# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
目前本組討論出適合大家使用，並想介紹給大家的思考法：

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sorry, something went wrong

Error 18. Please try again in a few minutes or contact support for further help. Thanks for your patience!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Easily create beautiful interactive video lessons for your students you can integrate right into your LMS. Track students' progress with hassle-free analytics as you flip your classroom!

# data[].attributes.body
說明：
（1）課後延伸練習是根據課本107 頁的工作。
（2）理想是： 老師可以針對3-4個工作進行設計，學生根據個人興趣分組，之後向全班介紹自己分配到的工作。
（3）彈性增減：學習單分為三部分，老師可以根據時間考量，請學生進行一個部分或兩個部分。或者第一個部分不做flow chart 的部分，但進行第二部分或第三部分。
（4）可根據學生的程度與能力設計鷹架與支持（例如中文翻譯等）

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Gmail is email that's intuitive, efficient, and useful. 15 GB of storage, less spam, and mobile access.

# data[].attributes.headline
NPDL台灣校群增能工作坊

# data[].attributes.subject
NPDL台灣校群增能工作坊

# data[].attributes.body
台灣PLC發展脈絡等

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Access Google Drive with a Google account (for personal use) or Google Workspace account (for business use).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Access Google Drive with a Google account (for personal use) or Google Workspace account (for business use).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Access Google Drive with a Google account (for personal use) or Google Workspace account (for business use).

# data[].attributes.body
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/14v2mghcs1Kb183tDHX8_7vDM7bH2I8vI

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Get access to files anywhere through secure cloud storage and file backup for your photos, videos, files and more with Google Drive.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Planning & Observation Checklist adapted from the Immersion Teaching Strategies Observation Checklist by Tara Fortune from the Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquistion (CARLA) at the University of Minnesota. See... More

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Planning & Observation Checklist adapted from the Immersion Teaching Strategies Observation Checklist by Tara Fortune from the Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquistion (CARLA) at the University of Minnesota. See... More

# data[].attributes.body
https://flippeducatorshk.wixsite.com/website/resources

# data[].attributes.body
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1ZUW25eOjE0Djqe98kNQJnr6WuiX3F2OD

# data[].attributes.body
https://padlet.com/pychen1/plipp3f7yyjrgl7e

# data[].attributes.body
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1cKhNE6RmVG8QYosRFBRWd70lqG_p8veg

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Educational Technology and Mobile Learning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Visual cues are great learning tools especially when it comes to learning new vocabulary terms. Students find it much more easier to grasp the new semantic concepts through their visual representations. In this regard we have compiled this short list featuring 4 interesting visual dictionaries to use with your students in class.

It's an online interactive English dictionary and thesaurus that helps you find the meanings of words and draw connections to associated words. You can easily see the meaning of each by simply placing the mouse cursor over it.

Visuwords™ online graphical dictionary - Look up words to find their meanings and associations with other words and concepts.

From the image to the word and its definition, the Visual Dictionary Online is an all-in-one reference. Search the themes to quickly locate words, or find the meaning of a word by viewing the image it represents. What's more, theVisual Dictionary Online helps you learn English in a visual and accessible way. The Visual Dictionary Online is ideal for teachers, parents, translators and students of all skill levels.

This is a Chrome extension that looks up the highlighted words and displays the closest matching image in a popup bubble.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
4 Good Visual Dictionaries for Teachers and Students

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Visual cues are great learning tools especially when it comes to learning new vocabulary terms. Students find it much more easier to grasp the new semantic concepts through their visual representations. In this regard we have compiled this short list featuring 4 interesting visual dictionaries to use with your students in class.

# data[].attributes.body
https://padlet.com/pychen1/yqahv9z45q9x63dg

# data[].attributes.body
https://cirn.moe.edu.tw/Upload/Website/1121 /WebContent/37727/RFile/37727/101565.pdf

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.hbrtaiwan.com/article_content_AR0000666.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
哈佛商業評論‧與世界一流管理接軌

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
大家都知道，要活得久，更要活得健康，所以必須養生。 然而，我們卻沒有辦法保持「心智」健康，面對老年失智症，更是束手無策！ 現在，不一定了。 一項神經科學的最新研究，告訴我們如何鍛鍊大腦，讓心智長保敏銳。

英國前首相溫斯頓．邱吉爾（Winston Churchill）曾坦言，他每天三餐前後與用餐時，還有兩餐之間的時段，都會抽雪茄與喝酒。除了這些身體上牢不可破的習慣之外，他的心智狀態也特別活躍。歷史學家指出，邱吉爾可是活到九十高齡才辭世的。現在有愈來愈多的資訊顯示，大腦會影響身體，邱吉爾的例子正好可以佐證。

當然，很少企業主管會像邱吉爾這樣糟蹋身體。人類平均壽命不斷延長，大家也愈來愈注重養生，不僅要活得久，更要活得健康。美國心臟協會（The American Heart Association）建議，每週要安排五天做溫和運動，每次三十分鐘。因此，大型企業大多會提供讓員工加入健身俱樂部的福利；還有許多公司就在內部設健身房。而你出差時住的旅館，也幾乎都有健身中心，甚至可能還得排隊，才用得到那些設施。

然而，截至目前為止，似乎仍然沒有什麼方法可以讓你保持「心智」健康。沒有人發明什麼大腦運動或心智鍛鍊法，好讓我們防止因老化而造成的記憶力流失或分析力變鈍。最慘的，就是罹患老年失智症（Alzheimer's disease），至今仍無藥可醫。
誰說大腦會逐漸凋零！
1990年代，美國政府宣布啟動「腦的十年」（decade of the brain），整合運用國家衛生研究院（National Institutes of Health）、國家心理衛生研究院（National Institute of Mental Health）與國會圖書館（Library of Congress）的資源，讓民眾充分體認神經科學研究的重要性。這項計畫催生出廣泛的研究與訓練，結果推翻了過去對大腦方面根深柢固的一些想法，其中一項就是：大腦必然會隨著年齡而萎縮。事實上，大腦中負責傳送訊息、維繫運作能力的神經元（neuron）細胞，未必會在我們垂垂老去時凋零。許多掌管動作行為、記憶等重要功能的大腦區域，到老年時仍能增加新的神經元，這個過程稱為「神經元新生」（neurogenesis），這是過去主流的神經科學無法想像到的。

而這些研究成果，跟你我有什麼關係？其實，我們生活的方式，會深深影響神經元新生的過程。我們的經驗，還有與環境的互動，都能強化、精進我們大腦的生理構造、神經網絡與認知能力。大腦健全與否，並不全然取決於童年時期的正面、負面經驗及遺傳特質；成年後的選擇與經驗，也會影響大腦發展。這真是個大好消息。佛洛伊德（Sigmund Freud）和他在神經學及心理分析學界的徒子徒孫，多年來一直認為，大腦的發育早在童年到青少年初期就停了。儘管這段時期確實是神經發育最重要的時期，但我們現在已經知道，有一套方法能讓我們在年歲漸長時，心智能力不但不會走下坡，甚至更上層樓。

根據腦部造影的研究顯示，像拉大提琴、雜耍、說外語和開計程車等這些後天習得的技能，會影響大腦中負責動作控制與空間探索（spatial navigation）的區域，擴展其中的神經系統，強化系統間的溝通。換句話說，在學習新技能時，會觸動大腦生理上的變化。如果我們有自覺地運用意志，甚至還可以改變大腦的功能。最近一項運用即時腦部造影技術的實驗發現，如果能有自覺地控制大腦裡參與疼痛處理的「前喙扣帶皮質」（rostral anterior cingulated cortex）活動，就可以減輕身體的疼痛感。因此在理論上，未來我們可能可以透過神經回饋（neurofeedback）作用來控制疼痛，不必再倚賴藥物了。
四大步驟鍛鍊心智
根據上述那些神經科學的進展，我們沒有理由認為六十歲老年人的大腦，比不上他自己25歲時的大腦。這一點對許多古代的思想家來說，並不是什麼新鮮事，像蘇格拉底（Socrates）、哥白尼（Copernicus）、伽利略（Galileo）這些思想家到六、七十歲時，心智能力仍然維持在巔峰狀態。對一些企業界領袖來說，這也不足為奇，像是艾倫．葛林斯班（Alan Greenspan）、華倫．巴菲特（Warren Buffet）與桑納．雷史東（Sumner Redstone；譯注：維康集團〔Viacom〕董事長兼執行長）。這類典範人物深知，大腦能如此靈活，要拜所謂的「認知適能」（cognitive fitness）之賜，也就是說，可以透過特定的心態、生活方式與練習，來提升思辨、記憶、學習、規畫與調適的能力。一個人的心智認知愈健全，愈有能力作決策、解決問題、對付壓力、因應變化。認知適能有助於我們敞開心胸，接納新想法和不同的觀點，並讓我們有能力改變自己的行為、預測改變行為之後的效果，進而實現目標，成為備受公司器重的人物。更重要的是，認知適能可以大幅延後開始老化的時間，甚至可以幫你開創事業第二春。

那麼，要如何保持認知健全？我們借重日新月異的神經科學研究，以及心理學與其他心理衛生領域的研究結果，提出四個步驟。這些步驟當然還不夠完整，彼此間也會重疊、相互增益，但我們相信，採取這四項步驟，能幫大家掌握一些關鍵機會，讓大腦保持活躍、充滿創意。

步驟1
了解經驗如何促進
大腦發展

心理學家向來有這樣的共識：健全的心智認知，與經驗息息相關。他們早在20世紀中葉就注意到，豐富的經驗有助於幼兒和環境互動。我們也知道，經驗會對大腦造成生理上的影響。18世紀末，一位義大利解剖學家文謙佐．馬拉卡尼（Vincenzo Malacarne）曾以狗與鳥為對象，進行一系列著名的控制實驗（controlled experiments）。馬拉卡尼將每一窩幼犬與雛鳥每兩隻分成一組，每組中有一隻受到悉心照料與訓練；對另一隻則只是好好照顧牠，而沒有任何訓練。一段時間後，他解剖了實驗動物，結果發現那些受過刻意訓練的動物，大腦的生理結構較為複雜，皺摺與腦裂（fissures）比較多。這項研究首度證實了經驗與教育對大腦生理結構的影響。還有之前提到學習大提琴的例子，有研究針對不同時期開始學大提琴的人，比較他們與操弓那隻手相關的腦部動作區，結果發現：年紀較輕時就開始學琴的人，這區的擴張比較晚開始學琴的人明顯。

雖然神經科學界早就知道，擴充經驗會造成生理變化，但直到最近我們才了解，大腦如何處理經驗，才能將學習過程編碼（encode），並培養技能。學者發現代表事物、人物與行動的特定神經系統後，也對相關的運作機制提出新解釋。構成這些神經系統的「鏡像神經元」（mirror neuron），讓心智能模擬環境中的事物與動作，提升知覺能力（perception）的處理速度與準確性。鏡像神經元讓我們在心靈層面反映外在世界，對探討人類如何理解與掌握自身的環境，這項發現是一大突破。透過觀察得到的經驗，會活化這些能增強技能的神經元，進而提升學習速度、強化學習能力。

科學家向來都認為，要學習新技能就要多加練習，也就是說，透過直接的經驗來學習新技能。然而，發現鏡像神經元之後，我們了解，也可以藉由從旁觀察與間接經驗來獲取技能。看看以下這個例子：一位職業高爾夫球員示範正確的站姿與揮桿動作，你在一旁觀察模仿，這時大腦的鏡像神經元啟動，你便得到正確動作的心理意象（mental image），得以學習對方的經驗。這種方式不僅可以學習身體的技能，也有助於增進社會認知（social cognition），因為某些特化的（specialized）神經元會反映他人臉部表情、姿態手勢等訊息，然後比對內在既有的表徵（representation），以培養解讀他人動作與表情的能力。

由此可知，心理意象是學習與獲取新技能的有效方式，例如透過心智圖像（mental picture），重現職業高爾夫球員的揮桿動作。許多職業球員認為，自己的優異本領在於打出或接到一顆球之前，能先「看到」球跟球飛行的軌跡。大腦透過心理意象來學習的能力，從生物學層面解釋了為何模擬訓練與個案研究，是培養領袖人才的可行之道；這些都是很有效、可能也很有效率的學習方法。我們可以透過短期模擬之類的做法，汲取別人在長期直接經驗中累積的腦力資源。神經系統在模擬過相關經驗之後，再體會真實的經驗，學習的成效更好。

靠「走動」管理認知

當然，直接經驗仍是大腦發展的關鍵要素，但我們愈來愈了解要怎麼預先為這類經驗作好準備。想強化大腦的執行功能（executive brain），最有用的工具之一就是「漫遊走動」（walkabout），也就是企業界所謂的「走動式管理」（management by walking around），鼓勵主管走出自己的辦公室，與員工談話。這種做法不僅適用於企業經營，也是鍛鍊認知能力的好方法。

「漫遊走動」源自澳洲原住民的成年禮，原住民青少年必須經歷一場漫長、艱辛的實際旅程，在動輒長達好幾個月的時間裡，尋求心理與靈性的自我定位和成熟境界。在青少年時期進行這項成年禮正是時候，因為這時大腦正以前額葉皮質（prefrontal cortex）為中心，建立與整合相關的神經網絡，將自我認同、道德與社會行為的意識編碼儲存。這個過程在青少年後期達到高峰，屆時，大腦的神經元會完全髓鞘化（myelinated；意即受到髓鞘的絕緣保護），相互聯結形成網絡，協助成熟的大腦以高效率、有系統的方式運作。當然，「漫遊走動」只是眾多成年禮中的一種，但值得注意的是，許多文化都針對青少年舉行類似的儀式，這個現象代表一種共識：青少年需要這種「高峰經驗」（peak experience），來凝聚整合自己的生命歷程與身體發育，成為一個具備生存能力、身心發展更成熟的個體。

執行長別把自己鎖在辦公室

更廣泛地說，這種歷程對企業主管的事業發展，也有深刻的影響；如果實施的時機恰當，效果尤其明顯。巴菲特就很了解這個道理。全錄公司（Xerox）陷入財務危機、瀕臨破產絕境時，執行長安．穆卡西（Anne Mulcahy）曾向巴菲特請益，當時巴菲特建議穆卡西不要只注重財務分析師與股東的意見，她應該展開一場「漫遊走動」，傾聽全錄員工與客戶的心聲。從神經學的觀點來看，巴菲特的建議很明智，因為穆卡西才剛接下執行長重擔，正需要深入了解自家員工與客戶。當時，穆卡西以領導人身分進行決策時所需的神經網絡，尚未完全成形，如果她把自己封閉在辦公室中，那些神經網絡一定不是今天的面貌。

步驟2
認真玩遊戲
另一個可增進認知能力的最有效方法，就是認真地玩各種遊戲。法國哲學家亨利．柏格森（Henri Bergson）曾寫道：「活著就是要不斷地變化，變化就是逐漸成熟，成熟就是永無止境的自我創造。」要達到這種境界，我們必須借重童年時期的一項珍貴特質：玩遊戲的能力。人類具備了玩遊戲的能力，才能發揮想像、創造發明。

play（遊戲）這個字，源自古英語的plegian，意指運動。play做為動詞時，通常是指個人或群體充滿想像力的活動，對發現與學習很有幫助；它也可以指某種社會活動，能促進心理學家丹尼爾．高曼（Daniel Goleman）所謂的情緒智力（emotional intelligence）與社會智力（social intelligence）。play做為名詞時，是指為了享受和娛樂而進行的活動。無論是動詞或名詞，play都與樂趣及大腦的報償系統（reward system）息息相關。從賈克．潘科塞普（Jaak Panksepp）對哺乳動物進行的神經科學研究就知道，遊戲是人類最原始的驅動力（drive）之一，也是大腦的樂趣泉源，而且會影響某種神經化學物質的分泌；這種物質負責調控的基因表現（gene expression），攸關兒童「社會腦」（social brain）的發育。樂趣能提供所謂的「情緒燃料」（emotional fuel），協助大腦發育，擴展神經突觸網絡（synaptic network）。潘科塞普與同僚指出，在生命的早期，這種神經化學物質出現在大腦皮質下層（subcortical）部位；這有助於和額葉皮質（frontal cortex）有關的大腦高等功能日後的發展。因此，遊戲可以從心理與生理方面雙管齊下，促使成年人在社會與情緒層面達到成熟。

人們在應付事業生涯中艱鉅的工作時，一定要撥出時間來遊戲。這是因為成年人在遊戲時，會觸動演化程度最高、但演化後期才形成的前額葉皮質（prefrontal cortex），促進最高層級的認知功能，包括誘因與報償的處理、目標與技能的表徵、心理意象、自我認知與記憶等。因此，遊戲可以幫助我們增進思辨能力，更了解周遭的世界，歷來第一流的思想家與領導人都明白這個道理。愛因斯坦曾說，他之所以能洞悉宇宙本質，要歸功於「組合遊戲」（combinatory play）。有人問他如何發展出相對論，他回答說：起初是一種「具體感受」（physical sensation），逐漸演變為一連串視覺圖像，最後才浮現為明確的公式，可以用語言和符號來表達。這種過程，與其說是成年人的分析思辨，其實更像是兒童創造出一個奇幻世界，裡面神奇地出現各種角色。因此，愛因斯坦才會有感而發：「想像力比知識更重要。」

隨著年紀增長，我們必須愈來愈能夠控制自己的情緒，也因此必須自覺地運用遊戲這種工具，只可惜隨著年齡漸長，我們愈來愈少進行遊戲。高曼如此描述這個過程：「孩子逐漸長大時，情緒控制的神經迴路，會逐步壓制嬉笑玩樂的興奮衝動。從童年後期到青少年初期，前額葉皮質的管制迴路漸次發展，讓兒童更能符合『態度認真』的社會要求。」結果遊戲被我們拋諸腦後，遊戲幫我們恢復活力的功效也大打折扣。

公司要你「玩性大發」

有些企業會刻意安排，鼓勵成員做實驗、玩遊戲。矽谷有許多雄心勃勃的公司，例如Google、蘋果（Apple）等，營造讓員工玩興大發的環境，名稱五花八門，有「禪室」（Zen den）、遊戲空間（play space）、聊天室（chat chamber）等。這些公司的主事者了解，提供讓大腦能夠光明正大地遊戲的舒適環境，可以有效幫助員工培養創意能力與健全的認知。相形之下，公司如果扼殺遊戲的精神，員工的腦力才智也會隨之下滑，有如罹患生長遲緩症候群（failure-to-thrive syndrome）的兒童；這種病症的成因，是生活經驗過度貧乏或遭到凌虐。企業界最典型的一個案例，就是國際電話電報公司（ITT），尤其是在哈洛．季寧（Harold Geneen）擔任執行長的期間；當時《華爾街日報》（Wall Street Journal）這麼形容ITT：「無論你對ITT的期望降到多低，它都有辦法讓你失望。」

別過分呵護自己

要尋找能讓大腦好好發展的環境，一大挑戰就是如何拿捏風險與安全之間的分寸。如果你認真投入一場遊戲，就必須讓自己和遊戲的成敗有利害關係；風險有助於大腦提高警覺，活絡思辨與想像的能力。如果你在事業上不願承擔風險，可能會跟受到過度呵護的小孩一樣，無法獨立探索外界，也就無法發揮自己的潛能。不過個人的風險如果太高，也會導致壓力過大，衝擊大腦的安全系統，也就是杏仁核（amygdala）與其他邊緣區域。邊緣系統（limbic system）啟動時，大腦會回歸一種不假思索、預先設定的求生行為模式，無法進行較高階的學習行為。人們處於極端狀況下時，壓力會觸發焦慮症（anxiety disorder）與雜亂無章的行為。人們承受的壓力愈大，發生這種狀況的機率也愈高。雄心勃勃的人不喜歡失敗，也不願意顯得很愚笨。組織學習理論創建者之一的克利斯．艾吉里斯（Chris Argyris）曾說，聰明人容易在學習時遭遇困難，因為他們難以承受過程中的錯誤與失敗。遊戲，也是辛苦的工作。

步驟3
尋找模式
大部分人都知道，大腦是由左右兩個半球構成，兩者相互聯結，但功能迥異。神經科學的相關技術與研究，讓我們更了解左腦與右腦的特定角色。人們執行日常例行性工作所需的神經資訊，主要是由左腦供應。右腦則負責處理新事物，像是比較間接迂迴、難以用語言或數學來架構的經驗與資料。右腦比較有「詩意」，以隱喻、意象、想像的方式運作。「尋找模式」這個步驟的重點，在於幫助領導人增進左腦的功能；這些功能經常被視為由基因遺傳決定，無法刻意要求。

磨練你的大腦執行功能

諷刺的是，許多專為企業界人士設計的認知適能練習，都偏重於刺激負責創造與遊戲的右腦。部分原因在於企業界人士一直給人衣冠楚楚、沉悶無趣、需要放鬆一下的刻板印象。另一方面，近年來一般人都認為，創造力是解決企業界各項疑難雜症的萬靈丹。儘管激發創意、鼓勵多元思考的做法不可或缺，但若是刺激大腦分析性神經網絡，同樣可以讓你獲益良多，甚至好處更多。這類網絡位於左腦，蘊含日常工作的標準作業程序，形同一座龐大的認知資料庫或圖書館，自動運作讓我們能夠執行各項熟悉的工作和挑戰。左腦為何如此重要？在新近的神經造影研究中，找到左腦功能的發動機之一，就是負責協調大腦重要執行功能的大量神經元，神經科學家艾寇農．高德柏（Elkhonon Goldberg）等人稱這些神經元為「吸子」（attractor）。吸子並不只存在於左腦，但卻是維繫左腦功能的主幹。它們協同作用，以高超的效率來引導思想與行動，達到最好的成效，為諾貝爾經濟學獎得主赫伯特．賽蒙（Herbert Simon）所謂的「模式識別」（pattern recognition）奠定基礎。賽蒙認為，模式識別是最強有力的工具，能讓大腦觀察環境，並從大量資料中分辨順序、創造意義；進而快速評估周遭情況，以便立即恰如其分地採取合宜的行動。這必須運用最高層級的抽象與省思能力，根據儲存在大腦深處的經驗，來進行一系列錯綜複雜的連鎖反應。在大腦的執行功能當中，模式識別能力是關鍵強項，能幫助我們化繁為簡，但又不至於過度簡化。企業主管面對變化快速的經營環境，力圖看出趨勢走向，如果能夠培養高人一等的模式識別能力，就可能掌握最重要的競爭優勢。

有許多方法可以開發左腦能力。最重要的就是挑戰自己既有的心態，加以開展擴充，變得更為複雜多元。實際做法包括傾聽不同的意見、閱讀新類型的文章與書籍、抱持明確的學習目標四處走訪。這些經驗能夠擴展你的語彙、充實你的觀念、開拓你的眼界；如果是與自家企業或工作相關的經驗，效果尤其顯著。接受這些經驗的洗禮後，你不會再盲從自己的心態，模式識別的能力也將大為增進。

跟古希臘借商業智慧

日立數據系統公司（Hitachi Data Systems）的做法就是範例。它與亞特蘭大的BrightHouse顧問公司合作，安排高階主管參加一場構思與策略研習會；會中有一位素負盛名的古典文學教授，協助與會者思考如何為公司重新定位。研習會結束後，幾位主管果真學以致用，嘗試根據古希臘的「市集」（agora）概念來改造公司，營造一個讓理念與知識交流的開放「市場」。那位古典文學教授並沒有告訴日立的主管該怎麼做，但他們吸收了教授所講古代雅典的情況，結合自己對公司狀況的認識，創造出新穎而且可能更理想的資訊分享方式。

這類做法要產生效果，就必須經常運用，不斷讓人置身新的體系，接觸新的想法。這不能偶一為之，因為重點在於讓人長期接觸各式各樣的案例與情境，累積豐富的經驗存入大腦。

企業主管必須接觸各式各樣的經驗，好讓自己的認知適能精益求精。同樣的道理，主管也應該徵召擁有不同經驗的人進入管理團隊：組成團隊時，不要只選擇來自同一個升遷管道的成員。這項建議看似理所當然，但我們建議大家客觀深入地檢視自己的公司，你可能會發現，高階主管的升遷之路大多都很類似。這種情況很自然，因為爭取升遷的人通常會仿效前人經驗，居高位的主管則容易對經歷類似自己的部屬另眼相看。演化生物學可以解釋這類行為對物種生存的價值，但如果你注重公司成員的認知適能，尤其是管理團隊整體的模式識別能力，你就必須謹防公司領導階層中都是同一類的領導人。如果總是從一小群主管中挑選高階主管的接班人，會讓大家更習於以共同的經驗與模式識別為基礎，形成類似的認知模式。等到領導階層的視野觀點定型之後，成員不再尋求新的模式，公司就會損失一些認知適能與競爭力。
步驟4 追求新事物與新理念
我們已經探討過左腦如何發揮功能，盡量提高認知適能，接下來要探討右腦的作用。隨著年齡增長，右腦的退化速度比左腦快，因此如何提升右腦處理新事物的能力，顯得格外重要。

過去有些神經科學家從認知功能著眼，將右腦貶抑為「次等的」腦半球，因為是由左腦掌管語言，以及基本邏輯或線性邏輯（linear logic）的能力。多年以來，人們並不清楚右腦如何扮演關鍵角色，獲取知識與智慧，然後編碼存入左腦。不過近來的研究發現，右腦的功能在於探索，負責發現事物與學習。每當人們以新的方式來觀察或體驗這個世界，無論是兒童學習語言，或是成年人開始學畫畫，都會用到右腦。接下來，語言之類的新知識會移到善於開發利用資源的左腦，經過組織整理與編碼儲存，供我們在日常生活中檢索取用。如果說左腦主宰語言表達，右腦就是負責學會語言。

右腦的神經網絡與左腦一樣，經過鍛鍊就能強化功能。人們學到的新事物愈多，學習能力也就愈強。積極參與新形態的活動，接受各種挑戰，有助於強化神經功能塑性（neuroplasticity），也就是大腦自我調整適應、提升功能的能力。針對年長人士所作的研究往往顯示，生活充滿新意、挑戰的人，和生活一成不變的人相較，前者的大腦神經網絡比後者複雜。人們如果一直積極認真地過生活，就會以開放心態面對新鮮的經驗和出乎意料的遭遇。亞伯拉罕．高德斯坦（Abraham Goldstein）保持認知適能的祕訣正是如此，他在曼哈頓擔任律師，也是紐約市立大學巴魯克學院（Baruch College）的榮譽教授，他一直任教於法學院，直到以103歲高齡去世為止，他在心智與生理上一直都是老當益壯。

持續學習還有一項重要的益處。研究指出，像高德斯坦這樣的老人比較不容易罹患老年失智症與其他失智症。以李察．魏瑟瑞（Richard Wetherill）為例，他退休前在大學當講師，也是西洋棋高手，每下一步棋，都能預想之後的八步怎麼走。2001年初，魏瑟瑞察覺自己的棋力退步，只能預想五步棋，他擔心自己是否出了問題，於是請教一位神經學家。魏瑟瑞接受幾項常規診斷測試，全部通過，腦部掃描的結果也相當正常。兩年後魏瑟瑞過世，遺體解剖的腦部病理檢查赫然發現，他生前已經罹患晚期的老年失智症；若是其他人得到這種病，認知功能早就停擺。魏瑟瑞的案例充分說明：強勁的心智刺激，不僅能維持健全的認知適能，也可以防止老化引發的心智退化現象。

初學者打敗專家

容易接受新事物與創新的人，通常也善於處理危機，因為他們心思開放，就算陷入最艱難的處境也能看到轉機。阿波羅13號（Apollo 13）登月任務發生意外時，飛行主任金恩．克蘭茲（Gene Krantz）的反應堪為典範：「我深信這會是我們最了不起的時刻。」克蘭茲任職美國太空總署（NASA）期間，經常挑戰總署的傳統觀念、政策與措施。他打破傳統的組織界線，徵召各單位的人才，組成特別任務小組，並且讓外部供應商進駐他的部門，以強化專業能力並建立關係。麥可．尤辛（Michael Useem）的《大決策》（The Leadership Moment）就以克蘭茲為典範，呈現他兼具成效與創意的領導作為。雖然我們沒有他的神經造影來佐證，但是不難想見，他的右腦必定具備了密切聯結的神經網絡。克蘭茲的心態與經驗造就了右腦的發展，是認知適能健全的關鍵要素。

更廣泛來說，我們討論的其實是一種開放的心態，佛教僧侶稱為「初學者的心」或「初心」（beginner's mind），也就是願意檢討既有的知識與觀念，然後重新出發、另闢蹊徑。這麼做通常會啟動右腦的認知功能。如果你努力追求創新，不二法門就是學習佛教徒的思維。鈴木俊隆（Shunryu Suzuki）在《禪者的初心》（Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind）一書中解釋，禪者的心坦然開放，容許懷疑與各種可能性，能夠用嶄新的眼光來看待事物。鈴木俊隆說：「初學者的心中有許多可能性，專家的心中卻少之又少。」

門徒教導師

我們也提倡由導師指點門徒的做法。人們都知道，企業主管在升遷過程中如果能得到導師指點，會受益匪淺。近來更有一連串研究顯示，在指導過程中，最大的受益者其實是導師，他可以透過門徒而接收到原本接觸不到的資訊、問題與理念。以醫療界為例，資深主治醫師面對學生提出發人深省的問題，往往會有豐碩的收穫。
領導人帶頭鍛鍊大腦
認知適能會影響到生活的每一個層面。就組織而言，它可能是決定長期競爭優勢的關鍵因素。因此，領導人最重要的職責，就是營造一個讓員工充分發揮大腦潛能的環境，進而把組織的表現提升到最高水準。領導人首先應該仔細思考上述四個步驟，然後決定如何運用，來因應公司在策略上面臨的挑戰。每家公司規畫的做法與對策都不一樣，汽車業大公司與剛創立的生物科技公司，需要的認知適能可能並不相同。前者可能重視左腦的活動（例如找出需求面潛藏的模式），後者可能倚賴右腦的活動（例如處理一系列失敗的研發計畫）。無論你的公司適用哪一套做法，領導人都必須扮演恰如其分的角色，才能塑造有利於發揮腦力的企業文化，鼓勵部屬在工作時左右腦並用。領導人要為自己與組織培養認知適能，公司才有前景可言。企業仰賴重要員工共同規畫與執行策略，因此執行長必須擔任這些成員的教練，指導他們培養認知適能。

（閻紀宇譯自"Cognitive Fitness," HBR, November 2007）

鍛鍊大腦十大教戰守則
大腦是一個交互作用的系統，任何活動一旦刺激大腦的某個部分，很容易就會影響到其他部分。因此，我們應該以概略值（approximation）概念來看待認知適能的各個範疇，尤其是針對特定腦半球的活動。舉例來說，有些刺激雖然一開始先在右腦引發比較強烈的反應，但最後還是要靠左右腦一起協助我們因應新的挑戰。

對於如何強化認知能力，仍有許多複雜層面尚待探討，但我們認為下列做法確實很有幫助。

做法1：走動式管理

踏出主管專用餐廳，到員工餐廳、生產部門或卸貨區走動。如此你就可以置身於不熟悉的領域，擴展自己的視野。而且走動本身就可以為大腦注入活力，這也是為什麼當你試圖解決問題卻陷入瓶頸時，站起身來換個環境，往往會讓你靈光一閃，想到辦法。

做法2：讀本有趣的書

幽默感能讓見識更深入、身體更健康。一則令人開懷的笑話，其中的幽默感與觀點會強化免疫系統，對你很有用。

做法3：玩遊戲

橋牌、下棋、數獨、《紐約時報》填字遊戲之類的活動，都能讓神經系統好好運作一番。網路上也有愈來愈多選擇，例如角色扮演的遊戲日益風行。多嘗試新遊戲來挑戰你的左腦，例如撞球，就是一個不錯的選擇。

做法4：角色扮演

角色扮演的最高境界，就是透過即興表演發現自己，發現自己內在有個可以扮演多重角色的演員。信不信由你，好幾位傑出的喜劇演員都是會計師出身。角色扮演可以擴充個人行為模式。大腦擁有無比深厚的潛能，可以增進人格特質與領導能力。你甚至可在會議中進行實驗，例如，以不一樣的方式與同仁互動，藉此來強化認知適能。

做法5：找出學習的盲點

大部分高階主管往往都會日復一日追問大同小異的問題，無論事業上或私人生活都是如此。因此，你應該聆聽內心的聲音，覺察自己未曾尋求的事物。一開始，可以先找一位前途看好的年輕部屬，詢問他的想法。也可以增廣閱讀書籍的種類，如果你向來嗜讀歷史與傳記，不妨嘗試文藝小說；如果你常看驚悚小說，就不妨改讀科學書籍。

做法6：善用出差旅行

旅行是刺激大腦的絕佳機會，而且未必需要花很多時間才能做到。參觀博物館、讀一本以你出差地點為背景的小說、與當地民眾暢談幾個小時。這些活動不僅能增進你的文化素養，也是相當有效的認知練習。

做法7：勤做筆記，溫故知新

李察．布蘭森（Richard Branson）是當今最偉大的企業家之一，他無論到哪裡，都會帶著一本空白筆記簿，一看到或聽到新鮮有趣的事物或想法，就會隨手記下。他說，許多想法後來都落實為新事業。

做法8：嘗試新科技

拿出你的電子裝置，操作新式的觸控式螢幕，從YouTube網站下載一段搞笑影片，再用超大銀幕的電視播放；這些都會用到大腦中無數的神經管道，將聽覺、視覺、觸覺神經網絡和邊緣系統，與前額葉皮質聯結起來。如果你與朋友談論這段經驗並分享感受，神經活動還會擴展到整個腦部。即使是負責讓你保持清醒專注的腦幹部位，也能因此活動一番。

做法9：學習新語言或新樂器

學習新語言，會讓你的心智運動達到高峰。學習新樂器、或把塵封已久的舊樂器拿出來練習，也會讓腦部活動量大增。所以，去學些新東西吧。

做法10：勤做運動

大腦並不是身體中的孤島，強化心血管系統的運動、健康的飲食、良好的睡眠習慣，對整個身體有益，也能讓大腦受惠。預防老年失智症一個最有效的方法，就是充分運動。心血管系統與肌力訓練會引發某些對身體有益的生物化學變化，例如，腦內啡（endorphin）與腎上腺皮質素（cortisol）的分泌增加，經由血管輸送至全身的肌肉、關節與骨骼，當然，也會輸送到大腦。

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
大家都知道，要活得久，更要活得健康，所以必須養生。 然而，我們卻沒有辦法保持「心智」健康，面對老年失智症，更是束手無策！ 現在，不一定了。 一項神經科學的最新研究，告訴我們如何鍛鍊大腦，讓心智長保敏銳。 英國前首相溫斯頓．邱吉爾（Winston ...

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.1111.com.tw/news/jobns/142699

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
今日重點新聞｜最新產業、職場新聞動態－1111產經新聞

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
過去幾十年來，人們一直認為成熟大腦無法再有新生的神經元。人類在成年期之後，大腦神經元開始退化、思考能力會逐漸走下坡。但是越來越多研究證據顯示，成年人的大腦能夠長出新的神經元，尤其能刺激認知功能的運動，對大腦有更多好處。年長後，運動更是保持大腦功能的關鍵因素。

原來大腦可以這樣練！運動讓頭腦四肢都發達

運動其實不只能鍛鍊身體，更能夠提升大腦的「執行功能」，國立臺灣師範大學體育與運動科學系研究講座教授洪聰敏藉由淺顯易懂的圖文，將畢生研究心血化為科普知識，出版《原來大腦可以這樣練》一書，透過科學證據的運動處方，輔以適性的運動課程鐵三角，強化大腦工作表現，成就更健康成功的幸福人生。

大腦執行長效能進化　創造理想人生

洪聰敏指出，主要由前額葉皮層所控制的「執行功能」堪稱「大腦執行長」，掌管三大核心能力：工作記憶、抑制控制和認知彈性。擁有良好的工作記憶能力，就像大腦裡有位資訊管理人員，能釐清思路、擬訂計畫；抑制控制協助抗拒誘惑、專注當下該做的事情，在天人交戰中勝出；認知彈性則用於應付環境變化，是一種幫助在不同規則之間轉換自如的適應能力。

這三大核心能力是看似獨立又彼此緊密相連的合作關係，例如想要擁有高認知彈性的能力，就必須仰賴大量的工作記憶支持，才能將接收到的資訊，持續加以保留、加工並隨時更新，讓所有訊息可以有條不紊被讀取應用。所以「執行功能」等同於主導我們的日常行為，小至停紅燈、大至縝密推理，都仰賴「執行功能」運作。因此提升「執行功能」效能，自然就能幫助嚴謹思考、精準決策，打造理想人生。

運動強化執行能力　神經系統擁新生

但「執行功能」該如何改善？目前已有許多統整性研究發現，長期運動有助於提升整體「執行功能」的表現。

對此，洪聰敏進一步說明，運動改善三大基本「執行功能」的證據在於，運動可以增進抑制功能，個人行為管理的基礎就來自良好的意志控制能力，運動不僅能增進典型發展兒童的學習效能，對於注意力缺陷過動症的孩子也很有幫助。

其次，運動改善工作記憶的力量，來自大腦中海馬體的「腦衍生神經滋養因子」（brain-derived neurotrophic factor, BDNF），BDNF是大腦中含量最豐富的蛋白質，可以促進神經細胞生長，有大腦神經肥料的稱號，因此透過運動提升腦中BDNF的濃度，進而促進工作記憶的表現；運動幫助認知彈性的成果更是顯著，無論年紀或族群，身體活動都能影響大腦運作功能，因此只要願意開始改變，每人都有無限潛能。

由此可見，不論是外顯的認知表現，或內隱的神經生理功能，透過規律的身體活動，都能發揮正面效果。此論點可溯源自大腦神經系統中的「神經可塑性」及「神經新生」兩項概念，「神經可塑性」是腦神經為了適應後天變動的環境，產生結構的變化；「神經新生」的多寡則攸關記憶清除及認知彈性的能力，而運動和刺激豐富的生活環境，都可以促進神經新生，運動也能影響大腦中重要的神經調節系統：正腎上腺素系統及多巴胺系統。過低或過高的多巴胺濃度，都不利於工作記憶的表現；恰好的正腎上腺素能提供適當的抑制控制，提升對目標的專注能力，可見運動對於改善「執行功能」的效果明顯。

國立臺灣師範大學體育與運動科學系研究講座教授洪聰敏。圖：臺師大提供

運動健身更強腦　課程鐵三角鞏固學習力

目前可確認運動對於提升「執行功能」的幫助，但如何選擇、設計運動內容或課程，又是另一項課題。澳洲心理學家J. Sweller在2011年提出「認知負荷理論」，推論較高認知負荷類型的運動更能提升「執行功能」。例如根據任務及環境的特性，屬於開放式運動的桌球，就比屬於封閉式運動的跑步來得複雜，認知負荷量更大，若能同時注重訓練品質，就能達成運動對「執行功能」的最大化效果。

洪聰敏則倡導運動課程設計的準則，應該考量心理層面的參與程度，透過增加「情緒干擾」、「心理控制」與「探索」等元素，來擴展運動情境和條件的變化，就有助於提升「執行功能」。在實務執行上，洪聰敏分享有趣又有效的「課程鐵三角」，包含「雞尾酒式課程」、「專業的教學者」及「社會支持的力量」。

鐵三角頂點為雞尾酒式課程，運動課程作為提升「執行功能」的載具，必須針對不同需求的族群，利用5個處方要領：運動類別、進展速率、頻率、強度和持續時間，編列不同的「運動課表」因材施教，最後再輔以「正念靜坐」，讓學習者在動態與靜態的環境變化下，強化大腦的「執行功能」。

鐵三角的右支撐點是，創造充滿樂趣及成就感的學習環境，其關鍵人物就是專業的教學者，因為卓越表現來自持續反覆、累積進化，不間斷學習的誘因，就來自充滿樂趣和成就感的學習環境；鐵三角的左支撐點是社會支持的力量，透過與他人互動過程中，個人主觀感受到尊重與被愛，從情感認同到進而肯定自我價值，增進生活適應力和學習動機，減輕因挫敗而產生的負面影響。

此書獲多位名人推薦，臺師大校長吳正己形容洪聰敏是個喜歡動腦的運動員，出書貢獻研究成果能夠造福社會。科技部人文司司長林明仁表示，運動對認知功能的影響向來容易被忽略，洪聰敏出版大腦健康科普專書，不僅讓科學研究成果轉譯成大眾受益的知識，在我國邁入高齡社會的同時，也讓國人能藉由運動提升生活品質，創建更優質的人生。

>> 1111 TUN大學網
university.1111.com.tw/index.asp
>>知名大學聯合校徵
https://www.1111.com.tw/campusr/
>> 最新職訓補助課→點我
https://is.gd/axnylY
>> 1111家教網
tutor.1111.com.tw/
>> 工作新鮮事都在1111 IG
https://www.instagram.com/1111.com.tw/
>>產學合作 預約人才
https://iacp.1111.com.tw/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
1111人力銀行 | 全球華人股份有限公司

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
臺師大洪聰敏教授透過科學證據處方　設計適性的運動課程

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
過去幾十年來，人們一直認為成熟大腦無法再有新生的神經元。人類在成年期之後，大腦神經元開始退化、思考能力會逐漸走下坡。但是越來越多研究證據顯示，成年人的大腦能夠長出新的神經元，尤其能刺激認知功能的運動，對大腦有更多好處。年長後，運動更是保持大腦功能的關鍵因素。 原來大腦可以這樣練！運動讓頭腦四肢都發達 ...

# data[].attributes.body
http://ra.lib.hksyu.edu.hk/jspui/bitstream/20.500.11861/5800/1/%E5%BB%BA%E7%AB%8B%E5%AD%A9%E5%AD%90%E7%9A%84%E6%9C%AA%E4%BE%86%E7%9A%84%E9%91%B0%E5%8C%99%20-%20%E5%9F%B9%E8%82%B2%E5%B9%BC%E7%AB%A5%E7%9A%84%E5%9F%B7%E8%A1%8C%E5%8A%9F%E8%83%BD%E6%8A%80%E5%B7%A7%E5%AF%A6%E7%94%A8%E6%89%8B%E5%86%8A.pdf

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Get access to files anywhere through secure cloud storage and file backup for your photos, videos, files and more with Google Drive.

# data[].attributes.headline
［疫下教育］在家鍛煉孩子執行功能的三個方法｜Miss Melody｜孩子家中學習技巧

# data[].attributes.subject
［疫下教育］在家鍛煉孩子執行功能的三個方法｜Miss Melody｜孩子家中學習技巧

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXYGmo3x20U

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
［疫下教育］在家鍛煉孩子執行功能的三個方法｜Miss Melody｜孩子家中學習技巧

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yA_-WzrBVw

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Lec 50 Chapter 14 The Executive Brain (腦與執行功能) (1/5)

# data[].attributes.body
https://padlet.com/pychen1/5hf8omtmodux2d5g

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.integralworld.net/edwards11.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
INTEGRAL WORLD: EXPLORING THEORIES OF EVERYTHING

An independent forum for a critical discussion of the integral philosophy of Ken Wilber

Mark Edwards has an M.Psych in Developmental Psychology and a PhD in organisation theory from the University of Western Australia. He now works at Jönköping University in Sweden where he teaches and researches in the area of sustainability and ethics. Before becoming an academic he worked with people with disabilities for twenty years. He is the author of Organizational Transformation for Sustainability: An Integral Metatheory (Routledge, 2009) .

Part I | Part II | Part III | Part IV | Part V | Part VI | Part VII

Part 7:

"I" and "Me" and "We" and "Us" and "You" and "Yous"

Mark Edwards

For all my enthusiasm for these aspects of Wilber's AQAL matrix and holon theory, there was a problem. Wilber's holon model never quite added up to me.

Ken Wilber continues to develop Integral theory in important and highly original ways. His introduction of holonic perspectives is yet another big milestone in the growth of the theory. While there are many innovative aspects to Wilber's current work on social perspectives, I believe that his I-We-It-Its model has deep-seated flaws that can be traced back to some fundamental inconsistencies in conceptualisations of the holon construct. One implication is that there is no real phenomenological space for "you" singular or "you" plural in Wilber's model. This, combined with his reduction of the third person "he/she/it" to simply "it" and "them to "its", results in a model of perspectives that is inadequate for the representation and analysis of complex social dynamics and interactions. While his new Integral mathematics of perspectives steers clear of many of these pitfalls, Wilber generally continues to use his irreconcilable I-We-It-Its model to depict social phenomena. I present an alternative model that is based on a more consistent application of basic Integral principles.

The Perspective of a Holon

The holon construct is an intriguingly simple device for representing developmental phenomena and, at the same time, it is also capable of undergoing amazingly complex amplification. Nowhere is this more true than for the topic of the indigenous perspectives of holons. Ken Wilber has recently introduced this wonderful notion of the natural perspectives of a holon into Integral theory (Excerpt C of his Kosmos Trilogy Vol 2). This initiative is a very logical progression in Wilber's unfolding of his holonic model and how it sits in relation to the AQAL matrix framework. The Integral holon represents both the subjective consciousness of an entity and the objective behaviour of an entity. In representing consciousness, each holon's "I" or self-identity models a subjective perspective on the world. For reasons that I will explore later, this introduction of subjective perspective in theory building marks a huge step in Wilber's development of Integral theory. The capacity for holon theory to simulate and deal systematically with perspectives will open up immense new opportunities for application. Wilber's introduction of an Integral mathematics that builds perspective into a rigorous conceptualisation of holonic interactions is a brilliant initiative which will have a big impact on the future development of the theory. Because a holon can model both subjectivity and objectivity it can also model perspectival fields or systems that operate between holons. The potential for an integrated analysis of socio-cultural systems is increased immensely through the inclusion of holonic perspectives. However, there's a major problem in all this that is causing some limitations in Wilber's current discussions of holonic perspectives.

To put it simply, Wilber's accurate portrayal of holonic perspectives, perspectival boundaries and zones (hori-zones) relies totally on the accuracy of his holon model. And, as I have shown in previous parts of this series, this model is very problematic, and, as a consequence, his model of perspective will also be flawed. In this essay I want to work through the problems that I have identified in Wilber's model of holonic perspectives model and offer some suggestion on how it might be improved.

"the Kosmos is constructed of perspectives, not perceptions, not events, not processes, not webs, not systems, for all of those are perspectives before they are anything else" Excerpt C, Appendix B ¶13

Before moving into the theoretical discussion I'll spend a moment on why I find this topic of perspectives so intriguing and crucial for the development of integral theory as a whole. To explain this better maybe a little bit of autobiographical background might be justified at this point.

An autobiographical segue

In a way all the preceding parts in this series have led up to this point where the topic of holonic perspectives can be discussed. In fact, I have called this series of commentaries on Wilber's holon theory, "Through AQAL Eyes", because I regard the issue of interpretive perspective as the crucial capacity of holons. Holons are a rational methodology for seeing the unfolding/enfolding nature of the Non-dual as it manifests in Nature and the social world. In some ways holons are the Integral theory equivalent of the pointing finger that directs our gaze to the full moon of the awakened Mind. This innate ability of the holon to mediate and simulate perspective means that we can use the holon/AQAL matrix to formulate a multidimensional Integral perspective for any event or phenomenon (A theory for Anything). Of course even Integral methods throw up great ambiguities and paradoxes but at least it throws them up in our face and doesn't let us hide them behind cultural and scientific prohibitions. To my mind one of the great unspoken taboos that Integral theory unmasks is that of the singularity of consciousness. By this I mean the ubiquitous manifestation of consciousness as "I AM"-ness (all this is a complete tautology of course).

I have long been fascinated by this existential aspect of "consciousness" of "I-ness" and of the singularity of this basic fact of life (my wife has convinced me, however, to stop raising this as a topic of conversation at dinner parties). In fact, I can say that when I was barely into my teenage years it was puzzling to me that people could go about their everyday life without commenting on the wonder of their unique subjectivity (blissful, naive little thing that I was). This fascination was not an abstract, philosophical interest, it was much more of a feeling and sense of wonder about my felt consciousness. I tried to explain it several times to family and friends but was spectacularly unsuccessful. This preoccupation eventually brought me into contact with the wonderful writings of Ramana Maharshi at the all too tender age of 17. Ramana's Vichara method (direct path or efficient means) goes to the very heart of this great mystery of "I-ness" and of the fundamental perspective the "subject". Through Ramana I was led on to Abhishiktananda and Bede Griffith. And it was Dom Bede who introduced me to Ken Wilber's writings when he was in Melbourne in 1983. I was immediately enthralled by the incredible insight that Wilber had for this topic of consciousness.

These interests led me into doing a Masters degree in developmental psychology and a continued engagement with all Wilber's enthralling books. With the publication of, "Sex, Ecology Spirituality", it was clear that a new level of sophistication in Wilber's ideas had been reached. What excited me most about SES was the introduction of the collective world into his whole model. I was very taken with the idea that subjectivity could also be seen as something that connected people, and that our experience of "We" was as fundamental to our consciousness as our "I". It also seemed to me that SES opened up a way of delving into the meeting of "I" and "You" and these ideas greatly influenced my professional work. Naturally, in working with people with disabilities and the socio-cultural issues that they frequently encounter, such things are brought to the fore on a daily basis.

Such is the thread of my ongoing interest in the mysteries of consciousness. How does this fit with the issue of holons and indigenous perspectives? Well, as I said, it seemed to me that one of the holon's most significant characteristics is its ability to symbolise perspective and to include both behavioural and intentional aspects of identity in its representation. Koestler, the father of holon theory, never really explored this aspect of his theory and it has only been since Wilber adopted the holon construct that its potential in this area has been utilised.

So for me the holon is, so to speak, the perfect non-reductive unit or method of seeing into the multiple perspectives that frame any human social encounter. It can do this because it can simulate the perspective of each separately and of all together. Holons lay bare this age old philosophical problem of the singularity of consciousness – the place where the Non-Dual enters at right-angles into the human world of the Relative. Holons can also be used to create a rational handle on how felt consciousness and inferred consciousness can relate to each other. They can show how collective socio-cultural consciousness and behaviour can be theoretically modelled and represented. There was a huge opening here for the rational discussion of topics often left completely unaddressed in the other run-of-the-mill models of social and interpersonal life.

But wait a minute

But, for all my enthusiasm for these aspects of Wilber's AQAL matrix and holon theory, there was a problem. Wilber's holon model never quite added up to me. Being Australian I naturally went along with his, "She'll be right mate" approach to the obvious inconsistencies for a while, but they just kept building up one on top of another. For example, when I read SES for the first time, I couldn't understand why Wilber labelled the exterior behavioural quadrants of holons only in terms of 'it' language. Why not 'me' language. If someone asks you to describe yourself, what do you say? I like to ride horses, study the migration habits of fish, go to the footy on Saturday, have a beer with the boys, blah, blah, blah, behaviour, behaviour, behaviour. My behaviour is "Me". If you want to know about me then you'd better know what my behaviour is. The behavioural quadrant is the domain of "me" language. "It" language is the descriptive world of the inanimate other. What on earth has "It" got to do with "Me".

And where does "You" fit into holonic perspective. I thought that the holon could re-subjectify our concept of psycho-social interactions by including the subjective perspective, not only on the interior of the subject, but also in the interior in the object as well. This meeting between subjective perspective and objective perspective is the elemental unit of all psycho-social events. Holons, I thought, could be used to represent this beautifully – the meeting of "I" and "You" – the meeting of "self" and "other" – the great fulcrum point for all development. But Ken's scheme for placing "You" in his holon model makes very little sense. For a start it doesn't make the list of fundamental perspectives:

[the] singular and plural forms the "three persons" gives us six perspectives, for most purposes, those condense down into 4 fundamental perspectives: I, we, it, and its (Excerpt C, ¶ 60)

Wilber assures us that he does include "You" in his model by including it in the "We":

although the second-person "you" is crucially important, if I am a first-person speaker talking with second-person you, the clear implication is that you can understand me to some degree, and therefore each "you" actually exists as part of a "we," or else no communication would occur at all. This is why "you/thou" (second person) is often treated together with "we" (Excerpt C, ¶ 60)

But this is a very inadequate compromise and I find no reason to include the second person singular objective perspective of "You" in the first person plural subjective perspective of "We". This makes no sense in terms of the model or in terms of our real life encounters with the "other" person, i.e. "You". Wilber says that he "will in no way be neglecting second-person perspectives", but not defining "You" as one of the fundamental perspectives of holons and not specifically including it in his "I-We-It-Its" model is surely neglectful.

I just couldn't find any justification for placing the inferred consciousness of "You" in Wilber's lower quadrants either. The cultural quadrant in Wilber's model is the place of plural subjective pronouns. Why does he put singular objective pronouns there? In addition to this inconsistency, neither of his lower "collective quadrants" find a place for the meeting of "I" and "You". His "We" quadrant and "We/Thou" space of intersubjectivity don't capture or symbolise this meeting of "I" and "You" where felt subject meets objective other subject. The "We" is a shared world of mutual inter-subjectivity. The world of "I" and "You" is a place where different worlds dance around and collide with each other in the shape of subjective self meets objective other. As we know only too well, the world where "I" meets "You" is not necessarily the place of mutual understanding and shared interiors. It is the place where different holons with different agendas and motives meet in the social behavioural world of politics, difference, peer dynamics, diversity of opinion, commercial competition, negotiation, social contracts, and social, civil and international conflict, - i.e. the "real" world. The "We" is where subjects commune together. It is not the messy social world where the known first-person(s) meet(s) the unknown second-person(s). The Lower Left is not the world were self meets other, where the familiar meets the unfamiliar. The LL is the place were the self is a shared self and where identity is about relational communion.

Similarly with the LR, there's no place where self meets other in Wilber's exterior quadrants. They are rather flat and shallow places of rocks and ecosystems. There's no room for a mysterious encounter between I and You in the land of interobjectivity. So where do we meet? I've puzzled long over Wilber's lack of a place where I can encounter You, and it's only with Wilber's wonderful proposition of indigenous holonic perspectives that the muddy waters of AQAL matrix interactions are becoming a little clearer. I hope the following communicates some of my new found understanding of these issues a little.

The source of the problem – a brief summary

In previous essays I've shown how Wilber mixes individual and collective holons in the one holonic representation. Figure 1 is a version of Wilber's mixed-up holon and it is based on a recent description given in Excerpt C. Here is the quote in full:

"The upper quadrants represent an individual being; the lower quadrants represent a group, collective, or system of individual beings. The Left-Hand quadrants represent the interiors of an individual or group; and the Right-Hand quadrants represent the exteriors of an individual or group. Thus, the four quadrants are the inside and outside of the individual and the collective." (Excerpt G, ¶ 37)

Such descriptions as this are clearly contrary to other statements by Wilber that each holon has four quadrants that "represent four inseparable dimensions of any individual's being-in-the-world". These two opposing positions are not easily reconciled. To cut a longish story short, there are obviously several problems with this "mixed" conceptualisation of a holon. Not only does it expose the model to unwarranted dualistic and reductive interpretations, it also fractures the quadratic unity of a holon. By this I mean that it separates quadrants from their holonic base and it supports the problematic view that separate "holons" occupy separate quadrants. All this results in a reified TOE model of holons floating around against some detached four quadrants background. While Wilber has said many times that every holon includes all four quadrants he often fails to systematically follow through with this principle in his discussion of holon theory. The representations of holons that is consistent with the basic principles of Integral theory is presented in Figure 2. Almost all of Wilber's theoretical discussions and applications of holonic concepts uses the mixed-up model shown in Figure 1 and not the integrated model shown in Figure 2.

The two central problems with Wilber's holon model (Figure 1) are that it mixes individual and collective holons and it supports a dualistic interpretation of the interior and exterior of a holon. Both of these problems have impacted on Wilber's application of holon theory and both are avoided if a consistent modelling of holons is adopted. Figure 2 shows the simple Integral holon model that can be applied to any phenomenon. This straightforward model avoids the pitfalls that Wilber's "mixed-up" model is prone to. Notice that there are no holons relegated to certain quadrants and that the whole model is relevant to both individual and collective holons. In general, Wilber would say that Figure 2 represents the theoretical relationship between holons and quadrants. However, whenever he specifically describes or applies the model he uses the "mixed-up" model of Figure 1. The reason for this is that he has never fully integrated the Theory of Everything perspective on the Four Quadrants with the basic model of holons.

Diagnosing the Schizoid Holon

Ever since SES Wilber has used perspectives and personal pronouns as a way of explaining his AQAL framework. He has also built on this idea of holonic perspectives to draw out the connections between many areas of scholarship and cultural knowledge. More recently, he has very preceptively linked holonic perspectives with the natural perspectives that are built into language through pronoun usage and developed a system of integral mathematics to symbolise this is a more formal and rigorous way. This opens up the intriguing capacity of holon theory to simulate and model, not only the outside of systems, but also their inside. This, in turn, introduces the capacity for holons to show reflexive processes in a systematic way.

However, the two main inherent problems of Wilber's holon model, i.e. the mixing of individual and collective and the dualistic setting of holons within quadrants, have both been carried over into Wilber's model of holonic perspectives and into his adoption of certain pronouns to represent particular quadratic perspectives. The following quotes give a good idea of his basic description of that model.

"quadratic" refers to four of the most basic dimensions of being-in-the-world, dimensions that are so fundamental they have become embedded in natural languages as variations on first-, second-, and third-person pronouns (which can be summarized as "I," "we," "it," and "its"). As we saw, these represent the inside and outside of the singular and the plural: hence, the four quadrants ( subjective or "I," objective or "it," intersubjective or "we," and interobjective or "its"). (Excerpt C, ¶ 8)

The UL is "I," or the interior feelings or awareness of any individual sentient being (atoms to ants to apes). The UR is "it," or the exterior form of a sentient being. (Excerpt C, ¶ 52)

The four quadrants are four of the basic ways that we can look at any event: from the inside or from the outside, and in singular and plural forms. This gives us the inside and the outside of the individual and the collective. ... These embedded perspectives show up as first, second, and third person pronouns. Thus, the inside of the individual shows up as "I"; the inside of the collective as "you/we"; the outside of the individual as "it/him/her"; and the outside of the collective as "its/them." In short: I, we, it, and its. (Introduction to Excerpts from Kosmos Trilogy, Volume 2, ¶ 36)

This model is represented graphically in Figure 3. In Wilber's model of holonic perspectives we find a repeat of the inconsistencies that characterise his original model of the holon. First, the mixing of individual and collective holons in the upper and lower quadrants has been continued over into the perspectives model through the mixing of singular and plural pronouns in the upper and lower quadrants, e.g. "I" (singular) and "We" (plural) and "It" (singular) and "Its" plural). Second, the dualistic division of interior and exterior quadrants has been carried over into the perspective model through the division between personal and impersonal pronouns, e.g. "I" (personal) and "It" (impersonal) and "We" (personal) and "Its" (impersonal). The end result is that the problems in Wilber's model of holonic perspectives parallel exactly the problems that are inherent in his basic holon model. (As I explained in Part 2, because Wilber has not yet integrated holon theory fully into the AQAL matrix, he simply plonks his holons into a reified TOE Four Quadrants space.) The end result is a holon that is divided against itself – it's half individual, half collective, half self and half other, half sentient and half insentient. Wilber has created a schizoid holon that is neither one nor many, neither itself or another, neither fully conscious person nor simply unconscious matter. And unfortunately, it is this schizoid holon of perspectives that he often uses as the basis for discussing social transformations such as how individuals become members of social groups.

This mixing of perspectives makes it very difficult to interpret what Wilber's perspectives holon is actually depicting. Are we to take it as an objective view of a conscious holon? Are we to imagine that we are the holon being observed? Is it both inside and outside from the subjective holon's perspective or inside and outside from an observer's perspective? Are we to think of it as one holon, many holons or one collective holon? Are we to think of it as a holon with four quadrants or as holons within a Four Quadrants framework? The reason for this uncertainty in the "I, We, It, Its" model is that it is a mixture of several different theoretical principles of Integral theory. It mixes individual an collective holons. It confuses first, second and third person holonic perspectives. And it reduces the holonic view of the exterior to monological surfaces. These are all combined in the one representative depiction and the result is a holon that does not systematically represent any of these various aspects of the Integral holon. This mixed, reductive holon of perspective is shown in the Figure 4.

This mixed-perspectives holon is not a summary of the holonic model, it is not a working approximation of holonic perspectives and it is not an abbreviation of a more complex quadratic framework. It is a confusing mixture of various aspects of the Integral holon and it desperately needs clarification and consistency if it is to be used to shed light on anything. Wilber actually recognises at least six holonic perspectives and abbreviates these to his I-we-it-its schema as he states in this quote from Excerpt C.

Although with singular and plural forms the "three persons" gives us six perspectives, for most purposes, those condense down into 4 fundamental perspectives: I, we, it, and its. (¶ 60)

However, apart from the fact that 2 fundamental perspectives of "you" (singular) and "you" (plural) have been sidelined in this abbreviation, its clear that Wilber here is trying to force many different holons (and their associated perspectives) into a the reified space of a Four Quadrant, Theory of Everything map. To do this he must drop off superfluous perspectives so that he has the requisite number of holonic views to fit into his Four Quadrants. Additionally he has to somehow squeeze into the same quadratic space both the second person singular perspective of "You" with the first person plural perspective of "We"! This forms the very strange "We/Thou" alliance that Wilber's labels the lower left of his perspectives model. This is hardly a satisfactory way to present a coherent model of holonic perspectives. This abbreviated model of "I-we-it-its" is not simply a handy summary. It's a mixed-up reduction of something that demands much more subtlety than Wilber's selective and crammed up collection of certain pronouns. Once again, we see that he is falling into the trap of placing holons into quadrants and in the process leaving out important holonic perspectives and reducing others to material "its".

There are, in fact, many fundamental holonic perspectives that are not reducible to Wilber's simplistic collection of I-we-it-its. These are so fundamental to human existence that they are also imbedded in the syntax of common language patterns and include you (singular), you (plural), he/she, us, them, they, the reflexive pronouns such as myself, yourself, and the possessive pronouns such as his/her, your. All of these point to basic holonic perspectives that should all be very much present within any systematic schematic depiction of holonic perspectives.

Wilber is currently using his "I-we-it-its" model to analyse very complex cultural and social phenomena such as communication and social membership. I find many of his discussions, propositions and conclusions to be wonderfully insightful and innovative and eminently worthy of more rigorous investigation and research. However, I also find some of his discussions of human personal and social realities to be highly speculative and questionable. The problem in all this is how any community of integral researchers or writers is expected to know which is which when the basis of his otherwise very thoughtful analyses is often very unclear and logically inconsistent.

In the following section I will systematically work through each of the inconsistencies that the schizoid perspectives holon raises and show why it is a poor representation of lived human experience and conduct. I'll go through the holonic perspectives and their signature pronouns for first, second and third person in both singular and plural forms. This systematic application of basic Integral theory principles is one way of mending Wilber's rather misleading "I-We-It-Its" model.

Healing the schizoid holon

Wilber has drawn our attention to the fact that holonic perspectives are imbedded in language and that pronouns are used to communicate those perspectives. He says that,

These four perspectives are not merely arbitrary conventions. Rather, they are dimensions that are so fundamental that they have become embedded in language as pronouns during the natural course of evolution. (Introduction to Excerpts from Kosmos Trilogy, Volume 2, ¶ 36)

I agree that these pronouns are not casual conventions but the way we assign them to quadrants is definitely a matter for further debate. Wilber's choice in assigning certain pronouns to specific quadrants is, to me, extremely questionable and is not consistent with several core principles of Integral theory. I offer the following schema as one possible alternative to representing holonic perspectives.

Untangling the schizoid holon requires that we move from a model that attempts to pack multiple perspectives into one representation depicting singular (individual), plural (collective), first, second, third person, reflexive and inferential perspectives to a model that represents each of these orientations coherently and methodically using numerous discrete depictions. As Wilber points out, if we do this for each perspective for both individual and collective holons we will have the starting basis of six different representations of holonic perspectives (Table 1). Each of these perspective has a number of pronouns that give subjective, objective, relative and possessive perspectives. Each holonic perspective is, by definition, a holon and it will, therefore, incorporate all the AQAL framework of quadrants, levels, etc.

Type of Holon

Holonic perspectives

Individual (singular)

Collective (plural)

First person

first person singular perspective- I, me , my, mine, myself

first person plural perspective - we, us, our, ours

Second Person

second person singular perspective you, your, yourself, (archaic forms such as thou, thy, thine, thee)

second person plural perspective you(s), your(s), yourselves

Third Person

third person singular perspective he, she, it, his, her, its, him

third person plural perspective their, them, these, those

Indefinite pronouns

indefinite singular perspective - one, another, anybody, anyone, anything, everybody, everyone, everything, nobody, other, somebody, someone, something

indefinite collective perspective - both, few, many, others, several, all, any

Table 1: The basic holonic perspectives for Individual and Collective holons and some example pronouns

To make sense of how pronouns are indicative of perspectives we must systematically work through each of the first, second and third person perspectives for both individual persons/holons and collective groups/holons. Only then can we identify which pronouns might be suitable for depicting a certain perspective. To do this we must first make it clear that the first, second, third person and indefinite perspectives of individual holons and collective holons cannot, should not and need not be represented in the same holon depiction. Every perspective is a different world and requires its own holonic representation to unravel its various orientations to that world. I have mentioned this point again and again in relation to the individual/collective issue and now that we have introduced holonic perspectives this point is more relevant now than ever.

Whenever holonic perspectives are depicted it is paramount that each holon, whether it be individual, collective or otherwise, be presented with its own set of orientations rather than grouping perspective together. I mean by this that, for example, the perspectives of the first person singular is depicted as its own unique holon with its accompanying set of quadrants and pronouns. I have done this in the following diagrams and have deliberately steered clear of the schizoid model that Wilber employs. The upper quadrants do not refer to individual holons and the lower ones do not refer to collective holons. The left hand quadrants do not refer to the interior perspective of one holon while the right hand quadrants refer to our exterior perspective on another. All quadrants refer to each holon, whether it be individual of collective. Wilber knows this but he often neglects to follow through on this principle when drawing out the implications of holon theory. Whenever he presents a description of the quadrants of a holons, such as the flying formation for geese or the "family love holon" (both in Excerpt C) he ignores the basic idea that all quadrants are aspects of each and every holon and not the other way around. So the first step in healing the schizoid holon is simply to acknowledge that, for each depiction of a holon's perspective, all interior, exterior, agentic, and communal perspectives refer to one and the same holon (whether that be individual or collective), and that this one holon can take on a first, second or third person perspectives or can itself be viewed from first, second and third person perspectives (see Figure 5). In those cases new holonic depictions will need to be made explicit.

Figure 5 shows the basic non-reflexive perspectives for first, second or third person singular (individual) and plural (collective) holons. But this is only the beginning of the process of mapping holonic perspectives. Because each holon of any perspective has interiority it can itself take on a reflexive perspective of any first, second or third person reality. Also, now that we have untangled the collective from the individual holon, we can see that they themselves can take on perspectives of individual holons and other collective holons of any perspective. This capacity for any holon to build up iterative perspectives is a very important and essentially definitive human quality. This is the reflexive ability for any holon to imagine what a first, second or third person perspective would be for another holon. These reflexive iterative perspectives are of the form, "I wonder how I appear to them, and what will they think of me wondering how I will appear to them" and so on and so on. This type of reflexive perspective taking is a ubiquitous aspect of a person's social being. A basic set of these reflexive perspectives is set out in the Appendix. Just looking at the direct and first person reflexive perspectives we end up with (no, not a headache I hope) a total of 42 possible fundamental holonic perspectives (see Tables 3-7). For reasons of brevity but also omission Wilber only deals with a small number of the possible holonic perspectives. It is possible however just to focus on the basic six as outlined in figure 5 and that is what I'll be doing in the main text of the rest of this essay.

A Summary Model

Wilber is very aware that there are a multitude of possible holonic perspectives. He presents his "I-We-It-Its" model as a summary of the full array of perspectives. I maintain, however, that this summary is not up to the task of presenting even the most essential minimum set of holonic perspectives. As Wilber acknowledges, there are six and not four fundamental views and these six must be the starting point for any systematic model of holonic views. As indicated in Table 1 and Figure 5 these six are i) "I", ii) "You" singular, iii) "He/She/It", iv) "We", v) "You" plural and vi) "Them". In brief this is the "I-We-You-S/he-You-Them" model or more simply the six views model.

The real problem with Wilber's model of perspectives is that he is limiting the number of perspectives to four so that they fit into the quadrants of his mixed-up holon. In reality, the various holonic perspectives are associated with complete holons and not with quadrants. For example, the second person is a complete holon and not just one quadrant. He makes this error because he continues to plonk holons into quadrants which is a classic case of the second Cartesian dualism. Every holon has four quadrants. Holons don't belong to quadrants, quadrants belong to holons. Wilber, of course, knows this buts continues to ignore this simple fact when actually applying his theory of holons.

Wilber is quite right to want to work with a simple form of the model. Parsimony is an essential element in any good theory building. For example, there is no need to work with a model of seven or nine or even eleven levels of development with the basic form of pre-normative, normative and post-normative will do just fine on most occasions. The same goes for holonic perspectives. There are a multitude of possible views and it is good practice to work with a reduced number as long as the reduction does not compromise the capacity of the model to offer valid and coherent explanations. To my mind Wilber's I-We-It-Its cannot meet this basic criteria. In the first instance there is no place for the "other" in either its singular "You" form or its plural "you" form. Secondly because of the mix-up between quadrants and holons the third person perspectives have been reduced to interiorless "its".

Figure 6 offers my best bet for a summary model of holonic perspectives. This is the six views model which includes first, second and third persons for both individual and collective holons. Any analysis of social dynamics and the various meetings of perspectives that those dynamics can entail must be analysed from these minimum holonic perspectives. Any less and the result will be reductionist in the formal sense.

The next section of this essay will present an introduction to the six views model of first, second and third person perspectives/views of individual and collective holons (shown in Figure 6). These are the six fundamental perspectives of a subject, or first person holon, identified (but not fully utilised) by Wilber. They are:

1. first person singular holon's perspective or my view - me/myself/I (Wilber's "I"),

2. second person singular holon's perspective or your view - you/yours (singular) (Wilber has no direct form of this perspective),

3. third person singular holon's perspective or his/her view - he/she/it (Wilber's "it"),

4. first person plural holon's perspective or our view - we/us (Wilber's "we"),

5. second person plural holon's perspective or your view plural (Wilber has no direct form of this perspective),

6. third person plural holon's perspective or their view (Wilber's "its").

These perspectives can be represented in a systemic format as shown in Figure 7. Note that the first person perspective can be taken by both individual and collective holons. In the following explications the first person singular perspective is the one that is assumed unless otherwise indicated.

My perspective of the first person singular holon – me, myself, I

Let's start with a holon's first person perspective – my view/perspective of me/myself/I. This is the subjective perspective of an individual holon. Taking myself as an example, the first person singular holon is my perspective of myself in terms of my consciousness, my cultural self, my behavioural self and my social self. This is the quadratic aspect of the first person. It is interesting to see that there is some association between quadrants and perspectives and therefore between quadrants and pronouns.

In the case of the individual holon's first person view we find that the pronouns are generally associated with interior ("I") and exterior ("Me") aspects of self identity (see figure 8). Because pronouns are associated with the quadratic nature of holonic identity, they will often reflect the quadratic structure of identity, i.e. show up as consciousness, behavioural, cultural, and social varieties (admittedly this usually impacts only on the interior and exterior forms of pronouns and not on the agency and communion forms). Accordingly, we have the existential "I" (Upper Left), the cultural "I" (Lower left), the behavioural "Me" and the social "Me" (see Figure 8). I prefer to use the term cultural "I" rather than the collective "We" for the Lower Left for the individual holon. The plural pronoun "We" more appropriately belongs to the indigenous perspectives of the collective holon. Of course, individuals give voice to this "We" all the time, and it might be said that the cultural "I" is exactly equivalent to the personal sense of "We". I just think it's all much clearer if the pronoun "I" is used to refer to the interiors of individual holons and the "We" is used for collective holons. The most famous example of the collective voice using "We" comes, of course, at the very beginning of the American constitution – "We the People ...". This "We" is a collective pronouncement of a collective interiority and, for me, it best epitomises collective identity rather than individual identity.

This means that for an individual holon the cultural quadrant perspective is still an individual "I". The communal interior of an individual holon is not plural, it's a single cultural "I". Our cultural "I" is not other than our own consciousness. Wilber's schizoid holon is unable to represent this crucial point. Our personal interior has two quadratic aspects – the existential "I" of the Upper Left and the cultural "I" of the Lower Left (existential here means ontogenetic being or subjectivity, not to be confused with the existential/centauric level of consciousness). Both aspects are part of every person's consciousness. Wilber's depiction of personal consciousness through the schizoid holon often misses the essentially communal nature of individual consciousness. Wilber's cultural interiority is not inherent to personal identity but comes as a result of interaction with others. This is a definite weakness in his representation of individual interiority. It's like proposing that light is inherently a particle and only becomes a wave when interacting with other photons. This is not at all the case. We know, in fact, that each photon of light is inherently wave-like and behaves as such in the absence of any other photon. Similarly individuals are innately cultural/communal without any need for further qualification.

For Wilber, the "We" is defined as the intersections between individual holons and culture comes out of those interactions. But this interactional approach does not recognise the intrinsic nature of cultural being. The cultural/collective consciousness of the individual is inherent to each life. It's there from the beginning. If it's there from the beginning then it is not the result of communal intersections as Wilber asserts. Our genetics and our corporal nature endow us for a cultural consciousness and identity from the moment of birth (and before). We are born cultural beings in the same way that we are born conscious, behavioural and social beings. We are instinctively cultural and we go on developing that cultural interior. The idea that our cultural consciousness comes about only when a part of our interiors intersects with parts of the interiors of other holons is fragmented and partial to say the least. When an individual says "We" he is giving voice to the consciousness of a collective holon of which he is a member. When that same individual says "I" he is giving voice to the essential unity of his existential and communal consciousness. This has been the point of the whole post-modern discussion of individual consciousness – it is a cultural entity. Your "I" is not simply an existential unity that exists in a cultural context, it is cultural and communal by its very nature. The Upper Right is the existential aspect of "I" and the Lower Right is the cultural aspect of "I". Wilber's "We" does not capture this innate cultural aspect of every personal "I" consciousness. His cultural consciousness is always a result of interaction between individual holons and this interactive approach does not see the innate communality that arises within every occasion that comes prior to any interaction. "I" is cultural of, and by, itself without qualification. An "I" does not have to become a "We" to be cultural.

So, the indigenous holonic perspective of the Upper Left for an individual holon is that of an existential "I" and the indigenous holonic perspective of the Lower Left for an individual holon is that of a cultural "I". When a person says "I" he/she encapsulates in this one pronoun, in one continuous perspective, both his/her existential consciousness and his/her communal consciousness. This continuity of interior perspectives as both "I" is not only intuitively obvious it is also clearly indicated in Wilber's Zone #1 of his model of the perspectival zones of holons (hori-zones). Zone #1 is the inside of the interior. It includes both the existential consciousness (UL) and the cultural consciousness (LL) of the individual holon. It is one zone and one undivided perspective whose horizon enfolds both the existential "I" and cultural "I" (see Figure 9).

Let's move now to the exterior quadrants of the first person individual holon. The exterior perspective of a consciousness or existential "I" is not an "It" but a behavioural "Me". Wilber's denotation of the behavioural quadrants as "It" is the most significant weaknesses in his model of holonic perspectives. That the behaviour of a holon from either the inside or outside perspective should be seen as an "It" is extraordinarily limiting to say the least. The dualistic division between "I" and "It" is a result of two fundamental inconsistencies, i) the division of holons into separate consciousness quadrant spaces and behavioural quadrant spaces, and ii) the reduction of exterior "holons" to material surfaces or "its". In any event, the pronoun "It" is a third person pronoun and therefore is not applicable to first person perspectives.

My behaviour is part of my identity and my sense of self. My behaviour is "Me" in that it defines the person that others know as "Me" and that my reflexive consciousness knows as "Me". As I pointed out earlier, when people are asked to describe themselves most of the information presented relates to behaviour. People define their identity both to themselves and to others primarily through their personal behaviour and their social roles - the two aspects of their exteriors. That Wilber should regard the impersonal objective pronoun "It" as the perspective of my behaviour is dissociative and an example of, what he has called, 'the second Cartesian dualism'. My behaviour is not "It". My behaviour is "Me". This "Me" extends to both private and public behaviour. It includes both personal acts and social roles. Consequently both exterior quadrants of the individual holon are perspectives of "Me". This coalition of exterior perspectives is seen in Wilber's Zone #3 of holonic hori-zones (see Figure 9).

The perspective of the inside of my identity is the mutual co-existence of "I" and "Me". The personal self is the flow of identity constituted by the existential "I", the cultural "I", the behavioural "Me" and the social "Me". This quadratic flow between holonic perspectives could be called the Integral Cycle of Identity. The Integral Cycle of Identity is the unitive dynamic within the holon that unites the cultural/existential "I" and private/public "Me" into the self identity of a holon. Holonic identity is not an interior quality. It arises as a result of the quadratic mutuality of both interior and exterior aspects of the holon. Identity is an "I/Me" phenomenon and not solely the result of the development of consciousness (a more substantial discussion on the Integral Cycle and how it can be seen as the central unifying dynamics in the development of holonic identity and a quadratic self will be presented in a subsequent essay).

The quadratic self of "I-Me" can lay claim to things on its outside and often displays its identity in those possessions that are seen on its outside. Consequently, from the perspective of the holon, its own outside is best represented by personal possessive pronouns. The individual "I/Me" identifies with its possessions through the use of the pronouns "My" and "Mine" as in my self, my house, my job, my people, my language, and these goods are mine, this life is mine, this house is mine, and this land is mine. It seems to be more common for the interiors to be identified through the use of the "My" pronoun while the exteriors more usually adopt the "Mine" pronoun, but this is not clear cut and there seems to be little in it really. In Figure 9 I have represented the outside perspective of the of the individual holon interiors by "My" and the outside of the exteriors by "Mine". These relate to Wilber's Zones #3 and #4 respectively.

We have here identified the inside of a holon's consciousness as best represented by the personal pronoun "I", which comes in the guises of both existential "I" and communal "I" (Wilber's Zone #1). We have also seen that the inside of a holon's behavioural identity is best represented by the personal pronoun "Me", which comes in the guises of the private "Me" and the public "Me" (Wilber's Zone #3). To complete the four hori-zones of holonic perspectives for an individual holon we have the outside the interior perspective of a holon as represented by the personal pronoun "My" (Wilber's Zone #2) and the outside of the exterior perspective as represented by the personal pronoun "Mine" (Figure 9).

As a side note, this idea of possessive pronouns as being central to the perspectives of a holon is a very useful addition to the perspectives model. It allows a holonic analysis of how interior and exterior "possessions" are seen relative to their inside and outside perspectives. For example, we can now look at how some cultures place an emphasis on individual possession of objects while other emphasis a collective relationship to things like land or cultural property. Collective holons will also have parallel perspectives to those of the individual and the relationship between individual and collective perspective on possessions will unlock some crucial aspects of the holonic perspectives of a particular culture. Among other collective means for doing so, individual holons will give voice to those perspectives by using plural pronouns such as we, my, our, their, etc in different ways. These are linguistic cues that signify the relative dynamics that individual and collective holons will have in different cultures and subcultures. In the foregoing, I have very briefly mapped out the holonic perspectives and their associated pronouns for the first person perspective of individual holons. This is summarised in terms of Wilber's hori-zones in Figure 9.

All the preceding can simply be summarised in saying that the first person perspective of the holon is that of "I-Me" and this is holon is a combination of both agentic interiors and behaviours and communal interiors and behaviours. The first person holonic perspectives like all perspectives is a quadratic unity. That quadratic unity will be reflected in the various types of personal pronouns that refer to the first person – nominative, reflexive, possessive. Wilber's hori-zones need to also be seen in this light in that they can all refer to just the first person holon and should not be jumbled up with the singular and plural forms of the second and third persons. The concepts of holonic insides, outsides, interiors and exteriors should all be applied to just one holon and not be superimposed on a model that fuses collectives (We's), individuals (I's), and first ("I/We"), second ("We/thou") and third ("it/its") persons all into one hotchpotch of perspectives.

I must say at this point that I can't resist pointing out some theological implications of this view of perspectives. The Catholic doctrine of God as three Persons – the Holy Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit – is a theological form of the Integral principle of holonic perspectives. The Father is the great transcendent "I AM". The Son is God made human (the Word made flesh) and is the incarnation of the behavioural God. The Holy Spirit is the God of communion and of the social worship of the divine. One might even include Mary of Nazareth in all this in that she exemplifies the aspect of the Godhead that manifests the communal/social role of family, social duty and communal service (although this is also the province of the Holy Spirit in Catholic doctrine. (Incidentally, this was why Jung was so pleased to hear that Mary was doctrinally recognised as having "ascended into heaven" - she added a final completing element to the Trinity). Whether one includes the Marian Person of Kosmic Church, i.e. the social body of the Godhead, or not these perspectives give us the agentic/masculine Godhead, the feminine/communal Godhead, the Interior/Transcendent Godhead and the Exterior/Immanent Godhead (see Figure 10) (normally the terms transcendent and immanent refer to relative positions in the levels of development, but here it seems appropriate to assign them to dimensional aspects of the Kosmic holon).

My perspective of the second person singular holon – you and yours

The second person singular holon is that holon which is directly encountered and addressed by the first person holon. It is my experience of "You", another individual holon. In many ways this is the most intriguing holonic perspective because the process of inferred consciousness is directly involved. Inferred consciousness is the (normally) instinctual assumption that all others within our social environment will possess a self awareness that has its own identity, perspective, mind, and intention in the same basic form that our "I/Me" does. In effect, individuals, as social agents who possess reflexive consciousness, do not merely see others as physical bodies moving round in space, we see embodied purposive identities acting in social space. People with autism find it so difficult to communicate with others because they see others as mindless, intentionless and as not possessing interiority. They have great difficulty in inferring consciousness on others and therefore with finding incentive for communicating with those others. this is also the source of these peoples frustration. They are surrounded by a sea of communicative processes that for them hold little meaning or purpose.

In the last 15 years one of the most important and far-reaching research areas within developmental psychology has been that of "Theory of Mind" research. This research investigates how people develop and utilise the capacity to infer consciousness and intention on the other. This capacity develops almost always in the fourth year of life and is responsible for some dramatic developments in cognitive, behavioural and social abilities of young children. The period when a child develops "Theory of Mind", i.e. the capacity to infer intention on the other, is truly the point when they enter the social world. Theory of Mind capacities are very much an innate function of cognitive growth and when they are developmentally delayed through, for example, brain injury various aspects of autism and other developmental disabilities can occur.

So the function of inferring the other as a "You" can be regarded as a developmental instinct that is part of the standard repertoire of cognitive capacities possessed by anyone older than five years of age. "You" can be a well-intentioned other or "You" can be a malicious other, but whatever the variety of intention it is an intrinsic part of our nature to infer depth upon and within the other. This inference of consciousness and assumption of depth is required for communication to be initiated. It is only when communication is denied through social and cultural separation and "apartheid" policies and social prejudice fostered through generations of enforced ignorance and fear that the human instinct for inferring a conscious self on the "other" is impeded and distorted.

The holon that represents the "other" is a quadratic entity (Figure 11). It has inferred interiority of the existential and cultural varieties and it has observable exteriority of the behavioural and social varieties. The pronouns that belong to the second person singular holon are you, your and yours and the archaic forms of thee, thou, thy and thine. I have used the possessive pronouns to refer to the exterior quadrants simply because we often refer to what you do, behaviourally and social, as yours. This second person holon can be a known or an unknown "You". "You" can be my partner of fifty years or someone I have never met before. This second person singular holon is "You", it is the "Other", it is the person who I encounter in the world of human social interaction. "You" has its own complete holonic space – the second person singular holon. The first person holon addresses the "Other" by using the pronoun "You" and in so doing infers interiority and depth upon and within the "Other". This is the real phenomenological space where "You" exists – in the communicative space that enfolds the meeting of the first person with the second person. The second person "You" has inferred depth and interiority and is not simply a two-dimensional cartoon character. And "You" is certainly not an "It". When "I" encounter "You" a complete first person holon meets a complete second person holon. The consciousness (existential and cultural) and activity (behavioural and social) of the first person "I-Me" encounters the inferred consciousness and experienced activity of the second person "You-Your". Both have the full complement of holonic characteristics.

Wilber's relegation of "You" to the "We/Thou" quadrant does no justice at all to the fact that it is an instinctive human quality to automatically infer interiority on others even when they are not members of our own cultural group or social network. We even infer interiority on animals. The reason that we have laws for the their protection is because we infer consciousness, sensitivity to pain and some form of feeling identity on animals. The instinct for anthropomorphism, i.e. the conferring of human characteristics on non-human objects, is immensely powerful and a person does not need to be part of a particular cultural nexus for "You"-ness to be granted to them. For Wilber a person is an "it" before he/she becomes a "We/thou". This is a serious error in his theory of social being and such a impoverished view of the unknown other comes out of the inadequacies inherent in Wilber's schizoid holon rather than a more balanced reading of Integral theory. Take the following quote for example.

But what if George is from Russia? Or Mars? Or is in a coma? Then George is a third person who, under those circumstances, can only be a third person--can only be somebody we talk about, not somebody we can talk to or with. In effect, George is then nothing but an "it," or a third-person with whom we cannot enter into a relation of "we." George cannot become a real second person (with whom we talk), and therefore, in those instances, George cannot become part of our first-person plural "we." Excerpt C, ¶ 66

This paragraph marks one of the low points in Wilber's discussion of social being and membership. He argues here that all "foreigners", all those without language, all those who cannot communicate their needs, and all those who choose not to communicate with us are regarded by Integral theory as "its". He wants to show that someone who lies outside our cultural circle "can only be a third person" and not a second person "you" who has depth and interiority. Why does Ken argue that people in comas or foreigners are "nothing but an "it" or a third-person with whom we cannot enter into relation". The care that is provided to aphasic comatosed patients in intensive care, life support units and palliative care units is not provided to "Its". It is provided to people with a depth and a dignity that is inherently theirs and that is generally respected by their carers and professional staff. All this strange talk of the "other" as "it" and "its" is really just the unfortunate result of Wilber's use of an inadequate model of holonic perspectives. Here's another example of how his schizoid holon model of "I-we-it-its" ends up in complete non-integral nonsense.

"A "foreigner," on the other hand, is both external and outside the "we"--just like the undigested meat in a previous example--no slur on foreigners, of course". (Note 44 Excerpt C)

If this is really Ken's sociological understanding of foreignness then I'd hate to see what his Integral theory of immigration might look like (actually some of my best friends are foreigners). He is arguing here that, according to the basic tenets of an Integral theory of perspectives, people we identify as foreigners are seen by us to be "alien objects" and as "its" that do not have interiority. It is very odd that Ken chooses to hang in there with his inadequate "I-we-it-its" interpretation of holonic theory rather than admit the obvious nonsense of such propositions.

The "I-we-it-its" model also distorts Wilber's understanding of communicative relations between "I" and "You". There is no instinctive inference of "you"-ness upon the unknown "other" in Wilber's model. For him the "other" always starts off as an "it". To become a "You" in Wilber's model the "it" has to earn its interiority and can only do that by becoming a "We" and joining in with my cultural circle. Wilber thinks that people can live next to each other but if they don't share a common language (i.e. don't belong to a common cultural "We") then they share no cultural commonalities and do not have any sense of "mutual understanding" and are in the relationship of "its' to each other. He claims that:

you and I can live next door to each other, but if you speak Serbian and I don't, then you and I do not share much of a cultural "we." In that instance, you are outside my I; you are also outside my circle of friends (or intimate we's); and you are even outside my entire circle of spoken communication--in that regard, you are "all Greek" to me, or outside any we-boundary of mutual understanding.

But what if that person next door to Ken is one of the 300,000 profoundly deaf US citizens who use sign language. Ken may know some sign language, I don't know, but I would hazard a guess that he and his neighbour would share many values, mores, beliefs, customs and cultural fineries even if he couldn't. What if the person next door is a Japanese Zen Roshi who speaks no English. Wouldn't Ken and he/she share many common values, cultural interiors and ideals. I am sure they would. What if the person next door is a Serbian who doesn't speak English but believes in democracy, human dignity, personal freedom, social harmony and enjoys eating pecan pie and listening to Mozart. Wouldn't Ken and she/he share some sort of "We" when they smile at each other in the street. When any two humans meet in happy circumstances isn't there an innate "We"-ness that transcends any language barrier and which opens up an inherent and ever present store of cultural mutuality. When the athletes of the world party together at the end of the Olympics, isn't there an intense sense of mutuality and "We"-ness there that makes the lack of a common language rather irrelevant? The truth is that others, even our enemies, are not "its" no matter how foreign they are to us. They are always firstly "You". They only become "its" when intensive dehumanisation and re-education coerces us to think of the other as an "it". Military training is essentially this process of de-automatising the instinctive bestowal of "You"-ness upon the other and replacing that with an "it" label. This is one reason why violent militias often abduct children to train as child soldiers, because they can be readily reprogrammed to carry out dehumanised acts. The instinct for inferring depth upon the other has had less time to develop in them and can be more readily manipulated.

So really, Wilber has it completely the wrong way round. His model starts out with the proposition that all foreigners are "its" who must then learn my language to become a "We/thou" in order to be granted interiority. In reality, all the psychological research on theory of mind, attribution theory, social learning theory, language development and interpersonal development supports a model that sees the inference of interiority as an habitual process from around five years of age onwards. This means that whenever older children, adolescents and adult interact there is an assumption of "You"-ness and therefore of a basic shared culture of human commonalities well before that "You" comes anywhere near to being accepted as a "We". It is only when personal and social pathology conspire together to erode this developmental process that the instinctive inference of interiority is replaced by a distancing and impersonalised allocation of "it"-ness to the unknown other.

I actually don't believe for a moment that Wilber really holds the viewpoints that are expressed in the quote cited above. It is just that he can't admit to the complete sociological nonsense of these propositions because they are the direct logical result of his "I-we-it-its" model of holonic perspectives. To admit to the inadequacies of a model that sees the "other" as an "it" is to admit to a flawed model. But Ken has been working with his "I-we-it-its" thing for many years now and there's no turning back it seems. Full steam ahead into all foreigners are "like undigested meat". And all aphasics are "its" and anyone who is not a member of my culture is someone that "cannot enter into relation of we".

Of course, there are many other sections in his writings where it's clear that Ken believes that "foreigners" are not completely outside of our cultural "We" boundaries. And this is precisely the problem. Wilber doesn't really think that all foreigners, all "others", or all people in comas are merely objective "its" that have no interior, no communicative capacity, or no quality of depth that we can relate to. Why then, should he so clearly state that he thinks that people who don't speak a common language are "its" to each other and as exterior to each other as bits of "undigested meat"? Well, to put it simply, it's because he can't let go of his mixed-up, reductive, schizoid holon, that's why.

My perspective of the third person singular holon – he, she (and cousin it)

The holonic perspective of Wilber's Upper Right is that of the "it". I have argued previously that Wilber has a reductionist view of the right hand exterior quadrants and this is nowhere more clearly revealed than in his allocation of the pronouns "it" and "its" to designate the holonic perspectives of the behavioural and social quadrants. In Wilber's schizoid holon the exterior quadrants are the domains of the "other", of "alien objects", that which is seen from an "exterior point of view". For him the right hand is also the world of "matter", "physical laws" and anatomy. Consequently the right hand is occupied by material its and physical objects that have no developmental depth. Wilber reduces our view of the "other" to an "it" because for him the Right Hand quadrants are surface worlds of monological and material shallowness. Depth for Wilber resides in, and is derived from, the interiors and so the exteriors are relegated to the "it" and "its" world of flatland objects. When you meet the unknown other in the behavioural quadrants of Wilber's holonic world you see him as an "it", as Wilber puts it, "George is then nothing but an "it". Ken's behavioural and social quadrants are very stark and empty places indeed. But, thankfully, these are just Ken's theoretical misinterpretations of his schizoid holon and the real world is actually much more generous than Ken's holonic model would have us believe.

In fact, the third person singular is a "he/she" (and sometimes even an "it") who also has depth, intentionality and interiority. Admittedly because of the distanced nature of the third person this inferred interiority is weaker than the more proximate second person but it is there nonetheless. Third person are bestowed with identity and therefore they have all the four quadrants of consciousness, behaviour, culture and social being. They are not simply material bodies altering their atomic configurations in a flatland ecosystem. "He/she" is a family member, a neighbour, a work colleague, a person in the news, seen on television, a character in a novel and given half a chance this "he/she" will be granted the full gamut of human qualities, interiors and behavioural features. As with the second person singular, I use the third person possessive pronouns to refer to their exteriors because we see and experience the "Your" behaviour, "Your" social activity and the products of "Your" being in the world. Figure 12 shows the third person singular holon and provides some details on its quadratic nature – "he/she" exists, "he/she" values, "he/she" behaves and "he/she" communes.

In the previous section I considered why Wilber relegates the third person singular to a state to "it"-ness when the third person is embedded in our language as a "person", as a "he" or a "she" and not simply and "it". In addition to the inherent problems of Wilber's holon model that plagues his interpretation of holonic perspectives there is also the problem of the reductionist approach that Wilber has towards the right hand quadrants. This is why he uses the impersonal pronoun of "it" to describe the perspective of the upper right. The person – "he" and "she" - is literally reduced to an "it". Wilber doesn't want us to think anything less of "its" just because they are shallow exteriors. As he says in Excerpt C (¶ 71)

this does not mean that the "it" dimensions are somehow superficial or derogatory; on the contrary, they represent the objective and interobjective dimensions of being-in-the-world, crucially important dimensions that include everything from atoms to molecules to ecosystems to morphic fields to subtle energies to DNA. It is simply that all of those dimensions can be portrayed or depicted in "it"-language.

This is all fine if we are talking of billiard balls, protein molecules and road signs but remember this is the behavioural quadrant here that Wilber wants us to label as the domain of "its". He wants us to believe that all entities that are not in the domain of "I" or "We" belong to the flatland of atoms and physics. So, according to Wilber's model of holonic perspectives, all third persons are to be defined by monological "it language". What an absolute catastrophe this is for Integral theory.

The world of the third person is not best described in "it language" as Wilber claims. It is best described in "he/she/it" language, i.e. the language of the third person quadratic holon that is endowed with third person consciousness, third person, meaning-making, third person, behaviour and third person social roles. I am not quite sure where Wilber will lead us if we follow him down this unhappy flatland road where "he" and "she" are reduced to the shallow world of neurology and rocks, but, wherever it is, it will not be a place where Integral theory adds significantly to our understanding of the "other" in any form. Wilber's obvious humanity and perceptive insight may safeguard him from falling into some of the most obvious dangers. But even he proclaims that the unknown third person, our dear friend George the Russian, "is then nothing but an "it". If Wilber's schizoid holon can lead him to such a bizarre place, then, in the hands of less perceptive writers, there's no saying where this "Integral" theory of perspectives might end up.

My/our perspective of the first person plural holon – we and us

Wilber writes at his best and with greatest insight when he focuses on human interiors and on the holonic domains of consciousness and culture. This is his true home as a philosopher and where is most knowledgeable about other theories and cultural sources of information about the inner life of humanity. His first works were on the development of personal consciousness and collective culture and it is still the case that his ideas are most innovative and insightful when he delves into the mysteries of the interiors. Excerpt C contains some of his very best passages on the nature of personal and collective being and on how the life of the one is intensified up and amplified in the life of the many. His introduction of the concept of holonic perspectives will be vital for Integral theory's capacity to discuss and evaluate knowledge about cultural interiors and how they relate to personal experience and identity. I find the many pages of wonderful ideas that Wilber is producing in his discussion of cultural identity to be a remarkable addition to the range of ideas that Integral theory is now including and synthesising. I want to endorse the broad thrust of these new ideas. I also want to ensure that they are based on a coherent model of human identity and action. To this end I will continue in the following sections to point out problematic features of Wilber's current writings and offer alternative readings of Integral theory that support many of his propositions, challenge others and hopefully provide a better foundation for Integral theory as a whole.

As I have pointed out in previous essays, Wilber sees the collective holon as only extending to the domains of the lower quadrants. He has not yet grasped the idea that collective holons are defined by all four quadrants because he confuses the collectivity of a holarchic series with the holonic dimension of communality. Consequently he relegates the consciousness of a collective holon to just its communal form and not its agentic form. In an earlier essay I went into some detail concerning the agentic nature of collective holons. This localised form of interior agency is most clearly seen in its pathological forms such as mob rule and totalitarian political regimes. But it is also evident in the form of centralised government institutions, processes and forms of administration and leadership. Less overt but also of great importance to collective consciousness are the more subconscious and pre-normative forms of collective awareness that are exemplified in 20th century research on collective archetypes and in more conventional research on social awareness by Solomon Asch, Stanley Milgram, Phillip Zimbardo and other social psychologists. The cultural interiors of the collective holon are seen in the variety of traditional and modern mythologies, social values and large-scale meaning-making enterprises such as collective knowledge quests and forms of story telling.

So there are centralised, agentic forms of collective interiority - our collective agentic, consciousness of the Upper Left - and there are communal and more dispersed forms of collective interiority - our collective, communal consciousness of the Lower Left. Our collective consciousness extends over both the agentic and communal quadrants of the interior domains. The collective voice speaks out in the form of public laws, national constitutions, social regulations and customs, cultural rules and taboos, social standards of behaviour, conventions, mores, communal expectations and prejudices, and popular culture and mass media. When the collective voice does speak it does so in the full range of developmental levels of collective identity. In the preverbal form it speaks in terms of mythologies such as the Genesis myth of Adam and Eve story. In the normative form it speaks out in the form of legal pronouncements such as the "We the people ..." opening of the American constitution. In the post-normative forms its speaks out in terms of sacred texts such as the Pauline ideas of the church as the communal "body of Christ".

Of course, individuals give voice to these different levels of "We" all the time and reinforce the collective "we" on each of these occasions. For me, however, the voice of the collective holon is seen best and most directly through its own collective means of mythologies (pre-normative), constitutional and legal proclamations (normative) and traditional sacred writings (post-normative). These are the signatures of the collective interiors par excellence and they exist in both agentic directive forms and in relational communal forms because a collective holon has both agentic and communal dimension to its identity. Hence, my collective holon has both a agentic "We" and a communal "We" (Figure 13).

Wilber's collective exterior, as we all know, is designated as his "Its" quadrant. I don't wish to labour the point, but this, like his reduction of the behavioural quadrant of the individual holon to "it", is a gross underestimation of what the exterior forms of social identity are actually about. Wilber's exteriors are flatland exteriors that are material rearrangements of surfaces. They have no depth that is of any interest to Wilber. As he says, "the Right-Hand quadrants are all material". He continues to fall into this error because his holon model is a suffers from a split between the subjective perspective of the "I/We" and the objective perspective of "It/Its". To put it simply the exterior of the cultural world of "We" is the social world of "Us" and not the flatland world of "Its". Wilber has made a serious error in reducing social exteriors to the world of "rocks" and "ecosystems" and all things "material" and his model will continue to be reductionist until he grants full developmental status to the exteriors. The exteriors of social holons develop in holarchical modes exactly as do the interiors. There is no ontological difference between interior and exterior development. They are complementary, janus-faced dyads that cannot be other than full developmental reflections of each other.

My/our perspective of the second person plural holon – You(s) and Your(s)

The perspective of the second person plural holon is one of the most important holonic perspectives. In considering the identity of the plural "You" ("Yous") we enter the multifarious worlds of multiculturalism, corporate life, international relations, ethnic conflict, community development, migration, race relations, social communications, negotiations and mediation, class relations and the institutional and political worlds in general.

"You", the plural other, is the place where most social conflict occurs on a community, national or international scale. Any Integral theory of community and international relations will be heavily reliant on an accurate understanding and representation of the plural "other". That work is currently being done by the Lower Right of Wilber's schizoid holon – the "its" quadrant and to say that there are problems with this approach to portraying the plural other is an understatement to say the least. This topic is a vast one and I will not attempt to do justice to this topic in this essay. All I will point out here is that Integral theory will benefit greatly from seeing "You", the plural other, not as a collection of networked "its" but as holarchy of "Yous" in developmental relationship. "We" might be in conflict with that "You(s)" but the plural other will still be a collective holon with inherent depth and interiority whatever "We" think of them. And to infer depth upon our competitor, our adversaries or the strangers in our midst is the first step in learning to live with them while we achieve our pluralistic goals. To deal with the plural other as "Its" is to set ourselves up for miscommunication and ongoing conflict.

The plural "other" does not have to be part of our cultural order to be accepted as having interiority, intention and its own social identity. Wilber sees the other always as a third person "it/its" because it is always exterior to the interior world of culture. For him the process of communication is always of the form "it" to "you" to "thou/we". The problem with this is that communication is always based on the assumption of "you"-ness in the other, of interiority in the other. If we see the other always initially as an "it" we usually don't bother trying to communicate with it. As we have seen "You"-ness is always assumed in human communication from infancy and that's how it is if communication and dialogue is to be entered into in the social sphere of the plural 'other".

Figure 14 shows my/our perspective of the second person plural holon. As with my/our perspective of the other persons the second person plural holon is a quadratic entity and includes a collective consciousness, a cultural being/identity, a behavioural identity and a social identity. The behavioural identity of the plural other is to be found in our characterisations, stereotyping and expectations of the general actions that another social group will carry out. The social roles and public persona of the plural other are all those views that we have that relate to the institutional, bureaucratic or formalised functions that another group or society will perform.

My/our perspective of the third person plural holon – Them and Their

Our view of the third person plural "other" will tell us much about our cultural capacity to relate to what might be seen as unknown outsiders. This perspective relates particularly to groups such as migrants, minority groups, nation/state adversaries, traditional communal enemies and marginalised social groups. This is the perspective that taps directly into the innate fears that social groups have about their adversaries, be they true enemies of simply perceived adversaries. Consequently, it's the one that political groups tend to manipulate to achieve their own goals.

There are many examples where propaganda campaigns against the "other" have been specifically targeted to provide motivation and rationalisation for warfare and violence. These campaigns usually involve the dehumanisation of the targeted social other. For example, the Serbian president Slobadan Milosavic and his government launched a concerted and intensive media campaign of demonising their Croatian neighbours that lasted for five years before there was a sufficient level of public support for waging war. Such campaigns specifically aim at stopping the inference of a collective "You"-ness or even "Them"-ness on the targeted culture and replacing it with dehumanised "It/Its" language.

I have pointed out a rather extreme example here of the political manipulation of turning "Them" into "Its". However, in a more subtle and democratically acceptable form, this phenomenon is quite common across all political spheres of activity around the world. Conservative and traditional political groups, (both left and right) tend to identify political issues concerned with the common fear of the unknown plural other – the "Thems" of our socially and ethnically complex world - and turn those fears of "them" into fear of "its". These fears are very common because they come out of some very basic human needs and aspects of collective identity. These are the basic needs of physiological necessities and basic physical security (SDi's beige values) and ethnocentric needs of racial identity and 'us' versus 'them' cultural boundaries (SDi's purple values).

These political campaigns typically identify some basic issues such as migration or asylum seekers, foreigners taking jobs or racial tensions and then move the debate into a beige or purple values space that cuts across the interests of most sectors of the voting population, whether they be progressive liberals or conservative traditionals. This is a very simple manoeuvre as all sectors will share in these basic concerns to some level. All groups from the battling working class to the educated upper middle class are susceptible to this ploy because they will all share basic concerns about job security, personal safety and familial integrity. This strategy has been used in various forms and in every type of governing system from social democracies to dictatorships to achieve desired political goals. It was recently used in Australia by the Howard government to win a federal election campaign that targeted refugees from central Asia. At all times the media and informational campaigns that accompany these strategies involve the manipulation of our individual and collective view of the foreign "other". Specifically, this means the progressive removal of an inference of interiority on the foreign "other" and the gradual substitution of "We/Us" language with "You/Your" language, then with "Them/Their" language, and then finally with "It/Its" language. This is done by concrete strategies of dehumanisation through the use of manipulation of populist media, legitimisation of internment camps, exclusion of the faces/voices of the "other" from the mass media, banning of social and community contact with the "other", geographical isolation, demonisation, legal sanctions and so on.

As we have seen Wilber's model of holonic perspectives represents the "other" as an "it" and so an Integral theory of foreignness starts with the assumption that third persons are outsiders and "its" and that they can only become humanised "We's" through their enculturation with "our" views and internal meanings. This propensity for Integral theory to view the plural "other" as "It/Its" is very problematic. It will be very susceptible to political views that want to portray the "other" as foreign and as lacking interiority. Wilber of course would find such a position very repugnant. Unfortunately however, his model of "its" only entering into dialogue when they become "We" supports exactly this approach. He has the idea that there is an inside to the exterior worlds of "it" and "its" but for him "its" only become fully interiorised when "its" become "We". As he says, " "its" can be known by description, "We's" can only be known by acquaintance". The problem with this is that very few social others every become part of our cultural "We" nor should they ever be expected to be so. Of course, all beings are part of a much greater "We" of the human family or the global biosphere, but by linking "We"-ness with specific cultural forms like language Wilber clearly sees local cultural homogeneity as the central criteria for membership of the "We". This understanding of the relationship between the known "Us" and the unknown "Them" does not bode well for Integral theory's treatment of social relations.

Figure 15 shows the view that I and my cultural group can have of the third person plural other. Many political campaigns are based on the full or partial dehumanisation of a targeted group of the plural third person other so that basic survival and security needs are activated across large proportions of the population. The intent of these campaigns is to reduce the inference of interiority on "Them" to a simple observation of rival "Its". Religion and ethnic rivalries are most typically the platforms by which this dehumanisation takes place. The source of these political goals is, however, more usually the desire for political gain and power and religion is often the unwitting pawn in the game of values manipulation.

The end result of such political campaigns is social fear, the oppression of minorities and the turning inward of cultural energies. This affects trade, economic activity, social cohesion, and often results in various forms of social ill. Even when the countering of real violent opposition is necessary social communication works most productively when there is an assumption of interiority, of "Them"-ness on the other and not "It"-ness. For example, in social situations requiring negotiating or the reaching of international agreements, protective treaties and so on the best outcomes are achieved when the "other" is seen to have "their" own goals, intentions and social needs. When these are omitted through the demonisation of the "other" then agreement and compromise are almost impossible to reach. This is the real heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There is a inability to infer "You"-ness on the other. Powerful ruling sections of both camps treat each other as "Its" that lack legitimate needs and desires and as a consequence authentic communication cannot be entered into and distrust flourishes.

Once this stance has been taken it is extremely difficult to reintroduce the idea of human "You"-ness on the outsider and to recognise and address the legitimate concerns that they may have.

Integral theory starts with this view of "It"-ness of the other and of the third person. In terms of how this impacts on the practical application of Integral theory to the world of politics and social conflict this has some unfortunate implications. International development will never take place if we must wait until all "others" become part of our own cultural "We". and this is one of the major problems with Wilber's current model of social communication.

Conclusion

I have identified in the foregoing some basic inadequacies in Wilber's "I-we-it-its" model of holonic perspectives. These inadequacies all flow from the problematic model that Wilber has of the holon. Although Wilber states that there are fundamental perspectives he reduces these to four so that they can fit into his "schizoid" holon model. In fact, the perspectives of a holon have nothing essentially to do with the four quadrants of a holon. Wilber confusing of the quadrants and holonic perspectives means that he drops off the fundamental perspective of "You" singular and "You" plural. In addition, because of the reductionist view he has of the exterior quadrants he reduces the perspectives of the third person singular and plural from "he/she/it" and "them" to "it" and Its" respectively. These confusion, omissions and reductionisms will have ongoing implications for Wilber's analysis of social dynamics and leave his model open to considerable criticisms from his social critics.

To help overcome these problems I have offered a more systematic way of depicting holonic perspectives and offered a summary model that includes all six fundamental holonic perspectives. I have also presented a few very rough ideas on how this revised model can be used to better analyse and represent the perspectives involved in complex social dynamics.

© Mark Edwards, 2003

APPENDIX

So how many holonic perspectives are there?

Introduction

There seems to be considerable confusion in Wilber's discussion on the basic number of indigenous perspectives or holonic hori-zones. Sometimes he talks of four, sometimes of six and sometimes of eight. The four and eight version comes about when he associates perspectives with quadrants. The four is his "I-We-It-Its" model and the eight is the insides and outsides of each of these. The six version comes about when talks of first, second and third persons for individual and collective holons. As can be gathered from my criticisms in the main text, I think that the four and eight perspectives version is seriously deficient because of the unnecessary linking of perspectives to quadrants. Wilber is much more accurate and valid in his discussion of perspectives when he is using his first, second and third person model which he explores in his Integral calculus and mathematics. In the following I take a look at what the basic array of perspectives actually is. These perspectives are really not tied to the quadrants in any way whatsoever, because each holon can have many perspectives but only four quadrants. Having cut the completely unnecessary association between perspectives and quadrants let's go for and open the Pandora's box of hori-zones a little.

Wilber's hori-zones

In his discussion of hori-zones Wilber talks of there being "8 indigenous perspectives or hori-zones" or holonic perspectives but only "four fundamental perspectives" – the inside and the outside of the I-We-It-Its quadrants in his mixed-up holon. He focuses in particular on just four perspectives – the first person view of interior realities (Zone#1), the first person view of exterior realities (Zone #2), the third person view of interior realities (Zone #3) and the third person view of third person interiors (Zone#3) and third person view of third person exteriors (Zone#4). As might be imagined this severely reduced model of perspectives will conflate many important strands of perspectives into one amalgamated perspective that might include several very different elements that Wilber's model simply cannot untangle or deal with in a consistent manner. Wilber's larger model of eight perspectives equates to the categories described in Table 2. Several interpretations of these zones are possible because his model does not have the capacity to specify (untangle) the various types of possible perspectives that are available. For example, is the outside of the Upper right quadrant my view of "it", or our view of "it", or "its" view of "it" or their view of "it", etc.

Table 2: Wilber's hori-zones of holonic perspectives

* denotes non-reflexive pronouns
** denotes reflexive pronouns

Notice that in Wilber's model there is nowhere to put any views concerning the perspective by or of "you" (singular or plural). This is because he is using an inadequate holonic model to categorise holonic perspectives. The location of the eight categories of holonic perspectives that it is capable of identifying are all shown in the relevant cells of the following tables (Tables 4-7). These tables lay out the complete possible perspectives of individual and collective holons (at least for the first, second and third persons. They are derived through the following means. As Wilber has said there are six first person perspectives derived from the singular and plural forms of the first, second and third persons. These are the first order or non-reflexive perspectives. For each of these six there are a further six second-order perspectives that include reflexive and inferential perspectives. So there are 6 first order and 36 second-order holonic perspectives to make a total of 42 commonly used perspectives that are reflected in the common usage of pronouns and phrases. These 42 are the basic alphabet of holonic perspectives and each one can be depicted within a separate quadrants format. So there are 34 commonly used holonic perspectives that Wilber's model does not identify. Each of these perspectives are non-trivial and relate to very particular perspectives that are quite common and significant in the our personal and social lives. The total set of 42 first person perspectives are presented in Tables 4-7.

The following tables 4-7 lay out the full complement of direct holonic perspectives. The reason I am rather harsh on Wilber's schizoid model of perspectives is because he is trying to interpret all these perspectives out of one very inadequate "I-We-It-Its" model. His development of an Integral mathematics of holonic perspectives is a wonderful innovation that overcomes many the limitations of his graphic "I-We-It-Its". My concern is that his conceptual interpretations, and to a lesser extent his mathematical workings, will continue to be directed by the schizoid "I-We-It-Its" construct.

The set of non-reflexive perspectives for individual and collective holons (Table 3)

Table 3: Singular (Individual Holon) views of Singular (Individual Holon) realities

Singular (individual holon)

your view
(singular)
2p(1-p)

Plural (collective holon)

our view
Wilber's Zone #1b
2p(1-p) x 1p

your view
(plural)
2p(1-p) x 2p

The set of first person perspectives (1-p) for individual and collective holons (Tables 4-7)

Table 4: Singular (Individual Holon) views of Singular (Individual Holon) realities

First person (individual)

my view of you
1p(1-p) x 2p

my view of him/her/it
1p(1-p) x 3p

Third person (individual)

his/her view of me
3p(1-p) x 1p

his/her view of you
3p(1-p) x 2p

his/her/its view of him/her/itself
3p(1-p) x 3p
Wilber's Zone#4a

Table 5: Plural (Collective Holon) views of Plural (Collective Holon) realities

First person (collective)

our view of you (plural)
1p*pl(1-p*pl) x 2p*pl

our view of them
1p*pl(1-p*pl) x 3p*pl

Third person (collective)

their view of us
3p*pl(1-p*pl) x 1p*pl

their view of you (plural)
3p*pl(1-p*pl) x 2p*pl

Table 6: Singular (Individual Holon) views of Plural (Collective Holon) realities

Table 7: Plural (Collective Holon) views of Singular (Individual Holon) realities

But wait folks there's even more.

Tables 3-7 relate specifically to subjects (first persons) taking their direct view of other persons (second and third persons). These are what I call the direct perspectives. Direct perspectives are always of the form "Your view is..." or "My view of you is..." or "Their perspective of you is..." or "his attitude towards her is ..." and so on. There is also the possibility that subjects (first persons) can imagine taking on the perspectives of second and third persons. These are what I refer to as notional perspectives. Notional perspectives are of the form, "My notion/idea of their view of me is ..." or "His notion/idea of their view of them is ...". So, on top of the set of first person perspectives there are also the very common perspectives that occur when a first person develops a idea of what a second or third person perspective may be. The second person role occurs when someone imagines how some other person or audience who is present directly perceives him/herself. This set of second person perspectives is presented in Tables I-IV in the Appendix. The third person role occurs when someone imagines how some other persons might perceive him/herself when he is not present to them. This set of third person perspectives is presented in Table V-VIII in the Appendix. As with direct perspectives notional perspectives can be taken on by both individual and collective holons.

The tables of notional perspectives can be used to represent many common perspectives that individual or collective holons can adopt. For example, the situation where our social collective (e.g. a political party or an ethnic community) wonders how we appear to another social collective (e.g. a group of voters or another ethnic community) is denoted by the term 1p*pl(3-p*pl) x 1p*pl, i.e. our notion of their view of us (found in the bottom right hand cell of Table V in the Appendix). Notional perspectives also highlight the iterative aspect of perspectives (their circular nature) and may have application to the investigation of attentional pathologies, performance anxieties and social phobias in individual and cultural bias, racism, and political manipulation in the collective domains.

The direct perspectives that cross individual holon perspectives with collective holon perspectives (see Tables 3, 4, 7 and 8) are important and interesting for many reasons. The collective perspective on individual holon realities, for example, are especially relevant to topics such as public image, celebrity, political campaigns, advertisement, media coverage and many, many other issues. The individual perspective on collective realities has had little emphasis in mainstream assessment of health and illness but could open up opportunities for investigating the health issues involved in personal views towards the collective/social dimension of life and the participation of individuals in collective and communal life.

The set of notional second person notional perspectives (2-p) for individual and collective holons (Tables 8-15)

Table 8: Singular (individual holon) second person views of singular (individual holon) realities

Table 9: Plural (collective holon) second person views of plural (collective holon) realities

Table 10: Singular (individual holon) second person views of plural (collective holon) realities

Table 11: Plural (collective holon) second person views of singular (individual holon) realities

The set of third person notional perspectives (3-p) for individual and collective holons (Tables V-VIII)

Table 12: Singular (individual holon) third person views of singular (individual holon) realities

Table 13: Plural (collective holon) third person views of plural (collective holon) realities

Table 14: Singular (individual holon) third person views of plural (collective holon) realities

Table 15: Plural (collective holon) third person views of singular (individual holon) realities

© Mark Edwards, 2003

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
INTEGRAL WORLD: EXPLORING THEORIES OF EVERYTHING An independent forum for a critical discussion of the integral philosophy of Ken Wilber Mark Edwards has an M.Psych in Developmental Psychology and a PhD in organisation theory from the University of Western Australia. He now works at Jönköping University in Sweden where he teaches and researches in the area of sustainability and ethics.

# data[].attributes.headline
Strengthening EF Skills in the classroom

# data[].attributes.subject
Strengthening EF Skills in the classroom

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAhCqOVy8_Y

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Webinar: Strengthening Executive Functioning Skills in the Classroom

# data[].attributes.body
http://share.chgroup.club/IB/Theory%20of%20Knowledge%20for%20the%20IB%20Diploma%20Fourth%20Edition_nodrm.pdf

# data[].attributes.body
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-u-KXRe1PsClCP41t-RhmKiTAI_8fyhchLYVhqsADhs/edit

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
執行功能：對教育的啟示第一章

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhRNMj6UNYY

# data[].attributes.body
https://padlet.com/leeyts2/vlngzoww7mwzfbl7

# data[].attributes.body
https://padlet.com/leeyts2/xdbnln0qh0xsgcoq

# data[].attributes.body
https://fyi.extension.wisc.edu/farmsuccession/files/2016/11/Core-Values-Exercise_Integrity_Consulting_Services.pdf

# data[].attributes.headline
Destination 1: Presentation:  How can every teenager can thrive by 18? / How can I thrive by 23? (It might be deleted)

# data[].attributes.subject
Destination 1: Presentation:  How can every teenager can thrive by 18? / How can I thrive by 23? (It might be deleted)

# data[].attributes.body
Follow the example of : How Every Child Thrive by the Age of
You are divided into groups. Each group works on one aspect about teenagers.  They share their information together but make their presentation individually.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Molly Wright: How every child can thrive by five | TED

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Question I Almost Didn't Ask And How It Changed My Life | Rita Wilson | TEDxNashvilleWomen

# data[].attributes.body
https://padlet.com/pychen1/ozi8ki47n5wl9n98

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
109學年度鳳中甄選入學第二階段面試題目(去個資分類)

# data[].attributes.body
https://ymhsactive.pixnet.net/blog/post/181472797-%E6%A8%A1%E6%93%AC%E9%9D%A2%E8%A9%A6%EF%BC%9A%E9%9D%A2%E8%A9%A6%E8%80%83%E5%8F%A4%E9%A1%8C%E5%BD%99%E6%95%B4

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
楊梅高中活動情報網與師生榮譽榜

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
模擬面試：面試考古題彙整

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
模擬面試：面試考古題彙整 @ 楊梅高中活動情報網與師生榮譽榜 :: 痞客邦 ::

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
一、 面試的類型（一）一般性從自傳或讀書計劃中的破綻中發問（自述表、自傳、讀書計劃要自己留存備份） 準備大約兩分鐘的英語自我介紹（特別是語文以及商業類組） 喜歡的課外活動、社團 喜歡的課外讀物 列舉個

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.dysh.tyc.edu.tw/ischool/public/resource_view/show.php?aid=548

# data[].attributes.body
The essential question you are trying to answer:
What makes who I am ?

How do to it?

Step 1:  Create a list of interview questions that help you to solve the jigsaw puzzle, that is, to figure out what makes who you are.
Step 2:  Answer yourself these questions and write down your answers.
Step 3: Interview at least 4 people: your parent, your friend, , your teacher, your sibling, your neighbor, your girl/boygfriend.
Step 4: Choose some of your photos and tell a story about yourself based on the insights you get from the interviews.
Step 5: Choose one wondering you would like to explore or inquire.

# data[].attributes.body
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

# data[].attributes.body
1. One Persona Canvas done in class
2. 3 interviews
3. Tell a story about yourself.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.canva.com/design/DAE3jvH3GdQ/-a1xM1S6oTZPh7oflCr6Qw/view?utm_content=DAE3jvH3GdQ&utm_campaign=designshare&utm_medium=link&utm_source=publishsharelink

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Why do I have to complete a CAPTCHA?

Completing the CAPTCHA proves you are a human and gives you temporary access to the web property.

What can I do to prevent this in the future?

If you are on a personal connection, like at home, you can run an anti-virus scan on your device to make sure it is not infected with malware.

If you are at an office or shared network, you can ask the network administrator to run a scan across the network looking for misconfigured or infected devices.

Another way to prevent getting this page in the future is to use Privacy Pass. You may need to download version 2.0 now from the Chrome Web Store.

# data[].attributes.body
https://padlet.com/leeyts2/9je52h6mr75rfrt6

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.fearlessculture.design/blog-posts/the-johari-window

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Increase team feedback, trust, and self-awareness

In this activity, each team member will assess themselves and then each other using the Johari Window. Through this activity, each individual will learn more about themselves and how others perceive them too.

The goal of this activity is to facilitate a discussion on each team member's strengths and blind spots, and how the team can better work together.

Our blind spots lie at the intersection of how we perceive ourselves and how others perceive us. The Johari Window was developed by Psychologists Joseph Luft and Harry Ingham to help us become more self-aware.

What Is the Johari Window?

The Johari Window tool is ideal for increasing self-awareness. It focuses on understanding what's visible (or not) to us and others.

It's ideal for developing both self and team awareness.

ARENA: Traits and behaviors that both yourself and others are aware of. It includes anything about yourself that you are willing to share. This area drives clarity and builds trust.

MASK: Aspects about yourself that you are aware of but might not want others to know. It can also include traits that you are not sharing with others without you being aware of. What you show to others is a mask that hides your authentic self as I wrote here .

BLIND SPOTS: What others perceive, but you don't. Important to note: not valuing your strengths can also be a blind spot. Feedback from others can make you more aware of your negative traits but also of the positive ones you are not appreciating.

UNCONSCIOUS: What's unknown to both you and anyone else.

Though this matrix has four quadrants, the size of each is not necessarily equal. Each window pane will vary depending on:

How much you share with other people

How well others (try to) know you

How well you know yourself

You can expand your "Arena" area by:

Disclosing more about yourself, thus reducing the "Mask" area

Uncovering more about your "Unconscious" area

Becoming aware of your "Blind" area

To assess yourself and others, use 55 descriptors listed on the next section.

How to Facilitate the Johari Window Exercise

Preparation:

Download the template and share with your team members. You can also do it virtually in Mural or Miro, by simply copy/ pasting the downloaded template into a new Mural and then create as many versions as needed.

Self Assessment:

Using the following list choose 5 adjectives that best describe yourself. Be objective and honest.

Assessing Teammates

Once everyone has finished their own self-assessment, the entire team will evaluate their colleagues.

Assess your teammates with the same criteria you evaluated yourself. Remember to choose only 5 and to be both honest and objective.

Fill In the Johari Window Panes

Compare this list with the list the individual generated about themselves.

Where an adjective appears on both lists, place it in the Arena Quadrant.

If an adjective appears on the individual's list, but not on the group's, place it in the Mask Quadrant.

When an adjective appears on the group's list, but not on the individual's, put it in the Blind Spots quadrant.

Any adjective that appeared on neither list can go in the Unconscious Quadrant.

Review & Analysis

Once everyone has finished, allow each participant to review their Johari Window assessment. Encourage them to compare notes between self and team assessment.

Spend a few minutes discussing the adjectives that appear in the open quadrant.

Ask an individual to disclose by talking about one of the adjectives they selected for themselves, but the group did not.

Have the individual select one of the adjectives the group has identified, but the individual did not. The group now has the opportunity to give some feedback to the individual about this adjective.

Coaching Tips for Facilitating the Johari Window

Use the following questions to promote reflection and learnings:

How easy or difficult was it to select the adjectives to describe yourself? Why?

How easy or difficult was it to select the adjectives to describe your team members? Why?

After comparing feedback, what were you surprised by?

What can you do to reduce your Blind Spot and/or Facade, and move those traits into your Arena instead?

How can you apply what you learned about you and your teammates to improve collaboration?

Remind the team not to be judgmental. There are no right or wrong answers. The purpose of this exercise is not to provide a score but to help people uncover the areas that are not visible to them.

Additional Reading
How to Conquer Your Blind Spots The Power of Self-Awareness: How to Build Successful Teams 15 Simple Exercises to Increase Your Self-Awareness

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Johari Window Exercise - Increase self-awareness and team awareness | By Gustavo Razzetti

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In this activity, each team member will assess themselves and then each other using the Johari Window. Through this activity, each individual will learn more about themselves and how others perceive them too. The goal of this activity is to facilitate a discussion on each team member's strengths and blind spots, and how the team can better work together.

# data[].attributes.headline
資訊科技融入教學之意義與內涵

# data[].attributes.subject
資訊科技融入教學之意義與內涵

# data[].attributes.headline
Everything You Need to Know About Educational Technology

# data[].attributes.subject
Everything You Need to Know About Educational Technology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Everything You Need to Know About Educational Technology

# data[].attributes.headline
Integrating Technology for Teaching English and Developing Critical Thinking Skills

# data[].attributes.subject
Integrating Technology for Teaching English and Developing Critical Thinking Skills

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Integrating Technology for Teaching English and Developing Critical Thinking Skills

# data[].attributes.headline
Information-Everything you need to know about TOEIC

# data[].attributes.subject
Information-Everything you need to know about TOEIC

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
TOEIC®新制多益考試介紹│菁英多益測驗準備中心

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
新制多益考試介紹：TOEIC新多益測驗考題將於2018年3月正式實施！菁英多益考試準備中心提供多益測驗聽力閱讀5項不變與7項改變的考情分析，45天有效掌握解題技巧。

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
有力的工具: 運用薩提爾冰山理論模型，做有系統框架的區分

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
經由個人的認知與信念，會影響我們看這個世界的方式。這樣的認知與信念，來自於個人的成長經驗、家庭環境、職業身分、在人生歷程中經歷的所有人事物逐漸堆疊而成，但就如同瞎子摸象般，我們很難會對一件事有全盤的理解，因此我們對真相的認知，可能只是真相的一部分，但也就是這樣的不完整，建構起我們的世界觀。

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
to continue to Google Drive

Email or phone

Forgot email?

Not your computer? Use a private browsing window to sign in. Learn more

Create account

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Get access to files anywhere through secure cloud storage and file backup for your photos, videos, files and more with Google Drive.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
請直接點選圖片，就可以連結到網頁。

曾經想要把英文繪本的有聲書分類整理，按照程度、主題、作者等分類排好，利於找尋。

沒想到這個justbooksreadaloud竟然已經先做好了!!(丟滑鼠 XD)
它把724本英文繪本(數量經常變動) 不但按照短篇、中篇、長篇分類，還分了主題、閱讀程度(有0-5級)、作者等，實在是太體貼了~

Storylineonline的故事影片都可以線上全螢幕播放，都是專業說故事者，影音效果佳。

適合幼稚園與國小學生。
此網站由娛樂產業基金會(Entertainment Industry Foundation, EIF)經營，邀請許多知名人士來說故事，並書本內容作成簡單的動畫，生動有趣。每本書約5~12分鐘左右​。
每支故事影片都貼心設計好活動搭配，可供下載運用，有些甚至提供親子版與教師版可供選擇呢！

4.Read to Read ( 點選)
Ready to Read網站由​美國印第安納州公共圖書館(the Indianapolis Public Library)設立，提供100本以上經典英文童書之朗讀版，點選書籍封面即可線上聆聽。

5 . National Geographic (Non Fiction books)

有興趣的老師也不要錯過~MP3錄得非常生動好聽，是很好的聽力材料~

7. Children's Story Books (請點圖片)
有分Young Children和Older Children, 也可以讀完故事後做 線上測驗
也提供 Phonics的實用網站資源連結

Supported by Penguin Group and the Pearson Foundation

Barnes and Noble page where authors and celebrities read popular children's books.

相關文章: ReadWorks文章搜尋網站

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
23 Online Audio books Websites 23個網路電子繪本網站

# data[].attributes.body
現在的課程名稱是「藝術與人文」，內涵為美勞、音樂、表演相關課程；這修改後其實對課程安排老師還蠻困擾的，如國中的自然與科技，物理、化學、資訊課程都在內，教物理的不會教化學、教化學的不會教物理……
我所以我們面對這樣子的名稱改革，有一套因應做法，藝術與人文的美術、藝術與人文的音樂（表演藝術則放在音樂課程裡），總授課中年級為每週三節，在排課上還要有一些技巧，還要注意科老師的總授課時數……實在是，教音樂的未必會教美術、教美術的未必會教音樂。
我不知道其他學校的做法，但其中真的有困難，不知道是我這麼想，還是大家也這麼想😢

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
to continue to Google Drive

Email or phone

Forgot email?

Not your computer? Use a private browsing window to sign in. Learn more

Create account

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Get access to files anywhere through secure cloud storage and file backup for your photos, videos, files and more with Google Drive.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
開始遊戲

建議點右下角按鈕切換全螢幕體驗更佳

歡迎大家來到「518博物館日—奇幻的影像力」線上版—影像大解謎。成功解出謎題，有機會獲得哈奴曼造型徽章，還有大家最喜歡的故宮聯名跳跳馬！若想要獲得獎品，就請點擊左邊的「我接受挑戰」，一起闖關吧！

小提醒：活動體驗時間約15分鐘

【警報】
一位不明男子失去了記憶！他正在故宮南院，請各位幫幫他！

我接受挑戰

2022國際博物館日主題:「博物館的力量（The Power of Museums）」

明 嘉靖

紅地黃彩 雲龍紋蓋罐

----------

花樣何處來：一位道教皇帝對瓷器製作的影響 特展

展期：111-04-01~113-04-14

我是誰..我在哪？你可以幫幫我嗎？

腦海中不斷浮現10個字，

似乎對我而言非常重要，

但我完全想不起來...頭好痛

隱約記得這些字的記憶碎片，

分別散落在故宮南院的5個展間中，

只要有那10字...就一定能想起我是誰...

（請協助男子找回記憶，揭開他的身分之謎）

觀看題目紙

點擊觀看影片找尋線索，關於第一個記憶碎片的秘密就藏在圓點點中，畫出的文字筆劃即為答案1。

提示

解答

觀看影片

回題目紙

點我

我有話要說

點擊右上角畫筆可書寫，再點一次可關閉畫筆模式

書寫後的答案記錄會留存，只要再次點開畫筆即可

（ios手機版請將畫面橫向放置）

關鍵就藏在「龍」字中，用英文思考看看....

拼出DRAGON，會畫出己字，再搭配題目卡上原有的筆畫可得一字為「已」

動畫中，有個畫面一直在我記憶片斷中浮現，那些黑黑的圓點，就是「墨韻樓」外牆的裝飾，共由35861個圓點組成，在陽光下，能看到飛行中的雲中「龍」，不過這些點點上怎麼都有英文字？龍的英文是...？

動畫中，有個畫面在我記憶中不斷浮現；黑色的圓點，就是博物館建築外牆的裝飾，總共由35,861個圓點組成。

在陽光下，能看到飛行中的雲中「龍」，不過這些點點上怎麼都有英文字？龍的英文是⋯⋯？

點擊右上角畫筆可書寫，再點一次可關閉畫筆模式

書寫後的答案記錄會留存，只要再次點開畫筆即可

青 約

1

3

提示

我解開啦~

4

解答(有雷警告)

6-1

6-2

進入遊戲前，南編有小提醒：

1. 點擊左上角數字即可觀看題目，解答完可以回此頁面開啟畫筆填寫答案

2. 建議點擊每道題目的「我有話要說」，男子會給提示！加油！

5-2

5-1

（ios手機版請將畫面橫向放置）

2

請將答案字串的中文聲調轉換為數字，如青（ㄑㄧㄥ）約（ㄩㄝ），為11。

轉換後的數字字串，依左至右，依上至下，10個數字即為答案。
一聲為1
二聲為2
三聲為3
四聲為4
輕聲為0

3311111322

來到「S301導覽大廳」的亞洲藝術互動年表，請點擊觀看影片，並找到「多穆壺」，找出「母子圖」中女子手持之物，依照提示，繪製完成她的手持物，可得一字，即為答案2。

提示

解答

觀看影片

回題目紙

點我

我有話要說

點擊右上角畫筆可書寫，再點一次可關閉畫筆模式

書寫後的答案記錄會留存，只要再次點開畫筆即可

（ios手機版請將畫面橫向放置）

找到「多穆壺」，第二層「母子圖」女子手中拿的是團扇，依題目卡現有的提示線畫出團扇，即可以看見答案。

被團扇圈起處可得一字「有」

影片裡有個物件好熟悉....這壺中間層畫裡的「母子圖」中，那位女子手中拿著的東西，我家娘子也有一件，是我當年送給她的定情信物...。

影片裡有個物件好熟悉....這壺中間層畫裡的「母子圖」中，那位女子手中拿著的東西，我家娘子也有一件，是我當年送給她的定情信物...。

回上頁

點我

來到S304「亞洲織品數位互動裝置」，請觀看影片體驗織品小工坊後回答以下問題：

〈日本 黑地竹紋友禪染和服〉蓋印完「四色竹紋」後，最後刷上的顏色是？

請找出相對應顏色的拆組文字，拼湊出正確的文字，即為答案3。

提示

解答

回題目紙

觀看影片

點

我有話要說

點擊右上角畫筆可書寫，再點一次可關閉畫筆模式

書寫後的答案記錄會留存，只要再次點開畫筆即可

（ios手機版請將畫面橫向放置）

日本黑地竹紋友禪染和服，在蓋印完四色竹紋後，你刷上的最後一色？ 黑色

將散落的黑字筆畫重組後可得「丹」

這裡是布坊嗎？好多人擠在這裡，動來動去，隱約記得老家裡也有個這樣的工坊...

回上頁

〈日本 黑地竹紋友禪染和服〉

點我

來到S204「藝心耳目—多媒體體驗展」，點擊觀看影片，體驗「四季故宮-夏荷」，觀察畫中動態，等待月亮升起時，對照月相找出男子所說約會的日期，並完成算式，可得相對應的文字，即為答案4。

提示

解答

觀看影片

回題目紙

點

我有話要說

點擊右上角畫筆可書寫，再點一次可關閉畫筆模式

書寫後的答案記錄會留存，只要再次點開畫筆即可

（ios手機版請將畫面橫向放置）

從「互動裝置」中觀察月相，根據月亮的形狀可判斷陰曆日期

月圓為陰曆15日。
15X1000-500=1000
完成算式後可得一字為「千」。

這裡好像是個畫事，印象中我家也有這樣的空間，只是...這些畫都會動，像夢境一樣，尤其是那件「太液荷風」，讓我想起夏日時，最愛跟心愛的人在荷花池邊約會。

我們以前都是相約在每月陰曆幾日的呢？

這裡好像是個畫室，印象中我家也有這樣的空間，只是...這些畫都會動，像夢境一樣，尤其是那件「太液荷風」，讓我想起夏日時，跟心愛的人在荷花池邊約會。

我們以前都是相約在每月陰曆幾日的呢？

回上頁

點我

提示

體驗裝置

解答

回題目紙

我們來到，S202「東亞茶文化展」，

(1)點擊觀看影片體驗「南院茶舖互動裝置」，製作一杯珍奶，記下需要的材料。

(2)上圖為飲料的排隊隊伍，想喝到珍奶的話，必須排在任一種珍奶材料的 「 十字方向」

一格內的距離。

(3)為了能順利喝到珍奶，請在圖中找出，喝不到珍奶的排隊位置後，由上到下就可以得

到二字，即為答案5-1至5-2。

點我

我有話要說

點擊右上角畫筆可書寫，再點一次可關閉畫筆模式

書寫後的答案記錄會留存，只要再次點開畫筆即可

（ios手機版請將畫面橫向放置）

挑出四樣材料:「牛奶」、「糖」、「珍珠」、「紅茶」
並依步驟操作

依序畫掉後可得二字「秋」「指」

這茶舖賣的茶可真有趣，我從來沒品嘗過。好想喝看看那個叫「珍珠奶茶」的飲料，你可以做給我喝嗎？

這茶鋪賣的茶可真有趣，我從來沒品嘗過。

好想喝看看那個叫「珍珠奶茶」的飲料，你可以做給我喝嗎？

回上頁

點我

觀看影片

提示

解答

回題目紙

點擊觀看影片，操作「嘉義文史展」中的「羅山記影互動裝置」，找出該時空中發生「大事件」並加速都市計畫開展的西元年份，再將上圖四位數連線後，所經過之處可得二字，即為答案6-1至6-2。

我有話要說

點擊右上角畫筆可書寫，再點一次可關閉畫筆模式

書寫後的答案記錄會留存，只要再次點開畫筆即可

（ios手機版請將畫面橫向放置）

天崩地裂太可怕了！到處都是一遍哀鴻遍野和斷垣殘壁...這像煉獄般的場景...我好像曾經也經歷過....唉...好害怕...不想想起來..

看完裝置影片，可得知大地震發生於1906年

完成連線後可得二字「白」「頭」

天搖地動太可怕！

斷垣殘壁的場景，我好像也曾經歷過。

唉，好害怕，不想想起來......

回上頁

點我

南編有話要說

宋徽宗蠟梅山禽　軸

----------

簡介：宋徽宗趙佶（1082－1135），是一位詩、書、畫三絕的藝術家皇帝，建立完備畫院制度，以詩句為畫題選取人才，重視對實物的觀察，這種結合詩畫和寫生的繪畫觀念，對中國繪畫的發展深具影響力。 此幅可能即《宋中興館閣儲藏圖畫記》中徽宗八扇屏之一的〈香梅山白頭〉，兼具詩情畫意，精練筆墨表現景物特性，構圖簡潔，設計Ｓ型弧線，在寫生之外，又著意營造具造型美感和冬日清疏氣氛的理想境界。

恭喜完成解謎！並順利找出失憶男子的真實身份。

謎題中的數位影像裝置，此時此刻都在故宮南院等您來體驗。誠摯邀請您來訪參觀，感受今年博物館日主題：奇幻影像力，期待與您相遇！

說好的抽獎：請點擊下方Google 表單填寫基本資料，南編將在活動結束後抽出幸運得獎者，並用email聯繫大家，祝你中獎！（抽獎活動已截止）

點我填寫表單

❝​ 視覺先決！當數位影像成為主角，博物館觀展體驗將會有不同的啟發 ​❞

20世紀初期

波卡麗刺繡頭巾

----------

亞洲織品展

本展品展期：111/03/12 — 111/06/05

清 乾隆

金胎掐絲琺瑯多穆壺

----------

東亞茶文化展 常設展

明 嘉靖

紅地黃彩 雲龍紋蓋罐

----------

花樣何處來：一位道教皇帝對瓷器製作的影響 特展

展期：111-04-01~113-04-14

清 乾隆

掐絲琺瑯鳧尊

----------

謎樣景泰藍 特展

展期：111-04-01~113-04-14

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
「影像大解謎」線上闖關 by NPM Southern Branch on Genially

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Discover more about 「影像大解謎」線上闖關 ✌️ - Personal Branding

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Your browser does not support the video tag.

Want to make creations as awesome as this one?

IVY WANG

Created on February 26, 2022

More creations to inspire you

Transcript

ＩＮＣＵＢＡＴＯＲ　２０７０

Augmented Reality Escape Room

Start

設備需求:手機 PC/筆電/PAD(三擇一)

手機FB要更新才能順利體驗AR濾鏡特效

請掃瞄右方QR CODE

加入LINE@跟我聯繫上

跟我一起執行任務吧

掃瞄完畢

孵育室

孵育室

點看看電腦螢屏

孵育記錄單

基因密碼庫

點看看電腦螢屏

手機鏡頭請靠近掃瞄寶石

點擊左上角畫筆可以在畫面上書寫喔~

點擊左上方畫筆可進行填色，完成填色後再點一次畫筆切換回拖曳模式

完成作答後可直接將洞洞卡拖曳疊合答案卡，再點擊一次左上方畫筆答案就出現嚕！

可自行拖曳至答案卡上方

點擊左上角畫筆可以在畫面上書寫喔~

基因密碼庫

Gene CODE

那就再輸入下一組試看看

拿到了這個...好像只是其中一部份...

好像都拿到了

拼拼看好了

拼完再來掃看看

好像都收集齊了~

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Discover more about incubator2070 ✌️ - Escape games

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
pollly is your perfect partner to gather ideas and opinions in real time, no registering required, free and absolutely fool-proofed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
2015 年，一群阿美族孩子的家長，為了讓孩子能夠學習母語，在花蓮豐濱鄉的港口部落，共同成立了 Tamorak 阿美語共學園。這是台灣第一間原住民族共學園，也是擁有幼兒園與國小部的唯一一間。

為了讓學校能夠穩定營運與募款，在 2018 年成立了「台灣 TAMORAK 文教協會」。2021 年，Tamorak 取得部落教保中心的資格，將幼兒園獨立設置在港口國小的閒置空間。

曾在港口國小任教十年的共學園園長 Nakaw（林淑照），看到許多原住民孩子在體制教育中的失落。有些孩子比較不懂注音符號與漢字，就被視為發展遲緩的問題孩子。擅長母語的孩子得不到正面回饋，甚至失去自信、變得迷惘。

因此她先接受了三年的華德福師資培訓，從帶著自己的孩子自學開始，並與一群擁有相同理念的家長共同成立了 Tamorak 母語共學園，建立一個以阿美語為主要語言的學校，摸索出一套讓部落孩子長成一個「完整的人」的方法。

這間學校以阿美語的南瓜為名，希望的台灣美麗的各族群文化都像南瓜一樣，枝葉茂盛、花朵美麗、果實豐甜。更重要的是，在這裡成長的小朋友，視野能跟瓜藤一樣自由蔓生、身心能跟瓜實飽滿健壯。

七年來 Tamorak 不斷成長，在國小部就讀的孩子有 15 個，幼兒園則有 12 個，對所謂的偏鄉學校來說已經是一個大學校。除了阿美族，也有布農族、太魯閣族、台荷混血等不同族裔的孩子前來就讀，成為一間跨族裔的共學園。未來我們更希望能夠有中學部的成立，讓孩子能夠持續在部落成長與探索。

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
2015 年，一群阿美族孩子的家長，為了讓孩子能夠學習母語，在花蓮豐濱鄉的港口部落，共同成立了 Tamorak 阿美語共學園。這是台灣第一間原住民族共學園，也是擁有幼兒園與國小部的唯一一間。

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
有時候光是看課本、講義、武功祕笈、他人筆記、網路文章等等，仍然想知道道地的native speaker到底怎麼怎麼說或寫嗎？來學學使用語料庫吧！
語料庫到底是什麼？
語料庫的英文是 corpus，意思是 A collection of written or spoken material in machine-readable form, assembled for the purpose of linguistic research. (書面、口語資料的集合，以電腦可辨識的方式呈現，供語言學研究使用)，基本上就是由電腦彙整大量的文本 (text) 、實際的中、英文語料，供後續分析、檢索、對比等。

過去，字典的編篡或許是靠編者自行收集、造句，現在，幾乎所有的字典都強調以語料庫進行編篡，例句都是取材自真實的語料。如Cambridge、Oxford、 Macmillan等著名的字典。

語料庫對譯者來說是很重要的幫手，尤其在翻譯第二語言(如中文到英語) 時，語料庫能幫助譯者快速確定搭配字和用字精準度，用最自然、道地的英文來表達。對一般英語學習者來說，當你已累積一定字彙量，文法也學得差不多時，就可以靠語料庫快速檢視該字在現實生活中的用法，利用語料的比例分析，找出最常使用的搭配語；在字典上看起來意思差不多的字(沒錯，就是那一大串同義字)，在實際用法上往往也會有些許不同，這也可以透過語料庫整理差異。面對不好理解的文法，語料庫用大量資料證明給你看。

以下推薦5個超容易上手的語料庫：
1. Google
沒錯就是它，如何用google快速確定你寫出來的英文道不道地？請多加使用 「" "」 這個符號！加了quotation mark 後，google會搜尋用字順序完全相同的整個詞組。

例如，你想知道 "生計" 的英文怎麼翻比較好，除了 google translator 提供的 "livelihood" 外，你想試試 "source of income" 是不是正確的用法，這時，搜尋 "source of income" ，你會看到「"約有 97,800,000 項結果」顯示出來，代表這個用法是 ok 的啦！大概掃過搜尋結果後，你就可以大方用下去，確保寫出來的英文不會帶有外國腔。

點進來就會看到這個畫面，點進 》這個符號裡就可以看到更完整、附上舉例的解說。可以搜尋單一字詞、多個字詞、比較兩個用法、確認字詞順序等等。例如： 在搜尋中打上「? an application」會出現：

便可以看到和application最常搭配的字是submit"(提出申請)，另外像 make(提出申請)、complete(完成)、file (提出申請)等字也都很常使用，點後面的 + 號，便可看到來自真實語料的例句：

再點入句子後方的箭頭，便可直接連到那句子原本的網站。這樣的設計可以讓你同時學到一個字或片語的很多用法，並可以看看多是在那些內容(書寫or口語？關於什麼主題？)、場合(正式or非正式)、被哪些人物(官方文件or一般部落格)使用。

Just the words 可幫你查詢單一字或是短的片語，它的特殊之處在於，會分類列出該字和不同詞性的字組合的各種狀況。例如，打上offense後按 enter：

在一長串清單的第一個部分，它列出了 V obj "offence" 的用法，也就是offence當前面動詞的受詞。可以清楚看到，最常用的搭配是commit offense ；下面還有offense和名詞連用（sex offense）、後面接介係詞（offense against）、前面有名詞加介係詞（penalty for offense）等等，再搭配其他字典、Google等使用，想必能事倍功半。
4. TANGO Verb Noun Collocation (部分中、英對照)
TANGO是國科會下的計畫，收錄光華雜誌、Voice of America、British National Corpus、Hong Kong News and Laws（香港立法會）等處的語料。

右上角選擇語料來源，輸入字詞後選擇搜尋該字當verb、noun、adj查詢，collocation type （搭配詞種類），可以選擇搜尋它前後出現字詞的詞性。例如搜尋"cooperation"，選擇noun、VN：

選擇搜索光華雜誌，因此出現中英對照的語料，照次數排名，最常使用的是"promote cooperation"，點進去後又可看到所有資料。

若改搜尋voice of America，並選擇找 AN 的搭配，則會出現：

透過這樣的比較、排名，你就會知道 「緊密的合作」不是"near cooperation"而是 close cooperation，也會更熟悉「互相合作」、「區域性合作」、「經濟合作」等詞彙的英文還有所使用的情境為何。

其實，VoiceTube 也有語料庫的功能，其一是「影片中單字、片語用法」:

例如，同樣搜尋 "cooperation" 這個字，會出現定義、影片字幕、俚語三個項目：

其中，「影片字幕」便會列出所有含有"cooperation"的影片，也是一個從真實語料中學習的好幫手。點入句子後，便會直接跳到該影片那句話的地方，馬上學習整句話和整個context （來龍去脈），搭配中文字幕、講者語音，一舉數得！

另外，下載「VoiceTube影音字典」（可參考： 會善用這五個網站工具「學英文」才厲害 ），在看片時直接點及字幕也能有同樣的功能，除了單字之外，片語也同樣行得通。

想挑戰更厲害的語料庫的朋友，下面這個網站也是您的最佳選擇之一。
6. The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA)
每個語料庫的建立都需要龐大的時間和經費，各位 English learners 趕快多加使用網路上免費的資源，用新的科技幫助以更有效率的學習！

Be a smarter learner!

Source： 輔助翻譯的資源(2)

※本文獲「 VoiceTube看影片學英語 」授權轉載。

作者簡介_VoiceTube 看影片學英語

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
還在用Google翻譯？6個超強網站讓你查到最道地的英文－自己英文自己救｜商周

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
有時候光是看課本、講義、武功祕笈、他人筆記、網路文章等等，仍然想知道道地的native speaker到底怎麼怎麼說或寫嗎？來學學使用語料庫吧！語料庫到底是什麼？語料庫的英文是 corpus，意思是

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Helping Teachers Be Awesome See all your students working and give high-quality feedback–from anywhere. Sign Up (Free!)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Get access to files anywhere through secure cloud storage and file backup for your photos, videos, files and more with Google Drive.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
LEVERAGE The Laws Of Human Nature To INFLUENCE ANYONE You Want | Robert Greene