【文章】Kenny Carmody - The Psychology of the Resisters: What the Obedience Experiments Never Told Us
“Every crisis reveals something about human nature. The pandemic revealed something most of us were not prepared to see, about compliance, about conscience, and about the small minority who refused.”
「每一次危機都會揭示人類本性的某些方面。 疫情揭示了一些我們大多沒有準備好看到的事情，關於服從、良知以及那小部分拒絕的人。」
連結
原文及個人翻譯
Every obedience experiment in history had the same overlooked finding.
Not everyone complied.
In Milgram’s laboratory at Yale in 1961, 65 percent of participants delivered what they believed were potentially lethal electric shocks to a stranger, simply because a man in a white coat told them to. The world remembered that number. It became the defining fact of the experiment. The evidence of how easily ordinary people could be led to do terrible things.
But 35 percent refused.
In Solomon Asch’s conformity experiments, 75 percent of participants denied obvious visual evidence at least once to match a unanimous wrong group. That number too became the headline. The proof of social pressure’s power.
But 25 percent never conformed. Not once, across any trial.
In Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment, the guards became cruel within days and the prisoners psychologically broke. That became the story ,the terrifying demonstration of how quickly roles override character.
But at least one guard refused to dehumanize. And one prisoner did something even more remarkable: he demanded a lawyer instead of a doctor, breaking the psychological frame of the entire experiment by insisting on his identity outside the role the situation had assigned him.
We spent decades studying the ones who complied.
We wrote the textbooks about them. We built the psychology curricula around them. We used their compliance as the lens through which we understood human nature under pressure.
We barely asked what made the others different.
That question matters more now than it ever has.
歷史上每一次服從實驗都存在一個被忽略的發現。 並非每個人都會服從。 1961年，在耶魯大學米爾格拉姆的實驗室中，有65%的參與者對一位陌生人施加了他們認為可能是致命的電擊，僅因為一位穿著白大褂的人告訴他們這樣做。世界記住了這個數字。它成為該實驗的定義性事實：證明普通人在多大程度上容易被引導去做可怕的事情。 但有35%的人拒絕了。 在所羅門·艾許的從眾實驗中，75%的參與者至少一次否認了明顯的視覺證據，以配合一個一致錯誤的群體。這個數字也成為了標題。這是社會壓力的力量的證明。
但有25%的人從未從眾。在任何一項試驗中，都從未如此。 在菲利普·津巴多斯坦福監獄實驗中，警衛們在幾天內變得殘酷，而囚犯則在心理上崩潰。這就是故事，一個令人恐懼的演示，說明角色如何迅速取代性格。 但至少有一名警衛拒絕去將他人非人化。而且有一名囚犯做了一件更了不起的事情：他要求見律師而不是醫生，通過堅持他在該情況賦予他的角色之外的身份，打破了整個實驗的心理框架。 我們花了幾十年研究那些服從的人。 我們撰寫了關於他們的教科書。我們以他們為中心構建了心理學課程。我們使用他們的服從作為理解人類在壓力下的本性的視角。 我們幾乎沒有問過是什麼讓其他人與眾不同。 這個問題現在比以往任何時候都更重要。
The COVID-Era Resisters Were Not Difficult to Find
They were everywhere, if you knew where to look.
Physicians who filed exemptions and lost their hospital privileges. Who prescribed early treatment protocols when the guidelines prohibited them. Who documented adverse events when the system made documentation slow, unrewarding, and professionally risky.
Nurses who walked away from careers they had spent decades building rather than administer what they could not administer with genuine informed consent. Who chose unemployment over the specific form of compliance that their conscience could not accommodate.
Scientists who published contrary data knowing exactly what it would cost them. Who submitted to the fourth journal after the third rejection. Who built independent communication channels when the institutional ones closed against them.
Parents who stood alone at school board meetings. Who read the primary literature on child COVID risk and refused to perform a fear they did not feel. Who absorbed the social judgment of their communities and kept showing up.
And ordinary people, the most important category of all, who simply said, quietly, without drama, without press coverage, without any particular reward: no.
Not as a political act. Not as ideological performance. As a private, specific, personal refusal grounded in something the system could not reach.
What made them different?
疫情時代的抵抗者並非難以尋找
如果你知道該往哪裡看，他們無處不在。 醫生們提交了豁免申請，失去了他們的醫院資格。他們在指南禁止的情況下，開具了早期治療方案。他們記錄了不良事件，但系統使得記錄變得緩慢、沒有回報，並且存在職業風險。 護士們放棄了她們花了數十年時間建立的事業，而不是提供她們無法以真正的知情同意來提供的東西。她們選擇失業，而不是接受那種良心無法容忍的特定形式的服從。 科學家們發表了相反的數據，他們清楚地知道這會給自己帶來什麼樣的代價。他們在第三次被拒絕後，提交到第四個期刊。當機構渠道對他們關閉時，他們建立了獨立的溝通渠道。
父母們獨自一人參加學區委員會會議。他們閱讀了關於兒童COVID風險的主要文獻，並拒絕表現出她們沒有感受到的恐懼。她們承受著社區的社會評判，但仍然堅持參加。 以及普通人，這是最重要的類別，她們只是默默地、平靜地、沒有戲劇性、沒有媒體報導、沒有任何特別的回報，說：「不」。 這不是一個政治行為。也不是一種意識形態表演。而是一種私人的、具體的、個人的拒絕，這種拒絕是建立在系統無法觸及的東西之上。 是什麼讓她們與眾不同？
What the Research Actually Shows
The answer is not what most people expect.
It is not personality. The resisters were not uniformly bold, extroverted, or naturally confrontational. Many described themselves as conflict-avoidant. Many complied in other areas of their lives with no particular difficulty.
It is not political affiliation. The resisters came from across the ideological spectrum. The physician who refused the mandate was not always the one whose politics made refusal ideologically convenient. Some of the most principled resisters held views that made their resistance more personally costly, not less.
It is not superior intelligence or access to better information. The most educated populations in the most information-rich environments on earth complied at rates that should make everyone humble about the relationship between knowledge and conscience.
Research consistently identifies something different. A cluster of situational and cognitive patterns. Not traits you either have or don’t. Patterns that can be cultivated, practiced, and passed on.
研究實際上顯示了什麼
答案並非大多數人所期望的。 這不是性格。抵抗者並非普遍勇敢、外向或天生具有對抗性。許多人描述自己為迴避衝突的人。在生活的其他領域，她們也毫不費力地服從。 這也不是政治傾向。抵抗者來自整個意識形態範圍。拒絕強制令的醫生，並不總是那些因為政治原因使得拒絕在意識形態上更方便的人。一些最有原則的抵抗者持有觀點，這些觀點使他們的抵抗更加個人化，而不是減少。
這也不是優越的智力或更好的信息獲取渠道。在地球上擁有最多知識和信息的地區，受過最高教育的人群以應該讓每個人都對知識與良知之間的關係感到謙卑的比率服從。 研究一致地發現了一些不同的東西：一組情境和認知模式。而不是你可能擁有的或沒有的特徵。這些是可以在培養、練習和傳播的模式。
The Four Factors That Held
First: prior reflection on authority.
The resisters had usually thought, before the crisis, in the ordinary time when thinking was possible and the cost was low, about the limits of institutional trust.
They were not cynics. Cynicism is a passive position. It requires nothing and produces nothing.
They were people who had genuinely asked themselves, at some earlier point: under what conditions would I refuse? What would an institution have to ask of me before I said no? Where are my actual lines?
The person who has answered that question in advance arrives at the moment of institutional demand with something the unprepared person does not have. A pre-formed position. A decision already made in conditions of lower pressure that does not have to be constructed from scratch under the full weight of social and professional consequence.
The Milgram subjects who refused most readily were not more virtuous. They had simply thought about authority before they were inside the experiment.
支撐抵抗者的四個因素
第一：對權威的先前反思。 在危機爆發之前，抵抗者通常會在普通時間裡思考，也就是在思考成為可能且成本較低的時候，關於機構信任的界限。 她們並非憤世嫉俗的人。憤世嫉俗是一種被動的姿態。它不需要任何東西，也不會產生任何東西。 她們是那些真正問過自己問題的人：在什麼條件下我會拒絕？一個機構必須要求我做什麼，我才會說「不」？我的底線在哪裡？ 那些已經提前回答了這個問題的人，在機構提出要求時，擁有的是未準備好的人所沒有的東西。一種預先形成的立場。一種在壓力較小的條件下已經做出的決定，而無需在社會和職業後果的全面影響下從頭開始構建。 在米爾格拉姆實驗中，最容易拒絕的人並非更具美德。她們只是在進入實驗之前就思考過權威。
Second: a concrete reference point outside the consensus.
Every resister who held had something the system could not reach.
For some it was a professional oath, the specific, written, historically grounded commitment to the patient’s wellbeing and genuine informed consent that existed independently of any employer, any guideline, any regulatory body.
For some it was a religious or philosophical conviction that located ultimate moral authority somewhere other than institutional endorsement.
For some it was a relationship, a specific person whose trust and respect mattered more than the approval of the consensus. A mentor. A patient. A child watching what they would choose.
For some it was simply a fact, a clinical observation, a data point, a piece of primary evidence, that they had read themselves, understood themselves, and could not unfind regardless of what the official narrative required them to believe.
The system is very good at replacing your external reference points with its own. At redefining what counts as evidence. At delegitimizing the sources you trusted. At making the fact you observed with your own eyes feel less real than the consensus that says it didn’t happen.
The resister had an anchor point the system could not move.
Identify yours now. Before you need it.
第二：一個超出共識的具體參考點。 每個堅持抵抗的人都擁有系統無法觸及的東西。 對於一些人來說，這是一項職業誓言，一種特定的、書面的、具有歷史淵源的對患者福祉和真正知情同意的承諾，這種承諾獨立於任何雇主、任何指南或任何監管機構。 對於一些人來說，這是一種宗教或哲學信念，認為最終的道德權威存在於機構認可之外的地方。 對於一些人來說，這是一段關係，是一個特定的對象，她們的信任和尊重比共識的認可更重要。一位導師。一位患者。一個孩子在觀察她們會做出什麼選擇。 對於一些人來說，只是一項事實，一種臨床觀察，一個數據點，一段他們自己閱讀過的、自己理解過的原始證據，無論官方敘事要求他們相信什麼，他們都無法否認它。 系統非常擅長用自己的參考點取代你的外部參考點。擅長重新定義什麼是證據。擅長使你信任的來源失去合法性。擅長讓你親眼觀察到的事實感覺不如共識所說的那樣真實，即它沒有發生。 抵抗者擁有一個系統無法移動的錨定點。 現在就找到屬於你的錨定點。在你需要它之前。
Third: at least one other person.
This finding from Milgram is so important it cannot be overstated.
When a single confederate in the experiment refused to continue, when one person visibly dissented from the unanimous pressure to comply, compliance rates dropped from 65 percent to 10 percent.
One person.
The resisters of the COVID era were not, in the main, isolated individuals operating on pure individual conviction. They found each other. Through informal networks, through the early independent publications, through the quiet professional conversations that preceded any public visibility. Through Signal groups and private email chains and the specific relief of discovering that the person you thought was alone in seeing clearly had been looking for you too.
What they gave each other was not information, primarily. It was the one thing that social pressure most systematically removes: the confirmation that their perception was real. That what they were seeing was actually there. That they were not, as the consensus pressure was designed to make them feel, simply confused or misinformed or mentally unwell.
Permission. That is the word the resisters use most consistently.
They gave each other permission to keep seeing what they were seeing.
You do not need a movement. You need one person. The right person, found before the pressure peaks. Build that relationship now.
第三：至少一個人。 來自米爾格拉姆實驗的這一發現非常重要，不容誇大其詞。 當實驗中的一個同夥拒絕繼續時，當一個人明顯地反對遵守的普遍壓力時，服從率從 65% 下降到 10%。 僅僅一個人。 COVID 時代的抵抗者並非主要由獨立運作、完全基於個人信念的個體組成。她們互相找到了彼此。通過非正式網絡，通過早期的獨立出版物，通過在任何公開曝光之前發生的私下專業對話。通過 Signal 群組和私人電子郵件鏈，以及發現你認為是唯一一個看清真相的人也在尋找你的這種特殊的安慰感。 她們主要給予彼此的並不是信息。而是社會壓力系統性地消除的那件事：確認她們的感知是真實的。她們所看到的是真的。她們沒有像共識壓力設計的那樣，只是感到困惑、誤導或精神不佳。 許可。這是抵抗者最一致使用的詞語。 她們給彼此許可，繼續看到她們所看到的。 你不需要一個運動。你只需要一個人。在壓力達到頂峰之前找到合適的人。現在就建立這種關係。
Fourth: the willingness to tolerate social pain.
Not immunity to it. Not indifference to exclusion and judgment and the specific grief of watching relationships change because of what you would not pretend to believe.
Tolerance.
The resisters felt the pressure. Every one of them. The family dinners that became arguments. The colleagues who stopped including them. The professional communities that closed. The specific loneliness of holding a position that the people around you had decided was not just wrong but dangerous.
They felt it and they kept going.
Not because they had found a way to make it not hurt. Because they had decided, at some level of consciousness that was more fundamental than the social pain, that the alternative hurt more.
The alternative was not comfort. It was moral injury. The specific, corrosive, long-accumulating damage of acting against your own ethical standards. Of looking back at the record of your choices and finding a person you did not choose to be.
The social pain of resistance is acute, visible, and time-limited.
The moral injury of complicity is chronic, hidden, and compounds across years.
The resisters had done the mathematics. Often without being able to articulate it explicitly. They had simply understood, somewhere below the level of verbal reasoning, that one of those costs was survivable and the other was not.
第四：願意承受社會痛苦。 並非對其免疫。也不是對排斥、評判以及目睹關係因為你拒絕假裝相信的事情而改變所產生的特定悲傷感到漠不關心。 忍耐。 抵抗者感受到了壓力。她們中的每一個都感受到了。家庭聚餐變成爭吵。同事不再邀請她們參加活動。專業社群關閉了。持有周圍的人認為不僅錯誤而且危險的立場所帶來的特定孤獨感。 她們感受到了這些，並且繼續前進。 並非因為她們找到了一種方法來讓它不再痛苦。而是因為她們在某種意識層面上，比社會痛苦更根本的層面，決定了替代方案會帶來更大的痛苦。 替代方案不是舒適。而是道德傷害。是違反自己倫理標準所造成的、具體的、腐蝕性的、長期累積的損害。回顧自己的選擇記錄，發現自己變成了一個不想成為的人。 抵抗所帶來的社會痛苦是尖銳的、可見的，並且是時間有限的。 同流合污所導致的道德傷害是慢性、隱藏的，並且在多年中不斷累積。 抵抗者們進行了計算。通常是在無法明確表達的情況下。她們只是在語言推理水平以下，理解到其中一種成本是可以承受的，而另一種則不行。
What We Missed: The Deeper Formation
These four factors are the surface structure of resistance. Beneath them is something that takes longer to build and matters more.
The resisters were not made in 2020. They were made decades earlier. In the specific early experiences that produce people capable of disagreeing with authority without destruction. In the books that gave them pattern literacy, the Bible, Jung, Solzhenitsyn, Arendt, Frankl, the history of institutional failure, before anyone was asking them to use it. In the small daily practices of honest disagreement that built the muscle before the weight became serious.
The childhood of the resister is recognizable. At least one adult who modeled principled disagreement. Permission to lose arguments and to win them. Some early experience of institutional error that established, without producing cynicism, that authority and truth are not the same thing.
The reading life of the resister is recognizable. Wide. Across traditions. Deeply historical. The kind of reading that produces what psychologists call integrative complexity, the capacity to hold multiple frameworks simultaneously and recognize a pattern across different contexts and different eras.
The linguistic practice of the resister is recognizable. Precise language. A refusal to adopt institutional vocabulary wholesale. The understanding that the word you accept carries the framework attached to it, and that the framework determines what you can think.
None of this is innate. All of it is transmissible.
我們錯過了什麼：更深層次的塑造
這四個因素是抵抗的表面結構。在它們之下，存在著一些需要更長時間來建立，並且更加重要的東西。 抵抗者並非在 2020 年被塑造出來的。她們是在幾十年之前被塑造出來的。是在那些具體的早期經歷中，這些經歷培養出能夠在不造成破壞的情況下與權威意見相左的人。在那些賦予她們模式識別能力的書籍中：《聖經》、《榮格》、《索爾仁尼琴》、《阿倫特》、《弗蘭克》、關於機構失敗的歷史，在沒有人要求她們使用這些知識之前。在那些建立起基礎的小而日常的誠實反對練習中，以便當負擔變得嚴峻時，能夠承受。
抵抗者的童年是可辨認的。至少有一個成年人以原則性反對為榜樣。允許她們輸掉爭論，也允許她們贏得爭論。一些早期的機構錯誤經驗，在沒有產生犬儒主義的情況下，確立了權威和真相不是同一回事。 抵抗者的閱讀生活是可辨認的。廣泛的。跨越不同的傳統。深入的研究歷史。這種閱讀方式會培養心理學家所說的整合複雜性，即同時持有多種框架的能力，並在不同的背景和不同時代識別出模式。 抵抗者的語言習慣是可辨認的。精確的語言。拒絕整體採用機構詞彙。理解你接受的詞語承載著附帶的框架，而這個框架決定了你可以思考什麼。 這些都不是天生的。所有這些都可以傳播。
The Forward-Looking Question
The most important contribution the resisters made was not their resistance.
It was the proof that resistance was possible.
In every major obedience and conformity experiment, the resisters demonstrated something that the study of the compliant majority could never establish: that the situation did not determine the outcome. That the psychological and structural forces producing compliance were powerful but not total. That conscience, under sufficient preparation, could hold.
That proof is not a comfort. It is a responsibility.
Because the mechanisms that produced compliance at the scale we witnessed are documented, replicable, and already being refined. The emergency authorization frameworks remain in place. The surveillance infrastructure has been maintained. The psychological techniques for fear amplification, consensus manufacture, and the systematic targeting of individual judgment have been recorded and will be studied.
The next test is already being designed.
The question is not whether it will come.
The question is who will be ready when it does.
The answer to that question is being built right now. In the children watching what the adults around them choose. In the medical students being trained, or not trained, to exercise independent clinical judgment under institutional pressure. In the slow, private, unspectacular daily choices that build or erode the capacity for independent conscience.
The resister is not born. They are built.
面向未來的問題
抵抗者所做的最重要貢獻並非他們的抵抗本身。 而是證明了抵抗是可能的。 在每一個主要的服從和順從實驗中，抵抗者們展示了一件事，而研究順從的大多數人永遠無法證明：情況並不能決定結果。產生順從的心理和結構力量是強大的，但並非絕對。只要經過充分準備，良知就能堅持下去。 這種證明並不能帶來安慰。它是一種責任。 因為產生大規模順從的機制已經被記錄下來，可以複製，並且正在不斷完善。緊急授權框架仍然存在。監控基礎設施已經維持。用於放大恐懼、製造共識以及系統性針對個人判斷的心理技術已被記錄，並將會被研究。
下一個測試已經在設計中。 問題不在於它是否會到來。 問題是誰會在它到來時做好準備。 這個問題的答案正在現在被建立起來。在孩子們觀察著他們周圍的成年人所做出的選擇。在醫學生接受或未接受培訓，以在機構壓力下行使獨立的臨床判斷。在那些緩慢、私密、不引人注目的日常選擇中，這些選擇會建立或侵蝕獨立良知的能力。 抵抗者並非天生就有的。她們是被培養出來的。
What to Build
Five things. Specific. Available now.
Read the history of institutional failure. Not to produce distrust but to produce calibration. Thalidomide. Tuskegee. The tobacco science. The suppression of lead’s neurological damage. The Vioxx scandal. The history of times when the expert consensus was wrong, captured, and costly — and the timeline on which it was corrected. This is not cynicism. It is the most practically useful knowledge available to anyone who will ever be asked to trust an institution.
Practice disagreement in low-stakes situations. Moral courage is a muscle. It is built by the small daily decisions — the minor expressed uncertainty, the gentle public correction, the private document that records what you actually observed — that cost something modest and strengthen the capacity for when the cost becomes serious.
Find your anchor point. The value, the principle, the person, the oath, the fact that exists independently of any institutional consensus and cannot be moved by social pressure. Name it explicitly. Write it down. Know what it is before you are inside the situation that will test it.
Build the network before you need it. The one person, or the small group, who shares the commitment to honest evaluation and will hold that commitment alongside you when the social cost of maintaining it becomes serious. Not a team defined by opposition. A community defined by the shared practice of genuine inquiry.
Teach all of this explicitly. To your children. To your students. To anyone you mentor or influence. Not as ideology but as psychological preparation. The naming of the mechanisms. The history of how they operate. The specific, cultivable patterns that allowed the 35 percent to hold when the 65 percent could not.
我們需要建立的
五件事。具體的。現在就可以做到。
閱讀機構失敗的歷史。不是為了產生不信任感，而是為了校準判斷力。塔利多米德事件、圖斯基吉事件、菸草科學研究、鉛對神經系統造成的損害被掩蓋、威卓思醜聞。研究那些專家共識錯誤、受到操控且造成損失的時期，以及這些錯誤被糾正的時間線。這不是犬儒主義。這是所有未來可能需要信任機構的人所能獲得的最實用知識。
在低風險的情況下練習反對。道德勇氣是一種肌肉。它是由每天的小決定建立起來的——輕微的不確定表達、溫和的公開更正、記錄你實際觀察到的私人文件——這些決定只會帶來適當的成本，並增強了在成本變得嚴峻時的承受能力。
找到你的錨點。價值觀、原則、人物、誓言、獨立於任何機構共識且無法被社會壓力所動搖的事物。明確地命名它。寫下來。在你身處需要驗證它的情況之前，先知道它是什麼。
在需要它之前建立網絡。是那個人，或者那個小團體，他們與你分享對誠實評估的承諾，並且會在維持這種承諾的社會成本變得嚴峻時，與你一同堅持下去。這不是一個由反對定義的團隊，而是一個由真誠探究的共同練習所定義的社群。
明確地教導所有這些知識。給你的孩子、你的學生、以及任何你指導或影響的人。不要把它當作意識形態，而是作為心理準備。命名這些機制。研究它們運作的方式。那些可以培養並使 35% 的人能夠堅持下去，而 65% 的人無法堅持的具體模式。
The Final Thing
Milgram, Asch, and Zimbardo did not teach us that human beings are weak.
They taught us something more precise and more useful.
That conscience, under sufficient situational pressure, requires active preparation to hold. That the person who has reflected on authority before the crisis, found an anchor outside the consensus, located one other person willing to hold their position alongside them, and practiced the tolerance of social pain, that person is not exceptional.
They are prepared.
And preparation is available to everyone reading this.
The experiment is always running.
The only question is whether you are building the conscience that can hold, or waiting to discover, under pressure, whether the one you have is enough.
Build it now.
Before the music starts.
最後一件事
米爾格拉姆、艾許和辛巴多並不是教導我們人類是脆弱的。 他們教導了我們更精確且更有用的東西。 那就是，在足夠的情境壓力下，良知需要積極的準備才能堅持下去。那些在危機發生之前就已經思考過權威的人，找到了獨立於共識之外的錨點，找到了另一個人願意與他們一同堅守立場，並且練習了承受社會壓力的能力的人，並非是特別的人。 他們只是做好了準備。 而這種準備對於閱讀這篇文章的所有人都唾手可得。 實驗始終在進行中。 唯一的問題是，你是在建立能夠堅持的良知，還是在等待壓力來襲時，去發現你現有的良知是否足夠。 現在就開始建立它。 在音樂開始之前。