民意調查有用嗎？今個學年修讀我的《研究方法導論》課程的學生中，大約有五分之三認為，他們的知識並不源自於了解普通人的想法。有相當一部分學生認為，公眾意見其實並不重要，沒有人願意理會無權無勢的人們的聲音。有些學生甚至相信，統治精英比任何人都更了解情況，因此更適合為所有人作決策，讓他們替人民思考是無可厚非的。
主流教育並不著重理解人們想法
這些觀點並不令我感到驚訝。簡單回顧一下我們的主流教育經歷，除了以培養香港開放社會為重點的通識教育課程外（現已被廢除），根本與意見調查和調查方法幾乎毫無關係。大多數時候，學生只是通過重重複複的練習、考試去為下一次更多嚴苛的考核做好準備，而歷史、地理、科學或宗教研究等科目其實不太需要關注人們的想法及其背後的原因。
此外，學生普遍認為，修讀關於「個人與社會」等課題本身充滿了太多不確定性，而這種不確定性源自人們的「主觀、偏見、不理性、情緒化」，因此大家延伸至認為民意調查本身並不科學、結果毫無依據、結論並不可靠。波蘭有句諺語：「當兩個波蘭人見面，會有五種不同的意見。」的確，在個人和集體層面，意見的分佈會隨時間而改變，可能出現的組合和改變軌跡可以說是無窮無盡的，而我們從事民意調查和研究的就必須學會從中尋找意義。有時候，試圖理解人們的態度和看法時感覺就像是在追逐野鵝，因此許多人本能地避之則吉，而且會偏好技術為導向、職業訓練為基礎的學習經歷。
教育的本質與公民意識
哈佛大學哲學教授丹妮爾·艾倫（Danielle Allen）就觀察到，在美國教育體系中，給予人文和社會研究的時間和資源不足。她一針見血地指出：「教育本身是民主的源動力——閱讀、寫作和合作是政治參與過程中不可缺少的基本工具。」
具體而言，當我們越來越被吸引去接受由人工智能驅動、機器輔助的學習和決策，我們還可以從這些「人文社會」教育中得到的軟技能，或者學習在人與人之間的互動與合作中，大家還能期望獲得什麼回報？而在那些貶視民主治理；甚至視民主自由為「禁區」的地區，會更容易忽視艾倫的建議嗎？
在我看來，在思考這些問題時有三件事至關重要：
一）認知能力，因為這對形成個人判斷至關重要；
二）我們必須不斷學習為自己以及相關的人作出更好的決策；
三）我們必須學會欣賞人們在任何事情和一切事物上存在的分歧。
我也同意艾倫的觀點：教育的目的是賦予公民參與公共事務的能力，並學會如何儘管在性別、種族、社會背景、信仰、價值觀和政治等明顯差異下，仍然有彼此溝通相處的可能。我相信教育的本質在於培養和維持一個具有公民意識和文明的文化。
警惕群體的「一致性」
誠然，我們都領教過那些自認為比其他人更了解情況的統治精英，但若我們仔細觀察任何一個由個人組成的社群，會發現「一致性」只是例外，「多樣性」才是常態。當關於人類福祉的目的或手段的單一敘述被過於頻繁地用來堅持「一致」而犧牲「多元」時，我們更必須警惕。事實上，對於人們、身份或命運的「一刀切」式的簡單化，往往只是對真實人群的公式化歪曲。
那些假裝天下無敵、自以為是的領袖，只是在假裝而已。事實上，他們和我們一樣，只是普通人。我們都會犯錯，有時更錯得離譜。然而，當那些擁有巨大權力和資源的領導者犯錯時，我們全都會受他們所害，而且通常等我們發現之時，已經為時過晚了。
陳家洛
（原文為英文，由 AI 工具轉譯中文後經人手校對；文章標題及內文標題由香港民研編輯所擬）
參考資料：
Danielle Allen, What Is Education For? Boston Review, 26 April 2016.
https://www.bostonreview.net/forum/danielle-allen-what-is-education-for/
Are surveys useful? About three-fifths of my students say their knowledge is derived not from asking what ordinary people think. A plurality of them conclude that public opinion doesn’t matter because the people are powerless and not listened to. Some students who believe that the ruling elites are better, if not the best, informed than anybody to make decisions for all, so it is ok for them to do the thinking for the people.
Mainstream Education Does Not Emphasise Understanding People's Thoughts
This does not surprise me. With perhaps the exception to the Liberal Studies curriculum with a strong focus on nurturing an open society for Hong Kong, which had been abolished, pre-tertiary educational experience had little to do with opinion surveys and survey methods. For the most part of it, students passed exams and braced themselves for many more ruthless assessments in History, Geography, Science, or Religious Studies which have no need to pay attention to what people think and why they think the way they do.
Moreover, students are under the impression that studying Individuals and Society is fraught with uncertainty that is originated from people who are subjective, biased, unreasonable, emotional, and by extension, hopelessly unreliable. There is a saying in Polish that “When 2 Poles meet, the result is 5 different opinions.” Moreover, the distribution of opinions does change from time to time. The possible combinations and trajectories are arguably infinite, and one must learn to make sense of all this. Trying to understand people’s attitudes and perceptions is like a wild goose chase, therefore many instinctively prefer some technologically oriented, vocational-experiential approaches to education.
The Essence of Education and Civic Awareness
Danielle Allen, a philosophy professor at Harvard University, has observed that the time and resources given to humanities and social studies are insufficient in the US education system. She has pithily argued that “education is a causal force behind democracy—reading, writing, and collaboration are the basic instruments of political action.”
Specifically, what would we get out of the investment in such soft skills for interaction and collaboration when we are increasingly enticed to embrace AI-driven, machine-assisted learning and decision-making? Is it not convenient for regions where democratic governance is either held at low esteem or has become “a no-go area” to dismiss Allen’s advice?
To my mind, there are 3 things at stake:
1) the cognitive ability, which is imperative for the formulation of one’s judgement,
2) we must keep learning to make better decisions for oneself and others concerned, and
3) we must learn how to appreciate disagreements about anything and everything.
I also agree with Allen that education is about empowering citizens to take part in public affairs and to learn to get along with one another notwithstanding the obvious differences in gender, race, social backgrounds, beliefs, values, and politics. It’s about nurturing and sustaining a civic, and civilized, culture.
Beware of "uniformity"
We know first-hand the ruling elites who always think they know better, let’s try to look at any community of individuals, uniformity is exceptional; diversity is the norm. But even when monolithic depictions about any means or ends of the people concerned are too often deployed to confirm the former at the expense of the latter, we must be wary of the danger that more often than not, one-size-fit-all formulations about people, identity, or destiny are but unnatural simplifications that bear little resemblance of the real people.
Leaders who pretend to know better are just pretending. They are just mortals like the rest of us. Humans err. When leaders who wield enormous power and resources over us make mistakes, we all suffer, only that it’s already too late when we find out.
Kenneth CHAN Ka Lok
(Article titles and section headings were devised by HKPORI editors.)
Reference:
Danielle Allen, What Is Education For? Boston Review, 26 April 2016.
https://www.bostonreview.net/forum/danielle-allen-what-is-education-for/
