Chapter 6 6. Authority

Chinese students rely too much on experts. In their emails to me, they often hand over major events that may affect their lives to others to make decisions for them.Kai-fu Lee once said that there are countless letters from students asking him to give them guidance on the path of life development.This is the manifestation of excessive trust in authority. Suppose you are flipping through a newspaper one day and you notice an advertisement for volunteers to participate in a "memory study" being conducted by the psychology department of a nearby university.Assume again that you think this matter is very interesting, so you get in touch with the host of this experiment, Professor Milgram, and agree to participate in a one-hour experiment.When you arrive at the lab, you meet two people.One of them is the researcher conducting the experiment, wearing a gray lab uniform and holding a clipboard, so you can recognize him at a glance.The other is a volunteer like you, who is nothing special in any way.

After exchanging a few pleasantries, the researchers begin to explain to you the procedures of the experiments to be performed.He said the purpose of the experiment was to study the effect of punishment on people's ability to learn and remember.Thus, the role of a volunteer who memorizes all pairs of words from a long list is called a "learner".The task of another volunteer is to examine the learner's memory. Whenever the learner makes a mistake, he is shocked with an increasingly stronger electric current, and this person is assigned to be a "teacher". Naturally, you're a little nervous when you hear the news.When you find yourself assigned the role of learner by lottery, you are even more worried.You don't expect to experience physical pain as part of the experiment, so for a moment, you consider leaving.But you didn't do that.You think there is still time if you really want to leave.Besides, how strong can these electric shocks be?

After you've learned a pair of words from your checklist, researchers strap you to a chair and, while the teacher watches, attach electrodes to your arms.Now that you're more worried about the consequences of the shock, you ask the researchers how strong the shock will be.It turns out that his answer doesn't give you any comfort at all, saying that while being shocked is painful, it doesn't cause "permanent tissue damage."The researchers and teachers then go to the next room and leave you alone.In the next room, the teacher asks you questions through a walkie-talkie, and every time you answer wrong, he will release an electric current to shock you once.

As the experiment progresses, you quickly see the pattern the teacher is using: Over the walkie-talkie, he asks a question and waits for you to answer it.When you got it wrong, he'd tell you how many volts you'd be in for a shock, then pull on a switch to send the current to you.Worst of all, every time you get it wrong, the voltage goes up by 15 volts. The first part of this experiment went well.The shocks are uncomfortable, but totally tolerable.Over time, however, as you make more and more mistakes, the voltage at which you get the shock increases.The punishment starts to be painful, causing you to lose concentration and make more and more mistakes, which in turn leads to stronger shocks.When the voltage hits 75 volts, 90 volts, 105 volts, you cry out in agony.When the voltage hits 120 volts and you talk into the walkie-talkie the shocks really start to hurt you.When you take another punishment with a groan, you feel like you can't take it anymore.After the teacher applies another 150-volt shock to you, you bark into the intercom: "Enough, let me out. Please let me out."

However, the teacher did not let you out, instead, he went on to ask you the next question.You are taken aback, but a little confused.You slurred the first answer that came to mind.Of course, you got it wrong again.The teacher added 165 volts to you again.You scream for him to stop and let you out.But his response was simply to ask the next question.Of course, it was followed by another strong electric shock, because the answer you gave in the frenzy was wrong again.You are overwhelmed with panic.By now, the shock is so intense that you're writhing and screaming in pain.You kick the wall and ask the teacher to help you out.But he continued to ask the same question after question as before, and there was a steady stream of terrifying electric shocks, 195 volts, 210 volts, 210 volts, 225 volts, 240 volts, 255 volts, 270 volts, 285 volts, and then 300 volts.You realize that it is impossible to answer the questions correctly, so you yell at the teacher that you will not answer his questions again.But nothing has changed.The teacher explains that your failure to answer a question counts as a wrong answer, so you get another shock.The ordeal continues like this until finally the force of the shock nearly paralyzes you.You have stopped crying and struggling no more.All you can feel is the sting of each horrible electric shock.You think, maybe the teacher will listen when he sees that you can't move at all, because there is no need to continue this experiment.But he continued relentlessly, asking the next question, announcing the voltage for the next shock (it was now 400 volts), and pulling the switch down.What kind of person is this?In the confusion, you can't help thinking, why didn't he help me?Why didn't he stop?

To most people, the above scenario sounds like a nightmare.But to really appreciate how terrifying this nightmare is, we have to wait until all of the above is basically true.There have been experiments, indeed a series of experiments.These experiments were conducted by a professor of psychology named Milgram, and the subjects who acted as teachers were willing to deliver a continuous, intense, and dangerous shock to a kicking, screaming, pleading animal. students.The only inauthentic thing about this experiment is that they didn't give real shocks to the students.The person who kept yelling "have pity on me, let me out" in constant pain was not a real test subject, but an actor.The real purpose of Milgram's experiment was not to study the effect of punishment on learning and memory, but to study a completely different problem: when an ordinary person is performing his duties, would he be willing to let a completely innocent person How much pain did you suffer?

The answer is very disturbing.In situations exactly like the nightmare described earlier, most teachers are willing to inflict on others the most painful punishment they have at their disposal.In Milgram's experiment, two-thirds of the people turned a deaf ear to the pleas of their victims and pulled one of the 30 shock switches in front of them until the voltage reached 450 volts and the researchers stopped the experiment.Even more surprising, however, was that none of the 40 teacher subjects who participated in the experiment stopped when the victims started asking them to release themselves.Neither stopped when the victim begged them later.Still, none of the subjects stopped when the victim's response was, in Milgram's words, "a scream of agony."Only a small number of people stopped until they applied a 300-volt electric shock and the victim screamed in despair that he could no longer give the answer to the question.

These results shocked everyone involved in the experiment, and Milgram was no exception.In fact, before the experiment began, he showed colleagues, graduate students, and psychology majors at Yale University (where the experiment was conducted) the procedure for the experiment and asked them to estimate how many subjects would Increase the voltage to 450 volts, and all the people say that only 1%-2% of people will do it.Another 39 psychiatrists estimated that about one in 1,000 people was prepared for the real behavioral patterns produced by the experiment. In the face of this astonishing phenomenon, what kind of explanation should we make?Perhaps, as some have suggested, it could have something to do with the fact that the subjects were all male, as men are known to be a more aggressive sex; another possibility is that the subjects were less sensitive to the dangers posed by such high voltages. Enough understanding; of course, there is also a possibility that these experimental subjects happen to be a group of sadists with weird personalities and mental disorders.But for each of these possibilities, strong evidence to the contrary has been presented.First, a later experiment showed that the sex of the subjects had no bearing on their willingness to inflict shocks on their victims.The female teachers behaved almost exactly like the male teachers in the first experiment.

The explanation that the subjects were not aware of the potential harm to the victims from the high voltage was tested in another experiment and found to be simply untenable.In this experiment, the victim explicitly told the subject that he had a heart problem and that the shock had affected his heart: "Enough, let me out. You know I have a heart attack, and my heart is starting to feel uncomfortable." I'm not going on anymore, let me out!" Nevertheless, the result was the same as before, with 65% of the subjects faithfully performing their duties until the highest level of voltage was exhausted.

A final explanation is that Milgram's subjects were a group of distorted sadists who were not representative of the general public at all.But it turns out that this explanation is also unsatisfactory.Those recruited to participate in Milgram's "memory experiment" came from all walks of life in our society, of different ages, occupations, and educational levels.Moreover, a battery of personality tests conducted later showed that these people were perfectly normal from a psychological point of view.As a group, they showed no signs of mental illness.In fact, they are ordinary people like you and me, or, to use Milgram's term, they "are" you and me.If it is true that we are each involved in this horrific discovery, as Milgram claims, then the unresolved question becomes an unpleasantly personal one: "What made us do something like this?" ?”

Milgram is convinced he has found the answer: a deeply rooted sense of respect for authority.According to Milgram, the real culprit in this experiment was the subjects' inability to refuse the demands of the experiment conductor, the man in the gray coat who ignored the emotional and physical pain that the subjects' actions could cause. Researchers who have hurt, been prodding and even ordering them to carry out their duties. There is a lot of strong evidence in favor of Milgram's authoritative interpretation.First, it is clear that the experiment cannot proceed without an order from the researchers to proceed.In fact, the subjects hated what they had done and felt sorry for the pain the victims had suffered.So they repeatedly begged researchers to stop them.When their request was denied, they had no choice but to bite the bullet and move on.But their hands were shaking, their heads were sweating, their bodies were shaking, and they stammered protests and pleaded with the researchers to release the victims.In the extreme tension and pain, some people supported their heads with their hands, and some people couldn't control themselves and laughed nervously.As one observer of Milgram's experiments wrote: I saw a well-worn businessman enter the lab with a smile on his face, a confident and composed air.But in less than 20 minutes, he was a completely different person.He was trembling all over, couldn't speak clearly, touched his earlobe from time to time, and twisted his hands constantly, apparently on the verge of nervous breakdown.At one point, he tapped his fist on the forehead and whispered, "Oh, God, let's stop." But he continued to obey the researchers' every command until the end. In addition to these observations, Milgram provides much more convincing evidence for his explanation.For example, in a later experiment, he asked the researcher and the victim to exchange lines, that is, the researcher told the teacher to stop the electric shock, and the victim bravely asked the teacher to continue.And the results couldn't be more clear: when the request to continue was made solely by the victim, 100 percent of the subjects did not comply with their request.The same result also appeared in another experiment.In this experiment, the researcher and another subject switched roles.The researcher was strapped to a chair to act as the learner, while another subject ordered the teacher to continue the experiment when the researcher protested.As a result, no one would touch the shock switch. The extreme degree of obedience to authority exhibited by subjects in Milgram's experiments was also evident in another follow-up fundamental study.In this experiment, Milgram sent the teacher two researchers who would give conflicting instructions.One said that the shocks would stop as soon as the victim asked to be released, while the other said that the experiment should continue no matter what.These contradictory instructions indeed formed the only humorous feature of the research project: in a sort of amusing and pathetic bewilderment, the subjects looked now at one researcher and now at that, imploring them both to give Give a unified instruction so that he can execute it: "Wait a minute, wait a moment. What's going on? One said to stop, the other said to continue... What is going on?" When two researchers still insisted on their own When given an opinion, the subjects quickly discerned who was the bigger boss.Since it was impossible to find a real authority, in the end, each subject acted on his instinct and stopped the electric shock.As other subsequent experiments demonstrated, this was not the case if the subjects were sadistic or pathologically aggressive. When Milgram himself analyzed the data he had collected, a chilling fact emerged: The main finding of the study was that even adults who think independently Something completely out of my mind is coming.The finding is all the more sobering for those who have long worried about another form of authority—the magic of government to draw ordinary people to blind obedience.Moreover, this finding also tells us that authority can have a powerful force to influence our behavior.Who can doubt the power of authority when we see Milgram's subjects in agony as they perform their tasks? For those who remain skeptical, Wilson's story may provide even more convincing evidence. On September 1, 1987, Wilson and two others decided to lie down on a railroad track outside the Concord Naval Weapons Station in California to protest the delivery of military equipment by the United States to Nicaragua.The protesters were convinced that their actions would stop the trains scheduled to leave that day, having formally notified the Navy and the Ministry of Railways of their plans three days earlier.However, non-military personnel on missions were ordered not to stop.So even though they could see the protesters from 600 meters away, they didn't stop at all, or even slow down.Although the other two escaped from under the wheels, Wilson couldn't run fast enough and his legs were crushed from the knee down.As the Navy medics present refused to treat him or take him to the hospital in their ambulance, bystanders, including Wilson's wife and son, had to work on their own to stop the bleeding until a car arrived 45 minutes later. An ambulance from a private hospital arrived. Surprisingly, Wilson, who served four years in Vietnam, did not blame the train driver or the medical staff for his misfortune, but instead blamed the people who always restrained these people through the pressure of compliance. on this system of behavior. "What they did was the same as when I was in Vietnam. They were just carrying out a crazy order, and they were all scapegoats." Although the train drivers agreed with Wilson that they were victims, they did not Not as magnanimous as he is.In fact, their reaction may have been the most unexpected of the episode: They sued Wilson for their damages.Since they had to crush his legs to carry out their task, they suffered "human humiliation, mental anguish and physical stress" in doing so. Whenever we are confronted with a powerful force that pushes us to do something, it is natural to hope that there are good reasons to support that drive.Even a cursory consideration of the organizational forms of human society gives us many plausible explanations for obedience to authority.The benefits that a multi-level system of accepted authority provides to a society are obvious.It is precisely because of such a system that a complex social structure including various functions such as resource generation, trade, defense, development and social control can be formed.At the other extreme is anarchism.Anarchy has always been considered unfavorable to the production and development of culture.The social philosopher Hobbes once said that this is a state that makes life "solitary, poor, dirty, cruel and short".Thus, we are taught from birth that it is right to obey authority and wrong to disobey it.This vital message is in the teachings of our parents, in the nursery rhymes we hear at school, and in the stories and songs we heard and sang as children.And that extends into the legal, military, and political systems we encounter as adults.In all these teachings and experiences, obedience to rules and loyalty to authority are highly regarded. And religion has its own unique contribution to this phenomenon.For example, in Chapter 1 of the "Bible", it is described that the resistance to absolute authority caused Adam, Eve, and the entire human race to lose Paradise.If the metaphor is still too vague, we can read a reverent description in the Old Testament: Abraham willingly plunged the dagger into the heart of his young son because God ordered him to do so without any explanation. Do.This biblical story is very similar to Milgram's experiment.We learn from this story that an action is right not by whether it makes sense, or harmful, or just, or any other ordinary moral standard, but simply by the dictates of a higher authority.Abraham's suffering and torment was a test of his unconditional obedience to his master, and he, like Milgram's subjects, passed the test. From the behavior of Abraham's or Milgram's subjects, we can clearly see the power of obedience and its value in our culture.But on the other hand, these stories can also lead us astray.In real life, we seldom suffer to the point of indecisiveness when faced with the demands of authority.More often than not, our deference to authority happens in a "click, bang" fashion with little or no conscious thought.In fact, information from recognized authorities provides us with a shortcut to action in many cases. Milgram also pointed out that following the orders of authority figures will always bring us real and practical benefits.When we are young, these authority figures (e.g., parents, teachers) know more than we do, and we find it wise to take their advice, also because they are the ones who determine rewards and punishments.As adults, for the same reason, we are still willing to accept the advice of authority, but now the authority has become employers, lawyers and government officials.Because of their vantage point, they have more access to information and more power, so it's largely infallible to do what they want.And precisely because of our conviction of this, we can easily fall into a misunderstanding: Sometimes the words of authority do not make sense, but we will still do what they say without hesitation. Of course, this embarrassing situation is inevitable for every important weapon of influence.In this case, once we realize that obedience to authority is a very worthwhile thing to do, we will easily develop automatic obedience to authority figures.This blind obedience, which brings both advantages and disadvantages, is precisely its mechanical character.Because thinking in front of authority seems to be a superfluous thing, many people stop thinking.While in the vast majority of cases this will pay off, sometimes there are exceptions because we react mechanically without deliberating on our own. Let's look at an example.It comes from a field where the pressure of authority is strong and evident — the medical profession.Health is of the utmost importance to each of us, so doctors who have a wealth of knowledge and a strong influence on health issues are highly respected authorities.What's more, the medical field is a strictly hierarchical place, and everyone working in the medical system is very clear about their position in the entire system.And they all know that Doctor of Medicine is the figure at the top of the pyramid.Unless it is a doctor of higher rank, no one can veto a doctor's diagnosis of a patient.Thus, automatic compliance with doctor's orders has become a long-established tradition in the medical system. Thus, when a doctor makes a mistake, a worrying phenomenon arises: those lower in the hierarchy do not think about it and question it, because once a legitimate authority issues the order, the subordinates stopped thinking and began to respond to his orders.Mistakes are inevitable when working in a complex hospital environment in such a "click, wow" fashion.In fact, a 1980 study by the U.S. Health Care Fiscal Administration showed that just in prescribing patients, the error rate reached 12 percent per day. After 10 years, things haven't gotten any better.According to a Harvard University study, 10 percent of patients whose hearts stop in the hospital are due to the wrong prescription.Patients get the wrong prescription for a variety of reasons.However, in the book "Medication Errors: Causes and Prevention," co-authored by Temple University pharmacology professors Cohen and Davis, it is stated that most medication errors are caused by blind obedience to the "master" of the case - the attending physician. caused by.According to Cohen, "in case after case, patients, nurses, pharmacists, and other physicians have not questioned the prescription." For example, the "anal earache" cited by Cohen and Davis is one example of this.A doctor asked a patient to drip drops into the painful and inflamed right ear, but he did not write "right ear" in the prescription, but shortened it to "drop into Re ear".After receiving the prescription, the nurse on duty immediately dripped the prescribed dose of the ear drops into the patient's anus. Obviously, treating an earache at the anus is of course nonsense, but neither the patient nor the nurse raised any objections to this.The important lesson of this story is that in many cases, when a recognized authority speaks, everything that is meaningful suddenly becomes irrelevant.At this time, we don't consider the whole situation, but only focus on one aspect of it and react to it. When we act in this unthinking way, I'm sure the submissive mavens want to take advantage of us.Let’s go back to the medical world and see how advertisers use our cultural reverence for doctors to speak for their merchandise by hiring some actors to play the role of doctors.One of my favorite examples is a TV commercial for actor Yang.In the ad, he advised people to be careful about the dangers of caffeine and suggested that everyone drink decaffeinated Sanka coffee.The ad was such a success that it sold so many coffees that television stations ran versions of the ad over the years.Why is this ad so effective?Why on earth are we listening to Yang to drink healthy decaffeinated coffee?For the simple reason that, as the advertisers who hired him knew all too well, he was associated in the minds of the American public with an early feature-length TV character he played, Dr. Welby.In all fairness, it's pointless to be swayed by the opinion of an actor who has played a doctor, but that's what it is, the man who sold Sanka coffee. From the first time I saw this ad, I found the most interesting point is that although this ad uses the principle of authority, there is no real authority, at best it is only a person who looks like an authority.This tells me some important facts about responding to authority without thinking: when we go into the "click, wow" state, the substance of authority is not needed, just a little symbol of authority is enough to make us stop thinking and enter the yes. Submissive state. There are several symbols of authority that are effective in gaining our obedience in the absence of real authority.Consequently, these symbols are often exploited by submissive adepts who have no authoritative substance.For example, scammers often use titles, clothing, and external signs of status.For them, getting out of a fancy car in an elaborate costume and claiming to be such-and-such a doctor, professor, judge, or special envoy is their favorite.They know full well that wrapping themselves up like this can greatly increase their chances of success.There are three quintessential symbols of authority—titles, clothing, and external symbols—each of which has its own story, and each deserves a separate discussion. Titles are the hardest and easiest symbols of authority to obtain.It usually takes years of hard work and outstanding achievement to earn a real title.But for some, it might be easy for them to get a title.They don't need to make any effort, as long as they put a label on themselves, they can automatically get people's respect.As we've seen, actors and con artists in TV commercials do it all the time, and with great success. A friend of mine recently told me a story.This story shows that sometimes a title has more influence than the title's owner.This friend of mine is a professor at a famous university in the east.He travels outside the airport and often talks to strangers in bars, restaurants, and airports.One thing he has learned from his own experience, he said, is never to mention his professorship in conversation.Whenever he mentioned his professorship, the tone of the conversation changed instantly.The conversational partner who had been quips and entertaining for the previous half hour was suddenly dull.They are full of respect for him, and their opinions are also promises to him.His views, which might have sparked a lively discussion before, now attract only a flurry of approval.He was annoyed by it, and a little confused: "I'm still the same guy I've been talking to for the last 30 minutes, haven't I?" career. My friend's approach was in stark contrast to the usual practice of connoisseurs who don't hold a certain title but falsely claim to be submissive.But in either case, this deliberate falsification illustrates the same problem: A symbol of authority can influence people's behavior as effectively as the authority itself. However, I don't know if my slightly diminutive professor friend would be so eager to hide his title after knowing the following facts.His title can not only make those strangers more willing to help him, but also make him appear taller in the eyes of others.One study looked at how status in authority figures affected their height.It turned out that the more prominent a person's title, the higher their estimated height was.The experiment was carried out in 5 classes at an Australian university.A visitor from the University of Cambridge in England was introduced to the students in these 5 classes.But when he was introduced in every class, his identity was different.In the first class, he was introduced as a student; in the second class, he was introduced as an experimenter; in the third class, he was introduced as a lecturer; in the fourth class, he was introduced as a senior lecturer; and in the fifth class, he was introduced as a professor.After he left, the researchers asked the students to estimate his height.It was found that with every increase in height in his status, his height increased by an average of half an inch.So, he was 2.5 inches taller when he was a "professor" than when he was a "student". It's worth spending a little more time exploring the relationship between status and size, because this connection manifests itself in a variety of ways.For example, in an experiment where children were asked to judge the size of coins, it was found that the children often rated larger coins as more valuable.Adults are also prone to make the same mistakes.In one experiment, college students took turns drawing cards from a deck of cards with denominations ranging from minus $3 to $3.For each card drawn, they win or lose money equal to the face value of the card.The researchers then asked them to rank the size of each card.Although the cards are actually all the same size, the ones with the highest numbers printed on them, whether positive or negative, are considered larger.So the things that make us look bigger are not the things that make us feel good, but the things that matter. Just because we think that size is related to status, there will be tricks to replace the latter with the former to profit from it.For example, in some animal groups, a male's status is determined by the number of other animals he can dominate, so that size becomes an important factor in determining his status in the group.Generally speaking, when two animals fight, the bigger, stronger animal is more likely to win.However, if they all had a real fight, it would be harmful to the whole group.To avoid this hazard, many animals resort to less destructive methods.At this point, the two tit-for-tat adversaries will assume an offensive posture, which usually includes the use of some tricks to expand their size.Many mammals arch their backs and bristle their fur; fish spread their fins to fill their bellies with water; and birds flap their wings up and down.In many cases, this mere bluff is enough to scare opponents away, and the real contenders for dominance fall to those who appear to be bigger and stronger. Isn't it interesting that fur, fins, feathers, the most fragile parts of the body can be used to give the impression of solidity and weight?We can draw two lessons from this.First, since there is such a link between size and status, someone must use the former to create an impression of status and profit from our delusion.It is for this reason that scammers, even if they are not short, always put height increasing insoles in their shoes. Another lesson to be learned is that outward appearances of authority and power are often superficial.To illustrate this point, let's look at another example related to titles.In several respects, this example is the most appalling of its kind that I know of.A group of researchers, including some doctors and nurses affiliated with three Midwestern hospitals, has become increasingly anxious about the extent to which nurses mechanically follow doctors' orders.They found that even some well-trained nurses underused their skills to check doctors' judgment.When they disagree with the doctor's diagnosis, they simply put off carrying out the doctor's order without expressing their disagreement. 之前我们已经看到，这种做法是如何引起了把滴耳朵的药水滴到肛门里去的怪事。但是，这些研究人员还想把事情再往前推进几步。首先，他们想知道，这样的例子是一个孤立的事件还是代表一种很普遍的现象。其次，他们想检验一下当出现更为严重的误诊情况时，比如说给一个住院病人开过量的未经批准的药时，会不会出现类似的问题。最后，他们想看看如果把这个权威人士从现场移走，而以一个电话上不熟悉的声音来传达最脆弱的权威的证据，也就是自称为“医生”时，会发生什么样的事情。 因此，有一个自称“医生”的研究人员给外科、内科、小儿科、精神科病房的不同护理站打了22个一模一样的电话，要接电话的护士给病房的某个病人用20毫克的雌激素。护士有4个很好的理由对这个命令做出慎重的反应：（1）这个处方是通过电话传来的，直接违反了医院的规定；（2）这种药没有经过权威机构认可，没有被批准使用，所以不在药房储备的清单上；（3）用药量显然达到了危险的程度，药瓶上清楚地写着一天最大用量是10毫克，而医生的命令是最大剂量的两倍；（4）护士从来没有见过这个医生，也没有与他在电话上交谈过。但是尽管如此，在95%的情况下，护士都径直走进药房，拿到医生指定的剂量，然后回到病房准备用药。到了这个时候，藏在暗处的研究人员才站出来制止他们，并且将实验的真正目的告诉他们。 这个结果的确是令人毛骨悚然。95%受过正规培训的护理人员居然会毫不犹豫地执行一个明明是漏洞百出的指示，这怎能不让我们为每一个医院里的病人担忧呢？根据美国健康保健财政管理局的估计，在美国的医院里每天都有12%的用药错误。如果我们住院超过一个星期，我们就极有可能成为这种错误的牺牲品。而这个中西部医院的实验表明，这些错误并不局限于把滴耳朵的药水滴到其他地方这种无伤大雅的小事情，还有那些能引起严重后果的重大失误。 在解释这一令人不安的发现时，研究人员得出了发人深省的结论： 相对于实验环境而言，在现实生活中，从理论上来说，应该是两位专业人员（医生和护士）的智慧结合在一起，以保证他们采取的治疗方法对病人来说是最佳的，或者至少不应该是有害的。然而，实验却清楚地表明，其中一个人的智慧实际上没有发挥出应有的功能。 由此看来，在医生的指令面前，护士们完全把自己的专业知识丢在一边，进入了一种“咔哒，哗”的反应状态。当她们做出与工作有关的决定时，她们的训练和知识几乎没有起到任何作用。由于一味地服从权威成了她们最喜爱也最有效的工作方式，她们宁肯犯错误也要和权威站在一条战线上。而更发人深省的是，她们在这个方向上走得太远了，以至于她们并不是因为服从了一个真正的权威而犯下错误，而是因为服从了一个最容易假冒的权威标志——头衔才铸成大错。 第二种能够启动我们机械系顺从权威的标志是衣着。虽然衣着这种权威标志比头衔更看得见摸得着，但伪造起来也很容易。警察局的档案里就有很多行骗高手以换装作为一种行骗手段的记录。这些骗子像变色龙一样，一会变成医院的白色，一会变成牧师的黑色，一会变成军队的绿色，一会有变成警察的蓝色。哪一种颜色对他们最有利，他们就换成哪一种。当受害者意识到权威的服装并不能保证这层外衣之下具有权威的实质时，往往已经为时太晚了。 社会心理学家比克曼进行过一系列的研究工作，证实了要拒绝以权威衣着包装的人的请求是多么的困难。比克曼实验的基本程序是在街上向行人提出一些稀奇古怪的要求（比如说，捡起一个被丢弃的纸袋，站在公交车站站牌的另一面，等等）。有时候提出要求的男青年穿着普通的服装，而有时候则身穿警卫制服。结果不管他提出的是哪一类的要求，当他穿着制服时，答应他要求的人更多。 另外一个实验更能说明问题。在这个实验中，一个人叫住另外一个行人，指着站在50米开外的停车计时器旁的一个人说：“看见站在计时器旁边的那个人没有？他已经停车超时了，但他没有零钱。你去给他一毛钱！”说完这个人就转过街角，不慌不忙地走了。当这个行人走到计时器旁时，那个提出要求的人已经消失在他的视线之外了。如果提出要求的人穿的是制服的话，即使他已经不见踪影，制服的影响力都依然存在，因为几乎所有的行人都按他所说的做了。然而，当他穿着便服时，这么做的人却不到一半。有趣的是，比克曼后来要大学生们估计在上述实验中有多少人会听从这个人的要求。结果发现，他们对这个穿便服时获得顺从的比率估计得相当准确（50%，实际上是42%），但对这个人穿制服时获得顺从的比率估计得过低（63%，而实际上是92%）。 另外一种穿着对权威地位的暗示虽没有制服那么直接，但也相当有效，那就是在我们的文化中一直与权威地位联系一起的衣着：剪裁合身的西服。在很多情况下，这种穿着也能有效地赢得陌生人的尊敬。比如说，在德克萨斯州进行的一个实验中，研究人员让一名31岁的男子在好几个不同的地方闯红灯横穿马路。有一半时间，他穿着一套烫得很平整的西服，系着领带；而另一半时间，他穿着工作服。然后研究人员从远处观察，统计在街角等着过马路的人中有多少跟着他穿过马路。结果当他穿着西装的时候，跟在他身后闯红灯过马路的人简直就像拥挤在哈姆林的吹风笛者身后的小孩子一样多，是穿工作服时的3.5倍。只不过他的魔力不是来自风笛，而是来自他的条纹西服。 值得注意的是，被这些实验证明是法力无边的权威衣着——警卫制服和西服——在一起“银行检查员计划”的诈骗案中被胸有成竹的骗子们天衣无缝地糅合在了一起。这个骗局的目标可以是任何人，但他们最偏爱的是那些独居的老人。骗局通常是这样开始的：一个穿着合身的传统的三件套西服的人出现在行骗目标的家门口。他的穿着一看就让人觉得他是个举止得体、受人尊敬的人。他穿着挺括的白衬衫，皮鞋乌黑锃亮；西服的式样不是很时髦，但却很古典：3寸宽的翻领，一点不多，一点不少；即使是在7月，西服的面料也是很厚重的那种；色调也很庄重：深蓝，灰色，黑色。 他向他看中的猎物，可能是一个前几天他在银行发现然后悄悄尾随着回家的寡妇，自我介绍说他是银行的检查员，正在审计她的账户，发现了一些问题。他想他已经找到了做手脚的人，一个经常改动某些账户的交易记录的银行职员。他说这个寡妇的账户可能就是被改动的账户之一，但他没哟确凿证据，因此来寻求她的合作。他问她能不能帮一个忙，把她的存款取出来，这样当交易记录经过嫌疑者的手时，检查人员和有关的银行官员就可以追踪这个记录。 一般来说，这个“银行检察员”的外表和言谈给人的印象太好了，以至于受害者从来没有想到要打个简单的电话去查证一下他的真伪。她马上就开车去银行，取出了她所有的钱，回到家里，与检查员一起等待这个设下的陷阱获得成功的消息。这个消息是在银行关门后由一个穿着制服的银行警卫带来的。他宣布说一切都没有问题——显然这个寡妇的账户并没有被篡改过。检查员听到这个消息后显得松了一口气。他很有礼貌地向寡妇道谢，而且由于银行已经关门了，他就指示那个警卫把她的钱送回到金库里去，省得她明天还要再跑一趟。于是，大家笑容满面地握手告别，警卫拿着钱离开了，检查员则又耽搁了几分钟向寡妇表示谢意，然后也离开了。当然，受害者最后终于知道了“警卫”并不是警卫人员，而“检查员”也不是检查员，他们只不过是一对骗子。但这些骗子认识到了精心伪造的制服的魔力：他们轻轻地“咔哒”一下，我们就像被催眠一样，陷入了对“权威”的顺从之中。 衣服除了有制服的功能之外，作为一种装饰，也可以是一种更一般性的权威标志。精致而又昂贵的衣服就像珠宝和汽车一样，带着一股象征权力和地位的特殊气息。而在美国，汽车是一种尤其能引起人们兴趣的地位标志。因为美国人对汽车有着特殊的感情，汽车在人们的生活中有了更加重要的意义。 根据在旧金山湾区进行的一项调查，拥有名车的人更受人尊重。研究人员发现，当绿灯亮起时，如果前面停的是一辆崭新的豪华车，而不是一辆破旧的经济型轿车，那在它发动之前，后面的司机会愿意等得久一点。而对经济型轿车的司机就没有多大的耐心了，几乎所有的人都按了喇叭，而且大多数人按了不止一次，甚至还有两个人把自己的车顶到前面那辆车的后保险杠上。但一辆名车却有着无穷的威慑力，有50%的司机都恭恭敬敬地在后面等着，从来不敢按喇叭，直到它终于开动起来。 后来，研究人员问一些大学生在这种情况下他们会怎么做。与实验结果相比，学生们都低估了自己在向一辆豪华车按喇叭之前愿意等待的时间。男生们的估计尤其不准确，他们甚至觉得自己对一辆豪华车会更没有耐心。当然，实验的结果与之恰恰相反。请注意，这种现象在其他有关权威压力的研究中也出现过。在米尔格拉姆的研究中，在中西部医院所做的护士调查中，以及在穿着警卫制服的实验中，人们都不能够准确估计自己及他人对权威的影响会做出何种反应。在每一个例子中，这种影响力都被严重地低估了。权威地位的这种特征性说明了作为一种顺从工具它为什么会如此有效。它不仅对我们很起作用，而且这种作用我们完全没有意识到。 一个保护我们不受权威地位影响的方法，就是做好充分的思想准备。因为我们对权威以及象征对我们行为的深远影响通常都估计不足，所以，当它突然出现在某个顺从环境中时，我们往往有一种措手不及的感觉。因此，一种自我防御的最基本的方法就是对权威保持高度的警觉。有了这种警觉，同时也意识到权威是多么容易假冒，当再遇到有人想利用权威来影响我们的时候，我们自然就会采取一种比较谨慎的态度。 听起来很简单，是不是？从某种意义上来说的确如此。对权威的影响力有了更深入的了解之后，会有助于我们抵御它的影响。但是，这里有一个很棘手的问题。这个问题似曾相识，因为每一种影响力的武器都会存在这种问题，那就是我们并不想完全拒绝权威的影响，在大多数时候我们甚至愿意受到它的影响。因为，一般来说，权威人士对他们所说的问题都有很深的了解。医生、法官、公司总裁、立法机构的头面人物等等，都是由于学识渊博、判断准确才获得他们今天的地位的。因此，通常来说，他们的意见能给我们提供极好的建议。要想解决这个问题，一个诀窍就是在没有什么压力或警惕性的情况下，能够认识到什么时候应该听从权威的意见而什么时候要拒绝他们。 为了帮助我们决定在某种情况下是否应该听从权威的意见，我们可以问自己两个问题。当一个貌似权威的人试图影响我们时，我们要问的第一个问题是：“这个权威是不是一个真正的专家？”这个问题很有帮助，因为它让我们把注意力集中到两条重要的信息上：能够证明他是权威的证据，以及这些证据与我们手头的问题是否有关。通过这个简单的方法，我们便可以避免机械地服从权威带来的问题，把目光对准权威地位的真凭实据。接下来，让我们来看一两个这样的例子。 首先，让我们从这个角度来看一看红极一时的罗伯特·杨的桑卡咖啡广告。如果人们不是把他和“医学博士威尔比”联系起来，而是把注意力集中到杨的真实身份上，我敢保证这个广告不会播放这么久的时间，也不会有这样的效果。很明显，罗伯特·杨并不具备一个医生的知识，也没受到专业的训练。他所拥有的只是一个医生的头衔，而且还是一个空的头衔，是通过演戏得来的。我们都知道这个事实。但当我们在生活中风风火火地疾步向前时，除非我们特别留心，否则我们很容易对这种明摆着的事实视而不见。这不是很让人奇怪吗？ 这就是“这个权威是不是一个真正的专家”这个问题如此有价值的原因。它让我们把注意力放到一些很明显的事实上，将我们的注意力从那些毫无意义的权威标志上转移到真正能证明其权威身份的证据上。而且这个问题也迫使我们将相关的和不相关的权威区分开来。在权威和忙碌的现代生活的双重压力下，我们很容易忘记这两者之间的界限。那些跟在一个身着西服的人后面乱穿马路的德克萨斯行人就是一个很典型的例子。即使这个人真的像他的穿着所暗示的那样，是一个很成功的商人，但在过马路这件事上，他不见得比跟在他后面亦步亦趋的人更有权威性。 但他们还是跟着他，好像他的“权威”标志已经把相关的和不相关的权威之间的界限抹杀了。如果他们花点时间问问自己，在这种情况下这个人是不是一个真正的专家（因为人们的行为会反应出他是否具备更多的知识），我想结果就完全不一样了。我们可以对罗伯特·杨采用同样的方法。他并不是一个没有专长的人，在另一个不同的领域里，他有很长时间的工作经验，并取得了令人瞩目的成就。但是，他的知识和技能是作为一个演员所应具备的，而不是作为一个医生所要具备的。当我们看到那个著名的咖啡广告时，如果我们把注意力放在他真正的资格上，我们就会立刻意识到，他并不比任何一位宣称桑卡咖啡有利健康的演员更值得我们信赖。 假定我们遇到了一个权威，而且断定他的确是一个与我们相关的专家。在向他的权威影响力乖乖地缴械投降之前，我们还应该再问自己第二个简单的问题，“我们要对这个权威相信到什么程度？”即使是最有知识的权威也不见得会将他们的信息如实地呈现给我们，因此我们对他们的信任程度还是应该有所保留的。实际上，大多数情况下我们都是这么做的。与那些想通过说服我们从而得到某种好处的权威相比，我们更容易受到那些看似公正无私的权威人士的影响。而研究结果表明，世界各地的人都是如此。如果我们经常停下来想一想权威们可以从我们的顺从中得到什么好处，我们便支起了一张保护自己不受权威启动影响的安全网。这样，即使是一个在某个领域内知识颇丰的权威也不能说服我们，除非我们确信他提供给我们的信息真实可信。 当我们评估一个权威的可信度时，我们应该牢记那些让人顺从行家们经常用来博得我们信任的一个小伎俩：他们故意讲一些在某种程度上违背自己利益的话。这种方法如果使用得当，可以很巧妙却很有效地“证明”他们的诚实。他们可能会提到关于他们的竞争地位或商品上的一个小小缺陷（“哦，本森公司的劣势是……”）。但毫无例外，这个缺陷无关紧要，很容易便被更显著的优点掩盖和克服：“利斯特灵，每天你都要忍受3次它难吃的味道。”“艾维斯：我们是第二名，但我们更努力。”“欧莱雅，稍微有点贵，但完全值得。”通过用一些小小的缺陷来确立自己诚实可靠的形象，当他们强调一些更重要的东西时就会显得更有说服力了。 我就在一个大家都想不到的地方——饭店里见到过人们使用这个策略，而且还取得了非常好的效果。大家都知道，饭店的服务生工资很低，经常要靠小费来弥补他们的收入，这已不是什么秘密。撇开提供最好的服务这个必要条件不提，那些最成功的服务生都有一些增加小费的小窍门。而且他们也知道，顾客的账单越大，即使小费的标准不变，他们的进账也会更多。因此，从增大顾客的账单以及提高顾客给小费的百分比这两点入手，服务生们也扮演起了说服别人的角色。 我想要知道他们到底是怎么做的，因此到几家相当高档的饭店应聘服务生的职位。由于我没有这方面的工作经验，只得到了一份打杂的工作，结果这份工作反而最有利于我观察和分析人们的行为。没过多久，我就意识到了饭店力的其他员工都已经知道的一件事，那就是文森特是这里最成功的服务生。他总是有办法能让顾客多点一些菜，而且给更多的小费。他每周赚得的钱在服务生中遥遥领先。 所以我在干活的时候就经常故意靠近文森特服务的桌子，好仔细观察他所使用的技巧。很快我就发现，他所使用的方法可以说是没有固定的模式，也就是说，在每一种不同的情况下他会采用一种不同的方法。当一家人来吃饭时，他表现得非常兴奋，甚至有点滑稽：既对大人说话，也不会忘了小孩。当顾客是一对约会的年轻男女时，他就变得非常正式，甚至有点傲慢，目的是要给那个男的（他只对他说话）一点压力，使他多点菜，多给小费。当顾客是一对上了年纪的老人时，他还是保持着彬彬有礼的态度，但去掉了傲慢的成分，营造出一种对两个人都很尊重的氛围。如果只有一个顾客单独进餐，文森特则会采用一种很友好的态度——诚恳、善谈、热情。 当来吃饭的是一大群人时，文森特就会使用那个说一些违背自己利益的真话的小把戏了。这时，他的天分才得以展现。但第一个人开始点菜时，通常是一位女士，他的表演就开始了。不管她选择了什么，文森特的反应都是一样的：他皱起眉头，拿着笔的手停在点菜的夹子上，迅速回头扫了饭店经理一眼，然后将身体倾向餐桌，悄悄地、用很轻但全桌的人都能听到的声音说：“今天晚上这道菜恐怕不像平时那么好。我可不可以建议您点xxx或xxx呢？”（这时候，文森特推荐了两道比顾客最初点的那道菜稍微便宜一点的菜。）“今天晚上这两道菜做得都非常好。” 就这么一个简单的举动，文森特用到了好几种影响力的原理。首先，即使人们没有听从他的建议，他们也会觉得文森特给他们提供了很有价值的信息，因此会对他心存感激。等到他们决定要给他多少小费时，理所当然地，互惠原理会助他一臂之力。除了能够增加小费的百分比之外，文森特的做法也很有可能会增加点菜的数量。因为这一举动确立了他在这家饭店的权威地位：他清楚地知道这个晚上哪道菜做的好，哪道菜做的不好。而且他那个似乎违背了自己利益的建议也在这里发挥出了它的作用——这就证明他是一个值得信任的人，因为他推荐的菜比顾客最初点的菜还要稍微便宜一些。看上去他是一个将顾客的利益放在心上的人，而不是一个只想自己多赚钱的人。 通过上述的种种表现，他在顾客心目中立刻变成了一个既诚实又有知识的人，而这个形象让他有了极高的可信度。文森特也会马上开始利用自己的这个新形象。当这些人点完菜以后，他会说：“很好，你们想不想要我为你们推荐一款合适你们菜品的酒？”几乎每天晚上我都会看到这一幕，而顾客的反应也惊人地相似，他们微笑着，点点头，基本上都表示同意。 即使是从我所在的位置，我也可以从他们脸上读出他们的想法。“当然，”顾客们好像在说，“你知道这里什么东西比较好，而且显然你也是站在我们这一边的。你就告诉我们应该点什么吧。”文森特看上去像是很高兴的样子，而且他确实对酒很了解，因此推荐了几款很好（也很贵）的酒。当到要点甜点的时候，他也同样令人信服。有些顾客本来是不打算吃甜点的，或者打算和朋友共享一份甜点，可这时候他们全都被文森特对阿拉斯加烤松饼和巧克力慕司蛋糕的热情洋溢的描述所打动。是啊，谁会比一个已经被证明是既诚实又权威的人更可信呢？ 通过优雅地把互惠和权威两种因素结合在一起，文森特显著地提高了小费的百分比，以及作为计算小费基数的账单的总额。他用这个方法赚来的钱可不是一个小数目。但是请注意，正是由于他装出一幅对自己的利益漠不关心的样子，他才获得了这么多利益。有意思的是，他所说的那些好像只会损害自己经济利益的话，却奇迹般地增加了他的收益。 大约2年前，我想把我的旧车卖掉，因为我刚买了一辆新车。有一天我路过一个旧车行，看到门口的牌子上写着“我们可以替你卖更多的钱。”我想，这不正是我想要的吗？于是停下来，走进去与那里的老板攀谈起来。我告诉他我的车想卖3000块钱，他却说我应该多要一点，因为我的车至少值3500。我听了他的话后很吃惊。因为在他们这样的寄卖行里，我的要价越高，他们在把车卖给别人之后自己所剩下的钱就越少。所以他告诉我实际上可以把价钱开到3000块钱以上时，其实就等于在减少他自己的利润。当然，就像你的例子中服务生文森特一样，他其实也是装出对自己的利益满不在乎的样子来骗取我的信任，可惜我在很久以后才意识到这一点。不管怎么样，我听从了老板的建议，把车留在了那里，而价钱则定在了3500。 过了几天，他们给我了一个电话。说有一个人对我的车很有兴趣，只是觉得价钱稍微高了一点，他们问我原不愿意减价200元把车卖掉。因为我相信他们是为我着想，所以就同意了。第二天他们又打来电话，说买主没能贷到款，所以不能买我的车了。在接下来的两个星期里，车行又给我打来了两个电话，每一次都要求我将200块钱好把车卖掉。每一次我都答应了他们，因为我对他们仍然很信任，但每一次都没能成交。慢慢地我起了疑心，给一个家里有人在汽车行工作的朋友打电话。他告诉我这是他们惯用的伎俩。他们用这样的办法来使我这样的卖车人把价钱降到很低的水平，这样当他们最后把车卖掉时就可以大赚一笔了。 因此我到车行把车取了出来。当我离开的时候，他们还在劝我把车留下来，因为他们有一个“非常有希望的顾客”，如果我肯把价钱再降200块，他一定会把车买下来。 又一次地，我们看到了对比原理与重要利益原理结合在一起对人们的影响力。在这个例子中，3500元的数字定下来以后，每次减掉的200元相比之下就不会显得太多了。 有人告诉你说：经过大量的研究表明，你这样的人在这个年龄吃这个补品有很大的好处。如果这个人不过是一个普通的人，你对他的介绍肯定会有一些质疑。现在这个人的头衔是中国营养学会高级研究员，你对上述的话有何感想？当你知道他不仅是高级研究员，而且还是国务院的特级专家，此时你对上述的话的感想是否有变化？这时候，你又知道了有关这个人的一个事实，那就是去年他被授予了诺贝尔生物学奖。也许你没有听过诺贝尔奖，不要紧，你一定会问诺贝尔奖是什么呀？此时，有人告诉你诺贝尔奖是世界一流科学家才会得到的大奖，一年只有一次，获奖者在全球科学家中只有很少的比例。此时，你对前面那番话语的感受是否又有了变化？你是相信这个人吗？Absolutely not!你相信的是他的头衔，是外界授予的头衔。你可能一点也不关心这个人在中国营养学会研究的课题是什么，也许他的研究和获奖的课题是昆虫的蛋白质含量，与可以引证的人类的补品和健康话题没有什么关系，但是，你还是逐渐在知道他的头衔后相信了他的话。 销售中有大量的如此应用。可怜的人呀，总是喜欢惯性地思考问题，而不会稍微动一下大脑，多问自己几个问题，通过自己的鉴别能力来确定自己应该受到什么样的影响。