人的行為的七個層次

以前讀研究院時,學到了可以用七個層次去分析人的行為,每一個在上面的層次可以修改下一層的效應:
1.生物層,如胃在一定時間以懦動來消化食物;
2.神經心理層,神經系統將胃空空轉化肚餓的感覺,但在某些情況下,胃空空不一定產生肚餓的感覺;
3.個人心理層,因為肚餓而激發出食慾,不過食慾卻可以和肚餓的感覺無關係,但是在某些心理情況下肚餓的感覺不能激發出食慾,如情緒低落時(Depression);
4.人際關係層,有食慾時亦要想及和什麼人一同吃最好吃,彼此的感情交流當然會影響這一餐的氣氛/整體觀感,年輕時和熱戀中的女朋友一同吃,恐怕吃而不知其味,只會留意到女朋友的身裁;要是和要好的朋友一同吃,可能普通的一餐味道亦一流;
5.社會層,吃飯當然是一個社交場合,要有禮貌,不同的禮貌適用於不同的社交場合,一個低下階層的勞工在中級餐館和朋友吃一餐可能會感覺拘僅,但是一個高尚階層的經理在中級餐館和朋友吃一餐可能會覺得很不自在;
6.國家層面,國家如何以法規去管理餐館,有什麼法律和部門,有什麼程序?政治/經濟如何影響法規?經濟蕭條和繁榮的時侯一餐雖然可能是同一種食物,但是感覺不一樣;
7.國際層面,依食物是由本土供應還是他國供應,煮的人是本地人還是外國人,兩國的關係如何影響前兩者?例如在兩次大戰時在中國餐館吃日本食物的感覺一定不同於在日本餐館吃中國食物。

以心理史觀來看香港和中國未來的發展

現實是在中共的勢力日益上升,香港自由的空間愈來愈小是心理史觀上的必然,由1997到2007是中共錯估了形勢,又或者未夠時間去介入(和拉攏台灣有關?),然後就是全面介入及全面控制,這是它對台灣、香港及國內公民社會發展的回應,它首先肯定它自己一定是遊戲的一部份,然後理所當然要佔優,理所當然地用它的雄厚資源來做後盾。雄厚資源來自專政政治下人民的一切都是國家的資產,可隨意使用;資本主義下人民的反抗力量強一點(私產權),會懂得反抗一點,但政府要挪用永遠不會無辦法。人的天性,誰不想隨心所欲,不過一個後者有明文禁止,而中共為了統治方便而不明文禁止,如此而已。因為專政政治的內部規則,所以介入最後的結果一定是自由空間的壓縮,別忘記中共還有文化上的龐大影響力,任何人或物,不可否認的是只要生存便一定有影響力。

好了,在去政治化的社會,反而是泛政治化,一般人都沒有不參與的權利,不少香港中產階級及年輕人都在發夢,以為中共的勢力不會理他們,然而看看中共的三反五反、文化大革命,你以為這些平民人人都想搞政治麼?在專制下他們為了生存不得不如此而已,你以為他們真的很想搞鬥爭麼?好了,在香港,看看北京奧運中社會一點異議都不容、看看明報歪曲事實來支持中共的李柱銘(詳看林夕網誌)是漢奸說、看看以前的愛國論事件、看看每一次選舉中共如何或明或暗的干預、看看電視中一個個以時人時事為嘲笑的節目都消失、看看港台的前途堪虞、看看ICAC對處理黃玉郎的放慢板、看看陶傑的「斑馬天下」如何一點點被化約成一個旅遊節目、尤其是看看主播天下的西藏特緝!專制容不下任何異議的聲音,每年的六四、七一,中共都相當反感,派人來拍攝參與者的樣貌,你可知它心裏想的是什麼呢?

香港的知識份子要生存不可以冷膜,對抗中共及香港的代言人是生存的唯一出路。你看看陳冠希事件後香港政府的反應是什麼?是想盡辦法保證下次同類事件不再「出亂子」,下次奇拿未出手已經被西方國家以傷害他們在中國的利益為由而被拉,專制的統治不容有意外,這是中共的唯物觀,逆天而行是也!任何自由性格的人,其實都需要反抗中共,而如果他/她是中產,而且聰明、有知識、有創意、有點個人魅力,在互聯網時代下,破壞能力就驚人,他們是中共在香港的心腹大患,它不怕泛民主派因為泛民有完整的理念,行為可以預計,亦一早有對策。以它的本性及心理狀態,最怕的應年輕有知識、甚至有一點個人魅力的自由人如林夕,因他們隨時可以弄一個福佳出來,令香港政府及中共難堪。幽默、創意天生是專制的敵人(你看看「十六不搭喜趣來」的下場),97以前反智是因為殖民地統治需要,如今中共的本質,只是另一個宗主國,當然要反智。要是香港不反智, 天天出一個長毛,香港政府如何以最低的社會成本來統治?

看到電視節目中以時人時事的笑話節目愈來愈少,就是中共專制的陰影已經在香港生根的明證。它要如何控制我們,參看它如何接官西藏,它一定不會直接打壓自由主義者,因為要顧及國際形像,而且易激起反彈;它一定是由資本主義社會的劣恨性開始,一步步腐蝕它不喜歡的人的生存空間,如果可以的話,最好把「疑似異議人仕」一個個以各種名義「放遂」出國。香港自97以後自由不停向後倒退是事實(有數據證明),但因為政治制度被逼向更民主方向發展,結果香港社會的內秏一天比一天嚴重,投訴聖經事件正是其中一例,所以有人以為香港終會有暴動一天(約二年),因為世界自由化,中共反自由,香港夾在中間,文化衝突最烈。香港社會的核心問題在北京,提倡香港獨立者比其他人更需要想辦法反抗中共對香港的統治!

發生大衝突後,如果沒有特殊的外因,根本改變不了香港/中共國的政治生態,結果會如何?秋後算賬是也,中共可以用政治上的權力(代價較高),可以用經濟實力(如果他工作的公司在中共國有生意的話),可以用唯命是從的傳媒來殺人不用刀,可以用發自真心的暴民/憤青(代價最低),香港的知識份子頭腦要清醒一點,因為中國的前途在於你們肯站起來反抗。

如果不作有系統反抗,中國香港遲早一同船毀人亡!
(陳巧文小姐,你看到了沒有?今次香港的網民可以壓得住糞青的「姦殺令」,但再多5年後又如何?在中共國內又如何?如果你真心的想改變中國,還不快快留言加入我們!我不會公開任何有志之仕的資料的!)

道家思想和心理學的異同

我在「視而不見和心理學」及「視而不見和心理分析學」中提及心理學的一些邏緝和道家哲學相同的地方,用意是道家哲學可以用邏緝來推出一些通用於心理學、物理學、化學及生物學的事實,然而,道家思想和心理學不是無相異的地方。他們相異的地方,正是在「心理分析學和行為主義(II)」一文中提及的心理分析學和行為主義相同的地方,因為兩學派都以為人的由其歷史決定其行為/思想,但過去的影響可以透過方法去消除/改變,理論上還可以還原到原始狀態,再一次經由不同的歷史產生另一套行為/思想。然而按我所理解的道家思想,「返樸歸真」是代表人可以減低的影響,卻不代表人的過去可以用任何方式去清洗,正如學功夫一定是先學招式,再漸漸忘記其招式,卻不可以在一開始時立刻教授最高階的「無招勝有招」;但心理分析學派及行為主義學派都認為,人是有無限還原的能力的。到底矛盾在哪裏?

Comparing Afghanistan and Iraqi

Comparing Afghanistan and Iraqi is, in a sense, like comparing oranges and apples. Although they are both Muslims country, it is too much a simplification that American generals done in orchestrating the overthrow of their governments and the transition to civilian ruling. In the eye of American, they are both ruled by ruthless dictators, however, the subtle difference lies in the form of dictatorship it is taking. Also in the eye of American, their people enjoy little freedom as those in other Muslims country, but the subtleties lies in what way their people are deprived of their freedom, as well as the altitudes of governed toward their native government. These subtle difference resulted in great difference in the consequences.
In Iraqi, as much as American like to imagine, it is one of the few secular countries(other include Turkey and Iran) among its Muslims neighbor. Thus, in a sense, the Iraqi citizen are enjoying unprecedented freedom compare to those of their neighbor. Is that more likely Iraqi citizen compare themselves to other neighbor or to America? It appears to me that American has a habit of taking everything from USA as granted without putting it into historical context, and assuming the whole world think like USA citizen. Moreover, it maybe that the freedom could be exercised by Iraqi citizen is far less than what is stated in the constitution, but it is much better than the theocracy in Afghanistan. Another important factor is that the economical condition of an average Iraqis is far better than an average Afghanistan citizen, therefore the dissident are mostly political in nature. As wicked as Saddam Hussein be, his political party has come to power via a process that at least has some legitimacy, thus the root of legitimacy lies in political system.

Now, for Afghanistan, the struggle between Taliban and Northern Alliance is seen by many as power struggle between Arabs and native Afghanistians. Thus Taliban’s only sense of legitimacy come from its political ideal of moral-theocracy, but not its performance in managing the national economy, and its non-native root is never forgotten by its citizen. Therefore, USA is choosing the right stragety in toppling Taliban through aiding its proxy. However, the invasion of Iraqi could NEVER be right in the eye of Iraqis unless its toppled by revolution incited by USA. To them, it is United States invading Iraqi using the excuse of freedom and liberation, since lack of freedom wasn’t a concern for Iraqis big enough to rebel against a secular government. This government wasn’t a good one, but Iraqis fear more of the rule by religion as in other non-secular Muslims states. How much freedom that USA could bring to Iraqi purposefully rather than it take away unintentionally?
Therefore, it is not a surprise to anyone that rebellion resulted after USA declared its victory, it is as much as Saddam Hussein’s masterminded plan as much as a normal reaction to the political situation there. Since the original government is toppled, it is thus nature for every political/religion fraction to struggle for power there. Since Iraqi has little or no tradition of representative democracy, the easiest cost way to power is through violence and guns(In part because USA doesn’t have the military might/political will to fight every fraction in Iraq). USA should have known that Iraqis is perhaps the most militarized civilian in the world, and bullet cost much less than ballet.
What has happened now should be predictable beforehand. Is that American who are naive and stupid or they have other things in mind when invading Iraqi? Is that regardless of the situation in Iraqi, USA could make some gains from this invasion?

The Reconstruction of female in a Male-dominated society

When I was studying in USA, I observe that the dramas and movies are dominated by male themes like violence, causal sex. What sadden me is in a society which has a long traditional of gender equality; while in the Television, not just male is evaluating female via external qualities like looks and body but female is also portrayed as evaluating male in the same way male evaluate female. It appears to me that female is losing their femininity in their quest to become equal with male. Why is not the other ways around given female usually has longer life than male?

I remember how shocked I am when I realize that female has a different cognitive process in evaluating their suitor. The first time I seriously considering the possibility that internal qualities like personality, intelligence, sense of humor, wealth could be attractive in the same sense that external qualities like bodies and looks attractive to male. It appears to me that the process for male probably bear a closer relationship with sexual arousal than female. How is the alternative process possible? How is the process different from that of male?

In any sense, it would be of value for male to learn from the way which female choose their suitor. It appears to me that external qualities of anyone only hold their charm for relatively shorter time compare to the charm of internal qualities to female. Therefore, it sadden me much to see how the whole US society
is turning everyone into animal of sexual arousal, but care nothing about Philosopher. So USA culture only concerns about how to get the other sex to agree to your proposal of marriage; but not the content of the marriage.

你好有性格!

這是最常見聽到的一句話,我第一次聽後,心想:每個人都有性格,我到底如何可以比其他人更有性格呢?除非是其他人根本沒有性格的!
性格的意思是人的行為/思想/感情套進一套思想框架去分析,然後嘗試建立一套最完整的理論可以完全涵括這個的所有行為/思想/感情,但是因為人的行為往往最受他的身份/角色以及情境(situation)共同決定,因此我們通常看到的其實不真正反映由個人性格產生的行為,而是他的工作需要的行為/態度。如果要真正觀察一個人的性格,一是透過多種不同身份/角色以及情境下的行為,另一是以他的身份/角色以及情境為標準,再細心觀察他如何去扮演的角色,他扮演這角色時的個人特色,例如是不是比其他售貨員更主動、或者本來應該多言的卻沉默寡言。而這樣推敲出來的性格還只可以是推測,因為我們不會直接觀察到他的動機。如此這般,何來有一些人很有性格呢?
我只可以猜想,這句話的通義代表了某些人的行為在某情況下特別起眼,而通常含貾義,泛指不合作的人。因為如果在工作時同事合作無間,則合作無間的行為,只可以歸因於為工作而合作,而不是本來是一個喜歡和別人合作的人,反而,明明工作需要同事合作,卻有同事偏不合作,由以上的邏緝於是有人歸因於他本人的性格,這是因為他的本身而不是由工作需要而來。另一層含意是在香港「主流主義」的社會環境下,每一個人都害怕自己太獨特出衆,因為「槍打出頭鳥」,行為與別不同的人很容易成為公衆的發洩對象。無他,公衆因為生活需要壓抑自己性格而非常不滿,其他膽敢雷池半步的人,自然成為最佳的攻擊對象西,所以每人都堨力壓抑自己的性格,避免成為集體攻擊的對象。
我好有性格,是不是代表有人無性格?無性格的人,是社會心理學的香港奇蹟。

泛道德主義為體,法治精神為用?

陳冠希的事件,真是一筆豐富的社會學資源,無論怎樣寫也寫不盡當中的社會/政治/經濟/心理互動。
其中一件我留意到的是香港似乎抱着「泛道德主義為體,法治精神為用」的精神,在情感上認同泛道德主義,但行為細節就依法治精神來做。因此,一般人都認同裸照中的女星是受害者,因為她們被無禮對待,赤身露體任人評頭品足;另外,奇拿的「俠義行為」亦被視為不道德,屬於不問自取,不禮貌地向公衆展示女星的性交照;陳冠希首先是有婚外性行為,後來因承擔責任而令公衆對他的印象改觀;都是屬於的泛道德主義的範圍。
而法治精神對於香港人以言,是該案例的處理手法是否合乎法治的程序,以及法例是否被濫用,因此是不屬於泛道德主義管理的範圍,所以網民上街遊行抗議社會不公義時,泛道德主義陣營連一句話都說不出。可見在泛道德主義者心中,泛道德主義和社會公義是兩碼事,泛道德主義者談的是人與人之間的道德,卻不是統治者行為的道德,似乎和泛道德主義祖宗的儒家思想的以仁德來治國的政治理想相去甚遠。為什麼不可以用泛道德主義來分析香港統治者行為?為什麼不可以同一思想、同一標準來看待陳冠希、他的性伴侶、香港警方、奇拿、英皇娛樂集團及上下載陳冠希性交照的網民?可見泛道德主義只是在情感上生效,在具體執行時卻和法治精神無關,泛道德主義是不是有道德而無法治?網民是不是有法治而無道德?為什麼網民不可以以政府行為不道德號召泛道德主義者?為什麼泛道德主義不可以用法治精神來捍衛網民的合法權益?

戀童廦的心理學意義

(WARNING: THIS links below contain MATERIAL WHICH MAY OFFEND AND MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED, CIRCULATED, SOLD, HIRED, GIVEN, LENT, SHOWN, PLAYED OR PROJECTED TO A PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS 警告: 以下連結內容可能令人反感; 不可將本物品派發、傳閱、出售、出租、交給或出借予年齡未滿18歲的人士或將本物品向該等人士出示、播放或放映。)

戀童廦的心理象徵意義有(不帶任何價值判斷):
1.兒童是純真的代表,純真代表無機心、無計算,不如成年人世界常見的兩性之間的性勒索,亦有處女情意結的影子。色情小說中常常用處女來做題材,而核心就是由貞潔被男性引領至淫蕩,居然出現了有經驗的處女的怪事,而抽述和兒童性交的色情小說,亦多強調兒童的純真和可憐,不明白成年人對他們的盤算;
2.兒童不會有愛情,有性無愛,和一夜情的理念相同,一夜情可以很浪漫,一生一世卻很沉重。如今社會天天浸淫在感情消費模式中,連小學生都懂談情說愛。要有真正的有性無愛的關係十分困難,於是有人唯有把年齡向下調,尋找愛情白痴,兒童於是成為其中一種對象;
3.兒童不會有意外懷孕,在無擔心之下盡情享受性交的快感,不同夫妻間會爭拗懷孕的問題,一方想懷孕另外一方不想懷孕,這在中國人的社會最明顯,就算是雙方同意懷孕不懷孕都會備受雙方父母的壓力。沒有任何不良後果的純性愛一切是全世界男人的最大願望,不少人為此不惜一切,甚至就算對象是近乎不懂性的兒童亦不放過;
4.害怕由性經驗比自己多的女性在性方面主導,陽痿心結。因為社會日趨開放,可能女性的性經驗比不少男性還豐富,或者男性自覺是女性的性玩物,而Twins一度流行,每次皆以學生制服示人,正是利用及強化中年男性的此一心結。香港式Lolita潮流的核心是什麼?不正正是讓男性在幻想把女性的變為性經驗比自己少的玩物;另外,因為大部份日本漫畫中的女主角都是去性化了的,因此亦不排除Cosplay玩家亦有類似的功用。
5.性剝削,由權力及操縱帶來的快感,這和一般人找性工作者的理由一樣,因為大多人都感覺不到命運在自己手裏,天生的權力意志(Will to power)在日常生活中得不到滿足,人生的無奈,一方面亦與後現代社會「人人平凡論」有關。

乘如Freud所言,病態心理是常態心理的延伸,可不可以倒過頭說常態心理是病態心理的延伸呢?
不知以下一篇我所寫作的色情小說有沒有以上的元素?另外一篇屋村淫傳的心理學涵義亦不少,尤其令人聯想起97年前後的香港!

Pleasure Principle and Cognitive Process

Freud use the Pleasure Principle to understand the operation of Unconscious. To him, Unconscious is probably evolved as a necessary mental apparatus to ensure the survival of the body. Therefore many consider that idea is only adequate to explain the satisfaction of lower human level such as Food. Water and Sex. However, Humanist’s idea of hierarchy of Human need is in a means of ‘extending’ the same model of Unconscious into other psychology realm. Essentially, in the eye of Humanist, there is no difference between different human needs in terms of its basic structure: All of them rely on Freud’s Deprivation-Satisfaction model. I always ponder if there is any fundamental difference between human needs at different hierarchy? Could the need of self-esteem, the need for self-actualization be anything categorically different from the need for food and sex? Is there anything wrong by placing all Human needs in the same framework of understanding? Are all human needs share the same psychological mechanism? Or each human need has a slightly different mechanism unique to its nature? Are all of them has basis in neurology?
What led me to ask this question is an very simple observation of the most common psychological process: Thinking. The secret of all thinker, Mathematician and researcher is all of them would enjoy the pleasure upon the complete resolution of their curiosity. Is that feeling of satisfaction be any difference from the sexual satisfaction? Are they base on similar/same neurological mechanism? So is that right in asserting that Pleasure Principle not just rule the Unconscious, it is also the same mechanism in the Higher Cognitive Process like Logical Thinking and Analyzing? Humanist Psychology does open the door for the possibility of understanding the Higher Cognitive Process via the existing knowledge on the how basic Human needs are built and satisfy. Or the reality is just the opposite, it is the Basic Human need like hunger and sex mimic the satisfaction mechanism of Higher Cognitive Process? Or it is the Higher Cognitive Process doesn’t have its own expressive mechanism, it has to borrow from the Lower? How could we differentiate between them? Is the phrase ‘The pleasure of knowledge’ has any literal truth value?

Conceptual invention on Work

Fri, Apr 1, 2005 at 1:11 PM

Yet another odd idea.
From my observation, a fixed salary had the problem of driving employee lazy, as the income is guaranteed, there is no motivate to improve themselves; however, a quota based system would not provide the security that some employee wanted.
So I have two suggestions:
A. Range of Salary from minimum performance to maximum performance evaluate by the manager or co-rated by other workers. It refer to a grade-translation table which is known by every employee, for instance A is 60000-50000 and B is 50000-40000. Maybe along with some parameter according to yet another formula. This allow employee the flexible of job performance;

B. We could divide the treatment of employee into several aspect, in our case is Standard of Living, Research Support and Patenting Support. Each of them could be divided into 3 class of treatment. Each year/month employee get a number from 6-9, and s/he could distribute his/her number into these aspect of treatment, and receive it the next month/year according to his/her choice. This not just give the employee the flexibility of job performance, also the range of freedom and choice. So almost every employee could entitle any level of treatment as s/he wish. And it become very hard for employee to compare to each other on these treatment. It would allow maximum freedom and creativity from each employee. A more complex system would including different weight in different aspect.
B. The general concept of B is n aspect, each with 3 class. Each year/month the employee’s job performance is rated to a specific number, s/he had the freedom to distribute that number according to his/her need and wish. A more complex system would include loan and delay usage.
Notice that I don’t use salary but standard of living, since salary is a number which does NOT necessarily translate to real issue of living; an assurance of standard of living would be more comfortable to employee.
What would be your choice?