含有〈心理〉标签的文章(45)

[译文]保守派选民喜欢何种嗓音?

Republicans prefer politicians with deep voices
共和党选民更青睐声音低沉的政治家

作者:Aarhus University @ 2015-11-24
译者:Luis Rightcon(@Rightcon)
校对:沈沉(@你在何地-sxy)
来源:EurekAlert,http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-11/au-rpp112415.php

A deep voice and a square jaw are important assets for conservative politicians. For politicians on the liberal side, it’s more important to have gentle features. That’s the conclusion of two recent scientific articles from Aarhus University. Th(more...)

标签: | |
6709
Republicans prefer politicians with deep voices 共和党选民更青睐声音低沉的政治家 作者:Aarhus University @ 2015-11-24 译者:Luis Rightcon(@Rightcon) 校对:沈沉(@你在何地-sxy) 来源:EurekAlert,http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-11/au-rpp112415.php A deep voice and a square jaw are important assets for conservative politicians. For politicians on the liberal side, it's more important to have gentle features. That's the conclusion of two recent scientific articles from Aarhus University. The implication is not only that physical features have a larger impact on voter preferences than previously thought but also that different physical features appeal to different voter segments. 拥有低沉嗓音和方形下巴对于保守派政客而言是非常重要的资产。而对于自由派政客,拥有相对柔和的特性则更为重要。这是最近两篇出自奥尔胡斯大学的科学论文所得出的结论,这两篇文章不仅表明身体特征对选民倾向的影响比以前所认为的要更大,而且指出不同的身体特征会吸引不同的选民群体。 The results run counter to the ideal that voters in democratic societies make their decisions after carefully weighing the pros and cons of the political programs put forward by the various parties, according to Lasse Laustsen and Michael Bang Petersen from the university's Department of Political Science, who carried out the research. 这项研究是由奥尔胡斯大学政治科学系的Lasse Laustsen和Michael Bang Petersen做的,研究所得出的结果与那种认为民主社会选民会在仔细权衡各政党所推行的政治纲领的利弊之后再做出选择的设想恰好背道而驰。 "A deep tone of voice appeals to conservative voters. More generally, conservative voters seem to have a preference for politicians who look physically strong and masculine, while liberal voters prefer those who have less dominant features and seem more accommodating, perhaps even slightly feminine," said Laustsen. Laustsen指出:“低沉的嗓音会吸引保守派选民。更一般的来说,保守派选民似乎倾向于外表看上去更强壮,更阳刚的政客,而自由派选民则更喜欢不那么强势而且更随和,甚至可能有点轻微女性化的政客。” The new studies form an example of how political scientists can achieve a deeper understanding of political behavior by using a broader variety of research tools. The approach is increasingly adopted by political scientists all over the world, including John Hibbing, a professor of political science at University of Nebraska-Lincoln. 这一使用多种研究工具的新研究为政治学家树立了深入理解政治行为的典范。全世界的政治学家正在逐步采用这种研究方式,内布拉斯加-林肯大学政治学教授John Hibbing就是其中之一。 "It's a fairly limited niche, but it's growing. What Laustsen and Petersen do is both exciting and important. Some people may be uncomfortable knowing that our preferences are determined by forces that we don't entirely understand. But of course, as scientists we still have to deal with it," said Hibbing, who didn't take part in the Laustsen and Petersen's research. “这是个相当有限的细分领域,但是在不断发展壮大。Laustsen和Petersen的工作既令人兴奋又非常重要。我们的(政治)倾向被我们没有完全理解的力量所决定,这一点会令许多人感到不舒服。但是我们作为科学家当然还是要应对它。”Hibbing说。Hibbing本人没有参与Laustsen和Petersen的研究。 One of the articles is based on data from US politics and demonstrates that Republican voters are more likely than voters from the Democratic camp to vote for politicians with deep voices. To understand why this is, you have to dig a little deeper, according to Laustsen. Republican voters prefer strong politicians - or politicians whose deep voices make them sound like they are strong - because they believe the world is a more dangerous and menacing place than Democratic voters, he said. 其中一篇论文基于美国政治的数据,证明了共和党选民较之民主党阵营选民更倾向于选择嗓音低沉的政客。在Laustsen看来,要理解其中原因,需要进一步挖掘这项事实。他认为共和党选民倾向于身体强壮的政客,或者嗓音低沉的政客——嗓音低沉使得他们听起来比较强壮——是因为共和党选民相信真实世界要比民主党选民所认为的更加险恶。 "If you hold up images of objects that people consider dangerous or unpleasant, for example of large spiders, and then measure the production of sweat from people's fingertips (skin conductance response), you get an indication of spontaneous physical reaction. In these cases, conservative voters react more strongly than liberal ones. This could indicate a large visceral difference in the way these voter groups perceive the world," Laustsen said. Laustsen说:“如果你举起人们觉得危险或者令人不适的物体图片,比如说巨型蜘蛛,然后测试观察者指尖的出汗量(皮电反应),你会看到身体自发的应激反应。在这类试验中,保守派选民比自由派选民的反应更为激烈。这可能表明这些选民群体在认知世界的层面上有着很大的本能上的差别。” Laustsen and Petersen's research proceeds from the observations that in order to understand the behavior of modern humans, you need to look into the evolutionary history that has shaped the psychology producing this behavior. 为了理解现代人类的行为,必须从产生行为的心理着手,而人类的进化史塑造了自身的心理。基于这样的看法,Laustsen和Petersen的研究就由此入手。 In prehistoric times when the ancestors of modern humans were roaming the East-African savannah in small groups, it made sense to support the strongest members of the tribe when confronted with danger. Psychological mechanisms which 30,000 years ago saved our ancestors from being devoured by saber-toothed tigers and other fierce animals continue to be at work today, explaining, among other things, why people vote as they do along the left-right continuum. 史前时代,现代人类的祖先组成许多小群体漫游在东非稀树大草原上。这样,在遇上危险时支持群体里的最强壮者就显得尤为重要。三万年前的心理机制保护了我们的祖先不被剑齿虎和许多其他猛兽吞噬殆尽,而同样的心理机制至今仍在发挥作用。这就能解释许多事情,包括为什么人类在投票时(所表现出的政治倾向)会沿从左到右的光谱排列。 "There are evolutionarily important reasons for the structure of our psychology. Our ancestors had to make a decision about which leader to follow, and it was crucial for their survival and reproduction that they picked the right one. As a species we are pre-programmed to think in a certain way about who we would like to be in charge. This affects choices that we make even today," said Petersen. “我们的心理结构是具有进化意义上的重大缘由的。我们祖先必须就领袖人选作出抉择,选择正确的人选对于他们的生存和繁衍极其重要。作为一个物种,我们被预先设定好以某种特定方式来考虑谁才是我们中意的领导者。这甚至一直在影响今天我们所作出的决定。”Petersen说。 Is this knowledge useful for the politicians? For example, would it be helpful for conservative politicians to tone down their dominant, masculine personality traits in hopes of snatching voters further to the left who tend to find less dominant features more attractive? 这项知识对政客有用吗?举例来说,保守派政客是否可以通过软化他们的强势个性特征来吸引更加左翼、更加青睐没有太多强势特征的人选的选民? "Democrats are often seen as empathic, compassionate types. Republicans, by contrast, are often considered as strong leaders with a moral compass. This kind of subjective views may have real importance in cases where a Republican candidate is seen as more empathic than his Democratic opponent and trespasses into his territory. Perhaps he can gain some votes there," he said. Petersen指出:“民主党人往往被视为富于同情怜悯的类型。与之相对,共和党人往往被认为是具有道德模范特性的强大领袖。这样的主观印象也许会在某些场合发挥重大作用,比如在一个共和党候选人比他的民主党对手显得更具有同情心,侵入了后者的基本盘的情况下,这位共和党候选人将会挣来一些(偏左翼的)选票。” Can the voters use these new insights for anything? It's always better to be aware of what causes you to have the preferences you have. But the roots of our likes and dislikes are buried so deep in the subconscious that the two authors doubt there is very much to do about them. 选民们能通过这些新洞见干些什么呢?了解到你的倾向由何而来当然是很不错的。但是我们喜恶的根源是如此深埋在潜意识中,以至于两位作者不觉得我们能在此有什么作为。 "We can't necessarily do very much to control this. Some American research indicates that participants in lab tests are able to determine which of two unknown candidates they like more after having been exposed to images of them for less than 0.1 second. This suggests that these processes are really fast and subconscious. So I think it's hard to rein in," Laustsen said. Laustsen说“我们不一定能够控制这个。一些来自美国的研究指出,实验室测试的参与者们会在看到两位陌生候选人图片的0.1秒之内决定出他们的偏好。这显示了做出选择的过程非常快速,且深深扎根于潜意识中。所以我认为很难去驾驭这一过程。” (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。

——海德沙龙·翻译组,致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

奶嘴与拳头

【2016-03-05】

@whigzhou: 1)越来越多人已经被左派那些腌臜货烦透了,2)这些腌臜货背后其实有个共同倾向:文化气质的全面阴柔化,3)这一点很少人清晰意识到,虽然不少人可能隐约感觉到,4)但这个火山口迟早会被找到

@whigzhou: 政治学家迄今好像还很少用阳刚-阴柔这个维度来分析政治光谱,其实这个维度很有用,对解释政治倾向中的先天成分尤其管用,天生保守派的深层心理基础无非就是阳刚气质:规则无情,愿赌服输,个人对自己负责,命苦别怪人,唾弃福利主义奶嘴,碰到坏人一拳打回去,尊严重于生命,安全主要靠自己……

@whigzhou: 这事情我想了很久了,越来越觉得就这么回事。

@whigzhou: 但阳刚倾向也分两种,一种是集体主义的,他们心目中的理想国家或领袖是阳刚的,自己却未必阳刚,法西斯就是这种,另一种是个人主义的,要的是自己(more...)

标签: | | |
7042
【2016-03-05】 @whigzhou: 1)越来越多人已经被左派那些腌臜货烦透了,2)这些腌臜货背后其实有个共同倾向:文化气质的全面阴柔化,3)这一点很少人清晰意识到,虽然不少人可能隐约感觉到,4)但这个火山口迟早会被找到 @whigzhou: 政治学家迄今好像还很少用阳刚-阴柔这个维度来分析政治光谱,其实这个维度很有用,对解释政治倾向中的先天成分尤其管用,天生保守派的深层心理基础无非就是阳刚气质:规则无情,愿赌服输,个人对自己负责,命苦别怪人,唾弃福利主义奶嘴,碰到坏人一拳打回去,尊严重于生命,安全主要靠自己…… @whigzhou: 这事情我想了很久了,越来越觉得就这么回事。 @whigzhou: 但阳刚倾向也分两种,一种是集体主义的,他们心目中的理想国家或领袖是阳刚的,自己却未必阳刚,法西斯就是这种,另一种是个人主义的,要的是自己阳刚,国家靠边,红脖是也。 @whigzhou: 同样,阴柔倾向也分两种,集体主义的要的是nanny state,个人主义的就是老派liberal @whigzhou: Game of Thrones为啥这么火?久违的阳刚之气,第一集里Ned砍下逃兵Will头颅的一幕,可谓阳刚之至。 @寄生草的空间:辉总的阳刚阴柔的定义和常规稍有差异。忽略这一点而做的批评并无意义。 @whigzhou: 我确实不知道常规定义是什么,我的用法大致和[[Geert Hofstede]]在《文化与组织》里的用法差不多 @溪月寒星:我不觉得你说的这些倾向和"阳刚"这个词相关性很大. 在我看来肌肉男,大胡子与阳刚关系大。但是如果我们统计一下世界上的男性, 能够发现肌肉男大胡子特征和规则无情,愿赌服输,个人对自己负责的心理基础存在强相关性吗? @whigzhou: 我们之间在概念上好像有些误解 @whigzhou: Hofstede用阳刚-阴柔这个维度(这是他用的五个维度之一)比较各文化时,看的是一种文化中,在个人的哪些品质/行为值得赞赏的问题上,多大程度上对男女两性区别对待 @whigzhou: Hofstede用这对概念度量群体的文化特质,但依我看,也可以用来度量个人的文化倾向 @whigzhou: 需要强调的是,如此界定的阳刚倾向和“雄性化程度”不一样,比如一位母亲,自己可以是高度女性气质的,但假如她对儿子和女儿的期待截然不同(比如期待儿子面对危险表现勇敢,对女儿却没有同样期待),那她就是亲阳刚文化的 @Ryan_LA2000:呵呵,恐怖分子蛮符合你的“阳刚”的定义的。 @whigzhou: 有可能,他们可能也符合我对“生命、人性、信仰、虔诚、献身精神、活力、……”的定义,嗯,怎么啦? @whigzhou: 我既然认为这是一个能解释政治倾向中先天成分的因素,那么我显然不会同时认为它能单独保证什么好结果——比如自由,否则还要自由就太容易了 @whigzhou: 这个念头果然被很多人呵呵了,不意外,当初刚冒出来时我自己也呵呵过,但越来越觉得其实没那么呵呵  
[译文]职场的宫斗明星

Harem queens in the corporate world
职场的宫斗明星

作者:Michael O.Church @ 2015-11-01
译者:Drunkplane(@Drunkplane-zny)
校对:龙泉(@L_Stellar)
来源:Michael O. Church,https://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2015/11/01/harem-queens-in-the-corporate-world/

I recently came across a New York Times article about shitty behaviors that our society often associates with the female gender. It’s about the stupid, catty, bitchy behavior that makes for an entertaining evening in a film like Bridesmaids, but that actually wastes an enormous amount of emotional energy and gives the female gender a bad name. The choice paragraph, in my opinion, is this one (emphasis mine):

近日偶然读到《纽约时报》上的一篇文章,讲的是我们社会常常扣到女性头上的那些烂事,那些愚蠢的、阴险的、碧池的行为。这些破事充斥着《最爆伴娘团》这样的电影。它也许能为一个无聊的夜晚带来些消遣,实则是在浪费观众的感情,还给女性加上一个坏名头。下面的选段,在我看来就是个例子(粗体是我加的):

There are two main theories of why women are competitive in indirectly aggressive ways. Evolutionary psychology, which uses natural selection to explain our modern behaviors, says that women need to protect themselves (read: their wombs) from physical harm, so indirect aggression keeps us safe while lowering the stock of other women.

关于为何女性通过间接的攻击性方式展开竞争,有两种理论。进化心理学利用自然选择解释现代人类行为,这种理论认为,女人要保护她们自己(意思是:她们的子宫)免受物理伤害,而间接攻击性可以在削弱其他女性的同时让自己处于安全境地。

Feminist psychology chalks up this indirect aggression to internalizing the patriarchy. As Noam Shpancer 标签: | |

6521
Harem queens in the corporate world 职场的宫斗明星 作者:Michael O.Church @ 2015-11-01 译者:Drunkplane(@Drunkplane-zny) 校对:龙泉(@L_Stellar) 来源:Michael O. Church,https://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2015/11/01/harem-queens-in-the-corporate-world/ I recently came across a New York Times article about shitty behaviors that our society often associates with the female gender. It’s about the stupid, catty, bitchy behavior that makes for an entertaining evening in a film like Bridesmaids, but that actually wastes an enormous amount of emotional energy and gives the female gender a bad name. The choice paragraph, in my opinion, is this one (emphasis mine): 近日偶然读到《纽约时报》上的一篇文章,讲的是我们社会常常扣到女性头上的那些烂事,那些愚蠢的、阴险的、碧池的行为。这些破事充斥着《最爆伴娘团》这样的电影。它也许能为一个无聊的夜晚带来些消遣,实则是在浪费观众的感情,还给女性加上一个坏名头。下面的选段,在我看来就是个例子(粗体是我加的):
There are two main theories of why women are competitive in indirectly aggressive ways. Evolutionary psychology, which uses natural selection to explain our modern behaviors, says that women need to protect themselves (read: their wombs) from physical harm, so indirect aggression keeps us safe while lowering the stock of other women. 关于为何女性通过间接的攻击性方式展开竞争,有两种理论。进化心理学利用自然选择解释现代人类行为,这种理论认为,女人要保护她们自己(意思是:她们的子宫)免受物理伤害,而间接攻击性可以在削弱其他女性的同时让自己处于安全境地。 Feminist psychology chalks up this indirect aggression to internalizing the patriarchy. As Noam Shpancer writes in Psychology Today, “As women come to consider being prized by men their ultimate source of strength, worth, achievement and identity, they are compelled to battle other women for the prize.” In short: When our value is tied to the people who can impregnate us, we turn on each other. 女权心理学家把这笔账算到父权制的内化头上。正如Noam Shpancer 在《今日心理学(Psychology Today)》上写的:“当女人需要男人的奖励来获得她们终极的力量、价值、成就和身份认同时,她们就被迫同其他女人开战来争取这份奖励。”简而言之,当我们的价值与那些能让我们受孕的人绑在一起时,我们只好彼此反目。
“Indirect aggression” is the author’s more-polite term for passive aggression, and here’s what I take out of the article. I’ll withhold personal comment, so please don’t get offended just yet. From the article: “间接攻击性”只是作者对“消极攻击性”的礼貌说法。这里我摘抄了一些原文。至于我的个人看法就先忍着不说了,所以请不要觉得被冒犯。
  • women, in a system where their value is attractiveness as assessed by men, work to undermine each other.
  • 在一个其价值就是对男人的吸引力的体制里,女人们想方设法诋毁彼此。
  • women generally prefer passive aggression over overt conflict.
  • 比起公开的冲突,女人通常更倾向于消极攻击性。
  • women exhibit an especial and envious hatred toward highly attractive women, that is divorced from the reality of that person.
  • 女人会对富有吸引力的女人表现出强烈的嫉妒心,不管这个有吸引力的女人实际状况如何。
Is this true of “women”? Well, it’s true of some women, and not of others. 这是真的吗?也许对一些女人适用,但对其他女人则不然。 Now, I want to talk about these horrible patterns of behavior: passive-aggression, cattiness, sabotage, bitchiness. I’ve seen a lot of this stuff in my decade in the software career. And, here’s the thing… most of the worst offenders have been men. 现在我想谈谈这些可怕的行为模式:消极攻击、阴险、搞破坏、碧池作派。在从事软件行业的十年中,我目睹了太多这种破事。而且,事实上,大部分最坏的讨厌鬼都是男性。 In my personal opinion, malicious social aggressions are not especially gendered. Women may be two to three years ahead in this game during high school and college, because they’re farther along (in general) when it comes to social development, but corporate executives’ cattiness makes high-school cheerleader drama look innocent in comparison. 我个人认为恶意的社会性攻击行为并不特别与性别挂钩。在高中或大学,女人也许早两三年开始玩这些手段,毕竟女性通常成熟得更早。但是跟公司里的高管比起来,啦啦队长们的伎俩实在太过幼稚。 That humans perceive certain styles of aggression as being gendered is, however, telling. Stereotypically “male” aggression’s virtue is that it is short-lived and honest; its vice is that it’s brutal and often disproportionate (and if it leads to violence, its effects can be permanent). 不过,人们将某些特定类型的攻击性视作与性别相关,还是有些道理的。刻板印象中,“雄性”攻击行为的特点是短暂而直白;缺点是其致命性且往往不成比例(如果还导致了暴力,那效果可能是永久的)。 For a contrast, the “female” aggression has the virtue of precision, but the vice of being dishonest, long-lived, and cancerous. In reality, we observe all classes of aggression in all genders of people, so why do we have this need to create a gendered correlation? I think the answer is, and I’m going to have to define this word (lest it be useless) patriarchy. 相反,“雌性”的攻击行为有着精确的特点,但缺点是遮遮掩掩、长时间的、癌症般恶性增殖的。现实生活中,我们在所有性别中都会观察到所有类型的攻击行为,那为何我们要创造出针对性别的分类呢?我想答案就是我将不得不定义的一个词(免得它没什么用):父权制。 What is patriarchy? I’m going to use it to mean a society in which women are largely blocked from holding official power, and in which male dominance (often backed by threat of physical harm, whether delivered personally or through a military) is the prevailing force in determining which men get power. 什么是父权制?我将用它描述这样一种社会:在这种社会中女性基本被排除在正式权力之外,男性的支配地位(往往由威胁对他人进行身体伤害来获得,不管这种威胁是由个人还是军队来表达)是无处不在的力量,决定了哪些男人可以获得权力。 A large number of men, for the record, lose in a truly patriarchal society, because the high-status men take the lion’s share of the rewards and sexual attention and the rest get very little. The extreme of patriarchy is a polygynous society in which high-status men are afforded large numbers of “wives”, most of whom experience the status of chattel slaves. 准确地说,相当大部分的男人在一个真正的父权社会里是失败的,因为上层男性像狮子一样占据大部分资源和性关注,而其他男人则所得无几。极端的父权制表现为一夫多妻的社会形态,上层男性供养得起许多“妻子”,她们中大部分的地位其实就是男人的财产。 Patriarchy is morally reprehensible and it is good that our society is beginning to reject it, but it’s important to acknowledge its probable normalcy in our evolutionary frame. Men are physically stronger than women, and humans are not naturally monogamous, and there is a general observed tendency in humans to desire to “possess” others, at least in terms of their sexuality. That this would lead to a world, speaking of most of human history, in which powerful men owning harems isn’t surprising. In that lens, it seems inevitable. 父权制在道德上是应受谴责的,好在我们的社会已经开始抵制它了,但值得声明的是,在进化的框架内父权制可能是种常态。男人的身体比女人强壮,人类也不是天生就实行一夫一妻制,而人类被证明有一种“拥有”他人的倾向,至少是在性上拥有他人。这就导致在人类历史长河中,总是出现有权势的男人拥有“后宫”。从这个角度看,这似乎不可避免。 What is this supposedly “female” pattern of “indirect” social aggression all about? Well, it’s about polygynous patriarchy. In a monogamous society, children usually inherit the social status of the parents. If it’s a monogamous patriarchy, the status of the father will be weighted more heavily. In a polygynous patriarchy, the warlord or chieftain with 20 wives might have 150 children, so having a high-status father isn’t enough to confer social status to the children, because there are just too many alpha-brats to give that status and wealth to everyone. 这些跟“女性模式”的“间接”社会性攻击行为有什么关系?这就要说到一夫多妻制的父权制社会了。在一夫一妻制的社会中,孩子们总能继承父母的社会地位。但如果是在一夫多妻制的父权制社会里,军阀或酋长可能拥有20个妻子、150个孩子,这样一来,有一个地位显赫的父亲并不足以确保孩子的社会地位,因为有太多小兔崽子可以被给予地位和财富了。 Often, the children with the best chance of inheriting the father’s wealth, status and connections are those born to the most favored wives. If a woman achieves that status, her children will be heirs, and the other womens’ children will be labelled bastards. Obviously, a woman who is in a harem has an evolutionary incentive to want to be that favored wife. 通常,最有希望继承父亲财产、地位和社会关系的小孩是那些最受宠的妻子所生。如果一个妻子取得那样的地位,她的小孩就会是继承人,而其他女人的小孩就会被贴上私生子的标签。显然,“后宫”中的女人在进化论上有动机去成为那个受宠的妻子。 Passive aggression works well for a woman in a harem who is campaigning to become queen of the harem. Let’s consider how this contest works: 消极攻击行为对一个试图称霸后宫的女人来说很适用。让我们来看看这场竞赛是如何展开的:
  • fitness or “performance” or “merit” will be judged by an owner who is largely distant from the day-to-day operations (e.g. division of labor) within the harem.
  • 男主人将对适应性也即“表现”或“优点”打分,而他并不了解后宫中的日常运作(比如劳动分工)。
  • overt violence against a potentially superior competitor will be judged as destruction of the owner’s property, and punished. It will also fail to make the target appear less fit, from an evolutionary perspective.
  • 对潜在竞争者的公开暴力会被认为是对主人财产的破坏而遭受惩罚。从进化论的角度看,这也不会减损被攻击者的适应性。
  • however, emotional cruelty, abuses of power, and other “indirect” aggressions will cause a targeted competitor to become discouraged, stressed-out, or depressed, and therefore appear less healthy (that is, less fit) to the owner-husband.
  • 然而,感情上的残酷、玩弄权术或其他“间接”攻击行为却能导致目标竞争者变得气馁、备受压力或抑郁,进而在男主人眼里变得更不健康(因而适应性较低)。
What is an aspiring harem queen going to do? She can’t gain her status through physical dominance, as men in such societies often did, because provable harm to other women will cause her to lose favor with the man who ultimately selects the winner. 一个野心勃勃的宫斗明星会如何行动呢?她不能像一夫多妻社会中的男人通常所做的那样,用暴力优势来获得地位,因为对其他女人公开的加害会让她失去男人的宠爱,而最终的胜者由男人决定。 Anyway, physical injury doesn’t make a woman look genetically unhealthy, and is therefore less likely to sway the opinion of the owner/husband (if we assume that he’s also acting under evolutionary imperative); while the long-term effect of emotional violence (and stress) will make the target appear sickly and suggest genetic inferiority. 总之,身体伤害不能让一个女人在遗传上看起来不健康,因而也就无法动摇男主人/丈夫的看法(假设他也遵从进化的视角行事);而长期的情感暴力(和压力)会让目标看起来病态,暗示了其遗传劣势。 In the modern world, harems mostly don’t exist. There is some harem-queen behavior in American high schools and colleges, related to the severe desirability differential between the men and the women at that age, and the intense competition (for women trying to attract the few unusually mature men) that this creates. 在现代社会,后宫几乎不存在。在美国的高中和大学里存在一些宫斗行为,这同那个年龄段男女愿望的强烈差异有关,也同由此导致的强烈竞争(女人们试图吸引少数格外成熟的男人)有关。 18-year-old women are physically attractive to men of all ages; 18-year-old men are attractive to… no one they can legally date. So I suspect there is some incentive for harem queen behavior, given how few desirable men there are in those ghettos for adolescents that we call schools. 18岁的女人对所有年龄段的男人都有身体上的吸引力,而18岁的男人对他们能合法约会的人都……没有吸引力。所以考虑到在我们称之为学校的贫民区里很少有男人满怀野心,我怀疑这些宫斗行为有其激励因素。 Of course, the men become more desirable and mature as they grow up, and the women seem to grow out of any harem-type behavior, and given that the teenage years are a period in which everyone’s pretty fucked up, I’m going to guess that the overall behavior of women isn’t any worse than that of men. The movies give us adolescent “mean girls” for entertainment’s sake, but I don’t think that such meanness is gendered. 当然,随着年龄增长,男人会变得越来越有野心,而女人则似乎会逐渐抛弃这些宫斗行为。考虑到我们每个人的青少年时期都是一团糟,我猜总的来看女人的行为并不比男人更坏。为了娱乐性,电影总是给我们塑造出青春期的“恶毒女孩”,但我不认为这些恶毒跟性别有关。 Let’s jump away from adolescent drama (it’s not that interesting) and focus on the corporate world. The parallels are shocking. 让我们抛开这些青春期的闹剧吧(没那么有趣),看看职场,这里的勾心斗角令人震惊。
  • corporate competitors strive for a “favored subordinate” status, because the odds, for a person not born into it, of joining the ownership class are only slightly better than those of a woman in the neolithic era becoming a man.
  • 公司里的竞争者拼命成为“受宠的下属”,因为对一个普通职员来说,挤进老板阶级的概率,也就比新石器时代的一个女人变成男人的概率大那么一点点。
  • fitness or “performance” is judged by parties who are distant from the action and oblivious to day-to-day operations and any emotional or political drama that might be going on. They are about as capable of assessing individual merit as neolithic harem-owning men were at assessing genetic health among their wives.
  • 适应性或“表现”由远离公司日常运作的圈子裁决,他们不知道公司里上演的那些感情和政治戏码。他们评估个人优点的能力同新石器时代的后宫主人评估自己妻子的能力没差别。
  • like attractive women in pre-monogamous societies’ harems, people who threaten to out-perform the others draw undesirable attention and adversity within the harem. They’re sometimes singled out and set up to fail.
  • 就像前一夫一妻社会后宫里的有吸引力的女人一样,那些造成“力压群芳”威胁的人,会在后宫里招来他们不想要的关注和麻烦。他们有时会被孤立并注定失败。
  • obvious interference with a potentially superior competitor’s performance (much less physical harm against that person) will push the perpetrator out of favor, as “The Company” will view that as damage to its own property.
  • 对潜在的优胜者施以明显的干预(更不用说直接的身体伤害)会让作祟者失去宠信,因为公司会将这视作对公司财产的损害。
  • non-obvious (from the owner’s perspective) interference or aggression toward a potentially superior competitor can degrade that person’s apparent performance and is therefore the weapon of choice.
  • 因此对潜在优势竞争者(对公司所有者)不明显又能损害他的方式也就成了可选的武器。
Corporate executives can be understood, then, as successful harem queens. Under this lens, the entire corporate world makes sense. The CEO isn’t the alpha male, but the champion bitch. 由此,公司的高管们可以被理解为成功的宫斗之星。在这个视角下,整个职场的情况才说得通。CEO不是男主人,而是成功加冕的碧池。 So who’s the alpha male? Well, it’s arguably “The Company” or “shareholders” or rich people or “capital”. We’ve personified Mammon, and then gone a step further. We’ve created an alpha male more powerful than any actual human can be. As I’ve said before, that’s not a corporate “person” but a god. 那么谁才是“男主人”?这尚有争议,有的说是“公司”,有的说是“债权人”、富人或是“资本”。既然我们已经把钱财比作了魔鬼,不妨更进一步。我们已经创造出一个“男老大”,他比任何实实在在的人类都更有权力。正如我以前说过的,那是个神而不是企业的某人。 Worse yet, this alpha male isn’t one corporate “person”/god but the whole professional system, a supreme and supremely intangible meta-god among the myriad corrupt gods that our socioeconomic system has made. 更糟的是,这个男老大不是某个企业的人或神,而是整个职业系统,我们的社会经济体系造就的许许多多堕落之神中一个超然存在的、不可触摸的元神。 One could imagine, in a corrupt and slowly declining religious order, harem-queen behavior among the priesthood, and that’s basically what we have within the secular priesthood of corporatism. This kind of shitty behavior, clearly, was never limited to women. And now we have a society that runs on it. 你可以想象,在一个堕落的、逐渐衰败的宗教秩序下,神职人员间的宫斗伎俩,而那就是在世俗的公司主义下我们所面对的。这些破烂伎俩,显然不会仅仅局限于女人。我们现在的社会就在这个基础上运行。 Tyler Durden, in Fight Club, lamented that “We’re a generation of men raised by women”. Now, Fight Club was on to something. The male gender in the U.S. is failing and has been failing for some time. (It’s even worse in societies that are more thoroughly corporatized. Look up Japan’s salaryman culture and then read up on its hikikomori and “herbivore men”.) Tyler Durden在《搏击俱乐部》中哀叹“我们是由女人抚养长大的一代”。现在,这部电影言中了某些事实。美国的男性正在并已经衰败。(在那些公司化更彻底的社会里,情况更糟。看看日本的白领文化再研究下“蛰居族”和“食草男”吧。) There is a toxic something in many advanced societies that has been emasculating men over the past forty years. But it is not that we were “raised by women” (I’ve seen neither evidence of declining paternal involvement, nor that increasing maternal influence is detrimental) and it’s not the fault of feminism. 过去五十年,发达社会里的某种毒素一直在阉割男性,但不是所谓我们“被女人抚养长大”(我没有发现男权衰落的证据,也没有发现影响力日益增长的女权有什么坏处),也不是女权主义的错。 It’s the fault of corporatism. We’ve created a society that requires us to believe that our richest people are “alpha males”, when they are actually champion harem queens– preening private-sector social climbers. This has spawned a generation of men who are far too concerned with others’ opinions of them (and of the schools they went to, and of the jobs they held) and mostly unable to succeed on their own or think for themselves. 是社团主义的错。我们创造了一个社会,这个社会要求我们相信最富有的人就是“男老大”,而他们其实是胜出的宫斗明星——沾沾自喜的私企里的攀高枝者。这孕育出太过关心他人看法的一代(他人对自己所在学校的看法、对自己工作的看法),这代人大部分都无法靠自己取得成功或是独立思考。 One might make the counterargument that the macho-subordinate “bro” culture that is observed in some corporate environments (such as most Silicon Valley startups) is, to the contrary of my argument, excessively masculine. Actually, it’s just stupidly masculine. There’s a lot of posturing going on in it, and women are justified to find that posturing threatening, but it’s just another form of the harem-queen game. 有人可能持相反的观点,认为在一些公司环境(比如多数硅谷创业公司)里看到的职员间的“兄弟”文化很是阳刚——同我所说恰恰相反。其实,那不过是愚蠢的阳刚罢了。这里面有太多的故作姿态,而女人们理应视这姿态为一种威胁,那不过是另一种形式的后宫游戏罢了。 The difference, in the young macho-subordinate culture, is whom these wannabe harem-queen men are whoring themselves out to. In the adult corporate world, their target is the amorphous nondescript alpha-male-figure (i.e. the invisible ultra-powerful humanoid that evolves into a god) known as “capital”. 所不同的是,在这种年轻的兄弟文化中,当婊子玩手腕的是男人自己。在成年人的公司世界里,他们的目标是无形的、难以捉摸的男老大形象(比如看不见的拥有终极权力的类人的神),它更广为人知的名字是“资本”。 A seasoned corporate executive knows that his job isn’t to slut it up for a specific manager or CEO but to make himself maximally attractive to the system itself, and that system’s god persona is too aloof for it to be assigned a definite gender, so it does not suffice to appease one presumed aspect of it. Consequently, it demands an appearance that is bland, inoffensive, and neutrally toned. 一个老练的高管明白,他的工作不是为了某个特定的经理或CEO职位而变身荡妇,而是最大限度地让自己对这个系统保有吸引力;他也明白这个系统是如此的超然冷漠,它不能被安上一个性别。因而仅仅满足某个设想的要求是不够的。于是所需要的就是一种圆滑无棱角的、不具攻击性的、中性的腔调。 On the other hand, the macho-subordinate brogrammers haven’t figured out yet that they should focus on their attractiveness to a larger system rather than their immediate bosses. They’re still powdering themselves for the visual delight of, say, a 30-year-old and invariably male founder. This drives them not toward the manicured, soft-faced look of the corporate executive, but toward the absurdity of the frat boy who exhibits the worst traits of masculinity in caricature, but whose membership in such a pointless, groupthink-driven organization shows his desperate need for approval. Therefore, the macho-subordinate brogrammer culture of Silicon Valley does not refute my claim that corporate competition is a harem-queen dynamic; rather, it supports it. 另一方面,那些阳刚的程序员兄弟们还没弄明白,他们应该在意的是自己对更大系统而非顶头上司的吸引力。他们还在为了博取一个30岁老顽固投资人的欢心而涂脂抹粉。这不会让他们看起来更像美过甲的、面容姣好的公司高管,只会把他们推向古惑仔式的荒诞,让他们展示漫画中那种男子气概里最糟糕的特质,而这种哥们义气在这种无意义的、团队思维导向的公司组织里只是暴露了他们对晋升的极端渴望。因此,硅谷程序员间流行的阳刚文化并未与我的观点相悖,即,公司里的竞争其实就是宫斗戏码,相反,恰恰支持了我的观点。 Right now, the world is run mostly by cowardly, talentless, champion harem queens angling for approval from that invisible god we call “capital”. That’s unfortunate, and my view is that it has to end. In order to get this far, human society had to overcome many challenges, and it seems that the 21st century is destined to bring us more challenges (e.g. climate change, religious radicalism, economic inequality and petroleum depletion) and I don’t think that we can handle a single one of them with the business leadership that we’ve got. 如今这个世界基本上被一群懦弱平庸的宫斗明星所把持,他们费尽心思讨“资本”这个看不见的神欢心。这情况太不幸了,在我看来,必须终结。为了达到这个目的,人类社会必须克服许多挑战。21世纪似乎注定带给我们更多挑战(比如气候变化、宗教极端主义、经济不平等和石油的耗尽),而我不认为我们能在现有的商业领导下解决其中任何一个问题。 So who should be running the world? To be honest, there are some men whom I consider supremely qualified, and there are some women whom I consider supremely qualified. Gender, to me, is irrelevant. However, we need independent thinkers, and this means that the harem-queen world (for which, many of the worst offenders are men) has got to go. 那么谁应该来掌控这个世界?老实说,我认为有一些男人很有资格,一些女人也非常合格。性别,对我来说,无关紧要。我们需要独立的思考者,而这意味着后宫世界(它的许多捍卫者都是男性)必须滚蛋。 (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。

——海德沙龙·翻译组,致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

[译文]一个动听故事的破碎及永生

A Trick For Higher SAT scores? Unfortunately no.
SAT高分有诀窍?很不幸,不是。

作者:Terry Burnham @ 2015-4-20
译者:沈沉(@你在何地-sxy)
校对:Drunkplane(@Drunkplane-zny)
来源:AEON, http://www.terryburnham.com/2015/04/a-trick-for-higher-sat-scores.html

Wouldn’t it be cool if there was a simple trick to score better on college entrance exams like the SAT and other tests?

如果SAT之类的大学入学考试和其他考试都有得高分的简单诀窍,岂不是很爽?

There is a reputable claim that such a trick exists. Unfortunately, the trick does not appear to be real.

根据某个著名说法,确实有诀窍。不幸的是,这一诀窍似乎并不可靠。

This is the story of an academic paper where I am a co-author with possible lessons for life both inside and outside the Academy.

这里要讲的是我参与写作的一篇学术论文的故事,它对学术内外的生活可能都会有些教益。

png;base642968fe44110dd3fdIn the spring of 2012, I was reading Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman’s book, Thinking, Fast and Slow. Professor Kahneman discussed an intriguing finding that people score higher on a test if the questions are hard to read. The particular test used in the study is the CRT or cognitive reflection task invented by Shane Frederick of Yale. The CRT itself is interesting, but what Professor Kahneman wrote was amazing to me,

2012年春,我读了诺贝尔奖获得者Daniel Kahneman的书《思考,快与慢》。Kahneman教授讨论了一个非常有趣的发现,如果考试时的问题很难看清,人们得分就会更高。这一研究中用到的具体考试,是由耶鲁大学的Shane Frederick发明的“认知反应任务”(CRT)【译注:应为“认知反应测试”,原文有误】。CRT本身很有意思,但Kahneman教授的说法更是令我惊愕。

“90% of the students who saw the CRT in normal font made at least one mistake in the test, but the proportion dropped to 35% when the font was barely legible. You read this correctly: performance was better with the bad font.”

“通过正常字体阅读CRT试卷的测试学生中,有90%至少会做错一道题,但如果试卷字体勉强才能辨认,这个比例就会下降到35%。把这句话读准了:坏字体伴随着好成绩。”

I thought this was so cool. The idea is simple, powerful, and easy to grasp. An oyster makes a pearl by reacting to the irritation of a grain of sand. Body builders become huge by lifting more weight. Can we kick our brains into a higher gear, by making the problem harder?

我觉得这简直太爽了。这个想法简单、有力且容易掌握。蚌壳受沙粒刺激作出反应,就会生出珍珠。健身者加大举重重量就会增加块头。我们是否能通过把问题搞难,来加大大脑马力?

png;base64ff53b96183f53427Malcolm Gladwell also thought the result was cool. Here is his description his book, David and Goliath:

Malcolm Gladwell也觉得这个结论很爽。以下是他在《大卫与歌利亚》一书中的描述:

The CRT is really hard. But here’s the strange thing. Do you know the easiest way to raise people’s scores on the test? Make it just a little bit harder. The psychologists Adam Alter and Daniel Oppenheimer tried this a few years ago with a group of undergraduates at Princeton University. First they gave the CRT the normal way, and the students averaged 1.9 correct answers out of three. That’s pretty good, though it is well short of the 2.18 that MIT students averaged. Then Alter and Oppenheimer printed out the test questions in a font that was really hard to read … The average score this time around? 2.45. Suddenly, the students were doing much better than their counterparts at MIT.

“CRT真是很难。但这里有个怪事。要提高人们的考试得分,你知道什么方法最简单吗?只需把考题整得更难一点。心理学家Adam Alter和Daniel Oppenheimer几年前在普林斯顿大学拿一群本科生做过实验。首先他们用常规方式搞了一次CRT考试,学生平均表现是3道题里做对1.9道。很不错,但比起麻省理工学生平均做对2.18道可差远了。然后Alter和Oppenheimer用一种很难辨读的字体打印了测试问题……这次的平均得分?2.45。学生们突然就比麻省理工的对手要强了。”

png;base6483d2eaf734995958As I read Professor Kahneman’s description, I looked at the clock and realized I was teaching a class in about an hour, and the class topic for the day was related to this study. I immediately created two versions of the CRT and had my students take the test – half with an easy to read presentation and half with a hard to read version.

读着Kahneman教授的上述描写时,我看了看表,发现还有约一个小时我就要去上课,课程当天的主题正与这一研究相关。我立即就制作了两种版本的CRT——一半易读、一半难(more...)

标签: |
6484
A Trick For Higher SAT scores? Unfortunately no. SAT高分有诀窍?很不幸,不是。 作者:Terry Burnham @ 2015-4-20 译者:沈沉(@你在何地-sxy) 校对:Drunkplane(@Drunkplane-zny) 来源:AEON, http://www.terryburnham.com/2015/04/a-trick-for-higher-sat-scores.html Wouldn’t it be cool if there was a simple trick to score better on college entrance exams like the SAT and other tests? 如果SAT之类的大学入学考试和其他考试都有得高分的简单诀窍,岂不是很爽? There is a reputable claim that such a trick exists. Unfortunately, the trick does not appear to be real. 根据某个著名说法,确实有诀窍。不幸的是,这一诀窍似乎并不可靠。 This is the story of an academic paper where I am a co-author with possible lessons for life both inside and outside the Academy. 这里要讲的是我参与写作的一篇学术论文的故事,它对学术内外的生活可能都会有些教益。 png;base642968fe44110dd3fdIn the spring of 2012, I was reading Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman’s book, Thinking, Fast and Slow. Professor Kahneman discussed an intriguing finding that people score higher on a test if the questions are hard to read. The particular test used in the study is the CRT or cognitive reflection task invented by Shane Frederick of Yale. The CRT itself is interesting, but what Professor Kahneman wrote was amazing to me, 2012年春,我读了诺贝尔奖获得者Daniel Kahneman的书《思考,快与慢》。Kahneman教授讨论了一个非常有趣的发现,如果考试时的问题很难看清,人们得分就会更高。这一研究中用到的具体考试,是由耶鲁大学的Shane Frederick发明的“认知反应任务”(CRT)【译注:应为“认知反应测试”,原文有误】。CRT本身很有意思,但Kahneman教授的说法更是令我惊愕。
“90% of the students who saw the CRT in normal font made at least one mistake in the test, but the proportion dropped to 35% when the font was barely legible. You read this correctly: performance was better with the bad font.” “通过正常字体阅读CRT试卷的测试学生中,有90%至少会做错一道题,但如果试卷字体勉强才能辨认,这个比例就会下降到35%。把这句话读准了:坏字体伴随着好成绩。”
I thought this was so cool. The idea is simple, powerful, and easy to grasp. An oyster makes a pearl by reacting to the irritation of a grain of sand. Body builders become huge by lifting more weight. Can we kick our brains into a higher gear, by making the problem harder? 我觉得这简直太爽了。这个想法简单、有力且容易掌握。蚌壳受沙粒刺激作出反应,就会生出珍珠。健身者加大举重重量就会增加块头。我们是否能通过把问题搞难,来加大大脑马力? png;base64ff53b96183f53427Malcolm Gladwell also thought the result was cool. Here is his description his book, David and Goliath: Malcolm Gladwell也觉得这个结论很爽。以下是他在《大卫与歌利亚》一书中的描述:
The CRT is really hard. But here’s the strange thing. Do you know the easiest way to raise people’s scores on the test? Make it just a little bit harder. The psychologists Adam Alter and Daniel Oppenheimer tried this a few years ago with a group of undergraduates at Princeton University. First they gave the CRT the normal way, and the students averaged 1.9 correct answers out of three. That’s pretty good, though it is well short of the 2.18 that MIT students averaged. Then Alter and Oppenheimer printed out the test questions in a font that was really hard to read … The average score this time around? 2.45. Suddenly, the students were doing much better than their counterparts at MIT. “CRT真是很难。但这里有个怪事。要提高人们的考试得分,你知道什么方法最简单吗?只需把考题整得更难一点。心理学家Adam Alter和Daniel Oppenheimer几年前在普林斯顿大学拿一群本科生做过实验。首先他们用常规方式搞了一次CRT考试,学生平均表现是3道题里做对1.9道。很不错,但比起麻省理工学生平均做对2.18道可差远了。然后Alter和Oppenheimer用一种很难辨读的字体打印了测试问题……这次的平均得分?2.45。学生们突然就比麻省理工的对手要强了。”
png;base6483d2eaf734995958As I read Professor Kahneman’s description, I looked at the clock and realized I was teaching a class in about an hour, and the class topic for the day was related to this study. I immediately created two versions of the CRT and had my students take the test - half with an easy to read presentation and half with a hard to read version. 读着Kahneman教授的上述描写时,我看了看表,发现还有约一个小时我就要去上课,课程当天的主题正与这一研究相关。我立即就制作了两种版本的CRT——一半易读、一半难读,让我的学生去考。
(1) A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost? _____ cents (1) 球棒和球共需1.1美元。球棒比球要贵1美元。请问球需多少美分? (1) A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost? _____ cents (in my experiment, I used Haettenschweiler - I do not know how to get blogger to display Haettenschweiler). (1) 球棒和球共需1.1美元。球棒比球要贵1美元。请问球需多少美分?(考试中,此处用的是Haettenschweiler字体)
Within 3 hours of reading about the idea in Professor Kahneman’s book, I had my own data in the form of the scores from 20 students. Unlike the study described by Professor Kahneman, however, my students did not perform any better statistically with the hard-to-read version. I emailed Shane Frederick at Yale with my story and data, and he responded that he was doing further research on the topic. 在读过Kahneman教授书中的观点后不到三小时,我就拿到了自己的数据——20个学生的成绩。不过,跟Kahneman教授所述研究不同,统计上而言,我的学生在难读版测试中并没有表现更好。我把我的故事和数据邮寄给了耶鲁的Shane Frederic,他当时说他正在就此问题做进一步研究。 Roughly 3 years later, Andrew Meyer, Shane Frederick, and 8 other authors (including me) have published a paper that argues the hard-to-read presentation does not lead to higher performance. 大概三年以后,Andrew Meyer, Shane Frederick及其他8名作者(包括我)发表了一篇论文,论证说,难读的试题并不会带来更好的成绩。 The original paper reached its conclusions based on the test scores of 40 people. In our paper, we analyze a total of over 7,000 people by looking at the original study and 16 additional studies. Our summary: 最早那篇论文的结论来自40个人的测试得分。我们的论文则通过检视原初研究和其余16项研究,分析对象总数超过7000人。我们的总结是:
Easy-to-read average score: 1.43/3 (17 studies, 3,657 people) Hard-to-read average score: 1.42/3 (17 studies, 3,710 people) 易读版平均得分:1.43/3(17项研究,3657人) 难读版平均得分:1.42/3(17项研究,3710人)
Malcolm Gladwell wrote, “Do you know the easiest way to raise people’s scores on the test? Make it just a little bit harder.” The data suggest that Malcolm Gladwell’s statement is false. Here is the key figure from our paper with my annotations in red: Malcolm Gladwell写道,“人们要想提高考试得分,你知道什么方法最简单吗?把考题整得更难一点。”数据显示,Malcolm Gladwell的说法是错的。以下是我们所写论文的关键图表,我的注解标红:   png;base64db8e9525745b448I take three lessons from this story. 从这个故事中我得到三条教训。 1.Beware simple stories. 1.提防简单的故事 “The price of metaphor is eternal vigilance.” Richard Lewontin attributes this quote to Arturo Rosenblueth and Norbert Wiener. “比喻的好处须以永恒的警惕换取。”Richard Lewontin将这一名言归于Arturo Rosenblueth 和 Norbert Wiener所说。 The story told by Professor Kahneman and by Malcolm Gladwell is very good. In most cases, however, reality is messier than the summary story. Kahneman教授和Malcolm Gladwell讲的故事非常动听。但在多数情况中,现实都比简洁的故事要凌乱。 2.Ideas have considerable “Meme-mentum” 2.观念具有相当大的“模因惯性”And yet it moves,” This quote is attributed to Galileo when forced to retract his statement that the earth moves around the sun. “但是它仍在运转”,这一名言被认为是伽利略被迫收回其地球绕日运动学说时所说。 The message is that It takes a long time to change conventional wisdom. The earth stayed at the center of the universe for many people for decades and even centuries after Copernicus. 启示就是,要改变传统观点需要花费很长时间。在哥白尼之后的数十年甚至数世纪中,地球对许多人而言仍是宇宙的中心。 png;base6419c7919457087521I expect that the false story as presented by Professor Kahneman and Malcolm Gladwell will persist for decades. Millions of people have read these false accounts. The message is simple, powerful, and important. Thus, even though the message is wrong, I expect it will have considerable momentum (or meme-mentum to paraphrase Richard Dawkins). 我预料,由Kahneman教授和Malcolm Gladwell所说的错误故事会继续存在几十年。数百万人读过这些错误说法。这个讯息简单、有力且重要无比。因此,尽管它是错的,我预测它会具有相当大的惯性动量(或借用Richard Dawkins的话说,模因惯性)。 One of my favorite examples of meme-mentum concerns stomach ulcers. Barry Marshall and Robin Warren faced skepticism to their view that many stomach ulcers are caused by bacteria (Helicobacter pylori). Professor Marshall describes the scientific response to his idea as ridicule; in response he gave himself an ulcer drinking the bacteria. Marshall gives a personal account of his self-infection in his Nobel Prize acceptance video (the self-infection portion starts at around 25:00). 我最喜欢援引的模因惯性例证之一跟胃溃疡有关。Barry Marshall和Robin Warren认为许多胃溃疡源于细菌(幽门螺杆菌),这一观点遭到质疑。Marshall教授称,科学界的反应是认为他的观点十分可笑;作为回应,他服用细菌并让自己患上了溃疡。在其接受诺贝尔奖的视频中,Marshall自己描述了这一自我感染经历。png;base64272736908a379b1 3.We can measure the rate of learning. 3.我们可以测量学习的速率 We can measure the rate of learning. Google scholar counts the number of times a paper is cited by other papers. I believe that well-informed scholars who cite the original paper ought to cite the subsequent papers. We can watch in real-time to see if that is true. 我们可以测量学习的速率。“谷歌学术”计算某论文被其他论文征引的次数。我认为,渊博的学者,在引用了原初的研究论文之后,也应该引用其后相关的论文。我们能实时观测这一想法是否为真。
Paper 论文 Comment 备注 citations as of April 20, 2015 2015.4.20之前引用数 citations as of today 迄今为止引用数
Alter et al. (2007). "Overcoming intuition: metacognitive difficulty activates analytic reasoning." Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 136(4): 569. Alter等人(2007)。“克服直觉:元认知困难能激活分析推理”,《实验心理学杂志:总论》 136(4):569 Original paper showing hard-to-read leads to higher scores 最早提出难读导致高分的论文   344 click for current count 点击链接查看当前数字
Thompson et al. (2013). "The role of answer fluency and perceptual fluency as metacognitive cues for initiating analytic thinking." Cognition 128(2): 237-251. Thompson等人(2013)。“回答流利性和感知流利性作为推动分析推理的元认知触发物”,《认知》 128(2):2237-251 Paper contradicts Alter at. al by reporting no hard-to-read effect. 与Alter等人相左,报告不存在“难读高分”效应的论文 38 click for current count 点击链接查看当前数字
Meyer et al. (2015). "Disfluent fonts don’t help people solve math problems." Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 144(2): e16. Meyer等人(2015)。“繁难字体对于人们解决数学问题并无助益”,《实验心理学杂志:总论》 144(2): e16 Our paper summarizing the original study and 16 others. 我们概述原初研究和后续16项研究的论文 0 (this “should” increase at least as fast as citations for Alter et. al, 2007) 0(引用数的增长速度“本应”至少与Alter等人2007年论文相同) click for current count 点击链接查看当前数字
(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。

——海德沙龙·翻译组,致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

[译文]千禧一代是如何被宠坏的?

The Coddling of the American Mind
美国精神的娇惯

作者:GREG LUKIANOFF,JONATHAN HAIDT @ 2015-9
译者:Horace Rae(@sheldon_rae)
校对:沈沉(@你在何地-sxy),小册子(@昵称被抢的小册子)
来源:The Atlantic,http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/

In the name of emotional well-being, college students are increasingly demanding protection from words and ideas they don’t like. Here’s why that’s disastrous for education—and mental health.

以情感安康为名,大学生如今愈发强烈地要求保护自己,不愿听到他们不喜欢的言语和思想。下文解释了为什么这一趋势无论对教育还是心理健康都是灾难性的。

Something strange is happening at America’s colleges and universities. A movement is arising, undirected and driven largely by students, to scrub campuses clean of words, ideas, and subjects that might cause discomfort or give offense. Last December, Jeannie Suk wrote in an online article for The New Yorker about law students asking her fellow professors at Harvard not to teach rape law—or, in one case, even use the word violate (as in “that violates the law”) lest it cause students distress.

当今美国高校中存在一个奇怪的现象。一场运动正在蓬勃发展,它不受引导,主要由学生推动,目的是把可能造成冒犯或引起不适的言语、思想和议题从校园中清除出去。去年12月,Jeannie Suk在《纽约客》一篇在线文章中写到,有法学院的学生要求她在哈佛的同僚停止讲授强奸法——有一次,甚至要求他们停止使用“violate”一词(比如在“that violates the law”中)【译注:该词兼有“违反”、“侵犯”、“亵渎”与“强奸”之义】以免引起学生不适。

In February, Laura Kipnis, a professor at Northwestern University, wrote an essay in The Chronicle of Higher Education describing a new campus politics of sexual paranoia—and was then subjected to a long investigation after students who were offended by the article and by a tweet she’d sent filed Title IX complaints against her.

今年二月,西北大学教授Laura Kipnis在《高等教育纪事报》上发表了一篇文章,讲述高校里新出现的一种性妄想政治,有学生因为被这篇文章以及她发布的一条推特所冒犯,对其提出基于“第九条”的控诉【译注:指《联邦教育法修正案》第九条,禁止教育领域性别歧视】,她因此遭受了漫长的调查。

In June, a professor protecting himself with a pseudonym wrote an essay for Vox describing how gingerly he now has to teach. “I’m a Liberal Professor, and My Liberal Students Terrify Me,” the headline said. A number of popular comedians, including Chris Rock, have stopped performing on college campuses (see Caitlin Flanagan’s article in this month’s issue). Jerry Seinfeld and Bill Maher have publicly condemned the oversensitivity of college students, saying too many of them can’t take a joke.

今年六月,一位使用化名以保护自己的教授为Vox写了一篇文章,描述他现在在教学中需要多么小心翼翼,文章的标题是:“我是一名自由派教授,我被我的自由派学生吓坏了”。包括Chris Rock在内的许多当红谐星,已经不在大学校园演出了(详情见Caitlin Flanagan在本月杂志上的文章)。 Jerry Seinfeld和Bill Maher已公开批评大学生的过度敏感,说他们中太多人连一个玩笑也开不起了。

Two terms have risen quickly from obscurity into common campus parlance.Microaggressions are small actions or word choices that seem on their face to have no malicious intent but that are thought of as a kind of violence nonetheless. For example, by some campus guidelines, it is a microaggression to ask an Asian American or Latino American “Where were you born?,” because this implies that he or she is not a real American.

有两个晦涩的术语已经变成了校园里的日常用语。“微冒犯”(microaggression)表示表面本无恶意但仍被认为具有侵犯性的小举动或用语选择。举个例子,某些校园规则规定,询问亚裔或拉丁裔美国人“你出生在哪里?”就是一种“微冒犯”,因为这一提问暗示了这个人不是真正的美国人。

Trigger warnings are alerts that professors are expected to issue if something in a course might cause a strong emotional response. For example, some students have called for warnings that Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart describes racial violence and that F. Scott Fitzgerald’sThe Great Gatsby portrays misogyny and physical abuse, so that students who have been previously victimized by racism or domestic violence can choose to avoid these works, which they believe might “trigger” a recurrence of past trauma.

“刺激警告”是上课时教授们在讲授易触发强烈情绪波动的内容前被认为应该发出的警告。举个例子,有些学生要求教授预先警告Chinua Achebe的《瓦解》包含有种族暴力内容,F. Scott Fitzgerald的《了不起的盖茨比》描绘了厌女症和肢体暴力。他们认为这些著作可能会“刺激”过往的心灵创伤,因此之前遭受过种族主义和家庭暴力伤害的学生就可以选择跳过这些著作。

Some recent campus actions border on the surreal. In April, at Brandeis University, the Asian American student association sought to raise awareness of microaggressions against Asians through an installation on the steps of an academic hall. The installation gave examples of microaggressions such as “Aren’t you supposed to be good at math?” and “I’m colorblind! I don’t see race.” But a backlash arose among other Asian American students, who felt that the display itself was a microaggression. The association removed the installation, and its president wrote an e-mail to the entire student body apologizing to anyone who was “triggered or hurt by the content of the microaggressions.”

一些近期的校园现象近乎荒诞。今年四月,为了引起对针对亚裔的“微冒犯”的重视,布兰迪斯大学亚裔美国学生联合会在一个学术报告厅的台阶上做了一个展示,内容是“微冒犯”的例子,比如“你们不是应该非常擅长数学吗?”和“我是色盲!我分辨不出种族。”但是另一些亚裔美国学生则提出强烈反对,他们认为这个展示本身就是一种“微冒犯”。后来联合会撤除了这些展品,会长向全体学生发了一封电子邮件,向所有“被‘微冒犯’伤害或刺激”的人道歉。


According to the most-basic tenets of psychology, helping people with anxiety disorders avoid the things they fear is misguided.

按照最基本的心理学原则,帮助焦虑症患者逃避他们惧怕的事物是完全错误的。


This new climate is slowly being institutionalized, and is affecting what can be said in the classroom, even as a basis for discussion. During the 2014–15 school year, for instance, the deans and department chairs at the 10 University of California system schools were presented by administrators at faculty leader-training sessions with examples of microaggressions. The list of offensive statements included: “America is the land of opportunity” and “I believe the most qualified person should get the job.”

这种新的风气正在渐渐制度化,而且正在影响课堂上可以讲授的内容,甚至成为讨论问题的基础。例如在2014-15学年间,行政官员在教职员领导培训课程上为加州大学系统10所院校的院长和系主任们介绍了“微冒犯”的例子。冒犯性语言的清单包括:“美国是充满机会的国度”和“我相信这份工作应该给最有资格的人”。

The press has typically described these developments as a resurgence of political correctness. That(more...)

标签: | |
6198
The Coddling of the American Mind 美国精神的娇惯 作者:GREG LUKIANOFF,JONATHAN HAIDT @ 2015-9 译者:Horace Rae(@sheldon_rae) 校对:沈沉(@你在何地-sxy),小册子(@昵称被抢的小册子) 来源:The Atlantic,http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/ In the name of emotional well-being, college students are increasingly demanding protection from words and ideas they don’t like. Here’s why that’s disastrous for education—and mental health. 以情感安康为名,大学生如今愈发强烈地要求保护自己,不愿听到他们不喜欢的言语和思想。下文解释了为什么这一趋势无论对教育还是心理健康都是灾难性的。 Something strange is happening at America’s colleges and universities. A movement is arising, undirected and driven largely by students, to scrub campuses clean of words, ideas, and subjects that might cause discomfort or give offense. Last December, Jeannie Suk wrote in an online article for The New Yorker about law students asking her fellow professors at Harvard not to teach rape law—or, in one case, even use the word violate (as in “that violates the law”) lest it cause students distress. 当今美国高校中存在一个奇怪的现象。一场运动正在蓬勃发展,它不受引导,主要由学生推动,目的是把可能造成冒犯或引起不适的言语、思想和议题从校园中清除出去。去年12月,Jeannie Suk在《纽约客》一篇在线文章中写到,有法学院的学生要求她在哈佛的同僚停止讲授强奸法——有一次,甚至要求他们停止使用“violate”一词(比如在“that violates the law”中)【译注:该词兼有“违反”、“侵犯”、“亵渎”与“强奸”之义】以免引起学生不适。 In February, Laura Kipnis, a professor at Northwestern University, wrote an essay in The Chronicle of Higher Education describing a new campus politics of sexual paranoia—and was then subjected to a long investigation after students who were offended by the article and by a tweet she’d sent filed Title IX complaints against her. 今年二月,西北大学教授Laura Kipnis在《高等教育纪事报》上发表了一篇文章,讲述高校里新出现的一种性妄想政治,有学生因为被这篇文章以及她发布的一条推特所冒犯,对其提出基于“第九条”的控诉【译注:指《联邦教育法修正案》第九条,禁止教育领域性别歧视】,她因此遭受了漫长的调查。 In June, a professor protecting himself with a pseudonym wrote an essay for Vox describing how gingerly he now has to teach. “I’m a Liberal Professor, and My Liberal Students Terrify Me,” the headline said. A number of popular comedians, including Chris Rock, have stopped performing on college campuses (see Caitlin Flanagan’s article in this month’s issue). Jerry Seinfeld and Bill Maher have publicly condemned the oversensitivity of college students, saying too many of them can’t take a joke. 今年六月,一位使用化名以保护自己的教授为Vox写了一篇文章,描述他现在在教学中需要多么小心翼翼,文章的标题是:“我是一名自由派教授,我被我的自由派学生吓坏了”。包括Chris Rock在内的许多当红谐星,已经不在大学校园演出了(详情见Caitlin Flanagan在本月杂志上的文章)。 Jerry Seinfeld和Bill Maher已公开批评大学生的过度敏感,说他们中太多人连一个玩笑也开不起了。 Two terms have risen quickly from obscurity into common campus parlance.Microaggressions are small actions or word choices that seem on their face to have no malicious intent but that are thought of as a kind of violence nonetheless. For example, by some campus guidelines, it is a microaggression to ask an Asian American or Latino American “Where were you born?,” because this implies that he or she is not a real American. 有两个晦涩的术语已经变成了校园里的日常用语。“微冒犯”(microaggression)表示表面本无恶意但仍被认为具有侵犯性的小举动或用语选择。举个例子,某些校园规则规定,询问亚裔或拉丁裔美国人“你出生在哪里?”就是一种“微冒犯”,因为这一提问暗示了这个人不是真正的美国人。 Trigger warnings are alerts that professors are expected to issue if something in a course might cause a strong emotional response. For example, some students have called for warnings that Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart describes racial violence and that F. Scott Fitzgerald’sThe Great Gatsby portrays misogyny and physical abuse, so that students who have been previously victimized by racism or domestic violence can choose to avoid these works, which they believe might “trigger” a recurrence of past trauma. “刺激警告”是上课时教授们在讲授易触发强烈情绪波动的内容前被认为应该发出的警告。举个例子,有些学生要求教授预先警告Chinua Achebe的《瓦解》包含有种族暴力内容,F. Scott Fitzgerald的《了不起的盖茨比》描绘了厌女症和肢体暴力。他们认为这些著作可能会“刺激”过往的心灵创伤,因此之前遭受过种族主义和家庭暴力伤害的学生就可以选择跳过这些著作。 Some recent campus actions border on the surreal. In April, at Brandeis University, the Asian American student association sought to raise awareness of microaggressions against Asians through an installation on the steps of an academic hall. The installation gave examples of microaggressions such as “Aren’t you supposed to be good at math?” and “I’m colorblind! I don’t see race.” But a backlash arose among other Asian American students, who felt that the display itself was a microaggression. The association removed the installation, and its president wrote an e-mail to the entire student body apologizing to anyone who was “triggered or hurt by the content of the microaggressions.” 一些近期的校园现象近乎荒诞。今年四月,为了引起对针对亚裔的“微冒犯”的重视,布兰迪斯大学亚裔美国学生联合会在一个学术报告厅的台阶上做了一个展示,内容是“微冒犯”的例子,比如“你们不是应该非常擅长数学吗?”和“我是色盲!我分辨不出种族。”但是另一些亚裔美国学生则提出强烈反对,他们认为这个展示本身就是一种“微冒犯”。后来联合会撤除了这些展品,会长向全体学生发了一封电子邮件,向所有“被‘微冒犯’伤害或刺激”的人道歉。
According to the most-basic tenets of psychology, helping people with anxiety disorders avoid the things they fear is misguided. 按照最基本的心理学原则,帮助焦虑症患者逃避他们惧怕的事物是完全错误的。
This new climate is slowly being institutionalized, and is affecting what can be said in the classroom, even as a basis for discussion. During the 2014–15 school year, for instance, the deans and department chairs at the 10 University of California system schools were presented by administrators at faculty leader-training sessions with examples of microaggressions. The list of offensive statements included: “America is the land of opportunity” and “I believe the most qualified person should get the job.” 这种新的风气正在渐渐制度化,而且正在影响课堂上可以讲授的内容,甚至成为讨论问题的基础。例如在2014-15学年间,行政官员在教职员领导培训课程上为加州大学系统10所院校的院长和系主任们介绍了“微冒犯”的例子。冒犯性语言的清单包括:“美国是充满机会的国度”和“我相信这份工作应该给最有资格的人”。 The press has typically described these developments as a resurgence of political correctness. That’s partly right, although there are important differences between what’s happening now and what happened in the 1980s and ’90s. That movement sought to restrict speech (specifically hate speech aimed at marginalized groups), but it also challenged the literary, philosophical, and historical canon, seeking to widen it by including more-diverse perspectives. 媒体通常将这种变化描述为政治正确的复兴。这种说法部分正确,尽管现在发生的事情和上世纪八、九十年代发生的事情存在着重大差异。过去的运动试图限制言论(尤其是针对边缘群体的仇恨言论),但是它们也挑战文学、哲学和历史各方面的正统,试图通过容纳更加多元的视角来对之加以拓展。 The current movement is largely about emotional well-being. More than the last, it presumes an extraordinary fragility of the collegiate psyche, and therefore elevates the goal of protecting students from psychological harm. The ultimate aim, it seems, is to turn campuses into “safe spaces” where young adults are shielded from words and ideas that make some uncomfortable. 当下的运动则主要关注情感安康。不仅如此,它假定大学生的心理脆弱不堪,因此提升了保护学生免受心理伤害这一目标的重要性。这场运动的终极目标,似乎是要屏蔽一切让学生不舒服的言语和观点,把大学校园变成一个“安全场所”。 And more than the last, this movement seeks to punish anyone who interferes with that aim, even accidentally. You might call this impulse vindictive protectiveness. It is creating a culture in which everyone must think twice before speaking up, lest they face charges of insensitivity, aggression, or worse. 再进一步,这场运动试图让每一个妨碍这一目标的人受到惩罚,无心而为也不可原谅。你可以把这种冲动的念头称作“报复性保护”,它正在创造一种文化,在这种文化下,每一个人都必须三思而后言,以免被人指控麻木不仁、有攻击性,甚至更糟糕的罪名。 We have been studying this development for a while now, with rising alarm. (Greg Lukianoff is a constitutional lawyer and the president and CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which defends free speech and academic freedom on campus, and has advocated for students and faculty involved in many of the incidents this article describes; Jonathan Haidt is a social psychologist who studies the American culture wars. The stories of how we each came to this subject can be read here.) 我们研究这场运动已有一段时间了,情况越来越吓人。(Greg Lukianoff是一名宪法律师学者,也是个人教育权利基金会的主席兼CEO。该基金会致力于捍卫校园中的言论自由和学术自由,并且曾声援那些卷入本文所描述诸多事件的学生和教师;Jonathan Haidt是一位社会心理学家,他研究美国的文化战争。关于我们各自都是如何开始研究这个课题的,请见这里http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/greg-lukianoffs-story/399359/) The dangers that these trends pose to scholarship and to the quality of American universities are significant; we could write a whole essay detailing them. But in this essay we focus on a different question: What are the effects of this new protectiveness on the students themselves? Does it benefit the people it is supposed to help? 这种趋势对学术研究和美国大学教育的质量构成了严重威胁;我们可以写一整篇论文来详细论述。但是本文关注的是另一个问题:这种娇呵严护对学生自身有什么影响?它是否能帮助到它本打算帮助的人? What exactly are students learning when they spend four years or more in a community that polices unintentional slights, places warning labels on works of classic literature, and in many other ways conveys the sense that words can be forms of violence that require strict control by campus authorities, who are expected to act as both protectors and prosecutors? 对无意的怠慢加以管制,给经典文学作品贴上警示标签,以其它种种方式传达这么一层意思:言词可能构成暴力,需要受到既被视作保护者又被视作检举人的校方的严格控制——学生花了四年甚至更多时间生活在这样的社区之中,究竟会学到什么呢? There’s a saying common in education circles: Don’t teach students what to think; teach them how to think. The idea goes back at least as far as Socrates. Today, what we call the Socratic method is a way of teaching that fosters critical thinking, in part by encouraging students to question their own unexamined beliefs, as well as the received wisdom of those around them. Such questioning sometimes leads to discomfort, and even to anger, on the way to understanding. “不要教学生思考什么,要教给他们如何思考。”这句话在教育圈内广为人知。这一理念最早起码可追溯至苏格拉底。现在,我们把鼓励批判性思考的教育方法——部分通过鼓励学生质疑自己未经检验的信念以及从周遭等所接收到的知识——称作“苏格拉底法”。在通往理解的道路上,这些质疑可能带来不适,甚至引起愤怒。 But vindictive protectiveness teaches students to think in a very different way. It prepares them poorly for professional life, which often demands intellectual engagement with people and ideas one might find uncongenial or wrong. The harm may be more immediate, too. 但是报复性保护则教育学生以一种完全不同的方式思考。它无法给学生的职业生涯提供多少帮助,因为在职场我们往往需要与我们不认同甚至认为是完全错误的观点和人进行智识交锋。报复性保护也会带来更直接的伤害。 A campus culture devoted to policing speech and punishing speakers is likely to engender patterns of thought that are surprisingly similar to those long identified by cognitive behavioral therapists as causes of depression and anxiety. The new protectiveness may be teaching students to think pathologically. 致力于管制言论和惩罚发声者的校园文化容易导致一种思维方式,它与早已被认知行为治疗师们确认为焦虑症和抑郁症病因的那种思维方式惊人相似。新的保护可能会令学生陷入病态思维。 How Did We Get Here? 何以到了这一步? It’s difficult to know exactly why vindictive protectiveness has burst forth so powerfully in the past few years. The phenomenon may be related to recent changes in the interpretation of federal antidiscrimination statutes (about which more later). But the answer probably involves generational shifts as well. Childhood itself has changed greatly during the past generation. Many Baby Boomers and Gen Xers can remember riding their bicycles around their hometowns, unchaperoned by adults, by the time they were 8 or 9 years old. In the hours after school, kids were expected to occupy themselves, getting into minor scrapes and learning from their experiences. 想要弄清为什么过去几年报复性保护如此猖獗并不容易。这一现象可能与最近对联邦反歧视法条的解释变化有关(以下稍后再详论这一点),但是答案也可能涉及代际差异,如今的孩童时代和上一代很不一样了。许多“婴儿潮一代”和“X一代”【译注:约指1965-1975年间生人】还有在家乡骑自行车四处兜风的记忆,当时他们只有八九岁,没有父母陪伴在旁。放学后,孩子们应该自己玩自己的,受些小挫折并从经验中吸取教训。 But “free range” childhood became less common in the 1980s. The surge in crime from the ’60s through the early ’90s made Baby Boomer parents more protective than their own parents had been. Stories of abducted children appeared more frequently in the news, and in 1984, images of them began showing up on milk cartons. In response, many parents pulled in the reins and worked harder to keep their children safe. 但是在1980年代,“放养”的童年越来越少了。1960年代到1990年代初的罪案攀升,使得婴儿潮时期出生的父母们比他们自己的父母更加护犊心切。拐卖儿童的事情越来越常见,在1984年,被拐卖儿童的照片都开始出现在牛奶盒上了。因此,许多家长勒紧了缰绳,努力保证自己孩子的安全。 The flight to safety also happened at school. Dangerous play structures were removed from playgrounds; peanut butter was banned from student lunches. After the 1999 Columbine massacre in Colorado, many schools cracked down on bullying, implementing “zero tolerance” policies. In a variety of ways, children born after 1980—the Millennials—got a consistent message from adults: life is dangerous, but adults will do everything in their power to protect you from harm, not just from strangers but from one another as well. 学校也加强了对安全的重视。操场上的危险游乐设施被拆除;学生午餐中禁用花生黄油。自从1999年科罗拉多州科伦拜恩大屠杀之后,许多学校严厉惩处欺凌事件,实行“零容忍”政策。生于1980年之后的一代——即“千禧一代”——以不同方式从大人们那里得到了一致的信息:生活危机满布,但大人们会竭尽所能保护你们免受伤害,既要防范陌生人,也要防范你们同伴。 These same children grew up in a culture that was (and still is) becoming more politically polarized. Republicans and Democrats have never particularly liked each other, but survey data going back to the 1970s show that on average, their mutual dislike used to be surprisingly mild. 同是这一批孩子,成长在一个政治上日益两极分化的文化中(这一两极化今天仍在继续)。共和党人和民主党人从来都互无好感,但是回溯到1970年代的调查数据显示,两党相互厌恶的程度总体来看也曾出奇地温和。 Negative feelings have grown steadily stronger, however, particularly since the early 2000s. Political scientists call this process “affective partisan polarization,” and it is a very serious problem for any democracy. As each side increasingly demonizes the other, compromise becomes more difficult. A recent study shows that implicit or unconscious biases are now at least as strong across political parties as they are across races. 此后,负面情绪就一直在稳步扩张,在进入新世纪后尤其严重。政治学家称这种现象为“情绪性党派两极化”。这对任何一个民主政体都是很严重的问题。鉴于一方一直在妖魔化另一方,达成共识就越来越困难。近来有研究显示,党派之间隐形和无意识的偏见,丝毫不逊色于种族之间的偏见。 So it’s not hard to imagine why students arriving on campus today might be more desirous of protection and more hostile toward ideological opponents than in generations past. This hostility, and the self-righteousness fueled by strong partisan emotions, can be expected to add force to any moral crusade. A principle of moral psychology is that “morality binds and blinds.” Part of what we do when we make moral judgments is express allegiance to a team. But that can interfere with our ability to think critically. Acknowledging that the other side’s viewpoint has any merit is risky—your teammates may see you as a traitor. 所以,我们不难想象为什么现在的学生比上几代人更加渴望受保护,对意识形态对立方有更强烈的敌意。这种敌意和由强烈党派感情激发的自命正直感,可想而知就是各种道德讨伐的助推器。道德心理学的一条原则是:“道德约束人,也让人盲目。”我们在作出道德判断的时候,同时也表达了对一个群体的忠诚。但是这可能会影响我们进行批判性思考的能力。承认对手的观点具有任何的合理性,风险都很大——队友们可能会把你当成叛徒。 Social media makes it extraordinarily easy to join crusades, express solidarity and outrage, and shun traitors. Facebook was founded in 2004, and since 2006 it has allowed children as young as 13 to join. This means that the first wave of students who spent all their teen years using Facebook reached college in 2011, and graduated from college only this year. 社交媒体使得加入道德讨伐易如反掌,也让表达团结与愤怒和排斥叛徒变得更加容易。Facebook成立于2004年,从2007年开始,它就允许低至13岁的孩子加入。这意味着第一批从青少年时期起就一直在用Facebook的孩子在2011年进入大学,今年才大学毕业。 These first true “social-media natives” may be different from members of previous generations in how they go about sharing their moral judgments and supporting one another in moral campaigns and conflicts. We find much to like about these trends; young people today are engaged with one another, with news stories, and with prosocial endeavors to a greater degree than when the dominant technology was television. But social media has also fundamentally shifted the balance of power in relationships between students and faculty; the latter increasingly fear what students might do to their reputations and careers by stirring up online mobs against them. 第一批真正的“社交媒体原生族”与此前几代人的不同之处,在于他们如何分享道德判断,在道德运动与道德冲突中如何彼此支持。这种趋势有其可喜之处:当今的年轻人与其他人在互相联系,分享新鲜事,与以电视为主导技术的时期相比,对社会交往更为投入。但是社交媒体也从根本上打破了学生和教师之间的权力平衡:后者越来越害怕学生会在网上煽动暴民打击自己,从而损害自己的名声和职业前途。 We do not mean to imply simple causation, but rates of mental illness in young adults have been rising, both on campus and off, in recent decades. Some portion of the increase is surely due to better diagnosis and greater willingness to seek help, but most experts seem to agree that some portion of the trend is real. 我们并不打算暗示一种简单的因果关系,但是近几十年来,不管在校内还是校外,青年人患心理疾病的比例都在上升。比例的提高,一定有部分是源于更高的诊断水平和更强的求诊意愿,但是大部分专家似乎都同意,这一统计趋势至少有部分是反映了患病率的真实上升。 Nearly all of the campus mental-health directors surveyed in 2013 by the American College Counseling Association reported that the number of students with severe psychological problems was rising at their schools. The rate of emotional distress reported by students themselves is also high, and rising. 2013年,所有接受美国高校咨询联合会调查的校园心理健康指导员都报告说,自己学校患有严重精神疾病的学生数目在上升。学生自己报告的情绪焦虑比率也很高,而且还在上升。 In a 2014 survey by the American College Health Association, 54 percent of college students surveyed said that they had “felt overwhelming anxiety” in the past 12 months, up from 49 percent in the same survey just five years earlier. Students seem to be reporting more emotional crises; many seem fragile, and this has surely changed the way university faculty and administrators interact with them. The question is whether some of those changes might be doing more harm than good. 2014年,美国高校健康联合会的一个调查显示,54%的大学生表示在过去12个月中“感受到了高度焦虑”,五年前同一调查的结果是49%。学生们报告的情绪危机似乎越来越多;许多人非常脆弱,这当然也改变了高校教师和行政人员与他们互动的方式。问题就是,是否其中有些改变可能弊大于利? The Thinking Cure 思维治疗 For millennia, philosophers have understood that we don’t see life as it is; we see a version distorted by our hopes, fears, and other attachments. The Buddha said, “Our life is the creation of our mind.” Marcus Aurelius said, “Life itself is but what you deem it.” The quest for wisdom in many traditions begins with this insight. Early Buddhists and the Stoics, for example, developed practices for reducing attachments, thinking more clearly, and finding release from the emotional torments of normal mental life. 几千年来,哲学家们都已经认识到,我们看到的不是生活的本来面目:我们看到的是被我们的期望、恐惧以及其他情感所扭曲的一个版本。佛说:“我们的生活是我们心智的创造物。”马可·奥勒留说:“生活就是我们认为的样子。”在许多文化传统中,对智慧的追求就始于这种观点。例如,早期佛教徒和斯多葛主义者就有通过实践训练去抑制情感,理清思维,以及从日常精神生活的情绪折磨中寻求解脱。 Cognitive behavioral therapy is a modern embodiment of this ancient wisdom. It is the most extensively studied nonpharmaceutical treatment of mental illness, and is used widely to treat depression, anxiety disorders, eating disorders, and addiction. It can even be of help to schizophrenics. No other form of psychotherapy has been shown to work for a broader range of problems. 认知行为治疗是这种古老智慧的现代体现。它是精神疾病非药物疗法中被研究的最多的一种。它被广泛应用于治疗抑郁、焦虑症、进食障碍以及药物成瘾,甚至被用于帮助治疗精神分裂。据我们目前所知,没有其它任何心理治疗方法能治疗更多的疾病。 Studies have generally found that it is as effective as antidepressant drugs (such as Prozac) in the treatment of anxiety and depression. The therapy is relatively quick and easy to learn; after a few months of training, many patients can do it on their own. Unlike drugs, cognitive behavioral therapy keeps working long after treatment is stopped, because it teaches thinking skills that people can continue to use. 研究普遍表明它治疗焦虑和抑郁的功效与抗抑郁药物(比如百忧解)不相上下。这种疗法相对容易学,掌握快,只需几个月的训练,许多患者就可以自行运用了。与药物不同,认知行为疗法在疗程结束后仍长期有效,因为它教给患者的思维方法还能继续使用。 The goal is to minimize distorted thinking and see the world more accurately. You start by learning the names of the dozen or so most common cognitive distortions (such as overgeneralizing, discounting positives, and emotional reasoning; see the list at the bottom of this article). Each time you notice yourself falling prey to one of them, you name it, describe the facts of the situation, consider alternative interpretations, and then choose an interpretation of events more in line with those facts. 认知行为治疗的目标是尽量令患者减少思想扭曲,从而能更精确地观察世界。开始时,你需要学习最常见的十几种认知扭曲的名目(比如以偏概全、低估正面信息,以及情绪化推理等;完整列表见文章末尾)。每当你发现自己陷入了其中某种扭曲状况,先对号入座,描述真实状况,思考其他的解释方式,接下来选择与事实较一致的解释。 Your emotions follow your new interpretation. In time, this process becomes automatic. When people improve their mental hygiene in this way—when they free themselves from the repetitive irrational thoughts that had previously filled so much of their consciousness—they become less depressed, anxious, and angry. 新的解释会引导你的情绪。经过一段时间训练之后,这一处理程序会变得很自动。如果以这种方式改善自己的精神健康状况,人们会将自己从原本充斥于意识中的重复性非理性思想中解脱出来,他们的抑郁、焦虑和愤怒都会随之得到缓解。 The parallel to formal education is clear: cognitive behavioral therapy teaches good critical-thinking skills, the sort that educators have striven for so long to impart. By almost any definition, critical thinking requires grounding one’s beliefs in evidence rather than in emotion or desire, and learning how to search for and evaluate evidence that might contradict one’s initial hypothesis. But does campus life today foster critical thinking? Or does it coax students to think in more-distorted ways? 这种疗法与正规教育有着不言而喻的相似之处。认知行为疗法教授良好的批判思维方法,而这正是教育者们长久以来努力要传授的。不论怎么说,批判思维都需要把信念建立在证据而非情感或欲望之上,并且需要人们学习如何寻找可能与自己最初假设相抵触的证据,并加以评判。但是,当今的大学教育鼓励批判思维吗?还是这种教育方式在诱使学生以更扭曲的方式思考? Let’s look at recent trends in higher education in light of the distortions that cognitive behavioral therapy identifies. We will draw the names and descriptions of these distortions from David D. Burns’s popular book Feeling Good, as well as from the second edition of Treatment Plans and Interventions for Depression and Anxiety Disorders, by Robert L. Leahy, Stephen J. F. Holland, and Lata K. McGinn. 让我们按照认知行为疗法界定的各种扭曲来审视近期高等教育中出现的新趋势。我们所使用的思维扭曲的名称和描述,取自David D. Burns广受欢迎的著作《感觉良好》和 Robert L. Leahy, Stephen J. F. Holland和Lata K. McGinn的著作《抑郁症和焦虑症的治疗计划及干预措施》(第二版)。 Higher Education’s Embrace of “Emotional Reasoning” 高等教育欣然接受“情绪化推理” Burns defines emotional reasoning as assuming “that your negative emotions necessarily reflect the way things really are: ‘I feel it, therefore it must be true.’ ” Leahy, Holland, and McGinn define it as letting “your feelings guide your interpretation of reality.” But, of course, subjective feelings are not always trustworthy guides; unrestrained, they can cause people to lash out at others who have done nothing wrong. Therapy often involves talking yourself down from the idea that each of your emotional responses represents something true or important. Burns将“情绪化推理”定义为:预先假定“你的负面情绪一定反映了事实:‘我感觉是这样,所以事情一定是这样’”。 Leahy、Holland和McGinn将其定义为任凭“你的情绪引导你对现实的解释”。但是,主观感受当然并不一定可靠;如果不受抑制,它可能令人们无端指责完全无辜的人。治疗方案通常包括劝自己放弃这种想法:你的每一个情绪反应都代表了重要的或真实的事情。 Emotional reasoning dominates many campus debates and discussions. A claim that someone’s words are “offensive” is not just an expression of one’s own subjective feeling of offendedness. It is, rather, a public charge that the speaker has done something objectively wrong. It is a demand that the speaker apologize or be punished by some authority for committing an offense. 情绪化推理主导了许多校园讨论和辩论。宣称某人的用词“有冒犯性”并不只是表达对于冒犯的主观感受,而是公开指责此人犯了客观错误。这是一种要求,要求说话人道歉,或者要求有关当局惩罚他,因为他犯下了罪行。 There have always been some people who believe they have a right not to be offended. Yet throughout American history—from the Victorian era to the free-speech activism of the 1960s and ’70s—radicals have pushed boundaries and mocked prevailing sensibilities. Sometime in the 1980s, however, college campuses began to focus on preventing offensive speech, especially speech that might be hurtful to women or minority groups. The sentiment underpinning this goal was laudable, but it quickly produced some absurd results. 总有些人相信自己拥有不被冒犯的权利。不过,纵观美国历史——从维多利亚时代到1960和70年代的言论自由运动——激进分子一次次拓展边界,蔑视当时盛行的敏感情绪。然而,在1980年代的某个时候,大学校园开始注重管制冒犯性言论,尤其是可能会对女性或少数族裔造成伤害的言论。这一目标所基于的情操值得赞扬,但是它很快就催生了一些荒诞的后果。
What are we doing to our students if we encourage them to develop extra-thin skin just before they leave the cocoon of adult protection? 如果我们鼓励学生在离开成年人的保护茧之前长出一副超级薄弱的外壳,我们究竟是在做什么?
Among the most famous early examples was the so-called water-buffalo incident at the University of Pennsylvania. In 1993, the university charged an Israeli-born student with racial harassment after he yelled “Shut up, you water buffalo!” to a crowd of black sorority women that was making noise at night outside his dorm-room window. 此类事件最出名的早期案例有发生在宾夕法尼亚大学的所谓“水牛事件”。1993年,该校指控一名生于以色列的学生有种族骚扰罪行,因为他对一些晚上在他宿舍窗外吵闹的黑人女生联谊会成员喊道:“闭嘴,你们这群水牛!” Many scholars and pundits at the time could not see how the termwater buffalo (a rough translation of a Hebrew insult for a thoughtless or rowdy person) was a racial slur against African Americans, and as a result, the case became international news. 当时,许多学者和专家都不理解“水牛”这个词是如何构成对非洲裔美国人的种族诽谤的(实际上,水牛是对希伯来语一个辱骂词汇的粗糙翻译,指不顾旁人或吵闹不堪的人),所以,这件事一时成了国际新闻。 Claims of a right not to be offended have continued to arise since then, and universities have continued to privilege them. In a particularly egregious 2008 case, for instance, Indiana University–Purdue University at Indianapolis found a white student guilty of racial harassment for reading a book titled Notre Dame vs. the Klan. The book honored student opposition to the Ku Klux Klan when it marched on Notre Dame in 1924. Nonetheless, the picture of a Klan rally on the book’s cover offended at least one of the student’s co-workers (he was a janitor as well as a student), and that was enough for a guilty finding by the university’s Affirmative Action Office. 从那时起,对“不被冒犯的权利”的要求开始不断增长,各大学也不断加以纵容。比如,发生在2008年的一个影响极其恶劣的案件中,印第安纳大学与普渡大学印第安纳波利斯联合分校认定一名学生干犯种族骚扰罪行,因为他阅读了一本名叫《圣母大学vs.三K党》的书。这本书纪念了1924年三K党进军圣母大学时反抗他们的学生。虽然如此,该书封面上的三K党集会照片至少冒犯了该学生的一名同事(后者也是学生,同时还是一名楼管)。该大学的反歧视办公室认为这种行为足以构成种族骚扰。 These examples may seem extreme, but the reasoning behind them has become more commonplace on campus in recent years. Last year, at the University of St. Thomas, in Minnesota, an event called Hump Day, which would have allowed people to pet a camel, was abruptly canceled. Students had created a Facebook group where they protested the event for animal cruelty, for being a waste of money, and for being insensitive to people from the Middle East. The inspiration for the camel had almost certainly come from a popular TV commercial in which a camel saunters around an office on a Wednesday, celebrating “hump day”; it was devoid of any reference to Middle Eastern peoples. Nevertheless, the group organizing the event announced on its Facebook page that the event would be canceled because the “program [was] dividing people and would make for an uncomfortable and possibly unsafe environment.” 这些例子也许看起来比较极端,但它们背后的逻辑在大学中近年来越来越常见。去年在明尼苏达州的圣托马斯大学,一个叫驼峰日的活动——意在让人们有机会抚摸一下骆驼——被紧急取消。学生们创建了一个Facebook群组抗议这个活动,理由是虐待动物,浪费金钱,并且不顾及中东学生的感受。该活动的灵感几乎可以肯定是来自一个很受欢迎的电视广告:在某个周三,一只骆驼绕着办公室悠闲散步,庆祝“驼峰日”;它完全和中东人没有关系。尽管如此,活动组织者还是在他们的Facebook主页宣布取消活动,因为“这个活动会造成隔阂,并且可能造成使人不适甚至不安全的环境”。 Because there is a broad ban in academic circles on “blaming the victim,” it is generally considered unacceptable to question the reasonableness (let alone the sincerity) of someone’s emotional state, particularly if those emotions are linked to one’s group identity. The thin argument “I’m offended” becomes an unbeatable trump card. This leads to what Jonathan Rauch, a contributing editor at this magazine, calls the “offendedness sweepstakes,” in which opposing parties use claims of offense as cudgels. In the process, the bar for what we consider unacceptable speech is lowered further and further. 正因为学术圈广泛禁止“批评受害者”,所以质疑一个人的情感状态是否合理基本上不可接受(讨论是否真实就更不用说了),尤其是当情感与群体归属有关的时候。一句单薄的“我被冒犯了”,已成了无往不胜的杀手锏。这就导致了本杂志特约编辑Jonathan Rauch所称的“受辱竞赛”现象:双方都以声称遭到冒犯为武器。在这个过程中,界定“不可接受言论”的门槛越来越低。 Since 2013, new pressure from the federal government has reinforced this trend. Federal antidiscrimination statutes regulate on-campus harassment and unequal treatment based on sex, race, religion, and national origin. Until recently, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights acknowledged that speech must be “objectively offensive” before it could be deemed actionable as sexual harassment—it would have to pass the “reasonable person” test. To be prohibited, the office wrote in 2003, allegedly harassing speech would have to go “beyond the mere expression of views, words, symbols or thoughts that some person finds offensive.” 从2013年起,来自联邦政府的压力更为这种趋势推波助澜。联邦反歧视法对校园中基于性别、种族、宗教和民族的冒犯和不平等对待进行规制。直到不久前,教育部民权署仍规定只有“客观上具有冒犯性”的言论才能被认定为可提起诉讼的性骚扰——它必须通过“公允人”测试【译注:是一种程序机制,用于判别一个明事理的、情感和价值取向适度的、且处于中立地位的社会典型成员,在有关情境中将会持何种看法,最常见的公允人测试是陪审团裁决】。2003年,民权署写道,被指为骚扰的言论必须“不仅仅只是令某些人感到冒犯的观点、言语、符号或思想的表达”,才需要禁止。 But in 2013, the Departments of Justice and Education greatly broadened the definition of sexual harassment to include verbal conduct that is simply “unwelcome.” Out of fear of federal investigations, universities are now applying that standard—defining unwelcome speech as harassment—not just to sex, but to race, religion, and veteran status as well. Everyone is supposed to rely upon his or her own subjective feelings to decide whether a comment by a professor or a fellow student is unwelcome, and therefore grounds for a harassment claim. Emotional reasoning is now accepted as evidence. 但是在2013年,司法部和教育部把性骚扰的范围大大扩展,将仅仅“令人反感”的言语也包括了进去。由于害怕联邦政府的调查,现在各大学正将这种标准——把令人反感的言论定性为骚扰——从性领域扩展应用到种族、宗教,以及兵役状况方面。所有人都应该以自己的主观感受为依据来判定教授或同学的评论是否令人反感,并以此作为控告骚扰的依据。情绪化推理现已被当做证据来看待了。 If our universities are teaching students that their emotions can be used effectively as weapons—or at least as evidence in administrative proceedings—then they are teaching students to nurture a kind of hypersensitivity that will lead them into countless drawn-out conflicts in college and beyond. Schools may be training students in thinking styles that will damage their careers and friendships, along with their mental health. 如果我们的大学在教导学生,他们的感情可以作为有力的武器——至少可以作为证据用于行政诉讼之中——那么,大学就是在培养学生的过度敏感,这会导致学生们陷入无休无止的冲突之中,无论是在校期间还是毕业之后。学校教授学生的思维方式,可能会毁掉他们的职业生涯、友谊,以及精神健康。 Fortune-Telling and Trigger Warnings 悲观预测”与“刺激警告” Burns defines fortune-telling as “anticipat[ing] that things will turn out badly” and feeling “convinced that your prediction is an already-established fact.” Leahy, Holland, and McGinn define it as “predict[ing] the future negatively” or seeing potential danger in an everyday situation. The recent spread of demands for trigger warnings on reading assignments with provocative content is an example of fortune-telling. Burns把“悲观预测”定义为“预料事情会变糟”而且“确信自己的预测已是既成事实”。Leahy、Holland和McGinn将其定义为“对未来做出负面预测”或者从日常事件中看到潜在风险。近期,对具有刺激性内容的阅读材料发出“刺激警告”的要求正在增加,这正是“悲观预测”的实例。 The idea that words (or smells or any sensory input) can trigger searing memories of past trauma—and intense fear that it may be repeated—has been around at least since World War I, when psychiatrists began treating soldiers for what is now called post-traumatic stress disorder. 文字(或是气味或者任何一种感官输入)会使人回忆起往昔的伤痛,还会引起对这种伤痛再次出现的强烈恐惧,这种观点最早至少可追溯到第一次世界大战时期。当时,精神科医生们开始为士兵们治疗我们现在称之为“创伤后应激障碍”的疾病。 But explicit trigger warnings are believed to have originated much more recently, on message boards in the early days of the Internet. Trigger warnings became particularly prevalent in self-help and feminist forums, where they allowed readers who had suffered from traumatic events like sexual assault to avoid graphic content that might trigger flashbacks or panic attacks. 但人们相信,明确的刺激警告是近期才出现的,最早是在早期互联网的留言板上。刺激警告在自救论坛和女权论坛上广泛流行,这些论坛允许遭受过创伤(比如性侵犯)的读者避开可能引起创伤再现或恐慌发作的图片内容。 Search-engine trends indicate that the phrase broke into mainstream use online around 2011, spiked in 2014, and reached an all-time high in 2015. The use of trigger warnings on campus appears to have followed a similar trajectory; seemingly overnight, students at universities across the country have begun demanding that their professors issue warnings before covering material that might evoke a negative emotional response. 搜索引擎的热词统计显示,在网络上这一术语于2011年进入主流用语,2014年使用量激增,2015年的搜索量达到历史最高。“刺激警告”一词在校园里的使用情况也遵循着同一发展轨迹,仿佛一夜之间,全国的大学生们都开始要求教授在讲授可能引起负面情绪反应的内容前发出警告。 In 2013, a task force composed of administrators, students, recent alumni, and one faculty member at Oberlin College, in Ohio, released an online resource guide for faculty (subsequently retracted in the face of faculty pushback) that included a list of topics warranting trigger warnings. These topics included classism and privilege, among many others. The task force recommended that materials that might trigger negative reactions among students be avoided altogether unless they “contribute directly” to course goals, and suggested that works that were “too important to avoid” be made optional. 2013年,俄亥俄州奥柏林学院一个由行政人员、学生、近期毕业的校友和一名教员组成的特别工作组在网上发表了一份在线资料指南(之后因教职员工反对而撤回),罗列了应当提出“刺激警告”的题材,包括阶级歧视论和特权论,及许多其他内容。这个工作组建议全面剔除可能引起学生负面反应的内容,除非这些内容对课程目标“有直接作用”。工作组还建议将“不可不读”的书目调整成选读内容。 It’s hard to imagine how novels illustrating classism and privilege could provoke or reactivate the kind of terror that is typically implicated in PTSD. Rather, trigger warnings are sometimes demanded for a long list of ideas and attitudes that some students find politically offensive, in the name of preventing other students from being harmed. This is an example of what psychologists call “motivated reasoning”—we spontaneously generate arguments for conclusions we want to support. 那些“创伤后应激障碍”通常所牵涉的恐慌,很难想象会被描绘阶级歧视论和特权论的小说唤起或重新激发出来。确切地说,只有在某些学生眼中有政治冒犯色彩的一系列观念和言论才需要刺激警告,名为避免其他同学受伤害。这就是心理学家所称的“动机性推理”的实例:我们不由自主地为我们想要支持的结论制造论据。 Once you find something hateful, it is easy to argue that exposure to the hateful thing could traumatize some other people. You believe that you know how others will react, and that their reaction could be devastating. Preventing that devastation becomes a moral obligation for the whole community. Books for which students have called publicly for trigger warnings within the past couple of years include Virginia Woolf’s Mrs. Dalloway (at Rutgers, for “suicidal inclinations”) and Ovid’s Metamorphoses (at Columbia, for sexual assault). 如果觉得某些东西令你憎恨,就很容易认为其他人与它们接触会受到创伤。你认为你知道别人会作何反应:他们可能会崩溃。避免这种情感崩溃成了整个社会的道德责任。最近几年,学生们公开要求提供刺激警告的著作包括弗吉尼亚·伍尔夫的《达洛维夫人》(在罗格斯大学,因“自杀倾向”)和奥维德的《变形记》(在哥伦比亚大学,因“性侵犯”)。 Jeannie Suk’s New Yorker essay described the difficulties of teaching rape law in the age of trigger warnings. Some students, she wrote, have pressured their professors to avoid teaching the subject in order to protect themselves and their classmates from potential distress. Suk compares this to trying to teach “a medical student who is training to be a surgeon but who fears that he’ll become distressed if he sees or handles blood.” Jeannie Suk在《纽约客》发表的文章讲述了在刺激警告盛行的时代讲授强奸法有多么困难。她写道,有些学生向教授施压,不许教授讲授这一课程,以免自己和同学们可能会承受精神痛苦。Suk将这种境况比作试图教“将要成为外科医生但害怕自己晕血的医学生”。 However, there is a deeper problem with trigger warnings. According to the most-basic tenets of psychology, the very idea of helping people with anxiety disorders avoid the things they fear is misguided. A person who is trapped in an elevator during a power outage may panic and think she is going to die. That frightening experience can change neural connections in her amygdala, leading to an elevator phobia. If you want this woman to retain her fear for life, you should help her avoid elevators. 然而,刺激警告还会带来更深层的问题,根据最基本的心理学原则,帮助焦虑症患者逃避他们所惧怕的事物是完全错误的。停电时被困在电梯里的人可能会慌了手脚,以为自己快要死了。这种可怕的经历会改变这个人大脑杏仁核中神经元的反应,导致电梯恐惧症。如果你想让这个女人在余生中保持恐惧,你就应该帮助她远离电梯。 But if you want to help her return to normalcy, you should take your cues from Ivan Pavlov and guide her through a process known as exposure therapy. You might start by asking the woman to merely look at an elevator from a distance—standing in a building lobby, perhaps—until her apprehension begins to subside. If nothing bad happens while she’s standing in the lobby—if the fear is not “reinforced”—then she will begin to learn a new association: elevators are not dangerous. (This reduction in fear during exposure is called habituation.) Then, on subsequent days, you might ask her to get closer, and on later days to push the call button, and eventually to step in and go up one floor. This is how the amygdala can get rewired again to associate a previously feared situation with safety or normalcy. 但是,如果你想让她回归正常,你就应该采用巴甫洛夫的方法,为她进行“暴露治疗”。开始时,你可以让这个女人远观电梯——比如站在大堂里——直到她的不安平复下来。如果站在大堂没有大碍,她的恐惧没有“加强”,她就会开始建立一个新的认识:电梯并不危险。(这种在接触过程中的恐惧消退叫做“习惯化”)。接下来几天,你可以要求她靠近电梯,再之后几天按下电梯按钮,最后走进电梯,上一层楼。这样,杏仁核就会将之前害怕的境况重新与安全和正常联系起来。 Students who call for trigger warnings may be correct that some of their peers are harboring memories of trauma that could be reactivated by course readings. But they are wrong to try to prevent such reactivations. Students with PTSD should of course get treatment, but they should not try to avoid normal life, with its many opportunities for habituation. 要求刺激警告的学生在这一点上可能是正确的:他们的某些同学可能还有创伤记忆,这些记忆可能被阅读材料重新唤起。但是他们要避免唤起这些记忆,却是错误的。患有创伤后应激障碍的学生理应得到治疗,但他们不应该试图回避正常生活,这样他们就错失了许多适应的机会。 Classroom discussions are safe places to be exposed to incidental reminders of trauma (such as the word violate). A discussion of violence is unlikely to be followed by actual violence, so it is a good way to help students change the associations that are causing them discomfort. And they’d better get their habituation done in college, because the world beyond college will be far less willing to accommodate requests for trigger warnings and opt-outs. 课堂讨论是偶然接触易于引发创伤回忆的事物(比如词语“强奸”)的安全环境。针对暴力的讨论不大可能伴随真实的暴力,所以这种讨论是帮助学生改变引发不适联想的一剂良方。并且,学生们最好在大学中完成适应过程,因为校园外的世界可不那么愿意满足学生对刺激警告的要求,或者让他们选择半路退出。 The expansive use of trigger warnings may also foster unhealthy mental habits in the vastly larger group of students who do not suffer from PTSD or other anxiety disorders. People acquire their fears not just from their own past experiences, but from social learning as well. If everyone around you acts as though something is dangerous—elevators, certain neighborhoods, novels depicting racism—then you are at risk of acquiring that fear too. 对于更多没有患创伤后应激障碍或其他焦虑症的学生来说,刺激警告的大范围应用也会滋长他们不健康的心理习惯。人们的恐惧,不仅仅来自于自己的经验,也来自于从社会学习。如果你身边的所有人都表现得像是害怕某种东西——电梯、某一片区域、描述种族主义的小说——你也有可能对此产生恐惧。 The psychiatrist Sarah Roff pointed this out last year in an online article for The Chronicle of Higher Education. “One of my biggest concerns about trigger warnings,” Roff wrote, “is that they will apply not just to those who have experienced trauma, but to all students, creating an atmosphere in which they are encouraged to believe that there is something dangerous or damaging about discussing difficult aspects of our history.” 精神医生Sarah Roff在《高等教育纪事报》的一篇在线文章中指出了这一点。Roff写道:“我对刺激警告最大的担忧在于,它不仅会影响受过创伤的学生,它还会影响所有学生。它创造了一种氛围,令学生相信讨论历史的阴暗面很危险,会造成伤害。”
The new climate is slowly being institutionalized, and is affecting what can be said in the classroom, even as a basis for discussion or debate. 这种新的风气正在渐渐制度化,而且正在影响课堂上可以讨论的内容,甚至成为讨论的基础
In an article published last year by Inside Higher Ed, seven humanities professors wrote that the trigger-warning movement was “already having a chilling effect on [their] teaching and pedagogy.” They reported their colleagues’ receiving “phone calls from deans and other administrators investigating student complaints that they have included ‘triggering’ material in their courses, with or without warnings.” 去年,在《高等教育内部观察》的一篇文章中,七位人文学科教授写道,刺激警告运动“已经严重影响(他们的)教学。”他们说,他们的同事“接到院长和其他行政人员的电话,调查学生对他们的投诉:他们在有警告或无警告的情况下,在课程中包含了‘刺激性’内容。” A trigger warning, they wrote, “serves as a guarantee that students will not experience unexpected discomfort and implies that if they do, a contract has been broken.” When students come to expect trigger warnings for any material that makes them uncomfortable, the easiest way for faculty to stay out of trouble is to avoid material that might upset the most sensitive student in the class. 他们写道,一个刺激警告“保证学生不会遭受意外的不适,并且暗示如果这种情况出现了,教师们就违反了契约。”如果学生们要求在所有引起不适的材料前提供刺激警告,教师们避免麻烦的最佳方式,就是剔除有可能会冒犯班级中最敏感学生的材料。 Magnification, Labeling, and Microaggressions 夸大、贴标签和微冒犯 Burns defines magnification as “exaggerat[ing] the importance of things,” and Leahy, Holland, and McGinn define labeling as “assign[ing] global negative traits to yourself and others.” The recent collegiate trend of uncovering allegedly racist, sexist, classist, or otherwise discriminatory microaggressions doesn’tincidentally teach students to focus on small or accidental slights. Its purpose is to get students to focus on them and then relabel the people who have made such remarks as aggressors. Burns把“夸大”定义为“夸张描述事物的重要性”,Leahy、 Holland和McGinn把“贴标签”定义为“把自己或其他人归类于某些负面特征。”近期,大学中有越来越多的个案揭发所谓种族主义、性别歧视、阶级歧视,或者其他歧视性的微冒犯。这种趋势并不是就着事件引导学生们去关注细微或无意识的怠慢。它的目的就是让学生们关注这些东西,然后给说这些话的人贴上侵犯者的标签。 The term microaggression originated in the 1970s and referred to subtle, often unconscious racist affronts. The definition has expanded in recent years to include anything that can be perceived as discriminatory on virtually any basis. For example, in 2013, a student group at UCLA staged a sit-in during a class taught by Val Rust, an education professor. The group read a letter aloud expressing their concerns about the campus’s hostility toward students of color. Although Rust was not explicitly named, the group quite clearly criticized his teaching as microaggressive. In the course of correcting his students’ grammar and spelling, Rust had noted that a student had wrongly capitalized the first letter of the word indigenous. Lowercasing the capital I was an insult to the student and her ideology, the group claimed. “微冒犯”一词产生于1970年代,意指微妙的、通常属于无意识的种族冒犯。近些年,其定义已经扩展到包含几乎任何语境下所有被认为具有歧视性的言论和行为。举个例子,2013年加州大学洛杉矶分校的一个学生团体旁听了教育学教授Val Rust讲授的一节课。这个团体大声宣读了一封信,表示对校园里针对有色人种学生的敌意深感忧虑。尽管没有直接点Rust的名,这个团体显然是在批评他的教学有“微冒犯性”。在纠正学生的语法和拼写的过程中,Rust注意到一个学生错误地把“indigenous”(土著的)的首字母大写了。这个团体宣称,把首字母“i”小写侮辱了这名学生和她的意识形态。 Even joking about microaggressions can be seen as an aggression, warranting punishment. Last fall, Omar Mahmood, a student at the University of Michigan, wrote a satirical column for a conservative student publication, The Michigan Review, poking fun at what he saw as a campus tendency to perceive microaggressions in just about anything. Mahmood was also employed at the campus newspaper, The Michigan DailyThe Daily’s editors said that the way Mahmood had “satirically mocked the experiences of fellow Daily contributors and minority communities on campus … created a conflict of interest.” 就算是拿微冒犯开玩笑也会被视为冒犯,并带来惩罚。去年夏天,密歇根大学的学生Omar Mahmood为一份保守派学生刊物《密歇根评论》写了一篇讽刺性的专栏文章,讽刺他看到的当下大学中把一切都视作微冒犯的趋势。Omar Mahmood也供职于校报《密歇根日报》。《密歇根日报》的编辑说Mahmood“讽刺本杂志撰稿人和校园中少数族裔的经历”的方式“制造了利益冲突”。 The Daily terminated Mahmood after he described the incident to two Web sites, The College Fix and The Daily Caller. A group of women later vandalized Mahmood’s doorway with eggs, hot dogs, gum, and notes with messages such as “Everyone hates you, you violent prick.” When speech comes to be seen as a form of violence, vindictive protectiveness can justify a hostile, and perhaps even violent, response. 在Mahmood向两家网站——The College Fix和The Daily Caller——讲述了这一事件之后,《密歇根日报》解雇了他。后来,一帮女人在Mahmood家门口用鸡蛋、热狗、口香糖和写有诸如“所有的人都恨你,你这个暴徒”之类文字的便条大搞破坏。当言论被视作一种暴力时,报复性保护就为恶意报复,甚至暴力行为赋予了正当性。 In March, the student government at Ithaca College, in upstate New York, went so far as to propose the creation of an anonymous microaggression-reporting system. Student sponsors envisioned some form of disciplinary action against “oppressors” engaged in belittling speech. One of the sponsors of the program said that while “not … every instance will require trial or some kind of harsh punishment,” she wanted the program to be “record-keeping but with impact.” 今年三月,纽约州北部地区的伊萨卡学院,学生会甚至提议建立匿名的微冒犯举报机制。提议的学生设想出一套针对发表歧视性言论的“压迫者”的纪律性惩罚。该项目的一位提议者说,虽然“并不是每一个案例都需要审讯或者某种严酷惩罚”,但是她希望这个项目能“留下记录,产生影响”。 Surely people make subtle or thinly veiled racist or sexist remarks on college campuses, and it is right for students to raise questions and initiate discussions about such cases. But the increased focus on microaggressions coupled with the endorsement of emotional reasoning is a formula for a constant state of outrage, even toward well-meaning speakers trying to engage in genuine discussion. 当然了,人们的确会在大学校园发表委婉的或是稍稍遮掩的种族歧视和性别歧视言论,学生们质疑这种状况并发起讨论也是正确的。但是对微冒犯的关注持续增长加上对情绪化推理的支持,结果就是持续性的愤怒,这种愤怒甚至会针对真心想要讨论问题的善意说话者。 What are we doing to our students if we encourage them to develop extra-thin skin in the years just before they leave the cocoon of adult protection and enter the workforce? Would they not be better prepared to flourish if we taught them to question their own emotional reactions, and to give people the benefit of the doubt? 如果我们鼓励学生在离开成年人的保护茧、踏入工作岗位之前长出一副超级薄弱的外壳,我们究竟是在做什么?如果我们教会他们质疑自己的情绪化反应、不要妄下定论,他们难道不是会表现得更好吗? Teaching Students to Catastrophize and Have Zero Tolerance 教导学生小题大做、零容忍。 Burns defines catastrophizing as a kind of magnification that turns “commonplace negative events into nightmarish monsters.” Leahy, Holland, and McGinn define it as believing “that what has happened or will happen” is “so awful and unbearable that you won’t be able to stand it.” Requests for trigger warnings involve catastrophizing, but this way of thinking colors other areas of campus thought as well. Burns把“小题大做”定义为“把寻常的负面事物当做梦魇般的妖魔鬼怪”的夸大行为。Leahy、Holland和McGinn把它定义为相信“已发生或将发生之事糟糕得让人难以忍受,乃至你经受不住”。对刺激警告的需求中包含着小题大做的成分,但是这种思考方式也干扰了大学中的其他思想。 Catastrophizing rhetoric about physical danger is employed by campus administrators more commonly than you might think—sometimes, it seems, with cynical ends in mind. For instance, last year administrators at Bergen Community College, in New Jersey, suspended Francis Schmidt, a professor, after he posted a picture of his daughter on his Google+ account. The photo showed her in a yoga pose, wearing a T-shirt that read I will take what is mine with fire & blood, a quote from the HBO show Game of Thrones. 在大学管理者中,描述人身伤害时“小题大做”的情况要比你想象得普遍——有时候看起来像是抱着愤世嫉俗的目的一样。举个例子,新泽西州卑尔根社区学院的教授Francis Schmidt去年在他的Google+账号上发布了一张他女儿的照片之后,被该学院的管理者停职了。照片中,他女儿正做着瑜伽动作,T恤衫上写着“我要用血与火来赢回属于我的一切”,这句话引自HBO的电视剧《权利的游戏》。 Schmidt had filed a grievance against the school about two months earlier after being passed over for a sabbatical. The quote was interpreted as a threat by a campus administrator, who received a notification after Schmidt posted the picture; it had been sent, automatically, to a whole group of contacts. According to Schmidt, a Bergen security official present at a subsequent meeting between administrators and Schmidt thought the word fire could refer to AK-47s. 两个月之前,因为停教休假的请求被拒绝,Schmidt曾向学校表达过不满。在Schmid发布那张照片之后,照片被自动发送给了一组联系人。一位大学管理者得到了推送消息,然后把那张照片解读成了威胁信息。据Schmidt所说,在随后管理者与Schmidt会面时,一位出席的安全官员认为“火”也可能是暗指AK-47。 Then there is the eight-year legal saga at Valdosta State University, in Georgia, where a student was expelled for protesting the construction of a parking garage by posting an allegedly “threatening” collage on Facebook. The collage described the proposed structure as a “memorial” parking garage—a joke referring to a claim by the university president that the garage would be part of his legacy. The president interpreted the collage as a threat against his life. 然后还有佐治亚州瓦尔多斯塔州立大学长达八年的传奇官司。该大学开除了一名学生,因为他为了抗议一个室内停车场的修建,在Facebbok上发表了一幅据称有“威胁性”的拼贴画。那幅画把这个规划中的设施称为“纪念性”停车场。这是个玩笑,影射的是大学校长曾经说过的:这座停车场将会成为他为学校留下的遗产。这位校长将该拼贴画理解为死亡恐吓。 It should be no surprise that students are exhibiting similar sensitivity. At the University of Central Florida in 2013, for example, Hyung-il Jung, an accounting instructor, was suspended after a student reported that Jung had made a threatening comment during a review session. Jung explained to the Orlando Sentinel that the material he was reviewing was difficult, and he’d noticed the pained look on students’ faces, so he made a joke. “It looks like you guys are being slowly suffocated by these questions,” he recalled saying. “Am I on a killing spree or what?” 学生们表现出类似的敏感也就不足为奇了。举个例子,中佛罗里达大学的会计学讲师Hyung-il Jung在2013年被学校停职,因为学生举报他在一节复习课中表达了威胁性言论。Jung向《奥兰多哨兵报》解释说,他在辅导的材料很难,他还注意到了学生们脸上痛苦的表情,所以他开了一个玩笑。他回忆他当时曾说:“你们好像快要被这些问题憋死在这里了呢”,“我这不是在玩杀人游戏吗?” After the student reported Jung’s comment, a group of nearly 20 others e-mailed the UCF administration explaining that the comment had clearly been made in jest. Nevertheless, UCF suspended Jung from all university duties and demanded that he obtain written certification from a mental-health professional that he was “not a threat to [himself] or to the university community” before he would be allowed to return to campus. 在学生举报了Jung的言论之后,有差不多二十个人给中佛罗里达大学的管理部门发电子邮件,解释说那些明显只是玩笑话。尽管如此,中佛罗里达大学还是暂停了Jung的一切学校职务,并且要求他要在获得了来自精神健康专家的书面认可,证明他“对自己和学校成员都不构成威胁”之后,才能回学校上班。 All of these actions teach a common lesson: smart people do, in fact, overreact to innocuous speech, make mountains out of molehills, and seek punishment for anyone whose words make anyone else feel uncomfortable. 这些事情给了我们同一个教训:聪明人真的会对无伤大雅的言辞反应过度,小题大做,然后要求惩罚所有说过让任何一个人不舒服的话的人。 Mental Filtering and Disinvitation Season “思维过滤”和“撤邀时节” As Burns defines it, mental filtering is “pick[ing] out a negative detail in any situation and dwell[ing] on it exclusively, thus perceiving that the whole situation is negative.” Leahy, Holland, and McGinn refer to this as “negative filtering,” which they define as “focus[ing] almost exclusively on the negatives and seldom notic[ing] the positives.” When applied to campus life, mental filtering allows for simpleminded demonization. 按照Burns的定义,“思维过滤”是“从事件中筛选出负面细节,然后只抓住负面细节不放,因而认为整件事都是负面的。”Leahy、Holland和McGinn把它命名为“负面信息过滤”,他们把它定义为“只关注负面,很少留意正面。”把这一概念应用到大学校园,思维过滤使得不加考虑地妖魔化他人成为可能。 Students and faculty members in large numbers modeled this cognitive distortion during 2014’s “disinvitation season.” That’s the time of year—usually early spring—when commencement speakers are announced and when students and professors demand that some of those speakers be disinvited because of things they have said or done. According to data compiled by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, since 2000, at least 240 campaigns have been launched at U.S. universities to prevent public figures from appearing at campus events; most of them have occurred since 2009. 2014年的“撤邀时节”中,大量学生和教职员示范了这种认知扭曲。那是每年宣布毕业典礼演讲人的时间——通常是早春,由于某些演讲者做过的事和说过的话,学生们和教授们要求撤回对他们的邀请。根据个人教育权利基金会整理的数据,自2000年起,美国大学中至少发起了240场抵制公众人物出席大学活动的运动,其中大部分都发生在2009年以后。 Consider two of the most prominent disinvitation targets of 2014: former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the International Monetary Fund’s managing director, Christine Lagarde. Rice was the first black female secretary of state; Lagarde was the first woman to become finance minister of a G8 country and the first female head of the IMF. Both speakers could have been seen as highly successful role models for female students, and Rice for minority students as well. But the critics, in effect, discounted any possibility of something positive coming from those speeches. 让我们仔细想想2014年被要求撤回邀请的最知名的两个人:前国务卿康多莉扎·赖斯和国际货币基金组织(IMF)总裁克里斯蒂娜·拉加德。赖斯是首位黑人女国务卿;拉加德是G8国家首位女财长,也是IMF首位女掌门人。这两个人都应该被视作女性学生的杰出榜样才是,赖斯还是少数族裔的榜样。但是,批评者们实际上认为这两人的演讲不可能有什么积极意义。 Members of an academic community should of course be free to raise questions about Rice’s role in the Iraq War or to look skeptically at the IMF’s policies. But should dislike of part of a person’s record disqualify her altogether from sharing her perspectives? 学者们自然可以自由地质疑赖斯在伊拉克战争中的角色,或者用怀疑的眼光审视IMF的政策,但是一个人的某一部分经历令人生厌就意味着这个人没有资格分享她的见解吗? If campus culture conveys the idea that visitors must be pure, with résumés that never offend generally left-leaning campus sensibilities, then higher education will have taken a further step toward intellectual homogeneity and the creation of an environment in which students rarely encounter diverse viewpoints. And universities will have reinforced the belief that it’s okay to filter out the positive. If students graduate believing that they can learn nothing from people they dislike or from those with whom they disagree, we will have done them a great intellectual disservice. 如果大学文化传递的信息是“来访者必须纯洁无暇,其简历完全不曾伤害总体左倾的校园感情”,那么,高等教育就向智力同质化又迈进一步,并且为学生创造了一个遇不到多元化观点的环境。大学也将对“过滤掉积极方面是可以的”这一信念加以巩固。如果学生们毕业的时候相信他们从自己讨厌或反对的人那里学不到任何东西,我们就对他们的智力造成了很大伤害。 What Can We Do Now? 我们现在能做些什么? Attempts to shield students from words, ideas, and people that might cause them emotional discomfort are bad for the students. They are bad for the workplace, which will be mired in unending litigation if student expectations of safety are carried forward. And they are bad for American democracy, which is already paralyzed by worsening partisanship. When the ideas, values, and speech of the other side are seen not just as wrong but as willfully aggressive toward innocent victims, it is hard to imagine the kind of mutual respect, negotiation, and compromise that are needed to make politics a positive-sum game. 这种试图把学生和可能令他们感情上不舒服的言语、思想和人物隔离开来的做法,贻害无穷。这种努力对职场无益,如果学生还对安全抱着同样的期望,他们在工作场所会陷入没完没了的官司。这对美国的民主也是有害的,这种民主本来就已经被日益恶化的党派纷争破坏得千疮百孔了。当对手的思想、价值观和言论不仅仅被看做是错误观点,而且被看做是对无辜受害人的蓄意伤害,很难想象我们还能找到令政治成为正和博弈的那种相互尊重、友好协商和相互妥协。 Rather than trying to protect students from words and ideas that they will inevitably encounter, colleges should do all they can to equip students to thrive in a world full of words and ideas that they cannot control. One of the great truths taught by Buddhism (and Stoicism, Hinduism, and many other traditions) is that you can never achieve happiness by making the world conform to your desires. But you can master your desires and habits of thought. This, of course, is the goal of cognitive behavioral therapy. With this in mind, here are some steps that might help reverse the tide of bad thinking on campus. 与其帮助学生避免接触他们必然遇到的言词和观点,大学更应该尽力武装学生,让他们在这个言论不受他们控制的世界里茁壮成长。佛教(以及斯多葛学派、印度教和许多其他传统思想)教给我们的真理之一就是,通过让世界顺应你的要求来获得快乐是永远不可能的。但是你可以掌控自己的思维习惯和欲望。当然了,这就是认知行为疗法的目标。意识到这一点以后,以下是一些可能帮助大学逆转不良思维的步骤。 The biggest single step in the right direction does not involve faculty or university administrators, but rather the federal government, which should release universities from their fear of unreasonable investigation and sanctions by the Department of Education. Congress should define peer-on-peer harassment according to the Supreme Court’s definition in the 1999 case Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education. The Davis standard holds that a single comment or thoughtless remark by a student does not equal harassment; harassment requires a pattern of objectively offensive behavior by one student that interferes with another student’s access to education. Establishing the Davis standard would help eliminate universities’ impulse to police their students’ speech so carefully. 迈向正路最重要的一步,需要的不是教职员或者学校管理者,而是联邦政府。政府应该让大学免受教育部不合理的调查和处罚。国会应该按照1999年最高法院在Davis诉门罗郡教育委员会一案中的定义来确定“朋辈间骚扰”的定义。“Davis标准”认定学生所作的一句个别评论或者一句无心话语并不构成骚扰;只有干扰他人正常受教育而且蓄意冒犯别人的惯常行为方式才能构成骚扰。贯彻“Davis标准”,可以避免激发大学严厉管制学生言论。 Universities themselves should try to raise consciousness about the need to balance freedom of speech with the need to make all students feel welcome. Talking openly about such conflicting but important values is just the sort of challenging exercise that any diverse but tolerant community must learn to do. Restrictive speech codes should be abandoned. 大学本身应该深化认识,提醒大家在保证言论自由和保证每个学生都舒服之间需要取得平衡。公开谈论这种具有冲突性却又至关重要的价值,是每个多元而宽容的社会必须学会的挑战。限制性的言论准则应该被废除。 Universities should also officially and strongly discourage trigger warnings. They should endorse the American Association of University Professors’ report on these warnings, which notes, “The presumption that students need to be protected rather than challenged in a classroom is at once infantilizing and anti-intellectual.” 大学也必须从官方立场正式且严厉的阻止刺激警告的蔓延。大学应该赞同美国大学教授联合会关于刺激警告的报告,这份报告写道,“认为学生在课堂中应该受到保护,而不是面对挑战的想法,是把学生当小孩的行为,同时也是反智的”。 Professors should be free to use trigger warnings if they choose to do so, but by explicitly discouraging the practice, universities would help fortify the faculty against student requests for such warnings. 如果出于自愿,教授们应该有使用刺激警告的自由,但是,通过明确地反对刺激警告,大学也能帮助教授拒绝学生的此类要求。 Finally, universities should rethink the skills and values they most want to impart to their incoming students. At present, many freshman-orientation programs try to raise student sensitivity to a nearly impossible level. Teaching students to avoid giving unintentional offense is a worthy goal, especially when the students come from many different cultural backgrounds. 最后,大学应该重新思考他们最想教给学生什么样的技能和价值观。目前,许多面向新生的活动试图把学生的敏感性提升到一个不合理的高度。教导学生避免不小心冒犯别人很有意义,尤其是当学生来自各种不同文化背景的时候。 But students should also be taught how to live in a world full of potential offenses. Why not teach incoming students how to practice cognitive behavioral therapy? Given high and rising rates of mental illness, this simple step would be among the most humane and supportive things a university could do. The cost and time commitment could be kept low: a few group training sessions could be supplemented by Web sites or apps. But the outcome could pay dividends in many ways. 但是学生也应该得到教导,懂得如何生活在一个到处都有潜在冒犯的世界里。为什么不教导学生如何实施认知行为疗法呢?鉴于精神疾病的比率居高不下且仍在上升,把认知行为疗法教给学生就是大学能做的最人道、最有意义的事情了。时间和成本付出都可以很低:只需要几次集体培训课,剩下的就可以靠网站和手机应用来辅助完成,但是学生得到的回报是多方面的。 For example, a shared vocabulary about reasoning, common distortions, and the appropriate use of evidence to draw conclusions would facilitate critical thinking and real debate. It would also tone down the perpetual state of outrage that seems to engulf some colleges these days, allowing students’ minds to open more widely to new ideas and new people. A greater commitment to formal, public debate on campus—and to the assembly of a more politically diverse faculty—would further serve that goal. 例如,建立一套共用的术语,用来描述推理、常见认知扭曲和适当使用证据以引出结论的方法,将会促进批判思维和真正的辩论。这也能缓和近来似乎在大学不断蔓延的愤怒情绪,让学生更容易接受新思想和新人物。在校园内更多地致力于正式、公开的讨论,致力于汇集政见更为多元的教师,会进一步推动这一目标的实现。 Thomas Jefferson, upon founding the University of Virginia, said: 托马斯·杰斐逊在创办弗吉尼亚大学时说:
This institution will be based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind. For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it. 这一机构的根基在于不受限制的思想自由。因为在这里,我们跟随真理,不惧它把我们带到哪里;也无须忍受任何错误,只要允许理智与之自由对抗。
We believe that this is still—and will always be—the best attitude for American universities. Faculty, administrators, students, and the federal government all have a role to play in restoring universities to their historic mission. 我们相信这依旧是——并将一直是——对待美国大学的最佳态度。教师、行政人员,学生,以及联邦政府都有责任让大学回到完成其历史使命的轨道上。 Common Cognitive Distortions 常见的认知扭曲 A partial list from Robert L. Leahy, Stephen J. F. Holland, and Lata K. McGinn’sTreatment Plans and Interventions for Depression and Anxiety Disorders (2012) 这是来自Robert L. Leahy, Stephen J. F. Holland和Lata K. McGinn的《抑郁症和焦虑症的治疗计划及干预措施》(2012年)的一份部分清单。 1.Mind reading.You assume that you know what people think without having sufficient evidence of their thoughts. “He thinks I’m a loser.” 1.读心术。不需要足够的证据,你就认定自己知道别人想的是什么。“他认为我逊毙了。” 2.Fortune-telling.You predict the future negatively: things will get worse, or there is danger ahead. “I’ll fail that exam,” or “I won’t get the job.” 2.悲观预测。你对未来的预测是消极的:事情会越来越糟糕,或者前方危机四伏。“我考试要不及格了”,或者“我得不到这份工作”。 3.Catastrophizing.You believe that what has happened or will happen will be so awful and unbearable that you won’t be able to stand it. “It would be terrible if I failed.” 3.小题大做。你相信将发生或已发生的事情会糟糕得让人难以忍受。“如果我失败了就太糟糕了。” 4.Labeling.You assign global negative traits to yourself and others. “I’m undesirable,” or “He’s a rotten person.” 4.贴标签。你把自己或其他人归类于某些负面特征。“我不受欢迎”或者“他是个堕落的人。” 5.Discounting positives.You claim that the positive things you or others do are trivial. “That’s what wives are supposed to do—so it doesn’t count when she’s nice to me,” or “Those successes were easy, so they don’t matter.” 5.低估正面信息。你声称自己或者其他人做的有意义的事微不足道。“老婆就应该那个样子——所以她对我好不值一提。”或者“这些成功很容易取得,所以算不上什么成就。” 6.Negative filtering.You focus almost exclusively on the negatives and seldom notice the positives. “Look at all of the people who don’t like me.” 6.负面过滤。你几乎只关注负面信息,很少留意正面信息。“看看那些不喜欢我的人吧。” 7.Overgeneralizing.You perceive a global pattern of negatives on the basis of a single incident. “This generally happens to me. I seem to fail at a lot of things.” 7.以偏概全。你通过一件事就认定整体性的负面模式。“这种事总是发生在我身上。好像我有好多事都干不成。” 8.Dichotomous thinking.You view events or people in all-or-nothing terms. “I get rejected by everyone,” or “It was a complete waste of time.” 8.二元思维。你以非此即彼的方式审视人和事。“我被所有人拒绝”或“这完全是浪费时间”。 9.Blaming.You focus on the other person as the source of your negative feelings, and you refuse to take responsibility for changing yourself. “She’s to blame for the way I feel now,” or “My parents caused all my problems.” 9.迁怒于人。你把其他人当作自己负面情绪的来源,不愿意承担改变自己的责任。“我现在感觉这么糟全都是她的错”或“我所有的问题都是我父母造成的”。 10.What if?You keep asking a series of questions about “what if” something happens, and you fail to be satisfied with any of the answers. “Yeah, but what if I get anxious?,” or “What if I can’t catch my breath?” 10.杞人忧天。你一直问“如果某事发生了怎么办?”,并且对所有答案都不满意。“对,但是如果我变得焦虑怎么办?”或者“如果我喘不过气怎么办?” 11.Emotional reasoning.You let your feelings guide your interpretation of reality. “I feel depressed; therefore, my marriage is not working out.” 11.情绪化推理。你让情感引导你去解读现实。“我很沮丧,所以我的婚姻要完蛋了。” 12.Inability to disconfirm.You reject any evidence or arguments that might contradict your negative thoughts. For example, when you have the thought I’m unlovable,you reject as irrelevant any evidence that people like you. Consequently, your thought cannot be refuted. “That’s not the real issue. There are deeper problems. There are other factors.” 12.无法证伪。你拒绝任何和你的消极想法相抵触的证据或观点。举个例子,你认为“没人喜欢我”,你认为证明别人喜欢你的所有证据都毫不相干。所以,你的思想无法被驳斥。“事情不是这样的。肯定有更深层次的问题,还有其他因素。” (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。

——海德沙龙·翻译组,致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

保守派是什么

【2015-10-18】

@研二公知苗 保守主义定义本来就很难嘛,有人将其定义为一种特定的意识形态,出现于法国大革命之后,以柏克为始祖,这基本就是你姨采纳的说法。但是根据另一种的“情境化定义”,认为保守主义就是一种在相似情境下反复出现的普遍性的思潮。

@whigzhou: 其实我更喜欢心理学家的定义,保守性是一组伦理/政治方面的心理特质,这组特质的聚合度很高,拥有这组特质的人很大可能成为保守派,但具有保守特质的人,在不同的社会/思想经历下,生成了不同的政治/伦理主张,进而,这些人在特定的社会/历史情境中,聚合为特定(more...)

标签: | |
6922
【2015-10-18】 @研二公知苗 保守主义定义本来就很难嘛,有人将其定义为一种特定的意识形态,出现于法国大革命之后,以柏克为始祖,这基本就是你姨采纳的说法。但是根据另一种的“情境化定义”,认为保守主义就是一种在相似情境下反复出现的普遍性的思潮。 @whigzhou: 其实我更喜欢心理学家的定义,保守性是一组伦理/政治方面的心理特质,这组特质的聚合度很高,拥有这组特质的人很大可能成为保守派,但具有保守特质的人,在不同的社会/思想经历下,生成了不同的政治/伦理主张,进而,这些人在特定的社会/历史情境中,聚合为特定的保守主义,相互间完全可能对立。 @whigzhou: 沿这条脉络可以把问题看得更清楚,甚至可以预测一个人在特定认知环境下会形成何种政治倾向,以及,基于人口统计学数据而推测,特定社会条件下,会出现何种政治潮流 @熊也餐厅:是不是要保守的内容和价值观不一样,才形成不同的立场? @whigzhou: 对,保守派必定是维护某种既有秩序的,但具体维护的是哪个秩序,每个保守派有可以不同选择 @whigzhou: 所以和保守派对立的,其实是激进派(或叛逆派),从心理机制上看,最根本区别可能是,前者重原则,后则重计算 @whigzhou: 复古派(比如新儒家和塔利班)不是保守派,相反,往往是激进派,因为他们要复的那个古,只是一套理想,根本不是一种现实中存在秩序或传统 @PlusKing2022:那么复封建主义呢 @whigzhou: 都铎朝的封建主义是保守派,腓特烈大帝所面对的封建主义也是保守派,今天的就不是  
[译文]猿猴的把戏,人类也在玩

Games Primates Play-People behave just like the apes they are
灵长类的把戏——人的行为就像猿猴

作者:Matt Ridley @ 2012-4-20
译者:张三(@老子毫无动静的坐着像一段呆木头)
校对:Drunkplane(@暂时只看书不旅行了-zny),小册子(@昵称被抢的小册子)
来源:作者个人网站,http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/games-primates-play-(1).aspx

Generally, junior professors write long and unsolicited emails to senior professors, who reply with short ones after a delay; the juniors then reply quickly and at length. This is not because the seniors are busier, for they, too, write longer and more punctually when addressing their deans an(more...)

标签: |
5930
Games Primates Play-People behave just like the apes they are 灵长类的把戏——人的行为就像猿猴 作者:Matt Ridley @ 2012-4-20 译者:张三(@老子毫无动静的坐着像一段呆木头) 校对:Drunkplane(@暂时只看书不旅行了-zny),小册子(@昵称被抢的小册子) 来源:作者个人网站,http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/games-primates-play-(1).aspx Generally, junior professors write long and unsolicited emails to senior professors, who reply with short ones after a delay; the juniors then reply quickly and at length. This is not because the seniors are busier, for they, too, write longer and more punctually when addressing their deans and funders, who reply more briefly and tardily. The asymmetry in length and speed of reply correlates with dominance. 在学术界,一般来说年轻的教授会主动地给资深教授写长长的邮件,而后者会在拖延一段时间后简短地回复,然后年轻教授很快又详尽地回复。这并不是因为资深教授们更忙,他们自己也常常会在给他们的院长或研究资金提供者写信时把邮件写得较长较详细,然后在经过漫长的等待后得到一封简短的回复。邮件回复长度和速度上的这种不对称性,和双方关系中支配地位的归属有关。 When a subordinate chimpanzee grooms a dominant one, it often does so for a long time and unsolicited. When it then requests to be groomed in turn, it receives only a brief grooming and usually after having to ask a second time. 在动物界,地位较低的黑猩猩常常自愿为占主导地位的黑猩猩仔细梳理毛发,但当他反过来要求对方帮忙梳理毛发时,通常要一再要求才行,而对方往往也只是简单应付一下了事。 This gorgeous little juxtaposition of tales comes from a new book by Dario Maestripieri of the University of Chicago, who is both a professor and a primatologist (and a primate). His book, called "Games Primates Play," is devoted to ramming home a lesson that we all seem very reluctant to learn: that much of our behavior, however steeped in technology, is entirely predictable to primatologists. 这两个相互映照的趣味小故事来自一本叫《灵长类的把戏》(Game Primates Play)的新书,作者Dario Maestripieri教授供职于芝加哥大学,是一名灵长类动物学家(也是一头灵长类动物J)。他的书想让我们彻底认清一个我们似乎都极不情愿去了解的事实:尽管人类在科技上已经有了长足的进步,但我们的很多行为仍完全在一个灵长类动物学家的预料之内。 He observes two university colleagues in a coffee shop and notes how the senior one takes the chair with the back to the wall (the better to spot attacks by rivals or leopards), is less attentive to her colleague's remarks than vice versa, stares down her colleague when a contentious issue comes up and takes the lead on walking out the door at the end-all of it neatly corresponding to the behavior of two baboons when one is dominant. 他在一家咖啡店观察了两位大学同事的举止。他注意到,两人中较资深的一位选择了背靠着墙的椅子(更容易发现对手或者豹子,如果有的话),和对方相比在对话中较不专心,当发生分歧时双眼直盯着对方,最后出门时也走在前面。他们在整个过程中的表现和两只有着支配-从属关系的狒狒毫无二致。 (A new member of a committee on which I served once asked me why a senior colleague was being so horrible to him. I replied: "Oh, it's because when a new male baboon joins a troop, it's traditional for the alpha male to beat him up before becoming his best friend-soon he'll think the world of you." I was right.) (有一次,我所在委员会的一位新成员问我为什么一位资深同事对他那么差。我回答说:“哦,这是因为一只新的公狒狒加入一个群体时,群内雄一号通常会先暴揍它一顿,然后再成为它最好的朋友——那位同事不久就会成为处处为你着想的朋友了。”我果然猜对了。) Dr. Maestripieri's most intriguing chapter is entitled "Cooperate in the Spotlight, Compete in the Dark." He describes how people, like monkeys, can be angels of generosity when all eyes are on them, but devils of spite in private. Famously, the citizens of New York City turned to crime when the lights went out in the blackout of July 13, 1977-not because they were evil but because the cost-benefit calculus was altered by the darkness. Maestripieri博士书中最引人注目的一章名为:“光明促进合作,黑幕导致竞争”。他描述道,人就像猴子一样,在受人瞩目时可以慷慨得像个天使,但私下里却可以恶毒得像个魔鬼。正如广为人知的那样,在1977年7月13日夜晚那次大停电期间,纽约发生了很多恶性犯罪,这并不是因为人性本恶,只是由于黑暗使得犯罪成本降低而已。 Dr. Maestripieri then offers a fascinating analysis of the conundrum of peer review in science. Peer review is asymmetric: The author's name is known, but the reviewers remain anonymous. This is to prevent reciprocal cooperation (or "pal review"): I'll be nice about your paper if you're nice about mine. 然后,Maestripieri博士提供了一个对科学界同行评审机制的有趣分析。同行评审本身是不对称的:论文作者的名字是公开的,而评审者却是匿名的。这种机制是为了防止互惠合作(reciprocal cooperation),或者叫“熟人评审”——如果这次你对我的论文高抬贵手,那下一次我也会投桃报李。 In this it partly works, though academics often drop private hints to each other to show that they have done review favors. But peer review is plagued by the opposite problem-spiteful criticism to prevent competitors from getting funded or published. 这种机制还算发挥了一些作用,尽管学者们常常相互留下隐秘线索,表示自己已经照顾了人情。然而,同行评审中反面的问题却要严重得多:评审者可能用恶意差评来打击同行竞争者,以阻止对方发表论文或得到科研基金资助。 Like criminals in a blackout, anonymous reviewers, in the book's words, "loot the intellectual property of the authors whose work they review" (by delaying publication while pinching the ideas for their own projects) and "damage or destroy the reviewed authors' property" (by denying their competitors grants and publications). 就像停电时的罪犯,用书中的话来说,匿名评审者还会“掠夺了被评审作者的知识产权”(借助评审来拖延原作者论文的发表,然后窃取论文中的研究成果,用于自己的研究项目),而且“毁掉了原作者的劳动成果”(通过否决竞争者的研究资金申请和发表申请)。 Studies show that peer reviewers are motivated by tribal as well as individual rivalry. Says Dr. Maestripieri: "I am a Monkey-Man, and when I submit a grant application for peer review, I am terrified that it might fall into the hands of the Rat-People. They want to exterminate all of us…(because our animals are cooler than theirs)." 研究表明,同行评审者利用评审机制进行恶意竞争,既可能出于个人竞争,也可能出于学术派系斗争。Maestripieri博士说道:当我提交研究资金申请给同行评审时,我总是害怕它可能会落到一些卑鄙小人的手中,他们总想着把我们赶尽杀绝。因为他们是一群鼠辈,而我们好歹和猴子同属灵长类,比他们要高级。 His answer (and it applies to far more fields than science) is total transparency with the help of the Internet. The more light you shine, the less crime primates commit. Once everybody can see who's reviewing whose papers and grant applications, then not only will spite decline, but so will nepotism and reciprocity. Anonymity alters the cost-benefit balance in favor of competition; transparency alters it in favor of cooperation. (至于如何解决这一问题)他的回答是(还可适用于科研以外的更多领域),我们要利用互联网让评审达到完全公开透明。事情越公开,灵长类能犯的罪恶就越少。如果每个人都可以知道每一篇论文、每一项研究资金评审的评审者和作者,不仅恶意评审会减少,任人唯亲,互惠合作的现象也会减少。匿名机制使得成本收益的天平偏向竞争,而公开透明则使得合作成为较好的选择。 (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。

——海德沙龙·翻译组,致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

动物保护与道德情感

【2015-07-24】

@澳洲神奶 找老公就要找爱护小动物的男人,研究表明米国七到八成因家暴进入庇护所的妇女表示其丈夫或男友也曾经虐待或者杀害宠物。虐儿者高达88%同时也是虐畜者。 http://t.cn/RLXRJmG 大多数女性天然讨厌虐畜男,是可以用演化心理学解释的。

@黄章晋ster:我越来越倾向于认为,对猫狗的态度很大程度上是基因决定的,即很可能喜欢宣扬杀猫狗的人,催产苏受体不太敏感,所以在情感表达上,更接近哺乳类和鸟类之外的脊椎动物。大象公会或许会在机会适当时,征集志愿者做这样的实验。

(more...)

标签: | | | |
6306
【2015-07-24】 @澳洲神奶 找老公就要找爱护小动物的男人,研究表明米国七到八成因家暴进入庇护所的妇女表示其丈夫或男友也曾经虐待或者杀害宠物。虐儿者高达88%同时也是虐畜者。 http://t.cn/RLXRJmG 大多数女性天然讨厌虐畜男,是可以用演化心理学解释的。 @黄章晋ster:我越来越倾向于认为,对猫狗的态度很大程度上是基因决定的,即很可能喜欢宣扬杀猫狗的人,催产苏受体不太敏感,所以在情感表达上,更接近哺乳类和鸟类之外的脊椎动物。大象公会或许会在机会适当时,征集志愿者做这样的实验。 @whigzhou: 这可难说~http://t.cn/RLXl9dv 澳大利亚保护濒危物种专员Gregory Andrews说,“环境部长Greg Hunt正在向野猫宣战,他要求我接手这一项目” @澳洲神奶:回复@whigzhou:人对动物工业化屠杀和对“伴侣动物”的情感是完全切割分离的。所以下令血腥大屠杀的捅痣者往往也是爱宠物如命的首席铲屎官。最合理的解释是法国演化心理学家皮埃尔的“宠物内团体理论”——人会把自养的宠物划入与亲朋同等的ingroup里面,从而产生In-group favoritism。 @whigzhou: 所以公共语境下谈论动物而启用后一种情感挺错位的 @whigzhou:博爱主义/福利主义/民族主义者,以及某些伦理论证,就喜欢在第一类语境下唤起人们原本只会在第二类情境中才有的情感,从而完成其论证,这是一种误导性的直觉泵 @澳洲神奶:回复@whigzhou:皮埃尔已经讲得很清楚,博爱主义者、福利主义者和民族主义者,都是ingroup划得超乎常人的一类人。把宠物当作ingroup是大多数养宠物之人的正常心理状态,动保人士则是和上述三种人一样是超大大ingroup人士,不同文化背景的人的平均ingroup大小不同,所以中西动保观差异如此之巨大。 @whigzhou: 嗯有道理 @whigzhou: 不过说起动保观的族群间差异,我倒宁愿从收入和制度上考虑,爱心泛滥是有成本的,富裕者才负担得起,而假如这一成本由他人负担,自己只管爽,那就没边了  
审美偏好的若干可能来源

前几天和学总一起啃猪脚时,问起之前和大诗面基时都聊了些啥,学总说,尽是些漫无边际的闲扯,比如其中一个话题是容貌审美,他自己倾向于平均脸假说,而大诗指出优势文化的影响,学总继而指出,这一影响可能是通过改变个人所观察到的人脸样本集而起作用的,因而与平均脸假说不构成竞争。

后来我仔细想了一下这问题,觉得对容貌的审美偏好可能有更多来源,而且优势文化的影响也可能不限于改变用于计算平均脸的样本集。下面几个因素似乎都可能会让一个族群所表现出的审美倾向偏离平均脸(当然不限于脸,可以是审美偏好所指向的任何容貌指标):

(我猜)

1)非猿化:对于人类区别于猿类近亲的那些指标,理想值会朝远离猿类特征的方向偏离。

比如有关直立化的指标:腿长/身高比,非罗圈腿,挺拔的胸部……;

有关体毛退化的指标:光洁润泽的皮肤;

与烹饪和工具使用所导致的撕咬/咀嚼功能退化有关的指标:牙床缩小导致的吻部内收,吻部内收导致的突出下巴,更细、排列更紧密的牙齿,更小的嘴巴开口度,吻部内收和开口度减小导致的鼻子更窄更前突,更纤细的咀嚼肌,更(more...)

标签: | |
5588
前几天和学总一起啃猪脚时,问起之前和大诗面基时都聊了些啥,学总说,尽是些漫无边际的闲扯,比如其中一个话题是容貌审美,他自己倾向于平均脸假说,而大诗指出优势文化的影响,学总继而指出,这一影响可能是通过改变个人所观察到的人脸样本集而起作用的,因而与平均脸假说不构成竞争。 后来我仔细想了一下这问题,觉得对容貌的审美偏好可能有更多来源,而且优势文化的影响也可能不限于改变用于计算平均脸的样本集。下面几个因素似乎都可能会让一个族群所表现出的审美倾向偏离平均脸(当然不限于脸,可以是审美偏好所指向的任何容貌指标): (我猜) 1)非猿化:对于人类区别于猿类近亲的那些指标,理想值会朝远离猿类特征的方向偏离。 比如有关直立化的指标:腿长/身高比,非罗圈腿,挺拔的胸部……; 有关体毛退化的指标:光洁润泽的皮肤; 与烹饪和工具使用所导致的撕咬/咀嚼功能退化有关的指标:牙床缩小导致的吻部内收,吻部内收导致的突出下巴,更细、排列更紧密的牙齿,更小的嘴巴开口度,吻部内收和开口度减小导致的鼻子更窄更前突,更纤细的咀嚼肌,更薄的嘴唇(是指嘴唇肌肉更薄,不是指嘴唇外翻程度或唇线位置)…… 有关大脑膨胀的指标:更显著的前额,被前额膨胀所淹没的眉脊; 有关表情工具的指标:清澈的瞳孔,鲜明的眼白,线条分明的眉毛,酒窝,大眼睛…… 2)性选择,第一类指标中有些可能被性选择挑中因而得到强化,但性选择也可能挑中其他无关指标,被挑中的指标,理想值将朝性选择的方向偏离。 比如男性身高,下巴突出度,前额宽度和突出度;女性腰臀比、乳房形状及尺寸、提携角、脖子长度、红润嘴唇、更浅的肤色…… 3)优势文化 我相信优势文化的审美影响是存在的,这不是因为(如学总所认为的)优势文化占据了更多传播位置,因而在个体计算平均脸的样本集中占了更高比例,而是因为:计算平均脸的算法,大概会对来自较高地位的样本赋予更高的权重。 因优势文化影响而发生审美偏离,我能想到的最明显例子是头发,对卷发和浅发色的热衷,显然是文化影响的后果,对双眼皮的偏好可能也是,不过这一点我不太确定。 4)富裕线索 透露个体以往富裕生活的指标,大概会得到偏爱。(优势文化的影响其实是它的一个特例) 前面第一类指标中与咀嚼功能有关的那些,在个体之间会有差异,而这些差异可以部分的归因于后天的生活史状况,比如特定年龄的牙齿状况,和粗糙食物有关,咀嚼肌的发达程度或许也和食物粗糙与否有关。 另外,与表情和体态有关的容貌指标,或许也可反映个体生活状态:长期忧愁或闷闷不乐或许会在皱纹上表现出来,长期劳作者很难保持细嫩手指,静脉曲张因其暴露了长期的负重劳累,就被视为是丑陋的,许多农活会导致弯腰驼背,还有,假如你地位很低,常年需要在大人物面前低头哈腰曲膝,体态就会变得比较猥琐…… 不过胖瘦这个指标究竟是被怎么对待的,我还没想清楚,一种说法是,大家都吃不饱时,胖会得到一些偏爱,等大家都吃撑了,瘦就被偏爱了,不过这说法和我的历史经验貌似并未很好的吻合,存疑。 5)健康线索 这方面大卫·巴斯说过一些,诸如对称性、皮肤光泽之类,我暂时还补充不了什么,不过仔细检查应该还能找出一些。 最近忙,以后有空可以考虑为大象公会攒一篇,题目当然是《外貌协会入会考试辅导教材》。  
[微言]私人空间与自我大小

【2014-10-30】

@fall_ark 几乎每当有“各国习俗/游客礼仪”的帖子出现时,都会有芬兰人民善意地提醒大家,“在芬兰,绝对不要随便和任何人搭话”。不知是否是极寒的天气和空旷的国土养育出了这批沉默寡言、内向到腼腆、私人空间大得出奇的人们。觉得挺好玩的,摘录一些芬兰人和非芬兰人们对此的评论,和大家分享分享~ http://weibo.com/1678843974/BtXchy0UQ

@whigzhou: #论自我大小之弹性# http://weibo(more...)

标签: |
5573
【2014-10-30】 @fall_ark 几乎每当有“各国习俗/游客礼仪”的帖子出现时,都会有芬兰人民善意地提醒大家,“在芬兰,绝对不要随便和任何人搭话”。不知是否是极寒的天气和空旷的国土养育出了这批沉默寡言、内向到腼腆、私人空间大得出奇的人们。觉得挺好玩的,摘录一些芬兰人和非芬兰人们对此的评论,和大家分享分享~ http://weibo.com/1678843974/BtXchy0UQ @whigzhou: #论自我大小之弹性# http://weibo.com/1400461002/BnM1s1rtR @whigzhou: Jared Diamond在The World Until Yesterday第四章里讲的那个故事,或许能解释芬兰人的这种文化特性 http://t.cn/R7CXrPb @whigzhou: “一条手臂的距离”,也就是可以拿斧头一把劈死你的距离 @Ent_evo 有个问题。西部大开发家园法案时,也是一户户之间相距遥远,那么美国西部小镇有产生类似的倾向吗? @whigzhou: 嗯,不过这些美国人及其祖先没有芬兰人那样的长期无政府经历
[微言]药物与时间感

【2014-10-28】

@鹿兔马朦 我很认真的翻译,讲的是精神活性物质对于时间感知的影响,以及对背后可能原因和应用的探讨。我认为值得看到这条微博的人很认真的阅读。原文来自 Erowid:精神活性状态下的时间感知
神经化学:精神活性状态下的时间感知 原作者:Kim A. Dawson; 译者:斑马和鹿 1958年,May发现“大多数震撼的精神体验之中都包含了个体对时间感知的改变”。很多文献都记录了精神活性物质会引起使用者对时间感知的改变。

@斑马和鹿:@whigzhou 要(more...)

标签:
5569
【2014-10-28】 @鹿兔马朦 我很认真的翻译,讲的是精神活性物质对于时间感知的影响,以及对背后可能原因和应用的探讨。我认为值得看到这条微博的人很认真的阅读。原文来自 Erowid:精神活性状态下的时间感知 神经化学:精神活性状态下的时间感知 原作者:Kim A. Dawson; 译者:斑马和鹿 1958年,May发现“大多数震撼的精神体验之中都包含了个体对时间感知的改变”。很多文献都记录了精神活性物质会引起使用者对时间感知的改变。 @斑马和鹿:@whigzhou 要是有空请指教~ @whigzhou: 我没有过这样的体验所以不是很确定是否明白他在说什么,听起来好像是一些药物可以让我们的时间感知机能进入某种紊乱或异常状态,这可能很有意思,研究它也可以更好理解我们是如何感知时间流逝的 @whigzhou: 可是,若据此而认为这种状态可以让我们看到平时看不到的“物理现实”或“世界本质”,那是无稽之谈了,上帝恐怕不会设计这样一个复活节彩蛋 @whigzhou: 这就好比说“幻肢其实是真实存在的,只是旁人看不到而已,你必须进入截肢者那种特殊心理状态才能看到它” @斑马和鹿:不过值得一提的是,很多科学发现的确是被“药物”出发的灵感,比如DNA双螺旋结构的发现有LSD激发想象力的功劳,所以有些时候在某种程度上也确实“帮助”看到了物理现实~ @whigzhou: 嗯,激发想象力或正常情况下不容易产生的新念头,这个有可能,喝酒做梦也可能,不过这与“物理现实”好像搭不上
[微言]审美

【2014-10-07】

@宅基爆宅弯 辉总问个问题,一个时代对美的共识是怎么形成的

@whigzhou: 只能说一定程度上且多半是局部的共识吧,可从四方面考虑:1)审美有进化适应上的理由,2)有认知系统特性上的理由,这两点上人类自然有共性,3)大众对个别明星的追随/模仿形成的时尚潮流,4)共识也可以是协调博弈和沿袭传播的结果

@whigzhou: 第一点是说,我们都有某些审美倾向,是因为那会导出让我们在遗传上受益的行为。

@whigzhou: 第二点是说(粗糙说法),我们的认知系统都有某些敏感点,一旦被戳中就会产(more...)

标签: |
5334
【2014-10-07】 @宅基爆宅弯 辉总问个问题,一个时代对美的共识是怎么形成的 @whigzhou: 只能说一定程度上且多半是局部的共识吧,可从四方面考虑:1)审美有进化适应上的理由,2)有认知系统特性上的理由,这两点上人类自然有共性,3)大众对个别明星的追随/模仿形成的时尚潮流,4)共识也可以是协调博弈和沿袭传播的结果 @whigzhou: 第一点是说,我们都有某些审美倾向,是因为那会导出让我们在遗传上受益的行为。 @whigzhou: 第二点是说(粗糙说法),我们的认知系统都有某些敏感点,一旦被戳中就会产生美感,而因为我们的认知系统都差不多,所以就有好多一样的敏感点 @whigzhou: 三四两点是说,当有明星存在时,由模仿即可形成共识,没有明星时,共识也可经由协调而产生,所谓协调是指:当每个人都不希望和大家步调太不一致时,就会自动向一个聚点靠拢,最终达成步调一致,好比大厅里的有节奏鼓掌,开始很乱,然后越来越整齐,十几秒后便可实现同步,无须指挥 @innesfry:我觉得首先要区分两个概念,即对艺术作品的审美(传统意义上的美学)和对异性的审美,辉总说的应该是后者。对异性的审美,应是主要由进化适应和性选择塑造的;流行文化能在多大程度上影响性心理,我非常怀疑:给人从小看胖子明星演的电影,能让他长大看到胖子就性兴奋吗? @whigzhou: 嗯,这两个是最好分开说,机制太不一样,不过我之前说的其实是针对前者 @whigzhou: 我倒觉得性审美也不是没给流行文化留下余地,在适应性的限制下,一些细微差异中还是可以看出文化影响 @whigzhou: 就说胖瘦程度吧,据说南亚男人心目中的最理想女性身材,比欧洲男人的要稍胖一些 @whigzhou: 其实性选择的作用点很有点任意性,性选择确是基本动力,但它具体作用在什么特性上,文化有机会影响 @whigzhou: 同样是性选择,在孔雀是拉长了尾羽,在另一种鸟身上却拉长了冠羽,再另一种则是改变了翼羽颜色,当然未必完全没有适应上的理由,但恐怕也有很大任意性  
[微言]感觉和语言

【2014-09-12】

@whigzhou: 有些人赞美食物的形容词从来只有一个:香!每次听到这个带感叹号的字我都想吐,好像压根没体会过鲜、嫩、酥、脆、爽、糯、滑……

@夫子大师兄:不会表达就吃不出好味道?

@whigzhou: 依我看还真是这样,感觉与表达的关系不是单向的,而是相互影响相互训练,感觉分离是体验精细化的前提,而分离需要语言(或类似符号化系统)的帮助才能做到,否则就停留在蒙昧混沌状态,所以,表达细腻既说明感觉细腻,也有助于让感觉变得更细腻

@whigzhou: 说某些语言的人,成年后分(more...)

标签: |
5316
【2014-09-12】 @whigzhou: 有些人赞美食物的形容词从来只有一个:香!每次听到这个带感叹号的字我都想吐,好像压根没体会过鲜、嫩、酥、脆、爽、糯、滑…… @夫子大师兄:不会表达就吃不出好味道? @whigzhou: 依我看还真是这样,感觉与表达的关系不是单向的,而是相互影响相互训练,感觉分离是体验精细化的前提,而分离需要语言(或类似符号化系统)的帮助才能做到,否则就停留在蒙昧混沌状态,所以,表达细腻既说明感觉细腻,也有助于让感觉变得更细腻 @whigzhou: 说某些语言的人,成年后分辨不出某些语音,但幼儿期能分辨,就是感觉分离(或者叫离散化)的结果 @whigzhou: 感觉的离散化是其介入高级心理活动的基础,初始感觉经过离散化之后,才有机会唤起某些知觉,而被唤起的知觉活动的丰富性,受限于离散化的采样精度 @whigzhou: 而采样精度是按节省原则自动调节的,假如较精细的采样结果总是得不到其他模块的充分利用,精度就会自动调低,因为此时太精细就是浪费,于是感觉就被塑造得粗糙了 @whigzhou: 这就好比,财务分析师每月向老板交分析报表,起初每月厚厚一叠,但发现老板每次只花20秒翻一翻前两页,于是后来的报表就缩到只剩两页了,这是有效率的工作机制 @弗洛伊德背单词:"Any language is a conspiracy against experience in the sense that it is a collective attempt to manage experience by reducing it into discrete parcels." 任何语言都是一种对抗经验的阴谋,它把经验分解成为离散的互不关联的碎片来操纵主体经验 @whigzhou: 这是形成经验而非对抗经验 @whigzhou: 认为这是对抗经验,说明他理解的经验是“照相式”经验,而不是格式塔经验  
[微言]意识的用户界面隐喻

【2014-07-25】

@执空断见:不好意思,是两个丹尼尔…魏格纳的观念似乎和丹内特并没有什么本质区别啊…丹尼尔把有意识意志类比为计算机的用户界面不就说明了是虚幻的么…

@whigzhou: 用户界面虚幻吗?我怎么觉得特真实?看上去有意义,点上去有反应,说给别人都听得明白,要功能有功能,要形象有形象,还要怎么真实呢?

@执空断见: 但是按照这样类比,人如果是计算机的话,将计算机的处理事物的行为归责于用户界面总觉得是不妥当的…不管是类似组成原理的基因,还是类似于系统结构的模因似乎都是更好的归责对象…

@whigzhou: 不是归责于界面,而是归责于拥有此类界面的系统,即(more...)

标签: | |
5263
【2014-07-25】 @执空断见:不好意思,是两个丹尼尔…魏格纳的观念似乎和丹内特并没有什么本质区别啊…丹尼尔把有意识意志类比为计算机的用户界面不就说明了是虚幻的么… @whigzhou: 用户界面虚幻吗?我怎么觉得特真实?看上去有意义,点上去有反应,说给别人都听得明白,要功能有功能,要形象有形象,还要怎么真实呢? @执空断见: 但是按照这样类比,人如果是计算机的话,将计算机的处理事物的行为归责于用户界面总觉得是不妥当的…不管是类似组成原理的基因,还是类似于系统结构的模因似乎都是更好的归责对象… @whigzhou: 不是归责于界面,而是归责于拥有此类界面的系统,即整个人 @whigzhou: 比如某人被某种虫子咬了左手,上个月他被这种虫子咬过右腿,有了意识这个界面,他的可以产生这样的知觉活动:“讨厌的虫子,上次咬了我右腿,这次又咬了我左手”,否则,其知觉活动只能像这样:“第1023号神经记录了从A917区传了的一个痛觉……” @whigzhou: “第1234号神经记录了从A987区传来的一个痛觉……第5678号神经记录了从C654区传来的一个视觉影像……第1023号神经记录了从A765区传来的一个痛觉……第2345号神经记录了从C876区传来的一个视觉影像…………第3456号神经记录了从D432区传来的一个痛觉……第4567号神经记录了从G333区传来的一个……” @执空断见:是这样没错,有意识意志就是个类似的翻译程序罢了,翻译的结果是让人类的这个机器能够向外作更好的进行信息交互…我们的思考也只是翻译程序在执行,但是翻译的原料却又不是翻译程序能够真正理解的…翻译程序如果翻译出:“我”在工作,这样的语句…它能真正理解工作的意义么? @whigzhou: 远远不止翻译,如果只是翻译,目标语言是哪儿来的? @whigzhou: 你必须先构造一门目标语言才谈得上翻译,正是意识的进化过程完成了这一构造 @执空断见:回复@whigzhou:那也只能说是双向的翻译过程,原料是这个程序之下的固件软件提供的,翻译程序进行翻译,以完成输出…当然通过这个翻译程序,也可以进行相关的数据输入工作…整个过程,下方的固件软件都是不可见的,透明化的…作为上层的翻译程序对整个系统所知有限,若说“我要负责”就会显得怪异… @whigzhou: 没有目标语言谈何“翻译” @whigzhou: 意识使人具有道德责任能力,是因为这种高级语言(相对于汇编或机器码)让系统所可能达到的复杂度大大提升了,以至变得和之前很不一样,而不是因为多了个翻译过程 @执空断见:目标语言也正是通过各种尝试才创造出来的…“自我”也正是在这种进化过程中逐渐成熟的…这并没有什么问题吧… @whigzhou: 对啊,所以人就拥有了这一独特性,它不是虚幻的,你不能既说某种东西是被“创造出来的”、“逐渐成熟的”,又说它是“虚幻的”,对吧? @whigzhou: 魏格纳犯了类似我在初二时犯过的错误:只因为用一个高倍放大镜看清了一幅铜版画的像素细节,便宣称画作的绚烂和美丽是虚幻的  
[微言]布里丹之驴与骰子

【2014-06-29】

@whigzhou: 当我们面临多个平行选项,又没有明显理由偏爱其中之一,为避免成为布里丹之驴,需要引入一个伪随机数发生器,通常,神经过程中来源广泛的微小扰动即可起到伪随机数发生的作用(这也是让我们的意志显得更自由的因素之一),但有时内部扰动不足以解决问题,此时便要借助一些外部伪随机数发生器,比如骰子

@whigzhou: 还有龟甲或卦签,这些外部伪随机数发生器的引入,提升了我们自由意志的性能,其实把它们视为我们自由意志机能的一部分,亦无不可,正如(more...)

标签: | |
5244
【2014-06-29】 @whigzhou: 当我们面临多个平行选项,又没有明显理由偏爱其中之一,为避免成为布里丹之驴,需要引入一个伪随机数发生器,通常,神经过程中来源广泛的微小扰动即可起到伪随机数发生的作用(这也是让我们的意志显得更自由的因素之一),但有时内部扰动不足以解决问题,此时便要借助一些外部伪随机数发生器,比如骰子 @whigzhou: 还有龟甲或卦签,这些外部伪随机数发生器的引入,提升了我们自由意志的性能,其实把它们视为我们自由意志机能的一部分,亦无不可,正如我们不妨将眼镜视为我们视觉机能的一部分。 @-Lucifier-:「神经过程中来源广泛的微小扰动即可起到伪随机数发生的作用」,微观粒子的「不确定原则」也可能是来源之一,甚至是重要来源。在哥本哈根学派看来,它可是「真随机」 @whigzhou: 真随机还是伪随机在宏观上不会造成什么有意义的区别,你拿不定主意时,是掷骰子还是去看盖革计数器,有啥不一样? @wenkino:买彩票时,我选红球5,恐怕没啥理由,就直觉而已。如果非要掷骰子,问上帝,自己认为没必要。 @whigzhou: 对啊,我不是说了“通常,神经过程中来源广泛的微小扰动即可起到伪随机数发生的作用”嘛,你脑子里那颗神经骰子起了作用,所以不需要另一颗骰子了,恭喜你节约了买骰子的钱