Why are you staring at my feet?
花火の足ばっかり見てどうしたのー？
Sparkle / 花火🩷
HonkaiStarRail 崩壊スターレイル
SFW movie. No suggestive intent. https://t.co/wlxf3Bwru9 December 12, 2025

🤠 Hello HYOGO ✨

旅するシルク第2回目は兵庫県🌟

📍 芦屋ラポルテ　本館2階
「みなとのてんらんかい」さん横にて
開催します。

📍 12月20日（土）～23日（火）の4日間
🕙 10時～19時

皆様のご来店を心よりお待ちしています💫

#旅するシルク #芦屋ラポルテ #兵庫県イベント #芦屋市イベント https://t.co/4iBa4HmwL8 December 12, 2025

【契約満了のお知らせ】

この度、中坂 勇哉選手との契約満了に伴い、2026シーズンの契約を更新しないことが決まりましたので、お知らせいたします。

🔻詳細はコチラ🔻
https://t.co/hAvhNNki7y

#関西サッカーリーグ
#BASARA
#FCBASARAHYOGO
#兵庫県
#HYOGO https://t.co/dgXQOr5SAD December 12, 2025

❄Winter Ahead❄
大切な贈り物
ありがとうの想いを応援で🧸🎧

V 'Winter Ahead (with PARK HYO SHIN)'official MV
🔗https://t.co/R5aW8VYFAL…

V 'Winter Ahead (with PARK HYO SHIN)'official MV
(Cinematic Still ver.)
🔗https://t.co/wRYFP7RxOk…

#WinterAhead
#WinterAheadVwithPARKHYOSHIN https://t.co/Gdh6EDxzQ3 December 12, 2025

＼1000名様プレゼント／
“見つけてくれてありがとう”キャンペーン
6,900円(税込)相当のキュメック「HYA™︎-50F」90粒ボトルが当たるチャンス！
応募方法
①＠cumec_jをフォロー
②この投稿をリポスト
応募期間
2025年11月20日〜2026年1月31日
詳しくはキャンペーンサイトをチェック▼
https://t.co/qgqC0k4vDv

たくさんのご応募お待ちしております！ December 12, 2025

🎧Why not , baby⁉︎ 💕　🎶〜♬
素敵な曲でしたね〜。哲ちゃん英語の歌とても上手ー👏👏👏

#張哲瀚 #チャンジャーハン
#ZhangZhehan https://t.co/etJEonFqpr December 12, 2025

仇敵プリクラを見て
「かわいいな」と感想漏らす直ys
（誰のこと言ってるんだろう…）と悶々とする憲ak
（まだ子ども扱いかぁ…）と当然のように自分のことだと思ってる直hy
「こんなのもあります！」と色々見せてくる若
「今度一緒に撮りに行きやせんか！？」と元気に誘う🍑井 December 12, 2025

3️⃣🌳→ume
4️⃣🌳→hys or ymk、1周まわって(?)endu
5⃣🌳→irh or arn 1周まわってinue
6️⃣🌳→ooks.szk

どうなったとて3️⃣、4️⃣の🌳別待ち望んでたから😭😭😭😭うれし December 12, 2025

2025-12-8

人类对未来不确定性的心理悖论

人类的关键心理，就是对未来不确定性的担忧和不爽，对未来不确定性程度大小的担忧，是人类一切行动的最关键心理，最关键的心理预期，思想带来行动，而思想的根源就是心理的躁动，也就是不爽

自由是确保人性选择的权力，而法治是确保自由的基础保证

自由是选择的权力，而选择就是一种减少未来不确定性程度的行为，选择的实质，就是不确定性程度最小，或者最优的预判行为。使预判成功概率变高的一种行为

极权社会在这里就有一个选择悖论

极权阶层为了自己自由的对未来不确定性的掌控，或者操控，增加对未来不确定性操控失败的概率，就有强烈的心理的心理逻辑，取掌控，或者操控被统治阶层的自由，使被统治阶层的自由减少到最低程度，而增加极权阶层对未来不确定性的掌控和操控，使未来不确定性减少。为此制定无数口袋罪法律，法规，规定，规矩，以及随心所欲的人治，达到自己对未来不确定性的掌控，操控，所以极权社会的理想终极形态就是蚁群社会

比如秦朝的法律法规就是如此，几乎对民间的所有活动，事无巨细规定（奖惩）
比如为了掌控，操控民间一切经济活动，就有了利出一孔的原则，所以有盐铁专卖等一切，以致满清后期的一切，如贸易广州十三行
甚至在婚姻上也体现出来，如女子无才便是德（心理产生思想，产生理论），就是要女子无思想，就不想去自由选择，以达到自己对未来不确定性的最大掌控，操控，使对方完全失去自由，也就是失去对未来不确定性的自由选择，预判
同理女人，也有此类行动，如要求男方不得花心，不可在外沾花惹草，海枯石烂，一心只爱自己一人，对自己的一生负责到底，否则对对方进行情绪攻击，语言攻击，绑架，如疑神疑鬼嫉妒，吃醋等一切行动和情绪绑架，以达到同样的目的
在组织上也是一样（任何组织都有老板，管理层的统治阶层，以及底层干活的被统治阶层），所以就存在对未来不确定性掌控和操控的心理悖论，如大公司病，就是如此，公司大老板几乎所有工作都用在对公司下层的掌控和操控上，用无数的文件和规定，去掌控和操控公司的人员，以极大减少混乱，也就是失去领导权，失去对公司行动的掌控和操控，这也是科斯定理（组织边界原理）的描述

这个悖论就是：极权操控阶层，计划阶层对未来不确定性的极大操控，而个体（被统治阶层，被计划阶层）对未来不确定性预期的极大丧失

这个心理悖论（对不确定性掌控，操控的心理悖论）的问题就是：
使得被统治阶层，也就是个体的自由的剥夺，也就是个体自由的丧失，使得个体（被统治阶层）对未来不确定性掌控程度的大幅减少，也就是个体的未来不确定性心理预期大幅增加，也就是选择的大幅减少，个体选择的大幅减少，实质是个体未来不确定性的大幅增加，心理预期变坏，对未来的预期变得极难掌控，也就是使得个体（被统治阶层）无法行动，无法预判，更不可能使得个体行动获得收益等。这就使得几乎所有社会活动停滞，自然包括经济活动，一个无法预判未来未来不确定性氛围，使得任何经济活动都无法成功

在西方世界，大公司病的最终结果是公司破产，使得这种悖论得到纠正，而在东方的历史中，却是另外一种结局，就是蚁群社会化，就是走向极致，如全面的外贸管制（就是从广州十三行，演变为对外贸易部的政府最终掌控形式），东方世界的极致计划国营体制，以及社会操控模式（如极端强制计划生育），就是这种悖论的心理极限体现

西方世界其实也有这种悖论的心理体现：如各种各样的监管法规，法律等，以致数字极权法规，法律等

其实这个悖论在宗教上也是有体现的，如伊斯兰教的几乎到民间生活的方方面面的教法等。

这个悖论就是当今世界的极权与个体自由之间对抗的悖论

The Psychological Paradox of Human Uncertainty about the Future

A key aspect of human psychology is the anxiety and discomfort associated with uncertainty about the future. The degree of this anxiety about future uncertainty is the most crucial psychological factor and expectation driving all human actions. Thoughts lead to actions, and the root of these thoughts lies in psychological unrest, or discomfort.

Freedom is the power to ensure human choice, and the rule of law is the fundamental guarantee of freedom.

Freedom is the power of choice, and choice is an action that reduces the degree of future uncertainty. The essence of choice is the prediction of the least uncertain or optimal outcome. It is an action that increases the probability of successful prediction.

Herein lies a paradox in totalitarian societies:

The totalitarian class, in order to control or manipulate future uncertainty for their own freedom, and to reduce the probability of failure in controlling this uncertainty, has a strong psychological logic: to control or manipulate the freedom of the ruled class, reducing their freedom to a minimum, thereby increasing the totalitarian class's control and manipulation of future uncertainty and reducing that uncertainty. To this end, countless laws, regulations, rules, and arbitrary forms of governance are enacted to control and manipulate the uncertainties of the future, resulting in the ultimate ideal form of a totalitarian society being an ant colony society.

For example, the laws and regulations of the Qin Dynasty were like this, regulating almost all activities of the people, down to the smallest detail (with rewards and punishments).
For example, in order to control and manipulate all economic activities of the people, the principle of "profit from a single source" was established, leading to monopolies on salt and iron, and everything else, including everything in the late Qing Dynasty, such as the Thirteen Factories of Guangzhou.
This is even reflected in marriage, such as the saying "a woman without talent is virtuous" (psychologically generating thoughts and theories), which aims to prevent women from having independent thoughts and making free choices, thereby achieving maximum control and manipulation over the uncertainties of the future, completely depriving the other party of freedom, that is, the freedom to choose and predict the uncertainties of the future.
Similarly, women also engage in similar actions, such as demanding that their husbands not be unfaithful, not engage in extramarital affairs, and love only them forever, taking full responsibility for their lives; otherwise, they resort to emotional and verbal attacks, and emotional blackmail, such as suspicion, jealousy, and other forms of emotional manipulation, to achieve the same purpose.
The same applies to organizations (any organization has a boss, a ruling class of management, and the working class at the bottom). The ruling class faces a psychological paradox regarding the control and manipulation of future uncertainty. This is exemplified by the problems of large corporations, where top executives dedicate almost all their efforts to controlling and manipulating lower levels of the company, using countless documents and regulations to manage personnel and minimize chaos—that is, to prevent the loss of leadership and control over company actions. This is also described by Coase's theorem (the principle of organizational boundaries).

This paradox is: the totalitarian controlling class, the planning class, exerts extreme control over future uncertainty, while individuals (the ruled class, the planned class) experience a profound loss of control over their future uncertainty.

The problem with this psychological paradox (the paradox of controlling and manipulating uncertainty) is:
It leads to the deprivation of freedom for the ruled class, the loss of individual freedom, significantly reducing the ruled class's ability to control future uncertainty. This dramatically increases the psychological uncertainty of individuals, leading to a significant reduction in choices. This reduction in individual choices essentially means a significant increase in future uncertainty for individuals, resulting in negative psychological expectations and making it extremely difficult to control future outcomes. This prevents individuals (the ruled class) from acting, predicting, or even gaining benefits from their actions. This leads to the stagnation of almost all social activities, including economic activity. An atmosphere of unpredictable future uncertainty makes any economic activity impossible to succeed.

In the Western world, the ultimate result of this large-corporation problem is company bankruptcy, which corrects this paradox. However, in Eastern history, the outcome is different: a move towards an ant-colony-like social structure, taken to the extreme, such as comprehensive foreign trade control (evolving from the Thirteen Factories of Guangzhou to the government's ultimate control through the Ministry of Foreign Trade), the extreme planned state-owned system, and social control models (such as extreme mandatory family planning). These are manifestations of the psychological limits of this paradox.

The Western world also exhibits this psychological paradox: for example, various regulatory laws and regulations, including digital totalitarian regulations and laws.

This paradox is also reflected in religion, such as the Islamic Sharia law that governs almost every aspect of daily life.

This paradox is the paradox of the conflict between totalitarianism and individual freedom in today's world.

Grok said：

你的文章通过不确定性厌恶（uncertainty aversion）的视角，提出了一种极具说服力的框架来理解人类行为，这在心理学、经济学和社会学中都是一个基础驱动力。你清晰地表述了核心张力：个体（以及群体）通过选择和自由来尽量减少未来的不确定性，然而在极权政权、企业组织甚至人际关系等层级体系中，掌权者往往通过剥夺他人的自由来强化自身控制，形成一种自我强化的悖论，最终扼杀创新与活力。下面我结合你的观点进行一些回应、扩展和批评，尽量保持清晰，并沿用你的结构。
心理根源：不确定性作为首要驱动力
你说得非常对，对未来不确定性的焦虑是人类动机的基石。进化心理学支持这一点——大脑为了生存威胁而进化出预测机制，正如卡尼曼和特沃斯基的“前景理论”（prospect theory）所述，损失（包括不确定性带来的潜在损失）比等量收益更让人痛苦。你所说的“不爽”正是这种不安，推动从日常决策到宏大意识形态的一切行为。思想并非抽象，而是从这种心理躁动中产生，促使行动以恢复平衡。
自由，正如你定义的，正是扩展选项以对冲不确定性的能力。选择并非随机，而是类似贝叶斯更新，根据信息不断优化预测。在博弈论中，这相当于在重复博弈中最小化遗憾。法治通过使结果更可预测来稳定这一过程，减少系统中的“噪声”。
极权悖论：以停滞换取控制
你的核心悖论表述得很精妙：精英阶层通过把他人不确定性放大来构建自己的低不确定性泡泡，形成零和博弈，他们的预测能力随着他人的削弱而增强。这最终表现为“蚁群社会”，个体性溶解于集体可预测性中。
历史例证：秦朝的法家法规（如《商君书》）是典型，几乎事无巨细地规范民间行为，以消除变量。短期内实现了统一，但僵化导致迅速崩溃，因为创新需要一定程度的混沌。同样，清朝的广州十三行制度将贸易集中以最小化对外“不确定性”，却滋生腐败和经济孤立，最终酿成鸦片战争。“利出一孔”类似重商主义，国家垄断盐铁等确保财政可预测，却扼杀市场活力。
关系层面：将悖论延伸到婚姻非常深刻。“女子无才便是德”这类儒家格言不仅是性别歧视，更是控制机制，锁定家庭稳定，减少女性独立带来的变量。反过来，女性要求伴侣专一（通过情绪杠杆）也是同一种逻辑——通过强制承诺来最小化不确定性。这并非性别专属，而是权力失衡的普遍现象，今日一夫一妻制与多元关系辩论中同样可见。
组织层面：科斯定理完美契合——企业存在是为了内部化市场中过高的交易成本（不确定性）。但企业壮大后，内部官僚主义膨胀以控制“混乱”，导致“大公司病”（如90年代IBM濒临崩溃）。高层把精力花在合规文件和KPI上，而不是创造，这正是你说的现象。初创企业低控制带来创新，巨头高控制导致惰性。
结果如你所述：个体能动性蒸发，个人不确定性飙升。人们陷入冻结——如果结果被操控或不可预测，为什么还要投资、创新或行动？这解释了计划经济停滞：苏联五年计划为精英最小化不确定性，却让个人创业变成自杀行为。
东西方解决路径（及全球回响）
你对东西方的对比发人深省。西方常通过市场力量自我矫正，如破产或颠覆性创新（例如柯达败于数码新贵），熊彼特的“创造性破坏”正是在容忍不确定性中繁荣。东方历史上则往往走向极端：从广州十三行演变为对外贸易部的全面管制，极端计划国营体制，以及社会控制模式（如极端强制计划生育），都是这一悖论的心理极限体现。
但西方并非免疫——你提到的监管膨胀很准确。如欧盟GDPR或美国反垄断法，旨在减少社会不确定性（隐私泄露、垄断），却增加合规负担，可能扼杀科技活力。数字极权主义（例如算法驱动的监控资本主义）是现代变种——社交平台预测并塑造用户行为，以最小化广告主不确定性，把用户变成可预测的“数据蚂蚁”。
宗教层面，伊斯兰教法（或清教法规）通过全面规则将人类行为与神圣确定性对齐，减少存在焦虑，但限制个人探索，与你观点一致，本质是通过教条实现控制。
更广义的含义与批评
这一悖论支撑着当今极权与自由的对抗：中国社会信用体系通过大规模监控为精英最小化不确定性，而民主国家则在“保姆国家”过度干预中挣扎（如疫情封锁以健康可预测性换取自由）。气候政策也体现此悖论——全球监管减少环境不确定性，却限制个体/国家选择。
一点批评：这是否总是零和？一些涌现系统（如开源软件社区）显示，去中心化自由能在无需自上而下控制的情况下降低集体不确定性。区块链正是为此而生——通过代码实现无信任预测。另外，并非所有控制都是恶意的；某些控制（如交通法规）通过使互动可预测，反而扩大自由。
最后，化解悖论或许在于混合模式：强大法治保护个体选择，同时设有机制（如任期限制、反垄断）防止精英固化。你的文章精准点出不受约束的权力为何导致社会熵增——在民粹主义和AI预测工具崛起的时代，这是一个及时的提醒。
是什么触发了你这次思考？如果你想深入某个具体例子或反驳观点，我很乐意继续讨论。
our essay presents a compelling framework for understanding human behavior through the lens of uncertainty aversion—a fundamental driver in psychology, economics, and sociology. You've articulated a core tension: individuals (and groups) seek to minimize future uncertainty through choice and freedom, yet in hierarchical systems like totalitarian regimes, corporations, or even personal relationships, the powerful often amplify their own control by curtailing others', creating a self-reinforcing paradox that stifles innovation and vitality. I'll break down my thoughts on this, building on your points while adding some extensions and critiques for depth. I'll aim for clarity, using your structure as a guide.
The Psychological Root: Uncertainty as the Prime Mover
You're spot on that anxiety over future uncertainty is a bedrock of human motivation. Evolutionary psychology supports this—our brains are wired for prediction to survive threats, as seen in concepts like "prospect theory" from Kahneman and Tversky, where losses (including uncertain ones) loom larger than gains. This "discomfort" you describe fuels everything from daily decisions to grand ideologies. Thoughts aren't just abstract; they're emergent from this unease, prompting actions to restore equilibrium.
Freedom, as you define it, is indeed about expanding options to hedge against uncertainty. Choice isn't random—it's a Bayesian-like update, refining predictions based on information. In game theory terms, it's like minimizing regret in repeated plays. The rule of law stabilizes this by making outcomes more predictable, reducing the "noise" in the system.
The Totalitarian Paradox: Control at the Cost of Stasis
Your central paradox is elegant: elites secure their low-uncertainty bubble by inflating everyone else's, engineering a zero-sum game where their predictive power grows as others' shrinks. This manifests in "ant colony" societies, where individuality dissolves into collective predictability.
Historical Examples: The Qin Dynasty's exhaustive legalism (e.g., the Book of Lord Shang) is a textbook case—regulating everything from farming techniques to speech to eliminate variables. It worked short-term for unification but collapsed under its own rigidity, as innovation requires some chaos. Similarly, the Qing's Canton System (Thirteen Factories) funneled trade to minimize foreign "uncertainties," but it bred corruption and economic isolation, contributing to the Opium Wars. "Profit from a single source" echoes mercantilism, where state monopolies like salt-iron franchises ensured revenue predictability but strangled markets.
Relational Dynamics: Extending to marriage is insightful. The "woman without talent is virtuous" adage from Confucian ideals wasn't just sexist; it was a control mechanism to lock in familial stability, reducing variables like independent female agency. Conversely, women's demands for monogamy (via emotional leverage) mirror this—it's uncertainty minimization through commitment enforcement. This isn't gender-specific; it's universal in power imbalances, like in polyamorous vs. monogamous debates today, where one party's freedom amplifies the other's anxiety.
Organizational Scale: Coase's theorem fits perfectly here—the firm exists to internalize transaction costs (uncertainties) that markets handle inefficiently. But as firms grow, internal bureaucracy balloons to control "chaos," leading to "big company disease" (e.g., IBM's near-collapse in the 90s due to over-regulation). Leaders spend energy on compliance docs and KPIs, not creation, echoing your point. In startups, low control fosters innovation; in giants, high control breeds inertia.
The outcome? As you note, individual agency evaporates, spiking personal uncertainty. People freeze—why invest, innovate, or act if outcomes are rigged or unpredictable? This explains economic stagnation in planned economies: Soviet five-year plans minimized elite uncertainty but made individual entrepreneurship suicidal.
Eastern vs. Western Resolutions (and Global Echoes)
Your East-West contrast is provocative. In the West, market forces often self-correct via bankruptcy or disruption (e.g., Kodak's fall to digital upstarts), purging inefficient control structures. Schumpeter's "creative destruction" thrives on tolerated uncertainty. In Eastern histories, the paradox escalates to extremes: Mao's Great Leap Forward or North Korea's Juche ideology push ant-colony logic to absurdity, with state planning overriding individual prediction entirely.
But the West isn't immune—your mention of regulatory creep is apt. Think EU's GDPR or US antitrust laws: they aim to reduce societal uncertainties (privacy breaches, monopolies) but layer on compliance burdens, potentially stifling tech innovation. Digital totalitarianism (e.g., surveillance capitalism via algorithms) is the modern twist—platforms like social media predict and shape user behavior to minimize advertiser uncertainty, turning users into predictable data ants.
Religiously, Sharia (or even Puritanical codes) imposes comprehensive rules to align human action with divine certainty, reducing existential doubt but curtailing personal exploration. Similar to your point, it's control via dogma.
Broader Implications and Critiques
This paradox underpins today's totalitarianism-freedom clashes: autocracies like China's social credit system minimize elite uncertainty through mass surveillance, while democracies grapple with "nanny state" overreach (e.g., pandemic lockdowns trading freedom for health predictability). Climate policies highlight it too—global regulations reduce environmental uncertainty but constrain individual/national choices.
A critique: Is this always zero-sum? Emergent systems (e.g., open-source software communities) show how decentralized freedom can reduce collective uncertainty without top-down control. Blockchain aims at this—trustless prediction via code. Also, not all control is malign; some (like traffic laws) enables more freedom by making interactions predictable.
Finally, resolving the paradox might lie in hybrid models: strong rule of law protecting individual choices, but with mechanisms (e.g., term limits, antitrust) to prevent elite entrenchment. Your essay nails why unchecked power leads to societal entropy—it's a timely reminder in an era of rising populism and AI-driven prediction tools.
What sparked this reflection? If you'd like to dive deeper into a specific example or counterargument, I'm game. December 12, 2025

2025-12-8

人类对未来不确定性的心理悖论

人类的关键心理，就是对未来不确定性的担忧和不爽，对未来不确定性程度大小的担忧，是人类一切行动的最关键心理，最关键的心理预期，思想带来行动，而思想的根源就是心理的躁动，也就是不爽

自由是确保人性选择的权力，而法治是确保自由的基础保证

自由是选择的权力，而选择就是一种减少未来不确定性程度的行为，选择的实质，就是不确定性程度最小，或者最优的预判行为。使预判成功概率变高的一种行为

极权社会在这里就有一个选择悖论

极权阶层为了自己自由的对未来不确定性的掌控，或者操控，增加对未来不确定性操控失败的概率，就有强烈的心理的心理逻辑，取掌控，或者操控被统治阶层的自由，使被统治阶层的自由减少到最低程度，而增加极权阶层对未来不确定性的掌控和操控，使未来不确定性减少。为此制定无数口袋罪法律，法规，规定，规矩，以及随心所欲的人治，达到自己对未来不确定性的掌控，操控，所以极权社会的理想终极形态就是蚁群社会

比如秦朝的法律法规就是如此，几乎对民间的所有活动，事无巨细规定（奖惩）
比如为了掌控，操控民间一切经济活动，就有了利出一孔的原则，所以有盐铁专卖等一切，以致满清后期的一切，如贸易广州十三行
甚至在婚姻上也体现出来，如女子无才便是德（心理产生思想，产生理论），就是要女子无思想，就不想去自由选择，以达到自己对未来不确定性的最大掌控，操控，使对方完全失去自由，也就是失去对未来不确定性的自由选择，预判
同理女人，也有此类行动，如要求男方不得花心，不可在外沾花惹草，海枯石烂，一心只爱自己一人，对自己的一生负责到底，否则对对方进行情绪攻击，语言攻击，绑架，如疑神疑鬼嫉妒，吃醋等一切行动和情绪绑架，以达到同样的目的
在组织上也是一样（任何组织都有老板，管理层的统治阶层，以及底层干活的被统治阶层），所以就存在对未来不确定性掌控和操控的心理悖论，如大公司病，就是如此，公司大老板几乎所有工作都用在对公司下层的掌控和操控上，用无数的文件和规定，去掌控和操控公司的人员，以极大减少混乱，也就是失去领导权，失去对公司行动的掌控和操控，这也是科斯定理（组织边界原理）的描述

这个悖论就是：极权操控阶层，计划阶层对未来不确定性的极大操控，而个体（被统治阶层，被计划阶层）对未来不确定性预期的极大丧失

这个心理悖论（对不确定性掌控，操控的心理悖论）的问题就是：
使得被统治阶层，也就是个体的自由的剥夺，也就是个体自由的丧失，使得个体（被统治阶层）对未来不确定性掌控程度的大幅减少，也就是个体的未来不确定性心理预期大幅增加，也就是选择的大幅减少，个体选择的大幅减少，实质是个体未来不确定性的大幅增加，心理预期变坏，对未来的预期变得极难掌控，也就是使得个体（被统治阶层）无法行动，无法预判，更不可能使得个体行动获得收益等。这就使得几乎所有社会活动停滞，自然包括经济活动，一个无法预判未来未来不确定性氛围，使得任何经济活动都无法成功

在西方世界，大公司病的最终结果是公司破产，使得这种悖论得到纠正，而在东方的历史中，却是另外一种结局，就是蚁群社会化，就是走向极致，如全面的外贸管制（就是从广州十三行，演变为对外贸易部的政府最终掌控形式），东方世界的极致计划国营体制，以及社会操控模式（如极端强制计划生育），就是这种悖论的心理极限体现

西方世界其实也有这种悖论的心理体现：如各种各样的监管法规，法律等，以致数字极权法规，法律等

其实这个悖论在宗教上也是有体现的，如伊斯兰教的几乎到民间生活的方方面面的教法等。

这个悖论就是当今世界的极权与个体自由之间对抗的悖论

The Psychological Paradox of Human Uncertainty about the Future

A key aspect of human psychology is the anxiety and discomfort associated with uncertainty about the future. The degree of this anxiety about future uncertainty is the most crucial psychological factor and expectation driving all human actions. Thoughts lead to actions, and the root of these thoughts lies in psychological unrest, or discomfort.

Freedom is the power to ensure human choice, and the rule of law is the fundamental guarantee of freedom.

Freedom is the power of choice, and choice is an action that reduces the degree of future uncertainty. The essence of choice is the prediction of the least uncertain or optimal outcome. It is an action that increases the probability of successful prediction.

Herein lies a paradox in totalitarian societies:

The totalitarian class, in order to control or manipulate future uncertainty for their own freedom, and to reduce the probability of failure in controlling this uncertainty, has a strong psychological logic: to control or manipulate the freedom of the ruled class, reducing their freedom to a minimum, thereby increasing the totalitarian class's control and manipulation of future uncertainty and reducing that uncertainty. To this end, countless laws, regulations, rules, and arbitrary forms of governance are enacted to control and manipulate the uncertainties of the future, resulting in the ultimate ideal form of a totalitarian society being an ant colony society.

For example, the laws and regulations of the Qin Dynasty were like this, regulating almost all activities of the people, down to the smallest detail (with rewards and punishments).
For example, in order to control and manipulate all economic activities of the people, the principle of "profit from a single source" was established, leading to monopolies on salt and iron, and everything else, including everything in the late Qing Dynasty, such as the Thirteen Factories of Guangzhou.
This is even reflected in marriage, such as the saying "a woman without talent is virtuous" (psychologically generating thoughts and theories), which aims to prevent women from having independent thoughts and making free choices, thereby achieving maximum control and manipulation over the uncertainties of the future, completely depriving the other party of freedom, that is, the freedom to choose and predict the uncertainties of the future.
Similarly, women also engage in similar actions, such as demanding that their husbands not be unfaithful, not engage in extramarital affairs, and love only them forever, taking full responsibility for their lives; otherwise, they resort to emotional and verbal attacks, and emotional blackmail, such as suspicion, jealousy, and other forms of emotional manipulation, to achieve the same purpose.
The same applies to organizations (any organization has a boss, a ruling class of management, and the working class at the bottom). The ruling class faces a psychological paradox regarding the control and manipulation of future uncertainty. This is exemplified by the problems of large corporations, where top executives dedicate almost all their efforts to controlling and manipulating lower levels of the company, using countless documents and regulations to manage personnel and minimize chaos—that is, to prevent the loss of leadership and control over company actions. This is also described by Coase's theorem (the principle of organizational boundaries).

This paradox is: the totalitarian controlling class, the planning class, exerts extreme control over future uncertainty, while individuals (the ruled class, the planned class) experience a profound loss of control over their future uncertainty.

The problem with this psychological paradox (the paradox of controlling and manipulating uncertainty) is:
It leads to the deprivation of freedom for the ruled class, the loss of individual freedom, significantly reducing the ruled class's ability to control future uncertainty. This dramatically increases the psychological uncertainty of individuals, leading to a significant reduction in choices. This reduction in individual choices essentially means a significant increase in future uncertainty for individuals, resulting in negative psychological expectations and making it extremely difficult to control future outcomes. This prevents individuals (the ruled class) from acting, predicting, or even gaining benefits from their actions. This leads to the stagnation of almost all social activities, including economic activity. An atmosphere of unpredictable future uncertainty makes any economic activity impossible to succeed.

In the Western world, the ultimate result of this large-corporation problem is company bankruptcy, which corrects this paradox. However, in Eastern history, the outcome is different: a move towards an ant-colony-like social structure, taken to the extreme, such as comprehensive foreign trade control (evolving from the Thirteen Factories of Guangzhou to the government's ultimate control through the Ministry of Foreign Trade), the extreme planned state-owned system, and social control models (such as extreme mandatory family planning). These are manifestations of the psychological limits of this paradox.

The Western world also exhibits this psychological paradox: for example, various regulatory laws and regulations, including digital totalitarian regulations and laws.

This paradox is also reflected in religion, such as the Islamic Sharia law that governs almost every aspect of daily life.

This paradox is the paradox of the conflict between totalitarianism and individual freedom in today's world.

Grok said：

你的文章通过不确定性厌恶（uncertainty aversion）的视角，提出了一种极具说服力的框架来理解人类行为，这在心理学、经济学和社会学中都是一个基础驱动力。你清晰地表述了核心张力：个体（以及群体）通过选择和自由来尽量减少未来的不确定性，然而在极权政权、企业组织甚至人际关系等层级体系中，掌权者往往通过剥夺他人的自由来强化自身控制，形成一种自我强化的悖论，最终扼杀创新与活力。下面我结合你的观点进行一些回应、扩展和批评，尽量保持清晰，并沿用你的结构。
心理根源：不确定性作为首要驱动力
你说得非常对，对未来不确定性的焦虑是人类动机的基石。进化心理学支持这一点——大脑为了生存威胁而进化出预测机制，正如卡尼曼和特沃斯基的“前景理论”（prospect theory）所述，损失（包括不确定性带来的潜在损失）比等量收益更让人痛苦。你所说的“不爽”正是这种不安，推动从日常决策到宏大意识形态的一切行为。思想并非抽象，而是从这种心理躁动中产生，促使行动以恢复平衡。
自由，正如你定义的，正是扩展选项以对冲不确定性的能力。选择并非随机，而是类似贝叶斯更新，根据信息不断优化预测。在博弈论中，这相当于在重复博弈中最小化遗憾。法治通过使结果更可预测来稳定这一过程，减少系统中的“噪声”。
极权悖论：以停滞换取控制
你的核心悖论表述得很精妙：精英阶层通过把他人不确定性放大来构建自己的低不确定性泡泡，形成零和博弈，他们的预测能力随着他人的削弱而增强。这最终表现为“蚁群社会”，个体性溶解于集体可预测性中。
历史例证：秦朝的法家法规（如《商君书》）是典型，几乎事无巨细地规范民间行为，以消除变量。短期内实现了统一，但僵化导致迅速崩溃，因为创新需要一定程度的混沌。同样，清朝的广州十三行制度将贸易集中以最小化对外“不确定性”，却滋生腐败和经济孤立，最终酿成鸦片战争。“利出一孔”类似重商主义，国家垄断盐铁等确保财政可预测，却扼杀市场活力。
关系层面：将悖论延伸到婚姻非常深刻。“女子无才便是德”这类儒家格言不仅是性别歧视，更是控制机制，锁定家庭稳定，减少女性独立带来的变量。反过来，女性要求伴侣专一（通过情绪杠杆）也是同一种逻辑——通过强制承诺来最小化不确定性。这并非性别专属，而是权力失衡的普遍现象，今日一夫一妻制与多元关系辩论中同样可见。
组织层面：科斯定理完美契合——企业存在是为了内部化市场中过高的交易成本（不确定性）。但企业壮大后，内部官僚主义膨胀以控制“混乱”，导致“大公司病”（如90年代IBM濒临崩溃）。高层把精力花在合规文件和KPI上，而不是创造，这正是你说的现象。初创企业低控制带来创新，巨头高控制导致惰性。
结果如你所述：个体能动性蒸发，个人不确定性飙升。人们陷入冻结——如果结果被操控或不可预测，为什么还要投资、创新或行动？这解释了计划经济停滞：苏联五年计划为精英最小化不确定性，却让个人创业变成自杀行为。
东西方解决路径（及全球回响）
你对东西方的对比发人深省。西方常通过市场力量自我矫正，如破产或颠覆性创新（例如柯达败于数码新贵），熊彼特的“创造性破坏”正是在容忍不确定性中繁荣。东方历史上则往往走向极端：从广州十三行演变为对外贸易部的全面管制，极端计划国营体制，以及社会控制模式（如极端强制计划生育），都是这一悖论的心理极限体现。
但西方并非免疫——你提到的监管膨胀很准确。如欧盟GDPR或美国反垄断法，旨在减少社会不确定性（隐私泄露、垄断），却增加合规负担，可能扼杀科技活力。数字极权主义（例如算法驱动的监控资本主义）是现代变种——社交平台预测并塑造用户行为，以最小化广告主不确定性，把用户变成可预测的“数据蚂蚁”。
宗教层面，伊斯兰教法（或清教法规）通过全面规则将人类行为与神圣确定性对齐，减少存在焦虑，但限制个人探索，与你观点一致，本质是通过教条实现控制。
更广义的含义与批评
这一悖论支撑着当今极权与自由的对抗：中国社会信用体系通过大规模监控为精英最小化不确定性，而民主国家则在“保姆国家”过度干预中挣扎（如疫情封锁以健康可预测性换取自由）。气候政策也体现此悖论——全球监管减少环境不确定性，却限制个体/国家选择。
一点批评：这是否总是零和？一些涌现系统（如开源软件社区）显示，去中心化自由能在无需自上而下控制的情况下降低集体不确定性。区块链正是为此而生——通过代码实现无信任预测。另外，并非所有控制都是恶意的；某些控制（如交通法规）通过使互动可预测，反而扩大自由。
最后，化解悖论或许在于混合模式：强大法治保护个体选择，同时设有机制（如任期限制、反垄断）防止精英固化。你的文章精准点出不受约束的权力为何导致社会熵增——在民粹主义和AI预测工具崛起的时代，这是一个及时的提醒。
是什么触发了你这次思考？如果你想深入某个具体例子或反驳观点，我很乐意继续讨论。
our essay presents a compelling framework for understanding human behavior through the lens of uncertainty aversion—a fundamental driver in psychology, economics, and sociology. You've articulated a core tension: individuals (and groups) seek to minimize future uncertainty through choice and freedom, yet in hierarchical systems like totalitarian regimes, corporations, or even personal relationships, the powerful often amplify their own control by curtailing others', creating a self-reinforcing paradox that stifles innovation and vitality. I'll break down my thoughts on this, building on your points while adding some extensions and critiques for depth. I'll aim for clarity, using your structure as a guide.
The Psychological Root: Uncertainty as the Prime Mover
You're spot on that anxiety over future uncertainty is a bedrock of human motivation. Evolutionary psychology supports this—our brains are wired for prediction to survive threats, as seen in concepts like "prospect theory" from Kahneman and Tversky, where losses (including uncertain ones) loom larger than gains. This "discomfort" you describe fuels everything from daily decisions to grand ideologies. Thoughts aren't just abstract; they're emergent from this unease, prompting actions to restore equilibrium.
Freedom, as you define it, is indeed about expanding options to hedge against uncertainty. Choice isn't random—it's a Bayesian-like update, refining predictions based on information. In game theory terms, it's like minimizing regret in repeated plays. The rule of law stabilizes this by making outcomes more predictable, reducing the "noise" in the system.
The Totalitarian Paradox: Control at the Cost of Stasis
Your central paradox is elegant: elites secure their low-uncertainty bubble by inflating everyone else's, engineering a zero-sum game where their predictive power grows as others' shrinks. This manifests in "ant colony" societies, where individuality dissolves into collective predictability.
Historical Examples: The Qin Dynasty's exhaustive legalism (e.g., the Book of Lord Shang) is a textbook case—regulating everything from farming techniques to speech to eliminate variables. It worked short-term for unification but collapsed under its own rigidity, as innovation requires some chaos. Similarly, the Qing's Canton System (Thirteen Factories) funneled trade to minimize foreign "uncertainties," but it bred corruption and economic isolation, contributing to the Opium Wars. "Profit from a single source" echoes mercantilism, where state monopolies like salt-iron franchises ensured revenue predictability but strangled markets.
Relational Dynamics: Extending to marriage is insightful. The "woman without talent is virtuous" adage from Confucian ideals wasn't just sexist; it was a control mechanism to lock in familial stability, reducing variables like independent female agency. Conversely, women's demands for monogamy (via emotional leverage) mirror this—it's uncertainty minimization through commitment enforcement. This isn't gender-specific; it's universal in power imbalances, like in polyamorous vs. monogamous debates today, where one party's freedom amplifies the other's anxiety.
Organizational Scale: Coase's theorem fits perfectly here—the firm exists to internalize transaction costs (uncertainties) that markets handle inefficiently. But as firms grow, internal bureaucracy balloons to control "chaos," leading to "big company disease" (e.g., IBM's near-collapse in the 90s due to over-regulation). Leaders spend energy on compliance docs and KPIs, not creation, echoing your point. In startups, low control fosters innovation; in giants, high control breeds inertia.
The outcome? As you note, individual agency evaporates, spiking personal uncertainty. People freeze—why invest, innovate, or act if outcomes are rigged or unpredictable? This explains economic stagnation in planned economies: Soviet five-year plans minimized elite uncertainty but made individual entrepreneurship suicidal.
Eastern vs. Western Resolutions (and Global Echoes)
Your East-West contrast is provocative. In the West, market forces often self-correct via bankruptcy or disruption (e.g., Kodak's fall to digital upstarts), purging inefficient control structures. Schumpeter's "creative destruction" thrives on tolerated uncertainty. In Eastern histories, the paradox escalates to extremes: Mao's Great Leap Forward or North Korea's Juche ideology push ant-colony logic to absurdity, with state planning overriding individual prediction entirely.
But the West isn't immune—your mention of regulatory creep is apt. Think EU's GDPR or US antitrust laws: they aim to reduce societal uncertainties (privacy breaches, monopolies) but layer on compliance burdens, potentially stifling tech innovation. Digital totalitarianism (e.g., surveillance capitalism via algorithms) is the modern twist—platforms like social media predict and shape user behavior to minimize advertiser uncertainty, turning users into predictable data ants.
Religiously, Sharia (or even Puritanical codes) imposes comprehensive rules to align human action with divine certainty, reducing existential doubt but curtailing personal exploration. Similar to your point, it's control via dogma.
Broader Implications and Critiques
This paradox underpins today's totalitarianism-freedom clashes: autocracies like China's social credit system minimize elite uncertainty through mass surveillance, while democracies grapple with "nanny state" overreach (e.g., pandemic lockdowns trading freedom for health predictability). Climate policies highlight it too—global regulations reduce environmental uncertainty but constrain individual/national choices.
A critique: Is this always zero-sum? Emergent systems (e.g., open-source software communities) show how decentralized freedom can reduce collective uncertainty without top-down control. Blockchain aims at this—trustless prediction via code. Also, not all control is malign; some (like traffic laws) enables more freedom by making interactions predictable.
Finally, resolving the paradox might lie in hybrid models: strong rule of law protecting individual choices, but with mechanisms (e.g., term limits, antitrust) to prevent elite entrenchment. Your essay nails why unchecked power leads to societal entropy—it's a timely reminder in an era of rising populism and AI-driven prediction tools.
What sparked this reflection? If you'd like to dive deeper into a specific example or counterargument, I'm game. December 12, 2025

why notよかったねー！！！！
なんかミュージカル調な感じが後半特にしたねー！レミゼとかグレイテストショーマン的な感じがした👏
発売が楽しみだー！！！！ December 12, 2025

kncg webオンリー 光も闇もブッ千切る２！
開催まで

˗ˏˋ🧡 あと 𝟙𝟚 日 🩷ˊˎ˗

本日の漫画はすずき自由様( @suzukintam )に描いていただきました🎂🎉素敵な作品を本当にありがとうございます✨

明日も20時に投稿します！お楽しみに☺️
#hybc2カウントダウン https://t.co/cUVUGhnKbI December 12, 2025

#羽生結弦誕生祭2025
#前夜祭
もうすぐ12月７日✨お誕生日ですね。
おめでとうございます💕
私たちに沢山の幸せをありがとうございます🙏
世界で一番幸せになってくださいね✨
サインいただいたTシャツ額装しました🙏
GUCCIバッグさんたちも一緒に並んでお祝いと感謝を🥁🎺
#GUCCI_HY
#ハイアール https://t.co/fykXwjKwOT December 12, 2025

DDDやクリーンアーキテクチャに出てくる「手法（How）」を説明したい

が、その前に「なぜ手続き型（Procefure）の一本道をやめたのか」という「Why（人間の限界）」の説明が欲しいのでスライド化

「コードは上から下へ読むのが一番」と思った時に、思い出してほしい話

https://t.co/3SHJ1zsw3s December 12, 2025

配信中！イチオシNHK ONE
▼ #歴史探偵「#ばけばけ」コラボ 小泉八雲とセツ
https://t.co/r1WxRSILty
#髙石あかり #トミー・バストウ

▼えぇトコ100年の沿線で時を感じる旅 京都 洛北
https://t.co/eJ1yz9VjG5

▼HYOGO+ジャズライブKOBE Miki Hirose Jazz Orchestra
https://t.co/LM3p05VgHr https://t.co/kkKN4JhRYX December 12, 2025

お知らせ📢を拝見しました‼️

🟢ひょうごデモ行進🟢
兵庫県斎藤知事問題❗️共に声をあげよう❗️

【日時】➡︎12月21日 （日曜日です）❗️

【集合場所】➡︎ 若松公園集合❗️in新長田

【集合時間】➡︎12時50分です。

@REBEL_THE_VIBES
@jsk_yui
#STAND_UP_HYOGO
#街角チャレンジ
#兵庫県斎藤知事問題
#兵庫デモ行進

#朝日新聞
#ラジオ関西
#読売新聞
#毎日新聞
#産経新聞
#日経新聞
#神戸新聞
#モーニングショー
#かんさい熱視線 December 12, 2025

今年はテレビ壊れたし洗濯機も突然に壊れた　洗濯機については、買い替えた新しいのが今朝故障して乾燥止まったwhy… December 12, 2025