消极思考的力量

Holidays pose a psychological conundrum1）. Their defining sentiment， of course， is joy—yet the strenuous effort to be joyous seems to make many of us miserable. It’s hard to be happy in overcrowded airport lounges or while you’re trying to stay civil for days on end2） with relatives who stretch your patience.

So to cope with the holidays， magazines and others are advising us to “think positive”—the same advice， in other words， that Norman Vincent Peale3）， author of The Power of Positive Thinking， was dispensing six decades ago. During holidays， Peale once suggested， you should make “a deliberate effort to speak hopefully about everything.” The result all too often mirrors the famously annoying parlor game4） about trying not to think of a white bear： The harder you try， the more you think about one.

Variations of Peale’s positive philosophy run deep in American culture， not just in how we handle holidays and other social situations but in business， politics and beyond. Yet studies suggest that peppy5） affirmations designed to lift the user’s mood through repetition and visualizing future success often achieve the opposite of their intended effect.

Fortunately， both ancient philosophy and contemporary psychology point to an alternative： a counterintuitive6） approach that might be termed “the negative path to happiness.” This approach helps to explain some puzzles， such as the fact that citizens of more economically insecure countries often report greater happiness than citizens of wealthier ones. Or that many successful businesspeople reject the idea of setting firm goals.

One pioneer of the “negative path” was the New York psychotherapist Albert Ellis， who died in 2007. He rediscovered a key insight of the Stoic7） philosophers of ancient Greece and Rome： that sometimes the best way to address an uncertain future is to focus not on the best-case scenario but on the worst.

Seneca8） the Stoic was a radical on this matter. If you feared losing your wealth， he once advised， “set aside a certain number of days， during which you shall be content with the scantiest9） and cheapest fare10）， with coarse and rough dress， saying to yourself the while： ‘Is this the condition that I feared？’”

To overcome a fear of embarrassment， Ellis told me， he advised his clients to travel on the New York subway， speaking the names of stations out loud as they passed. I’m an easily embarrassed person， so in the interest of journalistic research， I took his advice， on the Central Line of the London Underground. It was agonizing. But my overblown fears were cut down to size11）： I wasn’t verbally harangued12） or physically attacked. A few people looked at me strangely.

Just thinking in sober detail about worst-case scenarios—a technique the Stoics called “the premeditation of evils”—can help to sap13） the future of its anxiety-producing power. The psychologist Julie Norem estimates that about one-third of Americans instinctively use this strategy， which she terms “defensive pessimism.” Positive thinking， by contrast， is the effort to convince yourself that things will turn out fine， which can reinforce the belief that it would be absolutely terrible if they didn’t.

In American corporations， perhaps the most widely accepted doctrine of the “cult of positivity” is the importance of setting big， audacious goals for an organization， while employees are encouraged （or compelled） to set goals that are “SMART”—“Specific， Measurable， Attainable， Relevant and Timely.”

But the pro-goal consensus is starting to crumble. For one thing， rigid goals may encourage employees to cut ethical corners. In a study conducted by the management scholar Lisa Ordó?ez and her colleagues， participants had to make words from a set of random letters， as in Scrabble14）. The experiment let them report their progress anonymously—and those given a specific target to reach lied far more frequently than those instructed merely to “do your best.”

Goals may even lead to underachievement. Many New York taxi drivers， one team of economists concluded， make less money in rainy weather than they could because they finish work as soon as they reach their mental target for what constitute a good day’s earnings.

Focusing on one goal at the expense of all other factors also can distort a corporate mission or an individual life， says Christopher Kayes， an associate professor of management at George Washington University in Washington， D.C. Prof. Kayes， who has studied the “overpursuit” of goals， recalls a conversation with one executive who “told me his goal had been to become a millionaire by the age of 40 … and he’d done it. But he was also divorced， and had health problems， and his kids didn’t talk to him anymore.” Behind our fixation on goals， Prof. Kayes’s work suggests， is a deep unease with feelings of uncertainty.

Research by Saras Sarasvathy， an associate professor of business administration at the University of Virginia， suggests that learning to accommodate feelings of uncertainty is not just the key to a more balanced life but often leads to prosperity as well. For one project， she interviewed 45 successful entrepreneurs， all of whom had taken at least one business public. Almost none embraced the idea of writing comprehensive business plans or conducting extensive market research.

They practiced instead what Prof. Sarasvathy calls “effectuation.” Rather than choosing a goal and then making a plan to achieve it， they took stock of15） the means and materials at their disposal， then imagined the possible ends. Effectuation also includes what she calls the “affordable loss principle.” Instead of focusing on the possibility of spectacular rewards from a venture， ask how great the loss would be if it failed. If the potential loss seems tolerable， take the next step.

The ultimate value of the “negative path” may not be its role in facilitating upbeat emotions or even success. It is simply realism. The future really is uncertain， after all， and things really do go wrong as well as right. We are too often motivated by a craving to put an end to the inevitable surprises in our lives.

This is especially true of the biggest “negative” of all. Might we benefit from contemplating mortality more regularly than we do？ As Steve Jobs famously declared， “Remembering that you are going to die is the best way that I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose.”

However tempted we may be to agree with Woody Allen’s position on death—“I’m strongly against it”—there’s much to be said for16） confronting it rather than denying it. There are some facts that even the most powerful positive thinking can’t alter.

节假日会造成一个心理难题。在节假日中，最典型的情绪当然是快乐，可这种竭尽全力保持快乐的努力似乎使我们中的很多人感到痛苦不堪。无论是身处拥挤不堪的候机大厅，还是试图与考验你耐心的亲戚们连续几天礼貌相处，你都难以感到快乐。

于是，杂志和其他媒体都在建议我们“积极思考”以应对节假日。早在60年前，《积极思考的力量》一书的作者诺曼·文森特·皮尔就提出了同样的建议，只是措辞不同。皮尔曾建议，在节假日，你应当“刻意地努力做到充满希望地谈论每件事”。这样做的结果往往与“努力不要想白熊”（编注：来源于心理学家Daniel Wegner的“反弹效应”实验）这个臭名昭著的室内游戏类似：你越努力不去想，你就想得越多。

皮尔的积极哲学有各种变体，它们深入到美国文化中，不仅涉及我们如何应对节假日或其他社交情境，还涉及商业、政治和其他方面。但有研究表明，起劲地说肯定的话，旨在通过重复以及设想未来的成功来调动人的情绪，这种做法往往事与愿违。

所幸古代哲学和当代心理学都指出了另一种选择，一种有违直觉的方法，可以称之为“通往幸福的消极道路”。这种方法有助于解释某些谜团，比如下面这个事实：在经济不太稳定的国家，公民所报告的幸福感往往强于较富裕国家的公民。又比如，很多成功的商人都反对设立确定的目标。

2007年过世的纽约心理治疗师艾伯特·埃利斯是“消极道路”的一位先驱。他重新发现了古希腊和古罗马斯多葛派哲学家的一个主要观点：要应对不确定的未来，有时最佳的方法不是专注于可能出现的最好情况，而是专注于最坏情况。

在这个问题上，斯多葛派哲学家塞内加是个激进分子。他曾建议道，如果你害怕失去自己的财富，那就“拿出几天的时间，在此期间你要满足于最少量、最廉价的伙食和粗糙的衣服，同时对自己说：‘这就是我所害怕的状况吗？’”

埃利斯告诉我，为了帮助他的客户克服对尴尬的恐惧，他建议他们搭乘纽约地铁，在路过各个车站时大声说出该站的名字。我就是个很容易感到尴尬的人，于是为了进行新闻调查，我采纳了他的建议，去搭乘伦敦地铁中央线。整个过程很折磨人，但我过度的担心被打消了不少：我并未遭到大声训斥或者人身攻击，只有几个人用异样的眼光看我。

仅仅通过清醒、细致地思考最坏的情况就有助于削弱未来引发焦虑的力量，斯多葛派把这种方法称为“预想不幸”。据心理学家朱莉·诺勒姆估计，大约有三分之一的美国人会本能地使用这种策略，她称之为“防御性悲观”。相较之下，积极思考是努力让你自己相信事情最终会圆满，这会强化一种信念：如果结局不圆满，那就一定很可怕。

在美国企业中，关于“对积极性的崇拜”最广为接受的一个信条或许就是为组织确立宏伟、大胆的目标十分重要，雇员则被鼓励（或强迫）确立遵循“SMART”原则的目标，即“具体的（Specific）、可量化的（Measurable）、可实现的（Attainable）、相关的（Relevant）且适时的（Timely）”目标。

但是这种推崇目标的共识已经开始瓦解。一方面，严格的目标可能会使雇员降低道德标准。在管理学学者莉萨·奥多涅斯及其同事所进行的一项研究中，参与者需要从一组随机字母中拼出单词，就像拼字游戏那样。在实验中，他们需要匿名报告自己的进展，结果与仅仅被要求“尽力而为”的人相比，那些被要求达到某个具体目标的人撒谎的频率要高得多。

设定目标甚至可能导致潜能无法充分发挥。一个经济学家团队得出结论，纽约很多出租车司机在雨天挣的钱比他们本来能挣到的要少，因为他们一旦达到了自己内心设定的目标，即工作一天拿到的不错收入，就会立即收工。

华盛顿特区乔治·华盛顿大学的管理学副教授克里斯托弗·凯斯称，不惜牺牲其他所有因素来专注于一个目标还会扭曲企业的使命或个人的生活。凯斯教授一直在研究对目标的“过度追求”，他回忆起与一位公司主管的谈话说，这位主管“告诉我他当初的目标是在40岁时成为百万富翁……他做到了。但是他也离婚了，健康也出了问题，而且他的孩子们不再和他说话”。凯斯教授的研究表明，我们对目标的痴迷源于我们对不确定感的深深不安。

弗吉尼亚大学的工商管理学副教授萨拉斯·萨拉斯瓦西的研究表明，学会适应不确定感不仅是使生活更和谐的关键，而且往往也会带来成功。在一个研究项目中，她采访了45位成功的企业家，他们都带领过至少一家公司上市。几乎没有哪位企业家赞同撰写详尽的商业计划书或者开展广泛的市场调研。

相反，他们采取的是萨拉斯瓦西教授所称的“效果推理”：他们不会选择一个目标然后制订计划去实现目标，而是对现有可用的手段和材料进行判断，然后想象可能的结果。“效果推理”还包括她所说的“可承受损失原则”：不要专注于一个风险项目有多大可能带来丰厚的回报，而要问一问如果项目失败会带来多大的损失。如果潜在的损失似乎可以接受，那就开展下一步。

“消极道路”的最终价值可能不在于其在促进乐观情绪乃至成功中所起的作用。它只是现实主义。毕竟，未来的确是不确定的，事情可能会顺利，也的确可能出问题。太多时候，我们过于希望终结生活中不可避免的意外。

对于所有“消极”事物中最大的“消极”来说，这一点尤为正确。如果我们更多地思考死亡问题，我们有没有可能从中受益呢？正如史蒂夫·乔布斯著名的宣言：“记得你将死去——这是我所知道的避免总想着你会失去什么这一困扰的最佳方式。”

无论我们多么忍不住地要赞同伍迪·艾伦关于死亡的立场——“我强烈反对它”——直面死亡还是比否认死亡有更多的好处。有些事实，即便是最强大的积极思考也无法改变。

1. conundrum [k??n?ndr?m] n. 复杂难题，难以回答的问题

2. for days on end：一连几天

3. Norman Vincent Peale：诺曼·文森特·皮尔（1898～1993），美国著名牧师、演讲家和作家，被誉为“积极思考的救星”。

4. parlor game：（猜谜、答问比赛等）室内游戏

5. peppy [?pepi] adj. 〈美口〉精力充沛的，生机勃勃的

6. counterintuitive [?ka?nt（?）r?n?tju??t?v] adj. 与直觉不一致的

7. Stoic [?st???k] adj. 斯多葛派的。斯多葛派是古希腊哲学家芝诺（Zeno）于公元前305年左右在雅典创立的哲学流派，因常在雅典公共建筑的柱廊聚众讲学而得名。他们的基本主张即宇宙是绝对的理性。

8. Seneca：即卢修斯·安内乌斯·塞内加（Lucius Annaeus Seneca， ca. 4 BC～65 AD），古罗马时代著名的斯多葛派哲学家

9. scant [sk?nt] adj. 不足的，贫乏的，少量的

10. fare [fe?（r）] n. 伙食，饮食

11. cut down to size：把……减少（或降低）到一定数量

12. harangue [h??r??] vt. 大声训斥

13. sap [s?p] vt. 削弱，破坏

14. Scrabble [?skr?b（?）l] n. 拼字游戏

15. take stock of：对……估价，对……作出判断

16. there’s much to be said for something：某事有很多好处