I was told to come here and tell you all stories, but what I'd like to do is instead tell you why I'm suspicious of stories, why stories make me nervous. In fact, the more inspired a story makes me feel, very often, the more nervous I get. (Laughter) So the best stories are often the trickiest ones. The good and bad things about stories is that they are a kind of filter. They take a lot of information, and they leave some of it out, and they keep some of it in. But the thing about this filter is that it always leaves the same things in. You're always left with the same few simple stories. There is the old saying that just about every story can be summed up as "a stranger came to town." There is a book by Christopher Booker, where he claims there are really just seven types of stories. There is monster, rags to riches, quest, voyage and return, comedy, tragedy, rebirth. You don't have to agree with that list exactly, but the point is this: if you think in terms of stories, you're telling yourself the same things over and over again. There was a study done, we asked some people-- people were asked to describe their lives. When asked to describe their lives, what is interesting is how few people said "mess". (Laughter) It's probably the best answer, I don't mean that in a bad way. "Mess" can be liberating, "mess" can be empowering, "mess" can be a way of drawing upon multiple strengths. But what people wanted to say was, "My life is a journey." 51% wanted to turn his or her life into a story. 11% said, "My life is a battle." Again, that is a kind of story. 8% said, "My life is a novel." 5% said, "My life is a play." I don't think anyone said, "My life is a reality TV show." (Laughter) But again, we're imposing order on the mess we observe, and it's taking the same patterns, and the thing is when something is in the form of a story, often, we remember it when we shouldn't. So how many of you know the story about George Washington and the cherry tree? It's not obvious that is exactly what happened. The story of Paul Revere, it's not obvious that that is exactly the way it happened. So again, we should be suspicious of stories. We're biologically programmed to respond to them. They contain a lot of information. They have social power. They connect us to other people. So they are like a candy that we're fed when we consume political information, when we read novels. When we read non-fiction books, we're really being fed stories. Non-fiction is, in a sense, the new fiction. The book may happen to say true things, but again, everything's taking the same form of these stories. So what are the problems of relying too heavily on stories? You view your life like this instead of the mess that it is or it ought to be. But more specifically, I think of a few major problems when we think too much in terms of narrative. First, narratives tend to be too simple, for the point of a narrative is to strip it away, not just into 18 minutes, but most narratives you can present in a sentence or two. When you strip away detail, you tend to tell stories in terms of good versus evil, whether it's a story about your own life or a story about politics. I know some things actually are good versus evil, we all know this, right? But I think, as a general rule, we're too inclined to tell the good versus evil story. As a simple rule of thumb, just imagine that every time you're telling a good versus evil story, you're basically lowering your IQ by ten points or more. If you just adopt that as a kind of inner mental habit, it's, in my view, one way to get a lot smarter pretty quickly. You don't have to read any books. Just imagine yourself pressing a button every time you tell the good versus evil story, and by pressing that button, you're lowering your IQ by ten points or more. Another set of stories that are popular-- if you know Oliver Stone's movies, or Michael Moore's movies, you can't make a movie and say: "It was all a big accident." No, it has to be a conspiracy, people plotting together, because in a story, a story is about intention. A story is not about spontaneous order or complex human institutions which are the product of human action, but not of human design. No, a story is about evil people plotting together. So when you hear stories about plots, or even stories about good people plotting things together, just like when you're watching movies, this, again, is reason to be suspicious. As a good rule of thumb, if you're asking: "When I hear a story, when should I be especially suspicious?" If you hear a story and you think: "Wow, that would make a great movie!" (Laughter) That's when the "uh-oh" reaction should pop in a bit more, and you should start thinking in terms of how the whole thing is maybe a bit of a mess. Another common story or storyline is the claim that we "have to get tough". You'll hear this in so many contexts. We have to get tough with the banks. We had to get tough with the labor unions. We need to get tough with some other country, some foreign dictator, someone we're negotiating with. Again, the point is not against getting tough. Sometimes we should get tough. That we got tough with the Nazis was a good thing. But this is again a story we fall back upon all too readily, all too quickly. When we don't really know why something happened, we blame someone, and we say: "We need to get tough with them!" As if it had never occurred to your predecessor, this idea of getting tough. I view it usually as a kind of mental laziness. It's a simple story you tell: "We need to get tough, we needed to get tough, we will have to get tough." Usually, that is a kind of warning signal. Another kind of problem with stories is you can only fit so many stories into your mind at once, or in the course of a day, or even over the course of a lifetime. So your stories are serving too many purposes. For instance, just to get out of bed in the morning, you tell yourself the story that your job is really important, what you're doing is really important (Laughter) and maybe it is, but I tell myself that story even when it's not. And you know what? That story works. It gets me out of bed. It's a kind of self-deception, but the problem comes when I need to change that story. The whole point of the story is that I grab onto it and I hold it, and it gets me out of bed. So when I'm really doing something that is actually just a waste of time, in my mess of a life, I'm too tied into my story that got me out of bed, and ideally, I ought to have some very complex story map in my mind, you know, with combinatorials and a matrix of computation, and the like, but that is not how stories work. Stories in order to work have to be simple, easily grasped, easily told to others, easily remembered. So stories will serve dual and conflicting purposes, and very often they will lead us astray. I used to think I was within the camp of economists, I was one of the good guys, and I was allied with other good guys, and we were fighting the ideas of the bad guys. I used to think that! And probably, I was wrong. Maybe sometimes, I'm one of the good guys, but on some issues, I finally realized: "Hey, I wasn't one of the good guys." I'm not sure I was the bad guy in the sense of having evil intent, but it was very hard for me to get away with that story. One interesting thing about cognitive biases is they are the subject of so many books these days. There's the Nudge book, the Sway book, the Blink book, like the one-title book, all about the ways in which we screw up. And there are so many ways, but what I find interesting is that none of these books identify what, to me, is the single, central, most important way we screw up, and that is that we tell ourselves too many stories, or we are too easily seduced by stories. Why don't these books tell us that? It's because the books themselves are all about stories. The more of these books you read, you're learning about some of your biases, but you're making some of your other biases essentially worse. So the books themselves are part of your cognitive bias. Often, people buy them as a kind of talisman, like: "I bought this book. I won't be 'Predictably Irrational'." (Laughter) It's like people want to hear the worst, so psychologically, they can prepare for it or defend against it. It's why there is such a market for pessimism. But to think that by buying the book gets you somewhere, that's maybe the bigger fallacy. It's just like the evidence that shows that the most dangerous people are those who have been taught some financial literacy. They're the ones who go out and make the worst mistakes. It's the people who realize they don't know anything at all, that end up doing pretty well. A third problem with stories is that outsiders manipulate us using stories, and we all like to think advertising only works on the other guy, but, of course, that's not how it is, advertising works on all of us. So if you're too attached to stories, what will happen is people selling products come along, and they will bundle their product with a story. You're like, "Hey, a free story!" And you end up buying the product, because the product and the story go together. (Laugther) If you think about how capitalism works, there is a bias here. Let's consider two kinds of stories about cars. Story A is: "Buy this car, and you will have beautiful, romantic partners and a fascinating life." (Laughter) There are a lot of people who have a financial incentive to promote that story. But, say, the alternative story is: "You don't actually need a car as nice as your income would indicate. What you usually do is look at what your peers do and copy them. That is a good heuristic for lots of problems, but when it comes to cars, just buy a Toyota." (Laughter) Maybe Toyota has an incentive there, but even Toyota is making more money off the luxury cars, and less money off the cheaper cars. So if you think which set of stories you end up hearing, you end up hearing the glamor stories, the seductive stories, and again I'm telling you, don't trust them. There are people using your love of stories to manipulate you. Pull back and say: "What are the messages, what are the stories that no one has an incentive to tell?" Start telling yourself those, and then see if any of your decisions change. That is one simple way. You can never get out of the pattern of thinking in terms of stories, but you can improve the extent to which you think in stories, and make some better decisions. So if I'm thinking about this talk, I'm wondering, of course, what is it you take away from this talk? What story do you take away from Tyler Cowen? One story you might be like the story of the quest. "Tyler was a man on a quest. Tyler came here, and he told us not to think so much in terms of stories." That would be a story you could tell about this talk. (Laughter) It would fit a pretty well-known pattern. You might remember it. You could tell it to other people. "This weird guy came, and he said, 'Don't think in terms of stories. Let me tell you what happened today!'" (Laughter) And you tell your story. (Laugther) Another possibility is you might tell a story of rebirth. You might say, "I used to think too much in terms of stories (Laughter) but then I heard Tyler Cowen (Laughter) and now I think less in terms of stories!" That too is a narrative you will remember, you can tell to other people, and again, it may stick. You also could tell a story of deep tragedy. "This guy Tyler Cowen came (Laughter) and he told us not to think in terms of stories, but all he could do was tell us stories (Laughter) about how other people think too much in terms of stories." (Laughter) So, today, which is it? Is it like quest, rebirth, tragedy? Or maybe some combination of the three? I'm really not sure, and I'm not here to tell you to burn your DVD player and throw out your Tolstoy. To think in terms of stories is fundamentally human. There is a Gabriel Garcia Marquez memoir "Living to Tell the Tale" that we use memory in stories to make sense of what we've done, to give meaning to our lives, to establish connections with other people. None of this will go away, should go away, or can go away. But again, as an economist, I'm thinking about life on the margin, the extra decision. Should we think more in terms of stories, or less in terms of stories? When we hear stories, should we be more suspicious? And what kind of stories should we be suspicious of? Again, I'm telling you it's the stories, very often, that you like the most, that you find the most rewarding, the most inspiring. The stories that don't focus on opportunity cost, or the complex, unintended consequences of human action, because that very often does not make for a good story. So often a story is a story of triumph, a story of struggle; there are opposing forces, which are either evil or ignorant; there is a person on a quest, someone making a voyage, and a stranger coming to town. And those are your categories, but don't let them make you too happy. (Laughter) As an alternative, at the margin - again, no burning of Tolstoy - but just be a little more messy. If I actually had to live those journeys, and quests, and battles, that would be so oppressive to me! It's like, my goodness, can't I just have my life in its messy, ordinary - I hesitate to use the word - glory but that it's fun for me? Do I really have to follow some kind of narrative? Can't I just live? So be more comfortable with messy. Be more comfortable with agnostic, and I mean this about the things that make you feel good. It's so easy to pick out a few areas to be agnostic in, and then feel good about it, like, "I am agnostic about religion, or politics." It's a kind of portfolio move you make to be more dogmatic elsewhere, right? (Laughter) Sometimes, the most intellectually trustworthy people are the ones who pick one area, and they are totally dogmatic in that, so pig-headedly unreasonable, that you think, "How can they possibly believe that?" But it soaks up their stubbornness, and then, on other things, they can be pretty open-minded. So don't fall into the trap of thinking because you're agnostic on some things, that you're being fundamentally reasonable about your self-deception, your stories, and your open-mindedness. (Laughter) [Think about] this idea of hovering, of epistemological hovering, and messiness, and incompleteness, [and how] not everything ties up into a neat bow, and you're really not on a journey here. You're here for some messy reason or reasons, and maybe you don't know what it is, and maybe I don't know what it is, but anyway, I'm happy to be invited, and thank you all for listening. (Laughter) (Applause)
我被告知要來這裡 告訴你們所有人幾個故事, 但我反而想要告訴你們 我為什麼對故事抱持猜疑、 為什麼故事會讓我緊張。 事實上,故事越讓我感到鼓舞, 通常,我就會越緊張。 (笑聲) 所以,最棒的故事通常 也是最微妙棘手的。 故事的好處和壞處是, 它們算是種過濾器。 它們會帶有許多資訊, 它們會遺漏一些資訊, 它們也會隱藏一些資訊。 但這種過濾器有一點特色, 就是它們總是會留下同樣的東西。 最後你總是會得到 同樣的少數幾個簡單故事。 有句老諺語說,幾乎每個故事 都可以總結成 「一個陌生人來到鎮上。」 這是一本克里斯多夫布克的書, 書中他宣稱, 其實真正只有七種故事存在: 怪獸、破碎到富饒、追尋、 航程與返程、喜劇、悲劇、重生。 你並不需要完全同意這個清單, 但重點是: 如果從故事方面來思考, 你其實是在一而再再而三地 告訴你自己同樣的事情。 我們做了一項研究, 我們要求人們…… 人們被要求描述他們的人生, 當人們被要求描述他們的人生, 有趣的是,人們很少會以 「一團糟」來形容。 (笑聲) 那可能是最好的答案, 我指的一團糟沒有不好的意思, 「一團糟」可能是很自由的, 「一團糟」可能讓人覺得有自主權, 「一團糟」可能是 運用多項優點的方式。 但,人們想說的是 「我的人生是一趟旅程。」 51% 的人想要把 他/她的人生轉變成一個故事, 11% 的人說「我的人生是一場戰役」, 那也同樣算是一種故事, 8% 的人說「我的人生是一部小說」, 5% 的人說「我的人生是一齣劇」。 我想應該是沒有人說 「我的人生是場電視真人實境秀」。 (笑聲) 但,我們會在我們觀察到的一團糟 上面加上秩序, 用的是同樣的模式。 問題是,當一件事 以故事的形式呈現, 我們通常會在 不該記得它的時候記得它。 在座有多少人知道 華盛頓和櫻桃樹的故事? 真正發生的事情不見得是那樣。 保羅 · 列維爾的故事, 它真正發生的方式不見得是那樣。 所以,我們應該要對故事抱持猜疑, 我們在生物上的天性 就是會對故事會有所反應。 故事包含很多資訊, 故事有著社交的力量, 故事將我們與他人連結。 所以故事像是 當我們在消化政治資訊時、 當我們在閱讀小說時, 餵給我們吃的糖果。 當我們閱讀非小說類的書籍時, 我們其實正被餵食著故事。 在某種意義上, 非小說類就是一種新小說類, 書所說的有可能剛好是真實的, 但同樣地,一切都是 採用這些故事的形式。 所以,太過仰賴故事會有什麼問題? 你用這種方式來看你的人生, 而不是看到它真正一團糟的樣子。 更明確來說,我想, 如果在敘述上我們 想太多時,會有幾個重大問題。 第一,敘述通常都會太簡單。 因為敘述的意義 就是要做簡單的揭露, 不僅僅只簡化到 18 分鐘的敘述, 大部份的敘述都可以 用一到兩句話來呈現。 當你把細節除掉時, 你的故事就會傾向變成 正義對抗邪惡, 不論是你的人生故事 或是關於政治的故事。 我知道有些事的確是正邪之戰, 我們都知道這點,對吧? 但我認為,就一般規則而言, 我們太傾向去訴說 正義對抗邪惡的故事了。 就經驗法則來說, 想像一下每次你訴說一個 正義對抗邪惡的故事, 你就會把你的智商降低十分或更多。 如果你把這當作是一種 內在的心理習慣, 就我看來,這是很快 變聰明許多的方法之一, 你不用閱讀任何書籍, 只要想像,每當你訴說一個正義對抗 邪惡的故事時, 你就自己按下一個按鈕, 而按下那個按鈕, 你就會把你的智商降低十分或更多。 還有另一種故事也很受歡迎, 如果你知道奧利佛 · 史東 或麥可 · 摩爾的電影, 你不能拍一部電影並說: 「這全是個天大的意外。」 不行,它一定得要是一種陰謀, 要由人們一起策劃, 因為在故事中,重點是要有意圖。 故事的重點不是自發性的秩序, 或是複雜的人類制度, 這些都是人類行為的產物, 並非人類的設計。 不,故事的重點是 邪惡的人們一起進行策劃。 所以當你聽到關於陰謀的故事, 或甚至關於好人 一同策劃某事的故事, 就像你在看電影一樣, 同樣地,這也是要 抱持猜疑的理由之一。 如果你有下面這個疑問: 「當我聽到一個故事時, 在何時要特別地抱持猜疑?」 很好的經驗法則就是 當你聽完故事後想著 「哇,這能拍成很棒的電影」時。 (笑聲) 那就是「喔,不妙」的反應 應該要更常出現的時候了, 且你應該要開始思考 這整件事是不是有點可能是一團糟。 另一種常見故事或故事線, 是「我們得要強硬起來」的主張。 在許多的情境中都會聽到這點: 對銀行,我們得要強硬起來。 對勞工工會,我們得要強硬起來。 對某些其他國家、 對某些外國獨裁者、 對我們在協商的對象, 我們需要強硬起來。 同樣地,重點並不是反對 要強硬起來這一點, 有時我們的確需要強硬, 我們對納粹強硬就是好事。 但同樣地,我們太容易、 太快速就依賴這個故事了。 當我們實際上並不知道 某事為什麼發生時, 我們會怪罪某人,我們會說: 「我們需要對他們強硬起來!」 說得好像你的前人都沒想到 要強硬起來的這個想法一樣。 我通常將它視為是一種心理惰性。 你說的是一個很簡單的故事: 「我們需要強硬起來, 我們需要強硬起來, 我們將會需要強硬起來。」 通常,那是一種警訊。 故事的另一種問題是 你一次只能在你的腦中 放入這麼多故事, 或是在一天中、甚至在一生中, 就只能放入這麼多故事。 所以你的故事要達到太多的目的。 比如,只是為了早上起床這件事, 你就要告訴你自己一個故事, 說你的工作極重要, 你所做的事極重要。 (笑聲) 也許的確如此,即便不是如此, 我仍然會告訴我自己那個故事。 你知道嗎,那個故事有用, 它能讓我起床。 它是某種自我欺騙, 但當我需要改變 那個故事時,問題就來了。 故事的意義就是我緊緊抓著它不放, 而它能讓我起床。 所以當我真的在我的 一團糟人生中做著 根本就是浪費時間的事情時, 我跟那個讓我起床的故事 被緊緊綁在一起, 理想上,我腦中應該要有 某種非常複雜的故事地圖, 你知道的,有組合數學和 矩陣計算的那類故事地圖, 但故事並不是這樣運作的。 能運作的故事,必須要是簡單的、 容易理解、容易 向他人訴說、容易被記住。 所以故事能達成 兩個互相矛盾的目的, 且故事通常會把我們引入歧途。 我以前認為我是在經濟學家的陣營, 我是好人之一, 我和其他好人是同盟, 我們在對抗壞人的想法。 我以前是這樣想的! 很可能,我以前是錯的。 也許,有時,我是好人之一, 但針對某些議題,我終於了解到: 「嘿,我不是好人之一。」 如果壞人是用邪惡意圖來定義, 我不太確定我算是壞人, 但我很難脫離那個故事。 關於認知偏見,有一點很有趣, 就是現今有很多書是 以認知偏見為主題的。 有《推力》、 《左右決策的迷惑力》、 《決斷兩秒間》這些書, 都是書名只有一個英文單字的書, 談的都是我們把事情搞砸的方式。 且有好多方式能搞砸, 但我覺得有趣的是, 這些書通通沒有點出 對我而言唯一 最重要最核心的搞砸方式, 那方式就是: 我們告訴自己太多故事, 或是我們太容易被故事誘惑。 為什麼這些書不告訴我們這一點? 因為這些書本身就是與故事有關的。 當你閱讀越多這種書, 你的確是在瞭解自身的一些偏見, 但你也在讓你的 一些其他偏見變得更糟。 所以這些書本身就是 你的認知偏見的一部份。 通常,人們買書是把書 當作一種護身符,像是: 「這書我買過了!所以我肯定不會 有書中所講的『可預測的不理性』。」 (笑聲) 就好像人們想聽到最糟的, 所以在心理上,他們會為最糟的 做準備或是防禦抵抗最糟的。 這就是為什麼悲觀主義會有市場。 但若認為買一本書 就能讓你有所改變, 那可能是更大的謬誤。 這就像是,證據顯示最危險的人是 被教導了一些財務素養的人。 他們是那些出去犯下 最糟的錯誤的人。 知道自己一無所知的人, 才是最後表現很好的人。 故事的第三個問題: 外人用故事來操縱我們, 且我們都認為, 廣告只對其他人有用, 當然,並不是這樣的, 廣告對我們所有人都有用。 所以如果你太愛故事, 後果會是:賣產品的人會找上你, 他們會把他們的產品 和一個故事搭配在一起。 你的反應會是: 「嘿,免費的故事耶!」 最後你會買下那個產品, 因為故事是和產品搭配在一起的。 (笑聲) 如果你想想看資本主義如何運作, 它有個偏見。 我們來考慮關於汽車的兩種故事。 故事一:「買這台汽車, 你就會有美麗浪漫的伙伴 以及迷人的人生。」 (笑聲) 有很多人 在金錢的激勵下去宣傳那個故事。 但假設另一個故事是: 「你其實不需要一台符合 你那不錯的收入水平的汽車。 你通常會看你的同儕做什麼, 然後就依樣畫葫蘆。 對很多問題而言,那是個好啟發, 但就汽車而言,買豐田的就對了。」 (笑聲) 也許豐田有其銷售動機, 但即使是豐田也從 豪華車款賺更多錢, 便宜的車賺的錢則比較少。 所以,想想你最後會聽哪種故事, 你最後聽的是迷人、誘人的故事。 我再次告訴各位, 不要相信這些故事。 有人在利用你 對故事的喜愛來操縱你。 退一步,並說: 「訊息是什麼? 沒有人有動機去訴說的故事 是什麼故事?」 開始告訴你自己這些結論, 看看你的決策是否會因此改變。 那是一種簡單的方式。 就故事而言,你永遠無法 脫離那種思考模式, 但你能夠改善在故事中 你思考的程度, 並做出更好的決策。 所以,如果我在思考關於這場演說, 當然,我會好奇想知道, 你從這場演說會帶走什麼? 你會從泰勒 · 卡文身上 帶走什麼故事? 可能會是個關於追尋的故事: 「泰勒是個踏上追尋旅程的人。 泰勒來到這裡,他叫我們 不要在故事方面想那麼多。」 關於這場演說, 你可能會說的故事可能是這樣。 (笑聲) 它符合眾所皆知的模式。 你可能會記得這個故事。 你可能會把它告訴其他人。 「來了個怪胎,他說, 『不要在故事方面去想,讓我 來告訴你們今天發生了什麼事!』」 (笑聲) 你會把你的故事告訴別人。 (笑聲) 另一個可能性是,你可能會說 一個關於重生的故事。 你可能會說:「我以前 在故事方面想太多, (笑聲) 但接著我聽了泰勒 · 卡文演說, (笑聲) 現在我在故事方面想比較少了!」 那也是你會記得的敘述。 你可以告訴其他人, 同樣地,它也會留在記憶中。 你也可以訴說一個 深刻悲劇的故事: 「來了個叫泰勒的傢伙, (笑聲) 他叫我們在故事方面不要想太多, 但他也只會告訴我們故事, (笑聲) 關於人們在故事方面 想太多的故事。」 (笑聲) 所以今天,是哪一種? 是像追尋、重生、或悲劇? 或是這三項的組合? 我真的不確定, 我不是來這裡告訴你 燒掉你的 DVD 播放器、 丟掉你的托爾斯泰。 從故事方面去想本來就是人的天性。 加布列 · 賈西亞 · 馬奎斯 有本回憶錄叫《活著為了講述》, 我們用故事形式的記憶 來理解我們的所作所為, 賦予我們的生命意義, 與其他人建立連結。 這些通通都不會消失、 不應消失、不能消失。 但,身為經濟學家, 我會想的是邊際的人生, 額外的決定。 我們應該在故事方面 想多一點或想少一點? 當我們聽到故事時, 我們應該要抱持猜疑嗎? 我們應該要對哪種故事抱持猜疑? 我再次告訴各位, 通常,是那些你最喜歡的故事 讓你覺得最有意義、最鼓舞人心。 不把焦點放在機會成本、 或人類行為造成的非預期之 複雜結果的故事, 因為這些元素通常 不會創造出好故事。 通常,故事都是 關於勝利、掙扎的故事; 故事中有反對的力量, 這些力量不是邪惡的就是無知的; 有人開始了追尋, 有人踏上了旅程, 有個陌生人來到鎮上。 那些是你喜歡的類別, 但別讓它們使你太開心。 (笑聲) 另一種做法, 在邊際上──再說一次, 不要燒了托爾斯泰── 稍微多一點一團糟。 如果我真的得要經歷 那些旅程、追尋、戰役, 那對我來說會是非常壓迫沉重的! 類似:我的天, 我不能夠只讓我的人生 保有它一團亂的平凡榮耀嗎? 我用榮耀這個字時遲疑了── 只要我覺得有趣就好,不行嗎? 我一定得要遵循某種敘述嗎? 我不能只是過日子嗎? 不要對於一團糟感到不舒服。 不要對於不可知論感到不舒服。 我說這些是關於那些會 讓你感到愉快的事物。 很容易可以找到 幾個不可知的領域, 並對它們感覺很好。 類似:「我對宗教或 政治抱持不可知論。」 它就像你所做的投資組合對策, 在其他地方更教條式,對嗎? (笑聲) 有時, 在智慧上最讓人覺得可信的人, 是那種選定一個領域, 在那個領域中完全教條化, 非常固執無法理喻, 會讓你心想:「他們怎麼 可能會相信那說法?」 但那會吸收掉他們的頑固, 然後他們就會在 其他事物上很開放。 不要因為你對某些事抱持不可知論, 就落入思考的陷阱, 而認為你對於你的自我欺騙、 你的故事、你的開放性 在基本上都是理性的。 (笑聲) 想想猶豫的想法,認識論的猶豫, 想想一團糟,想想不完整, 想想並非一切 都能打成一個完美領結, 且你在這裡其實 並不是在一趟旅程上。 你在這裡是因為 某種一團糟的理由, 也許你不知道它是什麼, 也許我不知道它是什麼, 但無論如何,我很高興能被邀請, 並謝謝各位的傾聽。 (笑聲) (掌聲)