主题：纽约时报：中国人为什么假唱 -- 踏翅

呵呵，不好意思，如果你点进来了，我先向你认个错，标题是我自己起的，纯粹的标题党、赚眼球：）

不过，说实话，现在大家对双簧这个事情这么关注，原因的根源说起来还就是下面说这个东东：有人见不得全体中国人齐心合力一起做件好事儿。

原文：

====================================

纽约时报：集体主义中国和个人主义美国

　　可以用很多方式划分世界——富与贫、民主与专制等，但最惊人的分歧是个人主义心态社会与集体主义心态社会之间的分歧。

　　这种分歧比经济更加深入人们对世界的认知。如果你向美国人展示鱼缸图片，美国人通常会描述缸里最大的那条鱼以及它在做什么。如果你让一个中国人描述一个鱼缸，中国人通常会描述这条鱼的周围环境（context）。

　　这类试验已经进行过多次，结果显示同样的潜在格局。美国人通常看到个体；中国人和其他亚洲人看到周围环境。

　　当心理学家尼斯贝（Richard Nisbett）向美国人展示一只鸡、一头牛和干草的图片，让他们挑出两张一起的照片，美国人通常会选出鸡和牛。它们都是动物。而大多数的亚洲人会挑出牛和干草，因为牛需要吃草。美国人更倾向于看到类别。亚洲人更倾向于看到关系。

　　你可以把最个人主义的社会（例如美国和英国）归为一个集合，把最集体主义的社会（如中国和日本）归为另一个集合。

　　个人主义国家往往把权利和隐私摆在首位。这些社会当中的人往往高估自己的技能，高估自己对任何集体工作的重要性。集体主义社会的人们往往重视和谐与责任。他们往往低估自己的技能，而且在描述他们对集体工作的贡献时往往很谦卑。

　研究人员争论某种文化为何比别的文化更个人主义的原因。有人认为西方文化的价值观来源于古希腊，强调个人英雄主义，而其他文化则院子部落哲学。最近，有

科学家建立一种理论，认为所有一切都可以追溯到微生物。集体主义社会往往出现在地球上某些有大量致病微生物的地方，特别是在赤道周围。在这样的环境下，你

就要避开外来人（他们可能带来奇怪的疾病），并在饮食礼仪和社会行为方面取得某种一致性。

　　无论如何，个人主义社会在经济方面往往做得更好。我们西方人的叙事往往涉及文艺复兴和启蒙运动时期以及随后的资本主义繁荣时期的个人理性与良心的发展。根据这种叙事，社会越发展，个人主义就越盛。

　　但如果集体主义社会迅速走出经济停滞呢？如果集体主义社会（特别是亚洲的）在经济上崛起并与西方抗衡呢？一种新类型的全球会话逐步显现。

　　北京的开幕式就是那种会话的声明。中国主张发展不只可以通过西方的、自由主义的方式取得，还可以通过东方的、集体主义的方式取得。北京的开幕式就是这种主张的一个组成部分。

　这个开幕式提取自中国悠久的历史，但最突出的特点是成千上万的中国人像一个人一样行动——像一个人一样击鼓，像一个人一样起舞，按照精确的编队疾走而不

会绊倒或者冲撞。我们以前也曾经看过集体一致性的展示，但这是目前的集体主义——和谐社会的高科技版本，背景是中国奇迹般的增长。

　　如果亚洲的成就重新激发个人主义与集体主义之争（在冷战之后这种争论似乎结束了），那么个人主义的力量不大可能大胜，甚至不大可能取得优势。

　　一方面，地球上的个人主义社会相对少。另一方面，很多最新的科学研究的要点就是：西方的个人主义选择理想是一种错觉，中国人首先强调社会环境是正确的。

　科学家欣喜地展示所谓的理性选择是由一整套的潜意识影响塑造的，例如情绪的感染以及启动效应（priming

effect，如在测试之前想起教授的人会比想起罪犯的人取得较好的成绩）。与此同时，人类的大脑非常有浸透性（它们自然地模仿周围人的神经放电）。关系

是幸福的关键。生活在稠密社会网络中的人们往往蓬勃发展，而那些没有多少社会联系的人则更容易患抑郁症和自杀。

　　中国的崛起不仅仅是经济事件。它还是文化事件。和谐集体的理想可能变得像“美国梦”理想那样有吸引力。

　　对有抱负的独裁者而言，这肯定是一种有用的意识形态。（原标题：和谐与梦；作者：DAVID BROOKS）

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/12/opinion/12brooks.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Harmony and the Dream

By DAVID BROOKS

Published: August 11, 2008

Chengdu, China

The world can be divided in many ways — rich and poor, democratic and authoritarian — but one of the most striking is the divide between the societies with an individualist mentality and the ones with a collectivist mentality.

This is a divide that goes deeper than economics into the way people perceive the world. If you show an American an image of a fish tank, the American will usually describe the biggest fish in the tank and what it is doing. If you ask a Chinese person to describe a fish tank, the Chinese will usually describe the context in which the fish swim.

These sorts of experiments have been done over and over again, and the results reveal the same underlying pattern. Americans usually see individuals; Chinese and other Asians see contexts.

When the psychologist Richard Nisbett showed Americans individual pictures of a chicken, a cow and hay and asked the subjects to pick out the two that go together, the Americans would usually pick out the chicken and the cow. They’re both animals. Most Asian people, on the other hand, would pick out the cow and the hay, since cows depend on hay. Americans are more likely to see categories. Asians are more likely to see relationships.

You can create a global continuum with the most individualistic societies — like the United States or Britain — on one end, and the most collectivist societies — like China or Japan — on the other.

The individualistic countries tend to put rights and privacy first. People in these societies tend to overvalue their own skills and overestimate their own importance to any group effort. People in collective societies tend to value harmony and duty. They tend to underestimate their own skills and are more self-effacing when describing their contributions to group efforts.

Researchers argue about why certain cultures have become more individualistic than others. Some say that Western cultures draw their values from ancient Greece, with its emphasis on individual heroism, while other cultures draw on more on tribal philosophies. Recently, some scientists have theorized that it all goes back to microbes. Collectivist societies tend to pop up in parts of the world, especially around the equator, with plenty of disease-causing microbes. In such an environment, you’d want to shun outsiders, who might bring strange diseases, and enforce a certain conformity over eating rituals and social behavior.

Either way, individualistic societies have tended to do better economically. We in the West have a narrative that involves the development of individual reason and conscience during the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, and then the subsequent flourishing of capitalism. According to this narrative, societies get more individualistic as they develop.

But what happens if collectivist societies snap out of their economic stagnation? What happens if collectivist societies, especially those in Asia, rise economically and come to rival the West? A new sort of global conversation develops.

The opening ceremony in Beijing was a statement in that conversation. It was part of China’s assertion that development doesn’t come only through Western, liberal means, but also through Eastern and collective ones.

The ceremony drew from China’s long history, but surely the most striking features were the images of thousands of Chinese moving as one — drumming as one, dancing as one, sprinting on precise formations without ever stumbling or colliding. We’ve seen displays of mass conformity before, but this was collectivism of the present — a high-tech vision of the harmonious society performed in the context of China’s miraculous growth.

If Asia’s success reopens the debate between individualism and collectivism (which seemed closed after the cold war), then it’s unlikely that the forces of individualism will sweep the field or even gain an edge.

For one thing, there are relatively few individualistic societies on earth. For another, the essence of a lot of the latest scientific research is that the Western idea of individual choice is an illusion and the Chinese are right to put first emphasis on social contexts.

Scientists have delighted to show that so-called rational choice is shaped by a whole range of subconscious influences, like emotional contagions and priming effects (people who think of a professor before taking a test do better than people who think of a criminal). Meanwhile, human brains turn out to be extremely permeable (they naturally mimic the neural firings of people around them). Relationships are the key to happiness. People who live in the densest social networks tend to flourish, while people who live with few social bonds are much more prone to depression and suicide.

The rise of China isn’t only an economic event. It’s a cultural one. The ideal of a harmonious collective may turn out to be as attractive as the ideal of the American Dream.

It’s certainly a useful ideology for aspiring autocrats.

============================

如果你看到了这，呵呵，我就再说两句：

整篇文章的感觉都不错，虽然最后一句话露出了尾巴，但这位兄弟还是说出了一个关键事实：对于什么是“好”的定义，要变了，以前的定义权属于老美，从今以后，中国人要来抢这个定义权了。

• 【原创】抗战胜利纪念日，奥运和其他
• 诗蛮有意境的。