读过 x+y 🌕🌕🌑🌑🌑
这本说实话挺失望的，不仅性别问题说得很暧昧，就连所谓的数学思维都只能算是噱头而已……可以感受到这个作者本身很纠结很别扭，一边说不希望囿于性别思维的窠臼，一边张嘴就是男的倾向于而女的倾向于，然后马上又给自己贴补丁说“只是个人经历”或者not all men and not all women……虽然全书也不乏数据的引用，但是类似于这样“身边即世界”的推论太多让人难以信服……作者花了半本书澄清数学不仅是数字和方程，然后说“用数学思维”引入了一个新的维度，congressive和ingressive（基本可以对应cooperative和competitive），然后就把“数学”抛之脑后，开始了原地转圈一样的论述，用到的最大的assumption就是congressive good, ingressive bad，但是始终没有给予除了循环论证和主观感受之外的论证……我是始终觉得竞争行为不好的人，但我也觉得它是不可避免的，毕竟资源是有限的，就算合作也要考虑资源分配方式的问题，而我们完全没到可以平均分配的共产主义乌托邦，甚至放弃竞争的话都无法像现在这样跳出食物链的限制成为地球霸主（非褒义）……然而这个作者，一到涉及到需要深入剖析和解决根源问题的时候，就轻描淡写地滑了过去，单方面强调什么都不是零和游戏、合作总能让资源变得更多真是充满了中产阶级的优越感，到最后甚至说人类靠congressivity达到了其他动物都达不到的高度，但是不好的点是ingressivity让人类奴役和欺压其他人和动物，难不成侵占动物生存空间不是人类文明发展的重要组成部分？有没有可能一个行为本身也是有ingressive的部分和congressive的部分而不能单纯这么二分法地讨论……更不要说我全程没看出来她用的方法和数学思维有啥关系，非常站不住脚的一本书
x+y [Book] Douban
author:
Eugenia Cheng
publishing house:
Basic Books
Why are men in charge? After years in the male-dominated field of mathematics and in the female-dominated field of art, Eugenia Cheng has heard the question many times. In x + y, Cheng argues that her mathematical specialty -- category theory -- reveals why. Category theory deals more with context, relationships, and nuanced versions of equality than with intrinsic characteristics. Category theory also emphasizes dimensionality: much as a cube can cast a square or diamond shadow, depending on your perspective, so too do gender politics appear to change with how we examine them. Because society often rewards traits that it associates with males, such as competitiveness, we treat the problems those traits can create as male. But putting competitive women in charge will leave many unjust relationships in place. If we want real change, we need to transform the contexts in which we all exist, and not simply who we think we are.