M'agradaria que imaginéssiu que sou un soldat, enmig de la batalla. Potser un soldat romà d'infanteria, o un arquer medieval, o un guerrer zulu. L'època i el lloc són indiferents, però hi ha aspectes constants. L'adrenalina s'eleva i les accions sorgeixen d'uns reflexos molt arrelats; reflexos arrelats a una necessitat de protegir-nos i vèncer l'enemic.
So I'd like you to imagine for a moment that you're a soldier in the heat of battle. Maybe you're a Roman foot soldier or a medieval archer or maybe you're a Zulu warrior. Regardless of your time and place, there are some things that are constant. Your adrenaline is elevated, and your actions are stemming from these deeply ingrained reflexes, reflexes rooted in a need to protect yourself and your side and to defeat the enemy.
Ara, m'agradaria que imaginéssiu que sou algú completament diferent: un explorador. La tasca de l'explorador no és atacar o defensar, sinó entendre. És aquell qui surt examina el terreny, identifica possibles obstacles. L'explorador espera descobrir que hi ha, per exemple, un pont en un lloc adequat d'un riu. Però sobretot, l'explorador vol saber què hi ha allà fora, tan bé com pugui. A l'exèrcit, ambdós són essencials, però també es poden considerar mentalitats: una metàfora de com processem la informació i les idees en la vida quotidiana. Avui debatré sobre com tenir una opinió correcta, predir adequadament o prendre bones decisions, depèn de la nostra mentalitat.
So now, I'd like you to imagine playing a very different role, that of the scout. The scout's job is not to attack or defend. The scout's job is to understand. The scout is the one going out, mapping the terrain, identifying potential obstacles. And the scout may hope to learn that, say, there's a bridge in a convenient location across a river. But above all, the scout wants to know what's really there, as accurately as possible. And in a real, actual army, both the soldier and the scout are essential. But you can also think of each of these roles as a mindset -- a metaphor for how all of us process information and ideas in our daily lives. What I'm going to argue today is that having good judgment, making accurate predictions, making good decisions, is mostly about which mindset you're in.
Per il·lustrar aquestes mentalitats, vull tornar a la França del segle XIX. Allà, un tros de paper, aparentment innocu, va suposar un dels escàndols polítics més grans de la història. Va ser descobert l'any 1894 per oficials de l'exèrcit francès. Estava fet trossos en una paperera, però el van ajuntar per descobrir que algú dels seus rangs estava venent secrets militars a Alemanya.
To illustrate these mindsets in action, I'm going to take you back to 19th-century France, where this innocuous-looking piece of paper launched one of the biggest political scandals in history. It was discovered in 1894 by officers in the French general staff. It was torn up in a wastepaper basket, but when they pieced it back together, they discovered that someone in their ranks had been selling military secrets to Germany.
Així doncs, van començar una gran investigació i les sospites els van dirigir a aquest home: Alfred Dreyfus. Tenia un historial excels, cap equivocació, cap motivació que poguessin trobar. Però en Dreyfus era l'únic oficial jueu d'aquell rang de l'exèrcit i, per desgràcia, en aquella època l'exèrcit francès era antisemita. Van comparar la cal·ligrafia d'en Dreyfus amb la de la nota i van concloure que coincidien, malgrat que experts professionals externs no n'estaven tant convençuts, els va donar igual. Van inspeccionar el pis d'en Dreyfus, buscant senyals d'espionatge. Van revisar les seves carpetes, però no van trobar res. Cosa que els va convèncer que en Dreyfus era culpable i a més, escorredís, perquè havia amagat les proves abans que les trobessin.
So they launched a big investigation, and their suspicions quickly converged on this man, Alfred Dreyfus. He had a sterling record, no past history of wrongdoing, no motive as far as they could tell. But Dreyfus was the only Jewish officer at that rank in the army, and unfortunately at this time, the French Army was highly anti-Semitic. They compared Dreyfus's handwriting to that on the memo and concluded that it was a match, even though outside professional handwriting experts were much less confident in the similarity, but never mind that. They went and searched Dreyfus's apartment, looking for any signs of espionage. They went through his files, and they didn't find anything. This just convinced them more that Dreyfus was not only guilty, but sneaky as well, because clearly he had hidden all of the evidence before they had managed to get to it.
Després, van revisar l'historial personal, per tal de trobar detalls criminatoris. Van parlar amb els professors, i van descobrir que havia estudiat llengües estrangeres, que demostrava la intenció de conspirar amb governs estrangers més endavant. Els professors també van dir que en Dreyfus tenia bona memòria. Molt sospitós, oi? Perquè, com bé sabeu, un espia ha de recordar moltes coses.
Next, they went and looked through his personal history for any incriminating details. They talked to his teachers, they found that he had studied foreign languages in school, which clearly showed a desire to conspire with foreign governments later in life. His teachers also said that Dreyfus was known for having a good memory, which was highly suspicious, right? You know, because a spy has to remember a lot of things.
El cas va anar a judici i en Dreyfus va ser declarat culpable. Més tard, el van fer sortir a una plaça i, com a ritual, li van arrencar la insígnia de l'uniforme i van trencar-li l'espasa en dos. Va ser anomenat "la degradació de Dreyfus". El van sentenciar a cadena perpètua a l'illa del Diable, curiosament anomenada, una barrera de roques a prop de la costa de Sud-amèrica. Hi va anar i va passar els dies sol, escrivint cartes i més cartes al govern francès, demanant que obrissin el cas, perquè descobrissin que era innocent. En general, però, França considerava el cas tancat.
So the case went to trial, and Dreyfus was found guilty. Afterwards, they took him out into this public square and ritualistically tore his insignia from his uniform and broke his sword in two. This was called the Degradation of Dreyfus. And they sentenced him to life imprisonment on the aptly named Devil's Island, which is this barren rock off the coast of South America. So there he went, and there he spent his days alone, writing letters and letters to the French government begging them to reopen his case so they could discover his innocence. But for the most part, France considered the matter closed.
El que més m'interessa del cas Dreyfus és per què els oficials estaven convençuts que en Dreyfus era culpable. És a dir, es podria creure que li tendien una trampa, que l'incriminaven de manera intencionada. Però els historiadors no creuen que fos així. Pel que sabem, els oficials creien de veritat que el cas contra Dreyfus tenia motius de pes. Cosa que em fa pensar el que diu de la ment humana, el fet que unes proves tan insignificants siguin tan convincents com per condemnar algú.
One thing that's really interesting to me about the Dreyfus Affair is this question of why the officers were so convinced that Dreyfus was guilty. I mean, you might even assume that they were setting him up, that they were intentionally framing him. But historians don't think that's what happened. As far as we can tell, the officers genuinely believed that the case against Dreyfus was strong. Which makes you wonder: What does it say about the human mind that we can find such paltry evidence to be compelling enough to convict a man?
Els científics ho anomenen "raonament motivat". És un fenomen en què les motivacions inconscients, els desitjos i les pors, determinen com interpretem la informació. Hi ha informació, idees, que semblen aliades: volem que guanyin, volem defensar-les. Hi ha informació, idees, que són l'enemic i volem abatre-les. Per això dic que aquest raonament és la "mentalitat del soldat".
Well, this is a case of what scientists call "motivated reasoning." It's this phenomenon in which our unconscious motivations, our desires and fears, shape the way we interpret information. Some information, some ideas, feel like our allies. We want them to win. We want to defend them. And other information or ideas are the enemy, and we want to shoot them down. So this is why I call motivated reasoning, "soldier mindset."
Probablement, cap de vosaltres ha perseguit mai un oficial francès jueu per alta traïció, suposo. Però segurament heu seguit esports, política, i us haureu adonat que quan l'àrbitre creu que el nostre equip ha comès una falta, per exemple, estem motivats a saber per què no té raó. Però si creu que l'altre equip ha comès una falta, perfecte! És una bona decisió, no ho analitzem tant. O, potser hem llegit un article o un estudi que analitza una llei controvertida, com la pena de mort. I, com els investigadors han demostrat, si defensem la pena de mort, i l'estudi demostra que no és efectiva, estem més motivats a saber per què l'estudi no està ben enfocat. Però si demostra que la pena de mort funciona, és un bon estudi. I viceversa: si no creiem en la pena de mort, igual.
Probably most of you have never persecuted a French-Jewish officer for high treason, I assume, but maybe you've followed sports or politics, so you might have noticed that when the referee judges that your team committed a foul, for example, you're highly motivated to find reasons why he's wrong. But if he judges that the other team committed a foul -- awesome! That's a good call, let's not examine it too closely. Or, maybe you've read an article or a study that examined some controversial policy, like capital punishment. And, as researchers have demonstrated, if you support capital punishment and the study shows that it's not effective, then you're highly motivated to find all the reasons why the study was poorly designed. But if it shows that capital punishment works, it's a good study. And vice versa: if you don't support capital punishment, same thing.
La nostra opinió està molt influenciada, inconscientment, per allò que volem que guanyi. I això és ubic. Determina la manera de pensar en la salut, les relacions, com decidir el vot, allò que considerem just o ètic. El que més por fa sobre el raonament motivat o mentalitat del soldat és com n'és d'inconscient. Podem pensar que som objectius i justos i acabar arruïnant la vida d'un home innocent.
Our judgment is strongly influenced, unconsciously, by which side we want to win. And this is ubiquitous. This shapes how we think about our health, our relationships, how we decide how to vote, what we consider fair or ethical. What's most scary to me about motivated reasoning or soldier mindset, is how unconscious it is. We can think we're being objective and fair-minded and still wind up ruining the life of an innocent man.
Tanmateix, per sort pel Dreyfus, la història no acaba aquí. Ell és el coronel Picquart. És un altre oficial d'alt rang de l'exèrcit francès. Com la majoria de gent, creia que Dreyfus era culpable. Com molta gent a l'exèrcit, era, casualment, antisemita. Però en algun moment, Picquart va començar a sospitar: "I si ens equivoquem amb en Dreyfus?" El que va passar, va ser que havia descobert que l'espia alemany havia continuat després d'enviar en Dreyfus a la presó. També havia descobert que un altre oficial de l'exèrcit tenia una cal·ligrafia igual a la de la nota, molt més semblant que la d'en Dreyfus. Així, va portar els descobriments als seus superiors, però, per desgràcia, o bé els va ser igual, o van començar amb racionalitzacions per justificar els descobriments. Com ara, "has descobert que hi ha un altre espia que ha après a copiar la cal·ligrafia d'en Dreyfus i li ha pres el relleu, però en Dreyfus és culpable". Finalment, Picquart va aconseguir exonerar en Dreyfus. Va trigar 10 anys i part d'aquest temps també ell va anar a la presó per deslleialtat a l'exèrcit.
However, fortunately for Dreyfus, his story is not over. This is Colonel Picquart. He's another high-ranking officer in the French Army, and like most people, he assumed Dreyfus was guilty. Also like most people in the army, he was at least casually anti-Semitic. But at a certain point, Picquart began to suspect: "What if we're all wrong about Dreyfus?" What happened was, he had discovered evidence that the spying for Germany had continued, even after Dreyfus was in prison. And he had also discovered that another officer in the army had handwriting that perfectly matched the memo, much closer than Dreyfus's handwriting. So he brought these discoveries to his superiors, but to his dismay, they either didn't care or came up with elaborate rationalizations to explain his findings, like, "Well, all you've really shown, Picquart, is that there's another spy who learned how to mimic Dreyfus's handwriting, and he picked up the torch of spying after Dreyfus left. But Dreyfus is still guilty." Eventually, Picquart managed to get Dreyfus exonerated. But it took him 10 years, and for part of that time, he himself was in prison for the crime of disloyalty to the army.
Molta gent creu que Picquart no pot ser l'heroi de la història, perquè era antisemita, i això és dolent, que és cert. Però, personalment crec que el fet que fos antisemita fa que les seves accions siguin més admirables encara; perquè tenia els mateixos prejudicis i raons per ser parcial que els seus companys oficials. Però la seva motivació per descobrir la veritat i defensar-la ho va superar tot.
A lot of people feel like Picquart can't really be the hero of this story because he was an anti-Semite and that's bad, which I agree with. But personally, for me, the fact that Picquart was anti-Semitic actually makes his actions more admirable, because he had the same prejudices, the same reasons to be biased as his fellow officers, but his motivation to find the truth and uphold it trumped all of that. So to me,
Per a mi, Picquart és un exemple de la "mentalitat de l'explorador". És l'impuls de no fer que una idea guanyi o perdi, sinó veure què hi ha en realitat, tan precís com sigui possible. Encara que no sigui agradable o convenient. Aquesta mentalitat és la que m'apassiona. I durant els últims anys, he investigat i intentat descobrir l'origen de la mentalitat d'explorador. Per què hi ha gent, de vegades, almenys, que pot apartar els prejudicis, la parcialitat i la motivació, i intenta veure els fets i les proves el més objectivament possible.
Picquart is a poster child for what I call "scout mindset." It's the drive not to make one idea win or another lose, but just to see what's really there as honestly and accurately as you can, even if it's not pretty or convenient or pleasant. This mindset is what I'm personally passionate about. And I've spent the last few years examining and trying to figure out what causes scout mindset. Why are some people, sometimes at least, able to cut through their own prejudices and biases and motivations and just try to see the facts and the evidence as objectively as they can?
La resposta és emocional. Tal com la mentalitat del soldat s'arrela a emocions com l'actitud defensiva o el tribalisme, també ho fa l'explorador. S'arrela a emocions diferents. Per exemple, els exploradors són curiosos, estan predisposats a dir que senten plaer quan aprenen coses noves, o que desitgen resoldre un enigma. Estan predisposats a la intriga quan troben alguna cosa que contradiu les expectatives. També tenen valors diferents: diran més fàcilment que és virtuós posar a prova les creences; i no diran que algú que canvia d'opinió és dèbil. I, sobretot, tenen els peus a terra, és a dir, que la seva autoestima no va lligada a tenir raó o no en alguna cosa. Poden creure que la pena de mort funciona. Si els estudis demostren que no, poden dir "Vaja, sembla que no tinc raó. No vol dir que sigui dolent o estúpid".
And the answer is emotional. So, just as soldier mindset is rooted in emotions like defensiveness or tribalism, scout mindset is, too. It's just rooted in different emotions. For example, scouts are curious. They're more likely to say they feel pleasure when they learn new information or an itch to solve a puzzle. They're more likely to feel intrigued when they encounter something that contradicts their expectations. Scouts also have different values. They're more likely to say they think it's virtuous to test your own beliefs, and they're less likely to say that someone who changes his mind seems weak. And above all, scouts are grounded, which means their self-worth as a person isn't tied to how right or wrong they are about any particular topic. So they can believe that capital punishment works. If studies come out showing that it doesn't, they can say, "Huh. Looks like I might be wrong. Doesn't mean I'm bad or stupid."
Aquest conjunt de trets és el que, segons els investigadors i personalment trobo anecdòtic, prediu el seny. El que vull que n'extraieu, d'aquestes característiques, és que no demostren com en som de llestos o tot el que sabem. De fet, no tenen cap relació amb el QI. Tenen relació amb el que sentim. Hi ha una cita de Saint-Exupéry, l'autor del Petit Príncep, que diu: "Si vols construir un vaixell, no fomentis que els homes agafin fusta i no donis ordres ni distribueixis la feina. Ensenya'ls a anhelar el mar vast i infinit".
This cluster of traits is what researchers have found -- and I've also found anecdotally -- predicts good judgment. And the key takeaway I want to leave you with about those traits is that they're primarily not about how smart you are or about how much you know. In fact, they don't correlate very much with IQ at all. They're about how you feel. There's a quote that I keep coming back to, by Saint-Exupéry. He's the author of "The Little Prince." He said, "If you want to build a ship, don't drum up your men to collect wood and give orders and distribute the work. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea."
En altres paraules, us dic que si volem millorar el nostre criteri com a persones i com a societats, no necessitem més educació en lògica, ni en retòrica, probabilitat o economia, malgrat que aquestes tinguin molt valor. El que necessitem per emprar bé aquests principis, és mentalitat d'explorador. Cal canviar la manera com ens sentim. Cal aprendre a estar orgullosos, no avergonyits, quan ens adonem que no tenim raó. Cal aprendre a estar intrigats, no a la defensiva, quan trobem informació que contradiu les creences.
In other words, I claim, if we really want to improve our judgment as individuals and as societies, what we need most is not more instruction in logic or rhetoric or probability or economics, even though those things are quite valuable. But what we most need to use those principles well is scout mindset. We need to change the way we feel. We need to learn how to feel proud instead of ashamed when we notice we might have been wrong about something. We need to learn how to feel intrigued instead of defensive when we encounter some information that contradicts our beliefs.
La pregunta que us vull fer és: Què és el que més anheleu? Anheleu defensar les vostres creences? O veure el món tant clarament com sigui possible?
So the question I want to leave you with is: What do you most yearn for? Do you yearn to defend your own beliefs? Or do you yearn to see the world as clearly as you possibly can?
Gràcies.
Thank you.
(Aplaudiments)
(Applause)