"Don't talk to strangers."
「不要跟陌生人說話。」
You have heard that phrase uttered by your friends, family, schools and the media for decades. It's a norm. It's a social norm. But it's a special kind of social norm, because it's a social norm that wants to tell us who we can relate to and who we shouldn't relate to. "Don't talk to strangers" says, "Stay from anyone who's not familiar to you. Stick with the people you know. Stick with people like you."
幾十年來,你已聽過了 你的朋友、家人、學校、媒體 說這句話。 這是一種規範, 這是一種社會規範, 但它是一種特殊的社會規範。 因為這社會規範告訴我們 可以與誰親近,不應與誰親近。 「不要跟陌生人說話」即是 「遠離不熟悉的人, 和熟悉的人在一起, 和像你的人在一起。」
How appealing is that? It's not really what we do, is it, when we're at our best? When we're at our best, we reach out to people who are not like us, because when we do that, we learn from people who are not like us.
這樣聽起來吸引人嗎? 在我們於最佳狀態的時候, 其實我們不會這麼做,對吧? 當我們處於最佳狀態的時候, 會接觸其他和我們不同的人, 因為當我們這樣做的時候, 可從和我們不同的人身上學習,
My phrase for this value of being with "not like us" is "strangeness," and my point is that in today's digitally intensive world, strangers are quite frankly not the point. The point that we should be worried about is, how much strangeness are we getting?
我稱這價值觀 「與其他和我們不同的人接觸」 為「陌生感」, 我認為在現今數位密集的世界, 坦白說,陌生人並不是重點。 我們應該擔心的是, 我們得到了多少陌生感?
Why strangeness? Because our social relations are increasingly mediated by data, and data turns our social relations into digital relations, and that means that our digital relations now depend extraordinarily on technology to bring to them a sense of robustness, a sense of discovery, a sense of surprise and unpredictability. Why not strangers? Because strangers are part of a world of really rigid boundaries. They belong to a world of people I know versus people I don't know, and in the context of my digital relations, I'm already doing things with people I don't know. The question isn't whether or not I know you. The question is, what can I do with you? What can I learn with you? What can we do together that benefits us both?
為什麼是陌生感? 因為我們的社會關係 越來越多地透過數據傳達, 而數據把我們的社會關係 轉為數位關係, 意味著我們的數位關係 強烈地依賴科技, 以帶來穩健感、 發現感、 驚奇感和不可預測。 為什麼不是陌生人? 因為陌生人屬於 界限鮮明世界的一部分, 他們屬於我所熟識的人的世界, 和我不認識的人的世界, 在數位關係的背景下, 我已經和不認識的人一起做事。 問題不在於我到底是否認識你, 問題是,我們可以一起做什麼呢? 我們可以一起學習什麼? 我們可以一起做些什麼, 以致雙方得益?
I spend a lot of time thinking about how the social landscape is changing, how new technologies create new constraints and new opportunities for people. The most important changes facing us today have to do with data and what data is doing to shape the kinds of digital relations that will be possible for us in the future. The economies of the future depend on that. Our social lives in the future depend on that. The threat to worry about isn't strangers. The threat to worry about is whether or not we're getting our fair share of strangeness.
我花了很多時間去思考, 社會地景是怎樣改變的, 新科技如何帶給人類新的限制 與新的機會。 今天我們面對的最重要改變是 必須處理數據和處理哪些數據去 塑造各類不同的數位關係, 未來對我們有用的關係。 未來的經濟依靠著這些關係, 我們的社交生活依靠著這些關係, 令人擔心的並不是陌生人, 我們須擔心的威脅是 能否得到本屬於 我們份額的陌生感。
Now, 20th-century psychologists and sociologists were thinking about strangers, but they weren't thinking so dynamically about human relations, and they were thinking about strangers in the context of influencing practices. Stanley Milgram from the '60s and '70s, the creator of the small-world experiments, which became later popularized as six degrees of separation, made the point that any two arbitrarily selected people were likely connected from between five to seven intermediary steps. His point was that strangers are out there. We can reach them. There are paths that enable us to reach them. Mark Granovetter, Stanford sociologist, in 1973 in his seminal essay "The Strength of Weak Ties," made the point that these weak ties that are a part of our networks, these strangers, are actually more effective at diffusing information to us than are our strong ties, the people closest to us. He makes an additional indictment of our strong ties when he says that these people who are so close to us, these strong ties in our lives, actually have a homogenizing effect on us. They produce sameness.
二十世紀的心理學家和社會學家 過去在關於陌生人的議題上, 沒有隨著時代變遷思考人類關係, 在這個議題上, 他們把陌生人放在 實踐影響的脈絡來思考。 六、七十年代, 斯坦利·米爾格拉姆 (Stanley Milgram) ── 小世界實驗的創造者, 這實驗後來普及為六度分隔理論, 即是任何兩個隨意揀選的人, 很可能由五至七個中間人 連接在一起, 他認為陌生人就在那裡。 我們能夠接觸他們, 總有些路徑使我們能夠接觸他們。 在1973年,史丹佛社會學家 馬克.格蘭諾維特 (Mark Granovetter), 寫了一篇具開創性的論文, 名為「弱連結的力量」, 指出這些弱連結 是我們網絡的一部分,這些陌生人 較強連結、與我們最接近的人, 更有效地向我們傳播信息, 他對我們的強連結提出額外指控, 當他說這些人那麼接近我們, 這些我們生活中的強連結, 事實上對我們有著均質化的影響, 他們產生相同性,
My colleagues and I at Intel have spent the last few years looking at the ways in which digital platforms are reshaping our everyday lives, what kinds of new routines are possible. We've been looking specifically at the kinds of digital platforms that have enabled us to take our possessions, those things that used to be very restricted to us and to our friends in our houses, and to make them available to people we don't know. Whether it's our clothes, whether it's our cars, whether it's our bikes, whether it's our books or music, we are able to take our possessions now and make them available to people we've never met. And we concluded a very important insight, which was that as people's relationships to the things in their lives change, so do their relations with other people. And yet recommendation system after recommendation system continues to miss the boat. It continues to try to predict what I need based on some past characterization of who I am, of what I've already done. Security technology after security technology continues to design data protection in terms of threats and attacks, keeping me locked into really rigid kinds of relations.
在英特爾,我和同事 曾經花掉了數年時間去尋找, 數位平台正以何種方式 改變我們的日常生活, 哪些新的常規可能造成影響? 我們曾特別地尋找 各式各樣的數位平台, 讓我們把佔有物 ──那些曾只限於 我們在自家裡和朋友使用── 分享給我們不認識的人。 不管是我們的衣服, 不管是我們的車, 不管是我們的自行車, 不管是我們的書或音樂, 現在我們也可以把自己的東西, 交給那些未曾謀面的陌生人。 而且我們總結出一條非常重要的見解, 就是當人與生活中的事物 改變關係的時候, 他們與其他人的關係也改變了。 一代又一代的推薦系統 持續讓我們坐失良機。 這系統還根據我過往的 一些特徵和做過什麼事情, 來預測我的需要。 一代又一代的保安技術 也持續設計數據保護方案 來抵禦威脅和攻擊。 讓我聚焦在真正制式的各類關係,
Categories like "friends" and "family" and "contacts" and "colleagues" don't tell me anything about my actual relations. A more effective way to think about my relations might be in terms of closeness and distance, where at any given point in time, with any single person, I am both close and distant from that individual, all as a function of what I need to do right now. People aren't close or distant. People are always a combination of the two, and that combination is constantly changing.
分類如「朋友」和「家庭」, 「聯絡人」和「同事」, 不要告訴我任何現實生活的關係是什麼。 一個更有效的方法去思考我的關係, 就是根據親密和距離來說, 在某一特定的時間,與任何一個人, 讓我與那人親近,同時保持距離, 一切都取決於我現在需要做什麼。 我們與其他人並不親密,也不疏離, 人們總是兩者的結合, 而這結合是不斷變化的。
What if technologies could intervene to disrupt the balance of certain kinds of relationships? What if technologies could intervene to help me find the person that I need right now? Strangeness is that calibration of closeness and distance that enables me to find the people that I need right now, that enables me to find the sources of intimacy, of discovery, and of inspiration that I need right now. Strangeness is not about meeting strangers. It simply makes the point that we need to disrupt our zones of familiarity. So jogging those zones of familiarity is one way to think about strangeness, and it's a problem faced not just by individuals today, but also by organizations, organizations that are trying to embrace massively new opportunities. Whether you're a political party insisting to your detriment on a very rigid notion of who belongs and who does not, whether you're the government protecting social institutions like marriage and restricting access of those institutions to the few, whether you're a teenager in her bedroom who's trying to jostle her relations with her parents, strangeness is a way to think about how we pave the way to new kinds of relations. We have to change the norms. We have to change the norms in order to enable new kinds of technologies as a basis for new kinds of businesses.
假如科技能夠介入 並破壞某類關係的平衡呢? 假如科技能夠介入 幫助我去找尋那些 我現在就需要的人呢? 陌生感就是 親密感和距離的衡量標準, 讓我們找到我們現在就需要的人, 讓我們找到親密感與 發現的來源,和我現在就需要的靈感。 陌生感並不是與陌生人會面, 簡言之,我們需要 瓦解我們熟悉的圈子。 所以在熟悉地帶慢跑, 就是思考陌生感的方式之一。 這並不只是今日個人所面對的問題, 不同機構也同樣面對這問題, 機構正嘗試迎接大量的新機會。 無論你是否一身為個政黨, 堅持於受到嚴格條件的限制 不論屬於誰,或不屬於誰; 無論你是否身為一個政府, 要保護社會制度,如婚姻, 並只讓很少人接觸這些制度; 無論你是否是一個 身處自己臥房的年輕人, 試圖與父母修補關係。 陌生感是一種讓我們思考 要如何建立新關係的方式。 我們必須改變規範, 我們一定要改變規範, 使各種類型的新科技, 能夠成為各類新商業活動的基礎。
What interesting questions lie ahead for us in this world of no strangers? How might we think differently about our relations with people? How might we think differently about our relations with distributed groups of people? How might we think differently about our relations with technologies, things that effectively become social participants in their own right? The range of digital relations is extraordinary. In the context of this broad range of digital relations, safely seeking strangeness might very well be a new basis for that innovation.
在這個沒有陌生人的世界, 擺在我們面前的是什麼有趣問題? 我們怎樣以不同的方式 去思考與其他人的關係? 我們怎樣以不同的方式去思考 與其他異己大眾間的關係? 我們怎樣以不同的方式去思考 我們與科技的關係? 而事實上,科技憑藉著自身的重要性 變成了社會參與者。 數位關係涉及範圍超乎相像, 在這廣大數位關係的時空背景下, 我們安全地尋求陌生感 也許就能成為創新的一種新基礎了。
Thank you.
謝謝!
(Applause)
(掌聲)