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.
我想請你們想像一下 你們是一位身處激烈戰爭的士兵。 也許你們是一位羅馬步兵, 或者是一位中世紀的弓箭手, 或者是一位祖魯武士。 不管你身處何時何地, 有一些事情是不變的。 你的腎上腺素都會上升, 而且你的行為來自這些 根深蒂固的本能反應, 建立在你需要保護你自己 和你所屬的一方之上, 並且擊敗敵人的本能反應。
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.
現在,我想請你們想像自己 扮演一個完全不同的角色, 一個偵查員的角色。 偵查員的任務不是攻擊或者防守。 偵查員的任務是理解。 偵查員需要走出去, 畫出地形圖,辨認出潛在的障礙物。 偵查員可能希望知道,比如,有一座橋 在河上一個近便的位置。 但最重要的是, 偵查員想要知道那裡真的有什麼, 越準確越好。 在現實的軍隊中, 士兵和偵查員都很重要。 但是你也可以把這兩種角色 想像成兩種心態── 用來比喻在日常生活中,我們所有人 如何處理信息和想法。 我今天要證明的是做出良好的判斷, 準確的預測,良好的決定, 大部分都是關於你在哪個心態中。
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.
為了用情節說明這些心態, 我將把你們帶回到 19 世紀的法國, 在那裡,這張看起來無害的紙 引發了歷史上最大的政治醜聞之一。 它是在 1894 年 由法國總參謀部的官員發現的。 它被撕碎了,丟在廢紙簍裡, 但是他們把它一片片復原, 他們發現他們軍階中的某個人 過去一直把軍事秘密賣給德國。
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.
所以他們進行了一場全面調查, 然後他們的猜疑 很快聚焦到這個人身上, 阿爾弗萊德·德萊弗斯。 他有很優秀的記錄, 過去沒有犯罪歷史, 沒有他們所能指出的動機。 但是德萊弗斯是軍隊裡 在這個軍階上唯一的猶太人軍官, 不幸的是,這一次 法國軍隊高度反對猶太人。 他們把德萊弗斯的字跡 和那張紙上的字跡進行比較, 然後得出結論,字跡匹配, 儘管軍營外專業的字跡專家 對這個相似性沒有那麼大的把握, 但是不用在意他們的看法。 他們去了德萊弗斯的 公寓並進行搜查, 尋找任何諜報活動的痕跡。 他們搜查了他的文件, 但是他們什麼都沒找到。 這只是讓他們更加確信 德萊弗斯不僅有罪, 而且很狡詐, 因為很明顯他藏好了所有的證據 在他們成功找到它們之前。
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.
然後,他們去查他的個人歷史 尋找任何表明他有罪的細節。 他們和他的老師們談話, 他們發現他在學校學習過外語, 這明顯表明一種 未來想要與外國政府密謀的想法。 他的老師們還說德萊弗斯 因為他良好的記憶力而出名, 這十分可疑,對吧? 要知道,因為一名間諜 必須記住很多事情。
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.
所以這個案件開始審理, 然後德萊弗斯被判有罪。 之後,他們把他帶到了公共廣場 依照慣例取下他制服上的勳章, 然後把他的劍折成兩半。 這個被叫作德萊弗斯的屈辱。 他們把他終身監禁, 關在一個恰好叫做惡魔島的島上, 它是一個鄰近南美洲 海岸線的貧瘠礁島。 所以他去了那裡, 在那裡一個人度日, 寫了許許多多封信給法國政府, 請求他們再次審理他的案子, 好讓他們可以意識到他的清白。 但是整體而言, 法國認為這件事結束了。
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?
對我而言,德萊弗斯事件有趣的一點 是這個問題:為什麼官員們那麼確信 德萊弗斯是有罪的。 我的意思是,你們甚至可能想, 他們在誣陷他, 他們故意作偽證誣陷他。 但是歷史學家認為那不是事實。 我們目前能確定的是, 官員們真的認為 對德萊弗斯不利的判決 是理由充分的。 這會讓你想知道: 這件事和人類思想有什麼關係, 我們可以認為如此微不足道的證據 足夠有說服力來判定一個人有罪?
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."
嗯,這就是科學家稱作 「動機性推理」的一個案例。 在動機性推理這個情況下, 我們無意識的動機, 我們的渴望和恐懼, 影響了我們解讀信息的方式。 一些信息、一些想法 像是我們的盟友。 我們想要它們勝利。 我們想要捍衛它們。 其它的信息或者想法是我們的敵人, 我們想要把它們打倒。 這就是為什麼我把 動機性推理稱作「士兵心態」。
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.
我想,可能你們中的大多數人從未 迫害過一名法國猶太血統軍官叛國罪, 但是也許你們曾關心運動或者政治, 所以你們可能曾經注意到 比如,當裁判判定 你的球隊犯規的時候, 你就有高度動機, 去找裁判誤判的理由。 但是如果裁判判定 另一支球隊犯規──太棒了! 那是一個很好的判決, 我們不要太過追究。 或者,也許你讀過 一篇文章或是一份研究, 是關於一些有爭議的政策, 比如死刑。 正如研究人員所證實的, 如果你支持死刑 研究卻顯示死刑無效, 那麼你就有高度動機, 想找出所有的理由 說明為什麼這個研究設計得不好。 但是如果它表明死刑有效, 太好了,它就是一份好的研究。 反之亦然:如果你不支持死刑, 同樣的反應。
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.
我們的判斷, 在毫無意識的情況下,很強烈地被 我們希望獲勝的一方影響著。 這是普遍存在的。 這決定了我們如何看待 我們的健康,我們的人際關係, 我們如何決定怎樣投票, 我們認為什麼是公平或者道德。 對我而言,動機性推理, 或者是士兵心態最可怕的地方, 是它有多麼不受意識控制。 我們可能認為我們客觀公正, 但最後仍然破壞了一個 無辜的人的生活。
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.
然而,對德萊弗斯而言, 幸運的是,他的事件沒有結束。 這是皮卡爾上校。 他是法國軍隊中另一位高級官員, 像大多數人一樣, 他假定德萊弗斯是有罪的。 同時也像軍隊中的大多數人一樣, 他至少有無意的反猶太情緒。 但是在某一刻,皮卡爾開始懷疑: 「如果我們對於德萊弗斯的判定 都錯了怎麼辦?」 接下來發生的是,他發現了證據 德國間諜行為一直持續, 即使在德萊弗斯入獄以後。 他也發現了軍隊中的另一位軍官 有著和那張紙上的字跡 非常吻合的字跡, 比德萊弗斯的字跡還要接近。 然後他把這些發現帶到他的上級面前, 但是讓他失望的是, 他們若非不在意、 就是給出精心變造的、 合理化的理由來解釋他的發現, 比如,「嗯,你所展示的一切 只能證明還有一個間諜, 他學會了如何模仿德萊弗斯的字跡, 他在德萊弗斯離開後 接替了他的任務。 但是德萊弗斯仍然有罪。」 最終,皮卡爾成功幫助 德萊弗斯洗刷罪名。 但是這花了他 10 年的時間, 而且這期間他自己有一部分時間 也是在監獄中度過的, 因為對軍隊不忠的罪名。
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.
很多人認為皮卡爾不能真的 成為這個事件的英雄, 因為他反猶太,這很不好, 我也同意這一點。 但是,就我個人而言, 皮卡爾反猶太的事實, 實際上讓他的行為更令人佩服, 因為他有相同的偏見, 相同的原因讓自己變得不公正, 和他的同僚一樣, 但是他尋找真相 並堅守真相的動力勝過一切。
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?
所以對我而言, 皮卡爾是一個具有我稱作 「偵查員心態」的典型。 不是一種要讓一種想法獲勝、 或者是另一種想法輸掉的慾望, 而是僅僅發現那裡真的有什麼, 越誠實越準確越好, 即使那不美麗、不方便、不愉快。 這種心態是我個人很有興趣的。 我用過去幾年的時間 研究並且試著發現 是什麼導致了偵查員心態。 為什麼有些人,至少有些時候, 可以不顧他們自己 先入為主的觀念,偏見和動機, 只是以一種盡可能客觀的方式, 尋找事實和證據?
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."
答案就是情緒。 就像士兵心態根植於情緒中, 比如防禦心或者同族意識, 偵查員心態也是這樣。 它只是根植於不同的情緒中。 比如,偵查員有好奇心。 他們更可能感到快樂, 因為得到新的信息、 或者是一種解決疑惑的渴望, 他們更可能感到有興趣, 當他們遇到一些 與他們預期相反的事情。 偵查員也有不同的價值觀。 他們更可能說他們認為 檢驗你自己的信念 是品德高尚的表現, 他們比較不會說改變主意的人 看起來軟弱。 最重要的是,偵查員腳踏實地, 這意味著他們 作為一個人的自我價值, 與他們對於任何話題的立場 是多麼正確或是多麼錯誤無關。 所以他們可能認為死刑有效。 如果研究表明死刑無效, 他們可能會說, 「呃,看來我可能錯了。 這不意味著我很糟糕或者愚蠢。」
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."
這些特質的集合是研究人員發現的── 也是我通過軼事發現的── 可以預測良好判斷力的特質。 對於那些特質, 我想留給你們最關鍵的一點, 就是它們與你有多聰明, 或者你知道多少無關。 事實上,它們與智商 根本沒多少聯繫。 它們和你的感覺有關。 有一條我經常引用的語錄, 聖修伯里說的。 他是《小王子》的作者。 他說:「如果你想造一艘船, 不要號召你的工人 去收集木頭,發號命令, 然後分配工作。 反之,要教給他們對 無邊無際的大海的渴望。」
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.
換句話而言,我會說, 如果我們真的想要 提高我們的判斷力,作為個體 並且作為社會群體, 我們迫切需要的不是在邏輯方面 或是雄辯、概率、 經濟方面更多的指導, 儘管那些東西都很有價值。 要充分利用那些原則,我們最需要的 是偵查員心態。 我們需要改變我們感覺事物的方式。 我們需要學會如何感到 驕傲而不是羞愧, 當我們意識到我們可能 做錯什麼事的時候。 我們需要學會如何感到 有興趣而不是有防禦心, 當我們遇到一些與我們信念 相反的信息的時候。
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?
所以我想要留給你們的問題就是: 你們最想要什麼? 你們想要捍衛你們的信念? 還是你們想要盡可能 清晰地看這個世界?
Thank you.
謝謝。
(Applause)
(掌聲)