2019年9月30日 星期一

趙醒華教授: 計量分析大型抗爭取勝之道

轉載: 計量分析大型抗爭取勝之道

眼見Bloomberg對反送中前線抗爭者的訪問,顯示他們已有視死如歸的準備,相當心痛,因爲香港年輕人為此無恥政權而死,實在不值。幸好香港大學教授將大型抗爭計量分析抽絲剝繭,精華成文,而小弟亦有幸閲讀,深受啟發,希望可以將其結論簡化,讓一般讀者明白歷史數據背後的啟示。

首先要解釋一下背景資料。此港大教授為趙耀華教授,閲讀了《為何非暴力抗爭有效》(Why Civil Resistance Works)及相關分析,然後在信報專欄點出結論,並深入淺出地解釋資料佐證。但礙於部份讀者對計量分析未必熟悉,此處希望帶出結論,並簡化當中的計量分析論證過程。

《為何非暴力抗爭有效》的一大結論為非暴力抗爭比暴力抗爭更有效率。第一項論據為附圖的數據。下圖為抗爭運動成功率與參與人數人均比例的點陣圖(scatter diagram),Y軸為運動成功率,X軸為運動參與人數人均比例的對數(log)。做對數的原因為令運動參與人數人均比例與運動成功率更容易比較,亦令點陣圖可以更清晰地視像化數據。如果沒有做對數,有機會難以視像化如附圖一樣清晰的正向關係。有了對數的附助,我們可以清楚見到,參與抗爭人均比例越高,抗爭成功率越高,這是一個清晰的正相關(positive correlation)。

但是,有相關性,並不代表有因果關係(correlation does not imply causality),即兩個變數雖然有關,但我們不能輕易把高成功率歸因於高抗爭參與人均比例。此概念在之前的post已有解釋。所以,要考慮清楚高抗爭參與人均比例會否真的導致高抗爭成功率。非暴力抗爭的參與者不需太高前設,已可參與抗爭,例如他們的體能與戰鬥力都不需要太高。因此,非暴力抗爭參與人數有極大機會會比暴力抗爭的多。而人多可以有什麼好處?趙教授列出多點,相當合理,例如人數越多,抗爭可有越高的創新性,此運動的文宣工作以及歌曲已經已可作為論點。其他原因,可見下面引文:

//在非暴力抗爭的情況下,諸色人等都能參與其中,包括長者、傷健人士、婦女、兒童。這樣有幾個好處。第一,抗爭會更具創新性。以反修例運動為例,民間在文宣工作方面很有創造性,如構想在海外刊登廣告,且廣告設計出色;有優秀歌曲《願榮光歸香港》;每晚在指定時間喊口號等等。第二,這種運動在受到打擊之後不會完全崩潰。第三,管治者及其支持者並非活在真空之中,這些各種各樣的參與者和他們都有某種關係,甚或是他們的家人,這樣就較容易使得他們倒戈,或者整體上改變意見。第四,這些反對者比較友善,是比較可靠的談判對象,而不像暴力抗爭者那樣你死我亡。上述兩位作者的數據也顯示,非暴力抗爭比暴力抗爭更有可能引入民主制度,而非暴力抗爭成功的國家再次陷入內戰的可能性亦降低了15%。//

另外一個論據,則為抗爭的歷史數據。在研究範圍內最大規模的25場抗爭,暴力抗爭成功率只有40%,而非暴力的則有70%。但要留意的重點是,決定這種研究的量化方法(quantifying method)要非常謹慎,因爲如何定義運動成功、運動參與人數等等數據,都很大機會存在偏差,以最近「民陣200萬+1人遊行」為例,主辦機構與警方的遊行人數統計偏差極大,主辦機構有誘因把統計人數膨脹(inflate),而警方當然有誘因把統計人數壓低,所以要真實量化運動參與人數存在一定困難。因此,這類研究多數會由大學或研究機構等有較多資源的機構進行。

趙教授的文章還有其他枝節,有興趣可參閱其詳細內容(link附在comment之處)。要明白當中數據,始終需要了解基本計量分析原理。因此,我十分重視此分析技術,亦希望大家能融會貫通,例如對上述的點陣圖、相關性、因果關係、量化方法及要注意的地方加以理解,好讓自己可以與相同或不同意見人士理性討論,解決問題。

在此強調一點,我並無意指出暴力抗爭「無用」,亦相當理解為何會有此現象出現。易地而處,如果我親眼目睹元朗白衣人一拳揮倒跪地求饒的普通市民,或受過警方的不合理暴力對待,別人如何勸告我要和理非也沒有太大作用,因為這些事件的衝擊實在太大,慘不忍睹。本文只想計量分析勝算較高的抗爭策略,供各位參考,亦希望把一直以來堅持使用的計量分析方法應用在香港的嚴峻局勢之中。

(資料參考及圖片源於趙耀華教授信報專欄:《非暴力抗爭比暴力抗爭有效》)

2019年9月17日 星期二

為甚麼要譴責警察濫暴行為?

「沉默旁觀的宿命:很快就會輪到你。」
~陶傑

(轉發)

送給不滿暴力的您!

有人問,點解我只譴責一方的暴力行為,而對另一方的卻隻字不提。

#主要原因有三個

第一,示威者一方的暴力大部分是針對死物,只有少數因為自衛而傷人的行為;相反,警察那一方大部分針對的都是人,而他們所用上的暴力級數遠超示威者。

孟子曰:「君子之於禽獸也,見其生,不忍見其死;聞其聲,不忍食其肉。是以君子遠庖廚也。」

君子所不忍,是生命被無情傷害,實非死物受破壞。

第二,示威者毀壞死物或自衛打人,明顯會受到法律的懲罰,或面對法律以外被防暴打至頭破血流的風險;相反,警察那一方是打完人不需問責,直至現在也還未有機制去制裁或審判這些行為。

故此,對示威者譴責只是落井下石,沒有必要。但警察那一方,卻可以使用暴力傷人後而不用負責任,譴責實只是在回應良知的呼喚。

第三,示威者是雜牌軍,無論外在的體能武力,及內在的情緒思想,都沒有受過專業訓練;相反,警察是專業部隊,面對突發事情,該使用何種程度的武力,該怎麼克制自己的情緒,都應該已在學堂接受過相關訓練。

所以,對警隊執法的要求更嚴謹,大眾對他們能使用「適當武力」去解決問題更有期望,是正常不過的。

反倒是,我想問那些不停說要譴責暴力行為的人士,你們有甚麼理據去不同時譴責警暴?你們有甚麼論點去說服黑幫無差別打人是不用追查的?

父母打子女,子女打父母,誰對誰錯?誰打人都錯。

可是,擁有絕對身體上優勢的那一方行使暴力,就更需要有機制去制衡。這就是為甚麼,父母虐打年幼子女,子女虐打年邁父母,會特別讓人覺得可恥、痛心的原因。

然後,良知就會忍不住要你高聲譴責,尤其是在公義不能彰顯的時候。

2019年9月8日 星期日

Playing with Creativity-Catherine McBride seeks to integrate more fun for young language learners

Source:

While seemingly innocuous, the dictionary’s definition of education— ‘the process of receiving or giving systematic instruction’—reflects a regimented, suspect arrangement. As the above betrays, traditional schooling places little value on creativity. Children in Hong Kong actualize this en masse: rote memorization reigns as the de facto learning approach. Students as young as two carry the expectation to master English, Mandarin, and Cantonese in school. Prof. Catherine McBride, a professor in CUHK’s Department of Psychology, and Dr. Yanling Zhou, an assistant professor at the Education University of Hong Kong, teamed up with international business expert Mr. Helmuth Aberer to found Cayan Educational Design Ltd. Rather than perpetuating the current framework, the team emphasizes learning through games. 

A one-way flow of information characterizes much of schooling. Teachers deliver information to students who are then expected to commit it to memory. For language learning, the process intensifies. Students drill vocabulary and study colloquialisms; decks of flashcards are king and language courses inundate extracurricular hours. As personalized, unique phrases are rarely prioritized, scripted conversations often plague second and third language-learners, though this is considered language proficiency. 

‘By the time children in Hong Kong are six, they already hate English. Why? Because kindergarten only teaches with memorization. Punctuation, spelling, grammar—there is rarely focus on real communication or fun,’ says Professor McBride. 

Language remains, primarily, a communication tool. Treating it as a rigid stockpile of words and grammatical techniques is dispiriting. Stringing together textbook sentences hardly passes for communication, though Hong Kong’s education system seems to reinforce otherwise. ‘Memorization shouldn’t characterize language learning for children,’ explains Dr. Zhou. ‘We’re motivated to integrate learning with games and ignite children’s creativity through play.’

BumperCards, the education startup’s first patented card game, encourages creativity and play. Children can play in Chinese, English, or both. Each card has pictures on one side and words on the other. The goal is to combine cards to make as many compound words as possible. The concept is straightforward, though the innovation lies in the details: there is a premium placed on creativity. Players receive one point for normal compound words (e.g., sunflower, makeup, etc.), while ‘silly’ words are worth two points. ‘Newspaper’ would get fewer points than a made-up word, such as ‘ice-mouse’ or ‘pencil-man’. To further emphasize creativity, players must justify their silly words with an explanation (explanations are usually just as silly). 

In BumperCards, there is also a diminished emphasis on incorrectness. In creating a word that doesn’t exist, players are rewarded rather than penalized. The game has no punishments; errors are not highlighted. Conceptually, BumperCards stands antithetical to traditional language learning. 

A Social Edge

‘Fun with a purpose’—the company mission statement—is a constant reminder that education should not be boring. Memorization and colourless material make students averse to learning. Cayan Educational Design Ltd aims to alleviate these concerns by affording children greater latitude for creativity and prioritizing fun.

‘We want to reveal how impactful gamification is. Gamification of language learning improves retention and participation. Many educators think if you are having fun, you aren’t learning. We’re disproving that theory. People like games. Games allow us to learn for longer than usual and participate with greater engagement because the learning is fun. The learning is no longer a passive experience,’ explains Professor McBride. 

Over 20 academic papers document the validity and efficacy of using creativity as an education focus. Professor McBride’s research group has tested thousands of students across languages such as Persian, English, Dutch, and Korean, as well as Mandarin and Cantonese. BumperCards is built upon a mountain of academic research and evidence although wide-scale implementation starts with convincing parents of this approach. 

‘If kids are creative with language learning, they improve their vocabulary and reading. The evidence backs it up,’ says Professor McBride. ‘All we ask is for kids to be creative, but parents are afraid of this. If a child does something “wrong” parents believe their child has a problem. We have to convince parents otherwise by making them receptive to fun and creativity.’

Parents have the opportunity to learn with their children, hand in hand. BumperCards allow participants to be social in their learning. Discussion and dialogue transpire and social interactions become integral to the experience. ‘Most games these days are online or played alone. We wanted to return to sharing and socializing in person. This is huge for parents,’ says Dr. Zhou. The interaction creates a lasting impact on a social, educational and developmental front. 

New-Age Innovation

There are two primary avenues of problem-solving: divergent thinking and convergent thinking. Discovering multiple solutions to an open-ended problem through brainstorming is divergent thinking. Convergent thinking is more systematic and less spontaneous than divergent thinking; it entails converging on a single answer to a question. ‘Last January, we went to the biggest toy convention in the world. Of all the aisles full of toys and games, no other product combined both convergent and divergent thinking. We stand alone as a revolutionary game,’ says Mr. Aberer.

In combining convergent thinking—establishing concrete, compound words—and divergent thinking—brainstorming sundry possibilities of word combinations—BumperCards remains the only game to fulfil both modes of thinking.   

Launched less than a year ago, Cayan Educational Design Ltd—a social, for-profit company—aims to combine the values of an NGO with the scale and business of commercialization. Commercial success will, ideally, fuel the social impact. ‘There are two goals, a social and a commercial goal, that we try to achieve simultaneously,’ says Mr. Aberer. ‘We distribute the game to kindergartens and NGOs at a very low price. At the same time, we’ll license our product to a corporation for sustainability and scale.’

The education startup received funding with the Sustainable Knowledge Transfer Project Fund from the Office of Research and Knowledge Transfer Services. The group plans to continue refining BumperCards to include other additional languages that allow for compound word creation, such as German, in addition to developing a digital iteration.

Notwithstanding substantial research evidence, Cayan Educational Design Ltd has a demanding task to integrate an unconventional idea into a school system cemented in orthodoxy. Memorization stands as the long-time linchpin for traditional language learning. Yet, as generations evolve so must their education. BumperCards may be the catalyst for a smarter, more creative cohort of students for years to come.

2019年9月5日 星期四

Peter Hartcher: A message to Hong Kong's protesters: there's only one way you can win

Source: The Sydney Morning Herald

https://www.smh.com.au/national/a-message-to-hong-kong-s-protesters-there-s-only-one-way-you-can-win-20190902-p52n3x.html?fbclid=IwAR07qSJRdIoS9KtFU4Rplgyi4N4WuSS3HlsocA_oqVmXG_9iYQP_pzRXDuY

Protesters of Hong Kong, I think I can safely say that I am one among many millions of people around the world who admire your bravery. And support your cause of preserving liberty, even extending it to full electoral democracy.
But I fear that the tactics of the most aggressive among you are going to doom your entire movement and seal Hong Kong's fate.
When the inevitable crackdown comes, there is only one way that you can win this struggle. If the Beijing authorities decide to use force to end the protests and restore calm, they will not hesitate to crush 5000 radicals on the streets. Or even 50,000.
Some of your spokespeople appeal for help from the international community. This is a false hope. People in other countries will make a great deal of noise but no one will intervene to help you.
How can we be so sure? Two precedents answer. First, look at what happened after the Tiananmen Square massacre. When Beijing sent the army to murder hundreds, perhaps thousands, of peaceful student protesters in the square in 1989, some countries protested, some even applied some token sanctions, but within a couple of years it was business as usual. At that time, China was a minor economic force that accounted for 2 per cent of the global economy. Today is 15 per cent, the major trading partner for most countries on earth, and the source of hundreds of billions of dollars for Belt and Road projects in at least 68 nations.
If the world was craven in confronting a much weaker China, who will dare alienate it now? Donald Trump is happy to apply tariffs to Chinese goods in pursuit of his own trade interests. He is not interested in using them to pursue the rights of the Chinese people.
Second, look at the world's response to Beijing's apartheid policy in China's north-western province of Xinjiang. The regime has locked up a million citizens, perhaps more, for the sole crime of belonging to the Uighur minority, mostly Muslims. They are deprived of their rights and held indefinitely for "re-education" in a system of gulags.
The big intervention by the world's democracies? Twenty-five countries including Australia wrote a protest letter in July, which China ignored. A bigger group of countries – 37 authoritarian states led by Russia – quickly published a counter-letter defending Beijing.
People of Hong Kong, don't put your faith in the international community to preserve your freedoms. And no group of radical protesters can fight off the determined use of force by the Chinese Communist Party. It is the expert. It took China by force. It holds it by force. It has overwhelming force on hand.
Of course, you can't expect Beijing to be restrained by any moral concerns. As you know, China's Defence Minister, Wei Fenghei, boasted to a Singapore audience three months ago that the Tianenmen Square massacre was "correct policy". For the CCP, the crushing of unrest in Hong Kong will not be a question of principle but of public relations.
Willy Lam of the Chinese University of Hong Kong says that Chinese President Xi Jinping "isn't even going to consider" sending in the army before October 1, the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China. "Any deployment of the PLA [People's Liberation Army] in Hong Kong before that date would spoil the festive atmosphere," says Lam, and Xi would "lose face". Besides, it suits Beijing to wait because the most aggressive of the protesters are growing more violent, week by week.
Using violence is not only doomed to fail, it also puts you on the same moral plane as Beijing. Worse, a violent protest movement means that you are handing Beijing exactly the pretext it seeks. If you are violent, you justify Beijing's use of violence.
So what is the way to win against these odds? You, the resistance movement, cannot win with 5000 violent protesters, or 50,000 or even 500,000. You can only succeed if you have 5 million Hong Kong people in the streets with you. That is the only way to paralyse the CCP's machinery of repression.
Hong Kong's greatest strength so far is that the ordinary people, young and old, the workers and the families, the professionals and the pedlars have turned out by the million to oppose Beijing's attempts at repression.
Crowd estimates are difficult and contested, but its seems likely that at least a million Hong Kongers have turned out on at least three separate occasions in the last few months. This strength risks being squandered. The mass of the people will stay home if the movement has been taken over by aggressive "shock troop" violence. Yet this is exactly the danger we see growing week by week. The most aggressive protesters, the ones wielding poles and Molotov cocktails, need to desist. They are doing Xi Jinping's work for him.
Opinion polls in Hong Kong show a rising public distaste for violent protest tactics. The more violent the radicals, the stronger Beijing's case to intervene, the weaker Hong Kong public support for the front-line resistance.
I'm not asking you to stop protesting. The right to political protest is one of the liberties at stake in this confrontation. But I am suggesting that you use a more disciplined approach. If you want to win, the resistance must be non-violent. Sit-ins, marches, and civil disobedience, yes. Trying to out-thugs the thugs, no.
The obvious objection? The police and the Beijing-sponsored gangs will be free to strike protesters without fear of retaliation. Exactly. Let them. Every time they do, they lose the argument and the public relations contest. It takes more courage to accept pain for a high cause than to succumb to the natural instinct to stike back.
To win, the protesters of Hong Kong need the overwhelming support of the vast mass of Hong Kong people. And for that, they need less Guy Fawkes and more Gandhi. After all, Gandhi won against the most powerful empire in the world at that time. "Non-violence," said Gandhi, "is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man."
Protesters of Hong Kong, the mass solidarity of the people, clothed in that great force, is your only hope.
Peter Hartcher is international editor.