|
心理學 – 開欄文
|
瀏覽2,194 ｜回應11｜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
|
|
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
|
|
優質生活心理療護對部份嚴重的心理病患者有幫助 ---- Anand Kumar
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
庫瑪醫師這篇文章在鼓吹將優質生活護理的概念和方式運用到心理病患者的治療，尤其是即將走到生命盡頭的患者。
他提到的一些概念例如：生活品質、治療的有限性、告訴病人病情實況與展望、以及將它們成為可接受的話題等等，都值得大家深思。
索引：
debilitating：使人身體虛弱的；削弱性的
evidence-based treatments：根據臨床療效的醫治方法
hospice：安寧護理 ：臨終前的照顧，意味不再使用傷害性治療方法
mainstreaming：使…主流化
Palliative care：優質生活護理：同時維持病人高生活品質的照護，但並未放棄各種治療方法
relapses：(病好轉後)復發，故態復萌
remission：(疾病的)緩解期，減輕期；減少，減刑;減少服刑時間；(宗教)寬恕，饒恕
Palliative psychiatry offers a new path for some people with serious mental illness
Anand Kumar, 02/27/24
The Canadian surgeon and urologist Balfour Mount is considered the father of palliative care in North America. He was inspired and mentored by Cicely Saunders, a British nurse and social worker. Before she became a physician, Saunders developed the first modern hospice, St Christopher’s in London in 1967. Mount adapted and transplanted approaches to the care of the terminally ill he had learned at St Christopher’s to the Royal Victoria Hospital in Montreal.
Palliative care is based on Saunders’ concept of “total pain,” which says that while suffering may be based on the underlying disease, the pain associated with it can have psychosocial, existential, and spiritual dimensions. The main objective of palliative care is to maximize the patient’s comfort and quality of life by effectively controlling symptoms, especially pain, while providing psychological and spiritual support. Palliative care is gaining traction in the United States and is used in the care of patients with cancer, stroke, kidney failure, and other terminal medical conditions.
While it is increasingly accepted when it comes to physical illness, determining where it fits in clinical psychiatry is far more complicated. Now that Canada plans to implement a program of medical aid in dying for certain people with mental illness (though it has been delayed repeatedly), discussing palliative psychiatry is all the more critical.
Psychiatry deals primarily with behavioral states including depression, bipolar disorder, disorders of the psychosis/schizophrenia spectrum, eating disorders, and addiction. Unlike, say, oncology, the mental health field rests on an underlying assumption that substantial symptom remission, if not cure, is possible with most serious mental disorders — it is only a matter of finding the right combination of medications and the appropriate psychotherapist.
But that assumption is erroneous and does not apply to all patients with serious mental illness. Some will not find a cure or long-term remission. For them, the right thing to do is offer an honest discussion of their clinical situation and a therapeutic approach that helps them live with their condition and lead productive lives. Making that happen requires frank conversations, including using the term palliative psychiatry.
There are, of course, important differences between physical and mental disorders. Nevertheless, as a psychiatrist, I have to acknowledge that there are principles and concepts from palliative general medicine that are relevant and applicable in the sphere of mental disorders. Many mental disorders are chronic, long-standing, and characterized by remissions and relapses — periods when patients do well and function with few symptoms interspersed with periods when the disease appears to return to its original, full-blown form.
Neuropsychopharmacology — medication treatment for mental illness — has been transformational in the lives of millions of individuals afflicted with major mental disorders. Most patients receive substantial relief and symptom remission from evidence-based treatments. But others fail to respond to multiple trials with evidence-based interventions. These patients are characterized as having serious and persistent mental illness. Most notably, this includes treatment-resistant depression, cases of schizophrenia that do not respond to antipsychotic treatment including Clozaril (the medication that is frequently considered the “last hope” in the treatment of psychosis), post-traumatic stress disorder, and anorexia nervosa.
In these targeted situations, a palliative approach, similar to the one utilized in the case of medical disorders, can improve a person’s quality of life, reducing emotional pain and helping the patient adjust to life given the limitations imposed by mental illness. In the case of chronic/long-term psychosis, for example, programs that provide rehabilitation for the chronically mentally ill like Assertive Community Training (ACT) implement palliative care-based approaches while avoiding the term. This includes teaching patients to live with their symptoms and improve the quality of their lives while reducing the emphasis on symptom control with medications.
Palliative psychiatry involves an interdisciplinary team working collaboratively with patients to accept the incurable nature of their illness given currently available treatments; acknowledge its distressing symptoms; and offer a support system that will help patients and families cope with the consequences of the illness and live active, productive lives. More broadly, it requires taking mental illness outside the domain of intense and sometimes aggressive medical and psychological interventions into a more realistic, quality of life space.
“The futility of treatment” is a concept that licensed clinical social worker Amy Lopez and colleagues introduced into the psychiatric lexicon in the context of anorexia nervosa, a debilitating psychiatric disorder. The term is not easily embraced in the mental health world, where hope and optimism are often embedded into the clinical experience, sometimes because of therapeutic confidence, bordering on hubris, that complicates the clinical picture. Clinicians can be reluctant to acknowledge to patients and their families that there is nothing more they can offer in terms of evidence-based treatments. It is a threshold that most clinicians are reluctant to cross even when the clinical state demands a more realistic discussion of the overall picture. The optimism-realism divide is difficult to navigate in psychiatry.
Palliative psychiatry is more precisely defined by its major goals and objectives and not exclusively by treatment resistance. As a geriatric psychiatrist, I’m more familiar and comfortable with both the concept and its application than colleagues involved in the care of younger adults with mental disorders. The term frequently conjures up images of end-of-life situations that appear hopeless. That may be why, for instance, many programs embrace the concept without the term. But mainstreaming the term could be helpful both for practitioners and for patients. Making it acceptable to talk about a realistic life, one that does not involve hoping for a remission that may never occur, is both respectful of patients and achievable.
Despite the unease, palliative psychiatry is a realistic, compassionate approach for a small subgroup of patients who have not responded to multiple trials of evidence-based treatment. It does not preclude the concurrent use of new evidence-based treatments. It does, however, acknowledge the limits of evidence-based pharmacological and psychotherapeutic treatments and shifts the emphasis to a more broad-based approach to illness, treatment, and quality of life.
Canada is on the threshold of passing a law that would enable patients with mental illness to receive medication assistance in death – MAiD – presumably from a physician or qualified clinician. Palliative psychiatry offers a compassionate and appropriate approach for people who may feel hopeless. Validating them and helping them find a way to live is far better than offering medical assistance in death, as Canada plans to do.
Anand Kumar, M.D., MHA, is a professor and head of the department of psychiatry at the University of Illinois in Chicago; past president, American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry; and director of the University of Illinois Center on Depression and Resilience.
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
輸球大腦神經心理學-Joshua Rapp Learn
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
Why Do Some People Go Crazy When Their Teams Lose in Sports?
Why are we so connected to sports? Learn more about the psychology behind extreme sports fans and their reactions.
Joshua Rapp Learn, 02/14/24 3:00 AM
In the qualifying matches for the FIFA World Cup of 1970, Honduras won the first match in its capital Tegucigalpa, and El Salvador won the second in San Salvador. Violence broke out at both matches between the visiting and home fans, and thousands of Salvadorans left Honduras after their victory in the second match, avoiding persecution. At the time, there were historical tensions between Honduras and El Salvador that escalated within the matches.
This soccer war isn’t the only example of an extreme reaction from fans. Hooligans, ultras or barras bravas — terms used to describe football fan associations in Latin America — often commit violence, property damage and even murder in supposed support of their teams on the field.
Francisco Zamorano, a medical biologist at the University of San Sebastian in Conception, Chile and the Clinica Alemana, wanted to understand why some fans experienced these extreme reactions, and discovered it has a lot to do with the brain.
Why do Sports Fans Feel so Connected to the Teams?
Zamorano knows what it feels like to go crazy for a sports team. While growing up in an underprivileged community in Chile, he was a fan of Colo-Colo, a soccer team based in Greater Santiago that plays in the Chilean premier division. Colo-Colo’s arch rival is the Universidad de Chile club — also based in Santiago.
“When Colo-Colo lost against Universidad de Chile, I’d feel a sadness for several days,” Zamorano says — something he wouldn’t experience when they lost to other teams. Conversely, when Colo-Colo won, he’d experience a feeling of well-being.
“[Colo-Colo] is very important for my identity as a person,” Zamorano says, adding that super fans can experience a vicarious sense of winning and loss as if they were the players on the field. “Football can give you some kind of value that you don’t have.”
When Zamorano began his research, he used an MRI to learn more about how the brain of an extreme fan worked. He used the machine on himself and replayed old matches between Colo-Colo and Universidad de Chile out of curiosity.
Zamorano discovered that certain parts of his brain were activated only when Colo-Colo scored for or were scored against Universidad de Chile. Conversely, when other teams scored against his club, he didn’t feel the same sense of loss.
What Does the Brain Look Like for a Super Fan?
To expand the study, Zamorano added 62 participants to his research that is published in F1000Research. The MRI scans revealed that in super fans, some parts of the brain become more active while others become less active. When the teams of super fans scored goals on their arch rivals, the reward sections of fans’ brains were activated.
Conversely, when scored against, the mentalizing network — regions of the brain that help us think of ourselves and others — was sometimes activated in super fans. When this section of the brain is more involved, it usually means that fans will get more introspective — perhaps to cope with the sadness or negative feelings they experience.
But when arch rivals scored against their team, super fans also experienced a deactivation of the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC). This is an area that connects your feelings and emotions with the rest of your brain. This is important because the dACC regulates our ability to not act on our emotions — it disconnects feelings with rationalizing areas in the brain.
Perhaps this is what happens with hooligans, who have “a notorious lack of self-control” when they become violent, Zamorano says. Their dACC may be deactivated, which means they are more prone to this kind of behavior.
What Is Our Connection to Sports?
For Zamorano, the issue is compounded in sports because they can become so wrapped up in people’s identities. Sports teams can often serve as a symbol of nationalism, or civic pride.
The combination of lacking the right mental tools to deal with loss and being around others experiencing the same thing can lead to larger problems with extreme violence in sports fans after and during games.
“It produces these echo chambers that are very gratifying,” Zamorano says.
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
什麼是真正的魅力 ----- Alex Hughes
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
索引：
colloquialised：口語化
mirroring：「鏡像行為」，心理學術語；仿效對方的言談行為和/或肢體動作；讓對方感到自己在照鏡子一樣。這類行為有時是有意識的，其目的在讓對方認為你跟她/他感同身受，或心有戚戚焉。有些是自然而然的，下意識的。
off-putting：討人厭的，惹起反感的
Why everything you know about charisma is wrong
Want to become a more charismatic person? That could be harder than you might think
Alex Hughes, 01/27/24
Charisma is a trait we all desire to have. Being able to command a room, win over strangers in a matter of words, and generally be a seemingly charming person through and through – there is a reason charisma became 2023’s word of the year in its colloquialised form of ‘rizz’.
But unfortunately, it doesn’t come naturally to everyone. So how do you become more charismatic? There are seas of books, experts and online courses claiming to have all the answers but unfortunately, it’s not that simple.
The world of charisma is somewhat misunderstood, with plenty of myths that muddy the water. With this in mind, it is important to understand how charisma works, whether it can be learned and what to avoid.
Charisma is a genetic lottery
Like a chiselled chin, inherited wealth, and a metabolism that an all-you-can-eat buffet quivers at, great charisma is a genetic lottery that not everybody is lucky enough to win.
“There is a lot of research examining how our behaviour is genetic. And overwhelmingly the evidence suggests that pretty much every single behaviour is genetic,” says Dr Ryne Sherman, a renowned charisma and personality expert.
“There is no single charisma gene, but instead it is factors like how naturally charming we are, how good we are at winning people over and getting their attention, and even how much we want that attention. These are the more genetic traits that inform charisma.”
Research shows that genetics shapes around half to two-thirds of our personality and psychological traits. That’s a pretty daunting figure for those who are looking to turn on the charm and learn to be more charismatic.
“The other sizable chunk has to do with all kinds of environmental factors, mostly learning and practice. Most of our life revolves around socialisation and interacting with people,” says Sherman.
“Along the way, you get feedback of negative and positive behaviours, and you learn how to behave in a way that wins people over. Some are just better at that than others, but we all improve.”
For example, learning to deal with difficult conversations with compassion is a behaviour that will be greeted with a positive reaction. On the other hand, showing clear disinterest in other people and their conversations will likely be met with negative reactions, and, if you were particularly rude, maybe some advice to change.
Charisma is a hard skill to learn
A little bit of genetics and a little bit of life experience and learning. Is that all that goes into an individual’s overall charisma? Surely it's possible to learn to be more of a winning personality?
This is the goal of many YouTube courses, and even books from a variety of experts, claiming to be able to help you become more charismatic with a list of simple tips. But it isn’t quite as easy as that.
“There are these YouTube channels that analyse charismatic people, or list ways to become a more interesting person. I think there’s a big question about whether any of this works,” says Sherman.
“There isn’t much evidence that specific charisma training courses work, but I suspect through practice and enough feedback, people could slightly improve their charisma.”
Charisma courses, while often popular, aren’t always based on science. If someone wants to become more charismatic, the focus needs to be on practising their social interactions, and understanding where they might be falling short.
The issue is that personality is very much a natural trait, and therefore can be difficult to change. While research does show it is possible, it requires a lot of work and discipline, as well as the longevity to keep working on it even when you see changes.
While a lot of the behaviours like body language and confidence tend to form naturally, other skills can be learnt and worked on. Charismatic people are good listeners and attentive people. Learning how to be an active listener, and empathetic to other people is a crucial part of being charismatic.
Equally, being passionate, both in your interests and what other people have to say, has been linked to charisma. As part of that passionate outlook, charismatic people have been found to have clear goals, and tend to be driven about their future, expressing their plans to others.
If you think about these changeable factors, they tend to be more skill-based, or mental aspects of charisma. What is harder to change is the physical attributes like body language, responsive smiling or touch (more on all of that below).
Improving these changeable characteristics is a two-fold process. It requires some self-reflection to understand your goals and build passions. The second part requires social practice, speaking to people and getting feedback on your listening skills, empathy and general confidence.
“Another way to think about your personality is like your tennis stroke. A coach will tell you that you’ll need to spend as many hours practising your new stroke as you need learning the original,” says Sherman.
“Think about that with your personality, you have been developing it since you were born. How long have you practised that current set of behaviours, become used to it, and how difficult is that going to be to change? It really is a major challenge.”
For those who do put in the time and effort, and learn to change their personality in such a way that they become more charismatic, there is a second factor to consider – how much will you actually improve?
Because charisma and any emotion or personality trait are hard to quantify, it can be tricky to actively note changes. If someone is actively trying to change, they are more likely to notice these changes or believe they have improved. But it is better to ask those around you.
On top of that, reaching noticeable levels of improvement, even with hard work and discipline can prove to be a challenge. While there are courses that promise a mastery of charisma, it is more likely that a small change will be accomplished.
“Through intentional training, you can make small improvements. But the personality change literature would predict that you’re not going to become a real charmer, a James Bond type if you will,” says Sherman.
You can't fake body language
When it comes to charisma and a range of other personality traits, one factor is associated with success frequently: body language. Small body movements and suggestions that can be suggestive of your confidence, feelings and overall personality.
While there are plenty of courses out there happy to teach you the tricks and tips to perfect your body language, once again, it isn’t quite as simple as that.
“Body language is an unintentional behaviour, and there is research that suggests that doing these behaviours intentionally will result in you screwing it up. Charismatic people build rapport easily, and that can often be achieved through an open style of body language,” says Sherman.
One of these behaviours that is often mentioned in charisma courses is mirroring. Mirroring is a natural behaviour, babies mirror their mother’s heartbeats, and we unintentionally mirror people we like or respect. It’s a non-verbal way to display empathy.
“There is research that outlines that this is a natural behaviour and that doing it intentionally actually makes conversations more awkward. It can go the opposite way and reduce trust.”
Equally, naturally charismatic people can be quite physical. They confidently shake hands, put their hands on people’s shoulders when they speak or engage with people physically in quite natural ways.
While this behaviour has been shown to make people more likeable, it can equally be off-putting if done unnaturally. Mirroring, physical touch, and other forms of body language are effective, but only when performed naturally.
Charisma isn't always a good trait to have
This all sounds quite negative for anyone trying to seek some self-improvement in their lives, but it’s not all bad. As Sherman points out, it is possible to make improvements in your personality, however small.
By focusing on easily changeable factors, like smiling more, being a more focused listener, and developing social confidence, it is possible to come across as a slightly more charismatic person.
The research is also varied in this field, with some research pointing to increased abilities to be more charismatic, especially in leadership roles or workplace scenarios which can trickle into your personal life.
Equally, while it is easy to view ‘rizz’ as a positive trait, that isn’t always the case. “Charisma is often viewed as something positive, but it equally is something negative, used to trick or persuade those around them,” says Sherman.
“We love our politicians who are charismatic, but they are the same ones who often let people down. The same goes for leaders of some big companies, who use their charismatic nature in a negative way.”
Charisma has been linked to higher rates of psychopathy in the past and unethical pro-organisational behaviour in businesses. Like all behaviours, charisma is ultimately a double-edged sword.
Read more:
How to change your personality according to a neuroscientist
Is there any link between handwriting and personality
Schadenfreude: A psychologist explains why we love to see others fail
Failing upwards: How charismatic leaders fail their way to success
Online self-diagnosis culture is subtly failing your mental health
Why we need to stop stigmatising borderline personality disorder
About our expert, Dr Ryne Sherman
Ryne Sherman is the Chief Science Officer at Hogan Assessment Systems, a personality research company. Previously he was an associate professor of psychological sciences at Texas Tech University.
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
從演化學與心理學看紅顏色 -- Jonathan Jones
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
輕鬆一下。超級盃時間。
Super Bowl 2024 uniforms: Chiefs' decision may play key role in rare red-on-red game, just like it did in 2020
Like I wrote four years ago, studies have shown that red's status on evolutionary change has an effect when it comes to uniform colors
Jonathan Jones, 02/02/24
The Kansas City Chiefs are in red jerseys for Super Bowl LVIII next week because they won in them four years ago against this same opponent, and because the color will give them a slight advantage thanks to tens of thousands of years of human behavior.
There's a clash -- quite literally -- of reds in Las Vegas as the Chiefs take on the 49ers. When they met in Super Bowl LIV in 2020, I wrote a couple thousand words for this website about the meaning of these colors in this game. At that point, it was the first Super Bowl with two teams who both wore red. And as the designated home team, Kansas City got to choose its jersey color and stuck with the red tops that got them through the playoffs, as well as their lone Super Bowl win in 1970.
Yet again, the Chiefs are the designated home team. And instead of going with the white tops that won them road games in Buffalo and Baltimore the previous two weeks -- as well as the Super Bowl last year against the green-clad Eagles -- the Chiefs went with the dominant red color. That puts the 49ers back in white tops, which they've wore in three previous Super Bowls.
San Francisco's only Super Bowl loss in white? Super Bowl LIV to the Chiefs. While the color red hasn't changed, some other things have since I last wrote this piece, which is now becoming a quadrennial affair. You can read the full story from four years ago here, but I'm also going to pull passages from the piece throughout this story (which will be italicized).
Here's what red means to both a color expert and a biologist.
For all of recorded human history, color expert Leatrice Eiseman says, red has represented activity, assertiveness, blood and bloodshed. Red is aggressive, dynamic and an activity producer.
"There's never anything reticent or quiet about red," Eiseman told me by phone while in France on a tour for "More Alive with Color," her latest book. "And in recent years there's another buzzword that's been used. It isn't just power but empowerment. So that if you adorn yourself in red, if you use red, psychologically that can give you the feeling that you are more powerful."
Anger and aggression are associated with reddening of the skin, while fear produces a paling effect as blood drains from one's face. While we understand red can also be symbolic of love, romance and fertility, in the animal kingdom red usually correlates with male dominance.
Russell Hill is a professor of evolutionary anthropology at Durham University in the United Kingdom. A trained biologist, Hill has long been interested in what primate behavior can tell us about human evolution and human socialization.
Take, for example, the mandrill (山魈). That's the primate with the beautiful red and blue-colored face that you've seen on wildlife television or, better yet, the type of primate Rafiki (拉飛奇) was in "The Lion King." For millennia, life on this planet has immediately and readily understood what the color red signifies.
"That bright, intense red coloration is actually present only in dominant male," Hill said. "If you're not a dominant male that red color just washes out. It's a badge of status. If you look across a lot of other mammal species, red is the color. It's used to signify dominance and aggression in a wide variety of animals."
Red may mean something to mandrils, but it didn't mean anything to the GOAT (Greatest Of All Time). A year after the Chiefs beat the 49ers, 31-20, in Super Bowl LIV, Kansas City donned red again in Super Bowl LV and lost, 31-9, to the white-jersey'd Tampa Bay Buccaneers.
The red that Kansas City's backup tackles cloaked themselves in couldn't help them enough in that game. But there is evidence that wearing red in sporting events has an impact on the mind, even if that doesn't exactly play out with the body.
We know humans perceive those in red as more aggressive and dominant. And there are self-reported studies of people feeling more confident when wearing red.
"What we know from those primate examples linked to that red coloration is higher levels of testosterone (睪丸素) that is often involved in these competitive encounters," Hill said. "And we know that male sports teams playing at home go onto the field with higher levels of testosterone than when they're playing away from home. It primes (誘發) the body for competition.
"The evidence is less clear -- in fact there's no clear evidence -- that wearing red influences your physiological preparedness in that way. It clearly has a psychological impact, but it's much more difficult to test these physiological responses. As it stands at the moment, nobody's been able to find evidence that I would be confident in claiming is irrefutable."
Just like in the 2019 season, the Niners ran through the NFC playoffs in their red jerseys just to end up in white. But actually, both of these teams this year have been more successful in their white tops.
San Francisco is 5-1 in white jerseys this year and 9-4 in its reds. Kansas City went 7-4 in its red jerseys and 7-2 in the whites.
If you ask me, Super Bowl LIV between these two teams was not aesthetically pleasing. Both teams have the same colors, except they don't. The 49ers are in gold pants, and the Chiefs have that yellow in their color scheme. The Chiefs have a more vibrant red than the darker red the 49ers wear.
The official color system is known as the Pantone Matching System. The Chiefs' red is PMS 186 C, with the 49ers' red as PMS 187 C. So they are officially one pantone apart. Eiseman, the color expert, told me the deeper tone in the 49ers' red adds more depth, more focus and more intention.
"Now, not to say that the other team doesn't have focus. I don't want to put that on them," Eiseman told me in 2020. "But if we're looking at from the standpoint just of the messaging of the color, I think that's the biggest distinction between the two of them. One is a little more adrenaline pumping and the other is a little bit more thoughtful, if you will."
How's this going to look on television? I would expect the end zones to be painted the same as their Super Bowl LIV meeting. The Chiefs end zone was yellow with red lettering, and the 49ers had a red end zone with gold lettering. In the two Super Bowls the Chiefs have played in since then, they've had yellow end zones.
Trust me, the CBS broadcast is aware of the colors. In the CBS broadcast of Super Bowl LV, the Chiefs and Buccaneers actually had the same color red (PMS 186 C). In the score bug, CBS went with the Chiefs in red and the Buccaneers in pewter, which was the color of Tampa Bay's pants. Next week, the score bug on CBS will have the Chiefs in red and the 49ers in gold.
But does any of this really matter? Are the Chiefs actually going to win simply because they're in red? Sure, Kansas City won wearing red against the Niners four years ago, but then it got spanked a year later by the Bucs in white.
Twelve previous Super Bowls have featured at least one team with red as their dominant color. The teams in red have gone 6-6 in those games.
Hill told me the team in red jerseys may have one small, slight advantage over the team in white. Just maybe.
"The way we would probably expect it to operate anyway is not the buildup to the game but on the field itself ... athletes on the line of scrimmage, in opposition of another. They very much are facing one another as the ball is snapped," Hill said. "I think in those particular contexts where it could have an impact on the San Francisco players, those athletes all looking at athletes dressed in red, each of whom is displaying this color that has this evolutionary association with power and dominance.
"It's in that particular context and in those very fine margins that we expect it to have a difference. If it just takes one or two percent off the degree that these players go into impact, the energy that they put into it, and these games are fine margins, that can be enough to tip the balance between winning and losing."
本文於 修改第 2 次
|
|
《承認錯誤的樂趣》讀後
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
原文請見本欄2023/12/29 貼文。
1. 內容摘要
1) 「前言」(原文無此子標題)
作者童傑仁教授在該文第1 – 5段中：以陳述自己的成長背景，來導入主題以及他認識和體驗「認知謙虛『態度』」的過程(下稱「認知謙虛」)。內容可略過。
2) 什麼是「認知謙虛」
作者在原文子標題 ”What it means to be intellectually humble” 以下的6 – 11段中，闡釋「認知謙虛」的內涵；請詳讀第11段中列出的四點。
3) 「認知謙虛」的優勢
作者在原文子標題 ”Why intellectual humility is an asset” 以下整節中，分析和說明具有「認知謙虛」態度的優勢：幫助個人的成長；減低人際互動的障礙；以及推動整個社會技術和文化的進步。。
4) 如何培養「認知謙虛」
作者在原文子標題 ” Humility doesn’t mean being a pushover” 以下整節，以及該文第13–14兩段中，列舉了培養「認知謙虛」的方法。
2. 讀後
中國古籍中所說(1)：
「知不知，上；不知知，病。」(《老子》)
「… 知之為知之，不知為不知，是知也。」(《論語．為政》)
「… 子入太廟，每事問。」(《論語．八佾》)
「… 不恥下問 …。」(《論語．公冶長》)
「… 學而不厭 …。」(《論語．述而》)
「… 『獨學而無友，則孤陋而寡聞』。蓋須切磋相起明也。見有閉門讀書，師心自是。稠人廣坐，謬誤差失者多矣。」(《顏氏家訓．勉學》)
等等都和童傑仁教授所討論的「認知謙虛」相通。
童傑仁教授在文中多次提到並強調真實的和真實性兩詞。此概念的意義及其實踐方式值得我們深思。
後記：
本文原附於《承認錯誤的樂趣》一文之前，略加增、修後獨立成章。造成不便，甚為抱歉。
附註：
1. 以下部份文字引用自《讀書“十要”：古人的讀書智慧》
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
自我控制竅門 -- Tony Evans
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
請參考本欄上一篇的《評論》。
Psychologists Were Wrong About the Science of Self Control
Achieving your goals is about putting yourself in the right situations.
Tony Evans, 01/01/24
KEY POINTS
* Many people struggle to stick to their New Years resolutions.
* Psychologists used to think self-control depended on having strong willpower.
* This idea has been mostly discredited by recent large-scale studies.
* Successful self-control is more about putting yourself in situations where it's easy to avoid temptation.
Every year, nearly half of all Americans start the year with a resolution to change something about their lives. People make goals to try be healthier and happier versions of themselves. But most of these resolutions end in failure—one study found that fewer than 10 percent of resolutions ended in success.
Why do so many New Years resolutions fail?
Until recently, psychologists believed that self-control—the ability to stick to and ultimately achieve long-term goals—worked like a muscle. Success was about whether you had enough willpower to achieve your goals. But new research suggests that keeping our resolutions depends more on the situations we choose to put ourselves in.
The Muscle Theory of Self-Control
The muscle theory of self-control argues that people have a limited ability to exert control over their own behavior. When you use your self-control (for example, by forcing yourself to go for a run or choosing a healthy meal) you tire yourself out. Then, when you are in this tired state (called “ego-depletion” by psychologists), you are more likely to give in to temptations. As part of this metaphor, using your self-control will tire you out in the short-term but can gradually improve your strength of control in the long run.
This theory of self-control implies that success depends on strength of willpower (and strength of character). Succeeding in your resolutions requires being (or becoming) “strong.” At the same time, there’s also an implied judgment of those who fail to stick to their resolutions. People who are “weak” are less likely to stick to their diets or save for retirement.
For decades, the muscle theory of self-control was popular among psychologists. Hundreds of papers argued that it could explain how people make decisions involving health, social relationships, and financial behavior. The muscle theory also showed up in pop-science books throughout the 2000s and 2010s.
But, in the past few years, researchers have become less confident about this theory. Multiple large-scale experiments failed to find clear support for it (Hagger et al., 2016; Vohs et al., 2021). These experiments, which involved dozens of research teams collecting data and thousands of participants, found that (at the very least) the effects of self-control depletion were much less robust than the previous literature suggested.
Although some researchers still believe in the idea of self-control as a muscle, many would agree (at least) that the evidence is much less solid than it seemed. Critics argue that there is no solid support for the theory. This means that succeeding in your New Years resolution is not really about how “strong” (or “weak”) your willpower is. Instead, it’s about the situations you put yourself into.
Self-Control Is About Choosing the Right Situations
While psychologists have become less interested in the idea that self-control is a muscle, they are more interested in how it is shaped by the features of situations.
Some situations make it very hard to stick to our resolutions. Consider two people who are trying to spend less money at Starbucks this year. The one who lives across the street from a Starbucks is going to have a much harder time than the one who lives over 30 minutes away from the nearest Starbucks.
For these two people, success (or failure) has very little to do with strength of character or willpower. Instead, success is about putting yourself in the right situation (Nordgren, Harreveld, & van der Pligt, 2009). Want to save more money? Then avoid situations where you will be strongly tempted to spend it.
People who tend to stick to their resolutions do so because they are in situations where following a resolution is relatively easy (and giving in to temptation is relatively hard).
How We Think About Self-Control Matters
The way that we think about self-control can have a big impact on our behavior.
The situational view of self-control suggests that the best way to stick to your resolution is to choose the right situations. Focus on avoiding (rather than overcoming) temptation. It also suggests that if your resolution does fail, it’s probably not because of your own personal weakness. Instead, you were the right person in the wrong situation. And, if you are one of the lucky few who do succeed in keeping to your resolutions, don't pat yourself on the back too much. The situation deserves a lot of the credit.
References
Hagger, M. S., Chatzisarantis, N. L., Alberts, H., Anggono, C. O., Batailler, C., Birt, A. R., ... & Zwienenberg, M. (2016). A multilab preregistered replication of the ego-depletion effect. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(4), 546-573.
Nordgren, L. F., Harreveld, F. V., & Pligt, J. V. D. (2009). The restraint bias: How the illusion of self-restraint promotes impulsive behavior. Psychological Science, 20(12), 1523-1528.
Vohs, K. D., Schmeichel, B. J., Lohmann, S., Gronau, Q. F., Finley, A. J., Ainsworth, S. E., ... & Albarracin, D. (2021). A multisite preregistered paradigmatic test of the ego-depletion effect. Psychological Science, 32(10), 1566-1581.
About the Author
Tony Evans, Ph.D., is a behavioral scientist conducting research to understand how people make decisions involving trust, cooperation, and civility. The views expressed are his own.
相關閱讀
What Is Self-Control?
Find a therapist to help with self-control
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」。
該文附有相關超連接：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，同上一個連接，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 2 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
|
|
|
本城市首頁
看回應文章
等級：8
