㈠英語學(xué)習(xí)

The Personalities We Stage

If you are to take a step back and reflect on your personality, how will you characterize yourself?

A quiet introvert? An unabashed extrovert? A predominant leader? An accommodating team player? A sensible arbitrator? Or a mix of many roles?

If you present yourself in different fashions in front of different people, then what is your true personality? Or is the idea that there is a true personality in everyone a misleading notion?

我們表演的人物

如果你要退后一步反思你的個(gè)性，你將如何塑造自己？

一個(gè)安靜內(nèi)向的人？一個(gè)坦率的外向者？一個(gè)卓越的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者？一個(gè)隨和的團(tuán)隊(duì)成員？明智的仲裁員？還是多種角色的混合？

如果你在不同的人面前以不同的方式展現(xiàn)自己，那么你真正的個(gè)性是什么？或者說每個(gè)人都有一個(gè)真實(shí)的人格是一個(gè)誤導(dǎo)性的概念？

The social psychologist, Erving Goffman, known for his eccentricity and profound understanding of humans' social behaviors, has a theory: "we are all just actors trying to control and manage our public image."

Mr. Goffman posits that one's personality is an amalgamation of the roles one chooses to play in a number of contexts one has encountered in his or her life.

Like actors and actresses whose ultimate goals are to render their characters compelling and coherent, we also entertain the same objective when we decide on how to impress different groups of people that come in and out of our lives and how we want them to think of us.

以怪癖和對(duì)人類社會(huì)行為的深刻理解而聞名的社會(huì)心理學(xué)家歐文·戈夫曼有一個(gè)理論：“我們都只是試圖控制和管理我們公眾形象的演員。”

戈夫曼先生假設(shè)一個(gè)人的個(gè)性是一個(gè)人在他或她的生活中所遇到的許多環(huán)境中選擇扮演的角色的融合。

當(dāng)我們想讓不同的演員和演員在我們的生活中有著相同的目標(biāo)時(shí)，我們想如何取悅他們的最終目標(biāo)。

One could both be diligent at work in the eyes of his or her colleagues, and laid-back at home, leaving tedious house chores to his or her parents.

Demonstrating reserved modesty in a meeting filled with people higher on the hierarchy and exhibiting outspokenness and acuity of the mind during a post-dinner chat with close friends can often occur within the same person.

To the core, we are how we choose and what we believe.

一個(gè)人既可以在同事眼中勤奮工作，也可以在家里悠閑，把繁瑣的家務(wù)留給父母。

在同一個(gè)人中，同一個(gè)人經(jīng)常會(huì)在同一個(gè)人的會(huì)議上表現(xiàn)出矜持的謙虛，在飯后與好友聊天時(shí)表現(xiàn)出直言不諱和敏銳的頭腦。

從本質(zhì)上講，我們是如何選擇和相信的。

But on the outside, our personalities are how we represent ourselves to others, a decision predicated on what kinds of interactions we want to achieve with those self-representations.

Although there are variations in different individuals' personalities, for the majority of us, we strive to make sure that we are presenting ourselves within the bounds of agreed-upon socially appropriate behaviors.

Those unwritten rules prescribe that people don't normally yell out curse words in a formal setting, or that they don't usually address their siblings as if they are their acquaintance-level coworkers.

When they do, however, there's probably a hidden message underneath the surface of their infractions of the rules.

Some of those violations might risk their current social standings while others might not.

When a hotel staff member puts aside his courtesy and shouts at a customer in angry expletives, he's likely to get the pink slip.

On the other hand, when a mother calls her five-year-old son a masterful artist in a faked respectful tone after seeing his messy doodles on the wall, this reversal of roles could be a prelude to a subsequent reprimand.

Our personalities are statements about ourselves in various situations as we take on different social identities, and, as the thinking goes, you might not want to sum up someone's personality in a sweeping description like "he's generous" or "she's mean."

但從外表上看，我們的個(gè)性就是我們?nèi)绾蜗蛩苏故咀约海@是一個(gè)基于我們希望通過這些自我表達(dá)實(shí)現(xiàn)何種互動(dòng)的決定。

盡管不同個(gè)體的個(gè)性存在差異，但對(duì)我們大多數(shù)人來說，我們努力確保自己在商定的適合社會(huì)的行為范圍內(nèi)展現(xiàn)自己。

這些不成文的規(guī)則規(guī)定，人們通常不會(huì)在正式場(chǎng)合大喊臟話，或者他們通常不會(huì)像對(duì)待熟人級(jí)別的同事那樣稱呼兄弟姐妹。

然而，當(dāng)他們這樣做的時(shí)候，在他們違反規(guī)則的表面之下可能隱藏著一個(gè)信息。

其中一些違法行為可能會(huì)危及他們目前的社會(huì)地位，而另一些則可能不會(huì)。

當(dāng)一個(gè)酒店的工作人員拋開禮節(jié)，憤怒地對(duì)顧客大喊大叫時(shí)，他很可能會(huì)被解雇。

另一方面，當(dāng)一位母親看到自己5歲的兒子在墻上亂涂亂畫后，用假裝恭敬的語氣稱他為大師級(jí)的藝術(shù)家，這種角色的轉(zhuǎn)換可能會(huì)成為隨后訓(xùn)斥的前奏。

我們的個(gè)性是我們?cè)诓煌纳鐣?huì)身份下，在各種情況下對(duì)自己的描述，而且，按照思維方式，你可能不想用“他很慷慨”或“她很刻薄”這樣的籠統(tǒng)描述來概括某人的個(gè)性

每日閱讀筆記

㈠古人早說過,當(dāng)你騎的是一頭笨驢，羨慕別人騎的是八尺的肥馬，別人步輕蹄快，很快就超越了你。這時(shí)你只要回頭看看，還有赤著腳、挑著重?fù)?dān)，遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)跟在后頭的樵夫，就會(huì)氣憤全消。

　　但是有人偏不這樣看，姚合有一首詩道：“曉上上方高處立，路人羨我此時(shí)身。白云向我頭上過，我更羨他云路人！”

　　原來自己在上方立著，正受到腳下路人的羨慕，哪知一陣白云從高處飄過，想青霄的云路上更有飛黃騰達(dá)的人，使自己原先的得意霎時(shí)化為烏有，心里全不是滋味。

　　古來的圣哲教人“見賢思齊”，何嘗不主張“往上比”，不過往上比的是精神、品德、學(xué)問，這方面的淺深高下，自己不該不明白。精神的天空是無窮的，雞群中的鶴雖然卓然獨(dú)立，但是飛得高的還有鵠，鵠之上還有大鵬，其上更有遨游千仞的翔鳳。精神層面，智者會(huì)自覺太少，愚者才自覺太多，覺得太少的智慧日增，覺得太多的愚蠢日甚。

　　至于物質(zhì)、欲望、境遇的層面，最好“往下比”，騎驢者的內(nèi)心有余裕，就是智慧。不然八珍九鼎，仍不滿足于甘飴適口；滿身錦繡，仍不滿足于光彩耀眼；欲海溺人，將永遠(yuǎn)惶惶然感到欠缺與不足。所以這層面，自覺夠的智者，能安分知足，是真正的富有；常覺不足的愚者，日夜?fàn)I營逐逐，是永遠(yuǎn)的貧窮。

㈡夕陽完全退出了院子。但是門口香樟樹的樹梢上還有一截黃翠翠的金色。風(fēng)里，樹葉摩挲出響亮的聲音，一片片葉子把那光反射得沒有次序，一副肆意揮霍的樣子。一棵樹比一個(gè)人活得驕傲得多，它甚至是飛揚(yáng)跋扈的。生命的對(duì)比里，不是走的路多才看得更透，它最終取決于與大地的交融和互相的理解。而人，最終也會(huì)以這樣的方式自我肯定，只是人間的彎路太多，又不好意思不去走走。

　　喜鵲的叫聲帶著水響亮的部分。把一個(gè)下午的靜謐劃出許多條印子，如一個(gè)孩子用綠色的彩筆在深藍(lán)色的黑板上畫出的短暫弧線。它用不著絢麗，足夠你內(nèi)心喜悅和信任就可以了。我們存在的幸福還來自我們自以為是的先入為主，好像人間先有了我們，然后才匹配花草樹木。鳥語蟲鳴是我們說不清楚的事情，因?yàn)檎f不清楚，所以歧義叢生，而我們?cè)谶@些歧義里選取讓自己心悅的含義，對(duì)錯(cuò)無關(guān)緊要。

　　這個(gè)時(shí)候就應(yīng)該出去走走了。肯定是聽到了一棵野草，一棵野梨樹隱約的呼喊。它們的呼喊細(xì)膩、神秘，所以不會(huì)直接穿過人的耳朵。這個(gè)時(shí)候我總是對(duì)我生活的地方充滿了感激，生活一定預(yù)先知道我喜歡什么，所以就把這些都安排在我身邊，它們毫無保留地讓我看到，把一些微小的喜悅都掛在枝頭讓我去采，它們豐盈、飽滿而富足，根本不會(huì)擔(dān)心我會(huì)漏掉一些，它們會(huì)一直在那里微光閃爍。