Are the I Ching and fortune-telling really the same? A CEO spent 80,000 yuan on fortune-telling, only to get results worse than those from a simple Excel spreadsheet/易經和算命到底一樣嗎 · 一個 CEO 花了 8 萬塊算命，結果不如

Is I-Ching Same as Fortune-Telling? A CEO Spent $12K on Fortune-Telling. A Spreadsheet Would've Been Better.

A friend told me about a senior executive at his company. Every time a major decision came up, this executive consulted a famous "master"—8,000 RMB per session.

One year, deciding whether to invest in a new project, the master said: "This hexagram is very auspicious. Proceed."

He invested. Lost 2 million RMB.

Later he told me something I still remember: "I spent 80,000 RMB and got back a single word—'yes.' There was no analysis behind it. I didn't even know why it said yes. If I'd built a financial model in Excel, at least I could see the assumptions and risk ranges. An 80,000 RMB 'yes' was worth less than a spreadsheet."

He was right.

But the problem isn't I-Ching. The problem is—he used I-Ching as fortune-telling.

Fortune-telling gives you answers. I-Ching gives you questions.

Most people's idea of fortune-telling: ask one question, get one result. Will it work? When? With whom?

It looks like decision help. It's actually decision replacement. Fortune-telling says "yes," you act. You're not deciding—you're obeying.

I-Ching works completely differently. It doesn't hand you an answer. It gives you a question framework: what situation are you in? What variables matter? What have people in similar situations historically done?

Counting the sticks isn't waiting for answers to fall from the sky. It's you—counting, reading, thinking. Your brain is doing "structured thinking." Not mysticism. Methodology.

McKinsey consultants use MECE—Mutually Exclusive, Collectively Exhaustive—to analyze problems. Break a complex question into non-overlapping pieces, examine each one, understand the whole picture.

I-Ching does the same thing fundamentally. 64 hexagrams are 64 basic situation types—a complete MECE decomposition of life's possible scenarios.

Different tool. Same logic: don't guess. Understand the situation first, then act.

Book a decision consultation—40 minutes to take back your decision-making power.

—————————————————————————————————————————

易經和算命到底一樣嗎 · 一個 CEO 花了 8 萬塊算命，結果不如一張 Excel

去年有個朋友跟我講過一件事。

他公司一個高管，每次做重大決策前都去找"大師"算一卦。不是那種路邊攤的，是圈子裏很有名的，據說一卦 8000 塊。

有一次要決定是否投一個新專案。大師說"此卦大吉，宜動"。他投了。

虧了兩百萬。

後來他跟我說了一句話，我到現在都記得：「聞老師，我花 8 萬塊，得到了一個'是'字。這個'是'字沒有任何分析過程。我甚至不知道它為什麼說是。」

他頓了頓：「如果我用 Excel 做一個財務模型，至少我能看到假設條件和風險區間。8 萬塊的'是'，不如一張 Excel。」

他說得對。

但問題不在易經。問題在於——他把易經用成了算命。

反轉 · 算命給你答案，易經給你**問題**

多數人心裏的"算命"是這樣的：我問一個問題，你告訴我一個結果。能不能成？什麼時候成？跟誰成？

看起來是幫助決策。其實是替代決策。

算命說"能成"，你就去做了。你做的不是決策，是服從。

易經幹的事情完全不一樣。

它不給你答案。它給你一個問題框架——你當前處於哪種處境？這個處境裏有哪些變數？歷史上類似處境的人，走過什麼路？

你拿竹簽的過程，不是等答案掉下來。是你自己在數、在看、在想。

整個過程裏，你的大腦在做的事叫"結構化思考"。不是玄學。是方法論。

（較真式自嘲）我剛入行那幾年，也遇到過客戶說"聞老師你幫我算算能不能成"。我糾正了大概兩年才糾正過來——不是我在算什麼，是你自己在看自己的處境。

算命是別人替你想。易經是幫你想清楚。

跨界 · 麥肯錫的 MECE 原則也是同一個邏輯

麥肯錫諮詢顧問分析問題時用的第一個框架叫 MECE——Mutually Exclusive, Collectively Exhaustive。相互獨立，完全窮盡。

翻譯成人話：把一個複雜問題拆成不重疊的小塊，每一塊都看一遍，你就知道全局了。

易經做的事本質上一樣——64 個卦就是 64 種基本處境的 MECE 拆解。它把人生中可能遇到的所有局面，窮舉成了 64 種模型。

區別是麥肯錫用 PPT。易經用竹簽。

工具不同。底層都是同一件事——別拍腦袋，先把局面看清楚再動。

收束 · 不是信不信的問題，是用法的問題

所以易經和算命一樣嗎？

不一樣。

算命給你一個別人給的"是"或"否"。易經給你一套自己用的結構化框架。

一個讓你交出決策權。一個讓你拿回決策權。

預約一次決策諮詢——40 分鐘，拿回你的決策權。