h1

Some psychiatrists and psychologists

October 24, 2012

William James, Sigmund Freud, Karl Jaspers, Thomas Szasz, Eric Kendal, Julius Wagner-Jauregg, António Egas Moniz (lobotomy), Hervey Cleckley, Manfred Sakel (insulin shock therapy), Ugo Cerletti and Lucio Bini (electroconvulsive therapy) Ernest Jones, Stanley Hall, Carl Jung, Abraham Arden Brill, Sándor Ferenczi, James Jackson Putnam, Adolf Meyer, William Alanson White, Harry Stack Sullivan, Erik Erikson,Karen Horney, Alfred W. Adler, Heinz Hartmann, Ernst Kris, Rudolph Loewenstein, Rene Spitz, Margaret Mahler, Franz Alexander, David Rapaport

 

Advertisements
h1

a good course site for computational biology

September 13, 2011

http://www.cs.hunter.cuny.edu/~saad/

h1

List of important psychiatrists

August 5, 2011

Sorunus, Aretaeus and Celsus on phrenitis. mania, melencholia and their empirical treatment with blood letting, catharitics, menaces, torture, whipping and brutal ducking.

Paracelsus on unconscious, epilepsy and mania.

John Weyer on devil and witch.

Felix Plater on insane, he divides the mental diseases into imbecilitas, consternatio, alienatio and defatigatio.

Thomas Sydenham on hysteria, and treatment with phlebotomy, purging, iron preparations, milk diets and horse riding.

Thomas Willis on dementia paralytica and myasthenia gravis. Hysteria is a disease of brain but not uterus.

Robert Burton on The Anatomy of Melencholy.

George Ernst Stahl on animism. He divided mental illness into sympathetic (due to disease of organ) and pathetic (functional with no organ basis).

Giovanni Battista Morgagni on autopsy of mentally ill patients.

Albrecht von Haller, Robert Whytt, Luigi Galvani on nerves.

Pierre Cabanis on physiological psycology, thought is the function of brain.

Erasmus Darwin on Darwin chair to treat mental illness.

Franz Joseph Gall on cerebral localization.

Philippe Pinel on moral treatment and classification of mental disorders. Cause of mental illness is due to heredity, faulty education, irregular way of life, spasmodic passions, oppressive passions and gay passions. He divided mental illness into mania, melancholia, dementia and idiocy. He did statistical investigation of mental illness.

Jean Esquirol on hallucination and delusion.

Jacques Joseph Moreau de Tours on degeneration theory, marijuana and madness.

Benedict Augustin Morel on degeneration theory. Degeneration are deviations from the normal human type, which are transmissible by heredity and which deteriorate progressively towards extinction.

August Hirsch romantic stage of mental illness.

Johann Christian August Heinroth on disease of soul.

Christian Friederich Nasse, Johann Baptist Friedreich, Maximilian Jacobi on somaticism of mental illness.

Carl Friedrich Flemming, Christian Friedrich Wilhelm Roller  and Heinrich Philipp August Damerow on holistic approach of mental illness.

Wilhelm Griesinger as mechanist, he believed in integration of the mentally ill into society, and proposed that short-term hospitalization be combined with close cooperation of natural support systems.

Theodor Meynert on cerebral anatomy, developed theories in regards to correlations between neuroanatomical and mental processes.

Korbinian Brodmann on his definition of the cerebral cortex into 52 distinct regions from their cytoarchitectonic characteristics.

Hugo Karl Liepmann on apraxia, remembered for his pioneer work involving cerebral localization of function.

Carl Werniche and Paul Broca on aphasia.

Eduard Hitzig on the interaction between electric current and the brain.

Bernhard von Gudden on mapping and describing the paths, connections, origins/termini and neuroanatomical centers of cranial and optic nerve networks.

Carl Friedrich Otto westphal on agoraphobia, homosexual, Westphal-Piltz syndrome, Erb-Westphal symptom and Edinger-Westphal nucleus.

Franz Nissl, Alois Alzheimer, Emil Kraepelin on neuropathological basis of mental illness. Kraepelin is specifically credited with the classification of what was previously considered to be a unitary concept of psychosis, into two distinct forms: manic depression and dementia praecox (schizophrenia).

Eugen Bleuler on schizophrenia.

Ernst Kretschmer developed a differential diagnosis between schizophrenia and manic depression and classification system that can be seen as one of the earliest exponents of a constitutional  approach.

Hermann Rorschach for inkblot test.

Adolf Meyer believed that mental illness results from personality dysfunction, rather than brain pathology. He designated a psychobiological approach to psychiatric patients that embraced researching and noting all biological, psychological, and social factors relevant to a case.

Hans Berger is the first to record human electroencephalograms.

Jean-Martin Charcot, Joseph Babinski, Franz Mesmer, Hippolyte Bernheim, Ambroise-Auguste Liebeault, on hypnosis and hysteria.

Pierre Janet, He was one of the first people to draw a connection between events in the subject’s past life and his or her present day trauma, and coined the words ‘dissociation’ and ‘subconscious’.

Sigmund Freud, Eugen Bleuler, Carl Jung, Sándor Ferenczi, Alfred Adler on psychoanalysis.

Clifford Whittingham Beers is the founder of the American mental hygiene movement.

Ivan Pavlov on reflex research and psychiatric model in dogs.

Julius wagner-Jauregg on treatment of mental disease by inducing a fever.

Jacob Klaesi known for the introduction of the Sleep Treatment.

Vladimir Mikhailovich Bekhterev known for noting the role of the hippocampus in memory, his study of reflexes.

Ludvig Puusepp, Egas Moniz, on introducing the controversial psychosurgical procedure leucotomy.

Kurt Schneider on schizophrenia.

Karl Theodor Jaspers on biographical method, he believed that psychiatrists should diagnose symptoms (particularly of psychosis) by their form rather than by their content.

Aubrey Louis on melancholia and obsessional illness.

Michael Shepherd, on altering the course of psychiatric care in Britain and development of epidemiological psychiatry.

Seymour S. Kety is credited with making modern psychiatry a rigorous and heuristic branch of medicine by applying basic science to the study of human behavior in health and disease.

h1

Good Readers and Good Writers- Vladimir Nabokov

January 28, 2011

My course, among other things, is a kind of detective investigation of the mystery of literary structures.

“How to be a Good Reader” or “Kindness to Authors”—something of that sort might serve to provide a subtitle for these various discussions of various authors, for my plan is to deal lovingly, in loving and lingering detail, with several European Masterpieces. A hundred years ago, Flaubert in a letter to his mistress made the following remark: Commel’on serait savant si l’on connaissait bien seulement cinq a six livres: “What a scholar one might be if one knew well only some half a dozen books.”

In reading, one should notice and fondle details. There is nothing wrong about the moonshine of generalization when it comes after the sunny trifles of the book have been lovingly collected. If one begins with a readymade generalization, one begins at the wrong end and travels away from the book before one has started to understand it. Nothing is more boring or more unfair to the author than starting to read, say, Madame Bovary, with the preconceived notion that it is a denunciation of the bourgeoisie. We should always remember that the work of art is invariably the creation of a new world, so that the first thing we should do is to study that new world as closely as possible, approaching it as something brand new, having no obvious connection with the worlds we already know. When this new world has been closely studied, then and only then let us examine its links with other worlds, other branches of knowledge.

Another question: Can we expect to glean information about places and times from a novel? Can anybody be so naive as to think he or she can learn anything about the past from those buxom best-sellers that are hawked around by book clubs under the heading of historical novels? But what about the masterpieces? Can we rely on Jane Austen’s picture of landowning England with baronets and landscaped grounds when all she knew was a clergyman’s parlor? And Bleak House, that fantastic romance within a fantastic London, can we call it a study of London a hundred years ago? Certainly not. And the same holds for other such novels in this series. The truth is that great novels are great fairy tales—and the novels in this series are supreme fairy tales.

Time and space, the colors of the seasons, the movements of muscles and minds, all these are for writers of genius (as far as we can guess and I trust we guess right) not traditional notions which may be borrowed from the circulating library of public truths but a series of unique surprises which master artists have learned to express in their own unique way. To minor authors is left the ornamentation of the commonplace: these do not bother about any reinventing of the world; they merely try to squeeze the best they can out of a given order of things, out of traditional patterns of fiction. The various combinations these minor authors are able to produce within these set limits may be quite amusing in a mild ephemeral way because minor readers like to recognize their own ideas in a pleasing disguise. But the real writer, the fellow who sends planets spinning and models a man asleep and eagerly tampers with the sleeper’s rib, that kind of author has no given values at his disposal: he must create them himself. The art of writing is a very futile business if it does not imply first of all the art of seeing the world as the potentiality of fiction. The material of this world may be real enough (as far as reality goes) but does not exist at all as an accepted entirety: it is chaos, and to this chaos the author says “go!” allowing the world to flicker and to fuse. It is now recombined in its very atoms, not merely in its visible and superficial parts. The writer is the first man to mop it and to form the natural objects it contains. Those berries there are edible. That speckled creature that bolted across my path might be tamed. That lake between those trees will be called Lake Opal or, more artistically, Dishwater Lake. That mist is a mountain—and that mountain must be conquered. Up a trackless slope climbs the master artist, and at the top, on a windy ridge, whom do you think he meets? The panting and happy reader, and there they spontaneously embrace and are linked forever if the book lasts forever.

One evening at a remote provincial college through which I happened to be jogging on a protracted lecture tour, I suggested a little quiz—ten definitions of a reader, and from these ten the students had to choose four definitions that would combine to make a good reader. I have mislaid the list, but as far as I remember the definitions went something like this. Select four answers to the question what should a reader be to be a good reader:

1. The reader should belong to a book club.
2. The reader should identify himself or herself with the hero or heroine.
3. The reader should concentrate on the social-economic angle.
4. The reader should prefer a story with action and dialogue to one with none.
5. The reader should have seen the book in a movie.
6. The reader should be a budding author.
7. The reader should have imagination.
8. The reader should have memory.
9. The reader should have a dictionary.
10. The reader should have some artistic sense.

The students leaned heavily on emotional identification, action, and the social-economic or historical angle. Of course, as you have guessed, the good reader is one who has imagination, memory, a dictionary, and some artistic sense–which sense I propose to develop in myself and in others whenever I have the chance.

Incidentally, I use the word reader very loosely. Curiously enough, one cannot read a book: one can only reread it. A good reader, a major reader, an active and creative reader is a rereader. And I shall tell you why. When we read a book for the first time the very process of laboriously moving our eyes from left to right, line after line, page after page, this complicated physical work upon the book, the very process of learning in terms of space and time what the book is about, this stands between us and artistic appreciation. When we look at a painting we do not have to move our eyes in a special way even if, as in a book, the picture contains elements of depth and development. The element of time does not really enter in a first contact with a painting. In reading a book, we must have time to acquaint ourselves with it. We have no physical organ (as we have the eye in regard to a painting) that takes in the whole picture and then can enjoy its details. But at a second, or third, or fourth reading we do, in a sense, behave towards a book as we do towards a painting. However, let us not confuse the physical eye, that monstrous masterpiece of evolution, with the mind, an even more monstrous achievement. A book, no matter what it is—a work of fiction or a work of science (the boundary line between the two is not as clear as is generally believed)—a book of fiction appeals first of all to the mind. The mind, the brain, the top of the tingling spine, is, or should be, the only instrument used upon a book.

Now, this being so, we should ponder the question how does the mind work when the sullen reader is confronted by the sunny book. First, the sullen mood melts away, and for better or worse the reader enters into the spirit of the game. The effort to begin a book, especially if it is praised by people whom the young reader secretly deems to be too old-fashioned or too serious, this effort is often difficult to make; but once it is made, rewards are various and abundant. Since the master artist used his imagination in creating his book, it is natural and fair that the consumer of a book should use his imagination too.

There are, however, at least two varieties of imagination in the reader’s case. So let us see which one of the two is the right one to use in reading a book. First, there is the comparatively lowly kind which turns for support to the simple emotions and is of a definitely personal nature. (There are various subvarieties here, in this first section of emotional reading.) A situation in a book is intensely felt because it reminds us of something that happened to us or to someone we know or knew. Or, again, a reader treasures a book mainly because it evokes a country, a landscape, a mode of living which he nostalgically recalls as part of his own past. Or, and this is the worst thing a reader can do, he identifies himself with a character in the book. This lowly variety is not the kind of imagination I would like readers to use.

So what is the authentic instrument to be used by the reader? It is impersonal imagination and artistic delight. What should be established, I think, is an artistic harmonious balance between the reader’s mind and the author’s mind. We ought to remain a little aloof and take pleasure in this aloofness while at the same time we keenly enjoy—passionately enjoy, enjoy with tears and shivers—the inner weave of a given masterpiece. To be quite objective in these matters is of course impossible. Everything that is worthwhile is to some extent subjective. For instance, you sitting there may be merely my dream, and I may be your nightmare. But what I mean is that the reader must know when and where to curb his imagination and this he does by trying to get clear the specific world the author places at his disposal. We must see things and hear things, we must visualize the rooms, the clothes, the manners of an author’s people. The color of Fanny Price’s eyes in Mansfield Park and the furnishing of her cold little room are important.

We all have different temperaments, and I can tell you right now that the best temperament for a reader to have, or to develop, is a combination of the artistic and the scientific one. The enthusiastic artist alone is apt to be too subjective in his attitude towards a book, and so a scientific coolness of judgment will temper the intuitive heat. If, however, a would-be reader is utterly devoid of passion and patience—of an artist’s passion and a scientist’s patience—he will hardly enjoy great literature.

Literature was born not the day when a boy crying wolf, wolf came running out of the Neanderthal valley with a big gray wolf at his heels: literature was born on the day when a boy came crying wolf, wolf and there was no wolf behind him. That the poor little fellow because he lied too often was finally eaten up by a real beast is quite incidental. But here is what is important. Between the wolf in the tall grass and the wolf in the tall story there is a shimmering go-between. That go-between, that prism, is the art of literature.

Literature is invention. Fiction is fiction. To call a story a true story is an insult to both art and truth. Every great writer is a great deceiver, but so is that arch-cheat Nature. Nature always deceives. From the simple deception of propagation to the prodigiously sophisticated illusion of protective colors in butterflies or birds, there is in Nature a marvelous system of spells and wiles. The writer of fiction only follows Nature’s lead.

Going back for a moment to our wolf-crying woodland little woolly fellow, we may put it this way: the magic of art was in the shadow of the wolf that he deliberately invented, his dream of the wolf; then the story of his tricks made a good story. When he perished at last, the story told about him acquired a good lesson in the dark around the campfire. But he was the little magician. He was the inventor.

There are three points of view from which a writer can be considered: he may be considered as a storyteller, as a teacher, and as an enchanter. A major writer combines these three—storyteller, teacher, enchanter—but it is the enchanter in him that predominates and makes him a major writer.

To the storyteller we turn for entertainment, for mental excitement of the simplest kind, for emotional participation, for the pleasure of traveling in some remote region in space or time. A slightly different though not necessarily higher mind looks for the teacher in the writer. Propagandist, moralist, prophet—this is the rising sequence. We may go to the teacher not only for moral education but also for direct knowledge, for simple facts. Alas, I have known people whose purpose in reading the French and Russian novelists was to learn something about life in gay Paree or in sad Russia. Finally, and above all, a great writer is always a great enchanter, and it is here that we come to the really exciting part when we try to grasp the individual magic of his genius and to study the style, the imagery, the pattern of his novels or poems.

The three facets of the great writer—magic, story, lesson—are prone to blend in one impression of unified and unique radiance, since the magic of art may be present in the very bones of the story, in the very marrow of thought. There are masterpieces of dry, limpid, organized thought which provoke in us an artistic quiver quite as strongly as a novel like Mansfield Park does or as any rich flow of Dickensian sensual imagery. It seems to me that a good formula to test the quality of a novel is, in the long run, a merging of the precision of poetry and the intuition of science. In order to bask in that magic a wise reader reads the book of genius not with his heart, not so much with his brain, but with his spine. It is there that occurs the telltale tingle even though we must keep a little aloof, a little detached when reading. Then with a pleasure which is both sensual and intellectual we shall watch the artist build his castle of cards and watch the castle of cards become a castle of beautiful steel and glass. (@1948)

h1

怎样面对趣味上的不同

January 28, 2011

统计学第一课说的是区别数据种类:“上个月的薪金”这是连续的(continous)还是分散的(discrete)?有学生举手说是分散的,我说我这也有可能。分散的数据一般能用1, 2, 3, 4,。。。的方式给数出来,当然我们可以用1分,2分,。。。10分,11分,。。。的方式来数钱。不过既然大家一般不这么数钱,我更倾向于理解薪金这个东西是连续的。一般来说,分散的数据都是整数,而连续的数据是小数。学生跟我指出,书上说这个是分散的。我说书上说的不一定都是对的,甚至我说的也不一定都对───有的事情,不分对错,而是一个个人趣味(personal style)上的不同。学生们茫然看我,有的也许认为我在给自己打圆场,有的貌似理解了我的意思,有的还有点不解,或者感到我在嘲笑他们。

安娜卡列琳娜里说:幸福的家庭大多相似,不幸的方式则各有不同。我想在这里打的比方是,理解的结果大多相似──两个人一点头,相视一笑,然后接下去说别的;而误解的结果则有很多可能──有的人误解之后会走得很远,会认为自己被藐视了之类的,生出讨厌对方的感觉出来。我不是特别敏感的人,可是很多时候分明我的思路跟对方不在一个轨道之上,明确地知道,至少在当时,完全是没有让对方理解我的意思的可能性存在了。虽然我告诉自己不能放弃努力,不过那也只能等后来再慢慢找机会。我可受不了当时因为这个误解的存在跟对方纠缠下去个没完。。

学生来上课,他们大多是因为这是一门必修课,不得不来学的,最要紧的是弄个尽可能好的分数回去。我却从来不认为我教课的目的是灌输什么知识,至少不是在我的课上!学生问我一个问题,我告诉他们我的理解思路,可是我自己也有可能不是对的。在统计这种很多时候很含糊的学科上尤其如此,什么是对什么是错,绝对取决于你做这个研究的目的。我憎恶有的老师那种唯自己是上帝的态度,于是自己说什么也不肯这样子做。可是在学生看来,可能我这种“不确定性”会给他们带来困扰:究竟考试的时候你要让我怎么写才能拿满分哪?我的答案是:如果你说的有道理,你就得好分数。不管什么答案,你必须让我清楚你为什么这么写、这么想。他们有很多人觉得我超烦,为什么会了答案还不够,还要给什么解释(explanation),我不管,能解释才说明你知道自己为什么给出这个答案,不然就有可能是敷衍了事,有了答案而不懂答案从哪里来,那跟不知道答案是一回事。

我跟学生之间根本的不同,其实是对于数学这种学科的理解。对我而言,如果我要给一个数学题找出一个答案,那是因为我经过自己的思索,经历下意识或者有意识的逻辑推理,确乎得出了这个结论。而学生被过去的老师交道下来的结果,很多时候不在乎过程而在乎弄出一个答案来交差──他们的高中考试大部分是选择题那种标准化考试,更是加深了这种概念。任何理解的不同,都在于哲学。象我这么理解数学,甚至任何知识的人也许只是少数。作为一个少数派意见,我知道自己是对的(这也可能是出于自大),因为我很清楚自己为什么这么做、这么想。──也就是说,按照我自己的标准,我是对的。可是在我的体系里,完全容忍两个截然相反的意见同时正确。这个不光做理科的,甚至很多做文科的都不会接受吧。──好吧,我说的是在教育的过程里如此,而非在现实中,好不?

听到来自他人的相反的意见,我其实也是同样的标准。罗唆说这么多,其实想说的是纳博科夫。

俄国作家我读的不多,唯一比较投缘比较爱看的是老陀,基本上把他的长篇短篇都看了个遍,有的还好多遍。一般来说,我发现他的卡拉玛佐夫兄弟最容易被讨论,不过因为我对宗教理解太少,一般比较避免想那篇,更多的是喜欢罪与罚,白痴,那两个更“广义”的作品。我还不太关心托尔斯泰,也老因为跟人争论老陀和老托两个谁更牛的事情。──不管什么人,在这两个作家里必然倾向其中一位,曾经想这是牵扯到个人背景和天生情趣上的什么不可更变因素。还有一个比较通俗无稽的解释,就是这两人的作品都喜欢长篇大论,让人好不容易看完了之后,不得不觉得自己付出那么大的努力好歹总该得到些回报才好,于是就跑去坚持(自己侥幸看完了的)这个作家才是最牛的了。嘿嘿,这个逻辑对我自己倒是有用,因为到现在我没有从头到尾看完过任何一本老托的作品。出于某种神秘的原因,我能忍受老陀那些长篇大论的思考,却受不了老托冒出来的那些“阅读障碍物”。

呵呵,回到不太无稽的说法,其实老托的人文关怀比较跨越国界和思考界限,而老陀更“革命”性。这至少应该是老陀在中国读者中被介绍得更多的背景性原因。

所以当我看见纳博科夫这个我觉得跟神一样的文学评论家把老托说到天上,把老陀说到地下的时候,我是多么的不解,震惊,一时感到不能接受。我也许可以一笑置之,不过做不到。我也可以认为纳博科夫的趣味跟我大相径庭,因此可以直接被我忽视掉──差点是想这么做的,但还是有点不舍得。后来这个问题就在我脑子里盘旋,一直纠结着,听之任之。我不想因为自己特别喜欢的作家被纳博科夫否定得那么彻底,就因此否定纳博科夫的评论,这是因为我一直觉得存在那种“两个截然相反意见同时正确”的可能性,而更值得关注的应该是,那意见背后的理由是什么?这个问题很不好得到回答,当然是因为我看书太少的缘故。

h1

Strong Opinions

January 27, 2011

Strong Opinions是我最最喜欢的书之一了。。。因为这个原因一直没舍得开始看speak, memory。。 记得纳博科夫用极度刻薄的语言形容托斯陀耶夫斯基,说他是什么“偏执小报记者”之类的。很奇异的两个形容词,可惜太久我居然忘了。—-那次对我好冲击啊,因为我个人一直对老陀崇拜得不行,反倒是对纳博科夫特别欣赏的托尔斯泰不那么感冒。可即便如此,我还是喜欢这个敢说敢想的老头儿。

一直觉得Strong Opinions这本书改变了我很多。──看它的时候在美国已经呆了几年。我一直没想好怎么对待跟别人之间文化上的隔阂。去学人家那套,不愿。完全照自己意思来,不可行。可以这么说吧,从纳博科夫身上,我找到一种坚持自己内心的声音的不卑不亢的行为准则。我是中国人,但不是说我必须把中国说得坏来讨好你,或者必须装成爱中国到为它说好话的程度来凸现自己的人格。应该是本来怎样,还是怎样。

这个事情为什么跟纳博科夫有关呢?──你看他从俄国去欧洲,从欧洲去美国,多年又漂泊又不在乎自己漂泊,又看不起苏联政府也对美国人的文化沙漠很是藐视。他是个很自我中心的人,不是因为他自大、自信、自傲,更因为他的生活习惯注定了,他就是这样的人。对任何事情都有自己鲜明而清晰的观点,压根也不因为周围环境的不同就让自己换个说法。他夸一个艺术家或者一件事,不是因为夸奖能给自己来到好处,只是因为自己由衷地这么觉得。大部分人为什么做不到这样呢?我想很多人,其实没有那么鲜明的、黑白分明的观点吧。正因为如此,纳博科夫是很容易被人误解成一个自大狂的。可是我从内心深深地理解他那种有意见就非说出来不可的直性子,只因为我自己也是如此呀。

昨天blog写过,纳博科夫几十年前关于蝴蝶的一个猜想,最近被科学家用基因测序证明出来了。这个事情非常的激动人心呀!真想看到如果他在世,那个手舞足蹈的劲头儿。。

*****

刚才跑去找Strong Opinions,怎么也找不到。楼上楼下跑了三遍,把别的书都给收拾了一遍,只不见这本的踪影。难道被我上次搬家处理掉了?唉,真要命。书这种东西该处理的时候必须处理,可挡不住回来后悔:要翻的时候,它已经没了。

不光是书。什么都是这样,没有的时候很缺乏。有的时候很无关紧要。

*****
2009.11.

当opinions过于strong的时候。。。

副标题:我是怎么得罪老板夫人的

那天吃火鸡的时候突然提起七武士,我尚在搜肠刮肚找怎么说”黑泽明“的英文,旁边一个女孩道,”我也许喝多了,但你们莫不是在说黑泽明吧?“并且她立刻提起黑泽明自己在关于罗生门的一个访谈里说到电影罗生门着重写了一个”旁观者“的视角,有关于日本人自己看日本战后(罗生门拍摄完成于1950年)的意思。我一听大惊失色:这是遇到行家了。当下瞥开关于Magnificent Seven到底好不好的原话题,(因为老板夫人提到Magnificent Seven是个好片,我一句话立刻出口,“不至于吧。”对方脸上有点红红白白,而我就发现自己那个莽撞发表过于鲜明意见的老毛病,又犯了。。。)积极地开始讨论关于罗生门原著小说来自哪里的问题。当提到Dream的时候我不由得说,这个电影不大好哇,昆廷都说了年纪大了不要拍电影,意思就是不想走黑泽明的老路。那个女孩(不好意思难得遇到个聊天的我连人家名字都没记住)说那么八月狂想曲呢,总还不如dream,我顺口道”八月狂想曲那个更是不值一提“,被对方抓住了”not even worth mentioning“的小辫子说我mean,当下我很不好意思再度开始为自己说话太冲而感到郁闷,不由得抱歉半天,被她大度笑之。言多必失,现在说话越来越冲,好像是时候好生反省一下了。

h1

美貌和数学(?)

January 13, 2011

一帮闲人跑去研究了一番女人容貌和魅力之间的数学关系,数字化一个人女人的容貌(通过男性读者的打分)和她魅力(有多少男性读者想发消息给她)之间的关系,发现同样容貌分数的两个女人,在魅力分上可能会相差很大。这些人不甘心了,想要找点线性数据出来,于是具体分析的结果是,好比同样两个平均容貌分是7分的女孩,那个教有魅力(得到讯息比较多)的女孩的容貌分在standard variation上要超过另一个。

我比较网站列出的图片,认为那么多统计方法白用啦。结果很简单(而且近乎于老掉重弹),就是男人不光看女人的长相(一个简单的1到10的打分),更看重这个女人所传达的信息(是否想找人交往,是否有神秘感,是否刻意营造神秘感,是否对自己的女性魅力有信心–as opposed to 只是对自己的长相感觉满意)。。。等等。简单地说,一个7分的女孩,当然敌不过一个7分的女人。