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

“ 首要的原則，就是不要欺騙自己﹐你自己正是最容易被欺騙的人” 諾貝爾物理學獎得主理查費曼

（“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.” Richard Feynman）

從華盛頓日報新書分享找到的這一本，非常好讀而且相當使用。相信每個人，都是希望可以看清事情的真相並根據資訊做出判斷的，但如果數據和真相可以說明一切，為什麼常常在一個議題上面人們會有如此分裂兩極的看法?當我們覺得如果我們意見相左的另一方瘋了，而且不合理，會不會有一種可能我們也活在某種偏見當中呢？在某些實驗當中，所謂領域的專家有時候的分裂或是誤判，甚至比沒有相關知識的平常人更加深呢！

這本書用一個鮮明的例子，來說明我們用什麼樣的心態來面對未知或是資訊，比較容易保有客觀。一種心態是“軍人”的心態，另一種心態是“探子”的心態。

“軍人”的責任是保護一座堡壘，那個堡壘可能是你堅信不移的立場，觀點，或是信仰。當我們是一個軍人心態時，任何看是要攻破堡壘的資訊，都會被我們看待成必須抵禦的敵人。而當我們擁有一個“探子”的心態時，所有的未知和新的訊息，都可以拿來調整和更新自己的判斷。感覺自己很客觀，或是擁有淵博的知識與經驗，都不足以讓人可以做出客觀的判斷。作者用一個很棒的比喻說明，“要了解你想保護的東西是什麼，你才能夠拆毀那一道圍牆”。我們想要保護的不只是我們的立場，常常是那個立場背後所代表的自我形象，歸屬感，甚至是身份的認同。

作者提到幾個可以問自己的問題，看看你是否有“探子”的心態？

1. 當你發現自己是錯的對方是對的時候，你會告訴他們嗎？ Do you tell other people when you realize they were right？

2. 你對於別人批評你的反應是什麼？ How do you react to personal criticism？

3. 你會試著證明你是錯的嗎？Do you ever prove yourself wrong？

4. 你會做哪些預防措施來減少自己的偏見？Do you take precautions to avoid fooling yourself？

5. 你的身邊有沒有可以誠實批判你的人？Do you have any good critics？

書中有許多具體的例子和具體的作法可以參考，作者也用了其中幾個方法，在他寫作這本書的過程當中實際的操練。

人類生來是一種社群的動物，所以在保護 “自身立場” 和 “自己人” 的時候必然投入許多的情感與精力來鞏固它。而且人生當中如果每天一直在換立場，改變想法，必然是令人精疲力竭的。也只能挑選需要客觀判斷的事情來檢視。但令人振奮的是，雖然改變自己的想法和觀點是如此的困難，可是一旦願意接受新的更新時，看見不同的可能性突然之間就會變得不如想像的困難。而且只要願意保持這樣的空間，時常刻意操練，不需要是最聰明的人，也可以擁有不錯的判斷能力。

延伸閱讀其他幫助思考判斷的書籍：

Thinking in bets (中文版：“高勝算決策”）
https://dushuyizhi.net/thinking-in-bets-德州撲克女王談決策思維-有中文版！）/

Never Split the Difference （中文版：“FBI談判協商術”）
https://dushuyizhi.net/never-split-the-difference-不輕易妥協的談判法/

Talking to strangers (中文版：“解密陌生人”）
https://dushuyizhi.net/talking-to-strangers-如何理解陌生人/

Blind spots (中文版：“盲點”）
https://dushuyizhi.net/blind-spots-道德的盲點/

Thinking fast and slow (中文版： “快思慢想” ，我沒有寫讀書心得）

全文在部落格中👇👇👇
https://dushuyizhi.net/the-scout-mindset-探子思維/

#TheScoutMindset #JuliaGalef #CriticalThinking

【外國月亮不是特別圓】

投入國際連結工作好一段時間，有時覺得大家也會期望「外國月亮總是特別圓」，但其實西方國家政治人物支持香港，從來不是理所當然，當中亦會涉及不少商業利益考慮和國際壓力，以及部份左傾政客仍會不知何故地，對中國共產政權抱有良好幻想，這種情況在歐洲較為明顯。

德國左翼黨的國會議員，竟在國會發言表示「理應支持我們在北京的共產朋友」固然讓人大跌眼鏡，尤其是中共從根本地就是循從威權主義和國家資本主義的極右政黨。

有時對於國際政客不理解香港，也是有點無奈，但我們香港作為國際大都會，對於世界各國的抗爭運動，又何嘗不是缺乏足夠理解，只盼在抗爭持續的情況下，香港人能夠繼續努力，讓世界理解我們，與香港同行。

早前睇一份德國國會內嘅辦論，有位Die Linke嘅議員話要支持中共，因為大家都是左翼共產主義支持者，不用分得那麼細。我見內容有所偏頗就寫左篇文。中文翻譯見下文。
Recently, a MP from Die Linke made some remarks about HK, and say they should support CCP as they are friend of Coummunism. I find the claims rather inaccurate hence I wrote this article to provide some rebuttals. Please scroll down for the English translation.

Article in German: https://www.google.com/…/Hongkong-Krise-Pekings-Regierung-b…

近日德國國會內, 一位Die Linke的國會議員Stefan Liebich對香港的事作出評價，這些評價實在令人難以茍同。

Liebich指「Die Linke理應支持我們在北京的共產朋友」。但中國共產黨除了名字內有「共產」兩個字外，其實際行動與共產理念差天共地，實在不是Liebich想像中共產主義的好朋友。

中國共產黨是一個極權，除了擴張政治與經濟勢力外，中國共產黨什麼都不會理會。不論是無產階級的死活，或者是工人階級，對於中國共產黨來說只是擴張實力的工具，隨時可以為了經濟或政治利益犧牲或捨棄。 中國共產黨實質上是由一群搜刮民脂民膏致富而滿肚腸肥的黨員領導。中國共產黨甚至對自己的人民進行全天候的監控，打壓、拘捕異見人士。

由此可見，中國共產黨本質上是一個極右政黨，而非Liebich以為的左翼。 北京政府不是以共產理念管治中華人民共和國，反而是以物質主義操縱國民。中國背後並沒有一套穩固的價值觀支撐，唯有金錢才是中國人和中國政府信仰的理念。中國的任何行動，從來都不是由價值推動，而總是由金錢和利益推動。

中國共產黨只是一個「掛羊頭賣狗肉」的「共產」黨，它相當擅長扮演共產主義的支持者，與Liebeich想像中「馬克思主義的的同路人」相差甚遠。我們應該要小心分辨真正的共產主義者與打著共產主義旗號行惡的政權之間的分別。

Leibich亦在發言時提到八國聯軍與相關歷史，指「香港被英國以軍事手段從中國手中搶去。撇除對於中國的批評，我們樂見不公義的殖民主義完結」。但現實上，清朝是被當時被視為外族的滿洲人統治。當時的「中國」與今天我們認知的中華人民共和國並不是同一個國家。所以，Leibich所指的「香港被英國不公義的殖民」，其實嚴格來說是鴉片戰爭後，香港的管治權從滿洲人手中交到英國人手中。

清朝末期發生申亥革命，中華民國成立。及後因國共內戰，中華民國政府輾轉於1949年12月撤退至臺灣。如果按照Leibich的邏輯，香港主權理應是移交予中華民國政府，而非中華人民共和國。

另外，香港人本來擁有聯合國1960年在《給予殖民地國家和人民獨立宣言》中賦予非自治領土人民自決前途的權利。但因為中國強烈反對港澳被定義為殖民地，而應為「被英國和葡萄牙當局佔領的中國領土的一部分」。中國代表單方面宣稱港澳的地位，都屬中國主權範圍內，甚至指：「聯合國並沒有權討論這些問題。」最後才令香港再名單中被除名，失去前途自決的權利。

而觀乎而今情況，即使香港主權移交予中國後，不公義不但沒有消失，反而更加明顯與嚴重。Leibeich在發言時指「撇除對於中國的批評，我們樂見不公義的殖民主義完結」，我很希望，他不是指他將無視數以百萬計的少數民族關押在在教育營當中、六四屠城死去的學生、香港早前被實彈近距離射中的兩位男孩、被24小時監控的中國人、捨生取義爭取人權的香港人，而去支持中國共產黨只因其聲稱自己是「共產主義者」。

人權自由是人類文明近百年來的基石，中國共產黨的行為，與絕大部分我們珍視的政治價值並不相容。在任何情況下，我們都不可能支持一個獨裁的殺人政權。

Recently, in the German Bundestag, Stefan Liebich made a few remarks regarding Hong Kong. Mr. Liebeich says his party Der Linke should support their communist friends in Beijing. “Logisch, dass Der Linke Liebich seinen Kommunistenfreunden in Peking wieder den Rücken stärkt.(It is logical that Die Linke Liebich should again support his communist friends in Beijing.)” In my point of view, the Chinese Communist Party is just a party named itself as the “Communist”, what it does in China or in the world is in no way communistic.

PRC is a dictatorship that only takes the expansion of its economic and political power into regard, workers or its people are at its disposal whenever it sees fit. The “Communist” party cares neither about the people, nor the grassroots, it only cares about the economic benefit it gains from its business activities inside and outside PRC. The party leaders are all sitting in their offices with their pockets full of what they gain from exploiting the Chinese workers.
They carry mass surveillance 24/7 throughout China, arrests and detain descendants. Frankly speaking, the CCP is rather right than left.

The Peking Government is not running Communism, but materialism. The only thing the Chinese and the Chinese government worship is the dollar sign, nothing else. They do not take any values or ideology into account. The people are not motivated by values or beliefs, but by the economic benefits they see.

The CCP is not a communist party as Mr. Leibich conceived it is. The CCP is very good at creating the illusion that it represents the Marxist ideas. We should be very careful in examining the differences between those who claim to be communists and those who are communists.

Mr. Leibich also made reference to the history of the Eight-Nation Alliance in the late Qing Dynasty, saying that“ Auch Hongkong ist durch die britische Armee militärisch China abgepresst worden.(Hong Kong has been militarily squeezed out of China by the British army.)” and “Bei aller notwendigen Kritik an der chinesischen KP sagen ich: Es ist gut, dass dieses koloniale Unrecht zu Ende ist. (Despite all the necessary criticism of the Chinese Communist Party, I say: It is good that this colonial injustice has come to an end.)”

It is worth clarifying that during that time of History, China was ruled by the Manchus, who were considered as foreigners at the time. China at the time was not the Republic of China we know today. Therefore, Hong Kong was not military squeezed out of PRC but was being colonized by the British in substitution of the Manchus at that time.

Historically speaking, the successor of the Qing Dynasty is the Republic of China, which later was relocated to Taiwan due to the Civil War between 1927 and 1949. And Mr. Leibich’s claim that it is good that colonial injustice has come to an end is inaccurate, too. In this case, Hong Kong, ought to be returned to Taiwan (the Republic of China) but not China (People’s Republic of China), to end the colonial injustice.

What is more, Hong Kongers were supposed to be able to exercise our right to self-determination and really being able to be free from colonialism. Yet Hong Kong was actually removed from the U.N. list of Non-Self-Governing Territories upon PRC’s request.

And clearly, under PRC’s rule, injustice is more than just apparent in Hong Kong currently. Mr. Leibich’s remarks of “despite all the necessary criticism of the Chinese Communist Party”, I truly hope that he is not suggesting that one would neglect the millions of ethnic minorities being detained in re-education camps, those who died in the JuneForth Masaccare, the two young Hong Kong boys who were shot by live rounds, the Chinese who were placed under surveillance 24/7 and all my fellow Hong Konger who are fighting for fundamental rights with their lives, but support the CCP’s action because it claims to be a communist party.

I see of no reason, why anyone should support a dictatorship that would brutally murder its own people. CCP is totally going against what most political ideologies in the world stand for, and I do believe we can all agree on the fundamental rights of all members of the human family that ought to be respected as that is the foundations of human civilization.

<<冒用亞裔姓名而獲詩作入選所引發的軒然大波
A White Poet Borrows a Chinese Name and Sets Off Fireworks>>

New York Times, Sept. 8th (by Jeniifer Schuessler) -- This year’s edition of the anthology “Best American Poetry” has come under criticism for including a poem by a white poet writing under a Chinese pseudonym, touching off intense online debate about diversity, inclusion and racial entitlement in the poetry world.
在收錄了一名用中文筆名寫作的白人詩人的作品後，今年的《美國最佳詩作》選集受到不少責難。此事在網路上引發了詩壇中關於多樣性、包容性和種族特權的熱烈討論。

“The Bees, the Flowers, Jesus, Ancient Tigers, Poseidon, Adam and Eve” was submitted to the anthology, published on Tuesday by Scribner, by a little-known poet named Michael Derrick Hudson, under the pseudonym Yi-Fen Chou. After the poem’s selection, Mr. Hudson revealed his identity to the volume’s editor, Sherman Alexie, who decided to include it anyway, along with a note explaining the use of the pseudonym.
默默無聞的詩人Michael Derrick Hudson用周一峰(Yi-Fen Chou)作為筆名，向《美國最佳詩作》投稿了自己的作品《蜜蜂、鮮花、耶穌、古代的老虎、波塞頓、亞當和夏娃》。詩選由出版社Scribner於週二刊出。作品入選後，Hudson對《美國最佳詩作》主編Sherman Alexie表明了自己的真實身份，並附上對使用這一筆名的相關解釋。結果Alexie依然決定收錄這首詩。

In an essay on the Best American Anthology blog on Monday, Mr. Alexie, a Native American, defended his decision, saying he had paid closer attention to the poem because of the author’s name — a kind of “racial nepotism,” he said — but ultimately chose it because he liked it.
週一，身為土生土長美洲人的Alexie在《美國最佳詩作》部落格上發文為自己的決定辯護，他聲稱因為作者的名字，他給與了這首詩更多關注─他表示，這是一種「種族裙帶行為」─但選擇那首詩的最終原因是自己喜歡。

When Mr. Hudson revealed his use of a pseudonym, Mr. Alexie wrote, he debated how to deal with this instance of “colonial theft,” but decided that dropping the poem “would have cast doubt on every poem I have chosen” and “implied that I chose poems based only on identity.”
Alexie寫道，當Hudson表明自己用的是筆名時，他考慮過該如何處理這起「殖民盜用」事件，但後來下定決心，認為放棄這首詩「會讓我對選出來的每首詩產生懷疑」，並「意味著我只是根據作者的身份來選詩。」

“I hadn’t been fooled by its ‘Chinese-ness’ because it contained nothing that I recognized as being inherently Chinese or Asian,” Mr. Alexie wrote.
「我並沒有被它的『華人元素』給欺騙，因為它並沒有包含在我看來是華人或亞裔固有特色的成分，」 Alexie如此表示。

Mr. Hudson, who works as an indexer at the Allen County Public Library in Fort Wayne, Ind., did not answer messages requesting comment. But in the biographical note in “Best American Poetry,” he explained that he often sent poems out under the name Yi-Fen Chou.
Hudson在印第安那州韋恩堡的艾倫縣公共圖書館當索引編輯員，而他並沒有對於被提出的要求做任何回覆及評論。但在《美國最佳詩作》的簡介中，他解釋自己經常用周一峰的筆名投稿其詩歌創作。

“As a strategy for ‘placing’ poems this has been quite successful for me,” he said, noting that “The Bees” had been rejected 40 times under his own name but only nine times under the pseudonym before it was printed by the journal Prairie Schooner.
他認為「作為一種讓詩作『入眼』的策略，這個辦法對我來說相當成功，」，並指出自己用真實姓名寄出《蜜蜂》後被拒絕了40次，用筆名只被拒絕了九次，然後就在期刊《草原篷車》上被刊登了。

“If indeed this is one of the best American poems of 2015, it took quite a bit of effort to get it into print,” Mr. Hudson wrote. (Poems under his own name have appeared in numerous journals, including Poetry, this year.)
Hudson還這麼寫著「如果說這真的是美國2015年最好的詩作之一，那為了要刊登它還真是費了些功夫，」。（今年，以他真名署名的詩作出現在了包括《詩歌》[Poetry]在內的眾多期刊上。）

Mr. Hudson’s blunt explanation drew outrage and ridicule online. “Never thought I’d see poets using yellowface to get published in 2015 but here we are,” Saeed Jones, a poet and the literary editor of Buzzfeed, said on Twitter. Jezebel ran a post under the headline “If You’re a White Man Who Can’t Get Published Under Your Own Name, Take the Hint.”
Hudson這般露骨的解釋在網路上引發了憤怒和嘲諷兼有的一陣論戰。「從來沒想過，到了2015年居然會看到詩人為了能發表作品而假裝自己是黃種人，但現在還真就看到了，」本身也是詩人的Buzzfeed文學主編Saeed Jones在Twitter上如此表示。Twitter上的另一個帳號Jezebel也發表了一篇文章，標題是《如果你是用真名發表不了作品的白人，看這裡》。

Ken Chen, a poet and executive director of the Asian American Writers Workshop, said Mr. Hudson was guilty of “cynical mischief” in the service of a “reactionary fantasy.”
同樣身為詩人的亞裔美國作家工作坊行政總監陳聖為(Ken Chen)表示，Hudson利用「反動幻想」的做法是犯了「虛偽惡作劇」的錯誤。

“He believes that he’s being cheated, and things will only improve if writers of color are virtualized away,” Mr. Chen said in an interview. “If only they didn’t really exist, and were just white guys with pseudonyms.”
「他以為別人在作弊，只有當有色人種作家被虛化掉，情況才會有所改善，」陳聖為在接受採訪時說。「他們其實並不存在，都是用了筆名的白人就好了。」

Rigoberto González, a poet who teaches at Rutgers University, Newark, said that Mr. Hudson had inadvertently “given a language to the anxiety that’s out there” among nonwhite writers: that they are included as tokens.
在紐華克羅格斯大學任教的詩人Rigoberto González認為，Hudson無意之間讓非白人作家「本已存在的焦慮具現化了」：他們是作為一種象徵被接納的。

“He’s buying into this notion of ‘I’ll be noticed because I have this ethnic name,’ ” Mr. González said. “But that’s what many writers of color are trying to avoid. We just happen to have ethnic names. But we are getting published because we are also good poets.”
「他相信『我會因為用了這個有種族特色的名字而被注意到』的觀念，」岡薩雷斯說。「但這正是很多有色人種作家在努力避免的。我們只是碰巧擁有了有種族特色的名字。我們的作品能發表是因為我們也是優秀的詩人。」

On Twitter on Monday, Mr. Alexie found a silver lining, writing, “I’m exhausted by the Best American Poetry mess, but wow, how cool that so many people are crazy-passionate about poems.”
週一的時候，Alexie還從這件事上發現了亮點。他在Twitter上寫道，「被《美國最佳詩作》的爛攤子搞得精疲力盡，不過話說回來，哇，有這麼多人對詩歌有著瘋狂的熱情真是太酷了。」

Mr. González, however, said that including Mr. Hudson had distracted from the anthology.
然而，González表示，收錄Hudson作品這件事轉移了人們對《美國最佳詩作》本身的注意力。

“There are good poems and other new names in the anthology, but all we’ve been hearing about is this guy,” Mr. González said. “It’s really a shame.”
González說「選集中有不少優秀的詩歌和其他一些新秀，但我們聽到的所有討論都是關於這一個人的，」他認為這樣「真的很遺憾。」

#高雄人 #學習英文 請找 多益達人 林立英文