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.
Šta se dešava u glavi ove bebe? Da ste ovo pitali ljude pre 30 godina većina, uključujući i psihologe, bi odgovorila da je ova beba iracionalna, ne razmišlja logično, egocentrična je da ta beba ne može da shvati perspektivu neke druge osobe ili da razume uzrok i posledicu. U poslednjih 20 godina, nauka o razviću je potpuno preokrenula ovakvu predstavu. Tako da, na neki način, mi sada smatramo da način razmišljanja ove bebe liči na to kako razmišljaju najbriljantniji naučnici.
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?
Evo da vam navedem samo jedan primer. Jedna od stvari o kojoj ova beba možda razmišlja, nešto što joj pada na pamet, je da se pita o čemu razmišlja ova druga beba, šta to pada na pamet toj drugoj bebi. Na kraju krajeva, svima nama je jako teško da procenimo o čemu drugi ljudi misle i šta osećaju. A možda je najteže od svega shvatiti da ono što drugi ljudi misle i osećaju u stvari nije potpuno identično onome što mi mislimo i osećamo. Svako ko prati politiku može da potvrdi da je nekim ljudima vrlo teško da ovo prihvate. Mi smo želeli da vidimo da li bebe i mala deca mogu da shvate ovu vrlo dubokoumnu činjenicu o drugim ljudima. Sada se postavlja pitanje: Kako da to pitamo bebe? Jer bebe, ipak, ne mogu da govore, i ako pitate dete od tri godine da vam kaže o čemu razmišlja, dobićete predivan monolog - bujicu toka svesti o ponijima i rođendanima i takvim stvarima. Ali kako da im, u stvari, postavimo naše pitanje?
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?"
Pa, ispostavilo se da je tajna u brokoliju. Ono što smo mi, Beti Rapakoli, jedna od mojih studentkinja, i ja uradile -- bilo je da bebama pokažemo dve činije sa hranom: jedna činija sa presnim brokolijem i jedna činija sa ukusnim krekerima u obliku zlatnih ribica. E sad, sve bebe, čak i u Berkliju, vole krekere, a ne vole presan brokoli. (smeh) Ali tada je Beti uradila sledeće: uzela je mali zalogaj hrane iz svake činije. I onda je pokazala da li joj se to sviđa ili ne. I tako je, prvo, pokazivala da joj se sviđaju krekeri, a da joj se brokoli ne sviđa -- baš kao i bebi ili bilo kojoj drugoj normalnoj osobi. Ali, zatim je uzela komadić brokolija i uradila sledeće: "Mmmmm, brokoli. Pojela sam brokoli. Mmmmm." A onda bi uzela malo krekera, i napravila bi izraz lica "Fuj, bljak, krekeri. Pojela sam krekere. Fuuj, bljak." Znači, ponašala se kao da je ono što ona želi potpuno suprotno od onoga što su bebe želele. Uradile smo ovo sa bebama od 15 i 18 meseci. Zatim bi Beti ispružila ruku i rekla, Hoćeš li da mi daš malo?
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.
Znači pitanje je: Šta će joj beba dati, ono što se sviđa bebi ili ono što se sviđa Beti? I zadivljujuća stvar je bila da su bebe od 18 meseci, koje jedva da hodaju i govore, davale Beti krekere ako su joj se svideli krekeri, a brokoli, ako joj se sviđao brokoli. Sa druge strane, bebe od 15 meseci bi samo vrlo dugo gledale u nju ako bi se ponašala kao da joj se brokoli baš sviđa, kao da to nisu mogle baš da shvate. I onda, pošto su dugo gledale u Beti, ipak bi joj dale krekere, jer su smatrale da to svako voli. Dakle, imamo dva zadivljujuća zaključka u vezi sa ovim. Prvi je da su ove male bebe od 18 meseci već otkrile ovu vrlo dubokoumnu činjenicu o ljudskoj prirodi, da mi ne želimo uvek iste stvari. I štaviše, te bebe su osetile da zaista treba da urade nešto što će pomoći drugim ljudima da dobiju ono što žele.
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.
Ono što je još veće iznenađenje je činjenica da bebe od 15 meseci nisu to radile što ukazuje da su bebe od 18 meseci naučile ovu duboko ukorenjenu činjenicu o ljudskoj prirodi tokom tri meseca otkad su imale 15 meseci. Dakle, deca i znaju više i uče više nego što smo ikada i pretpostavljali. I ovo je samo jedno od stotina i stotina istraživanja tokom poslednjih 20 godina koja su to zaista i pokazala.
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.
Pitanje koje biste mogli da postavite je: Zašto deca toliko mnogo uče? I šta im omogućava da tako mnogo nauče za tako kratko vreme? Mislim, zaista, ako bebe gledate površno, izgledaju prilično beskorisno. I zapravo, na razne načine, one su i više nego beskorisne, jer mi moramo da uložimo mnogo vremena i energije samo da bismo ih održali u životu. Ali, ako se obratimo evoluciji za odgovor na ovu zagonetku zašto provodimo toliko vremena brinući se o beskorisnim bebama, ispostavlja se da, zapravo, postoji odgovor. Ako pogledamo mnoge, mnoge različite vrste životinja, ne samo nas primate, već takođe i druge sisare, ptice, čak i torbare kao što su kenguri i vombati, pokazuje se da postoji odnos između toga koliko dugo detinjstvo traje kod neke vrste i toga koliki je njihov mozak u poređenju sa telom i koliko su pametne i prilagodljive.
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.
I neka vrsta primera za ovu ideju su baš ptice tamo gore. S jedne strane je vrana iz Nove Kaledonije. A vrane i svi drugi pripadnici familije vrana, gavrani, gačci i tako dalje su neverovatno pametne ptice. U nekim oblastima su podjednako pametni kao šimpanze. I ovo je ptica sa naslovne strane časopisa "Science" koja je naučila kako da koristi alatku da stigne do hrane. Sa druge strane, imamo našu prijateljicu, domaću kokošku. Kokoške, patke, guske i ćurke su praktično rečeno, jako glupave. Znači, one su jako, jako dobre u kljucanju zrnevlja, ali nisu baš dobre ni u čemu više pored toga. E pa, pokazalo se da su ptići, ptići vrane iz Nove Kaledonije, goluždravi i nesposobni. Oni zavise od majke da im ubacuje crviće u njihova mala otvorena usta i to čak tokom dve godine, što je vrlo dugo vreme u životnom veku ptice. Dok pilići, zapravo, postaju zreli u roku od nekoliko meseci. Prema tome, detinjstvo je razlog zašto vrane završe na naslovnoj strani časopisa "Science" a kokoške završe u loncu za supu.
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.
Postoji nešto u vezi sa tim dugačkim detinjstvom što je, izgleda, povezano sa znanjem i učenjem. Pa, kakvo objašnjenje možemo da damo za to? Pa, neke životinje, kao kokoške, deluju vrlo lepo prilagođene da rade dobro samo jednu stvar. Tako kokoške deluju vrlo lepo prilagođene da kljucaju zrnevlje u jednom tipu okruženja. Druga stvorenja, kao vrane, nemaju neku specijalnost u kojoj su jako dobra, ali su ekstremno dobra u učenju zakonitosti koje vladaju u različitim okruženjima
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.
I naravno, mi ljudska bića smo na krajnjim granicama krive distribucije, kao vrane. Mi imamo veći mozak u poređenju sa telom nego bilo koja druga životninja. Mi smo pametniji, prilagodljiviji, možemo više da naučimo, da preživimo u različitim okruženjima, mi smo migrirali širom celog sveta i čak smo otišli i u svemir. I naše bebe i deca su zavisna od nas duže nego bebe bilo koje druge vrste. Moj sin ima 23 godine. (smeh) I bar do tog uzrasta, mi im i dalje ubacujemo one crviće u ta mala otvorena usta.
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.
E dobro, zašto bismo mi uočili ovu korelaciju? Pa, ideja je da je ta strategija, takva strategija učenja, izuzetno moćna, odlična strategija za napredovanje, ali da ima jedan veliki nedostatak. I taj jedan veliki nedostatak je to da ste, dok vršite sve to učenje, vi zapravo bespomoćni. Pa tako ne želite da neki mastodont krene u napad na vas a da vi u sebi govorite, Praćka ili možda koplje bi mogli da posluže. Šta bi od ta dva u stvari bilo bolje? Vi želite da to sve znate pre nego što se mastodonti uopšte i pojave. A način na koji je evolucija izgleda rešila taj problem je sa nekom vrstom podele rada. Dakle, ideja je da mi imamo taj rani period kada smo potpuno zaštićeni. Ne moramo ništa da radimo. Sve što treba da radimo je da učimo. A zatim, kao odrasli, možemo da uzmemo sve te stvari koje smo naučili kad smo bili bebe i deca i zaista ih upotrebimo da nešto postignemo tamo negde u svetu.
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.
Dakle, jedan način posmatranja je da su bebe i mala deca kao sekcija za istraživanje i razvoj u okviru ljudske vrste. Oni su zaštićeni i zaneseni razmišljanjem i samo treba da istražuju, uče i da imaju dobre ideje, a mi smo tu za produkciju i marketing. Mi treba da uzmemo sve te ideje koje smo naučili kad smo bili deca i da ih zapravo praktično upotrebimo. Drugi način posmatranja je da, umesto što mislimo o bebama i deci kao o defektnim odraslim jedinkama, treba da mislimo o njima kao da su na drugom razvojnom nivou u okviru iste vrste -- nešto kao gusenice i leptiri -- osim što su bebe i deca zapravo briljantni leptiri koji lepršaju kroz baštu i istražuju, a mi smo gusenice, koje se vuku duž našeg uskog, životnog puta odrasle osobe.
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.
Ako je ovo tačno, ako su ove bebe stvorene da uče -- a ta evoluciona priča bi rekla da deca služe za učenje, da je to ono zbog čega su tu -- mogli bismo da očekujemo da bebe onda poseduju veoma moćne mehanizme za učenje. I u stvari, mozak bebe je, izgleda, najmoćniji kompjuter za učenje na planeti. Ali pravi kompjuteri zapravo postaju mnogo bolji, i u poslednje vreme je došlo do revolucije u našem shvatanju učenja kod mašina. I to sve zavisi od ideja ovog čoveka, Velečasnog Tomasa Bajesa, koji je bio statističar i matematičar u 18.veku. I ukratko, ono što je Bajes uradio je bilo da pronađe matematički način, koristeći teoriju verovatnoće, da okarakteriše, opiše, način na koji naučnici saznaju o svetu oko sebe. Dakle, ono što naučnici rade je da postavljaju hipoteze za koje misle da su verovatne onda istražuju i upoređuju sa podacima, Podaci ih teraju da promene tu hipotezu. Zatim testiraju tu novu hipotezu i tako dalje. I ono što je Bajes pokazao je matematički način na koji možete to da uradite. I da je matematika u osnovi najboljih programa za učenje kod mašina koje sada imamo. A pre nekih 10 godina, ja sam predložila da bebe možda rade to isto.
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?
Dakle, ako hoćete da znate šta se dešava iza tih divnih braon očiju, ja mislim da zapravo izgleda ovako nekako. To je sveska Velečasnog Bajesa. Prema tome, ja smatram da bebe zapravo vrše komplikovane proračune sa uslovnim verovatnoćama koje onda ispituju da bi shvatile kako svet funkcioniše. Dobro, to sad može izgledati kao još teži zadatak da se zapravo demonstrira. Jer, na kraju krajeva, čak i ako odrasle pitate o statistici, oni izgledaju veoma glupavo. Kako je moguće da deca primenjuju statistiku?
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.
Da bismo ovo ispitali, koristili smo mašinu koju imamo takozvani Detektor Igračkica. To je kutija koja zasvetli i svira muziku kada stavite neke stvari na nju, a ne neke druge. I koristeći ovu vrlo jednostavnu mašinu, moja laboratorija i drugi su uradili desetine istraživanja koja pokazuju kako su bebe dobre u učenju o svetu oko sebe. Evo pomenuću samo jedno istraživanje koje smo uradili moj student Tumar Kušner i ja. Ako vam pokažem ovaj detektor verovatno biste pomislili da je pravi način da se on pokrene, taj da se stavi kocka na vrh detektora. Međutim, ovaj detektor radi na pomalo čudan način. Jer, ako mašete kockom iznad detektora, što je nešto što vam uopšte ne bi ni palo na pamet, detektor će se, u stvari, aktivirati 2 od 3 puta. Dok, ako uradite očekivanu radnju, stavite kocku na vrh detektora, to će aktivirati detektor u 2 od 6 slučajeva. Dakle, hipoteza koja deluje malo verovatno, zapravo daje pouzdanije rezultate. Izgleda da je mahanje efikasnija strategija nego ona druga strategija. I tako smo uradili baš to; dali smo četvorogodišnjacima ovakav obrazac i samo smo tražili od njih da to isprobaju. I naravno, četvorogodišnjaci su to iskoristili, da mašu predmetom iznad detektora.
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."
E sad, postoje dva vrlo interesantna zapažanja u vezi sa ovim. Prvo je, i ponovo, setite se da su ovo deca od 4 godine. Oni tek uče da broje. Ali, nesvesno, oni vrše ove vrlo komplikovane proračune koji im daju meru uslovne verovatnoće. A druga interesantna stvar je da oni koriste taj podatak da bi formirali ideju, hipotezu o svetu oko sebe koja čak deluje i malo verovatno. U istraživanjima koja radimo u mojoj laboratoriji, sličnim istraživanjima, pokazali smo da su deca od 4 godine zapravo bolja u formulisanju manje verovatnih hipoteza nego što su to odrasli kada im damo potpuno isti zadatak. Prema tome, u ovim uslovima, deca koriste statistiku da saznaju nešto o svetu oko sebe, a, na kraju, i naučnici takođe vrše eksperimente, pa smo mi hteli da vidimo da li deca vrše eksperimente. Kada deca vrše eksperimente, mi to zovemo "rade svašta" ili samo "igraju se".
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.
A postoji dosta interesantnih skorijih studija koje su pokazale da je to igranje, u stvari, vrsta eksperimentalnog istraživačkog programa. Evo jedne studije iz laboratorije Kristine Leger Kristina je koristila naše Detektore igračkica. I pokazivala je deci da žute kocke pokreću mašinu, a crvene ne, a onda im je pokazala anomaliju. I sada ćete videti, kako ovaj mali dečak prolazi kroz pet hipoteza tokom samo dva minuta.
(Video) Boy: How about this? Same as the other side.
(Video) Dečak: A ovako? Isto kao na drugoj strani.
Alison Gopnik: Okay, so his first hypothesis has just been falsified.
Elison Gopnik: Okej, znači njegova prva hipoteza se upravo pokazala kao neispravna.
(Laughter)
(smeh)
Boy: This one lighted up, and this one nothing.
Dečak: Ova svetli, a ova druga ništa.
AG: Okay, he's got his experimental notebook out.
EG: Okej, sad je izvadio svoju svesku za eksperimente.
Boy: What's making this light up. (Laughter) I don't know.
Dečak: Zbog čega ovo svetli? (smeh) Ne znam.
AG: Every scientist will recognize that expression of despair.
EG: Svaki naučnik će prepoznati taj izraz očajanja.
(Laughter)
(smeh)
Boy: Oh, it's because this needs to be like this, and this needs to be like this.
Dečak: Oh, to je zato što ovo mora da bude ovako, a ovo mora da bude ovako.
AG: Okay, hypothesis two.
EG: Okej, hipoteza broj dva.
Boy: That's why. Oh.
Dečak: Eto zašto. Oh.
(Laughter)
(smeh)
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.
EG: Ovo sad je njegova sledeća ideja. Rekao je eksperimentatoru da uradi ovo, da proba da to stavi od gore, na drugo mesto. Ne radi ni to.
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.
Dečak: Oh, to je zato što svetlo radi samo ovde, a ne ovde. Oh, dno ove kutije ima struju ovde, ali ovo nema struju.
AG: Okay, that's a fourth hypothesis.
EG: Okej, to je četvrta hipoteza.
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.
Dečak: Zasvetlelo je. Znači kad stavite četiri. Znači stavite četiri na ovu kutiju ovde da bi zasvetlelo i dve na ovu ovde da bi zasvetlela.
AG: Okay,there's his fifth hypothesis.
EG: Okej, to je njegova peta hipoteza.
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.
E sad, ovo je jedan izuzetno -- izuzetno sladak dečak koji se jako dobro izražava, ali ono što je Kristina otkrila je da je ovo zapravo sasvim tipično. Ako posmatrate način na koji se deca igraju, kada ih pitate da nešto objasne, ono što oni stvarno rade je serija eksperimenata. To je, zapravo, prilično tipično za četvorogodišnjake.
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.
Dobro, a kako je to biti ovakvo stvorenje? Kako je to biti jedan od ovih briljantnih leptira koji mogu da testiraju pet hipoteza za dva minuta? Pa, ako se vratimo onim psiholozima i filosofima, mnogi od njih su rekli da su bebe i mala deca jedva svesna ako uopšte i poseduju svest. A ja mislim da je upravo obrnuto. Mislim da su bebe i deca, u stvari, svesnija nego što smo mi odrasli. Evo šta znamo o tome kako radi svest kod odraslih. I pažnja i svesnost odraslih dosta podsećaju na neki usmeren snop svetla. Pa se tako dešava kod odraslih, da ako odlučimo da je nešto relevantno ili važno, onda treba da obratimo pažnju na to. Naša svest o toj stvari kojom se bavimo postaje izuzetno sjajna i jasna, a sve ostalo kao da potamni. I čak znamo ponešto o načinu na koji mozak to radi.
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.
Dakle, ono što se desi kad obratimo pažnju je da prefrontalni korteks, koji je neka vrsta rukovodioca našeg mozga, šalje signal koji čini da jedan mali deo našeg mozga bude prilagodljiviji, plastičniji, bolji u učenju, a gasi aktivnost u drugim delovima našeg mozga. Dakle, mi imamo vrlo fokusiranu pažnju, veoma zavisnu od svrhe. Ako posmatramo bebe i malu decu, vidimo nešto dosta drugačije. Mislim da bebe i mala deca izgleda pre imaju neku lampu svesnosti nego uski svetlosni snop svesti. Zato bebama i maloj deci teško polazi za rukom da se usmere samo na jednu stvar. Ali su veoma dobri u primanju mnoštva informacija iz mnogo različitih izvora odjednom. I ako, zapravo, pogledate u njihov mozak, videćete da su preplavljeni svim tim neurotransmiterima koji su jako dobri za procese učenja i plastičnosti mozga, a da se inhibitorni delovi još nisu pojavili. Dakle, kad kažemo da su bebe i mala deca loša u obraćanju pažnje, ono što zaista mislimo je da su oni loši u NE-obraćanju pažnje. Znači, njima je teško da se otarase svih interesantnih stvari koje bi mogle da im nešto kažu i da se fokusiraju samo na tu jednu važnu stvar. To je vrsta pažnje, vrsta svesnosti, koju možemo očekivati od ovih leptira koji su stvoreni da uče.
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.
Dobro, ako hoćemo da razmišljamo o načinu da kao odrasli okusimo tu vrstu dečje svesnosti mislim da je najbolje da mislimo o slučajevima kada se nađemo u novoj situaciji u koji nikada pre nismo bili -- kada se zaljubimo u nekog novog, ili kada smo u novom gradu po prvi put. I ono što se tada desi nije skupljanje svesnosti, nego širenje, tako da ona tri dana u Parizu izgledaju ispunjenija svesnošću i iskustvom nego svi oni meseci kada smo kao zombi koji hoda, priča, ide na sastanke tamo kod kuće. I uzgred, ta kafa, ta divna kafa koju pijete u prizemlju, zapravo imitira efekat onih dečjih neurotransmitera. Dakle, kako je to biti beba? To je kao da ste zaljubljeni u Parizu po prvi put pošto ste popili tri dupla espresa. (smeh) To je fantastičan osećaj, ali takođe dovodi do toga da se plačući budite u tri sata ujutru.
(Laughter)
(smeh)
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.
Da, dobro je biti odrasla osoba. Ne želim da pričam preterano o tome kako su bebe divne. Dobro je biti odrasla osoba. Mi možemo sami da vežemo pertle ili sami da pređemo ulicu. I logično je da ulažemo mnogo truda da bismo naterali bebe da razmišljaju kao odrasli. Ali, ako želimo da budemo kao ti leptiri, da budemo nepristrasni, otvoreni za učenje, za maštu, kreativnost, inovaciju, možda bi, bar na neko vreme, trebalo da teramo odrasle da počnu da razmišljaju sličnije deci.
(Applause)
(aplauz)