2. 职称英语
  3. Back in 1964, in his book Games People Play, psychiatrist Eric Berne describe

Back in 1964, in his book Games People Play, psychiatrist Eric Berne describe

游客2024-03-11  34
问题    Back in 1964, in his book Games People Play, psychiatrist Eric Berne described a pattern of conversation he called "Why Don’t You—Yes But", which remains one of the most irritating aspects of everyday social life. The person adopting the strategy is usually a chronic complainer. Something is terrible about their relationship, job, or other situation, and they moan about it ceaselessly, but find some excuse to dismiss any solution that’s proposed. The reason, of course, is that on some level they don’t want a solution; they want to be validated in their position that the world is out to get them. If they can "win" the game—dismissing every suggestion until their interlocutor (对话者) gives up in annoyance—they get to feel pleasurably righteous (正当的) in their resentments and excused from any obligation to change.
   Part of the trouble here is the so-called responsibility/fault fallacy (谬误). When you’re feeling hard done by—taken for granted by your partner, say, or obliged to work for a half-witted boss—it’s easy to become attached to the position that it’s not your job to address the matter, and that doing so would be an admission of fault. But there’s a confusion here. For example, if I were to discover a newborn at my front door, it wouldn’t be my fault, but it most certainly would be my responsibility. There would be choices to make, and no possibility of avoiding them, since trying to ignore the matter would be a choice. The point is that what goes for the baby on the doorstep is true in all cases: even if the other person is 100% in the wrong, there’s nothing to be gained, long-term, from using this as a justification to evade responsibility.
   Should you find yourself on the receiving end of this kind of complaining, there’s an ingenious way to shut it down—which is to agree with it, ardently. Psychotherapist Lori Gottlieb describes this as "over-validation". For one thing, you’ll be spared further moaning, since the other person’s motivation was to confirm her beliefs, and now you’re confirming them. But for another, as Gottlieb notes, people confronted with over-validation often hear their complaints afresh and start arguing back. The notion that they’re utterly powerless suddenly seems unrealistic—not to mention rather annoying—so they’re prompted instead to generate ideas about how they might change things.
   "And then, sometimes, something magical might happen," Gottlieb writes. The other person "might realise she’s not as trapped as you are saying she is, or as she feels." Which illustrates the irony of the responsibility/fault fallacy: evading responsibility feels comfortable, but turns out to be a prison; whereas assuming responsibility feels unpleasant, but ends up being freeing. [br] What happens when chronic complainers receive over-validation?
选项 A、They are motivated to find ingenious ways to persuade their interlocutor.
B、They are prompted to come up with ideas for making possible changes.
C、They are stimulated to make more complaints.
D、They are encouraged to start arguing back.
答案 B
解析 推理判断题。定位句指出，心理治疗师洛瑞-戈特利布将其描述为“过度确认”。定位句中的this是指首句中提出的“热情地赞同对方来阻止抱怨”这个方法。接下来，文中用For one thing引出了抱怨接收方的感受：你将幸免于进一步的抱怨。用But for another引出了习惯性抱怨者的反应：他们经常会重新听到他们的抱怨，然后开始反驳。末句提到习惯性抱怨者最后反而被激发出关于如何改变事物的想法，故答案为B)。
转载请注明原文地址:https://www.tihaiku.com/zcyy/3525184.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)