「TED雙語演講稿」為什麼你總認為自己是對的 即使你錯了

演講者： Julia Galef

「TEDx2016」為什麼你總認為自己是對的 即使你錯了

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.

我想讓你們想像一下， 你是一個身處激烈戰爭中的士兵。 也許你是一個羅馬步兵或者中世紀的弓箭手, 或者是一個祖魯勇士。 不管你是處在怎樣的時代和戰場， 有些東西是相同的。 你的腎上腺素上升， 而你的行動源於那些最原始的條件反射， 那種出於保護自己和戰友 並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. 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，再想像一下 扮演一個完全不同的角色， 那就是偵察員。 偵察員的工作不是攻擊或者防守。 偵察員的工作是認清形勢。 偵察員是那些走出營地 去測定地形、識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 可以跨過某條河。 但更重要的是， 偵察員想要弄清楚那裡到底有什麼， 越精確越好。 在一支精良的隊伍中， 士兵和偵察員都是必不可少的。 但是你也可以把它們 各自想像為一種思維模式—— 一種關於我們如何在日常生活中處理 信息和想法的比喻。 今天我將要討論的是 不管是擁有好的判斷力， 做出正確的預測， 還是做出好的決策， 幾乎都跟你處於哪種思維模式相關。

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.

為了舉例說明這兩種思維模式， 我將帶你們回到19世紀法國的一個地方。 在那裡，由這張看起來很普通的稿件， 引發了歷史上最大的政治醜聞之一。 它是在1984年 被法國總參謀部的軍官發現的。 被撕碎了扔在一個廢紙簍裡， 但是當他們把它拼接起來後， 發現他們中間有人 在向德國出賣軍事機密。

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. 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.

因此他們開展了深入的調查， 然後他們的懷疑很快集中到了這個人身上， 阿爾弗勒德·德雷福斯。 他沒有過任何不光彩的記錄， 沒做過什麼壞事，也沒有所謂的動機。 但是德雷福斯是軍隊裡 那個級別中的唯一猶太軍官， 並且不幸的是，那時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照， 然後得出了筆跡一致的結論， 儘管外面的筆跡鑑定專家 對此持懷疑態度， 但也於事無補。 他們搜查了德雷福斯的寓所， 尋找他從事間諜活動的蛛絲馬跡。 他們翻遍了他的文件，但一無所獲。 這使他們更加確信德雷福斯不僅有罪， 而且還很狡猾，因為很明顯在他們搜查之前 他就隱藏了所有的證據。

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，他們審查了他的個人歷史 尋找任何能表明他有罪的細節。 他們跟他的老師談話。 發現他在學校學過外語， 這清楚地表明了一種想要在以後的生活中 跟外國政府相勾結的願望。 老師還說德雷福斯出了名的記憶力好， 這不是非常可疑嗎？ 因為間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.

因此經過審訊，德雷福斯被判有罪。 然後，他們把他帶到了公共廣場， 儀式性地撕下了他制服上的徽章， 並折斷了他的佩劍。 這件事被稱作德雷福斯冤案。 他們判處他終身監禁， 並將其押送到被稱為魔鬼島的地方服役， 是個遠離南美洲海岸貧瘠的巖石小島。 在那裡，他一個人孤零零地生活， 給法國政府寫了一封又一封的信， 乞求他們重審他的案子， 並希望通過重審獲得清白。 但是在大多數情形下， 法國政府都認為這件事已經結案。

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是 為什麼這些軍官會如此確信 德雷福斯是有罪的。 我是說，你可能以為他們是在給他設套， 他們在故意地誣陷他。 但是歷史學家卻不這樣認為。 據我們所知， 這些軍官由衷地相信德雷福斯是有罪的。 這也就會使你感到好奇： 如果在只有微不足道的證據的情況下 我們就可以給一個人定罪， 那麼這對人類的思維來說意味著什麼？

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，這就是科學家 稱之為「動機性推理」的一個案例。 正是這種存在於我們無意識的動機 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 感覺就像是我們的盟友。 我們希望它們能贏。 我們想要保護它們。 還有些信息和想法感覺就像是敵人， 我們就想要打垮它們。 這就是為什麼我把動機性推理 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. 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.

可能你們大部分人從來都沒有做過 以叛國罪去迫害一個 法籍猶太軍官這樣的事， 沒錯吧， 但很可能你關注過體育或者政治新聞， 因此你大概注意過， 舉個例子來說，當裁判判你支持的 隊伍犯規時， 你會很積極地去找理由 證明他的判罰是錯的。 但是當裁判判對方犯規時——太棒了！ 判得很正確，沒必要深究了。 也許你讀過一些對於有關政策 有爭議的文章或研究報告， 比如說關於死刑的。 就像研究人員已經證實的一樣， 如果你支持死刑 而研究的結果卻表明 它並不能有效減少犯罪， 那麼你會很積極地尋找各種理由 去證明這項研究有不妥之處。 但是如果它表明死刑能夠有效減少犯罪， 那你就會認可這項研究。 反之，如果你反對死刑，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.

我們的判斷無意識地受到 個人喜好的強烈影響。 而且這種現象是普遍存在的。 它影響著我們如何看待健康和人際關係， 如何決定投誰的票， 以及怎樣看待公平或道德。 關於動機性推理或者說士兵型思維模式， 最讓我覺得可怕的一點是 它受潛意識影響之深。 我們認為自己是客觀公正的， 但結果卻是毀掉了一個無辜者的一生。

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?" 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，幸運的是 對於德雷福斯來說，一切還沒結束。 這是皮卡爾上校。 他是法軍中的另一個高級軍官， 像大多數人一樣，他也認為德雷福斯有罪。 跟軍隊中大多數人也一樣， 他至少表面上是反猶太的。 但是在某個時間點上， 皮卡爾開始懷疑： 「如果我們所有人都錯怪了德雷福斯呢？」 當時的情況是， 他發現了一些證據 表明德國間諜的活動還在繼續， 即便是在德雷福斯入獄之後。 他還發現軍隊中另一個軍官的筆跡 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找到他的上級， 令人沮喪的是，他們要麼不在乎， 要麼提出一些精心編造，想當然的理由 去解釋他的發現， 比如說，「嗯，你的發現剛好證明另一個間諜 模仿了德雷福斯的筆跡， 並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。」 最終，皮卡爾讓德雷福斯重獲清白。 但是花了他10年的時間， 而且在這期間 他自己也以對軍隊不忠的罪名 被投入了監獄。

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 biased as his fellow officers, but his motivation to find the truth and uphold it trumped all of that.

很多人覺得，在這個故事中 皮卡爾算不上真正的英雄， 因為他反猶太， 我也同意這是他不好的一點。 但就我個人而言， 正是因為他反猶太， 才使得他的行為更令人軟佩， 因為他跟那些同僚帶有相同的偏見， 也有相同的理由去傾向於有罪結論， 但是他那種找出並維護真相的動力 戰勝了一切。

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。 這不是非讓兩個想法分出輸贏不可， 而是儘可能誠實和準確地 找出事實真相的一種驅動力， 即使真相併不那麼令人賞心悅目。 這種思維模式是我個人所推崇的。 過去幾年我一直在調查並想找出 偵察員型思維模式的成因。 為什麼有些人，至少在有些時候， 能夠去掉自己內心的歧視、偏見和傾向， 而是儘可能嘗試著 客觀地找出事實和證據。

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."

而答案就是情感。 就像士兵型思維模式是出於 像防禦性和部落主義這樣的情感， 偵察員型思維模式也一樣。 只不過是來源於不同的情感。 例如，偵察員都有很強的好奇心。 他們更可能會因為 獲得新的信息 或渴望解開一個謎題而感到開心。 他們會對那些與他們的預期不相符的 事情更感興趣。 偵察員也擁有不同的價值觀。 他們可能會覺得 檢驗自己的信仰是一件善事， 而可能不會說那些改變想法的人 看起來很懦弱。 總之，偵察員是以事實為根據的， 也就是說他們的自我價值觀 不是跟他們在某個事件上的 對錯綁在一起的。 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，他們可能會說 「呵，看起來是我錯了， 但這並不說明我壞或者蠢。」

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現的特徵—— 而且我也發現了—— 可以預測好的判斷。 而我想要強調的關於這些特徵的關鍵點是 它們根本上來說跟你有多聰明 或者你知道多少無關。 事實上，它們跟智商完全無關。 它們跟你的感覺有關。 我要引用聖埃克蘇佩裡的一句話。 他是《小王子》的作者。 他說，「如果你想造一艘船， 不要僱人去收集木頭，不要發號施令， 也不要分配任務， 而是去激發他們對海洋的渴望」。

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 defensive when we encounter some information that contradicts our beliefs.

換句話說，我認為， 如果我們真的想提高判斷力， 不管是作為個人 還是作為社會， 我們最需要的不是更多邏輯上， 修辭上、概率上或者經濟上的指導， 即便這些東西也都很有價值。 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事物的方式。 當我們注意到自己可能 在某件事上出錯了的時候， 我們要感到自豪而不是羞愧。 當我們遇到一些與 我們的信仰相衝突的信息時， 我們要學會感到好奇而不是牴觸。

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題是： 你最渴望什麼？ 你是渴望保護你的信仰？ 還是渴望儘自己所能去看清這個世界？

Thank you.