Philosophers, dramatists, theologians have grappled with this question for centuries: what makes people go wrong? Interestingly, I asked this question when I was a little kid. I grew up in the South Bronx, inner-city ghetto in New York, and I was surrounded by evil, as all kids are who grew up in an inner city. And I had friends who were really good kids, who lived out the Dr. Jekyll Mr. Hyde scenario -- Robert Louis Stevenson. That is, they took drugs, got in trouble, went to jail. Some got killed, and some did it without drug assistance.
许多世纪以来,哲学家,剧作家,神学家 都在着力解决这个问题: 什么使人们变坏? 有趣的是,当我还是小孩时,我问过同样的问题。 我在纽约南布朗克斯市中的贫民窟长大, 周围充满了罪恶, 如同所有在贫民窟长大的孩子一样。 我有一些朋友,他们曾是好孩子, 但他们的人生却如同罗伯特·路易斯·斯蒂文森笔下的变身怪医,由善转恶。 他们染毒,惹了麻烦,然后进了监狱。 有些丧了命,即使并没有沾染毒品。
So when I read Robert Louis Stevenson, that wasn't fiction. The only question is, what was in the juice? And more importantly, that line between good and evil -- which privileged people like to think is fixed and impermeable, with them on the good side, the others on the bad side -- I knew that line was movable, and it was permeable. Good people could be seduced across that line, and under good and some rare circumstances, bad kids could recover with help, with reform, with rehabilitation.
所以当我读罗伯特·路易斯·斯蒂文森的作品时,我觉得那不是小说。 唯一的问题是:酿成由善转恶的毒药是什么? 更重要的是,善恶之间的界限—— 特权阶层喜欢认定这个界限是固定且不可逾越的, 认为他们是在善的一边,其他人在恶的一边—— 而我以前就知道这个界限是可以移动的,而且是可逾越的。 好人可以受诱惑而越界, 偶尔在某些比较好的情况下,坏孩子也可能 依靠外界的帮助、改造、治疗,以重塑人生。
So I want to begin with this wonderful illusion by [Dutch] artist M.C. Escher. If you look at it and focus on the white, what you see is a world full of angels. But let's look more deeply, and as we do, what appears is the demons, the devils in the world. That tells us several things.
所以,我想以荷兰艺术家M. C. Escher 这幅奇妙的作品开始说起。 如果你把视线集中在白色区域, 你会看到一个充满了天使的世界。 但是当我们再靠近一点看, 魔鬼就出现了,世间的魔鬼。 这告诉我们几点。
One, the world is, was, will always be filled with good and evil, because good and evil is the yin and yang of the human condition. It tells me something else. If you remember, God's favorite angel was Lucifer. Apparently, Lucifer means "the light." It also means "the morning star," in some scripture. And apparently, he disobeyed God, and that's the ultimate disobedience to authority. And when he did, Michael, the archangel, was sent to kick him out of heaven along with the other fallen angels. And so Lucifer descends into hell, becomes Satan, becomes the devil, and the force of evil in the universe begins.
一:这个世界,无论过去,现在,还是将来,都总是由善和恶组成, 因为善恶就如人类的阴阳。 它也告诉我另外一件事。如果你还记得, 上帝最喜欢的天使是路西法。 显然,路西法的意思是“光明”。 在某些经文里,它也有“黎明之星”的意思。 显然他后来背叛了上帝, 这是对权威的终极背叛。 当他率众背叛后,上帝派迈克天使长 将他和其他堕落的天使一起赶出天堂。 于是路西法降入地狱,成为撒旦, 成为恶魔,宇宙中的恶之能量诞生了。
Paradoxically, it was God who created hell as a place to store evil. He didn't do a good job of keeping it there though. So, this arc of the cosmic transformation of God's favorite angel into the Devil, for me, sets the context for understanding human beings who are transformed from good, ordinary people into perpetrators of evil.
矛盾的是,是上帝造出了恶的容身之处---地狱。 他却没能使恶一直呆在那里。 所以,从上帝最受宠的天使变为恶魔, 这个巨大的转变, 为我设立了一个大背景, 去理解那些从好人或者普通人 转变成坏人的人。
So the Lucifer effect, although it focuses on the negatives -- the negatives that people can become, not the negatives that people are -- leads me to a psychological definition. Evil is the exercise of power. And that's the key: it's about power. To intentionally harm people psychologically, to hurt people physically, to destroy people mortally, or ideas, and to commit crimes against humanity. If you Google "evil," a word that should surely have withered by now, you come up with 136 million hits in a third of a second.
所以,路西法效应,尽管它集中在阴暗的方面—— 人们可能投向阴暗, 但他们本身并非阴暗—— 引导我作出一个心理学定义:恶是行使权力 这才是关键:权力。 来故意对他人进行心理伤害, 对他人进行身体伤害,残害他人生命或思想, 犯下反人道的罪行。 如果你用谷歌搜索evil (恶) 这个词——时至今日,这本是个早应消亡的词, 你会在1/3秒内得到1.36亿个搜索结果。
A few years ago -- I am sure all of you were shocked, as I was, with the revelation of American soldiers abusing prisoners in a strange place in a controversial war, Abu Ghraib in Iraq. And these were men and women who were putting prisoners through unbelievable humiliation. I was shocked, but I wasn't surprised, because I had seen those same visual parallels when I was the prison superintendent of the Stanford Prison Study.
几年前发生的一件事——我知道你们当时一定和我一样震惊, 就是揭露美军士兵 在那场争议性的对伊战争中 中的虐囚行为:阿布格莱布虐囚事件。 这些士兵,有男性也有女性, 对囚犯们实施了让人难以置信的羞辱。 我很震惊,但是并不感到意外, 因为我以前看到过类似的情况, 当时我是斯坦福监狱实验的负责人。
Immediately the Bush administration military said what? What all administrations say when there's a scandal: "Don't blame us. It's not the system. It's the few bad apples, the few rogue soldiers." My hypothesis is, American soldiers are good, usually. Maybe it was the barrel that was bad. But how am I going to deal with that hypothesis?
布什政府军方对此事的第一反应是什么? 是丑闻发生后任何官方都会说的套词, "不要怪我们。这与整个系统无关。只是几个坏苹果而已, 只是一小撮恶劣的士兵而已。" 而我的假设是,美国士兵通常情况下是好的。 也许是装苹果的桶坏了。 但我如何证明这个假设呢?
I became an expert witness for one of the guards, Sergeant Chip Frederick, and in that position, I had access to the dozen investigative reports. I had access to him. I could study him, have him come to my home, get to know him, do psychological analysis to see, was he a good apple or bad apple. And thirdly, I had access to all of the 1,000 pictures that these soldiers took. These pictures are of a violent or sexual nature. All of them come from the cameras of American soldiers. Because everybody has a digital camera or cell phone camera, they took pictures of everything, more than 1,000.
我成为了其中一个名叫 奇普·弗莱德里克中士的专家证人, 在这个位置上,我可以接触到关于此事的十几份调查报告。 我同他接触,我可以研究他, 让他来我家,了解他, 作些心理上的分析来判断他是个好苹果还是坏苹果。 第三点,我可以查看所有的 1000多张士兵拍摄的照片。 这些照片都是暴力或色情的。 所有这些都是美军士兵用相机拍摄的。 因为每个人都有数码相机或手机相机, 他们什么都拍。拍了超过1000张照片。
And what I've done is I organized them into various categories. But these are by United States military police, army reservists. They are not soldiers prepared for this mission at all. And it all happened in a single place, Tier 1-A, on the night shift. Why? Tier 1-A was the center for military intelligence. It was the interrogation hold. The CIA was there. Interrogators from Titan Corporation, all there, and they're getting no information about the insurgency. So they're going to put pressure on these soldiers, military police, to cross the line, give them permission to break the will of the enemy, to prepare them for interrogation, to soften them up, to take the gloves off. Those are the euphemisms, and this is how it was interpreted. Let's go down to that dungeon.
我所做的是把它们分类。 但这些由陆军预备役的美军宪兵所拍摄的。 他们完全不是为执行此项任务而设立的部队。 而此事仅发生在一个地点,1A层,在夜间值班时间。 为什么?1A层是军方情报中心。 是审讯关押处。中央情报局在那里。 巨人公司(美军外包公司)的审讯人员,全部都在那里, 而他们得不到任何关于暴动的信息。 于是他们向这些宪兵队士兵施加压力, 迫使他们越线, 允许他们采取措施来击溃敌人的意志, 挽起袖子,为审讯做准备, 使他们屈服。这些都是婉辞, 而这就是他们如何阐释的。 让我们进入那个地牢吧。
(Typewriting)
(相机快门声)(以下图片含有裸露及暴力展示)
[Abu Ghraib Iraq Prison Abuses 2008 Military Police Guards' Photos]
[The following images include nudity and graphic depictions of violence]
(Camera shutter sounds)
(Thuds)
(重击声)
(Camera shutter)
(相机快门声)
(Camera shutter)
(重击声)
(Breathing)
(喘息声)
(Bells)
(钟声)
(Bells end)
So, pretty horrific. That's one of the visual illustrations of evil. And it should not have escaped you that the reason I paired the prisoner with his arms out with Leonardo da Vinci's ode to humanity is that that prisoner was mentally ill. That prisoner covered himself with shit every day, they had to roll him in dirt so he wouldn't stink. But the guards ended up calling him "Shit Boy." What was he doing in that prison rather than in some mental institution?
很恐怖。 这是恶的一种视觉展示。 你应该不会没有注意到, 我把那个伸开双臂的囚犯 和达芬奇颂扬人类的作品放在一起的原因, 是那个犯人得了精神疾病。 那个犯人每天用大便涂抹在身上, 士兵们不得不使他在泥土里打滚,以消除臭味。 但士兵们最终还是叫他屎男。 他在监狱里做什么?! 他本应在精神病院。
In any event, here's former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. He comes down and says, "I want to know, who is responsible? Who are the bad apples?" Well, that's a bad question. You have to reframe it and ask, "What is responsible?" "What" could be the who of people, but it could also be the what of the situation, and obviously that's wrongheaded.
不管怎样,前国防部长拉姆斯菲尔德 下来问,"我想知道谁该为此负责? 到底谁才是那几个坏苹果?"嗯,这是个差劲的问题。 你应该重新组织一下这个句子,"是什么为此负责?" 因为"什么"既可以是指人, 也可以是指情境, 而显然那样问是坚持错误。 那么心理学家是如何理解
How do psychologists try to understand such transformations of human character, if you believe that they were good soldiers before they went down to that dungeon? There are three ways. The main way is called dispositional. We look at what's inside of the person, the bad apples.
这种人性的转变呢? 如果你相信他们在进入地牢之前 是好士兵的话。 有三种方式。最主要的方式是所谓的特质论。 我们查看那些坏苹果的内在特征。
This is the foundation of all of social science, the foundation of religion, the foundation of war. Social psychologists like me come along and say, "Yeah, people are the actors on the stage, but you'll have to be aware of the situation. Who are the cast of characters? What's the costume? Is there a stage director?" And so we're interested in what are the external factors around the individual -- the bad barrel? Social scientists stop there and they miss the big point that I discovered when I became an expert witness for Abu Ghraib. The power is in the system. The system creates the situation that corrupts the individuals, and the system is the legal, political, economic, cultural background. And this is where the power is of the bad-barrel makers.
这是所有社会科学的基础, 宗教的基础,战争的基础。 像我这样的社会心理学家会出来说,"是啊, 人们是舞台上的演员, 但你得清楚其所处的情境。 扮演角色的演员是哪些人?戏服什么样? 有舞台导演吗? 所以我们感兴趣的是,个体周围的外界因素 是什么,坏的苹果桶? 社会学家研究的仅限于此,却遗漏了这个很重要的问题, 即我在成为阿布格莱布虐囚事件的专家证人后所发现的: 权力存在于系统中。 系统制造出腐化个体的情境, 这个系统,是指法制、政治、经济和文化背景。 该系统即苹果桶制造者权力之所在。
If you want to change a person, change the situation. And to change it, you've got to know where the power is, in the system. So the Lucifer effect involves understanding human character transformations with these three factors. And it's a dynamic interplay. What do the people bring into the situation? What does the situation bring out of them? And what is the system that creates and maintains that situation?
如果你想改变一个人,你就得改变其所处的情境。 如果你要改变情境, 你得知道其权力存在于系统的何处。 所以路西法效应牵涉到理解 人性转变是如何受这三项因素影响的。 它是一个相互作用的过程。 人们会怎样影响情境? 情境如何影响人们? 制造并维持该情境的系统是什么?
My recent book, "The Lucifer Effect," is about, how do you understand how good people turn evil? And it has a lot of detail about what I'm going to talk about today. So Dr. Z's "Lucifer Effect," although it focuses on evil, really is a celebration of the human mind's infinite capacity to make any of us kind or cruel, caring or indifferent, creative or destructive, and it makes some of us villains. And the good news that I'm going to hopefully come to at the end is that it makes some of us heroes. This wonderful cartoon in the New Yorker summarizes my whole talk: "I'm neither a good cop nor a bad cop, Jerome. Like yourself, I'm a complex amalgam of positive and negative personality traits that emerge or not, depending on the circumstances."
我最近出版的书《路西法效应》, 就是关于我们如何理解好人是怎样变成恶人的。 书中有关于我今天演讲内容 的大量细节。 所以,津博士的《路西法效应》,尽管着重于恶, 但其实是颂扬人类有无限的潜力, 使我们任何人向善或作恶, 关怀或冷漠,创造或毁灭, 甚至可以使得我们其中一些人成为恶棍。 而我在最后将满怀希望地给大家讲一个好消息的故事, 即这潜力也可以使我们其中一些人成为英雄。 这是登在《纽约客》上非常棒的一个漫画, 它其实总结了我的全部演讲: "杰罗姆,我既不是好警察也不是坏警察, 跟你一样,我是一个正面和负面人格特质 的复杂混合体, 至于体现哪一面,要靠具体情况而言。"
(Laughter)
(笑声)
There's a study some of you think you know about, but very few people have ever read the story. You watched the movie. This is Stanley Milgram, little Jewish kid from the Bronx, and he asked the question, "Could the Holocaust happen here, now?" People say, "No, that's Nazi Germany, Hitler, you know, that's 1939." He said, "Yeah, but suppose Hitler asked you, 'Would you electrocute a stranger?' 'No way, I'm a good person.'" He said, "Why don't we put you in a situation and give you a chance to see what you would do?"
有一项研究,你们其中一些人可能以为自己知道, 但极少数人读过这个故事。你看过电影。 这是斯坦利·米尔格拉姆,自小在布朗克斯长大的一个犹太人, 他问,"大屠杀在此时此地发生吗?" 人们回答,"不,那是纳粹德国, 那是希特勒,你知道,那是1939年。" 他说,"是啊,但如果希特勒问你, '你会用电刑处死一个陌生人吗?' ' 没门儿,我肯定不会,我是个好人。" 他说,"那么我们不如把你放在一个情境里, 给你一个机会,看看你会怎么做?"
And so what he did was he tested 1,000 ordinary people. 500 New Haven, Connecticut, 500 Bridgeport. And the ad said, "Psychologists want to understand memory. We want to improve people's memory, because it is the key to success." OK? "We're going to give you five bucks -- four dollars for your time. We don't want college students. We want men between 20 and 50." In the later studies, they ran women. Ordinary people: barbers, clerks, white-collar people.
于是,他找了1000个普通人来做测试。 500人来自康州纽黑文,500人来自布里奇波特。 广告是这样说的,"心理学家想要研究人的记忆, 我们想改善人的记忆, 因为记忆是成功的关键。" "我们会给你5美元——4元用来支付时间。" 上面写着,"我们不要大学生, 我们需要20到50岁之间的男性。" ——他们在后来的实验中也研究了女性—— 他们都是普通人:理发师,收银员,白领等等。
So, you go down, one of you will be a learner, one will be a teacher. The learner's a genial, middle-aged guy. He gets tied up to the shock apparatus in another room. The learner could be middle-aged, could be as young as 20. And one of you is told by the authority, the guy in the lab coat, "Your job as teacher is to give him material to learn. Gets it right, reward. Gets it wrong, you press a button on the shock box. The first button is 15 volts. He doesn't even feel it." That's the key. All evil starts with 15 volts. And then the next step is another 15 volts. The problem is, at the end of the line, it's 450 volts. And as you go along, the guy is screaming, "I've got a heart condition! I'm out of here!"
于是你们下去,其中一个扮演学生, 另一个扮演教师。 学生是一个和蔼的中年男子。 在另外一间屋子里,他被绑在一个电击仪器上。 学生可能是中年人,也可能是二十多岁。 穿实验室工作服的负责人,即权威角色,会告诉你们其中一个人说, "你作为教师的工作就是让这个人学习材料。 记对了,就奖励他。 记错了,你就按这个电击盒上的按钮。 第一个按钮是15伏特。他基本感觉不到。" 这就是关键。所有的恶都是从15伏特开始的。 下一个再加15伏特。 问题是,最后一个按钮,是450伏特。 随着你不断加电压,那个人就会惨叫, "我有心脏问题!我要出去!"
You're a good person. You complain. "Sir, who will be responsible if something happens to him?" The experimenter says, "Don't worry, I will be responsible. Continue, teacher." And the question is, who would go all the way to 450 volts? You should notice here, when it gets up to 375, it says, "Danger. Severe Shock." When it gets up to here, there's "XXX" -- the pornography of power.
你是一个好人。你去投诉。 "先生,如果他出事了,谁来负责?" 实验人员说,"不要紧,我来负责。 请继续,教师。" 问题是,谁会一直按到450伏特? 你们会注意到,到375伏特时, 上面写着,"危险:强烈电击" 到这儿的时候,那儿标着 "XXX" :少儿不宜的级别。
So Milgram asks 40 psychiatrists,
(笑声)
"What percent of American citizens would go to the end?" They said only one percent. Because that's sadistic behavior, and we know, psychiatry knows, only one percent of Americans are sadistic. OK. Here's the data. They could not be more wrong. Two thirds go all the way to 450 volts. This was just one study. Milgram did more than 16 studies. And look at this. In study 16, where you see somebody like you go all the way, 90 percent go all the way. In study five, if you see people rebel, 90 percent rebel. What about women? Study 13 -- no different than men. So Milgram is quantifying evil as the willingness of people to blindly obey authority, to go all the way to 450 volts. And it's like a dial on human nature. A dial in a sense that you can make almost everybody totally obedient, down to the majority, down to none.
于是米尔格拉姆问了40个精神病医生, "百分之多少的美国人会按到最高电压?" 他们回答只有百分之1。因为那属于虐待狂行为, 而且我们知道,精神病学显示,只有百分之1的美国人是虐待狂。 好。这里是研究资料。他们大错特错。 三分之二的人会一直按到450伏特。这只是一个研究而已。 米尔格拉姆做了超过16项研究。我们看一下这个。 在第16个研究中,你可以看到跟你们一样的人们有百分之90 会一直按到450伏特。在第5个研究中,如果有人反抗,百分之90的人反抗。 女性呢?第13个研究:与男性无差别。 米尔格拉姆在以人们盲目服从权威, 一直按到450伏特的意愿,来数量化恶。 这就好像是在调节人性。 调节的意思是,你几乎可以从使绝大多数人完全服从, 到使没有人服从。
What are the external parallels? For all research is artificial. What's the validity in the real world? 912 American citizens committed suicide or were murdered by family and friends in Guyana jungle in 1978, because they were blindly obedient to this guy, their pastor -- not their priest -- their pastor, Reverend Jim Jones. He persuaded them to commit mass suicide. And so, he's the modern Lucifer effect, a man of God who becomes the Angel of Death. Milgram's study is all about individual authority to control people. Most of the time, we are in institutions, so the Stanford Prison Study is a study of the power of institutions to influence individual behavior. Interestingly, Stanley Milgram and I were in the same high school class in James Monroe in the Bronx, 1954.
那么,外界世界有什么类似情况吗?毕竟所有的实验都是人为的。 它在真实世界中的有效性如何? 1978年,在圭亚那丛林里,有912名美国人 自杀或遭其家人朋友杀害, 因为他们盲目地服从这个家伙,他们的传道者。 不是他们的神父。他们的传道者,吉姆·琼斯主教。 他说服他们进行集体自杀。 所以他是一个当代的路西法效应。 从上帝使者变成死亡天使。 米尔格拉姆的研究完全是关于控制大众的个人权力。 大多数时间我们在机构里, 所以斯坦福监狱实验,研究的是机构权力 如何影响个人行为。 有趣的是,斯坦利·米尔格拉姆和我上高中的时候在同一个班级, 那是1954年,在布朗克斯的詹姆斯·门罗高中。
I did this study with my graduate students, especially Craig Haney -- and it also began work with an ad. We had a cheap, little ad, but we wanted college students for a study of prison life. 75 people volunteered, took personality tests. We did interviews. Picked two dozen: the most normal, the most healthy. Randomly assigned them to be prisoner and guard. So on day one, we knew we had good apples. I'm going to put them in a bad situation.
这个实验室是我跟 我的研究生做的,尤其是克雷格·汉尼, 我们也从打广告开始。 我们没什么钱,于是我们打了一个简单的小广告, 我们想找大学生来研究一下监狱生活。 75个人志愿参加,做了人格测试。 我们做了面试。挑选了24名: 他们是最正常的,最健康的。 然后随机把他们分成囚犯和警卫两组。 所以在第一天,我们知道他们都是好苹果。 而我将把他们放在一个坏的情境里。
And secondly, we know there's no difference between the boys who will be guards and those who will be prisoners. To the prisoners, we said, "Wait at home. The study will begin Sunday." We didn't tell them that the city police were going to come and do realistic arrests.
其次,我们知道 在将要扮演警卫和 扮演囚犯的男生之间没有任何区别。 我们对那些将要扮演囚犯的男生说, "在住处等着,实验在星期天开始。" 我们没有告诉他们的是, 市警察局的警察会上门做真实的逮捕。
(Video) (Music)
[Day 1]
Student: A police car pulls up in front, and a cop comes to the front door, and knocks, and says he's looking for me. So they, right there, you know, they took me out the door, they put my hands against the car. It was a real cop car, it was a real policeman, and there were real neighbors in the street, who didn't know that this was an experiment. And there was cameras all around and neighbors all around. They put me in the car, then they drove me around Palo Alto. They took me to the basement of the police station. Then they put me in a cell. I was the first one to be picked up, so they put me in a cell, which was just like a room with a door with bars on it. You could tell it wasn't a real jail. They locked me in there, in this degrading little outfit. They were taking this experiment too seriously.
录像中的男人:一辆警车停在房子前面,一个警察来到前门 敲门,说是找我。 于是他们,就在那儿,你懂的,把我抓出去, 把我的双手放车上。 那是辆真警车,是个真警察, 街上的邻居也是真的, 他们不知道这是个实验。 周围都是相机,围满了邻居。 他们让我上警车,在帕罗奥图市的大街上行驶。 他们把我抓到警察局, 警察局的地下室。他们把我关到一间牢房里。 我是第一个被抓来的,所以他们把我关进一间单人牢房, 基本上就是一间门上有栏杆的房间。 你可以看出来出它不是间真的牢房。 他们把我锁在那儿,穿着这件丢人的衣服。 他们对这个实验太认真了。
Here are the prisoners, who are going to be dehumanized, they'll become numbers. Here are the guards with the symbols of power and anonymity. Guards get prisoners to clean the toilet bowls out with their bare hands, to do other humiliating tasks. They strip them naked. They sexually taunt them. They begin to do degrading activities, like having them simulate sodomy. You saw simulating fellatio in soldiers in Abu Ghraib. My guards did it in five days. The stress reaction was so extreme that normal kids we picked because they were healthy had breakdowns within 36 hours. The study ended after six days, because it was out of control. Five kids had emotional breakdowns.
这就是那些将要被剥夺人性的囚犯。 他们的名字将被号码代替。 这是那些警卫,他们的装扮标志着权力和匿名性。 警卫们让囚犯们 徒手清理马桶, 让他们做其他一些羞辱性的任务。 他们脱光囚犯的衣服,性侮辱他们。 他们开始做侮辱行为, 譬如强迫囚犯们模拟鸡奸。 你们看到阿布格莱布的士兵强迫囚犯模拟口交。 我的警卫在五天内就做了。囚犯们的应激反应是非常极端的, 我们当初挑选他们是因为他们是健康的, 而这些正常的男生在36小时内就有人崩溃了。 这个实验在6天后结束因为它已经失控了。 五个男生情绪崩溃。
Does it make a difference if warriors go to battle changing their appearance or not? If they're anonymous, how do they treat their victims? In some cultures, they go to war without changing their appearance. In others, they paint themselves like "Lord of the Flies." In some, they wear masks. In many, soldiers are anonymous in uniform. So this anthropologist, John Watson, found 23 cultures that had two bits of data. Do they change their appearance? 15. Do they kill, torture, mutilate? 13. If they don't change their appearance, only one of eight kills, tortures or mutilates. The key is in the red zone. If they change their appearance, 12 of 13 -- that's 90 percent -- kill, torture, mutilate. And that's the power of anonymity.
战士们是否更换统一服装 对于他们在战场上的表现会有影响吗? 他们是否匿名 对于他们对付受害者会有影响吗? 我们知道在某些文化里,人们上战场时 是不换服装的。 在另外一些文化里,他们把自己涂成"苍蝇王"的样子。 在某些文化里他们戴着面具。 在许多文化中,战士们穿着统一服装达到匿名性。 人类学家约翰·华生 在23个文化中发现两组数据。 他们是否更换服装?15个是。 他们是否杀戮,折磨,残害?13个是。 如果他们不换服装, 八个文化中只有一个杀戮,折磨或残害。 关键在这个红色区域。 如果他们更换服装, 13个文化中有12个,即百分之90,会杀戮,折磨,残害。 这就是匿名性的威力。
So what are the seven social processes that grease the slippery slope of evil? Mindlessly taking the first small step. Dehumanization of others. De-individuation of self. Diffusion of personal responsibility. Blind obedience to authority. Uncritical conformity to group norms. Passive tolerance of evil through inaction, or indifference.
那么是哪七个社会性过程 会导致恶的逐渐产生呢? 无意中迈出第一步。 对他人去人性化。对自己去个体化。 推卸个人责任。盲目服从权威。 不加鉴别地依从群体规范。 袖手旁观,漠不关心,对恶行消极容忍。
And it happens when you're in a new or unfamiliar situation. Your habitual response patterns don't work. Your personality and morality are disengaged. "Nothing is easier than to denounce the evildoer; nothing more difficult than understanding him," Dostoyevsky. Understanding is not excusing. Psychology is not excuse-ology.
而其容易在新的或不熟悉的环境中发生。 你的习惯性反应失效了。 你的人格和道德感被关闭了。 "没有什么比公开谴责作恶者更容易, 也没什么比理解他更难。"陀思妥耶夫斯基告诉我们。 理解不是找借口。心理学不是借口学。
So social and psychological research reveals how ordinary, good people can be transformed without the drugs. You don't need it. You just need the social-psychological processes. Real world parallels? Compare this with this. James Schlesinger -- I'm going to end with this -- says, "Psychologists have attempted to understand how and why individuals and groups who usually act humanely can sometimes act otherwise in certain circumstances." That's the Lucifer effect. And he goes on to say, "The landmark Stanford study provides a cautionary tale for all military operations." If you give people power without oversight, it's a prescription for abuse. They knew that, and let that happen.
社会学和心理学研究揭示了 在无需药物的情况下,普通的好人是如何被转变的。 你不需要药物,你只需要社会心理学的过程。 真实世界的情况?和这个比较一下。 我以詹姆斯·施莱辛格的话作为结束, "心理学家已尝试理解, 一般情况下具备人性的个体和群体,为什么以及如何 会在某些情境下,作出反常行为。" 这就是路西法效应。 他接着说,"具有标志性的斯坦福实验 给了所有军事行为一个警告。" 如果你在没有监督的情况下赋予人们权力, 那就是在给滥用开通行证。他们明明了解后果,却任其发生。 另一个报告,是费将军所做的调查,
So another report, an investigative report by General Fay, says the system is guilty. In this report, he says it was the environment that created Abu Ghraib, by leadership failures that contributed to the occurrence of such abuse, and because it remained undiscovered by higher authorities for a long period of time. Those abuses went on for three months. Who was watching the store? The answer is nobody, I think on purpose. He gave the guards permission to do those things, and they knew nobody was ever going to come down to that dungeon.
认为整个系统是有罪的,在该报告中, 他认为是环境造成了阿布格莱布事件, 领导力的失误, 导致了虐待的发生, 以及在很长一段时间内, 当局高层一直被蒙在鼓里。 那些虐待行为持续了三个月。有谁在看管吗? 答案是没有人,我认为,是没有人主动去。 他允许警卫们作那些恶行, 他们知道没有人会下地牢来查看。
So you need a paradigm shift in all of these areas. The shift is away from the medical model that focuses only on the individual. The shift is toward a public health model that recognizes situational and systemic vectors of disease. Bullying is a disease. Prejudice is a disease. Violence is a disease. Since the Inquisition, we've been dealing with problems at the individual level. It doesn't work. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn says, "The line between good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being." That means that line is not out there. That's a decision that you have to make, a personal thing.
所以我们在所有这些方面进行模式上的转变。 原来的医疗模式, 只集中于个体, 必须转向一个公共健康模式, 这个模式同时考虑情境和系统对疾病的作用。 欺侮是病。偏见是病。暴力是病。 自从审讯以来,我们一直在个人层面 解决问题。你猜怎么着,没用。 亚历山大·索尔仁尼琴认为每个人心中 都有善恶的分界线。 也就是说,这条线不是外在的。 这是一个你必须作出的决定。是个人层面的。 那么,我想以一个正面的意见来做个简短的结尾:
So I want to end very quickly on a positive note. Heroism as the antidote to evil, by promoting the heroic imagination, especially in our kids, in our educational system. We want kids to think, "I'm a hero in waiting, waiting for the right situation to come along, and I will act heroically. My whole life, I'm now going to focus away from evil -- that I've been in since I was a kid -- to understanding heroes.
英雄主义是恶的解药。 通过推广英雄主义想象, 尤其是在我们的孩子之中,在教育系统里。 我们要孩子们想,我是那个等待中的英雄, 等待合适的情境出现, 届时我会行英雄之事。 我一生自小与恶相伴, 如今我毕生努力之重点,将从研究恶转向理解英雄主义。
Banality of heroism. It's ordinary people who do heroic deeds. It's the counterpoint to Hannah Arendt's "Banality of Evil." Our traditional societal heroes are wrong, because they are the exceptions. They organize their life around this. That's why we know their names. Our kids' heroes are also wrong models for them, because they have supernatural talents. We want our kids to realize most heroes are everyday people, and the heroic act is unusual. This is Joe Darby. He was the one that stopped those abuses you saw, because when he saw those images, he turned them over to a senior investigating officer. He was a low-level private, and that stopped it. Was he a hero? No. They had to put him in hiding, because people wanted to kill him, and then his mother and his wife. For three years, they were in hiding.
现在所谓的英雄主义是, 平凡之人行英雄之事。 这是对汉娜·阿伦特的平庸之恶的反驳。 我们传统的社会英雄是错误的, 因为他们是极少数例外。 他们为目标投入毕生之努力。 因此我们才知道他们的名字。 孩子们的英雄也是他们的榜样, 因为他们有超自然能力。 我们想要让孩子们意识到,大多数英雄是平凡的人们, 而英雄行为是不平凡的。这是乔·达比。 就是他阻止了你们前面所见的那些虐行, 因为当他看到那些图片时, 他把它们交给了一位高级调查官。 他是一个低级列兵但却阻止了此事。他是英雄吗?不是。 他们不得不把他藏起来,因为有人想杀他, 还有他的母亲和妻子。 他们隐藏了三年。
This is the woman who stopped the Stanford Prison Study. When I said it got out of control, I was the prison superintendent. I didn't know it was out of control. I was totally indifferent. She saw that madhouse and said, "You know what, it's terrible what you're doing to those boys. They're not prisoners nor guards, they're boys, and you are responsible." And I ended the study the next day. The good news is I married her the next year.
这个女人阻止了斯坦福监狱实验。 当我说实验失控的时候,我当时是监狱实验负责人。 我不知道实验已经失控了。我完全无动于衷。 她下来看到这疯人院一样的监狱说, "你知道吗?你对这些男孩所做的一切实在是太可怕了。 他们不是囚犯,不是警卫, 他们只是孩子,你要为他们负责。" 我第二天就停止了这个实验。 好消息是,我第二年就娶了她。
(Laughter)
(笑声)
(Applause)
(鼓掌)
I just came to my senses, obviously.
显然,我醒悟了。
So situations have the power to do [three things]. But the point is, this is the same situation that can inflame the hostile imagination in some of us, that makes us perpetrators of evil, can inspire the heroic imagination in others. It's the same situation and you're on one side or the other. Most people are guilty of the evil of inaction, because your mother said, "Don't get involved. Mind your own business." And you have to say, "Mama, humanity is my business."
所以情境是有力量的—— 关键是,这个情境 可以刺激一些人内心的敌意想象, 使我们成为恶之犯人, 也可以激发另外一些人内心的英雄想象。情境是同样的情境。 而你二者必居其一。 大多数人对袖手旁观之恶感到内疚, 因为你母亲会说,"别管闲事,先管好你自己的事。" 你一定得这么回答,"妈妈,人性就是我的事。"
So the psychology of heroism is -- we're going to end in a moment -- how do we encourage children in new hero courses, that I'm working on with Matt Langdon -- he has a hero workshop -- to develop this heroic imagination, this self-labeling, "I am a hero in waiting," and teach them skills. To be a hero, you have to learn to be a deviant, because you're always going against the conformity of the group. Heroes are ordinary people whose social actions are extraordinary. Who act.
英雄主义的心理学是——我们很快会结束—— 我们如何在新的英雄课程里鼓励孩子们, 我正与马特·郎登从事这项工作——他有一个英雄工作坊—— 来培养这种英雄想象,这种自我标签, "我是一个等待中的英雄",并且教会他们技能。 想成为英雄的话,你一定要学会成为一个"异类", 因为你得总是与群体规范相左。 英雄是那些在社会上行非凡之事的平凡人。那些有所为之人。
The key to heroism is two things. You have to act when other people are passive. B: You have to act socio-centrically, not egocentrically. And I want to end with a known story about Wesley Autrey, New York subway hero. Fifty-year-old African-American construction worker standing on a subway. A white guy falls on the tracks. The subway train is coming. There's 75 people there. You know what? They freeze. He's got a reason not to get involved. He's black, the guy's white, and he's got two kids. Instead, he gives his kids to a stranger, jumps on the tracks, puts the guy between the tracks, lays on him, the subway goes over him. Wesley and the guy -- 20 and a half inches height. The train clearance is 21 inches. A half an inch would have taken his head off. And he said, "I did what anyone could do," no big deal to jump on the tracks.
英雄主义之关键有二。 一:在众人消极冷漠之时有所作为。 二:你的作为必须以社会为中心,而非以自我为中心。 我想以韦斯利·奥特里,纽约地铁英雄的故事来结尾, 你们其中一些人知道这个故事。 他是一个50岁的非裔美国人,是一个建筑工人。 他在纽约地铁等车的时候, 一个白人掉进地铁轨道里。 当时地铁正开过来。当时有75个人在那儿。 你猜怎么着,他们全都僵住了。 他有理由袖手旁观。 他是黑人,那个人是白人,他还有两个小孩。 相反的是,他把两个孩子交给一个陌生人看管, 跳进铁轨里,把那男子压在铁轨之间, 趴在他身上,地铁就从他身上开了过去。 韦斯利和那个男子摞起来高20.5英寸。 地铁列车下的空隙高21英寸。 再低半英寸就会把他的脑袋铲去。 而他却说"我做了任何人都会做的事", 跳下铁轨没什么大不了的。
And the moral imperative is "I did what everyone should do." And so one day, you will be in a new situation. Take path one, you're going to be a perpetrator of evil. Evil, meaning you're going to be Arthur Andersen. You're going to cheat, or you're going to allow bullying. Path two, you become guilty of the evil of passive inaction. Path three, you become a hero. The point is, are we ready to take the path to celebrating ordinary heroes, waiting for the right situation to come along to put heroic imagination into action? Because it may only happen once in your life, and when you pass it by, you'll always know, I could have been a hero and I let it pass me by. So the point is thinking it and then doing it.
从道德责任的角度说应该是"我做了任何人应该做的事"。 那么,将来有一天,你会遇到一个新的情境。 第一条路,你会成为恶之犯人。 恶,即你将成为亚瑟·安德森。 你将会欺骗,或允许欺侮。 第二条路:你将因漠不关心袖手旁观而内疚。 第三条路:你成为一个英雄。 关键是,我们是否做好准备来选择这条路 以颂扬平凡的英雄, 等待合适的情境出现, 将对于英雄的想象付诸于实施呢? 因为这可能是你平生仅有的机会, 而当你错过的时候,你将永远记得, 我本可以成为一个英雄但我让这机会溜走了。 所以关键是先想再做。
So I want to thank you. Thank you. Let's oppose the power of evil systems at home and abroad, and let's focus on the positive. Advocate for respect of personal dignity, for justice and peace, which sadly our administration has not been doing.
所以我想谢谢你们。谢谢你们。谢谢。 让我们反对国内外的恶之系统的力量, 并集中于积极的一面。 倡导对个人高尚行为之尊敬,倡导正义与和平, 遗憾的是,我们的当局并没有在做这些。
Thanks so much.
非常感谢。
(Applause)
(掌声)