主题：【半原创 评论】马家爵案的一些思考：该怎么预防？ -- 铁手
这是个悲剧，对谁来说都是。这里不想评论是非，只想分析事件发生的原因和今后应该需要注意的东西和对策。
事件：
从我看到的东西，事件大致过程是这样：马和同学打牌，结果和人产生冲突，被害人之一邵瑞杰指责马作弊，并说出“没想到连打牌你都玩假，你为人太差了，难怪龚博(另一被害人）过生日都不请你……”。此话对马刺激极大。因为邵是他同乡，在很大程度上被当作知心朋友看待。
随后，马杀死4人，其中两人是直接有关。
原因分析
有两个比较可能的原因。
1、马觉得被歧视，属于暴力报复行为
2、心理失去依赖，产生心理崩溃，导致绝望。
个人以为，这两个因素都存在，而且实际上也不单单是存在于他一个人身上，也存在在很多人身上，只是未必有人会走到那一步。
马出身贫苦，在大学里也生活的非常艰苦。这样的社会背景，在很大程度上不可避免会导致一个人非常自卑，并在社会交往中有意无意的封闭自己。而现实中，马也的确是相当的沉默寡言。
这样的心理状态，往往会使得一个人难得相信任何人，但是一旦相信就会特别信赖一两个他认为是铁哥们的人。对于这种友情的依赖，也会导致对对方的期待特别的高，也会让自己的心理特别脆弱。可以相信，邵的那些话，虽然在邵而言并不是很重的话，但是对马而言，却是彻底摧毁了他的精神支柱：当他发现“最可靠的人”居然也背叛了他，而他也不能在信赖任何人的时候，你可以想象，那种极度的绝望感就会让一个人冷血到什么样的程度。马的杀人相当的冷静，被捕后也并不想做无罪辩护。
预防和解决
很不幸的是，现实中不可避免的有不平等的存在，而这个客观的不平等也迟早会导致主观的不平等的感受。一个人，尤其是处于弱势地位的人，总会有被歧视的感受存在。
对于马而言，在他的心理状态下，尤其是因为自卑而产生的自我封闭，要指望他能够自己调整自己的心理状态，真的很难，几乎是不可能。他迫切需要的是外力的帮助。
心理问题必须得到足够的重视。对于自我封闭的心理状态的解放，至少需要在大学里有专门的心理辅导员，也需要一个大学能够提供大量的学生社会活动，这样他就有可能可以参与其中的一两个，而不只是一个埋头学习的地方。
歧视存在不存在？当然存在。怎么对付？由家长、老师、学校批评教育解决的了么？在这里，道德的手段是不充分的，需要的是法律的支持。法律至少应该提供一个机会，在不是当事人主观臆想的情况下，能够利用法律的手段来纠正别人的歧视，而不会因无法应对导致暴力手段的使用。
当西西河出现问题的时候，你的痛苦程度有多高？
其它河民呢？
我的确也很绝望过，心情也非常低落过，脾气因此也非常的不好，但是每次都是因为一些好文章的出现，让我又有了信心。
所以，俺并不赞成泡网过多。以前我特别提醒过“泡网有碍身心健康”。还是多一些选择的比较好。上网，只能作为生活的一个部分：）
以何标准为歧视？什么程度的歧视应该被限制？这些东西太难界定。歧视属于对他人的态度，就如仇恨和尊敬，在以具体行动表现出并影响到对方之前无法用强制的手段来限制。
对学生的心理问题重视及疏导是必要的。现在的教育体制很难保证学生的心态健康，必须有专职专业或半专业的人员在校解决。成长中的人格和价值观最容易被扭曲变型，也容易埋下隐患。对于社会人来说情商要比智商重要得多。
因为这个解决问题的方式的存在，即使是不能够实际的解决问题，也最起码可以起到一个威慑作用。批评教育经常会起到反面作用，就是让被批评的人怀恨在心，有时候不但没有能够纠正歧视，反而加重歧视。
法律的解决方式，我想可以借鉴美国。起码，美国因为历史的原因，这方面应该有一些经验了。
特别同意你关于情商和智商的看法。
可以给你便利，也可以使你受伤，不是网络的存在让你痛苦，痛苦的是你的失衡的内心。
所以，心理崩溃的原因可以是因为朋友的离去，因为失去工作，因为导师的不公，或者仅仅是因为无缘无故的忧郁。
快乐起来吧，让自己快乐，也让别人快乐，才是享受人生的开始。这里的快乐，更主要是保持心理平衡的意思吧。
比如针对种族, 性别等等, 在求职, 升学等一方拥有资源,
并对另外一方进行 Judge 的时候, 象马家爵这样日常生活中的因为某些具体事情的冲突, 似乎不能说是歧视.
联系前后，马不是一个孤立的事件。社会问题总的来说要在社会层面解决
A和B两个人, A到B的距离不等于B到A的距离. AB =BA
http://www.hut.fi/~vesanto/ihfudge/culture-part2.html
Culture - Power Distance
This is a determinant basic to all societies that Hofstede has named. It is describing the distribution of "power" among individuals and groups in the society, and how inequalities in power are dealt with in these societies.
Inequality of power is a basic fact of life. It cannot be 100% eliminated. Iit is impossible to have _no_ power distance, because this means everyone is exactly equal (skills, actions, genetics, etc) unless of course you are on about a bunch of identical lumps of rock...
Inequality can take many forms -the differences of physical and mental characteristics (genetics, fitness, education, IQ, etc), social status, and prestige, wealth, political power, laws, "rights", "priviledges" etc. All of these are somewhat independant of each other, and in fact the link between them is culturally dependant.
For example, the Samurai of Feudal Japan enjoyed status, prestige, wealth, and many "rights and priviledges" - all because of their physical prowess and family connections.
Another example is modern "Supermodels" who enjoy pretige, wealth, but no real "rights" or political power - all because of the fact that a few people think them "beautiful". Odd, isn't it...
The idea of power distance can help explain a great deal of cultural differences. Often when looking at other societies governmental structure, you may wonder "How do they let those people in power get away with all that?!" or the opposite "How do they stand all that chaotic quibbling and argument?". What Power Distance explains is that a particular society is willing to accept a certain "inwequality" in power - this allows for the fact that there will be some who lead, others who follow. So you can go from an "absolute democracy" (low power distance - and I don't think this actually exists anywhere) to an "absolute dictatorship" with the all power of life/death over the subjects concentrated in a few people (think phaoronic eqypt, etc)
But besides "centralisation of powe", what other things go along with the acceptance/rejection of power inequalities? And what caused these feelings?
The Social Norms of Power Distance
This should be a table, comparing equivalent high-low power distance attitudes. I will number the equivalent attitudes...
Low Power Distance:
1. Inequality should be minimised
2. All people should be interdependant
3. Hierarchy is an inequality of roles - for convenience only!
4. Superiors/Subordinates are people just like me.
5. All use of power should be legitimised, and is subject to moral judgement,
(what is good or bad or even evil use of power)
6. All have equal rights.
7. Powerful people should try not to look too powerful.
8. Reward, Legitimate and Expert power are accepted
9. If something goes wrong - System is to blame.
10. To change the social system, redistribute the power. (evolution)
11. People are more prepared to trust one another.
12. There is a latent "harmony" in the society
13. Co-operation in "lower class" is based on solidarity.
High Power Distance
1. Inequality is a fact of life - Everyone has their rightful place.
2. Some are independant, others are dependant.
3. Hierarchy is something that exists and is accepted.
4. Superiors/Subordinates are different to me
5. Power is a basic fact of society which is independant of morality. It is
there to be used - legitimacy is irrelevant
6. Power gives priviledges.
7. Powerfule people try to look as powerful as possible. (pomp + ceremony)
8. Coersion and referant power are accepted
9. If something goes wrong - it's the underdog's fault.
10. To change the social system, dethrone those in power (revolution)
11. everyone wants your power - don't trust them.
12. latent conflict between powerful-powerless.
13. co-operation is hards due to lack of trust.
Some real world examples from "Culture's Consequences" (about 0-100; scale can go outside these bounds, but no real societies did)
Denmark: 18
New Zealand: 22
Ireland: 28
Sweden: 31
Great Britain: 35
Australia: 36
US: 40
Japan: 54
France: 68
India: 77
Phillippines: 94
Power distance is not "good or bad". It just is. Definitions of what is desirable/undesirable are culturally dependant.
Please note - Power distance CANNOT be measured for individuals. It is a statistical result coming from many thousands of people. You can have people expressing ideals from either high/low power distance in all societies.
Origins of Power Distance
(Origins are "independant" variables. All these "origins" _lead to_ a society having power distance.)
How does power distance come about? You can predict the power distance of a society - without knowing much about them - from a couple of things (this is for modern societies).
41% from geographical position (lattitude - Pole/Equator)
51% from lattitude and population size
58% from lattitude. population and wealth.
So as you can see, the environmental factors play a major role (the Equator is warmer, more vegetation, etc.)! Population is also determined by the carrying capacity of the area (how many can be supported without famine?) and partially on technology (which can change the environment - and needs wealth)
Anyway, there is a big list of factors here. The earlier ones are more independant than the later ones. Same deal as with the societal norms...
Low Power Distance
1. Moderate to cold climates
2. Survival of population more dependant on man's intervention with nature
3. More need for technology (fire, etc)
4. Historical: early legislation epplied to rulers, One-child inheritance
5. More _need_ for education of the "lower classes" (lteracy, etc)
6. Greater social mobility, strong development of the Middle Class.
7. Greater _National_ wealth
8. Wealth is widely distributed
9. Politics based on system of representation
10. Independant streak - small population
11. Historical: independance, federalism, negotiation
12. Less centralisation of political power
13. Changing society - fast acceptance of technology
14. Children learn things their parents never did.
15. More questioning of authority in general.
High Power Distance
1. Tropical and sub-tropical climates
2. Survival and populaiton growth just less dependant on intervention with
nature (food is easy to get...)
3. Less reliance on technology
4. Historical: Early legislation not applied to rulers, Divided inheritance.
5. Less need for education of "lower classes"
6. Less social mobility, polarised society (rich - poor)
7. Less _national_ wealth.
8. Wealth concentrated in the hands of a small "elite"
9. Political power is concentrated in a small "elite" (military, oligarch, etc)
10. Large population - little resistance to mass "integration"
11. Historical: Occupation, colonisation, imperialism.
12. Centralisation of Political power.
13. More static societies
14. Children dependant on Parents and elders
15. Less questioning of Authority in General.
Note: Power Distance is a measure of _internal_ thoughts - what people thing of others _in_their_own_ society. It is not a measure of tolerance to _outside_ races, religions, etc. (this is more to do with uncertainty avoidance, dealing with the unknown and unknowable)
Consequences of Power Distance
Hmm. You now know about what power distance is, and how it starts. But what does it affect the society in question. What are the things you would see?
Oh eyah - another one of these table thingys...
Low Power Distance
_Political effects_
1. Pluralist government based on majority vote
2. No sudden changes in governments (evoltion and stability)
3. Political parties tend to be "centralist"
4. Gevernment frequently led by those that stress equality (social democrats?)
5. Tax redistributes wealth
_Religion, Philisophy, and Ideological thinking_
6. Stress on Equality
7. Ideologies of power equalisation
8. Pluralist Theories of Society
9. Non Zero-sum theories of power
10. Conning and Quiet approach to power is seen as leading to stability
_Organisations_
11. Less centralisation
12. Smaller "supervisonry" personel
13. Smaller wage differences.
14. Higher qualification of the lower classes
15. Manual work has same status as clerical work.
High Power Distance
_Politics_
1. Autocratic/Absolutist governments
2. Sudden changes in government (Revolution/instability)
3. Polarisation of left/right wing parties
4. If democratic - tend to be led by parties not stressing equality
(right wing)
5. Tax protects the wealthy
_Religion, Philosophy, ann Ideological thinking_
6. Stree on Stratification
7. Ideologies of power polarisation
8. Elitist theories of society
9. Zero-sum theories of power
10. Forceful and Loud approach to power is seen as leading to stability
_Organisations_
11 Greater Centralisation
12. Large proportion od supervisors
13. Large wage differences
14. Lower qualified lower-class
15. "white collar" jobs valued more than "blue collar" jobs..
Phew!!!
A few comments on Power Distance:
Interesting point is that the ideologic and Pragmatic realities of power distance can often be radically different. ie What people "say" they want is quite different to how they actually "behave". (think, French revolution, American Politics etc..)
An interesting point I have seen - many societies espouse "freedom and equality" but fail to realise that one comes at the price at the other. People are inherently unequal - they have different skills and abilities etc. In a "free market" economy, people tend to become unequal. But when you stress equality it becomes necessary to enforce "laws/rules" to keep this perceived equality... ie, you loose some freedom.
As a personal view, I tend to see right-wing politics as one which stresses "freedom", while left-wing politics stress equality. (I suppose this says more about me than anything else - but I am more of a pragmatist when it comes to politics - do what works!)
心怀善心想拉他一把的人，如果是个懂心理学的还行。如果不是，不知从何下手，终究会放弃。
自卑，自闭，和外界没交流的人，肯定会容易绝望。
不知怎么的，想起了卢刚。
他家虽然困难, 但也有助学金, 不是那么过不去,
而且都快毕业了, 找到工作马上就会有收入, 经济上也会有所改善
还是一个典型的青春期的学生如何处理人际关系的问题
有些人借题发挥, 实在没有必要.
还需要专门处理心理问题的。或者起码能指导需要这方面帮助的人找到可以提供援助的地方。
自信的人，不行也行。
不自信的人，行也不行。
生活中有位朋友，人聪明极了，但患有心理疾病，生活和工作都很不顺。我们和他聊过多次，没用的。可惜了。