Utopia

何有之鄉
 
 
d_2018_01_23__21_48_52_PM_

So why bother with all this pessimism?

Because at their heart, dystopias
are cautionary tales,

not about some particular government
or technology,

but the very idea that humanity can be
molded into an ideal shape.

Think back to the perfect world
you imagined.

Did you also imagine what it would
take to achieve?

How would you make people cooperate?

And how would you make sure it lasted?

Now take another look.

Does that world still seem perfect?

— How to recognize a dystopia

— Alex Gendler

— animation by TED-Ed
 
 
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.


 
 
 
2018.01.23 Tuesday ACHK

PhD

Holodny: Yeah, I noticed you don’t have a Ph.D. Are you not into the Ph.D. system?

Dyson: Oh, very much against it. I’ve been fighting it unsuccessfully all my life.

Holodny: Any reason in particular?

Dyson: Well, I think it actually is very destructive. I’m now retired, but when I was a professor here, my real job was to be a psychiatric nurse. There were all these young people who came to the institute, and my job was to be there so they could cry on my shoulder and tell me what a hard time they were having. And it was a very tough situation for these young people. They come here. They have one or two years and they’re supposed to do something brilliant. They’re under terrible pressure – not from us, but from them.

So, actually, I’ve had three of them who I would say were just casualties who I’m responsible for. One of them killed himself, and two of them ended up in mental institutions. And I should’ve been able to take care of them, but I didn’t. I blame the Ph.D. system for these tragedies. And it really does destroy people. If they weren’t under that kind of pressure, they could all have been happy people doing useful stuff. Anyhow, so that’s my diatribe. But I really have seen that happen.

— Legendary physicist Freeman Dyson talks about math, nuclear rockets, and astounding things about the universe

— Elena Holodny Sep. 9, 2016, 9:15 AM

— Business Insider

當年「大導修課」時,李生講過:

我有好多朋友,當年去(外國/美國)讀博士,摧毁了他們自己一生。

(當然,在他們面前,我就不好意思,直接那樣説啦。)

他們本來性格好好,但是,回來之後,思想變得古靈精怪。試問世間上,有多少事情,比損失良好性格,更加悲慘呢?

所以,李生向阿熹提議:

你可以考慮一下,在香港,先完成了碩士。然後,才去外國升博士。

那時,事隔兩年,你個人成熟一點,『出事』的機會,自然細一點。

還有,剛才同你傾計,發覺你思想都幾周到;會顧慮很多東西,才下一個決定。

反而,讀博士的過程中,有時,你必須有一種『即管試,錯就錯啦』的心態。

— Me@2016.02.24

— Me@2016.06.12

— Me@2017.06.19

2017.07.05 Wednesday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

The Dunning–Kruger effect

想不出來 1.2.2

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which low-ability individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability as much higher than it really is. Dunning and Kruger attributed this bias to a metacognitive incapacity, on the part of those with low ability, to recognize their ineptitude and evaluate their competence accurately. Their research also suggests corollaries: high-ability individuals may underestimate their relative competence and may erroneously assume that tasks which are easy for them are also easy for others.

Dunning and Kruger have postulated that the effect is the result of internal illusion in those of low ability, and external misperception in those of high ability: “The miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others.”

— Wikipedia on Dunning–Kruger effect

I’ve found that people who are great at something are not so much convinced of their own greatness as mystified at why everyone else seems so incompetent.

— Paul Graham

2017.02.17 Friday ACHK

天空堤壩 5

.

友情方面,你可以選擇,只要對方的優點;
愛情方面,你不可以選擇,不要對方的缺點。

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

友情方面,你可以選擇,只要對方最好的優點;
愛情方面,你不可以選擇,不要對方最差的缺點。

— Me@2010.06.01

.

.

.

2010.06.03 Thursday (c) ACHK

天空堤壩

Talent at its best and character at its worst

.

Lord Acton said we should judge talent at its best and character at its worst. For example, if you write one great book and ten bad ones, you still count as a great writer — or at least, a better writer than someone who wrote eleven that were merely good. Whereas if you’re a quiet, law-abiding citizen most of the time but occasionally cut someone up and bury them in your backyard, you’re a bad guy.

— Paul Graham

.

才能方面,如果一個人的最高點是可以接受的話,你就可以錄用他,即使他有其他任何才能缺點;

品德方面,如果一個人的最低點是不可接受的話,你就千萬不要錄用他,即使他有其他任何品德優點。

— Me@2010.03.06

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

才能方面,一個太陽可以照亮整個天空;

品德方面,一條裂縫可以摧毀整個堤壩。

— Me@2010.03.06

.

.

.

2010.03.07 Sunday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

反白論起點 2.2

這段改編自 2010 年 4 月 10 日的對話。

無錯。上司時常無故出現的公司,不會是效率高的公司。那正正就是老子講法的一個反例。

最佳的領袖,就是那些人民不覺其存在的領袖,因為最佳的領袖,會令到這個社會,無災無難。既然是無災無難,人民就自然不會察覺,其領袖的存在,亦不會察覺,其領袖需要存在。所以,人民反而會以為,這個領袖好像無所作業,可有可無。

正如壞醫生沒有能力,或者沒有意願,一次過醫好你,令你時常要去光顧他。換句話說,他會時常在你的世界出現。但是,好醫生有能力,亦有意願,一次過醫好你,令你短期內,也毋須再去光顧他。換而言之,他極少會在你的世界出現。那樣,你就自然不會察覺,他的重要性;甚至,你直情忘記了,他的存在。

一般人也以為,「無災無難」是自然現象。他們以為,萬事不作,就自動萬事大吉。實情是,這個世界,因為天災人禍,是一個地獄。「有災有難」,才是自然現象,才是預設狀態。

如果你不覺得這世界是個地獄,那是因為有很多人,包括你自己,為你提供了一些保護罩。例如,「上班」就是「滅災滅難」的工序之一。雖然,上班十分辛苦,但是,如果不上班,你就要捱餓,更加辛苦。

「無事發生」,就即是「無災無難」。「無災無難」,近乎是一個奇蹟。所以,單單是「無事發生」本身,就要領袖,以至是全體的大部分人民,十分刻意、十分艱苦的經營。

— Me@2014.08.03

2014.08.03 Sunday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

I Am Legend

Fair use rationale for I Am Legend

No free equivalent exists that would effectively identify the article’s subject.
The image does not in any way limit the ability of the copyright owners to market or sell their product.
The image is only used once and is rendered in low resolution to avoid piracy.

I Am Legend is a 2007 British-American post-apocalyptic science fiction horror film directed by Francis Lawrence and starring Will Smith. It is the third feature film adaptation of Richard Matheson’s 1954 novel of the same name, following 1964’s The Last Man on Earth and 1971’s The Omega Man. Smith plays virologist Robert Neville, who is immune to a man-made virus originally created to cure cancer. He works to create a remedy while defending himself against mutants created by the virus.

— Wikipedia on I Am Legend (film)

2014.07.16 Wednesday ACHK

Open Source MindOS, 2.3

朋友同事 5.3 | 已婚單身 2.3 | Singles 2.3

這段改編自 2010 年 4 月 10 日的對話。

.

拍拖(談戀愛),是一個「互相改變」的過程。

無傷大雅的缺點,你可以選擇不改,因為更改太快太多,會十分煩厭。但對於事關重大的缺點,你不敢不改。

要發現和改正自己的缺點,往往需要一個,十分瞭解你的人,加以提醒和指導。而拍拖,就正正是那個「互相修正」和「互相創造」的過程。

M. C. Escher

Though this image is subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because

1. It illustrates an educational article …
2. It is a low resolution image.
3. It is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted image of comparable educational value.

「不斷修正」和「不斷創造」的後果是,雙方各自也不斷重生成,新版本的自己。二人對於對方來說,也會不斷帶來新鮮感。那樣,愛情方能長久。

— Me@2014.07.14

.

.

2014.07.14 Monday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Open Source MindOS, 2.2

朋友同事 5.2 | 已婚單身 2.2 | Singles 2.2

這段改編自 2010 年 4 月 10 日的對話。

.

有重大壞處的「缺點」,如果可以改但不願意改,就是「人格問題」。

例如,「我太矮,不適合做籃球運動員」是我的「缺點」,但不是「人格問題」,因為這「缺點」不可能改。

又例如,「我烹飪欠佳,不適合做廚師」是我的「缺點」,但不是「人格問題」,因為這「缺點」並沒有重大壞處,只要我不以廚師作我的職業就可以。

再例如,「我烹飪欠佳,但選擇以廚師作職業」既我的「缺點」,又是「人格問題」,因為,這「缺點」既有重大壞處,卻又明顯「可改」—— 要麼我進修廚藝,要麼我轉換職業。兩步也不肯做的話,我的人格就明顯有問題。

換句話說,一個人如果「受教可改」,就自然沒有「人格問題」。所以,我的其中一個擇偶條件是,她的心靈作業系統,是 open source 的。

(安:但是,有時有些「缺點」,自己不單願意,甚至非常想改,但偏偏改不到。那樣,那個「缺點」,還算不算是「人格問題」?)

並不可能有這種情形發生。如果想改,但自己改不到,你自然會求教於人。如果自己改不到,但卻不肯求教,那就不算是「想改」。

.

「缺點」有四大層次:

1. 你不知道自己有缺點;

2. 你知道自己有缺點,但不知道是什麼缺點;

3. 你知道自己有缺點,而且知道有什麼缺點,但偏偏不知道如何改正;

4. 你知道自己有缺點,而且知道有什麼缺點,再加上知道如何改正。

最後一種情形,很少會發生。而正正是因為大部分人,在大部分情況下,也不知如何改正,自己的缺點,「受教」才那麼重要。

拍拖(談戀愛),是一個「互相改變」的過程。

無傷大雅的缺點,你可以選擇不改,因為更改太快太多,會十分煩厭。但對於事關重大的缺點,你不敢不改。

要發現和改正自己的缺點,往往需要一個,十分瞭解你的人,加以提醒和指導。而拍拖,就正正是那個「互相修正」和「互相創造」的過程。

— Me@2014.06.30

 

M. C. Escher

Though this image is subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because

1. It illustrates an educational article …
2. It is a low resolution image.
3. It is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted image of comparable educational value.

.

.

2014.07.08 Tuesday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Open Source MindOS, 2.1

朋友同事 5.1 | 已婚單身 2.1 | Singles 2.1

這段改編自 2010 年 4 月 10 日的對話。

所以,我的其中一個擇偶條件是,她的心靈作業系統,是 open source 的。換句話說,即是「受教可改」。受教可改,就自然沒有「人格問題」。

「人格問題」不同於「缺點」。人不會「沒有缺點」,但可以「沒有人格問題」,即是「人格完整」。「人格問題」和「缺點」的分別,之前已經講過,所以,現在不再詳述。

簡單而言,個別不足之處,為之「缺點」,可以避開,因為其害處是局部的;思考或處事模式之誤,為之「人格問題」,必會碰釘,因為其害處無所不在。我之前講法是:

例如,我的其中一個缺點是『不懂烹飪』,但那不算是我的『人格缺失』。但是,如果我在既『烹飪欠佳』,又『不肯學習』的情況下,仍然要別人吃,我所煮的菜色的話,這性格就是我的『人格問題』。

又例如,『間中遲到五分鐘』不算是『人格缺失』。但是,如果『遲到五分鐘』後,竟然沒有任何歉意,亦沒有絲毫改正的意圖的話,這態度就是『人格缺失』。

又或者,你其實是有歉意的,但是『遲到五分鐘』已經成了你的習慣,再不是個別事件,這習慣就是『人格問題』。

比喻說,一個人的「一般缺點」,就好比一部電腦「個別應用程式」的問題。你可以把「個別應用程式」暫時關閉,甚至移除,然後安裝替代程式;而電腦中的其他程式,期間可以如常運作,不受影響。

一個人的「人格問題」,則有如「作業系統程式」的毛病,其害處你想避也避不到,直至你修改了,那「作業系統程式」的問題部分為止。

(安:「人格」其實即是「習慣」。「人格問題」,又即是「思考」或「處事」上的「壞習慣」,所以,其害處會如你所講,無所不在。)

差不多,不過要「同情地理解」才可以,因為「人格」和「習慣」,不算是百分百的同義詞。例如,我穿鞋時,每次都是先穿左邊的那一隻。那是我的「習慣」,但和我的「人格好壞」無關。

但是,如果我每次穿鞋都要花十分鐘,那就不只是我的「習慣」,而且是我的「人格問題」,因為那是有系統地浪費時間。

(安:無好壞處的「習慣」,就和「人格」無關。但是,有明顯壞處的的習慣,即是「壞習慣」,就是「人格缺失」。)

可以那樣說。

人格

~ 性格

~ 系統

~ 習慣

人格

~ 性格系統

— Me@2014.06.30

2014.07.02 Wednesday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Open Source MindOS

這段改編自 2010 年 4 月 10 日的對話。

(安:我發覺我都有一個,大部人也沒有的優點。我這類性格的人,又真的很少。)

什麼優點?

(安:我比較容易受教。我舉一個例子:

有一次,我和朋友甲討論一個邏輯問題。我的心目中一直以為,因為「先決條件」和「充份條件」,是兩個不同的概念,所以沒有關係。但是,甲指出「充份條件」其實即是,「所有先決條件」的總和。

經過他的解釋,我發覺原本「兩者沒有關係」的想法是錯的。我就自然立刻承認。我不單不會因為發現自己錯,有絲毫不高興;我反而會十分開心,因為,「發現自己原本錯」,其實就即是「發現了真正的答案」。

換句話說,「發現自己錯」的那一刻,正正是我知識增長,和智力提升的那一刻。)

那就即是話,你腦中的作業系統,是 Open Source 的 —— 容許別人修改。

(安:但是,我發覺大部分人,也不是那樣的。他們不單不會因為,發現「真正答案」而高興,甚至會全盤否定它,為的只是要「自己不會錯」。

這是我不能理解的。直到學到你的「心靈作業系統」理論,加上哲學家羅素的那一句,我才開始理解到,為何大部地球人,無論在過去、現在、將來,也「不可能有錯」。)

— Me@2014.06.26

A stupid man’s report of what a clever man says is never accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something that he can understand.

— A History of Western Philosophy

— Bertrand Russell

2014.06.27 Friday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

The Lucifer Effect

Stanford prison experiment

Zimbardo’s book, The Lucifer Effect, gets its title from the metamorphosis of Lucifer into Satan. Though the Christian Scriptures do not make this claim, according to Christian legend, Lucifer was once God’s favorite angel until he challenged God’s authority and was cast into Hell with all the other fallen angels. Thus, Zimbardo derives this title to explain how good people turn evil. Zimbardo’s main assumption on why good people do awful things is due to situational influences and power given from authority.

The Lucifer Effect was written in response to his findings in the Stanford Prison Experiment. Zimbardo believes that personality characteristics could play a role in how violent or submissive actions are manifested. In the book, Zimbardo says that humans cannot be defined as “good” or “evil” because we have the ability to act as both especially at the hand of the situation. According to Zimbardo, “Good people can be induced, seduced, and initiated into behaving in evil ways. They can also be led to act in irrational, stupid, self-destructive, antisocial, and mindless ways when they are immersed in ‘total situations’ that impact human nature in ways that challenge our sense of the stability and consistency of individual personality, of character, and of morality.”

He also notes that we as humans wish to believe in unchanging goodness of people and our power to resist situational and external pressures and temptations. In chapter 12, “Investigating Social Dynamics: Power, Conformity, and Obedience”, Zimbardo discusses that peer pressure, the desire to be ‘cool’, the fear of rejection, and simply being a part of a group are the focal points to acting preposterous to your character.

In The Journal of the American Medical Association, Zimbardo’s situational perspective received support from other social situational experiments that demonstrated the same idea and concept. Almost ten years prior to the Stanford Prison Experiment (1971), Stanley Milgram conducted research on obedient behavior in 1965 that embraced situational forces. Milgram had “teachers” that delivered mock electric shocks to the “learner” for every wrong answer that was given in a multiple choice test. The teachers however did not know that the electric shocks weren’t real but still continued to deliver them to the learner. At the end of the experiment, 65% of men ages 20–50 complied fully up to the very last voltage. In the same room as the teacher, there was a “confederate” that kept tabs on the teacher and if they were delivering the shocks to each wrong answer. In the beginning of the study, participants signed a waiver that clearly explained the ability to opt-out of the experiment and not deliver the shocks. But with the surprising result rate of teachers who did continue to shock the learners, there was a situational force. The situational force that influenced the teachers to continue was the voice of the confederate egging them on by phrases such as, “I advise you to continue with this experiment” or “I am telling you to continue delivering the shocks” and the one that caught most teachers was “You must continue with the shocks.” Although the teachers knew that they could leave the experiment at any point in time, they still continued when they felt uncomfortable because of the confederate’s voice demanding to proceed.

Both Milgram and Zimbardo’s experiment tested situational forces on an individual. Both results concluded that irrational behavior compared to one’s character is plausible for any human because we have both tendencies in our nature.

— Wikipedia on Philip Zimbardo

2014.06.23 Monday ACHK

點石成金

這段改編自 2010 年 4 月 10 日的對話。

(安:最近,我們才有稍為詳細的對話。在和你對話之前,我一路不知道,在很多情境之下,我自己其實沒有問題。問題在於其他人。)

什麼情境?

(安:在工作環境中,有時需要解釋一些東西予同事聽。一部分情況下,當我耐心地講完後,那位同事竟然一句也不明白,半句也不同意。那樣,我就覺得很震撼:「我明明是講得很詳細和清晰,為什麼他接收不到呢?」

該同事會直情會去到一個地步,覺得自己在任何情況下,也不可能有錯,亦不可能有東西不知道。

然後,我又會很自責:「會不會是我自以為詳細清晰,實質表達欠佳?」

直到最近和你對話,你提醒了我,其實這個星球,是一個精神病院,我才發覺,根本大部分地球人,都是愚中帶蠢的,我才不再那麼內疚,因為,大部分人聽不明白我的說話,未必是我的錯。)

對於初中或以下的人而言,大部分是可教的。對於高中或以上的人來說,大部分也是不可教的。你是例外,因為你以這個年紀,竟然仍會接受,別人的教導。

面對一些可教的人,我有「點石成金」的教學功力。「點石成金」在這裡的意思是,以一夕話的時間,解決你起碼一個知識的障礙,或者長久的心結。

如果我開一間補習社,它的名字將會是,「點石成金補習社」。

— Me@2014.06.17

2014.06.18 Wednesday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

心靈報章 2

這段改編自 2010 年 4 月 10 日的對話。

牽涉「境界」的問題,有時,有些事情很難解釋。例如,有人問:「為什麼你懂弄笑話?」

真正的原因,我不太好意思講出來,因為那有自誇之嫌。懂弄笑話的其中一個原因是,涉獵的知識足夠廣泛。例如,其中一句學生們覺得,十分有趣的精警句子是:

理論上,『理論上』和『實際上』沒有什麼分別;

但是,實際上,『理論上』和『實際上』卻有很大分別。

它是我從一本講有關「開源軟件」發展史的散文集中,學回來的。你試想想,一般人又怎能理解,「知識類型廣泛」和「弄笑話」,又有什麼直接關係呢?

(安:無錯,即使你解釋了,一般人也不會明白。)

正如,有很多人也會問學「數學」和「物理」,對一般人有什麼用途。真正的主要用途,在於提高智力。而「高智力」,可以應用在日常生活中,幾乎所有地方。但是,大部人也沒有足夠的智力,去理解「智力」可貴的地方。那自然不會有動機,為「提高智力」付出足夠的努力,去完成必須的學術訓練。

— Me@2014.05.05

2014.05.05 Monday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

心靈報章 1.2

這段改編自 2010 年 4 月 10 日的對話。

「境界」的意思是,關心的事情。「境界」越高,即是思考的領域越大,代表關心的事情越多、越重要、越長遠。

而依我的經驗,大部分人的境界,在一生之中,也不會提高。例如,現在的流行曲,絕大部分也是「情歌」。「愛情」是重要課題,所以「情歌」必須存在。但是,人生之中,只有「愛情」這個課題是重要的嗎?為什麼不可以有,其他主題的歌詞呢?

其實市面是有,「情歌」以外的高尚流行曲,但是比例不合理地少。那並不是填詞人沒有能力,只是他們為了生計,被迫主要迎合市場,遷就大眾。「大眾」的特點是「境界低」。試想想,如果一份報章數百篇文章之中,有九成以上都是講愛情的,那份報章會是多麼奇怪。但是,偏偏大部分人的「心靈報章」,就正正處於那個狀態。

所以,即使你另覓高就,你也會遇到,境界不高的人士。除非,在新的工作之中,你有權選擇,和誰拍檔,不和誰拍檔。正如,婚姻圓滿的重點是,雙方也是自由選擇,不是盲婚啞嫁。

(安:你的意思是,要我創業或者自僱?)

如果你現在累積了的財富,足夠你往後幾年的生活費,你可以試一試。否則,你最好忍耐一下。

— Me@2014.04.27

2014.05.01 Thursday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

心靈報章 1.1

這段改編自 2010 年 4 月 10 日的對話。

(安:我份工作最困難的部分是,在大部分的時間,我會被迫去,和很多很愚蠢的人士去溝通。)

我可以創作一些「設計對白」,給你去跟隨。那樣,你就不用太費神,也可以應付到他們。

(安:但是,設計給我的對白,並不是「劇本」。大家也必定跟著講的,才算是「劇本」。我不能期望,在我講完一些設計對白後,同事必定以,我心目中的想像去回應。)

我們可以創作不只一組對白。只要我們盡量想像多些,各個可能的情況,從而設計出一系列的對白,那堆「設計對白」就可以,涵蓋到大部分的情況。

(安:但是,人類的愚蠢,實在會超乎你的想像。再多的「設計對白」,也未必能應付得到。

那真是很奇怪的。有些人,在工作技術層面,明明是才幹了得,但是,那些人偏偏會在日常思考時,忽略了現實的一些局限。他們會完全不理會,例如,現實中的「人性」和「政治」是怎樣運作的。)

那要視乎當時人的境界。「境界」的意思是,關心的事情。「境界」越高,即是思考的領域越大,代表關心的事情越多、越重要、越長遠。

而依我的經驗,大部分人的境界,在一生之中,也不會提高。

— Me@2014.04.25

2014.04.27 Sunday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK