Why are they not changing Putin? There are at least three good reasons for this.

The cult of education is growing in modern society. The imposition of the need for book knowledge begins at an early age, when a child just enters the school threshold and receives grades for completed assignments, learned lessons.

Unfortunately, no one says what to do next with this learned knowledge and completed tasks. The education system is not interested in whether these lessons will be useful in later life, whether they will improve the child's standard of living, or will remain in the backyard of memory.

In the current education system, knowledge acts as a direct goal. Only a knowledgeable person deserves a good life and respect - that's what they drum into children from school.

This approach makes a person brag about his education, diploma. Connoisseurs proud of their school gold medal are happy to showcase their accomplishments by haughtily commenting on things they don't know much about. It turns out that it is impossible to implement the acquired knowledge otherwise.

Our head becomes like a huge warehouse or library. Only a few people really use all the knowledge that is stored in our memory.

Knowledge is of benefit to a person only when it is not considered as a goal. Knowledge should act as a tool or means to an end.

Knowledge is like magic

Another problem with regard to knowledge is its perception as something magical. This problem lies in the fact that a person is not simply incapable, but does not want to apply the information received in life.

Most people who read think of themselves as geniuses just because they've read a lot. In fact, they simply absorb information. In the hope that she will somehow herself change a person's life without his participation in this.

Pointless reading

In childhood, all children are read fairy tales that have nothing to do with real life. The child grows up and begins to read fiction itself, which is a little closer to reality, but is still fiction.

Fiction cannot give a person the real necessary knowledge, advice, give him experience. This means that it cannot lead to any changes in life.

This reading implies fun, but not development.

An overabundance of information

Modern life is characterized by an overabundance of information. The abundance of news prevents a person from focusing on what is important. People are in a constant desire to learn something new (no matter what is needed or not). The fear of missing something really useful is formed, which leads to the need to collect more and more information, analyze and sort it.

The oversaturation of information does not make it possible to weed out the unnecessary, a person begins to absorb everything, filling his head with garbage.

Hence, it turns out that the book, in itself, just like reading, will not be useful if the person does not know what exactly needs to be done with the information received and whether he needs it at all.

When you think about why people have read books, it’s not hard to find the answer. They not only allow you to relax and have fun, but also broaden your horizons, are able to direct you on the right path.

The usefulness and importance of books is beyond doubt. But, of course, we are talking about good ones, which are written competently, understandably and interestingly. Often, a book that is simple and designed, with a purely aesthetic appeal, is capable of capturing the attention of the reader. Its pages are pleasant to turn over, without even knowing what it is about.

Needless to say about an interesting book! She bewitches for more than one hour. Together with the heroes, you probably went on travel and romantic adventures more than once, experienced emotional experiences and doubts. Sometimes the character traits of the protagonist resemble your own, and in such a way that you in a strange way predict the development of the plot. Reading the work, it is easy to find the questions of interest or properly, finding a clear parallel between the described events and real life. All this demonstrates the importance of the book, because it is she who is the formative factor of a person's worldview and his attitude to life.

The importance of books can hardly be overestimated when you consider that reading them relieves stress in 68% of cases. This was proved by an experiment conducted in the UK, where experts studied the effectiveness of various non-drug remedies to combat the ubiquitous stress. To get rid of its effects, it takes only 6 minutes of quiet reading to yourself.

Another important point underscoring the importance of books is that the media cannot replace the quality of information contained in books. If you think that everything broadcast on radio and television is useful, you are wrong. The fact is that a large amount of information does not always indicate its quality. Floating in this huge information flow, it is sometimes very difficult to draw the necessary conclusions. In addition, it takes an amount of time that some people cannot even understand, it is so sorely lacking.

Of course, you can find any artwork in sight, but reading from a screen can negatively affect your vision. Printed faceless template sheets can leave you indifferent. And only a book that is in, with its pages, type, illustrations, can create an extraordinary impression.

Related Videos

Sources:

• The benefits of reading books

A person's life does not change very often. Usually everything goes smoothly and predictably, but sometimes it gets boring. And at such moments a book can come to the rescue. A properly selected author can change everything in life, make the world amazing and bright.

Instructions

Books are sources of information. Some simply entertain a person, while others can motivate. Some give information or even change their worldview. But you need to understand that each printed source has its own purpose. Don't expect a detective to make a big difference in life, it's unlikely. But financial management can make you

For seventeen years we have been convinced that Putin is the best, the only and irreplaceable, that he will not exist - there will be no Russia, the liberals will seize power, they will ruin everything and become "like in Ukraine" ...

But is Putin doing something that another person could not do?

Of course, from replacing Putin with another person who will do the same, our life will not become sweeter. However, the appearance of a developed democracy "like in Europe" can be created. Rather, "like in the US," because in the US this is exactly what they do - a Republican changes a Democrat, then vice versa. The essence of what is happening does not change, important decisions are still made by senators who have been representing the same club for a hundred years, and the Federal Reserve, a banking cartel, is in charge of finances.

It would be possible to put up a fresh pair of civilian "Medvedev" and some FSB colonel for every election, so that they win alternately. And then no one would be able to say that the country is ruled by only special officers. And there would be a democracy "identical to natural" - a liberal will not undermine his nose.

But for some reason even this does not happen!

Although it would be logical to create a fuller illusion of democracy, which our leaders, who ruined the Union, undertook to build. Those who began to copy the Western system up to renaming the police into the police, the internal troops into the National Guard, etc.

But why did they not reproduce such an important "gender characteristic" of democracy as changing the president's name every 4 years, this most important ritual, without which the "cargo cult" of the Western system is completely incomplete?

There may be the following reasons for not changing Putin, even for other people from the so-called "Kremlin cage".

1. Danger of replaceability. If the people understand that the country can be governed by different people and the president can be different, and not one and the same "now and forever and forever and ever" - it will be much more difficult to make sure that the "Medvedev", needed by the ruling elite, wins the elections.

There will be a risk that the people will "blabber", get a taste and start voting for "just anyone." Some Zhirinovsky will jump out like a devil from a snuff-box - and the people who have lost fear will choose him. And it’s okay if it’s Zhirinovsky, it’s easy to come to an agreement with him. And if someone else?

However, this is not the only and probably not even the main reason.

1. Personal agreements. Within the ruling elite, there is a huge number of various kinds of informal agreements that are not reflected in any documents. Distribution of positions and powers between different clans, families, the so-called "Kremlin towers" - who is supposed to, or, on the contrary, is not allowed. Who is the most equal, who is "fed" from what territory, industry or scheme - and so on and so forth.

Putin plays the role of the custodian of various agreements that the ruling class cannot document, since many of them contradict the principles of equal competition, market economy and other democracy.

This means that these agreements cannot be passed on to the next performer of the role of the president, so that he continues to monitor their observance.

If everything is documented, you will get thermonuclear compromising evidence, the leakage of which will become inevitable in the event of a regular change of presidents.

That is why during Medvedev's presidency, Putin remained in the post of prime minister - continuing to fulfill the role of the keeper of all the agreements of the ruling elite. Medvedev, who played the role of president, was hardly devoted to all matters to the end.

That is, when Putin leaves (not for the post of prime minister, but for good), all internal agreements within the ruling elite will also go away with him, and you will have to negotiate again, with someone else in the role of the beholder. And in the course of this difficult process, an internal squabble may begin, everyone will pull the blanket over themselves, taking advantage of the opportunity to update the agreement. And someone may even be thrown out of the galley, as happened with Berezovsky and Khodorkovsky after the departure of Yeltsin.

1. Hybrid monarchy is another reason for Putin's indispensability.

The monarchy in Russia was never completely liquidated, despite the abdication of Nicholas, the execution of the royal family and the exodus of other Romanovs.

From an explicit form, the monarchy passed into an implicit one and was reproduced first under Stalin, who, in fact, was a "Soviet monarch", then under Brezhnev, who was kept in the highest government post to the grave despite his state of health. And now - under Putin, who has become something like a "monarch in democracy."

The monarchy in Russia after 1917 moved from its classical form to a hybrid - at first it was a hybrid with the Soviet system, and now it was a hybrid with democracy. The hybrid is odd, ugly, painful, but quite resilient nonetheless.

The hybrid monarchy in post-revolutionary Russia became a combination of de jure council power and de facto monarchy. Today it is a de jure democracy and a de facto monarchy.

At the same time, the main problem of the monarchy remained: if the monarch turns out to be a patriot and a competent leader, the country develops steadily over a long period, as it was under Stalin. If a weak-willed person turns out to be a monarch, for whom friends are more important than the state, and personal ambitions are more important than development, we get long-term degradation.

This is a note to all supporters of the monarchy, who see it as a panacea for all the troubles of Russia. Monarchy is not a panacea, proved by Nicholas II and confirmed by Yeltsin and Putin. Monarchy only increases the period of development or degradation of the country, depending on who is in the role of the monarch - this is all its difference from the republic, where the president and prime minister change every 4-8 years. Proven and re-proven many times in all countries of the world.

Thus, Putin is not changed, not because he is such a great ruler, a brilliant commander-in-chief, a unique economist. It's just that informal agreements within the ruling elite turned out to be closed on him. And Putin has many times proved his loyalty to the environment and his readiness to cover up “his own people”, to protect the results of privatization, to protect the “gains of democracy” and so on. And here it is just not a fact that someone else will cope with it better. Better not.

The hybrid monarchy just turned out to be a convenient form for the ruling elite, who wants to maintain control over Russia, so that informal agreements worked out between families with great difficulty remain intact.

That is why Putin is not changed.

Upstairs, everyone is very happy with Putin. And at the bottom they do not want to change the government as a whole, because they want to prolong the “wonderful moment of stability” - so they agree with what the ruling elite is proposing. And many people like the monarchical tradition as such, in any form, if only there was some kind of king and sat to the grave.

And it turns out that this irremovability of Putin pleased everyone. Or almost everyone.

Fans of democracy - elections, a pleasure to go to the polling station every few years and toss a piece of paper with a tick into the trash can. Ritual of choice from two or more persons (parties).

Lovers of the monarchy - the only and irreplaceable ruler for life. And then his successor will rule - everything is like under a monarchy, only the successor will not be a son, but someone from the "new aristocracy", but these are details.

The ruling elite is the keeper of informal agreements, the guarantor of the "unwritten constitution" operating inside, among a dozen families to which modern Russia belongs.

And it turns out that the top is good - and the bottom is tolerant.

And they do not seek from goodness.

Alexander RUSIN, Publicist.ru

The answer comes: “Unfortunately, your application for a name change was rejected. We ask users to use their real names in full, written in Russian letters. "

This means that you are required to indicate your real name in full (that is, not Tanechka and not Tanya, a Tatiana) and real surname. Both are as indicated on your ID. Fictitious names, surnames, pseudonyms in VK are not accepted.

What to do? It is written: "You can try again with your real name and surname." This means that you can either leave the first and last names as they are, or try again to change them. The application will be approved only if it is your real name and surname in Russian. If your real surname or first name is not approved, you will have to show your document support service. Read about it below.

Also, the application may be rejected if you have recently changed your first or last name - then you will have to wait.

VK does not accept real name or surname. Solution

If you do not attach a document, then it will still be asked, most likely. You can wipe the series and number in the photo, they do not need them.

See how to enter the full version of VK, where this link will work: How to enter the full version of VK.

How to take a photo of a passport or other document to confirm the name or surname? Open it in the place where your real name and surname are written. There will be a spread in front of you, that is, two pages. Make it well lit. Take pictures so that the entire spread is in the frame, and the text is well read. If you are shooting with your phone, you can usually focus on focusing with your finger on the screen where the text should be clear.

Why can't I change my name, surname?

Possible reasons why you can't change your first name, last name:

• Your new surname or first name seems strange to the administrators, and they reject the application because they believe that the name is fictitious. For example, if you married someone with an unusual last name. In this case, you will have to contact support and attach a document, as we just told
• Recently you have already changed your first or last name - normal people do not change them so often, so you have to wait
• You thought that the name or surname would change immediately, but in fact you have to wait for them to check (maybe quickly, or maybe a few days)
• You entered a new name or surname, but did not click "Save"(see the beginning of this manual!)
• You entered a fake, fictitious, or garbled name (for example, Kristino4ka) and the admins rejected it
• You entered a middle name instead of a surname. Where it says "surname", you need to indicate only the surname.
• You entered the name in English, but it was necessary in Russian (such rules, read below!)
• You decorated your first or last name with some extraneous symbols
• You indicated two surnames - current and maiden (VK asks you surname, but not surnames)
• You entered a double name, for example, Alexander-i-Anastasia- it is forbidden

What to do if VK issues "You are trying to change your name too often"?

Such rules - in VK you must indicate your real name and surname. And people do not change their full names often, therefore, in VK there is a restriction on how often this can be done. Usually VK shows what date it will be possible to change the name or surname. This means that you really have to be patient.

Most often, the girl's surname is changed. They give themselves the name of their boyfriend. When the relationship ends, they want to change their last name back (or put the next guy's last name). But VK does not allow this to be done. Too little time has passed!

How to be here? Just get married. No, this is not a marital status in VK to put. This is to go to the registry office, get married and take the name of her husband. Get a document on the change of surname and show it to the VK support service, as described above. If you divorce, you can return the old surname and change it in the same way in VK.

If your page got to the intruders, they changed their first and last name and now it is too long to wait until they can be changed again, contact the VK support service, but they will also have to wait for an answer there.

Why was my friend changed her last name to a fictitious one, but they don’t change me?

Because it's not that simple. After all, someone changes their last name on their page for the first time, and someone does not. Some names are immediately suspicious, while others are skipped by the system. It is useless to demand to put the name invented by you, because VK has its own rules. We'll either have to observe them or leave.

Why can't I make a double name on VKontakte?

You and your wife or husband are sitting on the same page and want to give yourself a double name, for example, Alexander and Anastasia. This is prohibited by the rules. On the VKontakte website, everyone registers personally, indicates their real name and surname and uses their own page. One. One person - one page. We have no doubt that you and your wife (and your husband) have two different passports, and not one for two. Also, keep in mind that 50% of marriages end in divorce - if this happens, then what will you do with one common page for two? Ask to "split" it? Nobody will bother with you.

Why does someone have a double name, but you can't? Because they made such a name for themselves a long time ago, when politics was softer, and since then they have simply not been touched.

Why can't you correct a mistake in a double name? Because double names are already prohibited. You can only change, for example, Alexander-i-Anastasia on Alexander or Anastasia.

People with different views can argue with each other for a very long time, but these disputes almost never change their views (this applies primarily to issues related to the worldview - religion, politics). In theory, since "truth is born in a dispute," any dispute should end with the acceptance by both parties of a single point of view; in reality, this almost never happens. This article attempts to explain why people almost never change their political / religious views.

Any person has a need to understand everything he knows. When he realizes (feels, feels) that something is incomprehensible to him, this awareness causes him unpleasant emotions (now this is called cognitive dissonance, or even leaving the comfort zone)... To get rid of these unpleasant emotions, he begins to collect information, analyze, etc., until an understanding comes.

This is, obviously, a kind of universal mechanism formed in the course of evolution. Suppose a primitive man in the forest heard the roar of an unknown animal. The realization that he does not understand what this roar means forced the person to collect new information, which later helped him make the right decisions - either to run away from this animal, or to hunt him.

Here's another example: you arrive at a bus stop 40 minutes before the scheduled bus arrives; the bus came 30 minutes earlier than the schedule. On the one hand, it's nice (because I had to wait less), but at the same time, you will be a little unnerved by the thought that it would be necessary to figure out why this happened. The unpleasant sensations will pass only when you find the answer to the question of why such a change in the schedule occurred.

The phrase "a person has a need to understand everything" should not be taken too literally: for example, if you are driving a car, then not everyone will have a need to understand how the engine works. But if it breaks, such a need may arise.

This mechanism more or less worked in the world of primitive man, and even then with many side effects: often primitive people, in order to understand something (more precisely, to get the illusion of understanding), found a mystical explanation for this (the reason for everything is the will of spirits, magic, etc. etc.). Now, when we own a huge amount of information about the structure of this world (information that determines our worldview), this mechanism is more likely to harm us.

Each person has his own worldview - a system of views on issues related to religion and politics. When a person discovers facts that do not fit into his worldview, this causes him cognitive dissonance, i.e. unpleasant emotions. And more often than not, in order to avoid cognitive dissonance, he simply denies these facts - declares them fake, "photoshop", etc. In addition, he may have aggression towards the one who presents these facts.- punishment for these unpleasant emotions.

For this reason, as I see it, education fosters dogmatism. Our education system is built in such a way that students are offered only the knowledge that fits into a certain worldview.

It seems that recently in the West, some educators have become aware of this problem, so education began to present alternative points of view. But this idea has already been perverted: for example, in the United States, in school biology textbooks, creationist “theories” are taught along with the theory of evolution, which prevents students from seeing the truth (this is about the same as if alternative points were taught with the generally accepted history of World War II view of the Holocaust, according to which there was no Holocaust at all, but a Jewish conspiracy to denigrate the opponents of the Jews).

If a person is engaged in self-education, again the same problem arises, since he is looking for those sources of knowledge for himself that fit into his worldview (do not cause him cognitive dissonance). If he is an atheist, he reads books about evolution; if he is a believer, he reads books about church miracles; if he is for Russia, then he visits mainly pro-Russian sites, and if he is for Ukraine, respectively, pro-Ukrainian. When communicating on the Internet, people prefer to visit sites where people with similar views gather, and it begins to seem to him that such people are in the majority.

We can conditionally say that the worldview is formed from the books that were accidentally read first (or, more correctly, different sources of information in general).

To argue that education harms thinking would be too exaggerated - education also develops thinking, gets rid of some forms of dogmatism. Perhaps in the future there will be such an education that certainly develops thinking. For this, it is likely that education must constantly keep the student in a state of mild cognitive dissonance. For this it is necessary, relatively speaking, to constantly prove to the student that there are things that we do not understand (for example, in quantum mechanics).

On the Internet, one can often hear the thesis that atheists read the Bible more often than believers. This can be explained as follows: an atheist believes that what is written in the Bible is fiction, and therefore what he read does not cause cognitive dissonance in him; a believer who believes that the Bible describes real events, discovers things there that do not fit into his worldview(for example, Christ spitting in the eyes of the blind), this causes him cognitive dissonance and he stops reading. And this, by the way, is an argument that not everything in the Bible is fictional - if the Bible were just a collection of fairy tales, they would have composed a much more beautiful story.

Of course, people often get acquainted with alternative points of view, and at least from time to time visit the resources where these points of view are presented. But here another problem often arises: it is difficult to draw information from resources that are not very popular in your environment.

Since the era of the first democracies (ancient Greece), orators have achieved great success - people who knew how to speak beautifully. The reason is still the same - others like to enjoy these beautiful speeches together. And for this reason, very often demagogues made their way upstairs, who with their speeches duped the masses (the word “demagoguery” from ancient Greek means “ingratiating himself with the people”). Perhaps for the same reason, in the West, the most popular media outright manipulate public consciousness, while honest media have a relatively low rating.

The James Randi Foundation makes a compelling argument that the paranormal does not exist. But the arguments known to me that paranormal phenomena do exist, far outweigh this.

There has long been a debate about whether the Americans landed on the moon. On both sides, the arguments are very convincing: on the one hand, Soviet cosmonauts say that there was a transmission from the surface of the Moon at that moment, but on the other hand, everything is very strange - a flag waving in a vacuum, there are no stars in the sky, various "conspiracy" missing materials, and etc. (although I have heard that the arguments of the "refutes" upon careful consideration are not very convincing).

In political disputes, too, for any point of view, you can find your own "evidence". Therefore, when people adhere to some views, it seems to them that their position is based on logic, and it is almost impossible to convince them.

I really like the phrase that I came across on the Internet: "Logic makes a person an idiot if he does not have enough information."

The main idea of ​​this article is that it is beneficial for people from time to time to experience cognitive dissonance - it cures a person of dogmatism. If you are reading an article and want to postpone it because you feel a kind of "breakdown of the template" - try to read this article to the end.

It turns out that an intelligent person is one who is not afraid of cognitive dissonance, or rather is ready to endure it until a new understanding comes.

Finally, I will note that although flexibility of thinking, probably, should be developed by people, excessive flexibility of thinking can harm society. The optimal level of flexibility should be sought.

Subscribe to our official channel in the messenger Telegram for prompt receipt of new articles published on the Aum News portal.

Telegram