克服舍不得花钱的心理
(Article co-authored with Prof. Margarita Mayo)
(与 玛格丽塔·梅奥 教授合着的文章 )
The transition of cars to electricity is now a reality, one widely studied by experts like Tony Seba and documented throughout the world: a transition from an obsolete, dirty and extremely complex technology, the internal combustion engine, to one that is significantly simpler, cheaper to manufacture, more economical to purchase and run, superior in performance and, above all, clean.
汽车用电的转变现在已经成为现实，一个广泛的研究通过像专家托尼·西巴和 记录 整个的世界 ：从转变过时的，肮脏的和极其复杂的技术，内燃机，一个是显著更简单，更便宜生产， 购买和运行更加经济，性能优越，尤其是清洁。
However, most people’s response to the idea of electric vehicles is to deny their advantages, typically citing arguments that are false, illogical or that have long been overturned.
但是，大多数人对电动汽车的想法的回应是否认其优势，通常会引用错误，不合逻辑或长期被推翻的论点。
What makes so many of us cling stubbornly to such arguments? After all, they’re being used to rebut scientific evidence. Perhaps psychology can provide us with some answers:
是什么让我们中的许多人固执地坚持这样的论点？ 毕竟，它们被用来反驳科学证据。 也许心理学可以为我们提供一些答案：
First, let’s enumerate the main arguments usually trotted out against electric vehicles:
首先，让我们列举一下通常针对电动汽车的主要论点：
“Electric vehicles create as much pollution as internal combustion vehicles, because they use energy created by fossil fuels.” The “long tailpipe theory” has been dismantled on numerous occasions by many scientific studies, and yet it is still routinely put forward, like some kind of religious truth.
“ 电动汽车产生的污染与内燃机一样多，因为它们使用化石燃料产生的能源。” 在“ 长期尾气理论 ”已经被拆除的多次通过许多科学研究，但它仍然是经常提出来的，像某种宗教真理的。
“The manufacture of electric vehicles is also environmentally harmful.” Wrong, again: it is far simpler to make electric cars than traditional vehicles. What’s more, the companies that make them are particularly careful about their environmental impact.
“ 制造电动汽车也对环境有害 。” 再次错误：制造电动汽车比传统汽车要简单得多。 而且，制造它们的公司在环境影响方面特别谨慎 。
“Battery parts are scarce and poisonous.” Nope: lithium, cobalt and other components of today’s batteries get a bad press because of the countries where they are mined, but the reality is that they are not burned or destroyed during use, and do not produce noxious gases. Batteries wear out over time (much less than claimed), but still serve other uses, and their components are recyclable through efficient processes. Equating lithium and cobalt with nuclear waste is simply a lie. They’re not. Also battery technology is continually evolving in terms of cost, materials and efficiency, and follows the usual line of technological components: they are better, cheaper and more efficient.
“ 电池部件稀少且有毒 。” 不会：由于开采国家/地区的原因，当今电池中的锂，钴和其他成分的新闻不佳，但现实情况是它们在使用过程中不会被燃烧或破坏，并且不会产生有毒气体。 电池会随着时间的流逝而磨损( 比要求的少得多 )，但仍可用于其他用途，并且其组件可通过有效的过程进行回收。 将锂和钴与核废料等同起来只是一个谎言。 他们不是 。 电池技术也在成本，材料和效率方面不断发展 ，并遵循通常的技术组成： 更好，更便宜，更高效 。
“We still don’t have enough electricity generating infrastructure to power so many electric vehicles.” Nice try, but this lie has been exposed on numerous occasions by electrical utilities and regulators in various countries.
“ 我们仍然没有足够的发电基础设施来为如此多的电动汽车供电 。 ”尼斯尝试，但这个谎言已经被暴露在多次通过电力公司和监管机构在不同的国家 。
“There’s not enough recharging infrastructure yet.” A classic example of circular reasoning. Sure, there are sometimes lines waiting for a recharge, but as in every market, supply will soon meet demand. As more electric vehicles are sold, more players will build recharging infrastructure, as is already being demonstrated.
“还没有足够的充电基础设施 。” 循环推理的经典示例。 当然，有时会有排队等待补给，但就像在每个市场一样，供应很快就会满足需求。 正如已经展示的那样，随着越来越多的电动汽车被出售，更多的参与者将建立充电基础设施。
“Recharging takes a long time, making electric vehicles impractical for travel.” This old chestnut assumes we would have one vehicle for all uses, when it would be more efficient to rent for longer journeys. The reality is that recharging depends on the amount of power supplied: Tesla superchargers — which are spreading rapidly — take an average of 15 minutes, a perfectly reasonable time to take a break from driving. What’s more, recharging technology is rapidly evolving. An electric vehicle can meet 90% of its owner’s needs simply by recharging at home overnight.
“ 充电需要很长时间，使电动汽车不实用 。” 这个古老的栗子假定我们将拥有一辆可以用于所有用途的车辆，而租用更长的行程会更有效率。 现实情况是，充电取决于所提供的电量：飞速传播的特斯拉增压器平均需要15分钟，这是驾车休息的完全合理的时间。 而且，充电技术正在Swift发展 。 电动汽车只需在家里过夜充电即可满足其所有者90％的需求 。
“I don’t have garage, so I can’t run an electric vehicle.” There is some truth in this, but more importantly, why should car owners be allowed to use the streets to park their vehicles? This is a misuse of public space. That said, the problem will in fact largely solve itself: by 2030, 95% of us will not own a vehicle, because we will have moved from a model of ownership to one of service, so that cities will be infinitely more pleasant and healthier places to live.
“ 我没有车库，所以我不能驾驶电动汽车 。” 这是有道理的，但更重要的是，为什么要允许车主在街道上停放车辆？ 这是对公共空间的滥用。 也就是说，问题实际上将得到解决： 到2030年，我们中有95％的人将不再拥有汽车 ，因为我们将从所有权模式转变为服务模式，这样城市将变得更加愉悦和健康。生活的地方 。
For years, these and other myths were systematically peddled by the oil industry, and many people ended up believing them. Which brings us to the psychology of denial as a way to explain resistance to technological change.
多年来， 石油行业系统地推销了这些和其他神话，许多人最终相信了它们。 这使我们进入了拒绝心理学，以此来解释对技术变革的抵制。
In order to answer this question, as suggested by one of my followers on Twitter long time ago, I asked my dear colleague, Professor Margarita Mayo, from IE Business School, about the psychology of denial. Margarita has a Ph.D. in Psychology and is widely regarded as a world expert in the application of psychology to management, leadership and decision making. Starting here, his detailed answer:
为了回答这个问题， 正如我的一位追随者很久以前在Twitter上所建议的那样 ，我向IE商学院的亲爱的同事Margarita Mayo教授询问了否认的心理。 玛格丽塔拥有博士学位。 是心理学领域的专家 ，被广泛认为是将心理学应用于管理，领导力和决策方面的世界专家 。 从这里开始，他的详细答案：
拒绝的类型 (Types of Denial)
In his 2001 book States of Denial, US sociologist Stanley Cohen explored the reasons why “there’s none so blind as those that won’t see”, establishing three forms of denial we use when faced with uncomfortable truths, and that can help us understand the resistance of many people to the electric vehicle:
美国社会学家斯坦利·科恩(Stanley Cohen)在其2001年的《 拒绝国家》一书中探讨了“没有那些看不见的人如此盲目”的原因，确立了我们在面对令人不安的真相时使用的三种拒绝形式 ，这可以帮助我们理解许多人对电动汽车的抵抗力：
Literal denial: We deny the evidence, in this case that electric vehicles are cleaner. The first three arguments above are examples of this kind of flat out denial: the energy used by electric vehicles comes from fossil fuels and therefore simply transfers pollution; manufacturing is polluting, and battery components create pollution.
字面上的否认 ：在这种情况下，我们否认电动汽车清洁的证据。 上面的前三个论点就是这种完全否定的例子：电动汽车使用的能量来自化石燃料，因此只是转移了污染；反之亦然。 制造业污染严重，电池组件造成污染。
Interpretive denial: We accept the facts, but refuse to acknowledge how they are being interpreted, or play down their importance. Sure, electric vehicles are cleaner, but this won’t solve the problem of pollution because they are not practical. Here, language and meaning are manipulated to lessen the importance and legitimacy of electrical energy as a valid substitute for the conventional car. The lack of recharging infrastructure needed for so many electric vehicles is put forward. The fourth and fifth arguments above are perfect examples of interpretative denial.
解释性否认 ：我们接受事实，但拒绝承认事实如何被解释或轻视其重要性。 当然，电动汽车更清洁，但这不能解决污染问题，因为它们不实用。 在这里，语言和含义被操纵以减轻电能作为传统汽车的有效替代品的重要性和合法性。 提出了许多电动车辆所需的充电基础设施的缺乏。 上面的第四和第五个论点是解释性否认的完美例子。
Implicit denial: The facts and their interpretation are accepted, but we deny the personal, political and social implications of the facts. For example, we accept that the electric car is more energy efficient and cleaner, but refuse to change a way of living we have grown comfortable with. This passive — “yes, but — resistance is the most common and we support it by arguments such as the limited autonomy of electric vehicles, that recharging takes too long, or that we don’t have a garage.
隐式否认 ：事实及其解释被接受，但我们否认事实对个人，政治和社会的影响。 例如，我们接受电动汽车更节能，更清洁的做法，但拒绝改变我们已经习惯的生活方式。 这种被动的(“是的，但是”)抵抗是最常见的，我们通过诸如电动汽车的自主权有限，充电时间太长或我们没有车库等论据来支持它。
拒绝作为防御机制 (Denial as a defense mechanism)
Denial is a human tendency that may have its roots in evolution. Denial can be a coping strategy, as well as a defense mechanism.
否认是一种人类趋势，可能起源于进化。 拒绝可以是应对策略，也可以是防御机制。
Confrontation strategy. When used as a first step to gain time to adapt to a new situation or challenge, denial can be considered a coping strategy. From an evolutionary point of view, this short period of denial gives us space and time to prepare ourselves emotionally and learn new skills and behaviors.
对抗策略 。 当拒绝作为获取时间以适应新情况或挑战的第一步时，拒绝可以被认为是一种应对策略。 从进化的角度来看，这段短暂的拒绝让我们有空间和时间来准备自己的情绪，学习新的技能和行为。
Defense mechanism. Permanent denial doesn’t help us and simply becomes a defense mechanism that interferes with learning and leads to adaptive failure. For example, what happens when we simply stick our unopened bills in the drawer? The long-term consequences can be disastrous. The same is true when we ignore new, clean technologies.
防御机制 。 永久拒绝对我们无济于事，而只是成为一种防御机制 ，会干扰学习并导致适应性失败。 例如，当我们简单地将未打开的钞票贴在抽屉里时会发生什么？ 长期后果可能是灾难性的。 当我们忽略新的清洁技术时，情况也是如此。
In general, the denial of technology cannot be considered a strategy of confrontation, and is instead a defense mechanism, often unconscious, to protect our wellbeing or our self-esteem.
一般而言，拒绝技术不能被视为对抗策略，而是一种防御机制，通常是无意识的，用以保护我们的幸福或自尊。
否认的个性 (The personality of denial)
As Cohen argues, denial is a form of self-deception we use to protect ourselves from danger, both real and imagined. We delude ourselves to maintain the illusion of control over a changing environment, we delude ourselves to boost our self-esteem and sense of our abilities, and we delude ourselves to maintain a sense of continuity over time about our identity. We forget that cars is just a mode of transportation and instead see them as a sign of identity and social status.
正如科恩(Cohen)所言，否认是一种自我欺骗的形式，我们使用它来保护自己免受现实和想象中的危险。 我们自欺欺人，以维持对不断变化的环境的控制的幻觉，自欺欺人，以提高自己的自尊心和能力意识，自欺欺人，自以为是，随着时间的流逝对自己的身份保持一种连续感。 我们忘记了汽车只是一种交通方式，而是将它们视为身份和社会地位的标志。
Are some of us more prone to denial? Optimism is an antidote to denial. Personality studies show that optimistic people have a mindset of change and self-control that makes them more open to innovation and adopting new technologies. The optimists tell themselves they can learn, and so put in the effort to achieve it. In contrast, pessimistic people are more prone to denial. Pessimists suffer from “learned helplessness” or lack of control over reality because they think they can’t do anything about it, so denial serves as a defense mechanism.
我们中有些人更容易被拒绝吗？ 乐观是否认的良药。 人格研究表明，乐观的人具有改变和自我控制的心态，这使他们对创新和采用新技术更加开放。 乐观主义者告诉自己，他们可以学习，因此会努力实现这一目标。 相反，悲观的人更容易否认。 悲观主义者遭受“学习到的无助”或对现实缺乏控制，因为他们认为自己对此无能为力，因此否认是一种防御机制。
克服否认的策略 (Strategies for overcoming denial)
To overcome denial we have to understand the reasons why we deny facts, their importance and their implications.
为了克服否认，我们必须了解我们否认事实的原因，其重要性及其含义。
Rational strategies. This knowledge strategy is based on the assumption of rationality: we would not publicly deny the evolution of technology if we had enough information. However, we will not overcome resistance to electric vehicles solely by dint of scientific evidence and data. The real reason for denial is not always literal, but also interpretative and implicit. This means that to overcome the denial phase, we need to use emotional and social strategies.
理性策略 。 这种知识策略基于合理性的假设：如果我们有足够的信息，我们不会公开否认技术的发展。 但是，我们不会仅仅依靠科学证据和数据来克服对电动汽车的抵制。 拒绝的真正原因并不总是字面意义，而是解释性和隐含性。 这意味着要克服拒绝阶段，我们需要使用情感和社交策略。
Emotional Strategies. Denial is not only a rational process, but also an emotional one. One way to convince people against denial is through altruism. To overcome the fear and anxiety that change often produces, we must present an alternative that highlights the positive emotions derived from helping others. One strategy is to appeal to the common good and to our identity as part of a community. This is what Cohen calls “inclusiveness” — feeling like a citizen of the world with a responsibility for improving everyone’s future.
情绪策略 。 拒绝不仅是一个理性的过程，而且是一个情感的过程。 一种说服人们反对否认的方法是通过利他主义。 为了克服变化经常产生的恐惧和焦虑，我们必须提出另一种选择，强调从帮助他人中获得的积极情绪。 一种策略是呼吁共同利益和我们作为社区一部分的身份。 这就是科恩所谓的“包容性”，即感觉自己像世界公民，有责任改善每个人的未来。
Social Strategies. Denial is more than an individual psychological process, it is also a social reality. The triple process of denial can be magnified at the social level through negative messages, biased interpretations, or uncomfortable implications for the individual and society. All this leads to a kind of “social resistance” — a state of collective skepticism where denial is contagious. For example, if I think that electric vehicles are for an elite minority and not for people like me, I am falling into an implicit denial that is a barrier to adoption. To break this cycle of denial, people who take the first step publicly must have credibility and be perceived as “one of us.” The proponents of technological change in the energy sector must be highly visible social models we can all identify with.
社会策略 。 否认不仅是个人的心理过程，还是社会现实。 在社会层面，否定信息的三重过程可以通过负面信息，偏颇的解释或对个人和社会的不利影响而被放大。 所有这些都导致了一种“社会抵抗”-一种集体怀疑主义的状态，否认是具有传染性的。 例如，如果我认为电动汽车是针对少数群体的，而不是针对像我这样的人的，那么我将陷入隐含的否认，这是采用汽车的障碍。 为了打破这种否认循环，公开迈出第一步的人们必须具有信誉，并被视为“我们中的一个”。 能源行业技术变革的支持者必须是我们所有人都能认同的高度可见的社会模式。
People and society suffer processes of denial in the face of challenging situations such as technological innovation. We create our “perceptual universe” and see reality through those lenses.
面对充满挑战的情况，例如技术创新，人民和社会遭受拒绝的过程。 我们创建了“感知宇宙”，并通过这些视角看到了现实。
The psychology of denial helps us not only to understand the reasons that lead so many of us to resist technological change, but also to devise strategies to convince us of its advantages.
拒绝的心理不仅可以帮助我们理解导致我们如此之多的人抵制技术变革的原因，而且可以设计出使我们相信其优势的策略。
克服舍不得花钱的心理
435
被折叠的 条评论
为什么被折叠?
到【灌水乐园】发言
