influence

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English

🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Note: This skill is independent analysis and commentary, not a reproduction of the original text. It synthesizes the book's core ideas with modern startup practice, surfaces where frameworks are outdated or incomplete, and integrates perspectives from adjacent disciplines. For the full argument and context, read the original book.

注意： 本技能为独立分析与评论，并非原文复刻。它将书中核心观点与现代创业实践相结合，指出框架过时或不完善之处，并整合了相关学科的视角。如需完整论点与背景，请阅读原著。

Influence

影响力

"Click-whirr. The triggers fire and we react automatically." - Robert Cialdini

"Click-whirr. The triggers fire and we react automatically." - Robert Cialdini "Click-whirr（触发-自动反应）：触发点启动，我们便自动做出反应。"——罗伯特·西奥迪尼

When to Use

适用场景

Crafting persuasion (marketing, sales copy, negotiation)
Defending against manipulation (recognizing when you're being clicked)
Designing systems that need cooperation
Diagnosing why some campaigns work and others don't

打造说服策略（营销文案、销售话术、谈判）
抵御操纵（识别自己何时被「触发」）
设计需要协作的系统
诊断部分营销活动成功而其他失败的原因

Critical Caveats (Read First)

重要警示（请先阅读）

This skill is about a 1984 book with significant replication issues. Several specific cited numbers are wrong or contested. Treat the principles as TACTICAL RECOGNITION FRAMEWORKS, not precise math.

本技能基于1984年出版的一本书，其中多项实验存在复制验证问题。书中引用的部分具体数据有误或存在争议。请将这些原则视为TACTICAL RECOGNITION FRAMEWORKS（战术识别框架），而非精确的数学公式。

Known Replication Concerns

已知复制验证争议

Issue	Status
Kitty Genovese "38 witnesses" myth	Factually false. Manning, Levine & Collins (2007, American Psychologist) debunked. Most "witnesses" couldn't see/hear, several DID call police. Cialdini repeats the false narrative; this skill DOES NOT use Genovese as evidence. We rely only on the lab studies (Latane & Darley) which DO replicate.
Bargh-style priming	Largely failed to replicate
Ego depletion	Failed multiple replications
Milgram 65%	From ONE of 24 conditions. Range was 0-92%. Burger 2009 partial replication ~70% (capped at 150V). Perry 2012 archival critique disputes Milgram's reporting.
Romeo-Juliet effect	Contested by Sinclair (2014)
Halo-effect numbers	Generally shrunken on replication
"Because" experiment	Effect collapses for higher-cost requests
DITF backfire condition	If first request is too extreme, you appear unreasonable and lose the second
Hofling 95%	Original 1966 number. Modern replications find 16-30% (nurses now have explicit refusal training).
Bystander effect in clear emergencies	Fischer et al. 2011 meta-analysis: groups DO help more when threat is clear. Reverses original finding.

争议点	现状
基蒂·吉诺维斯「38名目击者」误区	事实错误。Manning、Levine & Collins（2007年，《美国心理学家》）已揭穿该误区。大多数「目击者」无法看到或听到事件，有几人确实报了警。西奥迪尼重复了这一虚假叙述；本技能不会以吉诺维斯事件为证据，仅采用可复制的实验室研究（Latane & Darley的实验）。
Bargh式启动效应	大部分实验无法重复验证
自我损耗理论	多次复制实验失败
米尔格拉姆实验65%顺从率	仅来自24个实验条件中的1个；实际范围为0-92%。Burger 2009年部分复现实验结果约为70%（上限为150V）。Perry 2012年档案批判对米尔格拉姆的报告提出质疑。
罗密欧与朱丽叶效应	Sinclair（2014年）提出争议
晕轮效应数据	复制实验中效应普遍减弱
「因为」实验	当请求成本较高时，效应消失
「以退为进（DITF）」适得其反的情况	如果初始请求过于极端，会显得不合理，导致后续请求也被拒绝
Hofling实验95%顺从率	为1966年原始数据。现代复现实验结果为16-30%（护士现在接受了明确的拒绝训练）。
明确紧急情况下的旁观者效应	Fischer等人2011年元分析：当威胁明确时，群体反而更愿意提供帮助。与原始结论相反。

WEIRD Bias

WEIRD偏差

Most experiments used Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic college students. "Universal across cultures" overclaims. East Asian collectivist cultures often show different social proof and authority dynamics.

大多数实验采用的是西方（Western）、受过教育（Educated）、工业化（Industrialized）、富裕（Rich）、民主（Democratic）背景的大学生（简称WEIRD群体）。存在「跨文化通用」的过度宣称。东亚集体主义文化通常表现出不同的社会认同与权威动态。

Bottom Line

核心结论

The 6+1 principles are real and useful as a tactical recognition framework. Specific effect sizes are unreliable. Treat as "these are the levers" - not "this is the precise math."

这6+1项原则真实且可作为战术识别框架使用，但具体效应大小不可靠。请将其视为「这些是可利用的杠杆」——而非「这是精确的计算依据」。

The Core Insight: Click-Whirr

核心洞察：Click-whirr（触发-自动反应）

Animals (and humans) often act on fixed action patterns triggered by single features. One trigger feature → automatic compliance, even when situation doesn't warrant it.

"The future will see an increased use of decisional shortcuts. As the pace of modern life accelerates and information mounts, we'll be forced to use them more, not less."

The 6+1 principles are humanity's most powerful heuristics - which makes them the most powerful persuasion levers.

动物（包括人类）通常会基于固定行为模式行动，这些模式由单一特征触发。一个触发特征→自动顺从，即使情境并不需要。

"未来，决策捷径的使用会越来越多。随着现代生活节奏加快、信息爆炸，我们会被迫更多地依赖这些捷径，而非减少。"

这6+1项原则是人类最强大的启发式思维——这也使它们成为最强大的说服杠杆。

The Seven Principles

七大原则

#	Principle	Core Rule
1	Reciprocation	When someone gives, we feel obligated to return
2	Commitment & Consistency	Once committed, we behave consistently
3	Social Proof	We determine what's correct by what others think is correct
4	Liking	We comply with people we like
5	Authority	We comply with authority figures, often without question
6	Scarcity	Opportunities seem more valuable when limited
7	Unity (added 2016)	We comply more with people we share IDENTITY with

Plus the bonus: Contrast (sequential items - second seems more different than it is).

Detailed experiments and mechanics for each principle: see principles.md.

序号	原则	核心规则
1	互惠（Reciprocation）	当他人给予我们东西时，我们会感到有回报的义务
2	承诺与一致（Commitment & Consistency）	一旦做出承诺，我们会保持行为一致
3	社会认同（Social Proof）	我们通过他人的判断来确定什么是正确的
4	喜好（Liking）	我们会顺从自己喜欢的人
5	权威（Authority）	我们会顺从权威人物，往往不假思索
6	稀缺（Scarcity）	机会越有限，看起来就越有价值
7	统一（Unity）（2016年新增）	我们更愿意顺从与自己拥有共同身份认同的人

附加技巧：对比原则（连续呈现的物品——第二个物品看起来差异比实际更大）。

各原则的详细实验与机制：请查看principles.md。

The Inner-Choice Insight (Critical)

内在选择洞察（关键）

For Commitment & Consistency, four conditions strengthen a commitment:

Condition	Why It Works
Active	Doing > saying. Writing > thinking
Public	Witnesses lock you in
Effortful	More effort, more value
Uncoerced	Must feel CHOSEN freely

Cialdini elevates "uncoerced inner choice" as more important than the other three combined. Bribes/threats don't create real commitment; only freely-chosen action does. This is why coercive tactics (high-pressure sales, induced obedience) produce compliance but not durable commitment.

对于「承诺与一致」原则，有四个条件可以强化承诺：

条件	生效原因
主动（Active）	行动＞言语。书写＞思考
公开（Public）	目击者会让你坚守承诺
费力（Effortful）	付出的努力越多，承诺的价值感越强
非强制（Uncoerced）	必须感觉是自由选择的

西奥迪尼强调「非强制的内在选择」比其他三个条件的总和更重要。 贿赂/威胁无法建立真正的承诺；只有自由选择的行动才能做到。这就是为什么高压销售、诱导服从等强制策略只能产生顺从，而非持久的承诺。

Pre-Suasion (2016)

预说服（Pre-Suasion，2016年）

"What we present FIRST changes how the audience experiences what comes NEXT."

The persuasive moment isn't only when you make the ask. It's the moments BEFORE, when you set up the listener's mental state.

"Are you adventurous?" before pitching a new product → adventurous people accept more
Anchoring high before asking small ($50K mentioned before $5K request)
Background music in stores (French wine sales up when French music plays)

Detailed Pre-Suasion examples: see pre-suasion.md.

"我们最先呈现的内容会改变受众对后续内容的感受。"

说服时刻不仅是你提出请求的瞬间，还包括请求之前的时刻——你在这些时刻塑造了听众的心理状态。

推销新产品前问「你喜欢冒险吗？」→ 喜欢冒险的人更易接受
先提出高价锚点，再提出低价请求（先提5万美元，再提5千美元）
商店播放的背景音乐（播放法国音乐时，法国葡萄酒销量上升）

预说服的详细案例：请查看pre-suasion.md。

How Principles Combine (Real Power)

原则的组合运用（真正的力量）

The principles compound. Effective persuasion uses MULTIPLE principles together.

Tupperware Party = ALL 6:

Hostess gives free gifts (Reciprocity)
Public commitment to buy (Commitment)
"Susan loves this product!" (Social Proof + Liking)
Hostess is your friend (Liking)
Consultant has credentials (Authority)
"Limited time at the party" (Scarcity)

Cult Recruitment = stacked principles:

Love bombing = Liking + Reciprocity
Public testimonials = Commitment + Social Proof
"We're chosen" = Scarcity (special)
Leader as authority = Authority

原则可以相互叠加。有效的说服会同时运用多项原则。

特百惠派对 = 全部6项原则：

女主人赠送免费礼品（互惠）
公开承诺购买（承诺与一致）
"苏珊喜欢这款产品！"（社会认同 + 喜好）
女主人是你的朋友（喜好）
顾问具备资质（权威）
"派对期间限时优惠"（稀缺）

邪教招募 = 叠加原则：

爱情轰炸 = 喜好 + 互惠
公开 testimonial = 承诺 + 社会认同
"我们是被选中的群体" = 稀缺（特殊性）
领袖作为权威 = 权威

Decision Trees

决策树

Am I being manipulated?

我是否正在被操纵？

Do I feel an unusual urgency to comply?
├─ YES → Likely Reciprocity, Commitment, or Scarcity
│        Stop. Apply the diagnostic question for that principle.
└─ NO → Do I feel oddly drawn to this person/product?
        ├─ YES → Likely Liking or Authority
        │        Separate the dealer from the deal.
        └─ NO → Probably legitimate

Do I feel an unusual urgency to comply?
├─ YES → Likely Reciprocity, Commitment, or Scarcity
│        Stop. Apply the diagnostic question for that principle.
└─ NO → Do I feel oddly drawn to this person/product?
        ├─ YES → Likely Liking or Authority
        │        Separate the dealer from the deal.
        └─ NO → Probably legitimate

Which principle should I use in marketing?

营销中应使用哪项原则？

What problem are you solving?
├─ "Why should they trust us?" → Authority + Social Proof
├─ "Why should they buy now?" → Scarcity (genuine, not manufactured)
├─ "Why should they pay premium?" → Liking + Authority
├─ "Why should they refer others?" → Reciprocity + Commitment
├─ "Why should they choose us over X?" → Social Proof from SIMILAR customers
└─ "Why should they not churn?" → Commitment + Consistency

What problem are you solving?
├─ "Why should they trust us?" → Authority + Social Proof
├─ "Why should they buy now?" → Scarcity (genuine, not manufactured)
├─ "Why should they pay premium?" → Liking + Authority
├─ "Why should they refer others?" → Reciprocity + Commitment
├─ "Why should they choose us over X?" → Social Proof from SIMILAR customers
└─ "Why should they not churn?" → Commitment + Consistency

Single-Person Bystander Defense (Critical Technique)

单人旁观者防御技巧（关键技术）

When in distress in a crowd, single out one person:

"YOU in the blue shirt - call 911."

This is one of the most important techniques in the book. Generic appeals to a crowd produce diffusion of responsibility (Latane & Darley lab studies). Direct appeal to a specific individual short-circuits the diffusion.

当在人群中遇险时，明确指定某个人：

"YOU in the blue shirt - call 911." "穿蓝衬衫的你——拨打911。"

这是书中最重要的技巧之一。向人群发出笼统呼吁会导致责任分散（Latane & Darley的实验室研究）。直接向特定个体求助可以打破这种责任分散。

Critical Numbers (With Caveats)

关键数据（附警示）

Number	Rule	Caveat
6+1	Universal principles	Unity added in 2016
65%	Milgram compliance	From 1 of 24 conditions; range 0-92%
94%	"Because" + meaningless reason	Effect collapses for higher-cost requests
76%	Drive Carefully billboard agreement	After agreeing to small 3-inch sign first. Petition-only condition was ~50%.
6x	Sales increase with scarcity + exclusivity (Knishinsky)	Verified in source
35%	DAV response with free address labels (vs 18%)	Verified
92%	Bickman parking-meter compliance in security uniform	Verified in source
42%	Bickman parking-meter compliance in street clothes	Verified in source. (NOT 19% - that figure is unverified.)
3.5x	Suit jaywalker followers vs sloppy clothes	Verified
4	Conditions strengthening commitment	Inner choice / uncoerced is more important than other three combined

数据	规则	警示
6+1	通用原则	统一原则于2016年新增
65%	米尔格拉姆实验顺从率	仅来自24个实验条件中的1个；范围为0-92%
94%	「因为」+无意义理由的顺从率	当请求成本较高时，效应消失
76%	同意安装「小心驾驶」广告牌的比例	先同意安装3英寸小标牌后的数据。仅签署请愿书的比例约为50%。
6倍	稀缺+排他性带来的销量增长（Knishinsky实验）	已在原始来源中验证
35%	收到免费地址标签的DAV响应率（对比18%）	已验证
92%	Bickman实验中穿保安制服时的停车收费员顺从率	已在原始来源中验证
42%	Bickman实验中穿便服时的停车收费员顺从率	已在原始来源中验证。（非19%——该数据未经验证。）
3.5倍	穿西装的闯红灯跟随者数量 vs 穿邋遢衣服的情况	已验证
4	强化承诺的条件	内在选择/非强制比其他三个条件的总和更重要

Common Mistakes

常见误区

Confusing volume with quality of social proof - "10,000 customers" matters less than "10,000 customers SIMILAR to you"
Faking the principles - Manufactured scarcity, paid reviews, fake authority - all eventually backfire
Using one principle when multiple stack - Masters always combine 3+
Forgetting reciprocity expects symmetry - Small gift triggers small reciprocity, not huge purchase
Asking for commitment too big, too fast - Foot-in-the-door wins; door-in-the-face is a separate tactic with backfire risk
Using authority you don't have - "We're the leaders" without proof = pushback
Scarcity without specificity - "Limited time!" forever = no scarcity
Liking without similarity - Generic friendliness < perceived similarity
Forgetting the click-whirr is automatic - Don't over-explain; the trigger does the work
Using these on smart, alert prospects - These work on shortcuts. Educated buyers know the moves and will reactance against obvious stacking.

混淆社会认同的数量与质量——「10000名客户」不如「10000名与你相似的客户」重要
伪造原则应用——人为制造稀缺、付费评论、虚假权威——最终都会适得其反
仅使用单一原则而非叠加多项——高手总会同时运用3项以上原则
忘记互惠需要对等性——小礼物只能触发小的回报，而非大额购买
请求承诺时步子迈得太大、太快——「得寸进尺」策略更有效；「以退为进」是单独的策略，存在适得其反的风险
使用自身不具备的权威——「我们是行业领导者」却无证据会引发抵触
稀缺缺乏具体性——永远「限时优惠」等于没有稀缺性
喜好缺乏相似性——泛泛的友好不如感知到的相似性有效
忘记Click-whirr是自动反应——无需过度解释，触发点会发挥作用
对聪明、警觉的潜在客户使用这些策略——这些策略针对的是决策捷径。受过教育的买家了解这些手段，会对明显的叠加策略产生逆反心理。

Worked Example: Stacked Principles in Cold Outreach

实战案例：冷触达中的原则叠加

A short B2B SaaS cold email that layers four principles in six sentences, then an anti-example showing the same message stripped of all of them.

The email:

Subject: quick resource on [their pain point]
Hi [Name], I put together a two-page breakdown of how teams like [similar company] cut their onboarding time by 40% - sending it to you no strings attached.
← Reciprocity: leads with concrete value before any ask
I noticed [their company] recently expanded the engineering team; that usually means onboarding overhead spikes.
← Liking (similarity/relevance): shows you've done homework, signals shared context
We've helped six companies in [their space] go from three-week ramp to under one week - the case studies are in the doc.
← Social Proof: peers in same industry, specific outcome
I'm [Name], co-founder of [Product] - we've been building onboarding tooling for four years and published the original research behind the 40% figure.
← Authority: real credential, not just a title
Would a 20-minute call this week make sense?
← Commitment & Consistency (small ask): low-cost first step keeps the foot-in-the-door sequence alive
Either way, the doc is yours.

Why it works: Every sentence does a job. The gift opens the loop (Reciprocity), relevance signals similarity (Liking), peers close the uncertainty gap (Social Proof), credentials justify trust (Authority), and the ask is deliberately small (Commitment entry point). No principle is faked - the doc is real, the case studies are real, the credentials are real.

Anti-example (no principles):

Subject: Increase your team's productivity

Hi [Name], I'm reaching out because I think our product could be a great fit for your company. We have a lot of happy customers and a proven track record. We offer a demo at your convenience. Let me know if you're interested in learning more about our solution.

The anti-example triggers nothing. There is no gift, no proof from similar companies, no credentials, no small commitment step, and no demonstrated knowledge of their situation. It reads like every other cold email in the inbox and gets deleted.

一封简短的B2B SaaS冷邮件，在6句话中叠加了4项原则，同时附上反例——移除所有原则后的同一信息。

有效邮件：

Subject: quick resource on [their pain point] 主题：关于[他们的痛点]的快速资料
Hi [Name], I put together a two-page breakdown of how teams like [similar company] cut their onboarding time by 40% - sending it to you no strings attached.
← Reciprocity: leads with concrete value before any ask
您好[姓名]，我整理了一份两页的资料，介绍了像[同类公司]这样的团队如何将入职时间缩短40%——免费发送给您，无任何附加条件。
← 互惠原则：先提供具体价值，再提出请求
I noticed [their company] recently expanded the engineering team; that usually means onboarding overhead spikes.
← Liking (similarity/relevance): shows you've done homework, signals shared context
我注意到[他们公司]最近扩充了工程团队；这通常意味着入职管理成本会飙升。
← 喜好原则（相似性/相关性）：表明你做了功课，传递共同语境
We've helped six companies in [their space] go from three-week ramp to under one week - the case studies are in the doc.
← Social Proof: peers in same industry, specific outcome
我们已帮助[他们所在领域]的6家公司将入职周期从3周缩短至1周以内——案例研究包含在资料中。
← 社会认同原则：同行业同行，具体成果
I'm [Name], co-founder of [Product] - we've been building onboarding tooling for four years and published the original research behind the 40% figure.
← Authority: real credential, not just a title
我是[姓名]，[产品]的联合创始人——我们专注于入职工具开发已有4年，并且发布了支撑40%这一数据的原始研究。
← 权威原则：真实资质，而非空泛头衔
Would a 20-minute call this week make sense?
← Commitment & Consistency (small ask): low-cost first step keeps the foot-in-the-door sequence alive
本周进行一次20分钟的通话是否合适？
← 承诺与一致原则（小请求）：低成本的第一步维持「得寸进尺」的序列
Either way, the doc is yours. 无论如何，这份资料都归您所有。

为何有效： 每句话都发挥作用。礼物开启了互惠循环（互惠），相关性传递了相似性（喜好），同行案例消除了不确定性（社会认同），资质证明了可信度（权威），请求刻意设置得很小（承诺的切入点）。没有原则被伪造——资料真实，案例真实，资质真实。

反例（未使用任何原则）：

Subject: Increase your team's productivity 主题：提升您团队的生产力

Hi [Name], I'm reaching out because I think our product could be a great fit for your company. We have a lot of happy customers and a proven track record. We offer a demo at your convenience. Let me know if you're interested in learning more about our solution. 您好[姓名]，我联系您是因为我认为我们的产品非常适合贵公司。我们有很多满意的客户和良好的业绩记录。我们可随时为您提供演示。如果您有兴趣了解更多关于我们解决方案的信息，请告知我。

反例没有触发任何反应。没有礼物，没有来自同类公司的证明，没有资质，没有小的承诺步骤，也没有展示对他们情况的了解。它看起来像收件箱里的其他冷邮件，会被直接删除。

When NOT to Use This Skill (Ethically)

本技能的伦理禁忌场景

Honest application is fine:

Genuine reciprocity (real value first)
Real social proof from real customers
True authority (verifiable expertise)
Genuine scarcity ("I really do have only 3 spots")

Manipulation is not:

Fake scarcity ("limited time" forever)
Manufactured social proof (paid reviews, AI-generated testimonials)
False authority (fake credentials, actor-in-lab-coat)
Coerced commitment (high-pressure tactics)

"When practitioners use these principles to deceive, they're mining a deep social trust that makes us all worse off."

The book is partly a defense manual against bad-faith use.

符合伦理的应用是可行的：

真正的互惠（先提供真实价值）
来自真实客户的真实社会认同
真实的权威（可验证的专业能力）
真正的稀缺（「我确实只有3个名额」）

操纵行为不可取：

虚假稀缺（永远「限时优惠」）
人为制造的社会认同（付费评论、AI生成的testimonial）
虚假权威（伪造资质、穿白大褂的演员）
强制承诺（高压战术）

"当从业者利用这些原则进行欺骗时，他们正在消耗深厚的社会信任，这会让我们所有人的处境变得更糟。"

这本书在一定程度上也是一本抵御恶意使用的防御手册。

Modern Application (2026)

现代应用（2026年）

Where Strong	Where Buyers Resist More
Sales conversations	Sophisticated B2B buyers (know all 6)
Marketing copy	Software developers (resistant to obvious manipulation)
Negotiation (reciprocity of concessions)	Repeated tactics lose power (100th "limited time" fades)
Online retail (review systems)	Trust-erosion era (decades of fake reviews)
Social media (likes, FOMO)	AI-generated reviews breaking social proof reliability

适用场景	受众抵触较强的场景
销售对话	成熟的B2B买家（了解全部6项原则）
营销文案	软件开发者（抵触明显的操纵手段）
谈判（让步的互惠性）	重复使用的策略会失去效力（第100次「限时优惠」会失效）
在线零售（评论系统）	信任缺失时代（数十年的虚假评论）
社交媒体（点赞、FOMO）	AI生成的评论破坏了社会认同的可靠性

Defense Audit (When Buying)

采购时的防御审计

Self-Audit (Marketing/Sales)

营销/销售时的自我审计

The Big Idea

核心思想

These 6+1 principles are humanity's most powerful psychological shortcuts. They evolved because they USUALLY serve us well - we'd be paralyzed without them. The same shortcuts can be weaponized.

The framework gives you:

Awareness - Recognize when you're being clicked
Defense - Stop the automatic response
Application - Use the principles ethically
Diagnosis - Understand WHY some campaigns work

The principles are amoral - they describe how influence WORKS, not how it SHOULD work. The ethical question is yours.

"Anywhere we do not have time, energy, or motivation to think carefully and analytically, we'll resort to shortcuts."

In a world drowning in information, shortcuts will only matter more.

这6+1项原则是人类最强大的心理学捷径。它们得以演化是因为通常对我们有利——没有它们，我们会陷入决策瘫痪。但这些捷径也可能被滥用。

这个框架能为你提供：

意识——识别自己何时被「触发」
防御——停止自动反应
应用——符合伦理地使用这些原则
诊断——理解为何有些营销活动成功

这些原则本身是中性的——它们描述了影响力如何运作，而非应该如何运作。伦理问题由你决定。

"任何我们没有时间、精力或动力仔细分析思考的场景，都会依赖捷径。"

在信息泛滥的世界里，捷径只会变得更重要。

Supporting Files

配套文件

principles.md - Full 6+1 principles with experiments, sub-factors, manipulative tactics, defenses
pre-suasion.md - The 2016 update: framing, anchoring, priming questions, environmental cues
replication-notes.md - Specific failed/contested studies in detail (Bickman correction, Hofling modern replications, Milgram variations, Genovese debunked, Romeo-Juliet, Bargh, ego depletion, Drive Carefully condition disambiguation)
integration.md - How principles interact with Mom Test, SPIN Selling, $100M Offers, $100M Leads, Obviously Awesome, Crossing the Chasm, Blue Ocean Strategy, Monetizing Innovation; honest conflicts

principles.md——完整的6+1项原则，包含实验、子因素、操纵策略、防御方法
pre-suasion.md——2016年更新内容：框架、锚定、启动问题、环境线索
replication-notes.md——详细的失败/有争议研究（Bickman数据修正、Hofling现代复现、米尔格拉姆实验变体、吉诺维斯事件揭穿、罗密欧与朱丽叶效应、Bargh实验、自我损耗理论、「小心驾驶」条件歧义澄清）
integration.md——这些原则如何与《Mom Test》《SPIN Selling》《$100M Offers》《$100M Leads》《Obviously Awesome》《Crossing the Chasm》《Blue Ocean Strategy》《Monetizing Innovation》等理论结合，以及存在的真实冲突