👨‍🏫親編講義👨‍🏫

What Is The World's Most Relaxing Color? A New Survey Just Found Out

There is much more to color than meets the eye. Strangely enough, us humans have a close emotional bond with the visible ( ) light aspect of the electromagnetic spectrum, a bond so strong it can easily make us feel stressed out with a raised heart rate or leave us with a warm and fuzzy sense of satisfaction.

If you’re looking to cool your jets and relax, one of the most calming colors to be surrounded by, according to a global survey from paper merchant G F Smith and psychologists at the University of Sussex, UK is navy blue, closely followed by teal-like turquoise ( ), and soft pastel pink.

The World's Favourite Colour Project involved 26,596 participants from over 100 different countries, possibly the largest ever color study, to get some insights ( ) into the world's most beloved color. To do this, they asked the human guinea pigs to list attributes ( ) and emotions that they associate with certain colors in the hopes of also finding out what different hues mean to different people, and what may influence this.

"Many studies have investigated the link between color and emotion. Although not all of these studies agree, some consistent ( ) results can be extracted ( ) from the literature,” Professor Anna Franklin, a leading expert in color psychology at the University of Sussex, wrote in a blog post about the project.

"First, the more saturated ( ) the color is, the more it is associated with excitement and stimulation,” Franklin explained. “Second, the lighter the color, the more it is associated with calmness and relaxation. Many studies have found that blue and green are also associated with calmness and relaxation (fewer studies find no association).”

The findings also showed that orange is most often associated with happiness, while pink is viewed as the sexiest, and the colors people around the world most associated with luxury are white, purple, and orange.

In case you were curious, most people’s favorite color appears to be green or blue, although there was a lot of variety in the results. According to the ecological valence ( ) theory (just one of a handful of color preference theories), humans appear to be fond of these colors because they’re associated with environmental features we can benefit from and enjoy, such as clear skies, clean water, and vegetation. That also explains why we tend not to like murky brown colors, as we link them to dirty water, poop, and disease.

However, while certain colors seem to embody ( ) a universal characteristic – for example, red equates to anger – it’s worth remembering some interpretations of color can vary hugely between groups.

"Several studies suggest that color associations, particularly abstract ( ) concepts, can vary across cultures,” Professor Anna Franklin says. "For example, whereas white is associated with peace in some cultures, in others it is associated with death.”

新的研究調查提出最讓人感到放鬆的顏色

色彩，遠不止我們眼睛看上去的那麼簡單。但奇怪的是，我們人類與這些電磁波譜上的可見光，竟有著說不清講不明的情感聯繫，這種聯繫如此強烈，以至於它很容易能讓我們心率加快甚至感到壓力，又或者讓我們有一種溫暖而模糊的滿足感。

據造紙商G•F•史密斯以及英國薩塞克斯大學心理學家的一項全球調查，如果你想冷靜放鬆下來，海軍藍是最好的選擇，其次是藍綠色和柔粉色。

這次「世界上最受歡迎的顏色」實驗，研究對象涉及了100多個國家的26596名參與者，目的是瞭解最受人們喜愛的顏色。這可能是有史以來規模最大的色彩研究了。為了達到實驗目的，他們讓實驗對象列出特定顏色相關的屬性和代表情緒，既希望找出不同的顏色對不同的人意味著什麼，也希望弄明白這其中有哪些影響因素。

薩塞克斯大學色彩心理學領域的權威專家安娜•佛蘭克林教授在一篇關於此專案的部落格文章中寫道：「許多研究都調查了顏色和情緒之間的聯繫。雖然它們並非都得出了相同的結論，但從論文中也能找到一些共同點。」

佛蘭克林解釋說：「首先，顏色越飽滿，它就越能引起興奮和刺激；其次，顏色越淺，就越能讓你感到平靜和放鬆；再者，許多研究發現，藍色和綠色就是『放鬆色』的兩個典型代表。這一點，很少會有研究否認。」

研究結果還表明，橙色通常與幸福感有關，而粉紅色則是性感的代名詞。全世界的奢侈品都離不開白色、紫色和橙色。

即使你感到好奇，就算人各有別，各有所好，但大多數人最喜歡的顏色還是綠色或藍色。根據生態效價理論（為數不多的「顏色偏好理論」之一），人類之所以喜歡這些顏色，是因為它們與某些環境特徵有關，而我們既能享受這些環境特徵，更能從其中收益。晴朗的天空、乾淨的水流、翠綠的植被，不都是為我們所喜愛的嗎？這也解釋了為什麼我們不喜歡暗褐色，因為它們總讓我們想起髒水、糞便和疾病。

然而，儘管某些顏色的確已被賦予了普遍的意義（就好比我們提到紅色就會聯想到憤怒），但我們要記住，不同群體對顏色的解釋，可能存在巨大的差異。

安娜•佛蘭克林教授說：「因為還有一些研究表明，在不同的文化中，顏色代表著不同的意義，尤其涉及到抽象概念的時候，例如，白色在某種文化中意味著和平，而在另一種文化中，它卻和死亡有關。」

#高雄人 #學習英文 請找 #多益達人林立英文
#高中英文 #成人英文
#多益家教班 #商用英文
#國立大學外國語文學系講師

【專題訪問 Interview Feature】2019年度香港大學學生會周年大選中央幹事會候選内閣蒼傲訪問（外務篇） | Interview with Prism, the Proposed Cabinet of Executive Committee, The Hong Kong University Students’ Union of Annual Election 2019 (External Affairs)

(Please scroll down for English version.)

中央幹事會候選內閣蒼傲就外務議題接受本台訪問，就不同外務議題立場，包括不反對政府取締民族黨的原因、相信政府DQ議員合法的理據、初一事件有黑幫介入的看法、及對法律制度有信心的理由等發表意見。

訪問節錄如下：

1. 你們的政治光譜/政治立場是甚麼？
我們認為用現有的名詞並不能表達我們莊的政治立場，因為例如本土、港獨等，第一他們並沒有清晰的界定，或是社會一致的定義，我們都認為不論是政治光譜或是政治立場我們作為香港人或是香港接受教育的人，其實我們的立場都會傾向由香港出發。但由香港出發去考慮香港利益時，我們都要考慮時間軸。時間軸的意思是，我們到底在考慮短期還是長期的利益。加上香港的地理位置、經濟結構其實都十分依賴世界上大部份的國家，不論金融、出口產業，所以在考慮香港利益同時，我們都應考慮鄰近國家的政策、議案的推出。所以如果要用幾個字去形容我們的政治立場，我們會選擇「國際視野，本土出發」八個字。前者是考想利益的角度,後者是執行的角度。

2. 你們是否支持香港獨立？
首先我們認為它可以被自由地討論，特別是在大學之內。至於是否贊成香港獨立方面，港獨並非香港現時可執行最好的決策，因為尚有很多的選擇可加以考慮及討論。另外我認為香港內部的問題都非常嚴峻，例如我們在政綱小册子上提到的外務議題，如學生自殺、高樓價、創新科技嚴重落後等問題。這些都是我們內部必須解決和面對的問題，所以我們會將那些內部問題列為最優先需要處理的問題。

3. 你們覺得香港獨立是否合法？
我們認為任何符合法例的討論都是可被接受的，所以我們認為只要某個人或團體在現時完善的法律制度下，加上沒有違反法律，就應可就不同議題提出想法。

4. 你們是否同意香港政府取締香港民族黨？
首先我們相信香港的法治仍然相當完善，所以就香港一套完整司法制度體系下做出的判決，我們並沒有太多質疑或反對。對於民族黨被政府取締或禁止，社會上有不同聲音，但我們相信我們應遵守絕大部分香港市民都認同是完善的法律體系下作出的任何決策。

5. 你們是否同意香港政府DQ議員？
其實我們由始至終都相信，而坊間一些調查機構都指出香港的法治制度在世界上都名列前茅，所以我們相信這套法治制度可以帶來公平的審訊，所以對於有部分議員被DQ，我們願意相信整個判決過程是公平的，並且有足夠理據去支持政府所作的判決，所以我們對這件事沒有任何特別意見。

6. 你們是否支持人大釋法？
每一個法律的訂立，其實都是由一小部分的精英去開始建構框架，然後隨社會的進步不斷完善。所以法律並非一本已經印刷好的書，而是容許我們不斷修改、去完善，就一些前人的不足作補完。人大釋法亦都如是，我相信重點是我們希望這法列在微調後能得到愈來愈多香港人的支持，這才是一個成功的新詮釋。

7. 你們是否同意一國兩制？
我們支持所有在香港回歸時所簽訂的條文，其中當然包括一國兩制。

8. 你們是否支持國歌法和23條立法？
因為爭議聲非常之多，所以我們不希望對任何未實施或未明文規定的法例作出過多評論。這是對該法案有所偏頗，該法案到最後還有很多相議的空間，所以我們認為政府應充分考慮各種聲音，從而推出一條為大部分港人所接受的法例。

9. 你們對違法達義有何看法？
香港作為擁有完善法律的城市，任何人都有表達訴求或是行動的權利。我們主張每人都有自由去決定自己的事、想表達的聲音，但每人都應為這些行為勇敢承擔相認的法律責任。當然我們更相信這套法律體系是完善和公平的。

10. 你們對初一事件有何看法？
對旺角騷動，很多報紙傳媒都報道了有不法份子甚至黑社會的介入，所以旺角騷動的那一批示威者是否單純為表達而表達的市民呢？

11. 你們是否同意政府以暴動罪控告參與者？
就對這幾名人士進行拘捕的行為，我們希望香港政府有真憑實據去支持，以及整個審訊過程認該要公平。我希望他們得到公平的審訊。

Campus TV has interviewed with Prism, the Proposed Cabinet of Executive Committee, The Hong Kong University Students’ Union, Session 2019, with regards to their treatment of external affairs. Prism has expressed their stance and opinions on various external issues, which include: their not opposing the Hong Kong government’s banning of the Hong Kong National Party, believing in the government’s legitimacy for the disqualification of legislators, believing in the involvement of gangs in the Mong Kok Incident of 2016, and expressing their confidence in the current legal system.

The interview excerpts are as follows:

1. Where do you stand on the political spectrum? / How would you define your political stance?
We believe the current word items are unable to express our Cabinet’s political stance. For example, if you consider the term localism or Hong Kong independence, these groups have not a clear boundary or universal definition given by the society. Whether it be the political spectrum or political stance, us who are Hong Kong-ers or who have been educated in Hong Kong, have a tendency to think from the standpoint of Hong Kong. If we consider the benefits from the standpoint of Hong Kong, we also need to consider the timeline. This (the timeline) means, that we should consider if these benefits are of short term or long term. Therefore, when considering Hong Kong’s benefits, we should also consider the policies and bills of neighbouring countries. Therefore, if we had to define our political stance in terms, it would be “international perspective that comes from a local standpoint”. The former is a consideration to the benefits, the latter is a consideration to the execution.

2. Do you support Hong Kong independence?
Firstly, we think this matter could be discussed freely, especially within the premises of the University. In terms of agreeing with Hong Kong independence, we think that Hong Kong independence is currently not the best option to be executed in Hong Kong, because there are still many other options to consider and discuss about. In addition, I think that Hong Kong’s internal affairs are very severe, like the external affairs that are mentioned in our campaign booklet, for example, students’ suicides, rising property prices, the severely outdated innovation and technology. These are problems that our internal department has to confront and resolve, therefore we put these internal affairs as our priority.

3. Do you think that Hong Kong independence is legal?
We believe any discussion that is in compliance with the law is acceptable. Therefore, we think that under the current, comprehensive legal system, with no breaching of the law, a person or group should be allowed to speak their thoughts on different issues.

4. Do you agree with Hong Kong government’s banning of the Hong Kong National Party?
Firstly, we believe that Hong Kong’s rule of law is still quite comprehensive. Therefore, we do not have much hesitation nor opposition for a judgment that is based on what we consider to be an intact judicial system of Hong Kong. In terms of the banning of the Hong Kong National Party, the society has different voices, but we believe we ought to obey the judgment that comes from what the majority of Hong Kong considers to be a comprehensive legal system.

5. Do you agree with Hong Kong government’s disqualification of legislators?
Actually, we have since the very beginning believed in Hong Kong’s rule of law as quite a frontrunner in the world; this has been backed by some survey organisations within the community too, so we believe that this rule of law can bring out a fair trial. Therefore, in regards to the disqualification of some legislators, we willingly believe that the entirety of the judgment process has been fair, with sufficient arguments to back up the government’s verdict. We do not express any special opinions towards this incident.

6. Do you support the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress’ Interpretation of the Basic Law (SCNPC's Interpretation of BL, or Interpretation of the Basic Law by the SCNPC)?
For the enactment of every legislation, it starts from a small portion of elites that begin to build its (the legislation’s) framework, it then continues to be improved as society grows. For this reason, the law is not a printed book, it allows us to continually amend, better, and complete items that are left neglected or faulted by predecessors. This applies for the SCNPC's Interpretation of BL, I believe the most important thing is, we hope to gain more Hong Kong-ers’ support under these fine-tunings (by the SCNPC's Interpretation of BL), we think this is what counts as a successful re-interpretation of the law.

7. Do you agree with the constitutional principle of “one country, two systems”?
We support all the terms that were signed in the Handover of Hong Kong, and this definitely includes the principle of “one country, two systems”.

8. Do you support the National Anthem Bill and the enactment of Article 23?
Due to the many controversies on this matter, we do not wish to comment on any legislation that has yet to be implemented or stipulated in explicit terms. This would be a prejudice on the said bill(s). These bills still have a lot of room for negotiation, so we believe the government should consider different voices, so as to introduce a legislation that is accepted by the majority of Hong Kong-ers.

9. What are your views on the idea of achieving justice by violating the law?
Hong Kong is a city with a comprehensive legal system; anyone has the right to express their own appeal or action. We advocate that everyone has the freedom to decide for their own deeds and express their own thoughts, but everyone should also be responsible to bear the consequences of their actions. Needless to say, we definitely believe that our legal system is perfect and fair.

10. What are your views on the Mong Kok Incident in 2016?
With regards to the Mong Kok unrest, many media sources have reported about the involvement of many illegal parties, and even that of gangs or triads. So, are the demonstrators in the Mong Kok unrest really with pure intentions to speak up, for the sake of expressing themselves as Hong Kong citizens?

11. Do you agree with the government’s decision to charge participants (of the Mong Kok Incident in 2016) with the offence of rioting?
With regards to the arrest of those participants, we hope that the Hong Kong government has had solid evidence to support (their arrest), and that the trial process has been fair. I hope they receive a fair trial.
___________________________________

二零一九年度香港大學學生會周年大選其他候選人包括候選常務秘書麥嘉晉、校園電視候選內閣、學苑候選編輯委員會及候選普選評議員。

2019年度周年大選中央諮詢大會將於一月二十一日至一月二十五日在中山廣場舉行，時間為下午十二時半至二時半。

Other candidates for the Annual Election 2019 include the Proposed General Secretary Mak Ka Chun Eugene, the Proposed Cabinet of Campus TV, the Proposed Editorial Board of Undergrad, and the Proposed Popularly Elected Union Councillor.

The Central Campaign for Annual Election 2019 will be held from the 21st to 25th of January at the Sun Yat-sen Place, from 12:30 to 14:30.

Dr Google
誰是世上最多人看的醫生？
答案是Dr Google。一不舒服就google，看了醫生再google，任何變化都google，可是同樣一種病，美國人和香港人會分別google出什麼？

《Your Medical Mind：How to Decide What is Right for You》裡描述了一位美國病人麥特：麥特是創投公司老闆，泌尿科醫生一直說「沒什麼好擔心的」只是檢查一下，卻突然發現前列腺癌，麥特無法再相信這醫生，開始上網google「前列腺癌」。
電腦出現了幾百萬條資訊，麥特選了比較可靠的網頁，例如美國國家癌症研究院和美國癌症學會，但大多資訊都是治療的客觀資料；他想知道那一種方法比較有效，開始去看醫學期刊上的文章，然而很快就看不下去：資料太多、技術名詞看不懂、不知道那些是有關自己的病情；於是他去書店買了一堆討論治療前列腺癌最新理論的醫療書籍。
麥特根據資料找到更多治療理論和方法，但見了很多醫生後，他累了：「我終於想通了，只要我去找外科醫生，他一定會要我開刀。如果去找放射醫師，他就會建議我用放射療法。每一位專家都推薦自己的方式，而且提供手中的統計數給我，但這些數字對我而言，沒有什麼幫助。」
最後因為麥特曾經是工程師，又開設創投公司，選擇了所相信的高科技方法開刀做手術。
........
想像，麥特是香港一間小型地產鋪老闆，知道患癌後同樣上網google。
香港醫管局癌症資料統計中心有一些本地數字：在二零一二年本港男性十大最常見的癌症當中，前列腺癌排列第三；二零一二年有1,631宗新增前列腺癌病例；過去二十年，本港的前列腺癌新增個案急劇上升超過六倍；一生累積風險為每三十一個男人有一個會患上前列腺癌——可是這些數字對麥先生的意義是什麼？能參考作決定嗎？
麥先生再在醫院局「智友站」網頁找列腺癌成因和治療方法，相當簡單的問與答；然後在癌症基金會網頁找到更詳細的治療資料，但都是客觀描述，讀了也難以知道自己可以選擇什麼治療；防癌會亦上載十六頁的小冊子，然而這些資料愈讀愈「熟口熟臉」——香港官方網頁的資料比起美國的，較為基本簡單，往往多年不會更新。
香港醫生亦較少會寫書給市民，就算有，也是較為「穩妥」的背景資料，和官方網上資訊相去不遠。美國醫護團體還會設計一些[決策輔助工具]，讓病人估評根據自己的情況和想法，不同醫療決定的風險，但這在香港並不普遍。

麥先生看中文醫學術語都感到吃力，沒法用英文閱讀香港醫生發表在學術期刊的研究，或者美國加拿大等較新的資料；傳媒不時報導外國「突破」發展，新聞似是而非無法求證。
突然網上一份資料非常吸引：「中醫藥對前列腺癌的預防及治療作用」。他想起平時在臉書看了大堆癌症是假、化療才致命……開始考慮找中醫治療，但在香港應該找誰？上網討論站，網友意見多多，那些過來人不知真假；打電話問親朋戚友，更多資訊湧過來：湯水、食療、另類治療……
麥先生累了，私家醫生說什麼就什麼吧，彷彿診金愈高，愈有權威。

延伸閱讀：

美國醫療決策基金會專門研究決策輔助工具設計，渥太華醫院的網站decisionaid.ohri.ca輸入關鍵字，就有大量相關的網上資源讓病人知道不同治療的利弊，並且可以輸入個人資料，評估這些選擇的風險。

35% of U.S. adults have gone online to try to identify a medical condition in themselves or someone else, according to a 2013 survey from Pew Research Center
http://www.acpinternist.org/archives/2013/11/dr-google.htm

Illustration by David Cutler