I don't know if you remember the heart-wrenching scene in the movie "Tangshan Earthquake":
A son and a daughter are pressed under a stone slab at the same time, but you can only choose to save one, and saving one is equivalent to giving up the other.
If it were you, what would you do?
At this point, faced with such a dilemma, you may have a very inhumane thought in your heart: if only one of them had already been killed.
Although this thought is contrary to the nature and morality of the mother, it is real in such a difficult moment. How did this contradictory and tangled psychological phenomenon arise, and how should it be explained?
Destroy it, hurry up, get tired
Professor Kate Barasz of the University of Oxford has conducted nine studies on this state of mind in nine relevant scenarios: including whether breast cancer is chemotherapy, whether ligament strain is removed, and whether caesarean section is produced, etc., people's expectations for the diagnosis [1].
Studies of breast cancer patients are particularly typical: when malignancy has been diagnosed but have not yet been detected to be moderate or severe, you will face two different scenarios .
First, the result is severe, there is still a great risk of recurrence after surgery, and the doctor will strongly recommend chemotherapy;
Second, moderate, the recurrence rate after surgery is low, so you can choose whether to go on chemotherapy or not. Chemotherapy can further reduce the recurrence rate, but it has strong side effects on the body and the process is very uncomfortable. So if there is no chemotherapy and no recurrence, then is it not a waste of guilt to choose chemotherapy?
Obviously, a milder illness should be something that the patient naturally desires. However, the results of the study show that there is a general desire for a worse outcome.
Why do people prefer to get seriously ill?
In fact, this is the psychological principle of "paradoxical tendency to hope for worse news", which means that people are more likely to hear relatively bad news when faced with difficult decisions to avoid difficult decisions.
Simply put, people would rather accept an extremely poor outcome than choose one of the two worse outcomes and take responsibility for their own choices.
For example, when the fund you buy has a green line that lights up all the way, do you want it to fall a small step, or do you want it to simply fall and fall?
If it is a small step, do you take this opportunity to quickly throw a timely stop loss, or increase the purchase of crazy margin call? – Of course, this is related to how conservative you are, but whether you choose to be conservative or not, provided that you are aware of the responsibilities you will assume, similar to the responsibilities for your own health in the medical decisions described above – responsibility for your own assets.
This is the so-called decision avoidance, which refers to the psychology that people are unwilling to assume the responsibility for the results after decision-making, and try to avoid decision-making. Therefore, when faced with a dilemma, people will desire that God directly announce the worse outcome, avoiding the tangled decision, thereby reducing their responsibilities in the decision-making process.
To sum it up in one sentence: Destroy, hurry, tired.
There are exceptions to everything
At this point, you should have understood: Oh ~ it was originally to avoid responsibility
But do people prefer bad news in all cases?
Of course not! Professor Barasz's research found that when subjectively faced with a more difficult choice, there is a "bad news preference". That said, only choices that will make you toss and turn and tangle your head will lead to a tendency to accept worse news.
This is obvious. For example, after you've spoken to a blind date/camaraderie, you'll struggle with whether you should continue to contact to express your affection. This is also a dilemma: if the other party does not have the idea of continuing to develop, it is an embarrassing moment of capitalized social death; but what if the other party has this intention, but you miss a good relationship because you did not take the initiative to ask?
At this point, it is easy to understand the purpose of this example: this is obviously much less difficult. You are most likely inclined to that positive result and take the initiative to contact, because the cost of failure is nothing more than embarrassment, for love, this is worth it! (Of course if you are a patient with deep social phobia, when I didn't say)
Please be brave enough to open Pandora's box
At this point, you might ask: Is this bad news preference good for people? Is it really good to be so irresponsible to yourself?
First of all, don't rush to criticize your own irresponsibility, this "bad news preference" is a normal psychological phenomenon.
Second, we should also recognize the undesirable effects that this preference can have – bad news preferences can create undue incentives for policymakers, for example, people may be more inclined to simply forego opportunities for improvement and improvement, which is what we usually call "pendulum"
When the fiancée of the male protagonist in "The Rest of the Desert Island" chooses to believe that the protagonist who encountered the air disaster is dead and married, she gives up waiting for the negligible chance of survival, but also gives up the possibility of the male protagonist returning home smoothly because of the insistence on rescue. With a non-judgmental attitude, we believe in her kindness and believe that we may make the same decision in that dilemma.
But what Xuetangjun wants to emphasize is that Pandora's box will be opened sooner or later. I only hope that when that magnificent and beautiful light suddenly appears, you will be able to face any kind of result calmly because you understand this natural psychological phenomenon of human beings. And in the face of this good or bad fact, you can work hard, positively, and unswervingly make that choice that does not have to be escaped - to grow to the sun and live up to life.
Romain Rolland said: "There is only one true heroism in the world, that is, to love life after recognizing the truth of life. "When faced with a bleak reality, it is really difficult to continue to have courage and enthusiasm, just to put it down. Just like in the face of the current raging epidemic, I think it is inevitable that everyone will be tired, disappointed and even angry. Xuetangjun just wants to say to everyone here, no matter how difficult it is, don't give up hope, the world and I love you.
bibliography
Barasz, K., & Hagerty, S. F. (2021). Hoping for the Worst? A Paradoxical Preference for Bad News. Journal of Consumer Research, 48(2), 270-288.
Author | MR.
Edit | Amou
| Zene