《Sway》读后感精选

《Sway》是一本由Rom Brafman / Ori Brafman著作，Crown Business出版的Hardcover图书，本书定价：GBP 14.04，页数：224，特精心收集的读后感，希望对大家能有帮助。

《Sway》读后感(一)：公平可能是一种人类的幻觉

《Sway》是一本畅销书，很适合我在上下班的路上听。这本书跟 《Predictably Irrational 》很相似，讲的是人类思维种的非理性局限。此书大约讲了四种非理性思维惯性：

1. 人们总是害怕失去，对失去的恐惧超过了对得到的喜悦。

2. 第一印象决定了人们对事物的一贯态度。

3. 人们对公平的感觉其实是非理性的。

4. 从众心理。当一群人都执同一个观点的时候，我们会不自觉的也赞同这个观点。

其他三条都乏善可陈，最有意思的是第三点：公平。

人们对公平的感觉其实是非理性的。当人们谈论公平，人们往往不计较“结果”是否真的公平，而是在意“过程”是否公平。

有一个著名的实验叫做“分钱实验”。受试者二人一组，姑且将此二人称为 A 和 B。实验人员把一定数量的钱（真的钱，比如说200美元，这是一个需要花钱的心理学实验）发给二人。规则是这样的，A B角色随机选择：

- A 决定这200美元怎么在二人之间分配。比如说一人一半，或者说 A 拿150，B 拿50。

- B 决定是否接受这个分配方案。如果 B 接受，那么皆大欢喜，两人拿钱走人。如果 B 不接受，那么不管 A 的方案是什么，两人都将一分钱也拿不到，空手回家。

如果二人都是理性的，那么 B 应该不管 A 怎么分都选择接受，因为分到一点总比没有好。而 A 考虑到这一点，应该尽量多给自己分，比如说 A 得199元，B 得一元。

然而实验表明，只要 B 发现自己得到的少于 50%，他就会认为不公平，从而拒绝接受。宁可一分钱不要！

这个实验有意思的一点是，假设改变规则，变成由计算机系统随机分配，这时候 A B 二人就会回归理性，不管分多分少都接受了。

结果一样，过程不同，在人的眼中看来就有这么大的区别。

一个更有意思的事实是，越是社会化程度高的地区（比如洛杉矶之类的大城市），人们越不能容忍分钱中的不公平；在家家比较独立的原始地区做这个实验，人们反而能够理性的接受钱。

也就是说社会化程度越高，人们越在意过程的公平。

一个生活中的例子是，统计表明重刑犯人对其辩护律师的评价，与他最后获得的刑期长短无关，而只跟律师为他工作的时间长短有关。也就是说不管这个律师最后是否真的帮了他，只要这个律师表现的很努力为他工作，这个犯人就会感激这个律师。

另一本书（可能是 Super Crunchers）说，医生被投诉医疗事故的概率与这个医生实际医疗事故的概率无关，而只与这个医生对病人的态度好坏有关。

人们根本不在意结果，人们只想要过程的公平。

我听说了这些实验和统计结果之后的想法是，这可能就是自由民主的理论根据吧！

《Sway》读后感(二)：别跟我谈感情，感情也许只是非理性

《sway》，一本心理学小品书，不怎么厚。

我看的是中信翻译的版本，翻译的文字读起来口感总归会差些，但内容还是有些意思的。至少我觉得，从论证思路来看，作者还是本着“大胆假设小心求证”的科学态度的，不是瞎忽悠。

书中，作者用了大量真实有趣的例子和心理学实验，主要验证了一个主题——

人并不总是理性的，甭管你智商有多高，经验有多丰富，平素做事有多冷静，总会有非理性的时候，而非理性行为的产生，可以归结为三个方面的心理原因：

1）“损失厌恶（loss aversion）”， 指会想方设法避免可能会发生的损失。 即使已经看到有损失，也会不甘心改变现状，从而无法理性判断，最终导致更大的实际损失。

2）“价值归因（value attribution）”，我们根据对人、事、观点的最初感知，赋予它们某些特性的倾向，也就是贴上我们自己的“价值标签”。

3）“判断偏差（diagnosis bias）”是指，对那些与我们最初判断相左的证据视而不见，会陷入三种判断偏差陷阱：第一，倾向于信赖自己偏好的信息；第二，无视那些与最初判断相左的客观事实；第三，对方会接受并刻意表现出符合我们贴的标签，即“变色龙效应”。

作为一个世俗之人，把非理性和情感问题联系起来是件很自然的事。在我看来，情感问题简直就是人类非理性行为的发源地。这个印象，形成于我刚从乡下到城里上大学的时候。那时，偶然听到电台的夜间情感节目，我很惊讶，原来世上有这么多人陷在感情里无法自拔。情感非理性发展的过程，大概可以借用该书的理论来窥探一二：

第一步，价值归因。一句评价，一个眼神，一个微笑，一个关怀的短信，等等，这样的信息虽然细微，但我们很容易被它们影响，并由此对一个人心生好感，给ta贴上“Mr(s).right”标签。

第二步，判断偏差。即使之后，你在ta的身上发现了一些与“Mr(s).right”不符的事实，你也会选择无视这些事实，或者只关注你偏好的信息，不断地强化“ta就是Mr(s).right”这一认识，这就是判断偏差。如果这时，对方感受到你的认识，开始刻意地改变自己，以表现出你偏好的特质，这样，你们就双双坠入了，呃，不是爱河，是判断偏差的变色龙效应陷阱。

第三步，损失厌恶。双方开始相处，投入时间和精力，相互表达爱意，畅想未来。这样过了一段时间后，就算发现对方跟自己原本的想象并不一样，但由于已经开始了，有了牵累，加上损失厌恶，比如“老娘青春都给了你了，你得负责”，于是，能拖就拖，拖到两人貌合神离到形同陌路，拖到其中一人找到新的候选，那么就是了断的时候了。如果，两人心理发展并不像上述描述的这么同步，就会出现一人变心，一人痴缠的戏码。

由此可见，人在感情关系中的表现是有其心理原因的。执着的感情可以是真挚的，但也许只是非理性。

不过要注意的是，书中的论点都是有指向的，只适用于讨论有悖常理的行为，非理性也不是一个人的常态，常态是非理性的人都住在一个叫精神病院的地方。而且，感情中有非理性，并不会影响真挚感情的客观存在，上面的分析就不适用于双方感情真挚的情形，所以不必就这一点叫板。

我这个题目，似乎有些失恋失婚人士的愤青味道，其实，主要是为了吸引眼球，做做效果，呵呵，绝对不是真的要倡导天下人，不要谈感情。感情当然是要谈的，世上唯一不需要谈感情的人生，大概就是做和尚尼姑吧。只是看了此书，让我意识到，生活和工作中，当我们贴标签的时候，当我们下判断的时候，当我们与同事朋友家人意见相左的时候，当我们在一段感情里消耗的时候，都有必要谨慎些，要先认清自己，再看对人。

所以，本书的意义并不在于，我们能把一切非理性消灭掉，而是在于，当他人非理性的时候，我们更能够理解，而自己非理性的时候，更能够自知，从而自在。

《Sway》读后感(三)：认清自己的一本书

刚刚看完, 感觉非常不错. 引用了许多心理学实验来证明作者的观点, 而在全书最后也给出了避免被无关因素左右自己意见的方法.

分章总结:

c1. Anatomy of an accident

how disastrous can irrational behaviors can be

c2. The Swamp of Commitment

two main reason people get caught in a dead lock: 1) fear of loss. 2) commitment(being doing a thing for so long)

c3. The Hobbit and the missing link

people judge things on its perceived value(mostly prices) instead of the real value.

c4. Michael Jordan and the First-Date Interview

Although first impression doesn't mean anything about a person, people count on it heavily. Both parties then reacts to the first impression and that's why it seems to work.

c5. The Bipolar Epidemic and the Chameleon Effect

c6. In France, the Sun Revolves Around the Earth

people heavily get swayed by the fairness of an event, gets irrational when they don't feel the whole thing is fair. Keep people informed of the whole decision process will increase the feeling of fairness dramatically.

c7. Compensation and Cocaine

people's pleasure center and altruistic center can't operate at the same time. Best way to have someone to act altruistically is not to give them any monetary rewards, or they would turn on their pleasure center and request for a very high monetary compensation.

c8. Dissenting Justice

Blocker is the key role keeping the team from getting into a disaster from an irrational decision made by the advocator. Thus it is important for the block to function properly in the team discussion process.

c9. Epilogue

- sticking to long term decision and fight against the strong urge of short term remedy.

下面是我的摘抄:

we label a person or a situation, we put on blinders to all evidence that contradicts our diagnosis.

diagnosis bias—in other words, the moment we label a person or a situation, we put on blinders to all evidence that contradicts our diagnosis.

But what Putler found was that shoppers completely overreacted when prices rose(other than price drop).

we overreact to perceived losses. (than perceived gain)

to sign up for, we’re willing to sacrifice a little bit to avoid a potential loss.

however, staying the course simply because of a past commitment hurts us in the long run.

forces—commitment and aversion to loss—has a powerful effect on us

looking a potential loss in the face, we hope against hope that everything will turn out okay.

commitment, “the option of hanging on will therefore be relatively attractive, even if the chances of success are small and the cost of delaying failure is high.”

Our tendency to imbue someone or something with certain qualities based on perceived value, rather than on objective data.

makes you wonder just how many times we miss out on something worthwhile because of our preconceptions about its value.

meets up with a sway called the diagnosis bias—our propensity to label people, ideas, or things based on our initial opinions of them—and our inability to reconsider those judgments once we’ve made them.

counterintuitive as it sounds, you don’t need interviews at all. Research shows that an aptitude test predicts performance just as well as a structured interview.

Rather than accept the money that had been offered, most participants who were presented with an unfair split rejected it, opting instead to walk away empty-handed.

What the study demonstrates is our deep-rooted belief in fairness and the great lengths to which we’ll go to defend it.

They were willing to accept an uneven split in the computer’s favor, even though they would have rejected the same offer coming from a real person. In other words, when it comes to fairness, it’s the process, not the outcome, that causes us to react irrationally.

clearly more important to the customer was the perceived fairness of the process.

defense lawyer. A CEO who kept in touch gave the VCs a much more favorable impression of the underlying venture than did a CEO who was less communicative.

the pleasure center and the altruism center cannot both function at the same time. We can approach a task either altruistically or from a self-interested perspective.

An extensive review and analysis of motivation studies found that the prospect of a reward excites the pleasure center even more than the attainment of the reward itself.

Having a long-term plan—and not casting it aside—is the key to dealing with our fear of loss.

When we find ourselves unsure about whether or not to continue a particular approach, it’s useful to ask, “If I were just arriving on the scene and were given the choice to either jump into this project as it stands now or pass on it, would I choose to jump in？”

Simply realizing that we’re making judgments based on assumptions about a situation or a person’s value can free us from this sway.

When we make decisions or take actions that will affect others, keeping them involved will help ensure that they feel the process is fair.