The psychology of evil | Philip Zimbardo

譯者: Coco Shen 審譯者: Geoff Chen

Philosophers, dramatists, theologians

許多世紀以來，哲學家，劇作家，神學家

have grappled with this question for centuries:

都在著力解決這個問題：

what makes people go wrong?

什麼使人們變壞？

Interestingly, I asked this question when I was a little kid.

有趣的是，當我還是小孩時，我問過同樣的問題。

I grew up in the South Bronx, inner-city ghetto in New York,

我成長於紐約南布朗克斯市中的貧民窟，

周圍充滿了罪惡，

and I was surrounded by evil,

as all kids are who grew up in an inner city.

如同所有在貧民窟長大的孩子一樣。

And I had friends who were really good kids,

我有一些朋友，他們曾是好孩子，

who lived out the Dr. Jekyll Mr. Hyde scenario -- Robert Louis Stevenson.

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。

That is, they took drugs, got in trouble, went to jail.

他們染毒，惹了麻煩，然後進了監獄。

Some got killed, and some did it without drug assistance.

有些喪了命，即使並沒有沾染毒品。

So when I read Robert Louis Stevenson, that wasn't fiction.

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。

The only question is, what was in the juice?

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——

And more importantly, that line between good and evil --

which privileged people like to think is fixed and impermeable,

特權階層喜歡認定這個界限是固定且不可逾越的，

with them on the good side, the others on the bad side --

認為他們是在善的一邊，其他人在惡的一邊——

I knew that line was movable, and it was permeable.

而我以前就知道這個界限是可以移動的，而且是可逾越的。

Good people could be seduced across that line,

好人可以受誘惑而越界，

and under good and some rare circumstances, bad kids could recover

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。

with help, with reform, with rehabilitation.

So I want to begin with this wonderful illusion

所以，我想以荷蘭藝術家M. C. Escher

by [Dutch] artist M.C. Escher.

這幅奇妙的作品開始說起。

If you look at it and focus on the white, what you see is a world full of angels.

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。

But let's look more deeply, and as we do,

但是當我們再靠近一點看，

what appears is the demons, the devils in the world.

魔鬼就出現了，世間的魔鬼。

That tells us several things.

這告訴我們幾點。

One, the world is, was, will always be filled with good and evil,

一：這個世界，無論過去，現在，還是將來，都總是由善和惡組成，

because good and evil is the yin and yang of the human condition.

因為善惡就如人類的陰陽。

It tells me something else.

它也告訴我另外一件事。如果你還記得，

If you remember, God's favorite angel was Lucifer.

上帝最喜歡的天使是路西法。

Apparently, Lucifer means "the light."

顯然，路西法的意思是“光明”。

It also means "the morning star," in some scripture.

在某些經文裡，它也有“黎明之星”的意思。

And apparently, he disobeyed God,

顯然他後來背叛了上帝，

and that's the ultimate disobedience to authority.

這是對權威的終極背叛。

And when he did, Michael, the archangel, was sent to kick him out of heaven

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。

along with the other fallen angels.

And so Lucifer descends into hell, becomes Satan,

於是路西法降入地獄，成為撒旦，

becomes the devil, and the force of evil in the universe begins.

成為惡魔，宇宙中的惡之能量誕生了。

矛盾的是，是上帝造出了惡的容身之處---地獄。

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.

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，

So, this arc of the cosmic transformation of God's favorite angel into the Devil,

這個巨大的轉變，

為我設立了一個大背景，

for me, sets the context for understanding human beings

who are transformed from good, ordinary people into perpetrators of evil.

去理解那些從好人或者普通人

轉變成壞人的人。

So the Lucifer effect, although it focuses on the negatives --

所以，路西法效應，儘管它集中在陰暗的方面——

the negatives that people can become,

人們可能投向陰暗，

not the negatives that people are --

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

leads me to a psychological definition.

Evil is the exercise of power.

And that's the key: it's about power.

這才是關鍵：權力。

來故意對他人進行心理傷害，

To intentionally harm people psychologically,

to hurt people physically, to destroy people mortally, or ideas,

對他人進行身體傷害，殘害他人生命或思想，

and to commit crimes against humanity.

犯下反人道的罪行。

If you Google "evil," a word that should surely have withered by now,

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，

you come up with 136 million hits in a third of a second.

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,

幾年前發生的一件事——我知道你們當時一定和我一樣震驚，

with the revelation of American soldiers abusing prisoners in a strange place

就是揭露美軍士兵

在那場爭議性的對伊戰爭中

in a controversial war, Abu Ghraib in Iraq.

中的虐囚行為：阿布葛拉伊布虐囚事件。

And these were men and women

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。

who were putting prisoners through unbelievable humiliation.

I was shocked, but I wasn't surprised,

我很震驚，但是並不感到意外，

because I had seen those same visual parallels

因為我以前看過類似的情況，

when I was the prison superintendent of the Stanford Prison Study.

當時我是史丹佛監獄實驗的負責人。

Immediately the Bush administration military said what?

布希政府軍方對此事的第一反應是什麼？

What all administrations say when there's a scandal:

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，

"Don't blame us. It's not the system.

It's the few bad apples, the few rogue soldiers."

只是一小撮惡劣的士兵而已。 "

My hypothesis is, American soldiers are good, usually.

而我的假設是，美國士兵通常情況下是好的。

Maybe it was the barrel that was bad.

也許是裝蘋果的桶壞了。

But how am I going to deal with that hypothesis?

但我如何證明這個假設呢？

I became an expert witness for one of the guards,

我成為了其中一個名叫

奇普·弗萊德里克中士的專家證人，

Sergeant Chip Frederick, and in that position,

在這個位置上，我可以接觸到關於此事的十幾份調查報告。

I had access to the dozen investigative reports.

I had access to him.

我同他接觸，我可以研究他，

I could study him, have him come to my home, get to know him,

讓他來我家，了解他，

do psychological analysis to see, was he a good apple or bad apple.

作些心理上的分析來判斷他是個好蘋果還是壞蘋果。

And thirdly, I had access to all of the 1,000 pictures

第三點，我可以查看所有的

that these soldiers took.

1000多張士兵拍攝的照片。

These pictures are of a violent or sexual nature.

這些照片都是暴力或色情的。

All of them come from the cameras of American soldiers.

所有這些都是美軍士兵用相機拍攝的。

Because everybody has a digital camera or cell phone camera,

因為每個人都有數位相機或手機相機，

they took pictures of everything, more than 1,000.

他們什麼都拍。拍了超過1000張照片。

And what I've done is I organized them into various categories.

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。

But these are by United States military police, army reservists.

They are not soldiers prepared for this mission at all.

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。

And it all happened in a single place, Tier 1-A, on the night shift.

Why?

為什麼？ 1A層是軍方情報中心。

Tier 1-A was the center for military intelligence.

It was the interrogation hold.

是審訊關押處。中央情報局在那裡。

The CIA was there.

Interrogators from Titan Corporation, all there,

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。

and they're getting no information about the insurgency.

So they're going to put pressure on these soldiers,

於是他們向這些憲兵隊士兵施加壓力，

迫使他們越線，

military police, to cross the line,

give them permission to break the will of the enemy,

允許他們採取措施來擊潰敵人的意志，

to prepare them for interrogation, to soften them up,

挽起袖子，為審訊做準備，

to take the gloves off.

使他們屈服。這些都是婉辭，

Those are the euphemisms, and this is how it was interpreted.

而這就是他們如何闡釋的。

Let's go down to that dungeon.

讓我們進入地牢吧。

（相機快門聲）（以下圖片含有裸露及暴力展示）

(Typewriting)

[Abu Ghraib Iraq Prison Abuses 2008 Military Police Guards' Photos]

[The following images include nudity and graphic depictions of violence]

(Camera shutter sounds)

（重擊聲）

(Thuds)

(Camera shutter)

（相機快門聲）

(Camera shutter)

（重擊聲）

(Breathing)

（喘息聲）

(Bells)

（鐘聲）

(Bells end)

So, pretty horrific.

很恐怖。

That's one of the visual illustrations of evil.

這是惡的一種視覺展示。

And it should not have escaped you

你應該不會沒有注意到，

我把那個伸開雙臂的囚犯

that the reason I paired the prisoner with his arms out

with Leonardo da Vinci's ode to humanity

和達文西頌揚人類的作品放在一起的原因，

is that that prisoner was mentally ill.

是那個犯人得了精神疾病。

That prisoner covered himself with shit every day,

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。

they had to roll him in dirt so he wouldn't stink.

But the guards ended up calling him "Shit Boy."

但士兵們最終還是叫他屎男。

What was he doing in that prison rather than in some mental institution?

他在監獄裡做什麼!?

他本應在精神病院。

In any event, here's former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld.

不管怎樣，前國防部長拉姆斯菲爾德

He comes down and says, "I want to know, who is responsible?

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。

Who are the bad apples?"

Well, that's a bad question.

你應該重新組織一下這個句子，"是什麼為此負責？"

You have to reframe it and ask, "What is responsible?"

"What" could be the who of people,

因為"什麼"既可以是指人，

but it could also be the what of the situation,

也可以是指情境，

and obviously that's wrongheaded.

而顯然那樣問是堅持錯誤。

How do psychologists try to understand such transformations of human character,

那麼心理學家是如何理解

這種人性的轉變呢？

if you believe that they were good soldiers

如果你相信他們在進入地牢之前

before they went down to that dungeon?

是好士兵的話。

There are three ways. The main way is called dispositional.

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。

We look at what's inside of the person, the bad apples.

This is the foundation of all of social science,

這是所有社會科學的基礎，

the foundation of religion, the foundation of war.

宗教的基礎，戰爭的基礎。

Social psychologists like me come along and say,

像我這樣的社會心理學家會出來說，"是啊，

"Yeah, people are the actors on the stage,

人們是舞台上的演員，

but you'll have to be aware of the situation.

但你得清楚其所處的情境。

Who are the cast of characters? What's the costume?

扮演角色的演員是哪些人？戲服什麼樣？

Is there a stage director?"

有舞台導演嗎？

And so we're interested in what are the external factors

所以我們感興趣的是，個體周圍的外界因素

around the individual -- the bad barrel?

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，

Social scientists stop there and they miss the big point

that I discovered when I became an expert witness for Abu Ghraib.

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：

The power is in the system.

權力存在於系統中。

The system creates the situation that corrupts the individuals,

系統製造出腐化個體的情境，

and the system is the legal, political, economic, cultural background.

這個系統，是指法制、政治、經濟和文化背景。

And this is where the power is of the bad-barrel makers.

該系統即蘋果桶製造者權力之所在。

如果你想改變一個人，你就得改變其所處的情境。

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.

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

So the Lucifer effect involves understanding

人性轉變是如何受這三項因素影響的。

human character transformations with these three factors.

And it's a dynamic interplay.

它是一個相互作用的過程。

What do the people bring into the situation?

人們會怎樣影響情境？

What does the situation bring out of them?

情境如何影響人們？

And what is the system that creates and maintains that situation?

製造並維持該情境的系統是什麼？

My recent book, "The Lucifer Effect," is about,

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。

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.

書中有關於我今天演講內容

的大量細節。

So Dr. Z's "Lucifer Effect," although it focuses on evil,

所以，津博士的《路西法效應》，儘管著重於惡，

really is a celebration of the human mind's infinite capacity

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，

to make any of us kind or cruel,

caring or indifferent, creative or destructive,

關懷或冷漠，創造或毀滅，

and it makes some of us villains.

甚至可以使得我們其中一些人成為惡棍。

And the good news that I'm going to hopefully come to at the end

而我在最後將滿懷希望地給大家講一個好消息的故事，

is that it makes some of us heroes.

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，

This wonderful cartoon in the New Yorker summarizes my whole talk:

它其實總結了我的全部演講：

"I'm neither a good cop nor a bad cop, Jerome.

"傑若米，我既不是好警察也不是壞警察，

Like yourself, I'm a complex amalgam

跟你一樣，我是一個正面和負面 人格特質

of positive and negative personality traits

的複雜混合體，

that emerge or not, depending on the circumstances."

至於體現哪一面，要靠具體情況而言。 "

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

There's a study some of you think you know about,

有一項研究，你們其中一些人可能以為自己知道，

but very few people have ever read the story.

但極少數人讀過這個故事。你看過電影。

You watched the movie.

This is Stanley Milgram, little Jewish kid from the Bronx,

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，

and he asked the question, "Could the Holocaust happen here, now?"

他問，"大屠殺在此時此地發生嗎？"

People say, "No, that's Nazi Germany, Hitler, you know, that's 1939."

人們回答，"不，那是納粹德國，

那是希特勒，你知道，那是1939年。 "

He said, "Yeah, but suppose Hitler asked you,

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。 "

'Would you electrocute a stranger?' 'No way, I'm a good person.'"

He said, "Why don't we put you in a situation

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？ "

and give you a chance to see what you would do?"

於是，他找了1000個普通人來做測試。

And so what he did was he tested 1,000 ordinary people.

500 New Haven, Connecticut, 500 Bridgeport.

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，

And the ad said, "Psychologists want to understand memory.

We want to improve people's memory, because it is the key to success."

我們想改善人的記憶，

因為記憶是成功的關鍵。 "

OK?

"我們會給你5美元——4元用來支付時間。"

"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."

上面寫著，"我們不要大學生，

我們需要20到50歲之間的男性。 "

In the later studies, they ran women.

——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。

Ordinary people: barbers, clerks, white-collar people.

So, you go down,

於是你們下去，其中一個扮演學生，

one of you will be a learner, one will be a teacher.

另一個扮演教師。

The learner's a genial, middle-aged guy.

學生是一個和藹的中年男子。

He gets tied up to the shock apparatus in another room.

在另外一間屋子裡，他被綁在一個電擊儀器上。

The learner could be middle-aged, could be as young as 20.

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，

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.

"你作為教師的工作就是讓這個人學習材料。

Gets it right, reward.

記對了，就獎勵他。

Gets it wrong, you press a button on the shock box.

記錯了，你就按這個電擊盒上的按鈕。

The first button is 15 volts. He doesn't even feel it."

第一個按鈕是15伏特。他基本感覺不到。 "

That's the key.

這就是關鍵。所有的惡都是從15伏特開始的。

All evil starts with 15 volts.

And then the next step is another 15 volts.

下一個再加15伏特。

The problem is, at the end of the line, it's 450 volts.

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，

And as you go along, the guy is screaming,

"I've got a heart condition! I'm out of here!"

"我有心臟問題！我要出去！"

You're a good person. You complain.

你是一個好人。你去投訴。

"Sir, who will be responsible if something happens to him?"

"先生，如果他出事了，誰來負責？"

The experimenter says, "Don't worry, I will be responsible.

實驗人員說，"不要緊，我來負責。

Continue, teacher."

請繼續，教師。 "

問題是，誰會一直按到450伏特？

And the question is, who would go all the way to 450 volts?

You should notice here, when it gets up to 375,

你們會注意到，到375伏特時，

it says, "Danger. Severe Shock."

上面寫著，"危險：強烈電擊"

When it gets up to here, there's "XXX" -- the pornography of power.

到這兒的時候，那兒標著"XXX"﹕限制級的權力。

So Milgram asks 40 psychiatrists,

（笑聲）

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？"

"What percent of American citizens would go to the end?"

They said only one percent.

他們回答只有百分之1。因為那屬於虐待狂行為，

Because that's sadistic behavior, and we know, psychiatry knows,

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。

only one percent of Americans are sadistic.

OK.

好。這裡是研究資料。他們大錯特錯。

Here's the data. They could not be more wrong.

Two thirds go all the way to 450 volts.

三分之二的人會一直按到450伏特。這只是一個研究而已。

This was just one study.

Milgram did more than 16 studies.

米爾格拉姆做了超過16項研究。我們看一下這個。

And look at this.

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

In study 16, where you see somebody like you go all the way,

90 percent go all the way.

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。

In study five, if you see people rebel,

90 percent rebel.

What about women? Study 13 -- no different than men.

女性呢？第13個研究：與男性無差別。

So Milgram is quantifying evil as the willingness of people

米爾格拉姆在以人們盲目服從權威，

to blindly obey authority, to go all the way to 450 volts.

一直按到450伏特的意願，來數量化惡。

And it's like a dial on human nature.

這就好像是在調節人性。

A dial in a sense that you can make almost everybody totally obedient,

調節的意思是，你幾乎可以從使絕大多數人完全服從，

down to the majority, down to none.

到使沒有人服從。

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。

What are the external parallels? For all research is artificial.

What's the validity in the real world?

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

912 American citizens committed suicide or were murdered

by family and friends in Guyana jungle in 1978,

自殺或遭其家人朋友殺害，

because they were blindly obedient to this guy, their pastor --

因為他們盲目地服從這個傢伙，他們的傳道者。

not their priest -- their pastor, Reverend Jim Jones.

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。

He persuaded them to commit mass suicide.

And so, he's the modern Lucifer effect,

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。

a man of God who becomes the Angel of Death.

Milgram's study is all about individual authority to control people.

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，

Most of the time, we are in institutions,

so the Stanford Prison Study is a study of the power of institutions

所以史丹佛監獄實驗，研究的是機構權力

to influence individual behavior.

如何影響個人行為。

Interestingly, Stanley Milgram and I were in the same high school class

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。

in James Monroe in the Bronx, 1954.

I did this study with my graduate students,

這個實驗室是我跟

我的研究生做的，尤其是克雷格·漢尼，

especially Craig Haney -- and it also began work with an ad.

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，

We had a cheap, little ad,

but we wanted college students for a study of prison life.

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。

75 people volunteered, took personality tests.

We did interviews.

我們做了面試。挑選了24名：

Picked two dozen: the most normal, the most healthy.

他們是最正常的，最健康的。

Randomly assigned them to be prisoner and guard.

然後隨機把他們分成囚犯和警衛兩組。

So on day one, we knew we had good apples.

所以在第一天，我們知道他們都是好蘋果。

I'm going to put them in a bad situation.

而我將把他們放在一個壞的情境裡。

And secondly, we know there's no difference

其次，我們知道

between the boys who will be guards and those who will be prisoners.

在將要扮演警衛和

扮演囚犯的男生之間沒有任何區別。

To the prisoners, we said,

我們對那些將要扮演囚犯的男生說，

"Wait at home. The study will begin Sunday."

"在住處等著，實驗在星期天開始。"

We didn't tell them

我們沒有告訴他們的是，

that the city police were going to come and do realistic arrests.

市警察局的警察會上門做真實的逮捕。

(Video) (Music)

[Day 1]

錄像中的男人：一輛警車停在房子前面，一個警察來到前門

Student: A police car pulls up in front, and a cop comes to the front door,

and knocks, and says he's looking for me.

敲門，說是找我。

So they, right there, you know, they took me out the door,

於是他們，就在那兒，你懂的，把我抓出去，

they put my hands against the car.

把我的雙手放車上。

It was a real cop car, it was a real policeman,

那是輛真警車，是個真警察，

and there were real neighbors in the street,

街上的鄰居也是真的，

他們不知道這是個實驗。

who didn't know that this was an experiment.

And there was cameras all around and neighbors all around.

周圍都是相機，圍滿了鄰居。

They put me in the car, then they drove me around Palo Alto.

他們讓我上警車，在帕羅奧圖市的大街上行駛。

They took me to the basement of the police station.

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。

Then they put me in a cell.

I was the first one to be picked up, so they put me in a cell,

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。

which was just like a room with a door with bars on it.

You could tell it wasn't a real jail.

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。

They locked me in there, in this degrading little outfit.

They were taking this experiment too seriously.

他們對這個實驗太認真了。

Here are the prisoners, who are going to be dehumanized, they'll become numbers.

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。

Here are the guards with the symbols of power and anonymity.

警衛們讓囚犯們

Guards get prisoners to clean the toilet bowls out with their bare hands,

徒手清理馬桶，

讓他們做其他一些羞辱性的任務。

to do other humiliating tasks.

他們脫光囚犯的衣服，性侮辱他們。

They strip them naked. They sexually taunt them.

他們開始做侮辱行為，

They begin to do degrading activities, like having them simulate sodomy.

譬如強迫囚犯們模擬雞姦。

You saw simulating fellatio in soldiers in Abu Ghraib.

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，

My guards did it in five days.

The stress reaction was so extreme

that normal kids we picked because they were healthy

我們當初挑選他們是因為他們是健康的，

had breakdowns within 36 hours.

而這些正常的男生在36小時內就有人崩潰了。

The study ended after six days, because it was out of control.

這個實驗在6天后結束因為它已經失控了。

Five kids had emotional breakdowns.

五個男生情緒崩潰。

Does it make a difference

戰士們是否更換統一服裝

if warriors go to battle changing their appearance or not?

對於他們在戰場上的表現會有影響嗎？

If they're anonymous, how do they treat their victims?

他們匿名與否

對於他們對付受害者會有影響嗎？

In some cultures, they go to war without changing their appearance.

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。

In others, they paint themselves like "Lord of the Flies."

在某些文化裡他們戴著面具。

In some, they wear masks.

在許多文化中，戰士們穿著統一服裝達到匿名性。

In many, soldiers are anonymous in uniform.

So this anthropologist, John Watson, found 23 cultures that had two bits of data.

人類學家約翰·華生

在23個文化中發現兩組數據。

Do they change their appearance? 15.

他們是否更換服裝？ 15個是。

Do they kill, torture, mutilate? 13.

他們是否殺戮，折磨，殘害？ 13個是。

如果他們不換服裝，

If they don't change their appearance,

八個文化中只有一個殺戮，折磨或殘害。

only one of eight kills, tortures or mutilates.

關鍵在這個紅色區域。

The key is in the red zone.

If they change their appearance,

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。

12 of 13 -- that's 90 percent -- kill, torture, mutilate.

And that's the power of anonymity.

這就是匿名性的威力。

So what are the seven social processes

那麼是哪七個社會性過程

that grease the slippery slope of evil?

會導致惡的逐漸產生呢？

Mindlessly taking the first small step.

無意中邁出第一步。

Dehumanization of others. De-individuation of self.

對他人去人性化。對自己去個體化。

Diffusion of personal responsibility.

推卸個人責任。盲目服從權威。

Blind obedience to authority.

Uncritical conformity to group norms.

不加批判地依從群體規範。

Passive tolerance of evil through inaction, or indifference.

袖手旁觀，漠不關心，對惡行消極容忍。

And it happens when you're in a new or unfamiliar situation.

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。

Your habitual response patterns don't work.

Your personality and morality are disengaged.

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，

"Nothing is easier than to denounce the evildoer;

也沒什麼比理解他更難。"杜斯妥耶夫斯基告訴我們。

nothing more difficult than understanding him," Dostoyevsky.

理解不是找藉口。心理學不是藉口學。

Understanding is not excusing. Psychology is not excuse-ology.

So social and psychological research reveals

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。

how ordinary, good people can be transformed without the drugs.

You don't need it. You just need the social-psychological processes.

你不需要藥物，你只需要社會心理學的過程。

Real world parallels?

真實世界的情況？和這個比較一下。

Compare this with this.

James Schlesinger -- I'm going to end with this -- says,

我以詹姆斯·施萊辛格的話作為結束，

"Psychologists have attempted to understand how and why

"心理學家已嘗試理解,

individuals and groups who usually act humanely

一般情況下具備人性的個體和群體，為什麼以及如何

can sometimes act otherwise in certain circumstances."

會在某些情境下，作出反常行為。 "

That's the Lucifer effect.

這就是路西法效應。

And he goes on to say, "The landmark Stanford study

他接著說，"具有標誌性的史丹佛實驗

provides a cautionary tale for all military operations."

給了所有軍事行為一個警告。 "

If you give people power without oversight,

如果你在沒有監督的情況下賦予人們權力，

it's a prescription for abuse.

那就是在給濫用開通行證。他們明明了解後果，卻任其發生。

They knew that, and let that happen.

另一個報告，是費將軍所做的調查，

So another report, an investigative report by General Fay,

says the system is guilty.

認為整個系統是有罪的，在該報告中，

In this report, he says it was the environment that created Abu Ghraib,

他認為是環境造成了阿布格萊布事件，

by leadership failures that contributed to the occurrence of such abuse,

領導力的失誤，

導致了虐待的發生，

and because it remained undiscovered

以及在很長一段時間內，

by higher authorities for a long period of time.

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？

Those abuses went on for three months.

Who was watching the store?

The answer is nobody, I think on purpose.

答案是沒有人，我認為，是沒有人主動去。

He gave the guards permission to do those things,

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。

and they knew nobody was ever going to come down to that dungeon.

所以我們在所有這些方面進行模式上的轉變。

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.

原來的醫療模式，

只集中於個體，

The shift is toward a public health model

必須轉向一個公共健康模式，

that recognizes situational and systemic vectors of disease.

這個模式同時考慮情境和系統對疾病的作用。

Bullying is a disease. Prejudice is a disease.

欺侮是病。偏見是病。暴力是病。

Violence is a disease.

Since the Inquisition, we've been dealing with problems at the individual level.

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。

It doesn't work.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn says, "The line between good and evil

亞歷山大·索忍尼辛認為每個人心中

cuts through the heart of every human being."

都有善惡的分界線。

That means that line is not out there.

也就是說，這條線不是外在的。

That's a decision that you have to make, a personal thing.

這是一個你必須作出的決定。是個人層面的。

So I want to end very quickly on a positive note.

那麼，我想以一個正面的意見來做個簡短的結尾：

Heroism as the antidote to evil,

英雄主義是惡的解藥。

by promoting the heroic imagination,

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。

especially in our kids, in our educational system.

We want kids to think, "I'm a hero in waiting,

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，

waiting for the right situation to come along,

and I will act heroically.

屆時我會行英雄之事。

My whole life, I'm now going to focus away from evil --

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。

that I've been in since I was a kid -- to understanding heroes.

現在所謂的英雄主義是，

Banality of heroism.

平凡之人行英雄之事。

It's ordinary people who do heroic deeds.

It's the counterpoint to Hannah Arendt's "Banality of Evil."

這是對漢娜·鄂蘭平庸之惡的反駁。

Our traditional societal heroes are wrong, because they are the exceptions.

我們傳統的社會英雄是錯誤的，

因為他們是極少數例外。

They organize their life around this. That's why we know their names.

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，

Our kids' heroes are also wrong models for them,

因為他們有超自然能力。

because they have supernatural talents.

We want our kids to realize most heroes are everyday people,

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。

and the heroic act is unusual.

This is Joe Darby.

He was the one that stopped those abuses you saw,

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，

because when he saw those images,

he turned them over to a senior investigating officer.

他把它們交給了一位高級調查官。

He was a low-level private, and that stopped it.

他是一個低級士兵但卻阻止了此事。他是英雄嗎？不是。

Was he a hero? No.

They had to put him in hiding, because people wanted to kill him,

他們不得不把他藏起來，因為有人想殺他，

and then his mother and his wife.

還有他的母親和妻子。

他們隱藏了三年。

For three years, they were in hiding.

This is the woman who stopped the Stanford Prison Study.

這個女人阻止了斯坦福監獄實驗。

When I said it got out of control, I was the prison superintendent.

當我說實驗失控的時候，我當時是監獄實驗負責人。

I didn't know it was out of control. I was totally indifferent.

我不知道實驗已經失控了。我完全無動於衷。

She saw that madhouse and said,

她下來看到這瘋人院一樣的監獄說，

"You know what, it's terrible what you're doing to those boys.

"你知道嗎？你對這些男孩所做的一切實在是太可怕了。

They're not prisoners nor guards, they're boys, and you are responsible."

他們不是囚犯，不是警衛，

他們只是孩子，你要為他們負責。 "

And I ended the study the next day.

我第二天就停止了這個實驗。

The good news is I married her the next year.

好消息是，我第二年就娶了她。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

(Applause)

（鼓掌）

I just came to my senses, obviously.

顯然，我醒悟了。

So situations have the power to do [three things].

所以情境是有力量的——

But the point is, this is the same situation

關鍵是，這個情境

可以刺激一些人內心的敵意想像，

that can inflame the hostile imagination in some of us,

that makes us perpetrators of evil,

使我們成為惡之犯人，

can inspire the heroic imagination in others.

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。

It's the same situation and you're on one side or the other.

而你二者必居其一。

Most people are guilty of the evil of inaction,

大多數人對袖手旁觀之惡感到內疚，

because your mother said, "Don't get involved. Mind your own business."

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。"

And you have to say, "Mama, humanity is my business."

So the psychology of heroism is -- we're going to end in a moment --

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，

how do we encourage children in new hero courses,

that I'm working on with Matt Langdon -- he has a hero workshop --

我正與馬特·郎登從事這項工作——他有一個英雄工作坊——

to develop this heroic imagination, this self-labeling,

來培養這種英雄想像，這種自我標籤，

"I am a hero in waiting," and teach them skills.

"我是一個等待中的英雄"，並且教會他們技能。

To be a hero, you have to learn to be a deviant,

想成為英雄的話，你一定要學會成為一個"異類"，

because you're always going against the conformity of the group.

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。

Heroes are ordinary people whose social actions are extraordinary. Who act.

英雄主義之關鍵有二。

The key to heroism is two things.

一：在眾人消極冷漠之時有所作為。

You have to act when other people are passive.

B: You have to act socio-centrically, not egocentrically.

二：你的作為必須以社會為中心，而非以自我為中心。

And I want to end with a known story about Wesley Autrey, New York subway hero.

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。

Fifty-year-old African-American construction worker standing on a subway.

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，

A white guy falls on the tracks.

一個白人掉進地鐵軌道裡。

The subway train is coming. There's 75 people there.

當時地鐵正開過來。當時有75個人在那兒。

You know what? They freeze.

你猜怎麼著，他們全都僵住了。

He's got a reason not to get involved.

他有理由袖手旁觀。

He's black, the guy's white, and he's got two kids.

他是黑人，那個人是白人，他還有兩個小孩。

Instead, he gives his kids to a stranger,

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，

jumps on the tracks, puts the guy between the tracks,

lays on him, the subway goes over him.

趴在他身上，地鐵就從他身上開了過去。

Wesley and the guy -- 20 and a half inches height.

韋斯利和那個男子摞起來高20.5英寸。

The train clearance is 21 inches.

地鐵列車下的空隙高21英寸。

A half an inch would have taken his head off.

再低半英寸就會把他的腦袋鏟去。

And he said, "I did what anyone could do," no big deal to jump on the tracks.

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。

And the moral imperative is "I did what everyone should do."

從道德責任的角度說應該是"我做了任何人應該做的事"。

And so one day, you will be in a new situation.

那麼，將來有一天，你會遇到一個新的情境。

Take path one, you're going to be a perpetrator of evil.

第一條路，你會成為惡之犯人。

Evil, meaning you're going to be Arthur Andersen.

惡，即你將成為亞瑟·安德森。

You're going to cheat, or you're going to allow bullying.

你將會欺騙，或允許欺侮。

Path two, you become guilty of the evil of passive inaction.

第二條路：你將因漠不關心袖手旁觀而內疚。

Path three, you become a hero.

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

The point is, are we ready to take the path to celebrating ordinary heroes,

以頌揚平凡的英雄，

waiting for the right situation to come along

等待合適的情境出現，

將對於英雄的想像付諸於實施呢？

to put heroic imagination into action?

因為這可能是你平生僅有的機會，

Because it may only happen once in your life,

and when you pass it by, you'll always know,

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。

I could have been a hero and I let it pass me by.

So the point is thinking it and then doing it.

所以關鍵是先想再做。

所以我想謝謝你們。謝謝你們。謝謝。

So I want to thank you. Thank you.

Let's oppose the power of evil systems at home and abroad,

讓我們反對國內外惡之系統的力量，

and let's focus on the positive.

並集中於積極的一面。

Advocate for respect of personal dignity, for justice and peace,

倡導對個人高尚行為之尊敬，倡導正義與和平，

which sadly our administration has not been doing.

遺憾的是，我們的當局並沒有做這些。

非常感謝。

Thanks so much.

（掌聲）

(Applause)