違抗“路西法效應”的“十步法”

今天聽開卷八分鍾，梁文道介紹斯坦福心理學係的榮退教授菲利普`津巴多的《路西法效應》。 頗有感觸。 文中提到津巴多雖然強調人們容易受到環境的影響而作惡，但他樂觀地指出，按照他的“十步法”，人們同樣能夠頂 住壓力，英勇地違抗“路西法效應”。 可是眾多的文章更著重強調關於實驗的過程及效應，以此來解釋恐怖行為，虐囚現象，解釋問什麽好人如何變成惡魔，解釋人們麵對惡的行為的為何無動於衷，對有關“十步法”卻鮮有介紹。 既然人性如此軟弱，那就更應該防患於未然。

 

******************************************

 

A Ten-Step Program to Build Resistance and Resilience
(Borrowed from The Lucifer Effect, Chapter 16)

http://www.lucifereffect.com/guide_tenstep.htm

f we consider some of the social psychological principles that fostered the evils we saw during the course of our journey into the heart of darkness. We can us use variants of those principles to get people to accentuate the good and to eliminate the negatives in their lives. Given the range of different types of influence, it is necessary to tailor resistances to each type. Combating wrong dissonant commitments requires different tactics than opposing compliance-gaining strategies used on us. Confronting persuasive speeches and powerful communicators forces us to use different principles than we need for dealing with those who would dehumanize us or deindividuate us. Ways to undercut groupthink are also different than ways to modify the impact of intense recruiters. In the previous sections of this Resistance Guide I have offered some specific suggestions of how to resist different types of social influence.

Here is my 10-step program toward resisting the impact of undesirable social influences, and at the same time promoting personal resilience and civic virtue. It uses ideas that cut across various influence strategies and provides simple, effective modes of dealing with them. The key to resistance lies in development of the three Ss-- Self-Awareness, Situational Sensitivity, and Street Smarts. You will see how they are central to many of these general strategies of resistance.

“I made a mistake!”
Let's start out by encouraging admission of our mistakes, first to ourselves then to others. Accept the dictum that to err is human. You have made an error in judgment; your decision was wrong. You had every reason to believe it was right when you made it, but now you know you were wrong. Say the six Magic words: “I’m sorry”; “I apologize”; “Forgive me.” Say to yourself that, you will learn from your mistakes, grow better from them. Don’t continue to put your money, time, and resources into bad investments. Move on. Doing so openly reduces the need to justify or rationalize our mistakes, and thereby to continue to give support to bad or immoral actions. Confession of error undercuts the motivation to reduce cognitive dissonance; dissonance evaporates when a reality check occurs. "Cutting the bait" instead of resolutely "staying the course" when it is wrong has immediate cost, but it always results in long-term gain. Consider how many years the Vietnam War continued long after top military and administration officials, like Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, knew that the war was wrong and could not be won. How many thousands of lives were lost to such wrong-headed resistance, when acknowledging failure and error could have saved them. How much good could come to all of us were our political leaders able to admit their similar errors in Iraq? It is more than a political decision to “save face” by denying errors instead saving soldiers’ and civilian lives—it is a moral imperative.

“I am mindful.”
In many settings smart people do dumb things because they fail to attend to key features in the words or actions of influence agents and fail to notice obvious situational clues. Too often we function on automatic pilot, using outworn scripts that have worked for us in the past, never stopping to evaluate whether they are appropriate in the here and now. Following the advice of Harvard researcher, Ellen Langer, we must transform our usual state of mindless inattention into “mindfulness,” especially in new situations. Don’t hesitate to fire a wake-up shot to your cortex; even when in familiar situations old habits continue to rule even though they have become obsolete or wrong. We need to be reminded not to live our lives on automatic pilot, but always to take a Zen moment to reflect on the meaning of the immediate situation, to think before acting. Never go mindlessly into situations where angels and sensible people fear to tread. For the best result add “critical thinking” to mindfulness in your resistance. Ask for evidence to support assertions; demand that ideologies be sufficiently elaborated to allow you to separate rhetoric from substance. Try to determine whether the recommended means ever justify potentially harmful ends. Imagine end game scenarios of the future consequences any current practice. Reject simple solutions as quick fixes for complex personal or social problems. Support critical thinking from the earliest times in a child’s life, alerting them to deceptive ads, biased claims, and distorted perspectives being presented to them. Help them become wiser and warier knowledge consumers.

“I am responsible.”
Taking responsibility for one's decisions and actions puts the actor in the driver's seat, for better or for worse. Allowing others to compromise their own responsibility, to diffuse it, makes them powerful back-seat drivers, and makes the car move recklessly ahead without a responsible driver. We become more resistant to undesirable social influence by always maintaining a sense of personal responsibility and by being willing to be held accountable for our actions. Obedience to authority is less blind to the extent that we are aware that diffusion of responsibility merely disguises our individual complicity in the conduct of questionable actions. Your conformity to anti-social group norms is undercut to the extent that you do not allow displacement of responsibility, when you refuse to spread responsibility around the gang, the frat, the shop, the battalion, or the corporation. Always imagine a future time when today’s deed will be on trial and no one will accept your pleas of only following orders, or everyone else was doing it.

“I am Me, the best I can be.”
Do not allow others to deindividuate you, to put you into a category, in a box, a slot, to turn you into an object. Assert your individually; politely state your name and your credentials, loud and clear. Insist on the same behavior in others. Make eye contact (remove all eye-concealing sun glasses), and offer information about yourself that reinforces your unique identity. Find common ground with dominant others in influence situations and use it to enhance similarities. Anonymity and secrecy conceals wrongdoing and undermines the human connection. It can become the breeding ground that generates dehumanization, and, as we now know, dehumanization provides the killing ground for bullies, rapists, torturers, terrorists, and tyrants. Go a step beyond self-individuation. Work to change whatever social conditions make people feel anonymous. Instead, support practices that make others feel special, so that they too have a sense of personal value and self worth. Never allow or practice negative stereotyping—words and labels can be destructive.

“I respect Just Authority, but Rebel against Unjust Authority.”
In every situation, work to distinguish between those in authority who, because of their expertise, wisdom, seniority, or special status, deserve respect, and those unjust authority figures who demand our obedience without having any substance. Many who assume the mantel of authority are pseudo-leaders, false prophets, confidence men and women, self-promoters, who should not be respected, but rather disobeyed and openly exposed to critical evaluation. Parents, teachers, and religious leaders should play more active roles in teaching children this critical differentiation. They should be polite and courteous when such a stance is justified, yet be good, wise children by resisting those authorities that do not deserve their respect. Doing so, will reduce mindless obedience to self-proclaimed authorities whose priorities are not in our best interests.

“I want group acceptance, but value my independence.”
The lure of acceptance into a desired social group is more powerful than that of the mythical golden ring in “Lord of the Rings.” The power of that desire for acceptance will make some people do almost anything to be accepted, and go to even further extremes to avoid rejection by The Group. We are indeed social animals, and usually our social connections benefit us and help us to achieve important goals that we could not achieve alone. However, there are times when conformity to a group norm is counter-productive to the social good. It is imperative to determine when to follow the norm and when to reject it. Ultimately, we live within our own minds, in solitary splendor, and therefore we must be willing and ready to declare our independence regardless of the social rejection it may elicit. It is not easy, especially for young people with shaky self-images, or adults whose self-image is isomorphic with that of their job. Pressures on them to be a “team player,” to sacrifice personal morality for the good of the team are nearly irresistible. What is required is that we step back, get outside opinions, and find new groups that will support our independence and promote our values. There will always be another, different, better group for us.

“I will be more Frame Vigilant.”
Who makes the frame becomes the artist, or the con artist. The way issues are framed is often more influential than the persuasive arguments within their boundaries. Moreover, effective frames can seem not to be frames at all, just sound bites, visual images, slogans, and logos. They influence us without our being conscious of them, and they shape our orientation toward the ideas or issues they promote. For example, voters, who favored reducing estate tax benefits for the rich, were urged to vote against a “death tax”; the tax was exactly the same, but its defining term was different. We desire things that are framed as being “scarce,” even when they are plentiful. We are averse to things that are framed as potential losses, and prefer what is presented to us as a gain, even when the ratio of positive to negative prognoses is the same. We don’t want a 40% chance of losing X over Y, but do want the 60% chance of gaining Y over X. Linguist George Lakoff clearly shows in his writings that it is crucial to be aware of frame power and to be vigilant to offset its insidious influence on our emotions, thoughts, and votes.

“I will balance my Time Perspective.”
We can be led to do things that are not really what we believe in our value when we allow ourselves to become trapped in an expanded present moment. When we stop relying on our sense of past commitments and our sense of future liabilities, we open ourselves to situational temptations to engage in “Lord of the Flies” excesses. By not going “with the flow" when others around you are being abusive or out of control, you are relying a temporal perspective that stretches beyond present-oriented hedonism or present-fatalism. You are likely to engage in a cost/benefit analysis of actions in terms of their future consequences. Or, you may resist by being sufficiently conscious of a past time frame that contains your personal values and standards. By developing a balanced time perspective in which past, present and future can be called into action depending on the situation and task at hand, you are in a better position to act responsibly and wisely than when your time perspective is biased toward reliance on only one or two time frames. Situational power is weakened when past and future combine to contain the excesses of the present. For example, research indicates that righteous Gentiles who helped to hide Dutch Jews from the Nazis did not engage in the kind of rationalizing as their neighbors did in generating reasons for not helping. These heroes depended upon moral structures derived from their past and never lost sight of a future time when they would look back on this terrible situation and be forced to ask themselves whether they had done the right thing when they chose not to succumb to fear and social pressure.

“I will not sacrifice personal or civic freedoms for the illusion of security.”
The need for security is a powerful determinant of human behavior. We can be manipulated into engaging in actions that are alien to us when faced with alleged threats to our security or the promise of security from danger. More often than not, influence peddlers gain power over us by offering the Faustian contract: You will be safe from harm if you will just surrender some of your freedom, either personal or civic, to that authority. The Mephistophelean tempter will argue that his power to save you depends upon the people making small sacrifices of this or this little right or that small freedom. Reject that deal. Never sacrifice basic personal freedoms for the promise of security because the sacrifices are real and immediate and the security is a distant illusion. This is as true in traditional marital arrangements as it is in the commitment of good citizens to the interests of their nation when its leader promises safety at the cost of a collective sacrifice of suspending laws, privacy, and freedoms. Erich Fromm’s classic “Escape from Freedom” reminded us that this is the first step a fascist leader takes even in a nominally democratic society.

“I can oppose unjust Systems.”
Individuals falter in the face of the intensity of the systems we have described: the military and prison systems as well as those of gangs, cults, fraternities, corporations, and even dysfunctional families. But individual resistance in concert with that of others of the same mind and resolve can combine to make a difference. The next section in this chapter will portray individuals who changed systems by being willing to take the risk of blowing the whistle on corruption within them, or constructively working to change them. Resistance may involve physically removing one’s self from a “total situation” in which all information and reward/ punishments are controlled. It may involve challenging the “groupthink” mentality, and being able to document all allegations of wrongdoing. It may involve getting help from other authorities, counselors, investigative reporters, or revolutionary compatriots. Systems have enormous power to resist change and withstand even righteous assault. Here is one place where individual acts of heroism to challenge unjust systems, and their bad barrel makers, are best taken by soliciting others to join one’s cause. The system can redefine individual opposition as delusional, a pair of opponents as sharing folie · deux, but with three on your side, you become a force of ideas to be reckoned with. This 10-step program is really only a starter kit toward building resistance and resilience against undesirable influences and illegitimate attempts at persuasion. It takes your awareness and sensitivity to such influence settings, and a willingness to think for yourself, as you practice being independent and as autonomous as is possible.

 

貓薦書：《路西法效應》 http://www.mhlib.sh.cn/blog/xiangxi.asp?fid=16444

今天的地鐵報一口氣登載了三則謀殺案，其一，醫生因感情糾葛，利用專業知識殺害男友並分屍；其二：妻子不堪忍受長期家暴，買凶殺害丈夫；其三，不孝子夥同他人綁架殺害自己的父親，以求取贖金。
　　 在炎炎的夏日，猛然看見如此驚悚的三則新聞，好比半夜躲在被窩裏看恐怖片一般令人脊背上生寒。這麽高溫的天氣，三位殺手無形之中為地鐵空調節約了能量，總算也是功德一件。隻是，新聞報道的效應，其實很容易退卻。 　
　　
　 　 腎上腺素一旦平複，我們會想到：醫生這種職業見慣生老病死，自然容易比普通人心狠手辣；妻子殺害暴虐的丈夫，或者有值得同情之處，至於不孝子那真是禽獸不 如的東西，天生的殘暴。而我們，地鐵車廂中的芸芸沙丁魚，是絕對也不可能作奸犯科的，我們的領子十分潔白，我們的道德十分高尚，我們現在安全地閱讀報紙， 已經證明了我們的清白無辜。 　　
　　
　　 但是，然而，其實，不幸的是，世界遠非如媒體這種二維道德法庭所表明的這樣安全。心理學家用一個實驗證明，除非你有極其堅強的神經，我們每個人都有可能為惡，況且麵對強權的無所作為亦是為惡。
　　
　 　 斯坦福心理學係的榮退教授菲利普`津巴多的《路西法效應》（副標題是：好人是如何變成惡魔的），用一個僅僅為期5天的實驗告訴我們，強權之下，墮落是多麽 容易的一件事，相反維持自己的道德高度則要艱難得多。“行善如登，行惡如崩”，中國這句超有洞見古語，這回有了實驗室給出的證據。
　　 　　
　　 實驗發生於1971年，為了研究環境對人行為的影響，津巴多教授在斯坦福大學心理學係的地下室，模擬出了一個小型監獄，並且在當地報紙上大作廣告，招募獄卒與囚犯，薪金是15美金每天，實驗預計進行14天，中途可以自由退出。

　 　 在幾千封如雪花般飛來的應聘資料中，津巴多教授通過測試，選擇了其中身體健康，情緒穩定，前途遠大，道德如一張白紙的十餘位年輕人簽訂契約，“他們現在是 守法的投票人，將來會是規則的製定者”。獄卒與囚犯由拋硬幣決定，而且在最開始的時候，誌願者原本都想當囚徒。因為作為嬉皮士的一代，誌願者覺得囚徒可以 有更多的空閑時間，而獄卒形象不佳。
　　
　　 為了使實驗進行的更為逼真，津巴多教授沒有知會誌願者就聯係了警方進行了一場“真正的逮捕”。很快，與教授簽訂合同的誌願者就被正式地投入了地下監獄，之 前為了去個性化(貶低人格的第一步)，他們還被戴上絲襪帽子，穿上統一的監獄服裝，包括不能去除的腳鏈。獄卒則戴著反光墨鏡與卡其製服，並且擁有一個木頭 警棍。
　　
　　 僅僅24小時過去，獄卒便迅速進入狀態，他們竟然會遺忘囚犯隻不過是和他們一樣參加實驗的大學生，言語侮辱、體罰甚至於虐待如火箭發射一樣層層升級。並且 邪惡的智慧開始發揮功效：無緣無故的報數、嘲弄、俯臥撐、關禁閉、不給晚餐、沒收寢具、強製勞動出現在這個假裝的監獄裏。

　　 36小時之後，就有一位囚犯因精神崩潰而退出實驗。同時兼任監獄長的津巴多教授也過分進入了監獄長的角色，在第一次精神崩潰出現之後，他並沒有喊停實驗， 還愚蠢地相信第一位退出者會如他寄出的信件中宣稱地那樣率領他的朋友來攻克這座心理學家開設的監獄！為了實驗的正常進行，津教授做了一次不必要的轉移，讓 可憐的囚犯們在空氣糟糕空房間裏蹲坐了許久。而當第二位“囚犯”精神崩潰退出之後，教授又從候補誌願者中補充了一位“囚犯”。直到實驗進行五天之後，他同 為心理學家的女朋友前來參觀時，大吃一驚，情緒激動地向他指出，這個實驗已經變得多麽失控與難以忍受，連他這個人一並變得冷漠和不善解人意。
　　
　 　 津巴多教授這才如夢初醒：一旦“係統”開始運行，它的影響力有多麽強大！包括前來探視兒子的父母親友，假裝前來聽取犯人申述的神父，由外行人士組成的保釋 委員會，受邀來參觀模擬監獄的各類心理學家。他們都不由自主地遵守了模擬監獄的無理規定。其中隻有一位母親發現了兒子的不妥，並向津巴多教授提出質疑；隻 有一位心理學家的太太因為同情這些“囚犯”給他們買了杯子蛋糕；也隻有一位心理學家，要求馬上喊停這一個實驗。有意思的是：她們都是女性。 　　
　　
　 　 除了在虐囚事件中表現得特別暴虐的那兩位，剩下“獄卒”們，一半是附和強權為虎作倀（這部分人已經深深地相信，那些由硬幣決定“犯人”不僅真的有罪，而且 是“邪惡的賤民”），另一半寧可則選擇“不作為”，也不出言製止變得越來越殘暴的“同僚”，沒有人提出“這不過是一個實驗”，沒有人討論監獄以外的事情， 大家都為“係統”所壓倒。同樣，在囚犯之中，大家遺忘了可以“自由退出”這件事，開始相信此地是一個真正的監獄，在向“保釋委員會”申訴的時候，大家拚命 證明自己在獄中行為良好！在被問及是否願意放棄“酬勞”而獲得“保釋”（真是自相矛盾的提問）時，也隻有兩位誌願者堅持要自己的酬勞，其餘人都寧可放棄前 來此地受罪的動機——錢，也要“出獄”！沒有人說“我要退出這個險惡的遊戲”！

　　 假作真時真亦假！忘了就忘了吧！那麽武鬆和夏瑾，或者小蘿卜頭和江姐該出場了吧？誰知，中產階級卻是那樣豁不出去的。

　 　 當第一次的反抗被成功“鎮壓”，囚犯們變得行屍走肉起來。作為替補隊員第三天才加入囚犯隊伍的419號，憤慨於獄卒的虐待狂傾向，開始“絕食抗 議”！419號的行為自然挑戰獄卒的權威，可是出奇的是他也沒有獲得獄友的同情！當獄卒要求其他人向419進行言語侵犯，大多數人照做了；當獄卒提出是讓 419關一夜禁閉，還是大家沒有毯子蓋而放出419號時，隻有一個囚犯表示願意放棄毯子。

　　 在這個模擬的監獄體係中，在這些平均指數極其健康的人類樣本中，冷漠占據了上風，英雄人物令人失望的並沒有出現。

　　 被挾裹而為惡，就不是為惡了嗎？
　　
　　 這個充滿壓力與痛苦的實驗，正是以這樣不容回避的形式給我們提出了崇山峻嶺一般的道德要求。還記得嗎？孔夫子曾雲：“鄉願，德之賊也！”