TED英語(yǔ)演講：為什么你總認(rèn)為你是對(duì)的
有時(shí)我們明明做錯(cuò)了，卻還是堅(jiān)持自己是正確的，一意孤行非做不可。究竟我們思維中有什么缺陷讓我們?nèi)绱斯虉?zhí)己見(jiàn)呢?Julia Galef帶我們重訪歷史上著名的故事，和日常中的經(jīng)典場(chǎng)景，探索人類行為模式中的這個(gè)謎團(tuán)。下面是小編為大家收集關(guān)于TED英語(yǔ)演講：為什么你總認(rèn)為你是對(duì)的，歡迎借鑒參考。
演說(shuō)題目：Remember to say thank you Why you think you're right -- even if you're wrong
演說(shuō)者：Julia Galef
So I'm here to tell you that we have a problem with boys, and it's a serious problem with boys. Their culture isn't working in schools, and I'm going to share with you ways that we can think about overcoming that problem. First, I want to start by saying, this is a boy, and this is a girl, and this is probably stereotypically what you think of as a boy and a girl. If I essentialize gender for you today, then you can dismiss what I have to say.
我在這兒是想告訴大家我們的對(duì)男孩的教育有問(wèn)題，男孩子的教育是個(gè)嚴(yán)重問(wèn)題。在學(xué)校，男孩文化沒(méi)有形成。我要和大家分享我們關(guān)于這一問(wèn)題的解決方法。首先，我首先想說(shuō)，這是個(gè)男孩，這是個(gè)女孩。這可能是你刻板的關(guān)于男孩和女孩的想法。如果我今天要講性別的事，然后大家可能不會(huì)理睬我要說(shuō)的。
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.
我想讓你們想象一下，你是一個(gè)身處激烈戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)中的士兵。也許你是一個(gè)羅馬步兵或者中世紀(jì)的弓箭手, 或者是一個(gè)祖魯勇士。不管你是處在怎樣的時(shí)代和戰(zhàn)場(chǎng)，有些東西是相同的。你的腎上腺素上升，而你的行動(dòng)源于那些最原始的條件反射，那種出于保護(hù)自己和戰(zhàn)友 并打敗敵人的需求的條件反射。
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.
現(xiàn)在，再想象一下扮演一個(gè)完全不同的角色，那就是偵察員。偵察員的工作不是攻擊或者防守。偵察員的工作是認(rèn)清形勢(shì)。偵察員是那些走出營(yíng)地去測(cè)定地形、識(shí)別出可能的障礙的人。偵察員也許很希望剛好在合適的位置有一座橋可以跨過(guò)某條河。但更重要的是，偵察員想要弄清楚那里到底有什么，越精確越好。
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.
在一支精良的隊(duì)伍中， 士兵和偵察員都是必不可少的。但是你也可以把它們各自想象為一種思維模式——一種關(guān)于我們?nèi)绾卧谌粘Ｉ钪刑幚硇畔⒑拖敕ǖ谋扔鳌＝裉煳覍⒁懻摰氖遣还苁菗碛泻玫呐袛嗔?，做出正確的預(yù)測(cè)，還是做出好的決策，幾乎都跟你處于哪種思維模式相關(guān)。
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.
為了舉例說(shuō)明這兩種思維模式，我將帶你們回到19世紀(jì)法國(guó)的一個(gè)地方。在那里，由這張看起來(lái)很普通的稿件，引發(fā)了歷史上最大的政治丑聞之一。它是在1984年被法國(guó)總參謀部的軍官發(fā)現(xiàn)的。被撕碎了扔在一個(gè)廢紙簍里，但是當(dāng)他們把它拼接起來(lái)后，發(fā)現(xiàn)他們中間有人在向德國(guó)出賣軍事機(jī)密。
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.
因此他們開(kāi)展了深入的調(diào)查，然后他們的懷疑很快集中到了這個(gè)人身上，阿爾弗勒德·德雷福斯。他沒(méi)有過(guò)任何不光彩的記錄，沒(méi)做過(guò)什么壞事，也沒(méi)有所謂的動(dòng)機(jī)。但是德雷福斯是軍隊(duì)里那個(gè)級(jí)別中的唯一猶太軍官，并且不幸的是，那時(shí)的法軍非常地反猶太。他們將德雷福斯的筆跡跟那張紙上的對(duì)照，然后得出了筆跡一致的結(jié)論，盡管外面的筆跡鑒定專家對(duì)此持懷疑態(tài)度， 但也于事無(wú)補(bǔ)。
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.
他們搜查了德雷福斯的寓所，尋找他從事間諜活動(dòng)的蛛絲馬跡。他們翻遍了他的文件，但一無(wú)所獲。這使他們更加確信德雷福斯不僅有罪， 而且還很狡猾，因?yàn)楹苊黠@在他們搜查之前 他就隱藏了所有的證據(jù)。
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.
接下來(lái)，他們審查了他的個(gè)人歷史尋找任何能表明他有罪的細(xì)節(jié)。他們跟他的老師談話。發(fā)現(xiàn)他在學(xué)校學(xué)過(guò)外語(yǔ)， 這清楚地表明了一種想要在以后的生活中跟外國(guó)政府相勾結(jié)的愿望。老師還說(shuō)德雷福斯出了名的記憶力好，這不是非?？梢蓡? 因?yàn)殚g諜需要記住很多東西。
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.
因此經(jīng)過(guò)審訊，德雷福斯被判有罪。然后，他們把他帶到了公共廣場(chǎng)，儀式性地撕下了他制服上的徽章，并折斷了他的佩劍。這件事被稱作德雷福斯冤案。他們判處他終身監(jiān)禁，并將其押送到被稱為魔鬼島的地方服役，是個(gè)遠(yuǎn)離南美洲海岸貧瘠的巖石小島。在那里，他一個(gè)人孤零零地生活，給法國(guó)政府寫了一封又一封的信，乞求他們重審他的案子，并希望通過(guò)重審獲得清白。但是在大多數(shù)情形下，法國(guó)政府都認(rèn)為這件事已經(jīng)結(jié)案。
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?
在德雷福斯事件中讓我真正感興趣的一點(diǎn)是為什么這些軍官會(huì)如此確信德雷福斯是有罪的。我是說(shuō)，你可能以為他們是在給他設(shè)套，他們?cè)诠室獾卣_陷他。但是歷史學(xué)家卻不這樣認(rèn)為。據(jù)我們所知，這些軍官由衷地相信德雷福斯是有罪的。這也就會(huì)使你感到好奇：如果在只有微不足道的證據(jù)的情況下我們就可以給一個(gè)人定罪，那么這對(duì)人類的思維來(lái)說(shuō)意味著什么?
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."
然而，這就是科學(xué)家 稱之為“動(dòng)機(jī)性推理”一個(gè)案例。正是這種存在于我們無(wú)意識(shí)的動(dòng)機(jī)以及我們的欲望和恐懼，塑造了我們解讀信息的方式。有些信息和想法感覺(jué)就像是我們的盟友。我們希望它們能贏。我們想要保護(hù)它們。還有些信息和想法感覺(jué)就像是敵人，我們就想要打垮它們。這就是為什么我把動(dòng)機(jī)性推理稱作“士兵型思維模式”。
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.
可能你們大部分人從來(lái)都沒(méi)有做過(guò)以叛國(guó)罪去迫害一個(gè)法籍猶太軍官這樣的事，沒(méi)錯(cuò)吧，但很可能你關(guān)注過(guò)體育或者政治新聞，因此你大概注意過(guò)，舉個(gè)例子來(lái)說(shuō)，當(dāng)裁判判你支持的 隊(duì)伍犯規(guī)時(shí)，你會(huì)很積極地去找理由證明他的判罰是錯(cuò)的。但是當(dāng)裁判判對(duì)方犯規(guī)時(shí)——太棒了!判得很正確，沒(méi)必要深究了。
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.
也許你讀過(guò)一些對(duì)于有關(guān)政策 有爭(zhēng)議的文章或研究報(bào)告， 比如說(shuō)關(guān)于死刑的。就像研究人員已經(jīng)證實(shí)的一樣，如果你支持死刑 而研究的結(jié)果卻表明它并不能有效減少犯罪，那么你會(huì)很積極地尋找各種理由去證明這項(xiàng)研究有不妥之處。但是如果它表明死刑能夠有效減少犯罪，那你就會(huì)認(rèn)可這項(xiàng)研究。反之，如果你反對(duì)死刑，也一樣。
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.
我們的判斷無(wú)意識(shí)地受到個(gè)人喜好的強(qiáng)烈影響。而且這種現(xiàn)象是普遍存在的。它影響著我們?nèi)绾慰创】岛腿穗H關(guān)系，如何決定投誰(shuí)的票，以及怎樣看待公平或道德。關(guān)于動(dòng)機(jī)性推理或者說(shuō)士兵型思維模式，最讓我覺(jué)得可怕的一點(diǎn)是它受潛意識(shí)影響之深。我們認(rèn)為自己是客觀公正的，但結(jié)果卻是毀掉了一個(gè)無(wú)辜者的一生。
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?"
然而，幸運(yùn)的是對(duì)于德雷福斯來(lái)說(shuō)，一切還沒(méi)結(jié)束。這是皮卡爾上校。他是法軍中的另一個(gè)高級(jí)軍官，像大多數(shù)人一樣，他也認(rèn)為德雷福斯有罪。跟軍隊(duì)中大多數(shù)人也一樣，他至少表面上是反猶太的。但是在某個(gè)時(shí)間點(diǎn)上，皮卡爾開(kāi)始懷疑：“如果我們所有人都錯(cuò)怪了德雷福斯呢?”
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."
當(dāng)時(shí)的情況是，他發(fā)現(xiàn)了一些證據(jù)表明德國(guó)間諜的活動(dòng)還在繼續(xù)，即便是在德雷福斯入獄之后。他還發(fā)現(xiàn)軍隊(duì)中另一個(gè)軍官的筆跡跟那張紙上的筆跡完全匹配， 比德雷福斯的筆跡更加相符。因此他帶著這些疑點(diǎn)找到他的上級(jí)，令人沮喪的是，他們要么不在乎，要么提出一些精心編造，想當(dāng)然的理由去解釋他的發(fā)現(xiàn)。比如說(shuō)，“嗯，你的發(fā)現(xiàn)剛好證明另一個(gè)間諜模仿了德雷福斯的筆跡，并且接替了德雷福斯的間諜位置。但是德雷福斯仍然是有罪的。”
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.
最終，皮卡爾讓德雷福斯重獲清白。但是花了他10年的時(shí)間， 而且在這期間他自己也以對(duì)軍隊(duì)不忠的罪名被投入了監(jiān)獄。
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 biasedas his fellow officers, but his motivation to find the truth and uphold it trumped all of that.
很多人覺(jué)得，在這個(gè)故事中皮卡爾算不上真正的英雄，因?yàn)樗椽q太，我也同意這是他不好的一點(diǎn)。但就我個(gè)人而言，正是因?yàn)樗椽q太，才使得他的行為更令人軟佩，因?yàn)樗切┩艓в邢嗤钠?jiàn)，也有相同的理由去傾向于有罪結(jié)論，但是他那種找出并維護(hù)真相的動(dòng)力戰(zhàn)勝了一切。
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(duì)我而言，皮卡爾就是我稱之為 “偵察員型思維模式”中的典型代表。這不是非讓兩個(gè)想法分出輸贏不可，而是盡可能誠(chéng)實(shí)和準(zhǔn)確地找出事實(shí)真相的一種驅(qū)動(dòng)力，即使真相并不那么令人賞心悅目。這種思維模式是我個(gè)人所推崇的。過(guò)去幾年我一直在調(diào)查并想找出偵察員型思維模式的成因。為什么有些人，至少在有些時(shí)候，能夠去掉自己內(nèi)心的歧視、偏見(jiàn)和傾向，而是盡可能嘗試著客觀地找出事實(shí)和證據(jù)。
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.
而答案就是情感。就像士兵型思維模式是出于像防御性和部落主義這樣的情感，偵察員型思維模式也一樣。只不過(guò)是來(lái)源于不同的情感。例如，偵察員都有很強(qiáng)的好奇心。他們更可能會(huì)因?yàn)楂@得新的信息或渴望解開(kāi)一個(gè)謎題而感到開(kāi)心。他們會(huì)對(duì)那些與他們的預(yù)期不相符的事情更感興趣。
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."
偵察員也擁有不同的價(jià)值觀。他們可能會(huì)覺(jué)得檢驗(yàn)自己的信仰是一件善事，而可能不會(huì)說(shuō)那些改變想法的人看起來(lái)很懦弱?？傊瑐刹靻T是以事實(shí)為根據(jù)的，也就是說(shuō)他們的自我價(jià)值觀不是跟他們?cè)谀硞€(gè)事件上的 對(duì)錯(cuò)綁在一起的。所以他們可能相信死刑能減少犯罪。 但如果研究表明它不能，他們可能會(huì)說(shuō)“呵，看起來(lái)是我錯(cuò)了，但這并不說(shuō)明我壞或者蠢。”
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."
這就是研究人員所發(fā)現(xiàn)的特征——而且我也發(fā)現(xiàn)了——可以預(yù)測(cè)好的判斷。而我想要強(qiáng)調(diào)的關(guān)于這些特征的關(guān)鍵點(diǎn)是它們根本上來(lái)說(shuō)跟你有多聰明或者你知道多少無(wú)關(guān)。事實(shí)上，它們跟智商完全無(wú)關(guān)。它們跟你的感覺(jué)有關(guān)。我要引用圣?？颂K佩里的一句話。他是《小王子》的作者。他說(shuō)，“如果你想造一艘船，不要雇人去收集木頭，不要發(fā)號(hào)施令，也不要分配任務(wù)，而是去激發(fā)他們對(duì)海洋的渴望”。
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 defensivewhen we encounter some information that contradicts our beliefs.
換句話說(shuō)，我認(rèn)為，如果我們真的想提高判斷力，不管是作為個(gè)人還是作為社會(huì)，我們最需要的不是更多邏輯上，修辭上、概率上或者經(jīng)濟(jì)上的指導(dǎo)，即便這些東西也都很有價(jià)值。而我們要用好這些原理，最需要的就是偵察員型思維模式。我們需要改變我們感覺(jué)事物的方式。當(dāng)我們注意到自己可能在某件事上出錯(cuò)了的時(shí)候，我們要感到自豪而不是羞愧。當(dāng)我們遇到一些與我們的信仰相沖突的信息時(shí)，我們要學(xué)會(huì)感到好奇而不是抵觸。
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?
因此我想要留給你們的問(wèn)題是：你最渴望什么?你是渴望保護(hù)你的信仰?還是渴望盡自己所能去看清這個(gè)世界?
Thank you.(Applause)
謝謝。(掌聲)
相關(guān)文章：