北京奧運是世界未日續篇

在我寫「北京奧運是世界未日的序幕」時侯,想到是中共國經濟崩潰,而不是美國的經濟崩潰,中共國因北京奧運太早被炒得太熱,因此損失了辦奧運一部份經濟收 益,實屬平常事。之前過份的期望,往往令人事後大失所望,中共國今年天災人禍連連,因此中共便有極巨大的心理壓力非辦好北京奧運不何,如此的心理狀態,一 來小小的錯都會被放大,二來令它防民更甚於防川,破壞人民本來用愉快心情迎接北京奧運,北京奧運想要達到的心理效果,只剩下亢奮一項。如此看來,中共國境 內外的反對者,在心理戰上,的確是打勝了一仗,借中共的手來對付它自己。其實想深一層,中共國在每屆奧運會中,金銀銅牌總數一直名列前矛,即中共國人民已 經習慣和適應了中共的技倆,凡事在人民預期之內,沒有驚喜,給人的印象其實只是費了超大的勁去把一切堅持原狀,或者有人會問: 為什麼中共國自稱是大國,但是辦一個小小的奧運會都要傾全國之力呢?君不見美國、澳洲、日本辦奧運會時,是要動用到軍隊在附近巡邏?舉辦的城市又要戒嚴? 嚴重干擾人民生活?為何自號大國的中共國要用這麼大的力氣去辦一件如此普通的事?
論心理戰在中共國境外的效果,其實亦只是麻麻。例如泛民主派在北京奧運完成後不到一星期,而衆運動員又來香港延續「民族愛國」下,依然可以在立法會選舉中 取得二十三席,可以說是完全打破了中共的如意算盤,中共了解到它的代言人:民建聯,是在任何政治經濟條件下都不可能成為香港政治上主流,六四得票比例牢不 可破。而且,如果用數字學的角度看(當日是八月初八),可以說是上天有意偏幫泛民主派,否則選民如何可以策略配票配得如此平均,反而是民建聯浪費了不少選 票呢?
固此,其實在心理上,中共是被香港投泛民主派的選民打敗了,它剩下的策略就是明目張膽的除去自由黨,目的是借香港商界的力量去令普選議案在立法會不能被通 過,然後把責任卸到香港人的內部矛盾,中共似乎以為香港普選之日,即中共滅亡之時,香港的水始終制住了中共的火。但是如此一來失去了中間派,中共和香港的 衝突將日趨尖銳及明顯,因為在不少人心目中,民建聯和中共都是同一路的人。中共是不是一如以往,有絕對優勢呢?
因為北京奧運,現在中共國的經濟又露出疲態,又爆出最大規模的有毒奶品事件,削弱了中共國在經濟的絕對優勢,前者影響的是收賣人心的能力,後者打擊了中共 在北京奧運刻意營做的良好管理形像。試問為什麼中共國為什麼可以把北京奧運管理得井井有條,但是對奶商卻無能為力呢?同時,前者和後者都同時打擊了香港經 濟,更受金融海嘯打擊,可以說是禍不單行。留意一下中國歷史,發覺朝代的滅亡無一不是和大規模的天災有關,無他,封建制度有它的內在問題,天災期間只會把 它的壞影響放大,而每一個制度、系統都有它最大的錯誤容忍度,中共的管理制度其實並不比清朝的先進多少,但是它受到的考驗,卻是有史以來最多,因此有人曾 推算出中共的壽命不過今年,不是完全不合理。中共國亦是金融海嘯的受害者,一來它為了美國出席北京奧運,買了大量的美國房按債卷,見財化水;二來,美國及 歐洲經濟不景,自然打擊中共國的廉價產品工業,及投資者在中共國設廠的意欲,三來毒奶事件亦令中共國產品的商譽受極沉重的打擊。中共一向以來用經濟發展來 壓抑政治民主化的訴求,如今經濟這張牌已失效,能再用什麼方法呢?唯一的只是不斷的「歡樂今宵」,分散人民的注意力,但是「歡樂今宵」又只會加速經濟資源 的消秏,如此下去,中共國政治改革不夠快,始終都是死路一條。
我以為中共看不到神八、神九的發射,因為它為了辦好北京奧運,埋下了滅亡的種子,如今的國內外形勢,正好助長這些種子發芽成長。十六年前是預言,如今已成事實,只是不少人一廂情願地逃避現實。中共國滅亡,香港特區政府倒台,你預備好了沒有?

Are you better of than five years ago?

This is my campaign slogan if I ever join the election of Chief Executive in Hong Kong, I dare any candidate to use this slogan!

Emotional Memory hypothesis

I just thought of a relationship between emotion and memory: Since all memory are seem to be colored by affects, I suppose they are there precisely because they are emotional in nature. Emotion is not just a part of encoding process, it is also active in maintaining the content there. So when Psychoanalysis talk about Unconscious and Complex as some kind of mysterious psychological process, now I would suggest that Complex maybe simply a neurological mechanism evolved to preserve the memory, it has to be actively interfere with the present in order for that memory content to exist. Memory, therefore, I suppose could NOT be emotionally neutral. Unconscious process maybe simply a neurological mechanism that operated since the beginning of human race. Memory maybe a by-product derived later to serve the emotional system. We could thus now trying to see Psychoanalytic theory in light of its neurological correlate.

An issue of Causality in Psychology

I remember one time I was introduced to an experiment finding that human prepection process is very good at distinguishing action and facial expression in low definition picture. i.e. We could easily identify a hostile face from a blurred pictures. My question from that time till now is: Do we develop this capability after experience of exposing to real human facial expression? Or that is an inherent capability even before we are exposed to real human facial expression?
In the case of former, then we can deduced that logically, our Cognitive faculty through comparison with original template, thus is able to accurately guess from inadequate information presented. So that is a learned capability. On the other end, if we can recognize facial expression before we are exposed to them, that means the Cognitive faculty is prepared by evolution, it is especially adapted to recognize certain set of stimulates. Thus not all of the facial expression recognization capability is coming from learning.
That remain to be answered by psychology research.

神七升空的一點感想

中國用了四五十年才和美俄打成平手,而不是用最新的技術,只是用中國的技術再重做一次別人已有的東西,算不上什麼新發明、新突破,只是比以前進步了一點點而已,進步是應有之義,唔通可以好似香港政制「五十、五百年不變」?

我的看法和最初和X先生合作時提倡新型水力發電機設計一樣,中國的水力發電廠,也是跟着洋鬼子的屁股,為什麼不可以自己的 科技創新和發明?又是用二、三十去倣做已經有世界專利(WIPO)的技制(水力鐹爐),中國進步了什麼,世界因此而得了什麼益呢?如果由已有的設計出發, 又或者完全從頭開始,以中國豐厚的天然資源、便宜的人工加上發明家的智力、創意,有什麼新的水力發電機設計不出來?同理,以四、五十年來開發無限能源 (Overunity)及慣性推動(即無反作用力推進)技術,神七示範就會是世界最先進的新技術、新發明,獨步天下,中國何須用老掉了牙的外國古老技術? 四、五十年時間,以中國得天獨厚的條件,及政府大力協助下,又可以產生幾多只有中國才有的新技術?而其實Overunity亦已經是古老技術了,中國還一 點都不懂!

古中國是發明大國,如今只是抄襲了別人一點點東西,便很高興,便自以為很了不起,有什麼好高興?高興中國是全世界最浪費人才的國家?如果中國真的重視人材,我現在怎不會在國家科學館中苦心鑽研,而是在這裏吹水?

Methodology issue of Evolutionary Psychology

From my last discussion of the theoretical issues of evolution as a hypothesis to be tested, it follows that any disciple derivative from it would suffer from the same issue. This is an example I remembered from the heyday of my Psychology class in University: It is about the idea of biological preparedness for learning in Behaviorism, the central tenet is that Phobic is a sort of evolutionary ‘leftover’. Therefore it is easy to learned and difficult to unlearn. Which to me it seems to implied part of causation chain is in the genes.
How to prove this assertion? That is the part make this example so memorable. The method is to ask ‘experts’ to judge how each phobic is related to the level of danger posed to human five thousand years ago. Thus, follow this strange logic, no wonder human is so easily to acquire fear of height, fear of snake, fear of spider! Because some of our ancestor has suffer from them therefore develop an inborn preparedness to learn to fear them. It is adaptive(during that time) to born with tendency for the fear of them since they will increase your chance of survival.
Does it sound like circular logic to you? My feeling at the time is: That is certainly a circular logic. How can anyone setup an experiment to test this ‘hypothesis’? Can anyone setup a null hypothesis to test against it? How can anyone to have an experiment to falsify this hypothesis? If this hypothesis is right, you certainly can’t find another human that doesn’t have this inborn tendency.(If this hypothesis is wrong, how can you distinguish it from other?) What can five or tend ‘expert’ judge give us useful information on the past? At least, we require anthropologist to test if the native who live in a native environment who are also born with these tendencies. Otherwise, how can we know for sure? Evolution is a retrospective science, thus by nature, it is difficult to assure of its internal validity, so do Evolutionary Psychology.