Surrounded by Idiots: A Practical Guide to the Four Behaviour Types and How to Work With Them

 Surrounded by Idiots: A Practical Guide to the Four Behaviour Types and How to Work With Them

---

Thomas Erikson’s Surrounded by Idiots is a brisk, accessible guide to human behaviour that reframes a common workplace complaint—“I’m surrounded by idiots”—into a lesson in emotional intelligence and communication. Using a simple four‑colour model (Red, Yellow, Green, Blue), Erikson shows that most “idiotic” behaviour is actually just a mismatch of styles, not stupidity. The book’s strength lies in its clarity: it explains four core behaviour types, how to spot them in yourself and others, and how to adapt your communication so that teams and relationships run more smoothly.

The Four Behaviour Types

Erikson’s system is built on the DISA model: Dominance (Red), Inducement (Yellow), Submission (Green), and Analytic (Blue). Each type corresponds to a colour and a distinct way of thinking, deciding, and interacting.

• Red – The Dominant Doer
  Reds are goal‑oriented, decisive, and results‑driven. They like control, speed, and efficiency. In meetings, they cut to the chase, dislike small talk, and may come across as blunt or impatient. You can identify a Red by short, direct questions (“What’s the bottom line?”), a preference for quick decisions, and visible frustration with bureaucracy or slow processes. Reds thrive when given clear targets and autonomy, but they can alienate others if they ignore feelings or context.

• Yellow – The Enthusiastic Talker
  Yellows are outgoing, optimistic, and highly social. They love ideas, stories, and being the centre of attention. You’ll notice them using big gestures, lots of laughter, and frequent interruptions to share anecdotes. They dislike routine, structure, and being ignored. Yellows are great at energising groups and generating ideas, but can be seen as scattered or unreliable if they skip details or over‑promise. To work with a Yellow, give them space to talk, focus on the “big picture,” and gently bring them back to concrete actions.

• Green – The Supportive Peacemaker
  Greens value harmony, loyalty, and stability. They are patient, good listeners, and conflict‑averse. They often say “yes” to avoid friction, even when overloaded. You can spot a Green by their calm tone, preference for familiar routines, and reluctance to criticise openly. They dislike sudden change, public confrontation, and high‑pressure deadlines. Greens are excellent at building trust and sustaining long‑term relationships, but may appear passive or indecisive. To engage a Green, create a safe, low‑pressure environment, ask for their opinion, and avoid aggressive or rushed decision‑making.

• Blue – The Analytical Thinker
  Blues are detail‑oriented, logical, and cautious. They like data, structure, and clear procedures. They ask many questions, double‑check facts, and may seem slow to decide. You’ll notice them taking notes, asking for documentation, and expressing discomfort with ambiguity. Blues dislike improvisation, emotional appeals, and poorly planned projects. They are invaluable for accuracy and risk‑management, but can frustrate others by over‑analysing or delaying action. To communicate with a Blue, provide clear information, evidence, and step‑by‑step plans, and avoid vague or overly emotional arguments.

How to Identify and Adapt

Erikson stresses that most people are not “pure” one colour; they usually combine two or three dominant traits. The key is to observe patterns in how someone speaks, moves, and reacts under stress. For example, a stressed Red may become aggressive and pushy, while a stressed Yellow may talk even more but lose focus. A stressed Green may withdraw or people‑please excessively, and a stressed Blue may retreat into over‑caution or nit‑picking.

Once you can roughly place someone on the four‑colour spectrum, the book offers practical tips:

• Speak to Reds in terms of goals, time, and results.

• Engage Yellows with energy, vision, and recognition.

• Reassure Greens with empathy, stability, and appreciation.

• Convince Blues with data, structure, and logical reasoning.

By adjusting your style to the listener’s terms, you reduce friction, improve collaboration, and stop seeing others as “idiots.” Surrounded by Idiots is not a deep psychological treatise, but a pragmatic toolkit for everyday communication in teams, families, and social settings.

---

共產主義：牛津非常短講——權力、承諾與警訊

 共產主義：牛津非常短講——權力、承諾與警訊

---

共產主義仍然是現代世界最具影響力且最具爭議的思想之一，同時也是最常被誤解的概念之一。許多人仍只把它與「平等」口號或蘇聯解體聯繫在一起，卻看不清它其實是一套完整的政治意識形態與統治模式。本書《共產主義：牛津非常短講》以極其精煉的篇幅，將共產主義從理論到實踐的全貌清晰呈現，為讀者提供一本簡潔而全面的導讀。

本書的第一個特色，是拒絕把共產主義簡化為一種經濟制度。作者指出，共產主義其實是一套完整的政治世界觀，建立在「歷史必然性」的信念、「階級鬥爭」的敘事，以及對「革命」與「黨的領導」的正當化之上。透過梳理這條思想脈絡，讀者得以理解，為何共產主義能吸引如此多追隨者，又為何往往會演變成高度集權的政體。

同樣重要的是，作者清楚區分「理想的共產主義」與「現實的共產政權」。原本的共產主義強調解放與平等，但在歷史上，多數實踐案例卻走向一黨統治、國家全面控制社會與壓制異見。本書並非單純譴責這些政權，而是解釋理想與現實之間的落差是如何打開的，以及為何烏托邦式的願景常常滑向威權統治。

本書的核心，是對「權力集中」的深入剖析。作者細緻拆解共產體制如何以「人民」與「集體利益」為名，逐步壓縮個人自由，並建立難以監督與改革的政治結構。透過黨紀、意識形態、監控與宣傳等機制，共產主義往往將權力高度集中在少數領導者手中，使腐敗與濫權成為體制內在的風險，而非偶然的偏差。

本書的導論也為讀者預告了對冷戰後共產主義的討論。即使蘇聯與東歐多數國家解體，仍有幾個大國維持共產黨統治，並在實質上轉向國家資本主義或威權民族主義。作者展示了這些政權如何適應、生存與重塑自身，同時仍保留共產體制的核心特徵。

總體而言，這篇導論將共產主義定位為一種仍在演變的統治實驗，而不僅是過去的歷史遺產。《共產主義：牛津非常短講》既是一本歷史概覽，也是一則警訊：它邀請讀者理解共產主義理想背後的吸引力，同時保持高度警覺，認識到這些理想一旦轉化為制度，可能帶來的權力集中與壓迫風險。

---

Communism: A Very Short Introduction – Power, Promise, and Warning

 Communism: A Very Short Introduction – Power, Promise, and Warning

---

Communism remains one of the most powerful and controversial ideas of the modern world. At the same time, it is also one of the most misunderstood. Many people still associate it only with slogans about equality or with the collapse of the Soviet Union, without seeing how it functions as a full political ideology and a distinct mode of rule. This book, Communism: A Very Short Introduction, cuts through the noise with remarkable clarity and concision, offering a compact yet comprehensive guide to communism from theory to practice.

The book’s first strength is its refusal to reduce communism to an economic system. Instead, it shows how communism is a complete political worldview, built on a belief in historical inevitability, a narrative of class struggle, and a justification of revolution and party leadership. By tracing this intellectual lineage, the author helps readers see why communism has attracted so many followers—and why it has also produced such rigid, centralized regimes.

Equally important is the author’s clear distinction between “ideal communism” and “real communist regimes.” The original vision of communism promised liberation and equality, but in practice most attempts at building communist states have ended in one‑party rule, tight state control over society, and the suppression of dissent. The book does not simply condemn these regimes; it explains how the gap between promise and reality opened up, and why utopian ideals so often slide into authoritarian control.

At the heart of the analysis is the question of power. The book carefully unpacks how communist systems concentrate authority under the banner of “the people” and “the collective,” gradually narrowing personal freedom and creating political structures that are difficult to check or reform. By focusing on mechanisms of control—party discipline, ideology, surveillance, and propaganda—the author reveals why corruption and abuse of power are not accidental but built‑in risks of this model.

The introduction also prepares readers for the book’s discussion of communism after the Cold War. Even though the Soviet Union and much of Eastern Europe have collapsed, communist parties still govern several major countries, often combining one‑party rule with state capitalism or authoritarian nationalism. The book shows how these regimes adapt, survive, and reshape themselves, while still retaining core features of the communist system.

Taken together, this introduction frames communism not as a set of outdated slogans, but as a living experiment in how ideas and institutions can concentrate power into an almost unchallengeable ruling system. Communism: A Very Short Introduction is therefore both a historical survey and a warning: it invites readers to understand the seductive appeal of communist ideals, while remaining sharply alert to the dangers they carry when turned into practice.

群體心理的自我實現預言：香港近年大事如何呼應車公靈籤的循環

 群體心理的自我實現預言：香港近年大事如何呼應車公靈籤的循環

---

過去十年，香港車公廟每年抽的靈籤，特別是那些「中籤」，串連起來就像一幅關於集體心理與自我實現預言的圖像。若將每支籤文對照當年的重大社會政治事件，它們不再像隨機的吉凶預示，反而像一面鏡子，映照出城市的恐懼、希望與選擇，並在每一年之間形成心理上的回饋循環。

2018：祖宗田土與寸土寸金

第21籤「頃畝之田歲月深，祖宗創積到於今；勸君勿論多和少，寸土原來一寸金」，來臨之際，香港正深陷極端樓價與房屋不平等。籤文提醒「勿論多和少」，正好呼應公眾對小至一個單位、大至社會資源的珍惜。但同年，對「土地」（實質或象徵）流失的焦慮，已開始醞釀後續的土地與房屋政策爭議。籤文強調「守住既有」，強化了防禦性、風險迴避的心態：人們更不願冒險推動激進改革，即使不滿情緒在暗中累積。

2019：畫餅充飢與石田無收

第86籤「石田為業喜非常，畫餅將來未見香；怎曉田耕耘不得，那知餅食不充腸」，在2019年社會運動爆發前出現。「石田」與「畫餅」象徵制度與改革看似豐收，實則無法填飽肚子，完美捕捉了公眾對既有制度的幻滅。籤文暗示「象徵性勝利」無法滿足實際需求，卻也預示若只追求口號，最終仍會飢餓。這種預期，使人們更傾向質疑機構的誠意，進一步加深不信任，將籤文變成自我實現的對立敘事。

2020：毋須逞英雄，只求公道

第92籤「人生何在逞英豪，天理人情只要公；天眼恢恢疏不漏，定然作福福來縱」，在2019-20運動與國家安全法實施後出現。籤文呼籲「毋須逞英雄」，強調公道與天理，被雙方解讀為「正義終將彰顯」。但這種預期，使雙方更堅信己方正義，導致對立升級。籤文的警告，反而被用作行動的正當化理由，形成自我實現的對抗循環。

2021：先發制人，火積薪下

第45籤「下手須教一著先，世情局面苦徒然；積薪歷火非無事，識者能知火未燃」，在政治收緊與逮捕行動中出現。籤文建議「先發制人」，符合當局的預防性策略，同時讓民間擔心「火積薪下」會爆發。這種恐懼，使每項新政策被視為火勢蔓延的徵兆，促使更多防禦或對抗行為，讓預言成真。

2022：低處拾芥薑，勿逞英豪

第38籤「人攀高處求真果，我向低邊拾芥薑；媚奧不如去媚灶，莫教步獵逞英豪」，在疫情後社會調整期出現。籤文勸人勿追高，轉而關注實際小利，呼應民間從大規模行動轉向基層工作。這種心態，使大規模動員減少，穩定了現狀，卻也延續了保守心態，成為自我實現的退守循環。

2023：威威非真威，守舊為上

第11籤「威人威威不是威，只當著力有箴規；白登曾起高皇閣，終被張良守舊圍」，在制度重塑下出現。籤文暗示權力表面強大卻脆弱，提醒內部規則的重要性。這種預期，使雙方更謹慎行事，強化了循規蹈矩的文化，限制了大膽改革，讓預言自我實現。

2024：斧斤入山，待春而動

第15籤「斧斤持以入山林，未得之時那處尋；損了良材失卻力，勸君留住待春臨」，在經濟與社會復甦期出現。籤文警告勿過早砍伐，呼應對過早政治或經濟冒險的擔憂。這種「等待春天」的預期，使投資與改革更趨保守，延長了停滯，讓預言成真。

2025：不作虧心事，貴人相助

第24籤「生前不作虧心事，只為貪心惹是非；若得貴人相勉力，莫教枉費用心機」，在新政治週期出現。籤文警告貪婪帶來麻煩，強調 integrity，呼應對腐敗與過度的警惕。這種預期，使領導層與公眾更傾向謹慎與共識，限制了激進改革，形成自我實現的漸進循環。

群體心理的自我實現循環

這些籤文，作為心理錨點，塑造了人們對事件的解讀。當大多數人採用同一框架（謹慎、克制、公道），他們的集體行動便產生籤文描述的結果。這就是群體心理的自我實現預言：預期塑造行為，行為實現預期，形成循環。在香港，這種循環強化了風險迴避與漸進主義，使車公靈籤成為自我實現的循環的一部分。

---

The Self‑Fulfilling Prophecy of Group Psychology: How Hong Kong’s Recent History Echoes Its Annual Car‑Kung Divination

 The Self‑Fulfilling Prophecy of Group Psychology: How Hong Kong’s Recent History Echoes Its Annual Car‑Kung Divination

---

Over the past decade, Hong Kong’s annual Car‑Kung (Che Kung) Temple fortune‑stick draws have produced a sequence of mid‑level “middle” sticks that, read together, sketch a powerful narrative about collective psychology and self‑fulfilling expectations. When mapped onto major social and political events in each year, the sticks read less like random omens and more like a mirror of the city’s own fears, hopes, and choices—each year reinforcing the next in a psychological feedback loop.

2018: “Ancestral Fields and Every Inch of Land”

Stick 21, “Ancestral fields accumulated over years… every inch of land is worth its weight in gold,” came as Hong Kong was still grappling with extreme housing inequality and sky‑high property prices. The line about “do not despise how much or how little” fit a public increasingly aware that even small gains in housing or savings mattered. Yet the same year also saw growing anxiety that any loss of “land” (literal or symbolic) would be deeply felt, foreshadowing later protests over land‑use and housing policy. The stick’s emphasis on preserving what is already held reinforced a defensive, risk‑averse mindset: people were less willing to gamble on radical change, even as frustration simmered.

2019: “Illusory Fields and Empty Bread”

Stick 86, “Stone fields yield no harvest; painted cakes cannot feed the hungry,” arrived just before the 2019‑20 protest wave. The image of cultivating land that cannot be ploughed and eating bread that cannot nourish perfectly captured a sense that existing institutions and “reforms” were yielding little real benefit. The public mood turned toward demanding more substantive change, but the stick also warned that symbolic victories—without material outcomes—would leave people still hungry. In that sense, the prophecy was self‑fulfilling: people acted as if institutions were hollow, which in turn made them behave more cynically toward those institutions, deepening the crisis of trust.

2020: “No Need to Prove Heroism, Only Justice”

Stick 92, “Do not seek to show off heroism; what matters is fairness and justice,” appeared as the city was polarised by the 2019‑20 protests and the imposition of the National Security Law. The line about “heaven’s eye sees all” resonated with both sides: protesters saw it as a warning that injustice would eventually be judged, while authorities read it as confirmation that their actions would be vindicated over time. The stick’s call for restraint and fairness, however, was overshadowed by a collective psychology of “we must act now,” turning the warning into a justification for further escalation on both sides. Expectations of inevitable judgment hardened positions, making compromise harder and turning the prophecy into a self‑fulfilling narrative of confrontation.

2021: “Strike First, or the Fire Will Spread”

Stick 45, “Strike first with one decisive move; the world’s situation is otherwise futile… a fire under stacked firewood is not harmless,” arrived amid tightening controls, arrests, and the restructuring of Hong Kong’s political space. The advice to “act first” fit the government’s own strategy of pre‑emptive legal and administrative moves, while for civil‑society actors it suggested that delaying action would only make things worse. The image of an unseen fire under dry wood mirrored widespread fears that repression would escalate. Those fears, once widely shared, led people to interpret every new policy as part of an accelerating fire, which in turn triggered more defensive or confrontational behaviour—thus helping the prophecy come true.

2022: “Pick Up What Is Close at Hand”

Stick 38, “Others climb high for real fruit; I pick up mustard seeds from the low ground… it is better to flatter the hearth than the shrine,” warned against chasing distant, grandiose goals and instead focusing on immediate, practical gains. In 2022, as the city adjusted to a post‑2019, post‑pandemic reality, many organisations and individuals shifted from large‑scale activism to quieter, grassroots work. The stick’s message encouraged a psychology of “stay low, stay safe, and work where you can.” This mindset, once adopted by enough people, made large‑scale mobilisation less likely and helped stabilise the status quo—turning the stick’s caution into a self‑fulfilling pattern of retreat and consolidation.

2023: “Authority That Is Not True Authority”

Stick 11, “Authority that appears powerful is not true authority; it is better to exert effort within clear limits… even the High Emperor’s pavilion was eventually surrounded,” suggested that visible power structures could be fragile. The line about “advice and rules” pointed to the importance of internal discipline and restraint. In 2023, as the city’s institutions were reshaped under the National Security Law and new electoral rules, the stick resonated with a sense that formal authority could be challenged from within. At the same time, the warning against overreaching encouraged both authorities and citizens to act within narrower boundaries, reinforcing a cautious, rule‑bound culture. The prophecy thus fed a psychology of “power is temporary; stay within the lines,” which itself limited the space for bold action on either side.

2024: “Cutting Trees Before They Are Ready”

Stick 15, “Axes taken into the forest, but before the trees are mature where can one find them?… conserve strength and wait for spring,” arrived as Hong Kong’s economy and civil‑society sectors were still recovering from the pandemic and political upheaval. The image of cutting immature trees fit the sense that premature political or economic gambles would waste resources. The stick’s call to “wait for spring” encouraged patience and restraint, reinforcing a collective expectation that the current “winter” would last longer. That expectation, once widely shared, made people less willing to invest in long‑term, risky projects—thus helping to prolong the very stagnation the stick seemed to describe.

2025: “No Need for Greed, Only Integrity”

Stick 24, “If you have done no wrong in life, greed will still bring trouble… with the help of a noble person, do not waste your efforts,” appeared as Hong Kong faced a new political cycle and ongoing debates about economic recovery and social cohesion. The warning against greed and the emphasis on integrity fit a climate in which both authorities and citizens were wary of overreach and scandal. The line about “noble persons” helping to guide efforts resonated with hopes for moderate leadership. Yet the stick also implied that even well‑intentioned actions could go awry if driven by self‑interest. That fear of “greed bringing trouble” encouraged a cautious, consensus‑seeking psychology, which in turn made bold reforms harder to pass—turning the prophecy into a self‑fulfilling preference for incrementalism.

---

The Self‑Fulfilling Cycle of Group Psychology

Across these years, the Car‑Kung sticks function less as predictions from outside and more as psychological anchors that shape how people interpret events. Each stick offers a frame—caution, restraint, fairness, or patience—that large groups then adopt as a shared lens. Once enough people act as if that frame is true, their behaviour starts to produce the very outcomes the stick describes.

This is the essence of a self‑fulfilling prophecy in group psychology:

• People hear a narrative (“wait for spring,” “do not show off heroism,” “greed brings trouble”).

• They adjust their expectations and strategies accordingly.

• Their collective actions then make that narrative come true, reinforcing the belief that the prophecy was accurate.

In Hong Kong’s case, the recurring themes of caution, restraint, and the fragility of power have helped sustain a climate of risk‑aversion and incremental change. The sticks did not cause the city’s trajectory; but they did help crystallise and reinforce the psychological mood that, in turn, shaped political and social outcomes. In that sense, the Car‑Kung divination has become part of the very cycle it appears to describe.

---

英國的房屋自置正陷入一個惡性循環，不斷自我強化，將年輕與年長世代一同拖入更深的不安全感之中。

 英國的房屋自置正陷入一個惡性循環，不斷自我強化，將年輕與年長世代一同拖入更深的不安全感之中。

惡性循環始於年輕人被逐出市場：首次置業者平均年齡升至三十四歲，薪金停滯與樓價飆升令數百萬人只能長期租住，延後財富積累，把不穩定延續至中年。

當這些租客步入退休年齡，退休模式便開始崩塌。原本假設「無按揭、自有物業」的退休模型，與現實背道而馳——五十五至六十四歲的私營租戶比例由二○一○至二○一一年的百分之六點三，升至二○二○至二○二一年的百分之十一點三，而預計到二○四○年代，退休租客比例更會由目前約百分之六升至百分之十七，單是住房津貼支出便可能額外增加二十億英鎊，退休者若要維持生活質素，甚至需要多儲備近四十萬英鎊。

財政壓力隨之加劇，擠壓政府在可負擔房屋及鼓勵置業政策上的投資空間。在福利開支上升（可能多達四十萬個家庭依賴退休相關津貼）的情況下，政府往往只能選擇短期措施，例如限制二○二九年起以薪金轉讓方式避開僱主與僱員國民保險供款的上限，而非真正扭轉置業下跌的趨勢。

惡性循環進一步在健康層面發酵：年長租客面對租金飆升、被逼遷與被迫搬遷的風險，導致身心狀況惡化，增加對公共醫療系統的依賴，進一步推高稅收與開支，令政府更難推行大刀闊斧的房屋改革。

最後，社會照顧改革的選擇空間被收窄：房屋自置率下降，意味用物業資產支付長者照顧的選項減少，政策只能在「大幅擴大國家承擔、更高稅負」、「更多由個人或家庭自行承擔」，或「保險模式」之間作出更艱難的抉擇，而代際財富差距同時擴大，令下一代更難上車。

這個自我強化的循環，正一點一滴侵蝕二十世紀建立的穩定與尊嚴。若不立即採取有力措施提升房屋自置率，英國的「置業夢」將徹底淪為由納稅人支撐的社會危機。

The Vicious Cycle of Declining Home Ownership in the UK

 

The Vicious Cycle of Declining Home Ownership in the UK

Home ownership—the cornerstone of the British dream—is trapped in a vicious cycle, spiraling downward and ensnaring generations young and old.

It starts with younger buyers priced out: the average first-time buyer age has climbed to 34, locking millions into renting amid stagnant wages and soaring prices. This delays wealth-building, perpetuating insecurity into middle age.

As these renters age, retirement models crumble. Assumptions of mortgage-free living in old age collide with reality—pensioner renters are projected to surge from 6% today to 17% by the 2040s, demanding £400,000 more in savings or ballooning state housing benefits by £2 billion annually.

Fiscal strain mounts, crowding out investment in affordable housing and pro-ownership policies. Governments, squeezed by rising welfare costs (up to 400,000 more dependent households), opt for short-term fixes like NI contribution caps, rather than reversing the tide.

The cycle deepens with health fallout: older renters suffer eviction fears, rent hikes, and instability, worsening mental and physical health—driving NHS burdens that further inflate taxes and deter bold housing reforms.

Finally, social care reform narrows: fewer homeowners mean less housing equity to leverage, forcing stark choices—higher taxes, diluted provision, or untested insurance—while intergenerational wealth gaps widen, pricing out the next cohort.

This self-reinforcing loop erodes twentieth-century security. Without urgent intervention to boost ownership, the dream slips away for all, turning aspiration into a taxpayer-funded nightmare.