今天听开卷八分钟，梁文道介绍斯坦福心理学系的荣退教授菲利普`津巴多的《路西法效应》。 颇有感触。 文中提到津巴多虽然强调人们容易受到环境的影响而作恶，但他乐观地指出，按照他的“十步法”，人们同样能够顶 住压力，英勇地违抗“路西法效应”。 可是众多的文章更着重强调关于实验的过程及效应，以此来解释恐怖行为，虐囚现象，解释问什么好人如何变成恶魔，解释人们面对恶的行为的为何无动于衷，对有关“十步法”却鲜有介绍。 既然人性如此软弱，那就更应该防患于未然。
******************************************
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.
猫荐书：《路西法效应》 http://www.mhlib.sh.cn/blog/xiangxi.asp?fid=16444
今天的地铁报一口气登载了三则谋杀案，其一，医生因感情纠葛，利用专业知识杀害男友并分尸；其二：妻子不堪忍受长期家暴，买凶杀害丈夫；其三，不孝子伙同他人绑架杀害自己的父亲，以求取赎金。
在炎炎的夏日，猛然看见如此惊悚的三则新闻，好比半夜躲在被窝里看恐怖片一般令人脊背上生寒。这么高温的天气，三位杀手无形之中为地铁空调节约了能量，总算也是功德一件。只是，新闻报道的效应，其实很容易退却。
肾上腺素一旦平复，我们会想到：医生这种职业见惯生老病死，自然容易比普通人心狠手辣；妻子杀害暴虐的丈夫，或者有值得同情之处，至于不孝子那真是禽兽不 如的东西，天生的残暴。而我们，地铁车厢中的芸芸沙丁鱼，是绝对也不可能作奸犯科的，我们的领子十分洁白，我们的道德十分高尚，我们现在安全地阅读报纸， 已经证明了我们的清白无辜。
但是，然而，其实，不幸的是，世界远非如媒体这种二维道德法庭所表明的这样安全。心理学家用一个实验证明，除非你有极其坚强的神经，我们每个人都有可能为恶，况且面对强权的无所作为亦是为恶。
斯坦福心理学系的荣退教授菲利普`津巴多的《路西法效应》（副标题是：好人是如何变成恶魔的），用一个仅仅为期5天的实验告诉我们，强权之下，堕落是多么 容易的一件事，相反维持自己的道德高度则要艰难得多。“行善如登，行恶如崩”，中国这句超有洞见古语，这回有了实验室给出的证据。
实验发生于1971年，为了研究环境对人行为的影响，津巴多教授在斯坦福大学心理学系的地下室，模拟出了一个小型监狱，并且在当地报纸上大作广告，招募狱卒与囚犯，薪金是15美金每天，实验预计进行14天，中途可以自由退出。
在几千封如雪花般飞来的应聘资料中，津巴多教授通过测试，选择了其中身体健康，情绪稳定，前途远大，道德如一张白纸的十余位年轻人签订契约，“他们现在是 守法的投票人，将来会是规则的制定者”。狱卒与囚犯由抛硬币决定，而且在最开始的时候，志愿者原本都想当囚徒。因为作为嬉皮士的一代，志愿者觉得囚徒可以 有更多的空闲时间，而狱卒形象不佳。
为了使实验进行的更为逼真，津巴多教授没有知会志愿者就联系了警方进行了一场“真正的逮捕”。很快，与教授签订合同的志愿者就被正式地投入了地下监狱，之 前为了去个性化(贬低人格的第一步)，他们还被戴上丝袜帽子，穿上统一的监狱服装，包括不能去除的脚链。狱卒则戴着反光墨镜与卡其制服，并且拥有一个木头 警棍。
仅仅24小时过去，狱卒便迅速进入状态，他们竟然会遗忘囚犯只不过是和他们一样参加实验的大学生，言语侮辱、体罚甚至于虐待如火箭发射一样层层升级。并且 邪恶的智慧开始发挥功效：无缘无故的报数、嘲弄、俯卧撑、关禁闭、不给晚餐、没收寝具、强制劳动出现在这个假装的监狱里。
36小时之后，就有一位囚犯因精神崩溃而退出实验。同时兼任监狱长的津巴多教授也过分进入了监狱长的角色，在第一次精神崩溃出现之后，他并没有喊停实验， 还愚蠢地相信第一位退出者会如他寄出的信件中宣称地那样率领他的朋友来攻克这座心理学家开设的监狱！为了实验的正常进行，津教授做了一次不必要的转移，让 可怜的囚犯们在空气糟糕空房间里蹲坐了许久。而当第二位“囚犯”精神崩溃退出之后，教授又从候补志愿者中补充了一位“囚犯”。直到实验进行五天之后，他同 为心理学家的女朋友前来参观时，大吃一惊，情绪激动地向他指出，这个实验已经变得多么失控与难以忍受，连他这个人一并变得冷漠和不善解人意。
津巴多教授这才如梦初醒：一旦“系统”开始运行，它的影响力有多么强大！包括前来探视儿子的父母亲友，假装前来听取犯人申述的神父，由外行人士组成的保释 委员会，受邀来参观模拟监狱的各类心理学家。他们都不由自主地遵守了模拟监狱的无理规定。其中只有一位母亲发现了儿子的不妥，并向津巴多教授提出质疑；只 有一位心理学家的太太因为同情这些“囚犯”给他们买了杯子蛋糕；也只有一位心理学家，要求马上喊停这一个实验。有意思的是：她们都是女性。
除了在虐囚事件中表现得特别暴虐的那两位，剩下“狱卒”们，一半是附和强权为虎作伥（这部分人已经深深地相信，那些由硬币决定“犯人”不仅真的有罪，而且 是“邪恶的贱民”），另一半宁可则选择“不作为”，也不出言制止变得越来越残暴的“同僚”，没有人提出“这不过是一个实验”，没有人讨论监狱以外的事情， 大家都为“系统”所压倒。同样，在囚犯之中，大家遗忘了可以“自由退出”这件事，开始相信此地是一个真正的监狱，在向“保释委员会”申诉的时候，大家拼命 证明自己在狱中行为良好！在被问及是否愿意放弃“酬劳”而获得“保释”（真是自相矛盾的提问）时，也只有两位志愿者坚持要自己的酬劳，其余人都宁可放弃前 来此地受罪的动机——钱，也要“出狱”！没有人说“我要退出这个险恶的游戏”！
假作真时真亦假！忘了就忘了吧！那么武松和夏瑾，或者小萝卜头和江姐该出场了吧？谁知，中产阶级却是那样豁不出去的。
当第一次的反抗被成功“镇压”，囚犯们变得行尸走肉起来。作为替补队员第三天才加入囚犯队伍的419号，愤慨于狱卒的虐待狂倾向，开始“绝食抗 议”！419号的行为自然挑战狱卒的权威，可是出奇的是他也没有获得狱友的同情！当狱卒要求其他人向419进行言语侵犯，大多数人照做了；当狱卒提出是让 419关一夜禁闭，还是大家没有毯子盖而放出419号时，只有一个囚犯表示愿意放弃毯子。
在这个模拟的监狱体系中，在这些平均指数极其健康的人类样本中，冷漠占据了上风，英雄人物令人失望的并没有出现。
被挟裹而为恶，就不是为恶了吗？
这个充满压力与痛苦的实验，正是以这样不容回避的形式给我们提出了崇山峻岭一般的道德要求。还记得吗？孔夫子曾云：“乡愿，德之贼也！”
