这个翻译过来的小册子侧重于性安全。我觉得不少观点都是从性安全的基点出发的。尽管如此，写这些东西的人对同志生活中面临的问题比我们要了解得多，而且这些观点必是经过仔细考量才写进宣传册子里的，所以我觉得他们的观点还是有不少的参考价值。
前段时间论坛里面的大辩论也让我也有了一些自己的思考，但始终有些东西也还没有理顺。也许联合国的这些立场能让我的想法更进一步。比如我本来对于隐瞒自己的性倾向而结婚持鄙视态度的。但这个小册子里并没有。尽管如此，这里秉承了尊重个人对自己生活方式的选择，讲究负责任的原则（尤其是性安全）。Six feet under里面开始就死去的Nathaniel Fisher (父亲)也瞒着妻子有外遇，而妻子则在毫不知情的情况下过着幸福的生活。如果你朋友中有这样的人，你原谅和尊重他呢？还是谴责他？尊重他的法理基础是什么，而谴责他的呢？
当然，一个小团体未必要欢迎所有应该受到尊重的人，在不欢迎的人当中有些也应当得到我们的尊重。两者均应界定清楚。
小册子地址在此。感兴趣的部分摘要如下。
我交了男朋友，我应该从此对他专一吗？
这要看你们是什么情况了，你应该和他讨论一下。他是否希望对你专一？你呢？你们应该坦率地谈论此事，需要为彼此的关系定出明确的规则。可供选择的空间很大，每一对伴侣必须决定什么是对他们最好的，并达成共识。有些人会协议对彼此专一，而另外一些人则同意除了不能与其他人肛交意外，可以与其他人发生性行为。你们需要在什么算是“性行为"上达成公式--是否包括口交？手交呢？这个问题的决定应该由双方来做，无论你们的决定是什么，双方都应该充分知情。如果你单方面地作出决定却瞒着你的伴侣，是可能造成高危性行为的。
什么是开放式的爱情关系？
有的人会选择开放式的爱情关系，即伴侣双方都可以与其他人发生性关系。他们认为”性是性，爱是爱”--或者说，与其他人发生性关系并不会影响两人间的感情。但实际上，性伴侣变为爱情的对象也是完全有可能发生的，这将给你和你的男朋友带来困扰，而与别人发生性关系，也可能导致伴侣之间的嫉妒或“竞争”。但反过来说，有时候给与对方性自由能使你们的关系更长久。
还有，处在开放式爱性关系中的人通常能够保证一直使用安全套，而其他对于一对一关系中的人则往往会不再使用套--如果期中一方秘密地与他人发生没有保护措施的性关系，可能会带来风险。
一段爱情关系是否开放，并没有单一的标准。这取决于当事人本身，取决于他们希望从彼此哪里获得什么，想要过怎样的生活。
我有一个女朋友，但我更喜欢男人，我应该和她分手吗？
如果你交女朋友是为了满足社会或父母的期待，那么你应该考虑你将来会给女朋友带来的悲伤和痛苦--尤其是当你无法停止与男人发生性关系的情况下。
不少男男性接触者选择结婚，一方面做住家男人，另一方面继续和男性发生性关系。这样做的人一部分生活满意，另一部分人离婚收场，而且面临着各种问题，尤其是如果生了孩子的话。
你应该仔细考虑你的各种选择：你可以继续单身吗？你可以选择一个同性伴侣吗？可以和女友谈论你的性倾向吗？有没有可能根本就不和女人结婚？这个问题同样没有唯一的最佳答案。
我的女朋友或妻子并不知道我喜欢男人，我该告诉她吗？
如果你与男性进行没有保护的性行为，同事又与妻子或女朋友性交，你可能会将性病或HIV传染给她。这也是一些男男性接触者感到他们应该告诉妻子自己不专一原因所在--他们可以不说自己的婚外性伙伴是男是女，让妻子一位也是女人。
如果你和男性发生性关系时恪守性安全，而你的妻子会因为你是男男性接触者而不快乐的话，也许不告诉她才是较好的选择。
就像本章谈及的大部分问题一样，这些都得由各人自己决定，没有适合一切人的解决方法。
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Friday, October 19, 2007
几种偏见
作为同志我们不得不经常面对偏见。几乎所有的同志都可以拿自己的经历来证明别人是对同志有偏见的，但我们往往在反对别人的偏见的同时，不知不觉中也把偏见加于别的同志，甚至不知不觉的加到自己身上（比如内化的恐同心理, internalized homophobia）。其实偏见在人的认知中极为普遍，就连一些最有智慧的伟人都可能逃不过某些偏见。我发现我经常会想起前面心理学有关偏见的常见原因的总结。这些简短的总结对我来说还是很有启发性的。我觉得我有必要不断的拿他们来提醒自己。为此，把他们单独摘在这儿，翻译一下。
(1) 幼稚地认为认知是客观的: 错误的认为客观世界跟我们所认知的一样。这种想法往往导致这样一个推断：因为我们对这个世界的认识是客观的，任何跟我意见向左的人则必然是愚蠢的，不理性的，或是别有用心的(Pronin, Puccio, & Ross, 2002)。
(2) 偏见的自我盲区(“not me” bias): 尽管我们意识到别人会有偏见，却常常不自觉的假定自己没有偏见(Pronin, Gilovich, & Ross, 2004)
(3) 见自己所想见，听自己所想听：人往往倾向于选择性的注意到跟自己观点一致的证据和信息，忽略、轻视和曲解跟自己观点不一致的证据和信息。
(1) 幼稚地认为认知是客观的: 错误的认为客观世界跟我们所认知的一样。这种想法往往导致这样一个推断：因为我们对这个世界的认识是客观的，任何跟我意见向左的人则必然是愚蠢的，不理性的，或是别有用心的(Pronin, Puccio, & Ross, 2002)。
(2) 偏见的自我盲区(“not me” bias): 尽管我们意识到别人会有偏见，却常常不自觉的假定自己没有偏见(Pronin, Gilovich, & Ross, 2004)
(3) 见自己所想见，听自己所想听：人往往倾向于选择性的注意到跟自己观点一致的证据和信息，忽略、轻视和曲解跟自己观点不一致的证据和信息。
Friday, October 5, 2007
ZT: Can psychology save the world?
This may at first seems irrelevant to the gay theme that i try to organize around in this blog. But i found this points exactly to the difficulty of correcting a biased mind, ourselves included.
source can be found here
Scott Lilienfeld: "The most important psychology experiment that’s never been done would determine whether psychology can save the world.
Premise #1: The greatest threat to the world is ideological fanaticism. By ideological fanaticism, I mean the unshakeable conviction that one’s belief system and that of other in-group members is always right and righteous, and that others’ belief systems are always wrong and wrongheaded – even to the point that others who hold them must be eliminated. Contra Hitchens (2007), religion per se is not a threat to the world, although certain religious beliefs can provide the scaffolding for ideological fanaticism, as we can see in the contemporary wave of Islamic extremism. As many historians have observed, the three most deadly political movements of the 20th century - Hitler’s Nazism, Mao Tse-Tung’s cultural revolution, and Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge - were largely or entirely secular. What unites all of these movements, including Islamic extremism, is the deeply entrenched belief that one’s enemies are not merely misguided, but so profoundly misguided that they are wicked and must be liquidated.
Premise # 2. Biased thinking is a necessary, although not sufficient, condition for ideological fanaticism. Among the most malignant biases, and those most relevant to ideological fanaticism, are: (1) Naïve realism: the erroneous belief that the world is precisely as we
see it (Ross & Ward, 1996). Naïve realism in turn often leads to the assumption that “because I perceive reality objectively, others who disagree with me must be foolish, irrational, or evil” (see Pronin, Puccio, & Ross, 2002); (2) Bias blind spot (“not me” bias): the erroneous belief that we are not biased, although others are (Pronin, Gilovich, & Ross, 2004); and (3) Confirmation bias: the tendency to selectively seek out information consistent with one’s beliefs and to ignore, minimize, or distort information that that is not (Nickerson, 1998).
Premise # 3: Critical thinking is the most effective (partial) antidote against ideological fanaticism. By critical thinking, I mean thinking designed to overcome one’s biases, especially the three aforementioned biases.
Regrettably, malignant biases in thinking are virtually never addressed explicitly or even implicitly in educational curricula, which is troubling given that so much of everyday life - left-wing political blogs, right-wing political talk radio, political book buying habits (Krebs, 2007), ad infinitum - reinforce them. Moreover, our selection of friends can generate not only communal reinforcement for our biases (Carroll, 2003), but the erroneous belief that our views are shared by most or all other reasonable people (i.e., a false consensus effect; Ross, Greene, & House, 1977). In some Islamic countries, of course, much of the educational curriculum comprises indoctrination into a cultural and religious worldview that implies that one’s enemies are mistaken, blasphemous, and despicable. In the United States, some social critics (e.g., Bloom, 1987; Horowitz, 2007) have charged that the higher educational system typically engenders an insidious indoctrination into left-wing ideology. The merits of these arguments aside, it is undeniable that even among highly educated individuals (a group that includes many or most terrorists; Sageman, 2004), the capacity to appreciate views other than one’s own is hardly normative.
So, the most important psychological experiment never done would (1) begin with the construction of a comprehensive evidence-based educational programme of debiasing children and adolescents in multiple countries against malignant biases, (2) randomly assign some students to receive this program and others to receive standard educational curricula, and (3) measure the long-term effects of this debiasing program on well-validated attitudinal and behavioural measures of ideological fanaticism. To some extent, the goal of this program would be to inculcate not merely knowledge but wisdom (Sternberg, 2001), particularly aspects of wisdom that necessitate an awareness of one’s biases and limitations, and the capacity to recognize the merits of differing viewpoints (e.g., Meacham, 1990 see p.181-211 here).
The greatest obstacle to conducting this experiment, aside from the sheer pragmatic difficulty of administering a large scale curriculum across multiple countries, is the surprising paucity of research on effective debiasing strategies. Nevertheless, at least some controlled research suggests that encouraging individuals to seriously entertain viewpoints other than their own (e.g., “considering the opposite”) can partly immunize them against confirmation bias and related biases (Kray & Galinsky, 2003; Wilson, Centerbar, & Brekke, 2002). Whether such educational debiasing efforts, implemented on a massive scale, would help to inoculate future generations against ideological fanaticism, is unknown. But launching such an endeavor by conducting small-scale pilot studies would seem to be a worthwhile starting point."
--
Dr Scott O Lilienfeld is Professor of Psychology, Emory University, Atlanta.
source can be found here
Scott Lilienfeld: "The most important psychology experiment that’s never been done would determine whether psychology can save the world.
Premise #1: The greatest threat to the world is ideological fanaticism. By ideological fanaticism, I mean the unshakeable conviction that one’s belief system and that of other in-group members is always right and righteous, and that others’ belief systems are always wrong and wrongheaded – even to the point that others who hold them must be eliminated. Contra Hitchens (2007), religion per se is not a threat to the world, although certain religious beliefs can provide the scaffolding for ideological fanaticism, as we can see in the contemporary wave of Islamic extremism. As many historians have observed, the three most deadly political movements of the 20th century - Hitler’s Nazism, Mao Tse-Tung’s cultural revolution, and Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge - were largely or entirely secular. What unites all of these movements, including Islamic extremism, is the deeply entrenched belief that one’s enemies are not merely misguided, but so profoundly misguided that they are wicked and must be liquidated.
Premise # 2. Biased thinking is a necessary, although not sufficient, condition for ideological fanaticism. Among the most malignant biases, and those most relevant to ideological fanaticism, are: (1) Naïve realism: the erroneous belief that the world is precisely as we
see it (Ross & Ward, 1996). Naïve realism in turn often leads to the assumption that “because I perceive reality objectively, others who disagree with me must be foolish, irrational, or evil” (see Pronin, Puccio, & Ross, 2002); (2) Bias blind spot (“not me” bias): the erroneous belief that we are not biased, although others are (Pronin, Gilovich, & Ross, 2004); and (3) Confirmation bias: the tendency to selectively seek out information consistent with one’s beliefs and to ignore, minimize, or distort information that that is not (Nickerson, 1998).
Premise # 3: Critical thinking is the most effective (partial) antidote against ideological fanaticism. By critical thinking, I mean thinking designed to overcome one’s biases, especially the three aforementioned biases.
Regrettably, malignant biases in thinking are virtually never addressed explicitly or even implicitly in educational curricula, which is troubling given that so much of everyday life - left-wing political blogs, right-wing political talk radio, political book buying habits (Krebs, 2007), ad infinitum - reinforce them. Moreover, our selection of friends can generate not only communal reinforcement for our biases (Carroll, 2003), but the erroneous belief that our views are shared by most or all other reasonable people (i.e., a false consensus effect; Ross, Greene, & House, 1977). In some Islamic countries, of course, much of the educational curriculum comprises indoctrination into a cultural and religious worldview that implies that one’s enemies are mistaken, blasphemous, and despicable. In the United States, some social critics (e.g., Bloom, 1987; Horowitz, 2007) have charged that the higher educational system typically engenders an insidious indoctrination into left-wing ideology. The merits of these arguments aside, it is undeniable that even among highly educated individuals (a group that includes many or most terrorists; Sageman, 2004), the capacity to appreciate views other than one’s own is hardly normative.
So, the most important psychological experiment never done would (1) begin with the construction of a comprehensive evidence-based educational programme of debiasing children and adolescents in multiple countries against malignant biases, (2) randomly assign some students to receive this program and others to receive standard educational curricula, and (3) measure the long-term effects of this debiasing program on well-validated attitudinal and behavioural measures of ideological fanaticism. To some extent, the goal of this program would be to inculcate not merely knowledge but wisdom (Sternberg, 2001), particularly aspects of wisdom that necessitate an awareness of one’s biases and limitations, and the capacity to recognize the merits of differing viewpoints (e.g., Meacham, 1990 see p.181-211 here).
The greatest obstacle to conducting this experiment, aside from the sheer pragmatic difficulty of administering a large scale curriculum across multiple countries, is the surprising paucity of research on effective debiasing strategies. Nevertheless, at least some controlled research suggests that encouraging individuals to seriously entertain viewpoints other than their own (e.g., “considering the opposite”) can partly immunize them against confirmation bias and related biases (Kray & Galinsky, 2003; Wilson, Centerbar, & Brekke, 2002). Whether such educational debiasing efforts, implemented on a massive scale, would help to inoculate future generations against ideological fanaticism, is unknown. But launching such an endeavor by conducting small-scale pilot studies would seem to be a worthwhile starting point."
--
Dr Scott O Lilienfeld is Professor of Psychology, Emory University, Atlanta.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
title change.
I have changed the title of this blog from "on the road" to "pride from within".
Why an average gay life is so screwed up? My answer is that we are susceptible to so many kinds of self-hatred and we end up ruining ourselves and our relationships. The only way out is to develop pride from within and to restore our dignity as a human being.
When i searched on scientific publications on challenges facing homosexuals. All i found is topics on AIDS/HIV. I feel angry and ashamed! Yes, hot topics like AIDS/HIV can easily fetch general public sympathy, federal money, and media attention. But do they really care about the life quality of gay people? How come these so-called researchers so blind about all kinds of difficulties and challenges that plague gay individuals and relationships?
At this time, what i believe the core of the problems is the many faces of self-hatred developed among gay individuals. This inspires me to chronicle different kinds of self-hatred that we inflict upon ourselves (and thanks to our society) and to look for awareness and remedies.
Why an average gay life is so screwed up? My answer is that we are susceptible to so many kinds of self-hatred and we end up ruining ourselves and our relationships. The only way out is to develop pride from within and to restore our dignity as a human being.
When i searched on scientific publications on challenges facing homosexuals. All i found is topics on AIDS/HIV. I feel angry and ashamed! Yes, hot topics like AIDS/HIV can easily fetch general public sympathy, federal money, and media attention. But do they really care about the life quality of gay people? How come these so-called researchers so blind about all kinds of difficulties and challenges that plague gay individuals and relationships?
At this time, what i believe the core of the problems is the many faces of self-hatred developed among gay individuals. This inspires me to chronicle different kinds of self-hatred that we inflict upon ourselves (and thanks to our society) and to look for awareness and remedies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)