‘When life hands you a lemon, just bite in’

作者:Judith Rich Harris @ 2016-09
来源:The Psychologist, http://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/volume-29/september/when-life-hands-you-lemon-just-bite

Judith Rich Harris takes Lance Workman through her extraordinary fightback against entrenched views of child development.
Judith Rich Harris对话Lance Workman,对已被深深认同的儿童发展心理学观点作出了非同寻常的回击。

Judith Rich Harris is a psychologist and author.
Judith Rich Harris是一位心理学家和作家。


I first become aware of you when I read The Nurture Assumption in 1998. In it you proposed that a child’s peer group has greater influence on development than her parents. Can we begin by outlining this theory?


Group socialisation theory was my attempt to solve a puzzle I had encountered while writing child development textbooks for college students. My textbooks endorsed the conventional view of child development – that what ma(more...)

标签: | | |
‘When life hands you a lemon, just bite in’ “如果生活递给你一个柠檬,那就去咬它吧” 作者:Judith Rich Harris @ 2016-09 译者:明珠(@老茄爱天一爱亨亨更爱楚楚) 校对:辉格(@whigzhou) 来源:The Psychologist, http://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/volume-29/september/when-life-hands-you-lemon-just-bite Judith Rich Harris takes Lance Workman through her extraordinary fightback against entrenched views of child development. Judith Rich Harris对话Lance Workman,对已被深深认同的儿童发展心理学观点作出了非同寻常的回击。 Judith Rich Harris is a psychologist and author. Judith Rich Harris是一位心理学家和作家。 【译注:粗体字是Workman的提问,常字体是Harris的回答I first become aware of you when I read The Nurture Assumption in 1998. In it you proposed that a child’s peer group has greater influence on development than her parents. Can we begin by outlining this theory? 我第一次认识你是读到你1998年出版的《教养的迷思》。在书中你提到,同龄人群体对孩子成长的影响大于父母。我们从简要概括这个理论开始,好吗? Group socialisation theory was my attempt to solve a puzzle I had encountered while writing child development textbooks for college students. My textbooks endorsed the conventional view of child development – that what makes children turn out the way they do is ‘nature’ (their genes) and ‘nurture’ (the way their parents bring them up). But after a while it dawned on me that there just wasn’t enough solid evidence to support that view, and there was a growing pile of evidence against it. 群体社会化理论是我在撰写儿童发展心理学的大学教材时试图解决的难题。我的教材赞同儿童发展心理学的传统观点——是‘先天本性’(基因)和‘后天培养’(父母养育他们的方式)共同使孩子们形成他们的做事方式。但一段时间后我明白了,并没有足够确凿的证据支持这个观点,同时,反对证据却越来越多。 The problem was not with the ‘nature’ part – genes were having their expected effect. But ‘nurture’ wasn’t working the way it was supposed to. In studies that provided some way of controlling for or eliminating the effects of heredity, the environment provided by parents had little or no effect on how the children turned out. 问题不在于‘天性’部分——基因有其预期效果。不过‘培养’并未如大家所认为的方式发生作用。在一些以某种方式控制或消除了遗传作用的研究中,父母提供的环境对孩子如何变成后来的样子很少或者没有影响。 And yet, genes accounted for only about 50 per cent of the variation in personality and social behaviour. The environment must be playing some role. But it wasn’t the home environment. So I proposed that the environment that has lasting effects on personality and social behaviour is the one the child encounters outside the home. 然而,基因改变个性和社会行为的作用大约只占50%。环境肯定发挥着一定的作用。但这不是家庭环境。因此我认为,持久影响孩子个性和社交行为的环境是其面对的家庭之外的环境。 This makes sense if you think about the purpose of childhood. What do children have to accomplish while they’re growing up? They have to learn how to behave in a way that is acceptable to the other members of their society. How do they do this? Not by imitating their parents! Parents are adults, and every society prescribes different behaviours for children and adults. 如果想想童年的目标,你会发现这是有道理的。随着孩子长大他们不得不做什么呢?他们不得不学习他们的社交圈里其他成员可以接受的行为方式。他们如何做到这一点?不是通过模仿父母!父母是成年人,社会给孩子和成人规定了不同的行为。 A child who behaved like his or her parents (in any context other than a game) would be seen as impertinent, unruly or weird. So the first step in becoming socialised must be to figure out what sort of person you are. Are you a child or an adult? A male or a female? In complex societies there are more categories, but age and gender were probably enough for the small groups of hunter-gatherers of our ancestors. 在除游戏之外的任何情境下,孩子若像父母那样行事,会被视为不得体、任性或怪异。因此,社会化的第一步是弄清楚你属于哪类人。是孩子还是成人?男人还是女人?复杂社会分类更多,但年龄和性别对于我们祖先的狩猎采集小团体可能足够了。 Once a child had identified with a particular social category – let’s say, female child – her next job would be to learn how to behave like the others in her category. A social category is an abstract concept, not necessarily an actual group of children. My use of the term ‘peer group’ turned out to be misleading. I should have said ‘social category’ or perhaps ‘reference group’. 一旦一个孩子明确了自己属于某个特定社会类别——比方说,女童——她接下来的工作将是学会如何像她这个类别的其他人一样行事。一个社会类别是一个抽象概念,并非儿童的实际群体。我后来发现使用‘同龄人群体’这个术语是个误导。我应该说‘社会类别’或者‘参照群体’。 Why?  为什么? The problem with ‘peer group’ was that it made people think ‘friends’. Group socialisation theory is not about the influence of friends. Friendships are relationships. Socialisation is not a product of relationships. ‘同龄人群体’这个词的问题在于,它让人想到‘朋友’。群体社会化理论无关朋友的影响。友谊是关系。社会化不是关系的产物。 The expanded theory presented in my second book, No Two Alike, explains why. The theory is based on the idea, put forth by evolutionary psychologists such as Leda Cosmides and John Tooby, that the human mind is modular, a collection of specialised devices which each evolved as a solution to a specific problem or need. 我在第二本书《没有两个人是一样》中提出的扩展理论解释了其中缘由。这个理论基于如进化心理学家Leda Cosmides和John Tooby所提出的思想,即人类大脑是模块化的,是一套随着解决某个特定问题或需要而进化出的专门化元件的集合。 I proposed that there are three such devices involved in social development – the relationship system, the socialisation system and the status system. These systems work more or less independently; sometimes they even issue contradictory commands. They collect different kinds of information from the environment and process it in different ways. Friendships – like parent–child relationships – are in the purview of the relationship system, which collects data on specific individuals and makes fine distinctions among them. The socialisation system, in contrast, doesn’t bother with individuals – it computes means. It forms a prototype for each social category. The child is influenced by the norms of the social category she identifies with, even if she never interacts personally with any of its members. 我提出三种元件参与社会发展——关系系统、社会化系统和身份系统。这些系统或多或少独立工作;有时他们甚至发出相互矛盾的命令。它们从环境中收集不同种类信息并以不同方式进行处理。友谊——如亲子关系——属于关系系统范畴,它收集特定个体的数据,并在它们之间做出精准区别。相反,社会化系统与个体无关,它计算的是平均情况。它构成了每种社会类别的原型范式。孩子是被其身份认同的社会类别的规范所影响,即便她从未亲自与群体其他成员发生互动。 The Nurture Assumption completely split the field. People either said it was a serious step forward in our understanding of child development or they just weren’t having any of it. I’m in the first camp – it changed my view of child development. But why do you think there was so much hostility? 《教养的迷思》彻底分裂了这个研究领域。要么有人说这是我们理解儿童发展心理向前迈进的重要一步,要么就说它什么也不是。我是前者,它改变了我关于儿童发展心理学的看法。但是,为什么对它有这么多敌意呢? Part of the problem was the media coverage, which was often headlined ‘Do parents matter?’. Parents were understandably irked by the question. (My answer, by the way, is: Of course parents matter!) 部分问题出在媒体报道,它们常用‘父母重要吗?’这样的标题。可以理解家长们被这样的问题搞得苦恼不已。(顺便说一句,我的回答是:当然,父母重要!) But the real opposition to my work came from the academic world – from professors of developmental psychology. Some of these people had spent their entire careers doing studies designed to support the traditional view of child development. Then some troublemaker pops up – a complete nobody, with no PhD and no academic affiliation – and announces that the professors are wrong and their studies are worthless. You wouldn’t expect them to greet me with open arms, would you? 但是对我工作的真正反对来自学术世界——发展心理学的教授们。他们中的一些人毕其全部职业生涯做研究,旨在支持儿童发展心理学的传统观点。然后一些捣乱者冒了出来——不知何方人士,没有博士学位,没有学术任职——就胆敢声称教授们是错误的,他们的研究毫无价值。你不会指望他们张开双臂欢迎我,对吗? You were particularly critical of their correlational studies of development.  你对于发展心理学相关研究表现的特别有批判性。 I still see those worthless studies all the time – they get a lot of publicity. I see them as a shameful waste of time and research money. I see them as reminders that I failed in my goal of reforming the methodology of developmental psychology. 我总是仍然看到那些毫无价值的研究——他们获得大量宣传。我认为这是时间和研究经费的可耻浪费。我将这些视为对我改革发展心理学之方法论的雄心所受挫折的提醒。 The studies are worthless because the results they produce are ambiguous, so the researchers can interpret them any way they please. Let’s say they find a correlation between how often a family eats dinner together and how well their teenager manages to stay out of trouble. Such results are presented as evidence that eating dinner with their parents has ‘protective’ effects on teenagers. 这些研究毫无价值,因为其结果模棱两可,研究者以他们乐意的任何方式解释之。比方说,他们找到了一家人多久一起共进晚餐和青少年多大程度上努力不出乱子之间的相关性。这个结果作为与父母共进晚餐对青少年有‘保护’作用的证据呈现出来。 But the research method provides no way of controlling for, or estimating, the effects of inherited genes on the teenagers’ behaviour. (Conscientious parents tend to have conscientious children.) No way of controlling for what I call ‘child-to-parent effects.’ (Parents are more likely to enjoy eating dinner with well-behaved teenagers.) No way of controlling for the teenagers’ own willingness to show up at dinnertime. (Teenagers are less likely to enjoy eating dinner with their parents if they are doing things their parents don’t approve of.) The researchers assume that, even though these other factors might play a role, some of the correlation must be due to the beneficial effects of family dinners. That is a logically indefensible assumption, not supported by studies that do provide the necessary controls. 但是研究方法却没有提供任何控制或者估计遗传基因影响青少年行为的方法(有责任心的父母的孩子往往有责任心)。没有控制我所说的‘从孩子到父母的影响’(父母更乐意与举止礼貌的孩子共进晚餐)。没有控制青少年自己乐意露面的晩餐时间(如果青少年正在做父母不认可的事情,他们不大可能喜欢与父母共进晚餐)。研究者认为,尽管其他因素可能有一定作用,但一些相关肯定是由于家庭晚餐的正面作用。这是一个逻辑上站不住脚的假设,并且没有得到那些确实控制了其他因素的研究的支持。 I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to state that The Nurture Assumption pretty much made you famous almost overnight. It’s not only a radical alternative to traditional ideas, but also a real ‘page-turner’. Was it your intention to write in that style? 我不觉得《教养的迷思》几乎让你一夜之间出名是夸张的措词。这本书不仅对传统观点来说是激进的,也是真正的‘新篇章开启者’。用这种风格写作是你的目的吗? Actually, I started out by writing a traditional article and publishing it in a traditional journal, the Psychological Review. No one called it a page-turner. In fact, though it did get some favourable responses from people in other areas of psychology, it was completely ignored by the audience I was hoping to reach – those professors of developmental psychology. 实际上,我一开始是要写篇传统文章发表在传统期刊《心理学评论》上。没有人把它称为新篇章开启者。事实上,尽管它确实得到了其他心理学领域的积极反响,但却被我希望能看到它的观众——发展心理学领域的教授们——完全忽略了。 So I decided to go over their heads, as it were, and take my message directly to the general public. If you’re writing a book on a complex topic and you want people to read it, you have to make it interesting. It also helps if you can give your readers an occasional laugh. My model for how to write a book for the general public was Steven Pinker’s The Language Instinct. 因此我决定,这么说吧,越过他们,直接把我的研究呈现在广大公众面前。假如你正在写一本复杂话题的书,还希望有人读它,那你就要让它有趣起来。如果读者时而笑出声来,那也有所帮助。我所借鉴的如何为广大公众写书的模本,是Steven Pinker的《语言本能》一书。 Pinker of course went on to write several more books for the public – all page turners, and in many cases game changers. I noticed that he dedicated The Blank Slate to ‘Don, Judy, Leda and John’. I would assume that three of these are Don Symons, Leda Cosmides and John Tooby. Would I be right in thinking you are the Judy?  当然,Pinker为大众写了不少书——全都是新篇章开启者,许多情况下还是游戏改变者。我注意到他把《白板论》一书献给‘Don, Judy, Leda and John’。我猜其中三个是Don Symons, Leda Cosmides和John Tooby。你是Judy,对吗? Yes. Steve and I became e-mail friends after I sent him a copy of my Psych Review paper and some comments on The Language Instinct. After we had exchanged a few e-mails, he asked, ‘Have you ever thought of writing a book?’ It wasn’t exactly a new idea to me, but it was nice to have the encouragement. 是的。在我给他寄送了我写的《心理学评论》论文拷贝和对《语言本能》一书的个人见解后,Steve和我成了电邮笔友。后来,我们互通了一些电子邮件,他问我:“你有没有想过写一本书?”这对我实在不是新想法,但它是很好的鼓励。 I think Steve was particularly receptive to my arguments because he’s a psycholinguist. I often use examples from psycholinguistics in explaining my theory, for two reasons. First, the outcome is usually obvious. You don’t need fancy statistical tests to decide whether or not someone has a foreign accent. Second, language and accent are among the very few social behaviours in which genetic differences play no role at all. Whether you speak Japanese or Swahili, whether your accent is Oxbridge or Liverpudlian, has nothing to do with heredity. But it does have a great deal to do with social context. The children of immigrants have the same accent as the other kids in the neighbourhood, even if they use their parents’ native language at home. Around the world, it is quite common for children to use one language at home and a different one outside the home, or one language with Mummy and a different one with Daddy. 我感觉Steve特别能接受我的观点,因为他是心理语言学家。我经常使用心理语言学例子解释我的理论,有两个原因。首先,结果通常显而易见。不需要花哨的统计学计算来确定某人是否有外国口音。其次,语言和口音是极少数遗传基因差异不起作用的社会行为之一。无论你说日语或者斯瓦希里语,无论你操牛津剑桥口音或者利物浦口音,均与遗传无关。而它确实与社会背景有很大关系。即便在家说父母亲的母语,移民孩子的口音与其他邻居孩子也一样。在世界各地,常常可见孩子在家使用一种语言而出门使用另外一种,或者和妈咪说一种语言而和爹地说另一种。 A central tenet of my theory is that social behaviours are tightly linked to the context in which they were acquired. It’s a mistake – one that’s incorporated into all the major theories of child development – to assume that children automatically generalise what they learn, from one context or person to another: Mummy is nice to them so they expect everyone to be nice to them. But discrimination, not generalisation, is the default setting of the baby’s mind. 我的理论的核心要义是,社会性行为与从中习得它的社会情境紧密相连。假设孩子自动将所学内容一般化,从一种情境或一个人推及另外一种或另一个人:就像妈咪善待他们,因此期待人人善待他们——这个假定被植入了儿童发展学的所有重要理论中,但它是错误的。相反,区别对待而非一般化处理,是婴儿心理的默认设置。 Many of the behaviours that children acquire at home would be counterproductive elsewhere. Children who dominate their younger siblings at home would be making a mistake if they tried to treat their schoolmates the same way, especially if they happen to be small for their age. Fortunately, children don’t make that mistake. Firstborns are no more likely than laterborns to try to dominate their peers. 孩子在家习得的许多行为在别处则是有害无益的。在家对弟妹指手划脚的孩子,如果试图以同样方式对待同学,就犯错了,尤其如果他们碰巧在同龄人中个头偏小。幸运的是,孩子不会犯类似错误。排行高的孩子不比排行低的孩子有更多可能性对同龄人指手划脚。 Of course, some of the things children learn at home are useful elsewhere. Those who learn to speak the local language, or to read, or to play a musical instrument, don’t have to acquire these skills all over again when they step outside. But they don’t trot them out automatically. They are tentative at first, until they’re sure that the behaviour or skill they learned at home will also work in the new setting. 当然,也有孩子在家学习的一些事情在别处是有用的。掌握了言说和阅读本地语言或演奏乐器的人,走出家门不必重新学习这些技能。但是,他们不必机械地小跑离家出来。他们先试探,直到确信那些在家里学到的行为或技能在新的环境设定中也管用。 For a young child, it’s safer to discriminate than to generalise. The child’s mind is not short of storage space. A child can store different rules of behaviour for every setting, and different expectations for every individual he or she encounters. 对于小孩子,区别对待比一般化处理更安全。孩子的意识不缺存储空间。可以为不同环境设定存储不同行为规范,以及为他所与之交往的每个人分别存储各自对对方的期望。 Your goal in No Two Alike was to explain why individuals differ so much, even if they grew up in the same family, right? 您写《没有两个人一样》一书是解释为什么每个人如此不同,即使他们在同一家庭长大,对吗? Right. I realised a couple of years after The Nurture Assumption was published that I had done only half the job: I had explained only how children get socialised. Socialisation is a process that causes children to become more similar in behaviour to their same-sex peers. And yet, despite being socialised, children continue to differ from one another in personality and social behaviour. 对。《教养的迷思》出版后过了几年,我发现自己只做了一半工作:我只解释了孩子是如何社会化的。社会化是导致孩子行为处事更像同性同龄人的过程。尽管被社会化,孩子们的个性和社会行为仍然彼此不同。 If anything, the differences widen during childhood and adolescence. I made some ineffectual efforts to deal with that problem in The Nurture Assumption, but I didn’t have a theory to account for it till I wrote the second book. The improved version of the theory presented in No Two Alike explains how children can, at the same time, become more similar to their peers in some ways and more different in other ways. 很可能,个体差异在孩童期和青春期扩大了。在《教养的迷思》中我做了些无效努力面对这个问题,但没有理论可以解释它,直到我写第二本书。《没有两个人一样》提出的改进版理论解释了为什么孩子在一些方面与同伴更相似,与此同时在另一些方面却变得更为不同。 There was a fair bit of replying to arguments put forward by critics of The Nurture Assumption. Was that one of the aims? 之前你针对《教养的迷思》批评者所提出的观点给出了不少直接回应。那是你的写作目的之一吗? It was. I was tired of journalists telling me that my theory must be wrong because some expert at some big university had told them that there were plenty of studies that disproved it. I searched diligently for the studies they cited. In some cases they were nowhere to be found; at any rate, they had never been published in a peer-reviewed journal. In other cases a study had been published but the results didn’t do what the experts claimed – they didn’t disprove my theory. In one case, a study they cited actually did the opposite – it supported my theory! 是的。我厌烦了记者告诉我,我的理论肯定错误,因为某些著名大学的某些专家已经告诉他们,有大量研究反驳我的理论。我努力分析他们引用的研究。有些研究什么也没发现;不管怎么说,它们从未在同行评议的学术期刊上发表。另一些研究,发表的一项实验没获得专家声称的实验结果——并没有反驳我的理论。一个研究援引的一项实验结果实际上恰好相反——它支持我的理论! That 1995 Psychological Review piece you mentioned won the George A. Miller award for an outstanding article in general psychology. There was a certain irony about that? 你提到的1995年那篇《心理学评论》文章荣获了George A. Miller心理学杰出论文奖。这是某种嘲讽吗? In 1960 I was a graduate student in the Department of Psychology at Harvard. One day I got a letter saying that the Department had decided to kick me out of their PhD programme. They doubted I would ever make a worthwhile contribution to psychology, the letter said, due to my lack of ‘originality and independence’. The letter was signed by the acting chairman of the Department, George A. Miller! 1960年,我是哈佛大学心理学系研究生。有一天,我收到一封信,说系里已经决定把我排除在博士项目之外。信中说,由于我缺乏‘原创性和独立性’,他们对我做出有价值的心理学贡献表示怀疑。这封信正是由代理系主席George A. Miller签署的! Sometimes, when life hands you a lemon, you should just bite in. Getting kicked out of Harvard was a devastating blow at the time, but in retrospect, it was the best thing that Harvard ever did for me. It freed me from the influence of ‘experts’. It kept me from being indoctrinated. Many years later, it enabled me to write The Nurture Assumption. 有时,当生活递给你一个柠檬时,你就应该咬它。当时被踢出哈佛是一个毁灭性打击,但现在回想起来,这是哈佛为我所做过的最好的事情。这让我从‘专家’的影响解脱出来。让我不被灌输。许多年以后,让我写出《教养的迷思》。 (编辑:辉格@whigzhou) *注:本译文未经原作者授权,本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利,如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容,请私信联系,我们会立即作出响应。








正如马特·里德利(Matt Ri(more...)

标签: | | | |
(本文删节版发表于《长江日报·读周刊》) 塑造行为的多重机制 辉格 2016年12月2日 人的行为方式千差万别且变化多端,这也体现在我们描绘行为的形容词的丰富性上:羞涩,奔放,畏缩,鲁莽,克制,放纵,粗野,优雅,勤勉,懒散,好斗,随和……这些词汇同时也被用来描绘个体性格,有些甚至用来辨识文化和民族差异,由此可见,尽管人类行为丰富多变,却仍可识别出某些稳定而持久的模式。 那么,究竟是哪些因素,经由何种过程,塑造了种种行为模式呢?在以往讨论中,流行着一种将遗传和环境影响对立两分的倾向,仿佛这两种因素是各自独立起作用的,最终结果只是两者的线性叠加,就像调鸡尾酒,人们关注的是各种原料的配比,五勺基因,两勺家庭,两勺学校,再加一勺『文化』,一个活蹦乱跳的文明人就出炉了。 这种将成长中的孩子视为受影响者或加工对象的视角,是不得要领的,实际上,成长是一个主动学习的过程,基因和环境的关系更像软件中代码和数据输入的关系,基因编码引导个体从环境中采集数据,以便配置自身的行为算法,把代码和数据放一起搅一搅不可能得到想要的功能,在软件工程中,也没人会谈论代码和数据对算法表现分别有多大比例的影响。 正如马特·里德利([[Matt Ridley]])在《天性经由教养》中所阐明,成长是遗传代码随教养进程依次执行的过程,然而,对于这一过程具体如何展开,迄今只有零散的论述,而缺乏一幅系统化的全景图,幸运的是,心理学家朱迪·哈里斯([[Judith R.Harris]])在《教养的迷思》中提出的开创性见解,为我们拼凑这样一幅系统流程草图提供了便利。 对于个人,最持久而一致的那些行为特征被称为人格,主流人格心理学识别了经验开放性、尽责性、外向性、亲和性、情绪稳定性这五个最具一致性的特征,它们很大程度上是先天的(遗传差异可解释一半以上的人格差异),并且至少从成年后就伴随终身,在不同场景中的表现也相当连贯。 但人格并不直接对应行为模式,个人在决定如何行事时,还会考虑所在群体的规范,并借助由文化所传承的整套符号,正因此,有着相似人格的两个人,在不同文化或同一文化的不同群体中,会表现出十分不同的行为,比如同样一个外向型高亲和度的人,在向客人表达亲热时,是拥抱、亲吻、抚手,还是捶胸、拍肩、摸头,将随文化而异。 在这方面,儿童有着非凡的学习能力,只须借助少量样本,便可构建出一个范本模式,据此判断在何种情景下怎么做才是地道的、妥贴的;而且他们十分清楚不同群体和不同性质的关系中适用不同规范,家人、亲戚、邻里、同学、朋友、陌生人之间的规范学习和范本建模将分别进行,学习结果独立存储,并在相应场景下被激活。 哈里斯指出,这一学习过程主要在年龄相近的同侪群体中自发进行,长辈的做法会被参考,但训导和传授的努力几乎是徒劳的,当孩子们从某些线索发现长辈的做法已过时落伍,会毫不犹豫的弃之不顾,甚至当缺乏可供参照的样本时,他们也会经由群体内协调而创造出一种全新规范,就像他们创造克里奥尔语和尼加拉瓜手语那样。 在规范学习中,并非所有样本都被同等对待,那些看起来更受青睐和尊崇,更具号召力和支配力——总之地位更高——的个体,其行为将被赋予更高权重,而青少年在识别哪些是高地位受尊崇个体方面,有着敏锐直觉(其中受异性青睐程度是关键线索之一,这也是性选择得以发生的重要途径),正是通过这样的学习和协调过程,社会等级结构代复一代自我再生。 识别、追随和效仿群体中的尊贵者,并努力为自己赢得体面和尊贵(因为这会为个体带来切实的利益),是文化进化的一大动力机制,它维持着社会的等级结构和价值阶梯,也推动着风尚潮流的循环轮替,值得一提的是,性选择也在其中发挥了殊为关键的作用,因为识别高地位者的一大线索便是受异性青睐的程度,同时这一青睐也是对追逐地位和追随群体价值取向的重要激励。 习得规范进入群体之后,下一步便是确立自己在群体中的位置,个体出于自身的人格特质和资源与天赋条件,在群体中寻找适合自己的生态位,个体差异也将随此选择而展开,同时其行为方式会在群体规范所给定的框架之下,按照自身地位及与群内他人的关系而调整。 上述『先同化后分化』的两阶段模型,可帮助我们理解青春期躁动这一极为普遍的文化现象,青春期躁动表现为跟风盲从,集体狂热,缺乏个性与独立思考,强烈且富有攻击性的团体意识和民族主义,这实际上是一个强化群体认同的机制,在部落社会,它常以严酷的成人礼和结伙对外攻击等更正规和有组织的方式进行。 在经历躁动过程的严酷考验之后,个体习得规范并被纳入群体,同时,考验过程中的表现也将决定他未来在群体内的地位,一旦这一过程结束,成员身份确立,各自找到自己的生态位,躁动与狂热便会消退,规范的强制性和集体义务将逐渐放松,大家分头过自己的小日子去了,但躁动中所建立的群体认同、团伙情谊和个人间关系纽带仍将长期存续,并服务于更为功利性的目标。 两阶段模型也可解释一个哈里斯所强调、且常被忽视的现象:尽管人格具有相当高一致性,但同一个人在不同社会情境中的行为模式仍可十分不同,不同到像两个人那样,比如一位长兄在家里对弟妹们表现出长子所常有的那种强势和支配性,在学校却可能甘做跟班小弟,一个在办公室里沉默寡言的人在兴趣社团中却滔滔不绝、能言善辩,一个父母跟前的乖孩子在街头帮派中也许是个狠角色,哈里斯将此称为人格多面性,或许也就是人们常说的多重人格。 这是因为从先天人格特质到具体行为模式之间,经过了自我生态定位和个性展现,而这是针对不同群体分别进行的,当个人进入这些群体时,将根据自身禀赋优势和价值取向与该群体规范和价值阶梯的匹配程度作出定位,从而展现人格的不同侧面:是争当其领导者?努力向上爬的积极分子?寻求庇护的弱势追随者?还是不太情愿的服从者?或三心两意的投机分子?不同定位的行为差异是显而易见的。  


@whigzhou: @sw小橘子 问我『制度决定下限,文化决定上限』这句话是不是我说的,我说这么格拉德维尔的话不像是我说的,不过这句话确实道出了一些真相,并且和我的社会进化理论相合,我的理论就是雪球模型,从人性到文化到基础政治结构到制度到可见的繁荣状况,每一外层的可能性皆受制于内层的性质与禀赋,

@whigzhou: 所以从短期看,内层结构的性质限制着外层的可能性,而从长期看,特定性质的外层的持续存在,对内层也构成了选择压力,因而也改变着内层的性质,我将这一改变称为(广义的)鲍德温效应。

@whigzhou: 我也(more...)

标签: | | | |
【2016-06-26】 @whigzhou: @sw小橘子 问我『制度决定下限,文化决定上限』这句话是不是我说的,我说这么格拉德维尔的话不像是我说的,不过这句话确实道出了一些真相,并且和我的社会进化理论相合,我的理论就是雪球模型,从人性到文化到基础政治结构到制度到可见的繁荣状况,每一外层的可能性皆受制于内层的性质与禀赋, @whigzhou: 所以从短期看,内层结构的性质限制着外层的可能性,而从长期看,特定性质的外层的持续存在,对内层也构成了选择压力,因而也改变着内层的性质,我将这一改变称为(广义的)鲍德温效应。 @whigzhou: 我也曾为这套理论找过一句格拉德维尔式的警句『英国人无论到哪里都能建立起自由社会,德国人和日本人无论到哪个自由社会都会成为模范公民,犹太人和华人无论到哪个自由社会都比其他民族会挣钱……』,无奈还是不够短不够朗朗上口。 @whigzhou: 还要加上后半句『在长期经历不同制度之后,香港文化已不同于广州文化,东德人也已不同于西德人,北朝鲜人更不同于南朝鲜人』 @whigzhou: 有关个人认知能力和人格特质的研究很多,但针对族群比较的研究还很少,历时性的研究则更少,所以我们远未弄清那些特质(及相应的遗传基础)在支撑着宪政、法治、宽容、开放等文明的关键元素,但我们可以设想一下,某些重要特质的改变可能会引出何种结果。 @whigzhou: 不妨从一个分歧最小的特质开始,假如英国人的IQ分布拉低两个标准差,顶级科学家就消失了,再拉低一个标准差,整个科学社区就没了,这大概不会有疑问, @whigzhou: 再考虑经验开放性,假如一个民族的经验开放性的统计分布拉低两个标准差,该民族就不会有出色艺术家了,再拉低一个标准差,所有艺术活动都消失了,这一点不太确定,或许经验开放性不是很好的指标,但我很确信必定可以找到某项特质来评估这一点 @whigzhou: 再考虑法治,法治能够存续的前提是绝大多数人在绝大多数场合愿意自觉遵守规则,否则再强大的司法机器也没用,那么一个族群的尽责性分布拉低两个标准差结果会如何?情绪稳定性也拉低两个标准差呢? @whigzhou: 道德感又如何?普通法的要义便是:凭良心和常识即可自行判断某一行为是否正当,在一个普遍缺乏道德感的群体,这样的体系能够存续吗?道德感无关于人格特质吗? @沉默的马大爷: 智商拉低两个标准差,意味着有一半人是弱智,别说科学社区,整个社会都崩溃了。。大部分族群差异达不到这个量级,组内差异一般要高于组间差异 @whigzhou: 两个标准差是夸张了点,但绝非不现实,请看右表 http://t.cn/hByJ2N 不许随便说人弱智,人家要不高兴的 @whigzhou: 确实,消灭顶级科学家大概一个标准差就够了  





标签: | | | |
(按:第五节之后的一些难听词汇请从“这种情况几率较大”这种意义上理解,并非全称判断) 为何他们选择离去? 辉格 2012年3月30日 近年来中国富人日益强烈的移民倾向已是显明的事实,去年招行与贝恩的报告,最近中行与胡润的报告,都证实了这一点;不过,对于富人们为何出走,有各种不同的解读,有人说是因为税负过高,或投资环境太糟糕,也有人认为发达国家提供了更多个人发展机会,或者更好的生活条件、更清洁优雅的环境、更好的教育和社会保障,或者只是更有吸引力的文化,等等。 自然,每个选择出走的人可能都有不同的理由,但在总体上,我们还是可以从种种理由背后隐约体味出一些共同倾向,他们或多或少的,或自觉或无意识的,都在向往着一种“不一样”的生活;我们知道,在温饱线之下,每个人的需求都差不多,而在此之上,个人的价值追求便开始急剧多样化,当一个社会的文化氛围或制度结构无法容纳更多元的价值,人们便会向外寻找发展空间。 在观察这一点时,我们不必过于严格的区分生意、工作和生活,对于早已远离温饱线、拥有了所谓财务自由、无须再为钱而劳碌的富裕人群,投资、生意和职业其实都是生活的一部分,是一种消费了,它本身带来的乐趣或许比它带来的金钱更重要(当然对某些人来说,金钱积累本身就是乐趣所在);因而,在观察他们的行动和选择时,这种种方面的倾向,皆可视为其价值追求的一部分。 个人的价值追求不是一堆价值的随机杂凑,相反,它是以非常精巧的结构有机组织在一起的,而其中的核心是人格,即,我认为或希望自己是个什么样的人?在旁人眼里又是什么样的人?其次,要为自己选择或构造将一个生活于其中文化小环境、交往圈子,以及与之相称的生活方式,日常的种种消费(除了满足生存需要的那些之外),多半不过是附着在这一结构上的功能组件或装饰物。 然而我们的企业家却发现,要在这个社会获得成功,甚至仅仅是让企业生存下去,让养活着一帮兄弟的生意维持下去,让家人和孩子的境况不至于一落千丈,常常不得不让自己拥有一个十分卑污的人格,或至少一个高度分裂的人格,而其中一个是十分卑污的。 对于那些前途高度依赖于权力、因而经常需要取悦于权贵的企业家,这是容易体会的,但情况比这更糟,由于权力垄断了大部分核心资源,国企占了大半份额,权力渗入市场每个角落,这样一个产业环境所筛选出来的成功企业,多半继承了权术游戏中的种种污浊不堪的游戏规则和交往规范,因而即便那些为洁身自好而刻意远离权力的企业家,最终也将发现自己不得不滚打在这样一个污泥坑中。 当然,可以相信,不乏有人喜欢这样的污泥坑,不觉得打滚于其中会显得很卑污,乃至乐在其中而留连忘返,但无疑也有很多且越来越多的人,特别是新生一代,在见识过另一种社会,见识过那里的男女们独立、自信、阳光、有尊严的人格,见识过让这种令人艳羡的人格得以存在和发展的文化与制度环境之后,会顾影自怜,会心有不甘,更会不忍眼看自己的孩子被迫继续滚打在这样的泥坑之中。 如果你不能改变这局面,何不离它而去?当然还有一个选择是退缩和出世,你可以把自我缩的很小,将欲望和希冀降至最低,将自己与外界的关系减少到最低限度,从而可以在三寸之地上保有自己的独立和尊严,但很明显,只有一小撮人会甘心于此,那些仍怀抱梦想,希望有所作为的人,将何以自处? 于是剩下的问题便是:当渴望尊严、怀抱梦想、且有能力追逐梦想的人纷纷加速离去,这个社会的未来将会如何?这是不是另一种空心化?在民国的第一波城市化中,农村已经历过一次空心化,乡村精英的离去导致了传统社区和地方秩序的瓦解,并直接助长了此后几十年的社会动荡,最终让拳头逻辑主导了政治进程。 在这个日益一体化的全球社会中,我们正在沦为另一个空心化的农村吗?一个钢筋混凝土版本的破落农村?它所吸引过来的老外和海归们,是那些更偏爱或适应这个烂泥坑的人吗?比如唐骏们?这里将变成厚黑成功学施展拳脚的舞台吗?或者已经是了?只剩一小撮隐士在角落里冷眼旁观?公知们对韩寒的无耻集体吹捧是厚黑术的最新式表演吗?200多位“海内外学者”联手围殴一个弱女子呢? 我不知道。这些谜题的答案,只能等待未来一二十年里由社会自己慢慢揭晓。