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.
請大家想像下 自己係個打緊仗嘅士兵 可能係個羅馬步兵 或者係中世紀嘅弓箭手 又或者係祖魯戰士 無論你身處何時何地 有啲嘢係唔會變嘅 你嘅腎上腺素會升高 你嘅行為,其實根植於 呢啲反射動作之中 呢啲用黎保護你自己 同埋打敗敵人嘅反射動作
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.
所以依家我希望 你哋諗下喺頭先嘅情境中 自己扮演唔同嘅角色:偵察兵 偵察兵唔洗攻擊或者防禦 任務只係要了解情況 偵察兵要行出去 畫出敵方嘅地圖 了解潛在嘅阻礙物 偵察兵希望了解嘅係譬如 一個方便過河嘅位置 係唔係有一座橋 不過更加重要嘅係,偵察兵希望 了解嗰度究竟有啲咩 知得越精確越好 正如真正嘅軍隊入面 士兵同偵察兵都好重要 不過你又可以當呢啲 角色代表緊啲思維方式 比喻緊我哋喺日常生活之中 接收信息同諗嘢嘅過程 我哋今日想講嘅就係 要擁有優秀嘅判斷力 要作出精確嘅預測、正確嘅決定 主要取決於你嘅思維方式
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.
依家我哋可以實際 展示下呢種思維方式 我會帶住你地去 十九世紀嘅法國 喺嗰度,呢張睇落微不足道嘅紙仔 引發咗歷史上 數一數二嘅政治醜聞 1894 年,有啲法國公務員發現 垃圾桶裡面一張撕碎嘅紙 將啲紙砌返埋之後 佢哋發現隊伍裡面有人 偷偷地賣軍事機密畀德國
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.
於是佢哋開始咗個大規模嘅調查 調查結果好快指向一個人 阿弗列 ‧ 屈里弗斯 佢嘅信用紀錄幾好 之前無做錯過嘢 又唔似有犯案動機 但係,屈里弗斯係隊伍 入面唯一一個猶太軍官 不幸嘅係,嗰時法國軍隊好歧視猶太人 佢哋攞屈里弗斯嘅字跡同嗰張紙做比較 發現係一致嘅 雖然其他筆跡專家 覺得冇咁似 但係無論點 佢哋去咗屈里弗斯間屋 搵佢做間諜嘅痕跡 佢哋搵暈曬佢啲文件 都搵唔到證據 佢哋反而覺得屈里弗斯一定係做緊間諜 仲超級狡猾,係佢哋嚟到之前 已經將啲罪證收起曬
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.
跟著落嚟,佢哋去查佢嘅個人歷史 試圖尋找犯罪嘅痕跡 佢哋向佢嘅老師問話 發現佢喺學校學過外語 就覺得佢一定係為咗之後 做外國間諜 佢嘅老師仲話 屈里弗斯記憶力好,好到出曬名 真係太可疑啦,係咪? 因為你知啦 間諜係需要記住好多嘢㗎嘛
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.
呢單案件上咗法庭 屈里弗斯被判有罪 之後,佢哋將佢帶到廣場上 依足規矩咁扯走佢嘅徽章 又將佢嘅劍折成兩段 呢個就係屈里弗斯降級事件 佢哋判咗佢終身監禁 將佢流放到南美洲海岸 一個叫做魔鬼島嘅荒涼小島上 佢之後就去咗嗰度淒涼度日 寫左一封又一封信畀法國政府 求佢哋重新審過單案時 會察覺佢係無辜嘅 但係大家都覺得 呢單案已經完曬
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?
我覺得屈里弗斯事件 好有意思嘅一個地方 就係嗰啲官員點解咁肯定 屈里弗斯係有罪嘅呢 你甚至會覺得 佢地設佢局 特登陷害佢 不過歷史學家都唔係咁諗 我哋可以睇到 個啲官真係覺得 控訴屈里弗斯嘅理據十足 呢件事令人奇怪 人類個腦到底有咩問題 以至咁丁點嘅證據 都可以說服到人判佢有罪?
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."
係咁嘅,科學家發現一種 叫做「動機性推理」嘅現象 係指我哋嘅潛意識 我哋嘅慾望同恐懼 塑造咗我哋分析信息嘅方式 有啲信息,有啲諗法 對我哋嚟講好似朋友 我哋想佢地贏 我哋想護住佢哋 有啲信息好似仇人咁樣 我哋想消滅佢哋 所以我鐘意叫動機性推理 做「士兵思維」
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.
你哋就從未迫害過 猶太裔法國軍官,話佢係叛徒 我估係呱 不過你如果鍾意睇體育 或者政治新聞 你可能已經留意到 譬如,當個裁判話 你鍾意嗰隊犯規 你就會好想搵理由講 佢點解判錯咗 不過如果佢判另外嗰隊 犯咗規,你就會覺得好啱 這個例子幾好 但大家唔好咁認真 或者,你可能啱啱先讀咗一篇 有關一啲爭議嘅文章或者研究 譬如應唔應該有死刑 啲研究員發現 如果你支持死刑 但係篇文話死刑無用嘅話 你就會好想搵出 呢份報告邊度寫得唔好 不過如果篇文支持死刑 你就會覺得佢寫得好好 反之亦然:如果你唔 支持死刑,都係一樣嘅
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.
我哋嘅判斷力喺無意之中 受我哋嘅立場好大影響 呢個現象好普遍 決定緊我哋點睇 健康同人際關係 點投票 點先覺得係公平或者合乎道德 最驚嚇嘅係 動機性推理或者士兵思維 都係完全無意嘅 我哋以為自己好公正、好客觀 但係都可以冤死無辜嘅人
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.
不過,好彩屈里弗斯嘅故事未完 呢個係皮卡爾上校 佢係另外一個法軍高官 同其他人一樣,佢都覺得屈里弗斯有罪 又同其他人咁,佢都有少少反猶太 不過,過咗一段時間,皮卡爾開始懷疑 「我哋係唔係冤枉咗屈里弗斯?」 之後,佢發現 屈里弗斯坐緊監時 都繼續有人為德國通風報信 佢仲發現軍隊入面 有人嘅字跡同果張紙仔上嘅一模一樣 而且比起屈里弗斯嘅字跡更加似 於是,佢向上級匯報佢嘅發現 不過令佢失望嘅係,佢哋一係就唔上心 一係就兜個大圈,合理化啲新發現 譬如「皮卡爾,你只不過 發現咗另一個間諜 模仿咗屈里弗斯嘅字跡。 喺屈里弗斯坐監之後接手間諜工作。 不過屈里弗斯都係有罪嘅。」 最尾,皮卡爾成功幫屈里弗斯洗脫罪名 但係就用咗整整十年 期間佢自己都因為 對軍隊不忠坐咗陣監
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.
好多人覺得皮卡爾唔係成件事嘅英雄 因為佢都歧視猶太人,我同意呢點 不過,對我黎講,正因為皮卡爾反猶太 佢嘅舉動更加令人佩服 因為佢都同其他軍官有一樣嘅偏見 有同樣嘅原因可能作出唔公正嘅判斷 但佢尋找、堅持真相嘅動力將功補過
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?
對於我嚟講 皮卡爾係「偵察思維」嘅典範 冇支持或反對任何觀點 而係純粹發現事實所在 盡量真實準確嘅事實 即使啲事實唔光彩、唔方便人 唔討人歡喜 呢個就係我熱愛嘅思維 過去幾年,我試圖探索同發現 「偵察思維」係點樣形成嘅 點解有啲人,有啲時候 能夠摒棄自己嘅偏見、主觀同埋動機 嘗試用最客觀嘅眼光 去睇清事實同證據
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."
答案就係情感上 就好似士兵思維係出於 譬如防禦或者親疏有別嘅情感 偵察思維都係 不過係出於唔同嘅情感 譬如,偵察者有好奇心 佢哋學到新嘢時 或者解開難題時 就會好開心 如果佢哋發現有嘢 違背咗佢哋嘅假設 就會覺得好奇 偵察者都有唔同嘅價值觀 佢哋覺得驗證自己嘅觀念 係一種美德 而唔會覺得 改變諗法係一種軟弱嘅行為 最後,偵察者係腳踏實地嘅 佢哋作為人嘅自尊唔係取決於 佢哋對於特定議題嘅諗法係對定錯 佢哋可能覺得死刑係有用嘅 但如果有研究話死刑係冇用嘅 佢哋會諗「係,我諗錯咗, 但都唔代表我差勁或者蠢」
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."
研究員發現呢啲性格特點 ——而我都係啲故事中發現 預示咗人嘅判斷能力高低 我最想比你知道嘅就係 係呢啲性格特點同你醒唔醒無關 同你識幾多嘢都無關 其實同智商都冇咩數據上嘅關係 主要都係同情感有關 我成日引用聖埃克絮佩里 ——即係《小王子》嘅作者所講 「如果你想造船, 唔好叫人地收集木頭、發號施令、 分配工作, 而係要教識佢哋嚮往 無邊無際嘅大海。」
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.
換句話講 如果我哋真係想改善判斷能力 不論係作為係個人或者社會 我哋最需要嘅唔係更多嘅邏輯構建 比喻、機會率又或經濟學 儘管呢啲嘢都好有價值 不過要好好利用呢個理論 我哋最需要嘅係偵查思維 我哋需要改變自己嘅感觀 我哋需要學習 喺發現自己諗錯嘢時 覺得自豪而唔係羞恥 需要學習如何喺發現一啲 同我哋觀念牴觸嘅資訊時 覺得好奇而唔係戒備
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?
所以,我想問你哋嘅問題係 你最想要嘅係咩? 你想防禦自己嘅觀念? 定係想盡可能睇到真實嘅世界?
Thank you.
多謝各位
(Applause)
(掌聲)