|
心理學 – 開欄文
|
瀏覽4,804 ｜回應24｜推薦1 |
|
|
|
如我在拙作《大腦神經學：一般研究》中所說，我對大腦神經學的興趣來自倫理學--認識論--認知科學這個讀書過程。我的另一個讀書過程則是倫理學--社會學--心理學--文化研究(包括考古人類學)—基因學(包括生物學、演化論)。這些都可從本部落格二十年來轉載的相關評論和研究報導看出。
現在的確是把所有蒐集到的資訊和知識做個整理和整合的時候。它們應該是我玩到掛之前的最後一個計劃。不過，心理學和社會學一樣，有許多次領域和學派。我既不是科班出身，也談不上半路出家；自然沒有什麼師門、學派、傳承之類。各欄也只能是個炒雜燴的形式。如果我還有個三、五年時間又不退化成癡呆，或許能把自己在各領域的讀書心得寫下來。
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
|
|
1. 全文摘要
艾文斯博士此文討論「自我控制」(請見本欄下一篇)；全文要點為：
1) 大多數人無法堅持自己的新年「新決心」。
2) 新近研究質疑「自制力」理論(或稱「意志力」理論)。
3)「自我控制」的竅門在於；把自己放在一個能避開外界「誘惑」的處境。
該文「前言」部分說明以上第1)點(原文無「前言」這個子標題)。
該文「自我控制的意志力理論」一節討論以上第2)點。
該文「自我控制在於選擇正確的環境」一節，舉了一個簡單例子來闡述以上第3)點。
該文「了解『自我控制』能改變我們的行為」一節強調：「環境」左右行為的程度遠高於「性格」或「意志力」。
該文附有相關超連結：What Is Self-Control?；對此課題有興趣的朋友，請自行參考。
2. 評論
2.1 意志力
根據自己的經驗，我相信以上三點符合人之常情。換言之，「意志力」云云很可能不過跟聖誕老公公或哪吒三太子同一個類型。艾文斯博士大作不禁讓我想起一個老笑話：
張三：真煩人！老婆逼著我戒煙。但我怎麼戒都戒不掉。
李四：戒煙有什麼難？我過去一年來，沒戒十次也至少戒了個七、八次。
2.2 道德
或許，達斯妥也夫斯基早就了解人其實很難「控制」自己；所以他才會說：
「如果沒有上帝，人就什麼事都可以做了。」(該文第2.2節)。
這也是何以我一直強調：「社會建構」和「社會輿論」分別在建立「道德感」以及「道德約束力」兩個過程中極其重要(《文學和倫理學之「行為指南」》)。
2.3 自由意志
我有兩篇以「自由意志」為主題的文章(自由意志1、自由意志2，同上一個連結，2018/10/18)。即使我無法論證「自由意志」存在，我在這兩篇拙作中都強調：人有「選擇」能力。但是，如果艾文斯博士的觀點成立，則我需要重新檢查這兩篇文章的思路。我至少得調和 ：「人有自由意志」與「意志力不存在」兩個命題之間可能產生的矛盾；「意志力不存在」或「意志力沒有作用」在此處視為同義詞。
本文於 修改第 4 次
|
|
承認錯誤的樂趣 ------ Daryl Van Tongeren
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
The Curious Joy of Being Wrong
intellectual humility means being open to new information and willing to change your mind
Daryl Van Tongeren
Mark Twain apocryphally said, “I’m in favor of progress; it’s change I don’t like.” This quote pithily underscores the human tendency to desire growth while also harboring strong resistance to the hard work that comes with it. I can certainly resonate with this sentiment.
I was raised in a conservative evangelical home. Like many who grew up in a similar environment, I learned a set of religious beliefs that framed how I understood myself and the world around me. I was taught that God is loving and powerful, and God’s faithful followers are protected. I was taught that the world is fair and that God is good. The world seemed simple and predictable – and most of all, safe.
These beliefs were shattered when my brother unexpectedly passed away when I was 27 years old. His death at 34 with three young children shocked our family and community. In addition to reeling with grief, some of my deepest assumptions were challenged. Was God not good or not powerful? Why didn’t God save my brother, who was a kind and loving father and husband? And how unfair, uncaring and random is the universe?
This deep loss started a period where I questioned all of my beliefs in light of the evidence of my own experiences. Over a considerable amount of time, and thanks to an exemplary therapist, I was able to revise my worldview in a way that felt authentic. I changed my mind, about a lot things. The process sure wasn’t pleasant. It took more sleepless nights than I care to recall, but I was able to revise some of my core beliefs.
I didn’t realize it then, but this experience falls under what social science researchers call intellectual humility. And honestly, it is probably a large part of why, as a psychology professor, I am so interested in studying it. Intellectual humility has been gaining more attention, and it seems critically important for our cultural moment, when it’s more common to defend your position than change your mind.
What it means to be intellectually humble
Intellectual humility is a particular kind of humility that has to do with beliefs, ideas or worldviews. This is not only about religious beliefs; it can show up in political views, various social attitudes, areas of knowledge or expertise or any other strong convictions. It has both internal- and external-facing dimensions.
Within yourself, intellectual humility involves awareness and ownership of the limitations and biases in what you know and how you know it. It requires a willingness to revise your views in light of strong evidence.
Interpersonally, it means keeping your ego in check so you can present your ideas in a modest and respectful manner. It calls for presenting your beliefs in ways that are not defensive and admitting when you’re wrong. It involves showing that you care more about learning and preserving relationships than about being “right” or demonstrating intellectual superiority.
Another way of thinking about humility, intellectual or otherwise, is being the right size in any given situation: not too big (which is arrogance), but also not too small (which is self-deprecation).
I know a fair amount about psychology, but not much about opera. When I’m in professional settings, I can embrace the expertise that I’ve earned over the years. But when visiting the opera house with more cultured friends, I should listen and ask more questions, rather than confidently assert my highly uninformed opinion.
Four main aspects of intellectual humility include being:
* Open-minded, avoiding dogmatism and being willing to revise your beliefs.
* Curious, seeking new ideas, ways to expand and grow, and changing your mind to align with strong evidence.
* Realistic, owning and admitting your flaws and limitations, seeing the world as it is rather than as you wish it to be.
* Teachable, responding nondefensively and changing your behavior to align with new knowledge.
Intellectual humility is often hard work, especially when the stakes are high.
Starting with the admission that you, like everyone else, have cognitive biases and flaws that limit how much you know, intellectual humility might look like taking genuine interest in learning about your relative’s beliefs during a conversation at a family get-together, rather than waiting for them to finish so you can prove them wrong by sharing your – superior – opinion.
It could look like considering the merits of an alternative viewpoint on a hot-button political issue and why respectable, intelligent people might disagree with you. When you approach these challenging discussions with curiosity and humility, they become opportunities to learn and grow.
Why intellectual humility is an asset
Though I’ve been studying humility for years, I’ve not yet mastered it personally. It’s hard to swim against cultural norms that reward being right and punish mistakes. It takes constant work to develop, but psychological science has documented numerous benefits.
First, there are social, cultural and technological advances to consider. Any significant breakthrough in medicine, technology or culture has come from someone admitting they didn’t know something – and then passionately pursuing knowledge with curiosity and humility. Progress requires admitting what you don’t know and seeking to learn something new.
Relationships improve when people are intellectually humble. Research has found that intellectual humility is associated with greater tolerance toward people with whom you disagree.
For example, intellectually humble people are more accepting of people who hold differing religious and political views. A central part of it is an openness to new ideas, so folks are less defensive to potentially challenging perspectives. They’re more likely to forgive, which can help repair and maintain relationships.
Finally, humility helps facilitate personal growth. Being intellectually humble allows you to have a more accurate view of yourself.
When you can admit and take ownership of your limitations, you can seek help in areas where you have room to grow, and you’re more responsive to information. When you limit yourself to only doing things the way you’ve always done them, you miss out on countless opportunities for growth, expansion and novelty – things that strike you with awe, fill you with wonder and make life worth living.
Humility doesn’t mean being a pushover
Despite these benefits, sometimes humility gets a bad rap. People can have misconceptions about intellectual humility, so it’s important to dispel some myths.
Intellectual humility isn’t lacking conviction; you can believe something strongly until your mind is changed and you believe something else. It also isn’t being wishy-washy. You should have a high bar for what evidence you require to change your mind. It also doesn’t mean being self-deprecating or always agreeing with others. Remember, it’s being the right size, not too small.
Researchers are working hard to validate reliable ways to cultivate intellectual humility. I’m part of a team that is overseeing a set of projects designed to test different interventions to develop intellectual humility.
Some scholars are examining different ways to engage in discussions, and some are exploring the role of enhancing listening. Others are testing educational programs, and still others are looking at whether different kinds of feedback and exposure to diverse social networks might boost intellectual humility.
Prior work in this area suggests that humility can be cultivated, so we’re excited to see what emerges as the most promising avenues from this new endeavor.
There was one other thing that religion taught me that was slightly askew. I was told that too much learning could be ruinous; after all, you wouldn’t want to learn so much that you might lose your faith.
But in my experience, what I learned through loss may have salvaged a version of my faith that I can genuinely endorse and feels authentic to my experiences. The sooner we can open our minds and stop resisting change, the sooner we’ll find the freedom offered by humility.
Daryl Van Tongeren, Associate Professor of Psychology, Hope College
相關閱讀：Humility can unlock authenticity and personal development.
本文於 修改第 5 次
|
|
40%的人會有意忽視事實 --- Kevin Dickinson
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
40% of people willfully choose to be ignorant. Here’s why
We all have a place in our lives where we look the other way and pretend everything is fine. It's a built-in excuse to act selfishly.
Kevin Dickinson, 11/04/23
KEY TAKEAWAYS
* Willful ignorance occurs when someone intentionally avoids information about the negative consequences of their actions.
* A new meta-analysis found that 40% of people will choose to remain ignorant of how their decisions affect others.
* The evidence suggests that willful ignorance provides people with a built-in excuse to act selfishly.
Do you have an uncle who believes vaccines cause autism but refuses to study the reams of research showing them to be safe? What about a friend who avoids information about factory animal farming so they can eat cheap meat guilt-free? Or how about that CEO who claims their business is ethically minded, yet doesn’t investigate its supply chain for exploitation of the environment or the impoverished?
Each is an example of what psychologists call willful ignorance — the intentional act of avoiding information that reveals the negative consequences of one’s actions. Not to judge: We all have a place in our lives where we look the other way and pretend everything is fine. It may be personal, political, or professional in nature, but just below the conscious surface, we know our actions don’t align with our stated values.
“Examples [of] willful ignorance abound in everyday life,” Linh Vu, a doctoral candidate at the University of Amsterdam, said. “We wanted to know just how prevalent and how harmful willful ignorance is, as well as why people engage in it.”
To find out, Vu and a team of researchers performed the first meta-analysis on the current empirical evidence of willful ignorance, and it was published in the Psychological Bulletin, a peer-reviewed journal published by the American Psychological Association. They compared the results of 22 studies with a total of more than 6,000 participants. Here’s what they found.
Moral wiggle room
The classic experiment for studying willful ignorance is known as the moral wiggle room task. It was designed by Jason Dana, an associate professor of marketing and management at Yale. Participants are randomly assigned the role of decision-maker or recipient. The decision-maker is given a choice: They can take either a $5 or $6 payout. If they take the $5 payout, the recipient will receive $5 as well. If they take the $6 payout, the recipient will receive $1.
When provided with this information by a researcher, the majority of decision-makers act altruistically. They sacrifice the slightly larger payout for themselves to give the recipient more money. On average, only about a quarter of decision-makers act selfishly. But this full-information condition is simply the control. The experiment really begins when the researchers become less forthcoming.
In the experimental condition, the decision-makers can still choose between the $5 or $6 payouts, but this time they are not told what the recipient will receive. There’s a 50-50 chance the recipient will receive $5 or $1. Importantly, the decision-makers can ask the researchers what payout the recipient will receive, and they can do so at no cost to themselves. In other words, while the decision-makers start out blind to the consequences of their actions, they don’t have to stay that way if they don’t want to.
In Dana’s original 2007 study, 44% of decision-makers in the experimental condition chose to remain willfully ignorant and took the selfish option.
Some studies in the meta-analysis were variations on this original design. For instance, one version of the game included ultimatum bargaining where the recipient could accept or reject the decision-maker’s offer. If they reject it, both participants walk away empty-handed. Another version had group members vote on payouts for the group and an unknown recipient.
But across all the studies, the researchers found Dana’s original split to be fairly consistent. On average, 40% of people chose not to learn about the consequences of their actions, and such ignorance was associated with less altruism compared to those who became informed.
Ignorance as an excuse
The researchers hypothesized two potential motivations for willful ignorance. First, they thought willful ignorance may offer a built-in excuse for not acting generously. If a person doesn’t know the consequences of their actions, the internal logic goes, then they still can consider themselves a morally upstanding individual even if they decide to act selfishly. Willful ignorance serves to protect their self-image.
The second potential motivation is known as “cognitive inattentiveness.” That is, people dislike thinking more than they have to. It may stem from laziness, not paying attention, or not wanting to take the time to learn more. Whatever the case, they favor the quick-and-easy decision — even if they would have acted altruistically had they been informed upfront.
To test this, the researchers compared the choices of participants who chose to inform themselves with those who learned about the consequences by default. The researchers reasoned that if the driver was cognitive inattentiveness, then the percentage of altruism would be roughly the same between the two.
On the other hand, if those who chose to learn about the consequences acted more generously, this would suggest that those informed by default would have “self-selected” to remain ignorant if given the option. And that’s what they found. Across the studies, participants who chose to be informed of the consequences were 7% more likely to make the altruistic choice.
“The findings are fascinating as they suggest a lot of the altruistic behaviors we observe are driven by a desire to behave as others expect us to,” Shaul Shalvi, co-author and a professor of behavioral ethics at the University of Amsterdam, said in a statement.
He added: “A part of the reasons why people act altruistically is due to societal pressures as well as their desire to view themselves in a good light. Since being righteous is often costly, demanding people to give up their time, money, and effort. Ignorance offers an easy way out.”
With that said, the analysis couldn’t eliminate cognitive inattentiveness as a potential motivation. In fact, willful ignorance could be the cumulative effect of many motivations, including those not considered in the meta-analysis, such as reputation. The data simply suggest that maintaining a positive self-image is one of those motivations.
A little less ignorant about willful ignorance
The meta-analysis does have limitations that should be mentioned. To start, participants overwhelmingly came from Europe and the U.S., meaning the results may not be replicated in other cultures. The studies also looked at willful ignorance in the lab versus actual decisions in the real world. Finally, they focused on discrete tasks, meaning they were only performed once. It’s possible that continuous rounds of give-and-take between decision-maker and recipient would yield different results (like in many game theory games).
Still, the authors conclude that “taken together, the aggregate evidence suggests ignorance is indeed in part ‘willful’ and driven by excuse-seeking and self-image maintenance motives.” Thanks to them, we are all a little less ignorant about ignorance.
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
《40%的人會有意忽視事實》讀後
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
1. 全文要點
這篇文章報導「有意忽視事實」的實驗，以及對其它和此議題相關實驗結果的「整合分析」(請見本欄第三篇文章)。「有意忽視事實」在心理學上的正式名稱是：「選擇性無知」(請見「索引」)。這個概念可以參照我在其它幾篇文章中提到的：「認知偏差」和「認知扭曲」(拙作1、拙作2)。
此實驗內容在該文「道德扭捏空間」這一節中有簡略說明。它的結果顯示：
40%的人會為了個人利益，而有意不去了解或追究自己行為的負面後果。
既然是「有意識」的行為，也就蘊含它們是為了達到某種「目的」；這篇報導提出兩個可能的「動機」：
a) 免除自己「道德感」的壓力。
b) 免除社會「公評公論」的壓力。
2. 評論
1) 人基本上是自私的。但在「社會建構」的過程中培養出「道德感」。這個「道德感」在一定程度上可以幫助維持社會的穩定運作。
2) 如該文所提到的「選擇性無知」，「道德感」的作用相當有限。這是達斯妥也夫斯基「如果沒有上帝，人就什麼事都可以做了」這個觀察的基礎。社會「公評公論」的作用比個人「道德感」要強；但仍不足以維持社會穩定運作。這是為什麼一個社會必須落實「法治」的原因。
3) 法律是有形的條文，它不可能繁瑣成面面俱到。因此，我們必須加強加深社會「公評公論」的力道。在下不才，幼承庭訓；鳴鼓而攻之言常在我心，行文弘道其義本於春秋。這是我在文風上不以溫、良、恭、讓自許的原因。
索引：
built-in excuse – 不足採信的辯解
cognitive inattentiveness – 思考惰性
meta-analysis – 整合分析
Moral wiggle room – 「道德扭捏空間」
willful ignorance – 「選擇性無知」：指有意不去了解或追究自己行為的負面後果。
本文於 修改第 2 次
|
|
|
本城市首頁
看回應文章
等級：8
