關於 ethical behavior ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

【企業工作坊x題目介紹｜羅技電子】

工作坊企業第三彈 #羅技電子🎉🎉
Logitech International S.A. 羅技電子是一家著重創新與品質的瑞士公司
其個人週邊產品的設計為消費者提供絕佳的數位體驗👏👏

除了 #在清大的企業工作坊
羅技電子還特別加開10/16(五)下午 #在公司舉行的工作坊
可以依照時間方便做安排呦！

羅技電子這次出了什麼題目、工作坊流程又是什麼呢？
讓我們一起來一探究竟吧！

📍本次羅技電子黑客松的題目如下：
❝
We have several ideas for the challenge, teams can pick one or many.
For gaming (Logitech G SDK link is here):
1) Future ways of working
Whether working from the Office, Home, or on the move.
Working with remote teams can be a challenge, especially in multiple locations/time zones.
How might we enable people and teams to be at their best every day? Communicate in asmooth way.
How might we enable people to continue, grow, or keep/build a connection to theircommunity(s)?
2) Education anywhere
How can we leverage the recent equipment, in software, AI, and machine learning, to helpthe education sector?
Help students and teachers during lockdowns or remote classes. i.e.Favor participation, engagement during classes.
3) WOW! Wireless gaming
How might we improve the wireless gaming device to let the user have a more fantastic gaming experience?
4) Ethical gaming world
How might we leverage on gaming community and technology to fight against gamingunethical behavior, e.g. abuse, cheating, etc.
❞

📍10/17羅技電子企業工作坊流程：
1. Topic Introduction
2. SDK Functions Introduction
3. SDK hands-on

想更加了解羅技電子出題方向與所需技術嗎？
🔽現在就來報名梅竹黑客松和賽前工作坊吧🔽
https://signup.meichuhackathon.org/
（建議使用電腦瀏覽網站）
---------------------------------
〔合作企業〕 LINE、羅技電子、台灣美光、意法半導體、Girls in Tech
〔贊助企業〕 AWS、曉數碼、國泰金控、Google、中華電信、原相科技、PChome、104資訊科技、Nokia

Eli Clifton 挖挖挖。

錢是台灣人民納稅，怎麼用卻不被揭露。美國智庫是拿錢辦事，還是以金援為名收受獻金為實？

-----

以下中文新聞內容轉自 旺報：

https://www.chinatimes.com/newspapers/20200619000151-260309?chdtv

華府智庫昆西治安研究所（Quincy Institute）民主外交政策計畫執行人克里夫頓（Eli Clifton）於17日發表《台灣金援智庫：無所不在但很少揭露》（Taiwan funding of think tanks: Omnipresent and rarely disclosed）一文指出，台灣金援了美國五大智庫，促使這些智庫向美國執政者建言，做出有利於台灣綠營執政政府的美國政策。該文發出後，台北經濟文化代表處政治組組長趙怡翔緊急在推特上指出，該文有錯失之處，且並未向台北經濟文化代表處查證置評。

文章稱，台灣金援的五個華府智庫包括布魯金斯學會、美國進步中心（CAP）、新美國安全中心（CNAS）、戰略與國際研究中心（CSIS）以及哈德遜研究所，都有來自於台北經濟文化代表處的資金，但都將其深埋在其年度報告中。這五個華盛頓最著名、看似公正的的智庫一直在發表政策文件，敦促美國與台灣建立更緊密的關係，擴大美國與台灣的武器銷售和貿易協定，卻沒有廣泛披露其背後來自台北經濟文化代表處（TECRO）的高額資金。

支持台有助民主自由

文章詳列台北經濟文化代表處對五大智庫的贊助金額，及這些智庫收到贊助後為台灣做了什麼。文章稱，布魯金斯學會學者於2019年12月為《台北時報》撰文，指出美國兩黨支持在台灣和美國的重要性；美國進步中心研究員在今年3月分《華盛頓月刊》上發表專欄文章稱，加強美台關係將有助民主自由，並在2019年9月發表《如何支持亞洲的民主與人權》報告時，直接向美國決策者「為如何穩固支持台灣」提供直接建議。

而新美國安全中心向華盛頓提供有關2020年《中國崛起的挑戰》報告時，敦促美國決策者優先考慮與台灣的雙邊投資和貿易協定；CSIS在5月發表前美國駐港澳總領事唐偉康（Kurt Tong）的文章，其中主張美台達成貿易協定，將能加強美國在亞洲領導地位。

倡售台集束炸彈抗中

哈德遜研究所則於5月向美國決策者提出售台「集束炸彈」，以便台灣可以威脅對中共具有重大政治價值的非軍事目標及領導人，並建議鼓勵台灣有效威脅中國的非軍事目標。還鼓勵美國決策者「做出直接有利於台灣綠營執政黨的政策」，敦促美國決策者承認「一個自治或獨立的台灣」。

原文請見：

Taiwan funding of think tanks: Omnipresent and rarely disclosed

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2020/06/17/taiwan-funding-of-think-tanks-omnipresent-and-rarely-disclosed/

[節錄]

Why not disclose?

Hudson may be the most extreme in its policy proposals, but the consistent behavior from the five think tanks is unmistakable: General support funding from Taiwan’s government is never disclosed when experts, whose salaries may well be partially funded by TECRO dollars, offer policy recommendations regarding U.S.-Taiwan relations.

“My philosophy is that if you’re producing any report, you should put right up front in an acknowledgment section that lists the specific funders, including general-support funders, that helped make this report possible and list any potential conflict of interest with the funders,” said Freeman of the Foreign Influence Transparency Initiative. “Let the reader judge for themself whether there’s a conflict of interest.”

Though the appearance or possibility of a conflict of interest does not mean that the funding flows from Taiwan influenced the work products produced by the think tanks, the decision not to prominently disclose the funding may undermine otherwise valuable analysis and policy proposals.

“It seems like because they hid it, they have something to hide,” said Freeman. “When the public trust in government is at all-time lows and people think D.C. is so corrupt, it’s even more important for think tanks and think tank scholars to put this information out there and try and restore the trust of the American public.”

Indeed, as acceptance of a cold war posture toward China becomes ever more accepted as a foregone conclusion by Washington influencers, one of them actually highlighted the danger of foreign funding going largely undisclosed.

CNAS’s 2020 report that advocated for a U.S.-Taiwan trade agreement warned of think tanks receiving “substantial funding from Beijing that is often targeted at shaping views and discourse on China.” CNAS recommended “higher degrees of transparency” to help “ensure that this funding is not generating hidden forms of foreign lobbying, self-censorship, or other activities that undermine core U.S. democratic principles.”

That self-awareness about the potential influence of foreign funding, and the ethical arguments for greater transparency, does not appear to extend to the omnipresent funding stream from Taipei to think tanks across the Beltway.

一封給國家地理頻道「Dog: Impossible」節目負責人的公開信:

An open letter to the leadership team of Nat Geo Wild Dog Impossible:

Translate: Yu-Hwa Su 翻譯: 蘇昱華
Proof: Yen Ke 校對: 葛雁

The International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants (IAABC) applauds National Geographic’s mission to offer intelligent, relevant and captivating non-fiction entertainment. This is a crucial objective, especially as an introduction to children and viewers largely relying on television for their scientific information.
國際動物行為諮詢師協會（IAABC）對於國家地理頻道致力於提供電視觀眾正確知識與科學內容表示讚賞。這是一個非常重要的目標，特別是對依賴電視得到這些知識的兒童與其他觀眾們來說。

However, your stated mission is in direct conflict with your show Dog: Impossible. In fact, the irresponsible treatment of the dogs and people on this show flies in the face of all best practices in animal training and behavior. Rather than promoting science and scientifically-proven methodology, Dog: Impossible sacrifices learning science for more dramatic television.
然而，貴頻道所提供的節目「Dog: Impossible」卻與貴頻道「提供正確的科學知識」的一貫立場衝突。節目中對犬隻以及飼主的不負責處理方式與應有的動物訓練及行為操作的準則相違背。「Dog: Impossible」並沒有提倡科學以及經科學驗證的方法，這節目犧牲了對科學的學習，轉而追求吸睛的電視節目效果。

Matt Beisner appears to have no credentials or education in training and behavior, yet he refers to himself as a behaviorist. His claim that “energy is the one language that every animal on the planet speaks” makes clear he is not one.
Matt Beisner並沒有動物訓練或行為學的相關學習經歷與證照，卻宣稱自己是一位行為學家。從他的主張：「能量是地球上所有動物都會使用的共通語言」，便能明白他並不是行為學家。

His statement, “You don’t need tricks, you don’t need treats, you don’t need force,” shows just how unaware of his own actions he is. His misuse of scientific terminology leads viewers to believe they are learning demonstrated, safe and accepted strategies in helping their dogs. In fact, Mr. Beisner is forcing these dogs from start to finish of each episode. His own “tricks” are that of over-stressing dogs until they’re in a state referred to in psychology and science as “learned helplessness.”
他主張「你不需要技巧、零食、或蠻力 (去訓練狗)」，這顯示出他對於自己的所做所為一無所知。他對科學術語的濫用也會誤導觀眾，讓觀眾以為他們正在學習經證實有效而且安全可接受的方法來幫助狗狗。但這位訓練師在每一集節目上從頭到尾都是在逼迫這些狗，而他所擁有的「技巧」，就是讓狗進入過度緊迫的狀態，直到牠們進入心理學和科學上所指的「習得無助」（learned helplessness）狀態。

Learned helplessness occurs when a subject endures repeated aversive stimuli beyond their control. Originally thought to show a subject's acceptance of their powerlessness, for more than half a century it’s been known instead to be the emotional “shutting down” of the subject. Anxiety, clinical depression, and related mental illnesses are common consequences of this technique in humans.
「習得無助」發生在動物沒有任何控制權，且重複地被施加嫌惡刺激的時候。最初，人們認為習得無助狀態意味著動物「接受」了自身無法改變、無能為力的情形，超過半個世紀以來，人們認為這是動物情緒「關機（shutting down）」的表現。在人類身上，習得無助的常見結果包含焦慮、憂鬱症、以及相關的心理疾病。

Allow us to note some aspects of the trailer and his shows, but first, to point out a few well-documented and commonly understood aspects of dog behavior so that we may better make our points understood.
在我們解釋為何我們認為此節目的預告片與內容不適當之前，我們希望先闡述一些正確的犬隻行為常識，以便您能更理解我們的觀點。

Canine body language indicating stress and severe stress:
顯示出壓力以及嚴重緊迫的犬隻肢體語言：

Compressed bodies
Dry, raspy panting
Wide, open eyes with dilated pupils
Heavy drooling
“Whipping” head and body back, pushing off a handler in order to get away
Growling
Fighting
Biting
縮緊身體
急促的喘氣
睜大雙眼、散瞳
大量流口水
甩頭、用前爪推抱著狗的人以退後、試圖掙脫
低吼
打架
開咬

Eleven seconds into the trailer, Mr. Beisner rubs his hands together, smiling, and says, “This is going to be gnarly.” All professionals know from that statement what the series will spotlight: A poorly (if at all) educated non-professional pushing dogs way beyond therapeutic limits, in the name of “results.”
在預告片11秒的地方，Beisner先生搓手並笑著說「等一下會很精采喔」。所有專業人士都知道這句話代表這個節目的亮點將會是：一名缺乏適當教育的訓練師，逼迫狗到超過其能承受的極限，並把這樣的結果稱為是良好的改善。

Flooding, the term for inundating a subject with their fears, phobias and triggers, is ethically questionable at best, cruel and unnecessary, always. There's also a common danger of spontaneous recovery of the phobia. This is because flooding doesn't replace the fear-response with a different response, it just replaces it with no response. “No response” is simply suppression, not cure.
「洪水法」，指的是故意將動物置於恐慌或恐懼的觸發刺激情境，這樣的方法不道德、殘忍、而且沒必要。另外，恐懼的自發性回復（spontaneous recovery）也是洪水法常見的風險，這是因為洪水法並沒有將害怕的反應重新制約成其他不同的情緒行為，它只是讓動物沒有反應。「沒有反應」只是壓抑，動物並沒有因此感到不害怕或恐慌。

Throughout the trailer dogs are flooded with aversive stimuli such as other dogs, people and equipment, something an ethical professional would not, and could not do per any answerable guidelines of animal training and behavior care.
在整個預告片中，狗狗被迫接受各種嫌惡刺激的洪水法訓練，例如其他狗、其他人類和物品，這是具有道德的專業訓練人員不會做的，任何負責任的動物訓練及行為照護準則也不會如此建議。

Systematic desensitization and counterconditioning, gradual exposure to the feared object, and replacement of a negative emotional association with a more pleasant one, are the recommended techniques used to treat such fear and aggression cases, per all legitimate veterinary, training and behavior organizations.
系統性減敏與反制約，也就是逐步與少量的讓狗接觸其本來會害怕的事物，並且將引發的少量負面情緒與其非常喜愛的事物配對給予，是用來處理恐懼及攻擊案例的建議方法，也是每個好的獸醫師、訓練及行為機構會推薦的方法。

Beisner’s statement that “We know at the Zen Yard that dogs help other dogs come out of their shell and face their fear and get past their aggression” isn’t just scientifically unsupportable, his words ring hollow during the very scene playing while he says those words: Beisner restraining one dog, while his co-host pulls a leashed dog to the first in a completely unnatural gesture perhaps intended to either mimic natural dog greeting (it doesn’t) or to flood the heavily drooling dog who is unable to move or get away. The dogs end up in a fight. They have been set up to fail, and the outcome is inevitable.
Beisner宣稱「我們在Zen Yard（他的訓練中心）知道狗會去幫助其他狗融入外界、面對牠們的恐懼並且克服攻擊行為」，這句話不只是缺乏科學支持，在影片中他講出這句話時搭配的畫面，亦表現出他的說詞缺乏支持：Beisner限制了第一隻狗的行動，由節目的共同主持人以牽繩將另一隻狗以一個完全不自然的姿勢拉到第一隻狗身邊，他們可能是在試著模仿狗狗自然的社交打招呼行為（但並不是），或使用洪水法訓練那隻狂流口水（顯示牠很緊張）並且無法逃脫的狗。最終兩隻狗打起來，訓練師製造的這個情境，讓失敗的結果無可避免。

In the trailer, the assistant host, Stefanie DiOrio, states, “Nervousness can easily turn to fear which can lead to aggression.” This is an accurate statement, which is why it’s so confusing that the entire show would be predicated on pushing dogs to the very edge of survivable stress and into predictable aggression, doubling down on the issues that their owners are struggling with.
在預告片中，節目的共同主持人Stefanie DiOrio說「緊張不安很容易變成真正的恐懼，並且導致攻擊行為」，這句話是正確的，但也讓人更加困惑為何整個節目的走向都在將狗推向牠們所能承受壓力的極限、觸發根本可預測的攻擊行為、並使飼主所面對的問題加倍惡化。

We know that the dramatic changes in behavior, from stressed and wildly aggressive to “calm” dogs, make for compelling TV. To an average pet owner it looks like these dogs are making huge improvements. All clients just want their dog to “Stop being aggressive.” However, we also know that behavior suppression is not the same as behavior modification, that a stressed and shut-down dog is a more dangerous animal than one who is actively showing aggression, and that the long-term prognosis of this kind of intervention is poor for both the client and their dog.
我們知道行為上戲劇性的變化，從一隻緊迫且兇猛攻擊的狗轉變成“冷靜”的狗，這個過程代表了高收視率，在不十分了解行為學的飼主眼中看來，這些狗狗似乎有巨大的進步。飼主都只是希望他們的狗「不要再有攻擊性」，然而我們也知道單純抑制攻擊行為的出現，並不是真正的行為改善技術。舉例來說一隻高壓力但看似沒有反應的狗，遠比一隻會表現出攻擊性的狗要危險許多 (譯註: 因為這樣的狗可能會沒有徵兆地開咬)，因此這種抑制攻擊行為的訓練法，以長遠來看對飼主以及狗狗都是有害的。

It is also worth pointing out that, like his predecessor, Mr Beisner’s assessment of cause for much of the issues he’s asked to address is simple, made especially clear in episode 4 where he not only saves a dog, he “saves a marriage:” Women are unable to effectively lead, must be stronger, must change their ways.
另一個值得注意的事是Beisner先生，如同他在同一個頻道的前輩，西薩，對導致問題的原因評估也過於簡化，例如第四集中他聲稱他不只拯救了狗狗，他還「拯救了這段婚姻」，因為女主人無法有效的領導狗狗，因此她必須更堅強，必須改變他們之間的相處模式。

Misogyny, it seems, cures dog behavior problems. Real exploration and explanation regarding the antecedents and consequences around behaviors are ignored in favor of client blaming.
這段貶抑女性的解釋，看起來似乎能改善犬隻的行為問題，然而關於行為問題真正的前因後果卻被指責客戶所取代，並沒有真正的被探討與解釋。

The clients on the show represent thousands of clients throughout the US and beyond with whom we work every day, helping them to help their dogs. Far from being dogs “other people won’t work with,” the dogs on your show are exactly the clients and dogs that IAABC Certified Dog Behavior Consultants, as well as all members of the American College of Veterinary Behaviorists, Certified Applied Animal Behaviorists, and other certified behavior specialists see and successfully work with every day.
節目中所出現的客戶正代表了我們日常工作中所會幫助的人們與他們的狗，呈現的就是我們在美國跟其他國家的上千位客戶。節目中所出現的這些有著行為問題的狗絕對不是「其他訓練師都不想要處理的狗狗」，事實上這些客戶與狗正是IAABC認證的狗行為諮詢師、美國獸醫行為學家、認證的應用動物行為學家或是其他受認證的行為學專家，每天工作的日常。

We do so using the best practices of our field (see https://m.iaabc.org/about/ethics/), adopted by the leading behavior and training organizations, without psychologically or physically harming the animals we work with.
我們在這個領域也使用最嚴謹的訓練師專業道德守則（英文版參見https://m.iaabc.org/about/ethics/，中文版參見https://reurl.cc/72eVkl），這個守則受領先的行為及訓練機構所採用，使訓練師與行為諮詢師在工作時，不對我們經手的動物造成生理或心理上的傷害。

The IAABC urges Nat Geo WILD to stop promoting this public miseducation. The tactics employed in the name of entertainment are unnecessarily harsh and potentially dangerous to the public, and they teach yet another generation of Nat Geo watchers absolutely incorrect and harmful practices.
IAABC呼籲國家地理頻道（Nat Geo WILD）停止傳播此系列誤導公眾的資訊。以娛樂包裝節目的策略對於觀眾是不必要的粗糙而且有潛在風險的，甚至是向頻道的年輕一代觀眾灌輸完全不正確且有害的做法。

It remains a mystery why your network is so intent on harming dogs. After years of Cesar Milan, to now bring in a man equally unskilled, who equates terrified, angry or entrapped dogs to his own addiction history is remarkable. Are we really satisfied conflating ego with compassion, self-focus with an understanding of animal behavior? Is this the “science” your mission stands for?
我們仍然不知為何貴頻道這麼多年來如此堅持持續傷害狗的這些作為。在西薩 (Cesar Milan) 的節目播映多年之後，現在又引進一個同樣缺乏正確訓練技巧，以自身藥物成癮困擾歷史去錯誤的同理恐懼或憤怒的狗的人。我們能接受一個膨脹自我，而非真正擁有同情心、適當自我聚焦、了解動物行為的「專業人士」嗎？這就是貴節目所宣稱的「科學」立場嗎？

The damage Nat Geo is doing to dogs by choosing this type of programming is astounding. We can only assume that the producers are unaware of this, as it’s hard to imagine such harm and cruelty would be deliberate.
國家地理頻道選擇製作這類節目對於狗狗的傷害甚鉅，我們只能假定節目製作人並沒有意識到這點，因為我們難以想像會有人故意去做這樣有害且殘忍的事情。

Would you show a reality program on heart surgery with a photogenic “self-taught” practitioner, simply stating the star was not a doctor before showing him mutilating a real patient?
想問貴節目是否會採用一個上鏡的“自學”外科醫生錄製心臟手術的實境節目，告知觀眾他並非真正的醫生，然後播放他對病患動刀的畫面？

I leave you with the clearest image of suffering and abuse from your trailer: the Aussie, stressed to the breaking point, thick ropes of drool streaming from its mouth, being choked by a slip lead to compensate for the host’s inability to even effectively muzzle a dog. This dog is at the point of collapse. This dog is being tortured, and that is not hysteria. That is an assessment by any educated measure.
作為結尾，我希望指出貴節目預告片中明確顯示出狗狗受苦或受虐的畫面：那隻澳洲牧羊犬已經瀕臨壓力的極限，您可以看到口水掛在其嘴邊 (大量口水為壓力徵兆)，口罩因為沒有確實的配戴而滑脫，導致牠被勒到快要窒息，已在崩潰邊緣。具備專業與適當教育的人員指出，這隻狗因在節目上被虐待而情緒崩潰，並非其本身歇斯底里。

Please stop this cruel and dangerous programming. To do otherwise is to support that self-taught heart surgery and all the consequences it would bring; that this show is currently bringing to families struggling with their dogs.
Professionals refer to Cesar Milan’s influence on dog training as “job security” because so many dogs ruined or made far worse by his teachings are brought to us by well-intentioned, often weeping owners desperate for real help. Often it is too late.
請停止這系列殘酷且危險的節目。否則貴節目就等同於支持前面舉例的自學的心臟外科「醫師」進行手術一樣，這些危險的後果正由觀眾與他們的狗承擔。專業訓犬人士將西薩米蘭對訓犬的影響戲稱為「工作保障」，因為太多飼主使用了他教授的技巧後，狗狗的狀況變得更糟，而哭著迫切尋找真正的協助，此時通常都為時已晚。

We do not want more work due to this same phenomenon.
我們不想要因為這個節目帶來類似影響而接到更多工作。

We’d be happy to provide you with any education and resources you need to inform your producers about what would qualify as responsible, effective, safe and thoughtful work with the same “red zone” dogs you sell so well.
但我們很樂意提供貴頻道任何需要的教育與資源，讓您們的節目製作人對訓犬工作應有的品質有所理解，例如負責、有效、安全，並且理解到對於在節目中出現的這些「危險」犬隻，事實上有更合理的訓練方法。

Thank you for your consideration.
謝謝您的閱讀與理解。

Marjie Alonso
Executive Director, IAABC
For the Board of Directors

Marjie Alonso
IAABC執行長
代表董事會發言

UNDISPUTED | Skip Bayless claims Deshaun Watson's behavior is a violation of NFL's ethical standards
Latest Update UNDISPUTED: https://bit.ly/3i2zJhY
Latest Update ESPN First Take: https://bit.ly/2Pn375o

#undisputed #undisputedfs1 #skipbayless #shannonsharpe #skipandshannon #shannon #skip
#firsttake #espnfirsttake #espn #stephenasmith #maxkellerman