索尔·珀尔马特：加速膨胀的宇宙，质疑超级大国与协作科学

大家好，欢迎来到《In Good Company》。

Hi everybody and welcome to In Good Company.

我是尼古拉·塔甘，挪威主权财富基金的首席执行官。

I'm Nikola Tangan, the CEO of the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund.

今天，我有幸与索尔·珀尔马特共处，我认为他绝对是我们在播客中请过的最聪明的人。

And today I'm in particularly good company with Saul Perlmutter, who I would argue easily is the cleverest person we ever had on the podcast.

因为索尔因发现宇宙以越来越快的速度膨胀而获得了诺贝尔物理学奖。

Because Sol won the Nobel Prize in Physics for discovering that the universe expands at an increasingly rapid pace.

此外，他还撰写了一本书，名为《第三千禧年思维》，教我们如何运用科学方法应对这个日益不确定的世界。

Now, he also written a book called Third Millennium Thinking, which teaches us how to use scientific method in order to navigate this increasingly uncertain world.

所以，索尔，热烈欢迎你来到这个播客。

So, Sal, big welcome to this podcast.

谢谢。

Thank you.

很高兴来到这里。

It's good to be here.

我想我们可以从这本书和科学思维开始。

I thought we could start with the book and kind of the scientific thinking.

那么，什么是第三千禧年思维？

So what is Third Millennium Thinking?

这个名称有点奇怪，因为我们真正想表达的是，我们这种最佳的科学思维方式如何帮助整个社会更好地共同解决问题。

Well, it's a bit of a odd name because what we really want to capture is the direction in which we think the best of our scientific style of thinking has been helping our whole society be able to do better in working through problems together.

我们想弄清楚这种思维方式究竟是什么样子，以便人们意识到，其中许多元素其实都可以用在日常生活中，用在与他人交流和共同解决问题时。

And we want to try to capture what does that really look like so that people can realize that there's so many elements of it that they could all be using in their daily life also they could be using when they're talking to other people and working out problems together.

从某种意义上说，我们现在已经学会了如何解决世界上那些极其重大、困难而有趣的问题。

And in some sense, I'd say that we've learned by now how to solve really dramatic problems and difficult problems and interesting problems in the world.

我认为剩下的那个问题，如果我们能解决，就能产生巨大影响，那就是：我们该如何彼此沟通，如何共同解决问题，以便真正运用我们已掌握的其他所有技术。

The one that I feel is the leftover problem that we can make a huge difference if we can solve is just how to talk to each other, how to work problems out together so that we can actually use all these other techniques that we've learned.

因为第一次我见到你时，我们交谈中你曾说，尼古拉，我们现在其实已经能解决世界上所有问题了。

Because the first time I met you, when we spoke, you said, Nikolay, we can now solve all the problems in the world.

气候变化、如何养活人们，但我们做不到，因为我们无法彼此沟通。

Climate, how to feed people, but we don't manage to because we don't talk to each other.

我的意思是，这太了不起了。

I mean, it's remarkable.

我认为我们实际上正生活在一个非凡的历史、史前甚至宇宙历史时刻，我们是地球上第一批有能力解决行星规模问题的世代。

I think we actually live at an incredible moment in history and prehistory and in fact you know maybe even cosmic history where we are the first generations on this planet who have the ability to solve planetary sized problems.

我认为，竟然会发生一场大流行病，而我们却知道该如何应对大流行病。

I think the idea that there could be a pandemic and we actually know what to do about a pandemic.

我们星球上生活着数十亿人，比我们小时候多得多，而我们小时候，世界上大多数人都在挨饿入睡。

We have billions of people living on the planet, many more than when we were children, and at the time when we were children, most of the world was going to bed hungry.

如今，挨饿的人口比例已经变得非常小，我们现在知道如何养活整个星球。

Today that's a very small percentage and we now know how it's possible to feed a planet.

我们甚至能够应对像气候变化这样的问题，历史上这类变化曾以不同方式摧毁过不同文明。

We can even handle things like climate changes that have happened throughout history have wiped out civilizations at different points in different ways.

今天，有史以来第一次，我们知道如何稳定气候，并且确实能够管理它。

Today, for the very first time ever, we know how you could stabilize a a climate, and that we can actually manage that.

我们甚至能够应对那种杀死恐龙的威胁——小行星或彗星撞击地球的可能性，这种事件曾灭绝了地球上大多数物种家族。

We could even manage the the, you know, the thing that killed the dinosaurs, possibility of a comet or asteroid hitting the Earth, and that one wiped out most of the families of species on the planet.

这本身就是一种可能性，甚至连这个问题我们都有能力解决。

That's something, even that, we have the possibility of being able to solve that problem.

这真是一个相当了不起的起点，对吧？

That's a pretty incredible starting point, right?

所以，如果我们能有片刻喘息，彼此问问：我们想要生活在怎样的世界里？那么今天，这正是我们都该去享受的时刻。

So it seems like the one thing that we should all be enjoying today, if we had had a moment to just breathe and ask each other, what is the world that we want to live in?

这正是我们彼此转向，说：好吧，终于，我们可以建造一个让我们所有人都为之自豪的星球的时刻。

This would be the moment where we could all be turn to each other and say, Okay, now, finally, we can build a planet that we'd just all be proud to live in.

但就在这一刻，我们却难以彼此互动，也无法以足够有效的方式沟通，来完成这项工作。

And at that very moment, we're having a hard time interacting with each other and communicating well enough in a productive way so that we can do this work.

那么，什么是科学方法？

So what is a scientific method?

当我提到科学方法时，我们很多人在学校里学到的是一种被称为假设检验的概念。

So when I say the scientific method, often many of us have been taught something called the scientific method in school, which was just this hypothesis testing concept.

但那只是这一整套文化中众多不同理念的其中一个部分，这些理念共同构成了我们认识世界的方式。

But that's just one piece of this whole culture of grab bag of a whole bunch of different ideas that together make an approach to thinking about the world.

它包括以概率的方式思考世界，我们通常并不知道任何事情绝对正确或绝对错误。

It includes things like thinking of the world probabilistically, that we don't tend to know, we very rarely know anything absolutely true or absolutely false.

通常我们对某些事情有很强的信心，认为它们很可能为真，有些事情我们愿意拿生命去赌它们为真，而有些事情我们则不确定是否为真。

Generally we have a fairly strong sense that this is very likely to be true, something else we would bet our lives on being true, Something else we're not sure is true.

这种区分实际上非常有用。

And that's actually a very useful differentiation.

它不是非黑即白的‘是’或‘否’。

It's not a black and white yes or no.

而是我会对这个有90%的把握，但对那个我只愿意下70%的赌注。

It's this one I'm gonna bet 90% on, but this one I'm only gonna give, you know, 70% bet on.

事实证明，这种方式让我们变得非常强大。

And that makes us very powerful, turns out.

通过这种方式，我们实际上能做比简单地说‘已知’或‘未知’多得多的事情。

We actually can do a lot more that way than in just saying absolutely known or absolutely unknown.

在概率性的时代，你如何思考你的生活？

How do you think about your life in probabilistic times?

在我们的日常生活中，这种情况随时都会出现。

Well, in our day to day lives, it comes up all the time.

我们不得不做出各种判断，其中一些我们已经非常熟悉了，比如判断过马路是否安全，我们在这方面相当在行。

We are having to make, you know, well, some of them we just are very used to, we make a bet on whether it's safe to cross the street and we are pretty good at that.

有些情况则迫使我们偶尔要认真思考，比如必须做出医疗决策时。

Some of them we occasionally are forced to think very hard about when we have to make a health care decision.

所以，你应该吃这种药吗？你应该做这个手术吗？人们必须仔细权衡各种可能性和风险。

So, you know, should you take this medicine, should you, you know, people have to decide whether to get a certain operation, those you actually have to think through very carefully what the odds are and what what the, but, and how much you should risk.

我认为，我们意识到自己确实在做这些判断，但它们隐藏在我们日常的许多其他活动中；当我们作为群体做决策时，通常不会记得这一点，也不会记得我们其实应该用这种方式来避免对任何观点过于执着，而是愿意考虑：我可能错了。

Those are things that we, I think, recognise that we do, but it's hidden in many, many of the other day to day activities that we do, and when we make decisions as a group, we don't usually remember that, and we don't remember that actually we should be using this as a way of not getting overly attached to any part of argument, but being willing to consider, well, I could be wrong.

我的意思是，我有75%到80%的把握自己是对的，但仍有25%的可能性我是错的，如果是这样，也许你的观点在这个特定讨论中才是正确的。

I mean, I'm 75%, 80% sure I'm right, but there's 25 odds I'm wrong in this one, in which case maybe your point might be the right point in this particular discussion.

这使得讨论更加灵活，也让群体更容易在不固守自身立场的情况下共同思考问题。

And it makes it much more of a fluid discussion, much more possible for groups to think through problems without being attached to their position.

你提到一种叫做‘个人谦逊与集体傲慢’的现象。

You talk about something called individual humility and collective arrogance.

你这话是什么意思？

What do you mean by that?

在这些故事片段中，你需要理解，我们科学家之所以能取得成功，很大程度上是因为我们始终考虑自己可能犯错、可能理解有误。

So these parts of the story where you need to be able to understand that most of what we do to scientists that has made successful is to consider the possibility that we're making a mistake and that we're getting something wrong.

对于实验科学家来说，95%的时间都在寻找这次的错误在哪里。

And that is probably 95% of an experimental scientist's life is looking for where are the mistakes this time.

在他们进行的实验中，在他们所使用的理论中，日常工作中，大多数测量都存在一定的误差。

In the experiment they're running, in the theory that they're working with, If they're day to day, you know, most measurements have some error to them.

你必须弄清楚，你所进行的特定测量允许的误差范围是多少。

You have to figure out what the amount of error is that's that is permissible for the particular measurement you're making.

但这些错误就摆在你面前，是其中的一部分。

But and that's part of the mistakes that are there in front of you.

你真正寻找的是，你希望发现你所依赖的基础理论中存在的错误。

What you're really looking for is you're really hoping you find mistakes in the fundamental theories that you're working with.

所以当你发现我们对引力的理解有误时，那真是令人兴奋。

So when you find out there's something wrong with our understanding of gravity, that was really exciting.

这正是让爱因斯坦成名的原因之一。

And that was what made Einstein one of the things that made him famous.

大多数科学家一直在努力探索和拓展我们所确信的边界，思考哪些方面如果与我们现有的认知不同，将会令人惊叹。

And most scientists, they're constantly trying to figure out and push the edges of what is it that we are fairly sure about, but what things would be amazing if it turned out that the world was a little different than we thought.

这实际上正是我们的优势所在——这种持续质疑的能力，表面上看像是弱点，总是怀疑一切，但事实上，我认为这才是我们的超能力。

And that is actually where our strength comes from, that ability to be constantly questioning, and it sounds like a weakness, to always be doubting, but it turns out that I think that's really where our superpower lies.

现在，

Now,

如果你在团队中工作，这会更容易一些，对吧？

that's easier if you work in a team, right?

那么，团队有什么特别之处呢？

So what's so special about teams?

这方面有几个方面。

There's a couple of aspects to this.

一是，当你独自一人时，很难跳出自己的思维框架。

One is that I think it's very easy, very hard to think outside of your own head when you're by yourself.

一旦你开始与他人交谈，可能性的范围就会打开。

And as soon as you start talking to other people, it opens up the range of possibilities.

更困难但更重要的是，与你认为意见相左的人交谈。

Even more difficult, but even more important, is talking to people that you think that you disagree with.

因此，科学建立了一整套传统：将你的工作展示给那些会严厉质疑、指出其所有缺陷的人。

And so science has built a whole tradition of taking your work and putting it in front of people who are going to give it a hard time, and are going to show all the flaws in it.

这实际上是发现你可能出错之处的最有效方法之一。

And that's actually one of the most successful ways to figure out where you may be going wrong.

我们的社会作为一个整体，似乎已经失去了很多这种技能，或忘记了为何要与不同意见的人交谈，以及其中的益处所在。

Our society, as a larger society, seems to have lost a lot of that skill, or that memory of why it is that you talk to people that you disagree and where the usefulness comes in.

为什么社会会失去这种能力？

Why has society lost this?

我认为我们在彼此交流时会经历不同的浪潮，其中一些浪潮会把人们推向各自的群体，使他们只与那些已经认同自己观点的人交谈。

I think we happen to go through different waves in our communication with each other, and some of them tend to be they tend to corner people into groups where they are only talking to people who already agree with them.

然后他们就会觉得其他群体令人害怕。

And then they find that the other groups sound scary.

而来自外部的其他群体，对于一个内部交流的群体来说，当你们与另一个群体互动时，很容易觉得对方群体就是坏的、邪恶的，或者有你们不信任的意图。

And the other groups from the outside, it's very easy for a group that's talking among themselves and you're talking with a different group, for the other group to look like they're just bad in some way, evil or out to do something that you don't trust.

但当人们真正相互沟通、共同思考问题时，几乎总是会发现，这些处于不同交流圈中的人实际上共享着几乎相同的主要目标，而差异更多只是在于他们对某些事实性问题的答案看法不同，而非根本优先级完全不同。

But when people actually communicate with each other and think through problems together, almost invariably they start discovering that the actual people themselves that may be in these separate bubbles of communication turn out to really share almost all of the same big goals and the differences are much more just the question of what do they think the answer is to some factual question rather than really their priorities being completely different.

但如果你和一个以驳倒你论点为职责的人合作，科学中的自我ego是否比社会其他领域更少？

But if you work with somebody whose job is to shoot down your arguments, Is there less room for ego in science than in other parts of society?

我总是把科学的理想层面与日常实际发生的情况区分开来。

Well, I always describe the aspirational aspects of science as opposed to what actually happens day to day.

日常生活中，人们确实会犯错，他们并不总是遵循我所描述的科学最佳实践，以及我所说的这个第三千禧年思维模式。

Day to day people do things wrong, to day they don't follow the prescriptions of, you know, I think what this best idea of what science and this third millennium thinking that I'm describing has offered us.

但总体而言，这正是科学的理想目标：开放地倾听他人给你的批评。

As a whole though, that's the aspirational goal, to be open to listening when somebody gives you criticism.

这非常难做到，不是每个科学家每次都能做到，但从宏观角度看，人们最终会听取审稿人的意见，会听取在会议上做报告时他人提出的异议，而这最终会产生巨大影响。

And it's very difficult to do, not every scientist does it every time, but in the big picture eventually people listen to referee's comments on papers, they listen to the objections raised in a conference when they're giving a talk, and it ends up actually making a big difference.

这意味着他们可能前三四次都不想听，但最终他们会想，我必须回答这个问题，而这会让他们思维更加敏锐。

It means that they may not want to hear it the first three or four times, but eventually they think, you know, I've got to answer that question, and that sharpens up their thinking.

所以这与整个自信的谦逊密切相关。

So it's kind of tied into the whole confident humility

当然。

Absolutely.

而且，我不觉得科学家的典型形象是谦逊的人，但你谦逊吗？

And, you know, I don't think of the typical image of a scientist as being a humble person, but Are you humble?

在这方面，我认为我努力尽可能地保持谦逊，对吧？

In this particular respect, I think I aspire to being as humble as I can, right?

因为我清楚自己曾经犯过错，漏掉过一些事情，也犯过错误，有时是我自己发现的，但其他时候，只有别人指出来我才意识到。

Because I know that I've done things wrong, and I've figured things I've missed they've made mistakes, and I've caught them sometimes myself, but other times I've only caught them because somebody else was there.

你在哪些方面不够谦逊？

At which parts of you are less humble?

我认为不够谦逊的那部分其实挺有意思的。

So I think the part that's less humble is actually sort of an interesting one.

科学文化中还有另一个方面，我认为必须以一种有趣的方式保持傲慢，那就是科学之所以能取得进步，是因为它允许你相信——甚至可能欺骗自己——认为你有能力解决困难的问题，直到你真的解决了它们。

There's another side of the culture of science which I think has to be arrogant in a very interesting way, which is that you I think science has benefited by having a culture that allows you to believe, or maybe even fool yourself, into thinking that you can solve difficult problems long enough to solve them.

问题是，我认为我们大多数人并不具备坚持问题直到真正解决所需的韧性。

And the problem is that most of us, I don't think, are built to stick to a problem as long as it really takes.

因此，我们往往认为：我已经很努力地研究这个问题了，至少花了一天，也许花了一周，然后就放弃了。

And so I think we tend to think, well I tried very hard on that problem, I spent at least a day on it, maybe I spent a week on it, and then you give up.

而科学文化却让人相信：我们能够解决这个问题，如果这一周没搞明白，就继续努力，或许一个月后就能看到进展，再试另一种方法，再过一个月，最终人们还是能解决这些问题——这需要一种特定的自信，某种意义上的傲慢，才能坚持足够长的时间去攻克真正值得解决的难题。

Whereas the culture of science has I think led people to think we can solve that problem and if we didn't figure it out that week we'll keep working on it and we'll see some progress maybe by a month or so from now we'll try something different and then another month and eventually people figure out these problems and it takes a certain kind of confidence, certain kind of can call arrogance I think to manage to stay with a problem long enough to do these problems that are worth our solving.

那你必须对自己才华有点近乎固执的信念，对吧？

Well, you have to be a bit of a die hard believer in your own brilliance, right?

没错，这其实很奇怪，因为你真正需要的是这种微妙的平衡：既非常谦逊，乐于承认错误，又充满信心，坚信我们一定能找到答案——如果方法行不通，你就相信一定还有别的办法。

Exactly, To keep it's a very strange thing because you want, what you really want is this funny balance between being very humble and very willing to be wrong and yet very can do, that we're going to be able to figure this thing out so that you if it doesn't work, you think there's got to be a different way we can do this.

我认为，这正是科学运作的一个真正秘诀。

And that is I think one of the real secrets of how sciences work.

从某种意义上说，正是犯错的刹车机制，让科学中的许多环节都充满了怀疑和质疑，从而避免你陷入某些思维陷阱。

In some sense it's the brakes of making mistakes that so many of the things that science involves is the skepticisms and the doubts that keep you from falling into certain kinds of mental traps.

但你不能只靠刹车来开车。

But you can't drive a car with just brakes.

你需要一个油门踏板。

You need an accelerator pedal.

我认为这个油门踏板就是我们能够解决这个问题的信念。

And I think that accelerator pedal is this can do sense that we can figure this out.

这是一个难题，但一旦你明确了问题，我们就有相当大的机会找到解决方法。

It's hard problem, but once you identify the problem, we have a reasonable chance of figuring out how to solve it.

什么样的团队才算好？

What makes a good team?

在我看来，真正产生巨大差异的是这样一群人：他们拥有各种不同的技能，但又不会因为自我膨胀而无法融入团队、互相交流想法并认真倾听彼此。

Well, I've seen that, for me at least, that it's been the thing that's made a huge difference is that combination of people who come in with a wide variety of skills, but who aren't so ego driven that they can't just join a group together and bounce ideas with each other and listen to each other.

这种组合的人既非常有能力，又能享受团队合作和共同思考的过程。

And that combination of people who are very capable but are also able to enjoy team nature and the thinking together.

这正是我通常在团队中寻找的特质。

That's the thing that I usually am looking for in a group.

与此相关的是，你总希望这个人非常有能力和才华，但同时也具备一点那种‘我能行’的精神，让他们愿意留在房间里，和团队一起持续钻研问题，哪怕花上大多数人不愿花的额外时间。

Along a little bit with that, you always want the person to be very skilled and capable, but you also want them to have a little bit of that can do spirit, that they think that it's worth staying in the room with the group of people and worrying the problem for that extra time that most people wouldn't.

越来越多的诺贝尔奖由团队获得。

Increasingly, Nobel Prizes are won by teams.

总的来说，科学已经越来越不再是那种单打独斗的活动，比如人们脑海中那个穿着白大褂、独自走进实验室消失不见的孤独科学家形象。

So the in general, science has become less and less of a, you know, single person activity, you know, where the the image of a lone scientist putting on their lab coat and going down to the lab and disappearing.

那从来就不是我的经历。

That's never that's not been my experience at all.

即使是很小的团队，也通常是多人合作的项目，而很多科学研究都需要足够的不同专业知识和不同部分，规模也变得足够大，因此通常需要相当大的团队。

And even rather small groups are still often groups of people doing projects, and a lot of science just requires enough different expertise and different parts, and the scales have gotten big enough that they often are fairly big teams.

我所参与的项目规模还算小，大概有30人左右，大家共同合作完成某项工作。

They're you know, the projects I was doing were smallish in the sense of maybe 30, you know, 30 people, you know, all working together on something.

但这些项目在近年来的下一阶段，参与人数已经增加到数百人。

But the very next stage of those same projects in more recent years are now hundreds of people in those projects.

在分工和管理整个流程方面，有哪些挑战？

What are the challenges in terms of splitting the work and managing that whole process?

这非常棘手，因为你必须平衡各种因素。

It's very tricky because you have all sorts of balancing acts to do.

因此，你希望一群人共享大量他们的方法和其他资源，比如互相分享软件以共同改进，但这样做的风险是，如果共享过多，就失去了通常能帮助发现错误的独立对比。

So there's the fact that you want groups of people to share a lot of their approaches and other resources, might share their software with each other to work on it, but there's a danger then that if they've shared too much then you don't get the independent comparisons that you can often find the errors with.

所以，从某种意义上说，你需要鼓励一些小组在整体团队达成共识的同时，独立开展工作。

So you, in some sense, need to encourage splinter groups to be working on things while the whole group is coming to consensus at the same time.

这些平衡行为实际上贯穿了那本书中整个‘第三伦敦思维’的故事：你所做的大多数事情，都需要在多个目标之间找到正确的平衡，而这些目标往往并不明显是需要同时实现的。

And these balancing acts actually go throughout the whole Third and London Thinking story in that book, is that most things you're doing, you're having to get that right balance between several different things you're trying to achieve that aren't necessarily obvious that you would do them at the same time.

室内乐与此有什么关系？

How does chamber music come into this?

因为那是你的一个团队。

Because that's one of your teams.

我当时在思考，谁是我生命中一些最有影响力的老师？

So I was thinking about this from the point of view of who have been some of the more influential teachers in my life?

而且，你知道，其中一些人，很明显。

And and, you know, some of them, know, it's obvious.

我的研究导师在我攻读物理学博士学位时对我影响深远，其他人则属于那种你上过的某些课程中的老师，我至今仍记得他们。

My research adviser was, you know, very influential as when I was going my PhD in physics, and others, you know, are are in that category of, you know, teachers in in certain courses that you've taken that that I I still remember.

但也许其中一个更有趣的是，对于那些在人生中学习过乐器的人，他们的乐器老师通常会伴随你多年，直到你成长起来。

But perhaps one of the more interesting ones is for those people who've studied an instrument in their lives, your teacher of that instrument has stayed with you for usually it stayed with you for many, many years while you were growing up.

就我而言，我的小提琴老师是一位极具影响力的人，她名叫弗朗西斯·达菲，她能够教导一种极致细致与精准的结合，同时带着一种精神和目标——创造音乐，而不仅仅是把事情做对。

So in my case, my violin teacher was very influential person, her name was Frances Duffy, and she was able to teach a certain degree of this mix of extreme care and precision but with a spirit and a goal of making music, not of just doing something right.

你还在演奏吗？

Do you still play?

我确实还在演奏，我一直以来对演奏感兴趣的部分并不是独奏音乐，而是弦乐四重奏和其他形式的室内乐。

And I do still play, and the thing that I was always interested in when I was playing was not solo music, I was interested in playing string quartets and other kinds of chamber music.

我认为，这种乐趣与团队合作解决科学问题时的乐趣非常相似：一群人都在贡献自己的力量，但他们必须彼此倾听。

And I think the pleasures in that are very much some of the same pleasures as in group efforts for solving a scientific problem, that you have a group of people who are all contributing something, but they have to listen to each other.

而这种来回高度专注的程度，我认为正是让这种体验如此生动的原因，也是让科学团队项目如此有趣的原因之一。

And then the degree of paying attention back and forth, I think, is what makes that so enlivening, and it's also, I think, one of things that makes a group science project fun.

什么是盲分析？

What is blind analysis?

我们意识到的一个经典问题，实际上在更广泛的世界中，我们称之为确认偏误：当你试图理解某个新闻故事时，很容易陷入只阅读那些印证你已有观点的新闻，而不去阅读那些与你信念相悖的信息。

One of the classic problems that we've become aware of, actually in the larger world we see it in a thing called confirmation bias, it's very easy when you're, let's say, trying to see what what some news story is telling you, to fall into the danger of only reading the news stories that already tell you something that you believe and not reading the ones that are giving you information that would disagree with something you believe.

当你偶然读到一篇与你认为正确观点相悖的文章时，你会寻找它所有的错误。

And when you do happen to read an article that says something that disagrees with something that you think is right, you look for all the mistakes it's making.

而当你看到一篇说‘有人做了一项研究，结果支持了你喜欢的观点’的文章时，你并不会以同样的方式去挑剔它的缺陷。

Whereas when you see an article that's saying, oh, somebody did a study and it agrees with something that you like, you don't look for its flaws in the same way.

这种情况不仅发生在政治领域和读报纸时，也发生在科学项目中。

And this happens actually not only in politics and when you read in the newspaper, but in a science project.

因此，当你在测量图表中的数据点时，如果结果与某个理论一致或相悖，而你非常期待看到结果，就存在一种真正的风险——历史上已经发生过这种情况，你可以回溯查看过去的图表，你会发现：当人们认为图表显示的是他们预期的结果时（无论它是证实了理论还是反驳了理论），他们更容易接受它；而如果图表显示的是他们意想不到的结果，他们就更可能去寻找其中的错误。

So when you're measuring some graph, the points for a graph, and it's going to agree with a theory or disagree with a theory and you're very excited to see what the results are, there's a real danger that, and you see it has happened now in history, can go back and look through the graphs of the past, You see that there's a danger that people accept the graph when they think it's showing you what they were sort of expecting to see, either because it confirmed the theory or it disagreed with the theory, whichever it was that they were kind of expecting it to show, and they're more likely to look for the errors in that graph if it's showing something that they don't expect.

这意味着，论文中出现的图表往往只是科学家预期的结果，因为他们不会去仔细查找这些结果中的错误。

So that means that there's a real bias towards having graphs come out in papers that are just what the scientist was expecting to get because those are the ones that they don't go hunting for the errors in.

近年来，物理学家开始意识到，这种陷阱正在让许多人误入歧途。

And in recent years that's become something where the physicists started to become aware that this was a trap that people were falling into.

科学的一个核心理念就是识别这些陷阱，然后找出解决它们的方法。

And one of the whole ideas of science is to recognize these traps and then to figure out how to solve them.

因此，物理学界开始采用一种名为盲分析的技术来解决这一特定陷阱：在所有人达成一致，确认已排查了所有测量误差之前，你不能看到最终包含真实数值的图表结果。

So the way the physics community has started to solve this particular trap is they've started using this technique called blind analysis where you don't let yourself see the results, the the final graphs with the real, you know, the real, values on the graph, until everybody has agreed that you've looked for all the errors in the measurement.

然后，在你检查完所有错误之后，你会打开信封，看看这些数字对应的是什么结果，看看这个答案是否符合你的预期或愿望，或者是否与你的预期或愿望相悖。

And then when you've checked for all the errors, then you open the envelope and you see what the numbers correspond to, and and you see whether the the answer is what you were expecting or what you wanted or if it goes against what you wanted or what you're expecting.

这是一个相当令人震撼的时刻。

And it's a it's a kind of traumatic moment.

所以，我们曾在小组会议上经历过这样的场景：那天快结束时，我们的一名学生即将揭开他过去一年半来一直研究的数据的盲态，如果结果符合某种方向，他将获得一份出色的博士论文；如果不符合，结果就会令人失望。

And so you I've been in we've been in the group meetings where we were sitting there, it was the end of the day, and one of our students was about to unblind their data they'd been working on for the last year and a half, and if they came out a certain way they would have a wonderful PhD thesis, if it didn't it would be disappointing, result.

而这一切都取决于他们打开这个去盲化结果时会发生什么。

And, and it was all gonna depend on what happened when they opened this, they opened this unblinded result.

记得有一次，特别晚了。

And, remember one time particularly, it was, like, late at night.

我们开了一个很长很长的会议，已经过了晚饭时间。

We had gone for a long, long meeting, and it was past dinner time.

我们正试图决定：现在就打开它，还是等到早上精神好的时候再打开？

We're And trying to decide, okay.

我们正试图决定：现在就打开它，还是等到早上精神好的时候再打开？

Are we gonna open it now, or should we wait in the morning and do it when we're fresh?

你知道吗？

You know?

因为如果结果错了，最终会非常令人沮丧。

Because if it comes out wrong, it's gonna be really devastating at the end of the day.

也许我们应该等到我们休息好了再说。

Maybe we should wait until we're, you know, sort of, you know, rested, etcetera.

我们彼此对视了一下，然后说：算了，还是看吧。

And we all looked at each other and said, nah, let's look at it.

于是我们决定就在此时揭开盲态，并接受任何结果。

And so we decided that was the time that we were gonna unblind and we were gonna have to accept whatever we got.

结果好吗？

And was it good?

那次结果很好。

That time it was good.

不

Not

每次都是，但那次确实是

every time, but that time it was was The

确认偏见这个概念很有趣，对吧？

whole concept of confirmation bias is interesting, right?

我的意思是，如果你持有一种政治观点，你就只看福克斯新闻。

I mean, you got one political view, and then you only watch Fox News.

如果你有另一种观点，你就只看别的频道。

You've got another point of view, you only watch something else.

没错。

Exactly.

你知道吗？

You know?

我想，这就是造成社会更大两极分化的原因。

This is, I guess, what creates more of the polarization in society.

这确实是个大问题。

No, it's a real problem.

而且，如果你是福克斯新闻的观众，当你看到《纽约时报》的文章时，往往会对其持非常怀疑的态度。

And also we tend to, you know, if you are a Fox News watcher, when you see a New York Times article, assume that it was you're very skeptical about it.

如果你是《纽约时报》的读者，看到福克斯新闻的报道，就会觉得里面肯定有问题，总爱去找对方的错误，却不会去挑自己媒体的毛病。

And if you're a New York Times reader and you watch a Fox News story, you assume that there's something got something wrong in it, and you tend to look for all the errors in the other, but not in your own own reporters.

确认偏误对投资者来说也非常、非常有害，因为你做了一项投资，然后你只阅读那些证实你已有观点的信息。

And confirmation bias is very, very problematic also for investors, because you made an investment, and the only piece of news you read is the stuff that's confirming your already existing view.

我

I

我认为这显然是一个深层次的问题，对我们所有人来说，几乎在任何事情上，我们都可能陷入这种陷阱。

think it's clearly one of these deep problems that for all of us, for almost anything we're doing, we can fall into that trap.

我之前也用医疗例子来描述过：当你在决定某种医疗方案是好是坏时，很容易忍不住去网上搜寻，直到找到符合你期望的说法。

I've been describing it also like when you're trying to decide let me use the medical example again you're trying to decide whether or not you do something that's a good idea or a bad idea for your medical treatment and there's a real temptation to hunt on the websites until you find one that says what you want to hear.

我认为真正该做的是：在不了解你的具体情况之前，先判断哪些网站在其他方面更值得信赖，这样你就能在不知情的情况下选择网站，然后再去看它对你的情况给出了什么建议。

And I think that really what you need to do is you need to first, without looking at what it says about your particular case, look for which websites do you trust more about everything else besides that one, so that you choose your website blinded without knowing what it would say for your particular case, and then you read what it recommends.

所以听好了，我现在已经买了价值一百万美元的苹果股票。

So listen now, I have bought a million dollars worth of Apple stock.

是的。

Yes.

好的。

Okay.

我们房间里有四个人。

And we have four people around in the room here.

我们该如何分析、质疑和研究是否应该持有苹果股票呢？

What's the best way to analyse and question and research whether we should own Apple or not?

首先，你们房间里有四个人，这可能是一个真正的优势，对吧？

So to begin with, the fact that you have four people in the room could be a real asset, right?

因为他们可能拥有不同的信息来源，能够带来不同的

Because they could have different sources of information and be able to bring different

呃，不好意思，我们是不是该让40亿人进房间？

Well, I'm sorry, should we have 4,000,000,000 in the room?

首先，让我们从头开始。

First of all, let's start from total scratch.

好的，我想要一百万美元的苹果股票。

Okay, so I want a million dollars of Apple stock.

我们该如何决定这是否是一个好的投资？

How should we decide whether that's a good investment?

好的，显然，这个故事的一部分是：世界上哪里的信息能让你在这种情况下的预测最有优势？

All right, so obviously, part of the story is where is the information out in the world that would give you the most chance at doing good predictions in this pure case?

当然，在这个故事中，你必须决定你预期信息最丰富的地方在哪里。

And in this story of course you have to decide where do you expect the most information to lie.

是那些从事技术开发的人吗？

Is it going to be with people who are doing the technology development?

是那些从事消费者研究的人吗？

Is it going be with the people who are doing the consumer research?

是那些被消费者研究忽略的实际消费者吗？

Will it be actual consumers themselves that are missed by the consumer research?

根据你认为信息最集中的地方，你可能希望邀请不同的人参与讨论。

And depending on where you think the most information sits, you might want to bring different people to the table.

我猜测，在许多这类话题中，你需要相当广泛的信息来源，包括一些你甚至没想到的来源，而这实际上需要接触比你通常为获取信息而邀请的更多人。

My guess would be that in many of these topics you want a fairly broad range of sources of information, some that you would not have even thought of, and that actually requires reaching more people than you might typically do if you're trying to bring information in.

你不能让所有人都聚在一起，轮流在房间里走动，第一个人说出所有推荐或不推荐这项投资的理由，或者建议采取何种形式。

You cannot have them all get together and start walking around the room with the first person saying all the best reasons for why it is that they would recommend the investment or not or what form to do it in.

然后第二个人发言，第三个人接着说，因为他们会受到前一个人言论的极大影响，这样很容易导致出现群体思维。

And then have the next person talk and the next person talk because they will be so influenced by what the previous person says that there's a real danger that you just get heard thinking.

人们会固守那些听起来非常有道理的观点，既不想因为引入来自其他来源的其他信息而让自己显得尴尬，也不想显得在与人争辩。

That people lock in on what sounded like a very good argument and they don't want to embarrass themselves by bringing in some other information that they have from a different source nor do they want to sound like they're arguing.

他们不想显得与房间里其他人的观点，尤其是前一位发言者的意见，产生冲突。

They don't want to sound like they're conflicting necessarily with the other people, the previous person in the room.

因此，更好的做法是让每个人独立写下自己的信息，各自单独提供，然后再进行汇总。

So it's much better to get all the information written down independently so people provide it separately and then aggregate it.

接着，大家共同查看这些信息，试图弄清楚：现在我们该如何同时处理所有这些信息？

Then people look at it together and try to figure out, okay, now how do we work with all this information at the same time?

因此，人们已经开发出多种工具，用于这类游戏和各种组织活动，以便在可能的情况下最大限度地发挥这种优势。

So there are a number of tools that people have used for playing these games and different kinds of organisational activities that get the best of that when you can.

我特别喜欢那些既涉及价值观又涉及事实问题的决策。

I particularly like some decisions that need both some values in play as well as the factual issues.

其中一些决策通过随机抽取人口样本的方式处理得非常好，而这当然与你在投资案例中可能采取的做法略有不同。

Some of those seem to be done very well with using random samples of the population, which which of course is a little bit different from probably what you'd be doing in an investment case.

但即便如此，你也永远无法预知，更广泛的随机覆盖可能会触及到一些你仅靠退后一步、试图挑选出10个人时根本不会想到的信息来源。

But even there you never know, it could be that having a broader random reach would reach a source of information that never would have occurred if you were just stepping back and trying to choose your 10 people.

我认为这种偏见的一个非常糟糕的例子是，挪威最高法院中资历最老、经验最丰富的法官会首先发言。

I think one of the really bad examples of this bias is, you know, in the Norwegian Supreme Court, the oldest and most experienced member of the court speaks first.

啊，是的。

Ah, yes.

由于这个原因，该法院的异议率是所有法院中最低的。

And you have the lowest supposedly disagreement of any court because of that.

这听起来恰恰与这个概念相反。

Now it sounds like the exact opposite of this concept.

现在你

Now you're

是的，而在隔壁的瑞典，最年轻的人先发言。

Yeah, whilst in Sweden, just around the corner, is the youngest person who speaks first.

是吗？

Is that right?

是的，而且你们的分歧要大得多。

Yeah, and you have much more disagreement.

这太有趣了。

That's fascinating.

简直难以置信，对吧？

It's unbelievable, no?

这真的很有意思。

That's really interesting.

这真的非常有趣。

That's really very interesting.

但这种情况怎么能持续这么多年呢？

But how can this last for years and years and years?

我的意思是，听到这些故事时，你意识到这些偏见，人们难道不应该立刻跳出来问：我们该如何解决这个问题吗？

Well, mean, hear about all of these kinds of stories where you realize those biases, people should be jumping on and asking how do we fix that?

我的意思是，另一个我记得读过的例子是，他们比较了午餐后和午餐前的判决情况。

I mean, the other one that I remember reading about was I felt where it was, where they compared the, I think the sentencing, after lunch and before lunch.

是的，完全正确。

Yeah, absolutely.

没错，而且这完全是。

Right, and it was Totally,

如果你被当场抓获，你就是有罪，直接进监狱。

if you're bang, you are guilty, in prison you go.

是的，这也很疯狂，你知道，这种情况居然能持续这么长时间。

Yeah, which is also crazy, you know, that that would be allowed to go on for a long time.

不可思议。

Incredible.

好吧，现在我们有了这个潜在的投资案例。

Okay, so now we have this investment case potential.

我们有来自各地的人。

We have people from all over the place.

他们已经写下了自己的想法，明白吗？

They've written down what they think, okay?

所以没有人会受到他人的影响。

So nobody is biased by anybody.

那接下来你该怎么做呢？

So what do you do then?

你如何在这里引发有建设性的分歧？

How do you get some productive disagreement going here?

我认为，现在正是把人们聚集在一起，鼓励他们相互激发想法、认真思考世界可能与他们想象不同的各种方式的时候。

So I do think that now this is the time where I think bringing people into a room and encouraging them to actually bounce ideas off each other and to be thinking very hard about the possible ways in which the world could be different than they think.

这里有一种技术，最初可能是为商业目的开发的，叫做情景规划。

So here's a technique might have been developed originally for business purposes, was this technique called scenario planning.

我曾遇到过彼得·施瓦茨，他教授这种技术，他还写过一本关于这方面的书。

This is something I've been Peter Schwartz was somebody who I came across who was teaching this, and he has a book on this actually.

但在那里，目标是尝试识别可能改变某个主题领域未来的关键驱动力。

But there, the goal was to try to identify driving forces that could change the future in some topic area.

我的意思是，就这个案例而言，如果我们讨论的是苹果股票，那大概是指消费计算领域。

I mean, this case, I guess if we were talking about Apple stock, it's presumably consumer computing.

然后让一群来自不同背景的人，先写下所有可能影响这一领域未来发展的因素。

And then trying to just have a group of people that come from a wide set of backgrounds just begin by just writing down all of the things that could drive the future with respect to it.

是资源可用性吗？

Is it going to be resource availability?

是经济增长吗？

Is it is it going to be economic growth?

是不同收入水平之间的经济不平等吗？

Is it going to be economic disparity of, you know, of different levels of income?

会不会是一些奇怪的因素，比如气候变化？

Will it be, you know, odd things like climate change?

这怎么可能影响消费计算领域？

How could that possibly affect the consumer computing?

会不会是人工智能以某种新方式取得突破？

Will it be AI coming to fruition in some new way?

所以，写下这一大堆可能性，然后从中挑选出几个，有时甚至只选两个看起来完全不相关的，再考虑这两个因素的所有四种极端组合。

So And write down a whole group of these and you choose a few of them, even sometimes just two, that look like they'd be completely unrelated to each other and then consider the extremes of those two in all four possibilities.

比如说，一个停滞的经济，增长微乎其微， versus 一个快速增长的经济；而在另一个维度上，你可能选择了气候因素，比如剧烈的气候变化 vs 气候稳定，即情况大致保持不变，然后审视这四种组合，思考在每种情况下，我们最好的投资策略是什么——因为这迫使你深入思考哪些东西是稳健的，哪些不是。

Let's say a stagnant economy where there is not much growth versus a very rapidly growing economy and then in the other direction maybe you might have chosen climate, large climate change and climate stasis, where things stay roughly the same, and look at all four of those combinations and ask what would be our best, in this case, investment in each of those situations because it forces you to think through the logic of what things are robust and what things aren't robust.

无论这些未来情景是否准确，这种方式都非常有用，它能让你考虑比你通常只盯着别人谈论、在同样报纸上读到的未来更广泛的可能性。

Whether or not those futures are the right answer, it's a very useful way of being able to consider a wider variety than you typically will do if you're just stuck thinking about the future that everybody else is talking about, that you are reading in the same newspapers.

你如何激励人们提出不同意见，发现错误和缺陷？

How do you incentivise people to disagree and to find mistakes and flaws?

嗯，其中一个原因是

Well, there's one of

我认为，刻意允许不同群体相互竞争，而不是试图让所有人都在一个协作团队里，确实会产生差异，因为这样自然会形成团队，而这些团队天然有动力去寻找其他人可能犯的错误。

the reasons why I think intentionally allowing for different groups competing as opposed to trying to get everybody to be in one collaborative group does make a difference, because then you naturally get teams, you know, and the teams are naturally they naturally have the incentive to look for the things that the others may have gotten wrong.

我认为这实际上正是科学取得进步的非常有趣的方式之一。

And I think that's actually been one of the very interesting ways in which science has progressed.

我认为人们在发现别人没发现的东西时会感到真正的快乐，这种快乐体现在他们能找出早期思维中的缺陷。

I think you've seen that people have some real pleasure in being able to find something that nobody else found, and the ways that shows up is that they find the flaws in the earlier thinking.

我认为，如果你能在任何组织中做到这一点，鼓励一种友好的竞争氛围，让人们大胆提出想法并相互质疑，而且不把这种行为视为不友好，而是视为过程的一部分，那将非常有益。

And I think that if you can manage to do that in any organisation, where you encourage there to be a bit of friendly competition going on, where people are trying out ideas and that they're encouraged to be disagreeing with each other, that that's not seen as an unfriendly thing to do, but that's part of the process.

我认为这是一种真正有帮助的文化。

I think it's a culture that really helps.

在投资中，最好的投资通常是那些你正确而别人都不认同的情况，对吧？

In investments, the best investments are typically the cases where you are right and nobody agrees with you, right?

确实如此，非常反直觉。

So really counterintuitive Exactly.

科学领域也是如此吗？

That also the case in science?

绝对如此。

Absolutely.

你知道哪些最反直觉的发现？

So what are some of the most counterintuitive findings that you know of?

我的意思是，唯一的原因是

Well, mean the, well, the only reason

但我们又回到你在天体物理学上的研究了，对吧？

But we're coming back to yours in astrophysics, right?

这太棒了。

That's great.

我获得诺贝尔奖的唯一原因，并不是因为我们做了什么真正有趣、出色的实验。

The only reason I won the Nobel Prize was not because we had done what was really fun, great experiment.

而是因为得出了一个真正令人惊讶的结果。

It was because it came up with a real surprising result.

是的，这确实非常令人惊讶。

Yeah, and it is very surprising.

你知道，这就像一个悬念，你必须继续听下去才能听到这个关键点。

And you know, that's like a cliffhanger, because you have to continue to listen to get to that one.

是的，是的。

Yes, yes.

好吧，我们先放一放。

Okay, we'll leave that.

与此同时

In the meantime

但我要说，一般来说，那些在科学领域取得成功的人，通常是因为他们发现了别人从未注意到的东西。

But I will say that, you know, in general, the people who do well in the sciences usually are doing well because they come up with something that nobody else has seen.

这会让所有人都感到兴奋，大家都会说：哇，我们没想到世界原来是这样运作的。

And that excites everybody, they all say, Wow, we didn't realise that the world was working that particular way.

这一点非常重要，因为真正的激动人心之处就在这里。

And that's really important to know, that's where the excitement is.

通常，成功并不是来自那些只是重复人们已知观点的人。

Usually, it's not somebody who was just showing more of the same of what people already thought.

为什么我们对不确定性感到如此难以接受？

Why do we find uncertainty so hard?

我认为我们对不确定性有着一种爱恨交加的关系，对吧？

I think that we have a very love hate relationship with uncertainty, right?

因为在某种程度上，这正是人们喜爱许多游戏和各种娱乐活动的原因。

Because in some sense it's what people love about so many games and so many things that they're going to do for fun.

他们喜欢那种结果可能朝这个方向发展、也可能朝那个方向发展的感觉。

They love that sense that it could go this way, could go that way.

没有人会真正想参与一种每次都能确切预知结果的体育运动。

Nobody would really want to play sports where every single time you knew exactly how it was all going to come out.

每个人都享受那种可能发生一点意外的刺激感，他们期待着这种意外的发生。

Everybody enjoys that sense that something a little bit surprising could happen here and they look for that surprising thing to occur.

但我们也很容易感到害怕。

But we also are very easily scared.

我的意思是，我认为我们很容易觉得，如果我们不知道下一阶段会怎样发展，一切都会变得不确定，谁知道呢？

I mean it's very easy I think for us to feel like if we don't know that we're going to get to the next stage exactly the way everything is, who knows?

情况可能会变糟，我们可能吃不饱，可能连睡觉的地方都没有。

It could be bad, it could be that we wouldn't have enough to eat, it could be that we don't have a place to sleep.

我认为这很可能是一种深植于进化中的优势：如果你总是小心谨慎，确保不失去生存所需的基本条件，那么你就会提前去打猎、耕种，以确保下一个季节有食物。

And I think that that is probably an evolutionary, deep down advantage, that if you are always being careful that you're not going to lose the fundamentals that you need to live, then probably you'll look out to, know, do your hunting and your farming early enough so you'll have food for the next season.

所以我可以想象，这可能是一种非常有用的文化，甚至心理上的演化产物。

So I can imagine that that could have been a very useful cultural maybe even psychological thing to evolve.

但这种倾向必须保持平衡。

But it has to be balanced.

你不能被恐惧驱使到不敢走出洞穴或家门、不敢尝试新想法的地步，因为如果只依赖旧观念，世界是在变化的。

You need to be not driven by fear to the point that you don't step out of your cave and out of your house and you don't try out ideas because if you just use the old ideas, the world changes.

而旧观念未必能跟上世界的变迁，甚至它们也不是最好的想法。

And the old ideas don't necessarily track what the world's doing, and they're not even the best ideas.

通常，它们在提出时是当时情况的足够好的模型，但对世界的理解可能有更佳的方式，而这正是你真正想要的。

Often they were good enough models of what was going on at the moment when somebody came up with them, but there could be much better ways of understanding the world, and that is really what you want.

你不想错过这些，有时你甚至需要它们。

You don't want to miss those, and sometimes you need them.

我主修社会心理学，我的论文研究的是投资中的直觉。

I did a degree in social psychology and I did my dissertation on gut feel in investing.

我的意思是，直觉，没人真信直觉，但我们称之为模式识别。人们总说：科学中难道没有模式识别的空间吗？或者直觉？

Well, mean gut feel, nobody believes in gut feel but we call it pattern recognition, they always Is say believe in there a room for pattern recognition in science or gut feel?

当然，因为我们知道，当我们的大脑试图理解外界发生的事情时，正在进行一种非常有趣的组合工作。

Oh, absolutely, right, because we know that our brains are doing a very interesting combination of work when they're trying to understand what's going on out in the world.

其中一部分是我们非常有意识的逻辑推理，我们清楚地知道：好吧，我刚看到了这个，又看到了那个，所以我把它们结合起来，推测这可能意味着世界中的某个方面必然如此。

Some of it is the logical stuff that we're very conscious of, that we're very aware that, you know, okay, I've just seen this and I've seen that, so I'm putting them together and I'm betting that probably that means that, you know, this aspect of the world must be the case.

但有些时候，你会感到非常困惑，根本想不通为什么这件事和那件事会变成这样？

But some of it, you're really puzzled, you don't see how is it possible that this thing and this thing turned into this thing?

人们不断钻研、钻研、再钻研，然后某天晚上睡一觉，第二天早上醒来，突然想到：嘿，我想我知道这是怎么运作的了。

And people work on it and work on it and work on it, and then some days they go to sleep and they wake up in the morning and they think, Hey, I think I know how that works.

我们有理由相信，潜意识也能以其他方式帮助我们解决问题，也许这种方式更类似于神经网络——你无法确切追踪到哪个具体因素促成了模式识别，但它确实非常出色地发现了我们自己难以察觉的模式。

And we think, and there's some evidence, that the unconscious mind also gives us other ways of solving problems, maybe a little bit more like the way these neural networks do, where you can't really track down exactly which thing was the source of the pattern recognition, but in fact it does a very good job of figuring out patterns that we otherwise wouldn't catch.

我经常认为，最好让这两种方式相互制衡，因为有些模式识别是错误的：我们以为看到了某种模式，但实际上并不存在，所以我们需要用深思熟虑的理性思维去回溯分析，借助统计学判断这种模式是否只是随机噪声造成的假象。

I often think that it's really good to try to play these two against each other, because some of the pattern recognition is wrong, we recognize things that we think we see a pattern and it's not really true so we use our very thoughtful rational mind to go back and analyze them and use things like statistics to tell whether that pattern could have appeared just from random noise and that the randomness looked to us like a pattern.

因此，用你的逻辑理性思维去审视潜意识的模式识别部分，剔除其中的好与坏，是非常有用的。

So that's very useful to apply your logical rational mind to the pattern recognition side of the mind to weed out the good from the bad parts of what you've come up with.

但反过来也一样，有时你需要让理性思维长时间专注于一个问题，最终这会迫使模式识别器在你睡觉时继续工作。

But also the other way around, sometimes you need to feed the pattern recognition mind by focusing the rational mind for a long time on a problem, and eventually that seems to force the pattern finder to go working while you're sleeping.

是的，有意思，我们曾经采访过国际象棋选手马格努斯·卡尔森。

Yeah, interesting, we did a podcast with Magnus Carlsen, the chess player.

是的。

Yes.

他通常依靠直觉来挑选三个潜在的走法，然后再对它们进行正式分析。

And so he uses his kind of gut feel to choose, for instance, three different potential moves and then he then analyzed them properly.

啊，这非常相似。

Ah, that's very similar.

没错，没错。

Absolutely, absolutely.

现在他认为，花超过十分钟分析并不会带来太多额外收益，这很有趣。

Now he thinks that spending more than ten minutes on analyzing is more than that doesn't really add a lot, which is interesting.

然后他下得非常快。

Then he's very quick.

对，这么说的话，这大概能体现他分析的深度——到了那个阶段，他意识到自己再往下分析也得不到多少新信息了。

Right, going say it probably gives you a sense of exactly depth where level is for his analysis, at that point he realizes he's no longer adding enough information.

你如何教授这一点？

How do you teach this?

你如何教授批判性思维？

How do you teach critical thinking?

当我们刚开始这一切时，我们并不确定它是否真的可教。

We were not really sure how teachable it was when we began all this.

于是，有一组教师，嗯，三位教授。

So there was a group of, well, three faculty.

有一位来自公共政策学院的社会心理学家，他是罗布·麦库恩，还有一位哲学家，约翰·坎贝尔，我们三人开始定期会面。

There was a social psychologist in the public policy school, so it was Rob McCune, and then there was a philosopher, John Campbell, and the three of us started meeting.

我们贴出一张告示，写着：你是否对社会做决策的方式感到羞愧？

We put a sign up saying, are you embarrassed watching our society make decisions?

来帮忙设计一门课程吧，来帮忙拯救世界。

Come help invent a course, come help save the world.

于是，大约有30名研究生和博士后每周五傍晚开始前来参加。

And about 30 students, graduate students, postdocs started showing up every week at the end of a Friday.

所以我们

And we So

你们就这样度过周五晚上？

this was how you spent Friday night?

实际上是周五下午，经常持续到晚饭后，我们这样持续了大约九个月。

Practically, was Friday afternoons, often went past dinner, and this went on for like nine months that we were meeting.

我们所做的，是梳理出一系列完整的想法，如果你能清晰地掌握这些想法，就能帮助你思考世界上的问题。

And what we were doing is we were walking through what would be a whole collection of ideas where if you had all those ideas clearly enough it would help you think about problems in the world.

然后，针对每一个想法，我们开始探讨：如何教授这个理念？

And then for each of them we started asking how could you teach that idea?

有没有一种方法，能让它不仅仅适用于你所教的某个特定主题，而是无论你何时读报纸文章，或走在街上做决定时，都能自然地运用这些想法？

Is there a way that you could get it across so that it wasn't just for one topic that you taught it but any time you read a newspaper article, any time you walked down the street and you had to make a choice, you would find yourself using the ideas.

通常这意味着我们设计了一些活动、游戏，有时只是提出一些好的讨论问题，而这种混合方式最终成为了我们教授这门课程的方式。

Often that meant that we came up with activities and games and sometimes just good discussion questions, And that mixture is actually the way we end up teaching the course.

我认为这最终既有趣，也多少有些效果。

And I think it ended up being both fun, but I think also a little bit effective.

其他大学也复制了这门课程，对吧？

They copied that course in other universities as well, right?

没错。

Exactly.

所以现在它开始在其他大学传播了。

So now it's starting spread to other universities.

我们最初在伯克利开设了这门课，现在哈佛、芝加哥大学、尔湾分校都已经开设了，我想哥伦比亚大学也即将开始开设。

We began it at Berkeley, it's now been taught at Harvard and University of Chicago and Irvine, and I think now Columbia is picking it up.

这门课应该在全球范围内成为必修课吗？

Should it be mandatory across the world?

我认为这是人们所拥有的一种东西，是科学真正核心的秘诀之一，我认为它能帮助每个人。

I think that it's one of the things that people have, it's one of the secret ingredients of what science really consists of, that I think could help everybody.

因为世界比以往任何时候都更加不确定，对吧？

Because the world is more uncertain than it's ever been, right?

所以你需要更多的结构和活力。

So you need more structure and vigour.