|
心理學 – 開欄文
|
瀏覽4,161 ｜回應20｜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
|
|
使你做出錯誤決定的心理戰術 -- Ross Akram
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
由這篇文章可以看出：所謂「心理」，其實基於：人「大腦」的「(神經網路)連接」。
人類大腦神經網路之所以如此「連接」，則是因為：「連接」方式其實很多；不過，如果我們的老祖先的「大腦」不是這種方式「連接」：
1) 他們不會活到能夠開枝散葉的年齡。或者，
2) 即使僥倖活到有了兒、女，他們的下一代或下幾代由遺傳而來的「大腦」，也難以幫助這些後輩在艱苦環境和激烈競爭雙重壓力下繼續存活。
請參考以下中譯，也歡迎指正。
7 Dark Psychological Truths That Humans Can’t Resist.
Learn them before someone uses them to exploit you.
Ross Akram, 11/29/25
#1 The Scarcity Effect. (物以稀為貴)
Your brain has a critical flaw. It believes that if something is rare, it must be valuable.
This isn’t your fault. It’s an ancient survival instinct. For your ancestors, a rare source of water or a fruiting tree in a barren landscape was the jackpot.
Scarcity signaled value, and the desire to acquire it was a ticket to staying alive.
Today, that same deep-seated instinct is being exploited every time you shop online. The scarcity effect is the psychological magic trick that makes you desperately want something the moment you believe it’s about to disappear.
It’s the reason that the airline ticket you were casually browsing suddenly becomes an urgent must-have purchase when the website flashes, “Only three seats left at this price.”
Marketers create an illusion of scarcity to rush you into a decision. It’s no longer a simple choice. It’s a competition. Your rational brain, which was busy weighing pros and cons, gets shoved aside by the primitive brain screaming, “If you don’t get it now, someone else will, and you’ll be left with nothing.”
#2 Mirroring. (物以類聚)
Have you ever met someone for the first time and felt an instant connection at first sight?
You might chalk it up to chemistry, but there’s a good chance you are experiencing the subtle art of mirroring.
This is the act, often subconscious, of copying another person’s gestures, tone of voice, and body language.
When you subtly mimic someone, you are sending a powerful nonverbal message directly to their subconscious. “I am like you. We are on the same team.”
Our brains are fundamentally tribal. We are wired to trust people who are part of our in-group, and mirroring is the ultimate shortcut to creating that feeling of belonging.
When used intentionally, this becomes a masterclass in influence.
* A skilled negotiator might match their counterparts’ posture to build a sense of shared purpose.
* A salesperson might adjust their speaking speed to match a customer’s, making them feel more heard and understood.
* On a date, if someone leans forward when you do or adopts a similar hand gesture, they are building a bridge of rapport without saying a single word.
The key is subtlety.
This isn’t about becoming a human copy machine, which would just be weird and unsettling.
It’s about creating a delicate, synchronized dance that makes the other person feel incredibly comfortable and seen.
It lowers their defenses, builds trust, and makes them far more receptive to whatever you have to say next.
#3 Loss Aversion. (誰都輸不起)
Let me propose a simple bet. We flip a coin. If it’s heads, you give me $100. If it’s tails, I give you $100. Would you take that bet?
Statistically, it’s a perfectly fair 50/50 proposition, but most people would refuse.
Now, what if I offered to give you $150 for winning while you still only risk losing $100? You might start to consider it.
This reluctance demonstrates a powerful cognitive bias called loss aversion.
Psychologically, the pain of losing something is roughly twice as powerful as the pleasure of gaining the exact same thing.
Your brain is wired to protect what you already have far more fiercely than it desires to acquire something new.
This principle is the bedrock of the entire insurance industry.
An insurance ad doesn’t sell you on the wonderful feeling of having a policy. It terrifies you with vivid images of what you could lose without one. Your house in fire, your savings are a risk, and your family's security.
They’re not selling you a product. They’re selling you an escape from a potential loss. You see this everywhere:
* Companies offer free trials because they know that once you’ve integrated their service into your life, the thought of losing access to it feels much worse than the initial joy of getting it for free. This motivates you to subscribe.
* Political campaigns are often built on this, focusing less on a candidate’s promises and more on what voters stand to lose if the other side wins.
It’s a deeply manipulative but brutally effective tactic that plays on your brain’s most conservative instinct: Don’t lose the stuff you’ve already got.
#4 The Strategic Complement. (「千穿萬穿，馬屁不穿」)
Everyone likes to be complimented. But a strategic compliment is something different. It’s not just empty flattery; it’s a precision-guided tool designed to lower someone’s defenses and make them more agreeable.
The principle is simple: When you praise someone for a specific trait, especially one they pride themselves on, you’re not just making them feel good.
You are subtly validating their self-image, which creates an instant feeling of warmth and rapport towards you.
This makes them far more susceptible to whatever you say next.
It’s the human equivalent of giving a cat a treat right before you try to trim its nails.
Picture this: You’re in an intense negotiation. Instead of diving straight into your demands, you start by saying, “I’ve always been impressed by your reputation for being tough but fair.”
You’ve just complimented their professional identity.
Now, they have a subconscious desire to live up to that praise, which might make them more inclined to act fairly when you present your offer.
#5 The Foot In The Door Technique. (溫水煮青蛙)
This technique is a masterclass in the slow boil. It’s based on a simple premise: If you want someone to agree to a big request, you first get them to agree to a tiny, almost trivial one.
This small initial agreement acts as the foot in the door, making it psychologically much harder for the person to refuse the larger request that follows. Why? Because of our deep-seated need for consistency.
Once you’ve said yes to something, no matter how small, you’ve subtly shifted your self-perception. You now see yourself as the person who is helpful or who supports that particular cause.
It creates cognitive dissonance, that uncomfortable feeling when your actions are not in line with your beliefs.
This technique is used everywhere, from salespeople asking for just a moment of your time to a friend asking for a small favor before revealing the much bigger one they actually need.
It’s a psychological ramp, getting you to a yes, one tiny step at a time.
#6 Artificial Urgency. (故作緊張)
If the scarcity effect is about a limited quantity of something, artificial urgency is its evil twin, focused on a limited amount of time.
This tactic is designed to shut down your rational, deliberative brain and activate your impulsive, panic-driven one.
By creating a fake or exaggerated deadline it forces you into making a quick decision before you have a chance to overthink it.
Compare prices or ask yourself the most dangerous question of all, “Do I actually need this?”
That countdown Timer you see on a shopping website, ticking down the seconds until a special offer expires, is a perfect example. It’s a digital pressure cooker designed to make your heartbeat a little faster. This manufactured time pressure exploits your fear of regret. The focus is shifted from, “Is this a good deal?” To, “I’ll be so upset if I miss this deal.”
Your brain is so busy processing the deadline that it doesn’t have the cognitive bandwidth to properly evaluate the purchase itself.
High-pressure salespeople use this constantly. This offer is only good for today, they’ll say, creating a now-or-never scenario. They know that if you leave to think about it, the emotional spell will be broken, and logic will likely take over.
The goal is to make you feel that hesitation is a losing move.
Whether it’s a 24-hour flash sale or an infomercial promising a free set of steak knives, if you order in the next 10 minutes, artificial urgency is a powerful tool to rush you past your own better judgment.
#7 The Decoy Effect. (聲東擊西)
Your brain is surprisingly bad at determining the absolute value of things, but it’s exceptionally good at comparing them.
The decoy effect exploits this by nudging you toward a specific choice by introducing a third strategically unappealing option. The most classic example of this is movie theater popcorn. Imagine your choices are a small popcorn for $3 or a large popcorn for $7. That’s a tough decision.
The small is cheap, but the large is, well, large.
Now the salesperson will introduce a medium-sized popcorn worth $ 6.5. And this medium-sized popcorn is the decoy whose sole purpose is to make you buy the large bucket.
If this message resonates with you, follow Metacognition to reclaim your strength in a world full of illusions.
Thank you so much for reading my story till the very end. If you like my writing, you can support me by Buying Me A Coffee :)
Written by Ross Akram
MS in Phytochemistry. 3S of my life: Science, Sports, and Spirituality.
Published in Metacognition
Metacognition is an unbiased analysis of one’s own thoughts.
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
劈腿的三個原因--The Female Code
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
Women Don’t Cheat for Fun — They Cheat for These 3 Brutal Reasons
The Truth No One Warns Men About — Until It’s Too Late.
The Female Code, 11/23/25
It’s never as simple as you think.
You’ve likely heard the common narrative, the tired assumption that cheating for a woman is always about the emotional connection, while for a man, it’s just about the sex.
But life, and certainly human relationships, rarely fit neatly into those little boxes, do it?
The truth is, when a woman steps outside of a relationship, the reasons are often far more complex — and occasionally, far more ruthless — than a simple loss of feeling.
The big question, the one that usually hangs heavy in the air, is this: Can a woman cheat and still be in love with you (指丈夫或既有男友)?
That’s a thorny issue. The jury is perpetually out on that one because it fundamentally depends on how you define love.
We tend to lump all our affection into one category, but ancient wisdom suggests there are different kinds of love that operate simultaneously in a relationship.
For instance, there’s Eros: the passionate, erotic, almost addictive kind of love. It brings intense joy, but it can also bring great sorrow, and it’s not always what’s good for you.
Then there is Philia: the deep love of friends and equals. It’s the kind of affection between partners who have been together for a long time, the “we’ve been through everything” kind of bond that’s less hot and bothered but filled with deep care.
There’s also Storge, the natural, almost unconscious love of a parent for a child, where whether the person is worthy of the love is irrelevant.
And finally, Agape, the selfless, unconditional love of mankind.
When you break it down like that, you realize it’s absolutely possible for her to still love you, but just not in the way you need or expect. While you may be expecting that passionate Eros as part of the package, she might be busy giving you Philia.
The emotional connection might still exist, but something critical is missing from the equation.
1.When She Desires Sexual Variety
Yes, I know. You thought this was solely a man thing. You were wrong.
Sometimes, the reasons a woman cheats are, purely and simply, sexually motivated. She cheats for variety, for a thrill, or for a connection that ignites a different kind of spark.
But there is always a crucial catch when a woman is involved.
Most women who seek sexual variety do so because they feel their sexual and emotional needs are not being met in the primary relationship.
It’s a form of outsourcing.
Women, more often than men, will outsource the sexual or emotional pleasure they lack in an effort to preserve their primary partnership.
Think about that for a moment.
If a woman is deeply unhappy and emotionally starved in her marriage, she will seek the emotional attention she lacks from a third party. If she continues to receive that emotional gratification, she can remain in her current, loveless relationship — maybe for years, maybe for decades — without ever having to forfeit the stability of her family or break her partner’s heart.
The problem? If those deeply missing sexual or emotional needs continue to go unmet by her primary partner over the long run, she will eventually have to break up or seek divorce to find genuine happiness elsewhere.
2.When She Lacks or Loses Love for Her Primary Partner
This is the big one, the core reason that most often leads to an affair: seeking an exit strategy.
One of the main reasons women in this category cheat is to actively blow up a relationship that makes them feel trapped.
She might find herself with a partner who, on paper, seems like a genuinely nice person, but he’s controlling, emotionally unavailable, or stifling. She tries to make changes. She pushes him to seek professional help. She tries to get him to meet her emotional needs.
But when she continually fails in these attempts, she begins to lose something far more valuable than passion: respect and affection.
Over time, this loss of respect metastasizes into a loss of love. The unconscious narrative you’ll hear is often, “He’s a nice guy, but I’m miserable.” She acts out to end the relationship because she simply cannot bring herself to just walk away clean.
When it gets to this point, leaving you will likely hurt you far more than it hurts her. Why?
Because she’s already checked out.
Many women leave their partners emotionally long before they physically walk out the door. They begin cheating emotionally long before it ever becomes physical. If you keep this statement in mind, a lot of female behavior around infidelity suddenly becomes clearer.
Studies, by the way, back this up. Women are much more likely than men to initiate breakups, and they tend to report feeling much happier after the separation. She’s already done the hard, painful work of disconnecting — all while still sitting beside you on the couch.
3.When Situational Factors Create an Opportunity
This is the kind of infidelity that is often rooted in deep-seated guilt and a lack of self-worth.
Some women struggle with the guilt of simply leaving a good, albeit incompatible, partner. They feel their own happiness isn’t enough justification to walk out of a stable relationship. So, as a solution, they find solace in cheating.
For these women, cheating can feel like a way to keep their options open. They need to feel safe and secure, and if that security is threatened — say, by a fight or a misunderstanding — they can sometimes overcompensate by seeking validation and attention elsewhere.
Every time you fight with such a woman, you may actually be pushing her into another man’s arms.
The third party eventually becomes a transition point, a secure bridge out of the relationship with you. Every negative experience drives her further and further away until she finally walks away and finds a partner who better suits her purposes.
It’s interesting and deeply sad information, but it’s a reality we must acknowledge.
The Subtle Warning Signs
It’s easy to dismiss signs until it’s too late, but paying attention is crucial. While none of these are cast in stone, they can serve as a valuable guide:
* Obsessive Phone Secrecy. If her phone is always locked and never leaves her sight — even when she’s showering — that is a massive red flag. Especially if this behavior is entirely new.
* Unexplained Unavailability. She has moments or even entire days when she’s unreachable. When she finally surfaces, she can’t give you a tenable reason for her absence.
* A Sudden Interest in Appearance. All of a sudden, she’s putting in extra time and effort into the way she looks and presents herself, yet there’s been no major life change to explain it. Something is changing.
* A Change in Attitude. Her entire behavior, her demeanor, and the way she responds to you seem completely shifted from the woman you knew.
* Deceit Over Small Things. She begins to find every reason to lie to you, even about things that aren’t a big deal. The lying itself becomes a habit.
* A Shift in Communication. You used to speak regularly, but now you literally have to beg for her time on the phone.
The truth is, women are far less likely than men to have an affair that “just happens.” They tend to think longer and harder about the situation; going in and leaving quickly is not their thing. When you start to see signs that question the fidelity of the woman you’re with, you need to think about the real possibility of cheating.
Listen to your gut. It is rarely wrong.
Share your thoughts in comments; we respect your opinion.
Written by The Female Code
Exploring the heart of human connection—writing about love, trust, and the art of building meaningful relationships.
相關閱讀
The One Question That Instantly Exposes Whether a Woman Is Worth Your Time
Most men ask the wrong thing — and it’s why they get played.
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
你迷戀上一個人的生理和心理原因 -- UnblendX
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
下面這篇文章的內容討論「談情說愛」和「大腦神經學」；但作者把重點放在俗稱的「心理現象」或「心理作用」，以及它們所導致的「行為模式」；故致於此欄。此處可參考我說的：「今天我們可以用『未被啟動』(定義2)的大腦神經連接網路，來說明『潛意識』」(此欄2025/11/13)。此處也可參考這篇拙作和「社會建構論」。
Have You Ever Felt So Addicted or Obsessed with Someone? (Here’s WHY)
UnblendX, 11/09/25
Have you ever met someone who didn’t just catch your eye… they hijacked your mind? You couldn’t stop thinking about them. Every text, every glance, every silence hit like a drug. They became intoxicating…even addictive. They are in your head, in your chest and probably in your text drafts too. That’s not “chemistry.” It’s something deeper… and more dangerous.
Neuroscientist Dr. Tom Bellamy calls it limerence (莫名其妙的迷戀): an intense, obsessive form of romantic infatuation that can feel like a behavioral addiction. It’s that dizzying, euphoric, all-consuming pull toward someone who seems to light up every circuit in your brain.
Limerence is what happens when attraction goes beyond chemistry and becomes compulsion. So what makes some people so addictive and why do they affect us so deeply? Let’s break it down.
1. It’s Not Just About Beauty
We all know the usual suspects when it comes to attraction: physical symmetry, a nice jawline or the famous hip-to-waist ratio. Evolutionary psychology explains these as markers of fitness. But that doesn’t tell the full story.
Because attraction isn’t just biology … it’s personal. We’ve all met someone who looked perfect on paper but left us cold… and someone else who wasn’t your “type” but suddenly made your heart race. It isn’t just about them… it’s about you.
And when limerence strikes, it’s not logical. It’s personal. It’s that mysterious alchemy between two people that feels like destiny but is actually neuroscience in disguise.
Ordinary people can trigger extraordinary infatuation because something about them matches our inner blueprint of desire.
2. The “Glimmer”: When It All Starts
Dr. Bellamy calls it the glimmer … that instant flash of recognition that makes someone stand out in a crowded world.
It’s that “oh no, it’s them” moment. Your body reacts before your brain catches up. You can’t explain it and no one else gets it. To others, this person might seem boring, average or even annoying. But to you? They’re magnetic.
That’s the first sign of limerence. It’s not that the person is universally irresistible… it’s that they uniquely trigger you. As one commenter on Bellamy’s site wrote,
“I was fascinated by how ordinary she was… other people found her boring, but to me she was adorable. I couldn’t explain it.”
That’s the glimmer in action. It’s personal, powerful and impossible to rationalize.
3. The Hidden Template: How Our Past Shapes Desire
So why do some people trigger the glimmer while others don’t? It goes back to something called sexual imprinting … the idea that, during childhood and adolescence, the adults around us subtly shape our idea of what’s desirable.
The way someone smiled, spoke or treated us can become part of an unconscious template for attraction later in life.
It’s not just about who you liked in high school. It’s about the emotional environment you grew up in — the adults you admired, the validation you craved, even the kind of love you didn’t get.
All of it forms what Dr. Bellamy calls your “limerent avatar” — your subconscious template for who feels right, even when they’re wrong.
And here’s where it gets wild: neuroscience shows our brains can be tricked by what’s called a supernormal stimulus … an exaggerated version of something our brains are wired to respond to.
A classic study showed that male stickleback fish attacked wooden decoys with extra-bright red bellies more aggressively than real rivals. Why? The fake fish overstimulated their instinctual response.
In human terms? Some people are supernormal romantic stimuli — they hit every one of your attraction buttons at once, overloading your brain’s reward circuits. They’re not necessarily better… It’s not that they’re magic. It’s that your brain is.
4. What Makes Them So Addictive
Once the glimmer hits, certain behaviors can supercharge limerence and two of the most powerful are flirting and mixed messages.
1) Flirting: The Hook
Flirting is like emotional caffeine. It signals interest, ignites hope and activates your brain’s pleasure system.
Some people flirt for fun. Others flirt to test the waters. But either way, for a limerent person, that spark of possibility is all it takes to start the obsession.
Flirting gives you the most addictive drug of all…(hope). It teases the possibility of love.
Then there’s love bombing… the nuclear version of flirting. It’s when someone showers you with attention, compliments and affection so intensely that you start to believe you’ve found “the one.”
They tell you things like:
“I’ve never met anyone like you.”
“You’re so easy to talk to.”
“You make me feel safe.”
It feels real. It feels special and that’s exactly what makes it addictive. For some, it’s harmless fun. For others, it’s a psychological grenade.
2) Mixed Messages: The Trap
Now, combine love bombing with mixed messages and you’ve got emotional crack. One day they’re warm, passionate, attentive. The next day they’re distant, distracted or “just not in the right place right now.”
That inconsistency activates what psychologists call intermittent reinforcement, the same mechanism that keeps gamblers glued to slot machines. You never know when the next “reward” will come, so you keep playing, chasing the high of their affection.
Sometimes you “win” their affection. Sometimes you don’t. You keep pulling the lever, hoping for another hit of validation.
And yes, some people with bad intentions do this (mix signals) on purpose. But many don’t… they’re simply acting out their own unresolved patterns, seeking validation without realizing the chaos they create.
And that’s how limerence becomes a loop.
5. The Power of Archetypes
Some people don’t just attract us … they haunt us. That’s because they fit a story we’ve already internalized.
Think about it:
* The Damsel in Distress who needs saving.
* The Tortured Soul who only you can heal.
* The Bad Boy or Bad Girl who breaks all the rules.
* The Free Spirit who teaches you to “live.”
They fit an archetype we’ve absorbed from movies and stories since childhood. And because our brains are wired for narrative, those archetypes feel familiar and fated.
Like they were written into your story long before you met.
You don’t just fall for the person… you fall for the story they represent. That’s why it can feel like destiny… when it’s just psychology.
The reality is that you’re not meeting destiny… you’re meeting your narrative wiring.
6. Why Limerence is Dangerous
* It Hijacks Your Mind: When you’re limerent, your brain releases a cocktail of dopamine, adrenaline, and norepinephrine every time you think about or interact with that person. It’s literally the same chemical pattern as a drug addiction. You lose focus. You replay conversations. You overanalyze texts. Your brain stops functioning rationally — it just wants another hit. In other words: you’re not in love, you’re in withdrawal.
* You Fall for a Fantasy, Not a Person: Limerence turns the other person into a projection screen. You fill in their blanks with what you want them to be: your ideal lover, your savior, your emotional fix, etc. You fall for the potential of who they could be, not who they actually are. That’s why, when the fantasy collapses, it feels like heartbreak times ten… because you’re not just losing them, you’re losing your illusion.
* It Attracts Toxic Dynamics: The most dangerous pairings often happen when a limerent person meets someone emotionally unavailable, manipulative, or inconsistent. The hot-cold behavior intensifies the obsession — you keep chasing validation that never comes consistently. This is where limerence can slide into trauma bonding, which feels like passion but is really pain dressed up as chemistry.
* It Blinds You to Red Flags: When you’re in limerence, your brain filters out information that contradicts your emotional narrative.
They’re inconsistent? “They’re just busy.”
They’re disrespectful? “They’re misunderstood.”
They’re not interested? “They’re just scared of how strong the connection is.”
You rationalize everything — because losing the illusion feels worse than facing the truth. Limerence doesn’t always need reciprocation to survive — it feeds on fantasy. You can be obsessed with someone who’s unavailable, married, or long gone. It’s the addiction that sustains itself through imagination.
Limerence is dangerous because it’s love without clarity, passion without peace, and desire without direction. It feels like falling but you’re actually being pulled under. Real love isn’t a high. It’s a home.
7. Recognizing the Pattern: Who You’re Addicted To
Understanding limerence isn’t about blaming yourself. It’s about recognizing patterns.
Look back at the people who’ve triggered that electric pull. Do you see similarities? Are they often emotionally unavailable? Unstable? Exciting but inconsistent?
If your glimmer keeps lighting up for people who can’t meet you halfway, that’s not “chemistry.” That’s limerence.
And here’s the key insight: not every glimmer is a green light.
Sometimes it’s a warning flare … your nervous system replaying old patterns that once felt familiar, even if they weren’t healthy.
When you learn to recognize that, you take back control.
You stop mistaking obsession for connection.
8. Breaking the Spell
Limerence feels like love on steroids… exhilarating, consuming and unforgettable. But it’s not real connection. It’s your brain chasing its own reward loop.
The next time you feel that glimmer, pause. Ask yourself:
* What does this person remind me of?
* Do they fit a pattern I’ve fallen into before?
* Am I drawn to who they are or to the feeling they give me?
Sometimes the glimmer is harmless… a simple crush. But if it’s leading you toward people who are unavailable, inconsistent or emotionally chaotic, it’s not a sign of magic. It’s a sign of vulnerability.
The real freedom comes from knowing your triggers and choosing differently next time.
The good news is that once you understand it, you can stop being hijacked by it. You can enjoy the spark without losing yourself in the fire.
Because the magic isn’t just in them, it’s in the alchemy between your psychology and their behavior.
Once you understand that, the spell breaks. You stop mistaking intensity for intimacy. You stop chasing the high and start seeking something real.
You no longer crave the addictive kind of love. You crave the real kind: grounded, mutual and peaceful.
If this article gave you clarity, closure or a crisis… buy me a Coffee @ https://ko-fi.com/unblendx to support dangerously good ideas. It’s cheaper than a spiritual cleansing and way more fun…
Written by UnblendX
I'm only responsible for what I said not how you understood it. Here to create room for uncomfortable conversations &---- from a traditional woman's perspective.
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
容格：人們墜入愛河兩大原因 - The Psychology Blog
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
請參考：Psychological Signs You’re Emotionally Attached, Not in Love
依標題和主旨，本文應該放在「談情說愛篇」一欄；但是因為作者介紹了容格的理論，這一部份才是我轉載它的原因；所以把它放在此處。
People Fall in Love With You For These Two Reasons — Carl Jung
And it’s not what you think!
The Psychology Blog, 10/27/25
Carl Jung, one of the most profound psychologists of the 20th century, believed that love isn’t just some random accident. It’s something that happens for two profound reasons — and it has everything to do with your psyche.
You might think your charm or the way you look is the reason someone falls for you, but Jung would say that what really matters is what you represent to them, the hidden parts of themselves they’re yet to discover.
You’ve probably been there, feeling irresistibly drawn to someone, only to feel blindsided when they turn away or the connection fades.
What happened? If you’re like most of us, you’ve fallen for a version of someone, an image, a projection — not the person themselves.
When we meet someone, we don’t just see them — we see fragments of ourselves reflected in them. These projections become so powerful that they can make us feel as if we’ve known someone forever, even if it’s just the first date.
Imagine meeting someone who seems fearless, outgoing, and expressive, when deep down, you’ve spent your life being reserved or emotionally cautious.
At first, it might feel like you’re simply admiring them — but really, it’s their confidence that resonates with you, a part of yourself you’ve kept hidden away.
You’re drawn to them not because of who they are, but because of who they represent to you — a part of you that’s been buried for years. This connection feels so powerful, so immediate, that you’re left thinking, “This is it. This is the one.” But it’s not about them at all.
It’s about you. It’s about what you haven’t allowed yourself to fully embrace — and they’re the mirror for that.
The same goes for them, too. People may fall in love with you not because of your visible traits but because you represent something they lack.
Maybe they’re rational, logical, and emotionally reserved, but they’ve been seeking someone spontaneous, expressive, and free. You become the symbol of a part of themselves that they haven’t fully discovered. But here’s the catch: This isn’t love, not at first.
If the person doesn’t recognize that what they admire in you is something they can nurture in themselves, it can quickly turn into dependence. They’ll cling to you, not because they truly love you, but because they need that part of themselves that they see in you.
As soon as you show your flaws — the real, human side of you — that fantasy they’ve built around you can come crashing down. And just like that, the attraction begins to fade.
This is what Jung warned against: projection. It’s a way of seeing someone not for who they truly are, but for the image you’ve projected onto them. It’s not real love — it’s an unconscious script that we play out, often without realizing it.
Jung took his theory deeper, introducing the concepts of the anima and the animus — archetypal figures that represent the opposite gender within each of us. For every man, there’s an unconscious image of the feminine, his anima; for every woman, there’s the animus, the masculine figure. These archetypes are shaped by our earliest relationships and the collective symbols of femininity and masculinity ingrained in our culture.
When we meet someone who fits these archetypes, it feels like destiny, like soul recognition. We feel an overwhelming sense of familiarity, as if we’ve known them forever. But Jung would remind us that this isn’t fate. It’s your psyche recognizing its own design reflected in someone else.
Reason #1: You Represent Something They Lack
And here lies the first reason why people fall in love with you: You represent something they lack.
Maybe they are rational and reserved, but you’re spontaneous and free-spirited. Maybe they’ve been emotionally closed off, and you embody everything they’ve unconsciously been searching for. You fill a void they didn’t even realize was there.
It’s not about opposites attracting. It’s about opposites revealing what’s missing. The rational person might be drawn to someone deeply emotional. An introvert may fall in love with an extrovert. A structured soul may be fascinated by someone chaotic.
But this admiration can slip into something else: dependence.
If the person doesn’t recognize that what they admire in you is something they can develop in themselves, they’ll cling to you, not out of genuine love, but because they need that part of themselves you represent.
And as soon as you show your humanity — your flaws and imperfections — that idealized image of you shatters, and the attraction fades.
Reason #2: You Awaken a Powerful Unconscious Image
The second reason people fall in love with you? You awaken a powerful unconscious image they’ve carried within them.
Jung’s theory of the anima and animus shows us that each of us carries within us unconscious images of the opposite gender.
When someone meets you, they may not consciously recognize it, but you resemble the inner image of the opposite gender they’ve had for years — you activate something deep inside them.
You stir something powerful. And that’s why the attraction feels so immediate, so irrational. It’s not about you. It’s about the archetype you represent to their inner world.
You’ve become a living symbol of an internal pattern they’ve been waiting for — and when you show up, their psyche is ready to recognize you.
But again, this isn’t about you. It’s about the image they’ve created of you in their unconscious mind.
You’re a projection, and when the real you begins to show — flaws, contradictions, and all — the fantasy starts to crack.
The connection they felt with you begins to fade, because it wasn’t based on mutual understanding.
It was based on a psychological construction they built in their mind.
Concluding Thoughts
Despite all this, Jung believed projection wasn’t a failure. It’s part of the growth process. Love is not just an emotional experience; it’s a tool for transformation.
Every person we fall for reflects something we need to see in ourselves — some hidden potential, some unmet need, or some unresolved fear.
The people who shake us, who break us, who teach us the most, are not random. They’re catalysts for change.
So, why do people fall in love with you? Because you either reflect something they desperately need or awaken something they’ve long forgotten.
It’s not about you — it’s about them. It’s about their unconscious self trying to evolve. And it’s the same for you. You fall in love with people who mirror what you’ve been missing, what you’ve been yearning to find within yourself.
But the problem is, if you don’t recognize these patterns, you can get stuck, trapped in the same types of relationships, attracted to the same illusions.
You might feel unlucky in love, when in reality, your unconscious is trying to teach you something — a lesson you’re not yet ready to learn.
Awareness is the key. When you understand your projections, when you recognize your inner patterns, you stop looking for someone to complete you. You start becoming whole within yourself. And from that place, love becomes real. It’s no longer about fantasy. It’s grounded. It’s free. It’s genuine.
Because in the end, the deepest love is not about finding the perfect person. It’s about awakening the parts of yourself that have been waiting to be seen. And when you fall in love with someone, you fall in love with the version of yourself they help you uncover. That’s the magic of love. It’s not in the other person — it’s in what they help you realize about yourself.
Written by The Psychology Blog
We write stories that make you think, feel, & grow!
本文於 修改第 5 次
|
|
「以其人之道」還治操弄者的招數 -- Ross Akram
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
下面這篇文章討論「招數」，本來可以放在《人際關係篇》這一欄。它涉及「言談行為」；所以，放在《語言和語言學》這一欄亦無不可(請參見該欄2025/10/27貼文)。不過，我認為它的精髓在指出：操弄者「其人之『道』」背後的指導原則，也就是說，「心理戰的理論根據」；因此，我最後選擇把它放在此欄。
中文標題為意譯。
5 Machiavellian Psychological Tactics to Outsmart Manipulators.
They manipulate. You Outsmart.
Ross Akram, 08/07/25
One who wishes to act entirely up to his professions of virtue soon meets with what destroys him. — Niccolo Machiavelli.
In other words, if you want to survive, you must understand the game. And if you want to dominate, you must learn to play it better than anyone else.
This article isn’t a lecture. It’s a manual for psychological warfare, a battle plan forged in cold logic, sharp instincts, and ruthless clarity.
You’re about to learn how to spot manipulators in seconds, how to flip their power plays back on them, and how to walk through chaos with unreadable calm.
#5 The Mirror Defense.
Here’s what manipulators hate more than anything: Their own reflection.
They don’t want to be seen; they want to see you.
They rely on the illusion that they’re smarter, more composed, and always in control. The second you reflect their behavior back to them, the game shatters.
The mirror defense is simple. Stop reacting emotionally and start reflecting on behavior strategically.
* If they speak in riddles, respond with silence.
* If they push for answers, ask them the same question they just asked you.
* If they fake kindness to bait you in, match it. Coldly, calmly, but never deepen the emotional exchange.
You’re not giving them anything new to work with. You’re making them face themselves.
Why does this work? Because manipulation depends on asymmetry. They need to act, and they need you to respond.
When you mirror instead of engage, the manipulator becomes unsure.
* They lose their advantage.
* They’re no longer leading the dance.
* They’re watching their moves get thrown right back at them.
In real life, this looks like a calm stare when someone tries to provoke you.
You’re not fighting them. You’re showing them their own mask, and most people can’t stand looking at it for long.
Remember, the more they try to bend you, the more you become their mirror.
#4 The Emotion Vacuum.
The manipulator’s greatest weapon is not their words; it’s your reaction.
They test you with subtle digs, passive-aggressive smiles, or fake praise laced with hidden insults.
And the moment you flinch, defend, or over-explain, they win because now you’re inside the emotional cage they built for you. You’re playing by their rules.
But here’s the kill shot.
Remove emotion from the equation entirely. Become a vacuum. Cold, silent, and unreadable.
When you stop reacting, they lose control. The manipulator doesn’t know what move to make when the board goes still.
Your silence becomes a mirror they can’t stand. Your neutrality becomes a fog they can’t navigate.
This isn’t about being numb. It’s about being in command.
Motion is not your enemy. Public emotion is.
In private, you feel everything, but in front of a manipulator, you feel nothing because emotion is data, and you don’t give data to the enemy.
#3 Strategic Delay.
Manipulators thrive on urgency. They pressure you to answer fast, decide quickly, and react immediately.
Why? Because speed kills thinking. And when you’re moving fast, you don’t see the trap until you’re already in it.
This is where you break their rhythm with one of the most underrated power plays: Delay.
The art of not responding when they are expected. The strategy of slowing down time so they sit in their own uncertainty.
Silence isn’t passive. It’s surgical.
Strategic delay gives you space to observe their intent, their patterns, and their desperation. And that desperation will always expose them.
Use this tactic in person. When someone confronts you, don’t respond immediately. Pause, breathe. Let silence speak first. That moment of hesitation becomes unsettling.
They’ll start to fill in the silence with their own fears, their own doubts. You’re no longer on the defense; they are.
You don’t owe anyone instant access to your mind.
Delayed response is not a weakness. It’s proof that you’re thinking, calculating, and choosing when and if to respond on your terms.
This is how Kings operate. This is how power speaks without raising its voice.
#2 Reward Reversal.
Manipulators bait you with two tools: Praise and Guilt.
If they can’t seduce you with compliments, they’ll guilt you with obligation.
Both are psychological levers. One pulls your ego, the other, your conscience. And if you respond to either, you’re already under control.
But here’s the twist. Instead of resisting the reward, you flip it.
You reverse the dynamic. You stop chasing validation and make them chase yours.
This is called reward reversal, one of the coldest tactics in psychological warfare.
Instead of rewarding their behavior with approval, attention, or agreement, you selectively withdraw.
You remove the reward that manipulators seek most: the emotional response. And in doing so, you change the entire power structure of the interaction.
Let’s break this down. When someone flatters you excessively, you’re so good at this. No one does it like you; they’re trying to hook you with ego-stroking bait.
Most people take it. They smile, say thank you, and feel compelled to return the favor.
But when you respond with indifference, a simple nod, or better yet, a subject change, you signal one thing: I don’t need your praise. I already know my value.
#1 Ambiguity Armor.
Clarity makes you predictable. Ambiguity makes you dangerous.
Manipulators study people like maps. They watch your patterns. They listen for contradictions.
They bait you with questions that seem innocent:
* So what are you thinking?
* Why didn’t you respond right away?
* What’s your plan next?
But here’s the truth they don’t want you to know, the moment you give them clarity, you give them coordinates. And once they have coordinates, they start plotting how to use you.
That’s why the most powerful weapon in psychological defense isn’t aggression; it’s ambiguity, controlled vagueness, intentional silence, and the refusal to explain.
When they can’t figure out where you stand, they can’t form a plan to push you off balance.
Final Thoughts.
From this point forward, you don’t react, you calculate, you don’t justify, you observe, you don’t prove anything, because power never begs.
If you keep playing the good guy in a world of predators, you’ll keep getting eaten alive.
This world isn’t filled with fair fights. It’s filled with psychological warfare, hidden behind smiles, sentiments, and fake concern.
Manipulators don’t look for strength. They look for softness, open wounds, and signs of approval seeking. And the moment they sense hesitation in your voice or guilt in your eyes, they strike.
They’re watching you, not because they admire you, but because they’re calculating you.
Written by Ross Akram
MS in Phytochemistry. 3S of my life: Science, Sports, and Spirituality.
Published in Metacognition
Metacognition is an unbiased analysis of one’s own thoughts.
本文於 修改第 4 次
|
|
尼切談人性 -- Ross Akram
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
尼切深刻影響了我對道德的看法以及我在倫理學上的立場；自然樂於推薦這篇他談論人性的文章。
13 Psychological Truths From Nietzsche To Read Anyone’s Mind Instantly.
#13 Look at how people handle being told “NO”.
Ross Akram, 08/05/25
Picture this. You walk into any room and within seconds, you can read anyone:
* Who’s insecure
* Who’s lying
* Who’s pretending to be confident but secretly drowning
* Who’s strong
* Who’s fake
* Who’s weak
Not because you’re psychic, not because you studied body language for years, but because you understand brutal psychological truths about human nature.
Truths that Nietzsche understood.
Truths that society hopes you never figure out. Because the moment you do, you stop being the prey and you start being the one who sees through everything: Every fake smile, every power play, every hidden agenda.
The world becomes transparent. People become predictable, and you become dangerous.
Because when you can read someone, you can control the interaction. When you can control the interaction, you can control the outcome.
And that’s how the quietest man in the room becomes the most powerful.
#1 Insecurity is loud, confidence is silent.
The ones constantly proving themselves, constantly flexing, bragging, name-dropping, talking about what they’ve done, are almost always the weakest in the room.
Because real power doesn’t explain itself, it doesn’t need validation.
When someone’s truly confident:
* They speak less
* They observe more
* They don’t rush to fill the silence because they know silence itself is power.
#2 People reveal themselves when they think you’re not judging them.
When you listen quietly without reacting, without challenging, without interrupting, people will start exposing their insecurities, their fears, their hidden motives.
They’ll tell you who they are:
* Not with words, but with patterns
* With the way they defend themselves unprovoked
* The way they brag without being asked
* The way they downplay others to feel taller.
All you have to do is shut up and watch.
#3 People are not as complicated as they pretend to be.
Most of what drives them is simple, predictable, and brutally selfish.
Behind every action, every smile, every compliment, every favor, there’s a hidden motive.
* It might be validation.
* It might be control.
* It might be manipulation.
* Or it might just be survival.
And the mistake weak people make? They listen to words. They believe in appearances. They trust in what people say about themselves.
But the powerful? They watch, they observe, not what someone says, but what they choose, what they tolerate, what they avoid, what they fear.
Because a person’s mouth can lie all day, but their patterns? Their patterns never lie.
1. If someone constantly gossips, they’re insecure.
2. If someone brags nonstop, they’re hiding their weakness.
3. If someone avoids conflict at all costs, they’re controlled by fear.
4. And if someone’s always the loudest in the room, it’s because they’re terrified you might hear the silence inside them.
#4 Watch how people treat those they don’t need.
It’s easy to be polite to someone powerful. It’s easy to be kind when there’s something to gain.
The real character shows in how they treat the waiter, the janitor, and the stranger who can’t offer them anything.
If they disrespect the powerless, trust me, it’s only a matter of time before they disrespect you.
#5 People mirror what they secretly want to be.
* The man who constantly mocks discipline wishes he had it.
* The one who laughs at ambition has already given up on his own.
* The one who tries to shame your confidence drowns in his own insecurity.
What someone hates most in others is almost always what they hate most in themselves.
Jealousy is always a window into what they secretly wish they had.
#6 When people try too hard to look strong, it’s because they feel weak.
The loudest man in the room, that’s not power, that’s a scream for help disguised as dominance.
The person who talks the most usually knows the least. Because real intelligence isn’t about proving how smart you are.
It’s about gathering data. It’s about asking. It’s about listening.
The person who fills the air with words is often terrified of what might come up in the silence. Terrified you might notice how little they actually know.
Real strength moves quietly; it doesn’t announce itself, it doesn’t beg to be seen, it lets others feel it without ever having to say a word.
#7 When someone tries to humble-brag.
* Oh, I don’t really care about money.
* Oh, I just got lucky.
* I’m not like those other people who care about status.
That’s not humility. That’s insecurity wearing a mask.
Real confidence never needs to hide behind false modesty.
#8 The fastest way to read someone’s real values is to watch where they break their own rules.
Everyone says they care about loyalty until they betray a friend for attention.
Everyone says they care about honesty until a little lie protects their image.
Don’t listen to the rules they say out loud. Watch the rules they break in silence.
#9 The person who constantly seeks validation is the person who never learned how to give it to themselves.
Every exaggerated story is a scream that says, Tell me I’m enough.
And the person who doesn’t get that validation, they crumble.
When someone tries to control how others see them — endlessly curating, correcting, managing their image — it’s not power, it’s fear.
Real power doesn’t explain itself. It lets the noisy stay noisy, and it moves in silence.
#10 Look at how someone treats time.
The one who’s always late doesn’t respect themselves or you.
The one who wastes hours on distractions is running from their own reflection.
#11 No Self ownership.
The one who never takes accountability is the most fragile person in the room because ownership is strength.
The man who can’t do that can’t handle himself.
#12 People who gossip to you will gossip about you.
It’s not a question of if, it’s a question of when, because gossip is never about connection; it’s always about control.
A cheap way for weak people to feel powerful by shrinking the world around them.
#13 Look at how people handle being told “NO”.
The one who collapses, the one who gets aggressive, the one who manipulates, guilt-trips you, plays the victim.
But there’s also someone who respects a boundary without flinching, without punishing you for it. That person. That’s someone who’s dealt with their own demons, someone who isn’t ruled by scarcity, someone rare.
Because how someone handles disappointment tells you everything about how they handle power.
Written by Ross Akram
MS in Phytochemistry. 3S of my life: Science, Sports, and Spirituality.
Published in Write A Catalyst
Write A Catalyst and Build it into Existence.
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
男人為何常發怒 -- A. Weiss
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
Why Men Get So Angry
Men's anger is often fueled by fear.
Avrum Weiss, Reviewed by Margaret Foley, 06/28/25
Key points
* Men may channel emotions into anger, which may seem like a more masculine and socially acceptable emotion.
* Their anger often masks underlying emotions, such as fear.
* Recognizing the fears beneath anger can lead to more open, intimate communication.
While many men struggle to recognize and express their emotions, anger is often the emotion with which many men feel most comfortable. Ask a man how he feels, and you may get a puzzled expression, unless he is angry, in which case he will often be quite clear and forthcoming about what he’s feeling. Men are socialized to channel much of their emotional life into anger because being angry avoids feeling vulnerable.
Of course, men do have emotions other than anger. Men feel sad, glad, and scared, but anger is often the only socially acceptable emotion. There are numerous social prohibitions against men expressing emotions other than anger, and considerable social reinforcement for being angry. We think of men who are angry as powerful and more masculine, and men who express sadness or fear as weak and less masculine.
In contrast, women are socialized to direct their anger inward and to believe that open expressions of anger are not feminine. Men are socialized to express their anger overtly and to use their anger to control their partners and their own emotional experience. Being angry not only helps men to feel more in control of their own emotional experience, but many men also use anger in an attempt to control their partner’s expression of feeling as well.
Men get emotionally activated when their wives or partners are more emotional, so they often use anger to control their partners' expressions of emotions as well as their own. As a result, anger becomes the go-to emotion for many men, the default feeling they are most familiar with and comfortable with. Other feelings are either suppressed or hidden beneath their anger.
Although anger has gotten a bad name in our culture, anger itself is not a problem. In its simplest form, anger is just a way of letting someone know that you are not happy with the way things are going between you and that you want to find a way to make things better. Anger becomes a problem in relationships when it is either not expressed or acted out rather than discussed and resolved.
In many instances, men may resort to the familiar experience of anger to conceal from themselves and others what they are truly feeling. What men most often feel underneath their anger is fear. Men get angry to cover their fear.
See if you recognize yourself in any of these everyday situations:
* Your anger that your wife or partner spends so much time texting and talking on the phone with friends might mask your fears that she might not enjoy talking with you as much as she does with her friends.
* Your anger at your wife for coming home late from work and bringing work home with her might mask envy and fear about being less successful than her.
* Your anger at being criticized by your partner, to the point where you can’t seem to get it right, might mask your fear of not being able to please her.
* Your anger that the kids always come first with your partner, and she never seems to have any time for you, may mask your fear that you don’t know how to have the kind of close relationship that she has with the kids.
Once you begin to recognize some of the deeper fears underlying your anger, you may consider the truly intimate act of discussing your fears with your wife or partner. This act of loving vulnerability may be very frightening to consider, but the rewards often far outweigh the risks.
Excerpted, in part, from Hidden in Plain Sight: How Men's Fears of Women Shape Their Intimate Relationships. Lasting Impact Press.
Avrum Weiss, Ph.D., is a psychotherapist and speaker who writes about the internal lives of men and their intimate relationships.
Online: Avrum Weiss, Ph.D., Facebook, X, LinkedIn
THE BASICS：
* How Can I Manage My Anger?
* Take our Anger Management Test
* Find a therapist to heal from anger
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
容格5個幫助你自知的睿智 -- Singh Bhai
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
Jung, Carl：容格
我不是心理學科班出身，自然沒有身份對容格這樣的大學者說三道四。乍看之下，作者所介紹的5個榮格「睿智」的確有些道理。但是，下文所介紹的容格理論完全建立在「潛意識」的概念/理論上。根據我對社會建構論和大腦神經學的一知半解，容格和弗洛依德的「潛意識」缺乏一個堅實的科學依據，如果「潛意識」的確有「非容格/非弗洛依德」學說的解釋，則容格的觀點就難以成立。
我希望能擠出一點時間和聚集幾根腦筋來談談這個有趣的議題。
5 Carl Jung Concepts That Beat Pop Psychology By 100 Years
In all chaos there is a cosmos, in all disorder a secret order — Carl Jung
Singh Bhai, 05/25/25
Most people don’t really want to know themselves.
What they want is to feel good about their bad habits, see their past in a quote that makes them feel seen, and call that “healing.”
That’s why Modern Self Improvement is so popular. It tells you what you want to hear.
Carl Jung said things that still make people angry, like maybe your biggest problem is actually you.
Let’s look at five things Jung said that, aren’t trendy, but actually matter.
1. If You Don’t Bring the Unconscious to Consciousness, It Will Dominate Your Life and You Will Call It Fate
This is the Jung version of, “Your patterns are showing.”
You keep selecting the same profession, same person, same soap opera, but with different clothing and terrible cologne. That maybe not just destiny, That is your unfinished issues with a sock puppet.
Our unconscious are not dreams and weird yearnings. It is everything you have suppressed, tuned out, or have considered not “you.”
And it doesn’t remain silent. It guides your decisions with all of the elegance of a toddler driving.
* Maybe, you’re just unaware.
* What you suppress, you repeat.
* Your unconscious already influences your life.
* Recognize the pattern.
To know the unconscious is to finally read the play you’ve been acting out for 20 years and understand you didn’t write it, your wounds did.
2. The Inflated Ego Is Perpetually on the Brink of Collapse, It Is Not Strength, but a Fragile Shell
A healthy ego can have a sense of humor about itself. An inflated one can’t joke, or be corrected.
* Fragile egos need applause.
* Real strength tolerates doubt.
* Big ego = deep insecurity.
The larger the ego, the greater the fall. Because it is founded upon achievement, not reality.
If your whole sense of self cracks under gentle pressure, it might be time to stop inflating and start grounding.
The ego is not bad. You need one to function. And to push yourself and raise that bar, It’s just don’t fill it up with helium and expect it to hold you up, it will blow up someday.
3. The Persona Is a Mask. To Equate It With the Self Is to Be Lost in One’s Own Acting
Every time a person says “I’m such an empath” on the third date, I have an urge to scream this quote.
The persona is what you present the world. It’s polished, convenient, and often lies through its teeth.
What this means? You built your personality to get by, not to thrive (Maybe blame school and collage for this? idk). It was used to placate others, avoid conflict, conform and be “normal,” or whatever the game was.
* The persona is survival, not self.
* Masks can become cages.
As time goes by, you begin to think that the mask you wear is the real you. That’s why the appearance of confidence can be hollow.
Am I the only one who feels that kind, gentle people suffer from this more?Maybe pretending a little in different situations isn’t always a bad thing.
4. Active Imagination Makes the Unconscious Speak, True Vision Begins Where Fantasy Ends
Jung did not enjoy passive daydreaming. He believed that if you really listen to your imagination, it can show you what’s going on inside you.
He wanted people to pay attention to the voices, images, and feelings that pop up, not ignore them or suppress them due to your responsibilities and stress.
Because they’re not just random.
The distinction between imagination and insight is finer than you realize. One whirs you around in circles. The other goes directly into the areas of yourself that you’ve been sidestepping.
5. Individuation Is Not Improving Yourself, It Is the Birth of the Whole Self in Suffering
Self improvement asks:
“How can I fix what’s wrong with me?”
Individuation asks:
“Can I live with the parts of me I’ve spent my whole life trying to hide?”
I want you to Try this instead of another to do list:
* What part of you are you trying to change right now?
Write it down without judgment. Is it your anger? Neediness? Anxiety?
* Now ask: Why do I want this part of me to disappear?
What fear is underneath that?
* Imagine that part of you could talk.
What would it say? What does it need? What is it trying to protect?
* Who taught you that this part of you was unacceptable?
Was it a parent? A teacher? Culture? Yourself?
You might ask why? So why does that matter? Because the more you reject parts of yourself, the more those parts run your life from behind the scenes. You don’t heal by deleting traits. You heal by understanding them. And doing it over and over again until it becomes second thought.
Final Thoughts
If you’re reading Jung, chances are, you’re not here for ten ways to be our best selves by 9 AM and make $100k per month.
Maybe, You’re here because you know that there is something more, even if you don’t yet quite have the words for it.
Maybe that’s the point.
Wait a Sec
I share insights like this every 2–3/week — ones that actually change how you think in my newsletter (TheOpenBook). Join 5753+ readers.
Subscribe on Medium for more insights like this — be the first to know!
You can also buy me coffee to support me.
Thanks for stopping by.
本文於 修改第 4 次
|
|
史丹佛監獄實驗 -- Augustine Brannigan
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
我過去在書籍和論文中，偶而會看到史丹佛監獄實驗被引用或討論，次數還不算少。只是因為當時專注手頭的閱讀，從來沒有去進一步了解這個實驗的具體內容。前一陣子可能因為辛巴斗教授過世，再次看到評論它的文章，所以決定讀讀這篇分析並存檔。
Should Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment be retracted?
Augustine Brannigan, Retraction Watch, 03/10/25
A prisoner and guard in the Stanford Prison Experiment. | PrisonExp.org 請至原網頁觀看照片
Philip G. Zimbardo passed away in October 2024 at age 91. He enjoyed an illustrious career at Stanford University, where he taught for 50 years. He accrued a long list of accolades, but his singular and enduring contribution to scholarship was the Stanford Prison Experiment, a simulation carried out in the university’s psychology department in August 1971. The research project became the best-known psychological analysis of institutionalization at the time.
The study has always been treated with skepticism by penologists and psychologists, and recent scholarship by social scientist Thibault Le Texier has raised fundamental questions about the scientific validity of the investigation, the originality of the research design, the unethical treatment of the subjects, and the credibility of the reported results.
Many consider Zimbardo’s SPE to be one of the classic studies of experimental psychology in the post-war period. It continues to be reported as a landmark achievement in many psychological textbooks today, despite drawing decades of criticism both in and out of the scientific literature. But considering Le Texier’s findings, should Zimbardo’s work be retracted?
For the prison simulation, Zimbardo recruited 24 college-aged men and randomly assigned half to the role of guards and half to the role of inmates. “Inmates” were housed in mock “cells” in the basement of the psychology department, and “guards” worked three at a time over three eight-hour shifts. Everyone was paid $15 per day. A camera was installed surreptitiously in the main hallway of the “prison” to film the interactions.
Advertisement for the experiment | PrisonExp.org 請至原網頁觀看照片
The inmates were picked up at their homes by a member of the Palo Alto Police, “charged” with a serious felony and driven blindfolded to the mock prison, where they traded their clothing for a prison gown that included an identification number on the chest and back. The inmates wore nylon stockings on their heads to symbolize being shaved. Zimbardo played the role of prison director, a senior undergraduate student played the role of warden, and two doctoral students were cast as psychological counselors.
Participants began to exhibit pathological behaviors almost immediately. According to the videotapes, the guards showed signs of dominance and brutality, and the inmates exhibited signs of depression and defiance.
This interpretation was based on the proposition that the primary determinants of social behavior are situational: Personal autonomy was assumed to be overshadowed by situational roles. What started as mocking antagonism — play-acting — degenerated into degradation and abuse on the one side, and depression and rebellion on the other. According to the conventional interpretation, an experimental simulation increasingly came to approximate the real thing.
請至原網頁觀看照片
In 2014 Le Texier started researching the SPE, initially planning to make a documentary film for French media. He delved into the archives of the experiment, including the documents, videos, and interviews Zimbardo had cataloged and archived in the Stanford Library. Le Texier later interviewed about half of the original participants by phone to reconstruct what happened.
He realized how flawed the conventional interpretation was, and ended up writing a book on it, originally published in French in 2018 and translated into English in 2024. “My enthusiasm gave way to skepticism, then my skepticism to indignation, as I discovered the underside of the experiment and the evidence of its manipulation,” Le Texier wrote in the introduction of Investigating the Stanford Prison Experiment: History of a Lie.
Four main themes come to light in Le Texier’s book that undermine the credibility of the SPE.
1. The scientific credentials of the study
As Le Texier points out, Zimbardo had no expertise in criminology. His doctoral training was behavioristic and his subjects were lab rats. His interests at Stanford changed to questions of deindividuation of people in mass society. Consequently, the SPE began as a kind of observational study, not of a real prison but a drama enacted by subjects pretending to be guards and inmates.
On the Saturday before the experiment started, the guards were briefed about how they were expected to behave. The message: essentially to make the lives of the inmates miserable. Zimbardo equipped them with riot batons borrowed from the Palo Alto police department, without training the recruits to use the weapons.
In the following days, several guards were reprimanded by the experimenter’s assistant for not displaying sufficient dominance to make the situation realistic. The apparent spontaneity of the pathological behavior captured on film was due in part to coaching. On Monday, their first full day together, the inmates planned a prison break to defy authority. This action suggests the subjects also drew from their own background knowledge of prison experience portrayed in popular media.
Le Texier argues the SPE was not a scientific experiment at all, but a demonstration created to depict the evils of incarceration based on the supposition that institutions can make normal people act in pathological ways. Although Zimbardo’s results were not reported in peer-reviewed journals until 1973, he communicated his “findings” by press release at the end of Monday, the first full day of the experiment. The experiment started to attract press coverage by the following Thursday.
Prison breaks following the SPE | PrisonExp.org 請至原網頁觀看照片
A bloody attempted prison break at San Quentin State Prison the day after the experiment ended was followed within weeks by a major prison riot at Attica Correctional Facility. In the shadow of these events, Zimbardo’s findings skyrocketed to national prominence as the SPE was invoked as context to this violence. Within a month, Zimbardo found himself speaking as an expert to a congressional subcommittee on criminal justice policies.
The SPE became a cause célèbre before it underwent peer review. Interest in the findings revived in 2004 following reports of inmate abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison. According to Le Texier, despite the publicity it attracted, the SPE was never a credible scientific experiment. The research lacked a defined theory and a priori hypotheses, did not use any validated sociometric instruments to measure behavioral differences, had no tests of significance, and did not include a control group.
2. The originality of the SPE design
The official history of the SPE is recorded in a large slideshow, which Le Texier employed as one of the main sources for his research. Zimbardo also produced a 19-minute video for circulation.
One of the items Le Texier discovered in the archive was a term paper by David Jaffe, a senior undergraduate in a seminar Zimbardo offered in the spring of 1971 – several months before the launch of the SPE. Jaffe and two classmates had created a prison simulation in their dormitory at Toyon Hall as a course assignment. They scripted a typical daily schedule for the inmates as well as a list of prison rules. The objective of the simulation was to mimic the effects of real prison by trying to create feelings in the “prisoners” of the loss of freedom, total dependency on the guards and feelings of worthlessness.
In his various reports Zimbardo insists the routines and rules in the SPE were improvised spontaneously by the guards. However, when Le Texier compared the rules and schedules in Jaffe’s term paper with those allegedly concocted by the SPE guards, he found them to be virtually identical. Jaffe was also employed in the SPE as the “head guard.” However, his role in designing Zimbardo’s experiment is rarely credited.
“Instead of acknowledging the foundational importance of the Toyon Hall experiment, Zimbardo completely obscured it for 40 years,” Le Texier wrote. “He does not mention it in the slideshow he used for 20 years to present the experiment, nor in the documentary Quiet Rage that succeeded it in 1992.”
3. Ethical Issues in the treatment of subjects
In the protocol submitted to the Stanford Human Subjects Research Review Committee, Zimbardo indicated subjects would only be released prematurely for “emergency reasons” and would be “discouraged from quitting.” However, the committee appears to have mandated that if anyone wanted to quit, “they would be released; no explanation needed.” In fact, the experimenters did not release inmates when several individuals expressed a desire to quit. They were told voluntary departure was not an option and they would have to apply to the parole board. Consequently, the loss of freedom was not simulated.
Prisoners await a parole hearing with bags over their heads | PrisonExp.org 請至原網頁觀看照片
The loss of privacy was not simulated either. The prison gown was worn without underwear, so when the guards forced inmates to play “leapfrog” their genitals were exposed. The inmates were denied access to showers and deprived of access to the toilets at night and had to use a bucket as a commode in their cells.
Questionable treatment raises ethical issues as well. Guards interrupted inmates’ sleep with blasting whistles, and called the inmates out of their rooms for meaningless head counts in the middle of the night. They handcuffed and blindfolded inmates to march them to the toilets. When a guard assaulted rebellious inmates by spraying them with a fire extinguisher, or struck them with a riot baton, neither act was simulated.
In the search for verisimilitude in a role-playing environment, Zimbardo exposed his subjects to a series of ethically dubious conditions and was reckless in his gamble that no one would get seriously offended, injured or sick.
4. The credibility of the results
The six days of interaction between the inmates, the guards and the experimenters created emotionally provocative moments even if the participants knew, at least initially, the “prison” was a pretense, everyone was more or less acting, and they were being paid as subjects in an experiment. As Le Texier reported: “His experiment had effects on all of its participants, inducing stress, tension, aggression, indifference, resignation, or even apathy.” By analogy, audiences sometimes weep at the theater even when they know the play is fiction. But to what extent were the significant changes observed by Zimbardo cases of deliberate play acting?
Zimbardo reported five inmates experienced “nervous breakdowns” over six days and were released. However, post hoc debriefings suggest at least one of these subjects said he faked emotional trauma by screaming, crying, threatening suicide and acting out physically to trigger a “medical emergency” — after being told he could not leave. According to Le Texier, what that suggests is that “Zimbardo strongly encouraged the prisoners who wanted to leave the experiment to simulate a nervous breakdown.”
On the guards’ side, one of the subjects who adopted a tough guard persona and was most aggressive toward the inmates adopted a fake Texas accent and admitted his facade was an act played for the camera. In fact, he was a drama major.
Should the SPE be retracted?
At some point, when the credibility of a classic study has received so much critique, official retraction, while desirable, becomes redundant. What Le Texier added to the record is not only the dubious value of Zimbardo’s findings but his virtually unacknowledged appropriation of the ideas of his students and his exploitation of mass media to promote his ideas in advance of peer review. If we were seriously talking about retracting the SPE, what exactly would be retracted?
The first refereed paper, “Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison,” appeared in the International Journal of Criminology and Penology in 1973. By that time, the popular press had papered the walls with the news of the study. Le Texier identified a dozen newspaper reports in the weeks following its termination including Life, The Daily Mail and The Washington Post.
The SPE provided context in news reports of the lethal breakout at San Quentin the day after the experiment ended and the bloodbath following the riot at Attica three weeks later. Another wave of newspaper stories in October and November covered Zimbardo’s congressional testimony. In 1972 Zimbardo submitted a short report to Society, a popular sociology magazine, called “Pathology of imprisonment.” And recounted the experiment in The New York Times Magazine in April 1973 in “The mind is a formidable jailer: a Pirandellian prison.”
By the time the study was reported in the International Journal of Criminology and Penology, it was common knowledge. The IJCP ended publication in 1978. It was superseded by the International Journal of the Sociology of Law (1979-2007) which was itself superseded by the International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice. Consequently, a retraction in the IJCP is not even possible. If Le Texier’s findings are credible, arguably the best outcome we can expect is more responsible reporting in contemporary textbooks.
Augustine Brannigan is professor emeritus of sociology at the University of Calgary.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on X or Bluesky, like us on Facebook, follow us on LinkedIn, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at team@retractionwatch.com.
相關評論：
Criticism of the Stanford Prison Experiment
Debunking the Stanford Prison Experiment
Philip G. Zimbardo on his career and the Stanford Prison Experiment's 40th anniversary.
Rethinking the nature of cruelty: The role of identity leadership in the Stanford Prison Experiment.
Stanford Prison Experiment | Summary, Ethics & Impact
The past and future of U.S. prison policy. Twenty-five years after the Stanford prison experiment.
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
10個導致心理學家們齟齬的「不可說」話題-Ross Pomeroy
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
Ten Taboo Topics Dividing Psychologists
Ross Pomeroy, 06/08/24
Psychology – and the social sciences more broadly – seem to be riven with discord of late. Stories abound of censorship, self-censorship, deplatforming, and suppression of uncomfortable findings.
Is academic freedom truly at risk? Is ideology supplanting the scientific method in the "soft" sciences? And exactly what topics are splitting the social sciences asunder? In a recently published study, a team of social scientists explored these pressing questions.
The group's work began in early 2021. The team interviewed 41 scholars with PhDs in psychology or related disciplines to identify taboo research conclusions dividing social scientists.
"Overwhelmingly, the most taboo conclusions involved genetic, evolutionary, biological, or otherwise natural explanations for group differences in socially important outcomes, particularly in domains in which women underperform relative to men or Black people underperform relative to White people," the interviewers found.
The most taboo conclusions were:
1. “The tendency to engage in sexually coercive behavior likely evolved because it conferred some evolutionary advantages on men who engaged in such behavior.”
2. “Gender biases are not the most important drivers of the under-representation of women in STEM fields.”
3. “Academia discriminates against Black people (e.g., in hiring, promotion, grants, invitations to participate in colloquia/symposia).”
4. “Biological sex is binary for the vast majority of people.”
5. “The social sciences (in the United States) discriminate against conservatives (e.g., in hiring, promotion, grants, invitations to participate in colloquia/symposia).”
6. “Racial biases are not the most important drivers of higher crime rates among Black Americans relative to White Americans.”
7. “Men and women have different psychological characteristics because of evolution.”
8. “Genetic differences explain non-trivial (10% or more) variance in race differences in intelligence test scores.”
9. “Transgender identity is sometimes the product of social influence.”
10. “Demographic diversity (race, gender) in the workplace often leads to worse performance.”
In late 2021, the researchers sent out this list of topics to 4,603 psychology faculty at some of the top academic institutions in the United States. Faculty were asked to review the conclusions and take an anonymous survey. Chiefly, they were asked to rate their confidence in the truth or falsity of each statement, from 0 to 100. They were also asked various other questions to gauge their opinions on freedom of speech in the social sciences. Roughly one in ten psychological professors responded to the survey.
Broadly speaking, there was scant consensus on any of the taboo topics, though academics tended to acknowledge that biological sex is binary (66.1% average confidence) and that men and women have evolved psychological sex differences (65.5%). They also generally disagreed with the notion that demographic diversity worsens performance in the workplace (21.4% confidence) and that genetics accounts for significant differences in IQ (29.1% confidence).
Despite the lack of consensus on the taboo topics, the psychologists surveyed generally agreed that scholars should be completely free to pursue research questions without fear of institutional punishment and that scientific truth should take precedence over social-equity goals.
A slim majority of professors (52.3%) reported that scholars should be completely free to pursue research questions without fear of institutional punishment for their conclusions. By contrast, 1.6% said scholars should not have this freedom, and 46.0% said it’s complicated.
A slim majority of professors (56.5%) reported that scientists should prioritize truth when truth and social-equity goals come into conflict. By contrast, 3.1% prioritized social equity over truth, and 40.5% said it’s complicated.
Refreshingly, there was scant support for taking actions against scholars who draw taboo conclusions. Just one in five of those surveyed supported disinviting them from talks and one in ten said that their work shouldn't be published.
The findings suggest that, despite wide disagreement amongst prominent psychologists on various controversial topics, belief in academic freedom remains fairly strong.
"A vocal minority and silent majority may have created a seemingly hostile climate against taboo conclusions and the scholars who forward them, even if the silent majority has great contempt for the vocal minority," the researchers wrote.
Source: Clark, C. J., Fjeldmark, M., Lu, L., Baumeister, R. F., Ceci, S., Frey, K., Miller, G., Reilly, W., Tice, D., von Hippel, W., Williams, W. M., Winegard, B. M., & Tetlock, P. E. (2024). Taboos and Self-Censorship Among U.S. Psychology Professors. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916241252085
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
|
本城市首頁
看回應文章
等級：8
