在读 #ThinkingFastAndSlow,读到 10%,感觉跟我之前读的 #HowEmotionsAreMade#TheWillpowerInstinct 重叠还蛮多的。
#读书

#读书
2021 年看过的书就这样了吧,45 本 11704 页,依旧还有很多书想看。。
今年的选书不是很成功,很多书都是看到一些人猛推才去看的,结果看了一点儿也不喜欢,而且总是抱着一种“可能好看的在后面”的想法硬是看完了,结果最后果然还是不喜欢。。2022 年希望自己能够早点弃掉不喜欢的书,多看自己想看的。
接下来是一些私人猛推,tag 点进去是我的摘抄,要再点进原文才能看到串:

  • #DerKönigVerneigtSichUndTötet 我觉得 Herta Müller 真的很好,她的语言和视角非常独特。她出生于罗马尼亚一个说德语的村庄,来到德国之后说的也并不是德国人的德语。对于我这种身在国外而且对语言感兴趣的人,她的很多对语言的思考和观察让我觉得非常亲切。Der König verneigt sich und tötet 应该算是散文集,里面提到了一些她其它书的写作思路和背景,#Herztier (心兽)是我 2020 年看的,那本是小说,我觉得也非常不错,政治压迫敏感的人应该有共鸣。2022 年打算继续看她的书。
  • #МоскваПетушки 又名 Die Reise nach Petuschki/ Moscow to the End of the Line/ 从莫斯科到佩图什基。是一本题材和写作手法都非常独到的书。德语版的封面上写着 Die hochprozentigste Sauftour der Weltliteratur, 概括得非常准确,整本书写的就是主人公在从莫斯科到佩图什基的火车上不断喝酒,讲一些非常深刻幽默的胡话。很神奇的是书里主角最后的命运也预测了作者在现实生活里的命运,可能是作者早有预感。
  • #TheLongGoodbye 钱德勒写的,可能是我推的这几本里剧情性最强的,cp 很好嗑,主角非常闷骚,虽然是第一人称视角但几乎没有心理描写,所有的情绪都在主角的行动以及和他人的对话中,所以细节非常丰满,故事也很精彩。是侦探小说,但我认为并不算推理小说,因为没有怎么给线索,都是主角自己有了一个猜测然后就去验证。
  • #红拂夜奔 是今年看过的最满意的中文小说!主人公是一个数学家,在写一本古代的小说,一边讲他的小说一边穿插着他证数学定理的过程,两种叙事融合在一起,在奇妙的地方交叉。王小波真的很棒,看问题很透彻,而且他说的很多话在今天也完全适用,感觉中国其实没有怎么变。就是某些关于女性的性描写还是让我不太舒服。。
  • Eine Woche voller Samstage 这应该算一个搞笑奖了吧,因为其实剩下的看过的书都没有那──么好了。这是本很轻松幽默的经典童书,看起来挺快的。忘记摘抄了,但真的非常有意思,逻辑很胡扯但又很自洽。
  • 此外还想推荐一下几本对心理健康很有帮助的书:#HowEmotionsAreMade,讲情绪的来源, #TheWillpowerInstinct,讲提升自制力但,#LostConnections,讲抑郁症的。
    今年读过的一些烂书:#Averno#DasGlasperlenspiel (非常主观的评价)

    关于“没有情绪的人能更好地完成任务”这种错误看法,#HowEmotionsAreMade 里有这样一段:
    The figure of the dispassionate judge, who renders emotionless decisions in strict accordance with the law, is an archetype in many societies. The law expects judges to be neutral, as emotion would presumably get in the way of fair decisions. “Good judges pride themselves on the rationality of their rulings and the suppression of their personal proclivities,” wrote the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, “including most especially their emotions.
    In some ways, a purely rational approach to legal decision-making sounds compelling and even noble, but as we’ve seen so far, the brain’s wiring doesn’t divide passion from reason. We needn’t work hard to poke holes in this argument; it comes with its own holes pre-drilled.
    Let’s start with the idea that a judge can be dispassionate, which should beinterpreted as “having no affect*” (rather than “having no emotion”). This idea is a biological impossibility unless that person has suffered brain damage. As we discussed in chapter 4, no decision can ever be free of affect as long as loudmouthed body-budgeting circuitry is driving predictions throughout the brain.
    Affectless decision-making from the bench is a fairy tale. Robert Jackson, another former Supreme Court justice, described “dispassionate judges” as “mythical beings” like “Santa Claus or Uncle Sam or Easter bunnies.” Direct scientific evidence shows him to be pretty much on target. Remember how judges’ impartiality was easily swayed in parole cases held right before lunchtime, when they attributed their unpleasant affect to the prisoner instead of to hunger (chapter 4)?
    Common sense dictates that judges experience strong affect in the courtroom. How could they not? They hold people’s futures in their hands. Their working hours are filled with heinous crimes and grievously harmed victims.

    *affect: affect is the general sense of feeling that you experience throughout each day, ranging from unpleasant to pleasant (called valence), and from idle to activated. Affect is a fundamental aspect of consciousness, it occurs in every moment (whether you're aware of it or not, even when you are completely still or asleep) because interoception occurs in every moment. Even a completely neutral feeling is affect. Scientists largely agree that affect is present from birth and that babies can feel and perceive pleasure and displeasure.

    #HowEmotionsAreMade
    关于为什么女性杀人判刑更重:

    The legal system has a standard called the reasonable person who represents the norms of society, that is, the social reality within your culture. Defendants are measured against this standard. Consider the legal argument at the heart of the heat-of-passion defense: would a reasonable person have committed the same killing if he’d been similarly provoked without a chance to cool off ?
    The standard of the reasonable person, and the social norms behind it, is not merely reflected in the law—it is created by the law. It is a way of saying, “Here is what we expect a human person to act like, and we will punish you if you don’t conform.”
    [...]
    A legal standard based on emotion stereotypes is especially problematic for the equitable treatment of men and women. The prevailing belief in many cultures is that women are more emotional and empathic, whereas men are more stoic and analytical.
    [...]
    Take a moment and reflect on your own emotions. Do you tend to feel things intensely or more moderately? When we ask these types of questions in my lab to male and female test subjects—to describe their feelings from memory—the women report feeling more emotion than the men do on average. That is, the women believe they are more emotional than men, and the men agree. The one exception is anger, as subjects believe that men are angrier. However, when the same people record their emotional experiences as they occur in everyday life, there are no sex differences. Some men and women are very emotional, and some are not. Likewise, the female brain is not hardwired for emotion or empathy, and the male brain is not hardwired for stoicism or rationality.
    Where do these gender stereotypes come from? In the United States at least, women routinely “express” more emotion when compared to men. For example, women move their facial muscles more when watching films than men do, but women don’t report more intense experiences of emotion while watching. This finding, if nothing else, might explain why the stereotypes of the stoic man and the emotional woman leak into the courtroom and have a significant influence on judges and juries.
    Because of these stereotypes, heat-of-passion defenses—and legal proceedings in general—are often applied differently to male versus female defendants. Consider two murder cases that are pretty similar except for the sex of the defendant. In the first case, a man named Robert Elliott was convicted of killing his brother, allegedly because of “extreme emotional disturbance” that included “an overwhelming fear of his brother.” The jury found him guilty of murder but the decision was overturned by the Supreme Court of Connecticut, citing that Elliott’s “intense feelings” about his brother overwhelmed his “self-control” and “reason.” In the second case, a woman named Judy Norman killed her husband after he had systematically beaten and abused her for years. The Supreme Court of North Carolina rejected the defense’s claim that Norman was acting in self-defense out of “a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm,” and she remained convicted of voluntary manslaughter.
    These two cases match several stereotypes about emotion in men versus women. Anger is stereotypically normal for men because they are supposed to be aggressors. Women are supposed to be victims, and good victims shouldn’t become angry; they’re supposed to be afraid. Women are punished for expressing anger.
    [...]
    In courtrooms, angry women like Ms. Norman lose their liberty. In fact, in domestic violence cases, men who kill get shorter and lighter sentences, and are charged with less serious crimes, than are women who kill their intimate partners. A murderous husband is just acting like a stereotypical husband, but wives who kill are not acting like typical wives, and therefore they are rarely exonerated.

    📖

    “If a tree falls in the forest and no one is present to hear it, does it make a sound? This clichéd question has been asked to death by philosophers and grade-school teachers, but it also reveals something critical about human experience and, in particular, how we experience and perceive emotion.
    The common-sense answer to this riddle is yes, of course a falling tree makes a sound. If you and I were walking in the forest at the time, we would clearly hear the cracking of the wood, the rustling of the leaves, and the monstrous thud as the trunk slammed into the forest floor. It seems obvious that this sound would be present even if you and I were not.
    The scientific answer to the riddle, however, is no. A falling tree itself makes no sound. Its descent merely creates vibrations in the air and the ground. These vibrations become sound only if something special is present to receive and translate them: say, an ear connected to a brain. Any mammalian ear will do nicely. The outer ear gathers changes in air pressure and focuses them on the eardrum, producing vibrations in the middle ear. These vibrations move fluid in the inner ear over little hairs that translate the pressure changes into electrical signals that are received by the brain. Without this special machinery, there is no sound, only air movement.
    [...]
    A sound, therefore, is not an event that is detected in the world. It is an experience constructed when the world interacts with a body that detects changes in air pressure, and a brain that can make those changes meaningful.
    Without a perceiver there is no sound, only physical reality.”

    #HowEmotionsAreMade

    #HowEmotionsAreMade 里面学到的一句菲律宾语:
    Gigil: The urge to hug or squeeze something that is unbearably adorable.

    也太精确了吧 

    ⬇️我又在英文书里学德语  

    Have you ever wanted to punch your boss? I would never advocate workplace violence, of course, and many bosses are terrific work partners. But sometimes we are blessed with supervisors who personify the German emotion word Backpfeifengesicht, meaning “a face in need of a fist.”

    #HowEmotionsAreMade

    > When you look at a rainbow, you see discrete stripes of color, roughly like the drawing on the left side of figure 5-1. But in nature, a rainbow has no stripes—it’s a continuous spectrum of light, with wavelengths that range from approximately 400 to 750 nanometers. This spectrum has no borders or bands of any kind.
    Why do you and I see stripes? Because we have mental concepts for colors like “Red,”“Orange,” and “Yellow.” Your brain automatically uses these concepts to group together the wavelengths in certain ranges of the spectrum, categorizing them as the same color. Your brain downplays the variations within each color category and magnifies the differences between the categories, causing you to perceive bands of color.

    > If you visit the Russian Google (images.google.ru) and search for the Russian word for rainbow, радуга, you’ll see that Russian drawings contain seven colors, not six: the Western blue stripe has been subdivided into light blue and dark blue, as in figure 7-2.
    These pictures demonstrate that concepts of color are influenced by culture. In Russian culture, the colors синий (blue) and Голубой (sky blue to a Westerner) are different categories, as distinct as blue and green are to an American. This distinction is not due to inborn, structural differences in the visual system of Russians versus Americans, but to culture-specific, learned concepts of color. People raised in Russia are simply taught that light and dark blue are distinct colors with different names. These color concepts become wired into their brains, and so they perceive seven stripes.
    #HowEmotionsAreMade

    所以不同文化的人并不是用不同的词来“描述”同一种颜色,而是他们就能“看”到不同的颜色  
    以及才发现🌈和🏳️‍🌈只有六种颜色,中文里的彩虹和俄语一样也是七色的。