安馨(3歲2個月大)
在2013年裡, 安馨上了人生中第一個幼稚園, 第一個幼稚園上台唱歌表演
會騎腳踏車&溜滑梯, 雙手不扶牆走樓梯, 用吸管喝熊貓豆奶, 唱許多詩歌&兒歌(中, 英, 台語, 西班牙文), 會邊唱歌邊跳舞 (主打歌: 天父的花園, 我要向高山舉目),
會敲鑼打鼓,會刷牙漱口吐牙膏泡泡, 會3以內的加減法, 會數實物1-10 (match number of objects, for example 葡萄, 杯子), 會禱告, 臉會浸在水中閉氣2秒, 會舉一反三, 會用衛生紙擤鼻涕, 會主動問把拔馬麻有Happy嗎, 會主動跟人打招呼說Hi
看著安馨每一天都有呵呵的招牌笑聲 非常的感恩^_^
祝大家在2014年裡 天天呵呵笑
Happy New Year!
啾模啾樣
2013年12月31日 星期二
2013年12月14日 星期六
【防女童被性侵,一位媽媽改寫了童話故事...】
【防女童被性侵,一位媽媽改寫了童話故事...】
每次看見女童被性侵的新聞,
我都非常難過,因為我們都有兒女。
如果機械地告誡孩子“要小心男老師和校長,
他們有可能會傷害你”,就會讓孩子喪失對世界的信任,甚 至令她對異性產生恐懼,影響她未來的婚戀觀。
到底要怎麼做,才能既提醒女兒,又不會傷害到她呢?
有一天,我看了一部電影《美麗人生》,突然有了靈感。這 個電影講的是納粹時期的故事,全家被抓入集中營後,父親 為了不讓孩子留下心理陰影,就對兒子說,集中營裡發生的 一切都只是一個遊戲,只要不違反遊戲規則,就能獲得一部 坦克。
雖然集中營的生活很恐怖,但是孩子卻快樂地生存下來,直 至獲救,心中依然充滿愛與希望……
我決定像這位聰明的父親一樣,用一種柔和的方式,幫女兒 建立起保護自己的意識—改編童話故事。
女兒很喜歡芭比娃娃,有很濃的“公主”情結。所以,
我特地在她6歲生日那天,送了一個美麗的芭比公主玩偶給 她,並且溫柔地說:“做公主可不是那麼容易的,她們必須 遵守芭比學校的公主守則。否則就算穿得再漂亮,也不是真 正的公主。”
聽了我的話,
女兒連忙追問:“那芭比學校有什麼公主守則呢?”
“我每天給你講一個故事,每個故事裡都有一條公主守則, 怎麼樣?”
“好呀好呀,我最喜歡聽故事了!
”女兒歡呼雀躍道。
我給女兒講的第一個故事是《新白雪公主》:
“白雪公主深知男女有別,所以雖然跟7個小矮人是好朋友 ,但每次洗澡和換衣服時,她都會關好門窗,而且每晚都會 回自己的房間睡覺。
其實白雪公主,並沒有真的吃下巫婆給的毒蘋果。她趁巫婆 不注意,偷偷換了一個好蘋果,然後假裝中毒。如果真的中 毒,怎麼會那麼容易就活過來呢?
白雪公主會換蘋果,是因為她知道,公主不能吃陌生人給的 食物,否則自己就會有危險。
而且當時小矮人不在家,如果直接揭穿巫婆的詭計,她可能 會受到傷害……”
女兒驚訝地叫道:“原來是這樣呀!
我就覺得白雪公主不該那麼笨,
死了一次又一次,否則王子怎麼會喜歡她呢?”
接下來的一段時間,我又對《灰姑娘》《豌豆公主》等童話 ,進行了改編:“灰姑娘之所以要在12點之前趕回家,不 僅僅是怕美麗的衣服和鞋子被打回原形,還有一個原因是, 她覺得一個好女孩,不應該在外面待到太晚。
正因為她的堅持,王子才被她深深打動了,
認為她不只擁有美貌,
而且還是個自尊自愛的好姑娘,適合當未來的王后……”
“在得知豌豆姑娘是真正的公主之後,
王子高興地送了一條項鍊給公主,
並邀請公主當晚留宿在自己的房間裡。
公主果斷地拒絕,並且告訴王子,
真正的公主在婚禮之前,
是不會跟男子住在同一個房間的,
也不會隨便接受別人的禮物。
你的做法不像一位真正的王子,所以我不會同你結婚。
後來王子意識到了自己的錯誤,再三向公主道歉,
並且保證在結婚之前一定不會冒犯公主,
豌豆公主這才原諒了他……”
不知不覺中,我改編了十幾個童話。
我充分發揮自己的想像力,盡量把故事講得生動有趣,女兒 也饒有興致地從中總結出了許多公主守則,比如背心褲衩覆 蓋的地方絕不能讓人摸、不能接受陌生人的飲水食物、不要 跟男子獨處一室,就算是自己的長輩、老師或者校長也不可 以……
有時候,女兒也會發牢騷,
問我:“王子不是負責保護公主的嗎,
為什麼公主還要這麼小心翼翼地保護自己呢?”
我告訴女兒:“王子要等公主20歲以後才會出現。
在王子出現之前,公主必須學會保護自己,
優雅而高貴地活下去。
如果公主因為不會保護自己而受到傷害,
那麼她可能等不到王子出現的那一天,
就變成天上的星星了。
而且,如果公主什麼也不做,
只會被動地等待王子拯救,她或許因為美貌一時吸引王子, 但是不會被王子所尊重,更不會成為王子的妻子。
”聽了我的話,女兒似懂非懂地點點頭。
經過一段時間的訓練,我幫助女兒建立起了較強的防護意識 。
現在的她,非常有原則,也懂得巧妙地保護自己。
有一次,我因為有事把女兒託給開精品店的妹妹照顧。
妹妹臨時外出進貨,店裡只剩下女兒和一個年輕的男店員, 於是女兒便跑到隔壁一對夫婦開的店裡玩,直到妹妹回來才 返回店中。
妹妹問她為什麼不待在店裡看電視,她當時沒說什麼,事後 卻悄悄告訴小姨,公主要懂得保護自己,所以最好不要跟男 生單獨待在一起。
自己之所以剛才沒說,是怕店員哥哥不高興……
妹妹告訴我這件事時,我很高興:對一個母親來說,能賦予 孩子保護自己的能力,讓她像一株帶刺的玫瑰,安全而美麗 地綻放,還有什麼比這更值得欣慰的呢?
這篇如何提高小公主們的自我保護意識 - 芭比學校的公主守則,獻給所有的母親和孩子....
(網路文章)
每次看見女童被性侵的新聞,
我都非常難過,因為我們都有兒女。
如果機械地告誡孩子“要小心男老師和校長,
他們有可能會傷害你”,就會讓孩子喪失對世界的信任,甚
到底要怎麼做,才能既提醒女兒,又不會傷害到她呢?
有一天,我看了一部電影《美麗人生》,突然有了靈感。這
雖然集中營的生活很恐怖,但是孩子卻快樂地生存下來,直
我決定像這位聰明的父親一樣,用一種柔和的方式,幫女兒
女兒很喜歡芭比娃娃,有很濃的“公主”情結。所以,
我特地在她6歲生日那天,送了一個美麗的芭比公主玩偶給
聽了我的話,
女兒連忙追問:“那芭比學校有什麼公主守則呢?”
“我每天給你講一個故事,每個故事裡都有一條公主守則,
“好呀好呀,我最喜歡聽故事了!
”女兒歡呼雀躍道。
我給女兒講的第一個故事是《新白雪公主》:
“白雪公主深知男女有別,所以雖然跟7個小矮人是好朋友
其實白雪公主,並沒有真的吃下巫婆給的毒蘋果。她趁巫婆
白雪公主會換蘋果,是因為她知道,公主不能吃陌生人給的
而且當時小矮人不在家,如果直接揭穿巫婆的詭計,她可能
女兒驚訝地叫道:“原來是這樣呀!
我就覺得白雪公主不該那麼笨,
死了一次又一次,否則王子怎麼會喜歡她呢?”
接下來的一段時間,我又對《灰姑娘》《豌豆公主》等童話
正因為她的堅持,王子才被她深深打動了,
認為她不只擁有美貌,
而且還是個自尊自愛的好姑娘,適合當未來的王后……”
“在得知豌豆姑娘是真正的公主之後,
王子高興地送了一條項鍊給公主,
並邀請公主當晚留宿在自己的房間裡。
公主果斷地拒絕,並且告訴王子,
真正的公主在婚禮之前,
是不會跟男子住在同一個房間的,
也不會隨便接受別人的禮物。
你的做法不像一位真正的王子,所以我不會同你結婚。
後來王子意識到了自己的錯誤,再三向公主道歉,
並且保證在結婚之前一定不會冒犯公主,
豌豆公主這才原諒了他……”
不知不覺中,我改編了十幾個童話。
我充分發揮自己的想像力,盡量把故事講得生動有趣,女兒
有時候,女兒也會發牢騷,
問我:“王子不是負責保護公主的嗎,
為什麼公主還要這麼小心翼翼地保護自己呢?”
我告訴女兒:“王子要等公主20歲以後才會出現。
在王子出現之前,公主必須學會保護自己,
優雅而高貴地活下去。
如果公主因為不會保護自己而受到傷害,
那麼她可能等不到王子出現的那一天,
就變成天上的星星了。
而且,如果公主什麼也不做,
只會被動地等待王子拯救,她或許因為美貌一時吸引王子,
”聽了我的話,女兒似懂非懂地點點頭。
經過一段時間的訓練,我幫助女兒建立起了較強的防護意識
現在的她,非常有原則,也懂得巧妙地保護自己。
有一次,我因為有事把女兒託給開精品店的妹妹照顧。
妹妹臨時外出進貨,店裡只剩下女兒和一個年輕的男店員,
妹妹問她為什麼不待在店裡看電視,她當時沒說什麼,事後
自己之所以剛才沒說,是怕店員哥哥不高興……
妹妹告訴我這件事時,我很高興:對一個母親來說,能賦予
這篇如何提高小公主們的自我保護意識 - 芭比學校的公主守則,獻給所有的母親和孩子....
(網路文章)
20 Marriage Tips Everyone Needs to Know
20 Marriage Tips Everyone Needs to Know
August 26, 2013
In the News
MARRIAGE ADVICE I WISH I WOULD HAVE HAD:
Obviously, I’m not a relationship expert. But there’s something about my divorce being finalized this week that gives me perspective of things I wish I would have done different… After losing a woman that I loved, and a marriage of almost 16 years, here’s the advice I wish I would have had…
1) Never stop courting. Never stop dating. NEVER EVER take that woman for granted. When you asked her to marry you, you promised to be that man that would OWN HER HEART and to fiercely protect it. This is the most important and sacred treasure you will ever be entrusted with. SHE CHOSE YOU. Never forget that, and NEVER GET LAZY in your love.
2) PROTECT YOUR OWN HEART. Just as you committed to being the protector of her heart, you must guard your own with the same vigilance. Love yourself fully, love the world openly, but there is a special place in your heart where no one must enter except for your wife. Keep that space always ready to receive her and invite her in, and refuse to let anyone or anything else enter there.
3) FALL IN LOVE OVER and OVER and OVER again. You will constantly change. You’re not the same people you were when you got married, and in five years you will not be the same person you are today. Change will come, and in that you have to re-choose each other everyday. SHE DOESN’T HAVE TO STAY WITH YOU, and if you don’t take care of her heart, she may give that heart to someone else or seal you out completely, and you may never be able to get it back. Always fight to win her love just as you did when you were courting her.
4) ALWAYS SEE THE BEST in her. Focus only on what you love. What you focus on will expand. If you focus on what bugs you, all you will see is reasons to be bugged. If you focus on what you love, you can’t help but be consumed by love. Focus to the point where you can no longer see anything but love, and you know without a doubt that you are the luckiest man on earth to be have this woman as your wife.
5) IT’S NOT YOUR JOB TO CHANGE OR FIX HER… your job is to love her as she is with no expectation of her ever changing. And if she changes, love what she becomes, whether it’s what you wanted or not.
6) TAKE FULL ACCOUNTABILITY for your own emotions: It’s not your wife’s job to make you happy, and she CAN’T make you sad. You are responsible for finding your own happiness, and through that your joy will spill over into your relationship and your love.
7) NEVER BLAME your wife If YOU get frustrated or angry at her, it is only because it is triggering something inside of YOU. They are YOUR emotions, and your responsibility. When you feel those feelings take time to get present and to look within and understand what it is inside of YOU that is asking to be healed. You were attracted to this woman because she was the person best suited to trigger all of your childhood wounds in the most painful way so that you could heal them… when you heal yourself, you will no longer be triggered by her, and you will wonder why you ever were.
Allow your woman to JUST BE. When she’s sad or upset, it’s not your job to fix it, it’s your job to HOLD HER and let her know it’s ok. Let her know that you hear her, and that she’s important and that you are that pillar on which she can always lean. The feminine spirit is about change and emotion and like a storm her emotions will roll in and out, and as you remain strong and unjudging she will trust you and open her soul to you… DON’T RUN-AWAY WHEN SHE’S UPSET. Stand present and strong and let her know you aren’t going anywhere. Listen to what she is really saying behind the words and emotion.
9) BE SILLY… don’t take yourself so damn seriously. Laugh. And make her laugh. Laughter makes everything else easier.
10) FILL HER SOUL EVERYDAY… learn her love languages and the specific ways that she feels important and validated and CHERISHED. Ask her to create a list of 10 THINGS that make her feel loved and memorize those things and make it a priority everyday to make her feel like a queen.
11) BE PRESENT. Give her not only your time, but your focus, your attention and your soul. Do whatever it takes to clear your head so that when you are with her you are fully WITH HER. Treat her as you would your most valuable client. She is.
12) BE WILLING TO TAKE HER SEXUALLY, to carry her away in the power of your masculine presence, to consume her and devour her with your strength, and to penetrate her to the deepest levels of her soul. Let her melt into her feminine softness as she knows she can trust you fully.
13) DON’T BE AN IDIOT…. And don’t be afraid of being one either. You will make mistakes and so will she. Try not to make too big of mistakes, and learn from the ones you do make. You’re not supposed to be perfect, just try to not be too stupid.
14) GIVE HER SPACE… The woman is so good at giving and giving, and sometimes she will need to be reminded to take time to nurture herself. Sometimes she will need to fly from your branches to go and find what feeds her soul, and if you give her that space she will come back with new songs to sing…. (okay, getting a little too poetic here, but you get the point. Tell her to take time for herself, ESPECIALLY after you have kids. She needs that space to renew and get re-centered, and to find herself after she gets lost in serving you, the kids and the world.)
15) BE VULNERABLE… you don’t have to have it all together. Be willing to share your fears and feelings, and quick to acknowledge your mistakes.
16) BE FULLY TRANSPARENT. If you want to have trust you must be willing to share EVERYTHING… Especially those things you don’t want to share. It takes courage to fully love, to fully open your heart and let her in when you don’t know i she will like what she finds… Part of that courage is allowing her to love you completely, your darkness as well as your light. DROP THE MASK… If you feel like you need to wear a mask around her, and show up perfect all the time, you will never experience the full dimension of what love can be.
17) NEVER STOP GROWING TOGETHER… The stagnant pond breeds malaria, the flowing stream is always fresh and cool. Atrophy is the natural process when you stop working a muscle, just as it is if you stop working on your relationship. Find common goals, dreams and visions to work towards.
18) DON’T WORRY ABOUT MONEY. Money is a game, find ways to work together as a team to win it. It never helps when teammates fight. Figure out ways to leverage both persons strength to win.
19) FORGIVE IMMEDIATELY and focus on the future rather than carrying weight from the past. Don’t let your history hold you hostage. Holding onto past mistakes that either you or she makes, is like a heavy anchor to your marriage and will hold you back. FORGIVENESS IS FREEDOM. Cut the anchor loose and always choose love.
20) ALWAYS CHOOSE LOVE. ALWAYS CHOOSE LOVE. ALWAYS CHOOSE LOVE. In the end, this is the only advice you need. If this is the guiding principle through which all your choices is governed, there is nothing that will threaten the happiness of your marriage. Love will always endure.
In the end MARRIAGE isn’t about Happily ever after. It’s about work. And a commitment to grow together and a willingness to continually invest in creating something that can endure eternity. Through that work, the happiness will come.
Marriage is life, and it will bring ups and downs. Embracing all of the cycles and learning to learn from and love each experience will bring the strength and perspective to keep building, one brick at a time.
These are lessons I learned the hard way. These are lessons I learned too late.
But these are lessons I am learning and committed in carrying forward. Truth is, I LOVED being married, and in time, I will get married again, and when I do, I will build it with a foundation that will endure any storm and any amount of time.
If you are reading this and find wisdom in my pain, share it those those young husbands whose hearts are still full of hope, and with those couples you may know who may have forgotten how to love. One of those men may be like I was, and in these hard earned lessons perhaps something will awaken in him and he will learn to be the man his lady has been waiting for.
The woman that told him ‘I do’, and trusted her life with him, has been waiting for this man to step up.
If you are reading this and your marriage isn’t what you want it to be, take 100% responsibility for YOUR PART in marriage, regardless of where your spouse is at, and commit to applying these lessons while there is time.
MEN- THIS IS YOUR CHARGE : Commit to being an EPIC LOVER. There is no greater challenge, and no greater prize. Your woman deserves that from you.
Be the type of husband your wife can’t help but brag about.
2013年11月25日 星期一
10 Psychological Studies That Will Change What You Think You Know About Yourself
10 Psychological Studies That Will Change What You Think You Know About Yourself
The Huffington Post
|
By Carolyn Gregoire
Posted: 10/18/2013 8:22 am EDT | Updated: 10/28/2013 1:35 pm EDT
Why do we do the things we do? Despite our best attempts to
"know thyself," the truth is that we often know astonishingly little
about our own minds, and even less about the way others think. As
Charles Dickens once put it, “A wonderful fact to reflect upon, that
every human creature is constituted to be that profound secret and
mystery to every other.”
Psychologists have long sought insights into how we perceive the world and what motivates our behavior, and they've made enormous strides in lifting that veil of mystery. Aside from providing fodder for stimulating cocktail-party conversations, some of the most famous psychological experiments of the past century reveal universal and often surprising truths about human nature. Here are 10 classic psychological studies that may change the way you understand yourself.
We all have some capacity for evil.
Arguably the most famous experiment in the history of psychology, the 1971 Stanford prison study put a microscope on how social situations can affect human behavior. The researchers, led by psychologist Philip Zimbardo, set up a mock prison in the basement of the Stanford psych building and selected 24 undergraduates (who had no criminal record and were deemed psychologically healthy) to act as prisoners and guards. Researchers then observed the prisoners (who had to stay in the cells 24 hours a day) and guards (who shared eight-hour shifts) using hidden cameras.
The experiment, which was scheduled to last for two weeks, had to be cut short after just six days due to the guards' abusive behavior -- in some cases they even inflicted psychological torture -- and the extreme emotional stress and anxiety exhibited by the prisoners.
"The guards escalated their aggression against the prisoners, stripping them naked, putting bags over their heads, and then finally had them engage in increasingly humiliating sexual activities," Zimbardo told American Scientist. "After six days I had to end it because it was out of control -- I couldn't really go to sleep at night without worrying what the guards could do to the prisoners."
We don't notice what's right in front of us.
Think you know what's going on around you? You might not be nearly as aware as you think. In 1998, researchers from Harvard and Kent State University targeted pedestrians on a college campus to determine how much people notice about their immediate environments. In the experiment, an actor came up to a pedestrian and asked for directions. While the pedestrian was giving the directions, two men carrying a large wooden door walked between the actor and the pedestrian, completely blocking their view of each other for several seconds. During that time, the actor was replaced by another actor, one of a different height and build, and with a different outfit, haircut and voice. A full half of the participants didn't notice the substitution.
The experiment was one of the first to illustrate the phenomenon of "change blindness," which shows just how selective we are about what we take in from any given visual scene -- and it seems that we rely on memory and pattern-recognition significantly more than we might think.
Delaying gratification is hard -- but we're more successful when we do.
A famous Stanford experiment from the late 1960s tested preschool children's ability to resist the lure of instant gratification -- and it yielded some powerful insights about willpower and self-discipline. In the experiment, four-year-olds were put in a room by themselves with a marshmallow on a plate in front of them, and told that they could either eat the treat now, or if they waited until the researcher returned 15 minutes later, they could have two marshmallows.
While most of the children said they'd wait, they often struggled to resist and then gave in, eating the treat before the researcher returned, TIME reports. The children who did manage to hold off for the full 15 minutes generally used avoidance tactics, like turning away or covering their eyes. The implications of the children's behavior were significant: Those who were able to delay gratification were much less likely to be obese, or to have drug addiction or behavioral problems by the time they were teenagers, and were more successful later in life.
We can experience deeply conflicting moral impulses.
A famous 1961 study by Yale psychologist Stanley Milgram tested (rather alarmingly) how far people would go to obey authority figures when asked to harm others, and the intense internal conflict between personal morals and the obligation to obey authority figures.
Milgram wanted to conduct the experiment to provide insight into how Nazi war criminals could have perpetuated unspeakable acts during the Holocaust. To do so, he tested a pair of participants, one deemed the "teacher" and the other deemed the "learner." The teacher was instructed to administer electric shocks to the learner (who was supposedly sitting in another room, but in reality was not being shocked) each time they got questions wrong. Milgram instead played recordings which made it sound like the learner was in pain, and if the "teacher" subject expressed a desire to stop, the experimenter prodded him to go on. During the first experiment, 65 percent of participants administered a painful, final 450-volt shock (labeled "XXX"), although many were visibly stressed and uncomfortable about doing so.
While the study has commonly been seen as a warning of blind obedience to authority, Scientific American recently revisited it, arguing that the results were more suggestive of deep moral conflict.
"Human moral nature includes a propensity to be empathetic, kind and good to our fellow kin and group members, plus an inclination to be xenophobic, cruel and evil to tribal others," journalist Michael Shermer wrote. "The shock experiments reveal not blind obedience but conflicting moral tendencies that lie deep within."
Recently, some commenters have called Milgram's methodology into question, and one critic noted that records of the experiment performed at Yale suggested that 60 percent of participants actually disobeyed orders to administer the highest-dosage shock.
We're easily corrupted by power.
There's a psychological reason behind the fact that those in power sometimes act towards others with a sense of entitlement and disrespect. A 2003 study published in the journal Psychological Review put students into groups of three to write a short paper together. Two students were instructed to write the paper, while the other was told to evaluate the paper and determine how much each student would be paid. In the middle of their work, a researcher brought in a plate of five cookies. Although generally the last cookie was never eaten, the "boss" almost always ate the fourth cookie -- and ate it sloppily, mouth open.
"When researchers give people power in scientific experiments, they are more likely to physically touch others in potentially inappropriate ways, to flirt in more direct fashion, to make risky choices and gambles, to make first offers in negotiations, to speak their mind, and to eat cookies like the Cookie Monster, with crumbs all over their chins and chests," psychologist Dacher Keltner, one of the study's leaders, wrote in an article for UC Berkeley's Greater Good Science Center.
We seek out loyalty to social groups and are easily drawn to intergroup conflict.
This classic 1950s social psychology experiment shined a light on the possible psychological basis of why social groups and countries find themselves embroiled in conflict with one another -- and how they can learn to cooperate again.
Study leader Muzafer Sherif took two groups of 11 boys (all age 11) to Robbers Cave State Park in Oklahoma for "summer camp." The groups (named the "Eagles" and the "Rattlers") spent a week apart, having fun together and bonding, with no knowledge of the existence of the other group. When the two groups finally integrated, the boys started calling each other names, and when they started competing in various games, more conflict ensued and eventually the groups refused to eat together. In the next phase of the research, Sherif designed experiments to try to reconcile the boys by having them enjoy leisure activities together (which was unsuccessful) and then having them solve a problem together, which finally began to ease the conflict.
We only need one thing to be happy.
The 75-year Harvard Grant study --one of the most comprehensive longitudinal studies ever conducted -- followed 268 male Harvard undergraduates from the classes of 1938-1940 (now well into their 90s) for 75 years, regularly collecting data on various aspects of their lives. The universal conclusion? Love really is all that matters, at least when it comes to determining long-term happiness and life satisfaction.
The study's longtime director, psychiatrist George Vaillant, told The Huffington Post that there are two pillars of happiness: "One is love. The other is finding a way of coping with life that does not push love away." For example, one participant began the study with the lowest rating for future stability of all the subjects and he had previously attempted suicide. But at the end of his life, he was one of the happiest. Why? As Vaillant explains, “He spent his life searching for love.”
We thrive when we have strong self-esteem and social status.
Achieving fame and success isn't just an ego boost -- it could also be a key to longevity, according to the notorious Oscar winners study. Researchers from Toronto's Sunnybrook and Women's College Health Sciences Centre found that Academy Award-winning actors and directors tend to live longer than those who were nominated but lost, with winning actors and actresses outliving their losing peers by nearly four years.
"We are not saying that you will live longer if you win an Academy Award," Donald Redelmeier, the lead author of the study, told ABC News. "Or that people should go out and take acting courses. Our main conclusion is simply that social factors are important ... It suggests that an internal sense of self-esteem is an important aspect to health and health care."
We constantly try to justify our experiences so that they make sense to us.
Anyone who's taken a freshman Psych 101 class is familiar with cognitive dissonance, a theory which dictates that human beings have a natural propensity to avoid psychological conflict based on disharmonious or mutually exclusive beliefs. In an often-cited 1959 experiment, psychologist Leon Festinger asked participants to perform a series of dull tasks, like turning pegs in a wooden knob, for an hour. They were then paid either $1 or $20 to tell a "waiting participant" (aka a researcher) that the task was very interesting. Those who were paid $1 to lie rated the tasks as more enjoyable than those who were paid $20. Their conclusion? Those who were paid more felt that they had sufficient justification for having performed the rote task for an hour, but those who were only paid $1 felt the need to justify the time spent (and reduce the level of dissonance between their beliefs and their behavior) by saying that the activity was fun. In other words, we commonly tell ourselves lies to make the world appear a more logical, harmonious place.
We buy into stereotypes in a big way.
Stereotyping various groups of people based on social group, ethnicity or class is something nearly all of us do, even if we make an effort not to -- and it can lead us to draw unfair and potentially damaging conclusions about entire populations. NYU psychologist John Bargh's experiments on "automaticity of social behavior" revealed that we often judge people based on unconscious stereotypes -- and we can't help but act on them. We also tend to buy into stereotypes for social groups that we see ourselves being a part of. In one study, Bargh found that a group of participants who were asked to unscramble words related to old age -- "Florida," "helpless" and "wrinkled" -- walked significantly slower down the hallway after the experiment than the group who unscrambled words unrelated to age. Bargh repeated the findings in two other comparable studies that enforced stereotypes based on race and politeness.
"Stereotypes are categories that have gone too far," Bargh told Psychology Today. "When we use stereotypes, we take in the gender, the age, the color of the skin of the person before us, and our minds respond with messages that say hostile, stupid, slow, weak. Those qualities aren't out there in the environment. They don't reflect reality."
Psychologists have long sought insights into how we perceive the world and what motivates our behavior, and they've made enormous strides in lifting that veil of mystery. Aside from providing fodder for stimulating cocktail-party conversations, some of the most famous psychological experiments of the past century reveal universal and often surprising truths about human nature. Here are 10 classic psychological studies that may change the way you understand yourself.
We all have some capacity for evil.
Arguably the most famous experiment in the history of psychology, the 1971 Stanford prison study put a microscope on how social situations can affect human behavior. The researchers, led by psychologist Philip Zimbardo, set up a mock prison in the basement of the Stanford psych building and selected 24 undergraduates (who had no criminal record and were deemed psychologically healthy) to act as prisoners and guards. Researchers then observed the prisoners (who had to stay in the cells 24 hours a day) and guards (who shared eight-hour shifts) using hidden cameras.
The experiment, which was scheduled to last for two weeks, had to be cut short after just six days due to the guards' abusive behavior -- in some cases they even inflicted psychological torture -- and the extreme emotional stress and anxiety exhibited by the prisoners.
"The guards escalated their aggression against the prisoners, stripping them naked, putting bags over their heads, and then finally had them engage in increasingly humiliating sexual activities," Zimbardo told American Scientist. "After six days I had to end it because it was out of control -- I couldn't really go to sleep at night without worrying what the guards could do to the prisoners."
We don't notice what's right in front of us.
Think you know what's going on around you? You might not be nearly as aware as you think. In 1998, researchers from Harvard and Kent State University targeted pedestrians on a college campus to determine how much people notice about their immediate environments. In the experiment, an actor came up to a pedestrian and asked for directions. While the pedestrian was giving the directions, two men carrying a large wooden door walked between the actor and the pedestrian, completely blocking their view of each other for several seconds. During that time, the actor was replaced by another actor, one of a different height and build, and with a different outfit, haircut and voice. A full half of the participants didn't notice the substitution.
The experiment was one of the first to illustrate the phenomenon of "change blindness," which shows just how selective we are about what we take in from any given visual scene -- and it seems that we rely on memory and pattern-recognition significantly more than we might think.
Delaying gratification is hard -- but we're more successful when we do.
A famous Stanford experiment from the late 1960s tested preschool children's ability to resist the lure of instant gratification -- and it yielded some powerful insights about willpower and self-discipline. In the experiment, four-year-olds were put in a room by themselves with a marshmallow on a plate in front of them, and told that they could either eat the treat now, or if they waited until the researcher returned 15 minutes later, they could have two marshmallows.
While most of the children said they'd wait, they often struggled to resist and then gave in, eating the treat before the researcher returned, TIME reports. The children who did manage to hold off for the full 15 minutes generally used avoidance tactics, like turning away or covering their eyes. The implications of the children's behavior were significant: Those who were able to delay gratification were much less likely to be obese, or to have drug addiction or behavioral problems by the time they were teenagers, and were more successful later in life.
We can experience deeply conflicting moral impulses.
A famous 1961 study by Yale psychologist Stanley Milgram tested (rather alarmingly) how far people would go to obey authority figures when asked to harm others, and the intense internal conflict between personal morals and the obligation to obey authority figures.
Milgram wanted to conduct the experiment to provide insight into how Nazi war criminals could have perpetuated unspeakable acts during the Holocaust. To do so, he tested a pair of participants, one deemed the "teacher" and the other deemed the "learner." The teacher was instructed to administer electric shocks to the learner (who was supposedly sitting in another room, but in reality was not being shocked) each time they got questions wrong. Milgram instead played recordings which made it sound like the learner was in pain, and if the "teacher" subject expressed a desire to stop, the experimenter prodded him to go on. During the first experiment, 65 percent of participants administered a painful, final 450-volt shock (labeled "XXX"), although many were visibly stressed and uncomfortable about doing so.
While the study has commonly been seen as a warning of blind obedience to authority, Scientific American recently revisited it, arguing that the results were more suggestive of deep moral conflict.
"Human moral nature includes a propensity to be empathetic, kind and good to our fellow kin and group members, plus an inclination to be xenophobic, cruel and evil to tribal others," journalist Michael Shermer wrote. "The shock experiments reveal not blind obedience but conflicting moral tendencies that lie deep within."
Recently, some commenters have called Milgram's methodology into question, and one critic noted that records of the experiment performed at Yale suggested that 60 percent of participants actually disobeyed orders to administer the highest-dosage shock.
We're easily corrupted by power.
There's a psychological reason behind the fact that those in power sometimes act towards others with a sense of entitlement and disrespect. A 2003 study published in the journal Psychological Review put students into groups of three to write a short paper together. Two students were instructed to write the paper, while the other was told to evaluate the paper and determine how much each student would be paid. In the middle of their work, a researcher brought in a plate of five cookies. Although generally the last cookie was never eaten, the "boss" almost always ate the fourth cookie -- and ate it sloppily, mouth open.
"When researchers give people power in scientific experiments, they are more likely to physically touch others in potentially inappropriate ways, to flirt in more direct fashion, to make risky choices and gambles, to make first offers in negotiations, to speak their mind, and to eat cookies like the Cookie Monster, with crumbs all over their chins and chests," psychologist Dacher Keltner, one of the study's leaders, wrote in an article for UC Berkeley's Greater Good Science Center.
We seek out loyalty to social groups and are easily drawn to intergroup conflict.
This classic 1950s social psychology experiment shined a light on the possible psychological basis of why social groups and countries find themselves embroiled in conflict with one another -- and how they can learn to cooperate again.
Study leader Muzafer Sherif took two groups of 11 boys (all age 11) to Robbers Cave State Park in Oklahoma for "summer camp." The groups (named the "Eagles" and the "Rattlers") spent a week apart, having fun together and bonding, with no knowledge of the existence of the other group. When the two groups finally integrated, the boys started calling each other names, and when they started competing in various games, more conflict ensued and eventually the groups refused to eat together. In the next phase of the research, Sherif designed experiments to try to reconcile the boys by having them enjoy leisure activities together (which was unsuccessful) and then having them solve a problem together, which finally began to ease the conflict.
We only need one thing to be happy.
The 75-year Harvard Grant study --one of the most comprehensive longitudinal studies ever conducted -- followed 268 male Harvard undergraduates from the classes of 1938-1940 (now well into their 90s) for 75 years, regularly collecting data on various aspects of their lives. The universal conclusion? Love really is all that matters, at least when it comes to determining long-term happiness and life satisfaction.
The study's longtime director, psychiatrist George Vaillant, told The Huffington Post that there are two pillars of happiness: "One is love. The other is finding a way of coping with life that does not push love away." For example, one participant began the study with the lowest rating for future stability of all the subjects and he had previously attempted suicide. But at the end of his life, he was one of the happiest. Why? As Vaillant explains, “He spent his life searching for love.”
We thrive when we have strong self-esteem and social status.
Achieving fame and success isn't just an ego boost -- it could also be a key to longevity, according to the notorious Oscar winners study. Researchers from Toronto's Sunnybrook and Women's College Health Sciences Centre found that Academy Award-winning actors and directors tend to live longer than those who were nominated but lost, with winning actors and actresses outliving their losing peers by nearly four years.
"We are not saying that you will live longer if you win an Academy Award," Donald Redelmeier, the lead author of the study, told ABC News. "Or that people should go out and take acting courses. Our main conclusion is simply that social factors are important ... It suggests that an internal sense of self-esteem is an important aspect to health and health care."
We constantly try to justify our experiences so that they make sense to us.
Anyone who's taken a freshman Psych 101 class is familiar with cognitive dissonance, a theory which dictates that human beings have a natural propensity to avoid psychological conflict based on disharmonious or mutually exclusive beliefs. In an often-cited 1959 experiment, psychologist Leon Festinger asked participants to perform a series of dull tasks, like turning pegs in a wooden knob, for an hour. They were then paid either $1 or $20 to tell a "waiting participant" (aka a researcher) that the task was very interesting. Those who were paid $1 to lie rated the tasks as more enjoyable than those who were paid $20. Their conclusion? Those who were paid more felt that they had sufficient justification for having performed the rote task for an hour, but those who were only paid $1 felt the need to justify the time spent (and reduce the level of dissonance between their beliefs and their behavior) by saying that the activity was fun. In other words, we commonly tell ourselves lies to make the world appear a more logical, harmonious place.
We buy into stereotypes in a big way.
Stereotyping various groups of people based on social group, ethnicity or class is something nearly all of us do, even if we make an effort not to -- and it can lead us to draw unfair and potentially damaging conclusions about entire populations. NYU psychologist John Bargh's experiments on "automaticity of social behavior" revealed that we often judge people based on unconscious stereotypes -- and we can't help but act on them. We also tend to buy into stereotypes for social groups that we see ourselves being a part of. In one study, Bargh found that a group of participants who were asked to unscramble words related to old age -- "Florida," "helpless" and "wrinkled" -- walked significantly slower down the hallway after the experiment than the group who unscrambled words unrelated to age. Bargh repeated the findings in two other comparable studies that enforced stereotypes based on race and politeness.
"Stereotypes are categories that have gone too far," Bargh told Psychology Today. "When we use stereotypes, we take in the gender, the age, the color of the skin of the person before us, and our minds respond with messages that say hostile, stupid, slow, weak. Those qualities aren't out there in the environment. They don't reflect reality."
2013年11月2日 星期六
2013年10月15日 星期二
蝴蝶效應、青蛙現象、鱷魚法 則、鮎魚效應、羊群效應、刺猬法則、手錶定律、破窗理論、二八定律、木桶理論、馬太效應
終於找全了,保存留著解釋給小孩聽:蝴蝶效應、青蛙現象、鱷魚法
則、鮎魚效應、羊群效應、刺猬法則、手錶定律、破窗理論、二八定 律、木桶理論、馬太效應。記下來,長點知識……
1、蝴蝶效應:上個世紀70年代,美國一個名叫洛倫茲的氣象學家 在解釋空氣系統理論時說,亞馬遜雨林一隻蝴蝶翅膀偶爾振動,也許 兩週後就會引起美國得克薩斯州的一場龍捲風。
蝴蝶效應是說,初始條件十分微小的變化經過不斷放大,對其未來狀 態會造成極其巨大的差別。有些小事可以糊塗,有些小事如經系統放 大,則對一個組織、一個國家來說是很重要的,就不能糊塗。
2、青蛙現象:把一隻青蛙直接放進熱水鍋裡,由於它對不良環境的 反應十分敏感,就會迅速跳出鍋外。如果把一個青蛙放進冷水鍋裡, 慢慢地加溫,青蛙並不會立即跳出鍋外,水溫逐漸提高的最終結局是 青蛙被煮死了,因為等水溫高到青蛙無法忍受時,它已經來不及、或 者說是沒有能力跳出鍋外了。
青蛙現象告訴我們,一些突變事件,往往容易引起人們的警覺,而易 致人於死地的卻是在自我感覺良好的情況下,對實際情況的逐漸惡化 ,沒有清醒的察覺。
3、鱷魚法則:其原意是假定一隻鱷魚咬住你的腳,如果你用手去試 圖掙脫你的腳,鱷魚便會同時咬住你的腳與手。你愈掙扎,就被咬住 得越多。所以,萬一鱷魚咬住你的腳,你唯一的辦法就是犧牲一隻腳 。
譬如在股市中,鱷魚法則就是:當你發現自己的交易背離了市場的方 向,必須立即止損,不得有任何延誤,不得存有任何僥倖。
4、鮎魚效應:以前,沙丁魚在運輸過程中成活率很低。後有人發現 ,若在沙丁魚中放一條鮎魚,情況卻有所改觀,成活率會大大提高。 這是何故呢?
原來鮎魚在到了一個陌生的環境後,就會“性情急躁”,四處亂遊, 這對於大量好靜的沙丁魚來說,無疑起到了攪拌作用;而沙丁魚發現 多了這樣一個“異已分子” ,自然也很緊張,加速游動。這樣沙丁魚缺氧的問題就迎刃而解了, 沙丁魚也就不會死了。
5、羊群效應:頭羊往哪裡走,後面的羊就跟著往哪裡走。
羊群效應最早是股票投資中的一個術語,主要是指投資者在交易過程 中存在學習與模仿現象,“有樣學樣”,盲目效仿別人,從而導致他 們在某段時期內買賣相同的股票。
6、刺猬法則:兩隻困倦的刺猬,由於寒冷而擁在一起。可因為各自 身上都長著刺,於是它們離開了一段距離,但又冷得受不了,於是湊 到一起。幾經折騰,兩隻刺猬終於找到一個合適的距離:既能互相獲 得對方的溫暖而又不至於被扎。
刺猬法則主要是指人際交往中的“心理距離效應”。
7、手錶定律:手錶定律是指一個人有一隻表時,可以知道現在是幾 點鐘,而當他同時擁有兩隻時卻無法確定。兩隻表並不能告訴一個人 更準確的時間,反而會使看表的人失去對準確時間的信心。
手錶定律在企業管理方面給我們一種非常直觀的啟發,就是對同一個 人或同一個組織不能同時採用兩種不同的方法,不能同時設置兩個不 同的目標,甚至每一個人不能由兩個人來同時指揮,否則將使這個企 業或者個人無所適從。
8、破窗理論:一個房子如果窗戶破了,沒有人去修補,隔不久,其 它的窗戶也會莫名其妙地被人打破;一面牆,如果出現一些塗鴉沒有 被清洗掉,很快的,牆上就佈滿了亂七八糟、不堪入目的東西;一個 很乾淨的地方,人們不好意思丟垃圾,但是一旦地上有垃圾出現之後 ,人就會毫不猶疑地拋,絲毫不覺羞愧。
9、二八定律(巴萊多定律):19世紀末20世紀初意大利的經濟 學家巴萊多認為,在任何一組東西中,最重要的只佔其中一小部分, 約20%,其餘80 %儘管是多數,卻是次要的。社會約80%的財富集中在20%的人 手裡,而80%的人只擁有20%的社會財富。這種統計的不平衡性 在社會、經濟及生活中無處不在,這就是二八法則。
二八法則告訴我們,不要平均地分析、處理和看待問題,企業經營和 管理中要抓住關鍵的少數;要找出那些能給企業帶來80%利潤、總 量卻僅佔20%的關鍵客戶,加強服務,達到事半功倍的效果;企業 領導人要對工作認真分類分析,要把主要精力花在解決主要問題、抓 主要項目上。
10、木桶理論:組成木桶的木板如果長短不齊,那麼木桶的盛水量 不是取決於最長的那一塊木板,而是取決於最短的那一塊木板。
1968年,美國科學史研究者羅伯特·莫頓(Robert K. Merton)提出這個術語用以概括一種社會心理現象:“相對於那些不知名的研究者,聲名顯赫的科學家通常得到更多的聲望即使他們的成就是相似的,同樣地,在同一個項目上,聲譽通常給予那些已經出名的研究者,例如,一個獎項幾乎總是授予最資深的研究者,即使所有工作都是一個研究生完成的。”
此術語後為經濟學界所借用,反映貧者愈貧,富者愈富,贏家通吃的經濟學中收入分配不公的現象。
天國又好比一個人要往外國去,就叫了僕人來,把他的家業交給他們。按著各人的才幹,給他們銀子。一個給了五千,一個給了二千,一個給了 一千。就往外國去了。那領五千的,隨即拿去做買賣,另外賺了五千。那領二千的,也照樣另賺了二千。但那領一千的,去掘開地,把主人的銀子埋藏了。
過了許久,那些僕人的主人來了,和他們算賬。
那領五千銀子的,又帶著那另外的五千來,說,主阿,你交給我五千銀子,請看,我又賺了五千。主人說,好,你這又良善又忠心的僕人。你在不多的事上有忠心,我把許多事派你管理。可以進來享受你主人的快樂。
那領二千的也來說,主阿,你交給我二千銀子,請看,我又賺了二千。主人說,好,你這又良善又忠心的僕人。你在不多的事上有忠心,我把許多事派你管理。可以進來享受你主人的快樂。
那領一千的,也來說,主阿,我知道你是忍心的人,沒有種的地方要收割,沒有散的地方要聚斂。我就害怕,去把你的一千銀子埋藏在地里。請 看,你的原銀在這裡。主人回答說,你這又惡又懶的僕人,你既知道我沒有種的地方要收割,沒有散的地方要聚斂。就當把我的銀子放給兌換銀錢的人,到我來的時 候,可以連本帶利收回。奪過他這一千來,交給那兩千和五千的。他們有生產的就會更多, 那沒生產的話就會拿走。
另一版本:
《新約·馬太福音》中有這樣一個故事。一個國王遠行前,交給三個僕人每人一錠銀子,吩咐他們:“你們去做生意,等我回來時,再來見 我。”國王回來時,第一個僕人說:“主人,你交給我的一錠銀子,我已賺了10錠。”於是國王獎勵了他10座城邑。第二個僕人報告說:“主人,你給我的一錠 銀子,我已賺了5錠。”於是國王便獎勵了他5座城邑。第三個僕人報告說:“主人,你給我的一錠銀子,我一直包在手巾里存著,我怕丟失,一直沒有拿出來。” 於是,國王命令將第三個僕人的那錠銀子賞給第一個僕人,並且說:“凡是少的,就連他所有的,也要奪過來。凡是多的,還要給他,叫他多多益善。”
同普通商品市場一樣,在同一價格變動的調節下,股票市場的需求與供給呈逆向或不對稱性變動。同普通商品市場相反,股票市場的價格機制對需求和供給都具有一種正反饋性的激勵功能。這種價格正反饋機制總是強化著供給與需求的逆向變動趨勢,從而拉大或維持著供求不平衡關係。因此,在股票市場上,價格的上升會推動價格的上升;相反,價格的下跌則會導致價格的進一步下跌。換言之,股票市場的內在機制以一種特殊的馬太效應方式表現出來,它直接導致了股票價格背離基本價值而大升深跌、暴升暴跌。
由於馬太效應及股價的超常漲跌是股票市場內在運作規則的結果,因而它也就成為股票市場的必然的、常規性的運作形式。股票市場必然有投機、必然超常動蕩,因而股票市場永遠是一個可以博取差價的場所。
股市在經歷了一輪或強或弱的馬太式不平衡迴圈後,可能會進入另一個反向馬太迴圈過程,也可能進入暫時平衡狀態。使一輪馬太迴圈中止的原因,如果是價格升漲的中止,通常是因為後續資金量枯竭、高價位所形成的高市場風險、突發利空消息刺激和累積獲利籌碼過多等等;如果是價格下跌的中止,則多是因為價位進入投資價值區域、突發利多消息刺激、累積套牢籌碼過多過深等等。
品牌資本的馬太效應是指,某個行業或產業的產品或服務,品牌知名度越大,品牌的價值越高,其忠實的消費者就越多,勢必其占有的市場份額就越大。反之,某個行業或產業的產品或服務,品牌知名度越小,品牌的價值越低,其忠實的消費者就越少,勢必其占有的市場份額就越小,將導致利潤減少,被市場淘汰,其讓位的市場將會被品牌知名度高的產品或服務代替。
馬太效應(Matthew Effect),在品牌資本領域內就是普遍存在的市場現象:強者恆強,弱者恆弱,或者說,贏家通吃。
2.品牌資本馬太效實踐成功的案例
品牌資本的核心價值是標準和技術,衍生的價值為消費者對品牌的認可和品牌營銷系統的構建。
最高形態的資本是企業品牌價值;無形形態的資本是企業知識產權的價值;固化形態的資本是企業的機器設備和不動產。對於企業來講,一流企業出標準,二流企業出技術,三流企業出產品,四流企業出效益。
企業惟有藉助航空母艦般的“品牌資本”在行業中利用制訂標準和塑造企業品牌形象,才能立於不敗之地。
尤其在軟體技術、電子技術等關鍵領域,核心技術更是企業生存和發展的命脈。直至目前,一些科技發達國家及跨國公司仍憑藉對很多領域技術標準的控制,左右著產業格局的變化。因此,企業只有極力創新、參與制定具有自主知識產權的標準,占據品牌資本,才可能在自身領域占領技術制高點,獲得市場競爭優勢。
高通、微軟、日本6C聯盟都是憑藉標準制勝中國市場的典型。CDMA相關技術在高通的運作下成為其所掌握的專利和國際標準,所有生產CDMA相關通訊產品的企業都必須向高通交納CDMA的入門費和使用費,高通由此一躍成為坐擁標準、日進斗金的跨國企業。
星巴克公司品牌資本的馬太效應創造了成功的奇跡,在華爾街,星巴克早已成為投資者心目中的安全港,過去十年間,它的股價在經歷了四次分拆之後攀升了22倍,收益之高超過了通用電氣、百事可樂、可口可樂、微軟以及IBM等大公司。是什麼創造了星巴克奇跡?將星巴克一手帶大的舒爾茨回答:“我們的最大優勢就是與合作者們相互信任,關鍵問題在於我們如何在高速發展中,保持企業價值觀和指導原則的一致性。”
3.品牌資本馬太效應對營銷創新的啟示
隨著經濟全球化和我國加入WTO之後,國內企業品牌資本的構建日益迫切,企業積聚絕對優勢的品牌資本,創造持續的價值,推動整合的市場資源,形成有形和無形的巨大財富效應,對於企業來說將會在日益激烈的市場競爭中立於不敗之地。
積聚品牌資本是順應企業占領市場最高點的現實需求。品牌資本是目前全球市場消費革命的源動力,不僅涉及到生活領域,而且也涉及經濟金融領域。人們在追求生活品牌的同時,對金融也必然有品牌的要求。國內的企業如果不培育自己的品牌,將來就難以滿足這些日益高新化的需求。
積聚品牌資本是持續創造價值的核心要求。沒有價值的品牌是無源之水,無本之木,品牌只有具有無形資產價值所具有的特性如制訂標準和擁有核心的技術,品牌只有具備向有形資產可轉化的價值,品牌只有與資本進行有機的對接,形成絕對的品牌資本優勢才能為企業提供源源不斷的財富源泉。
積聚品牌資本是整合營銷,創造財富的必由之路。品牌是需要營銷的,營銷可以提升品牌的知名度。品牌的形成和確立是一個從認識到認知再到認可的過程,最後達到認同的目的。整合市場資源可以在更大範圍內營銷品牌,提升品牌的知名度。品牌資本外在的表現形式為可量化的價值,品牌資本的內在表現形式為消費者心中的接受程度和評判標準。
社會心理學家認為,“馬太效應” 是個既有消極作用又有積極作用的社會心理現象。其消極作用是:名人與未出名者乾出同樣的成績,前者往往上級表揚,記者採訪,求教者和訪問者接踵而至,各種 桂冠也一頂接一頂地飄來,結果往往使其中一些人因沒有清醒的自我認識和沒有理智態度而居功自傲,在人生的道路上跌跟頭;而後者則無人問津,甚至還會遭受非 難和妒忌。其積極作用是:其一,可以防止社會過早地承認那些還不成熟的成果或過早地接受貌似正確的成果;其二,“馬太效應”所產生的“榮譽追加”和“榮譽 終身”等現象,對無名者有巨大的吸引力,促使無名者去奮鬥,而這種奮鬥又必須有明顯超越名人過去的成果才能獲得嚮往的榮譽。
“馬太效應”在社會中廣泛存在。以經濟領域為例,國際上關於地區之間發展趨勢主要存在著兩種不同的觀點:
一種是新古典增長理論的“趨同假說”。該假說認為,由於資本的報酬遞減規律,當發達地區出現資本報酬遞減時,資本就會流向還未出現報酬遞減的欠發達地區,其結果是發達地區的增長速度減慢,而欠發達地區的增速加快,最終導致兩類地區發達程度的趨同。
另一種觀點是,當同時考慮到制度、人力資源等因素時,往往會出現另外一種結果,即發達地區與欠發達地區之間的發展,常常會呈現“發展趨 異”的“馬太效應”。落後地區的人才會流向發達地區,落後地區的資源會廉價流向發達地區,落後地區的制度又通常不如發達地區合理,於是迴圈往複,地區差異 會越來越大。
而社會貧富差距,也會產生“馬太效應”。在股市樓市狂潮中,最賺的總是莊家,最賠的總是散戶。於是,不加以調節,普通大眾的金錢,就會通過這種形態聚集到少數人群手中,進一步加劇貧富分化。另外,由於富者通常會享受到更好的教育和發展機會,而窮者則會由於經濟原因,比富者更乏發展機遇,這也會導致富者越富,窮者越窮的“馬太效應”。
對政府而言,如何在經濟發展中避免貧富差距越拉越大的馬太效應,是一個很重要的政治課題。
蒼天的常理是用富餘的去補足缺失的,而人的常理卻不是,是以不足的去滿足富餘的,誰能以富餘去滿足天下,就是得道的人。
1、蝴蝶效應:上個世紀70年代,美國一個名叫洛倫茲的氣象學家
蝴蝶效應是說,初始條件十分微小的變化經過不斷放大,對其未來狀
2、青蛙現象:把一隻青蛙直接放進熱水鍋裡,由於它對不良環境的
青蛙現象告訴我們,一些突變事件,往往容易引起人們的警覺,而易
3、鱷魚法則:其原意是假定一隻鱷魚咬住你的腳,如果你用手去試
譬如在股市中,鱷魚法則就是:當你發現自己的交易背離了市場的方
4、鮎魚效應:以前,沙丁魚在運輸過程中成活率很低。後有人發現
原來鮎魚在到了一個陌生的環境後,就會“性情急躁”,四處亂遊,
5、羊群效應:頭羊往哪裡走,後面的羊就跟著往哪裡走。
羊群效應最早是股票投資中的一個術語,主要是指投資者在交易過程
6、刺猬法則:兩隻困倦的刺猬,由於寒冷而擁在一起。可因為各自
刺猬法則主要是指人際交往中的“心理距離效應”。
7、手錶定律:手錶定律是指一個人有一隻表時,可以知道現在是幾
手錶定律在企業管理方面給我們一種非常直觀的啟發,就是對同一個
8、破窗理論:一個房子如果窗戶破了,沒有人去修補,隔不久,其
9、二八定律(巴萊多定律):19世紀末20世紀初意大利的經濟
二八法則告訴我們,不要平均地分析、處理和看待問題,企業經營和
10、木桶理論:組成木桶的木板如果長短不齊,那麼木桶的盛水量
馬太效應
馬太效應(Matthew Effect),是指好的愈好,壞的愈壞,多的愈多,少的愈少的一種現象。來自於聖經《新約•馬太福音》中的一則寓言。1968年,美國科學史研究者羅伯特·莫頓(Robert K. Merton)提出這個術語用以概括一種社會心理現象:“相對於那些不知名的研究者,聲名顯赫的科學家通常得到更多的聲望即使他們的成就是相似的,同樣地,在同一個項目上,聲譽通常給予那些已經出名的研究者,例如,一個獎項幾乎總是授予最資深的研究者,即使所有工作都是一個研究生完成的。”
此術語後為經濟學界所借用,反映貧者愈貧,富者愈富,贏家通吃的經濟學中收入分配不公的現象。
目錄[隱藏] |
[編輯]
馬太福音中的寓言
新約全書中馬太福音第25章的寓言:天國又好比一個人要往外國去,就叫了僕人來,把他的家業交給他們。按著各人的才幹,給他們銀子。一個給了五千,一個給了二千,一個給了 一千。就往外國去了。那領五千的,隨即拿去做買賣,另外賺了五千。那領二千的,也照樣另賺了二千。但那領一千的,去掘開地,把主人的銀子埋藏了。
過了許久,那些僕人的主人來了,和他們算賬。
那領五千銀子的,又帶著那另外的五千來,說,主阿,你交給我五千銀子,請看,我又賺了五千。主人說,好,你這又良善又忠心的僕人。你在不多的事上有忠心,我把許多事派你管理。可以進來享受你主人的快樂。
那領二千的也來說,主阿,你交給我二千銀子,請看,我又賺了二千。主人說,好,你這又良善又忠心的僕人。你在不多的事上有忠心,我把許多事派你管理。可以進來享受你主人的快樂。
那領一千的,也來說,主阿,我知道你是忍心的人,沒有種的地方要收割,沒有散的地方要聚斂。我就害怕,去把你的一千銀子埋藏在地里。請 看,你的原銀在這裡。主人回答說,你這又惡又懶的僕人,你既知道我沒有種的地方要收割,沒有散的地方要聚斂。就當把我的銀子放給兌換銀錢的人,到我來的時 候,可以連本帶利收回。奪過他這一千來,交給那兩千和五千的。他們有生產的就會更多, 那沒生產的話就會拿走。
另一版本:
《新約·馬太福音》中有這樣一個故事。一個國王遠行前,交給三個僕人每人一錠銀子,吩咐他們:“你們去做生意,等我回來時,再來見 我。”國王回來時,第一個僕人說:“主人,你交給我的一錠銀子,我已賺了10錠。”於是國王獎勵了他10座城邑。第二個僕人報告說:“主人,你給我的一錠 銀子,我已賺了5錠。”於是國王便獎勵了他5座城邑。第三個僕人報告說:“主人,你給我的一錠銀子,我一直包在手巾里存著,我怕丟失,一直沒有拿出來。” 於是,國王命令將第三個僕人的那錠銀子賞給第一個僕人,並且說:“凡是少的,就連他所有的,也要奪過來。凡是多的,還要給他,叫他多多益善。”
- 貧者越貧,富者越富。
- 一步領先,步步領先;
[編輯]
馬太效應的社會現象
“馬太效應”在社會中廣泛存在,以〖經濟領域〗為例,國際上關於地區之間發展趨勢主要存在著兩種不同的觀點:一種是新古典增長理論的“趨同假說”。該假說認為,由於資本的報酬遞減規律,當發達地區出現資本報酬遞減時,資本就會流向還未出現報酬遞減的欠發達地區,其結果是發達地區的增長速度減慢,而欠發達地區的增速加快,最終導致兩類地區發達程度的趨同。另一種觀點是,當同時考慮到制度、人力資源等 因素時,往往會出現另外一種結果,即發達地區與欠發達地區之間呈現“發展趨異”的“馬太效應”。又如,人才危機將是一個世界現象,人才占有上的“馬太效 應”將更加顯現:占有人才越多的地方,對人才越有吸引力;反過來,被認可的人才越稀缺。此外,在〖科學、學術〗研究中也存在“馬太效應”,研究成果越多的 人往往越有名,越有名的人成果越多,最後就產生了學術權威。
[編輯]
股市馬太效應
股票價格水平的升降與股市的增量資金數額(新入市或出市資金)和存量資金的周轉速度成正相關關係,與股市的增量股票數額(新上市或離市股票)和存量股票的周轉速度成負相關關係。市場資金的增加和周轉速度的加快表現為需求的擴張,市場股票的增加和周轉速度的加快表現為供給的擴張。同普通商品市場一樣,在同一價格變動的調節下,股票市場的需求與供給呈逆向或不對稱性變動。同普通商品市場相反,股票市場的價格機制對需求和供給都具有一種正反饋性的激勵功能。這種價格正反饋機制總是強化著供給與需求的逆向變動趨勢,從而拉大或維持著供求不平衡關係。因此,在股票市場上,價格的上升會推動價格的上升;相反,價格的下跌則會導致價格的進一步下跌。換言之,股票市場的內在機制以一種特殊的馬太效應方式表現出來,它直接導致了股票價格背離基本價值而大升深跌、暴升暴跌。
由於馬太效應及股價的超常漲跌是股票市場內在運作規則的結果,因而它也就成為股票市場的必然的、常規性的運作形式。股票市場必然有投機、必然超常動蕩,因而股票市場永遠是一個可以博取差價的場所。
股市在經歷了一輪或強或弱的馬太式不平衡迴圈後,可能會進入另一個反向馬太迴圈過程,也可能進入暫時平衡狀態。使一輪馬太迴圈中止的原因,如果是價格升漲的中止,通常是因為後續資金量枯竭、高價位所形成的高市場風險、突發利空消息刺激和累積獲利籌碼過多等等;如果是價格下跌的中止,則多是因為價位進入投資價值區域、突發利多消息刺激、累積套牢籌碼過多過深等等。
[編輯]
品牌資本的馬太效應
1.何謂品牌資本的馬太效應品牌資本的馬太效應是指,某個行業或產業的產品或服務,品牌知名度越大,品牌的價值越高,其忠實的消費者就越多,勢必其占有的市場份額就越大。反之,某個行業或產業的產品或服務,品牌知名度越小,品牌的價值越低,其忠實的消費者就越少,勢必其占有的市場份額就越小,將導致利潤減少,被市場淘汰,其讓位的市場將會被品牌知名度高的產品或服務代替。
馬太效應(Matthew Effect),在品牌資本領域內就是普遍存在的市場現象:強者恆強,弱者恆弱,或者說,贏家通吃。
2.品牌資本馬太效實踐成功的案例
品牌資本的核心價值是標準和技術,衍生的價值為消費者對品牌的認可和品牌營銷系統的構建。
最高形態的資本是企業品牌價值;無形形態的資本是企業知識產權的價值;固化形態的資本是企業的機器設備和不動產。對於企業來講,一流企業出標準,二流企業出技術,三流企業出產品,四流企業出效益。
企業惟有藉助航空母艦般的“品牌資本”在行業中利用制訂標準和塑造企業品牌形象,才能立於不敗之地。
尤其在軟體技術、電子技術等關鍵領域,核心技術更是企業生存和發展的命脈。直至目前,一些科技發達國家及跨國公司仍憑藉對很多領域技術標準的控制,左右著產業格局的變化。因此,企業只有極力創新、參與制定具有自主知識產權的標準,占據品牌資本,才可能在自身領域占領技術制高點,獲得市場競爭優勢。
高通、微軟、日本6C聯盟都是憑藉標準制勝中國市場的典型。CDMA相關技術在高通的運作下成為其所掌握的專利和國際標準,所有生產CDMA相關通訊產品的企業都必須向高通交納CDMA的入門費和使用費,高通由此一躍成為坐擁標準、日進斗金的跨國企業。
星巴克公司品牌資本的馬太效應創造了成功的奇跡,在華爾街,星巴克早已成為投資者心目中的安全港,過去十年間,它的股價在經歷了四次分拆之後攀升了22倍,收益之高超過了通用電氣、百事可樂、可口可樂、微軟以及IBM等大公司。是什麼創造了星巴克奇跡?將星巴克一手帶大的舒爾茨回答:“我們的最大優勢就是與合作者們相互信任,關鍵問題在於我們如何在高速發展中,保持企業價值觀和指導原則的一致性。”
3.品牌資本馬太效應對營銷創新的啟示
隨著經濟全球化和我國加入WTO之後,國內企業品牌資本的構建日益迫切,企業積聚絕對優勢的品牌資本,創造持續的價值,推動整合的市場資源,形成有形和無形的巨大財富效應,對於企業來說將會在日益激烈的市場競爭中立於不敗之地。
積聚品牌資本是順應企業占領市場最高點的現實需求。品牌資本是目前全球市場消費革命的源動力,不僅涉及到生活領域,而且也涉及經濟金融領域。人們在追求生活品牌的同時,對金融也必然有品牌的要求。國內的企業如果不培育自己的品牌,將來就難以滿足這些日益高新化的需求。
積聚品牌資本是持續創造價值的核心要求。沒有價值的品牌是無源之水,無本之木,品牌只有具有無形資產價值所具有的特性如制訂標準和擁有核心的技術,品牌只有具備向有形資產可轉化的價值,品牌只有與資本進行有機的對接,形成絕對的品牌資本優勢才能為企業提供源源不斷的財富源泉。
積聚品牌資本是整合營銷,創造財富的必由之路。品牌是需要營銷的,營銷可以提升品牌的知名度。品牌的形成和確立是一個從認識到認知再到認可的過程,最後達到認同的目的。整合市場資源可以在更大範圍內營銷品牌,提升品牌的知名度。品牌資本外在的表現形式為可量化的價值,品牌資本的內在表現形式為消費者心中的接受程度和評判標準。
[編輯]
馬太效應擴展
1968年,美國科學史研究者羅伯特·莫頓(Robert K. Merton)提出這個術語用以概括一種社會心理現象:“相對於那些不知名的研究者,聲名顯赫的科學家通常得到更多的聲望即使他們的成就是相似的,同樣 地,在同一個項目上,聲譽通常給予那些已經出名的研究者,結果,研究成果越多的人往往越又名,越有名的人成果越多,最後就產生了學術權威。” 此術語後為經濟學界所借用,反映貧者愈貧,富者愈富,贏家通吃的經濟學現象。馬太效應(Matthew Effect),即社會中尤其是經濟領域內廣泛存在的一個現象:強者恆強,弱者恆弱,或者說,贏家通吃。1968年,美國科學史研究者羅伯特·莫頓 (Robert K. Merton)首次用“馬太效應”來描述這種社會心理現象。默頓,最早用這句話來概括一種社會心理效應——“對已有相當聲譽的科學家做出的貢獻給予的榮譽 越來越多,而對於那些還沒有出名的科學家則不肯承認他們的成績。”這便是“馬太效應”。社會心理學家認為,“馬太效應” 是個既有消極作用又有積極作用的社會心理現象。其消極作用是:名人與未出名者乾出同樣的成績,前者往往上級表揚,記者採訪,求教者和訪問者接踵而至,各種 桂冠也一頂接一頂地飄來,結果往往使其中一些人因沒有清醒的自我認識和沒有理智態度而居功自傲,在人生的道路上跌跟頭;而後者則無人問津,甚至還會遭受非 難和妒忌。其積極作用是:其一,可以防止社會過早地承認那些還不成熟的成果或過早地接受貌似正確的成果;其二,“馬太效應”所產生的“榮譽追加”和“榮譽 終身”等現象,對無名者有巨大的吸引力,促使無名者去奮鬥,而這種奮鬥又必須有明顯超越名人過去的成果才能獲得嚮往的榮譽。
“馬太效應”在社會中廣泛存在。以經濟領域為例,國際上關於地區之間發展趨勢主要存在著兩種不同的觀點:
一種是新古典增長理論的“趨同假說”。該假說認為,由於資本的報酬遞減規律,當發達地區出現資本報酬遞減時,資本就會流向還未出現報酬遞減的欠發達地區,其結果是發達地區的增長速度減慢,而欠發達地區的增速加快,最終導致兩類地區發達程度的趨同。
另一種觀點是,當同時考慮到制度、人力資源等因素時,往往會出現另外一種結果,即發達地區與欠發達地區之間的發展,常常會呈現“發展趨 異”的“馬太效應”。落後地區的人才會流向發達地區,落後地區的資源會廉價流向發達地區,落後地區的制度又通常不如發達地區合理,於是迴圈往複,地區差異 會越來越大。
而社會貧富差距,也會產生“馬太效應”。在股市樓市狂潮中,最賺的總是莊家,最賠的總是散戶。於是,不加以調節,普通大眾的金錢,就會通過這種形態聚集到少數人群手中,進一步加劇貧富分化。另外,由於富者通常會享受到更好的教育和發展機會,而窮者則會由於經濟原因,比富者更乏發展機遇,這也會導致富者越富,窮者越窮的“馬太效應”。
對政府而言,如何在經濟發展中避免貧富差距越拉越大的馬太效應,是一個很重要的政治課題。
[編輯]
老子提出的馬太效應
“天之道,損有餘而補不足。人之道則不然,損不足以奉有餘。孰能有餘以奉天下,唯有道者。”老子《道德經》蒼天的常理是用富餘的去補足缺失的,而人的常理卻不是,是以不足的去滿足富餘的,誰能以富餘去滿足天下,就是得道的人。
訂閱:
文章 (Atom)