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.
Me gustaría que imaginaran que son soldados en el fragor de la batalla. Un soldado romano o un arquero medieval o quizás un guerrero zulú. Hay algunas constantes, independientemente del tiempo y lugar. Su adrenalina está alta y sus acciones surgen de unos reflejos muy arraigados fijados para protegerlos a Uds. y a su equipo, y para derrotar al enemigo.
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.
Me gustaría que se imaginaran en un papel muy diferente ahora, el del explorador. El trabajo del explorador no es atacar ni defender. Su trabajo es comprender. El explorador es quien sale reconoce el terreno, identifica posibles obstáculos. Quizás desea averiguar si hay un puente que convenientemente cruce un río. Pero, sobre todo, el explorador quiere saber qué hay con la mayor exactitud. En un ejército real son esenciales tanto el soldado como el explorador. Pero también pueden ver estos papeles como actitudes. Una metáfora sobre cómo procesamos la información en nuestra vida cotidiana. Lo que voy a argumentar hoy es que tener buen juicio predecir con precisión, decidir correctamente depende de qué actitud se tenga.
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.
Para ilustrar cómo funcionan estas actitudes voy a llevarlos a Francia del siglo XIX donde este papel, aparentemente inocuo, provocó uno de los mayores escándalos políticos. Lo descubrieron en 1894 unos oficiales del Estado Mayor francés. Estaba roto en una papelera pero cuando lo recompusieron descubrieron que alguien de sus filas vendía secretos militares a Alemania.
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.
Iniciaron una gran investigación y las sospechas cayeron rápidamente sobre este hombre: Alfred Dreyfus. Su expediente era ejemplar. No había cometido delitos ni tenía motivos aparentes. Pero Dreyfus era el único oficial judío en el ejército. Y, por desgracia, en esa época el ejército francés era muy antisemita. Compararon su caligrafía con la del informe y decidieron que coincidía aunque expertos grafólogos externos no estaban tan seguros del parecido, pero eso daba igual. Registraron el apartamento de Dreyfus en busca de pruebas de espionaje. Revisaron sus archivos y no encontraron nada. Eso les convenció más de que Dreyfus no solo era culpable sino también astuto, pues había escondido toda la evidencia antes de que ellos la encontraran.
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.
Luego inspeccionaron sus antecedentes personales en busca de detalles que lo inculparan. Hablaron con sus profesores supieron que había estudiado idiomas lo que mostraba un deseo de conspirar con gobiernos extranjeros en un futuro. Sus profesores también dijeron que destacaba por su buena memoria lo cual era muy sospechoso, ¿no? Porque un espía debe recordar muchas cosas.
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 caso se llevó a juicio y declararon a Dreyfus culpable. Luego lo trasladaron a una plaza pública y le quitaron la insignia del uniforme y quebraron su espada en dos. Lo llamaron "La Degradación de Dreyfus". Lo condenaron a cadena perpetua en la bien llamada Isla del Diablo una roca inhóspita frente a la costa de Sudamérica. Así que allí fue y allí paso sus días solo escribiendo al gobierno francés rogando que reabrieran su caso para que se demostrara su inocencia. En general, Francia lo daba por cerrado.
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?
Del Caso Dreyfus, me resulta muy interesante que los oficiales estuvieran tan convencidos de la culpabilidad de Dreyfus. Podría asumirse que le tendieron una trampa que querían incriminarlo a propósito. Pero los historiadores no lo creen. Hasta donde sabemos los oficiales creían de verdad que el caso contra Dreyfus era claro. Lo que hace pensar: ¿Qué nos dice de la mente humana que podamos encontrar en pruebas ridículas la contundencia para condenar a un hombre?
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."
Es lo que los científicos llaman "razonamiento motivado". Nuestras motivaciones subconscientes nuestros deseos y miedos se forman según interpretamos la información. Vemos como aliadas a ciertas informaciones o ideas. Queremos que ganen, queremos defenderlas. Y otras son el enemigo y queremos vencerlas. Por eso al razonamiento motivado lo llamo "actitud de soldado".
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.
Probablemente Uds. nunca habrían condenado por alta traición a un oficial judío francés. Supongo. Pero quizás les gusten los deportes o la política y cuando el árbitro pita falta a su equipo, por ejemplo, se sienten muy motivados a razonar que se equivoca. Pero si pita falta al otro equipo... ¡Estupendo! Lo ha hecho bien, no hace falta revisarlo. O quizás hayan leído un artículo o estudio que analiza alguna política polémica como la pena de muerte. Y, como han probado los investigadores, si apoyan la pena de muerte y el estudio demuestra que no es eficaz estarán motivados a encontrar que el estudio era deficiente. Pero si demuestra que la pena de muerte funciona es un buen estudio. Y lo mismo si no apoyan la pena de muerte.
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.
Inconscientemente, nuestro juicio se ve influido por el lado que queremos que gane. Y es algo general. Afecta la forma como vemos nuestra salud, nuestras relaciones, cómo decidimos cómo votar, qué consideramos justo o ético. Lo que más me asusta del razonamiento motivado, o la actitud de soldado, es lo inconsciente que es. Podemos creer que somos objetivos e imparciales y acabar arruinando la vida de un hombre inocente.
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.
Por suerte para Dreyfus, su historia no acabó ahí. Este es el Coronel Picquart. Otro oficial de algo rango del ejército francés. Como la mayoría, dio por hecho que Dreyfus era culpable. Y, como la mayoría, era casualmente antisemita. Pero en un momento, Picquard comenzó a sospechar: "¿Y si nos equivocamos con Dreyfus?". Resulta que encontró pruebas de que habían seguido espiando para Alemania tras meter a Dreyfus en prisión. También descubrió que otro oficial del ejército tenía una caligrafía que encajaba con la del informe mucho más que la de Dreyfus. Llevó las pruebas a sus superiores. Pero, a su pesar, o no les importaba o inventaban razones que explicaban sus hallazgos como "Solo nos demuestras, Picquard, que hay otro espía que ha aprendido a imitar la letra de Dreyfus y ha relevado a Dreyfus como espía. Pero Dreyfus es culpable". Al final, Picquart consiguió que absolvieran a Dreyfus. Pero le llevó diez años y durante ese tiempo él mismo estuvo en prisión por deslealtad al ejército.
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.
Muchos piensan que Picquart no puede ser el héroe de la historia porque era antisemita, y estoy de acuerdo en que eso es malo. Pero, personalmente, el hecho de que fuera antisemita hace más admirables sus acciones porque tenía tantos prejuicios y razones para ser parcial como sus compañeros oficiales. Pero su motivación para encontrar la verdad y defenderla triunfó por encima de todo.
So to me, 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?
Así que para mí Picquart es un ejemplo de lo que llamo "actitud de explorador". Es el deseo, no de que gane o pierda una idea, sino de ver lo que realmente hay de la forma más honesta y precisa posible aunque no sea bonito, o conveniente o agradable. Esta actitud es la que me apasiona. Y he pasado los últimos años investigando e intentando averiguar qué provoca la actitud de explorador. ¿Por qué algunas personas, al menos en alguna ocasión, son capaces de dejar atrás sus prejuicios y motivaciones y simplemente ver los hechos y pruebas lo más objetivamente posible?
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."
La respuesta es emocional. La actitud de soldado está conectada con las emociones como la defensa o el tribalismo. También lo está la actitud de explorador. Aunque son emociones distintas. Por ejemplo, los exploradores son curiosos. Podrían decir que les gusta aprender nueva información o resolver un acertijo. Suelen sentirse intrigados cuando se encuentran con algo que contradice sus expectativas. Los exploradores tienen valores diferentes. Podrían decir que consideran una virtud poner a prueba sus creencias y no dirán que quien cambia de opinión es débil. Los exploradores son humildes de forma que su autoestima no está ligada a si tienen o no razón en cualquier tema. Pueden creer que la pena de muerte funciona. Si sale un estudio que demuestre que no, pueden decir: "Parece que estoy equivocado. No significa que sea malo o estúpido".
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."
Estos rasgos son los que, como han descubierto los investigadores, y yo también casualmente, predicen el buen juicio. Y la clave que quiero darles sobre estas características es que no están basadas en cuán listos son o en cuánto saben. De hecho, no están muy relacionadas con el C.I. Están basadas en lo que sienten. Hay una cita de Saint-Exupéry que me viene siempre a la mente. Es el autor de "El Principito". Dijo: "Si quieres construir un barco no empieces por buscar madera, dar órdenes y distribuir el trabajo. En su lugar, enseña a los hombres a anhelar la inmensidad infinita del mar".
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.
En otras palabras, declaro, que si queremos mejorar nuestro juicio como individuos y como sociedad no necesitamos más educación en lógica retórica, probabilidad, economía, aunque estas sean muy valiosas. Lo que más necesitamos para usar bien esos principios es una actitud de explorador. Cambiar cómo nos sentimos. Aprender a sentirnos orgullosos en lugar de avergonzados cuando nos damos cuenta de que estábamos equivocados. Aprender a sentirnos intrigados en lugar de defensivos cuando encontramos información que contradice nuestras creencias.
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?
La pregunta que les quiero plantear es: ¿Qué es lo que más ansían? ¿Ansían defender sus propias creencias? ¿O ansían ver el mundo lo más claramente posible?
Thank you.
Gracias.
(Applause)
(Aplausos)