What is Cognition?
Recently, I saw an advertisement from someone in the immigration business:
"Cognition determines the upper limit of life development and quality of life. I never persuade anyone to immigrate, because I have no time to educate and change others' cognition. Poor immigration, rich immigration—as long as you want to go out, we always have a way."
My first reaction when I saw this was: Even people in the immigration business are talking about "cognition"?
In recent years, the word "cognition" has become like some kind of universal glue. Whenever marketing copywriters don't know what to write, they just slap it on. Whether to trade stocks is cognition, whether to work is cognition, whether to be a solopreneur is cognition, whether to use AI is cognition, whether to buy a house is cognition, whether to read books or binge-watch shows is cognition—and now even immigration is tied to cognition.
When a concept can explain everything, including completely opposing choices, it actually explains nothing. I deeply dislike this kind of vague yet violent adjective that seems to cover everything but says nothing.
In the past, doing business meant at least proving whether a product suited the customer. Now it's much easier: just declare that those who purchase have higher cognition, and those who don't naturally become objects in need of education.
Whether immigration suits you, what you'll do for work afterward, whether your income will drop, and how to arrange things for your family—these real issues no longer matter.
All you need to decide is whether you want to become a "high-cognition person."
What Kind of Money Are You Making?
We often hear this saying: "A person cannot earn money beyond their cognition." At first glance it sounds reasonable, but on closer thought it doesn't hold up at all.
The money a person earns can be roughly broken down into three parts: labor compensation, market premium, and luck.
Labor compensation is the income a person earns from knowledge, skills, experience, and labor. It is the money closest to "within cognition." Porters, delivery drivers, programmers, etc., all fall into this category. This part of income is influenced by the industry but can generally be negotiated in advance and repeatedly obtained through continuous work.
Market premium, on the other hand, comes from industry growth, asset appreciation, platform dividends, and changes of the times. Ten years ago, engineers working at SK Hynix were miserable; ten years later, today, working there makes you a top-tier person. If someone is in the explosive phase of an industry's dividend, they can earn passively what others might never dream of in a lifetime.
Luck, as the name suggests—no one could have foreseen the AI explosion ten years ago and gotten into Hynix early to tighten screws. That wasn't any unique insight; it was pure luck.
So you can see that the only income truly matching a person's experience, ability, and judgment is their labor compensation. Most people can't rely on labor compensation to earn their first pot of gold. They aren't super CEOs; the money that truly changes their fate and makes assets grow exponentially often comes from premiums outside of cognition.
Get paid by ability, amplify results by market conditions and luck.
After Making Money, Luck Is Renamed "Cognition"
Many people are unwilling to explain their success this way.
If they bought a house and its price rose, it's described as understanding the laws of urban development. If they entered an industry just before its explosion, it's summarized as laying groundwork in advance. If a high-risk investment succeeds, it's said they have a viciously sharp investment vision and super-strong non-consensus judgment.
These statements are not entirely false. A person may indeed have made the right choice and put in effort. But the problem is that a correct choice only explains why they bought the ticket—it does not explain why the jackpot happened to be so large this time.
In the context of "cognition," we often see the same behavior evaluated differently depending on the outcome. Take housing prices: when the house goes up, it's called proper asset allocation; when it goes down, the person is said to lack risk awareness.
So-called "cognition" has never told us who was right or wrong before the outcome occurred. It only adds a justification after the fact, like a Monday morning quarterback.
Why did he make money? Because he has high cognition. How do you prove his cognition is high? Because he made money.
This logic is never wrong, because it uses results to prove cognition, and then uses cognition to explain results.
Cognition Can Only Increase the Odds
Knowledge, experience, and judgment certainly have value. People who know their business better are more likely to spot opportunities, and those with more experience know how to control risks.
Cognition can affect which table a person chooses and how they play once seated. But it cannot determine what cards others deal to you, nor can it decide how much those cards are ultimately worth.
Most of the money that truly allows people to leap in wealth inherently comes from outside cognition—something that cannot be arranged in advance or predicted ahead of time.
There is nothing shameful about making money outside your cognition.
What is truly absurd is when someone enjoys the premium brought by the times and luck, then renames all that wealth "cognition," and turns around to educate those who didn't achieve the same results. Even worse, not only do they use "cognition" to explain success, but merchants also exploit it for marketing.
Buying a house, investing in stocks, investing, immigrating, buying courses—these all have costs. You have to spend money, time, take risks, and face the pain of results potentially falling short.
But becoming a "high-cognition person" is simple and pleasant. You don't need to prove yourself; just tap your finger to complete the payment, and you can be the first to become a "high-cognition person" who sees the trend.
This cheap and violent psychological substitution does not generate new value. It merely redefines the customer's identity, ignores the money, time, risk, and opportunity cost in the transaction, and twists the act of "paying" into an act of "acquiring."
You didn't spend money on an AI course you're not sure is useful—you gained cognition. You didn't take out a loan to buy a house whose price could rise or fall—you gained asset thinking. You didn't pay an agent for an uncertain immigration process—you became a high-cognition person daring to choose.
With a light tap of your finger, you haven't gotten anything yet, but mentally you've already completed a class leap.
So the immigration agent at the beginning wasn't entirely wrong. Choosing to immigrate is indeed very difficult; becoming a high-cognition person is very simple.
After all, immigration requires actually leaving, while cognition only requires you to pay.