Advertisment, humiliation, manipulation

When discussing ad blockers, annoying pop ups, unwanted functions like shopping in a social app, I generally found my friends less annoyed than me. Indeed, I am sensitive against advertisments, but why?

Search engines played an important role since my childhood. I learned latest knowledge through it, and along with that, also learned to filter out unwanted advertisement when conducting search. Fool me once, shame on the ad; fool me twice, shame on me. This also extends to all internet applications like forums, shopping software, social software. Nearly all of the advertisemnet have negative consequences should one click into. The humiliation on misclicking an ad makes it a strong negative reward, and the rest is just reinforced learning working its magic.

Am I immune to advertisement though? No. I generally found myself into the style of Audi cars, and only recently when digging it really hard does I understand (at least I think I understand) the reason. You see, there was this really cool Audi RSQ driven by Will Smith, all futuristic and high-tech in the 2004 movie 'I, Robot'. Subtle advertisment, especially when combined with carefully articulated positive features like artism, can sometimes still penetrates the sensitive anti-ad mindset. Yeah also I was young in 2004.

Nearly all of the ads contains traces of manipulation, whether it injects an idea to buy a product, or an idea so you behave differently, maybe vote a different candidate, or practise enviromentalism. This is inevitable given the purpose of the advertisement. Not everyone would be able to detect to such manipulation, let alone to experience humiliation after the fact.

Some common ground needs to be hold, like the freedom of speech, which unfortnately inculdes ads. This makes the handling of ads generally a personal thing. Over sensitivity and defensive posture could have negative consequences. With ads becoming more socially acceptable and considered a norm, those who are easily annoyed might just feel more uncomfortable and outcasted, which helps little with the trend.

I can't help to detect the manipulation, but on second thought, the humiliation is what helped me learn. There is no such things as the burden of knowledge.

Open-mindedness 思想开明

日常性地,和朋友就中医问题展开辩论。其中一位拒绝支持或批判中医的同时,解释其原因是她本人'open-minded'.

我不会在此探究中医是否应当被支持或批判,但以下心理现象在这一事件中值得思考:

保守性思想开明

社会教会我们,如果我们有观点,需要通过合适的方式来表达,或者不表达,以尊重他人,避免冲突。需要避免讨论的话题通常包括宗教,政治意识形态,等等。

执行此种策略时,当事人拒绝完全支持或完全批判某一观点,即表现为“思想开明”,这往往是一个优秀公民的必要品质。

最理想的情况,思想开明应当是讨论各方批判性地从正反方面剖析某问题,在交流讨论中完善各方的观点。

Minds are like parachutes-they only function when open. Lord Thomas Dewar

但读者可以发现,没有思想Blank-minded,尚未形成观点Non-assertive,或者有思想但不发表观点Speechless,其表现和思想开明Open-minded非常相似,即既不完全支持也不完全批判某一观点,但本质迥异。

It would be a total different story if you don't hava a parachute at all.

科学与玄学

科学与玄学的争议和哲学中可知论与不可知论有很大的交集,作为哲学思辨的根本话题贯穿古今,即使在科学称为主流的今天也有很多人实际上坚定地主张玄学为本。这两种观念时常可以不精确的映射到理性和感性的思考方式上。

一个玄学派的朋友提了一个非常有意思的问题给我:

你看,世界各地都有独立的关于大洪水的传说,我们现在也一般性的认为人类历史上曾经确有过全球性的大洪水。但世界各地也有独立的神创论,同洪水说一样也是独立而互相印证的,为什么不相信神创论呢?科学是观察世界,总结规律,验证规律;玄学也观察世界,总结规律,互相验证规律。为什么要对玄学有偏见呢?

问题的关键在于“互相”。

一般意义上人总结的规律(注意不是唯物世界观里的客观规律的概念,我们不讨论客观规律是否存在是否可知),是不能跳脱出人的主观性的,因此是描述世界的一种模式和主观观念。按唯物的角度,世界为本,主观规律这种抽象的模式和观念应当越接近事实本身才越有意义,越“客观”。

我们如何检验主观规律和事实的接近程度,或称客观性?科学依靠的是观察,总结,验证这样一套不可置换顺序的流程,他要求观察和验证必须是有先后的,"独立"的,是以区别玄学中观察和验证中对此的不以为意,可以“互相”。

直观的说,这是为了避免主观筛选的样本本身具有过多的相似点而导致对规律的过度拟合———把巧合当成了一般规律。如果我们从普遍流传的神话故事的角度提出洪水说,他就要经过其他所有来源的信息的验证,比如考古学信息、天体物理学信息。如果我们从普遍流传的神话故事的角度提出神创论,那他一样需要其他所有领域的信息来验证。

刻意地缩小观察范围而扩大验证的范围(只根据一部分地区的神话提出神创论而用另一部分地区的理论来验证他,即所谓的“互相”验证)是没有意义的,直观上显然讲这样显然不能防止规律总结过度拟合,事实上他也的确有刻意忽视其他所有领域的信息的嫌疑:考古学的,天体物理学的。此处不展开论证。

当然,持玄学观念者可能既不了解考古学和进化论也不了解天体物理学,从而可能也并不认同。反之,持科学观念者不能忽视任何来源的信息,即使是玄学派的观点他也必须纳入考量(这样高质量的问题,这样的观点碰撞对我是极为有益的,因为在一次充分论证以后就可以一劳永逸的无视,这也是我写作本文的目的),以避免规律总结陷入巧合的过拟合。

以上所有的分析在机器学习理论中对数据集中训练测试集的划分是本质对应的。一个模型的优劣程度依靠测试集来评价,而测试集必须独立于训练集。在训练的过程中划分验证集来有效控制模型的过拟合,这两种看来理所当然的操作手段实际上正体现了科学和玄学的本质区别。

Asperger syndrome

I am now self-diagnoised as Asperger, according to following:

Reference

Baron-Cohen, Simon & Cassidy, Sarah & Auyeung, Bonnie & Allison, Carrie & Achoukhi, Maryam & Robertson, Sarah & Pohl, Alexa & Lai, Meng-Chuan. (2014). Attenuation of Typical Sex Differences in 800 Adults with Autism vs. 3,900 Controls. PloS one. 9. e102251. 10.1371/journal.pone.0102251.

Asperger syndrome

From Tamiko Ridley's comment on her daughter Reagan Ridley, Inside Job.

Am I? No.

The enlightment is not to bring perfectionism/maticulousness into social interactions.

Keep it everywhere else.

Autarky

Autarky is the characteristic of self-sufficiency, usually applied to societies, communities, states and their economic systems.

Autarky - Wikipedia

I came to know this word as a Nazi Germany economy policy in 1930s. It triggers me deep, as even for an already industrialized country, autarky is still an option.

用粗野或恶意的话侮辱人:~街|张嘴就~。 斥责:他爹~他不长进。 -- 现代汉语词典

我且认为,日常汉语的演进,大有把咒骂当作一种口头情绪的宣泄的趋势。此类咒骂,形式上确实多含侮辱,或为斥责,目的却不见得。倘若出门忘了带钥匙,骂一句“卧槽”,不见得此人便是认真侮辱斥责自己。如此咒骂,和叹词无异。

年少时读范仲淹岳阳楼记1,读到“不以物喜,不以己悲”,以为至理。但人性本兽,若是不准咒骂,未免过于严苛而有矫揉造作之嫌,仿佛不咒骂便不会有负面情绪。又读到陈涉世家2“王侯将相宁有种乎”,叹为千古绝骂,可惜新课本里整篇删掉了。

我认为情绪的宣泄与斥责,可以咒骂,但不宜有侮辱之意。虽然骂大多只是情绪的宣泄,但其必有来由。例如“傻逼”“智障”,不见得施法对象就真是“弱智”,但多有嫌弃“幼稚”“naive, too young”之意。在这一方面,长者可谓道行颇深。骂人幼稚,好歹还有长进的空间。

特别是以斥责为主的骂,其目的多是要施法对象意识到错误改正,除去情绪外还有强烈的目的性。我一般反对在这种时候带情绪处理问题。忍无可忍,也应当以讽刺为主。讽为幽默,刺求精准,这就对文化素养要求很高了。

有些骂,看似侮辱,实则,确实侮辱。鲁迅先生曾专就此写过一篇杂文《论“他妈的!”》3。先生认为国骂出处或无据可考,但北魏有邢子才“卿何必姓王?”,颇有骂人仰仗门第之意。这解读多少与先生反封建的社会背景有关。现在有人再讲“他妈的”,含义基本等同于“肏他妈的”。放到白左嘴里这大概可以解读成中国人歧视侮辱女性了,当然他们自己也有"mother fucker",倒是巧合?回到国骂本身,倘若当面骂人“肏你妈的”,不见得真要行不轨之事,但侮辱之意甚矣。

此类宣泄,虽不能说毫无由来,但适用性未必太广了一些,甚至有直接升格成叹词的趋势。按我说,不如以叹词职行叹词事,一句“什么东西”,大概能代替绝大部分的“肏他妈的”,保留惊怒,卸除侮辱。至于像“肏你妈的”这样当面刻意的侮辱,我是反对的。

按此思路,整理如下表格。尽量剥离不必要的侮辱,精准保留惊叹和负面的情绪及批判目的,力争骂出水平,骂出风采,尽量不被打死。此表长期更新,欢迎补充。后续表同。