網路城邦
回本城市首頁 時事論壇
市長:胡卜凱  副市長:
加入本城市推薦本城市加入我的最愛訂閱最新文章
udn城市政治社會政治時事【時事論壇】城市/討論區/
討論區知識和議題 字體:
看回應文章  上一個討論主題 回文章列表 下一個討論主題
人性本「善」?! -- M. Fox (路透社)
 瀏覽787|回應1推薦1

胡卜凱
等級:8
留言加入好友
文章推薦人 (1)

胡卜凱

Shocking study finds most will torture if ordered      

By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Some things never change.

Scientists said on Friday they had replicated an

experiment in which people obediently delivered painful

shocks to others if encouraged to do so by authority

figures.

Seventy percent of volunteers continued to administer

electrical shocks -- or at least they believed they were

doing so -- even after an actor claimed they were painful,

Jerry Burger of Santa Clara University in California found.

"What we found is validation of the same argument -- if

you put people into certain situations, they will act in

surprising, and maybe often even disturbing, ways,"

Burger said in a telephone interview. "This research is still

relevant."

Burger was replicating an experiment published in 1961

by Yale University professor Stanley Milgram, in which

volunteers were asked to deliver electric "shocks" to

other people if they answered certain questions

incorrectly.

Milgram found that, after hearing an actor cry out in pain

at 150 volts, 82.5 percent of participants continued

administering shocks, most to the maximum 450 volts.

The experiment surprised psychologists and no one has

tried to replicate it because of the distress suffered by

many of the volunteers who believed they were shocking

another person.

"When you hear the man scream and say, 'let me out, I

can't stand it,' that is the point when the real stress that

people criticized Milgram for kicked in," Burger said.

"It was a very, very, very stressful experience for many of

the participants. That is the reason no one can ethically

replicate the experiment today."

'SURPRISING AND DISAPPOINTING'

Burger modified the experiment, by stopping at the 150

volt point for the 29 men and 41 women in his experiment.

He measured how many of his volunteers began to deliver

another shock when prompted by the experiment's leader

-- but instead of letting them do so, stopped them.

In Milgram's original experiment, 150 volts seemed to be

the turning point.

In Burger's modified experiment, 70 percent of the

volunteers were willing to give shocks greater than 150

volts.

At one point, researchers brought in a volunteer who

knew what was going on and refused to administer

shocks beyond 150 volts. Despite the example, 

63 percent of the participants continued administering

shocks past 150 volts.

"That was surprising and disappointing," Burger said.

Burger found no differences among his volunteers, aged

20 to 81, and carefully screened them to be average

representatives of the U.S. public.

Burger said the experiment, published in the American

Psychologist, can only partly explain the widely reported

prisoner abuse at the U.S.-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq

or events during World War Two.

"Although one must be cautious when making the leap

from laboratory studies to complex social behaviors such

as genocide, understanding the social psychological

factors that contribute to people acting in unexpected and

unsettling ways is important," he wrote.

"It is not that there is something wrong with the people,"

Burger said. "The idea has been somehow there was this

characteristic that people had back in the early 1960s

that they were somehow more prone to obedience."

(Editing by Stacey Joyce)

轉貼自︰

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081219/sc_nm/us_torture_study



本文於 修改第 2 次

回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘

引用
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=2976&aid=3162433
 回應文章
淺談人性的「善」、「惡」
推薦0


胡卜凱
等級:8
留言加入好友

 

雖然我用了《人性本「善」?!》做這個報導的中譯標題,我並不認為人性本「惡」。我的觀點是

「人性是『善』?還是『惡』?」是個錯誤或沒有意義的議題。

首先,(我認為)「善」、「惡」是人造概念。

如老子所說︰「(有無相生,)難易相成,長短相較,高下相傾,(音聲相和,)前後相隨。;「」、「」或「」、「」等等人造概念需要經過比較後才有意義;或者人需要先定義一個」、「」和「」、「」的標準,我們才能有意義的用它們來形容一個自然物。因此,除非我們有一個標準,「善」、「惡」並不能直接用來指示「人性」這種自然物。

其次,所謂「人性是『善』?還是『惡』?」需要從「人性」的表現或人的行動來判斷。

人的行動受大腦神經網路的指導。因此,前者是後者的函數。另一方面,大腦神經網路又是人經驗的函數。所謂「經驗」,指人在環境中進行某個或某些行動後,所得到後果(環境反應)的記憶。所以,人的行動及其大腦神經網路兩者之間,是相互影響和制約的動態關係。

第三,人是社會動物。

「環境反應」包括其他人的行動、經驗、大腦神經網路指導所產生的結果等等。因此,人的行動和其他人的行動兩者之間,也是相互影響和制約的動態關係。這當然也是文化和社會兩個集體概念之間的關係。

綜上所述,人訂的「標準」,通常是某一個文化或社會的函數。而且它的制訂是一個非常複雜的過程。

這些因素造成「善」、「惡」不可能是一個可以簡單二分或相對立的概念。

我們可以從另一個層次來考察這個議題

人的成長是一個「建構」或「學習」的過程。在這個過程中,取、捨的標準或原則是「生存」或「舒適的生活狀態」,也就是俗話說的「適應」(此處它不是生物學術語)。這是經驗塑造我們行為和價值的第二個機制。

所以,我認為「人性是『善』?還是『惡』?」是個錯誤或沒有意義的議題。

「錯誤」指這個議題和人的行為沒有直接關係。

「沒有意義」指這個議題不可能有一個確定(= 有共識)的答案;或這個議題的答案已經預設在各人用來闡釋(支持)各自論述的基本假設中



本文於 修改第 1 次
回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=2976&aid=3162702