Unity

I personally think they can be divided into three categories: the first is Reciprocity, the second is Scarcity, and the third is the remaining five.

Why divide them this way? In my personal understanding, the remaining five (Liking, Social Proof, Consistency, Authority, Unity) are largely about “identity” definitions. Whether it’s defining your own identity, or defining a broader group’s identity, or the identity you assign to others. For example, the book mentions praising others, giving them an identity, making them feel liking and a sense of unity, and then getting them to continue doing these things. This is just a one-sided understanding; the book has many more details.

Consistency: “I’m Someone Who Pays for Knowledge”

My First “Blink” Payment

My first time paying for knowledge was on Bilibili. There was a high school online course teacher called Abu, who also has a PhD from Duke University. At the time, I was watching some of his free courses, and when I saw him launch paid courses, I hesitated but still clicked in and bought them.

Why did I buy it then? I only figured it out recently after reading “Blink.” It talks about how when people make decisions, it’s information gathered “in the blink of an eye,” and this kind of judgment is sometimes very accurate. Although “Influence” mentions the downsides of this “click-and-play” shortcut, in our current society, being able to cultivate sharp judgment might actually be more important. The chapter on “immediate influence” in the book also mentions this. Looking back, in that “blink,” I knew this teacher was for real—I could see his passion for mathematics.

Are you sincere? Are you present in the moment? It can be seen in an instant. Like the micro-expression example in “Blink”—when you hold a baby’s hands in both of yours, the baby looks up into your eyes because they know the meaning of this action can be found on your face. All those micro-expressions are on full display. Both authors seem to have a great sense of humor, haha. The original text goes something like: when you hold a baby’s hands in yours, the baby looks up into your eyes because they know the meaning of this action can be found on your face. Are your facial muscles contracting due to action units 6 and 12 indicating happiness (orbicularis oculi and zygomatic major)? Or is your face showing action units 1, 2, 4, 5, and 20 that even an infant can intuitively recognize as intimidating (frontalis lateral, frontalis medial, depressor anguli oris, levator palpebrae superioris, and risorius)?

From “Autopilot” to “Degrees of Freedom”

Why could I judge that he taught well? Because he could abstract mathematical models from problems and elevate some mathematical concepts to a philosophical level. You could understand where things came from, how they work, and what the underlying logic is.

Before listening to his courses, I was always in that “autopilot mode”—see a problem and solve it, but never thought about why I could solve it. (Seems I automatically adapted to exam-oriented education, but now I know that educational equity is an endless debate, so adapting is just how it is.)

He taught me many frameworks. One I find particularly interesting is the concept of “degrees of freedom”—I only learned this formally when studying physics (analytical mechanics) now.

For example, when learning about generalized motion, there are “generalized coordinates.” A simple example: a stick standing upright on flat ground, you push it over, it falls to the ground—how do you describe its motion?

So we have a stick in a vertical plane with its lower endpoint always touching the ground. The position of this lower endpoint can be represented by one variable (say, position on the x-axis), plus an angle of inclination for the stick.

So when calculating, two degrees of freedom work perfectly, similar to using (x, y) to describe a point on a plane.

This sounds simple and could totally be reduced to a high school math scenario to describe—he was just connecting and explaining these things. This thinking about degrees of freedom also incorporates the concept of the “principal variable method.” For example, if you have three or four degrees of freedom, you can treat one as the main one (it’s moving), and although the others are also moving, you can temporarily consider them as fixed, then examine them one by one. This way, you can simplify a complex problem instantly.

The “Inertia” of Consistency

Back to our main topic—“Influence”—buying that course actually established an identity for me: Oh, so I’m someone who pays for knowledge.

At the time, that course cost about 100 yuan or so.

With that foundation, I could later just go ahead and get a yearly membership for Xinfan. Only now do I realize this is how it worked—it’s a Consistency process. You first make a commitment, then a bigger commitment, then an even bigger commitment.

(See, I recently bought another course on Bilibili, an intensive listening course for speaking practice. During the selection process, I found it’s just like what “Blink” shows—according to research, just listening to a teacher speak for ten seconds lets you judge whether they teach well.)

Going back to the book’s viewpoint, this Consistency is like inertia—I think it’s very similar to physics. You keep accumulating your moment of inertia, and if something wants to stop you, the resistance needs to grow larger and larger.

Reciprocity: “Why Does Giving Gifts Feel So Good?”

I remember, around May, I had the idea of learning tea art. I actually had a small idea buried in my heart: I wanted to sell tea, get rich, start from zero, and make a fortune. But the problem was, it never materialized.

At the time, I went to the tea mountains in my hometown (the tea from my hometown area is quite famous). Through a relative’s introduction, I found a pretty good shop owner. When buying tea from him—getting samples, saying “give me a discount,” “I’ll come back to buy wholesale later,” things like that. At the time, with half a month’s wages, I bought some tea. In the end, I drank some myself, shared some with my dad, and the rest I put in jars and gave to some friends. At the time, I was just thinking about letting everyone taste it, and in the end, that’s really all that happened—I just let everyone taste it and never sold any, haha.

I discovered that the people I gave tea to were all people I respect. Some of them have done work that really deserves recognition—you need to let them know it’s great. (Although I’m still cultivating the habit of praising others—it really does need to be cultivated.)

After giving, I discovered that although the moment my wages went out was painful (reading “The Wealth Leader” and its 0.01 principle, I feel I should criticize myself, haha), the moment I actually gave the gifts, I suddenly felt really good (?).

Now I think it was my neural pathways giving themselves a reward, but why did it feel so good? I know now—maybe this is our innate human “reciprocity principle” at work. If there were no such neural pathway, and if the first person to give a gift couldn’t feel good about themselves, it would actually be disadvantageous for the group’s survival. So if you’re the first to give, you might receive a biological neural reward (?).

That’s just the most direct effect. Later, I found that relationships among everyone really did become tighter. There was sharing, invitations—it was really different.

Scarcity: “Why Is Shopping So Smooth?”

Immediately succumbing to the pressure of “scarcity”—even the author Robert, an expert on influence, would fall into the “trap” without thinking (though it turned out to be a false alarm). I think these principles are really etched in our bones.

Sometimes you really do get fascinated by something scarce, and then you fall into a kind of “thirsty” state: either taking action becomes very difficult because you’re stuck there, or you take action immediately, captured by “scarcity.”

I recently found a simple method: take a shower. When I’m impulsive to the point where I absolutely must have something but can’t quickly explain why, I go take a shower. After the shower, I find, hey, the whole world is different. This is actually a method of changing environments—taking a walk or leaving the place that’s trapping you (similar to the principle of different environments for different tasks).

I remember when I bought my tablet, how those shops operated—for in-store stock, they’d say a lot was out of stock; for online inventory, only a few models were available. This created an intense “scarcity feeling” in me, making me think: “Ah, this tablet is so popular! If I don’t buy it now, I won’t be able to later!” Besides that, I was also captured by “FOMO (fear of missing out),” buying warranty insurance: “If I miss that insurance, what if it breaks later…” And they offered several tiers of insurance, and I chose one that wasn’t the most expensive—“concession.” They also gave me a cup as a gift—“reciprocity.”

Now I see the whole process was seamless, extremely influential.

Later, when I brought the tablet home, I was indeed happy, but why did something feel slightly off? How was this whole experience so seamless, so smooth? Although it was worth it, what I spent was money! Why was this purchase so smooth? There really were all kinds of influence factors at play.

Those Scattered “Wow, That’s So Well Put” Moments

1. The Biggest Takeaway: The Attitude You Access Most Easily = The Attitude You Think Is Most Important

My biggest takeaway:

The way human cognition is organized makes us treat the attitudes we access most easily as the attitudes most important to ourselves.

I think this statement is incredibly incisive.

Including how we reply to messages. If you check your phone 100 times a day just to see if someone sent you a message or to scroll short videos, the things you access most easily (others’ passive information) might seem like the most important. Their attitudes might form a major criterion for judging yourself.

But I don’t think that’s actually the case. Just like Naval mentioned in one of his podcasts, the people whose opinions you really care about are just those few.

Speaking of which, replying to messages might also involve reciprocity psychology at work. I’m like this too—for example, you send me a message, I reply quickly, and then I really care: hey, if you replied to my message, I should also reply quickly. There’s this mindset of “you reply early, I’ll reply early too.” The result is that in such situations, everyone’s attention gets depleted.

Including when you’re focusing, an annoying person calls you—do you have to answer? Now I’ve learned a trick (strange techniques increasing): let the phone fend for itself, go somewhere cool and stay there.

2. Various “Click and Play” Moments in Life

• When ordering at restaurants: I really am like the author says—I’m the type who orders “the most popular dishes” (social proof). But I have an excuse: going out to eat is mainly not about eating, but about chatting, so quick choices save cognitive resources, haha.

• The principle behind military training: So that’s how military training is designed: Consistency, social proof, and unity combine to make everyone more united. No wonder high schools and universities in mainland China all have military training.

• Website registration flow: Registration flows are particularly interesting. It starts with a very simple question, and I think solving this question means I’m done registering, but then it gives me another page, then another. It uses my Consistency: making me feel “wow, I’ve already done so much, giving up now would feel bad.” Then my time becomes raw material for those tech companies.

• iOS App pricing: When I was making an App, there was a brief moment involving pricing. I set a (high) price of so-and-so dollars, then crossed it out and offered a 90% discount. Why did I suddenly think of this strategy? Only upon re-reading did I realize, oh, I learned this from “Influence” (contrast/concession).

Boundaries, Clarity, and “Magical Ah-U”

Actually, not everyone who uses these principles is a bad guy. An important indicator is when you detect “incorrect energy” from it—you feel something’s wrong, it just feels off. Like the author of “Influence” says: “Hey, wrong! As someone who has studied influence for two or three decades, my great belly tells me you have a problem, so please get lost!” (That’s roughly what it means.)

Your instinctive reaction tells you whether something is right or wrong (awareness).

This reminds me of a discussion I had with Brother Will: is human nature inherently good, or inherently evil? I agree with his view: human nature is neither inherently evil nor inherently good.

Your previous environment, circumstances, or past-life karma and destiny largely determine whether your current actions go toward the good side or the bad side. So we don’t need to be too harsh on everyone—maybe they’re not intentionally abusing influence principles—but at the same time, we need to be clearly aware of what kind of environment we’re in and what the consequences of compliance are.

I’ve spent some time reading this month, and it feels pretty good. But life is like this—you always want to do many things at once.

Sometimes I think, just like in “Magical Ah-U” (an anime), you have a bunch of “balloons,” and after you blow one up, it generates a “balloon doll” that can learn things for you and do work for you. In the end, you take the air back, and you get all those energy experiences, that knowledge, plus the results of what it did. Including things like the “memory bread” from “Doraemon”—I’m really fascinated by these things too, haha.

But maybe it’s still better to focus on what’s in front of you, try to work in time blocks, do what you can, and mix different things together step by step. Because if you treat a whole day as one “time block” for doing things, you’ll find that after you’re done, you fall into a state of emptiness.

Humans wander on the boundary between finite and infinite. As an individual, it’s impossible to achieve infinite existence, so there’s no need to be too hard on yourself. What’s gained is destiny, what’s lost is fortune, haha.