"Don't talk to strangers." 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.
「不要和陌生人說話。」這句話已經被你的朋友、家人學校和媒體重複了好多年了。這是一個準則。一種社會行為規範。但這是一種特殊的社會行為標準，因為這個準則試圖要告訴我們我們應該或者不應該接觸什麼樣的人。
"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." 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.
「不要和陌生人說話」的意思是：「離你不熟悉的人遠點。和你認識的人待在一起。只跟那些像你一樣的人來往。「這聽上去有趣嗎？這不是我們意氣風發的時候做的事情，不是嗎？當我們意氣風發的時候，我們和那些跟我們不同的人來往，因為這樣做我們可以向這些與我們不同的人學習。
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?
我認為這種「和我們不同」就是「陌生感」，我的意思是，在今天已經電子化、虛擬化的世界裡，陌生人已經不是問題的重點。我們需要擔心的重點是，這種陌生感有多少？
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.
為什麼是陌生感？因為我們的社會關係越來越受到數據的影響，數據把我們的社會關係轉化成了虛擬數字關係，這意味著我們的數字生活很大程度上依賴於科技帶來的一種穩定感，一種探索感，一種驚喜和不可預測的感覺。
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.
為什麼不通過陌生人來獲得這種需求？因為陌生人是這個充滿條條框框的世界的一部分。他們屬於一個簡單的把人分為我認識和我不認識的世界，而在我的數字關係裡，我已經在和我不認識的人有了交流。問題已經不再是我到底認不認識你。
The question is, what can I do with you? What can I learn with you? What can we do together that benefits us both? 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.
問題是，我們可以在一起做什麼？我能從你那裡學習什麼？我們能一起做些什麼讓我們兩個人都受益的事？我花了很多時間思考人們的社會生活在發生著怎樣的變化，新技術如何為人們創造新的限制和新的機會。
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.
今天我們面臨的最重要的變化與這些數據和它們如何塑造我們在未來擁有的數字關係息息相關。未來的經濟發展依賴於此。我們未來的社會生活依賴於此。我們應該擔心的不是遇到陌生人，
The threat to worry about is whether or not we're getting our fair share of strangeness. 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.
我們該擔心的是我們會不會得到本應屬於我們的那份「陌生感」。20世紀的心理學家和社會學家專注於陌生人，但是他們當年並沒有料到人類關係的這種多樣性，他們是在實踐影響的範疇內討論研究陌生人的。
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.
上世紀60到70年代的斯坦利·米爾格蘭姆「小世界現象」實驗的創造者，這個實驗就是以後著名的「六度分離」理論，意思就是任何兩個人都會在5和7人之間建立起聯繫。他認為陌生人隨處可見。
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.
我們可以與他們發生聯繫。各種途徑可以幫助我們建立這種聯繫。馬克·格拉諾維特，史丹福大學社會學家，1973年在他的著名論文「弱連接的威力」中，指出這些弱連接是我們社會關係網絡的一部分，這些陌生人會有效的帶給我們不同的信息，這點要優於我們的強連接，那些我們非常親近的人。
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. 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.
他同時指出了我們的強連接的另一個問題就是這些在生活中和我們走得很近的人，這些「強連接」們，會不斷地同化我們。他們讓我們變得越來越一致。我和我在英特爾的同事們在過去幾年裡一直在研究，數字平臺如何重塑我們的日常生活的，哪些新的慣例正在產生。
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.
我們主要特別觀察了某些電子平臺，它們讓我們把我們自己的東西，那些曾經只限於我們自己和來家裡的朋友，分享給我們並不認識的人。
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.
不管是我們的衣服，不管是我們的車，不管是我們的自行車，不管是我們的書還是音樂，我們現在可以把我們的東西讓那些我們從未謀面的人接觸到。而且我們總結出了一個非常重要的結論，那就是當人們對生活中的事物的關係發生變化時，他們與其他人的關係也是如此。
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.
然而，一代代的推薦系統都還沒有意識到這一點。這些系統還在根據我過去的一些特徵和我已經做了什麼，來猜測我需要什麼。一代代的安全技術還在設計抵禦威脅和襲擊的數據保護方案，來讓我困在一些非常教條的關係中。
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.
類似於「朋友」、「家庭」、「聯繫人」和「同事」的分類沒有辦法展現我實際的關係狀態。一種更有效的看待關係的方法可能是根據親疏關係和距離，也就是說，在任意時刻，和任何人，我都和那個人既親密又保持一定距離，我都要看我現在需要做些什麼。
People aren't close or distant. People are always a combination of the two, and that combination is constantly changing. 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?
人和人的關係不會只是親密或者疏遠。這種關係是兩者的結合，而且這種結合在不斷變化。如果科技可以打破某些關係的平衡，結果會怎樣呢？如果科技可以幫助我找到我現在需要的那個人？
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.
「陌生感」就是評估親疏關係的一個標準，它幫助我找到那些我現在就需要的人，幫助我找到那些我現在需要的親密感、探索感和靈感的源泉。陌生感不是說我們要見陌生人。它其實就是告訴我們要突破我們那些熟悉的區域。
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,
突破這些熟悉的區域是一種認識陌生感的方式，而且這不僅僅是個人問題，也是那些想要抓住更多新機遇的組織團體遇到的問題。或者你是一個政黨，教條得用誰是同盟和誰不是同盟的簡單判斷而讓整個政黨遭受不必要的損失，
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.
或者你是政府部門，試圖保護那些社會機構如婚姻並只讓很少的人可以接觸到這些機構，或者你是一個在自己房間裡和父母鬧不和的青少年，陌生感為我們需要新的關係鋪平了道路。
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. What interesting questions lie ahead for us in this world of no strangers? How might we think differently about our relations with people?
我們需要打破過去的陳規。我們需要打破這些規矩才能帶來新技術並在此之上創造新的商機。在這個沒有陌生人的世界裡，會出現哪些有趣的問題？我們如何看待我們與他人的關係？
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?
我們如何看待我們與那些分散的人群的關係？我們如何看待我們與那些已經深入到我們生活中各個角落的科技之間的關係？
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.
數字關係的範圍是十分寬廣的。在這個前提下，安全地尋找陌生感很有可能是創新的新基礎。
Thank you.
謝謝。