Make forced why PAPI sauce than they once were? -PAPI sauce, reticulocyte, Luo Zhenyu-IT information
Luo Zhenyu PAPI sauce 12 million strategic investment, there's also a venture such as spring. In fact, my title was hot, but I still take discuss your topic, in the heart was not guilty. Well, this is a review on the effectiveness of explaining popular science articles.
You feel like PAPI sauce make forced than before ?
When PAPI sauce just got investment, analysis of most of the articles in her dormant cultivation and 12 million of value for money. Recently, she was first executives pointed out that vulgar, this "Virgin" the internal network was deep, the pressure suddenly increased. Remove commercial operation of these cock wire that's OK with me, I found the last two days was that PAPI hot in fall, fans went on, someone in the circle of friends complaining about the new video more than plain, gone were the magic.
In fact, this phenomenon is very common in the area of content creation:
Target network third genius baby pandas (my favorite soft master), previous soft make people laugh my head off, pain story style makes me willing to read the ads, but recent original works reproduced in hard to reach 100,000 million reading level;
Japan further ahead and voice acting, five sets before sweeping the campus, even became a cultural phenomenon, but later dropped the heat works;
Not on spoof works, on said last year birth of "marketing odd people" Lee called beast, recently of articles seems also no zhiqian of articles illuminating strong (and, expert see road, he recently introduction to psychology theory of method, is I zhiqian in Dang has research showed that encountered ulterior motives in mentioned of exaggerated explained effectiveness--certainly this is many science articles will with of means, interested in of can see I that article articles)
If not to say red IP network, I just write something, have found that to come up with a good idea more and more difficult .
Psychology research seem to have more and more difficult to trigger a sensation
Now the Department undergraduate introductory psychology textbook, most of the classic experiment from a few decades ago, were mostly born in the era of widespread theory--such as operant conditioning theory, social role theory, theories of obedience, and to spread the effect of conformity theory, the theory of cognitive dissonance ... ... Psychology and a lot of the Decade, but it is difficult to raise widespread concern in society.
Since the 21st century, many of major breakthroughs in psychology are research tools and methodological innovation, large-scale applications and large data over a network such as FMRI to study social psychology, then there is a number of multi-disciplinary research approaches, like breakthroughs in the field of behavioral economics.
But above those achievements, contributions to human society I think compared to early psychology, or to a pittance. For those of us who is just getting started, and can make their own research not to fall into the "common sense" (better verify knowledge, bluntly is that results are not worth) has been good.
Not just the young discipline of Psychology encounters the problem, now is more and more difficult to have ground-breaking research in many fields.
Why is that?
Know before there was a reply when it comes to rare groundbreaking research recently published in psychology this phenomenon probably means his predecessors did was build a framework of working back building blocks can only be at the top.
I have this deep thought so, at the beginning of science, all phenomena are explained, looking for entry points is also very easy, and we later faces are large directional issues have largely been resolved, theoretical accuracy still has room for improvement.
Here I'm going to talk to explain the effectiveness of. This word is not in fact a strict, it is meant to refer to a variables to explain the variance of the dependent variable to make a contribution. Many studies, we found that sometimes a variable can explain most of the variance for each increment a variable, explain the effectiveness of the model will be slightly higher. If the contribution of a single variable to explain the results one row order, "almost" becomes a gravel ↓
Above the horizontal axis can be understood as the number of variables, the vertical axis is the characteristic value, can be understood as explaining the size of the force. As you can see, the explanatory power of the first three large, 12 behind with minimal impact on the results. However, the stone figure is something we do when the number of variables known to influence the results of analysis, we study phenomena that nobody knows exactly how many influencing factors. If from a rigorous statistical method based on the gravel is not suitable for analysis of the problem, I just wanted to let everyone know: If we say that a, b and c affect the result, not that effect is the same, different variables affect your results are very small, which is what I mean by explain the effect.
So too abstract, let me give you an analogy –
The rabbit said: imagine a basketball and a basketball
1, at the start, all of them can't play basketball, and could only watch the ball basket basketball trance.
2, and later, one found that threw the ball rebounding towards the direction than stupefied daze has to be interesting, so we discovered the value of these two things.
3, next, it was found that if you throw the ball into the basket, and can add a lot of fun.
4, and then later, we began to discover, we use proper shooting form, against Division, developing the ... ... This game will be more and more fun
More technology to enrich the rules more and more, the sport is more fun, but the contributions of each new technology, new rules of the game interesting, far less than the first person linked to the ball to the basket, and to determine who threw the ball into the basket of the game. To the back, we even have to consider adding a rule or as a result of a technical interest increase, should we pay the cost in order to learn and adapt to the new changes.
From this point of view, I think that every content creator, started in their own life experiences in the form of a set of content to audiences like the speculation. At this time, he will naturally from his most certain elements, to create audiences like content.
If this guess is correct based on experience, and is looking for a direction, then quickly just to please a large group of readers. In order to attract more and more attention, the creators will continue to improve our own style, add a new element, make this style more and more accurate to grab the user's taste.
However, I have to say, our needs are subject to marginal effects, began an interesting style, with us more and more, bring us value must be decreased.
At this time, creators fall apart from the user experience, and also had to face his own improvement style more difficult--because finding and identifying new factors is becoming increasingly difficult, even if we find a nor effect before.
Situation is probably this ↓
PAPI at present should not be a personal feeling has been elevated to a cool phase, but her style has really stalled, demanding fans may have lost their curiosity .
In fact, many areas have this phenomenon, the earliest example of filling vacancies in the largest, earliest B2C and filling the vacancy for a relatively large, which comes first even if vertical is more and more difficult to do.
The psychology of feeling like I'm in love again, is also faced with creating value in constant decline, and increase our understanding of behavior and psychological depth is more and more difficult.
Presumably, a lot of things we are easy to get a correct direction, is considered to be a breakthrough in this direction, but has since revised this direction is the real challenge.
为什么papi酱不如以前逗逼了？ - papi酱,网红,罗振宇 - IT资讯
罗振宇1200万战略投资papi酱，坊间也兴起了内容创业的春天来临之类的说法。其实，我的标题也算是依附热点，但是好在我仍然是在借现象谈自己的话题，于心还是没有愧疚的。恩，这是一篇关于解释效力的科普文章。
你们有没有觉得papi酱不如以前逗逼了？
papi酱刚刚拿到投资的时候，大部分文章都在分析她的蛰伏修炼和1200万的物超所值。最近，她先是被高层指出内容低俗，今天“处女拍”的内部关系网又被深挖，压力也陡然增大。除去这些跟我等屌丝没关系的商业运作，我最近这两天发现有人说papi的热度在下降，粉丝在流逝，朋友圈里还有人抱怨新出的视频越来越流于平淡，没有了之前的魔力。
其实，这种现象在内容创作领域非常普遍：
比如网红榜排名第三的天才小熊猫（我最喜欢的软文高手），前几篇软文简直让人笑的前仰后合，蛋疼的故事风格让我心甘情愿拜读广告贴，但近来原创作品很难再达到十万转载百万阅读的高度了；
再往前的日和配音，前五集风靡大学校园，甚至成为一种文化现象，但后面的作品也热度骤减；
不谈恶搞作品，就说去年诞生的“营销奇人”李叫兽，最近的文章貌似也没有之前的文章启发性强（而且，内行看门道，他最近引论心理学理论的方法，就是我之前在《当有研究表明遇到别有用心》里提到的夸大解释效力——当然这是很多科普文章都会用的手段，感兴趣的可以看看我那篇文章）
就算不说网红IP，连我自己随便写些东西，都已经发现想出一个好的idea越来越难。
心理学研究好像也越来越难引发轰动了
现在心理系本科生的入门课本，大部分经典实验都来自几十年前，广为流传的理论也大多诞生于那个年代——比如操作性条件反射理论，社会角色理论，服从理论，责任分散效应，从众理论，认知失调理论……这十年心理学的成果并不少，但很难引发社会的广泛关注。
21世纪以来，心理学的重大突破很多都是在研究工具和方法上的创新带来的，比如FMRI的大规模应用和通过网络大数据来研究社会心理，再有就是一些跨专业的研究取向，比如行为经济学领域的突破。
但是，上面所说的那些科研成果，对于人类社会的贡献我觉得跟早期心理学研究相比，还是要逊色很多。对于我们这些算是刚入门的人，能让自己的研究不至于陷入“common sense”（好听点叫验证常识，难听点就是研究结果没价值）就已经不错了。
不只是心理学这个年轻的学科遇到了这种问题，现在很多领域都是越来越难有突破性的科研成果产生了。
这是为什么呢？
之前知乎上有一位答主谈到心理学最近少有突破性研究问世这种现象，他的大概意思就是前人做的都是搭建框架的工作，后面的人只能是在上面添砖加瓦。
我对这个观点深以为然，在学科建立之初，一切现象都是待解释的状态，找切入点也很容易，而我们后来者，面临的情况是大方向性的问题都基本得到解决，理论精确度尚有改进余地。
这里我就要谈谈解释效力的问题了。这个词其实不是一个严格的说法，它本意是指一个自变量对解释因变量的方差做出了多大的贡献。很多研究中我们的发现，有时一个变量就能解释方差的一大部分，之后每增加一个变量，模型的解释效力就会高一点点。如果把单个变量对于解释结果的贡献度排个序，“差不多”就成了一个碎石图↓
上图横轴可以理解为变量个数，纵轴是特征值，可以理解为解释力的大小。可以看到，前三个的解释力很大，后面12个对结果的影响微乎其微。但是，碎石图是一种我们已知影响结果的变量的个数时做的分析，实际上我们研究的现象谁也不知道到底有多少影响因素。如果从严谨的统计方法出发，碎石图是不适合分析这个问题的，我只是想让大家明白：假如我们说A、B、C影响了结果，并不是说影响就是一样的，不同变量对结果的影响都有大有小，这种影响度就是我说的解释效力。
这么说太抽象，我给大家打个比方吧——
那兔说：假设有一个篮球架和一个篮球
1、开始时，所有的人都不会打篮球，只能望着球筐和篮球发愣。
2、后来，一个人发现把球朝篮板的方向扔过去要比愣着发呆要有意思，于是大家一下就发现了这两样东西的价值。
3、接下来，又有人发现，如果把球扔进篮筐，又能增加不少乐趣。
4、再后来，大家逐渐发现，我们使用正确的投篮姿势，分组对抗，制定各种各则……这样这个游戏会越来越好玩
技术越来丰富，规则越来越详细，这个运动却是越来越好玩了，但每个新技术、新规则对这个游戏趣味性的贡献，都远不及最开始把球跟篮架联系起来的人，和确定把球扔进筐这个玩法的人。到了后面，我们甚至要考虑增加一个规则或一项技术所带来的趣味提高，是否值得我们为了学习和适应新的变化而付出成本。
从这个观点出发，我认为每个内容创作者，一开始都是在自己的生活经验中形成了一套对于观众喜欢的内容的猜测。这时，他会自然的从自己最有把握的几个要素入手，来创作观众喜欢的内容。
如果这种基于经验的猜测是正确的，和有可能是一下找准了一个大方向，进而迅速就讨好了一大批读者。而为了吸引越来越多的关注，创作者就会不断改进自己的风格，增加新的因素，促使这个风格越来越准确的抓住用户口味。
然而，不得不承认，我们的各种需求都是受到边际效应影响的，一个开始有意思的风格，随着我们接触的越来越多，带给我们的价值肯定是逐渐下降的。
这时候，创作者除了面对用户体验的下降，还不得不面临自己改进风格的难度越来越大——因为发现和确定新的影响因素越来越难，即使发现一个，也没有之前的因素效果大。
情况大概就是下面这样↓
个人感觉papi目前应该还不至于到了已经发展到了降温阶段，但是她的风格进步确实已经有些停滞了，要求高的粉丝可能已经失去了当初的好奇心。
其实社会上很多领域都有这种现象，比如最早的电商能填补最大的空缺，最早的B2C又填补了一个相对比较大的空缺，而后来者即使做垂直也越来越难。
再感慨一下我深爱的心理学领域，其实也面临过着创造的价值在不断下降，而增加我们对行为和心理的理解深度也是越来越难。
大概，很多事情我们都是容易得出一个正确的方向，这个方向被认为是突破性的，但此后不断修正这个方向才是真正的挑战。