Jason_Hu/剑申鹄

American-by-Choice; Organizer-facilitator of Club of Remy; Coordinator of "Oxford Project" - developing online education of System&Cybernetics for young leaders

[Jason_Hu/剑申鹄 @JJH_Chi]

寻人启事
（本推将在不同时区贴三次以方便不同地区的推友）

X版《事理学扫盲》《达理学入门》网络课程寻找12位X讨论班参与者

2024年9月中旬，WOSC 世界系统与事理学组织 https://t.co/Nur7XVtDaO ； WCSA 世界复杂性科学学院https://t.co/TaxcQl4nNk ；以及COR 雷米俱乐部 https://t.co/scbJajSZcY 三个团体共同发起 “牛津计划”Oxford Project，旨在开发并在全球推广网上普及课程Cybernetics 101 和Communicatics 101. 项目组在主课程开发过程（Zoom会议与电子邮件协调）的同时，将同步推出推特版讨论。

具体而言，如果你来推特：
-不是吃瓜打酱油找乐子；
-不是宣讲你的真理开嘴炮；
-不是发泄情绪或怼人玩；
-不是卖药带货做广告；

而是来：
-找朋友思考切磋想法；
-寻找值得学习的知识；
-你开启了对话模式；
那么你就是我们要邀请的思想者。

具体参与方式很简单：
1- PM报名；
2-本推会与主项目同步在X贴出所讨论课程章节的中文版；
3-已经报名的推友承诺认真阅读此章节并对内容提出修改意见。

如此循环直到全本教材讨论完毕。有见地的观点与数据事实将被吸收到主项目中。特别有参与动力的X友也会被邀请到主项目组中。

寻找12位X友是按1%的推友比例，比较务实，但多来者不设上限。请认真考虑，非诚勿扰。谢谢！

[Jason_Hu/剑申鹄 @JJH_Chi]

@leodknuth @Jackywine 你跟他们齐头并进，顶峰会师。
“在事理学的花园里，挖呀挖呀挖。。。”

[Jason_Hu/剑申鹄 @JJH_Chi]

历史=过去=记录=记忆=罗生门=认知视角印象
所以“记录/记忆/认知”的版本会有对错/真假
但历史本身只是“what happened”不存在对错
历史中的角色或演员或行动者会有对错
而这个对错是由各方自己的价值观决定
政治也是一样 只有因果报应 没有对错
或者说讨论政治的对错或历史的对错无意义
因为它们都是“已经发生的事”和"进行中的博弈”
后者中的玩家以自己的目标为坐标可以有对错
但如果只是旁观者来说三道四就很无聊
换个角度讨论
“在所有的即成事实下，我应该做什么”
才是有意义的
对不对？

[Jason_Hu/剑申鹄 @JJH_Chi]

“只要心诚，石头也会开出花来”。 没有歌也会找到歌。 例如你唱过这首《岁月飞逝》吗：

我们活到如今 从来不想安宁
啊我们是永远 不会辜负青春
但我们的心灵它更加年青 它更加年青
那友谊 比海洋更深

让我们的年华像小鸟般 轻轻飞走
但我们永向前看 不回头

多少会见的欢乐 多少别离之苦
这一切都尝过 并且永远记住
在当年的情人们走过的路 那走过的路
到入今 已长起大树

让我们的年华像小鸟般 轻轻飞走
但我们永向前看 不回头

我们来到世界 不是贪图逍遥
连我们的子孙 都有同样爱好
让老和少一起去迎接风暴 去迎接风暴
那我们 就永不会老

让我们的年华像小鸟般 轻轻飞走
但我们永向前看 不回头

（这是我们“小分队”当年自己找到的“队歌”）

[Jason_Hu/剑申鹄 @JJH_Chi]

不错，所以你的论文的写作应该使用学界通行规范，首先介绍HVF说了啥（人家才知道你上过学不是民科），然后指出他不足在何处错在何处，然后才介绍你的要点、事实、数据、看法、假说，最好再加入可证伪判据，或者上次我要求你作的SOPU，standard operation procedure for users. 你才能离开自说自话国，移民到同行交流国。
我们很多推友本来有足够的好奇心进入实质性探索研究，但一直停留在自说自话阶段，很可惜。

[Jason_Hu/剑申鹄 @JJH_Chi]

@pingzhang632 不是生猛，是实诚。有一说一，不藏不掖。

[Jason_Hu/剑申鹄 @JJH_Chi]

既然说“立志”，那就是自己立，不是被谁规定。如果是家族的继承，那就是“继承父志”。垬洗脑术，是让我们从小唱“我-们是-共、产、主、义接-班-人”，提前为你立了。但是我们这一代很多自发地反叛了，成了共产主义的“结束人、搬倒人、掘墓人”。
真正的立志，一定是自发的，但往往是被环境中的某一个或某一类刺激所触发的。
例如学习哲学的学生时代的索罗斯被迫拖着一条伤腿去痛苦地爬楼梯领取他的助学金是，突然触发了立志“老子不学哲学了，老子要去搞钱。”从此才有了你们今天熟知的那些后来故事。要是当时校方官僚能够把支票体谅地邮寄给他，我们今天就少一位华尔街大鳄，多一位卡尔波普的继承人。
俺本人的“立志”过程很简单，与这个推特上很多朋友一样，是1966年我家被抄家触发的：“这个社会病了疯了，俺要去找医治的方法。”

[Jason_Hu/剑申鹄 @JJH_Chi]

换汤不换药 换字不换意 这类语言流变 从审美观看 可能是语言文化的进化成长也可能是退化腐败
所以你列出的这些样本可以分个类看看每一条是啥情况
有的是转向更委婉更宽容
有的是转向更粗俗更暴力
但有时候语言暴力替代物理暴力是一种进步
例如骂“操你妈”好过直接犯强奸罪
有些搞笑视频嘲笑上海男人吵架跳脚但不出拳
我认为比起东北人的大打出手来那是一种进步
所以这些语言流变现象还可以具体再分析一下

[Jason_Hu/剑申鹄 @JJH_Chi]

@Tz_2022 还有这些：
不是。。。而是。。。
其实是
后背发凉
细思极恐
炸裂
爆款
火了
打倒（这个是老词，但也极其可笑：怎么打啊？打哪里啊？倒了没有啊？啥时候才倒啊？）
某某粉
某某黑
。。。
可怜的民族，可怜的语言

[Jason_Hu/剑申鹄 @JJH_Chi]

@JenniferZeng15 @SecRubio @snowboat 还是不对，是 @snowboat84 老同志了

[Jason_Hu/剑申鹄 @JJH_Chi]

@JenniferZeng15 @SecRubio @snowboat @错了，是@snowboar84, 一位多产作者

[Jason_Hu/剑申鹄 @JJH_Chi]

@JenniferZeng15 @SecRubio @snowboat 看被左疯把持的联合国能不能有大幅度改变
看老川团队能不能干掉绿教与红教两大势力
如果以上两条能够做到的话我们有可能看到

[Jason_Hu/剑申鹄 @JJH_Chi]

@JenniferZeng15 @SecRubio @snowboat 那当然。所以这个游戏就是，哪一组文化基因群有可能最后胜出，移民去火星，然后把地区建成一级文明，把太阳系建成二级文明？谁会胜出？

[Jason_Hu/剑申鹄 @JJH_Chi]

第一，你必须定义出来什么是“好东西”；
第二，你定义的“好”必须能成为共识；
第三，这样说与欧美人说把罗马的好东西捡起来一样，其实没有意义。因为历史已经演化了，好的一直都在没必要去捡，文化基因已经融合出了新形式，那就是我说的主流文明的主流价值观。东亚大陆面临的是接受与融合的问题，不是去 历史里面捡点什么的问题。80年代初我也是这种观点：“要把马克思主义的精华和中国传统文化的精华提取出来融合起来。。。巴拉巴拉吧”。到美国学习后认识到马克思主义毫无精华而是剧毒；结识了一位“传统文化大师”后近距离学习研究传统文化才发现那也是一堆剧毒。

[Jason_Hu/剑申鹄 @JJH_Chi]

宋代之后，崖山之战，陆大人背了小皇帝跳了海，东亚大陆的原生态文明就句号了。再往后的事情，都是各种外族唱的戏：蒙古人、满族人、日本人、俄国人。
整个东亚，只有日本做到了脱亚入欧。台湾沾了荷兰人、日本人、基督教传入的光。
东亚大陆文化基因在汉朝之前是有本土丰富度的。内用黄老外示儒书那一套登台后，基因丰富都就完蛋了，然后一直下坡路走到宋朝，finish。

[Jason_Hu/剑申鹄 @JJH_Chi]

这就是我说的
“文化基因的丰富度决定文明的高度”
他说的“ideas having sex"无比正确
这与生物学上的“杂种优势”完全同构
我曾经有一位顶头上司
具有让我五体投地的认知力和执行力
在学界伯克利做到系主任后辞职下海
同时指挥四个公司每天只睡四个小时
我问他的高能秘诀到底是什么
他说是生物基因里“杂种优势”
他是墨西哥人和俄国人的后代
在文化基因层面原理是同构的
先进的文明体文化基因更丰富

[Millie Marconi @MillieMarconnni]

A British biologist looked at 200,000 years of human history and found that the entire reason humans broke out of poverty was not intelligence, not language, not even agriculture, but one mechanism so simple a 6-year-old could explain it.

His name is Matt Ridley.

He is a zoologist by training, an evolutionary biologist by career, and in 2010 he wrote a book called The Rational Optimist that quietly argued the most important fact about human progress had been hiding in plain sight for the entire history of economics.

Naval Ravikant has been telling people to read everything Ridley has ever written for the last 15 years. The reason is the argument inside this one book.

For 200,000 years, anatomically modern humans walked around with the same brain you have right now. Same skull size. Same neural architecture. Same raw capacity for language, planning, and abstract thought.

For roughly 190,000 of those years, almost nothing happened. Generation after generation lived and died inside the same Stone Age toolkit their great-great-grandparents had used. Then somewhere around 50,000 years ago, the line on the chart of human progress started to tick upward. Then it bent. Then it exploded.

The question Ridley spent years on was the only question that mattered. What changed.

It was not the brain. The brain had been the same for 190,000 years. It was not language, which had existed long before the takeoff. It was not even agriculture, which arrived only 10,000 years ago and was actually preceded by the upward bend, not the cause of it.

What changed was that humans started trading with strangers.

This sounds too small to be the answer. Ridley argues that it is the answer to almost everything. The moment one human exchanged a useful object with another human from a different group, something happened that no other species on earth had ever done.

Two ideas that had developed in isolation came into contact. The flint knapper learned what the spear maker had figured out. The fisherman from the coast learned what the hunter from the forest had figured out. The two pieces of knowledge fused into something neither side could have produced alone.

Ridley calls this ideas having sex. The phrase sounds frivolous and it is meant to. The point is that ideas, like genes, get better when they combine with other ideas from different lineages.

An idea sitting inside one head, no matter how brilliant the head, eventually hits a ceiling. The same idea exposed to ten thousand other ideas does something genes do under sexual reproduction. It mixes. It recombines. It produces offspring nobody planned.

The cleanest proof of this argument is the most uncomfortable case study in the book. Tasmania.

Around 10,000 years ago, rising sea levels cut Tasmania off from mainland Australia. A population of roughly 4,000 humans was now isolated on an island, with no possibility of contact with the rest of humanity. They had the same brains. The same language. The same starting toolkit as their cousins 150 kilometers north. The natural experiment was now running.

What happened next is something no economist or geneticist had ever predicted.

The mainland Australians kept inventing. Boomerangs. Spear-throwers. Fishing nets. Bone needles for sewing fitted clothes. Watercraft with paddles. Their technology compounded slowly across the centuries.

The Tasmanians went the other way. They did not just fail to invent the new tools their cousins were developing. They started losing the tools they already had. Fishing was abandoned within a few thousand years. Bone tools disappeared. Fitted clothing disappeared. They forgot how to make fire from scratch and started carrying lit firebrands from camp to camp instead, relighting their fires from a neighbor's whenever their own went out.

By the time European explorers arrived in the 17th century, the Tasmanians had the simplest toolkit of any human society ever recorded. Their material culture had gone backward for 8,000 years.

The archaeologist Rhys Jones called it a slow strangulation of the mind.

Joseph Henrich at Harvard later proved with formal mathematical models that there was nothing wrong with Tasmanian brains. There was something wrong with their network. A toolkit requires a critical mass of people exchanging skills to maintain itself.

The act of teaching a skill is imperfect. Every generation loses a small percentage of what the last generation knew. If your population is large enough and trading widely enough, those losses get caught and corrected by someone else who still remembers.

If your population shrinks below a certain threshold and stops mixing with outsiders, the small losses compound until entire technologies disappear.

This is the part that should haunt anyone reading this in 2026.

Intelligence is not a property of the individual brain. Intelligence is a property of the network the brain is connected to. A genius in isolation will produce less than a mediocre thinker inside a dense exchange of other mediocre thinkers.

The thing your ancestors needed in order to break out of 190,000 years of stagnation was not better brains. It was better connections between brains they already had.

The implication for any individual is direct and uncomfortable. If you are smart and isolated, you will be outproduced by people half as smart who are connected.

The most successful people in any field are almost never the smartest people in it. They are the ones positioned at the intersection of the most idea flows. They are reading more authors than their competitors. They are talking to more people from more disciplines. They are in the rooms where ideas from different lineages bump into each other.

Ridley ends the book on the line that sounds optimistic but is actually a warning its this "The future will be invented by people who connect ideas, not by people who guard them."

[Jason_Hu/剑申鹄 @JJH_Chi]

你要是翻我以前的推，我一直在主张文化基因假说。改变必须从文化基因开始。
我去越南旅行的时候，很惊讶虽然他们也有孔庙，但他们越共一直很廉洁，那些越共机构都是很简陋的居民委员会水平。然后发现他们的年青人心理非常健康，大多数蓬勃向上，既没有苦大仇深的受害者心态也没有我爸是李刚的那种恶少狂妄。深挖之后才发现，他们的文化基因群保持着即使是越共主导下也是一种健康的状态，没有日本人说的“中国人的大大的坏了坏了的"那种阴暗面。非常明确的一个转折点就是他们自己新造了越南拼音文字而废除使用汉字。一个能够打败美国的小国，后裔还能在美国做到海军部长，这是值得你深思熟虑的。

[Jason_Hu/剑申鹄 @JJH_Chi]

@JenniferZeng15 @SecRubio @snowboat 我是说
美国是华裔多还是古巴裔多呢
华裔中又有早年漂洋过海来的
越南难民潮来的和东南亚来的
还有大量80年代之前台湾来的
其中够档次的祖父外祖父很多
在这里也生过很多第二第三代
是什么原因导致出不来鲁彪呢
你不妨追踪研究一下这个课题