Ted網站：常人如何變成惡魔或英雄(給看不到Youtube的夥伴)
警告：
暴力、裸露照片@美軍虐待伊拉克戰俘
簡介：
菲利普．金巴多知道要讓一個好人變壞有多麼容易。在這篇演講中﹐他向我們分享他在阿布葛拉伊布監獄虐囚案中學到的事、和一些從未曝光的照片。然後他告訴我們另一面的事實﹕成為英雄有多麼容易﹐我們又該如何接受這項挑戰。
Philip Zimbardo knows how easy it is for nice people to turn bad. In this talk, he shares insights and graphic unseen photos from the Abu Ghraib trials. Then he talks about the flip side: how easy it is to be a hero, and how we can rise to the challenge.
摘要：
將來有一天，你會遇到一個新的情境。
第一條路，你會成為惡之犯人。 你將會欺騙，或允許欺侮。
第二條路：你將因漠不關心袖手旁觀而內疚。
第三條路：你成為一個英雄。
完整英中文字稿：
00:04
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.
許多世紀以來，哲學家，劇作家，神學家 都在著力解決這個問題： 什麼使人們變壞？ 有趣的是，當我還是小孩時，我問過同樣的問題。 我成長於紐約南布朗克斯市中的貧民窟， 周圍充滿了罪惡， 如同所有在貧民窟長大的孩子一樣。 我有一些朋友，他們曾是好孩子， 但他們的人生卻如同羅伯特·路易斯·斯蒂文森筆下的變身怪醫，由善轉惡。 他們染毒，惹了麻煩，然後進了監獄。 有些喪了命，即使並沒有沾染毒品。
00:35
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.
所以當我讀羅伯特·路易斯·斯蒂文森的作品時，我覺得那不是小說。 唯一的問題是：釀成由善轉惡的毒藥是什麼？ 更重要的是，善惡之間的界限—— 特權階層喜歡認定這個界限是固定且不可逾越的， 認為他們是在善的一邊，其他人在惡的一邊—— 而我以前就知道這個界限是可以移動的，而且是可逾越的。 好人可以受誘惑而越界， 偶爾在某些比較好的情況下，壞孩子也可能 依靠外界的幫助、改造、治療，以重塑人生。
01:03
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，我想以荷蘭藝術家M. C. Escher 這幅奇妙的作品開始說起。 如果你把視線集中在白色區域， 你會看到一個充滿了天使的世界。 但是當我們再靠近一點看， 魔鬼就出現了，世間的魔鬼。 這告訴我們幾點。
01:19
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：這個世界，無論過去，現在，還是將來，都總是由善和惡組成， 因為善惡就如人類的陰陽。 它也告訴我另外一件事。如果你還記得， 上帝最喜歡的天使是路西法。 顯然，路西法的意思是“光明”。 在某些經文裡，它也有“黎明之星”的意思。 顯然他後來背叛了上帝， 這是對權威的終極背叛。 當他率眾背叛後，上帝派邁克天使長 將他和其他墮落的天使一起趕出天堂。 於是路西法降入地獄，成為撒旦，成為惡魔，宇宙中的惡之能量誕生了。
01:55
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，是上帝造出了惡的容身之處---地獄。 他卻沒能使惡一直呆在那裡。 所以，從上帝最受寵的天使變為惡魔， 這個巨大的轉變， 為我設立了一個大背景， 去理解那些從好人或者普通人轉變成壞人的人。
02:16
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，路西法效應，儘管它集中在陰暗的方面—— 人們可能投向陰暗， 但他們本身並非陰暗—— 引導我作出一個心理學定義：惡是行使權力這才是關鍵：權力。 來故意對他人進行心理傷害， 對他人進行身體傷害，殘害他人生命或思想， 犯下反人道的罪行。 如果你用谷歌搜索evil (惡) 這個詞——時至今日，這本是個早應消亡的詞， 你會在1/3秒內得到1.36億個搜索結果。
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.
幾年前發生的一件事——我知道你們當時一定和我一樣震驚，就是揭露美軍士兵在那場爭議性的對伊戰爭中的虐囚行為：阿布葛拉伊布虐囚事件。 這些士兵，有男性也有女性， 對囚犯們實施了讓人難以置信的羞辱。 我很震驚，但是並不感到意外， 因為我以前看過類似的情況， 當時我是史丹佛監獄實驗的負責人。
03:16
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?
布希政府軍方對此事的第一反應是什麼？ 是醜聞發生後任何官方都會說的套詞， "不要怪我們。這與整個系統無關。只是幾個壞蘋果而已， 只是一小撮惡劣的士兵而已。 " 而我的假設是，美國士兵通常情況下是好的。 也許是裝蘋果的桶壞了。 但我如何證明這個假設呢？
03:34
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.
我成為了其中一個名叫奇普·弗萊德里克中士的專家證人，在這個位置上，我可以接觸到關於此事的十幾份調查報告。 我同他接觸，我可以研究他， 讓他來我家，了解他， 作些心理上的分析來判斷他是個好蘋果還是壞蘋果。 第三點，我可以查看所有的 1000多張士兵拍攝的照片。 這些照片都是暴力或色情的。 所有這些都是美軍士兵用相機拍攝的。 因為每個人都有數位相機或手機相機， 他們什麼都拍。拍了超過1000張照片。
04:07
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.
我所做的是把它們分類。但這些由陸軍預備役的美軍憲兵所拍攝的。他們完全不是為執行此項任務而設立的部隊。 而此事僅發生在一個地點，1A層，在夜間值班時間。為什麼？1A層是軍方情報中心。是審訊關押處。中央情報局在那裡。 巨人公司（美軍外包公司）的審訊人員，全部都在那裡， 而他們得不到任何關於暴動的信息。 於是他們向這些憲兵隊士兵施加壓力， 迫使他們越線， 允許他們採取措施來擊潰敵人的意志， 挽起袖子，為審訊做準備， 使他們屈服。這些都是婉辭， 而這就是他們如何闡釋的。讓我們進入地牢吧。
(Typewriting)[Abu Ghraib Iraq Prison Abuses 2008 Military Police Guards' Photos][The following images include nudity and graphic depictions of violence](Camera shutter sounds)(Thuds)(Camera shutter)05:50
(Camera shutter)(Breathing)(Bells)
(Bells end)
（相機快門聲）（以下圖片含有裸露及暴力展示） （重擊聲） （相機快門聲） （重擊聲） （喘息聲） （鐘聲）
06:40
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。 這是惡的一種視覺展示。 你應該不會沒有注意到，我把那個伸開雙臂的囚犯 和達文西頌揚人類的作品放在一起的原因， 是那個犯人得了精神疾病。 那個犯人每天用大便塗抹在身上， 士兵們不得不使他在泥土裡打滾，以消除臭味。 但士兵們最終還是叫他屎男。 他在監獄裡做什麼!? 他本應在精神病院。
07:09
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.
不管怎樣，前國防部長拉姆斯菲爾德下來問，"我想知道誰該為此負責？ 到底誰才是那幾個壞蘋果？ "嗯，這是個差勁的問題。 你應該重新組織一下這個句子，"是什麼為此負責？" 因為"什麼"既可以是指人， 也可以是指情境， 而顯然那樣問是堅持錯誤。
07:25
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.
那麼心理學家是如何理解 這種人性的轉變呢？ 如果你相信他們在進入地牢之前是好士兵的話。 有三種方式。最主要的方式是所謂的特質論。 我們查看那些壞蘋果的內在特徵。
07:39
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.
這是所有社會科學的基礎，宗教的基礎，戰爭的基礎。 像我這樣的社會心理學家會出來說，"是啊， 人們是舞台上的演員，但你得清楚其所處的情境。 扮演角色的演員是哪些人？戲服什麼樣？ 有舞台導演嗎？ 所以我們感興趣的是，個體周圍的外界因素是什麼，壞的蘋果桶？ 社會學家研究的僅限於此，卻遺漏了這個很重要的問題， 即我在成為阿布葛拉伊布虐囚事件的專家證人後所發現的：權力存在於系統中。系統製造出腐化個體的情境， 這個系統，是指法制、政治、經濟和文化背景。該系統即蘋果桶製造者權力之所在。
08:21
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?
如果你想改變一個人，你就得改變其所處的情境。 如果你要改變情境， 你得知道其權力存在於系統的何處。 所以路西法效應牽涉到理解人性轉變是如何受這三項因素影響的。 它是一個相互作用的過程。 人們會怎樣影響情境？情境如何影響人們？ 製造並維持該情境的系統是什麼？
08:44
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."(Laughter)
我最近出版的書《路西法效應》， 就是關於我們如何理解好人是怎樣變成惡人的。 書中有關於我今天演講內容的大量細節。 所以，津博士的《路西法效應》，儘管著重於惡， 但其實是頌揚人類有無限的潛力， 使我們任何人向善或作惡， 關懷或冷漠，創造或毀滅， 甚至可以使得我們其中一些人成為惡棍。 而我在最後將滿懷希望地給大家講一個好消息的故事， 即這潛力也可以使我們其中一些人成為英雄。 這是登在《紐約客》上非常棒的一個漫畫， 它其實總結了我的全部演講： "傑若米，我既不是好警察也不是壞警察， 跟你一樣，我是一個正面和負面人格特質的複雜混合體， 至於體現哪一面，要靠具體情況而言。 " （笑聲）
09:28
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?"
有一項研究，你們其中一些人可能以為自己知道， 但極少數人讀過這個故事。你看過電影。這是斯坦利·米爾格拉姆，自小在布朗克斯長大的一個猶太人， 他問，"大屠殺在此時此地發生嗎？" 人們回答，"不，那是納粹德國， 那是希特勒，你知道，那是1939年。 " 他說，"是啊，但如果希特勒問你， '你會用電刑處死一個陌生人嗎？ ' ' 不可能，我肯定不會，我是個好人。 " 他說，"那麼我們不如把你放在一個情境裡， 給你一個機會，看看你會怎麼做？ "
09:55
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.
於是，他找了1000個普通人來做測試。 500人來自康州紐黑文，500人來自布里奇波特。 廣告是這樣說的，"心理學家想要研究人的記憶， 我們想改善人的記憶， 因為記憶是成功的關鍵。 " 我們會給你5美元——4元用來支付時間。" 上面寫著，"我們不要大學生， 我們需要20到50歲之間的男性。 " ——他們在後來的實驗中也研究了女性—— 他們都是普通人：理髮師，收銀員，白領等等。
10:23
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!"
於是你們下去，其中一個扮演學生， 另一個扮演教師。 學生是一個和藹的中年男子。 在另外一間屋子裡，他被綁在一個電擊儀器上。 學生可能是中年人，也可能是二十多歲。 穿實驗室工作服的負責人，即權威角色，會告訴你們其中一個人說， "你作為教師的工作就是讓這個人學習材料。 記對了，就獎勵他。 記錯了，你就按這個電擊盒上的按鈕。 第一個按鈕是15伏特。他基本感覺不到。 " 這就是關鍵。所有的惡都是從15伏特開始的。 下一個再加15伏特。 問題是，最後一個按鈕，是450伏特。 隨著你不斷加電壓，那個人就會慘叫， "我有心臟問題！我要出去！"
11:02
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.
你是一個好人。你去投訴。 "先生，如果他出事了，誰來負責？" 實驗人員說，"不要緊，我來負責。 請繼續，教師。 " 問題是，誰會一直按到450伏特？ 你們會注意到，到375伏特時， 上面寫著，"危險：強烈電擊" 到這兒的時候，那兒標著"XXX"﹕限制級的權力。 （笑聲）
11:23
So Milgram asks 40 psychiatrists, "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.
於是米爾格拉姆問了40個精神病醫生， "百分之多少的美國人會按到最高電壓？" 他們回答只有百分之1。因為那屬於虐待狂行為， 而且我們知道，精神病學顯示，只有百分之1的美國人是虐待狂。 好。這裡是研究資料。他們大錯特錯。 三分之二的人會一直按到450伏特。這只是一個研究而已。 米爾格拉姆做了超過16項研究。我們看一下這個。 在第16個研究中，你可以看到跟你們一樣的人們有百分之90會一直按到450伏特。在第5個研究中，如果有人反抗，百分之90的人反抗。 女性呢？第13個研究：與男性無差別。 米爾格拉姆在以人們盲目服從權威，一直按到450伏特的意願，來數量化惡。這就好像是在調節人性。 調節的意思是，你幾乎可以從使絕大多數人完全服從，到使沒有人服從。
12:18
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.
那麼，外界世界有什麼類似情況嗎？畢竟所有的實驗都是人為的。 它在真實世界中的有效性如何？ 1978年，在圭亞那叢林裡，有912名美國人自殺或遭其家人朋友殺害， 因為他們盲目地服從這個傢伙，他們的傳道者。 不是他們的神父。他們的傳道者，吉姆·瓊斯主教。 他說服他們進行集體自殺。 所以他是一個當代的路西法效應。 從上帝使者變成死亡天使。 米爾格拉姆的研究完全是關於控制大眾的個人權力。大多數時間我們在機構裡， 所以史丹佛監獄實驗，研究的是機構權力 如何影響個人行為。 有趣的是，斯坦利·米爾格拉姆和我上高中的時候在同一個班級， 那是1954年，在布朗克斯的詹姆斯·門羅高中。
13:04
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.
這個實驗室是我跟我的研究生做的，尤其是克雷格·漢尼， 我們也從打廣告開始。 我們沒什麼錢，於是我們打了一個簡單的小廣告， 我們想找大學生來研究一下監獄生活。 75個人誌願參加，做了人格測試。 我們做了面試。挑選了24名： 他們是最正常的，最健康的。 然後隨機把他們分成囚犯和警衛兩組。 所以在第一天，我們知道他們都是好蘋果。 而我將把他們放在一個壞的情境裡。
13:27
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.(Video) (Music)[Day 1][Day 1]
其次，我們知道在將要扮演警衛和扮演囚犯的男生之間沒有任何區別。 我們對那些將要扮演囚犯的男生說， "在住處等著，實驗在星期天開始。" 我們沒有告訴他們的是， 市警察局的警察會上門做真實的逮捕。 錄像中的男人：一輛警車停在房子前面，一個警察來到前門 敲門，說是找我。 於是他們，就在那兒，你懂的，把我抓出去， 把我的雙手放車上。 那是輛真警車，是個真警察， 街上的鄰居也是真的， 他們不知道這是個實驗。 周圍都是相機，圍滿了鄰居。 他們讓我上警車，在帕羅奧圖市的大街上行駛。 他們把我抓到警察局， 警察局的地下室。他們把我關到一間牢房裡。 我是第一個被抓來的，所以他們把我關進一間單人牢房， 基本上就是一間門上有欄杆的房間。你可以看出來出它不是間真的牢房。 他們把我鎖在那兒，穿著這件丟人的衣服。 他們對這個實驗太認真了。
15:12
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.
這就是那些將要被剝奪人性的囚犯。 他們的名字將被號碼代替。 這是那些警衛，他們的裝扮標誌著權力和匿名性。 警衛們讓囚犯們 徒手清理馬桶， 讓他們做其他一些羞辱性的任務。 他們脫光囚犯的衣服，性侮辱他們。 他們開始做侮辱行為，譬如強迫囚犯們模擬雞姦。 你們看到阿布格萊布的士兵強迫囚犯模擬口交。 我的警衛在五天內就做了。囚犯們的應激反應是非常極端的，我們當初挑選他們是因為他們是健康的，而這些正常的男生在36小時內就有人崩潰了。 這個實驗在6天后結束因為它已經失控了。 五個男生情緒崩潰。
15:49
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.
戰士們是否更換統一服裝對於他們在戰場上的表現會有影響嗎？ 他們匿名與否對於他們對付受害者會有影響嗎？ 我們知道在某些文化裡，人們上戰場時 是不換服裝的。 在另外一些文化裡，他們把自己塗成"蒼蠅王"的樣子。 在某些文化裡他們戴著面具。 在許多文化中，戰士們穿著統一服裝達到匿名性。 人類學家約翰·華生在23個文化中發現兩組數據。 他們是否更換服裝？ 15個是。 他們是否殺戮，折磨，殘害？ 13個是。 如果他們不換服裝， 八個文化中只有一個殺戮，折磨或殘害。 關鍵在這個紅色區域。 如果他們更換服裝， 13個文化中有12個，即百分之90，會殺戮，折磨，殘害。 這就是匿名性的威力。
16:28
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.
那麼是哪七個社會性過程會導致惡的逐漸產生呢？
- 無意中邁出第一步。
- 對他人去人性化。
- 對自己去個體化。
- 推卸個人責任。
- 盲目服從權威。
- 不加批判地依從群體規範。
- 袖手旁觀，漠不關心，對惡行消極容忍。
16:45
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環境中發生。你的習慣性反應失效了。你的人格和道德感被關閉了。 "沒有什麼比公開譴責作惡者更容易， 也沒什麼比理解他更難。"杜斯妥耶夫斯基告訴我們。 理解不是找藉口。心理學不是藉口學。
17:03
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.
社會學和心理學研究揭示了在無需藥物的情況下，普通的好人是如何被轉變的。 你不需要藥物，你只需要社會心理學的過程。真實世界的情況？和這個比較一下。 我以詹姆斯·施萊辛格的話作為結束， "心理學家已嘗試理解, 一般情況下具備人性的個體和群體，為什麼以及如何會在某些情境下，作出反常行為。 " 這就是路西法效應。 他接著說，"具有標誌性的史丹佛實驗給了所有軍事行為一個警告。 " 如果你在沒有監督的情況下賦予人們權力， 那就是在給濫用開通行證。他們明明了解後果，卻任其發生。
17:43
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.
另一個報告，是費將軍所做的調查，認為整個系統是有罪的，在該報告中， 他認為是環境造成了阿布格萊布事件， 領導力的失誤， 導致了虐待的發生， 以及在很長一段時間內，當局高層一直被蒙在鼓裡。 那些虐待行為持續了三個月。有誰在看管嗎？ 答案是沒有人，我認為，是沒有人主動去。 他允許警衛們作那些惡行，他們知道沒有人會下地牢來查看。
18:10
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.
所以我們在所有這些方面進行模式上的轉變。原來的醫療模式，只集中於個體， 必須轉向一個公共健康模式， 這個模式同時考慮情境和系統對疾病的作用。 欺侮是病。偏見是病。暴力是病。自從審訊以來，我們一直在個人層面解決問題。你猜怎麼著，沒用。亞歷山大·索忍尼辛認為每個人心中都有善惡的分界線。 也就是說，這條線不是外在的。 這是一個你必須作出的決定。是個人層面的。
18:41
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.
那麼，我想以一個正面的意見來做個簡短的結尾：英雄主義是惡的解藥。通過推廣英雄主義想像，尤其是在我們的孩子之中，在教育系統裡。 我們要孩子們想，我是那個等待中的英雄， 等待合適的情境出現， 屆時我會行英雄之事。 我一生自小與惡相伴， 如今我畢生努力之重點，將從研究惡轉向理解英雄主義。
19:03
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.
現在所謂的英雄主義是， 平凡之人行英雄之事。這是對漢娜·鄂蘭平庸之惡的反駁。我們傳統的社會英雄是錯誤的，因為他們是極少數例外。他們為目標投入畢生之努力。 因此我們才知道他們的名字。孩子們的英雄也是他們的榜樣， 因為他們有超自然能力。我們想要讓孩子們意識到，大多數英雄是平凡的人們， 而英雄行為是不平凡的。這是喬·達比。就是他阻止了你們前面所見的那些虐行， 因為當他看到那些圖片時， 他把它們交給了一位高級調查官。 他是一個低級士兵但卻阻止了此事。他是英雄嗎？不是。 他們不得不把他藏起來，因為有人想殺他， 還有他的母親和妻子。 他們隱藏了三年。
19:45
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.(Laughter)(Applause)I just came to my senses, obviously.
這個女人阻止了斯坦福監獄實驗。當我說實驗失控的時候，我當時是監獄實驗負責人。 我不知道實驗已經失控了。我完全無動於衷。她下來看到這瘋人院一樣的監獄說， "你知道嗎？你對這些男孩所做的一切實在是太可怕了。 他們不是囚犯，不是警衛， 他們只是孩子，你要為他們負責。 " 我第二天就停止了這個實驗。 好消息是，我第二年就娶了她。 （笑聲） （鼓掌） 顯然，我醒悟了。
20:18
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—— 關鍵是，這個情境 可以刺激一些人內心的敵意想像， 使我們成為惡之犯人， 也可以激發另外一些人內心的英雄想像。情境是同樣的情境。 而你二者必居其一。 大多數人對袖手旁觀之惡感到內疚， 因為你母親會說，"別管閒事，先管好你自己的事。" 你一定得這麼回答，"媽媽，人性就是我的事。"
20:43
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.
英雄主義的心理學是——我們很快會結束—— 我們如何在新的英雄課程裡鼓勵孩子們，我正與馬特·郎登從事這項工作——他有一個英雄工作坊—— 來培養這種英雄想像，這種自我標籤， "我是一個等待中的英雄"，並且教會他們技能。 想成為英雄的話，你一定要學會成為一個"異類"， 因為你得總是與群體規範相左。英雄是那些在社會上行非凡之事的平凡人。那些有所為之人。
21:07
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.
英雄主義之關鍵有二。 一：在眾人消極冷漠之時有所作為。 二：你的作為必須以社會為中心，而非以自我為中心。 我想以韋斯利·奧特里，紐約地鐵英雄的故事來結尾， 你們其中一些人知道這個故事。 他是一個50歲的非裔美國人，是一個建築工人。他在紐約地鐵等車的時候 一個白人掉進地鐵軌道裡。當時地鐵正開過來。當時有75個人在那兒。 你猜怎麼著，他們全都僵住了。 他有理由袖手旁觀。 他是黑人，那個人是白人，他還有兩個小孩。 相反的是，他把兩個孩子交給一個陌生人看管，跳進鐵軌裡，把那男子壓在鐵軌之間， 趴在他身上，地鐵就從他身上開了過去。韋斯利和那個男子摞起來高20.5英寸。 地鐵列車下的空隙高21英寸。 再低半英寸就會把他的腦袋鏟去。 而他卻說"我做了任何人都會做的事"，跳下鐵軌沒什麼大不了的。
21:51
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.
從道德責任的角度說應該是"我做了任何人應該做的事"。 那麼，將來有一天，你會遇到一個新的情境。 第一條路，你會成為惡之犯人。惡，即你將成為亞瑟·安德森。你將會欺騙，或允許欺侮。第二條路：你將因漠不關心袖手旁觀而內疚。第三條路：你成為一個英雄。 關鍵是，我們是否做好準備來選擇這條路 以頌揚平凡的英雄， 等待合適的情境出現， 將對於英雄的想像付諸於實施呢？ 因為這可能是你平生僅有的機會，而當你錯過的時候，你將永遠記得， 我本可以成為一個英雄但我讓這機會溜走了。 所以關鍵是先想再做。
22:29
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.Thanks so much.(Applause)
所以我想謝謝你們。謝謝你們。謝謝。 讓我們反對國內外惡之系統的力量， 並集中於積極的一面。倡導對個人高尚行為之尊敬，倡導正義與和平， 遺憾的是，我們的當局並沒有做這些。 非常感謝。 （掌聲）
留言