这是Giddings的一个免费的Report，不是说论文/申请书写作，是说如何称为一个成功科学家的。 因为可以免费分发，所以将PDF附到下面。 5StepsScienceFoundryReport.pdf 要注意的是：这个报告的作者是一个收费的写作指导，大约是250$/hr，或者1000$/整个文章。 我在她的博客上看到，她说，“不是代写”（没这个时间，还要写自己的proposal呢），是帮助指导和改进；前提是：你的科研工作真的有价值，她才能帮你让读者看到这个价值。 她声称是UNC的一个实验室的PI（Principal Investigator）。我查了下，在 http://www. eurekalert .org/pub_releases/2009-10/uonc-usw101509.php 有一个 1.6M的award 的新闻。牛。 IMAGE: This is Morgan Giddings, Ph.D., left, and Xian Chen, Ph.D., right, or the University of North Carolina School of Medicine. ==== 另： Quantitative Risk Management: Concepts, Techniques and Tools Alexander J. McNeil、Rudiger Frey、 Paul Embrechts Princeton University Press (2005-09) Alexander J. McNeil, Rudiger Frey, Paul Embrechts Quantitative Risk Management -.pdf
Why Do People Say "Yes?" The "6 Weapons of Influence" By Patricia Fripp, CSP, CPAE and David Palmer, PhD, MBA, CPA Why do people say 'yes'? How can we get them to comply with our requests? I asked my Fripp Associate David Palmer, PhD, MBA, CPA, an expert on negotiations and marketing. David Palmer has read more business books and managements books than any other person I have ever met; without hesitation he always refers to the best book to help anyone in their career is Robert Cialdini's Influence: Science and Practice. Enjoy my interview. You next logic step is to buy Dr. Cialdini's book. "Fortunately, people often say 'yes' or agree with requests out of mindless compliance," David told me. "They are frequently willing to say 'yes' automatically without thinking first. It makes their lives simpler and smoother. But what most of us are trying to overcome is the opposite phenomenon, when they've programmed themselves to say 'no' without thinking about it. "Here's where the emotional triggers come in. Researcher Robert Cialdini at Arizona State University describes the 'Six Weapons of Influence,' as he calls them, in his book, Influence, Science and Practice (Allyn Cacon, 2000)." 1. RECIPROCATION - "The Old Give and Take--and Take" All of us are taught we should find some way to repay others for what they do for us. Most people will make an effort to avoid being considered a moocher, ingrate, or person who does not pay their debts. This is an extremely powerful tactic and can even spur unequal exchanges. In one experiment, for example, half the people attending an art appreciation session were offered a soft drink. Afterwards, all were asked if they would buy 25-cent raffle tickets. Guess what? The people who had been offered the soft drinks purchased twice as many raffle tickets, whether or not they had accepted the drinks! You probably already use this principle, but it is much stronger than you suspect. You can build a sense of indebtedness in someone by delivering a number of uninvited "first favors" over time. They don't have to be tangible gifts. In today's world, useful information is one of the most valuable favors you can deliver. 2. COMMITMENT AND CONSISTENCY - "Hobgoblins of the Mind" Once people have made a choice or taken a stand, they are under both internal and external pressure to behave consistently with that commitment. This desire for consistency offers us all a shortcut to action as we recall a previous decision we have already made. When you can get someone to commit verbally to an action, the chances go up sharply that they'll actually do it. For example, before starting your next meeting, ask each person to commit to following the posted agenda. Then, if anyone goes off on a tangent, just ask them to explain how it fits the agenda. If they can't, they'll quickly fall back in line. 3. SOCIAL PROOF - "Truths Are Us" We decide what is correct by noticing what other people think is correct. This principle applies especially to the way we determine what constitutes correct behavior. If everyone else is behaving a certain way, most assume that is the right thing to do. For example, one of the important, and largely unconscious, ways we decide what is acceptable behavior on our current job is by watching the people around us, especially the higher-ups or old timers. This principle of influence kicks in even more strongly when the situation is uncertain or people aren't sure what to do. When you can show them what others like them believe or are doing, people are more likely to take the same action. (The mass suicides among the Heavens Gate followers in Southern California and the people in Jonestown are horrible examples of the negative power of this principle.) On the positive side, product endorsements are the most obvious application of the Social Proof. If you want someone to do something for you, be sure to let them see that many other people are already doing it or are willing to do it. Show them that others like them (and the more like them the better) believe in your product or are using it. 4. LIKING: "The Friendly Thief" People love to say 'yes' to requests from people they know and like. And people tend to like others who appear to have similar opinions, personality traits, background, or lifestyle. More people will say 'yes' to you if they like you, and the more similar to them you appear to be, the more likely they are to like you. Most people are also phenomenal suckers for flattery, even when they know it isn't true. When we have a good opinion of ourselves, we can accept praise and like those who provide it. (Those with low self-esteem reject even well-earned praise and distrust the source.) All salespeople worth their salt have mastered the flattery tactic. They know it works, but they may not know why. People also tend to like and trust anything familiar. The best way to build this familiarity is to have frequent, pleasant contacts. For example, if you spend three hours straight with someone you've never met before, you would get a sense of who they are. But if you divided the same time into 30-minute segments of pleasant interaction over six consecutive weeks, you would each have a much stronger and positive knowledge about the other. You have established a comfort level, familiarity, and a history with them. Their repeated pleasant contacts with your organization's services or products helps builds familiarity and liking. 5. AUTHORITY: "Directed Deference" Most of us are raised with a respect for authority, both real and implied. Sometimes, people confuse the symbols of authority (titles, appearance, possessions) with the true substance. Some people are more strongly influenced by authority than others, and compliance can vary according to the situation . For example, it's 11:00 PM, and the doorbell rings. Two men in police uniforms want to come in and ask you some questions. Most people respect such authority enough that they would comply, even though the Constitution says they don't have to. But if it was 3:00 AM and the men were in street clothes, claiming to be detectives, most of us would hesitate. The men would have to overcome our resistance with more proofs of their authority like badges or a search warrant. You can put this general principle to use by citing authoritative sources to support your ideas. Look and act like an authority yourself. Be sure others know that your education and experience supports your ideas. Dress like the people who are already in the positions of authority that you seek. 6. SCARCITY: "The Rule of the Few" Nearly everyone is vulnerable to some form of the principle of scarcity. Opportunities seem more valuable when they are less available. Hard-to-get things are perceived as better than easy-to-get things. For example, the object you've almost decided to buy is out of stock. The salesperson offers to check their other stores. And guess what? A store across town has one left! Do you buy it? Of course! Whenever appropriate, you can use the Scarcity Principle. Refer to limited resources and time limits to increase the perceived value of the benefits of helping or working with you. The possibility of losing something is a more powerful motivator than of gaining something. Let others (a customer, your boss, a lover) know what they will be losing if they don't say 'yes' to your offer. The Six Weapons of Influence are incredibly powerful and can be combined in many ways. Use them whenever you approach people you want to influence. (And be sure to read Professor Cialdini's book, Influence: Science, and Practice. you'll find it most entertaining as well enlightening.)
维舟 发表于 2009-04-01 http://weizhoushiwang.blogbus.com/logs/37349262.html 我这么说是基于这样一个现实：任何人类思维都具有原教旨倾向。所有理论都倾向于造成一种自我完善的体系，可以运用它来解释和把握整个世界，最终它成为一个人看待和衡量世界的眼镜和尺子。在辩论中最容易看出这一点：大部分人参与对话、辩论之后的收获只是进一步证实和强化自己所持的观点是正确的；不知他们是否意识到，这实际上也意味着他们一无所获，因为他们耗费大量时间和精力激烈辩驳只是得知了一个他早已确认的信息：我是正确的。这是一个观点和话语的巴别塔 虽然名义上我们使用的是同样的语言，但却彼此听不见、听不懂。 有时我甚至想：说服一个人是可能的吗？即使有时他主观上都误以为自己是被说服了，实际上他在接纳观点的时候仍然按照自己的方式对它进行了改造。 说服 必然有赖于被说服者自己主动的认同。人类实在是一种极为顽强和保守的动物，虽然在地心说被哥白尼否定之后，人们已知道自己并非处于宇宙的中心，但仍以人类自身为尺度来衡量世界，到现代这一点也被粉碎，然而在所有交流（这是对 对抗 的委婉说法）中自我中心主义仍是隐约可见的，因为那才是我们的本能。毕竟，要将自己的思想当作一个客体来对待和思考，不是一件容易的事，有时甚至是一件令人发疯的事。 我不能确定自己是正确的。但许多人都比我确信得多。十年前曾有人写邮件来和我讨论，此君认为汉族一直是、现在也是一个纯种血液的民族，并以这种观念来解释所有中国历史，对我给出的反例他也自有否认、驳斥、再解释。来回写了十几次邮件后，我终于放弃 现在想想也不可思议，我居然坚持和他争论了那么久，也许那时我还比较好胜。虽然我至今仍认为他的观点是荒谬的，但这次争论使我将自己的思维作为分析对象来反思：即我为何那么确信自己所持的立场呢？答案也许是：质疑自己的立场并不愉快。 费尔巴哈曾说：人由他所吃的东西所决定（ der Mensch ist was er isst ）。这句话中的 吃 也可以视为一个隐喻：我们所吸纳的任何观念，而且这一过程更可能是双向的 人所吸收的东西塑造了他，但他也自行决定着吸取什么东西。在 Google 发明出来之后，这一点已很明显，因为人们总是只搜索自己感兴趣的东西，如果他持有一个观点，往往只想搜到那些对这一观点有利的论据。人们像鸟类建筑鸟巢一样，只选取自己喜欢的材料来进行建构，而对其他的材料予以抛弃或忽视。 这样的例子不胜枚举。人们一贯如此：只要他们愿意证实一个观点，通常他们总是有办法的。中世纪欧洲人相信二元论，不仅仅是抽象的思考，他们的确相信世界日常生活中，撒旦始终在发挥作用，而且能找到极多 证据 。不管现在看来多么荒谬，在相当长时期内，有不少一流学者曾坚持认为印第安人、中国人等都属于犹太人传说中失踪的十族后裔。清代学者桂馥《说文解字义证》是一代名著，但他也有一个致命缺陷：他预先认定许慎《说文解字》所讲都是对的，必须为它找出一些例证来，即使许慎讲错了，他也还是会设法找例证来附会。 Thomas Kuhn 在研究科学史时曾想不通为何亚里士多德一些荒谬的断言竟支配人心二千年之久，他的结论是：经典理论培养了一套特定的思考方法和观念系统、信仰、语言、和基本概念。离开了这些典范，这些科学家们甚至不知道如何去进行思考或研究。通过这些语言和概念来观看世界，成为一件理所当然的事；除非他碰到生活在另一个不同典范中的人，否则他很难觉察到这个 观念的箱子 。需要补充的是：现实中许多人即使碰到了另外的人，仍然不会自我反思和觉察到这个 箱子 ，相反他们会把它抱得更紧。人们可以意识到一些他人理论的荒谬性，但要意识到自己观念的荒谬（它同样强烈的支配着人心，只不过那是自我），那就太难了，在心理上就会被我们自己所拒斥。 人文学科存在一种结构性的多样性，在学术围墙内的每一个理论都以为自己把握了全景， 主张他的标准可以单独支配和解释一切。 简言之，一个明显的事实是，每一门社会科学都很霸道，无论它们会如何否认这一点。它们都倾向于把自己的结论表达为人类的总体图像。 （布罗代尔《人文科学的统一性和多样性》）这种科学之不统一（ disunity of science ）的现象本身导源于人类思维的歧异和原教旨倾向：它们都依靠否定对立面、排斥异端来获得自己的正确性。西谚云： 人们常常只是因为一贯正确而得到顽固不化的恶名。 但确切地说，人们一贯持有某个观点，以及它被判定为正确与否，事实上是两回事，因为正确首先意味着在某一标准下是正确的，而这一标准本身，也不可能不是某种观念的建构。 歧异是纷争之源，也是丰富之源。罗素说，参差多态是幸福之本。多年后我才意识到，他这句话也许正是对这样一种现象的提醒：即所有人都常常希望将这种参差多态化约为一种生活方式，他们的争论只在于究竟是哪一种： 只要人人像我们这样生活，世界本来可以何等美妙。 每一种生活方式的热爱者都会这样哀叹。在这个经常听到的哀叹中，我们可以发现一个谬误：人们只有在一个完全由不同于自己的人组成的世界中，才能保持自己的生活方式。 （ M. Thompson, R. Ellis, and A. Wildavsky, Cultural Theory, 1990 ） 网络的两种特征：协同过滤（人们只与自己观点相似的人链接）和群体极化（小群体只听到自己的回声而变得更激进），都不是技术特点，而产生于人性本身。在这种孤岛状的小团体中，人们仿佛是在和另一个自己对话：他们喜欢听到和自己观点一致的声音，这种态度的强化使得他们对不同的观点愈加难以容忍。的确，对于原教旨主义者来说，对他人不同观点的谅解只不过是意味着对自己信仰的不坚定：因为假如自己是正确的，那么与自己不同的观点就不能也是正确的。与此同时，则有许多人倡导宽容，以至于这种 宽容 本身也成了一种原教旨主义。 Alfred N. Whitehead 曾说： 天知道什么看上去胡说八道的东西明天会不会被证明为真理。 他在此坦率地承认了我们理性的限度，因此相对开放的态度也许是必要的：参与辩论并不是为了证明自己观点的正确，当然也不是为了颠覆自己的观点，但应当使参与者都有所触动并受到激发。因为在很多情况下，即使你是正确的，相反的情形也可能是正确的。
标签: 说服
