Chapter 5 5. Preferences

Many insurance companies in China are best at using this technique.Moreover, they are also summed up and refined into five types, that is, classmates, fellow countrymen, colleagues, classmates, and the same surname.In short, as long as you can get in touch, you can start selling.It is also for this reason that many people stay away as long as they know that the other party is selling insurance, and avoid them for fear of being too late.Because, when complaining to classmates, sympathy will naturally arise in the hearts of classmates, which is conducive to reaching a deal.That's what preferences do.The most classic master of catering in China is He Shen, who constantly caters to the emperor's preferences, thus gaining favor and doing whatever he wants.

In the process of sales, effectively imitating the other party's way of speaking and repeating the words used by the other party will be appreciated by the other party, so that the other party is willing to talk with you, which is beneficial to the transaction.This is liking, which is what the old Chinese saying goes, "follow what you like".Someone once said: If you are not afraid that the leader has principles, you are afraid that the leader is not interested.It can be seen that the Chinese people have been familiar with this principle of liking Chinese for a long time. It should come as no surprise that people are always willing to say yes to requests from people they know and love.Yet, surprisingly, this principle is exploited in all sorts of ways by strangers who want us to do what they want.

The most obvious example I know of the professional application of the liking principle is the Tupperware house party.I think the house parties it hosts are typical of the submissive tactics employed across America.Anyone familiar with such parties can see that this party uses all the weapons of influence we have analyzed so far: reciprocity (some games are played at the beginning of the party, and the winner gets a prize; person also has the opportunity to reach into a bag to claim his gift. This way everyone gets a gift before shopping starts); commitment (every partygoer has to publicly describe his own benefits of using Tupperware products) ; social proof (once you start buying, everyone thinks: since everyone else like me buys its products, they must be good).

To keep the party going, all the major weapons of influence are brought to bear.But the real power of this gathering comes from a special arrangement made using the principle of liking.Although the Tupperware salesman was glib and likable, the request to buy the product came not from the stranger but from a friend of every woman at the party.Yes, the Tupperware salesman did personally ask them to buy some products, but it was the housewife who sat aside, chatted with everyone with a smile on her face, and brought tea and water to everyone who caused them more psychological pressure.She was the host of the party, the one who called her friends to the house.And each of them knew that she would get a cut of every product sold.

By paying the hostess of the party a cut, Tupperware had a neat arrangement: It got its customers to buy the products from a friend rather than from a salesman they didn't know.In this way, the attraction, warmth, security, and indebtedness that go hand-in-hand with friendship work to compel people to buy these products.Market research experts Frunzer and Davis also affirmed the effectiveness of this strategy after analyzing the social relationship between hostess and partygoers.They found that social connections were twice as influential as the product itself when it came to convincing people to buy an item.And the facts have proved that the effect of this method is quite remarkable.The Tupperware Company is estimated to exceed $2.5 million in sales per day.

Interestingly, apparently customers are also aware of the pressure of Tupperware family reunion love and friendship.Some seemed unimpressed, while others, despite their complaints, could do nothing about it.One woman told me about her thoughts with frustration: Now I've come to resent being invited to Tupperware house parties.I already have all the containers I need.Even if I need more containers, I can totally just go to the store and buy another, cheaper brand.However, whenever a friend calls and invites me, I feel like I can't go.And once there, I felt like I had to buy it.what can i doThis is for my friend.

With friendship as an all-powerful ally, it's no wonder that the Tupperware company is ditching retail stores entirely and is so focused on promoting the concept of house parties that every 2.7 seconds there's a Tupperware house party kicking off somewhere.Of course, other submissive adepts recognize the pressure people face when they are asked by someone they know and love.For example, more and more charities have begun to recruit some volunteers to go to neighbors' homes to lobby for donations, because they know very well how difficult it is to refuse a friend or neighbor's request for charitable donations.

Other obedience experts have discovered that the liking principle works even when friends are not present.In many cases, just mentioning the friend's name will suffice.For example, the Shackley Company, which specializes in door-to-door sales of various household products, advises their salesmen to use an "endless chain" method to find new customers.Once a customer admits to liking an item, the salesperson persuades him to provide the names of a few friends who might want to know about it.The salesman would then visit those people on the list.While marketing products to them, they will be asked to provide the names of some friends, and these people can become a source of new potential customers.This process will go on forever, endlessly.

The key to the success of this approach is that whenever a salesman goes to call on a new prospect, he is armed with the name of a friend who "suggested that I call on you."It is more difficult to drive the salesman away in this situation, because it is like rejecting a friend.Shackley's sales manual emphasizes that salesmen must use this method: "The value of this method is inestimable. When you call a potential customer or visit him, if you can say that it is his A friend, Mr. So-and-so, suggests that he take a moment to talk to you, and your deal is half done." The fact that the friendship of friends is widely exploited by the submissive adepts is itself a testament to the great influence of the principle of liking.In fact, we have found that submissive experts can manage to profit from this principle even when the friendship originally established no longer exists.At this time, our strategy is very simple and straightforward: they will make us like us first.

In Detroit, there was a man named Girard who sold Chevrolets.He is particularly good at using the like principle to sell cars.So he became very rich, earning more than 200,000 a year.With his income so high, we might assume he was a senior executive at General Motors, or the owner of a Chevrolet dealership.But in fact he is just an ordinary car salesman working in a car showroom.What he has achieved is unprecedented.He has won the title of "No. 1 Car Salesman" for 12 consecutive years; on average, he can sell at least 5 cars every working day; he is called the "Greatest Car Salesman" in the world by Guinness World Records.

Compared with his great success, the method he adopted is actually very simple.It's about giving people two things: a fair price and a seller they like. “It’s as simple as that,” he said in an interview, “find a salesperson they like, put a good price on it. Then put the two together, and the deal is yours.” Gillard's words sounded reasonable.While his approach tells us that liking principles play an important role in his business, it misses some important information.For example, he doesn't tell us why customers prefer him to other salesmen who also offer fair prices.There is a crucial and fascinating question that Girard does not answer: What factors make people like another person?If we know this answer, we can understand to a certain extent why people like Girard can win our liking, and in turn we can also know how to make others like us.Fortunately, social scientists have pondered this question for decades.The accumulated experience of several generations has led them to find some fairly reliable factors of affection.Of course, we will also see that the obedience experts use every factor skillfully to obtain our obedience. It is generally acknowledged that attractive people have many social advantages.But recent research suggests that we have grossly underestimated the power and reach of this advantage.We have an automatic, unthinking click-wow response to good-looking people, which is what sociologists call the "halo effect."The so-called halo effect means that a certain positive characteristic of a person will dominate people's overall perception of this person.And now there is ample evidence that physical attractiveness is such a positive trait. The results of the research show that we often subconsciously attach some good qualities to good-looking people, such as intelligence, kindness, honesty, wit and so on.And, when we make this judgment, we are simply unaware of the role appearance plays in the process. The consequences of the knee-jerk assumption that "good looks = good character" are very disturbing.For example, a study of the 1974 Canadian federal election showed that attractive candidates received two and a half times as many votes as unattractive candidates.Despite evidence of a preference for good-looking politicians, a subsequent study showed that voters were unaware of their bias.In fact, 73 per cent of Canadian voters surveyed vehemently denied that their voting decisions were influenced by a candidate's appearance, with only 14 per cent acknowledging that it might be possible.A similar phenomenon exists in a company's hiring process.One study found that in a simulated job interview process, a candidate's physical appearance played a more important role than his or her qualifications in determining whether a candidate was hired, even though the interviewers claimed that appearance played a role in their decision-making process. played a small role in . Likewise, other troubling findings suggest that our judging process is also influenced by a person's height and weight.In the judicial system, good-looking people may get more treatment.For example, in a study in Pennsylvania, researchers rated the appearance of 74 male defendants before the trial began, and then compared the relationship between the outcome of the trial and their appearance scores, and found that the handsome defendants The sentence received was significantly lesser.In fact, attractive defendants were twice as likely to avoid jail time as those who were unattractive.In another simulated experiment comparing damages awarded in negligence trials, damages awarded averaged $5,623 when the defendant was more handsome than the plaintiff.But when the plaintiff was more handsome than the defendant, the average award was $10,051.Moreover, both male and female jurors showed this preference based on physical attractiveness. Other experiments have also shown that physically attractive people are more likely to get help when they need it and are more persuasive in changing people's opinions.Both men and women reacted the same way.For example, in a help-seeking experiment, attractive men and women generally got more help from people, as did people of their gender.Of course, there are exceptions to this rule.This rule breaks down if the good-looking person is regarded as a direct competitor, especially as a rival in love.Other than that, good-looking people do enjoy a huge advantage in our culture.They are more likable, more persuasive, get help more often, and are perceived as having better personalities and higher IQs.It seems that this advantage starts to accumulate when they are very young.A study of elementary school students found that teachers were less likely to perceive a cute child as being mischievous if they attacked others, and teachers rated good-looking children as smarter than unattractive ones . So it should come as no surprise that submissive connoisseurs often exploit the halo of physical attractiveness.Because we like attractive people, because we are more likely to conform to people we like, so in the training program of sales staff will include some tips on how to groom themselves, fashion houses always choose beautiful people for their scene Promoters, and scammers are usually good-looking men and women, and there is a reason for that. But what if physical attractiveness wasn't a determining factor?After all, most of us are plain looking.In this case, are there other factors that can make people feel good?As scientists and those who make obedience know, there are indeed several factors that can generate likability, and of these factors, the most influential is similarity. We like those who are like us.Whether they are similar to us in point of view, personality, background, or lifestyle will make us like them.Therefore, for those who want to win our favor in order to win our obedience, it is enough to appear like us in any one respect. Dressing is a good example.Several studies have shown that we are more likely to help those who dress similarly to us. In the early 1970s, scientists did an experiment.At that time, young people tended to have two styles of dressing, so dress like a hippie, or dress clean and neat.So the researchers either dressed like hippies or got dressed up and went around campus and asked college students for a dime to make a phone call.When the researcher dressed in the same style as the students who were asked, more than two-thirds agreed to his request.But when the researcher didn't dress in style with the students who were asked, less than half gave him a dime.Another experiment demonstrated that we automatically respond positively to people who are like us.They found that people who attended antiwar marches were not only more likely to sign a petition from someone who dressed similarly to them, but they did so without looking at what the petition said.Click, wow! Another way of using similarity is also often used to enhance people's goodwill and increase the likelihood of compliance, which is to claim to have similar interests and backgrounds.Car salespeople, for example, are trained to look for clues to a customer's background and interests when examining a used car that a customer trades in.If camping gear is found in the trunk of the car, the salesperson will mention later that he likes to get away from the hustle and bustle of the city whenever he can; Said he hoped the rain would be better off so he could play the planned 18-hole game in the afternoon; if he noticed the car was bought in another state, he would ask the customer where it came from, Then surprised to say that he (or his wife) was also born there. While these similarities may seem unremarkable, they do work.For example, one researcher who analyzed insurance company sales records found that customers were more likely to buy insurance from salespeople who were similar to them in terms of age, religion, political views, or smoking habits.Because even a small similarity can make people react positively to another person.And because similarity can be easily faked, I advise caution with claimants who claim "I'm just like you." In fact, it's wise to be wary of salespeople around you who look like you.Many sales training programs now urge salespeople to mirror a customer's posture, tone of voice, and speaking style, because similarities in these areas have been proven to lead to positive results. Once, actor Stevenson talked about how his wife "tricked" him into marrying her: "She said she liked me." Although this is just a joke, it contains profound educational significance.Just knowing that someone likes us can make us feel good about him and be willing to grant his request.So, in real life, when others want something from us, they flatter us or claim to be like us, and we judge those people positively. Remember the greatest car seller in the world - Gillard?He said the secret to his success was getting customers to like him.In order to win the favor of customers, he will do some things that seem to be completely thankless.For example, every month he sends a greeting card to each of his more than 13,000 customers.The content of the card changes with the seasons (Happy New Year or Happy Thanksgiving, etc.), but the words on the cover are always the same: "I love you." Nothing, I just want to tell them I like them." The words "I like you" appear 12 times a year in the letters of 13,000 people, like clockwork.Is a sentence so lacking in personality, clearly intended for sales, really useful?Gillard is convinced of this.And what a man as successful as Joe has done certainly deserves our attention.In fact, Joe understood one of the Achilles' heels of human nature, which is that we are especially fond of flattery.If we knew clearly that people were flattering us to manipulate us, we might be more alert to avoid being taken in.But generally, we believe compliments and like those who say good things, even when we know it's flattery and doesn't match the truth. An experiment done in North Carolina made it very clear how incorrigible we are in the face of praise.The experiment had people hear what a person who wanted help from them said about them.Some heard only positive reviews, others only negative reviews, and still others heard both positive and negative reviews.As a result, this experiment revealed three interesting phenomena.First, people liked most those who provided only positive reviews.Second, even when people fully understand that the person is making positive comments so that they can help them, they still like him best.Finally, a positive review, unlike other reviews, doesn't have to be accurate.Whether or not the positive comments are factual, flatterers also endear themselves to those they flatter. In this way, we also have an automatic "click, wow" positive response to compliments, even when they are clearly being done to win our favor and fool us.Knowing this, printing and mailing 13,000 "I like you" cards a year doesn't seem so expensive, and the act doesn't seem so silly. Generally speaking, we always prefer what we are familiar with.To prove this, you can do a little experiment.Find a negative of your face-on bareheaded photo, and use this negative to develop two photos, one of the real you and the other of you in reverse (that is, the image of your left and right faces swapped).Then, see which photo you like better and ask one of your buddies to make the same choice.If you had the exact same reaction as a group of Milwaukee women who did this experiment, you would have noticed something interesting: your friends liked pictures of your real face, while you liked the left and right sides Swap photos.Why is this so?Because both you and your friends are choosing the face you are more familiar with. For your friends, it is the face the world sees; for you, it is the face you see in the mirror. of you. Because familiarity breeds liking, it can influence our decisions, including which politicians to vote for.You may not believe it, but at the polls, voters often vote for a candidate because his name sounds familiar.A few years ago, in a contentious election in Ohio, a seemingly hopeless candidate won a landslide victory for the state attorney general.It turned out that shortly before the election, he changed his name to Brown.It's a familiar name in Ohio's political tradition. How could this happen?In fact, part of the reason why this happens is that familiarity with something makes people subconsciously like it.Often we don't realize that the number of times we've seen something in the past affects our attitude towards it.For example, in one experiment, the faces of several people were flashed across the screen.Because the flashes were so fast, subjects who had seen the faces in this way at the time could not remember seeing them.However, the more times a person's face was flashed on the screen, the better the subjects' impression of that person was when they later encountered that person.Since the more you like a person, the more you will be influenced by that person, so these test subjects are more likely to be swayed by this person's opinion. Based on the fact that we feel better about things we have been in contact with, some have suggested that this could be used to improve relations between races.They argued that if people of different races were allowed to come into contact with each other on an equal footing, a sympathy would naturally develop between these people over time.However, when scientists assessed the outcomes of racial integration in schools—the best testing grounds for the contact method—the exact opposite was found.White-black co-education increases rather than decreases prejudice between whites and blacks. Let's look again at the issue of racial integration in schools.While those who advocate the promotion of racial integration through simple contact have entirely good intentions, the methods they propose will have little effect because the theory on which they are based is incorrect.First, research shows that the school environment is not a melting pot where children of different races enjoy socializing.Years after schools were officially desegregated, no progress had been made on racial integration.Students still hang out with kids of their own race and distance themselves from kids of other races.Second, even with more interracial communication, research shows that familiarity through frequent contact does not necessarily lead to more liking.In fact, long-term contact with a person or thing in an unpleasant environment, such as frustration, conflict, competition, etc., will only make people more disgusted with this person or thing.And the typical American classroom breeds just such an unpleasant atmosphere. Psychologist Aaronson wrote a sobering report while consulting with school administrators in Austin, Texas.His description of standard classroom education could apply to almost any public school in America: Typically, a class goes like this: When the teacher stands at the front of the room asking questions, there are always 6-10 children raising their hands high above their heads, eager to be called by the teacher to get a show of their intelligence Opportunity.Others sat quietly, avoiding the teacher's gaze, wishing to become invisible.When the teacher calls a certain child, you will see the disappointment and frustration on the faces of other students who raised their hands because they lost a chance to win the teacher's praise; See the look of relief on their faces... This game is very competitive and the stakes are high, because what the kids are trying to win is the approval and affection of the two or three most important people in their world. Moreover, this method of education dooms children not to learn to understand and care for each other.Think back to your own experience!If you know the correct answer but the teacher calls another student, you may want him to get it wrong so you have a chance to demonstrate your knowledge.If the teacher calls you and you get it wrong again, or if you simply don't raise your hand to join the fray, chances are you'll envy and hold a grudge against your classmates who know the answer.In such a system, the unsuccessful kids would envy and hate the successful ones, would ridicule those successful classmates, call them followers of the teacher, and even beat them up on campus.And the kids who are successful will look down on their less successful classmates, calling them "stupid" or "fools." This competitive process does not allow anyone to view his fellow students in a friendly light. We can’t help but wonder why newly integrated schools, whether through mandatory busing, rezoning, or merging certain schools, usually increase rather than decrease interracial bias?We don't care about that when our children get wholesome friendships within their own racial group, but constant contact with kids of other races is always in a competitive classroom. Expectations were too high for measures to improve race relations. So is there a solution to this problem?One possibility is to end racial integration in schools.But that approach doesn't seem to be working either.Even if we ignore the unavoidable legal issues and the socially destructive quarrels and debates that such a regression would cause, there are good reasons for us to continue to promote racial integration in the classroom.For example, after school integration, while achievement for white students remained largely unchanged, minority students were 10 times more likely to see a significant increase in academic achievement rather than a significant decrease.So we have to be careful when it comes to school integration so we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Our idea, of course, is to just pour out the dirty water and leave the clean baby.But now our babies are soaking in the dirty waters of growing racial antagonism.Fortunately, we see real hope for dismantling racial antagonisms in a new concept proposed by education experts called "cooperative learning."In most cases, racial integration in classrooms reinforces interracial bias primarily because members of other races are viewed as competitors.So these education experts have designed some teaching methods that learn through cooperation, rather than the competition-centered teaching methods of the past. go camping.To understand the logic behind this collaborative approach, it is worth recalling an interesting piece of work done 30 years ago by the Turkish-born social scientist Sharif.Intrigued by the phenomenon of conflict between different groups, Sharif decided to investigate the development of this phenomenon at a summer camp with a group of young boys.Although the boys never realized they were the protagonists of the experiment, Sharif and his colleagues had been subtly manipulating the social environment of the camp to see how different environments affected relationships between groups. It was all too easy to create animosity among the group of young boys, and simply separating them into two dormitories was enough to create a sense of "us and them" between the two groups.And assigning each team a name (Eagle and Diamondbacks) exacerbated the rivalry.It wasn't long before the little boys started belittling the quality and achievements of the opposing team members.However, in comparison, this hostility is relatively light.The animosity between the two teams deepened when the researchers intentionally introduced some competitive activity into the battle between the two teams.For example, dorm-to-dormitory treasure hunts, tug-of-war, and sports competitions can lead to verbal abuse and physical confrontation.Over the course of the contest, members of the opposing team were dubbed "liars," "snitches," and "scumbags."Later, they even developed to attack each other's dormitories, stole and burned each other's flags, posted posters threatening each other, and scuffles in restaurants were commonplace. By this time, Sharif had clearly understood that it was not difficult at all to create a disharmonious situation, as long as the people were divided into two groups and let them struggle as they wished.Then suddenly put them together while they were still fighting each other.As a result, you have already seen that these two groups of people are almost jealous when they meet each other. But another, more challenging problem facing these researchers is how to dissolve the hostility that has developed.They first tried using contact methods to get the little boys to spend more time together.But even when they were given very enjoyable activities, like going to the movies or socializing, the results were terrible.They fought over food at picnics, entertainment turned into vocal contests, and huddled in restaurant lines.Sharif and his research team began to worry that they might, like Dr. Frankenstein, create a monster that they could not control.But just when the conflict between the two sides reached its peak, they found a very simple and very effective solution. The solution is to create an environment where competition is harmful to both parties, and they must cooperate for the common good.During a full day out, the only truck capable of pulling food into town got stuck somewhere and couldn't move.The little boys were assembled and pushed and pulled for quite some time until the truck was back on the road.On another occasion, the researchers deliberately cut off the water supply at the camp, causing a pipe from a remote tank to fail.Faced with this common crisis, the children realize that only by joining forces can they solve this problem.So they quickly organized and found and fixed the problem before dark.There is another occasion where cooperation is required.At that time, the salespersons learned that there was a very good movie video for rent, but the money from the summer camp was not enough to pay the rent.Since the only way to do it was to pull everyone's resources together, they chipped in to rent the movie and had a fun and rapportous evening. Although the effect obtained through cooperation is not immediate, it is amazing.In order to achieve the common goal, the concerted efforts of both parties gradually eliminated the resentment between the two groups.Before long, the spats disappeared, as did the pushing and shoving in line, and they started eating at the same table.In addition, when asked to list their best friends, many had a member of another group appear on the list, which had never been done before.Some of them even thanked the researchers for giving them the chance to re-evaluate their friends because their minds had changed since the last time the list was made.There is one episode in particular that illustrates this point.At one point, the kids returned from a bonfire on the same bus, which in the past would have surely caused chaos, but this time they asked for it.When the car pulls up to a soda stand, one group of kids decides to spend their remaining 5 bucks on milkshakes to treat members of the other group, who not so long ago were theirs. hater. This astonishing transformation is inseparable from the fact that these children see each other as allies rather than enemies.And the reason for this moment is that the researchers set common goals for the members of the entire summer camp.It is precisely because the achievement of these goals requires the cooperation of both parties that members of these competing groups have the opportunity to experience the gradual transformation of members of the other group from rivals to understanding partners, valuable helpers, and even friends.And when their joint efforts have been successful, it is difficult for them to remain hostile to the teammates who have won together. back to school.在学校的种族融合带来的紧张和混乱之中，有一些教育心理学家开始认识到谢里夫等人的研究发现所具有的使用价值。如果我们能够对教室中的学习经验加以改进，使得至少在有些时候不同种族的学生可以通过合作来取得成功，那么不同种族之间的友谊便有了成长的土壤。虽然很多州都以这个理论为基础进行了相似的改革，但阿伦森和他们的同事们在德克萨斯州和加州采用的一个办法特别有意思，这就是所谓的拼板教学法。 拼板教学法的核心是要求学生们一起学习，以掌握考试所规定的内容。而这使通过把学生们分成一个一个的合作小组，并让每一个学生只直到一部分的考试知识，也就是拼板中的一块来完成的。在这种体系下，学生们要轮流教授他们所掌握的知识并帮助其他的学生。为了在考试中取得好成绩,每一个人都需要其他人的帮助.正如谢里夫夏令营中的营员们要联合起来才能完成任务一样,在这里学生们也必须合作而不是竞争。 当在那些刚实行种族融合的课堂中使用这种拼板方法时，取得的效果是非常明显的。研究表明，与同一所学校中使用传统竞争方法的班级相比，拼板教学法增进了不同种族之间的友谊，并减少了他们之间的偏见。这种方法除了能显著地减少敌意外，还有很多其他的优势。它让少数族裔的学生更加自尊，而且对学校的喜爱程度以及考试成绩都得到了改善。白人学生也获益颇多。他们的自尊心以及对学校的喜爱程度也都提高了，而且他们的考试成绩也不比按传统的教学方法教出来的白人学生差。 采用拼板教学法取得这么多的收获需要做进一步的解释。拼板教学法里到底发生了什么事情，产生出这种效果来，而我们很久以前就对公立学校取得这种成果不抱任何希望了。阿伦森所做的一个案例研究会使我们对此有更深入的了解。这个案例与一个美籍墨西哥裔的年轻小男孩卡洛斯的经历有关。在拼板教学里，他第一次对自己有了新的发现。卡洛斯的工作是了解普利策中年的生活经历，然后将他学到的知识传授给他的队友们。因为他们每一个人很快就要参加一场有关这位著名的新闻人一生经历的考试。阿伦森讲述了事情发生的经过： 卡洛斯的英语不太灵光，因为英语并不是他的母语。而且由于过去他将英语时，总会遭到人们的嘲笑，于是，在过去的几年里，他学会了在教室里保持沉默。我们甚至可以说卡洛斯和他的老师已经就这个问题达成了默契。他悄无声息地将自己埋在班级活动的喧嚣中，而且也不会因为答不上来老师的问题而感到无地自容。反过来，他的老师也不会叫他回答问题。她这么做的动机可能非常单纯。她不想羞辱他，或看到其他孩子取笑他。通过忽视卡洛斯的存在，他的老师实际上将他从班里注销了。她暗示说不值得为他费心，至少其他孩子们听到过这种说法。如果老师都不叫卡洛斯回答问题，那一定是因为他笨，可能连卡洛斯自己都这么认为。 很自然，卡洛斯对新的体系感到非常不适应，因为他必须与他的队友讲话。在向他们传播他所学到的知识时，卡洛斯感到非常困难。他说话结结巴巴、犹犹豫豫而且非常紧张。而其他的孩子也不帮他的忙。他们的反应仍源于原有的、过度学习的习惯。当一个孩子，特别是一个他们认为很笨的孩子回答不出老师的问题时，他们只会嘲笑他，奚落他。“哦，你根本不知道是怎么回事呀。”玛丽责备到，“你这个笨蛋，你连自己在做什么都不知道。” 我们当中的一个人被指派去观察这个小组的学习过程。当她听到这种评价时，她可以打断他们，并给出一些建议：“好吧，如果你愿意你就取笑他好了。”她说，“那对你来说可能很有意思，但对你了解普利策的生活经历没有任何帮助。考试很快就要开始了。”请注意她是如何改变了强化事件的。现在玛丽并不能从羞辱卡洛斯的行为中得到什么，如果她坚持这样做只会让她失去得更多。几天之后，经过几次这样的经历，这些孩子们开始明白，要想学到卡洛斯掌握的那部分知识，唯一的可能性就是仔细听他在讲些什么。 由于认识到这一点，孩子们开始逐渐变成非常好的谈话对象，像晚辈一样虚心。他们不再取笑或忽视卡洛斯，他们学习让他讲出实情，问一些对他来说比较容易、他能大声解释的问题。反过来，卡洛斯也更加放松了，而这使得他的沟通能力得到了进一步的提高。几个星期之后，孩子们得出了这样的结论，卡洛斯并不像他们想的那么笨。他们从他身上看到了他们以前不曾看到的东西。他们更喜欢他了。而卡洛斯开始变得更愿意去上学了，并且认为他的同学们不是小魔头，而是他的朋友。 当我们面对拼板教学法所取得的那种正面成果时，我们往往会对一个简单的解决问题的方法寄予过高的希望。而经验告诉我们，这样的问题很少能够通过简单的办法来解决。这个例子也不例外。因为仅仅是合作学习过程本身就存在着很多复杂的问题。在我们对拼板教学法或者任何其他的学习方法以及增进好感的方法感到适应之前，我们需要做更多的研究，以确定这种方法要采用哪种频率、针对哪种规模、哪种年龄、哪种类型的群体才能发挥出作用。而且如果老师们想要采用这种新的教学方法，那我们还要找出使用这种方法的最佳方式。毕竟，合作学习的方法不仅与大多数老师熟悉的传统的教学方法截然不同，而且这种方法也会对老师在课堂上的主导地位构成威胁，因为很多教学任务都交到了学生们的手中。最后，我们必须认识到，竞争还是有其重要作用的。因为竞争既是一种能够激发学生积极向上的宝贵机制，也是一种帮助学生建立自我概念的重要工具。因此，我们的任务不是消除学习环境中的竞争，而是要通过引入各种族学生成功合作的方法，打破课堂中的垄断局面，取得我们想要的结果。 尽管有着这么多的限制条件，我还是被迄今为止所看到的证据所鼓舞。当我和我的学生，或邻居和朋友谈起合作学习的前景时，我自己都能感到一种乐观的情绪正在我的心中升起。长期以来，从公立学校传来的都是一些令人沮丧的消息，不断下降的考试成绩、心力交瘁的老师，节节攀升的犯罪率，当然还有种族之间的冲突。现在我们至少在这一片黑暗之中看到了一线曙光，这真让我由衷地感到高兴。 为什么我们要扯那么远去谈学校种族融合和种族关系的问题呢？这么做是为了说明两个问题。首先，虽然通过接触产生的熟悉感通常会引起人们更多的好感，但如果这种接触是一种不愉快的经历，那就会产生相反的结果。因此，当不同种族的孩子们被丢进标准的美国课堂所特有的那种不断竞争的残酷环境中时，我们应该会看到双方之间敌意的不断加深，而且我们也确实看到了这一点。其次，合作学习方式的成功使我们看到，在建立起好感的过程中，合作起着至关重要的作用。 远离的应用。 但是，在我们假设合作可以产生好感之前，让我们先看看合作是否可以通过我心目中认为的一个“严峻考验”：那些让人顺从的行家们是否系统地使用合作来博取我们的好感，以使我们答应他们的要求？当合作关系已经自然地存在时，他们是否会想方设法让我们认识到这一点？当这种合作关系很微弱时，他们会不会尽力将它加强？最重要的一点是，当合作关系不存在时，他们会不会人为地将它制造出来？ 结果我们发现，对每一个问题的回答都是肯定的。那些让人顺从的行家们总想试图建立起我们和他们为了共同的目标而努力、为了共同的利益双方必须“齐心协力”、他们其实是我们的战友这样的感觉。这样的例子多得不胜枚举，而且大多数是我们所熟悉的。例如那个站在我们这边，和我们一起来“对付”他的老板以让我们得到一个好价钱的汽车销售员。但有一个相当特别的例子，当它发生时，我们很少能够将它一眼识别出来。因为在这个例子中，那些让人顺从的行家们是诱导嫌疑犯供认罪行的警察。 近年来，法庭对警察与嫌疑犯打交道的行为方式，尤其是获取嫌疑犯口供的方式，做了很多限制性的规定。过去，很多能让嫌疑犯招供的方法现在都不能再使用了，因为害怕法官会因此拒绝受理此案件。不过，法庭却并不认为警察使用一点点心理学的方法有什么不妥。因此在审讯嫌疑犯的过程中，他们越来越多地采用一种所谓“好警察、坏警察”的方法。 所谓“好警察，坏警察”的方法是这样进行的。比如说，一个年轻的抢劫嫌疑犯，他已经知道了自己的权利，而且他声称自己无罪。于是他被带到一间房间里，由两名警察对他进行审讯。其中一名警察扮演坏警察的角色。这可能是因为他比较合适这个角色，或者仅仅是因为正好轮到他了。嫌疑犯还没有坐稳，坏警察就开始骂他是“狗娘养的”，而且在接下来的审讯中，他一直在大吼大叫。为强调他的观点，他会去踢嫌疑犯的椅子。而且当他看着嫌疑犯时，就像在看一堆垃圾。如果嫌疑犯对他的指控表示异议或是拒绝回答他的问题，他就会火冒三丈。他会发誓说他一定要给这个嫌疑犯判最重的刑。他还说他有朋友在检察院工作，他会让朋友知道这个嫌疑犯极不合作，让检察官对这个案子提出最严厉的起诉。 当坏警察刚开始他的表演时，他的合作伙伴好警察坐在旁边，一言不发。但是慢慢地，好警察就开始加入进来了。最初他只对坏警察说话，劝他别发那么大火。他说：“冷静点，弗兰克，冷静一点。”但坏警察却大叫着说，“不要叫我冷静，他在当面撒谎！我讨厌这中不说实话的杂种！”过了一会儿，好警察居然开始帮这个嫌疑犯说起话来了。“别着急，弗兰克，他还是个孩子呢。”这句话虽说算不上是什么真正的帮助，但与坏警察的咆哮比起来，简直比音乐还要好听。但坏警察一点也不为所动。“哦，他可不是什么孩子了。他是个流氓，知道吗？小流氓。我还要告诉你，他已经过了18岁了。就凭这一点，我就可以把这个混蛋送到黑漆漆的监狱里去。” 到了这个时候，好警察开始直接对嫌疑犯说话了。他叫他的名字，向他指出他这个案子里任何一个对他有利的细节。“我告诉你，肯尼，你很走运。因为没有人受伤，而且你也没有带上任何器械。当他们审判你时，这些对你都非常有利。”这个时候如果嫌疑犯仍坚持自己无罪，坏警察会展开新一轮的谩骂和威胁。但这时，好警察会拦住他说：“好了，弗兰克，我想我们都需要来点咖啡，去买几杯回来，怎么样？”并顺手塞给他一些钱。当坏警察离开之后，好警察的戏就开场了：“你看，伙计，不知道为什么，我的同事就是不喜欢你。他一定会想办法抓住你的，而他的确也能做到，因为我们已经掌握了足够的证据。另外，地方检察官确实会严惩那些不合作的犯人。你恐怕要被判5年的刑，5年哪！但我不希望看到这样的事情发生在你身上。所以，如果你现在承认你抢了那个地方，那在他回来之前，我就会把你的案子接过来，并且会在检察官面前为你说好话。如果你愿意合作的话，我们可以把刑期从5年减到2年，甚至一年也是有可能的。现在，就看你了，肯尼。只要告诉我事情的经过，我们可以一起努力，让你度过这一关。”到了这个时候，嫌疑犯通常会将他的所作所为全部如实招供出来。 一书中看到这个策略还是相当震惊，而且，仔细研读，发现原来这是行为科学率先发现的道理。背后起作用的是喜好原理，建立对好警察的喜好，从而服从好警察的吩咐。 “好警察，坏警察”的办法之所以总能奏效，是出于这么几个原因：第一，坏警察的威胁让嫌疑犯很快就产生出长期监禁的恐惧，而在第1章谈及的认知对比原理的作用下，与那个狂暴、恶毒的坏警察相比，这个扮演好警察的审讯员会显得特别通情达理、善解人意；第二，由于好警察不断地为嫌疑犯说好话，甚至还花自己的钱给他买咖啡，互惠原理产生的压力会使这个嫌疑犯觉得应该还他一个人情。但是，使这个办法非常有效最主要的原因还在于，这个嫌疑犯感到有人和他站在一起，有人把他的利益放在心上，有人会为了他和他一起努力。即使是在正常的情况下，这种人也会给别人留下极佳的印象，更何况对这个身陷困境的嫌疑犯来说，这种人简直就是他的救星。而从一个救星变成一个值得信赖、可以向他忏悔的神父就仅有一步之遥了。 “为什么他们要怪我呢，博士？”电话里传来当地一家电视台天气预报员颤抖的声音。这个问题已经困扰他很久了，最近更让他感到烦恼和沮丧。为了找到一个能解答他心中疑问的人，他打电话到我学校的心理学系求助，于是系里便将我的电话告诉了他。 “他们都疯了，不是吗？每个人都知道我只是播报天气，我并不能决定天气，是不是？那天气不好时，他们为什么要怪我呢？去年发大水的时候，我就收到了很多讨厌的邮件！有一个人威胁我说，如果雨还不停的话就一枪打死我。天哪，就为这个，我现在还处处小心呢。我那些电视台的同事也是这样！有时候，我正在播天气预报，他们就会因为天气太热或是什么别的原因对我百般挑剔。他们明知道我不可能对天气负责的，可他们偏要这么做。你能不能帮我解释解释这到底是怎么回事呢？这种事儿实在让我太郁闷了。” 几天后，我们在我的办公室里进行了一次面对面的谈话。我告诉他，人们对相互关联的事物历来就有一种“咔哒，哗”的反应，而他就是这种反应的牺牲品。在现实生活中这样的例子也很多，但我觉得对这个垂头丧气的天气预报员最有帮助的还是一个古代的例子。我要他不妨想像一下古代波斯帝国的信使们岌岌可危的命运。任何一个给国王送信的信使都希望波斯军队在战场上取得辉煌的胜利，他们这么想是有他们的原因的。因为如果他的信袋里装的是一份捷报，那当他到达皇宫后，他一定会得到英雄般的待遇，（后面缺了一页内容） ……但是，我还是希望这个天气预报员能够从这段历史中学到一些别的东西。不仅因为几个世纪以来的信使们都遇到过他的困境，而且与那些波斯信使相比，他还算是比较走运的。在我们的谈话即将结束时，他的一番话使我相信他完全理解了我的意图。他说：“博士，我现在对自己的工作满意多了。你看，这里是凤凰城，每年有300天都是阳光灿烂，对不对？谢天谢地，我不是在布法罗预报天气。” 这个天气预报员临别前的这番话表明，他对关联原理已经理解得相当透彻了。与坏天气沾上边确实对他有负面的影响，但从另一方面来看，灿烂的阳光联系在一起却可以让他奇妙地得到观众的欢迎与爱戴。他的理解完全正确。关联原理是普遍存在的，既能产生正相关，也可以产生负相关。不管与好事还是坏事无缘无故地沾了边，都会影响到我们在旁人心目中的形象。 我们对负面关联的了解似乎主要是从父母那里得来的。还记得他们是怎么警告我们不要与住在街那头的坏孩子玩的吗？他们说我们自己做没做坏事不要紧，因为在邻居的眼里，我们跟什么样的人玩，我们自己就成了什么样的人。我们的父母教给我们的是什么叫“受到牵连”。他们就关联原理的负面效果给我们上了一课。他们这么做非常正确，因为人们确实认为我们的品行会与我们的朋友一样。 而对正面关联的了解是从那些让人顺从的行家们那里得来的，因为他们总是试图把他们自己或他们的商品与我们所喜欢的事物联系在一起。你有没有想过为什么汽车广告中总有几个漂亮模特？因为广告商希望能把这些模特漂亮、讨人喜欢的优点赋予到他们的汽车身上。他们确信，我们对商品的反应与我们对那些与商品有关的漂亮模特的反应是一样的。 他们的想法完全正确。比如说，有一项研究就发现，在汽车广告中有年轻漂亮的女模特出现的广告，比起那些没有年轻漂亮的女模特出现的广告来，会让男性觉得前一个广告中的新车跑得更快、更讨人喜欢，看上去更昂贵、而且设计也更好。虽然当过后问及此事时，他们拒绝承认广告中年轻女子的出现影响了他们的判断。 由于关联原理如此有效，而且不知不觉就发生了作用，因此那些制造商们经常会千方百计地将自己的商品与时髦的文化现象扯上关系。在美国第一次登月的那段时间里，商家推销的每一样商品，从早餐饮料到除臭剂，都与美国的太空计划联系在一起。在举办奥运会的那一年，我们连美国奥林匹克代表队使用的是什么发胶和面巾纸都知道得一清二楚。在20世纪70年代，当最有魅力的文化概念是“自然”时，商家们都开始竞相追赶“自然”这一潮流。而其中一些与自然的联系简直是牵强附会，比如说，有一个电视广告说“自然地改变秀发的颜色”。 广告商运用关联原理的另一个办法，就是把名人和商品联系起来。职业运动员仅仅让人们把自己和与自己的角色有关（运动鞋、网球拍、高尔夫球）或无关（饮料、爆米花、长统丝袜）的东西联系起来就可以得到一大笔报酬。对广告商来说，重要的是建立一种联系。这种联系只要是正面的就行，至于是否合乎逻辑倒并不怎么重要。 当然，倍受大众欢迎的娱乐明星们也有他们独特的吸引力，因此商家们愿意出大价钱把他们与自己的商品联系在一起。不久前，政客们也认识到了这种名人对那些摇摆不定的选民的影响力。因此，竞选总统的候选人们总会召集一大群与政治无关的娱乐界的知名人士。这些人或者积极地投入到竞选活动中去，或者让政客们使用自己的名字造势。即使是在州县一级的竞选中，人们也会使用同样的策略。比如说，有一次我就听到一位洛杉矶的妇女这样表达她对加州一项限制在公共场所吸烟的议案投票时的矛盾心情：“真的是很难做出决定。既有大名星赞成，也有大名星反对。搞得我们不知如何是好。” 如果说政客们在利用名人获得支持方面还算是新手的话，那他们在以其它方式利用关联原理方面可算得上是老手了。比如说，一些地区的国会议员总会抢先向新闻界透露联邦政府即将实行的一个可以给该地区带来就业和其他好处的计划。即使这个议员没有为推进这个计划做任何事情，甚至有时还投了反对票，他依然会这么做。 很长时间以来，政客们便一直煞费苦心地把自己与母亲、故乡或是苹果馅饼之类的东西联系在一起。而其中最后一种联系，也就是与食物的联系，可能才是他们的拿手好戏。比如说，靠一顿宴请来说服犹豫不决的立法委员投票历来都是白宫的传统。这一顿饭可以是在室外举行的午餐，也可以是非常讲究的早餐，或者是精致的晚宴。但不管是哪一种宴请，每当重要的提案要获得通过时，毫无例外地，银质餐具便被搬了出来。近来，政治捐款也常常与大吃大喝联系在一起。不知道你注意到没有，在绝大多数的捐款晚宴上，呼吁大家捐更多的钱、做更多的善事的演讲从来不会在宴会开始之前进行，而是发生在宴会当中或是宴会结束时。这样做好处很多。比如说可以节省时间，可以让互惠原理发生作用。但它还有一个不易被人察觉的好处，而这个好处是著名的心理学家拉兹然在20世纪30年代发现的。 拉兹然采用了一种被他称为“午餐策略”的实验方法，结果发现，实验对象对自己在吃东西的时候所经历的人和事会更加喜爱。在一个与我们的目的最相关的例子中，研究人员将一些曾被实验对象批评过的政治声明再一次拿给他们看。实验结束后，所有的声明都被展示出来。结果拉兹然发现，只有其中一部分声明得到了他们的赞同，那就是他们在吃东西的时候看到的那些声明。而且，这种喜好上的改变似乎完全是下意识发生的，因为事后这些实验对象已经记不起来自己在吃东西的时候看过哪些声明。 拉兹然是怎么想到这种午餐策略的呢？为什么他认为这个策略会有效呢？这可能与他的双重学者的身份有关。因为他不仅是一个受人尊敬的独立研究者，而且他也是最早把俄国创始性的心理学著作翻译成英文的人之一。这部著作正是关于关联原理的研究的，它主要记载了一位杰出的科学家巴甫洛夫的思想。 巴甫洛夫是一个有着广泛兴趣和卓越才能的人，比如说，年轻时就曾因在消化系统方面取得了重大研究成果而获得诺贝尔奖。但他最重要的成就还是他所做的那个实验本身。他证明了他可以让动物对一种与食物完全无关的东西（比如说铃声）产生出通常对食物才会有的反映（比如说分泌唾液）。他要做的就是让动物在脑子里将这两样东西联系起来。如果把食物拿给一条狗时总是伴以铃声，用不了多久，这条狗一听到铃声就会分泌唾液，即使没有食物也是如此。 巴甫洛夫的经典实验与拉兹然的午餐策略并没有本质的区别。很显然，对食物的正常反应可以通过最原始的关联转移到对其他的事情上。拉兹然的观点是，除了分泌唾液外，人们对食物还有很多钟其他的正常反应，其中一种就是那种愉快的感觉。因此，人们极有可能把这种愉快的感觉和正面的态度附着在其他任何与好的食物紧密有关的事物上。 很多让人顺从的行家们意识到，他们可以用各种其他有吸引力的东西来代替食物，让这些东西讨人喜欢的品质传染到与它们人为地联系在一起的观点、商品或个人身上。他们的想法与午餐策略其实也没有本质的差别。就是因为这个原因，我们才会看到那么多漂亮的模特出现在杂志的广告中；广播电台的节目编导们在播放一首当红的流行歌曲前总是把本电台的广告语插进去；而在特百惠家庭聚会上，玩宾果游戏的人跑到屋子中间去领奖品时是喊“特百惠”而不是“宾果”。要知道，对玩游戏的人来说她不过是喊了一声特百惠，而对特百惠公司来说，它玩赢了整个游戏。 虽然我们经常不知不觉地成了那些运用关联原理的人的牺牲品，但这并不意味着我们自己不了解这个原理或者不会去运用这个原理。比如说，有充分的证据表明，我们对波斯帝国的信使和现代报告坏消息的天气预报员的困境非常了解。事实上，我们自己是绝对不愿意步他们的后尘的。在佐治亚大学所做的一个研究就表明，我们在把好消息或坏消息告诉给他人时会有完全不同的做法。在这个实验中，参与实验的学生的任务就是将一个重要电话的内容转告给他的一位同学。有一半的时候是好消息，而一半的时候是坏消息。结果，研究人员发现由于电话内容的不同，同学们传达消息的方式也非常不一样。当它是一个好消息时，传达消息的人一定会提到这一点：“刚才有个电话找你，是个好消息，快去找主持实验的人问问详情吧。”当这个消息不那么好时，他们就会与它拉开距离：“刚才有个电话找你，快去找主持实验的人问问详情吧。”很显然，这些学生早就已经知道，要想得到人们的喜爱，他们应该让自己与好消息而不是坏消息联系在一起。 正是由于人们对关联原理有足够的了解，因此人们总是把自己和好的事物联系在一起，而极力与坏的事物拉开距离，即使坏事情根本不是因他们而起。这一事实可以帮助我们解释很多奇怪的行为，而其中一些最奇怪的则发生在体育场上。不过运动员们的行为并不是我们在此要讨论的问题。毕竟，在一场激烈的竞赛中，即使运动员们偶尔有些奇怪的举动也是情有可原的。反倒是那些总是怒气冲冲、蛮不讲理、有着无限热情的体育爱好者们，让人觉得难以理解。比如说，我们如何解释在欧洲发生的因体育比赛而引发的暴乱，南美洲狂怒的足球球迷谋杀运动员和裁判的事件呢？我们又如何解释美国人在授予运动员荣誉的特别日子里送给那些已经非常富有的棒球手们的奢侈礼物的行为呢？不就是一场比赛吗？ actually not.一种运动和狂热的观众之间的关系远非一场比赛那么简单。这种关系非常严肃、非常强烈而且也非常个性化。在这里，有必要讲一个我最喜欢的小故事，说的是第二次世界大战时，一个士兵在战争结束后回到他的故乡巴尔干，不久他就不再开口说话了。给他做医疗检查，发现他没有任何身体上的问题。他没有受伤，脑子也没有收到伤害，发声系统也完好无损。他能够看书、写字，明白别人在说什么，也能执行一项命令。但他就是不会说话，既不能跟他的医生说，也不能跟他的朋友说，甚至对苦苦哀求他开口的家人他也一字不说。 他的医生对此感到很奇怪也很气恼，于是把他送到另外一个城市的一所老兵医院里，在那里他一住就是30年。在这30年里，他一直都没有大破自己加给自己的沉默，完全过着一种与世隔绝的生活。然后有一天，在他住的病房里有一台收音机正好被调到了一个转播足球比赛的台，而这场比赛恰好是在他主队和一个传统的死对头之间进行的。在比赛到了紧要关头时，裁判判他主队的一名球员犯规。他从椅子上跳起来，瞪着收音机，说出来30年来第一句话：“你这个蠢货！”他叫道，“你想要送他们这一场球是不是？”说完这句话，他又坐回到自己的椅子里，陷入了沉默。自此之后，他再也没有开过口。 这个真实的故事可以给我两点重要的启示。第一，体育运动具有一种惊人的、绝对的力量。这个老兵想要他主队得胜的愿望是如此强烈，仅仅是这个愿望，就让他偏离了固守多年的与世隔绝的生活方式。体育事件对体育爱好者长期生活习惯的影响绝不仅限于老兵医院这一个例子。在1980年的冬季奥运会上，美国冰球队击败了夺冠热门的前苏联队。胜利之后，守门员克雷格的父亲，这个从来滴酒不沾的老人喝了整整一瓶酒。事后他说：“我从来不喝酒。但有人从后面递给我一瓶白兰地，我就喝了。是的，我确实喝了。”这种反常的行为并不仅仅发声在运动员父母的身上。新闻也报道了赛场之外球迷们兴奋失常的表现：他们相互拥抱，大声地唱着歌，还在雪地里打滚。甚至那些不在冬奥会现场的球迷们也为胜利而狂喜，并且用古怪的方式表现出他们的自豪感。在北卡罗来纳州罗利市，一场游泳比赛被迫暂停，因为当宣布比赛结果之后，运动员和观众们都齐声高喊“美国、美国”直到声音嘶哑才停止。而在马萨诸塞州的剑桥市，一家安静的超市在胜利的消息传来之后突然间沸腾起来，卫生纸和纸巾做成的条幅在空中飘扬，顾客们很快就加入到商店经理和员工领导的狂欢活动中。 毫无疑问，体育运动的这种力量是神奇的、势不可挡的。但如果我们回头再看看那个沉默的老兵的故事，我们就能发现另外一些关于体育运动和体育爱好者之间关系的本质特征。体育运动与它的观众之间的关系完全是一种个人化的东西。不论那个沉默的老兵的个性被破坏到何种程度，残留下来的部分却被一场足球比赛给激发了出来。当一言不发地在病房呆了30年以后，不论他的自我意识消弱到了何种程度，它却与一场球赛的结果联系在一起。Why is this so?因为就他本人而言，由于受关联原理的作用，他的形象会因为主队的失败而受到伤害。仅仅由于出生地间的联系就把他与一场球赛即将到来的胜利或失败套在一起、裹在一起、系在一起。正如著名作家阿西莫夫在描述我们观看一场比赛的反应时所说的：“当所有其他的因素都一样时，你会为同性别、同文化、来自同一个地方的人加油鼓劲……而你想要证明的是，你比其他人更优秀。你为之加油的那个人就是你的代表，当他胜利的时候，你也胜利了。” 当我们从这个角度来看问题时，一个观看比赛的体育爱好者的狂热情绪就比较容易理解了。一场比赛并不是以固有的表现形式或艺术性来供我们轻松消遣的，而是让我们以自身为赌注来为一场比赛的输赢打赌的。正是出于这个原因，观众们