being as an insider, things are always clouded and unclear. However, there is always a way to figure out what happen.
the problem is: can personal emotion, and mind-set not bias the judgement?
there are many "feeling", that will make us think differently. especially for an insider, it is very easy to be angry, for being cheated, betrayed and time-delayed, that will cause passive.
another thing will be happened is that, we are all one of the chess pieces, But which pieces we really are? a pawn? a knight? a bishop? a Queen? the King? or the player?
knowing position is very important as being an insider. since we need priciples to guide our motivation and action. by having a wrong idea on the position, things will out of control. the first one to last control is not others, but ourselve. and then, we are in passive position.
if assume there is only 1 way to be passive. thus, being angry is same as we lost control, and further lost a proper judgement. That may indicate that we are putting ourselve in a wrong pieces.
Thus, by knowing of this, we should adjust our position and then, play as a different role , to have a nice game.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Like and Change
(John can be a girl, Mary and Amy can be a boy. the following fantasy is dis-regard of sexual. so, i just follow the common usage for John-he-him.)
John likes Mary. and John wants Mary like him as well. so John changes.
however, after the successful change of John, the new John does not like Mary anymore. since the mind of John changed at the same time.
John likes Amy now. and he wants Amy like him as well. so John changes.
and the changed John does not like Amy.
so, does it mean john can never be loved by Mary and Amy?
John is a clever guy. John acts everything that Mary will like (of course by trying and info. collect), but deep inside, John does not change at all. (later on, Mary will say John is a cheater) John is not the type that Mary will like.
game will keep going on like this. (there is an exception, John already be loved by Mary)
thus, a cheater can have more love than the loyal. that is, the playboy! (play-boy = drama-boy)
the above fantasy is assuming Mary will be attracted by certain criteria, but, who is not? however, during the time John is changing, Mary may change too. it makes the game more complicated.
this model can also be applied in business. Toy maker wants young buyers, so, they changed to fit the buyer needs. after changed, Toy maker don't want young buyers but older buyer (may be change need time, time advance, the market changed). so, the best way for the toy maker is telling young buyer, it is what they want, by using advertisement.
John likes Mary. and John wants Mary like him as well. so John changes.
however, after the successful change of John, the new John does not like Mary anymore. since the mind of John changed at the same time.
John likes Amy now. and he wants Amy like him as well. so John changes.
and the changed John does not like Amy.
so, does it mean john can never be loved by Mary and Amy?
John is a clever guy. John acts everything that Mary will like (of course by trying and info. collect), but deep inside, John does not change at all. (later on, Mary will say John is a cheater) John is not the type that Mary will like.
game will keep going on like this. (there is an exception, John already be loved by Mary)
thus, a cheater can have more love than the loyal. that is, the playboy! (play-boy = drama-boy)
the above fantasy is assuming Mary will be attracted by certain criteria, but, who is not? however, during the time John is changing, Mary may change too. it makes the game more complicated.
this model can also be applied in business. Toy maker wants young buyers, so, they changed to fit the buyer needs. after changed, Toy maker don't want young buyers but older buyer (may be change need time, time advance, the market changed). so, the best way for the toy maker is telling young buyer, it is what they want, by using advertisement.
Blinded by selecting info.
Are we like to select those info. that we like, and neglect those info. that we dislike?
to have a more strong argument.
info. is a short term for information, which is a collection of all the things that we are able to understand, like news, opinions, facts, definitions.
"like" means, matching our mind-set. i cannot really solidify this concept. but i can provide some examples for "like". Chinese governors like to read good news for communism. American people like freedom and dislike dictatorship.
in the internet, or in the library, or in the sea of info., there are a lot info. that we can obtain. Do we have a better understanding, better memorization on those info that we like? and the more importantly, are we getting blinded when facing those info that we dislike, we afraid of?
if we change the info. to be foods, we of course like those foods that we like (<- very silly sentence:P) , and making us eat them more. and it also help our digestion system. this feed back mechanism will make us polarized. for eating balanced and healthy foods, that is not a big deal to be come polarized. however, for those people only like junk food, or unbalanced meals, the disadvantage is losing nutrition, becoming unhealthy. By the way, it can be known by checking our body healthy. to known whether we are polarized.
how about the mental food? i believe same thing happen. we have certain world-view in our mind, like fair, justice, open. i don't know others, but for me-self, when i read some articles that is opposing those value. i will automatically look other articles. like those published by Chinese government. one very significant thing happen is that, when i read a article that pin-pointed my disadvantage, i will escape from it. am i polarized??
so, i presumed, everyone has some degree of polarization. that's why there are many argument for people. Thus, to solve the conflict, people should learn how to de-polarized, or become multi-polarized. if you is a little guy in the society, just facing few people, you may not need to be mutli-polarized. but for people who always deal will others, to overcome the dis-likeness is the key to solving problem, by knowing the thing that we don't know and we even don't want to know.
In political science, a leadership has few elements, one of them is palpability. a very simply explanation is "see the unseen, know the unknown, and complete the impossible.", another expression is "notice the thing that you(most) did not notice, and conduct any necessary measurements" the idea can be a summery for this article.
to have a more strong argument.
info. is a short term for information, which is a collection of all the things that we are able to understand, like news, opinions, facts, definitions.
"like" means, matching our mind-set. i cannot really solidify this concept. but i can provide some examples for "like". Chinese governors like to read good news for communism. American people like freedom and dislike dictatorship.
in the internet, or in the library, or in the sea of info., there are a lot info. that we can obtain. Do we have a better understanding, better memorization on those info that we like? and the more importantly, are we getting blinded when facing those info that we dislike, we afraid of?
if we change the info. to be foods, we of course like those foods that we like (<- very silly sentence:P) , and making us eat them more. and it also help our digestion system. this feed back mechanism will make us polarized. for eating balanced and healthy foods, that is not a big deal to be come polarized. however, for those people only like junk food, or unbalanced meals, the disadvantage is losing nutrition, becoming unhealthy. By the way, it can be known by checking our body healthy. to known whether we are polarized.
how about the mental food? i believe same thing happen. we have certain world-view in our mind, like fair, justice, open. i don't know others, but for me-self, when i read some articles that is opposing those value. i will automatically look other articles. like those published by Chinese government. one very significant thing happen is that, when i read a article that pin-pointed my disadvantage, i will escape from it. am i polarized??
so, i presumed, everyone has some degree of polarization. that's why there are many argument for people. Thus, to solve the conflict, people should learn how to de-polarized, or become multi-polarized. if you is a little guy in the society, just facing few people, you may not need to be mutli-polarized. but for people who always deal will others, to overcome the dis-likeness is the key to solving problem, by knowing the thing that we don't know and we even don't want to know.
In political science, a leadership has few elements, one of them is palpability. a very simply explanation is "see the unseen, know the unknown, and complete the impossible.", another expression is "notice the thing that you(most) did not notice, and conduct any necessary measurements" the idea can be a summery for this article.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Election system
First, the "title a day" project is claimed to be death. few reasons, 1) very ambitious, 2) too ambitious, 3) just too ambitious.
ok, back the the content. it seem that our election system is just like 2000 years ago, the ancient Roma system -- few people or estates elect a person to represent them, and those elected people elect a person to represent them, and the process goes on, end at the "forum".
that system is because the communication system is not so good, and people are so many. if letting every one in the society discuss and vote for every thing, that will be so inefficient. however, now a day, every one can access internet, so, why not vote in internet? so many issues we can vote in the web. and the result can be fast respond to the government, or let the related department know what the people want. the simple discussion board is simply not enough and not attractive. since it gives no power to the people.
but there are many things need to be over come. mostly, security and identity problem. but i thing they are already solved. the security in the internet is very good so far, that's why so many people buy things online.
so, if everyone can use there credit card info as the identity certification, we can ensure no one vote more that 1 time.
if every vote cost some value, i mean, people do not vote will deduct money from bank (since voting is one responsibility for citizen, charge is needed for not taking the responsibility. ) than, many people will take part for the social event. well, the best thing is people who vote will get paid for, or award, instead of punishment, will be must better.
ok, back the the content. it seem that our election system is just like 2000 years ago, the ancient Roma system -- few people or estates elect a person to represent them, and those elected people elect a person to represent them, and the process goes on, end at the "forum".
that system is because the communication system is not so good, and people are so many. if letting every one in the society discuss and vote for every thing, that will be so inefficient. however, now a day, every one can access internet, so, why not vote in internet? so many issues we can vote in the web. and the result can be fast respond to the government, or let the related department know what the people want. the simple discussion board is simply not enough and not attractive. since it gives no power to the people.
but there are many things need to be over come. mostly, security and identity problem. but i thing they are already solved. the security in the internet is very good so far, that's why so many people buy things online.
so, if everyone can use there credit card info as the identity certification, we can ensure no one vote more that 1 time.
if every vote cost some value, i mean, people do not vote will deduct money from bank (since voting is one responsibility for citizen, charge is needed for not taking the responsibility. ) than, many people will take part for the social event. well, the best thing is people who vote will get paid for, or award, instead of punishment, will be must better.
Monday, July 07, 2008
Road to Public Welfare
in ancient Roma, people care so much on public welfare. they built road, water supply, pubic bath, public square, public library, public match ground, temple and a lot infrastructures, so that every one in Rome can live good and happy.
how about in china? no matter ancient china or modern china, people care less public welfare, or even none. people only care themselves. every great building was built for few, the emperor, the death wisdom. so that not much infrastructures were built, even built not because of public needs, but the government needs, or there is no choice but build.
one very interesting case is the Roma road. at the Roma time, Roma highway was built everywhere, so that the army can respond fast, and than, at the time of peace, the road helps goods and people travel. however, in China, road are seldom built, not even talk about "highway". the "theory" for chinese governors is like this: well, building road for our army seem to be a good idea, however, good road is easy for friends but also for enemy! we are not that fool to build road for our enemy!
the different and opposite opinions for 2 civilizations is so interesting. there may be hundred reasons behind. nevertheless, we can see which one is better.
there are few reason i thought for chinese behavior.
1) people don't not understand the truth meaning of selfish or what is good for them ultimately.
2) government/ country was controlled in only one men, that human does not need to take responsibility to public.
3) people afraid to have a win-win situation, only like win-lost, or lost-lost.
4) people is lack of confident of themselves.
5) people always emphasizes on the lost, but value little on the gains.
6) people are much focus on nature scene.
there are few points for Roma.
1) we live well as long as public live well. human are live in together. helping each other is the ultimate selfish behavior.
2) government is elected by public.
3) people only afraid lost-lost situation. if there is any benefit for them, no matter it is also good for other, they will go ahead.
4) people has confident.
how about in china? no matter ancient china or modern china, people care less public welfare, or even none. people only care themselves. every great building was built for few, the emperor, the death wisdom. so that not much infrastructures were built, even built not because of public needs, but the government needs, or there is no choice but build.
one very interesting case is the Roma road. at the Roma time, Roma highway was built everywhere, so that the army can respond fast, and than, at the time of peace, the road helps goods and people travel. however, in China, road are seldom built, not even talk about "highway". the "theory" for chinese governors is like this: well, building road for our army seem to be a good idea, however, good road is easy for friends but also for enemy! we are not that fool to build road for our enemy!
the different and opposite opinions for 2 civilizations is so interesting. there may be hundred reasons behind. nevertheless, we can see which one is better.
there are few reason i thought for chinese behavior.
1) people don't not understand the truth meaning of selfish or what is good for them ultimately.
2) government/ country was controlled in only one men, that human does not need to take responsibility to public.
3) people afraid to have a win-win situation, only like win-lost, or lost-lost.
4) people is lack of confident of themselves.
5) people always emphasizes on the lost, but value little on the gains.
6) people are much focus on nature scene.
there are few points for Roma.
1) we live well as long as public live well. human are live in together. helping each other is the ultimate selfish behavior.
2) government is elected by public.
3) people only afraid lost-lost situation. if there is any benefit for them, no matter it is also good for other, they will go ahead.
4) people has confident.
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
excuse - some comments for A-level students
this is not belong to "title a day"
before everything, let me quote a psychological fact: people like to change the world's explanation, to fit their mind-set, instead of changing their mind to suit the world. that is why excuse created. or, people like to point out their failure is due to the world, but not their own.
today read a newspaper article, saying that, since the "mother-tongue" education policy, student ability toward the "foreign-tongue" (English) was degraded.
it is not so fair discussion for the policy. yes, everyone knew that the policy will degrade the foreign language ability, in the trade off for the more understanding in other subjects, like science, economy, literature, etc. so, people also look for the other subjects average performance as well. if the average grade of english was down, but the average grade of others were up, the policy should be claimed as successful.
And now, many students complain about the the policy instead of himself lazy. (from now, himself is pointed to general "self", and does not contain any sexual discrimination.) think about before the policy established, A-level students also complain on the selection system, but never for himself disability. Now, the policy is a social-created new rescue, to cover their weakness and facing the disability. one student said, "the other schools got C as their lowest grade (for english), but my school, C is the highest grade." Can this sentence is a defense? or a argument for the policy? why he cannot be the one who got C-grade? does he ever ask himself like this? no, all he wish is the social failure instead of himself failure.
and most A-level students feel unfair that they cannot get enrolled in the coming university semester, because of the fail of english, the limited places of university, the teachers are so bad in his school, even of their lower quality compare to the others. well, following this feeling, mark-six lottery-owners should also feel unfair for no luck. there is just 10K places for 35K students, students not get a place is completely normal! for those dis-satisfied, no matter how good you are thinking for yourself, there are at least one-third of students better that you. so, except feeling regret for wasting time in the past 1.5 years, nothing you deserve to feel.
at last, getting a degree is not such a big deal. just like Cert-level students feels the exam is so important but when they are in A-level, the past is nothing. did Mr. Lee care for the degree? did Mr. Gate care? Oh, they should, when they are not successful, since they need an explanation for their failure! same theory applied to most people in HK. people need an excuse for their failure, and the reason must not be themselves, it must be th society make them fail, so they have no choice but fail, a typical Mr.Q's philosophy.
Compare statistic for A-level candidates
we can see the average grade of other subjects did not improved obviously. that is , the policy fail. and the reason may be, student become more lazy as they did not put more time on english, when other subject can save time. however, taken Chinese as answering language is just 10% to 20%, the improvement/dis-improvement may not be reflected.the only chinese answering statistic should be released.
all in all, A-level students, no matter you are good or not, take responsibility toward yourselves, especially when you are fail.
before everything, let me quote a psychological fact: people like to change the world's explanation, to fit their mind-set, instead of changing their mind to suit the world. that is why excuse created. or, people like to point out their failure is due to the world, but not their own.
today read a newspaper article, saying that, since the "mother-tongue" education policy, student ability toward the "foreign-tongue" (English) was degraded.
it is not so fair discussion for the policy. yes, everyone knew that the policy will degrade the foreign language ability, in the trade off for the more understanding in other subjects, like science, economy, literature, etc. so, people also look for the other subjects average performance as well. if the average grade of english was down, but the average grade of others were up, the policy should be claimed as successful.
And now, many students complain about the the policy instead of himself lazy. (from now, himself is pointed to general "self", and does not contain any sexual discrimination.) think about before the policy established, A-level students also complain on the selection system, but never for himself disability. Now, the policy is a social-created new rescue, to cover their weakness and facing the disability. one student said, "the other schools got C as their lowest grade (for english), but my school, C is the highest grade." Can this sentence is a defense? or a argument for the policy? why he cannot be the one who got C-grade? does he ever ask himself like this? no, all he wish is the social failure instead of himself failure.
and most A-level students feel unfair that they cannot get enrolled in the coming university semester, because of the fail of english, the limited places of university, the teachers are so bad in his school, even of their lower quality compare to the others. well, following this feeling, mark-six lottery-owners should also feel unfair for no luck. there is just 10K places for 35K students, students not get a place is completely normal! for those dis-satisfied, no matter how good you are thinking for yourself, there are at least one-third of students better that you. so, except feeling regret for wasting time in the past 1.5 years, nothing you deserve to feel.
at last, getting a degree is not such a big deal. just like Cert-level students feels the exam is so important but when they are in A-level, the past is nothing. did Mr. Lee care for the degree? did Mr. Gate care? Oh, they should, when they are not successful, since they need an explanation for their failure! same theory applied to most people in HK. people need an excuse for their failure, and the reason must not be themselves, it must be th society make them fail, so they have no choice but fail, a typical Mr.Q's philosophy.
Compare statistic for A-level candidates
we can see the average grade of other subjects did not improved obviously. that is , the policy fail. and the reason may be, student become more lazy as they did not put more time on english, when other subject can save time. however, taken Chinese as answering language is just 10% to 20%, the improvement/dis-improvement may not be reflected.the only chinese answering statistic should be released.
all in all, A-level students, no matter you are good or not, take responsibility toward yourselves, especially when you are fail.
Natural
"Natural" is another meaningless word, because no one can define it concretely. however, it has been used so wide that most people believe they knew what it is.
fews example for this word are:
1, people want to be beautiful naturally.
2, john die naturally.
3, it happened naturally.
the first fews "explanation" from dictionary.com
when people use the word, it sounds like everything myth is automatically become clear and understandable. and it is because of the un-doubtful of the word, it was used to convince people and used in arguments.
some people may have a better understanding of this word: it is reference to those that is not created by human, sounds like everything was done by human is un-natural, or artificial. (un-natural is a word mostly means harm to nature, or abnormal ) however, why human action is un-natural? are we part of the nature? or we are already become god and goddess, that independent of the natural? a nest made by a bird is completely natural, but a house built by human is not. a society formed by orangutans is natural, but human society is not. is that anything made us so supreme that we are isolated from the word? our body, our brain volume, our society are all the evolution product by the natural selection. even the pollutions that produced from us are completely natural and it is a consequences of the history, or in more scientific saying, everything happen so far is produced, (related, connected) by the past light cone history. so, what is natural??? may be the word "natural" is more like to be " can be found in non-human disturbance" , no this is not so good at all, since we also use "natural" to describe human being. anyway, artificial is part of natural.
since everything we experienced is happened in this universe, this earth, this nature. so, nature is the perform of everything can be happened. everything is completely natural. imagine in a video game, can you move your character in an "un-game-ic" way? no, all you can do is already designed by the game, so, all experiences are completely "game-ic". even though you are the game designer, when every newly added tricks in the game, that trick should be classify as "in-game" or "game-ic".
i am not going to suggesting something like god, a supreme stuff that outside and design/control the world. just imagine you are a character in a game, can you distinguish what is the new patch from the game developers? all you can see is the game's law is different from the past, and you can simply think you discovered a new way, a new law of the game! just like we are living in this world, if there is a kind of god, who sometimes send a new patch to this world, and we just discover and consider it is a new science. (may be the god is so busy on writing patch for my thesis, until it releases a new patch, my thesis cannot be complete. :P) or, we assume everything was set at the very beginning, we are just dig out the truth deeper and deeper. (just like chess, the rule is already set, but the game play can be discovered/innovated.) by the way, since these 2 approaches can not be proved or disproof, so, discussion of this is meaningless and should be stopped.
as long as this world can be understand, everything in this world must be natural. so, an un-natural stuff may be not "nature-friendly" or cannot be explained or understand. this related to how we experience the world and skipped in here.
all in all, "natural" is a very un-natural word, :P .......... or even bulllock.
fews example for this word are:
1, people want to be beautiful naturally.
2, john die naturally.
3, it happened naturally.
the first fews "explanation" from dictionary.com
| 1. | existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial): a natural bridge. |
| 2. | based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature: Growth is a natural process. |
| 3. | of or pertaining to nature or the universe: natural beauty. |
| 4. | of, pertaining to, or occupied with the study of natural science: conducting natural experiments. |
| 5. | in a state of nature; uncultivated, as land. |
| 6. | growing spontaneously, without being planted or tended by human hand, as vegetation. |
| 7. | having undergone little or no processing and containing no chemical additives: natural food; natural ingredients. Compare organic (def. 11). |
| 8. | having a real or physical existence, as opposed to one that is spiritual, intellectual, fictitious, etc. |
| 9. | of, pertaining to, or proper to the nature or essential constitution: natural ability. |
| 10. | proper to the circumstances of the case: a natural result of his greed. |
when people use the word, it sounds like everything myth is automatically become clear and understandable. and it is because of the un-doubtful of the word, it was used to convince people and used in arguments.
some people may have a better understanding of this word: it is reference to those that is not created by human, sounds like everything was done by human is un-natural, or artificial. (un-natural is a word mostly means harm to nature, or abnormal ) however, why human action is un-natural? are we part of the nature? or we are already become god and goddess, that independent of the natural? a nest made by a bird is completely natural, but a house built by human is not. a society formed by orangutans is natural, but human society is not. is that anything made us so supreme that we are isolated from the word? our body, our brain volume, our society are all the evolution product by the natural selection. even the pollutions that produced from us are completely natural and it is a consequences of the history, or in more scientific saying, everything happen so far is produced, (related, connected) by the past light cone history. so, what is natural??? may be the word "natural" is more like to be " can be found in non-human disturbance" , no this is not so good at all, since we also use "natural" to describe human being. anyway, artificial is part of natural.
since everything we experienced is happened in this universe, this earth, this nature. so, nature is the perform of everything can be happened. everything is completely natural. imagine in a video game, can you move your character in an "un-game-ic" way? no, all you can do is already designed by the game, so, all experiences are completely "game-ic". even though you are the game designer, when every newly added tricks in the game, that trick should be classify as "in-game" or "game-ic".
i am not going to suggesting something like god, a supreme stuff that outside and design/control the world. just imagine you are a character in a game, can you distinguish what is the new patch from the game developers? all you can see is the game's law is different from the past, and you can simply think you discovered a new way, a new law of the game! just like we are living in this world, if there is a kind of god, who sometimes send a new patch to this world, and we just discover and consider it is a new science. (may be the god is so busy on writing patch for my thesis, until it releases a new patch, my thesis cannot be complete. :P) or, we assume everything was set at the very beginning, we are just dig out the truth deeper and deeper. (just like chess, the rule is already set, but the game play can be discovered/innovated.) by the way, since these 2 approaches can not be proved or disproof, so, discussion of this is meaningless and should be stopped.
as long as this world can be understand, everything in this world must be natural. so, an un-natural stuff may be not "nature-friendly" or cannot be explained or understand. this related to how we experience the world and skipped in here.
all in all, "natural" is a very un-natural word, :P .......... or even bulllock.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)