Herbert A. Simon 司馬賀

President Roosevelt was attempting to "pack" the court.

2012-02-05T00:11:00.000-08:00

On Feb. 5, 1937, President Roosevelt proposed increasing the number of Supreme Court justices; critics charged Roosevelt was attempting to "pack" the court.

• See This Front Page

這是小羅斯福總統著名的一招 Simon 的回憶錄 Models of My Life 提過這

胡適應該也談過--待查

great Herbert Simon

2012-01-29T00:23:00.001-08:00

Thinking, Fast and Slow (Daniel Kahneman)
本書稱之前加一"偉大的 " ()

學人腦思考的晶片/在團體決策中的無知

2012-01-09T03:12:00.000-08:00

這兩篇與Simon關心的主題相關

【社會心理】在團體決策中，無知反而有益民主編譯 \| 汪芃 ■一份在《科學》（Science）雜誌上發表的最新研究指出，在某些情況下，群體中有一些無知的成員，反而能將權力交給多數，有助多數決的民主決策過程。一群動物如何進行團體決策？蜜蜂在決策時，會使用「頭錘」攻擊意見相左的團體成員，直到最後取得共識，但不少其他物種的決策過程則比蜜蜂要來得民主。若一群沒有血緣關係的群居動物各自有不同的需求（人類社會即是一例），就常會出現意見相左的情形。但團體中某些成員對可選擇的選項資訊不足、或根本不在乎決策結果的情形也所在多有。長期以來，學者一直想了解上述狀況的決策過程。過去有些證據顯示，一群動物中較無知、閱歷較少的成員會受到少數剛愎自用、控制欲強的強勢成員操縱，如果情況真是如此，那麼群體中有較無知的成員，應會妨礙民主的決策過程，因為這些成員等於把團體中的決定權交給了少數成員。然而一份在《科學》（Science）雜誌上發表的最新研究指出，在某些情況下，群體中有一些無知的成員，反而能將權力交給多數，有助多數決的民主決策過程。本研究的研究人員首先建立了一個簡單的計算模型，這個模擬的模型中有一群虛擬動物和兩個目的地，每隻動物可自行選擇要移動到哪個目的地；這群虛擬動物喜愛與彼此為伍，且大致會朝同一個方向前進，除此之外這個模型沒有太多限制。這些虛擬動物便依循上述的規則行動，就像一個剛開始發展的原始社群。接著研究人員便調整模型中各個選擇的動物數量，以及動物對自己偏好的堅定程度。				圖片來源：hjl/Flickr/CC-licensed
				在他們建立的第一組模型中，每隻動物都有各自想選擇的目的地，而堅定的程度不一。實驗結果並不意外：這群動物的大多數成員想去哪個目的地，最後整群動物便會往那裡去；即便多數成員和少數成員的喜好強度累計起來是相同的，最後還是佔多數的成員獲勝。然而，一旦有些成員的偏好超過某種程度，即使牠們是少數，仍可影響整群動物最後的決策。這個實驗結果顯示，如果一個群體中選擇某選項的少數十分固執己見，而大多數成員雖然作另一個選擇，但態度並不堅持，那麼少數人是可能推翻多數人的。接著研究人員在計算模型中加入沒有特別偏好的虛擬動物，情況就變得有趣了。在這樣的情況下，即使上述少數成員對自己的選擇態度強硬，但團體中因為有這些「無知」成員的存在，決定權會回歸多數決制。且團體中資訊不足的無知成員越多，這個效應也就越強（當然仍有一定限制，因為最後雜訊會過大）。繼續閱讀>> －TOP－


[科學人]改造世界10大奇招 -- 學人腦思考的晶片撰文╱敏斯（Christopher Mims）翻譯／王怡文重大變革往往出自非常簡單的創意。當年，一位叫做賈伯斯的年輕發明家因為想讓「沒有用過電腦，也不特別想擁有電腦的人們」體驗電腦的能力，帶領了我們脫離難以掌握的大型主機和一長串指令，邁向使用起來輕鬆愉快的麥金塔和iPhone。他的點子從此改變了我們跟科技的關係。還有哪些簡單但極富革命性的創意還在實驗室裡，等著一炮而紅的時機來臨？這次我們精選了10項新科技，並介紹這些科技的內涵，以及它們可能如何改造世界。這些新科技包括運算方式跟人類思維相同的電腦、能在加油站充電的電池、以巨量資料製成的「水晶球」（見38頁〈計算未來〉）。你也可以說，這次的報導是我們向簡單創意的強大力量致敬。資訊科技學人腦思考的晶片微晶片架構設計師莫達（Dharmendra S. Modha）的團隊，也許是世上唯一包括了精神科醫師的。此舉並非為了維護工程師的心理健康，而是他的合作對象──由五所大學及IBM五個實驗室所組成的聯盟，正在研發一種模仿神經元運作的微晶片。他們稱之為「認知計算」，2011年8月首度發表研究成果：兩顆各由256個人工神經元組成的微晶片。現在這些晶片只能在乒乓遊戲中擊敗對手，或走出簡單的迷宮，然而他們有個野心勃勃的最終目標：把人腦的神經計算功能放進小小的矽晶片中。這個由美國國防高等研究計畫署資助的計畫稱為SyNAPSE，正在研發擁有100億個神經元和100兆個突觸的微處理器，約相當於人的大腦半球的規模，預計體積不超過兩公升，耗電相當於10個100瓦的燈泡。這計畫看似想創造人腦，但莫達堅決否認，他說他們想創造的是一個替代架構，取代幾乎每部電腦都採用的共同架構。普通晶片只能透過一個狹窄的通道傳送指令和資料，而使極速受限。但在莫達的替代架構下，每個人工神經元都有自己的通道，從一開始就內建大量平行運算的能力。莫達表示：「我們正在打造一個通用的地基，一個用來當成基礎、創造多種應用的平台技術。」				■類神經電腦將輕鬆解決難倒傳統電腦的所有任務。
				喬治亞州立大學神經科學家愛德華斯（Don Edwards）認為，這個做法一旦成功，模擬神經網絡的成就將達到30年來的最高峰，就連IBM的競爭者都刮目相看，美國克雷電腦副總裁柏丁（Barry Bolding）指出：「類神經運算有潛力解決傳統系統感到困難、甚至無解的問題。」莫達強調，認知計算架構不會取代傳統電腦，而是補其不足，預先處理充滿雜訊的真實世界資訊，轉為傳統電腦可處理的訊號。例如，擅長圖形辨識的晶片可從人群中選出一張臉，再把他的身分傳給傳統電腦。如果有人擔心機器太過強大，那麼或許令人稍感安心的是，這些晶片的數學不會太好。莫達說：「就像用現在的電腦來模擬人腦很沒效率一樣，傳統電腦擅長的快速加法和減法，用類人腦網絡來做也非常沒效率。誰都不能取代對方。」

閒聊Herb Simon

2012-01-02T23:43:00.000-08:00

學法(學習法律)期間, 最有趣的課程還是法理學這門課, 目前美國的主流把經濟與法律思維結合, 做為論證判斷的基礎, 讓我時常以Herb Simon的有限理性來與同學討論自然法與實定法的微妙關係, 以及目的與手段間的立場判斷, 猶記鍾老師曾提到Herb Simon指出假以時日AI也可以把人的靈魂寫入程式, 真有見地.

Lisa今年第一季將參加碩士論文口試, 期能順利通關,

去年沒什麼寫作, 只寫一篇收錄在"我的可愛-天賜甘霖" 賴甘霖的口述歷史書中
http://www.tiencf.org.tw/page1.aspx?no=249939&step=1&pno=7215

我取得一本賴神父的簽名書要送給您!

Peter

***
昨天睡前讀浦江清先生詳注的《金石錄後序》很感動很簡略的版本:tony私選的古文觀止--金石錄後序
***
前幾天寬仁師來訪時提到東海的兼課趣事我取出一本工業工程系創立40年的書跟陳老書說很可惜許多兼課的老師對學生的幫助也很大
可惜都不列入史書中
主要的原因可能是當事者不懂得保持史料

昨天讀其中郭文東老師為系上爭取電腦的許多妙事(1965?-

85?) 實在很有意思文中提到陳其寬老師神氣活現
不過他只為一系之利努力卻不知道為全校謀
可能那時候學校窮又沒相關人才
(Herb Simon和其好友在50年代就懂得花大錢做遠端計算 /我1977年知道英國朋友的博士論文指導者在美國作遠距教學)

感謝有您邁向2012

2011-12-29T17:38:00.001-08:00

感謝有您 邁向2012

hc的”剪貼簿”在2011年約有25萬人次造訪

戴明圈: A Taiwanese Deming Circle

"交情千千" 電子連絡簿(日報)

胡適的世界 The World of Hu Shih

管理學新生

 Books Birdviews 書海

 People 人物

 品質世界 quality world

教育人

 英文人行道 et cetera, et cetera .

漢語人行道：演變風貌

 譯藝

 英國風

 日本心得帖

 亞洲

 SHE健康一生

平均可活到87歲以上

2011-12-23T04:20:00.000-08:00

今天發趙老大的這封信
總想起Simon 先生在世時
我很天真
認為根據統計
他平均可活到87歲以上
真慚愧

感謝趙老師
今天春節前的餐會改由我做東請趙兄和林兄等選餐廳
("投票那天午餐"的主意似乎不錯)
趙老大閒來或可讀顧少川前妻的回憶錄
No Feast Lasts Forever《沒有不散的筵席》
一笑

Dear HC,

"聽到「鄉音」而淚流。

那樣的一天，似乎也近了。"

Another story: One year ago, I met professor LJ Wei (a world famous bio-statistician) and said the average life span for men in Taiwan is 73.9, and I am sure I am in the 95% interval. One week ago, I met a friend in 國家衛生院, he said, don't worry, for men in Taipei, the average is 79 point something ...

Min-Te

一所工商學院的設計

2011-12-02T17:59:00.001-08:00

Rethinking the MBA: Business Education at a Crossr...
這本漢譯缺索引
不過還是可以知道在末章引用Herbert A. Simon 的一所工商學院的設計 (頁312)
2008年哈佛大學商學院慶百年的討論主題之一
各著名管理學院的個案在2009年有一小段檢討

MBA教育再思考 : 十字路口的工商管理教育

醫療專家系統

2011-11-21T23:39:00.000-08:00

台灣這則新聞讓人想起 Simon 人工科學書中的醫療專家系統在70年年代末已經建立

作家吳淡如最近在廣播節目，請醫師答覆call in電話，為了不讓醫師背上「隔空問診」的違法問題，請工作人員代接電話，轉述回答。吳淡如上午接受台視獨家訪問表示，節目中特別提醒民眾一定要去看醫師，還說衛生署如果真要查，應該先查地下電台。藝人吳淡如主持廣播節目，請來醫師回答Call in，只是這樣的節目現在卻疑似被盯上，就因為涉嫌醫師親自隔空問診的內容。斬釘截鐵地說，就是過敏性鼻炎，到底是衛教宣傳，還是問診，醫師說他們心中也有一把尺，怎麼可能傻到跟著遊走法律邊緣。衛生署表示，其實call in宣傳衛教問題都可以，只是一旦有診斷，就會違反醫事法。節目企圖透過工讀生轉述規避罰則，但衛生署表示，根本就無效，重點在於醫師尺度拿捏，只能建議，不能斷定，否則依舊是違反醫事法。

日本Olympus 公司的諾貝爾經濟學獎者Robert Mundell醜聞

2011-11-02T23:57:00.000-07:00

日本Olympus 公司的諾貝爾經濟學獎者Robert Mundell醜聞

Nobel Economist Served on Olympus Board

Olympus added its first-ever outside directors in 2005, shortly before making four acquisitions that have engulfed the camera maker in controversy. Among the outside directors was Nobel-laureate economist Robert Mundell.

John McCarthy (1927-2011)

2011-10-27T17:31:00.000-07:00

John McCarthy (September 4, 1927 – October 24, 2011)^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5] was an American computer scientist and cognitive scientist who received the Turing Award in 1971 for his major contributions to the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI). He was responsible for the coining of the term "Artificial Intelligence" in his 1955 proposal for the 1956 Dartmouth Conference and was the inventor of the LISP programming language.

John McCarthy (computer scientist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

倡導以數學邏輯發展人工智慧，曾榮獲被譽為計算機科學領域諾貝爾獎─杜林獎的John McCarthy本周於家中逝世，享年84歲。

[綜合整理報導]倡導以數學邏輯發展人工智慧，Lisp語言發明者，曾榮獲被譽為計算機科學領域諾貝爾獎─杜林獎的John McCarthy本周於家中逝世，享年84歲。

McCarthy 倡導以數學邏輯發展人工智慧，於1958年提出advice taker概念，激發後來的問答系統與邏輯程式的發展，並曾發明garbage collection，自動管理不用的記憶體，解決了程式語言LISP所面臨的問題，LISP後來成為人工智慧領域最受歡迎的程式語言。

McCarthy從小就展現他在數學上的天份，大學進入數學系時跳級兩年，最後取得普林斯頓大學（Princeton University）數學博士。以下是關於這位元電腦大師的簡介：

-1927年生於美國波士頓

-1948年，加州理工，數學學士

-1951年，普林斯頓大學，數學博士

-1956年Dartmouth會議的發起人（該會議被視為AI作為一門學科誕生的標誌）

-1955年在為該會議寫的建議書中提出Artificial Intelligence一詞，從而被視為“人工智慧之父”

-1958，發明Lisp程式設計語言（該語言至今仍在人工智慧領域廣泛使用）

-1960左右，提出電腦分時(time-sharing)概念　　　

-1971因對AI的貢獻獲圖靈獎

–1985獲得IJCAI(the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence)頒發的第一屆”Research Excellence Award”（可看作是AI的終身成就獎）

-1991年獲得“美國國家科學獎”(National Medal of Science Award)

2011年10月可說是科技界傷心的時期，10月5日賈伯斯逝世、10月13日 C 語言之父 Dennis Ritchie 逝世，如今又一顆巨星殞落。(本文部份轉載自36氪)

　有「人工智慧之父」稱譽的美國科學家麥卡錫(John McCarthy)24日逝世，享年84歲。麥卡錫發明Lisp語言，這種程式言語為開發聲控系統科技鋪路，可說是蘋果iPhone 4S的Siri聲控技術之先驅。

　　香港星島日報報導，麥卡錫任教於史丹福大學超過40年，校方表示麥卡錫在位於帕洛阿爾托的家中逝世，但沒有提及他的死因。這是繼編寫C程式語言及 UNIX系統之父里奇(Dennis Ritchie)和蘋果創辦人賈伯斯(Steve Jobs)之後，再有矽谷科技先驅在10月離開人世，社交網站twitter充斥悼念麥卡錫的悼文。

　　麥卡錫是人工智慧(Artificial Intelligence；AI)發展的先驅，他在1955年於1份研究動議創立了「人工智慧」一詞，認為學習或智能可以機械模仿。

　　麥卡錫後來創立麻省理工學院人工智慧實驗室及史丹福大學人工智慧實驗室，並在1965年至1980年間擔任後者的院長。

　　在1958年，麥卡錫發明Lisp言語，這種程式言語為開發聲控系統科技鋪路，其中1種聲控系統Siri，已使用於最新蘋果產品iPhone 4S之上。

　　此外，麥卡錫也開創電腦分時操作的構念，讓多名用戶透過1部電腦就能參與互動，為現今電腦雲端技術打下基石。

　　麥卡錫曾在1971年獲頒發電腦界的最高榮譽圖靈獎。此外，他分別在1988年及1990年獲得京都獎和美國國家科學獎章。

從心理學評介胡適談中國禪學的發展（鍾漢清）這篇應用許多Simon先生的論點

2011-10-16T18:38:00.000-07:00

紀念胡適之先生110 冥誕

主題: 紀念胡適之先生110 冥誕

時間: 2011年12月17日／ 10:00-12:00

地址：台北市新生南路三段88號2樓
電話：（02） 23650127

題目：　
從心理學評介胡適談中國禪學的發展（鍾漢清）這篇應用許多Simon先生的論點

Thomas Sargent and Christopher Sims/ 理性預期理論（rational expectations）

2011-10-10T19:09:00.000-07:00

Simon 在預測等方面在歐洲維也納編的作業研究刊物有精彩的說明.....

----
FT 的標題翻譯總要添油加醋
Lex專欄：諾貝爾獎沒“惡搞”
Lex_Nobel in economics

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences has a mischievous bent. At a time when everyone including the Queen of England wonders why economists did not anticipate the financial crisis and still cannot agree a cure, the academy awarded the Sveriges Riksbank Prize (it is not technically a Nobel) to two American professors synonymous with economic modelling. It is popular to question Thomas Sargent's line of work these days. In the 1970s, he revelled in the complex economic models that were the foundation of the so-called dynamic stochastic general equilibrium models now ubiquitous in central bank decision making. More important, he introduced into these models the burgeoning field of rational expectations – another idea increasingly under fire.

瑞典皇家科學院(Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences)可真是喜歡“惡搞”。就在包括英國女王在內的所有人都想知道，為何經濟學家未能預見到金融危機、甚至到現在都拿不出一致對策的時候，瑞典皇家科學院卻將諾貝爾經濟學獎（Sveriges Riksbank Prize，嚴格說來，這並非諾貝爾獎）授予了兩位堪稱“經濟建模代名詞”的美國教授。這段時間，質疑托馬斯•薩金特(Thomas Sargent)所從事職業的做法已經十分流行。上世紀70年代，薩金特沉迷於復雜的經濟模型，建立了所謂的動態隨機一般均衡模型(DSGE)。如今，央行在進行決策時都要用到這些模型。而更重要的是，他在這些模型中引入了當時剛開始興起的理性預期——這在眼下已經成為又一個越發受到抨擊的觀點。

But to blame the current economic problems in the US or Europe on policymakers' over-reliance on models is unfair. Few think neuroscientific research is pointless just because we still know so little about the brain. In a speech last year, Christopher Sims, the co-prize winner, highlighted the many academics now focused on improving these models to understand better how financial shocks affect the economy. A little late, but a worthy aim nevertheless.

但將當前美國或歐洲的經濟問題歸咎於政策制定者過於依賴模型，則有失公平。很少有人認為神經科學研究沒有意義，這正是因為我們對於大腦所知甚少。與薩金特分享這一獎項的克里斯托弗•西姆斯(Christopher Sims)在去年的一次演講中強調，目前許多學者都專注於改進這些模型，以更好地了解金融衝擊是如何影響經濟的。儘管這來得有點晚，但仍頗具意義。

Forecasting will remain hard. Each crisis, however, brings more data to analyse. Prof Sims, for example, won his gong for advancing the crunching of numbers to draw out causes and effects of economic changes or shocks. This is useful stuff, whatever its predictive power. Both laureates have advanced their early work. Prof Sargent now recognises that people get confused sometimes, while Prof Sim models the fact that we all can only take in so much information while thinking about the future.

預測仍將是艱難的。不過，每一次危機都提供了更多可供分析的數據。比方說，西姆斯教授獲得諾貝爾獎，是由於他發展了用於分析經濟轉變或危機的原因和影響的數據處理方法。這是一種有用的工具，無論它的預測力如何。兩位得主都改進了他們早期的工作。薩金特現在承認，人們時常會犯糊塗，而西姆斯則針對“所有人在考慮未來時都只能吸收這麼多信息”這一事實建立了模型。

Just because economists get it wrong doesn't mean they should stop trying. Congratulations to you both.

不能僅僅因為經濟學家弄錯了，就認為他們應停止嘗試。恭喜二位。

Lex專欄是由FT評論家聯合撰寫的短評，對全球經濟與商業進行精闢分析

譯者/陳雲飛

「理性預期」助破困局美雙傑獲經濟獎 2011諾貝爾獎 2011年 10月11日【綜合報導】深究「理性預期」理論而徹底改變總體經濟學的兩位美國經濟學家，昨天成了今年諾貝爾經濟獎得主。瑞典皇家科學會讚譽，兩人的研究成果解析了財經政策與實際效果之間的關係，使當前無論是研究經濟理論，或是政府施政，都獲得更好的工具。
紐約大學教授薩金特（Thomas J. Sargent）與普林斯頓大學教授席姆斯（Christopher A. Sims）共同獲獎，將共享約4600萬元台幣獎金。
理論解釋央行決策席姆斯昨說：「我和薩金特的理論對於協助我們走出當前的經濟困局，非常重要。」席姆斯說他沒有簡單答案，「我要知道，一定馬上告訴全世界。」
席姆斯主要獲獎研究是「向量自回歸模型」，可解釋為何央行的利率動作通常要一兩年後才會對物價出現實際效果。他曾與現任美國聯準會主席柏南克在普林斯頓一同研究。
薩金特得知獲獎時正要出門上課，他開玩笑說：「我今天要教兩堂課，我不曉得這算不算慶祝。」薩金特獲獎理論是「結構性總體經濟學」。他指出，二次世界大戰結束後，西方政府由於預期會出現一波超級通膨，嚴陣以待，各方都預期嚴打通膨的高利率政策將出現；結果這種心態反而直接壓制了物價上漲，升息大刀還沒動用，物價已恢復平穩。
學者出身的經建會主委劉憶如表示，薩金特受到芝加哥大學理性預期學派大師、1995年諾貝爾經濟學獎得主盧卡斯啟發甚深，過去 10年更將以歐洲為何自1980年代以後，失業率始終高於美國為研究主題，得到結論就是在動盪不安、高風險的年代，一個國家基於保護勞工就業權利的前提下，所提出的保護勞工政策，反而會造成就業市場大餅萎縮，且勞工一旦失業就會陷入長期失業的困境，無法達到保護勞工的政策目的。
保護勞工影響就業劉憶如舉例，歐洲解僱勞工的成本很高，且歐洲國家給予失業者的救助金都很好，但是卻造成歐洲企業降低聘僱歐洲員工的意願，使得整體歐洲就業市場萎縮。她對照台灣現況指出，在2005年前後台灣也有很多保護勞工的政策，例如提高聘僱外籍白領員工門檻、取消本國勞工試用期等政策，但現在看起來確實造成一些衝擊。
用統計方式去實證永豐金首席經濟學家黃蔭基昨說，薩金特主張的「理性預期」，是指人們會透過學習去對政府政策做反應，如美國總統歐巴馬實施減稅和企業投資抵減措施，民眾會認為這些優惠未來都將付出代價，反因準備未來繳稅、而減少消費，導致失業率仍高掛、房市仍無起色。這兩人得獎表彰理性預期學派大師在理論和計量實證的貢獻。台經院所長楊家彥說，以往總體經濟學較缺乏實證理論基礎，此次得獎的兩位學者，透過統計方式帶入總體經濟學加以實證，值得肯定。
報你知
理性預期理論心態影響經濟理性預期理論（rational expectations）解釋的是人的預期心理與經濟、政策的互動關係。例如，如果央行設定物價增幅上限目標，民間會以此目標當薪資調幅參考，避免薪資刺激物價飛漲。
於是央行不必真正升息，一樣能透過「預期心理」掌控物價。紐西蘭等國央行已採用這個理論，明定「通膨目標化」，是理性預期理論拿來應用的例子。

****
據說他們的方法已入教科書據孤陋者如筆者 Simon 先生從公共事務如都市再生和規劃等解釋所謂"理性預期理論（rational expectations）"

American Economists Win Nobel Prize Thomas Sargent and Christopher Sims are credited with uncovering the two-way relationship between government policy and the economy. By Josh Voorhees | Posted Monday, Oct. 10, 2011, at 10:05 AM ET

(A picture taken on October 3, 2011 shows the statue of Alfred Nobel at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.)

Photo by Jonathan Nackstrand/AFP/Getty Images.

Two Americans were awarded the 2011 Nobel Prize in economics on Monday for their research into the cause-and-effect relationship between economic policy and the broader economy as a whole.

The two men, Thomas Sargent of New York University and Christopher Sims of Princeton University, carried out their research independently in the 1970s and ‘80s, but their work “is highly relevant today as world governments and central banks seek ways to steer their economies away from another recession,” the Associated Press reports.

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences that awards the prize said the two economists, both 68, had developed methods for answering questions such as how GDP and inflation are affected by temporary interest rate hikes or a tax cut.

"Today, the methods developed by Sargent and Sims are essential tools in macroeconomic analysis," the academy said in its citation.

Here’s how the New York Times summed up their research: “Their work uses statistical analysis to disentangle the question of whether a policy change that happened in the past affected the economy or whether it was made in anticipation of events that policymakers thought would happen later. This research has also helped economists better understand how people’s expectations for policy affect the economy.”

Herbert Simon 說 DOROTHY/ 微積分

2011-10-09T06:07:00.000-07:00

.".....溫切斯特的書共300多頁，介紹了李約瑟的學術研究經歷。他是一位生化學家。1936年他在英國劍橋大學的實驗室裡同三位中國學者一起工作。這三個人都來自南京的金陵大學。他們是王應睞、沈詩章和魯桂貞。李約瑟同這三個人共事，發現他們與他原先對中國人的印像不同，很有文化根底。於是觸發了他對中國的興趣，接著就想學會漢語，以便進一步對中國有所了解。魯桂貞就自願當了他的漢語老師。他們倆的教學關係很快就發展成了愛情關係。但當時李約瑟已經有太太，名叫陶樂思（Dorothy）。然而，他同魯桂貞的關係卻一直保持多年。到1987年陶樂思去世，兩年之後他在89歲的高齡時同魯桂貞結婚。結婚後兩年，魯桂貞去世。李約瑟又曾向三位女士求婚，但都被婉言謝絕了。......."熱愛中國怪癖科學家的奇妙故事BBC中國網特約撰稿人亢泰

Herbert Simon 的太太也叫DOROTHY
當時我不知道查辭典
所以問他某重要書回憶錄獻給太太又加一行話
Simon 也這樣解釋
"DOROTHY" is a name that signifies or is derived from: "a gift from God".

(In 1937, he married Dorothea Pye, who survives him along with three children, Katherine Simon Frank of Minneapolis; Peter A. Simon of Bryan, Tex.; and Barbara M. Simon of Wilder, Vt.; six grandchildren, three step-grandchildren; and five great-grandchildren.)

***

2011年10月9

我與戴久永老師說 Simon 希望他的太太的起碼條件是: 懂得微積分....

她 DOROTHY的確是補修Calculus .....

然後我們討論為什麼Simon 要立此條件

我當然有我的理論可惜Simon 生前沒問他這要求....

與戴老師討論Calculus 之意義和經驗..... 數學系出身的他對台灣百萬人學過微積分卻完成不知所云的浪費或許很不以為然

再開個simon university 遙遙無期

2011-10-09T05:57:00.000-07:00

The University of Wherever By BILL KELLER
讀此文想起:
我10年前就夢想開個網路"大學"
幾年後我自覺沒這本事就在pc home 的"新聞台"
開個simon university
由於那時後朋友多為譯人所以將焦點放在翻譯

Mies van der Rohe 與 H. A. Simon

2011-10-01T04:38:00.000-07:00

著名的建築書 Mies van der Rohe 是 Simon 在ITT的同事
那時候Simon 也是都市計畫/設計的名師
他有次請教Mies 如何取得一些著名的案子
Mies 說......喝完一/三杯之後
雇主多半接受他新奇的設計 (大意)
---

參考 ITT的校園設計:
凡．得．羅：鋼骨玻璃之美收入《人與空間的對話：漢寶德看建築》

WellPoint Hires Watson, IBM's Computer Project

2011-09-12T18:21:00.000-07:00

此則新聞似乎只是電腦協助醫療的實例而已

WSJ

BY ANNA WILDE MATHEWS

Watson, the "Jeopardy!"-playing computer system, is getting a job.

WellPoint Inc. and International Business Machines Corp. are set to announce a deal on Monday for the health insurer to use the Watson technology, the first time the high-profile project will result in a commercial application.

WellPoint said it plans to use Watson's data-crunching to help suggest treatment options and diagnoses to doctors. It is part of a far broader push in the health industry to incorporate computerized guidance into care, as doctors and hospitals adopt electronic medical records and other digital tools that can record, track and check their work.

the Cosmos Club ii

2011-09-08T00:53:00.000-07:00

2008 年我問Dr. Deming 的學生 Bill Scherkenbach
他回答(部分)

"...As his student, and because I lived in the Washington DC area, I would meet him for lunch as his guest at the Cosmos Club and discuss his latest thoughts and questions. ..."

我在1998/99問過 Simon 這 the Cosmos Club
Simon很熱情跟我解釋它.....

The Cosmos Club 與我們

2011-09-07T19:02:00.000-07:00

2009的舊文重刊
The Cosmos Club 與我們

由紐約時報的報導

Science Times: March 3, 2009

In a Lonely Cosmos, a Hunt for Worlds Like Ours

By DENNIS OVERBYE

Ball Aerospace

PEERING DEEPLY The primary mirror of the Kepler telescope. The craft’s mission is to discover Earth-like planets in Earth-like places.

A new spacecraft is about to embark on a mission to find other planets like Earth.

Interactive Graphic: Searching for Habitable Planets

這Cosmos 是希臘以還的觀念相對的就是我們稱之渾沌的◆【対】chaos
━━ n. 名（the 〜）（秩序整然たる）宇宙; 秩序, 調和/ 〔秩序ある体系としての〕宇宙｛うちゅう｝

美國首府的The Cosmos Club 我一定讀 Deming的作品就知道它
所以約1999我翻譯到 Herbert Simon的回憶錄 Models of My Life 時提到年輕壯遊到過此地
就寫email 請教他
老年的Simon 熱情地向我解釋它

2008年我問 Bill Scherkenbach 一困擾我的問題
Deming 博士 1978年來台講學時沒提到他在準備一本後來取名 Quality, Productivity and Competitive Position 的書它究竟何時成書的呢

Bill 回信之一部分

Quality, Productivity and Competitive Position came out of the notes he used for teaching a course at George Washington University. He probably started writing it in the late ‘70s. Before 14 Points.

As his student, and because I lived in the Washington DC area, I would meet him for lunch as his guest at the Cosmos Club and discuss his latest thoughts and questions. I helped him on QPCP by making comments on the manuscript. I think he wanted a younger person’s opinion.

今天三八節我找一下 Wikipedia 其中已有它的介紹

The Cosmos Club is a social club founded in Washington D.C. by John Wesley Powell in 1878. Clarence Edward Dutton, Henry Smith Pritchett, William Harkness, John Shaw Billings were original members. Among its stated goals is "The advancement of its members in science, literature, and art".^[1]

Its members have included many recipients of the Nobel Prize, Pulitzer Prize and Presidential Medal of Freedom.

[hide]

History

The Club originally met in the Corcoran Building on the corner of 15th and F Streets, Northwest, but moved to Lafayette Square in 1882. Eventually, the Club occupied the Tayloe and Dolley Madison Houses on the Eastern side of the Square, and razed two rowhouses between them for additional space. Prompted to relocate by the Federal government, the Club moved to the Townsend mansion at the intersection of Massachusetts and Florida Avenues in Northwest Washington in 1952.

Since 1887, the regular meeting place of the Philosophical Society of Washington has been the assembly hall of the Cosmos Club, now called the John Wesley Powell auditorium. The National Geographic Society was founded in the Cosmos Club in 1888.

For its first 110 years, the Cosmos Club did not permit women members, and forbade female guests to enter by the front door or to enter rooms reserved for members. In 1988, the Washington D.C. Human Rights Office ruled that there was probable cause to believe that the club's men-only policy violated the city's anti-discrimination law. The Office was ready to order public hearings on the case, which could have resulted in the loss of all city licenses and permits if the all-male policy had continued.

Members

This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it.

Cyrus Adler
Akbar S. Ahmed
Lila Oliver Asher
John Vincent Atanasoff
Aram Bakshian, Jr.
Kevin Gordon Barrow
Alexander Graham Bell
Filmore Bender
John Shaw Billings
Harry Blackmun
Herbert Block
Thomas E. Bryant
Vannevar Bush
Robert Butler
Stanwood Cobb
Henry B. Collins
Karl Compton
Frank Cyr

Clarence Edward Dutton
John Hope Franklin
Billie Frazier
Hayner Haskell Gordon
William R. Green
William Harkness
Helen Hayes
Richard Holbrooke
Calvin Bryce Hoover
Herbert Hoover
Abraham Horwitz
M. Thomas Inge
Howard Jenkins, Jr.
Harold R. Johnson
Marvin Kalb
James Katzer
James Kilpatrick
Henry Kissinger
David Linowes
Sol Linowitz
Andrew Lipman
Vladimir Lumelsky
Gerald S. McGowan
Robert McNamara

External links

Official web site of the Cosmos Club

References

^ Cosmos Club Official Site

Presidents in the Cosmos
Spaulding, Thomas M. (1949). The Cosmos Club on Lafayette Square. Washington, D.C.: The Cosmos Club.
Crossette, George (1966). Founders of The Cosmos Club of Washington, 1878. Washington, D.C.: The Cosmos Club.
Washburn, Wilcomb E. (1978). The Cosmos Club of Washington : a centennial history, 1878-1978. Washington, D.C.: The Cosmos Club.

師友

2011-09-04T05:32:00.000-07:00

書名季羨林談師友
作者季羡林
出版者三聯書店(香港)有限公司, 2006

"季羡林研究所"編的一系列通俗作品
由於季羡林長壽可以談許多人物與東西--有的當然不夠深入譬如說"談葉公超的二三事" 他同辛笛的一樣都只是平常的師生而已
(不像朱自清日記中許多精彩的片斷---可惜朱先生過世太早)

篇中一在談一英影響他的四個或六個老師這既類似洋風又不像 Herbert A. Simon 會把這類人的相片掛在書房內) 在回憶錄中來一節說明當然對摯友或"老師" 他都有長文短文譬如說你去看參考『新帕爾格雷夫經濟學大詞典』（北京：經濟科學，1996）中一些經濟學家的介紹是他寫的有的你會有點吃驚.....

關於"The Tacit Dimension"的評說

2011-09-01T01:43:00.000-07:00

最近台灣有書名常識
是想仿近300年前美國的暢銷書?

其實現在科學/心理學等大興一常識等都可以深入分析: 為什麼知識或迷信等變成常識

---
我曾請教Herbert Simon 關於 tacit knowledge 方面的想法
他是科學家認為Michael Polanyi 的招牌說法是沒什麼"神秘"可言現在人們知道得更多
Polanyi's concept of tacit knowledge was first articulated in Personal Knowledge.
... published as "The Tacit Dimension" (1966) he seeks to distinguish between ...

Christopher Alexander

2011-08-29T18:37:00.000-07:00

Christopher Alexander的論文是少數SIMON 在最新版人工科學一書中的參考名單中拿掉的
我問題Simon 這問題他沒給我肯定的答覆
或許他選用另外一本偏重 CAD的新書
或許他不贊成Christopher Alexander的博士後的 pattern language之發展
或許他倆在設計方法界上有些過節

Christopher Alexander
(1936– )

Vienna-born English architect and theorist, he settled in the USA in 1960. Believing that there are universal ‘timeless’ principles of form and space in architecture, that they are firmly based on the fundamentals of human cognition, and that they can be determined by study, providing the essentials of design, he has shown that they can be found in the architecture of all periods (and indeed of all cultures). His ideas about ‘paradigms’ for architecture were encapsulated in his Notes on the Synthesis of Form (1964), A Pattern Language (1977), and The Timeless Way of Building (1979). With Chermayeff he published Community and Privacy (1963). Advocating that designer, builder, and user should be either one and the same, or work closely together, he promoted self-build housing, and was involved in the evolution of user-designed apartment buildings at St Quentin-en-Yvelines, near Paris (1974), and elsewhere. More recently he has observed that most of the contemporary ways of dealing with architecture have been ‘insane’, and that we need to find new ways in order to become ‘reconnected to ourselves’. To him, Deconstructivism is ‘nonsensical’. From 2002 he published, through the Center for Environmental Structure, Berkeley, CA, The Nature of Order, setting out the essence of his ideas.

Bibliography

C. Alexander et al. (1985, 1987)
Wi. Curtis (1996)
Kalman (1994)
Grabow (1983)
Salingaros et al. (2004)
Jane Turner (1996)

The full bibliography for this book is available to download as a pdf file.

歌德 Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

2011-08-29T18:28:00.000-07:00

1999年德國大舉慶歌德誕生250周年
我與Simon 通信中討論到Goethe -- Simon 不怎麼喜歡他尤其是不欣賞其"科學"的非專業/玩票
不過他也拿起歌德作品翻翻 (我忘記他讀那一本應該不是義大利遊記)

----
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (German pronunciation: [ˈjoːhan ˈvɔlfɡaŋ fɔn ˈɡøːtə] ( listen), 28 August 1749 – 22 March 1832)
歌德獎章在魏瑪頒發

樂觀主義者和謹慎的懷疑論者在周日（8月28日）相會於魏瑪參加今年歌德獎章的頒發儀式。今年歌德獎章被授予一位法國製片人，一名波蘭時政記者以及一位英國暢銷書作家。

"對於我們來說，這樣一個歐洲文化項目是打開了監獄的大門。"來自波蘭的米奇尼克（Adam Michnik）這樣說到。英國作家大衛·康威爾(David Cornwell)和約翰勒·卡雷（John le Carré）認為"歐洲現正處於令人擔憂的境地。文化機構和人民的距離從來沒有如此巨大。"

歐洲作為文化空間

成立60年以來，歌德學院一直希望通過歌德獎章的頒發來強調歐洲聲音的重要性，在頒獎之外還會組織相應的討論會。歌德學院主席克勞斯- 迪特爾·萊曼（Klaus-Dieter Lehmann）強調說：" 因為共同的文化之根使我們聯結在一起，我們的工作現在將來都會基於歐洲這片土地。"同時，他還推動一場"文化覺醒"。他說到，歐盟，一個同樣也是歐洲各國人民語言、文化共同的空間，在今天被更多地看作是政治和經濟的聯盟。這將會導致公民與政治的疏離。萊曼致頒獎詞萊曼致頒獎詞

他還強調，"我們必須摒棄制度化的歐洲"。勒卡雷也表達了相似的觀點。 "我們在自由的空氣中生活了那麼久，即便我們民主的製度中也存在瑕疵。"他強調道，民粹主義與社會不公平現象正在以同樣的速度不斷擴張， "我們必須當心"。波蘭評論家米奇尼克則不這麼認為，他表示，歐洲政治儘管存在過一些失誤，但對於世界其他地區仍然是一個積極的樣板。米奇尼克笑著總結道："歐洲肯定可以沒有政客而生存- 但卻不能沒有約翰勒卡雷的書。"觀眾席中爆發出掌聲。

寬容、批判、團結

萊曼在他對米奇尼克的頒獎詞中稱他是"勇敢，堅定，寬容的波蘭反對派"，是一個"擁有政治熱情，並能夠換位思考的中歐知識分子。"亞當·米奇尼克在波蘭共產黨中屬於公民權利活動家，地下黨成員，一直致力於東歐與西歐關係的緩和，尤其是德國與波蘭的和解，並支持獨立的工會運動。他曾多次被投入監獄。波蘭社會變革後米奇尼克成為波蘭發行量最大，極具影響力的日報《選舉日報》（Gazeta Wyborcza）的主編。他是一位著名的時政評論家，同時也是波蘭優秀的知識分子之一。

John le Carré - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

John le Carré: The author's official websi

約翰·勒卡雷被萊曼稱為偉大的人文主義文學作家，對時事擁有著批判和敏銳的觀察，並具有"混亂和動蕩的全球意識"以及"對其他文化極大的好奇心。"萊曼還提到這位英國作家對德語的偏愛。這位間諜驚悚小說大師也是"最突出的以德語寫作的英國作家"。他在年輕時代學習德語，之後在設在瑞士，奧地利，德國的英國外交部門，情報部門工作。 1963年他出版了他的第一部小說《冷戰諜魂》。這本書像勒卡雷之後的許多作品一樣，描寫冷戰時期以當時冷戰雙方骯髒的間諜戰-這本書取得世界範圍內的巨大成功。直至今日，這位80多歲的作家依舊和社會時政主題打交道- 黑手黨，腐敗，恐怖主義。 "這些話題於他而言，永遠不會過時，"萊曼預言。

缺席的獲獎者

今年第三枚歌德獎章由法國女導演阿里亞娜·莫努虛金（Ariane Mnouchkine）獲得。但因為電影的緊張拍攝她無法前來魏瑪。萊曼稱她為"導演女神"，"一個直接關注人類的戲劇天才"，還特別讚揚她對藝術自由和受迫害藝術家的貢獻。

現在72歲的莫努虛金四十度年前創立了"劇場劇團" （Theatre du Soleil），其以獨特的，多彩童話般的，但同時也具有明確政治含義的戲劇引起轟動。他們與許多國家保持緊密的聯繫。例如2005年，莫努虛金和她的演員們就在阿富汗的戲劇工作坊進行排練表演。

歌德獎章是1955年以來每年頒發一次。歌德學院每年向那些在傳播德語語言以及為國際文化交流中做出貢獻的個人頒獎。歌德獎章是聯邦德國的正式勳章。歷屆歌德獎獲得者包括：指揮家巴倫博伊姆(Daniel Barenboim)、作曲家布列茲(Pierre Boulez)、建築師裡伯斯金(Daniel Libeskind)、以及作家克呂格(Ruth Klüger) 、桑普蘭(Jorge Semprun)。

作者： Cornelia Rabitz 編譯：林實

責編：葉宣

歌德奖章在魏玛颁发

乐观主义者和谨慎的怀疑论者在周日（8月28日）相会于魏玛参加今年歌德奖章的颁发仪式。今年歌德奖章被授予一位法国制片人，一名波兰时政记者以及一位英国畅销书作家。

卡耐基-梅隆大學(CMU)校長室的告別紀念會之信 2001

2011-08-24T00:32:00.000-07:00

There is no limit to the amount of good you can do in the World,
if you do not try to take the credit (Benjamin Franklin)

2001年3月16日回永和，接到卡耐基-梅隆大學(CMU)校長室（Office of the President）的信，稱呼我' Dr. Hanching Chung' 的。（司馬賀的朋友也許遍天下，大概很少沒博士銜的，這樣稱呼最保險。）

原來是該校校長室和董事會（Boards of Trustee）邀請我參加3月18日的告別紀念會的；內有特別事件辦公室（Office of Special Events）。我嘆聲氣。決定在網路上紀念你。可惜你一向未介紹師母，我未能致點哀，失禮。

你的正式銜是：Herbert A. Simon
The Richard King Mellon University of Computer Science and Psychology

我們的紀念專輯就從這職銜談起罷！今晨讀你的演講和訪問，神情活現。

無限緬懷司馬賀教授 :Herbert Simon( 1916-2001)I interview with your sharpest needle in the Haystack, we might agree that we had our satificed lives.

Simon 與Kant 對話 (語言領域)

2011-08-17T07:45:00.000-07:00

晚上讀
聲音與現象根本不懂想到HAS 在人工科學一書中一段與Kant 對話 (語言領域) 的一段通信
Simon 解釋一下他的用意我根本沒讀過康德在這方面的論述

電影

2011-07-31T22:14:00.000-07:00

Simon 結婚生子前很迷電影太太分娩時他在戲院

人工智能一書中關於電影名和內容有小差錯我去信更正之

Hitchcock: The Man Behind the Movies

He's been called the master of suspense. But Alfred Hitchcock isn't without a bit of mystery of his own. A rare collection of Hitchcock sketches was recently discovered in England.

They were storyboards from one of his movies. And they seem to offer some fascinating insights into the legendary director's creative mind. Nick Glass has the details in this week's edition of "The Revealer."

Digital analysis (the connoisseur)

2011-07-31T19:12:00.000-07:00

Art criticism and computers

Painting by numbers

Digital analysis is invading the world of the connoisseur

Jul 30th 2011 | from the print edition

JUDGING artistic styles, and the similarities between them, might be thought one bastion of human skill that machines could never storm. Not so, if Lior Shamir at Lawrence Technological University in Michigan is correct. A paper he has just published in Leonardo suggests that computers may have just as good an eye for style as humans do—and, in some cases, may see connections between artists that human critics have missed.

Dr Shamir, a computer scientist, presented 57 images by each of nine painters—Salvador Dalí, Giorgio de Chirico, Max Ernst, Vasily Kandinsky, Claude Monet, Jackson Pollock, Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Mark Rothko and Vincent van Gogh—to a computer, to see what it made of them. The computer broke the images into a number of so-called numerical descriptors. These descriptors quantified textures and colours, the statistical distribution of edges across a canvas, the distributions of particular types of shape, the intensity of the colour of individual points on a painting, and also the nature of any fractal-like patterns within it (fractals are features that reproduce similar shapes at different scales; the edges of snowflakes, for example).

All told, the computer identified 4,027 different numerical descriptors. Once their values had been established for each of the 513 artworks that had been fed into it, it was ready to do the analysis.

Dr Shamir’s aim was to look for quantifiable ways of distinguishing between the work of different artists. If such things could be established, it might make the task of deciding who painted what a little easier. Such decisions matter because, even excluding deliberate forgeries, there are many paintings in existence that cannot conclusively be attributed to a master rather than his pupils, or that may be honestly made copies whose provenance is now lost.

To look for such distinguishing features, Dr Shamir programmed the computer to use a statistical method that scores the strength of the distance between the values of two or more descriptors for each pair of artists. As a result, he was able to rank each of the 4,027 descriptors by how useful it was at discriminating between artists.

Surprisingly, the values of 19 of the 20 most informative descriptors showed dramatically higher similarities between Van Gogh (left below) and Pollock (right) than between Van Gogh and painters such as Monet and Renoir, who conventional art criticism would think more closely related to Van Gogh’s oeuvre than Pollock’s is. (Dalí and Ernst, by contrast, were farther apart then expected.)

What is interesting, according to Dr Shamir, is that no single feature makes Pollock’s artistic style similar to Van Gogh’s. Instead, the connection is based on a broad set of image-content descriptors which reflect many aspects of the two artists’ styles, including a shared preference for low-level textures and shapes, and similarities in the ways they employed lines and edges.

What was intended, then, as a way of improving the ability to distinguish between different hands has also thrown up a new way of looking for stylistic similarities. Whether Pollock was actually influenced by Van Gogh, or merely happened upon a similar way of doing things through a similar artistic sensibility, is not clear. But it gives art historians a new line of investigation to pursue.

Kenneth J. Arrow says US debt limit concept is 'crazy idea'

2011-07-20T17:57:00.000-07:00

United States | 20.07.2011

Nobel Laureate says US debt limit concept is 'crazy idea'

Despite all the partisan political posturing, Nobel Prize winning economist Kenneth Arrow rates the risk that the US debt limit won't be raised as low. He also tells Deutsche Welle why the debt limit is a crazy idea.

Kenneth J. Arrow is professor of economics emeritus at Stanford University and winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics in 1972. He is the youngest Nobel Laureate to have been awarded the prize in economics. Arrow also served on the White House Council of Economic Advisers under President John F. Kennedy.

Deutsche Welle: What many people around the world probably still deem impossible and what for many experts seemed unrealistic just a few weeks back could become reality. The US, the world's biggest economy and strongest power, may be unable meet its debt payments within days. How big is the risk that the US will in fact default?

Kenneth Arrow: I think it's unlikely. I think that the pressures from the financial sector are going to be sufficient to avoid this. I have seen proposals such as the one by Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to somehow dodge the issue. I have a feeling that's how it is going to end up, but you can't be 100 percent sure. It could be that they somehow have a deadlock in which case the debt limit will be not raised. There's a 10 percent chance that could happen.

With each day of failed political talks in Washington to raise the debt limit the US is edging closer to default and the finger pointing between Democrats and Republicans intensifies. Is the impression one gets from abroad correct that the political players are worried more about not blinking too early and scoring a political victory than about avoiding a possible fiasco?

There are a lot of factors at work here and one I think is ideology. There are some people in the Republican Party who have said they wouldn't vote for an increase in the debt limit no matter what concessions are made. They just feel the government is too big and we should cut it back and this is a very convenient weapon. So it's not entirely just about political advantage.

There is that of course in every political confrontation in every democratic country that's true. But the same Republican Minority Leader, Senator McConnell, said a few months ago my main aim in everything is to make sure that President Obama is a one-term president. So he said explicitly that political advantage is what he is concerned about. So I think there is a mixture of reasons.

Couldn't they just detach the political issue over taxes and spending for the time being and raise the debt limit simply to avert a default which is arguably in no one's interest or is this too naïve?

Of course. The whole thing to my mind is somehow a crazy idea. We have a budgetary process. We have a budget and it was passed earlier this year. Why isn't that the end of the story? Why is there a separate vote on the debt limit? When you have a budget that has certain implications for the debt you don't know exactly what they are because tax revenues at least are uncertain. So when you pass a budget you have projections, but you don't actually know what's going to happen. So the question is why don't you just pass the budget and if you need to borrow you borrow. That's all there is to it. So why is there a second vote?

This is an old thing and I don't know how far back this principle goes. But typically the debt limit has been automatically raised. It's not really controversial. So the idea that we have a vote on the debt limit is crazy in my opinion. You make a budgetary decision, you have your debate and that's it. But once it's there it's used as a political weapon and people don't want to abandon it. It's the same with the filibuster rule in the Senate, but I won't go into that.

There is disagreement over the severity and the consequences of failing to raise the debt limit or an actual default. How bad would the failure to raise the debt limit be in concrete, practical terms?

It would be bad obviously, but more for symbolic reasons. The possibility of a default is very well known and that means that the immediate consequences would be much less severe than if there is a sudden collapse coming out of nowhere as it happened for instance with the subprime mortgage fiasco. The financial system has been adjusting to this.

Second, the fundamental soundness of the United States is not really in question. The United States obviously has an edge by being able to borrow as a safe borrower and as the place where foreigners park their money in times of trouble. And we see that currently by the fact that the interest rate of US government debt is extremely low in spite of the financial problems. In fact if you go back a number of years you find that the United States has been borrowing money at low rates of interest even during prosperity and investing abroad at relatively high returns because the US is considered safe.

Now this is going to shake that somewhat. Not too much, because everybody knows that fundamentally there is no real problem and it's just a political issue. Still it does mean that the United States is a less stable country politically than was expected and it will have consequences.

So how would this play out?

I think the first reaction would be to cut something else. Social security would be possible target because it would be a very big political signal. But at some point there will demands as to why shouldn't the holders of government bonds suffer if the poor, old people are suffering. That will be the next in line. I think at that point or even before that you will see a big rise in interest rates.

Government debt will start going down and of course this will affect the holdings of banks throughout the world. So I suppose there will be a tightening of the belt and I imagine there will be spillover to private enterprise. In any case interest rates will rise, that's a clear consequence and when interest rates rise that is going to affect investment in the United States and abroad probably.

My feeling is there would be lowering of the American economy and probably some of the European economies too because the banking systems are so interlinked. Probably China will be the net gainer in all of this. They will be getting more money on the bonds they hold on the United States.

Interview: Michael Knigge
Editor: Rob Mudge

繞地球7.5周

2011-07-18T00:41:00.001-07:00

謝謝KJ 轉給我的信：

仲庸的日本辦公室同事儀勳說：『對永遠的大哥，也是 Mr. Always Say Yes--劉san 大家的阿伯，致上最深的悼念與敬意. …..』

我們通常不太知道：自己在朋友心中的形象？

所以有些人如卜少夫先生或曹又方女士，採取生前讓朋友公開”懷念或送別的方式…..

(今年6月15日在中原大學，三呆介紹我，讓我自己嚇一跳….)

***

人人都有另外一面。我們的2位大樓管理員，各有妙處：一位經常在研究”號碼”名牌，另一位在2周前某天晚上，給他兩位朋友架著，在這片水泥森林中尋找家……

暑假總有新室內裝璜工程，所以兩處的電梯間都被”保護”起來。換句話說，三個月內在電梯間看不到鏡子。據Ackoff 先生等說，此鏡對”等待”的人的”去除焦慮”心理，是相當重要的。所以我偶爾小破壞一下，不過立刻給人修好…….妙的是，修的人不是裝璜相關人，而是另有好事(公益)者。

工人帶來另外的、似曾相似的文化：便當，午睡說安全梯，Radio 的節目更妙…….

***

昨夜窗子紗窗失靈，所以苦讀張君勱先生百齡冥誕紀念文集/張君勱先生遺著叢書……。印象最深刻的是蔣復璁先生的回憶，他說張先生有不忍人之心

所以不搭人力車等一向安步當車所以很健康…..

Herbert Simon 也有他的設計他到卡內基理工 (後來改為CMU) 任教時買的房子距學校適中每天上學僕徒步如此他70歲時已繞地球7.5周

----

1986年在內壢MOTOROLA上班三呆建議在附近買屋……反正沒錢命…..

Herbert Simon 的說法: 任何學問都可自修

2011-07-13T23:02:00.001-07:00

感謝Kenny 送的安全文化會議的紀錄

Kenny 來談起他高中讀過的這本感人的故事 (包括性的描寫) 約翰克利斯朵夫 (傅雷譯 ) 約翰克利斯朵夫Jean-Christophe
(他買一套送兒子兒子將它當壁紙.....)

這是我初二讀過的不過幾乎都忘了
上大一時老康借的是英譯本那時我還自以為先知先覺

他大學通學車上都苦K 尼采的查拉圖書特拉
這本我1977年才買企鵝版現在還沒全讀完
前幾年中國出幾本詳註譯本說許多句是從聖經來的

我喜歡聽朋友的教養過程的讀書故事
我大一是在中央書局約160元買未央歌 (當時普通物理/微積分等翻印書約50元) 大三下才重拾讀完
英文方面是買虹橋翻印的羅素作品 (圖書館有數學原理 只能讚嘆
( 我高一自修過符號邏輯竟然可以作習題讀完它所以我後來深信Herbert Simon 的說法: 任何學問都可自修)

How to cope with data overload

2011-07-06T07:30:00.000-07:00

Too much information 這一問題 HERBERT SIMON 先生在30-40年就提出他的一些辦法
譬如說將看報/網路的時間和頻率漸減從讀每日新聞改成周刊/月刊還有其他.....

Schumpeter

How to cope with data overload

Jun 30th 2011 | from the print edition

Correction to this article

GOOGLE “information overload” and you are immediately overloaded with information: more than 7m hits in 0.05 seconds. Some of this information is interesting: for example, that the phrase “information overload” was popularised by Alvin Toffler in 1970. Some of it is mere noise: obscure companies promoting their services and even more obscure bloggers sounding off. The overall impression is at once overwhelming and confusing.

“Information overload” is one of the biggest irritations in modern life. There are e-mails to answer, virtual friends to pester, YouTube videos to watch and, back in the physical world, meetings to attend, papers to shuffle and spouses to appease. A survey by Reuters once found that two-thirds of managers believe that the data deluge has made their jobs less satisfying or hurt their personal relationships. One-third think that it has damaged their health. Another survey suggests that most managers think most of the information they receive is useless.

Commentators have coined a profusion of phrases to describe the anxiety and anomie caused by too much information: “data asphyxiation” (William van Winkle), “data smog” (David Shenk), “information fatigue syndrome” (David Lewis), “cognitive overload” (Eric Schmidt) and “time famine” (Leslie Perlow). Johann Hari, a British journalist, notes that there is a good reason why “wired” means both “connected to the internet” and “high, frantic, unable to concentrate”.

These worries are exaggerated. Stick-in-the-muds have always complained about new technologies: the Victorians fussed that the telegraph meant that “the businessman of the present day must be continually on the jump.” And businesspeople have always had to deal with constant pressure and interruptions—hence the word “business”. In his classic study of managerial work in 1973 Henry Mintzberg compared managers to jugglers: they keep 50 balls in the air and periodically check on each one before sending it aloft once more.

Yet clearly there is a problem. It is not merely the dizzying increase in the volume of information (the amount of data being stored doubles every 18 months). It is also the combination of omnipresence and fragmentation. Many professionals are welded to their smartphones. They are also constantly bombarded with unrelated bits and pieces—a poke from a friend one moment, the latest Greek financial tragedy the next.

The data fog is thickening at a time when companies are trying to squeeze ever more out of their workers. A survey in America by Spherion Staffing discovered that 53% of workers had been compelled to take on extra tasks since the recession started. This dismal trend may well continue—many companies remain reluctant to hire new people even as business picks up. So there will be little respite from the dense data smog, which some researchers fear may be poisonous.

They raise three big worries. First, information overload can make people feel anxious and powerless: scientists have discovered that multitaskers produce more stress hormones. Second, overload can reduce creativity. Teresa Amabile of Harvard Business School has spent more than a decade studying the work habits of 238 people, collecting a total of 12,000 diary entries between them. She finds that focus and creativity are connected. People are more likely to be creative if they are allowed to focus on something for some time without interruptions. If constantly interrupted or forced to attend meetings, they are less likely to be creative. Third, overload can also make workers less productive. David Meyer, of the University of Michigan, has shown that people who complete certain tasks in parallel take much longer and make many more errors than people who complete the same tasks in sequence.

Curbing the cacophony

What can be done about information overload? One answer is technological: rely on the people who created the fog to invent filters that will clean it up. Xerox promises to restore “information sanity” by developing better filtering and managing devices. Google is trying to improve its online searches by taking into account more personal information. (Some people fret that this will breach their privacy, but it will probably deliver quicker, more accurate searches.) A popular computer program called “Freedom” disconnects you from the web at preset times.

A second answer involves willpower. Ration your intake. Turn off your mobile phone and internet from time to time.

But such ruses are not enough. Smarter filters cannot stop people from obsessively checking their BlackBerrys. Some do so because it makes them feel important; others because they may be addicted to the “dopamine squirt” they get from receiving messages, as Edward Hallowell and John Ratey, two academics, have argued. And self-discipline can be counter-productive if your company doesn’t embrace it. Some bosses get shirty if their underlings are unreachable even for a few minutes.

Most companies are better at giving employees access to the information superhighway than at teaching them how to drive. This is starting to change. Management consultants have spotted an opportunity. Derek Dean and Caroline Webb of McKinsey urge businesses to embrace three principles to deal with data overload: find time to focus, filter out noise and forget about work when you can. Business leaders are chipping in. David Novak of Yum! Brands urges people to ask themselves whether what they are doing is constructive or a mere “activity”. John Doerr, a venture capitalist, urges people to focus on a narrow range of objectives and filter out everything else. Cristobal Conde of SunGard, an IT firm, preserves “thinking time” in his schedule when he cannot be disturbed. This might sound like common sense. But common sense is rare amid the cacophony of corporate life.

Herb. SIMON 好辯

2011-06-20T00:35:00.000-07:00

"徐復觀講座、被家屬控告，這是怎麼回事？" 據許老師說事先未徵詢家屬之同意這可能有"專名權的問題
以前Berg 先生將他的公司賣給杜邦公司後來--30年後 杜邦公司決定賣掉它

某公司買DuPont Connector System公司要改回原先的公司名 Berg Electronics

他們取得Berg 先生的遺孀的同意

我說的校友會介入歷史系的內政是我認為這很可能是學校的行政權
校友會可以放砲就像我過去浪費許多時間寫些東西一樣但是介入人事是不恰當的除非接到投訴與校方共同處理這樣可能有點"合法"

我想再追憶一下上周末許老師的一些重要的話
總體而我希望許老師可寫小說或回憶錄
(前衛會出版他的散文精選集)

我提起郭冠英90年代企畫的張學良不精彩--- 張的部下品質很差張晚年很得意 "他家不收刮土地有錢是做買賣的" 可惜沒講做什麼買賣..... 許老師提醒我們張的藏書大半捐給東海所以研究它們 (不少是外文) 也可以了解張---- me: 只是有書跟研讀過該書很難建立關係......

看來許老師夫婦已挑出美國藏書要送東海的因為他提到有本 JimmyＣarter 簽名的書似不宜送免得後人誤解 (他事先簽300本給書商發因為現場戒備森嚴)....

許老師是芝加哥大學畢業的所以問起 Herb. SIMON來
我跟他解釋Leo Strauss的學生的圍勦事件現在可以補充
用Simon 自己的話

在第4章裡，我談到了政治學中的行為主義運動，它的先鋒是芝加哥大學的查爾斯‧梅里亞姆(C.Merriam)的系。赫伯特‧斯托林(H.Storing)編了一本書，書名叫《政治學的科學研究論文集》，在這本書裡，他每人一章分別批判了行為主義的帶頭人物，其中也包括我。

要回答這個政擊，需要一本同《管理行為》一樣厚的書，我壓根也沒想過寫這樣一本書。在我看來，《管理行為》一書本身就為自己做了最好的辯獲。我的判斷似乎經受住了時間的考驗，時光的流逝並沒有減少這本書的光彩。

當然，我現在仍然被指控為“實證主義”，而且好像這是多大一個罪過似的，不是大罪也是小罪。同時，至今仍有相當普遍的人不太理解，如果在前提中不是至少有一個“應當”的話，為什麼就不能按邏輯推導出“應當”來。然而，我想這些困難與斯托林的書沒有多大聯繫。它們起源現今的總趨勢，把實證主義作為貶義詞用，而對於實證主義者相信的是什麼，卻沒有個清楚的概念。

在經濟學方面，論戰開始得比較緩慢。我最初的攻擊是幾篇關於稅會落在誰的身上[1]和技術改變的文章，這幾篇論文與新古典主義的框架相安無事。然後是幾篇文章，建議需要認識到理性的限度以便創造比較真實的企業形象。在這些論文中，已經提供了進行這種挑戰的素材。

[1] 著者對此的解釋是，例如，房東按法律理應交稅，但是他通過提高房租的辦法，將稅“轉嫁”到房客頭上。—譯注

許老師跟我們介紹美國的保險制
他還講了一則老友婦產科醫師的糗事
為了防止醫療糾紛賠償他將所有財產過給太太所以有一次到大學辦事車被拖走
辛苦找到拖吊場不給車因為連車子都是太太的
只好打電話要求授權取車
許老師說朋友人生賺這樣多錢意義何在?

H A. Simon的冥誕 2011

2011-06-15T08:17:00.000-07:00

這活動對我準備投影片2天 99張
6/15 歷時 (含交通)約7小時半
將陸續公布相關資料和照片敬請期待 (王老師今天簽近80人的書不亦樂乎.....)
我在介紹約200年前法國人畫拿破侖的兵力損失圖時
突然了解這種圖可以用來表示各種 "損失函數" 譬如說等車的不對稱損失......

恰好今天是H A. Simon的冥誕
我在演講中指出Simon 在1999年給我的一封信
談如何將自己的學校當一組織/系列來研究

我還舉舉2009年演講題目是台中港路
這對東海大學而言是系統的環境---2位來自台中的博士生的印象就很深刻.....其一還是吳國精先生的親戚
鳥瞰20世紀的品質、生產力與系統思考中的變革：一些反思

v如何教管理學（Administration）是個難題。目前美國大多數商學院所選出來的MBA（企管碩士）大多至少有兩、三年商業實務經驗，這樣教起來就極不一樣了。

v要是學生沒有這種經驗背景，我總是試著要求學生把所就學的的大學看成一個組織，以組織學的話來看待大學中的事情，從而能把大學當作實驗室的代替品。

v這並不改變你的論點（按：其實這是司馬賀在自傳《我生活的種種模式》中的看法）：許多管理學上的原理（principles）很簡單而又明白清楚；難在如何根據所信的原理養成力行的習慣。

v然而，我們不該從中得出結論說：習慣是不可改的。（按:《管理行為》中有專節討論組織的習慣與創新。）

The organization of complex systems - Simon

2011-06-11T18:02:00.001-07:00

有關 herbert simon organization complex system 的學術文章
	The organization of complex systems - Simon - 被引用 498 次 The sciences of the artificial - Simon - 被引用 10463 次 The architecture of complexity - Simon - 被引用 2907 次

搜尋結果

[PDF]
The Organization of Complex Systems - Simplicity & Complexity
- [ 翻譯這個網頁 ]
檔案類型: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - 快速檢視
由 HA SIMON 著作 - 被引用 498 次 - 相關文章
The Organization of Complex Systems. HERBERT A. SIMON .... HERBERT A. SIMON suffer the fate of Sisyphus: As often as he rolls the rock up ...
blog.santafe.edu/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/simon1973.pdf - 類似內容
Herbert Simon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- [ 翻譯這個網頁 ]
Herbert Simon was educated as a child in the public school system in ... Any given individual or organization attempting to implement this model in a .... The papers grouped under the category "The Structure of Complex Systems"– dealing ...

A man-made world

2011-05-30T16:58:00.000-07:00

當然這一領悟
多少與"自然科學"和"人工科學"的區分方式相關

The Anthropocene

A man-made world

Science is recognising humans as a geological force to be reckoned with

May 26th 2011 | from the print edition

THE here and now are defined by astronomy and geology. Astronomy takes care of the here: a planet orbiting a yellow star embedded in one of the spiral arms of the Milky Way, a galaxy that is itself part of the Virgo supercluster, one of millions of similarly vast entities dotted through the sky. Geology deals with the now: the 10,000-year-old Holocene epoch, a peculiarly stable and clement part of the Quaternary period, a time distinguished by regular shifts into and out of ice ages. The Quaternary forms part of the 65m-year Cenozoic era, distinguished by the opening of the North Atlantic, the rise of the Himalayas, and the widespread presence of mammals and flowering plants. This era in turn marks the most recent part of the Phanerozoic aeon, the 540m-year chunk of the Earth’s history wherein rocks with fossils of complex organisms can be found. The regularity of celestial clockwork and the solid probity of rock give these co-ordinates a reassuring constancy.

Now there is a movement afoot to change humanity’s co-ordinates. In 2000 Paul Crutzen, an eminent atmospheric chemist, realised he no longer believed he was living in the Holocene. He was living in some other age, one shaped primarily by people. From their trawlers scraping the floors of the seas to their dams impounding sediment by the gigatonne, from their stripping of forests to their irrigation of farms, from their mile-deep mines to their melting of glaciers, humans were bringing about an age of planetary change. With a colleague, Eugene Stoermer, Dr Crutzen suggested this age be called the Anthropocene—“the recent age of man”.

The term has slowly picked up steam, both within the sciences (the International Commission on Stratigraphy, ultimate adjudicator of the geological time scale, is taking a formal interest) and beyond. This May statements on the environment by concerned Nobel laureates and the Pontifical Academy of Sciences both made prominent use of the term, capitalising on the way in which it dramatises the sheer scale of human activity.

The advent of the Anthropocene promises more, though, than a scientific nicety or a new way of grabbing the eco-jaded public’s attention. The term “paradigm shift” is bandied around with promiscuous ease. But for the natural sciences to make human activity central to its conception of the world, rather than a distraction, would mark such a shift for real. For centuries, science has progressed by making people peripheral. In the 16th century Nicolaus Copernicus moved the Earth from its privileged position at the centre of the universe. In the 18th James Hutton opened up depths of geological time that dwarf the narrow now. In the 19th Charles Darwin fitted humans onto a single twig of the evolving tree of life. As Simon Lewis, an ecologist at the University of Leeds, points out, embracing the Anthropocene as an idea means reversing this trend. It means treating humans not as insignificant observers of the natural world but as central to its workings, elemental in their force.

Sous la plage, les pavés

The most common way of distinguishing periods of geological time is by means of the fossils they contain. On this basis picking out the Anthropocene in the rocks of days to come will be pretty easy. Cities will make particularly distinctive fossils. A city on a fast-sinking river delta (and fast-sinking deltas, undermined by the pumping of groundwater and starved of sediment by dams upstream, are common Anthropocene environments) could spend millions of years buried and still, when eventually uncovered, reveal through its crushed structures and weird mixtures of materials that it is unlike anything else in the geological record.

The fossils of living creatures will be distinctive, too. Geologists define periods through assemblages of fossil life reliably found together. One of the characteristic markers of the Anthropocene will be the widespread remains of organisms that humans use, or that have adapted to life in a human-dominated world. According to studies by Erle Ellis, an ecologist at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, the vast majority of ecosystems on the planet now reflect the presence of people. There are, for instance, more trees on farms than in wild forests. And these anthropogenic biomes are spread about the planet in a way that the ecological arrangements of the prehuman world were not. The fossil record of the Anthropocene will thus show a planetary ecosystem homogenised through domestication.

More sinisterly, there are the fossils that will not be found. Although it is not yet inevitable, scientists warn that if current trends of habitat loss continue, exacerbated by the effects of climate change, there could be an imminent and dramatic number of extinctions before long.

All these things would show future geologists that humans had been present. But though they might be diagnostic of the time in which humans lived, they would not necessarily show that those humans shaped their time in the way that people pushing the idea of the Anthropocene want to argue. The strong claim of those announcing the recent dawning of the age of man is that humans are not just spreading over the planet, but are changing the way it works.

Such workings are the province of Earth-system science, which sees the planet not just as a set of places, or as the subject of a history, but also as a system of forces, flows and feedbacks that act upon each other. This system can behave in distinctive and counterintuitive ways, including sometimes flipping suddenly from one state to another. To an Earth-system scientist the difference between the Quaternary period (which includes the Holocene) and the Neogene, which came before it, is not just what was living where, or what the sea level was; it is that in the Neogene the climate stayed stable whereas in the Quaternary it swung in and out of a series of ice ages. The Earth worked differently in the two periods.

The clearest evidence for the system working differently in the Anthropocene comes from the recycling systems on which life depends for various crucial elements. In the past couple of centuries people have released quantities of fossil carbon that the planet took hundreds of millions of years to store away. This has given them a commanding role in the planet’s carbon cycle.

Although the natural fluxes of carbon dioxide into and out of the atmosphere are still more than ten times larger than the amount that humans put in every year by burning fossil fuels, the human addition matters disproportionately because it unbalances those natural flows. As Mr Micawber wisely pointed out, a small change in income can, in the absence of a compensating change in outlays, have a disastrous effect. The result of putting more carbon into the atmosphere than can be taken out of it is a warmer climate, a melting Arctic, higher sea levels, improvements in the photosynthetic efficiency of many plants, an intensification of the hydrologic cycle of evaporation and precipitation, and new ocean chemistry.

All of these have knock-on effects both on people and on the processes of the planet. More rain means more weathering of mountains. More efficient photosynthesis means less evaporation from croplands. And the changes in ocean chemistry are the sort of thing that can be expected to have a direct effect on the geological record if carbon levels rise far enough.

At a recent meeting of the Geological Society of London that was devoted to thinking about the Anthropocene and its geological record, Toby Tyrrell of the University of Southampton pointed out that pale carbonate sediments—limestones, chalks and the like—cannot be laid down below what is called a “carbonate compensation depth”. And changes in chemistry brought about by the fossil-fuel carbon now accumulating in the ocean will raise the carbonate compensation depth, rather as a warmer atmosphere raises the snowline on mountains. Some ocean floors which are shallow enough for carbonates to precipitate out as sediment in current conditions will be out of the game when the compensation depth has risen, like ski resorts too low on a warming alp. New carbonates will no longer be laid down. Old ones will dissolve. This change in patterns of deep-ocean sedimentation will result in a curious, dark band of carbonate-free rock—rather like that which is seen in sediments from the Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum, an episode of severe greenhouse warming brought on by the release of pent-up carbon 56m years ago.

The fix is in

No Dickensian insights are necessary to appreciate the scale of human intervention in the nitrogen cycle. One crucial part of this cycle—the fixing of pure nitrogen from the atmosphere into useful nitrogen-containing chemicals—depends more or less entirely on living things (lightning helps a bit). And the living things doing most of that work are now people (see chart). By adding industrial clout to the efforts of the microbes that used to do the job single-handed, humans have increased the annual amount of nitrogen fixed on land by more than 150%. Some of this is accidental. Burning fossil fuels tends to oxidise nitrogen at the same time. The majority is done on purpose, mostly to make fertilisers. This has a variety of unwholesome consequences, most importantly the increasing number of coastal “dead zones” caused by algal blooms feeding on fertiliser-rich run-off waters.

Industrial nitrogen’s greatest environmental impact, though, is to increase the number of people. Although nitrogen fixation is not just a gift of life—it has been estimated that 100m people were killed by explosives made with industrially fixed nitrogen in the 20th century’s wars—its net effect has been to allow a huge growth in population. About 40% of the nitrogen in the protein that humans eat today got into that food by way of artificial fertiliser. There would be nowhere near as many people doing all sorts of other things to the planet if humans had not sped the nitrogen cycle up.

It is also worth noting that unlike many of humanity’s other effects on the planet, the remaking of the nitrogen cycle was deliberate. In the late 19th century scientists diagnosed a shortage of nitrogen as a planet-wide problem. Knowing that natural processes would not improve the supply, they invented an artificial one, the Haber process, that could make up the difference. It was, says Mark Sutton of the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in Edinburgh, the first serious human attempt at geoengineering the planet to bring about a desired goal. The scale of its success outstripped the imaginings of its instigators. So did the scale of its unintended consequences.

For many of those promoting the idea of the Anthropocene, further geoengineering may now be in order, this time on the carbon front. Left to themselves, carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere are expected to remain high for 1,000 years—more, if emissions continue to go up through this century. It is increasingly common to hear climate scientists arguing that this means things should not be left to themselves—that the goal of the 21st century should be not just to stop the amount of carbon in the atmosphere increasing, but to start actively decreasing it. This might be done in part by growing forests (see article) and enriching soils, but it might also need more high-tech interventions, such as burning newly grown plant matter in power stations and pumping the resulting carbon dioxide into aquifers below the surface, or scrubbing the air with newly contrived chemical-engineering plants, or intervening in ocean chemistry in ways that would increase the sea’s appetite for the air’s carbon.

To think of deliberately interfering in the Earth system will undoubtedly be alarming to some. But so will an Anthropocene deprived of such deliberation. A way to try and split the difference has been propounded by a group of Earth-system scientists inspired by (and including) Dr Crutzen under the banner of “planetary boundaries”. The planetary-boundaries group, which published a sort of manifesto in 2009, argues for increased restraint and, where necessary, direct intervention aimed at bringing all sorts of things in the Earth system, from the alkalinity of the oceans to the rate of phosphate run-off from the land, close to the conditions pertaining in the Holocene. Carbon-dioxide levels, the researchers recommend, should be brought back from whatever they peak at to a level a little higher than the Holocene’s and a little lower than today’s.

The idea behind this precautionary approach is not simply that things were good the way they were. It is that the further the Earth system gets from the stable conditions of the Holocene, the more likely it is to slip into a whole new state and change itself yet further.

You maniacs! You blew it up!

The Earth’s history shows that the planet can indeed tip from one state to another, amplifying the sometimes modest changes which trigger the transition. The nightmare would be a flip to some permanently altered state much further from the Holocene than things are today: a hotter world with much less productive oceans, for example. Such things cannot be ruled out. On the other hand, the invocation of poorly defined tipping points is a well worn rhetorical trick for stirring the fears of people unperturbed by current, relatively modest, changes.

In general, the goal of staying at or returning close to Holocene conditions seems judicious. It remains to be seen if it is practical. The Holocene never supported a civilisation of 10 billion reasonably rich people, as the Anthropocene must seek to do, and there is no proof that such a population can fit into a planetary pot so circumscribed. So it may be that a “good Anthropocene”, stable and productive for humans and other species they rely on, is one in which some aspects of the Earth system’s behaviour are lastingly changed. For example, the Holocene would, without human intervention, have eventually come to an end in a new ice age. Keeping the Anthropocene free of ice ages will probably strike most people as a good idea.

Dreams of a smart planet

That is an extreme example, though. No new ice age is due for some millennia to come. Nevertheless, to see the Anthropocene as a blip that can be minimised, and from which the planet, and its people, can simply revert to the status quo, may be to underestimate the sheer scale of what is going on.

Take energy. At the moment the amount of energy people use is part of what makes the Anthropocene problematic, because of the carbon dioxide given off. That problem will not be solved soon enough to avert significant climate change unless the Earth system is a lot less prone to climate change than most scientists think. But that does not mean it will not be solved at all. And some of the zero-carbon energy systems that solve it—continent- scale electric grids distributing solar energy collected in deserts, perhaps, or advanced nuclear power of some sort—could, in time, be scaled up to provide much more energy than today’s power systems do. As much as 100 clean terawatts, compared to today’s dirty 15TW, is not inconceivable for the 22nd century. That would mean humanity was producing roughly as much useful energy as all the world’s photosynthesis combined.

In a fascinating recent book, “Revolutions that Made the Earth”, Timothy Lenton and Andrew Watson, Earth-system scientists at the universities of Exeter and East Anglia respectively, argue that large changes in the amount of energy available to the biosphere have, in the past, always marked large transitions in the way the world works. They have a particular interest in the jumps in the level of atmospheric oxygen seen about 2.4 billion years ago and 600m years ago. Because oxygen is a particularly good way of getting energy out of organic matter (if it weren’t, there would be no point in breathing) these shifts increased sharply the amount of energy available to the Earth’s living things. That may well be why both of those jumps seem to be associated with subsequent evolutionary leaps—the advent of complex cells, in the first place, and of large animals, in the second. Though the details of those links are hazy, there is no doubt that in their aftermath the rules by which the Earth system operated had changed.

The growing availability of solar or nuclear energy over the coming centuries could mark the greatest new energy resource since the second of those planetary oxidations, 600m years ago—a change in the same class as the greatest the Earth system has ever seen. Dr Lenton (who is also one of the creators of the planetary-boundaries concept) and Dr Watson suggest that energy might be used to change the hydrologic cycle with massive desalination equipment, or to speed up the carbon cycle by drawing down atmospheric carbon dioxide, or to drive new recycling systems devoted to tin and copper and the many other metals as vital to industrial life as carbon and nitrogen are to living tissue. Better to embrace the Anthropocene’s potential as a revolution in the way the Earth system works, they argue, than to try to retreat onto a low-impact path that runs the risk of global immiseration.

Such a choice is possible because of the most fundamental change in Earth history that the Anthropocene marks: the emergence of a form of intelligence that allows new ways of being to be imagined and, through co-operation and innovation, to be achieved. The lessons of science, from Copernicus to Darwin, encourage people to dismiss such special pleading. So do all manner of cultural warnings, from the hubris around which Greek tragedies are built to the lamentation of King David’s preacher: “Vanity of vanities, all is vanity…the Earth abideth for ever…and there is no new thing under the sun.” But the lamentation of vanity can be false modesty. On a planetary scale, intelligence is something genuinely new and powerful. Through the domestication of plants and animals intelligence has remade the living environment. Through industry it has disrupted the key biogeochemical cycles. For good or ill, it will do yet more.

It may seem nonsense to think of the (probably sceptical) intelligence with which you interpret these words as something on a par with plate tectonics or photosynthesis. But dam by dam, mine by mine, farm by farm and city by city it is remaking the Earth before your eyes.

Anthropocene was originally coined by ecologist Eugene Stoermer but subsequently popularized by the Nobel Prize-winning scientist Paul Crutzen by analogy with the word "Holocene." The Greek roots are anthropo- meaning "human" and -cene meaning "new." Crutzen has explained, "I was at a conference where someone said something about the Holocene. I suddenly thought this was wrong. The world has changed too much. So I said: 'No, we are in the Anthropocene.' I just made up the word on the spur of the moment. Everyone was shocked. But it seems to have stuck."^[6] Crutzen first used it in print in a 2000 newsletter of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP), No.41. In 2008, Zalasiewicz suggested in GSA Today that an anthropocene epoch is now appropriate.^[7]

Influence

2011-05-20T18:37:00.000-07:00

文評家談"影響的焦慮"*
H. A. Simon 昔日不探討政治學中最重要的"概念" Power
而代之以 Influence
諸多論文發展出不同的分析法

---
*

Book Review

'The Anatomy of Influence'

By HAROLD BLOOM
Reviewed by SAM TANENHAUS

At the age of 80, with almost 40 books behind him and nearly as many accumulated honors, Harold Bloom has written a kind of summing-up of his monumental career as a critic and scholar.

satisficing

2011-04-28T07:40:00.000-07:00

Herbert Simon (1916-2001) is most famous for what is known to economists as the theory of bounded rationality, a theory about economic decision-making that Simon himself preferred to call “satisficing”, a combination of two words: “satisfy” and “suffice”. Contrary to the tenets of classical economics, Simon maintained that individuals do not seek to maximise their benefit from a particular course of action (since they cannot assimilate and digest all the information that would be needed to do such a thing). Not only can they not get access to all the information required, but even if they could, their minds would be unable to process it properly. The human mind necessarily restricts itself. It is, as Simon put it, bounded by “cognitive limits”.

1981/6/8

HOW TO SUCCEED IN BUSINESS

By ROBERT LEKACHMAN; ROBERT LEKACHMAN TEACHES ECONOMICS AT LEHMAN COLLEGE CAMPUS OF THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK. HISMOST RECENT BOOK IS ''CAPITALISM FOR BEGINNERS

Published: June 7, 1981

Illustrations: drawing

CORPORATE CONTROL, CORPORATE POWER A Twentieth Century Fund Study. By Edward S. Herman. 432 pp. New York: Cambridge University Press. $18.95. EXECUTIVE By Harry Levinson. With the Assistance of Cynthia Lang. 370 pp. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. $18.50. MANAGING THE PUBLIC'S BUSINESS The Job of the Government Executive. By Laurence E. Lynn Jr. 211 pp. New York: Basic Books. $14.95.

IN quite different ways these three books enlarge our understanding of the reasons for the disquietingly poor performance of the American economy since the late 1960's. Aspects of the continuing problem include flagging productivity, rates of saving and investment much below those of Japan and Western Europe, endemic dissatisfaction with government, erosion of America's competitive position in world markets and the calamitous condition of the auto and steel industries. Popular dismay at the failure of incomes to keep step with the cost of living contributed heavily last November to the displacement of a moderate Democrat as Chief Executive by a conservative Republican devoted, for good or ill, to public policies quite different from those pursued since the end of World War II by both Democratic and Republican Presidents.

In ''Corporate Control, Corporate Power,'' a notably well-written and keenly argued study, Edward S. Herman, professor of finance at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, has reassessed the classic ''The Modern Corporation and Private Property,'' by A.A. Berle and Gardiner Means. Writing half a century ago, they pinpointed the mounting importance of the large corporation and argued that it was increasingly marked by separation of ownership and management:Control drifted inexorably into the hands of the managers, who were frequently able to co-opt one another and perpetuate their position. This enormously influential thesis has served John Kenneth Galbraith among others as the basis for the argument that even the managers have lost much of their effective authority to a ''technostructure'' (a word of Galbraith's coinage) of experts - lawyers, accountants, management consultants, marketing gurus and financial wizards.

Mr. Herman has reclassified some of the original Berle and Means data and drawn heavily upon subsequent inquiries, including some of his own, essentially to reaffirm the continuing validity of his predecessors' central finding. In 1981 as in 1931, managers enjoy considerable, but not unlimited, autonomy. So long as managers preside over a reasonable pace of profitable growth or plausibly explain financial setbacks as temporary, the stockholders, who ostensibly exert final authority, in fact remain passive, quite content to collect regular dividends and anticipate ultimate capital gains. Mr. Herman concludes that ''the corporation has become ever more dominant in economic life over the past 80 years'' and that, in so prospering, it ''has preserved its autonomy to a remarkable degree.'' Inevitably, ever more massive corporations (last year Exxon's sales exceeded $100 billion) have evolved into complex, formally organized institutions, as much characterized by bureaucracy as are the routinely excoriated government agencies.

Have growth, complexity and institutional preeminence nudged corporations away from an obsessive emphasis upon maximum profits? Do modern corporations aspire to growth, social responsibility and attempts to balance stockholder interests with those of employees, customers, suppliers and communities? (In his political explanation of corporate behavior, Nobel Prize-winner Herbert Simon has coined the neologism ''satisficing'' to describe these new tactics.) To these queries, Mr. Herman's response is convincingly negative. Profit continues to dominate the corporate vision. Indeed, the expanding role of security analysts, stock market expectations of short-run profits, corporate incentive systems that reward senior managers for almost immediate bottom-line results and the job-hopping propensities of contemporary business school alumni and alumnae all contribute to more rather than less insistence upon profit this year, if not this quarter, as the only meaningful measure of performance.

Accordingly, Mr. Herman casts a skeptical eye on claims that huge corporations deliberately surrender profits in pursuit of larger market share -let alone vague social objectives. The news that a corporation has exceeded its affirmative-action hiring target rarely if ever sends its stock soaring in cynical Wall Street. In Mr. Herman's opinion, growth is usually perceived by corporate managers as the path to future profit. Mr. Herman is similarly resistant to claims from business apologists that government regulation hobbles corporate initiative. On the contrary, because ''government has been confined to support functions and excluded from participation in primary economic activities,'' it has become ''a hostage to the business community,'' able to ''move only a limited distance in opposition to business desires'' lest incentives falter and recession ensue.

In short, like Charles Lindblom in his 1979 ''Politics and Markets'' and Thorstein Veblen at the turn of the century, Mr. Herman convincingly identifies large corporations as the most important of domestic interests. Such dominion entails, if not social enlightenment, at least economic responsibility for the consequences. By this standard, friends of large business have a job of explanation before them. As the more critical business media have been routinely complaining, corporate emphasis upon short-run financial gain has dangerously scanted research and development, neglected good design and dependable performance and driven the most patriotic of American consumers into the clutches of foreign suppliers. Far more successfully than their Japanese and German rivals, American corporations have resisted union participation in management, nonhierarchical organization of work in factories and offices, effective regulation and legal limitations upon layoffs and plant closings. It is a paradox of politics in a conservative society that Congress, the President and the public seem united in their eagerness to increase the rewards and diminish the restraints upon business entities that, on their recent record, seem better entitled to tighter public control and closer regulation.

What is to be done? In the enormous literature of business commentary, a persistent theme of advice to business leaders is to straighten up and improve their treatment of employees. In his book ''Executive,'' Harry Levinson, one of the leaders of the human-relations school of management, urges executives to become teachers and mentors. As he defines them, the central problems of management concern emotions and attitudes. Good leaders mesh individuals of differing temperaments and attitudes into smoothly functioning groups. Quite unlike Mr. Herman, Mr. Levinson takes it for granted that the modern corporation is a socially responsible agency with a major role ''in developing and strengthening the social forces that uphold the American democratic heritage.''

Happy workers produce more and goof off less. Their devotion to job and employer pays off in the larger sales and profits that in turn are the source of better wages and benefits for all. As Mr. Levinson makes clear, in the well-managed corporation there is no place for unions, which are predicated upon adversary relations between employer and employees. Practitioners of human-relations techniques in industry have often been accused, not without justification, of manipulation, but in Mr. Levinson's ideal situation no manipulation is necessary. Management and workers share objectives and reap mutual rewards.

Like most pleasant fancies, this one is blighted by unpleasant reality. When the issue focuses upon closing a factory in the Northeast and opening its replacement in Texas or Brazil, the interests of employees in the frost belt and the stockholders diverge. For that matter, young managers who are not adopted by mentors are unlikely to share the anointeds' enthusiasm for corporate success. Moreover, particularly during spells of slow growth or actual recession, American corporate reaction has been to trim payrolls ruthlessly, install labor-saving equipment, relocate facilities and otherwise promote the perceived interests of stockholders and top managers at the expense of workers, displaced executives and communities shorn of their economic sustenance.

There is another point. Mr. Levinson's senior executives teach above all by example. Exhortations to identify with an employer emanate with dubious grace and even less plausibility from supervisors busily negotiating their own passage to better jobs in rival organizations. The dissonance is acute between the individualistic ethic instilled by business schools and the ethos of group integration that animates Mr. Levinson's prescriptions for corporate renewal. *

Is government even worse managed than the corporation? As Laurence E. Lynn Jr. makes clear in his well-informed inquiry, ''Managing the Public Business,'' Congress habitually enacts statutes grandiose in objective, vague in specification of the techniques for their attainment, conflicting in definition of authority and, worst of all, inadequate in funding. The tendency has been especially marked in the environmental-and consumer-protection legislation of recent years. Under the circumstances, the wonder is not that Washington agencies sputter and operate at cross purposes, but that anything at all of consequence is achieved. With Mr. Lynn, the tale comes full circle. Government is the mirror image of the large corporation. Much as the latter is indulged and subsidized, the former is distrusted and harrassed.

At least at the Federal level, Americans probably get better government than they think they do. By contrast, corporations deliver less in the hard coin of efficiency and rising living standards than the public might justly expect, given the corporations' privileged position in our society. It is unlikely in the extreme that complete enactment of the Reagan Administration's economic proposals will measurably improve corporate performance.

齊白石的自白可以作為"專家研究"的一事例

2011-04-16T23:06:00.000-07:00

".....欲自立成家至少苦辛半世拾者至多半年可得皮毛......" (跋)
齊白石的自白可以作為"專家研究"的一事例

《齊白石年譜》（胡適、黎錦熙、鄧廣銘编） 1949年商务印书馆出版

談點 Alfred Marshall

2011-04-16T19:01:00.000-07:00

Simon 討論過 Alfred Marshall的經濟學原理中採用不同的'認知方式"的表現法
其實Alfred Marshall 約在1885年即有'統計的圖示法"的論文

A Soaring Eagle: Alfred Marshall 1842-1924 翱翔的鹰

大學董事會的經營(1)

2011-04-16T18:46:00.001-07:00

大學董事會的經營(1)

. hanching chung [2011-04-16]
各大學的綜合介紹中，或許可以了解其發展方向與大概。我選擇日本同志社大學（基督教大學）當參考[20]。這所「進化型大學」強調「教育」與「研究」並重。董事會等都隸屬於「經營管理和支援單位」，為服務單位。該書只以「校長」為名義，在卷首說一短篇介紹。又，這所大學的Data Science科系的理念之設計，採用R. Reich教授在The Work of Nations提出的分類法。抽象化(abstraction)；系統的思考(systems thinking)；實驗(experimentation)；共同作業 (joint work)。[21]

2 . h [2011-04-16]
Bill Scherkenbach先生當過紐約哥倫比亞大學的教育諮詢。在2008年他主持的講座中，我聽過他講過兩次的諮詢故事。一次是課程的整合問題，譬如說某會計課程牽涉到「倫理或操守」的問題時，就應該請哲學等系之專家馬上來現場合作教學，而不用學生在以後選修課上再專門討論。另外一次是關於品質管理之課程，是否應該應用於提升本身之品管，通常教這課程的，都認為這是給學生享用的，事不關己。[18]我也記得有幾次聽到品質學會的會議中，與會者對於會議規劃之品質的非議…….

以美國Stanford大學為個案之歷史定量定性分析，隨機選樣：「1962年的校長關於教師任期制的聲明，與 1910年教師大會的解決措施的措辭一致。……1971年的解雇事件是在漫長的聽證會以及聽取由選舉產生的教師評議董事會的建議之後作出。」(頁43)；「學生行為管理中的插曲」一節中說明從創校的「基本標準」(fundamental standars)：「Stanford的學生被期望……」，到榮譽制 (honor system)，到「校園騷亂政策」(Policy on Campus Disturbance) 的發展 (頁42-4)。大學三令五申地說明：教師的考核以學術研究和教學為主，不考慮教師所參與的公益活動等。[19]

3 . hanching chung [2011-04-16]
我從讀書中知道某些比較難忘的董事之故事。譬如說，我們從Herbert Simon的回憶錄可知，他界定大學為一重要的社會系統。他不去競選CMU大學的校長，主要是他自知無法如校長般，與工商界密切的關係；他是喜歡自由的人，捨不得做研究的樂趣，因為如果身為管理職時，主要的任務是讓別人去發揮、合作，反而無法享受追求自己重事研究時之「發現之樂趣」。所以，他「自薦」為 CMU的董事。我曾與他討論「網路大學，相對於既存的強勢大學 (stronger universities)」的問題，他認為後者的資源相當豐富，重要的是彼此要合作。

李歐梵先生經驗談：「一切以程序和功效為準則，以為有力的管理就可以提升教育的水平，真是大錯特錯！」、「我認為教育和文化一樣，政府只能滋養卻不宜也不應該制定嚴謹的政策；除此之外，更應該鼓勵各大學自立自主，建立不同的學風，做良性的競爭，優勝劣敗，學術上自有公論。」[17]這些，幾乎就是《轉危為安》中所說的各種病態管理之一例。

4 . hanching chung [2011-04-16]
美國故國防部長Caspar Weinberg（1917-2006）退休之後，極力爭取當哈佛大學的董事。幾經周旋，董事會說這不是個掛名的榮譽職，你有時間全程參加每兩周召開的會議嗎？他答應並做到了。[16]我們介紹創立於1913年的約翰‧洛克菲勒基金會的董事會與會長的組織分工方式：「基金會由一個21人組成的董事會負責，3年改選一次，董事會再任命領導班子：會長、副會長、各部門主任等等。董事會成員多為社會名流，……名副其實的社會公益機構。會長任期無限。我覺得真正有職有權，對決策起決定性影響的是會長。我重點翻閱基金會創立幾十年來會長向董事會作的年度工作報告，對其中表現的思想性、目的性和對人類的憂患意識，印象深刻。….」（資中筠著「洛克菲勒基金會」，載《學海案邊》瀋陽：遼寧教育出版社，1995，頁104-15。）

Evolution Explains Altruism

2011-04-08T21:04:00.000-07:00

這篇文章探討的Altruism和 Evolution關係都是Simon 的論文和書的主題
摘要可參考管理行為

How Evolution Explains Altruism

By OREN HARMAN

Published: April 8, 2011

What do colon cancer, ant colonies, language and global warming have in common? This might sound like the front end of a joke, but in fact it’s a serious challenge to the standard view of evolution. Martin A. Nowak, the director of the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics at Harvard, has devoted a brilliant career to showing that Darwin, and particularly his followers, batted only two for three. Random mutation and natural selection have indeed been powerful motors for change in the natural world — the struggle for existence pitting the fit against the fitter in a hullabaloo of rivalry. But most of the great innovations of life on earth, Nowak argues, from genes to cells to societies, have been due to a third motor, and “master architect,” of evolution: cooperation.

Enlarge This Image

Illustration by Lutz Widmaier

SUPERCOOPERATORS

Altruism, Evolution, and Why We Need Each Other to Succeed

By Martin A. Nowak with Roger Highfield

330 pp. Free Press. $27

Excerpt: ‘SuperCooperators’ (Google Books)

“SuperCooperators” (written with Roger Highfield, editor of New Scientist magazine) is an absorbing, accessible book about the power of mathematics. Unlike Darwin with his brine bottles and pigeon coops, Nowak aims to tackle the mysteries of nature with paper, pencil and computer. By looking at phenomena as diverse as H.I.V. infection and English irregular verbs, he has formally defined five distinct mechanisms that have helped give rise to cooperative behavior, from the first molecules that joined to self-replicate, to the first cells that formed multicellular organisms, all the way to human societies, which exhibit a degree of cooperation unmatched in all creation. In Nowak’s view, figuring out how cooperation comes about and breaks down, as well as actively pursuing the “snuggle for existence,” is the key to our survival as a species.

At the heart of Nowak’s ideas is the haunting game of Prisoner’s Dilemma. The game involves two accomplices who are caught for a crime, interrogated separately and offered a deal. If one player incriminates the other, or “defects,” while the second remains silent, or “cooperates,” he will be given a sentence of one year, while the other player gets four. If both remain silent, they will be sentenced to only two years, but if both defect, they will receive three years. The rational choice for either prisoner is to defect, getting three years — though had both cooperated, they’d have been out in two. In the absence of trust, reason can be self-destructive.

In the 1990s, Nowak and Karl Sigmund, building on work by Robert Axelrod, showed that the Prisoner’s Dilemma, played over and over, could describe cycles of behavior in which strategies of selfishness (“Always Defect”) are beaten out by cooperation (“Tit for Tat”), then overtaken by even more cooperative behavior (“Generous Tit for Tat,” summarized as “Never forget a good turn, but occasionally forgive a bad one”), only to be invaded once more by egoists until the cycle begins anew. These “evolutionary dynamic” models, made more realistic by introducing an element of randomness, demonstrate that under the right conditions, competition can lead to teamwork. They also show how fragile that balance can be.

In “SuperCooperators,” Nowak argues that two of his mechanisms, indirect reciprocity and group selection, played an important role in human evolution. Think of a proto-simian trying to figure out whether to trust another in an exchange: Should I provide sex now for food and protection later? The proto-simian may have observed the behavior of its prospective partner, or it may not have; chances are good that others have, though. Reputation becomes important. The proto-simian evolves into a hominid, with a bigger brain allowing for more precise communication about reputation. Moral instincts evolve to produce shame, guilt, trust, empathy; social intelligence and conscience are born. Before you know it, Yogi Berra is summing it all up: “Always go to other people’s funerals, otherwise they won’t come to yours.” Language, cognition and morality, Nowak argues, are evolutionary spinoffs of the fundamental need of social creatures to cooperate.

Cooperation also breeds division of labor, as any ant or gene will tell you. When group size and structure, benefits and costs, all align just right, Nowak’s models show, the red talons of nature turn green. Sixty million years of fungus gardening by leaf cutter ants is one example, genes stacked on chromosomes another.

Nowak is one of the most exciting modelers working in the field of mathematical biology today. But a model, of course, is only as good as its assumptions, and biology is much messier than physics or chemistry. Nowak tells a joke about a man who approaches a shepherd and asks, “If I tell you how many sheep you have, can I have one?” The shepherd agrees and is astonished when the stranger answers, “Eighty-three.” As he turns to leave, the shepherd retorts: “If I guess your profession, can I have the animal back?” The stranger agrees. “You must be a mathematical biologist.” How did he know? “Because you picked up my dog.”

Nowak does his best to avoid dogs, but “SuperCooperators” gives little sense of the debates that have raged for years between two traditions of modeling evolution. One school considers the intricate complications of genetics, like the ways different versions of a gene interact in sexual reproduction. The other treats organisms as if they have a single set of chromosomes and reproduce asexually. At the heart of the debate lies the crucial question of whether natural selection is always maximizing the spread of an organism’s genes. Nowak belongs to the camp that assumes it is.

Nowak has also ignited controversy with a paper in the journal Nature, written with E. O. Wilson and Corina Tarnita, arguing that “inclusive fitness” — the idea that organisms cooperate with relatives because it helps pass on shared genes — is not necessary to explain the birth of complex societies like bees and ants, or altruism towards kin in humans. Nature recently published five critical letters, including one with 137 signatories, one of whom denounced the paper’s mathematics as not worth “wasting time” over.

Nowak gives little hint of these fierce debates in this cheerful book, instead offering this striking claim: “The way that we human beings collaborate is as clearly described by mathematics as the descent of the apple that once fell in Newton’s garden.” It seems significant to Nowak that, according to his models, the interest of groups can override the interests of individuals if “the ratio of the benefits to cost is greater than one plus the ratio of group size to number of groups,” and that cooperation can prevail if altruists cluster together in particular topographies. If only we could take such facts into account, as special cancer-preventing “crypt” formations in our colons have unthinkingly done, perhaps we might work together to combat global warming.

Near the end of the book, Nowak describes Gustav Mahler’s efforts, in his grandiloquent Third Symphony, to create an all-encompassing structure in which “nature in its totality may ring and resound,” adding, “In my own way, I would like to think I have helped to give nature her voice too.” But there remains a telling gap between the precision of the models and the generality of the advice Nowak offers for turning us all into supercooperators. We humans really are infinitely more complex than falling apples, metastasizing colons, even ant colonies. Idealized accounts of the world often need to ignore the messiness of reality. Mahler understood this. In 1896 he invited Bruno Walter to Lake Attersee to glimpse the score of the Third. As they walked beneath the mountains, Walter admonished Mahler to look at the vista, to which he replied, “No use staring up there — I’ve already composed it all away into my symphony!”

Oren Harman’s most recent book is “The Price of Altruism: George Price and the Search for the Origins of Kindness.”

Simon 的 "自學"數學方式 vs Reasoning Mind

2011-03-18T04:11:00.000-07:00

這份數學學習的報導讓我想起中國實驗過的根據Simon 的 "自學"方式來自己做練習
從其中來學數學 (教師不教只當輔導員)

WEB-BASED RUSSIAN MATH CURRICULUM SHOWS POSITIVE RESULTS
Reasoning Mind is the brainchild of Alex Khachatryan, a Russian mathematician and scientist who created Reasoning Mind in 2002 after finding his son’s math education disappointing when the family immigrated to the United States. With the help of others, Khachatryan adapted a pencil-and-paper Russian math curriculum into an interactive Web-based program for American students. The program, which starts introducing some algebra and geometry concepts as early as 2nd grade, is designed to teach students in ways that the best teachers teach: adjusting content based on how students respond to the material in real time, and building on knowledge from the previous year’s studies. “To really learn math, it’s not enough to solve simple, routine problems,” Khachatryan says. “The reason why Reasoning Mind works so well,” he adds, “is that it brings together several important things: nonstandard problems to develop thinking skills, lots of interaction between students, individual attention from the teacher, and a solid, coherent curriculum.” The article is in Education Week’s Technology Counts.

Models of Man: Social and Rational (Herbert A. Simon)

2011-03-15T01:32:00.000-07:00

Models of Man: Social and Rational (Herbert A. Simon) 以前政治大學公企中心等的圖書館有藏

此書是Herbert A. Simon重要的論文集 (包括 satisficing 準則的探討等等)...

很不幸的是某社會學家後來也用此當書名 Herbert A. Simon當然曉得此人此事
不過他與我通信的當時已不記得該書之要點

----

Conflict Research Consortium BOOK SUMMARY

Models of Man: Social and Rational

Herbert A. Simon

Citation:

Herbert A. Simon. Models of Man: Social and Rational. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1957, 279 pp.

This book summary written by: Conflict Research Consortium Staff.

Models of Man: Social and Rational is, according to the author, a collection of mathematical essays on rational human behaviour in a social setting. The work employs mathematical formulae in support of the authors assertions regarding human behaviour.

Models of Man: Social and Rational will be of interest to those who desire an understanding of the human component of environmental problems and solutions. Simon divides his essays into four sections, each dealing with an overarching topic. The first part is concerned with causation and influence relationships. The author offers a philosophical discussion of the causal relation and examines; causal ordering and identifiability, and spurious correlations. He concludes the first section with notes on the observation and measurement of political power and the bandwagon and under-dog effects of election predictions.

The second section of the book addresses social processes. It begins with the presentation of a formal theory of interaction in social groups. This section considers the mechanisms involved in pressures both; toward uniformity and upon deviate members. The section is concluded with an examination of skew distribution functions. The brief third section is devoted to motivation which is comprised of two essays. The first of these is a comparison of organisation theories. The second essay is a formal theory of the employment relation.

The final section of the book concerns rationality and administrative decision-making. The first three essays offer an economic perspective while the last two offer a psychological perspective. In the former category is the first essay which examines productivity and the urban/rural population balance. The author discusses the application of servomechanism theor to production control. The final essay from an economic perspective is a behaviour model of rational choice. The last essay save one examines rational choice and the structure of the environment. The final essay is a comparison of game theory and learning theory.

Models of Man: Social and Rational combines multiple perspectives, primarily philosophical, economic and psychological, to create a model for rational human behaviour in a social setting.

Another Win for Artificial Intelligence: the Turing Award

2011-03-14T04:11:00.000-07:00

沒有什麼恰當的好文張此篇權當先鋒

a banner year or so
March 9, 2011, 10:00 pm

Another Win for Artificial Intelligence: the Turing Award

By STEVE LOHR

Leslie G. Valiant, the winner of the 2010 Turing Award.

It’s been a banner year or so for artificial intelligence, from the recent triumph of I.B.M.’s Jeopardy-winning supercomputer to a wave of news coverage of the field, like the “Smarter Than You Think” series in The Times, but also coverage elsewhere, including The Atlantic’s March cover story.

So perhaps it is hardly surprising that the 2010 Turing Award, announced on Wednesday, went to Leslie G. Valiant, a Harvard professor whose work laid the theoretical foundations for machine learning. The Turing Award, sometimes called the Nobel of computer science, tends to highlight the two sides of computing — the here-and-now impact of the technology, and its deep roots in research.

Much of Mr. Valiant’s pioneering research in machine learning was done in the 1980s. “He certainly could have gotten the award a decade ago, but this was his moment,” observed Jonathan Kleinberg, a computer scientist at Cornell University.

In machine learning, the computer scans vast stores of data, uncovers patterns and generates rules for predicting results with increasing accuracy. Machine learning is a vital computing ingredient in modern applications like spam filters, Internet search, speech recognition and computer vision.

The prize, named for Alan Turing, the British mathematician and World War II code breaker, carries a prize of $250,000. It is underwritten by Intel and Google, and administered by the Association for Computing Machinery..

Here is a list of the award winners, dating to 1966, and their citations.

管理行為

2011-02-18T00:15:00.000-08:00

2/19 1600 國科會某人來電談 herbert simon 管理行為之再譯問題我很生氣這些做法

胡適與Charles Edward Merriam

2011-02-11T03:12:00.001-08:00

胡適與Charles Edward Merriam

治學的方法與材料(keb.koobe版電子書)(中文繁體版)

作者：胡適

電子書出版日期：2009/7/1
原書出版日期：1986/4/25 ．出版：遠流出版

●目錄

遠流版《胡適作品集》出版前言

《胡適文存》三集自序

我們對於西洋近代文明的態度

﹝附錄﹞機器與精神／林雨堂

請大家來照照鏡子

漫遊的感想

歐遊道中寄書

寄慰慈﹝三封﹞

寄志摩﹝兩封﹞ "同Merriam教授談甚久....." 這位芝加哥大學著名政府學教授是 Herbert A. Simon的老師 -Models of My Life 有更詳細的紀錄

又可參考

http://www.answers.com/topic/charles-edward-merriam

蘭德公司The RAND Corporation

2011-02-07T22:13:00.000-08:00

在 Models of My Life 中
Simon 記過2-3次當The RAND Corporation 的顧問經驗

維基百科，自由的百科全書

跳到：導覽, 搜尋

蘭德公司（RAND）是美國的一所智庫。在其成立之初主要為美國軍方提供調研和情報分析服務。其後，這個組織逐步擴展，並為其它政府以及盈利性團體提供服務。蘭德擁有1600名左右的員工。他們分別在下列六個地點工作：（美國本土）加利福尼亞的聖莫尼卡、弗吉尼亞的阿林頓、賓夕法尼亞的匹茲堡；（歐洲）荷蘭萊頓、德國柏林和英國劍橋。有些人認為蘭德公司的名字是「調研和發展」的縮寫（RAND＝ "R"esearch "AN"d "D"evelopment)，而柯蒂斯·勒梅則諷刺其為「研究並得不到結果」("Research And No Development".)

[編輯] 蘭德計劃

蘭德公司的前身是美國空軍1945年立項的「蘭德計劃」。當時的道格拉斯飛機公司承接了這個項目。同年，「蘭德計劃」發表了《環球穿梭機實驗計劃的初步構想》。1948年5月，蘭德從道格拉斯公司中脫離出來，成為一個獨立的智庫組織。

[編輯] 公司宗旨

蘭德公司是一所旨在通過慈善、教育和科技促進未來美國公眾福利、提高社會安全的非盈利性組織。

[編輯] 成就及專門技術

蘭德公司在發展系統分析方面倬有成就。其在航空系統和美國航空計劃，電腦和人工智能等方面做出了重要的貢獻。蘭德公司還開發了許多應用於建立當今互聯網的技術原理。

目前的研究領域包括：兒童政策，民主和犯罪司法，教育，環境和能源，健康，國際政策，勞動力市場，國家安全，人口和宗教研究，科學和技術，社會福利，恐怖主義，以及交通。

蘭德也是世界上最大最重要的健康保險研究組織之一。由美國健康教育和社會福利署投資興建的蘭德健康保險研究室還成立了一家保險公司用來比較提供診療與提供健康服務之間的成本。

根據1994年年報，蘭德公司的研究中三分之二與國家安全事務有關。

蘭德公司也是弗里德里克帕蒂（Frederick S. Pardee）蘭德研究生院的所在地，它是最早有關公共政策的研究生項目之一，同時也是第一家授予博士學位的院校。這個項目的獨特之處在於學生與蘭德的分析師一起工作，解決現實社會中的問題。校園所在地時蘭德公司聖莫尼卡（Santa Monica ）總部。

電影《奇愛博士》狠狠諷刺了蘭德公司，因為片名源自蘭德公司的一項研究。

蘭德公司發行了非常多的出版物，最暢銷的書籍是《百萬亂數表》（A Million Random Digits）

[編輯] 著名蘭德公司參與者

亨利·H·哈羅德 - 美國空軍將軍 - 創始人
肯尼斯·阿羅 - 經濟學家,1972年諾貝爾獎獲得者, 提出了社會選擇研究中的不確定理論
保羅·巴蘭 - 信息包交換發明者之一，這項技術被用於Arpanet以及之後的互聯網上。
巴里·波姆 - 軟件經濟學專家，COCOMO（一種軟件開發周期估算方法）的發明者。
喬治·丹澤格 - 數學家，線性編程簡易算法的發明者。
詹姆斯·J·基洛吉利, 解密專家，計算機科學家。
塞希爾·哈斯廷斯 - 程序員, 撰寫了軟件工程著作——接近數字計算機 (普林斯頓大學出版社 1955年)
阿倫·內維爾人工智能先驅
赫爾伯特·西蒙 - 經濟學家，曾獲得諾貝爾獎。
保羅·奧尼爾 - 90年代後期的公司主席
丹尼爾·埃爾斯博格 - 五角大樓文件泄漏者
約翰·馮·諾伊曼 - 數學家
約翰·福布斯·納什 - 數學家，諾貝爾經濟學獎得主
赫爾曼·卡恩 - 核戰理論家，情景規劃的發明人之一
劉易斯·利比, 切尼的前任首席幕僚[1]
寺澤克明 - 經濟學家
唐納德·拉姆斯菲爾德 - 1981—1986年間任蘭德公司主席，曾任美國國防部長（2001-2007年）
康多莉扎·賴斯 - 1991—1997年間任理事。前美國國務卿（2005年）
弗朗西斯·福山 - 政治理論家，作家
托馬斯·謝林 - 經濟學家，諾貝爾經濟學獎得主
扎勒米·哈利勒扎德 - 美國駐伊拉克大使
瑪格利特·梅德（Margaret Mead） - 美國人類學家
詹姆斯·索姆森（James Thomson） - 蘭德公司CEO, 1989-至今
米高·D·瑞區 - 蘭德執行副總裁, 1993-至今
弗蘭克·卡魯奇 - 理事
霍華德·布朗 - 理事
沃爾特·蒙代爾 - 前理事
卡爾·比爾德特 - 理事，前瑞典首相

[編輯] 另見

詹姆斯·Q·威爾森（James Q. Wilson） (董事會主席)
百萬亂數表 (蘭德公司出版)

[編輯] 外部連結

What Is Artificial Intelligence? By RICHARD POWERS Published: February 5, 2011

2011-02-06T00:55:00.000-08:00

Op-Ed Contributor

What Is Artificial Intelligence?

By RICHARD POWERS

Published: February 5, 2011

Illustrations by Vance Wellenstein

Smarter Than You Think: What Is I.B.M.’s Watson? (June 20, 2010)

IN the category “What Do You Know?”, for $1 million: This four-year-old upstart the size of a small R.V. has digested 200 million pages of data about everything in existence and it means to give a couple of the world’s quickest humans a run for their money at their own game.

The question: What is Watson?

I.B.M.’s groundbreaking question-answering system, running on roughly 2,500 parallel processor cores, each able to perform up to 33 billion operations a second, is playing a pair of “Jeopardy!” matches against the show’s top two living players, to be aired on Feb. 14, 15 and 16. Watson is I.B.M.’s latest self-styled Grand Challenge, a follow-up to the 1997 defeat by its computer Deep Blue of Garry Kasparov, the world’s reigning chess champion. (It’s remarkable how much of the digital revolution has been driven by games and entertainment.) Yes, the match is a grandstanding stunt, baldly calculated to capture the public’s imagination. But barring any humiliating stumble by the machine on national television, it should.

Consider the challenge: Watson will have to be ready to identify anything under the sun, answering all manner of coy, sly, slant, esoteric, ambiguous questions ranging from the “Rh factor” of Scarlett’s favorite Butler or the 19th-century painter whose name means “police officer” to the rhyme-time place where Pelé stores his ball or what you get when you cross a typical day in the life of the Beatles with a crazed zombie classic. And he (forgive me) will have to buzz in fast enough and with sufficient confidence to beat Ken Jennings, the holder of the longest unbroken “Jeopardy!” winning streak, and Brad Rutter, an undefeated champion and the game’s biggest money winner. The machine’s one great edge: Watson has no idea that he should be panicking.

Open-domain question answering has long been one of the great holy grails of artificial intelligence. It is considerably harder to formalize than chess. It goes well beyond what search engines like Google do when they comb data for keywords. Google can give you 300,000 page matches for a search of the terms “greyhound,” “origin” and “African country,” which you can then comb through at your leisure to find what you need.

Asked in what African country the greyhound originated, Watson can tell you in a couple of seconds that the authoritative consensus favors Egypt. But to stand a chance of defeating Mr. Jennings and Mr. Rutter, Watson will have to be able to beat them to the buzzer at least half the time and answer with something like 90 percent accuracy.

When I.B.M.’s David Ferrucci and his team of about 20 core researchers began their “Jeopardy!” quest in 2006, their state-of-the-art question-answering system could solve no more than 15 percent of questions from earlier shows. They fed their machine libraries full of documents — books, encyclopedias, dictionaries, thesauri, databases, taxonomies, and even Bibles, movie scripts, novels and plays.

But the real breakthrough came with the extravagant addition of many multiple “expert” analyzers — more than 100 different techniques running concurrently to analyze natural language, appraise sources, propose hypotheses, merge the results and rank the top guesses. Answers, for Watson, are a statistical thing, a matter of frequency and likelihood. If, after a couple of seconds, the countless possibilities produced by the 100-some algorithms converge on a solution whose chances pass Watson’s threshold of confidence, it buzzes in.

This raises the question of whether Watson is really answering questions at all or is just noticing statistical correlations in vast amounts of data. But the mere act of building the machine has been a powerful exploration of just what we mean when we talk about knowing.

Who knows how Mr. Jennings and Mr. Rutter do it — puns cracked, ambiguities resolved, obscurities retrieved, links formed across every domain in creation, all in a few heartbeats. The feats of engineering involved in answering the smallest query about the world are beyond belief. But I.B.M. is betting a fair chunk of its reputation that 2011 will be the year that machines can play along at the game.

Does Watson stand a chance of winning? I would not stake my “Final Jeopardy!” nest egg on it. Not yet. Words are very rascals, and language may still be too slippery for it. But watching films of the machine in sparring matches against lesser human champions, I felt myself choking up at its heroic effort, the size of the undertaking, the centuries of accumulating groundwork, hope and ingenuity that have gone into this next step in the long human drama. I was most moved when the 100-plus parallel algorithms wiped out and the machine came up with some ridiculous answer, calling it out as if it might just be true, its cheerful synthesized voice sounding as vulnerable as that of any bewildered contestant.

It does not matter who will win this $1 million Valentine’s Day contest. We all know who will be champion, eventually. The real showdown is between us and our own future. Information is growing many times faster than anyone’s ability to manage it, and Watson may prove crucial in helping to turn all that noise into knowledge.

Dr. Ferrucci and company plan to sell the system to businesses in need of fast, expert answers drawn from an overwhelming pool of supporting data. The potential client list is endless. A private Watson will cost millions today and requires a room full of hardware. But if what Ray Kurzweil calls the Law of Accelerating Returns keeps holding, before too long, you’ll have an app for that.

Like so many of its precursors, Watson will make us better at some things, worse at others. (Recall Socrates’ warnings about the perils of that most destabilizing technology of all — writing.) Already we rely on Google to deliver to the top of the million-hit list just those pages we are most interested in, and we trust its concealed algorithms with a faith that would be difficult to explain to the smartest computer. Even if we might someday be able to ask some future Watson how fast and how badly we are cooking the earth, and even if it replied (based on the sum of all human knowledge) with 90 percent accuracy, would such an answer convert any of the already convinced or produce the political will we’ll need to survive the reply?

Still, history is the long process of outsourcing human ability in order to leverage more of it. We will concede this trivia game (after a very long run as champions), and find another in which, aided by our compounding prosthetics, we can excel in more powerful and ever more terrifying ways.

Should Watson win next week, the news will be everywhere. We’ll stand in awe of our latest magnificent machine, for a season or two. For a while, we’ll have exactly the gadget we need. Then we’ll get needy again, looking for a newer, stronger, longer lever, for the next larger world to move.

For “Final Jeopardy!”, the category is “Players”: This creature’s three-pound, 100-trillion-connection machine won’t ever stop looking for an answer.

The question: What is a human being?

Richard Powers is the author of the novel “Generosity: An Enhancement.”

Simon管理行為Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision Making Processes in Administrative Organizations

2011-01-23T16:51:00.000-08:00

	書號	書名	原作者	譯者	價錢
	M012	管理行為	Herbert A. Simon	鍾漢清	600

簡介

Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision Making Processes in Administrative Organizations （Fourth Edition, 1997）

本書為1978年諾貝爾經濟學獎得主西蒙（司馬賀）劃時代經典著作最新版（內有許多當今重要議題評述）。

決策制定與管理組織

評論與發揮

管理評論的某些問題

評論與發揮

決策的事實要素與價值要素

評論與發揮

管理行為中的理性

評論與發揮

管理決策心理學

評論與發揮

組織的平衡

評論與發揮

權威的角色

評論與發揮

溝通

評論與發揮

效率準則

評論與發揮

忠誠心與組織認同

評論與發揮

組織的剖析

評論與發揮

附錄什麼是管理科學

淵博三人行: 胡適，司馬賀(H. A. Simon)，戴明(W. E. Deming) (2011年戴明講座)

2011-01-23T04:26:00.001-08:00

淵博三人行: 胡適，司馬賀(H. A. Simon)，戴明(W. E. Deming) (2011年戴明講座)

Profound Minds: Hu Shih, Herbert A. Simon and W. Edwards Deming ( 2011 Deming Lectures)

第一部 2011年戴明講座

導論:：從經驗到模式：朋友與領導/淵源的組織轉型者: 胡適，司馬賀，戴明

第一講: 胡適作為好人，好朋友和好領導者

第二講: 司馬賀作為科學家與教育家的滿意人生和生活的種種模式

第三講: 戴明的《產業/教育/政府的新經濟學》創新

尾聲：一些教訓:

第二部 文選和評注: 胡適，司馬賀，戴明

2.1 胡適文選和評注

2.2 司馬賀文選和評注

2.3 戴明文選和評注

第三部 理想與理想的設計法展開

幼稚園行政: 領導與環境的理想的設計法 (劉玉燕) 或”一些《戴明領導手冊》教學經驗”(鍾漢清)

解析機械零組件破損分析與模具研發設計 (郭展銓)

略記：2010年東海大學演講與訪友 (熊維強和蘇錦坤)

《反智主義的反撲》(蘇錦坤)

我生活的種種模式中的 "天安門革命親賭記" 一節

2011-01-16T22:12:00.000-08:00

為什麼我們必須反共反獨裁反國民黨

我記一下中共的刪書一例
更不用談刪 Herbert A sIMON 回憶錄我生活的種種模式中的 "天安門革命親賭記" 一節

《問學諫往錄》內給胡適信

《問學諫往錄》這本書我沒有不過可以作為"劣幣逐良幣"之一例
即台灣版本都絕版不過中國的刪改版橫行

《問學諫往錄》 (台北:傳記文學 1972/聯經 ) 是作者從華盛頓大學退休、結束42年的教學生涯後，為追述畢生求學、教學經歷而作。全書20章分為四個部分；第一部分簡介作者的家庭背景；第二部分描述作者 ...

蕭公權著：《問學諫往錄》，黃山書社，2008年有刪減 p.221 "此處刪去59字"
補之: (無怪乎自命為"中國通"而其實不通的美國"學者"會說毛澤東的思想行為與中國傳統一貫相成了) 傳記文學本 p.224

本書頁 220 有 (報告 1960 American Council of Learned Society 授與 "Prize forDistinguished Scholarship in the Humanities"之殊榮
"我在給胡適先生的信裏有這樣的話

"....."這項獎金贈給你是為了承認你的崇高學人地位並且為了承認你在人文學術上的卓著貢獻"...."窮措大"的打算附帶報告先生(胡適) 以博一笑" 頁220

傑作的完成──《 Simon 管理行為》譯後記

2011-01-14T19:05:00.000-08:00

傑作的完成──《 Simon 管理行為》譯後記(1999/09)

　　據說有些傳世作品是「胸有成竹、一揮而就」的。不過，我總以為這種情形多偏向「小品」。有些傑作之完成，要像西洋的大教堂之長期營建，必須累積點滴之功再匯總成一偉大的聖樂系統（取"建築是凝固了的音樂"意）。

　　我以為H. A. Simon的主要作品，諸如《管理行為》、《人工科學》、《關於人為事務的科學》、《我生活的種種模式》等等，就是這樣的著作。或許說，科學上的發現，可以說是一種洞識力，然而要充實之、深入之、則起碼要一輩子的功力。這本《Simon管理行為》就是廿世紀一位了不起的天才，Herbert A. Simon窮其一生作品博覽會中（他的論文數上千，質量俱佳）的一主軸、主導交響曲。

　　學術、科學作品要能極淵博，只能由極聰明的心靈寫出許多言之有物的文章，再用鍥而不捨的努力，將許多論文（發現）綜合而成。我說的「極淵博」，是指本書的正文質量，已足令諾貝爾獎譽為「劃時代的作品」，然而作者在成書50年後，於初版各章的章末再加上近乎等量的「評論與發揮」（粗略的統計，依英文版，正文為188頁，評論與發揮及附錄為172頁）。所以我們可以說，這是一本司馬賀觀點下的"20世紀社會科學百科大全"。

　　這本書極精簡、博約。我舉個最簡單的例子。作者創立的工商管理學院出了幾派最重要的經濟學宗家，幾位諾貝爾獎（經濟學）。他的同事在回憶當年在學校中受到本書作者司馬賀的「不吝批評」時，都覺得受益良多（因為其批評多正中學說之基礎和要害）。但是本書中對"理性預期論"及"新制度經濟學"等的批評，只有數句話，卻往往一句話就點出該學派的最根本要點與弱點。

　　不過，讀者也不要以為，因為這本書的立論極為嚴肅，因而它會讓讀者有不可承受之負荷。你如果想要貫通作者的淵博知識系統而言，那麼你的確要下點功夫去研究。不過，本書內文中也有不少極有意思，令人深思的妙故事的。作者以為組織管理中有些部分，乃屬"事實"方面的，要用理論、邏輯，而有些是"價值" 部分，則要與前者分別處理，採用評價方式完成；人類的分析力與直覺力是一體的，也都是人類的「理性」的發揮，不管是就個人層次或就組織層次而言，都是如此。從管理的現實面中，本書有極多的取之不盡用之不竭的寶藏，等待人們將它們轉為知識與理性來應用。

　　作者是少數傑出學者中能欣賞中國人的種種優點、缺點的，我在八月接到作者的中文版序言，有點驚訝作者的謙虛。我們祖宗是談組織理性的，但這門學問，西洋人百年來更是精進到各種科學（管理、組織、決策、人工智能……）百花齊放水準，令人感佩。而這本書就是這些管理科學的一里程碑！

《 Simon 管理行為》:目錄/ 作者為hc譯本序/第一版序/第四版導言

2011-01-14T18:58:00.000-08:00

《 Simon 管理行為》目錄(1999/09)

作者為中譯本序言 H. A. Simon（司馬賀）

第四版導言司馬賀

第一版前言司馬賀

謝詞司馬賀

第一章決策制定與管理組織 1

評論與發揮決策制定與管理組織 18

第二章管理理論的某些問題 31

評論與發揮管理理論的某些問題 54

第三章決策的事實要素與價值要素 60

評論與發揮決策的事實要素與價值要素 75

第四章管理行為中的理性 80

評論與發揮管理行為中的理性 97

第五章管理決策心理學 103

評論與發揮管理行為的心理學 131

第六章組織的平衡 156

評論與發揮組織的平衡 168

第七章權威的角色 197

評論與發揮權威的角色 225

第八章溝通 232

評論與發揮溝通 248

第九章效率準則 278

評論與發揮效率準則 303

第十章忠誠心與組織認同 310

評論與發揮忠誠心與組織認同 331

第十一章組織的剖析 341

評論與發揮組織的剖析 367

附錄　　什麼是管理科學 397

索引 404

中譯本簡介及譯後記鍾漢清

***

作者為中譯本所作序言(1999/09)

不管是東方或西方的人類社會，為了達成其各種標的，數千年來都運用了大規模的組織。從早期開始的農業灌溉、軍事活動到一般的政事，有組織的活動向來是不可或缺的，譬如說，最早的一部組織論作品就是《孫子兵法》，它的建議對現在的軍事仍然管用，而古希臘的色諾芬（Xenophon）曾寫出實用的地產經營文章。

我寫作《管理行為（Administrative Behavior）》的主旨，在於掌握這些全世界都適用的人類經驗，以及由它們教我們，為了成就人類目的，我們要如何有效地加以組織的教訓。本書的初版及過去半世紀來的三次擴增文章，都是試圖將此一有關各種組織的歷史經驗，與人類心靈如何工作──特別是在解決問題及決策制定的過程──的現代科學知識相結合。這一新版本也檢視了正在興起的、了不起的電子資訊處理及通信革命，以及此一革命對組織結構及過程的衝擊。

本人很高興《管理行為》第四版的漢文譯本即將問世。如上文所述，中華人民對組織這一主題並不陌生，不過他們也許可以從西方人對組織實務的思考獲得一些助益，從而可以在東西方最好的基礎上，建立他們的現代化知識。本書也採用現代認知心理學來說明有效的組織實務，是如何從人類心靈的能力及其限制（今日借助於現代電腦及通信科技的協助及延伸）成長而成的。

本人深謝鍾漢清（第四版）、楊礫（第三版）、韓春立（第三版）、徐立（第三版）先生的譯事辛勞，希望這本書能給讀者受益及樂趣。

賀伯特 A. 西蒙

1999年8月9日

於美國賓州匹茲堡

***

第一版序言(1999/09)

這本書是我在公共管理研究工作中，試圖建立有益的研究工具的探索結果。它產生於我的信念，即：在這研究領域裏，我們至今還沒有充分而恰當的語匯和概念方面的工具，當然也就談不上用它們來作合乎現實並深刻地刻劃管理意義上的組織，哪怕是簡單的管理型組織。這裏所謂刻劃管理型組織，指的是它能依據科學的分析，來提供組織結構及運轉的效益。在我讀過的管埋組織方面的著作當中，能從文字描述上抓住了或提出了組織的真正本質的，寥寥無幾；至於能讓我確信，它們關於組織效益的結論，或對改善組織效益的提議，乃是從所述證據中正確得出者，就更加少見了。

由本書的預備版本及從中抽出來發表的數篇文章所引起的反響，表明這種懷疑不獨我有，許多管理領域的實務家和研究工作者也有同感。對我們的學科和對作為科學家的我們，這一狀況構成了嚴厲的指責。一項化學實驗之所以成立，之所以具有科學權威，原因在於其可重複性；如果不是充分而周密地把它的可重複性描繪出來，那它就站不住腳了。在管理學界，我們就連說明在管理〝實驗〞中，出現了什麼現象的本領，都十分貧乏，更不要說保證實驗的可重複性了。

在我們得以建立任何永恆的管理〝原則〞之前，我們首先要能夠在文字描述上，精確地說明管理組織的面貌和運轉狀況。我試圖構造一系列能夠進行上述描述的術語；本書記錄了我所得出的結論，它作為本人從事管理研究的一基礎工作。這些結論並不構成一種管理〝理論〞，因為除了少數通過假設而提出了管理格言之外，我沒有提出任何管理原則。如果非說本書包含什麼〝理論〞不可的話，那只有：決策制定工作，乃是管理的心臟，以及我們必須從關於人類抉擇的邏輯學和心理學中，導出管理理論的語匯。

我希望本書能對三類的人有所裨益：首先是從事管理學研究的人，他們可從本書中找到描述和分析組織的某些可行方法；其次是實際管理工作者，他們在有些情況下可以用本書來幫助自己，從而在巴納德先生的〝序言〞所說的第三知識層次（普遍知識的層次）上，來思考管理問題；再次是研究生和本科生，他們可能希望通過描繪了真實管理圖景的、關於行為過程的更周密的論述，來補足他們的課堂知識。

赫伯特 A . 西蒙

一九四六年十二月

***

第四版導言(1999/09)

發行《管理行為》第四版可作出版五十周年慶。由於我們處於光速般變化的時代，我們不禁要問，一本寫於四十年代的書，是否仍然能在二十一世紀及未來千禧年屹立不搖呢？如果我們的主題是電子計算機或分子遺傳學，那麼在1997年版本中，1947年的文章一定很少會倖存的。然而，本書的主題為組織。人類大型組織的興起，至少已有四千餘年。儘管今天陸軍所用的物理技術，已經與尼尼微（Nineveh）或埃及或長安所使用的，完全迥異，不過古代軍人在制定決策或是管理人員的過程，我們很熟悉，它們大體上與我們的，相差無幾。基本的組織諸過程尚未有鉅變（深入的革命）。我們頂多可以說，在我們時代才開始面臨社會及技術上的重大變革。

因此，本書第四版有雙重任務。第一重任務是清楚地描寫從人類組織初現開始，要想有效運作它們時，極根本重要的決策及人的管理諸過程。第二重任務是檢視現代技術如何改變我們的社會價值觀及實務，以及新的電子通訊及資訊處理技術，如何正在改變我們的管理及決策制定。就第一項任務而言，我們大體仍可以依賴初版《管理行為》的正文。而為了補充原版的正文，改變某些強調重點，並處理我們所獲的新知識，以及組織所面臨的新的問題和機會，我們則必須大力地在每章的〝評論及發揮〞各節中加以補強、延伸討論。

《Simon 管理行為第四版》: 大教堂更新

2011-01-14T18:01:00.000-08:00

2011年1月16日潤稿時 Simon 已過世近10年兒 Samuelson 也過世了......當時說《管理行為第四版》的作者:"赫伯特 A. 西蒙（Herbert A. Simon，中文名字司馬賀）為卡內基美隆大學心理學和電腦科學的講座教授。西蒙教授獲得1978年諾貝爾經濟學獎，現在致力於人工智能領域。"
「諾貝爾獎的頒給，主要是因為我對管理和行政決策理論的研究，及該理論有注於對商業組織的了解。因此，真正地說，應是管理決策理論的研究使我獲獎。」(作者Simon 在1982年回答吳清基問題時這樣說.......)

關於本書之翻譯的一些說明和致謝︰鍾漢清先生負責本書的統合譯校，所以本書文責由他負，雖然他根據本書第三版（由楊礫，韓春立及徐立於1988譯出）作了大規模的校改。並要感謝鍾漢忠先生，及林益正、卓弘哲先生在電腦文字處理上的幫忙。

大教堂更新──從《從經濟學第十六版》到《管理行為第四版》(1999/09)

本公司暑假實習學生買了一本P. A. Samuelson及W. D. Nordhaus合著的《經濟學（Economics, 16/E，1998）》中譯本，我借來翻翻（其實該再詳讀），感慨（想）頗多。我在七十年代初讀的是該書的第七或第八版(翻印本)，現在這本書則是與人合作的版本。

去年，美國原出版公司亦發售初版珍藏本（五十年紀念）。作者特別為它寫篇引言，我記得他引了英國文豪喬叟一段膾炙人口的故事，大意是當年（1948年）的初版，既是一石一石地砌，也是努力地幹，而且又是自知自己在建造大教堂，他的意思就該書既見樹又見林，質量並濟，既唯物（寫作／立言），又唯心（意義不凡，現在彷彿各學院的人都要讀經濟學才行，當然，聽說有人以為Samuelson這本太深了，而採用其他讀本。去年美國還出了一本預付版稅給五百萬美金的經濟學教科書…）。

作者自詡讀這本書的各版本，就可了解經濟學主流思想的演進，因為本書三、四年就出一新版，似可網羅許多新潮想法（可不是，這50年期間世間多了三十多位諾貝爾經濟學獎得主、甚至多了他們合資開的金融公司(去年「幾乎」倒閉)，何況經濟領域的論文數目極多，而且經濟學家寫的文章也編入國中課本了…）

不過，才子如 Samuelson的內心，也一定深以為無法跟上潮流為苦，所以要求出版商再找合作者來共同修整此"大教堂"。這也未嘗不是好主意，因為我曾在比利時最古老的教堂內看他們展示抽象畫──當時的感受雖然認為此舉極為無力、力道單薄，不過它也算得上可反映當代精神的努力。1998年出的書，一定要加上光碟及「經濟學的網際網路資源」，告訴讀者去哪裡找資料（「許多鑽石埋藏在其中」）。

Samuelson在該書前言說了這段話，令人心有戚戚焉：「經濟學的入門課程無法讓你精通…根據各地學生的經驗，…最棒的就是導論課程。你進入這種有創意的領域後，世界就不一樣了…幾年之後…...當年所不太了解的，現在卻能夠豁然開朗…...」（我現在仍有許多「大惑終生不解」的東西呢！）

當年沒福氣讀H. A. Simon的大作《管理行為》（Administrative Behavior）--此書真正幫他得到1978年度的諾貝爾經濟學獎。Samuelson的得獎作品是《經濟學分析的基礎》。話又說回來，當時即使看了也不見得懂，我買了盜印的第2版版時已是上班族，很難靜下心來與這本需要逐句來讀的經典作對話。

我到近50歲才譯完Simon的《管理行為》第四版，因為要翻譯，所以必須精讀許多遍，欣慰的是每次讀它都有新的收穫。我花的那麼大的功夫把這本經典作品引進台灣並放棄中國的翻譯專賣權(我給Simon 這樣建議)，最大的目的就是希望我們在社會科學上能打好基礎，希望可以產出世界一流的思想家。

過去Ｓimon教授的《管理行為》的更新，採取的方式是：約每隔十五年加一版（年度為:1945年(試版)，1947(初版)，1957，1976，1997），而且每新版都保持初版的原文，本書再加上作者五十年的研究及思考、歷練的結晶，所以稱得上是這半世紀來一本了不起的經典之作。我把原書封底的介紹附下供大家參考。

在這本劃時代作品的第四版（1997）中，西蒙（Herbert A. Simon）將其前驅性的人類抉擇和管理決策理論，應用到具體的組織問題上。西蒙教授保留他初版各章的經典論述，並在各章的章末加入他對於五十年來組織行為的各新層面之"評論和發揮"。西蒙教授在本書中探討了變化中社會價值觀和科技對組織管理的影響力，而使得這本世界經典更新版充滿智慧新意。

《公共行政評論》（Public Administration Review）將本書《管理行為》（Administrative Behavior）評為"半世紀以來最佳作品（Book of the Half Century）"。它被視為一本對社會科學思想最有影響力的的書，而諾貝爾獎提評委員會譽它為一本"劃時代的著作"。

本書的對象讀者為 : 想要了解組織與經營管理的核心─決策制定過程─的經營管理者及其他專業者。換句話說，本書為企業管理、經濟學、社會學、心理學、電子計算機科學、公共行政和法律諸科學生所必讀的作品。

《Simon管理行為》是一套淵博知識系統，關心的是所有類型組織的了解。他是從認識決策的理性限度，先區分決策的事實及價值因素，再分別考量這兩方面的有形、無形因素及相互作用，來找出全系統的最有效率（最佳）決策。這本書五十年來擴充到涵蓋政府（這是本廣義的政治科學的書）、教育界（尤其是工商管理學院的設計）、工商業等所有重要議題。　

　　　　這本書第四版成書於1997年，工商業的管理蓬勃發展，作者因此為新版增添了許多相關的論述，例如在第九章〝效率準則〞--它可以說是管理理論的唯一準則，作者本書主旨之一是破所有以前的各種準則，而建立有限理性決策效率準則-- 的〝評論與發揮〞中，就加入〝工商公司成功的衡量〞，這也是研究方法的"可運作定義" (operational definition)的最好的示範。此外，他對品管圈（參與管理）、組織學習、電腦科技應用、研究開發、品質及組織文化、溝通等議題，都有極精采的新論。

　　這本《Simon 管理行為》的第四版，可以說是20世紀大天才司馬賀先生近五十年的心血結晶。原作獻給他的夫人。這本中譯本是獻給漢文的讀者。我個人花了大氣力出版這本傑作及司馬賀先生的主要作品，目的是想紀念自己年輕時的一些雄才大略，希望我們的文化中能產生這種綜合文、理、人文的學者、科學家。

我一直相信這夢想是行得通的。希望有人能潛下心來探討人與組織科學，司馬賀所談的人為事務的設計科學等，希望我們經過如此優秀作品的啟迪，能透過實驗與研究，讓我們了解人間事物皆學問，能深入了解西方文明中對理性、組織、管理、設計、決策、認知、人工智能、系統等等的論述，並能與世界一流的心靈溝通，共創新文明。

H. A. Simon的《管理行為》圓夢半世紀後

2011-01-14T01:07:00.000-08:00

圓夢半世紀後(1999/11)

一個人物的生命並不只是一些事實的累積，

重要的是洞悉領悟的剎那

精神凝聚的片刻

　　　　　　　──Oliver Stone

戴明晚年曾說，"這一陣子比以後十年所學的還多！" 他創立/提出其 System of Profound Knowledge.....

　　半世紀或五十年，多少是當今人們可預期的工作年歲，這些可能是偏高的估計，不過在歷史洪流中，或在上帝眼中，五十年實在只能算一聲嘆息。

百年樹人，譬如說，台灣安定繁榮了五十年，依然沒有公認的世界一流大學。

　　像胡適這種四十歲就能寫自傳的人，畢竟是少數。有幾位諾貝爾獎得主的傳記，只記了青春歲月，或是某些作家一本書只能寫童年的，就另當別論。最近看了一些書，令人有感而發：人多半是在實踐他年輕時的夢而已，能夠圓少年期的夢，就是幸福。

　　蕭乾在1940年6月3日從英國寫信（p. 780）給胡適，向「五年來文體的解放者，新文藝的創基人，適之先生」請安。信中報導「近與一愛爾蘭青年合讀James Joyce的 Ulysses，這本小說如有人譯出，對我國創作技巧勢必有大影響，惜不是一件輕易的工作。」

　　蕭乾在經三十餘年的困頓（現在的人很難想像）之後，與他的太太文潔若合作譯出該書，作為遺愛人間的禮物。

　　最近買了二本書，初譯及定譯都是在五十年以後。一本是劉思慕（1904-85）的歌德自傳《詩與真》，二篇譯序分別寫於1934年7月和1982年3月，為歌德百年祭與百五十年祭時所寫。另一本為陳原、陳實譯的《貝多芬：偉大的創造性年代》。兩者譯書中，劉與陳原為忠誠的共產黨員，主要的目的或為「繁榮我國社會主義文藝和精神文明盡一點微薄的力量」。

　　我在譯的H. A. Simon的《管理行為》(初版及四版間隔五十年)。各章的第一版部分都採取第一版而一字未異。

　　「歌德晚年才完成《詩與真》。他知道他在人世間的歲月所留下來的痕跡，不會消失在時空的長河裡。」周作人雖然"壽則多辱"，還是翻譯了他想翻的日文和希臘文古典.....

他們都是「熱愛生活，渴望光明，追求真理，自強不息」的人。

The Nature of the Firm:Origins, Evolution, and Development

2011-01-11T17:02:00.001-08:00

企业的性质——起源、演变和发展The Nature of the Firm

這是一本重要的書
我現在才再開始學他們的思考法
想了解H. A. Simon可從索引中的 "西蒙"和" 有限理性"
可參考Simon 的管理行為第一章對新制度學派和交易成本的批評

The Nature of the Firm

Origins, Evolution, and Development

Edited by Oliver E. Williamson and Sidney G. Winter

Add to Cart

ISBN13: 9780195083569ISBN10: 0195083563 Paperback, 256 pages

Apr 1993, In Stock

Description

In 1937, Ronald H. Coase published "The Nature of the Firm," a classic paper that raised fundamental questions about the concept of the firm in economic theory. Coase proposed that the comparative costs of organizing transactions through markets rather than within firms are the primary determinants of the size and scope of firms. Coase won the 1991 Nobel Prize in Economics for this work. This volume derives from a conference held in 1987 to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of the publication of Coase's classic article. The first chapter affords an overview of the volume. It is followed by a republication of the 1937 article, and by the three lectures Coase presented at the conference. These lectures provide a lively and informative history of the origins and development of his thought. Subsequent chapters explore a wide-range of theoretical and empirical issues that have arisen in the transaction cost economic tradition. They illustrate the power of the transaction cost approach to enhance understanding not only of business firms, but of problems of economic organization generally. In addition to Coase's work, contributors include Sherwin Rosen, Paul Joskow, Oliver Hart, Harold Demsetz, Scott Masten, Benjamin Klein, as well as the volume's editors, Oliver E. Williamson, and Sidney G. Winter. The Nature of the Firm includes Coase's acceptance speech for his Nobel Prize in Economics.

Reviews

"Our advice to anyone interested in organizations and organization theory is don't miss this book. It includes some of the past, present, and future of a major line of thought regarding the nature of the firm. It is an important contribution to the expanding interest in organization theory."--Journal of Management

"Particularly timely given Coase's receipt of the 1991 Nobel Prize for economics....For students and noneconomists, the volume provides an accessible route into the now enormous literature on economic organization....Specialists, on the other hand, will find ample grist for their analytical mills."--Business History Review

"The evolution of the theory is interesting, several important issues are discussed, and the suggestions for future research are illuminating. For those not familiar with this literature, the book provides a clear exposition of its origins and key ideas."--Business History

"Many of the papers are exccellent. The book is accessible to advanced undergraduates and graduate students and valuable for specialists in the field. It is that rare conference volume which is interesting, enlightening, and important."--Journal of Economic Literature

"A lively debate on economic approaches to the firm....It is unlikely that there is a better book than this one for understanding what the economics mainstream and periphery have to say today on the organization and governance of the firm."--Administrative Science Quarterly

企业的性质——起源、演变和发展
主編/作者:(美)威廉姆森 (英)温特等等译者:姚海鑫邢源源
版次：2007年2月第1版/2010

本书是一本论文集，收录了罗纳德·科斯于1937年首次公开发表的经典论文《企业的性质》，以及科斯在1987年为纪念“企业的性质”发表50周年而举行的一次研讨会上所做的三篇演讲，还有科斯在获1991年诺贝..

　本书第一章是综述，然后是科斯发表于1937年的那篇经典论文以及他在本次研讨会上所做的三篇演讲。本书还包括六篇参会论文和两篇受本次会议启发所撰写的论文。《法律、经济学与组织杂志》第四期(1988年春季号)刊登了本书中除导论和科斯1937年的论文以外的全部论文。

　　本书是一本论文集，收录了罗纳德·科斯于1937年首次公开发表的经典论文《企业的性质》，以及科斯在1987年为纪念“企业的性质”发表50周年而举行的一次研讨会上所做的三篇演讲，还有科斯在获1991年诺贝尔经济学奖时所做的演讲。这些内容涉及到“企业的性质”的起源、意义和影响。从这四篇文章中，我们能看到科斯学术思想的形成、演变及其发展。这对于真正理解科斯及其学术思想至关重要。

　罗纳德·H．科斯(Ronald H．Coase)的经典论文“企业的性质”最初发表于1937年。本书重印了此文和1987年为庆祝“企业的性质”发表50周年而举行的一次研讨会的参会论文。组织此会是我们二人难得的幸事。耶鲁大学组织与管理学院(Yale School of Organization and Management)利用阿尔弗雷德·P．斯隆基金会(Alfred P．Sloan Foundation)所赠资金资助该会，对此我们深表谢忱。
　　科斯教授具有与众不同的头脑，在解决当前某些最基本问题时，他设法永久地改变其对话方式。他一贯如此而非一时兴起。显然这种研究惯例首先必须想人所未想之问题，之后洞悉并考察其本质，最终还要用比前人更基本的方式加以详细阐述。
　　当然，这样会令其他人难堪。大家该如何对待这样一件明显正确、难于分析，却又颠覆了目前经济学理论基础的“赠品”呢?一种明智的反应是只在脚注中引用相关文章，而不在正文中关注其要旨。然而，正如后来的事实所证明，其张力迟早会受到大家的关注。
　　科斯教授从未因自己的研究超前于时代而退缩。在他看来，显示这种张力总比隐藏它要好。我们这些研究或关注经济组织问题的人——对经济组织的研究是整个经济学界都在直接或间接从事的——都应该永远感谢他。

　　本书第一章是综述，然后是科斯发表于1937年的那篇经典论文以及他在本次研讨会上所做的三篇演讲。本书还包括六篇参会论文和两篇受本次会议启发所撰写的论文。《法律、经济学与组织杂志》第四期(1988年春季号)刊登了本书中除导论和科斯1937年的论文以外的全部论文。在此我们十分感谢牛津大学出版社允许重印这些论文以及科斯1937年的论文。

　　正如本次会议和相关论文所揭示的，对组织的经济学研究方兴未艾。尽管该领域已经取得了实质性进展，但仍有许多问题悬而未决，有些问题则刚刚引起关注。鉴于有众多研究人才应用各种方法投身于该研究领域，我们对未来十年甚至五十年充满信心。而罗纳德· 科斯继续积极参与该领域的研究发展，则是所有参会者以及整个经济学界的幸事。

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　奥利弗·E．威廉姆森
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　西德尼·G．温特
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　1990年7月于加利福尼亚伯克利

1 导论　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　
2 企业的性质（1937）　　　　　　　　　　　　
3 企业的性质：起源　　　　　　　　　　　　　
4 企业的性质：意义　　　　　　　　　　　　　
5 企业的性质：影响　　　　　　　　　　　　　
6 交易成本与内部劳动力市场　　　　　　　　　
……

一些論文 (Herbert A. Simon)

2011-01-02T23:41:00.000-08:00

沒有找到Simon 送給我的一篇論文 (?) 應該是發表在 international society for operations research ?

不過找到一些相關的資料

"If you can't forecast, stay flexible."

我的 Herbert Simon 2007

分類：人物

2007/06/03 20:46

我的兩次與數位典藏的”交網”經驗

先談一下：[The Herbert A. Simon Collection], Carnegie Mellon University Archives, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

CMU大學現在有六位學人或政治家的數位典藏（Senator H.J. Heinz III Papers 、Dr. Herbert A. Simon Papers 、Dr. Allen Newell Papers 、Dr. Clifford Glenwood Shull Papers 、Dr. Joseph Traub Papers、 Dr. Takeo Kanade Paper）其中Simon和Newell的，由於與人工智慧和經濟管理等相關，我稍有接觸。就我而言，Simon 是20世紀了不起的一位學者，所以我翻譯過他的成名作『管理行為』（Administrative Behavior ，1996年第四版，這可以說是他一生主要學說的一全景圖和縮影。）。我翻譯過程中與他通了約35封信函(多半為電子信)。我的名字hanching chung 出現在他的作品論文集的 Administrative Behavior 一書的簡記。

在The Herbert A. Simon Collection 建立初期（約2003），我輸入hanching chung 可以得出我以信件方式寫給他的掃瞄檔，解釋他過去50年資料中，記載著台灣翻譯過Administrative Behavior的，乃是一誤會等等。

不過，我2007年再訪問The Herbert A. Simon Collection ，竟然找不到到我的大名，所以我寫信問網站管理員，再由她轉給The Herbert A. Simon Collection 主持人--他向我解釋基於個人隱私和版權等等，將我的刪除，不過他們存有我們通信的35張在檔案中，歡迎我有空造訪匹茲堡時去參觀The Herbert A. Simon Collection 。

Information about:
Herbert A. Simon

Personal Details | Affiliation | Lists | Works

This is information that was supplied by Herbert Simon in registering through RePEc. If you are Herbert A. Simon , you may change this information at RePEc. Or if you are not registered and would like to be listed as well, register at RePEc. When you register or update your RePEc registration, you may identify the papers and articles you have authored.

Other registered authors

Personal Details

First Name: Herbert
Middle Name: A.
Last Name: Simon
Suffix:

RePEc Short-ID: psi29

Homepage: http://www.nobel.se/economics/laureates/1978/
Postal Address: Herbert Simon obtained the Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel in 1978 and died in 2001. His entry is maintained by the RePEc team. The listed email address will not respond to inquiries
Phone:

Affiliation

(in no particular order)

This author is deceased

Lists

This author is among the top 5% authors according to these criteria:

This author is featured on the following reading lists or publication compilations:

Nobel laureates in economics

Works

Working papers

Simon, Herbert A., 1979. "Autobiography," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 1978-2, Nobel Prize Committee. [Downloadable!]
Simon, Herbert A., 1978. "Rational Decision-Making in Business Organizations," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 1978-1, Nobel Prize Committee. [Downloadable!]
Published as:

Articles

Herbert Simon & Lindsay McSweeney, 2010. "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," CPI Journal, Competition Policy International, vol. 6. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Herbert A. Simon, 2002. "Organizing and coordinating talk and silence in organizations," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(3), pages 611-618, June.
Herbert A. Simon, 2002. "We and they: the human urge to identify with groups," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(3), pages 607-610, June.
Herbert A. Simon, 2002. "Near decomposability and the speed of evolution," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(3), pages 587-599, June.
Herbert A. Simon, 2002. "Forecasting the future or shaping it?," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(3), pages 601-605, June.
Herbert A. Simon, 2001. "¿Por qué la administración pública?," Revista de Economía Institucional, Universidad Externado de Colombia - Facultad de Economía, vol. 3(4), pages 119-122, January-J. [Downloadable!]
Herbert Simon, 2001. "Pro- and anti-lists of the most significant contributions to economic literature of the twentieth century," European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 8(3), pages 309-310, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Herbert Simon, 2000. "Bounded rationality in social science: Today and tomorrow," Mind and Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 1(1), pages 25-39, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Simon, Herbert A., 2000. "Barriers and bounds to Rationality," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1-2), pages 243-253, July. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Herbert A. Simon, 1999. "The many shapes of knowledge," Revue d'Économie Industrielle, Programme National Persée, vol. 88(1), pages 23-39. [Downloadable!]
Sarasvathy, D. K. & Simon, Herbert A. & Lave, Lester, 1998. "Perceiving and managing business risks: differences between entrepreneurs and bankers," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 207-225, January. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Simon, Herbert A., 1997. "On the possibility of accurate public prediction," The Journal of Socio-Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 127-132. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Simon, Herbert A, 1993. "Altruism and Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(2), pages 156-61, May. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Published as:
Simon, Herbert A, 1991. "Organizations and Markets," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(2), pages 25-44, Spring. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
A. Simon, Herbert & Iwasaki, Yumi, 1988. "Causal ordering, comparative statics, and near decomposability," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 39(1-2), pages 149-173. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Simon, Herbert A, 1986. "Rationality in Psychology and Economics," Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages S209-24, October. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Simon, Herbert A., 1984. "On the behavioral and rational foundations of economic dynamics," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 35-55, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Simon, Herbert A., 1982. "The rural-urban population balance again," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 599-606, November. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Simon, Herbert A, 1979. " On Parsimonious Explanations of Production Relations," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 81(4), pages 459-74.
Simon, Herbert A, 1979. "Rational Decision Making in Business Organizations," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 69(4), pages 493-513, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Other versions:
Simon, Herbert A., 1978. "The analysis of complex socioeconomic systems : , Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath & Co., 1975. xvii + 150 pp.; index. $14.00 cloth," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 2(4), pages 394-396, December. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Simon, Herbert A, 1978. "Rationality as Process and as Product of Thought," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 68(2), pages 1-16, May.
Herbert A. Simon, 1978. "On How to Decide What to Do," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 9(2), pages 494-507, Autumn. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Ijiri, Yuji & Simon, Herbert A, 1974. "Interpretations of Departures from the Pareto Curve Firm-Size Distributions," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 82(2), pages 315-31, Part I, M. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Ijiri, Yuji & Simon, Herbert A, 1971. "Effects of Mergers and Acquisitions on Business Firm Concentration," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 79(2), pages 314-22, March-Apr. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Herbert Simon, 1966. "A note on Jost's law and exponential forgetting," Psychometrika, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 505-506, December. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Herbert Simon, 1962. "A note on mathematical models for learning," Psychometrika, Springer, vol. 27(4), pages 417-418, December. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Herbert Simon, 1957. "Amounts of fixation and discovery in maze learning behavior," Psychometrika, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 261-268, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Richard M. Cyert & Herbert A. Simon & Donald B. Trow, 1956. "Observation of a Business Decision," Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 29, pages 237. [Downloadable!]
Herbert Simon, 1956. "A comparison of game theory and learning theory," Psychometrika, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 267-272, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)

Chapters

Simon, Herbert A. & Schaeffer, Jonathan, 1992. "The game of chess," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, in: R.J. Aumann & S. Hart (ed.), Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 1, pages 1-17 Elsevier. [Downloadable!] (restricted)

Books

Herbert A. Simon, 1996. "The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd Edition," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262691914, June.
Herbert A. Simon, 1984. "Models of Bounded Rationality, Volume 1: Economic Analysis and Public Policy," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262690861, June.

賽蒙行政決策理論與教育行政

2010-12-23T13:39:00.000-08:00

這位"惡名昭彰"的教育部長的博士論文是賽蒙行政決策理論與教育行政 (台北:五南 1986)

拿國家的錢去美國問Simon 一些沒什麼水準的話
照張像回來出書交差了事

吳清基：八德學生沒有那麼壞我敢說「沒人對我鼓譟」！

NOWnews - ‎16小時之前‎

教育部長吳清基急赴桃園八德國中演說，卻因台下學生鼓譟不得不中斷好幾次。桃園縣八德國中最近因校園霸凌事件躍上媒體版面，教育部長吳清基日前親自到校宣導反霸凌，卻有許多學生在台下鼓譟，導致吳清基的演說數度中斷，吳清基今（23）日在行政院主動澄清表示，「我敢說 ...

大讚有禮貌吳清基讚賞八德國中生蘋果日報

Models of My Life 之一啟示

2010-12-20T22:22:00.000-08:00

敬請踴躍參加我的中國經驗與其限制 (2011年1月8日)

座談題目: 我的中國經驗與其限制。
時間: 2011年1月8日周六 10:00-12:00
地址：台北市新生南路三段88號2樓
電話：（02） 23650127
參考資料:
中国政治 Politics in China

中國密碼︰中國崛起對西方的影響 Der China Code

專家：中國土地使用政策可能逆轉
渣打銀行分析師王志浩在一份報告中指出﹐有跡象顯示中國政府似乎準備放棄數十年來一直堅持的以農業自給自足為目標的土地使用政策了。
等等信手舉例
---
陳老師

這次是"座談會" 我們沒計畫讓個別成員報告其"中國之旅"

主旨是參與者綜合其有限的"中國精驗" 思考/猜測中國的未來發展和台灣如何因應

現在報名參加的有陳忠信先生....

剛剛陳忠信先生問我為什麼想辦這座談會

我認為近30年來中國的崛起之事實是我輩一生中最重要的而需面對的議題

昔日翻譯Herbert Simon 的 Models of My Life 書中他說到
他們有些朋友每年會撥出近一周的時間去思考人類的重要議題
我認為他們是了結的
我個人親身與中國接觸20年用過7-8本台胞證我自己的心得是什麼呢ㄅ

在1998年我們的網站就有幾篇談這方面的問題
現在或許是另外一回的學習

約走過地球8周?

2010-11-24T16:34:00.000-08:00

Herbert Simon每天走路上學
所以計程是約走過地球8周

"不善左腦思維與數字的夫妻終於同意擴充產能了。在顧問軟硬兼施下，開始尋覓較大廠房、製作標準作業流程、儲備並訓練人力。「擀麵棍擀一圈是七公分，一條吐司要擀60次所以是4.2公尺，每天做60條就是252公尺，每年工作約280天70公里，大概是台北到新竹的距離。」這是戚其明在台上講的一段話。愛好美學，喜歡音樂的他原本連食材成本占售價是多少比例都搞不清楚，如今他在台上誓言要進行左腦革命。"

代某光通信部品與次系統台商徵高階品管主管

2010-11-23T04:17:00.001-08:00

代某光通信部品與次系統台商徵高階品管主管

本刊版主剛從中國回來一周來未更新

代某光通信部品與次系統台商徵高階品管主管
請將履歷等資訊寄
hcsimonl@gmail.com

鍾漢清
Hanching Chung (or HC/ hc)
網址：http://www.deming.com.tw
台灣戴明圈: A Taiwanese Deming Circle
http://demingcircle.blogspot.com/
地址：台北市新生南路三段88號2樓
電話：（02） 23650127

卡內基美隆大學

2010-11-09T17:24:00.000-08:00

卡內基美隆大學- 維基百科，自由的百科全書

卡內基美隆大學（Carnegie Mellon University）是一所研究型私立大學。該校位於美國賓夕法尼亞州匹茲堡。1967年由卡內基理工學院和梅隆工業研究所合併成立。 ...

美隆是好辭相對枯槁

A Life of the Mind: Remembering Herb Simon BY DAVID KLAHR AND KENNETH KOTOVSKY

2010-11-01T05:27:00.000-07:00

我現在才讀到這篇

寫許多他愛學生與教學的事

April 2001

A P S O B S E R V E R

Vol. 14 No. 4

Features

Psychological Scientists on Advisory Panels

The SAT I and California

I was the PSPI Canary

Remembering Herb Simon

Departments
Front Page Presidential Column Student Notebook Department Profile Teaching Tips People Members in the News Announcements Meeting Calendar Employment Ads

A Life of the Mind:
Remembering Herb Simon

BY DAVID KLAHR AND KENNETH KOTOVSKY

As we reported in last month's issue, Herbert A. Simon died on February 9, 2001 at the age of 84. The Observer invited Klahr and Kotovsky, two of Simon's former students and long-time colleagues in the Department of Psychology at Carnegie Mellon, to write a few words about not only the accomplishments, but also the personal and intellectual sides, of this remarkable individual.

Herb Simon's death prompted a remarkable outpouring of expressions of loss from around the world. They ranged from official condolences from The Chinese Academy of Sciences, to an informal "Quaker Meeting" in our Department at which his saddened and tearful colleagues shared their sense of loss, to the spontaneous postings of remembrances and eulogies on the Internet. Thus, it is with some trepidation that we take on this task, for we are fully aware that there are hundreds of others - students, collaborators, disciples, colleagues, and friends - who yearn to honor him by telling the world something about how he enriched their lives.

The official recognition of his contributions is nothing short of astonishing: Let's start with the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences and the National Medal of Science and membership in the National Academy of Science. In addition, he received honorary degrees from two dozen universities around the world, as well as the top awards from APS, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychological Foundation, the Association for Computing Machinery, the American Economic Association, the American Society of Public Administration, the American Political Science Society, the Operations Research Society of America, and the Institute of Management Science.

A more complete record of Herb's accomplishments and awards is available online. His own description of his remarkable life can be found in his autobiography, Models of My Life (Simon, 1991), and a fascinating account of his seminal role in the "cognitive revolution" is provided in Pamela McCorduck's book Machines Who Think (McCorduck, 1979).

SIMON'S IMPACT ON COGNITIVE SCIENCE
Each of the disciplines listed above could-and do-claim Herb Simon as "theirs," because of the seminal ideas he contributed to their field, and the longevity of the influence of those ideas. Here we will only comment on what he did for, and to, cognitive science. Simply put, Herb changed our field at a time when it was badly in need of change.

Wrong again! Herb loved his teaching as much as his research, for he saw no difference between the two.

In the immediate aftermath of WWII, the engineering and mathematics community was developing sophisticated ways of analyzing information and control processes. In the nascent field of computer science, there was an emerging understanding of computability. In psychology, studies of vigilance and attention were producing theories of human information processing cast in terms of boxes and arrows. But all of this work was catapulted to a new level of rigor by the introduction of the kinds of computational models that Herb and his long-time colleague Allen Newell developed in the late 1950s.

Some of this work represents the foundational work in artificial intelligence (AI). For example, in 1956, Newell and Simon produced the first running AI program - The Logic Theorist - that proved many of the theorems of symbolic logic in Whitehead and Russell's Principia Mathematica. This first demonstration of computers doing symbolic "thought" or information processing was soon followed by an ever-burgeoning array of seminal work in AI that led to the physical symbol system hypothesis, which presented a generalized view of an intelligent system as any physical device - including the human mind - that could manipulate symbols.

Another strand of this work provided the foundation for modern computational models of human thought. These models have one important property that distinguishes them from all other types of theoretical statements: they independently execute the mental processes they represent. That is, rather than leaving it to the reader to interpret a verbal description of such processes as encoding an external stimulus or retrieving a memory or focusing attention, computational models actually do the encoding, searching, retrieving, and focusing. Consequently, the complex implications of multiple processes can be unambiguously derived.

When Herb's contribution of verbal protocol analysis as an empirical constraint on computational models was added to the mix, psychology had a vehicle for systematically and empirically investigating mental operations. These contributions helped turn our field back to the study of mind - a focus that had been largely lost in the behaviorist era - with a methodology that reflected the rigor of empirical methodology contributed by behaviorism. Herb Simon's contributions moved psychology into the mainstream of American science just as it was blossoming in the early post-war decades, and played a major role in the advent of cognitive science as we know it today.

A LIFE OF THE MIND
Rather than further elaborate on the public record of Herb's formal accomplishments, we will now attempt to convey our reply to many who have, in the past few weeks, asked us: "What was he like?" "What kind of a guy was he?" "Who was this man?"

These are harder to answer than might be expected. In some ways, we knew Herb well: He was advisor to each of us during our graduate careers four decades ago. Via different paths, we wound up as his colleagues at Carnegie Mellon for most of our careers. Our collaborative work with him brackets nearly the full gamut of his years and his interests in psychology, from the computer simulation of cognitive processes to the psychology of scientific discovery, and as colleagues we have spent hundreds of hours with him in scientific, administrative, and social discourse.

But to claim to know Herb Simon well is beyond any single person, except perhaps his loving wife Dorothea, for whom he was friend, colleague, scientific collaborator, and husband of 64 years. Whatever we say here will be an inadequate depiction of this remarkable person, but we hope that, at the least, our words and those of others we cite will provide a glimpse of him.

Herb lived a simple life. He walked to work from his home a mile from Carnegie Mellon. He hated air conditioning, refused to move his office into the renovated wings of our building, and for years after the dissemination of word-processors, continued to type his manuscripts on a manual typewriter. His home was warm and inviting but not in the least pretentious.

His life was a life of the mind. He inhabited his office for long hours on weekdays and weekends as well. Entering that office was an intellectual adventure. Whatever the topic was, you could be sure that you would engage a mind that was relentlessly seeking to understand some aspect of the world. It was a rare meeting that didn't involve Herb jumping out of his seat and pulling a book off the shelf to consult about some issue that came up. Following his curiosity was what his life was about - and it led to wondrous places.

As one of his former students wrote a few days after Herb's death:

Many graduate advisors in the sciences teach their students how to write. Mine taught me what to read and how to read it. My first and every conversation with Herb turned out to be the kind I had read about in C.P. Snow's novels about life at Cambridge: Civil conversations with a tutor who gave you a great deal of stuff to read, discuss and write about week after week, year after year. I was nudged to read Theory of Oscillations by Andronow and Chaikin ("Have you had any nonlinear differential equations?") and the Federalist Papers ("They were modeling and building a whole new society. Can you imagine what they would have done with computer simulations?").
Over the next three years, I was encouraged to read the classics in an astonishing range of subjects: General equilibrium theory in economics, real analysis, operations research, mathematical logic, the infant science of computer networks, cognitive psychology, and the philosophy of knowledge. I was made to read. Few human beings, including my classmates, have received the quantity and quality of educational attention I received in those years. I simply enjoyed myself, insufficiently realizing the responsibility that comes with such an education. (Ramamoorthi Bhaskar, personal communication)

While Bhaskar's remembrance is from the 1970s, Herb's level of energy, excitement and enthusiasm never waned. A current collaborator writes of his last interaction with Herb, just a few months ago. Remember, as you read it that Herb was 84 years old at the time:

Late one afternoon this past November, Herb and I were meeting to discuss how to present a very complex set of findings on human category learning. Our research group had been struggling to extract these findings from a massive body of qualitative and quantitative data, truly labyrinthine in its complexity. Herb had saved the day, of course, having invested possibly more than 80 hours alone in analysis, after our group had spent easily 10 times that without success. After he summarized the findings, we paused for moment as his presentation and my comprehension took all available capacity. He smiled and remarked with his eyes twinkling brightly that he "had not had as much fun in a long time."
I will forever cherish his words and these moments - and so many more. I feel immeasurably grateful to have been so incredibly privileged to work with this wonderful man. (Jim Staszewski, personal communication)

COSMOPOLITAN AND LOCAL
One of us once went to Herb for advice about how to make the difficult choice between two excellent opportunities for a beginning academic job. One offer was at a top-notch, well-established, but "conventional" university. The other was at an exciting, innovative, unconventional, and fledgling university. Herb said that, according to the then-current thinking in sociology, there were two kinds of academics: "cosmopolitans" and "locals." Under this dichotomy, cosmopolitans make their contributions and achieve their fame through their research, as well as through their activity in national and international professional organizations. Locals, by contrast, tend to be known for their contributions to their own university, through outstanding teaching, program and institutional development, high-level administrative service, and so on. As he put it, one simply had to choose the kind of career one wanted - cosmopolitan or local - and then pursue the consequences.

No matter how famous or how honored, he kept at his intellectual work throughout his long and productive career. He was the consumate intellectual and academic and never wavered from that no matter what formal adminstrative or external opportunities were proffered to him.

But here, at last, we reveal that even Herb Simon had a major flaw: He failed to take his own advice. The record at Carnegie Mellon is clear. During the same extended period over which he published nearly 1000 articles, he also exerted a profound, long-lasting, and intentional influence on his home institution. Herb was not only a University Professor - our highest academic honor - he was also a member of the Board of Trustees!

In the pursuit of his intellectual goals, Herb created, rearranged, sacked, supported, and integrated many organizational elements within the university. As a result, the list of departments that bear his irrevocable and indelible stamp include, in addition to the Department of Psychology, the Department of Philosophy, the Department of Social and Decision Sciences, the Graduate School of Industrial Administration, the Heinz School of Public Policy, the School of Computer Science, and, yes, even the Physics Department. Not only does each of these individual units bear the influence of Herb Simon's creative vision and administrative determination; the ethos and nature of the entire university also reflect his vision and commitment.

How did he manage to do this while he never was an official Head, or Dean, or Provost? First, he never left Pittsburgh. Not even to accept the oft-proffered invitation to spend a year at the Institute for Advance Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford or accept a Chair at just about any place in the world that he fancied. Second, he believed that good science can produce effects in the world, and he did, after all, start his career in political science and management science. He understood how organizations worked, and he used that knowledge to unprecedented effect at Carnegie Mellon.

No, Herb never made the choice between cosmopolitan and local. He could do it all. And we mean "all." For one might expect that the superb scientist and the master politician would have to slack off somewhere, and that it perhaps would be in his teaching. Wrong again! Herb loved his teaching as much as his research, for he saw no difference between the two.

A LOVE OF TEACHING
Herb's teaching assistant for last semester's course on cognition and problem-solving related how Herb got so excited by the projects proposed by the wonderful group of graduates and undergraduates in the course (characteristically drawn from a wide variety of disciplines and programs) that he insisted on doing much of the TA's job himself - things like reading each revision of the students' progress reports on their term projects. This love of teaching characterized Herb's entire career. (Indeed, on that morning in 1978 when word of his Nobel Prize brought reporters and TV equipment cramming into his office, Herb glanced at his watch and suddenly terminated the interviews. The reporters protested, but Herb astonished them all as he continued his exit: "Gentlemen", he said with an impish grin, "I have to go teach. After all, that's what they pay me for.")

Another telling anecdote is his presentation to a group of first-year students in their dormitory. After the talk, he got down on the floor and the discussion went on and on as he and the students ate their "elegant" submarine sandwich dinners. When the host (one of the authors of this remembrance) tried to close things by inquiring if Herb was ready for his ride home, he said, "No, we're doing fine here. Why don't you run along. I'll just walk home when we're finished." There were, after all, minds to enrich and ideas to explore.

His consummate devotion to his teaching was also exemplified by the nurturing gentleness he demonstrated as he guided his students' intellectual development in weekly meetings. These discussions were often wide-ranging, as he shared his seemingly limitless intellect. He had the endearing (but disconcerting) habit of charitably assuming that the listener understood what he was talking about and could follow his thinking from discipline to discipline as he developed an idea.

Although Herb was gentle with his students, he had a passion for ideas that often led to intense debates. As the discussion heated up he would often, at such times, reach a point where he was about to deliver a potentially "lethal" blow to his opponents' arguments. When this happened, this ex-amateur boxer would soften the impact by the use of the word "friend", starting off his argument with his trademark "Look, friend..." as he went on to demolish the opposition. It was as if he was sensitive to the impact he could have by bringing to bear his massive intellect, and desired to assure the interlocutor that it was only the intellectual argument that was at issue and not the friendship. Nonetheless, it was a very intimidating front end - humans are after all, subject to classical conditioning, and the "Look, friend" was, to say the least, an ominous conditioned stimulus! (We never received the "Look, friend" warning while we were still students - it was reserved for those who could take it, and we remember vividly, that when it finally was first used with one of us it felt like our bar mitzvah - it marked the not entirely painless entry into adulthood!)

Ideas and the pursuit of knowledge drove this man. While he was not averse to attaining power and influence, he did so only in support of higher level goals-either to make a contribution to one of his many communities-this life-long "New-Dealer" had a strong social conscience and commitment-or to position himself to insure that the research environment would become and continue to be a good and supportive one. He never accepted a position that took him away from his research and teaching. His day to day and year to year and decade to decade behavior indicated that working on research, poring over data, and the wonderful sharing of his intellect in weekly research meetings in his office with his colleagues and students was his highest calling. No matter how famous or how honored, he kept at his intellectual work throughout his long and productive career. He was the consummate intellectual and academic and never wavered from that no matter what formal administrative or external opportunities were proffered to him.

Nearly 40 years ago, in a paper that attempted to predict the influence of automation on the shape of organizations, Herb reflected on the nature of human needs and satisfactions. He wrote: Man is a problem-solving, skill-using, social animal. Once he has satisfied his hunger, two main kinds of experiences are significant to him. One of his deepest needs is to apply his skills, whatever they be, to challenging tasks - to feel the exhilaration of the well-struck ball or the well-solved problem. The other need is to find meaningful and warm relations with a few other human beings - to love and be loved, to share experience, to respect and be respected, to work in common tasks. (Simon, 1965, p.110)

Herb is gone now. We are forever grateful to him not only for setting the "common tasks", but also for creating the context in which so many of us have found the exhilaration, meaning, respect, friendship, and love of which he spoke, but will speak no more. We will miss our teacher and colleague, but surely his teaching will go on in our lives. His intellect and integrity provide a model to live by. With each memory his lessons continue.

How can we honor him? Perhaps, as we enter the millennium of intelligent systems, it is worth considering something Herb wrote nearly 40 years ago:

"The definition of man's uniqueness has always formed the kernel of his cosmological and ethical systems. With Copernicus and Galileo, he ceased to be the species located at the center of the universe, attended by sun and stars. With Darwin, he ceased to be the species created and specially endowed by God with soul and reason. With Freud, he ceased to be the species whose behavior was - potentially - governable by rational mind. As we begin to produce mechanisms that think and learn, he has ceased to be the species uniquely capable of complex, intelligent manipulation of his environment."
"I am confident that man will, as he has in the past, find a new way of describing his place in the universe - a way that will satisfy his needs for dignity and for purpose. But it will be a way as different from the present one as was the Copernican from the Ptolemaic." (Simon, 1965)

Perhaps the time has come add another name to the Pantheon of those who have profoundly and irrevocably changed the way we understand ourselves: Herbert A. Simon.

REFERENCES

McCorduck, P. (1979) Machines who think. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman
Simon, H. A. (1965). The shape of automation for men and management. New York: Harper & Row.
Simon, H.A. (1991). Models of my life. New York, NY: Basic Books.

ENDNOTES

1. For comments by Ryan Tweney, a historian of science, see: www.people.virginia.edu/~apk5t/
STweb/HerbSimon.html; from various members of the American Political Science Association, see http://www.apsanet.org/new/simon/.
2. See: www.psy.cmu.edu/psy/faculty/hsimon/hsimon.html

DAVID KLAHR is Professor of Psychology and director of the graduate program in psychology at Carnegie Mellon University, where he was Head of the Department of Psychology from 1983 -1993. His research interests include the development of scientific reasoning processes and the intersection of cognition and instruction. He is a Fellow and Charter Member of APS.

KENNETH KOTOVSKY is Professor of Psychology at Carnegie Mellon University. His major research focus is cognition, and in particular how people solve problems and what determines problem difficulty. He is a Charter Member of APS.

Models of Bounded Rationality: Empirically grounded economic reason - Google 圖書結果

2010-11-01T04:54:00.000-07:00

Models of Bounded Rationality: Empirically grounded economic reason - Google 圖書結果

Herbert Alexander Simon - 1997 - Business & Economics - 479 頁
The third volume of Simon's collected papers continues this theme, bringing together work on this and other economics-related topics that have occupied his ...

這套書共3大冊不知收入那一冊
少部分論文有中譯

The sciences of the artificial - Google 圖書結果

2010-11-01T04:53:00.001-07:00

The sciences of the artificial - Google 圖書結果

Herbert Alexander Simon - 1996 - Science - 231 頁
Continuing his exploration of the organization of complexity and the science of design, this new edition of Herbert Simon's classic work on artificial ...

末章收入下文

PDF]

The Architecture of Complexity Herbert A. Simon Proceedings of the ...

- [ 翻譯此頁 ]

檔案類型: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - 快速檢視
由 HA Simon 著作 - 1962 - 被引用 2555 次 - 相關文章
HERBERT A. SIMON. [PROC. PHIL.SOC. "complex systems." Roughly, by a complex system I mean one made up of a large number of parts that interact in a ...

【社會心理】在團體決策中，無知反而有益民主編譯 \| 汪芃 ■一份在《科學》（Science）雜誌上發表的最新研究指出，在某些情況下，群體中有一些無知的成員，反而能將權力交給多數，有助多數決的民主決策過程。一群動物如何進行團體決策？蜜蜂在決策時，會使用「頭錘」攻擊意見相左的團體成員，直到最後取得共識，但不少其他物種的決策過程則比蜜蜂要來得民主。若一群沒有血緣關係的群居動物各自有不同的需求（人類社會即是一例），就常會出現意見相左的情形。但團體中某些成員對可選擇的選項資訊不足、或根本不在乎決策結果的情形也所在多有。長期以來，學者一直想了解上述狀況的決策過程。過去有些證據顯示，一群動物中較無知、閱歷較少的成員會受到少數剛愎自用、控制欲強的強勢成員操縱，如果情況真是如此，那麼群體中有較無知的成員，應會妨礙民主的決策過程，因為這些成員等於把團體中的決定權交給了少數成員。然而一份在《科學》（Science）雜誌上發表的最新研究指出，在某些情況下，群體中有一些無知的成員，反而能將權力交給多數，有助多數決的民主決策過程。本研究的研究人員首先建立了一個簡單的計算模型，這個模擬的模型中有一群虛擬動物和兩個目的地，每隻動物可自行選擇要移動到哪個目的地；這群虛擬動物喜愛與彼此為伍，且大致會朝同一個方向前進，除此之外這個模型沒有太多限制。這些虛擬動物便依循上述的規則行動，就像一個剛開始發展的原始社群。接著研究人員便調整模型中各個選擇的動物數量，以及動物對自己偏好的堅定程度。				圖片來源：hjl/Flickr/CC-licensed
				在他們建立的第一組模型中，每隻動物都有各自想選擇的目的地，而堅定的程度不一。實驗結果並不意外：這群動物的大多數成員想去哪個目的地，最後整群動物便會往那裡去；即便多數成員和少數成員的喜好強度累計起來是相同的，最後還是佔多數的成員獲勝。然而，一旦有些成員的偏好超過某種程度，即使牠們是少數，仍可影響整群動物最後的決策。這個實驗結果顯示，如果一個群體中選擇某選項的少數十分固執己見，而大多數成員雖然作另一個選擇，但態度並不堅持，那麼少數人是可能推翻多數人的。接著研究人員在計算模型中加入沒有特別偏好的虛擬動物，情況就變得有趣了。在這樣的情況下，即使上述少數成員對自己的選擇態度強硬，但團體中因為有這些「無知」成員的存在，決定權會回歸多數決制。且團體中資訊不足的無知成員越多，這個效應也就越強（當然仍有一定限制，因為最後雜訊會過大）。繼續閱讀>> －TOP－


[科學人]改造世界10大奇招 -- 學人腦思考的晶片撰文╱敏斯（Christopher Mims）翻譯／王怡文重大變革往往出自非常簡單的創意。當年，一位叫做賈伯斯的年輕發明家因為想讓「沒有用過電腦，也不特別想擁有電腦的人們」體驗電腦的能力，帶領了我們脫離難以掌握的大型主機和一長串指令，邁向使用起來輕鬆愉快的麥金塔和iPhone。他的點子從此改變了我們跟科技的關係。還有哪些簡單但極富革命性的創意還在實驗室裡，等著一炮而紅的時機來臨？這次我們精選了10項新科技，並介紹這些科技的內涵，以及它們可能如何改造世界。這些新科技包括運算方式跟人類思維相同的電腦、能在加油站充電的電池、以巨量資料製成的「水晶球」（見38頁〈計算未來〉）。你也可以說，這次的報導是我們向簡單創意的強大力量致敬。資訊科技學人腦思考的晶片微晶片架構設計師莫達（Dharmendra S. Modha）的團隊，也許是世上唯一包括了精神科醫師的。此舉並非為了維護工程師的心理健康，而是他的合作對象──由五所大學及IBM五個實驗室所組成的聯盟，正在研發一種模仿神經元運作的微晶片。他們稱之為「認知計算」，2011年8月首度發表研究成果：兩顆各由256個人工神經元組成的微晶片。現在這些晶片只能在乒乓遊戲中擊敗對手，或走出簡單的迷宮，然而他們有個野心勃勃的最終目標：把人腦的神經計算功能放進小小的矽晶片中。這個由美國國防高等研究計畫署資助的計畫稱為SyNAPSE，正在研發擁有100億個神經元和100兆個突觸的微處理器，約相當於人的大腦半球的規模，預計體積不超過兩公升，耗電相當於10個100瓦的燈泡。這計畫看似想創造人腦，但莫達堅決否認，他說他們想創造的是一個替代架構，取代幾乎每部電腦都採用的共同架構。普通晶片只能透過一個狹窄的通道傳送指令和資料，而使極速受限。但在莫達的替代架構下，每個人工神經元都有自己的通道，從一開始就內建大量平行運算的能力。莫達表示：「我們正在打造一個通用的地基，一個用來當成基礎、創造多種應用的平台技術。」				■類神經電腦將輕鬆解決難倒傳統電腦的所有任務。
				喬治亞州立大學神經科學家愛德華斯（Don Edwards）認為，這個做法一旦成功，模擬神經網絡的成就將達到30年來的最高峰，就連IBM的競爭者都刮目相看，美國克雷電腦副總裁柏丁（Barry Bolding）指出：「類神經運算有潛力解決傳統系統感到困難、甚至無解的問題。」莫達強調，認知計算架構不會取代傳統電腦，而是補其不足，預先處理充滿雜訊的真實世界資訊，轉為傳統電腦可處理的訊號。例如，擅長圖形辨識的晶片可從人群中選出一張臉，再把他的身分傳給傳統電腦。如果有人擔心機器太過強大，那麼或許令人稍感安心的是，這些晶片的數學不會太好。莫達說：「就像用現在的電腦來模擬人腦很沒效率一樣，傳統電腦擅長的快速加法和減法，用類人腦網絡來做也非常沒效率。誰都不能取代對方。」

Herbert A. Simon 司馬賀

President Roosevelt was attempting to "pack" the court.

great Herbert Simon

學人腦思考的晶片/在團體決策中的無知

閒聊Herb Simon

感謝有您 邁向2012

平均可活到87歲以上

一所工商學院的設計

醫療專家系統

日本Olympus 公司的諾貝爾經濟學獎者Robert Mundell醜聞

日本Olympus 公司的諾貝爾經濟學獎者Robert Mundell醜聞

John McCarthy (1927-2011)

從心理學評介胡適談中國禪學的發展（鍾 漢清）這篇應用許多Simon先生的論點

Thomas Sargent and Christopher Sims/ 理性預期理論（rational expectations）

Herbert Simon 說 DOROTHY/ 微積分

再開個simon university 遙遙無期

Mies van der Rohe 與 H. A. Simon

WellPoint Hires Watson, IBM's Computer Project

BY ANNA WILDE MATHEWS

the Cosmos Club ii

The Cosmos Club 與我們

Science Times: March 3, 2009

By DENNIS OVERBYE

Ball Aerospace

Contents

History

Members

See also

External links

References

師友

關於"The Tacit Dimension"的評說

Christopher Alexander

歌德 Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

歌德奖章在魏玛颁发

乐观主义者和谨慎的怀疑论者在周日（8月28日）相会于魏玛参加今年歌德奖章的颁发仪式。今年歌德奖章被授予一位法国制片人，一名波兰时政记者以及一位英国畅销书作家。

卡耐基-梅隆大學(CMU)校長室的告別紀念會之信 2001

Simon 與Kant 對話 (語言領域)

電影

Digital analysis (the connoisseur)

Art criticism and computers

Digital analysis is invading the world of the connoisseur

Kenneth J. Arrow says US debt limit concept is 'crazy idea'

United States | 20.07.2011

Nobel Laureate says US debt limit concept is 'crazy idea'

Despite all the partisan political posturing, Nobel Prize winning economist Kenneth Arrow rates the risk that the US debt limit won't be raised as low. He also tells Deutsche Welle why the debt limit is a crazy idea.

繞地球7.5周

Herbert Simon 的說法: 任何學問都可自修

感謝Kenny 送的安全文化會議的紀錄

How to cope with data overload

Schumpeter

How to cope with data overload

Herb. SIMON 好辯

H A. Simon的冥誕 2011

The organization of complex systems - Simon

搜尋結果

A man-made world

The Anthropocene

Science is recognising humans as a geological force to be reckoned with

Influence

Book Review

By HAROLD BLOOMReviewed by SAM TANENHAUS

satisficing

HOW TO SUCCEED IN BUSINESS

齊白石的自白可以作為"專家研究"的一事例

《齊白石年譜》（胡適、黎錦熙、鄧廣銘编 ） 1949年商务印书馆出版

談點 Alfred Marshall

大學董事會的經營(1)

大學董事會的經營(1)

Evolution Explains Altruism

How Evolution Explains Altruism

By OREN HARMAN

Published: April 8, 2011

Illustration by Lutz Widmaier

SUPERCOOPERATORS

Altruism, Evolution, and Why We Need Each Other to Succeed

Related

Simon 的 "自學"數學方式 vs Reasoning Mind

Models of Man: Social and Rational (Herbert A. Simon)

Conflict Research Consortium BOOK SUMMARY

感謝有您邁向2012

從心理學評介胡適談中國禪學的發展（鍾漢清）這篇應用許多Simon先生的論點

By HAROLD BLOOM
Reviewed by SAM TANENHAUS

《齊白石年譜》（胡適、黎錦熙、鄧廣銘编） 1949年商务印书馆出版

《Simon 管理行為第四版》: 大教堂更新

Information about:
Herbert A. Simon

敬請踴躍參加我的中國經驗與其限制 (2011年1月8日)