On May 7, 1931, the most sensational manhunt New York City had ever known had come to its climax. After weeks of search,“Two Gun”Crowley—the killer, the gunman who didn't smoke or drink—was at bay, trapped in his sweetheart's apartment on West End Avenue.
One hundred and fifty policemen and detectives laid siege to his top-floor hideaway. They chopped holes in the roof; they tried to smoke out Crowley, the“cop killer,”with tear gas. Then they mounted their machine guns on surrounding buildings and for more than an hour one of New York's fine residential areas reverberated with the crack of pistol fire and the tat-tat-tat of machine guns. Crowley, crouching behind an overstuffed chair, fired incessantly at the police. Ten thousand excited people watched the battle. Nothing like it had ever been seen before on the sidewalks of New York.
When Crowley was captured, Police Commissioner E. P. Mulrooney declared that the two-gun desperado was one of the most dangerous criminals ever encountered in the history of New York.“He will kill,”said the Commissioner,“at the drop of a feather.”
But how did“Two Gun”Crowley regard himself? We know, because while the police were firing into his apartment, he wrote a letter addressed“To whom it may concern.”And, as he wrote, the blood flowing from his wounds left a crimson trail on the paper. In his letter Crowley said:“Under my coat is a weary heart, but a kind one—one that would do nobody any harm.”
A short time before this, Crowley had been having a necking party with his girl friend on a country road out on Long Island. Suddenly a policeman walked up to the car and said:“Let me see your license.”
Without saying a word, Crowley drew his gun and cut the policeman down with a shower of lead. As the dying officer fell, Crowley leaped out of the car, grabbed the officer's revolver, and fired another bullet into the prostrate body. And that was the killer who said:“Under my coat is a weary heart, but a kind one—one that would do nobody any harm.”Crowley was sentenced to the electric chair. When he arrived at the death house in Sing Sing, did he say,“This is what I get for killing people”? No, he said:“This is what I get for defending myself.”
The point of the story is this:“Two Gun”Crowley didn't blame himself for anything.
Is that an unusual attitude among criminals? If you think so, listen to this:
“I have spent the best years of my life giving people the lighter pleasures, helping them have a good time,and all I get is abuse, the existence of a hunted man.”
That's Al Capone speaking. Yes, America's most notorious Public Enemy—the most sinister gang leader who ever shot up Chicago. Capone didn't condemn himself. He actually regarded himself as a public benefactor—an unappreciated and misunderstood public benefactor.
And so did Dutch Schultz before he crumpled up under gangster bullets in Newark. Dutch Schultz, one of New York's most notorious rats, said in a newspaper interview that he was a public benefactor. And he believed it.
I have had some interesting correspondence with Lewis Lawes, who was warden of New York's infamous Sing Sing prison for many years, on this subject, and he declared that“few of the criminals in Sing Sing regard themselves as bad men. They are just as human as you and I. So they rationalize, they explain. They can tell you why they had to crack a safe or be quick on the trigger finger. Most of them attempt by a form of reasoning, fallacious or logical, to justify their antisocial acts even to themselves, consequently stoutly maintaining that they should never have been imprisoned at all.”
If Al Capone,“Two Gun”Crowley, Dutch Schultz, and the desperate men and women behind prison walls don't blame themselves for anything—what about the people with whom you and I come in contact?
John Wanamaker, founder of the stores that bear his name, once confessed:“I learned thirty years ago that it is foolish to scold. I have enough trouble overcoming my own limitations without fretting over the fact that God has not seen fit to distribute evenly the gift of intelligence.”
Wanamaker learned this lesson early, but I personally had to blunder through this old world for a third of a century before it even began to dawn upon me that ninety-nine times out of a hundred, people don't criticize themselves for anything, no matter how wrong it may be.
Criticism is futile because it puts a person on the defensive and usually makes him strive to justify himself. Criticism is dangerous, because it wounds a person's precious pride, hurts his sense of importance, and arouses resentment.
B. F. Skinner, the world-famous psychologist, proved through his experiments that an animal rewarded for good behavior will learn much more rapidly and retain what it learns far more effectively than an animal punished for bad behavior. Later studies have shown that the same applies to humans. By criticizing, we do not make lasting changes and often incur resentment.
Hans Selye, another great psychologist, said,“As much as we thirst for approval, we dread condemnation.”
The resentment that criticism engenders can demoralize employees, family members and friends, and still not correct the situation that has been condemned.
George B. Johnston of Enid, Oklahoma, is the safety coordinator for an engineering company. One of his responsibilities is to see that employees wear their hard hats whenever they are on the job in the field. He reported that whenever he came across workers who were not wearing hard hats, he would tell them with a lot of authority of the regulation and that they must comply. As a result he would get sullen acceptance, and often after he left, the workers would remove the hats.
He decided to try a different approach. The next time he found some of the workers not wearing their hard hat, he asked if the hats were uncomfortable or did not fit properly. Then he reminded the men in a pleasant tone of voice that the hat was designed to protect them from injury and suggested that it always be worn on the job. The result was increased compliance with the regulation with no resentment or emotional upset.
You will find examples of the futility of criticism bristling on a thousand pages of history. Take, for example, the famous quarrel between Theodore Roosevelt and President Taft—a quarrel that split the Republican party, put Woodrow Wilson in the White House, and wrote bold, luminous lines across the First World War and altered the flow of history. Let's review the facts quickly. When Theodore Roosevelt stepped out of the White House in 1908, he supported Taft, who was elected President. Then Theodore Roosevelt went off to Africa to shoot lions. When he returned, he exploded. He denounced Taft for his conservatism, tried to secure the nomination for a third term himself, formed the Bull Moose party, and all but demolished the G. O. P. In the election that followed, William Howard Taft and the Republican party carried only two states— Vermont and Utah. The most disastrous defeat the party had ever known.
Theodore Roosevelt blamed Taft, but did President Taft blame himself? Of course not. With tears in his eyes, Taft said:“I don't see how I could have done any differently from what I have.”
Who was to blame? Roosevelt or Taft? Frankly, I don't know, and I don't care. The point I am trying to make is that all of Theodore Roosevelt's criticism didn't persuade Taft that he was wrong. It merely made Taft strive to justify himself and to reiterate with tears in his eyes:“I don't see how I could have done any differently from what I have.”
Or, take the Teapot Dome oil scandal. It kept the newspapers ringing with indignation in the early 1920s. It rocked the nation! Within the memory of living men, nothing like it had ever happened before in American public life. Here are the bare facts of the scandal: Albert B. Fall, secretary of the interior in Harding's cabinet, was entrusted with the leasing of government oil reserves at Elk Hill and Teapot Dome—oil reserves that had been set aside for the future use of the Navy. Did Secretary Fall permit competitive bidding? No sir. He handed the fat, juicy contract outright to his friend Edward L. Doheny. And what did Doheny do? He gave Secretary Fall what he was pleased to call a“loan”of one hundred thousand dollars. Then, in a high-handed manner, Secretary Fall ordered United States Marines into the district to drive off competitors whose adjacent wells were sapping oil out of the Elk Hill reserves. These competitors, driven off their ground at the ends of guns and bayonets, rushed into court—and blew the lid off the Teapot Dome scandal. A stench arose so vile that it ruined the Harding Administration, nauseated an entire nation, threatened to wreck the Republican party, and put Albert B. Fall behind prison bars.
Fall was condemned viciously—condemned as few men in public life have ever been. Did he repent? Never! Years later Herbert Hoover intimated in a public speech that President Harding's death had been due to mental anxiety and worry because a friend had betrayed him. When Mrs. Fall heard that, she sprang from her chair, she wept, she shook her fists at fate and screamed:“What! Harding betrayed by Fall? No! My husband never betrayed anyone. This whole house full of gold would not tempt my husband to do wrong. He is the one who has been betrayed and led to the slaughter and crucified.”
There you are; human nature in action, wrongdoers, blaming everybody but themselves. We are all like that. So when you and I are tempted to criticize someone tomorrow, let's remember Al Capone,“Two Gun”Crowley and Albert Fall. Let's realize that criticisms are like homing pigeons. They always return home. Let's realize that the person we are going to correct and condemn will probably justify himself or herself, and condemn us in return; or, like the gentle Taft, will say:“I don't see how I could have done any differently from what I have.”
On the morning of April 15, 1865, Abraham Lincoln lay dying in a hall bedroom of a cheap lodging house directly across the street from Ford's Theater, where John Wilkes Booth had shot him. Lincoln's long body lay stretched diagonally across a sagging bed that was too short for him. A cheap reproduction of Rosa Bonheur's famous painting The Horse Fair hung above the bed, and a dismal gas jet flickered yellow light.
As Lincoln lay dying, Secretary of War Stanton said,“There lies the most perfect ruler of men that the world has ever seen.”
What was the secret of Lincoln's success in dealing with people? I studied the life of Abraham Lincoln for ten years and devoted all of three years to writing and rewriting a book entitled Lincoln the Unknown. I believe I have made as detailed and exhaustive a study of Lincoln's personality and home life as it is possible for any being to make. I made a special study of Lincoln's method of dealing with people. Did he indulge in criticism? Oh, yes. As a young man in the Pigeon Creek Valley of Indiana, he not only criticized but he wrote letters and poems ridiculing people and dropped these letters on the country roads where they were sure to be found. One of these letters aroused resentments that burned for a lifetime.
Even after Lincoln had become a practicing lawyer in Springfield, Illinois, he attacked his opponents openly in letters published in the newspapers. But he did this just once too often.
In the autumn of 1842 he ridiculed a vain, pugnacious politician by the name of James Shields. Lincoln lampooned him through an anonymous letter published in the Springfield Journal. The town roared with laughter. Shields, sensitive and proud, boiled with indignation. He found out who wrote the letter, leaped on his horse, started after Lincoln, and challenged him to fight a duel. Lincoln didn't want to fight. He was opposed to dueling, but he couldn't get out of it and save his honor. He was given the choice of weapons. Since he had very long arms, he chose cavalry broadswords and took lessons in sword fighting from a West Point graduate; and, on the appointed day, he and Shields met on a sandbar in the Mississippi River, prepared to fight to the death; but, at the last minute, their seconds interrupted and stopped the duel.
That was the most lurid personal incident in Lincoln's life. It taught him an invaluable lesson in the art of dealing with people. Never again did he write an insulting letter. Never again did he ridicule anyone. And from that time on, he almost never criticized anybody for anything.
Time after time, during the Civil War, Lincoln put a new general at the head of the Army of the Potomac, and each one in turn—McClellan, Pope, Burnside, Hooker, Meade—blundered tragically and drove Lincoln to pacing the floor in despair. Half the nation savagely condemned these incompetent generals, but Lincoln,“with malice toward none, with charity for all,”held his peace. One of his favorite quotations was“Judge not, that ye be not judged.”
And when Mrs. Lincoln and others spoke harshly of the southern people, Lincoln replied:“Don't criticize them; they are just what we would be under similar circumstances.”
Yet if any man ever had occasion to criticize, surely it was Lincoln. Let's take just one illustration:
The Battle of Gettysburg was fought during the first three days of July 1863. During the night of July 4, Lee began to retreat southward while storm clouds deluged the country with rain. When Lee reached the Potomac with his defeated army, he found a swollen, impassable river in front of him, and a victorious Union Army behind him. Lee was in a trap. He couldn't escape. Lincoln saw that. Here was a golden, heaven-sent opportunity—the opportunity to capture Lee's army and end the war immediately. So, with a surge of high hope, Lincoln ordered Meade not to call a council of war but to attack Lee immediately. Lincoln telegraphed his orders and then sent a special messenger to Meade demanding immediate action.
And what did General Meade do? He did the very opposite of what he was told to do. He called a council of war in direct violation of Lincoln's orders. He hesitated. He procrastinated. He telegraphed all manner of excuses. He refused point-blank to attack Lee. Finally the waters receded and Lee escaped over the Potomac with his forces.
Lincoln was furious.“What does this mean?”Lincoln cried to his son Robert.“Great God! What does this mean? We had them within our grasp, and had only to stretch forth our hands and they were ours; yet nothing that I could say or do could make the army move. Under the circumstances, almost any general could have defeated Lee. If I had gone up there, I could have whipped him myself.”
In bitter disappointment, Lincoln sat down and wrote Meade this letter. And remember, at this period of his life Lincoln was extremely conservative and restrained in his phraseology. So this letter coming from Lincoln in 1863 was tantamount to the severest rebuke.
My dear General,
I do not believe you appreciate the magnitude of the misfortune involved in Lee's escape. He was within our easy grasp, and to have closed upon him would, in connection with our other late successes, have ended the war. As it is, the war will be prolonged indefinitely. If you could not safely attack Lee last Monday, how can you possibly do so south of the river, when you can take with you very few—no more than two-thirds of the force you then had in hand? It would be unreasonable to expect and I do not expect that you can now effect much. Your golden opportunity is gone, and I am distressed immeasurably because of it.
What do you suppose Meade did when he read the letter?
Meade never saw that letter. Lincoln never mailed it. It was found among his papers after his death.
My guess is—and this is only a guess—that after writing that letter, Lincoln looked out of the window and said to himself,“Just a minute. Maybe I ought not to be so hasty. It is easy enough for me to sit here in the quiet of the White House and order Meade to attack; but if I had been up at Gettysburg, and if I had seen as much blood as Meade has seen during the last week, and if my ears had been pierced with the screams and shrieks of the wounded and dying, maybe I wouldn't be so anxious to attack either. If I had Meade's timid temperament, perhaps I would have done just what he had done. Anyhow, it is water under the bridge now. If I send this letter, it will relieve my feelings, but it will make Meade try to justify himself. It will make him condemn me. It will arouse hard feelings, impair all his further usefulness as a commander, and perhaps force him to resign from the army.”
So, as I have already said, Lincoln put the letter aside, for he had learned by bitter experience that sharp criticisms and rebukes almost invariably end in futility.
Theodore Roosevelt said that when he, as President, was confronted with a perplexing problem, he used to lean back and look up at a large painting of Lincoln which hung above his desk in the White House and ask himself,“What would Lincoln do if he were in my shoes? How would he solve this problem?”
The next time we are tempted to admonish somebody, let's pull a five-dollar bill out of our pocket, look at Lincoln's picture on the bill, and ask,“How would Lincoln handle this problem if he had it?”
Mark Twain lost his temper occasionally and wrote letters that turned the paper brown. For example, he once wrote to a man who had aroused his ire:“The thing for you is a burial permit. You have only to speak and I will see that you get it.”On another occasion he wrote to an editor about a proofreader's attempts to“improve my spelling and punctuation.”He ordered:“Set the matter according to my copy hereafter and see that the proofreader retains his suggestions in the mush of his decayed brain.”
The writing of these stinging letters made Mark Twain feel better. They allowed him to blow off steam, and the letters didn't do any real harm, because Mark's wife secretly lifted them out of the mail. They were never sent.
Do you know someone you would like to change and regulate and improve? Good! That is fine. I am all in favor of it. But why not begin on yourself? From a purely selfish standpoint, that is a lot more profitable than trying to improve others—yes, and a lot less dangerous.“Don't complain about the snow on your neighbor's roof,”said Confucius,“when your own doorstep is unclean.”
When I was still young and trying hard to impress people, I wrote a foolish letter to Richard Harding Davis, an author who once loomed large on the literary horizon of America. I was preparing a magazine article about authors, and I asked Davis to tell me about his method of work. A few weeks earlier, I had received a letter from someone with this notation at the bottom:“Dictated but not read.”I was quite impressed. I felt that the writer must be very big and busy and important. I wasn't the slightest bit busy, but I was eager to make an impression on Richard Harding Davis, so I ended my short note with the words:“Dictated but not read.”
He never troubled to answer the letter. He simply returned it to me with this scribbled across the bottom:“Your bad manners are exceeded only by your bad manners.”True, I had blundered, and perhaps I deserved this rebuke. But, being human, I resented it. I resented it so sharply that when I read of the death of Richard Harding Davis ten years later, the one thought that still persisted in my mind—I am ashamed to admit—was the hurt he had given me.
If you and I want to stir up a resentment tomorrow that may rankle across the decades and endure until death, just let us indulge in a little stinging criticism—no matter how certain we are that it is justified.
When dealing with people, let us remember we are not dealing with creatures of logic. We are dealing with creatures of emotion, creatures bristling with prejudices and motivated by pride and vanity.
Bitter criticism caused the sensitive Thomas Hardy, one of the finest novelists ever to enrich English literature, to give up forever the writing of fiction. Criticism drove Thomas Chatterton, the English poet, to suicide.
Benjamin Franklin, tactless in his youth, became so diplomatic, so adroit at handling people, that he was made American Ambassador to France. The secret of his success?“I will speak ill of no man,”he said,“…and speak all the good I know of everybody.”
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain—and most fools do.
But it takes character and self-control to be understanding and forgiving.
“A great man shows his greatness,”said Carlyle,“by the way he treats little men.”
Bob Hoover, a famous test pilot and frequent performer at air shows, was returning to his home in Los Angeles from an air show in San Diego. As described in the magazine Flight Operations, at three hundred feet in the air, both engines suddenly stopped. By deft maneuvering he managed to land the plane, but it was badly damaged although nobody was hurt.
Hoover's first act after the emergency landing was to inspect the airplane's fuel. Just as he suspected, the World War II propeller plane he had been flying had been fueled with jet fuel rather than gasoline.
Upon returning to the airport, he asked to see the mechanic who had serviced his airplane. The young man was sick with the agony of his mistake. Tears streamed down his face as Hoover approached. He had just caused the loss of a very expensive plane and could have caused the loss of three lives as well.
You can imagine Hoover's anger. One could anticipate the tongue-lashing that this proud and precise pilot would unleash for that carelessness. But Hoover didn't scold the mechanic; he didn't even criticize him. Instead, he put his big arm around the man's shoulder and said,“To show you I'm sure that you'll never do his again, I want you to service my F-51 tomorrow.”
Often parents are tempted to criticize their children. You would expect me to say“don't.”But I will not. I am merely going to say,“Before you criticize them, read one of the classics of American journalism,‘Father Forgets.’”It originally appeared as an editorial in the People's Home Journal. We are reprinting it here with the author's permission, as condensed in the Reader's Digest:
“Father Forgets”is one of those little pieces which—dashed off in a moment of sincere feeling—strikes an echoing chord in so many readers as to become a perennial reprint favorite. Since its first appearance,“Father Forgets”has been reproduced, writes the author, W. Livingston Larned,“in hundreds of magazines and house organs, and in newspapers the country over. It has been reprinted almost as extensively in many foreign languages. I have given personal permission to thousands who wished to read it from school, church, and lecture platforms. It has been‘on the air’on countless occasions and programs. Oddly enough, college periodicals have used it, and high-school magazines. Sometimes a little piece seems mysteriously to‘click’. This one certainly did.”
FATHER FORGETS
W. Livingston Larned
Listen, son:
I am saying this as you lie asleep, one little paw crumpled under your cheek and the blond curls stickily wet on your damp forehead. I have stolen into your room alone. Just a few minutes ago, as I sat reading my paper in the library, a stifling wave of remorse swept over me. Guiltily I came to your bedside.
There are the things I was thinking, son: I had been cross to you. I scolded you as you were dressing for school because you gave your face merely a dab with a towel. I took you to task for not cleaning your shoes. I called out angrily when you threw some of your things on the floor.
At breakfast I found fault, too. You spilled things. You gulped down your food. You put your elbows on the table. You spread butter too thick on your bread. And as you started off to play and I made for my train, you turned and waved a hand and called,“Goodbye, Daddy!”and I frowned, and said in reply,“Hold your shoulders back!”
Then it began all over again in the late afternoon. As I came up the road I spied you, down on your knees, playing marbles. There were holes in your stockings. I humiliated you before your boyfriends by marching you ahead of me to the house. Stockings were expensive— and if you had to buy them you would be more careful! Imagine that, son, from a father!
Do you remember, later, when I was reading in the library, how you came in timidly, with a sort of hurt look in your eyes? When I glanced up over my paper, impatient at the interruption, you hesitated at the door.“What is it you want?”I snapped.
You said nothing, but ran across in one tempestuous plunge, and threw your arms around my neck and kissed me, and your small arms tightened with an affection that God had set blooming in your heart and which even neglect could not wither. And then you were gone, pattering up the stairs.
Well, son, it was shortly afterwards that my paper slipped from my hands and a terrible sickening fear came over me. What has habit been doing to me? The habit of finding fault, of reprimanding—this was my reward to you for being a boy. It was not that I did not love you; it was that I expected too much of youth. I was measuring you by the yardstick of my own years.
And there was so much that was good and fine and true in your character. The little heart of you was as big as the dawn itself over the wide hills. This was shown by your spontaneous impulse to rush in and kiss me good night. Nothing else matters tonight, son. I have come to your bedside in the darkness, and I have knelt there, ashamed!
It is a feeble atonement; I know you would not understand these things if I told them to you during your waking hours. But tomorrow I will be a real daddy! I will chum with you, and suffer when you suffer, and laugh when you laugh. I will bite my tongue when impatient words come. I will keep saying as if it were a ritual:“He is nothing but a boy—a little boy!”
I am afraid I have visualized you as a man. Yet as I see you now, son, crumpled and weary in your cot, I see that you are still a baby. Yesterday you were in your mother's arms, your head on her shoulder. I have asked too much, too much.
Instead of condemning people, let's try to understand them. Let's try to figure out why they do what they do. That's a lot more profitable and intriguing than criticism; and it breeds sympathy, tolerance and kindness.“To know all is to forgive all.”
As Dr. Johnson said:“God himself, sir, does not propose to judge man until the end of his days.”
Why should you and I?
DON'T CRITICIZE, CONDEMN OR COMPLAIN.
1931年5月7日,紐約市最轟動(dòng)的一起追捕行動(dòng)進(jìn)入了白熱化階段。經(jīng)過了幾周的搜查后,殺人犯“雙槍”克勞利終于走投無路,這個(gè)煙酒不沾的持槍歹徒被圍困在他女友的西區(qū)公寓中。
一百五十名警察和偵探包圍了頂層他的藏身處,他們在房檐上鉆孔,試圖用煙霧彈把這個(gè)警察殺手嗆出來,他們還在周圍的高樓上架設(shè)了機(jī)關(guān)槍。整整一個(gè)多小時(shí)內(nèi),這個(gè)紐約高檔住宅區(qū)里回蕩的都是手槍和機(jī)關(guān)槍發(fā)射子彈的聲音??藙诶阍诙训妹苊軐?shí)實(shí)的椅子后面不停向警察開槍。一萬多名興奮的群眾在觀戰(zhàn),這樣的場景從未在紐約市的街道上發(fā)生過。
克勞利被捕后,E.P.莫魯尼警長宣布這個(gè)雙槍亡命徒是紐約有史以來最危險(xiǎn)的罪犯之一。警長說:“他可以為任何不起眼的事而殺人。”
但“雙槍”克勞利是怎么看自己的呢?從他的信中我們可以窺探一二,就在警察向公寓開槍時(shí),他寫下了一封“致有關(guān)人士”的信。他用傷口涌出的血在信紙上留下一道殷紅的印記,他在信中寫道:“在我的外表下藏著一顆疲倦?yún)s善良的心,它不會(huì)傷害任何人。”
之前不久,克勞利和他的女友在長島的一條鄉(xiāng)間小路上激情擁吻。這時(shí)一名警察忽然走過來說:“出示你的駕照。”
克勞利二話不說,掏出槍對著警察瘋狂掃射。在警察倒下時(shí),他跳下車,用警察的槍又往那已經(jīng)倒下的身體中射入了一枚子彈。這就是那個(gè)自己宣稱“我的外表下藏著一顆疲倦?yún)s善良的心,不會(huì)傷害任何人”的人。
克勞利被判了電椅處死。當(dāng)他走進(jìn)紐約新新監(jiān)獄的處刑室后,他說了一句話。他是否說“這就是我殺人的下場”?不,他說的是:“這就是自我防衛(wèi)的下場。”
故事的重點(diǎn)在于,“雙槍”克勞利不認(rèn)為自己有任何問題。
在罪犯中,這種態(tài)度罕見嗎?如果你這么認(rèn)為,請聽聽這個(gè):
“我用我最好的年華給人們帶去最多的快樂,幫助他們獲得更美好的時(shí)光,而我卻只落得辱罵和被追捕的下場。”
這是艾爾·卡彭的原話。沒錯(cuò),就是那個(gè)美國最十惡不赦的公敵,芝加哥最邪惡的黑幫頭目??ㄅ頉]有譴責(zé)自己,他甚至把自己看作公共施恩者——一個(gè)不被感激、不被理解的公眾恩人。
達(dá)奇·舒爾茨在被紐瓦克黑幫槍殺前也是這樣想的。他是紐約最臭名昭著的混混之一。他也曾在接受報(bào)社采訪時(shí)稱自己為社會(huì)行善。并且,確信事實(shí)就是如此。
我曾與紐約新新監(jiān)獄的獄監(jiān)路易斯·勞斯進(jìn)行過為期數(shù)年的有趣對話,談?wù)摰膬?nèi)容正是圍繞著此話題。他說:“新新監(jiān)獄里很少有罪犯覺得自己是壞人。他們和你我一樣都是人,所以都會(huì)為自己開脫、會(huì)把事情解釋得合理化。他們理直氣壯地講出當(dāng)時(shí)為何要搶保險(xiǎn)柜,手指為何會(huì)那么敏捷地扣動(dòng)扳機(jī)。他們中大多數(shù)人會(huì)用謬誤或沒有邏輯性的理由為自己的反社會(huì)行為進(jìn)行辯解,自己也相信了這些理由。結(jié)果就是,他們堅(jiān)定地相信自己壓根不該被捕入獄。”
假如像卡彭、“雙槍”克勞利、舒爾茨和監(jiān)獄高墻背后的罪犯這樣的人都不懂得從自己身上找問題,那么你我認(rèn)識(shí)的人呢?
創(chuàng)立了以自己名字命名的百貨公司的約翰·沃納梅克曾經(jīng)坦言:“三十年前我就懂得了責(zé)罵他人這一舉動(dòng)的愚蠢??朔陨淼木窒扌圆⒉蝗ケг股系蹧]有公平分配智商就已經(jīng)很不易了。”
沃納梅克很早就領(lǐng)悟到了這個(gè)道理,而我則繼續(xù)在這個(gè)老套的世界里跌跌撞撞三十余年才察覺到,在99%的情況下,人們都不會(huì)從自身找問題,不論自己做了怎樣荒唐的事。
批評是毫無意義的,因?yàn)樗鼤?huì)開啟對方的自我防衛(wèi)心理,往往使人竭力為自己辯護(hù)。批評也是很危險(xiǎn)的,因?yàn)樗鼤?huì)傷害一個(gè)人寶貴的尊嚴(yán)和自我價(jià)值,也會(huì)引起憤恨的情緒。
全球著名心理學(xué)家B.F.斯金納曾通過實(shí)驗(yàn)證明,因做出正確行為而得到獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)的動(dòng)物比因做出錯(cuò)誤行為而受罰的動(dòng)物能更有效地學(xué)習(xí)。之后的研究更顯示,這理論也適用于人類。人們不會(huì)因批評而做出長久的改變,還往往會(huì)心生怨恨。
另一位偉大心理學(xué)家漢斯·塞利曾說過:“我們對指責(zé)的恐懼就如對肯定的渴望一樣強(qiáng)烈。”
批評所引發(fā)的怨恨會(huì)使員工、家人和朋友意志消沉,到頭來卻依然沒能解決問題。
俄克拉荷馬伊尼德市的喬治·B.約翰斯頓是一家工程公司的安全協(xié)調(diào)人員,他的責(zé)任之一便是要確保員工進(jìn)入工地時(shí)戴好安全帽。他說,每當(dāng)他看到不戴安全帽的工人時(shí),都會(huì)用權(quán)威而專業(yè)的口吻重申法規(guī)并命令他們嚴(yán)格遵從。雖然工人會(huì)在他面前悶悶不樂地答應(yīng),可等他一轉(zhuǎn)身工人就又把帽子摘了下來。
他決定嘗試新的方法。當(dāng)他再看到不戴安全帽的員工時(shí),他會(huì)首先詢問帽子是否不舒服或者不合適,然后再用令人愉悅的口吻提醒他們帽子是為保護(hù)員工不受傷害而設(shè)計(jì)的,并建議他們工作時(shí)要一直戴著安全帽。結(jié)果遵守規(guī)定的人一下子增加了很多,怨氣和憤怒也消失不見了。
歷史上還存在著不少這類毫無意義的批評的例子,例如總統(tǒng)西奧多·羅斯福和塔夫脫之間的爭論。這場爭論分裂了共和黨,把伍德羅·威爾遜送進(jìn)了白宮,在第一次世界大戰(zhàn)中留下一條清晰的線并改變了歷史的軌跡。1908年,當(dāng)西奧多·羅斯福離開白宮時(shí),他是支持新當(dāng)選的總統(tǒng)塔夫脫的。后來羅斯福去非洲獵獅子,返回后他的情緒爆發(fā)了。他指責(zé)塔夫脫過于保守,試圖確保第三次任期的提名,還組建了雄鹿黨,差點(diǎn)就摧毀了共和黨。在隨后的選舉中,威廉·霍華德·塔夫脫和共和黨只拿下了兩個(gè)州——佛蒙特州和猶他州。這是共和黨世上最慘烈的一次失利。
西奧多·羅斯福譴責(zé)塔夫脫,可塔夫脫會(huì)自責(zé)嗎?坦白地說,我不知道。我想表達(dá)的是,羅斯福的批評并沒有令塔夫脫認(rèn)識(shí)到自己有問題,而只是讓塔夫脫竭力為自己辯護(hù),含淚重申:“我不認(rèn)為有其他的方式來行事。”
或者也可以拿茶壺頂石油丑聞作為例子。這件事在20年代早期引起了軒然大波,各大報(bào)紙爭相報(bào)道。它震驚了全國,在人們的記憶里,美國公眾生活中還沒有發(fā)生過這樣的事。事情是這樣的:哈丁的內(nèi)政部長阿爾伯特·B.福爾被授權(quán)負(fù)責(zé)麋鹿山和茶壺頂?shù)恼蛢?chǔ)備,這些石油是為海軍日后的需求而儲(chǔ)備的。福爾部長實(shí)行了競爭性投標(biāo)嗎?沒有。他把這項(xiàng)利潤極高的工程直接交給了朋友愛德華·L.多希尼。而多希尼是怎么做的呢?他給了福爾部長十萬美金,聲稱是貸款。福爾部長專橫地命令美國海軍趕走在麋鹿山開采石油的其他競爭商家。在槍口和刺刀的威逼下,這些油商離開了油田,走進(jìn)了法庭,揭露了茶壺頂丑聞。這個(gè)丑聞帶來了巨大的不利影響,它摧毀了哈丁政權(quán),引起了全國的反感,也威脅到共和黨的存亡,并使阿爾伯特·B.福爾鋃鐺入獄。
福爾受到強(qiáng)烈的指責(zé)——很少有公眾人物經(jīng)歷過這種程度的指責(zé),他悔過了嗎?從來沒有!幾年后赫伯特·胡佛在一次公共演講中暗示哈丁總統(tǒng)的死是由于心理焦慮,因?yàn)橐粋€(gè)朋友背叛了他。當(dāng)福爾夫人聽到此話時(shí)從椅子上跳了起來,她哭著說:“什么?哈丁被福爾背叛了?沒有!我丈夫從未背叛任何人。就算滿屋黃金也不能誘惑我的丈夫做壞事。他才是那個(gè)被人出賣、被殺戮、被迫害的人。”
這就是人性最真實(shí)的寫照了。犯錯(cuò)的人總是怪罪于其他人,唯獨(dú)不怪自己。我們皆是如此。所以當(dāng)你我明天想要指責(zé)他人時(shí),要記住艾爾·卡彭、“雙槍”克勞利和阿爾伯特·福爾的例子。我們要認(rèn)識(shí)到,指責(zé)就像家養(yǎng)的鴿子,總是會(huì)飛回家的。要知道,我們要去糾正和譴責(zé)的人很可能會(huì)為自己辯護(hù),然后反過來指責(zé)我們。或者會(huì)像塔夫脫將軍那樣說:“我不認(rèn)為有其他的方式行事。”
1865年4月15日的早晨,在一個(gè)廉價(jià)住所一樓走廊盡頭的狹小臥室中,亞伯拉罕·林肯奄奄一息地躺在床上。旅館對面就是約翰·威爾克斯·布斯槍殺林肯的福特劇院,林肯修長的身體在軟塌塌的過于短小的床上呈對角線伸展開來。床頭掛著羅莎·幫賀的名畫《馬市》的廉價(jià)復(fù)制品,還有陰沉的煤油燈閃動(dòng)著昏黃的光。
林肯躺在那里即將辭世時(shí),陸軍部長斯坦頓說:“那里躺著的是人類在世間所見過的最完美的統(tǒng)治者。”
林肯和人打交道的成功秘訣是什么?我用十年時(shí)間研究了林肯的一生,用了三年時(shí)間撰寫又不斷重寫一本書——《林肯傳》(Lincoln the Unknown)。對林肯的性格和家庭生活的研究,我相信沒有人比我做得更詳盡了。我特別鉆研了林肯與人交往的方式。他是否曾經(jīng)樂于指責(zé)?哦,是的。年輕時(shí)還住在印第安納州鴿溪山谷的林肯不但指責(zé)他人,還以寫信、作詩的方式嘲諷別人,而且還會(huì)把這些信件撒放在必定會(huì)被人看到的鄉(xiāng)間小路上。其中的一封信引起了一個(gè)人燃燒一生的憤恨。
即便林肯在伊利諾伊州的斯普林菲爾德市當(dāng)執(zhí)業(yè)律師時(shí),依然會(huì)在報(bào)紙上公然發(fā)表信件來攻擊對手。但或許他應(yīng)該有所節(jié)制。
1842年的秋天,他嘲諷了一個(gè)自負(fù)、好斗的政治家,此人名叫詹姆斯·席爾斯。林肯在斯普林菲爾德日報(bào)上發(fā)表了一封匿名諷刺信,引起了全城人哄笑。敏感而驕傲的席爾斯極度憤怒,他找出了文章的作者,跳上馬背追蹤到林肯的面前并向他提出決斗的挑戰(zhàn)。林肯不愿動(dòng)武,他反對決斗,但無法保全榮譽(yù)地避開決斗。林肯可以自己選擇武器,因?yàn)樗氖直酆荛L,他選了騎兵大刀,然后開始和西點(diǎn)軍校的畢業(yè)生學(xué)習(xí)搏斗。到了指定的日期,他和席爾斯在密西西比河畔的沙堤上見面了,準(zhǔn)備戰(zhàn)個(gè)你死我活,但在最后一分鐘里,他們的副手前來阻止了這場決斗。
這是林肯一生中最可怕而重要的一件私事,它給林肯上了一堂人際交往的課。之后他再?zèng)]寫過侮辱性信件,也再?zèng)]有嘲諷過任何人。從那時(shí)起,他幾乎再也沒有因任何事而指責(zé)過任何人。
在南北戰(zhàn)爭時(shí)期,林肯一次又一次地更換波多馬克的軍隊(duì)首領(lǐng)——麥克萊倫、蒲伯、伯恩賽德、胡克、米德,但他們每個(gè)人都犯了悲劇性的錯(cuò)誤,使得林肯不停地在絕望中踱步。半個(gè)美國都在兇狠地譴責(zé)這些無能的將軍,但林肯“對任何人都沒有惡意,對所有人都寬容、和善”,他保持著平和。他最愛的一句名言是“不評判,則不被評判。”
當(dāng)林肯夫人和其他人都在嚴(yán)聲指責(zé)南方人時(shí),林肯說:“別指責(zé)他們。他們只是做了我們在那種情況下也會(huì)做的事罷了。”
然而最有權(quán)指責(zé)的人莫過于林肯了。我們只需看一個(gè)例子:
在1863年7月的前三天,葛底茨堡之役開始了。7月4日的晚上,烏云卷著雨籠罩著大地,當(dāng)李將軍帶著慘敗的軍隊(duì)來到波多馬克河時(shí),他發(fā)現(xiàn)面前淌著一條寬廣、無法跨越的大河,而身后是完勝的北方軍。李將軍掉進(jìn)了陷阱里,無處可逃。林肯看到了這個(gè)天賜良機(jī),只要俘獲李將軍的軍隊(duì)就能立刻結(jié)束戰(zhàn)爭。所以林肯帶著厚望命令米德不要召集軍事會(huì)議,直接圍剿李軍。林肯先是用電報(bào)發(fā)出了指令,而后又派遣了一名特殊信差告知米德立刻行動(dòng)。
米德將軍做了什么呢?他做了截然相反的事。他徹底違背了林肯的指示,召集了軍事會(huì)議。他猶豫、拖延,在電報(bào)里做了各種解釋,拒絕直截了當(dāng)?shù)毓衾钴?。最后河水退了,李軍越過了波多馬克河,成功地逃脫了。
林肯怒不可遏,他對兒子羅伯特大喊:“這是怎么回事?上天?。∵@是怎么回事?他們就在我們的掌控之中,只需伸出手指勝利就是我們的了,然而,我怎么說怎么做都沒法讓軍隊(duì)動(dòng)起來。在那種情形下,任何一個(gè)將軍都能打敗李軍,如果我在那兒都能親手滅了他。”
在苦楚的絕望中,林肯坐了下來,給米德寫了下面這封信。要知道,在這個(gè)人生階段里林肯用詞是極端保守和有節(jié)制的,所以林肯這封1863年寫的信已經(jīng)堪稱最嚴(yán)厲的譴責(zé)了。
我親愛的將軍,
我認(rèn)為你不了解李軍逃脫的嚴(yán)重后果。他本就在我們的掌控之中,結(jié)合我們之前的勝利來看,剿滅了他也就等于結(jié)束了戰(zhàn)爭?,F(xiàn)如今,戰(zhàn)爭又要無止境地延續(xù)下去。如果上周一你不能穩(wěn)穩(wěn)拿下李軍,那現(xiàn)在只帶著2/3的軍力,你又怎可能成功向大河以南征戰(zhàn)?現(xiàn)如今期待你改變局面已不太現(xiàn)實(shí),而我也不會(huì)再如此期待。你失去了天賜良機(jī),而我因此無比悲痛。
你猜米德讀完這封信是怎么做的?
事實(shí)上,米德從未收到過這封信,因?yàn)榱挚喜]有把信寄出去。林肯去世后,人們在他的文件堆中找到了這封信。
我猜想——這僅僅是猜想而已——林肯寫完信后望向窗外,對自己說:“等等,或許我不能如此草率。我坐在白宮里發(fā)號(hào)施令總是容易的,但如果我在葛底茨堡前線,親眼看到米德上周看到的尸山血海,聽到受傷者、垂死者發(fā)出的嚎叫,或許我也會(huì)不那么急于進(jìn)攻了。如果我像米德那樣個(gè)性靦腆,或許會(huì)做出同樣的反應(yīng)。不論如何事已至此,寄出這封信我會(huì)感覺好些,但會(huì)使米德急于為自己辯解。他會(huì)指責(zé)我,會(huì)產(chǎn)生怨氣。這會(huì)影響他作為將領(lǐng)今后的表現(xiàn),或許還會(huì)使他被迫辭職。”
所以就如我之前所說的那樣,林肯把信放在了一邊。他已經(jīng)通過慘痛的經(jīng)歷學(xué)到了:尖銳的指責(zé)到最后幾乎總是無謂的。
西奧多·羅斯福說,當(dāng)他面臨復(fù)雜問題時(shí)總會(huì)靠在椅背上看著白宮辦公桌上方懸掛的林肯的大幅畫像,然后問自己:“如果林肯面臨同樣的情況,他會(huì)怎么做?他會(huì)怎么解決這個(gè)問題?”
下次當(dāng)我們想要批評別人時(shí),讓我們掏出五美金鈔票看看林肯的頭像,然后問自己:“林肯會(huì)如何解決這個(gè)問題?”
馬克·吐溫偶爾會(huì)發(fā)火,寫些令人大驚失色的信。比如有一次他寫信給一個(gè)令他憤怒的人:“你需要的是一張埋葬許可證。你只需開口,我保證你拿到手。”還有一次他給一位編輯寫了封信,針對的是校對者關(guān)于訂正他的拼寫和標(biāo)點(diǎn)符號(hào)所做的嘗試。他命令道:“從此以后不要改動(dòng)我的原稿,讓校對者的建議保留在他那腐蝕成一坨糨糊的大腦里。”
寫完這些尖銳的信讓馬克·吐溫感覺舒服多了,這是一種發(fā)泄,而且也沒有帶來不好的影響,因?yàn)轳R克的妻子悄悄把這些信從信箱中拿了出來,從未寄出過。
你認(rèn)識(shí)那些自己希望改變、管制和改善的人嗎?很好,這沒有問題。我完全贊同。但是為何不從自己開始?從完全自私的角度來說,這樣做比改善別人獲益更多,而且也更安全。中國古語說得好:“各人自掃門前雪,莫管他人瓦上霜。”
我在年輕時(shí),也就是試圖讓每個(gè)人對我印象深刻的那個(gè)階段里,曾經(jīng)給理查德·哈丁·戴維斯寫過一封愚蠢的信。他是當(dāng)時(shí)美國文壇閃耀的一位作家,而那時(shí)我正在寫一篇關(guān)于作家的雜志文章,希望戴維斯告訴我他的工作方式。幾周前我從別人那兒收到一封信,底部寫著“口述未核對”。這給我留下了極深的印象。我想對方肯定特別有威望,工作又忙碌。我一點(diǎn)也不忙,但為了讓理查德·哈丁·戴維斯對我印象深刻,我在給他的那封短信下也寫上了“口述未核對”。
他不做其他回復(fù),只是把信退給了我,在底部草草寫著:“你的無禮只能被你自己的無禮超越了。”沒錯(cuò),我是魯莽了,或許罪有應(yīng)得。但作為一個(gè)人,我很憤恨。我的這種情緒如此之強(qiáng),以至于十年后當(dāng)我聽到了他的死訊時(shí),第一個(gè)想到的就是他給我?guī)淼膫Α?mdash;—我羞愧地承認(rèn)這點(diǎn)。
如果你我想引起持續(xù)幾十年甚至一生的痛苦,那么就盡情地給予發(fā)泄性批判吧。
與人相處時(shí)要記得,人類不是邏輯動(dòng)物。我們面對的是情緒動(dòng)物,他們長著偏見的刺,被驕傲和虛榮所驅(qū)使。
哈代是英國文學(xué)史上最好的小說家之一,刻薄的批評使敏感的托馬斯·哈代永遠(yuǎn)放棄了繼續(xù)寫小說。批評還使英國詩人托馬斯·查特頓結(jié)束了自己的生命。
年輕時(shí)的本杰明·富蘭克林不諳世事,后來變得非常有外交手段。他非常善于與人交往,后來成了美國駐法大使。他成功的秘密是什么?他說“我不說別人的壞話,并且只說我所知道的他們的優(yōu)點(diǎn)。”
任何愚蠢的人都知道怎樣批評、指責(zé)和抱怨別人,而大多數(shù)愚蠢人也是這樣做的。
然而理解和寬容卻需要人格和自制力。
卡萊爾說:“對待小人物的方式體現(xiàn)了偉人的偉大。”
鮑勃·胡佛是一個(gè)知名的試飛員,常常進(jìn)行空中飛行表演。有一次,他完成了圣地亞哥的飛行表演正向著洛杉磯的家中返回,據(jù)《飛行操作》雜志的描述,在三百尺的空中,飛機(jī)的兩個(gè)引擎忽然都失靈了,他靠熟練的操作才得以安全著陸。雖然無人受傷,但飛機(jī)受到了嚴(yán)重?fù)p壞。
胡佛緊急降落后做的第一件事便是檢查機(jī)油。就如他所懷疑的那樣,這架二戰(zhàn)螺旋槳式飛機(jī)被灌了噴氣機(jī)式燃油,而非汽油。
回到機(jī)場后他提出要見這架飛機(jī)的機(jī)械師。機(jī)械師是一個(gè)年輕人,他為自己的錯(cuò)誤深感痛苦。當(dāng)胡佛走近時(shí),這個(gè)年輕人的眼淚馬上涌了出來。他剛剛導(dǎo)致一架昂貴的飛機(jī)報(bào)廢,還差點(diǎn)連累三個(gè)人喪命。
你能想象到胡佛有多生氣,也能猜想到這位驕傲、嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)?shù)娘w行員將如何大罵機(jī)械師的疏忽。然而胡佛沒有罵他,甚至沒有批評他。相反,他用他結(jié)實(shí)的手臂搭著對方的肩膀說:“我相信你以后再也不會(huì)犯這樣的錯(cuò)誤。為了證明這點(diǎn),我想讓你明天維護(hù)我的F-51。”
家長總是愛批評孩子。你可能以為我會(huì)建議“不要這樣”,但我想表達(dá)的不是這個(gè)。我只想說:“在批評他們之前,請閱讀美國報(bào)紙雜志中的一篇經(jīng)典——《爸爸忘了》。”這篇文章最初被刊登在《人類之家》雜志上,我們得到了作者的授權(quán),在此刊登經(jīng)《讀者文摘》濃縮后的版本。
《爸爸忘了》是那種在瞬間的誠懇感受的啟發(fā)下而寫成的小文章,頗能觸動(dòng)讀者的心弦,因極受歡迎所以被重刊多年。如作家W.利文斯頓·拉內(nèi)德所述,這篇文章被“千百本雜志、企業(yè)商報(bào)和全國報(bào)紙刊印,也曾被翻譯成多種文字出版。我個(gè)人就曾授權(quán)上千人在學(xué)校、教堂和講臺(tái)上宣讀這篇文章。它也曾上過電臺(tái)的各種場合和節(jié)目。出乎意料的是,大學(xué)期刊和高中雜志也都用過這篇文章。有時(shí)一篇小文章能神奇地觸動(dòng)人心。這篇就做到了。”
爸爸忘了
W.利文斯頓·拉內(nèi)德
兒子,聽我說:當(dāng)我說這些話時(shí),你正酣然入夢,一只小手蜷在臉頰下,金黃色的鬈發(fā)黏在濕乎乎的額頭上。我一個(gè)人悄悄地走進(jìn)了你的房間。幾分鐘前,我坐在書房看報(bào)紙,一陣令人窒息的懊惱向我襲來。我愧疚地來到了你的床前。
兒子,我在想這些事:我曾對你發(fā)脾氣。在你梳洗準(zhǔn)備上學(xué)時(shí),我因你只用毛巾亂抹了下臉應(yīng)付了事而責(zé)罵你;我因你沒有擦鞋而批評你;當(dāng)你把自己的東西丟在地上時(shí),我生氣地大喊大叫。
早餐時(shí)我也挑你的錯(cuò)。你會(huì)把食物撒出來;你狼吞虎咽;你把胳膊肘搭在桌上;你面包上抹的黃油太厚了。在你準(zhǔn)備去玩而我準(zhǔn)備趕火車時(shí),你轉(zhuǎn)身對我揮揮手,叫道:“爸爸再見!”我皺皺眉頭回答:“挺起你的肩膀!”
下午這一切又會(huì)重演一次。我在路上看見你跪在泥上玩玻璃球,襪子上還磨出了洞。我命令你走到我面前,把你趕回家,讓你在朋友前丟臉了。襪子很貴,如果你要自己掏錢買就會(huì)懂得珍惜了!兒子,想象一下,這是從一個(gè)父親口中說出的話!
你還記得嗎?之后我在書房看報(bào),你怯生生地走進(jìn)來,帶著種傷痛的眼神。我把報(bào)紙放下看到了你,對于你的打擾很不耐煩。你在門口躊躇。“什么事?”我厲聲說。
你什么都沒說,但猛地跑過來,摟著我的脖子親了我一下,那時(shí)你的小手臂環(huán)抱得更緊了,充滿了愛。這愛是上帝在你心中盛開的花朵,即便被忽視也不會(huì)凋零。然后你走了,嗒嗒地跑上樓。
兒子,后來報(bào)紙從我手中滑落,我心中升起了令人不悅的恐懼。習(xí)慣把我變成了什么樣子了?我養(yǎng)成了那種愛挑毛病、愛譴責(zé)的習(xí)慣,只因你是男孩我就如此對待你。不是因?yàn)槲也粣勰?,只是因?yàn)槲覍⒆拥囊筇吡?。我是用我自己的?biāo)準(zhǔn)來要求你。
然而你的性格中還有那么多的善良、優(yōu)秀和真實(shí)。你那顆小小的心臟比籠罩著寬闊山脈的黎明還要大。你跑進(jìn)來親吻我、道晚安的自發(fā)沖動(dòng)就證明了這點(diǎn)。兒子,今晚其他事都不再重要。我在黑暗中走到你的床邊,慚愧地跪在這里!
這些都無法彌補(bǔ)。我知道在你醒時(shí)跟你說這些你是不會(huì)明白的,但明天起我會(huì)做一個(gè)真正的父親!我要和你成為朋友,為你的痛苦而痛苦,為你的喜悅而喜悅。當(dāng)不耐煩的想法出現(xiàn)時(shí),我會(huì)忍住不說出來。我會(huì)一直嚴(yán)肅地對自己說:“他只是個(gè)孩子而已,一個(gè)小孩子。”
我之前一直把你當(dāng)作成年男子一樣對待,而現(xiàn)在當(dāng)我看著你時(shí),兒子,你疲憊的身體蜷縮在小床上,我才意識(shí)到你還是個(gè)嬰孩。昨天你還在媽媽的懷里,小腦袋搭在她的肩上。我要求的太多了,太多了。
讓我們都試圖去理解而不是譴責(zé)他人,讓我們試著了解人們做事的原因。這會(huì)比譴責(zé)更有收獲、更有趣;它還能培養(yǎng)同情、寬容與善良的心。“包容一切就是了解一切。”
就如約翰遜博士所述:“先生,上帝本身并沒有要評判人類——直到末日來臨的一刻。”那么你和我又為何要評判呢?記住:
請不要批評、譴責(zé)或抱怨。
瘋狂英語 英語語法 新概念英語 走遍美國 四級聽力 英語音標(biāo) 英語入門 發(fā)音 美語 四級 新東方 七年級 賴世雄 zero是什么意思蚌埠市西苑小區(qū)正確英語學(xué)習(xí)交流群