《乌合之众·第三编·不同群体的分类与描述·议会集会》第10节
It is terrible at times to think of the power that strong conviction combined with extreme narrowness of mind gives a man possessing prestige. It is none the less necessary that these conditions should be satisfied for a man to ignore obstacles and display strength of will in a high measure. Crowds instinctively recognise in men of energy and conviction the masters they are always in need of. In a parliamentary assembly the success of a speech depends almost solely on the prestige possessed by the speaker, and not at all on the arguments he brings forward. The best proof of this is that when for one cause or another a speaker loses his prestige, he loses simultaneously all his influence, that is, his power of influencing votes at will. When an unknown speaker comes forward with a speech containing good arguments, but only arguments, the chances are that he will only obtain a hearing. A Deputy who is a psychologist of insight, M. Desaubes, has recently traced in the following lines the portrait of the Deputy who lacks prestige:-- "When he takes his place in the tribune he draws a document from his portfolio, spreads it out methodically before him, and makes a start with assurance.
注释摘要
这段论述触及勒庞议会心理学最尖锐也最令人不安的那个核心命题：在群体当中，说服力的真正来源不是论证的质量，而是说话者身上的威望，而威望与心智的广度、学识的丰厚之间甚至可能成反比。勒庞在这段话里试图证明，议会虽然是由选举产生的代表组成的审议机构，可一旦进入群体状态，其运作逻辑与任何一群聚集起来的人并无根本区别。 勒庞的论证线很清楚：他先提出一个普遍规律，即强烈…