心理學(xué)的影響

我們這個(gè)時(shí)代的社會(huì)和心理學(xué)理論對(duì)我們的信念也有影響。在過去的數(shù)十年前巍举，人們被鼓勵(lì)自律脆荷，自我批評(píng)，和自我超越懊悯。他們被鼓勵(lì)實(shí)踐自我否定蜓谋，追求自我認(rèn)知，按照能夠確保維持自尊的方式行動(dòng)炭分。自我中心被認(rèn)為是不道德的桃焕。“努力工作捧毛，”他們被這樣告誡观堂，“取得成就让网，這樣可以獲得滿意和自信的回報(bào)∈郏”大體上溃睹，我們的祖輩已經(jīng)內(nèi)化了這些教導(dǎo)。當(dāng)他們遵照這些教導(dǎo)行動(dòng)時(shí)胰坟，他們感到驕傲因篇，當(dāng)他們違背時(shí)，他們感到羞愧笔横。

今天竞滓，這些理論實(shí)際上已經(jīng)變化了，甚至徹底相反了吹缔。自尊商佑，十九世紀(jì)的諷刺作家安布羅斯比爾斯（ Ambrose Bierce）把它定義為“錯(cuò)誤的稱贊，”現(xiàn)在卻被認(rèn)為是必須的涛菠。自我為中心已經(jīng)從惡習(xí)轉(zhuǎn)化成美德了莉御，奉獻(xiàn)生命去幫助別人的人，曾經(jīng)認(rèn)為是英雄和圣人般的人俗冻，現(xiàn)在被說成受到“取悅的疾病”的困擾和折磨礁叔。自我感覺良好開始成為成功和幸福的準(zhǔn)則。學(xué)校里的差生迄薄，工作中不能應(yīng)對(duì)挑戰(zhàn)的工人琅关，藥物濫用者，違法者——從診斷的結(jié)果看讥蔽，都是典型的缺乏自尊涣易。

另外，就像我們的祖輩內(nèi)化了他們那個(gè)時(shí)代的社會(huì)和心理學(xué)理論冶伞，大多數(shù)現(xiàn)代美國人都內(nèi)化了自尊的教條新症。我們聽到人們喝咖啡時(shí)說道它；我們?cè)诿摽谛阒胁粩嗦牭剿惶峒跋烨荨?duì)這個(gè)準(zhǔn)則的挑戰(zhàn)通常會(huì)遇到批評(píng)徒爹。

但是這個(gè)自尊的理論不是不證自明的嗎？不芋类。很顯然隆嗅，對(duì)于我們能力的負(fù)面感知（評(píng)價(jià)）會(huì)妨礙我們的表現(xiàn)。馬克斯維爾.莫爾茨（Maxwell Maltz）博士介紹了一位教師通過改變學(xué)生自我認(rèn)知提高他們成績的神奇效果侯繁。這位教師觀察到當(dāng)這些孩子認(rèn)為他們自己在某些科目上很愚蠢（或者各科都蠢）胖喳，他們會(huì)無意識(shí)的按照這種自我映象去行動(dòng)。他們相信他們愚蠢的贮竟，因此按照這個(gè)方式做事丽焊。明白了是他們失敗主義的態(tài)度而不是能力缺乏損害了他們努力的結(jié)果较剃，這位教師開始改變他們的自我印象。他發(fā)現(xiàn)當(dāng)他做到這一點(diǎn)后粹懒，他們不再表現(xiàn)愚蠢了重付！莫爾茨從這個(gè)和其他案例中得出結(jié)論，我們的經(jīng)驗(yàn)會(huì)以一種自我催眠的方式對(duì)自己產(chǎn)生作用凫乖，暗示自己的結(jié)局并鼓勵(lì)自己將它變成事實(shí)

莫爾茨的案例認(rèn)為自信是成功的重要因素确垫，很多自尊理念的支持者比他走的更遠(yuǎn)。他們宣稱并不存在太多自尊的情況帽芽。研究并不支持這個(gè)說法删掀，例如，馬丁.塞利曼（Martin Seligman）导街，著名心理學(xué)研究者披泪，積極心理學(xué)運(yùn)動(dòng)的創(chuàng)始人，引用了重要的證據(jù)搬瑰，現(xiàn)代社會(huì)對(duì)自尊的強(qiáng)調(diào)引發(fā)了包括抑郁癥在內(nèi)的個(gè)人和社會(huì)問題款票，而不是解決這些問題。

莫爾茨的研究說明了缺乏自信會(huì)妨礙表現(xiàn)泽论，這是一個(gè)有價(jià)值的洞察艾少。但是這些研究沒有解釋為什么遍布全球的自尊的概念占據(jù)主導(dǎo)地位。這個(gè)問題的答案在于阿伯拉罕.馬斯洛（Abraham Maslow）這樣人文主義心理學(xué)家工作的普及翼悴。馬斯洛描述了他稱之為人類分層需求的金字塔結(jié)構(gòu)缚够，生理需求（吃、喝）構(gòu)成基礎(chǔ)鹦赎。上面谍椅，從下往上依次是，安全需求古话、歸屬和愛的需求雏吭、尊重和認(rèn)可的需求、美學(xué)和認(rèn)知的需求（知識(shí)陪踩，理解等等）杖们。在最頂端是自我實(shí)現(xiàn)的需求，或者說是我們實(shí)現(xiàn)潛能的需求膊毁。馬斯洛認(rèn)為胀莹，底層的需求必須先于更高一層的需求得到滿足基跑。很容易從馬斯洛的理論推導(dǎo)出這樣的觀念：自尊是成就的前提婚温。

當(dāng)然，或許可以采納其它的理論媳否。一個(gè)著名的理論是澳大利亞精神病學(xué)學(xué)家維克特.弗蘭克爾（Viktor Frankl）所提栅螟，這個(gè)理論大約和馬斯洛的理論同時(shí)出現(xiàn)荆秦，基于弗蘭克爾的職業(yè)實(shí)踐和他在希特勒集中營的經(jīng)驗(yàn)。弗蘭克爾認(rèn)為一個(gè)人的需求可以比自我實(shí)現(xiàn)更高：自我超越力图，高于狹隘的專注于自我的需求步绸，用弗蘭克爾的話講，"最初的人類學(xué)事實(shí)［是］作為人類需要被引導(dǎo)吃媒，指向自身以外的人或者事情：指向一個(gè)要實(shí)現(xiàn)的意義或者相遇的一個(gè)人瓤介，從事的某個(gè)事業(yè)或者愛上的一個(gè)人。"一個(gè)人"通過忘記他自己赘那，奉獻(xiàn)他自己刑桑，忽視他自己并且關(guān)注于外在事物"成為完整的人。

用弗蘭克爾的觀點(diǎn)看募舟，將自我實(shí)現(xiàn)（或者幸福）當(dāng)做我們追求的目標(biāo)祠斧，最終都是失敗的；這種滿足僅僅在"自我超越的無意的結(jié)果"才發(fā)生拱礁。弗蘭克爾相信琢锋，對(duì)于生活，恰當(dāng)?shù)目捶ú皇撬芙o我們什么呢灶，而是它對(duì)我們有什么期待吴超；生活在于每天——甚至每個(gè)小時(shí)——質(zhì)詢我們，挑戰(zhàn)我們?nèi)ソ邮堋罢业絾栴}的正確答案的責(zé)任填抬，完成不斷在【我們每個(gè)人】提出的任務(wù)烛芬。”

根據(jù)弗蘭克爾的理論飒责，尋找意義赘娄，包括“感受現(xiàn)實(shí)中內(nèi)含的可能性”以及尋找挑戰(zhàn)性任務(wù)“誰的成就可能會(huì)為［自己的］存在增加意義”。但是這些感受和尋找的人由于關(guān)注自己而受到挫敽牝取：“當(dāng)現(xiàn)代文學(xué)局限于而且滿足于自我表達(dá)——更不要說自我展示——這反映出作者毫無用處甚至荒謬的想法遣臼。更重要的是，這還創(chuàng)造荒謬拾并。這很好理解揍堰，意義必須是被發(fā)現(xiàn)的，而不能被發(fā)明嗅义。感覺不能被創(chuàng)造屏歹，那些被用心創(chuàng)造出來的感覺都是沒有意義的≈耄”

不管我們是否完全同意弗蘭克爾蝙眶，有一件事是清楚的：如果在過去的幾十年，弗蘭克爾的理論比馬斯洛和其他人文主義心理學(xué)家的理論更受重視褪那，當(dāng)代美國的文化將會(huì)顯著不同幽纷。我們的態(tài)度式塌，價(jià)值觀，和信仰都會(huì)受到影響——我們只能想象一下這會(huì)有多深刻友浸。

原文：
The Influence of Psychology

The social and psychological theories of our time also have an impact on our beliefs. Before the past few decades, people were urged to be self-disciplined, self-critical, and self-effacing. They were urged to practice self-denial, to aspire to self-knowledge, to behave in a manner that ensured they maintained self-respect. Self-centeredness was considered a vice. “Hard work,” they were told, “l(fā)eads to achievement, and that in turn produces satisfaction and self-confidence.” By and large, our grandparents internalized those teachings. When they honored them in their behavior, they felt proud; when they dishonored them, they felt ashamed.

Today the theories have been changed—indeed, almost exactly reversed. Self-esteem, which nineteenth-century satirist Ambrose Bierce defined as “an erroneous appraisement,” is now considered an imperative. Self-centeredness has been transformed from vice into virtue, and people who devote their lives to helping others, people once considered heroic and saintlike, are now said to be afflicted with “a disease to please.” The formula for success and happiness begins with feeling good about ourselves. Students who do poorly in school, workers who don’t measure up to the challenges of their jobs, substance abusers, lawbreakers—all are typically diagnosed as deficient in self-esteem.

In addition, just as our grandparents internalized the social and psychological theories of their time, so most contemporary Americans have internalized the message of self-esteem. We hear people speak of it over coffee; we hear it endlessly invoked on talk shows. Challenges to its precepts are usually met with disapproval.

But isn’t the theory of self-esteem self-evident? No. A negative perception of our abilities will, of course, handicap our performance. Dr. Maxwell Maltz explains the amazing results one educator had in improving the grades of schoolchildren by changing their self-images. The educator had observed that when the children saw themselves as stupid in a particular subject (or stupid in general), they unconsciously acted to confirm their self-images. They believed they were stupid, so they acted that way. Reasoning that it was their defeatist attitude rather than any lack of ability that was undermining their efforts, the educator set out to change their self-images. He found that when he accomplished that, they no longer behaved stupidly! Maltz concludes from this and other examples that our experiences can work a kind of self-hypnotism on us, suggesting a conclusion about ourselves and then urging us to make it come true.21

Many proponents of self-esteem went far beyond Maltz’s demonstration that self-confidence is an important ingredient in success. They claimed that there is no such thing as too much self-esteem. Research does not support that claim. For example, Martin Seligman, an eminent research psychologist and founder of the movement known as positive psychology, cites significant evidence that, rather than solving personal and social problems, including depression, the modern emphasis on self-esteem causes them.22

Maltz’s research documents that lack of confidence impedes performance, a valuable insight. But such research doesn’t explain why the more global concept of self-esteem has become so dominant. The answer to that question lies in the popularization of the work of humanistic psychologists such as Abraham Maslow. Maslow described what he called the hierarchy of human needs in the form of a pyramid, with physiological needs (food and drink) at the foundation. Above them, in ascending order, are safety needs, the need for belongingness and love, the need for esteem and approval, and aesthetic and cognitive needs (knowledge, understanding, etc.). At the pinnacle is the need for self-actualization, or fulfillment of our potential. In Maslow’s view, the lower needs must be fulfilled before the higher ones. It’s easy to see how the idea that self-esteem must precede achievement was derived from Maslow’s theory.

Other theories might have been adopted, however. A notable one is Austrian psychiatrist Viktor Frankl’s, which was advanced at roughly the same time as Maslow’s and was based on both Frankl’s professional practice and his experiences in Hitler’s concentration camps. Frankl argues that one human need is higher than self-actualization: self-transcendence, the need to rise above narrow absorption with self. According to Frankl, “the primordial anthropological fact [is] that being human is being always directed, and pointing to something or someone other than oneself: to a meaning to fulfill or another human being to encounter, a cause to serve or a person to love.” A person becomes fully human “by forgetting himself and giving himself, overlooking himself and focusing outward.”

Making self-actualization (or happiness) the direct object of our pursuit, in Frankl’s view, is ultimately self-defeating; such fulfillment can occur only as “the unintended effect of self-transcendence.”23 The proper perspective on life, Frankl believes, is not what it can give to us, but what it expects from us; life is daily—even hourly—questioning us, challenging us to accept “the responsibility to find the right answer to its problems and to fulfill the tasks which it constantly sets for [each of us].”24

Finding meaning, according to Frankl’s theory, involves “perceiving a possibility embedded in reality” and searching for challenging tasks “whose completion might add meaning to [one’s] existence.” But such perceiving and searching are frustrated by the focus on self: “As long as modern literature confines itself to, and contents itself with, self-expression—not to say self-exhibition—it reflects its authors’ sense of futility and absurdity. What is more important, it also creates absurdity. This is understandable in light of the fact that meaning must be discovered, it cannot be invented. Sense cannot be created, but what may well be created is nonsense.”25

Whether we agree completely with Frankl, one thing is clear: Contemporary American culture would be markedly different if the emphasis over the past several decades had been on Frankl’s theory rather than on the theories of Maslow and the other humanistic psychologists. All of us would have been affected—we can only imagine how profoundly—in our attitudes, values, and beliefs.