What is going on in this baby's mind? If you'd asked people this 30 years ago, most people, including psychologists, would have said that this baby was irrational, illogical, egocentric -- that he couldn't take the perspective of another person or understand cause and effect. In the last 20 years, developmental science has completely overturned that picture. So in some ways, we think that this baby's thinking is like the thinking of the most brilliant scientists.
Ce se petrece in mintea unui bebelus? Daca ai fi intrebat oamenii acum 30 de ani, majoritatea, inclusiv psihologii ti-ar fi raspuns ca acest bebelus este irational, ilogic, egocentric- ca nu este capabil sa se puna in locul altei persoane sau sa inteleaga procesul cauzei si efectului. In ultimii 20 de ani, stiinta sociala a dezvoltarii a schimbat complet aceasta orientare. In asa fel incat, acum consideram ca gandirea acestui bebelus este asemanatoare cu cea a unora dintre cei mai straluciti oameni de stiinta.
Let me give you just one example of this. One thing that this baby could be thinking about, that could be going on in his mind, is trying to figure out what's going on in the mind of that other baby. After all, one of the things that's hardest for all of us to do is to figure out what other people are thinking and feeling. And maybe the hardest thing of all is to figure out that what other people think and feel isn't actually exactly like what we think and feel. Anyone who's followed politics can testify to how hard that is for some people to get. We wanted to know if babies and young children could understand this really profound thing about other people. Now the question is: How could we ask them? Babies, after all, can't talk, and if you ask a three year-old to tell you what he thinks, what you'll get is a beautiful stream of consciousness monologue about ponies and birthdays and things like that. So how do we actually ask them the question?
Permiteti-mi sa va ofer un unic exemplu. Unul dintre lucrurile la care acest bebelus s-ar putea sa se gandeasca unul dintre lucrurile care ar putea sa-i treaca prin minte este sa incerce sa-si dea seama ceea ce-i trece prin cap celuilalt bebelus. La urma urmelor, unul dintre cele mai grele lucruri pentru noi toti este sa ne dam seama ceea ce gandesc si simt alte persoane. Si, probabil, cel mai greu lucru dintre toate este sa-ti dai seama ca ceea ce alti gandesc si simt nu este deloc identic cu ceea ce noi gandim si simtim. Orisicine care face politica poate sa dea marturie de cat este de greu sa-ti dai seama de ceea ce gandesc unii dintre noi. Noi am vrut sa stim daca bebelusii si tinerii sunt in stare sa inteleaga acest lucru atat de profund. Acum intrebarea este: Cum am putea sa-i intrebam in legatura cu asta? Pentru ca, la urma urmei, bebelusii nu pot sa vorbeasca si daca ii ceri unui copil de 3 ani sa-ti spuna ceea ce gandeste, ceea ce vei obtine este un extraordinar monolog de flux al constiintei in legatura cu niste ponei, zile de nastere si chestii de genul asta. Deci, mai exact, cum le punem intrebarea?
Well it turns out that the secret was broccoli. What we did -- Betty Rapacholi, who was one of my students, and I -- was actually to give the babies two bowls of food: one bowl of raw broccoli and one bowl of delicious goldfish crackers. Now all of the babies, even in Berkley, like the crackers and don't like the raw broccoli. (Laughter) But then what Betty did was to take a little taste of food from each bowl. And she would act as if she liked it or she didn't. So half the time, she acted as if she liked the crackers and didn't like the broccoli -- just like a baby and any other sane person. But half the time, what she would do is take a little bit of the broccoli and go, "Mmmmm, broccoli. I tasted the broccoli. Mmmmm." And then she would take a little bit of the crackers, and she'd go, "Eww, yuck, crackers. I tasted the crackers. Eww, yuck." So she'd act as if what she wanted was just the opposite of what the babies wanted. We did this with 15 and 18 month-old babies. And then she would simply put her hand out and say, "Can you give me some?"
Pai bine, rezulta ca secretul este brocoli-ul. Ceea ce am facut-Betty Rapacholi, o studenta de-a mea, si cu mine- a fost sa le dam acestor bebelusi 2 boluri cu mancare: un bol cu brocoli crud iar altul cu biscuiti deliciosi in forma de pestisori. Si tuturor bebelusilor, inclusiv celor din Berkley, le plac biscuiti in timp ce nu vor brocoli crud. (Rasete) Dar ceea ce a continuat sa faca Betty a fost sa guste un pic din macarea din fiecare bol. Si s-a prefacut ca ii placea sau nu ii placea. Asa ca, in jumatate din experimente, a pretins ca ii placeau biscuitii si nu ii placea brocoli-ul exact ca orice bebelus sau adult sanatos. Dar in cealalta jumatate de experimente, a luat un pic din brocoli si facea: "Mmmmmmm, brocoli! Tocmai am gustat brocoli-ul. Mmmmmm!" Dupa care gusta un pic din biscuiti si zicea: "Pfui, biscuiti! Am gustat din biscuiti, groaznic!" Asa ca se prefacea ca ii place exact acea mancare care nu le placea bebelusilor. Am facut acest experiment cu bebelusi de 15 si 18 luni. Dupa care pur si simplu intindea mana si le spunea: "Imi dai un pic?"
So the question is: What would the baby give her, what they liked or what she liked? And the remarkable thing was that 18 month-old babies, just barely walking and talking, would give her the crackers if she liked the crackers, but they would give her the broccoli if she liked the broccoli. On the other hand, 15 month-olds would stare at her for a long time if she acted as if she liked the broccoli, like they couldn't figure this out. But then after they stared for a long time, they would just give her the crackers, what they thought everybody must like. So there are two really remarkable things about this. The first one is that these little 18 month-old babies have already discovered this really profound fact about human nature, that we don't always want the same thing. And what's more, they felt that they should actually do things to help other people get what they wanted.
Asa ca intrebarea este: Ce o sa ii dea bebelusul, ceea ce le placea lor sau ceea ce ii placea ei? Iar lucrul cel mai remarcabil a fost ca, bebelusii de 18 luni care de-abia mergeau si vorbeau, ii dadeau biscuti daca ea se prefacuse inainte ca-i placeau,in timp ce altii ii dadeau brocoli, daca ea se prefacuse in fata acestora ca-i placuse brocoli-ul. Pe de alta parte, cei de 15 luni mai degraba se uitau lung la ea in cazul in care ea se prefacea ca ii placuse brocoli-ul, ca si cum: " Nu inteleg de ce ii place brocoli-ul" Dar, dupa ce o priveau timp indelungat, ii dadeau biscuiti, pentru ca ei credeau ca tuturor trebuie sa le placa biscuitii. Asa ca aici avem doua descoperiri extraordinare. Prima este ca acesti bebelusi de 18 luni, au descoperit deja lucruri importante in legatura cu natura umana, ca de exemplu faptul ca nu toti dorim acelasi tip de lucruri. Si chiar mai mult, ei chiar simt nevoia sa faca acele lucruri cu care de fapt i-ar ajuta pe altii sa obtina ceea ce vor.
Even more remarkably though, the fact that 15 month-olds didn't do this suggests that these 18 month-olds had learned this deep, profound fact about human nature in the three months from when they were 15 months old. So children both know more and learn more than we ever would have thought. And this is just one of hundreds and hundreds of studies over the last 20 years that's actually demonstrated it.
Ceea ce este si mai remarcabil, daca bebelusii de 15 luni nu fac acest lucru, si cei de 18 luni pot sa o faca,este ca cei de 18 luni au invatat acest lucru despre natura umana in cele trei luni de diferenta. Asa inseamna ca copiii pot sa gandeasca mult mai rapid si si sa invete mult mai multe decat noi credeam pana acum. Iar acesta este unul dintre sutele de studii si experimente facute in ultimii 20 de ani care au demonstrat acealsi lucru.
The question you might ask though is: Why do children learn so much? And how is it possible for them to learn so much in such a short time? I mean, after all, if you look at babies superficially, they seem pretty useless. And actually in many ways, they're worse than useless, because we have to put so much time and energy into just keeping them alive. But if we turn to evolution for an answer to this puzzle of why we spend so much time taking care of useless babies, it turns out that there's actually an answer. If we look across many, many different species of animals, not just us primates, but also including other mammals, birds, even marsupials like kangaroos and wombats, it turns out that there's a relationship between how long a childhood a species has and how big their brains are compared to their bodies and how smart and flexible they are.
Intrebarea care ati putea sa o faceti este totusi: De ce invata copiii atat de multe? Si, cum e posibil ca ei sa invete toate aceste lucruri intr-un timp atat de scurt? Adica, vreau sa spun, bebelusii par destul de inutili mai ales daca te uiti la ei in mod superficial. Iar in multe situatii sunt chiar mai rau decat inutili pentru ca este nevoie de mult timp si energie din partea noastra doar ca sa ii mentinem cu viata. Asa ca, daca ceri raspunsul evolutiei, daca ceri raspunsul acestui puzzle, de ce pierdem atata timp ingrijind bebelusi inutili exista de fapt acest raspuns. Daca ne uitam la multe, multe specii diferite de animale, nu doar primate ca noi, ci si mamifere, pasari, chiar si marsupiale, ca de exemplu cangurii si ursul australian rezulta ca exista o legatura intre durata copilariei a fiecarei specii si cat de mare este creierul in comparatie cu corpul lor si cat de inteligenti si flexibili sunt.
And sort of the posterbirds for this idea are the birds up there. On one side is a New Caledonian crow. And crows and other corvidae, ravens, rooks and so forth, are incredibly smart birds. They're as smart as chimpanzees in some respects. And this is a bird on the cover of science who's learned how to use a tool to get food. On the other hand, we have our friend the domestic chicken. And chickens and ducks and geese and turkeys are basically as dumb as dumps. So they're very, very good at pecking for grain, and they're not much good at doing anything else. Well it turns out that the babies, the New Caledonian crow babies, are fledglings. They depend on their moms to drop worms in their little open mouths for as long as two years, which is a really long time in the life of a bird. Whereas the chickens are actually mature within a couple of months. So childhood is the reason why the crows end up on the cover of Science and the chickens end up in the soup pot.
Si pentru a exemplifica aceasta idee haideti sa ne uitam la aceste pasari de aici. Pe de o parte avem cioara de Noua Caledonie. Ciorile si alte pasari din familia Corvidelor, ca de exemplu corbii sau stancutele sunt pasari extrem de inteligente. Din anumite puncte de vedere sunt la fel de inteligente ca si chimpanzeii. Iar pasarea de aici a aparut pe coperta revistei Science pentru ca a invatat sa utilizeze o unealta pentru a obtine mancarea. Pe de alta parte, il avem pe prietenul nostru, puiul domestic. Acesti pui, ca si ratele si gastele si curcanii sunt mai prosti ca noaptea. Sunt foarte, foarte buni la ciugulit graunte dar practic nu sunt buni la nimic altceva. Si rezulta ca puii, ma refer la puii de cioara de Noua Caledonie, sunt pasari inexperte. Depind in totalitate de mamele lor ca sa le aduca viermi si sa ii introduca in ciocurile lor mici timp de vreo 2 ani, perioada extrem de lunga in comparatie cu durata vietii unei astfel de pasari. Pe de alta parte, puii domestici se maturizeaza in cateva luni. Ca urmare, copilaria este motivul pentru care pasari ca ciorile ajung pe coperta revistei Science in timp ce puii domestici termina in oala de ciorba.
There's something about that long childhood that seems to be connected to knowledge and learning. Well what kind of explanation could we have for this? Well some animals, like the chicken, seem to be beautifully suited to doing just one thing very well. So they seem to be beautifully suited to pecking grain in one environment. Other creatures, like the crows, aren't very good at doing anything in particular, but they're extremely good at learning about laws of different environments.
Exista ceva in legatura cu acea perioada lunga a copilariei care pare sa aiba legatura cu procesul de cunoastere si invatare. Deci, ce fel de explicatie am putea oferi la acest lucru? Pai bine, anumite pasari, ca de exemplu puiul domestic, par extraordinar de adaptate la a face bine doar un singur lucru. Par extrem de adaptate pentru a ciuguli graunte intr-un mediu concret. In timp ce alte vietati, ca de exemplu ciorile, nu sunt foarte bune la a face un singur lucru in concret dar sunt extrem de bune cand vine vorba sa invete despre legile care guverneaza medii diverse.
And of course, we human beings are way out on the end of the distribution like the crows. We have bigger brains relative to our bodies by far than any other animal. We're smarter, we're more flexible, we can learn more, we survive in more different environments, we migrated to cover the world and even go to outer space. And our babies and children are dependent on us for much longer than the babies of any other species. My son is 23. (Laughter) And at least until they're 23, we're still popping those worms into those little open mouths.
Si bineinteles ca noi, fiintele umane sunt mult mai buni decat ciorile. Dimensiunea creierului nostru este mai mare decat ar trebui sa fie in relatie cu dimensiunea corpul nostru si intrecem in asta orice alta specie. Sunt mai isteti, mai flexibili, invatam mai mult putem sa supravietuim in mult mai multe tipuri de mediu inconjurator, migram pe cuprinsul intregii planete si chiar si in spatiul extraterestru. Iar bebelusii si copiii nostri depind de noi mult mai mult timp decat descendentii oricarei alte specii. Fiul meu are 23 de ani. (Rasete) Si, cel putin pana la varsta de 23 de ani, noi, ca parinti, continuam sa le aducem mura-n-gura tot ceea ce au nevoie.
All right, why would we see this correlation? Well an idea is that that strategy, that learning strategy, is an extremely powerful, great strategy for getting on in the world, but it has one big disadvantage. And that one big disadvantage is that, until you actually do all that learning, you're going to be helpless. So you don't want to have the mastodon charging at you and be saying to yourself, "A slingshot or maybe a spear might work. Which would actually be better?" You want to know all that before the mastodons actually show up. And the way the evolutions seems to have solved that problem is with a kind of division of labor. So the idea is that we have this early period when we're completely protected. We don't have to do anything. All we have to do is learn. And then as adults, we can take all those things that we learned when we were babies and children and actually put them to work to do things out there in the world.
Bun, si de ce ne-ar interesa aceasta corelatie? Pe de o parte observam ca aceasta strategie, aceasta strategie aplicata procesului de invatare, este o strategie extrem de puternica si de buna care ne ajuta sa mergem inainte dar care are un mare dezavantaj. Iar acest mare dezavantaj este ca, pana cand ajungi sa asimilezi tot ceea ce ai nevoie, ramai neajutorat. Asa ca, in momentul in care, sa zicem, iti apare in fata un mastodont si tu incepi sa-ti spui: "Hm...o prastie sau o sulita cred ca mi-ar fi de folos. Care ar fi mai potrivita?" ti-ar conveni mult mai mult sa stii toate acele lucruri inainte ca mastodontul sa apara de-adevaratelea. Iar modalitatea pe care procesul evolutiv a gasit-o ca solutie la aceasta problema este diviziunea muncii. Ca urmare, ne bucuram de aceasta perioada timpurie in viata cand sunt pe deplin protejati. Nu trebuie sa facem nimic. Tot ce trebuie sa facem este sa invatam. Ca apoi, adulti sa ne folosim de toate acele lucruri pe care le-am invatat cand eram bebelusi si copii mici si sa le punem de fapt la treaba ca sa ne facem treaba.
So one way of thinking about it is that babies and young children are like the research and development division of the human species. So they're the protected blue sky guys who just have to go out and learn and have good ideas, and we're production and marketing. We have to take all those ideas that we learned when we were children and actually put them to use. Another way of thinking about it is instead of thinking of babies and children as being like defective grownups, we should think about them as being a different developmental stage of the same species -- kind of like caterpillars and butterflies -- except that they're actually the brilliant butterflies who are flitting around the garden and exploring, and we're the caterpillars who are inching along our narrow, grownup, adult path.
Asa ca un fel de a privi aceste lucruri este sa-i vezi pe bebelusi si pe copiii mici ca un departament de cercetare si dezvoltare in cadrul speciei umane. Asa ca ei sunt tipii care au birou sus, la ultimul etaj al companiei si care doar trebuie sa se ocupe cu invatatul si cu aducerea unor idei bune in timp ce noi suntem departamentul de productie si marketing. Noi trebuie sa luam toate acele idei la care ne-am gandit cand eram copii si sa le punem in practica. Un alt mod de a ne gandi la acest lucru are fi ca, in loc sa-i consideram pe bebelusi si copiii mici ca fiind niste adulti defectuosi, sa-i consideram o etapa aparte de dezvoltare in cadrul aceleasi specii, ceva de genul omizi contra fluturi, doar ca fluturii in acest caz sunt ei, si sunt cei care investigeaza in sus si in jos iar noi suntem omizile niste omizi care ne aliniam din ce in ce mai mult pe cararea ingusta a maturitatii.
If this is true, if these babies are designed to learn -- and this evolutionary story would say children are for learning, that's what they're for -- we might expect that they would have really powerful learning mechanisms. And in fact, the baby's brain seems to be the most powerful learning computer on the planet. But real computers are actually getting to be a lot better. And there's been a revolution in our understanding of machine learning recently. And it all depends on the ideas of this guy, the Reverend Thomas Bayes, who was a statistician and mathematician in the 18th century. And essentially what Bayes did was to provide a mathematical way using probability theory to characterize, describe, the way that scientists find out about the world. So what scientists do is they have a hypothesis that they think might be likely to start with. They go out and test it against the evidence. The evidence makes them change that hypothesis. Then they test that new hypothesis and so on and so forth. And what Bayes showed was a mathematical way that you could do that. And that mathematics is at the core of the best machine learning programs that we have now. And some 10 years ago, I suggested that babies might be doing the same thing.
Daca acest lucru se dovedeste adevarat, ca acesti bebelusi sunt programati sa invete- si procesul evolutiv ne spune ca acesti copii sunt aici ca sa invete, asta este motivul existentei lor, ca sa invete- atunci ar trebui sa ne asteptam la faptul ca ei poseda niste mecanisme de invatare extrem de puternice. De fapt, creierul bebelusilor pare cel mai puternic calculator de pe planeta. Desi calulatoarele de-adevarat se vor imbunatati din ce in ce mai mult. Si suntem martorii unei revolutii in ceea ce priveste intelegerea procesului prin care o masinarie invata. Si totul a inceput cu ideile acestui tip de aici reverendul Thomas Bayes, statisticianul si matematicul secolului XVIII. Ceea ce practic ofera Bayes este un model matematic in care se utilizeaza teoria probabilitatilor pentru a caracteriza si descrie maniera in care oamenii de stiinta fac descoperiri despre ceea ce ne inconjoara. Asadar, ceea ce oamenii de stiinta fac este sa emita o ipoteza cu care ei considera corespunzator sa inceapa un proiect. Dupa care incep sa o testeze si sa aduca probe pro si contra ei. Aceste probe ii vor obliga sa modifice ipoteza. Dupa care se testeaza noua ipoteza din nou, si asa mai departe. Iar ceea ce Bayes ne-a lasat este un model matematic de a face toate aceste lucruri. Si faptul ca matematica este cea care se afla la baza celor mai potente programe de invatare pe care masinile noastre le au in momentul de fata. Si de acum 10 ani eu insinuez ca si bebelusii ar putea fi capabili sa faca acelasi lucru.
So if you want to know what's going on underneath those beautiful brown eyes, I think it actually looks something like this. This is Reverend Bayes's notebook. So I think those babies are actually making complicated calculations with conditional probabilities that they're revising to figure out how the world works. All right, now that might seem like an even taller order to actually demonstrate. Because after all, if you ask even grownups about statistics, they look extremely stupid. How could it be that children are doing statistics?
Asa ca, daca doriti sa aflati ce se ascunde in spatele acelor frumosi ochi caprui cred ca aceasta imagine va poate servi. Este caietul de notite al reverendului Bayes. Pentru ca eu cred ca acei bebelusi sunt in stare sa faca calcule complicate care implica probabilitati, probabilitati pe care le revizeaza si le utilizeaza ca sa-si dea seama cum functioneaza lumea din jor. Bun, acum ajungem la un lucru care aparent, este si mai dificil de demonstrat. Pentru ca, la urma urmelor, daca pui intrebari de statistica oricarui adult toti par extrem de stupizi cu raspunsurile lor. Cum este posibil sa avem copii facam statistica?
So to test this we used a machine that we have called the Blicket Detector. This is a box that lights up and plays music when you put some things on it and not others. And using this very simple machine, my lab and others have done dozens of studies showing just how good babies are at learning about the world. Let me mention just one that we did with Tumar Kushner, my student. If I showed you this detector, you would be likely to think to begin with that the way to make the detector go would be to put a block on top of the detector. But actually, this detector works in a bit of a strange way. Because if you wave a block over the top of the detector, something you wouldn't ever think of to begin with, the detector will actually activate two out of three times. Whereas, if you do the likely thing, put the block on the detector, it will only activate two out of six times. So the unlikely hypothesis actually has stronger evidence. It looks as if the waving is a more effective strategy than the other strategy. So we did just this; we gave four year-olds this pattern of evidence, and we just asked them to make it go. And sure enough, the four year-olds used the evidence to wave the object on top of the detector.
Pentru a testa aceasta ipoteza, am folosit o masina numita detectorul Blicket. Acesta este o cutie care se aprinde si din care se aude muzica cand pui deasupra ei niste obiecte in concret. Folosind aceasta masina simpla colegii mei de laborator, cat si alti cercetatori, au facut zeci de exerimente demonstrand cat de buni sunt bebelusii cand vine vorba dea invata despre lumea inconjuratoare. Permiteti-mi sa va arat doar unul dintre aceste experimente pe care l-a facut un stundent de-al meu, Tumar Kushner. Daca va arat acest detector este destul de probabil ca primul lucru la care v-ati gandi este ca modul de functionare al detectorului este cu ajutorul unui bloc care se aseaza deasupra. In schimb, acest detector functioneaza putin diferit. Daca miscati un bloc pe deasupra acestui detector se va intampla ceva la care poate nu v-ati gandi, si anume ca detectorul se va activa de 2 ori intr-un grup de 3 miscari; in timp ce, daca pui un bloc pe detector se va activa de 2 ori intr-un grup de 6 miscari. Ca urmare, la posibilitatea cea mai putin probabila este cea care ofera de fapt o proba mai puternica. In aparenta, miscarea pe deasupra detectorului este o strategie mai efectiva decat oricare alta. Asa ca asta este ceea ce am facut; le-am oferit unor copii de 4 ani acest model de functionare si le-am cerut sa faca detectorul sa functioneze. Si cum era de asteptat, copiii de 4 ani au utilizat acest model si au miscat obiectele pe deasupra detectorului.
Now there are two things that are really interesting about this. The first one is, again, remember, these are four year-olds. They're just learning how to count. But unconsciously, they're doing these quite complicated calculations that will give them a conditional probability measure. And the other interesting thing is that they're using that evidence to get to an idea, get to a hypothesis about the world, that seems very unlikely to begin with. And in studies we've just been doing in my lab, similar studies, we've show that four year-olds are actually better at finding out an unlikely hypothesis than adults are when we give them exactly the same task. So in these circumstances, the children are using statistics to find out about the world, but after all, scientists also do experiments, and we wanted to see if children are doing experiments. When children do experiments we call it "getting into everything" or else "playing."
Aici avem doua lucruri care sunt foarte interesante. Primul este ca, va rog sa retineti, acesti copii au 4 ani. Sunt aceiasi care tocmai invata sa numere. Dar, intr-un mod inconstient sunt capabili sa faca calcule destul de complicate care ii capaciteaza cu o masura a probabilitatii conditionale. Iar cel de-al doilea lucru interesant este ca ei se folosesc de aceste experimente pentru a-si face o idee, pentru a crea o ipoteza despre lumea din jurul lor idee care in alte conditii ar fi dificil sa o aiba. Iar in studii facute la mine in laborator, studii similare celui de mai sus, am putut sa demonstram ca, de fapt, copiii de 4 ani sunt mult mai buni la a gasi o solutie la o ipoteza improbabila in comparatie cu adultii carora li se da aceasi misiune. Ca urmare, in aceste conditii copiii folosesc statistica pentru a scoate concluzii despre ceea ce ii inconjoara exact ca si oamenii de stiinta care fac experimente si care doresc sa vada daca copiii fac experimente. Cand ei fac aceste experimente, consideram ca ei "se baga in tot" sau "se joaca".
And there's been a bunch of interesting studies recently that have shown this playing around is really a kind of experimental research program. Here's one from Cristine Legare's lab. What Cristine did was use our Blicket Detectors. And what she did was show children that yellow ones made it go and red ones didn't, and then she showed them an anomaly. And what you'll see is that this little boy will go through five hypotheses in the space of two minutes.
Si sunt o groaza de studii recente si interesante care demonstreaza ca aceasta joaca este de fapt un fel de program experimental de cercetare. Aici va prezint unul din laboratorul Cristinei Legare. Cristina a utilizat detectoarele Blicket si le-a aratat copiilor cum cele galbene se pun miscare, in timp ce cele rosii nu functioneaza dupa care le-a aratat o anomalie. Si ceea ce veti vedea este un copil care va prezenta 5 ipoteze pe parcursul unor 2 minute.
(Video) Boy: How about this? Same as the other side.
Baietelul: Si asa? La fel ca in partea cealalta.
Alison Gopnik: Okay, so his first hypothesis has just been falsified.
Alison: OK, prima ipoteza a fost expusa.
(Laughter)
(Rasete)
Boy: This one lighted up, and this one nothing.
Baietelul: Asta se aprinde, dar asta nu face nimic.
AG: Okay, he's got his experimental notebook out.
AG: OK, deci a venit cu caitelul de notite.
Boy: What's making this light up. (Laughter) I don't know.
Baietelul: Cum face sa se aprinda? (Rasete) Nu stiu,
AG: Every scientist will recognize that expression of despair.
AG:Oricare om de stiinta recunoaste aceasta fata de disperare.
(Laughter)
(Rasete)
Boy: Oh, it's because this needs to be like this, and this needs to be like this.
Baitelul: Aaa, cred ca e pentru ca e nevoie sa se puna asa, si asta asa.
AG: Okay, hypothesis two.
AG. OK, ipoteza numarul 2.
Boy: That's why. Oh.
Baietelul: De asta. Oh.
(Laughter)
(Rasete)
AG: Now this is his next idea. He told the experimenter to do this, to try putting it out onto the other location. Not working either.
AG:Acum va prezenta urmatoarea idee. I-a spus cercetatorului sa faca asta, sa incerce sa o aseze in alt loc. Dar nici asa nu functioneaza.
Boy: Oh, because the light goes only to here, not here. Oh, the bottom of this box has electricity in here, but this doesn't have electricity.
Baietelul: Aa, pentru ca lumina se aprinde doar aici si aici nu. Aa, prin fundul cutiei trece curent dar prin asta nu ai curent.
AG: Okay, that's a fourth hypothesis.
AG: OK, a patra ipoteza.
Boy: It's lighting up. So when you put four. So you put four on this one to make it light up and two on this one to make it light up.
Baitetelul: Se aprinde. Deci cand ai 4. Deci pui 4 aici deasupra ca sa se aprinda si 2 pe astalalta ca sa se aprinda.
AG: Okay,there's his fifth hypothesis.
AG: OK, deci a cincea ipoteza.
Now that is a particularly -- that is a particularly adorable and articulate little boy, but what Cristine discovered is this is actually quite typical. If you look at the way children play, when you ask them to explain something, what they really do is do a series of experiments. This is actually pretty typical of four year-olds.
Acest copil este deosebit un baietel deosebit de adorabil si coerent, dar Cristina a descoperit ca, de fapt, ai multi copii de genul acesta. Daca ii observi pe copii in timp ce se joaca, si le ceri sa-ti explice ceva ceea ce ei fac de fapt este sa initieze o serie de experimente. Aceasta atitudine este destul de obisnuita intre copiii de 4 ani.
Well, what's it like to be this kind of creature? What's it like to be one of these brilliant butterflies who can test five hypotheses in two minutes? Well, if you go back to those psychologists and philosophers, a lot of them have said that babies and young children were barely conscious if they were conscious at all. And I think just the opposite is true. I think babies and children are actually more conscious than we are as adults. Now here's what we know about how adult consciousness works. And adults' attention and consciousness look kind of like a spotlight. So what happens for adults is we decide that something's relevant or important, we should pay attention to it. Our consciousness of that thing that we're attending to becomes extremely bright and vivid, and everything else sort of goes dark. And we even know something about the way the brain does this.
Deci, cum e sa fi o astfel de fiinta? Cum e sa fi unul din acesti fluturi extraordinari care emit 5 ipoteze in 2 minute? Daca ne intoarcem la psihologi si la filozofi vedem ca majoritatea au sustinut ca bebelusii si copii mici sunt constienti intr-o foarte mica masura sau chiar deloc. Iar eu cred ca de fapt este exact invers. Sunt convinsa ca bebelusii si copii mici sunt de fapt mult mai constienti decat adultii. Pentru ca asta este ceea ce stim despre felul in care functioneaza constiinta in adulti. Atentia si constiinta in adulti e ca un fel de punct luminos. Adultii decid, in cazul in care ceva este relevant sau important, ca ar trebui sa ii dam atentie. Faptul ca suntem constienti de acel lucru caruia ii dam atentie se transforma intr-o zona extrem de luminoasa si vie in timp ce restul se intuneca. Si stim cate ceva despre cum creierul face toate aceste lucruri.
So what happens when we pay attention is that the prefrontal cortex, the sort of executive part of our brains, sends a signal that makes a little part of our brain much more flexible, more plastic, better at learning, and shuts down activity in all the rest of our brains. So we have a very focused, purpose-driven kind of attention. If we look at babies and young children, we see something very different. I think babies and young children seem to have more of a lantern of consciousness than a spotlight of consciousness. So babies and young children are very bad at narrowing down to just one thing. But they're very good at taking in lots of information from lots of different sources at once. And if you actually look in their brains, you see that they're flooded with these neurotransmitters that are really good at inducing learning and plasticity, and the inhibitory parts haven't come on yet. So when we say that babies and young children are bad at paying attention, what we really mean is that they're bad at not paying attention. So they're bad at getting rid of all the interesting things that could tell them something and just looking at the thing that's important. That's the kind of attention, the kind of consciousness, that we might expect from those butterflies who are designed to learn.
Deci, cand noi acordam atentie, vorbim de cortexul prefrontal, care este un fel de parte executiva a creierului nostru, care trimite un semnal si care ajuta o mica parte a creierului sa devina mult mai flexibila, mai plastica, mai predispusa la a invata, in timp ce blocheaza toata activitatea din restul creierului. Ca urmare, dispunem de un fel de atentie foarte localizata pe motivele noastre. Daca ne uitam la bebelusi si la copiii mici vedem cu totul altceva. Cred ca bebelusii si copiii mici au mai degraba un evantai de constiinta decat un punct fix al constiintei. Ca urmare sunt foarte stangaci cand vine vorba sa se concentreze asupra unui singur lucru. Dar sunt foarte buni la a folosi, in acelasi timp, o multime de informatii luate dintr-o multime de surse diferente. Si daca ne uitam inauntru creierului lor se pot observa multimea neurotransmitatorilor, -care au un cuvant de spus in procesul de inductie a plasticitatii si invatarii,- si lipsa inhibitorilor care inca nu exista. Asa ca, atunci cand se spune ca bebelusii si copiii mici nu sunt atenti, ceea ce vrem de fapt sa spunem este ca atentia lor nu este focalizata, ca nu sunt capabili sa de descotoroseasca de toate acele lucruri interesante care ar putea sa insemne ceva pentru ei si pur si simplu sa se concentreze doar la un lucru important in acel moment. Acesta este tipul de atentie, tipul de constiinta pe care l-am astepta de la acesti fluturasii care sunt programati sa invete.
Well if we want to think about a way of getting a taste of that kind of baby consciousness as adults, I think the best thing is think about cases where we're put in a new situation that we've never been in before -- when we fall in love with someone new, or when we're in a new city for the first time. And what happens then is not that our consciousness contracts, it expands, so that those three days in Paris seem to be more full of consciousness and experience than all the months of being a walking, talking, faculty meeting-attending zombie back home. And by the way, that coffee, that wonderful coffee you've been drinking downstairs, actually mimics the effect of those baby neurotransmitters. So what's it like to be a baby? It's like being in love in Paris for the first time after you've had three double-espressos. (Laughter) That's a fantastic way to be, but it does tend to leave you waking up crying at three o'clock in the morning.
Dar daca noi cautam o cale prin care sa experimentam, ca adulti, constiinta copiiilor mici, cred ca cel mai bun lucru ar fi sa ne imaginam in situatii noi, in care nu ne-am mai aflat pana atunci, ca de exemplu ca atunci cand ne indragostim de cineva necunoscut sau cand ne aflam intr-un oras nou pentru prima data. Pentru ca, in astfel de situatii, constiinta noastra nu se contracta, se dilata, de aceea acele 3 zile in Paris par sa fie mai pline de viata si experiente ca toate lunile in care eram niste zombi care se duc la facultate, vorbesc, participa la reuniuni si se intorc acasa. Si apropo, cafeaua aia, cafeaua extraordinar de buna pe care ati baut-o jos in hol de fapt imita efectul acelor neurotransmitatori din creierul bebelusilor. Deci, cum e sa fi un bebelus? E ca atunci cand esti indragostit, in Paris, pentru prima data, dupa ce-ai baut trei cafele mari. (Rasete) Este un fel fantastic de a exista care, intr-adevar, tinde sa te faca sa te trezesti plangand la trei dimineata.
(Laughter)
(Rasete)
Now it's good to be a grownup. I don't want to say too much about how wonderful babies are. It's good to be a grownup. We can do things like tie our shoelaces and cross the street by ourselves. And it makes sense that we put a lot of effort into making babies think like adults do. But if what we want is to be like those butterflies, to have open-mindedness, open learning, imagination, creativity, innovation, maybe at least some of the time we should be getting the adults to start thinking more like children.
E bine sa fi si adult. Nu vreau sa fac prea multa reclama de cat e de bine sa fii bebelus. E bine sa fi adult. Putem sa facem singuri chestii de genul: sa ne facem funda la siret si sa trecem singuri strada. Si e logic ca investim o groaza de efort ca sa-i facem pe bebelusi sa gandeasca ca si adultii. Dar, daca dorim sa fim ca acesti fluturasi, sa fim deschisi la minte, deschisi la a invata, sa avem imaginatie, sa fim creativi si inovatori probabil, cel putin din cand in cand, ar trebui sa fim acei adulti care sa inceapa sa gandeasca la fel ca si copilasii.
(Applause)
(Aplauze)