今天晚上，George特別納悶。
浴室沙沙的水聲還沒停止。George走出客廳，在酒櫃裡挑了一瓶78年份的特優Burgundy，拿了兩隻酒杯，再回到睡房。他把房中全青銅的吊燈調暗一點，然後走過去把窗簾拉開，現出了Stanley Bay的美麗的夜景。覺得一切都滿意了之後，他才拿起瓶子，把酒斜斜的倒在杯中，輕輕搖動酒杯，讓酒與空氣接觸，散發出一層甜美的醇香。
「George？」正在淋浴的Tracy在裡面叫出來。
「嗯。」淺淺地嚐了一口深紅液體的George應道。
「我下個星期又要飛北京了。」
「是嗎？」
「是啊，我的工作就是這樣，this is the thirty-fourth time in this year。」她無耐地說。
「那也真是很慘啊。」George隨口應道，心中卻在想別的事情。
這時候，沙沙的水聲嘎然而止，取而代之的，是毛巾擦拭的聲音。
「這也不算很慘的，對著那些大陸女律師才慘呢。工作效率又低，開會的時候竟然穿涼鞋和短絲襪，簡直是老土不堪。我也算發了善心，教她們怎麼穿Dior。」
「她們有五尺八嗎？」George不經心地問道。
「甚麼？」Tracy好像想不到他突然會有這個問題。
「我問她們有五尺八嗎？」
「How can I remember，你問這個幹嘛？」
「沒甚麼，隨便問問。」邊說著，邊想像著北方女子那五尺八的高挑身材，和修長的雙腿。噢不。George立即糾正自己。是未穿那雙爛鬼3寸Dior，也有五尺八的高挑身材。這是沒有讀過港大就有的。
門忽地打開了，一團團輕霧湧進房內。只圍著一塊毛巾的Tracy，正在對著鏡子塗抹。朦朧的霧氣之中，看見她有一半的背部露了出來，而且有意無意地，向著George的方向。
「這還不止，還有更離譜的。」正在塗抹Tracy的續道。「跟她們吃飯，餐巾不懂放大腿上，喝湯時把湯匙向內使，還用刀來切餐包，一點Table Manner都沒有。我說過，有一天，當所有中國人都能在西餐餐桌上落落大方地吃一頓飯，才是中國真正崛起的時候。」
George怔怔地看著她的背影，說不出話來。他想起了自己以前曾說過的話：「當所有西方人，都懂拿筷子，在中國的餐桌上飲茶吃飯，才是中國真正崛起的時候。」這一刻，他沒有把那番話說出來。有人講過，一個女人的背影最好看，一個表情，一個眼神，都由男人的幻想所填補了。但George看著Tracy的背影時，忽然覺得有點可悲。每天看著鏡子內那個黑頭髮，黃皮膚的人，她一定會很難過。
Tracy從鏡的倒影裡，看見George呆呆地望著自己的背影，一切盡收進她的眼角，不禁露出滿意的神色。
「你怎麼看得不說話啦？」她語帶笑意地問。
「不是。我是想說那些女人沒文化，是這樣的啦。」George收起憐憫的心，連忙回答。
「當然啦。」她頓了一頓，忽然想起了一件事。「聽William說，上星期你和他們在上海，不是也和你們上海分公司那班女會計和秘書，去衡山路玩嗎？How could you tolerate them？」
「根本沒有玩，只是和上海分公司的人應酬一下喝一下酒，順便了解了解那邊的人事情況。」George說著，覺得自己有點正襟危座。
「你不會被那些大陸女人搭上吧？」Tracy轉過頭來邪邪的看著他。
「怎麼會。」George乾咳一聲。
「那班女人，你跟她們說卡夫卡，她們會以為是芝士片，其實芝士片的那個叫卡夫。你跟她們說羅素，她們會以為你說賽車手，救命啊，當賽車手的那個叫文素。一點文化也沒有，妳說怎麼溝通？」說著說著，George開始覺得自己有點義正辭嚴。
「You are a man with taste。」塗抹完畢的Tracy，轉過身來，眼中帶著稱許的笑意。「我說過，懂得欣賞我的男人，根本不會喜歡大陸女人。」
看著步出浴室的她，George把另外一杯紅酒遞了過去。
「Cheers﹗」碰杯之後，又一口深紅液體流進肚裡。但是上等的78年份Burgundy，對今晚George來說，卻是苦澀的。今晚的他一直覺得很納悶。
這是因為，他懷疑自己已經不行了。
深好此道的他，今晚只做了一次。按：其實對於只接受傳教士模式的Tracy，George也不是很介意，因為英國的碩士課程大概沒有教過她其他姿勢。真正令他煩惱的是，他居然只做了一次，就沒興趣做了，實在太不像話，以往絕不會這樣。30歲出頭的他，正直盛年啊，難道過去消耗過度嗎？「應該不會的」他暗暗地想。上星期在上海和那個女秘書，那個拉他進雜物房後便拉下他褲鍊騎在他身上的女秘書，他明明幹了五次的啊。
看見向他投以奇怪目光的Tracy，他忍不住，試探地問道：
「Tracy。」
「怎麼？」
「妳剛才有高潮嗎？」
「Yes I had，怎麼啦？」
「那……妳為甚麼不叫？」
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
犀象
題解：犀牛和大象，都是瀕危動物，都是因為身上那一丁點兒的東西，而遭人所害。
有時候，也不得不沈痛地承認，港女的確並非只是一小撮人，而是根本地滲透在大家的生活之中。有些極端的例子，可能會被放在網上恥笑，但有更多不太極端的港女，平凡地生活在我們身周，令人以為港女現象從盤古開天闢地便存在。其實她們造成的傷害，反而更大。因為久而久之，大家連批判的能力，申訴的氣力也沒有了。香港的男人，已經麻木了﹗就像被溫水煮的青蛙，慢慢地失去生命而不自知。
我很喜歡用這個詞：institutionalized(被制度化了)。港女受慣了非必要的恩惠，而香港男人亦無可奈何地接受了，被這個制度所同化。漸漸地，他們更會自動自覺地為港女付錢，挽袋，排隊買票，受氣，而覺得這是沒所謂，理所當然的了。如果你曾經離港多年，並未被institutionalized，回來之後，看見這個沈淪的國度，港女橫行，港男自動讓其橫行，你會如何自處？
二十世紀有一套非常經典的戲劇，法國劇作家Eugène Ionesco所編的《Rhinocéros》，正是這個問題的最佳寫照。故事講述一個鎮的人陸續轉化為犀牛，主人翁Berenger原為一介平庸的市井小民，他親身體驗人們對這種趨勢由初期的驚訝，恐慌，到逐漸認同，乃至讚賞，追隨的過程。並且目睹自己的鄰居，同僚，朋友，一一投入這股熱潮，也先後成為犀牛，使得自己在堅持己見與隨波逐流之間，與他人愈形疏離，終至茫茫然失去立場。當社會潮流與原有價值觀驟變之際，Berenger應該高呼「眾人皆醉我獨醒」，堅持繼續做人；還是相信「識時務者為俊傑」，讓自己變成犀牛呢？
這套戲劇，被認為是用來諷刺納粹時期的德國社會，和法西斯時期的意大利社會。有一幕令我非常深刻，就是當主角拿著自己的照片，去比對著犀牛的頭像之時，那種矛盾，苦惱，難以抉擇的表情。其實在今天沈淪的香港，身為未被institutionalized的男人，也是面對著同樣的煩惱，不知是堅持繼續做人還是變成犀牛的好。一些公平，顯淺的常理，在今天都被嚴重地扭曲。你要堅持做一個人，需要付出很大代價，遠不如變成犀牛容易。不信？看看以下這些例子：
堅持做一個人，就是初次約會一個女子吃晚飯，結帳的時候，雖然她無動於衷，你也會大方地叫她付一半的錢，而不是無言請客。堅持做一個人，就是你見到有女子打尖，你會禮貌地叫她排隊，而不是息事寧人。堅持做一個人，就是你女友月事來了，橫蠻無理地找你出氣時，你會善意地告訴她，「如果心理健康有問題，請盡速去看醫生」，而不是默默受氣。堅持做一個人，就是女友逛街時叫你挽手袋，你會愛惜地提醒她，如果覺得自己的手袋過重，提不起了，下次便不要帶這麼多東西出來。堅持做一個人就是，你和你女友準備結婚，那麼酒席，買房子，渡蜜月所花的錢，你會公平地要求和她各付一半。堅持做一個人就是，凌晨三時，女友在中環喝醉了，打電話叫醒睡夢中的你，要你坐的士來送她回家之時，你會關心的告訴她，根本不應在凌晨三時喝醉。
這些本來就是公平合理的事，但你做得到嗎？你做不到，因為你還要媾女。
你當真這樣做的話，恭喜你了。首先，你會像前文《咒語》那篇所述，被港女所咀咒，質疑你是否還是男人；需要檢查一下袴下的小東西有否消失，胸部有否隆起，鬍子有否脫落。繼而，你亦會被罵為沒風度，斤斤計較。喝醉的女友會要脅你，如果你不立即起床來接她，她會跟另一個男人回家。女友的港女朋友，會幫她洗腦，說這樣的男人「唔駛恨」，遠不如某君，叫她另覓新歡。女友的母親會告訴她，這個男人連酒席房子蜜月都付不了，證明他養不起老婆，十分嫁不過。
這些後果，誰會承受得起？香港的男人，甚愛面子，最怕就是被女人說他不是男人，不如其他男人。更何況還要媾女呢，沒有男人會和自己那話兒過不去的。整個社會的價值觀已被嚴重扭曲，包括港女和港女身邊的男人，早已失去獨立思考和批判的能力。沒有人想過，以上那些事件，原來可以是這樣處理的；沒有人質疑過，這些恩惠，其實並非應份的。即使有一部份人男人曾經反抗過，申訴過，拒絕被institutionalized，但最後還是徒勞無功。因為一少部份人之力，並不能改變整個港女文化。美國政治學裡有句話，叫「if you can’t beat it, join it!」，雖然你曾作出過無謂掙扎，但最終還是要參與這個遊戲。
不過，嘿嘿，要變成一頭犀牛，自甘墮落，那還罷了。有些人卻偏偏要做一頭大象。
「人地呀Calvin對我比你好得多，無論我要佢做咩佢都唔會拒絕架」，「呀Eric都話帶我去法國Shopping啦，你連台灣都未帶過我去啊」，當港女向自己男友作出要求而遭拒絕時，她總會說這些話，來使男友無言屈從。
這是一個比犀牛鎮更悲劇的現象。一些男人為了逐鹿情場， 會對女人發動心靈和物質的雷霆攻勢，不論是贈送名牌手袋，鑽石項鍊，還是任由擺佈，大獻欣勤，總之務求走捷徑，奪得佳人芳心。套用朋友斷sir的說話，這叫「行家做爛市，罔顧業界利益」。更甚者，有些已經被這個制度同化，洗了腦的男人，會反過來對港女灌輸概念，說一個男人應要如何付鈔獻欣勤，才叫有風度和體貼，暗指她的男友不合格。這個現象，令我想起了聶魯達的經歷。
諾貝爾文學獎得主，智利的革命詩人Neruda，曾在英國殖民地錫蘭任外交官。他在自己的回憶錄《Confieso que he vivido: Memorias》中，描述過一段在錫蘭看到的獵象過程：
「…...那天，象欄準備好了。木柵把森林的一部分攔起來。我看見第一頭象通過一條狹窄通道走進去，才發覺牠已被圍困；但已經晚了。幾百頭象都從這條狹窄的死通道往前走。將近500頭大象進退不得。……」
「……突然，兩個馴獸師騎在兩頭被馴養的大象進去了。這兩頭馴養的大象像普通警察那樣採取行動。牠們走到被俘野象兩側，用長鼻子打牠，幫助制伏牠，使牠老實不動。這時獵人用粗索把牠的一條後腿拴到一棵粗壯的大樹上去。就這樣，野象一頭一頭都被降伏了。……」
Neruda所指何事，相信很多人都明白。但在一個腦筋迷糊的社會，已經沒甚麼人能有反思的能力。你到底會選擇沈淪墮落，做犀牛大象；還是堅持做一個人，向港女文化說不？
高行健說，還有一條出路，叫做逃亡。
有時候，也不得不沈痛地承認，港女的確並非只是一小撮人，而是根本地滲透在大家的生活之中。有些極端的例子，可能會被放在網上恥笑，但有更多不太極端的港女，平凡地生活在我們身周，令人以為港女現象從盤古開天闢地便存在。其實她們造成的傷害，反而更大。因為久而久之，大家連批判的能力，申訴的氣力也沒有了。香港的男人，已經麻木了﹗就像被溫水煮的青蛙，慢慢地失去生命而不自知。
我很喜歡用這個詞：institutionalized(被制度化了)。港女受慣了非必要的恩惠，而香港男人亦無可奈何地接受了，被這個制度所同化。漸漸地，他們更會自動自覺地為港女付錢，挽袋，排隊買票，受氣，而覺得這是沒所謂，理所當然的了。如果你曾經離港多年，並未被institutionalized，回來之後，看見這個沈淪的國度，港女橫行，港男自動讓其橫行，你會如何自處？
二十世紀有一套非常經典的戲劇，法國劇作家Eugène Ionesco所編的《Rhinocéros》，正是這個問題的最佳寫照。故事講述一個鎮的人陸續轉化為犀牛，主人翁Berenger原為一介平庸的市井小民，他親身體驗人們對這種趨勢由初期的驚訝，恐慌，到逐漸認同，乃至讚賞，追隨的過程。並且目睹自己的鄰居，同僚，朋友，一一投入這股熱潮，也先後成為犀牛，使得自己在堅持己見與隨波逐流之間，與他人愈形疏離，終至茫茫然失去立場。當社會潮流與原有價值觀驟變之際，Berenger應該高呼「眾人皆醉我獨醒」，堅持繼續做人；還是相信「識時務者為俊傑」，讓自己變成犀牛呢？
這套戲劇，被認為是用來諷刺納粹時期的德國社會，和法西斯時期的意大利社會。有一幕令我非常深刻，就是當主角拿著自己的照片，去比對著犀牛的頭像之時，那種矛盾，苦惱，難以抉擇的表情。其實在今天沈淪的香港，身為未被institutionalized的男人，也是面對著同樣的煩惱，不知是堅持繼續做人還是變成犀牛的好。一些公平，顯淺的常理，在今天都被嚴重地扭曲。你要堅持做一個人，需要付出很大代價，遠不如變成犀牛容易。不信？看看以下這些例子：
堅持做一個人，就是初次約會一個女子吃晚飯，結帳的時候，雖然她無動於衷，你也會大方地叫她付一半的錢，而不是無言請客。堅持做一個人，就是你見到有女子打尖，你會禮貌地叫她排隊，而不是息事寧人。堅持做一個人，就是你女友月事來了，橫蠻無理地找你出氣時，你會善意地告訴她，「如果心理健康有問題，請盡速去看醫生」，而不是默默受氣。堅持做一個人，就是女友逛街時叫你挽手袋，你會愛惜地提醒她，如果覺得自己的手袋過重，提不起了，下次便不要帶這麼多東西出來。堅持做一個人就是，你和你女友準備結婚，那麼酒席，買房子，渡蜜月所花的錢，你會公平地要求和她各付一半。堅持做一個人就是，凌晨三時，女友在中環喝醉了，打電話叫醒睡夢中的你，要你坐的士來送她回家之時，你會關心的告訴她，根本不應在凌晨三時喝醉。
這些本來就是公平合理的事，但你做得到嗎？你做不到，因為你還要媾女。
你當真這樣做的話，恭喜你了。首先，你會像前文《咒語》那篇所述，被港女所咀咒，質疑你是否還是男人；需要檢查一下袴下的小東西有否消失，胸部有否隆起，鬍子有否脫落。繼而，你亦會被罵為沒風度，斤斤計較。喝醉的女友會要脅你，如果你不立即起床來接她，她會跟另一個男人回家。女友的港女朋友，會幫她洗腦，說這樣的男人「唔駛恨」，遠不如某君，叫她另覓新歡。女友的母親會告訴她，這個男人連酒席房子蜜月都付不了，證明他養不起老婆，十分嫁不過。
這些後果，誰會承受得起？香港的男人，甚愛面子，最怕就是被女人說他不是男人，不如其他男人。更何況還要媾女呢，沒有男人會和自己那話兒過不去的。整個社會的價值觀已被嚴重扭曲，包括港女和港女身邊的男人，早已失去獨立思考和批判的能力。沒有人想過，以上那些事件，原來可以是這樣處理的；沒有人質疑過，這些恩惠，其實並非應份的。即使有一部份人男人曾經反抗過，申訴過，拒絕被institutionalized，但最後還是徒勞無功。因為一少部份人之力，並不能改變整個港女文化。美國政治學裡有句話，叫「if you can’t beat it, join it!」，雖然你曾作出過無謂掙扎，但最終還是要參與這個遊戲。
不過，嘿嘿，要變成一頭犀牛，自甘墮落，那還罷了。有些人卻偏偏要做一頭大象。
「人地呀Calvin對我比你好得多，無論我要佢做咩佢都唔會拒絕架」，「呀Eric都話帶我去法國Shopping啦，你連台灣都未帶過我去啊」，當港女向自己男友作出要求而遭拒絕時，她總會說這些話，來使男友無言屈從。
這是一個比犀牛鎮更悲劇的現象。一些男人為了逐鹿情場， 會對女人發動心靈和物質的雷霆攻勢，不論是贈送名牌手袋，鑽石項鍊，還是任由擺佈，大獻欣勤，總之務求走捷徑，奪得佳人芳心。套用朋友斷sir的說話，這叫「行家做爛市，罔顧業界利益」。更甚者，有些已經被這個制度同化，洗了腦的男人，會反過來對港女灌輸概念，說一個男人應要如何付鈔獻欣勤，才叫有風度和體貼，暗指她的男友不合格。這個現象，令我想起了聶魯達的經歷。
諾貝爾文學獎得主，智利的革命詩人Neruda，曾在英國殖民地錫蘭任外交官。他在自己的回憶錄《Confieso que he vivido: Memorias》中，描述過一段在錫蘭看到的獵象過程：
「…...那天，象欄準備好了。木柵把森林的一部分攔起來。我看見第一頭象通過一條狹窄通道走進去，才發覺牠已被圍困；但已經晚了。幾百頭象都從這條狹窄的死通道往前走。將近500頭大象進退不得。……」
「……突然，兩個馴獸師騎在兩頭被馴養的大象進去了。這兩頭馴養的大象像普通警察那樣採取行動。牠們走到被俘野象兩側，用長鼻子打牠，幫助制伏牠，使牠老實不動。這時獵人用粗索把牠的一條後腿拴到一棵粗壯的大樹上去。就這樣，野象一頭一頭都被降伏了。……」
Neruda所指何事，相信很多人都明白。但在一個腦筋迷糊的社會，已經沒甚麼人能有反思的能力。你到底會選擇沈淪墮落，做犀牛大象；還是堅持做一個人，向港女文化說不？
高行健說，還有一條出路，叫做逃亡。
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
安全
我深知道，貼英文的文章當然是趕客的了，回應也會欠奉，這也是我英文Blog長期無人問津的原因。不過一不離二，還是想把切題的《Security of Love》貼過來。回看兩年前的文章，可能是英文的關係，還是寫得比現在委婉。
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Security of Love
I write this article partly to correct some mistakes. Everyone needs security of love, but most of the people don't understand the problems and they don't understand the way to secure their relationships.
If you hide your boyfriend somewhere in Tin Shui Wai, remove his cell phone and lock him in a house with the finest Swiss door locks, then tell other girls to seduce him. That is not security. That is obscurity. On the other hand, if you put your boyfriend in LKF, let him surrounds himself by a hundred hot girls, allow him to flirt with them – and they still cannot sleep with him – that is security.
If the invulnerability of your relationship relies on the fact that other girls have no chance to touch your boyfriend, you are sunk. If you believe that keeping your boyfriend in a secret place improves the security of your relationship more than letting other girls to know him, you are wrong. And if you think that doing this then someone will never get your boyfriend, you are naïve. The most secure boyfriends you have are the ones made public, that they have been seduced for years, and are still unbreakable.
Security of love is both a feeling and a reality. We are secure when we feel that our relationship is protected from harm, free from dangers, and safe from attack. In this way, security is merely a state of mind. But there is the reality of security as well. The reality has nothing do with how we feel. Our relationship is secure when it is actually being protected. We need to feel in control and positive and not harried and fearful for security to have much of a positive effect on our relationship. But it is nonetheless important to ground that feeling of security in the reality of security, and not merely in placebos.
In some ways, this is analogous to health. If you went to the doctor because you had a badly damaged leg, she would not pretend that she could return your leg to its undamaged state if she couldn't. She would tell you the truth, describe your treatment options, and help you choose the one that is best for you, Ignoring reality is not an effective way to get healthier, or smarter, or safer, even though it might temporarily make you feel better.
Feeling and reality often contradict each other. In statistics there are type I and type II errors. Type I error: You feel that your boyfriend is faithful when he actually is not. Type II error: You feel that your boyfriend is unfaithful when he actually doesn't do anything wrong. Ironically, most of your friends would tell you to be careful of type I error, which causes you to make type II error as a consequence, and ultimately becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The Countermeasures
Security of love is a tax on the honest.
If it weren't for attacks, our lives would be a whole lot easier. In a world where every boyfriend was completely honorable and faithful all of the time, and every other girl would have no interest to sleep with your boyfriend, everything you bought and did would be cheaper. You wouldn't have to pay for Swiss door locks, for instance. There would be no countermeasures, because your boyfriend would never consider going where he was not supposed to go or doing what he was not allowed to do. You wouldn't have to check his emails, SMS messages, phone records, or ICQ history. You wouldn't have to call him every 30mins to locate his position. You wouldn't have to modify your behavior based on risks of your relationship, because there would be none.
But that's not the world we live in. Security of love permeates everything you do and supports your life in innumerable ways. Thus, you constantly making countermeasures (or trade-offs, I will go into details later), whether you're conscious of them or not: large and small, personal and social. All the countermeasures are, in some way, about prevention. But prevention of what, exactly? It is about preventing adverse consequences to your relationship from the intentional and unwarranted actions of others. (Note that: it concerns itself with intentional actions. Protecting your boyfriend from car accidents is safety, not security.)
"Trade-off" really is the right word to describe the countermeasures. Every one of us, every day of our lives, makes security trade-offs. When you brush your teeth in the morning, you're making a security trade-off: the time spent brushing in exchange for a small amount of security against tooth decay. When you lock your boyfriend in a house, you're making a trade-off: the inconvenience of carrying and using a key in exchange for some security against other girls. You call him every 30mins, you check his emails and ICQ messages, all these things you do, you are exchanging something to protect your relationship.
Unfortunately, many countermeasures are ineffective. Either they do not prevent adverse consequences to your relationship from the intentional and unwarranted actions of people, or the trade-offs simply aren't worth it. In general, countermeasures can fail in two completely different ways. The first way is that they can fail in the face of an attack. The door locks fail to keep your boyfriend inside, or your source in his company fails to feed you any information. These are passive failures: The countermeasure fails to take action when it should. A countermeasure can also fail by doing what it's supposed to do, but at the wrong time. The door locks keep you from entering your boyfriend’s house, or your source in his company feeds you false information. These are active failures: The countermeasure fails by taking action when it shouldn't.
In most of the cases, active failures are more frequent than passive failures. Countermeasures continually affect the normal functionality of your life, while they only occasionally affect attackers (other girls). This magnifies the effects of active failures, and the impact security systems have on the innocent. Countermeasures with passive failures are simply less effective: They only occasionally succeed in the face of an attack. Countermeasures with a relatively high rate of active failures are almost always more trouble than they're worth because of the high rate of false alarms.
Imagine a door lock that bars people from entering their own home. No matter how effective it is at stopping burglars, people would not tolerate it.
Nor would a faithful boyfriend who receives your location check every 30mins.
The Berlin Wall
Security of love is a game with no beginning and no ending, no winner and no loser. It's a mistake to think that security is an achievable, fixed, static state. It's simply not possible to get security of love right once and for all, because the meaning of "right" is constantly changing. This situation has been with us since we humans started forming communities, and it's likely to be with us as long as we continue to be human.
An important precept is to expect both passive and active failures. No matter how good your countermeasure is, it will fail. And no matter how good your boyfriend is, he will break. These facts have been proven again and again throughout human history, and there's no reason to believe it will ever change. "Unbreakable," "absolute," and "impenetrable" are all words that make no sense when discussing love. If you hear them, you can be sure you're listening to someone who doesn't understand love or is trying to hoodwink you. Your boyfriend would remain loyal to you for 20 years before he sleeps with another girl. Good relationships are those in anticipation of possible failures. You can't win. You just make other girls' seductions as hard as possible, and contain the damage.
Consider this example: The Berlin Wall was one of the most secure systems ever built in human history. It has presented impressive series of countermeasures. As you read through the list, notice the defense in depth, the combination of prevention, detection, and response, and the overall resilience of the security system. From east to west, there were:
- 302 watchtowers, with armed East German guards.
- An initial barrier, either a 12-foot-all smooth concrete wall or a 10- to 13-foot-high wire-mesh fence. The wall was intermittently outfitted with some kind of electronic warning device.
- A field of steel stakes, planted in the ground, known as Stalin’s Grass.
- Barbed wire entanglements.
- 20 bunkers scattered along the perimeter.
- Hundreds of leashed guard dogs running alone a rail.
- A 20- to 50-foot strip of sand-covered earth, designed to reveal footprints of anyone crossing. This strip was also mined.
- A ditch, 10 to 16 feet deep, designed to stop any vehicles that got that far.
- A road with specially designed noiseless armed patrol vehicles.
- An electric fence six and a half feet high, outfitted with either acoustic or optical alarms.
- A narrow band of barren land, called the Death Strip.
- A final barrier, a concrete wall between 11.5 and 13 feet high. An asbestos cement tube topped this wall, designed to prevent escapes from grabbing hold of the top. This is the wall that was graffiti-covered on the Western side, the one featured on the nightly news worldwide.
Despite this interwoven system of protection, detection, and response, throughout its half-century history people tried numerous ways to attack it. Some flew over the wall. Some tunneled under it. Many died in the attempt, but thousands of people still managed to escape Eastern Europe. It's worth repeating: No countermeasure is perfect, unlimited in its capabilities, completely and permanently impervious to attack. No such countermeasure exists, and, I would argue, no such countermeasure will ever exist.
One last question still remains: Why did the people risk their life in attempts of escaping Eastern Europe? Perhaps this is the question which the designers of the Berlin Wall system had never considered. Perhaps this question was far beyond their knowledge, or they simply didn't care. But everything must have a reason.
In some sense, it was again a "trade-off" problem. The people in Eastern Europe risked their life in exchange of something – the hope of a better life. On the other side of the Wall, they would have cars, they would have refrigerators, they would have TV sets, and most importantly, they would have freedom.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
一段安全的關係，無可否認，對每個人來說都非常重要。但有些人，例如港女，會花無比的時間，心思，毅力，去建構和操控一段在她的觀念上認為是安全的關係。而很多時候，這些努力往往是白費的，因為她們根本不明白安全關係的真諦，她們只是在欺騙自己，不斷製造一個自以為安全的幻覺。
「為何柏林圍牆是由東方所建？」每一次，有港女說道如何有效地管著自己男友時，我都拿這條問題來問她。但這對她們來說，簡直是千古懸案，永遠都不會明白。
這是因為，逃亡只會在東邊發生。
一個政府需要用一幅圍牆來阻止自己的人民逃亡，這說明了他們對自己的管治沒有信心，他們清楚知道自己的人民在這邊生活得不好，才會這樣做。逃亡只會在東邊發生。柏林西邊的政府，便從來不需要建造一幅牆，來阻止它的國民逃到東方。一個擁有正常頭腦的人會想：既然如此，那政府便應該投入更多的資源，去改善人民的生活，從而留著他們。可是東邊的政府並沒有這樣做，他們的思維，是東方式的。他們在半個世紀間，花了無數的時間，金錢，人力，物力，雇用了9萬名秘密警察和18萬名線民，同時建構了一個曾是人類歷史上保安最嚴密的圍牆系統，來阻止它的國民逃亡--而不是讓人民生活得更好。諷刺的是，歷史後來證明了這系統並非很有效，很多人還是逃掉了。東方政府的努力，並沒投放在合適的地方。
兩年前我寫《Security of Love》這篇文章的時候，《竊聽者》(《Das Leben der Anderen》)這部電影還沒面世。看過這部電影後，你會更加感受到，人生的追求，並非只有物質生活而已。電影裡的兩名主角，Wiesler和Dreyman，都是建制內的人物，在當時東德國內，已是擁有相對富足的生活。但他們還是反抗了，為什麼？這是因為對《好人嗚奏曲》所產生的共嗚，令人對生命的美和善有所追求。這是因為讀了Bertolt Brecht的詩，在面對不義的強權時，產生了抵抗的勇氣。人生除了對物資生活外，還會對自由的空氣有所嚮往。可以想像，即使東德和西德的生活水平完全一樣，但只要圍牆建起了，還是會有一批批的人冒著生命危險逃過去。
「為何柏林圍牆是由東方所建？」這個問題只要解開了，一切關於安全關係的問題都會迎刃而解。但港女就是解不開，因為她們的思維模式，本來就是東方的。
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Security of Love
I write this article partly to correct some mistakes. Everyone needs security of love, but most of the people don't understand the problems and they don't understand the way to secure their relationships.
If you hide your boyfriend somewhere in Tin Shui Wai, remove his cell phone and lock him in a house with the finest Swiss door locks, then tell other girls to seduce him. That is not security. That is obscurity. On the other hand, if you put your boyfriend in LKF, let him surrounds himself by a hundred hot girls, allow him to flirt with them – and they still cannot sleep with him – that is security.
If the invulnerability of your relationship relies on the fact that other girls have no chance to touch your boyfriend, you are sunk. If you believe that keeping your boyfriend in a secret place improves the security of your relationship more than letting other girls to know him, you are wrong. And if you think that doing this then someone will never get your boyfriend, you are naïve. The most secure boyfriends you have are the ones made public, that they have been seduced for years, and are still unbreakable.
Security of love is both a feeling and a reality. We are secure when we feel that our relationship is protected from harm, free from dangers, and safe from attack. In this way, security is merely a state of mind. But there is the reality of security as well. The reality has nothing do with how we feel. Our relationship is secure when it is actually being protected. We need to feel in control and positive and not harried and fearful for security to have much of a positive effect on our relationship. But it is nonetheless important to ground that feeling of security in the reality of security, and not merely in placebos.
In some ways, this is analogous to health. If you went to the doctor because you had a badly damaged leg, she would not pretend that she could return your leg to its undamaged state if she couldn't. She would tell you the truth, describe your treatment options, and help you choose the one that is best for you, Ignoring reality is not an effective way to get healthier, or smarter, or safer, even though it might temporarily make you feel better.
Feeling and reality often contradict each other. In statistics there are type I and type II errors. Type I error: You feel that your boyfriend is faithful when he actually is not. Type II error: You feel that your boyfriend is unfaithful when he actually doesn't do anything wrong. Ironically, most of your friends would tell you to be careful of type I error, which causes you to make type II error as a consequence, and ultimately becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The Countermeasures
Security of love is a tax on the honest.
If it weren't for attacks, our lives would be a whole lot easier. In a world where every boyfriend was completely honorable and faithful all of the time, and every other girl would have no interest to sleep with your boyfriend, everything you bought and did would be cheaper. You wouldn't have to pay for Swiss door locks, for instance. There would be no countermeasures, because your boyfriend would never consider going where he was not supposed to go or doing what he was not allowed to do. You wouldn't have to check his emails, SMS messages, phone records, or ICQ history. You wouldn't have to call him every 30mins to locate his position. You wouldn't have to modify your behavior based on risks of your relationship, because there would be none.
But that's not the world we live in. Security of love permeates everything you do and supports your life in innumerable ways. Thus, you constantly making countermeasures (or trade-offs, I will go into details later), whether you're conscious of them or not: large and small, personal and social. All the countermeasures are, in some way, about prevention. But prevention of what, exactly? It is about preventing adverse consequences to your relationship from the intentional and unwarranted actions of others. (Note that: it concerns itself with intentional actions. Protecting your boyfriend from car accidents is safety, not security.)
"Trade-off" really is the right word to describe the countermeasures. Every one of us, every day of our lives, makes security trade-offs. When you brush your teeth in the morning, you're making a security trade-off: the time spent brushing in exchange for a small amount of security against tooth decay. When you lock your boyfriend in a house, you're making a trade-off: the inconvenience of carrying and using a key in exchange for some security against other girls. You call him every 30mins, you check his emails and ICQ messages, all these things you do, you are exchanging something to protect your relationship.
Unfortunately, many countermeasures are ineffective. Either they do not prevent adverse consequences to your relationship from the intentional and unwarranted actions of people, or the trade-offs simply aren't worth it. In general, countermeasures can fail in two completely different ways. The first way is that they can fail in the face of an attack. The door locks fail to keep your boyfriend inside, or your source in his company fails to feed you any information. These are passive failures: The countermeasure fails to take action when it should. A countermeasure can also fail by doing what it's supposed to do, but at the wrong time. The door locks keep you from entering your boyfriend’s house, or your source in his company feeds you false information. These are active failures: The countermeasure fails by taking action when it shouldn't.
In most of the cases, active failures are more frequent than passive failures. Countermeasures continually affect the normal functionality of your life, while they only occasionally affect attackers (other girls). This magnifies the effects of active failures, and the impact security systems have on the innocent. Countermeasures with passive failures are simply less effective: They only occasionally succeed in the face of an attack. Countermeasures with a relatively high rate of active failures are almost always more trouble than they're worth because of the high rate of false alarms.
Imagine a door lock that bars people from entering their own home. No matter how effective it is at stopping burglars, people would not tolerate it.
Nor would a faithful boyfriend who receives your location check every 30mins.
The Berlin Wall
Security of love is a game with no beginning and no ending, no winner and no loser. It's a mistake to think that security is an achievable, fixed, static state. It's simply not possible to get security of love right once and for all, because the meaning of "right" is constantly changing. This situation has been with us since we humans started forming communities, and it's likely to be with us as long as we continue to be human.
An important precept is to expect both passive and active failures. No matter how good your countermeasure is, it will fail. And no matter how good your boyfriend is, he will break. These facts have been proven again and again throughout human history, and there's no reason to believe it will ever change. "Unbreakable," "absolute," and "impenetrable" are all words that make no sense when discussing love. If you hear them, you can be sure you're listening to someone who doesn't understand love or is trying to hoodwink you. Your boyfriend would remain loyal to you for 20 years before he sleeps with another girl. Good relationships are those in anticipation of possible failures. You can't win. You just make other girls' seductions as hard as possible, and contain the damage.
Consider this example: The Berlin Wall was one of the most secure systems ever built in human history. It has presented impressive series of countermeasures. As you read through the list, notice the defense in depth, the combination of prevention, detection, and response, and the overall resilience of the security system. From east to west, there were:
- 302 watchtowers, with armed East German guards.
- An initial barrier, either a 12-foot-all smooth concrete wall or a 10- to 13-foot-high wire-mesh fence. The wall was intermittently outfitted with some kind of electronic warning device.
- A field of steel stakes, planted in the ground, known as Stalin’s Grass.
- Barbed wire entanglements.
- 20 bunkers scattered along the perimeter.
- Hundreds of leashed guard dogs running alone a rail.
- A 20- to 50-foot strip of sand-covered earth, designed to reveal footprints of anyone crossing. This strip was also mined.
- A ditch, 10 to 16 feet deep, designed to stop any vehicles that got that far.
- A road with specially designed noiseless armed patrol vehicles.
- An electric fence six and a half feet high, outfitted with either acoustic or optical alarms.
- A narrow band of barren land, called the Death Strip.
- A final barrier, a concrete wall between 11.5 and 13 feet high. An asbestos cement tube topped this wall, designed to prevent escapes from grabbing hold of the top. This is the wall that was graffiti-covered on the Western side, the one featured on the nightly news worldwide.
Despite this interwoven system of protection, detection, and response, throughout its half-century history people tried numerous ways to attack it. Some flew over the wall. Some tunneled under it. Many died in the attempt, but thousands of people still managed to escape Eastern Europe. It's worth repeating: No countermeasure is perfect, unlimited in its capabilities, completely and permanently impervious to attack. No such countermeasure exists, and, I would argue, no such countermeasure will ever exist.
One last question still remains: Why did the people risk their life in attempts of escaping Eastern Europe? Perhaps this is the question which the designers of the Berlin Wall system had never considered. Perhaps this question was far beyond their knowledge, or they simply didn't care. But everything must have a reason.
In some sense, it was again a "trade-off" problem. The people in Eastern Europe risked their life in exchange of something – the hope of a better life. On the other side of the Wall, they would have cars, they would have refrigerators, they would have TV sets, and most importantly, they would have freedom.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
一段安全的關係，無可否認，對每個人來說都非常重要。但有些人，例如港女，會花無比的時間，心思，毅力，去建構和操控一段在她的觀念上認為是安全的關係。而很多時候，這些努力往往是白費的，因為她們根本不明白安全關係的真諦，她們只是在欺騙自己，不斷製造一個自以為安全的幻覺。
「為何柏林圍牆是由東方所建？」每一次，有港女說道如何有效地管著自己男友時，我都拿這條問題來問她。但這對她們來說，簡直是千古懸案，永遠都不會明白。
這是因為，逃亡只會在東邊發生。
一個政府需要用一幅圍牆來阻止自己的人民逃亡，這說明了他們對自己的管治沒有信心，他們清楚知道自己的人民在這邊生活得不好，才會這樣做。逃亡只會在東邊發生。柏林西邊的政府，便從來不需要建造一幅牆，來阻止它的國民逃到東方。一個擁有正常頭腦的人會想：既然如此，那政府便應該投入更多的資源，去改善人民的生活，從而留著他們。可是東邊的政府並沒有這樣做，他們的思維，是東方式的。他們在半個世紀間，花了無數的時間，金錢，人力，物力，雇用了9萬名秘密警察和18萬名線民，同時建構了一個曾是人類歷史上保安最嚴密的圍牆系統，來阻止它的國民逃亡--而不是讓人民生活得更好。諷刺的是，歷史後來證明了這系統並非很有效，很多人還是逃掉了。東方政府的努力，並沒投放在合適的地方。
兩年前我寫《Security of Love》這篇文章的時候，《竊聽者》(《Das Leben der Anderen》)這部電影還沒面世。看過這部電影後，你會更加感受到，人生的追求，並非只有物質生活而已。電影裡的兩名主角，Wiesler和Dreyman，都是建制內的人物，在當時東德國內，已是擁有相對富足的生活。但他們還是反抗了，為什麼？這是因為對《好人嗚奏曲》所產生的共嗚，令人對生命的美和善有所追求。這是因為讀了Bertolt Brecht的詩，在面對不義的強權時，產生了抵抗的勇氣。人生除了對物資生活外，還會對自由的空氣有所嚮往。可以想像，即使東德和西德的生活水平完全一樣，但只要圍牆建起了，還是會有一批批的人冒著生命危險逃過去。
「為何柏林圍牆是由東方所建？」這個問題只要解開了，一切關於安全關係的問題都會迎刃而解。但港女就是解不開，因為她們的思維模式，本來就是東方的。
Thursday, August 02, 2007
兩難
兩年前在英文Blog寫了篇文章，剛剛重讀一遍，覺得拿來這邊，也很切題。本來想翻譯為中文，但最後覺得還是英文比較原汁原味。那時並未打算怒插港女，但也有了些微痕跡。希望有相似經歷的人，能看了一笑。
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lover's Dilemma
1. Introduction
John Louis von Neumann was a mathematician who got a first degree in chemistry and yet wrote a book on quantum physics and participated in the development of hydrogen bomb, though his most significant contribution in history was of computer science. This paper, however, is about his idea that revolutionized economics [1][2].
Von Neumann once thought that the Cold War was just a simple two person game [3]. That is, the total benefit to the US and USSR in this game, for every combination of strategies, always adds to zero. More specifically, one side benefits only at the expense of the other. (He was wrong in some sense. It was actually a non-zero-sum game that neither side dared to push the button and eventually achieved a win-win situation)
"If people do not believe that mathematics is simple, it is only because they do not realize how complicated life is."
-- John Louis von Neumann
As a scholar, I spent almost 10 years on researching the economical behaviors of love. I was surprised to discover that the game of love itself is actually economics; and it is not about paying dinner or buying LV for your girlfriends. I thus write this paper as a conclusion of my 10 year research work and present the concept of the Lover's Dilemma.
Love is a simple two person game. In this game, as in chess or many others, it is assumed that each individual player is trying to maximize his or her own advantage, without concern for the well-being of the other player. The equilibrium for this type of game does not lead to optimums. Even though they may cooperate to achieve a better overall result of the game, they would still choose to act individually. This is the heart of the dilemma.
2. The Dilemma
The Lover's Dilemma is as follows: The lovers, A and B, are in a trouble relationship. It is not necessary to assume that both players in this game are completely selfish and that their only goal is to maximize their own satisfaction. They want the relationship continues without losing their personal pride and emotional dignity. One may ask for break-up, strategically, and thus showing one-sided influence towards the relationship. Nevertheless, such request might end up being fulfilled and they would lose their lover.
Table 1: The Lover's Dilemma in "Win-Win" Terminology
It can be summarized thus: If one asks for break-up and the other begs for continuing the relationship, the beggar loses his pride but is able to get back to his lover. If both agree to continue, they stay together still but lose the chance of showing one-sided influence towards each other. If they both ask for break-up, the relationship ends but they can still maintain their pride and dignity. To most of the players, self satisfaction is more important than the relationship itself. Therefore being a beggar is the worst case which they would try very hard to avoid.
3. Discussions
It is not difficult to realize that this is a non-zero-sum two person game. Specifically, a gain by one player does not necessarily correspond with a loss by another. If only they could both agree to continue the relationship, they would both be better off; however, from a game theorist's point of view, their best play is to request break-up. I am going to discuss the details in this section.
Each player has two options. The outcome of each choice depends on the choice of the other player. However, neither player knows the choice of his or her lover. Even if they were able to talk to each other, neither could be sure that they could trust the other. Assuming the player A is rationally working out his best move. If his partner wants to continue, according to the above table, his best move is to make a strategical break-up request as he then is able to achieve maximum advantage instead of actually ending the relationship. If his partner asks for break-up, his best move is still to break up, as by doing so he receives a relatively better situation than being a beggar. At the same time, player B thinking rationally would also have arrived at the same conclusion and therefore will request for break-up. Thus in a game of love played once by two rational players both will request for ending the relationship.
If reasoned from the perspective of the optimal interest of the group of the couple, the correct outcome would be for both players to continue their relationship, as this would minimize total lost of the group. Any other decision would be worse for the two lovers considered together. However by each following their selfish interests, the players each receive a bad result.
4. Conclusions
If only a player could sacrifice the personal pride and emotional dignity for his or her lover, if only each of them could be sure that the other player would make the same sacrifice, if only they could concern each others, they would both agree to continue their relationship and achieve a better overall result. However, such a sacrifice cannot exist, as it is vulnerable to the treachery of selfish individuals, which we assumed our players to be. Therein lays the true beauty and the maddening paradox of this game of love.
Von Neumann once said: "If people do not believe that mathematics is simple, it is only because they do not realize how complicated life is." I realized, through mathematics, that life is fairly simple, too. At least to many people, the game of love itself is actually as simple as school level calculation.
5. Future Work
I am currently working on the Iterated Lover's Dilemma which means that the game is played repeatedly. Thus each player has an opportunity to "punish" the other player for previous selfish play. Mutual cooperation in the game may then arise as an equilibrium outcome. The incentive to be selfish may then overcome by the threat of punishment, leading to the possibility of a cooperative outcome.
6. Acknowledgements
This work is with help of many people. In particular, I would like to express my greatest gratitude towards my ex girlfriends. Without the invaluable lessons they taught me, this paper would not have been possible. Through the rest of my days, I shall remember their support with greatest appreciation.
7. References
[1] J. von Neumann, "Zur Theorie der Gesellschaftsspiele", Mathematicsche Annalen, Vol. 100, No. 1, Pages 295-320, 1928
[2] J. von Neumann and O. Morgenstern, "Theory of Games and Economic Behavior", Princeton University Press, 1944
[3] W. Poundstone, "Prisoner's Dilemma: John Von Neumann, Game Theory and the Puzzle of the Bomb", Anchor Books, 1993
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
寫畢這篇論文不久，有港女看了之後回應道：「扯，分手咪分手囉，攪咁多野做乜遮。」聞之，唯有心中苦笑。其實以本網看倌水準之高，不需解題，當能read between lines。不過為了照顧其他人，補充一下也好。
在過去一個世紀以來，新古典經濟學(Neoclassical Economics)，遊戲理論，大行其道。強調理性選擇，強調個人，強調追求利益最大化，這些都已成為現今國際社會之普世價值。芝加哥學院的經濟學家教導我們，嘗試用有形之手去干預市場，製造「共富」，反而會幫倒忙，變成「共貧」。所以，邪惡帝國蘇聯滅亡了，人民公社徹底地失敗了，所以，抵制麥當勞，星巴克，迪士尼那些剝削工人的跨國企業，反會令工人更艱苦。非理性的小資產階級溫情主義行為，面對理性之市場，通通都不成氣候。而每個個體在不斷追求自己的利益最大化，反而能夠共榮。
香港過去幾十年的成功，完全依賴此等市場邏輯，因此亦差不多成了佛利民心中之烏托邦。理性選擇，個人利益最大化，通通是香港人的核心價值，是我們血液裡的DNA。而這些概念，亦直接滲透進愛情的角力遊戲中。別以為港女是非理性的動物，很多時候，她們只是故意讓自己非理性，而當她們選擇理性之時，例如在愛情的角力遊戲之中，港女們是會冷靜得可怕的。
不過，在某些事上機關算盡，結果有時候卻會很諷刺。
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lover's Dilemma
1. Introduction
John Louis von Neumann was a mathematician who got a first degree in chemistry and yet wrote a book on quantum physics and participated in the development of hydrogen bomb, though his most significant contribution in history was of computer science. This paper, however, is about his idea that revolutionized economics [1][2].
Von Neumann once thought that the Cold War was just a simple two person game [3]. That is, the total benefit to the US and USSR in this game, for every combination of strategies, always adds to zero. More specifically, one side benefits only at the expense of the other. (He was wrong in some sense. It was actually a non-zero-sum game that neither side dared to push the button and eventually achieved a win-win situation)
"If people do not believe that mathematics is simple, it is only because they do not realize how complicated life is."
-- John Louis von Neumann
As a scholar, I spent almost 10 years on researching the economical behaviors of love. I was surprised to discover that the game of love itself is actually economics; and it is not about paying dinner or buying LV for your girlfriends. I thus write this paper as a conclusion of my 10 year research work and present the concept of the Lover's Dilemma.
Love is a simple two person game. In this game, as in chess or many others, it is assumed that each individual player is trying to maximize his or her own advantage, without concern for the well-being of the other player. The equilibrium for this type of game does not lead to optimums. Even though they may cooperate to achieve a better overall result of the game, they would still choose to act individually. This is the heart of the dilemma.
2. The Dilemma
The Lover's Dilemma is as follows: The lovers, A and B, are in a trouble relationship. It is not necessary to assume that both players in this game are completely selfish and that their only goal is to maximize their own satisfaction. They want the relationship continues without losing their personal pride and emotional dignity. One may ask for break-up, strategically, and thus showing one-sided influence towards the relationship. Nevertheless, such request might end up being fulfilled and they would lose their lover.
Table 1: The Lover's Dilemma in "Win-Win" Terminology
It can be summarized thus: If one asks for break-up and the other begs for continuing the relationship, the beggar loses his pride but is able to get back to his lover. If both agree to continue, they stay together still but lose the chance of showing one-sided influence towards each other. If they both ask for break-up, the relationship ends but they can still maintain their pride and dignity. To most of the players, self satisfaction is more important than the relationship itself. Therefore being a beggar is the worst case which they would try very hard to avoid.
3. Discussions
It is not difficult to realize that this is a non-zero-sum two person game. Specifically, a gain by one player does not necessarily correspond with a loss by another. If only they could both agree to continue the relationship, they would both be better off; however, from a game theorist's point of view, their best play is to request break-up. I am going to discuss the details in this section.
Each player has two options. The outcome of each choice depends on the choice of the other player. However, neither player knows the choice of his or her lover. Even if they were able to talk to each other, neither could be sure that they could trust the other. Assuming the player A is rationally working out his best move. If his partner wants to continue, according to the above table, his best move is to make a strategical break-up request as he then is able to achieve maximum advantage instead of actually ending the relationship. If his partner asks for break-up, his best move is still to break up, as by doing so he receives a relatively better situation than being a beggar. At the same time, player B thinking rationally would also have arrived at the same conclusion and therefore will request for break-up. Thus in a game of love played once by two rational players both will request for ending the relationship.
If reasoned from the perspective of the optimal interest of the group of the couple, the correct outcome would be for both players to continue their relationship, as this would minimize total lost of the group. Any other decision would be worse for the two lovers considered together. However by each following their selfish interests, the players each receive a bad result.
4. Conclusions
If only a player could sacrifice the personal pride and emotional dignity for his or her lover, if only each of them could be sure that the other player would make the same sacrifice, if only they could concern each others, they would both agree to continue their relationship and achieve a better overall result. However, such a sacrifice cannot exist, as it is vulnerable to the treachery of selfish individuals, which we assumed our players to be. Therein lays the true beauty and the maddening paradox of this game of love.
Von Neumann once said: "If people do not believe that mathematics is simple, it is only because they do not realize how complicated life is." I realized, through mathematics, that life is fairly simple, too. At least to many people, the game of love itself is actually as simple as school level calculation.
5. Future Work
I am currently working on the Iterated Lover's Dilemma which means that the game is played repeatedly. Thus each player has an opportunity to "punish" the other player for previous selfish play. Mutual cooperation in the game may then arise as an equilibrium outcome. The incentive to be selfish may then overcome by the threat of punishment, leading to the possibility of a cooperative outcome.
6. Acknowledgements
This work is with help of many people. In particular, I would like to express my greatest gratitude towards my ex girlfriends. Without the invaluable lessons they taught me, this paper would not have been possible. Through the rest of my days, I shall remember their support with greatest appreciation.
7. References
[1] J. von Neumann, "Zur Theorie der Gesellschaftsspiele", Mathematicsche Annalen, Vol. 100, No. 1, Pages 295-320, 1928
[2] J. von Neumann and O. Morgenstern, "Theory of Games and Economic Behavior", Princeton University Press, 1944
[3] W. Poundstone, "Prisoner's Dilemma: John Von Neumann, Game Theory and the Puzzle of the Bomb", Anchor Books, 1993
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
寫畢這篇論文不久，有港女看了之後回應道：「扯，分手咪分手囉，攪咁多野做乜遮。」聞之，唯有心中苦笑。其實以本網看倌水準之高，不需解題，當能read between lines。不過為了照顧其他人，補充一下也好。
在過去一個世紀以來，新古典經濟學(Neoclassical Economics)，遊戲理論，大行其道。強調理性選擇，強調個人，強調追求利益最大化，這些都已成為現今國際社會之普世價值。芝加哥學院的經濟學家教導我們，嘗試用有形之手去干預市場，製造「共富」，反而會幫倒忙，變成「共貧」。所以，邪惡帝國蘇聯滅亡了，人民公社徹底地失敗了，所以，抵制麥當勞，星巴克，迪士尼那些剝削工人的跨國企業，反會令工人更艱苦。非理性的小資產階級溫情主義行為，面對理性之市場，通通都不成氣候。而每個個體在不斷追求自己的利益最大化，反而能夠共榮。
香港過去幾十年的成功，完全依賴此等市場邏輯，因此亦差不多成了佛利民心中之烏托邦。理性選擇，個人利益最大化，通通是香港人的核心價值，是我們血液裡的DNA。而這些概念，亦直接滲透進愛情的角力遊戲中。別以為港女是非理性的動物，很多時候，她們只是故意讓自己非理性，而當她們選擇理性之時，例如在愛情的角力遊戲之中，港女們是會冷靜得可怕的。
不過，在某些事上機關算盡，結果有時候卻會很諷刺。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
