Sorry, Not Sorry

Sorry is a powerful word.

But over-apologizing weakens your power at work.

Late by two minutes? Sorry.

Tiny typo in an email? Sorry.

Not even your fault? Still sorry.

Over-apologizing makes you look less confident.

And weakens the power of genuine apologies.

So, how do we stop?

9 Ways to Ditch "Sorry"

(And Sound More Confident):

1. Delayed response

❌ "Sorry for the delay."

✅ "Thanks for your patience."

2. Need someone's time

❌ "Sorry to bother you."

✅ "When you have a moment, could you...?"

3. Declining a request

❌ "Sorry, I can't help."

✅ "I appreciate you thinking of me, but I can't."

4. Missed a meeting

❌ "Sorry I missed it."

✅ "Thanks for understanding, I'll catch up."

5. Setting boundaries

❌ "Sorry, I can't make it."

✅ "I'm unavailable, but how about…?"

6. Following up

❌ "Sorry to follow up."

✅ "Just checking in, any updates?"

7. Made a mistake

❌ "Sorry, my bad!"

✅ "Thanks for catching that, I'll fix it."

8. Taking up space

❌ "Sorry for taking your time."

✅ "I appreciate your time today."

9. Asking a question

❌ "Sorry, this might be dumb."

✅ "Here's something I'd like clarity on…"

Stop shrinking yourself. 

It's not helping anyone.

These small changes will shift how you're perceived.

Which "sorry" are you letting go of first?

Source: Dora Vanourek

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/doravanourek_9-ways-to-stop-saying-sorry-at-work-activity-7309202444016566273-g5Fu?utm_source=social_share_send&utm_medium=member_desktop_web&rcm=ACoAAAibFXUBKjuR4skSQw8r8nr-p7IN-ZCAFYk

The 1-Minute Introduction That Makes People Remember You Forever

The Day I Bombed My Introduction (And What I Learned)

"Hi, I’m… uh… John? I like… stuff?"

That's how I introduced myself at a conference once. Spoiler: No one remembered me. Fast-forward to today — I use a 1-minute trick that turns strangers into superfans. Here's how to make your next introduction unforgettable (no "liking stuff" required).

Why Your Brain Hates Basic Intros

The “Broken Robot” Effect: “Name, job, hobby” intros are predictable → brains tune out.

The Halo Effect: People decide if you're smart/kind/interesting in seconds — first impressions stick like glue.

Science Fix: Use storytelling + curiosity to hijack their attention.

The 3-Part Formula (Steal This!)

1. The Hook: Start With a Story, Not Your Name

Bad: "Hi, I’m Sarah, a marketer from Chicago."

Better: "I once accidentally emailed 10,000 customers a cat meme. Now I teach companies how to avoid my mistakes."

Why: Stories activate the brain's "movie mode" → you’re memorable.

2. The Highlight: Add a "WTF" Detail

Bad: “I love hiking.”

Better: “I climbed a mountain in flip-flops to prove my mom wrong.”

Why: Quirky details stick 5x longer (Journal of Experimental Psychology).

3. The Handoff: Make It About Them

Bad: "Nice to meet you!"

Better: "What’s the weirdest hobby you’ve tried?"

Why: Questions force their brain to engage → they associate you with curiosity.

Real-Life Example: From "Who?" to "Wow!"

Before:

"I'm Alex. I work in data. I like reading." → Forgotten in 10 seconds.

After:

"I spent 3 years tracking how 500 people brush their teeth. Now companies pay me to fix weird habits. What’s a habit you’d love to break?"

→ Result: "Wait, you’re the Toothbrush Data Guy!"

Your 7-Day Challenge

Day 1–2: Write your "Hook" (use the formula above).

Day 3–4: Practice saying it in the mirror (no cringing!).

Day 5–6: Test it on a friend (ask for honest feedback).

Day 7: Use it in real life (coffee shop, Zoom call, anywhere!).

Why This Works (Brain Science)

Dopamine Hit: Surprise triggers dopamine → brains love you.

Mirror Neurons: Stories make people "feel" your intro → emotional connection.

Recency Bias: End with a question → you're the last thing they remember.

Source: Alessia Fransisca

https://medium.com/social-science-weekly/the-1-minute-introduction-that-makes-people-remember-you-forever-497cefcfdccc

五代同堂職場特徵

Source: e.ma.um

https://www.threads.net/@e.ma.um/post/DHVzr9Qzw4f?xmt=AQGzNF6sMLk9w-y2J_GNAhUsDzobw88zIydc5vVB2ttggQ

How “circles of trust” explain the political divide

Last month, Nichola Raihani — British psychologist and author of The Social Instinct, a book about the history of human cooperation — published a fascinating story on Medium. It made me think differently about why (in the U.S., at least) we’re so divided politically.

A Gallup poll released in January reveals that Republicans’ and Democrats’ ideologies have grown more extreme in the last 30 years. Even if you compare polls from the last 2–3 years, the number of people who label themselves “very conservative” or “very liberal” is increasing.

Raihani sees political division through a specific lens: circles of trust. We mentioned this briefly in issue #261, but essentially, political differences (in Raihani’s view) come down to how we envision our obligations to people who are not close family or friends. She cites a behavioral study which found that political conservatives “profess greater love for their family, but less love for humanity as a whole (with political liberals showing the opposite pattern).” Conservatives’ circles of trust are smaller (family + township come first); liberals’ circles of trust are larger (love for humanity writ large). By extension, conservatives trust institutions less than liberals, because institutions (e.g. banks, schools, governments) are basically manifestations of care for people beyond your core family/friend group.

For an institution to exist, its users must have a pretty wide circle of trust.

More interestingly, our circles of trust expand and contract over time. If we perceive our institutions as untrustworthy, our circles of trust shrink; if our institutions serve us well, they expand. Raihani concludes: “Our moral boundaries are, therefore, determined as much by the society that we live in as they are by our own personal values and beliefs.”

Source: Harris Sockel

https://blog.medium.com/how-circles-of-trust-explain-the-political-divide-d51a058a16ac

特朗普佛心解說，歐洲盟友歸隊，普京夜長夢多

既然特朗普佛如此大方，將礦產投資計劃暗含美國安全保障講個清楚，我也不妨將歐洲的姿態講清楚。英法帶頭籌備好烏克蘭防衛聯盟之後，北約成員國的美國就被逼被動地支援，即是整個北約都加入防衛了。

由於美國是被人捉媒人上轎，故此特朗普也容易向普京交代，說自己是被人挾持的，媒人被捉上轎，怪不得我啊。最想停戰的普京，被澤倫斯基使計，拖延之後由英國駐軍變成北約駐軍烏克蘭保護，烏克蘭並無北約成員國之名，卻有北約成員國之實。然而，普京仍可接受和平協議，畢竟他懼怕的是名，不是實。所謂不打不相識，北約國家在俄烏戰爭買了個教訓，弄得自己三年戰爭期間得不到俄國天然氣和烏克蘭礦產、農產，民生困苦，工廠荒廢，日後該不會再做北約東擴之事吧。

香港仍有希望，因為我在。世界上，有幾多人可以解釋明白給你看？這是尋常的人情世故，但屬於擺得上檯面、出得國際場合的人情世故，最緊要的是，這是基於仁心的人情世故，不是爭權奪利的權謀。香港人要學。

附錄：

哥倫比亞大學經濟學家Jeffrey Sachs 二月十九日在歐洲議會解釋為何普京會攻打烏克蘭。Jeffrey Sachs' roaring speech at EU Parliament, lambasts US Europe over Ukraine war. ET Online | 01 Mar 2025, https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/jeffrey-sachs-roaring-speech-at-eu-parliament-lambasts-us-europe-over-ukraine-war/videoshow/118652924.cms?from=mdr ; 短片：‘Putin-Trump will end Ukraine war, cut your losses’: Jeffrey Sachs to Europe in fiery EU speech https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sc4FiMmT-I

Source: 陳雲

https://www.patreon.com/posts/te-lang-pu-fo-ou-123532775

https://www.facebook.com/wan.chin.75/posts/pfbid02z8QgJ6pmkEjS6GBtqToMk8Ynpx2meaYkT7XfWJYJBfAADmEzki8hA7PptHktrjDFl

澤倫斯基大無畏，火中取栗翻桌子

 

圖、澤倫斯基大鬧白宮

古有孫悟空大鬧天宮，今有澤倫斯基大鬧白宮。尋常政治是妥協的藝術，高深政治是不妥協的藝術。前者有特朗普在調停俄烏戰爭的示範，後者由澤倫斯基示範。澤倫斯基一直不妥協，開戰之初，沒聽拜登說走去波蘭流亡，死守住基輔近郊，也沒聽特朗普說割讓礦產來換取和平。

特朗普說要烏克蘭交出機要礦產來換取美國介入和平協議之後，特朗普退了一步，說是共同開發，美國買貨付款的一半收益播歸烏克蘭的建設基金。之後，英國的維和部隊和法國的礦產開發參與也來了。這是特朗普第一次讓步，令澤倫斯基得到變相的馬歇爾計劃——那是美國無償援助二戰之後的德國和日本，並協助它們改革憲政民主和建立公民社會。

第一步成功之後，澤倫斯基想要第二步讓步，就是要美國保證烏克蘭的安全，保證俄羅斯不會好似二〇二二年攻打烏克蘭那樣，再次撕毀和平協議，於是澤倫斯基想要有一點美國駐軍在烏克蘭東部的礦產開發區。

談起駐軍，這不免令我回憶起一九八四年談起香港的中共駐軍問題。原本鄧小平是不想駐軍的，但也不講明白不駐軍，然而，前國防部長耿飚向香港記者說中央不駐軍，只是掛一面旗，此話令鄧小平相當懊惱，於是斥責這是胡說八道，說香港是中國領土，豈可不駐軍？後來，鄧小平對此感到後悔和遺憾，好好的曖昧藝術被多言的耿飆糟蹋了。

這令特朗普相當難堪，因為他之前講過美國不會給予烏克蘭太多的安全保障，主要由歐洲提供，目前已有英國承諾派出維和部隊，將來很可能也有法國與德國加入，然而這是特朗普的權宜之計，因為援助烏克蘭是整個北約的參與，美國只是出較大一份、給予較多的先進武器和戰略指導。現在和平停火之後，美國要抽身而出，留下北約的歐洲部分來防衛烏克蘭，這是虎頭蛇尾，也不合道義，澤倫斯基是吃準了這一點來爭取。特朗普這位大佬，想顯示的，正如我之前在會員區的戰略分析短片說的，他要最大一份，要利益最大化，而烏克蘭得到的是利益最小化——割讓價值五千億美元的烏克蘭機要礦產給美國來抵償軍援（大概兩千億美元），令美國大賺。

澤倫斯基能否善罷甘休、所謂港人那些政治傻瓜說的「見好就收」呢？可以，但也不必。既然美國讓了第一步，當然也會讓第二步。讓第二步就是包括美軍的北約整體派出維持和平部隊駐守在礦區，也就是烏克蘭東部的防線。那麼讓第三步呢？就是普京來讓：普京讓出佔領區的主權，宣稱由烏東佔領區的自治議會自行決定，而北約認為該等地區的民主公投不可靠，於是由北約託管和監督若干時日……

好了！到了談判最要緊的地方，就是看誰輸得起，誰輸不起！首先，輸不起的是俄羅斯，也是其頭目普京！在俄羅斯的國家，也在普京的個人顏面，俄羅斯輸不起，它必須要宣布勝利完成而停火。著急的是普京，不是澤倫斯基，更不是特朗普。烏克蘭是破罐子破摔，北約的軍火和援助源源不絕，俄羅斯民窮財盡，難以為繼。特朗普呢，是逞個人之強，但強澤倫斯基之所難，他想美國抽身而出，集中資源做工業重建和圍堵中共，也避過美國援助越南戰爭和援助阿富汗的泥淖，可以漂亮抽身而出，贏得美國人民的掌聲。澤倫斯基也看準特朗普的個人所圖，於是在美國和烏克蘭的幕僚商議妥當之後，在華盛頓的白宮上演一哭二鬧三上吊。

特朗普呢，沒好氣的，說歡迎澤倫斯基想好之後再來簽署，目前或會暫停烏克蘭的援助——當然，已經付運的停止不了。美國是不能打贏這場仗，因為懼怕普京倒台引起更大混亂，也不能在中途打輸，這意味美國重演它在越南和阿富汗的窘態。在特朗普執政的第一屆，他毅然決定與塔利班有和平約定，之後撤軍阿富汗。事前當然知道塔利班會違背諾言，奪權執政，也會殘殺幫助美軍基地的阿富汗人。然而，沒法子，反正阿富汗的混亂只是害慘中共，無傷於歐美與日本。美國在烏克蘭這邊呢，不能打贏也不能打輸，只能和談，那麼俄烏美歐四方的道義和利益都要拉扯計算。

至於烏克蘭，打贏俄羅斯可以，可以復仇，打輸也沒所謂，雖敗猶榮，而且俄軍佔領烏克蘭全部之後，緊迫北約，最終北約也要開戰，到時俄羅斯不堪一擊，北約會幫烏克蘭報仇。烏克蘭繼續打也可以，反正援助源源不絕。於是，澤倫斯基就在白宮胡鬧了！

必死者，橫行於天下。說到底呀，命都不要，豁出去之後，澤倫斯基才是在牌局最自由的人。特朗普說澤倫斯基手上沒牌，是說給美國人聽罷了。

附錄：

是次鳳凰衛視的短片剪輯甚有意思，證明中共是看透此事的，但無可奈何！

一、鳳凰衛視 2025-03-01 04:53【從戰爭一開始就孤軍奮戰？澤連斯基言論惹特朗普狂嗆：那個愚蠢的總統給了你們3500億美元！】澤連斯基與特朗普在白宮爆發激烈爭執。特朗普直言烏克蘭陷入了大麻煩，因為美國才有如今絕佳的脫身機會。但澤連斯基回應稱烏克蘭從一開始就孤軍奮戰，從而惹惱了特朗普。他先是批評拜登“給了烏克蘭3500億美元”，隨後又指若非美國提供武器裝備，俄烏衝突兩周之內就結束了。

https://www.facebook.com/watch?v=9534267599927359

二、鳳凰衛視2025-03-01 12:10【“你後悔了嗎？”“是的，我覺得這樣不好”澤連斯基：爭吵對雙方都不利，但強調烏方沒做什麼壞事】澤連斯基在與特朗普發生激烈爭吵後，28日晚些時候在接受福克斯新聞採訪時稱，這種爭吵對雙方都不利，但被問到他是否覺得應該向特朗普道歉時，澤連斯基回應說沒必要，他尊重美國總統和人民，烏方沒做什麼壞事。同時，烏克蘭已經為和平做好準備，但需要盟友的支持和安全保障。

https://www.facebook.com/watch?v=484576874711776

三、鳳凰衛視2025-03-01 12:40【特朗普：澤連斯基並不想實現和平，“他還想繼續戰鬥！戰鬥！戰鬥！”】美烏總統2月28日在會談中爆發激烈衝突，特朗普當天晚些時候回應稱，澤連斯基看起來並不想要和平，並稱其“高估了自己的籌碼”。特朗普還在社交平台表示，歡迎澤連斯基準備好實現和平後再來。

https://www.facebook.com/PhoenixTVHK/videos/2128388937617587

Source: 陳雲

https://www.patreon.com/posts/123391764