谈日食，天生道教何自弃？

古代的全日食绝对震撼。  正在打仗的，停战言和。可能会出现大规模民变。天文现象，转为公关危机政治危机。 不信教的纷纷信教，信教的可能改信教，或者更加信教。 皇帝知道要祈祷斋戒，甚至下罪己诏，从新确认上天垂怜，国民拥护。 

不管何时何地，有政治经济种族战争危机，都需要危机处理。 一个民族要生存，处理危机的能力如何，有0分到100分的差别。   危机处理是宗教传承的首要标杆： 真诚，自爱，团队建设，自卫，科学是基本要求。 兼具5条的是满分100分。

儒家提倡”修文德，来远人。“ 万邦来朝。量中华之物力，结与国之欢心。 处理危机对内靠提倡“忠孝礼义”，遏制舆论。对外靠息事宁人。  好不好？
   汉。西晋。宋。明。清朝末代皇帝发来贺电。 砸了银子，招来大胃口的豺狼。 至今除了汉族搭上子女玉帛，为奴为婢，没有他族人买儒家账。曾经买账的也悔改了（韩国人，越南人），另投佳主。  儒家的危机处理分是10分（0-100分） 

南朝四百八十寺， 中亚曾经的几十个佛教国，阿育王印度遍地佛像，西藏蒙古满清事佛甚恭一千年。好不好？
俱亡国亡族，佛像被毁； 如来昙花一现，发来贺电。佛教的危机处理分是3分（0-100分） 

洋教非常擅长危机处理。 但是洋教也有真诚科学暗伤，没有真诚科学，洋教处理危机的能力也变低。 神学院最痛苦的一关就是怎样处理和现代科学分歧的问题。 面对科学对圣经的质疑，神学生面面相觑，在镜子中看到自己内心的怀疑恐惧不安伪装。  好不好？
Quakers也是美国建国国父，坚持真诚，反对蓄奴，反对战争最坚定的新教徒。 他们现在已经脱基督化，教条不要求坚信耶稣的神学地位。洋教的危机处理分是20-80分（满分是100分） 

道教不是一个magic show, 也不是个feel good anaesthetic，也不会夸夸其谈自欺欺人。道教有科学性诚实性，实用性建设性，有growth mindset。 道家道教早期（跟儒家佛教三教合一之前）的危机处理分是90分（满分100分）；跟儒家佛教三教合一，平均分也是30分；再被儒佛一打压，烧书杀道人，处理危机的能力萎缩为5分。 有的人就是不能容忍别人的分比他高。 

"天下之至柔，驰骋天下之至坚。无有入无间，吾是以知无为之有益。不言之教，无为之益，天下希及之。" －《道德经》
http://taolaw.blogspot.com/2017/04/ddj-43.html

我听说：欺人自欺必自弃。  天生华人何自弃？  华人本来有道教，华人偏要去近求远。 缘木求鱼，这是什么怪现象？

Stanford CS faculty talk:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=md8WOC35pZo

Ellen Pao's new book on her failed lawsuit against Kleiner Perkins:  华人应该读，女性特别更应该读。 可以看出隐形歧视，business in-crowd, organization cliques, courtroom common sense。  
https://www.thecut.com/2017/08/ellen-pao-silicon-valley-sexism-reset-excerpt.html

In venture capital, a ton of power is concentrated in just a few people who all know one another. Tips and information are exchanged at all-male dinners, outings to Vegas, and sports events. Networks are important inside a VC firm, too. One secret of the venture-capital world is that many firms run on vote trading. A person might offer to vote in favor of investing in another partner’s investment so that partner will support his upcoming investment. Many firms, including Kleiner, also had a veto rule: Any one person could veto another member’s investment. No one ever exercised a veto while I was there, but fear of it motivated us to practice the California art of superficial collegiality, where everything seems tan and shiny on the outside but behind closed doors, people would trash your investment, block it, or send you on unending “rock fetches” — time-consuming, unproductive tasks to stall you until you gave up.... 

Venture capital’s underbelly of competitiveness exists in part because the more I invest, the less money for you, my partner, to make your investments. And we’re all trying to make as many investments as possible because chances are low that any one investment is going to be successful. Partners can increase their own odds by excluding all of your investments. And as a junior partner you faced another dilemma: Your investments could be poached by senior partners. You wanted to pitch your venture so it would be supported but not so much that it would be stolen. Once a senior partner laid claim to a venture you were driving, you were better off just keeping quiet. Otherwise, you could be branded as having sharp elbows and not being a good team player. But this was true, I noticed, only for women. Junior men could sometimes even take ventures from senior partners.

Predicting who will succeed is an imperfect art, but also, sometimes, a self-fulfilling prophecy. When venture capitalists say — and they do say — “We think it’s young white men, ideally Ivy League dropouts, who are the safest bets,” then invest only in young white men with Ivy League backgrounds, of course young white men with Ivy League backgrounds are the only ones who make money for them. They’re also the only ones who lose money for them.