突然想起以前在别的版面推荐过的一本关于社会心理学的书，在这也推荐一下

[Transcendence]

谢谢推荐，买了来学习一下。

[wh]

因为老大在盘点过去一年的读书笔记，突然想起曾经推荐过的这本，在这贴一次。

==

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion by Jonathan Haidt

政客操弄民意本质上在利用选民的道德观价值观的不同。而道德观的心理学起源这本书讲得非常透，值得一读。

下面是这本书第一章的开头

I’m going to tell you a brief story. Pause after you read it and decide whether the people in the story did anything morally wrong.

A family’s dog was killed by a car in front of their house. They had heard that dog meat was delicious, so they cut up the dog’s body and cooked it and ate it for dinner. Nobody saw them do this.

If you are like most of the well-educated people in my studies, you felt an initial flash of disgust, but you hesitated before saying the family had done anything morally wrong. After all, the dog was dead already, so they didn’t hurt it, right? And it was their dog, so they
had a right to do what they wanted with the carcass, no? If I pushed you to make a judgment, odds are you’d give me a nuanced answer, something like “Well, I think it’s disgusting, and I think they should have just buried the dog, but I wouldn’t say it was morally wrong.”
OK, here’s a more challenging story:

A man goes to the supermarket once a week and buys a chicken. But before cooking the chicken, he has sexual intercourse with it. Then he cooks it and eats it.

Once again, no harm, nobody else knows, and, like the dog-eating family, it involves a kind of recycling that is—as some of my research subjects pointed out—an efficient use of natural resources. But now the disgust is so much stronger, and the action just seems so … degrading. Does that make it wrong? If you’re an educated and politically liberal Westerner, you’ll probably give another nuanced answer, one that acknowledges the man’s right to do what he wants, as long as he doesn’t hurt anyone.

But if you are not a liberal or libertarian Westerner, you probably think it’s wrong—morally wrong—for someone to have sex with a chicken carcass and then eat it. For you, as for most people on the planet, morality is broad. Some actions are wrong even though they don’t hurt anyone. Understanding the simple fact that morality differs around the world, and even within societies, is the first step toward understanding your righteous mind. The next step is to understand where these many moralities came from in the first place.”

Excerpt From
The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion
Jonathan Haidt

所以第二个案例是测试左派还是右派的试金石？要不要让大家测一测？
对了，叫我问号吧

[wmysh]

这作者的另一本书也值得一读： The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure

[wh]

这作者的另一本书也值得一读： The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure

这是左还是右？

[wmysh]

这是左还是右？

初稿在The Atlantic‘s （Aug 11,2015）登出，是左还是右呢 ?

[wh]

Looks promising.

From Wikipedia：

Lukianoff and Haidt argue that many problems on campus have their origins in three "great untruths" that have become prominent in education: "What doesn’t kill you makes you weaker"; "always trust your feelings"; and "life is a battle between good people and evil people". The authors state that these three "great untruths" contradict modern psychology and ancient wisdom from many cultures.[1]

The book goes on to discuss microaggressions, identity politics, "safetyism", call-out culture, and intersectionality.[1] The authors define safetyism as a culture or belief system in which safety (which includes "emotional safety") has become a sacred value, which means that people become unwilling to make trade-offs demanded by other practical and moral concerns. They argue that embracing the culture of safetyism has interfered with young people’s social, emotional, and intellectual development.[2] Continuing on to discuss contemporary partisanship or the "rising political polarization and cross party animosity", they state that the left and right are "locked into a game of mutual provocation and reciprocal outrage".[2]: 125 

The authors call on university and college administrators to identify with freedom of inquiry by endorsing the Chicago principles on free speech,[2]: 255–257  through which university and colleges notify students in advance that they do not support the use of trigger warnings or safe spaces.[3] They suggest specific programs, such as LetGrow, Lenore Skenazy's Free Range Kids, teaching children mindfulness, and the basics of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT).[2]: 241  They encourage a charitable approach to the interpretations of other peoples' statements instead of assuming they meant offense.

In their conclusion, the authors write that there will be positive changes in the near future as small groups of universities "develop a different sort of academic culture—one that finds ways to make students from all identity groups feel welcome without using the divisive methods." They say that "market forces will take care of the rest" as "applications and enrollment" surge at these schools.[2]: 268 

这个在本站深有体会 ：
Continuing on to discuss contemporary partisanship or the "rising political polarization and cross party animosity", they state that the left and right are "locked into a game of mutual provocation and reciprocal outrage".

[wmysh]

翻了翻这本书。没看完。 随便说几句。

Coddling是过度呵护的意思，不仅保护人身安全，也要保护情感安全。 除了书里讲的原因之外，其实我觉得美国教育系统出现这种问题有两个主要原因，过度诉讼和自由持枪。

你如果是一个教师，你最怕的有两件事，一是学生家长因为你说的某句话让学生不舒服起诉学校甚至你本人，二是如果得罪情感容易受伤的学生被直接枪毙。

在这种恐惧氛围下学校是不是会在制定政策上要求教师少得罪学生惹麻烦？

以校园为主要研究环境，扩展到整个美国社会。总结为三点：
1. “现代人类心灵是脆弱的”是个错误的认知
2. 情感导向的处事行为是错误的。
3. 非黑即白的处事行为是错误的。

然后列举的很多具体实例，有校园的，有社会上的。

最后试图阐述美国社会是怎么走到这一步
1.神经质正循环
2.焦虑和抑郁
3.全控制式家长
4.被剥夺的自由玩耍
5.官僚式Safetyism
6.对“正义”的狂热追求