"Seeking advantages and avoiding disadvantages under limited cognition" is the characteristic of human behavior. Here, why use "finite cognition" and not "bounded rationality"? Cognition, including perceptual cognition and rational cognition, human perceptual cognition and rational cognition are limited, and "bounded rationality" only describes people's rational cognition, so the author is more willing to use "limited cognition".
The behavioral characteristics of human beings who "seek advantages and avoid disadvantages under limited cognition" are also one of human nature. Under limited cognition, people's definition of "benefit" and "harm" will be wrong, that is, the defined "benefit" is actually "harm", and the defined "harm" is actually "benefit".
In the last years of the Ming Dynasty, the peasant army rebelled. In one battle, the Ming army surrounded the peasant army, and at this time, the Ming Dynasty had no money to pay the army, and the front-line soldiers refused to fight actively. As a result, Chongzhen Emperor Zhu Youzhen "solicited donations" from the emperor's relatives and important ministers of the imperial court, and needed to raise about one million taels**.
Among the relatives of the emperor, there are two princes, that is, Chongzhen's father-in-law, these two people are very rich, each of them has millions of taels of property, and these two hold important official positions and are important ministers of the court. However, the two princes refused to donate money, and in the end, under Chongzhen's pleas and threats, they each donated one or two thousand taels**.
Under the "demonstration" of these two princes, other imperial relatives and important ministers of the court refused to donate generously, but only donated a little symbolically, and the total amount of donated money was far from enough to pay military salaries. Since the front-line soldiers were not paid and refused to fight actively, the peasant army broke through the encirclement.
Later, the peasant army broke through the capital, Chongzhen committed suicide, and a large number of imperial relatives and important ministers of the court were captured by the peasant army. There was a general named Liu Zongmin in the peasant army, who was greedy for money and sex, ** thirsty for killing, and after capturing the emperor's relatives and important ministers of the imperial court, he tortured them and forced them to give up their property. In the end, the belongings of many imperial relatives and important ministers of the imperial court were looted, and their lives were not saved. According to the information, Liu Zongmin's looted property is equivalent to 70 million taels.
Is it correct that the Ming Dynasty's imperial relatives and important ministers defined "generously donating money to the financially struggling imperial court in order to eliminate the rebellious peasant army" as "harmful"? For the imperial relatives and important ministers of the imperial court, this definition is obviously wrong.
If the imperial relatives of the Ming Dynasty and the important ministers of the court are compared to "Mao", the Ming Dynasty regime is "skin", and if the skin does not exist, Mao will be attached. In particular, the two princes, who are not only relatives of the emperor and the country, but also hold important official positions, are also important ministers of the imperial court, and when they are very wealthy, they are unwilling to donate generously to the imperial court, and they are unwilling to try their best to help their son-in-law Emperor Chongzhen eliminate the rebellious peasant army, this kind of "limited cognition" is also the extreme.