#483 – 茱莉亚·肖：谋杀犯罪心理学、连环杀手、记忆与性

以下是与茱莉亚·肖的对话，她是一位犯罪心理学家，广泛撰写了探讨人性的各种主题，包括精神病态、暴力犯罪、邪恶心理学、警察审讯、虚假记忆操控、欺骗检测和人类性行为。她的著作包括关于谋杀与施虐心理的《邪恶》、关于虚假记忆的《记忆幻觉》、关于双性恋的《双性恋》，以及她的新书《绿色犯罪》——强烈推荐大家现在就订购——该书研究了偷猎者、非法金矿开采者、企业欺诈者、职业杀手以及其他各类环境犯罪分子的黑暗地下世界。茱莉亚是一位才华横溢且心地善良的人，我有幸在麦克风内外与她进行了多次精彩的对话。这是一次荣幸和愉悦的经历。现在快速提一下各位赞助商。

The following is a conversation with Julia Shaw, a criminal psychologist who has written extensively on a wide variety of topics that explore human nature, including psychopathy, violent crime, psychology of evil, police interrogation, false memory manipulation, deception detection, and human sexuality. Her books include evil, about the psychology of murder and sadism, the memory illusion, about false memories, bi about bisexuality, and her new book, they should definitely go order now called green crime, which is a study of the dark underworld of poachers, illegal gold miners, corporate frauds, hitmen, and all kinds of other environmental criminals. Julia is a brilliant and kind hearted person with whom I got the chance to have many great conversations with on and off the mic. This was an honor and a pleasure. And now a quick few second mention of each sponsor.

请在描述中或访问Lex treatment点com斜杠sponsors查看他们。这确实是支持本播客的最佳方式。我们有用于在线销售商品的Shopify、用于心理健康的BetterHelp、用于电解质的Element，以及我每日服用的复合维生素AG one。朋友们，请明智选择。现在进入完整的广告播报。

Check them out in the description or at Lex treatment dot com slash sponsors. It is in fact the best way to support this podcast. We got Shopify for selling stuff online, BetterHelp for mental health, Element for electrolytes, and AG one for my daily multivitamin. Choose wisely, my friends. And now onto the full ad reads.

我尽量让广告有趣，但如果您跳过，也请查看赞助商。我喜欢他们的产品，也许您也会喜欢。如需联系我，无论何种原因，请访问let streaming点com斜杠contact。好了。

I try to make them interesting, but if you skip, please still check out the sponsors. I enjoy their stuff. Maybe you will too. To get in touch with me, for whatever reason, to let streaming.com/contact. Alright.

开始吧。本集由Shopify赞助，这是一个为任何人设计的平台，让您可以在任何地方通过美观的在线商店进行销售。显然，它是一个极佳的销售平台，但我要再次重申，就像我们在DHH那期节目中经常做的那样，其基础设施的实现方式也同样令人惊叹，即它是如何构建的。传奇且有据可查的2021年黑色星期五，Shopify每分钟处理了30TB的数据。服务器每分钟承受超过3200万次请求。

Let's go. This episode is brought to you by Shopify, a platform designed for anyone to sell anywhere with a great looking online store. Obviously, it's an incredible platform for selling stuff, but again, I will reiterate as I do often as we did in the DHH episode, what's also incredible is the implementation of the infrastructure, how the thing is built. The legendary well documented Black Friday, I believe in 2021, Shopify handled 30 terabytes of data every minute. 32 plus million requests per minute hit the servers.

每秒处理了1100万次MySQL查询，而所有这些主要依靠Ruby on Rails完成。这个框架，这种编程语言本身被认为难以扩展，但它做到了，而且做得非常出色，无缝衔接，同时保持了底层实现的美感。我最近读到一篇文章，讲述了他们是如何实现这一点的。其中有许多有趣的细节，包括正如DHH所谈到的，它是一个模块化的单体架构，并通过这些非常有趣的模块化方式进行了水平扩展。再次强调，这可能超出了我在这里应该讨论的范围。

11,000,000 MySQL queries per second were processed, and all of that mostly Ruby on Rails. The very framework, the very programming language is not supposed to scale and it did and it did so incredibly well, seamlessly and still maintain the beauty underlying that implementation. There's this write up I recently read about how they were actually able to make that happen. There's so many interesting details including the fact that as DHH talked about that it was a modular monolith and it was scaled horizontally in these very interesting modular ways. Again, that's probably outside of the scope of what I'm supposed to be doing here.

这只是一个再次庆祝Shopify背后惊人工程的机会。而所有这一切都是为了帮助您销售商品。您可以在shopify.com/lex注册享受每月1美元的试用期。全部小写。请访问shopify.com/lex，立即将您的业务提升到新的水平。

Just another chance to celebrate the incredible engineering behind Shopify. And all of that to help you sell stuff. You can sign up for a $1 per month trial period at shopify.com/lex. That's all lowercase. Go to shopify.com/lex to take your business to the next level today.

本集也由BetterHelp赞助，拼写为h e l p help。他们会在48小时内弄清楚您的需求并为您匹配一位持证治疗师。朋友们，在这一集中，我们确实深入探讨了人性和人类心灵的黑暗面。这非常引人入胜。而我认为，茱莉亚工作的另一个特点是，她以深切的同理心对待每一种情境和每一个人，认识到我们每个人都有善与恶的潜力，并且我们的很多特质都是由环境塑造的。

This episode is also brought to you by BetterHelp, spelled h e l p help. They figure out what you need and match you with a licensed therapist in under forty eight hours. And boy, in this episode, do we delve into the dark aspects of human nature and the human mind. It is so fascinating. And what's also, I think, to me about Julia's work is that she approaches every situation, every human being with a deep empathy, realizing that each of us have the capacity for good and evil, and so much of who we are is shaped by our environment.

这是一种真正诚实的方式来处理人类彼此做出可怕行为的情况，认识到他们与我们并无不同，我们所有人也都可能做出这类事情。当你这样想时，就能更诚实、更严谨地分析人们为何会这样做。是的，这提醒我们人类心智是多么复杂。你可以在持证治疗师和BetterHelp的帮助下探索这个心智。它简单、私密、实惠，全球可用。

That's a real honest way to deal with cases where humans do horrible stuff to each other, realizing that they're not somehow different than us, that we too, all of us are capable of doing these kinds of things. And when you think of it that way, you can more honestly and rigorously analyze why people do what they do. And, yes, it is a reminder how complicated the human mind is. You can explore that human mind with the help of a licensed therapist and BetterHelp. It's easy, discreet, affordable, available worldwide.

访问betterhelp.com/lex查看并享受首月优惠。网址是betterhelp.com/lex。本期节目也由Element赞助，这是我每日饮用的零糖美味电解质冲剂。即使旅行中我也在喝它。一直是西瓜盐口味。

Check them out at betterhelp.com/lex and save on your first month. That's betterhelp.com/lex. This episode is also brought to you by Element, my daily zero sugar and delicious electrolyte mix. I'm currently drinking it even though I'm traveling. It is always watermelon salt.

我很喜欢。而且不只是经典冲剂，他们还有气泡水版本，是另一种形式。超级美味，但旅行携带较麻烦，如果你在家可以批量订购，这是享用电解质的一种美味新方式。再次强调，它是快乐的源泉。

I love it. Also, it's not just the OG drink mix. They got the sparkling water version that is another form factor. It's super delicious, much harder to travel with, but if you're at home and you can order a bunch, it's a delicious different way of consuming almond. Again, it's a source of happiness.

即使旅行时它也让我有家的感觉。过去很多很多年，可能超过十年，也许超过十五年，我大多日子都实行一日一餐。我采用极低碳水化合物饮食，不为别的，只因它让我快乐，但当你这样做时，要确保电解质摄入充足，我就用Element来补充。你应该考虑试试。任何订单都可获赠八包装免费样品。

It makes me feel at home even when I'm traveling. I'm still and for the past many, many years, probably over a decade, maybe over fifteen years, most days I'm doing one meal a day. I'm doing extremely low carb, Not for any reasons except it makes me happy, but when you do that kind of stuff, you wanna make sure that the electrolytes are on point, and I use Element for that. You should consider doing the same. Get a free eight count sample pack with any purchase.

前往drinkelement.com/lex尝试。本期节目也由AG1赞助，这是一款支持更好健康和巅峰表现的全能每日饮品。他们现在有新一代版本，不断迭代改进。AG1做一件简单的事，而且做得很好：确保你覆盖所有营养基础。

Try it at drinkelement.com/lex. This episode is also brought to you by a g one, an all in one daily drink to support better health and peak performance. They got a next gen version now, always iterating, always improving. AG one does a simple thing, and it does it well. It makes sure that all your nutritional bases are covered.

我调一杯AG1，放进冰箱冷冻十到二十分钟，让它冰凉可口。长跑后我喝着它，坐下来思考宇宙和我的位置，这已成为给我生活带来快乐的小仪式。虽然今天外面倾盆大雨，我本打算去跑步然后喝AG1，但除非我疯了——我确实疯了——否则我得跳过跑步。

I make an AG one drink. I throw it in the freezer for, like, ten minutes, twenty minutes, so it's nice and super cold. And I drink it after a long run, sit back, think about the universe and my place in it, and it's become a little ritual that brings joy to my life. Although today, it's pouring outside. So I was about to go for a run and then drink an AG one, but I think I'm gonna have to skip the run unless I'm insane, which I am.

但无论如何，我会喝一杯AG1。我一些最快乐的长跑经历是在突然下起倾盆大雨时。起初会有抗拒，也许该找地方避雨，然后你就说去他的，接受自己会湿透的事实。尤其如果雨水凉爽，这就成了一种你真正与自然合一、不再在乎传统舒适体验的经历，你就在当下活着。

But no matter what, I'll drink an AG one and a little bit here. Some of my happiest long distance runs have been when it starts pouring all of a sudden. And at first there's a resistance, maybe I should find some cover and then you just say, screw it. I just accept the fact that you're going to be soaking wet. And especially if the rain isn't all warm, it just becomes this experience where you are truly one with nature and kind of stop giving a damn about the conventional experience of comfort, and you're just there alive in the moment.

这是一次非常非常棒的体验。所以现在我说服了自己，管他呢，我要去跑步了。总之，当你在drinkag1.com/lex注册时，他们会给你提供一个月的鱼油供应。这里是莱克斯·弗里德曼播客。

It's a it's a great great experience. So now I just talked myself into screw it. I'm gonna go for a run. Anyway, they'll give you a one month supply of fish oil when you sign up at drinkag1.com/lex. This is the Lex Friedman podcast.

要支持它，请查看描述中的赞助商，在那里你也可以找到联系我、提问、获取反馈等的链接。现在，亲爱的朋友们，有请朱莉娅·肖。你写了《邪恶：人性阴暗面的科学》这本书。所以这里有很多有趣的话题要讨论。让我们从连续体开始吧。

To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description, where you can also find links to contact me, ask questions, get feedback, and so on. And now, dear friends, here's Julia Shaw. You wrote the book, Evil, The Science Behind Humanity's Dark Side. So lots of interesting topics to cover here. Let's start with the continuum.

你描述说邪恶是一个连续体。换句话说，黑暗四联症——精神病态、施虐狂、自恋、马基雅维利主义——是一系列连续的特质，而不是一个非此即彼的怪物或非怪物的二元标签。你能解释一下这个连续体吗？

You described that evil is a continuum. In other words, the dark tetrad, psychopathy, sadism, narcissism, Machiavellianism are a continuum of traits, not a binary zero one label of monster or non monster. So can you explain this continuum?

是的。所以黑暗四联症中的每一种特质，正如其名，是四种与黑暗人格特质相关的特征。这些是我们通常与“邪恶”一词联系在一起的东西，比如施虐狂，即以伤害他人为乐；马基雅维利主义，即为达目的不择手段；自恋，即过度自我陶醉并认为自己优于他人；然后是精神病态。精神病态人格尤其缺乏共情能力。它通常以多种不同特质为特征，包括寄生生活方式，即依赖他人生活，欺骗性，对他人撒谎，以及再次提到的共情维度，即你更倾向于伤害他人，因为当别人感到悲伤时你不会感到难过。

Yeah. So each trait on the dark tetrad, as it's called, which is the four traits that are associated with dark personality traits. So things that we often associate with the word evil, like sadism, which is a pleasure in hurting other people, Machiavellianism, which is doing whatever it takes to get ahead, narcissism, which is taking too much pleasure in yourself and seeing yourself as superior to others, and then there's psychopathy. Psychopathic personality specifically often lacks an empathy. And it's usually characterized by a number of different traits, including a parasitic lifestyle, so mooching off of others, deceptiveness, lying to people, and, again, that empathy dimension, where you are more comfortable hurting other people because you don't feel sad when other people feel sad.

现在所有这些特质——精神病态、施虐狂、马基雅维利主义和自恋——都有一个量表。所以你可以在每种特质上得分低或得分高。黑暗四联症实际上是一种将人们分类的方法，区分那些更可能从事危险或有害行为的人与那些不会的人。如果你在所有特质上都得分高，你最有可能伤害他人。但我们每个人都在某个程度上得分。

Now all of those traits, psychopathy, sadism, machiavellianism, and narcissism, all of them have a scale. And so you can be low on each of those traits or you can be high on each of those traits. And what the dark tetrad is, it's actually a way of classifying people into those who might be more likely to engage in risky behaviors or harmful behaviors and those who are not. And if you score high on all of them, you're most likely to harm other people. But each of us score somewhere.

所以我可能在施虐狂上得分低，但在自恋上得分较高。在所有特质上，我可能都处于亚临床水平。这是我们心理学中经常讨论的另一件事，即有临床特质和临床诊断，比如某人被诊断为自恋症。或者有亚临床水平，即你未完全达到阈值，但你具有相关的特质，这些特质在同一背景下对我们理解非常重要。

So I might score score low on sadism but higher on narcissism. And in all of them, I'm probably subclinical. And so this is the other thing we often talk about in psychology is that there's clinical traits and clinical diagnoses, like someone is diagnosed as having narcissism. Or there's subclinical, which is you don't quite meet the threshold, but you have traits that are related and that are so important for us to understand in the same context.

所以在书的早期，你提出了一个问题，我认为你强调这是一个非常重要的问题。如果你能回到过去，你会杀死婴儿希特勒吗？这在某种程度上是一个定义性的问题。你能解释一下吗？

So early in the book, you raised the question, that I think you highlight as a very important question. If you could go back in time, would you kill baby Hitler? This is somehow a defining question. Can you explain?

嗯，这关乎你是否认为人性本恶。所以'你会杀死婴儿希特勒吗'这个问题，本质上是为了引发人们讨论：是否相信人天生就具有可能对他人造成极端伤害的特质，还是认为这是后天社会化的结果，可能是通过成长过程逐渐显现的。关于希特勒，我们从心理学家的研究中了解到，他们详细分析了他的特质，追溯了他的一生。总有一个问题：他是疯了还是坏了？关于他是否疯了，他确实具有一些人们会联想到的特征，比如可能存在的施虐倾向，以及他可能缺乏同理心，这在他的行为中也得到了体现。

Well, it's about whether you think that people are born evil. And so the question of would you kill baby Hitler is sort of meant to be something that gets people chatting about whether or not they think that people are born with the traits that make them capable of extreme harm towards others, or whether they think it's socialized, whether it's something that maybe in how people are raised is sort of manifests over time. And with Hitler, we know from certainly psychologists who have poured over his traits over time and looked at who he was over the course of his life. There's always this question of sort of was he mad or bad? And with the answer to was he mad, well, he certainly had some characteristics that people would associate with, for example, maybe sadism with this idea that he was less high on empathy is probably also, showcased in his work.

但就他是否天生如此而言，我认为答案通常是否定的。实际上，在他的早期生活中，他并没有展现出后来定义他所能实施的恐怖行为的许多特质。所以我会回到过去杀死婴儿希特勒吗？答案是不会。因为我不认为从婴儿到成人是一条直线，我也不认为人天生就是邪恶的。

But in terms of whether he was born that way, I think the answer usually would be no. And actually, his early life, he didn't showcase quite a lot of the traits that later he sort of defined the horrors that he was capable of. So would I go back in time and kill baby Hitler? The answer is no. Because I don't think it's a straight line from baby to adult, and I don't think people are born evil.

所以你认为很大程度上是后天培养 versus 先天本性，是环境塑造了人，使其展现出带给世界的邪恶。

So you think a large part of it is nurture versus nature, the environment shaping the person to become to manifest the evil that they bring out to the world.

嗯，而且我会谨慎使用'邪恶'这个词，因为我认为我们不应该用它来描述人类，因为它最常见的作用是将他人异化。事实上，我认为这反而使我们能够对那些被我们贴上邪恶标签的人犯下骇人罪行。所以对我来说，这个词是对话的终结。当我们称某人为邪恶时，我们是在说，这个人与我如此不同，我甚至不需要费心去理解他们为什么能做出可怕的事情，因为我永远不会做那样的事。我是好人。

Well and I I would be careful with using the word evil, because I think we shouldn't use it to describe human beings, because it most commonly others people. It's, in fact, I think makes us capable of perpetrating horrendous crimes against those we label evil. So for me, that word is it's the end of a conversation. It's when we call somebody evil, we say, this person is so different from me that I don't even need to bother trying to understand why they are capable of doing terrible things because I would never do such things. I am good.

因此，这种人为的善恶区分，正是我在书中试图解构的东西。这就是为什么引入不同负面特质的连续谱非常重要，并引入这样一种观念：没有什么根本的东西让人有能力造成巨大伤害。我们都有能力杀人、谋杀和做其他可怕的事情。问题在于我们为什么不这样做，而不是我们为什么经常这样做。所以我认为，人性化并理解我们都拥有这些特质，在我的书中无疑是最重要的事情。

And so that artificial differentiation between good and evil is something that, certainly with the book, I'm trying to dismantle. And that's why introducing continuums for different kinds of negative traits is really important and introducing this idea that there's nothing fundamental to people that makes them capable of great harm. We all have the capacity to kill people and murder people and do other terrible things. The question is why we don't do those things rather than why we do do those things quite often. So I think humanizing and understanding that we all have these traits is the most important thing in in my book, certainly.

是的。我认为作恶的一个先决条件，我在战争中经常看到，就是去人性化对方。为了能够大规模屠杀他们，你必须将战争重新定义为善与恶的斗争。战争中有趣的一点是，双方都认为这是善与恶的战斗。几乎总是这样，尤其是在大规模战争中。

Yeah. I think a prerequisite of of doing evil, I see this in war a lot, is to dehumanize the other. In order to be able to murder them at scale, you have to reformulate the war as a fight between good and evil. And the interesting thing you see with war is both sides think that it's the battle of good versus evil. It almost always is like that, especially at large scale wars.

没错。除了去人性化之外，还有另一种叫做'去个体化'的现象，即你将自己视为群体的一部分，不再将自己视为个体。所以这就变成了我们与他们的斗争。因此你需要这两样东西。你需要那种对另一方人群的同理心的崩塌。

That's right. And on top of dehumanization, there is also this other thing called deindividuation, which is where you see yourself as part of the group and you no longer see yourself as an individual. And so it's this fight of us versus them. And so you need both of those things. You need that sort of collapse of empathy for other people, the people who are on the other side.

你需要这样一种观念：你可能会被群体吞没，这也会给你一种正义外衣的感觉，甚至是道德外衣，即使你可能站在错误的一边。这就是我说的，要弄清楚每场战争中谁站在正确一方总是更复杂的问题。但当然，将他人称为邪恶，将对方妖魔化，对于这类斗争至关重要。

And you need this idea that you can be swallowed by the group, and that gives you a sense of also the cloak of justice, the cloak of morality even when, you know, maybe you're on the wrong side. And and that's where I mean, getting into sort of who's on the right side of each war is always a more complicated issue. But certainly calling other people evil and calling the other side evil and dehumanizing them is is crucial to most of these kinds of fights.

是的。你提倡同理心作为理解彼此的重要方式。但很多人对同理心感到不适，尤其是当我们面对传统上被贴上邪恶标签的人时。希特勒就是一个例子。拥有同理心意味着你似乎被邪恶玷污了自己。

Yeah. You promote empathy as an important thing to do when we're trying to understand each other. And then a lot of people are uncomfortable with empathy when it comes to folks that we traditionally label as evil. Hitler is an example. To have empathy means that you're somehow dirtying yourself by the evil.

你对同理心的理由是什么？即使在我们谈论人类历史上一些更黑暗的人物时。

What's your case for empathy? Even when, we're talking about some of the darker humans in human history.

我对同理心或我有时称之为邪恶同理心的理由，即对我们常称为邪恶的人的同理心。另外，我的书在美国市场名为《邪恶》，在英国市场名为《制造邪恶》，这是引用尼采的一句话，意思是思考邪恶就是制造邪恶。其理念是邪恶是我们贴给别人的标签。没有任何事物本质上是邪恶的。因此，我认为我们需要解构这一点，并对我们称为邪恶的人产生同理心，因为如果我们说这是最恶劣的行为或某人最恶劣的表现。

My case for empathy or evil empathy, as I sometimes call it, so empathy for people who we often call evil. Also, the title of my book is evil, or in The UK market, it's making evil, which is a reference to a Nietzsche quote, which is thinking evil is making evil. The idea being that evil is a label we place onto others. There's nothing inherent to anything that makes it evil. And so I also think that we need to, well, dismantle that and empathize with people we call evil because if we're saying that this is the worst kind of act or worst kind of manifestation of what somebody can be.

所以如果有人能毁灭他人、折磨他人、伤害他人——我是一名犯罪心理学家，因此我处理很多性侵案件、强奸案件和谋杀审判。在这些情境中，‘邪恶’这个词经常被用来形容这个人很邪恶。如果我们这样做，那么我们需要思考：但我们真正想要的不仅仅是给人贴标签，我们想阻止这种行为发生。

So if someone can destroy others, torture others, hurt others I work as a criminal psychologist, so I work a lot on sexual abuse cases, on rape cases, on murder trials. And so in those contexts, that word evil is used all the time to go, this person is evil. And if we're doing that, then we need to go, okay. But what we actually want is we don't really just wanna label people. We wanna stop that behavior from happening.

而我们唯一能实现这一目标的方式是理解是什么导致那个人陷入那种情境并做出那种行为。因此，我认为邪恶同理心至关重要，因为最终我们想要的是让社会更安全，而唯一的方法就是理解导致他们最初采取这种行为心理和社会杠杆。

And the only way we're gonna do that is if we understand what led that person to come to that situation and to engage in that behavior. And so that's why evil empathy, I think, is crucial, because ultimately what we want is to make society safer, and the only way we can do that is to understand the psychological and social levers that led them to engage in this behavior in the first place.

那么稍微偏离一下，我采访过很多被大量人视为邪恶的人。你会如何建议进行这样的采访，当你面对一位被数百万人视为邪恶的世界领袖，或者面对那些实际已被定罪的罪犯时？采访的方式应该是什么？因为对我来说，我想理解那个人。他们也有自己的叙事，解释为什么他们是好人、为什么被误解，他们有一个自己并非邪恶的故事，他们会试图讲述那个故事。

So on a small tangent, I get to interview a bunch of folks that a large number of people consider evil. So how would you give advice about how to conduct such interviews when you're sitting in front of a world leader that some millions of people consider evil, or if you're sitting in front of people that are actual, like, convicted criminals. What's the way to conduct that interview? Because to me, I want to understand that human being. They also have their own narrative about why they're good and why they're misunderstood, and they have a story in which they're not evil, and they're going to try to tell that story.

而且他们中有些人特别擅长讲述那个故事。所以如果是面向公众的，你会怎么做那个采访？

And some of them are exceptionally good at telling that story. So if it's for public consumption, how would you do that interview?

我认为与被我们或很多人非人化的人交谈很重要，包括我自己。我的意思是，我也会与我认为犯下或我知道犯下可怕罪行的人交谈，作为犯罪心理学家，这通常是我工作的一部分。所以有趣的是，我认为当你与犯下真正可怕罪行或肯定被定罪的人交谈时，不仅可能很有见地，因为他们可能会给你一个真实的答案，而不仅仅是关于他们为什么犯罪的受控叙述。如果他们要么坚持自己是无辜的，要么更不愿意那样做，我认为即使是他们控制的、非常谨慎的叙述，仍然告诉我们很多关于他们的信息。所以我认为在我对环境犯罪的研究中，我们看到人们使用了很多合理化，他们说，嗯，每个人都在这样做。

I think it's important to speak with people whom we or whom a lot of people dehumanize, including myself. I mean, I also speak with people who I think are or have I know have committed terrible crimes, and I have spoken to these people because as a criminal psychologist, that's often part of my job. So what's interesting, I think, when you're speaking to people who have committed really terrible crimes or certainly who've been convicted of terrible crimes, is that not only is it potentially insightful because they might give you a real answer and not just a controlled narrative about why they committed these crimes. If they are either maintaining their innocence or they're more reluctant to do that, I think even the narrative that they are controlling, that they're being very careful with, still tells us a lot about them. So I think certainly in my research on environmental crime as well, what we see is that people use a lot of rationalization, and they say things like, well, everybody's doing it.

如果我没有先做这件事，别人也会犯下这种废物犯罪或其他类型的犯罪。所以有这种合理化，这种正常化，这种对自己角色和能动性的贬低。这仍然告诉我们很多关于犯罪者心理的信息，因为我们大多数人很不擅长说对不起，说我把事情搞砸了，我不应该那样做。相反，我们的大脑试图让我们感觉更好。它们会说，不。

And if I hadn't done this first, somebody else would have done this waste crime or this other kind of crime. And so there's this rationalization, there's this normalization, there's this diminishing of your own role and agency. And that still tells us a lot about the psychology of people who commit crimes, because most of us are very bad at saying sorry and saying, I messed this up and I shouldn't have done that. And instead, what our brains do is they try to make us feel better. And they go, no.

尽管有这件事，你仍然是个好人。所以我们试图合理化它。我们试图找借口。我们试图解释。这其中也有一些道理，因为我们知道我们从事那种行为的原因，而其他人没有完整的背景。所以我们确实拥有更多的完整故事。

You're still a good person despite this one thing. And so we try to rationalize it. We try to excuse it. We try to explain And there is some truth to it as well because we know the reasons why we engage in that behavior, and other people don't have the whole context. So we also do have more of the whole story.

但另一方面，我们也需要面对这样一个事实：有时我们做了可怕的事情，我们需要停止做那些可怕的事情，并防止其他人做同样的事情。

But on the other hand, we need to also face the fact that sometimes we do terrible things, and we need to stop doing those terrible things and prevent other people from doing the same.

我发现这些二战领导人的童年照片有点迷人，因为它让你接地气，你意识到那里有一个完整的故事，关于环境，关于他们童年和青少年时期的发展。你只需记住，他们都曾是孩子。除了斯大林。他年轻时看起来就已经很邪恶了。

I find this these pictures of World War two leaders as children kind of fascinating because it it grounds you, you realize that there is a whole story there of environment, of development through their childhood, through their teenage years. You just remember, they're all kids. Except Stalin. He was looking evil already when young.

嗯，人们过去在照片中也不微笑。所以我认为看历史照片中的孩子，或者有时甚至是其他文化中的孩子，就像，哦，为什么他们都这么严肃？是的。但我们的诡异评级也偏差很大。所以这也是我长期以来一直感兴趣的事情，那就是我们对某人是否值得信赖有一种直观的感知。

Well, people used to not smile in photos as well. So I think looking at historical photos of children, or sometimes even kids in other cultures, it's like, oh, why are they all so serious? Yeah. But our creepiness ratings are also way off. So this is something that I've been interested in for a long time as well, is that we have this intuitive perception of whether or not somebody is trustworthy.

根据目前大量的研究，这种直觉感知是不可信的。特别是一件事是，我们是否认为某人（包括儿童）令人毛骨悚然，当然研究通常是在成人面孔和成人身上进行的。直到最近我们才真正定义了那种模糊的毛骨悚然感是什么。它与不遵循社会规范有很大关系。我们看到这种情况会转移到其他情境中，比如为什么人们害怕患有严重精神疾病和精神错乱的人。

And that intuitive perception, according to ample studies at this point, is not to be trusted. And one thing in particular is whether or not we think someone is creepy, including children, but usually the research is done, of course, on adult faces and with adults. And there's only recently did we even really define what that vague feeling of creepiness is. And it has a lot to do with just not following social norms. And this is something we see that transfers to other contexts, like why people are afraid of people with severe mental illness and psychosis.

如果你在伦敦的公交车或地铁上，有人在自言自语且行为异常，我们知道人们更倾向于保持距离。有一项研究，他们设置了一个候诊室，里面也有人坐着。问题是你会离一个有严重精神疾病的人坐多远？答案是你会坐得更远。那里发生了身体和心理上的疏远。

If you're on the the bus or the tube in London and someone's talking to themselves and they're acting in an erratic way, we know that people are more like to keep a distance. There was one study where they literally had a waiting room where they also had people with chairs. And the question was how many chairs would you sit away from someone, you know, who has a severe mental illness? And the answer is you sit more chairs away. And there's a physical and psychological distancing that's happening there.

这并不是因为患有严重精神疾病的人天生更具暴力性或更危险。研究实际上并没有发现这一点。而是因为我们基本上认为他们很奇怪，所以这样看待他们。我们会想，你不应该这样行为，所以我担心这个，因此我要保持距离。毛骨悚然感也大致相同，这就是为什么你可能会完全误判你认为毛骨悚然的人，仅仅因为他们没有按照你期望的社会行为方式行事。

And it's not because people with severe mental illness are inherently more violent or more dangerous. That is not actually what the research finds. It's that we perceive them as such because we perceive them as weird, basically. We go, this isn't how you're supposed to be behaving, and so I'm worried about this, and so I'm going to keep my distance. And so creepiness is much the same, and that's where you can totally misfire whom you perceive as creepy just because they're not acting in the way that you expect people to act in society.

那么，哪些具体特征会影响我们的毛骨悚然指标？那个梗准确吗，即当一个人有吸引力时，你不太可能给他们贴上毛骨悚然的标签？

Well, what are the sort of concrete features that contribute to our creepiness metric? Is that meme accurate that when the person is attractive, you're less likely to label them as creepy?

这要看情况。如果他们太有吸引力，也可能如此。所以那里有相互影响的效果。

It depends. If they're too attractive, it can be. So there's there there there's effects that interact there.

这太搞笑了。

That's hilarious.

我们也可能不信任太有吸引力的人。但是，再次强调，偏离常态。所以如果你以任何方式偏离，这可能导致你的评估更错误，但也让你更负面地评价别人。所以，是的。但就毛骨悚然而言，作为犯罪心理学家，最让我困扰的是，与毛骨悚然相关的是这种普遍的信任度观念，以及你能判断某人是否在撒谎。

And we also don't trust people potentially who are too attractive. But, again, deviation from the norm. And so if you're deviating in any way, that can lead to, well, your your assessment being more wrong, but also you assessing people as more negative. And so with yeah. But with creepiness, the the main thing that bothers me as a criminal psychologist is that tangential to creepiness is this general idea of trustworthiness and that you can tell whether somebody is lying.

我和其他许多人一样对此进行了研究，比如阿尔德特·弗赖就是感知检测领域的顶尖研究者之一。他在众多研究中发现，要可靠地判断某人是否在说谎确实非常困难。而人们，尤其是警察、从事调查访谈工作的人，他们有着极高的自信，认为凭借自己丰富的经验，确实能够判断对面的人——无论是证人还是嫌疑人——是否在对他们撒谎。但事实是，即便把他们放到实验环境中，他们检测谎言的准确率也不比随机猜测高，然而他们却自以为能行。于是，这又让你陷入一种困境：你可能会漏掉那些实际上在对你说谎的人，同时又可能指着无辜的人说，我认为你犯了这项罪行。

And I've done research on this as have lots of other people, like Aldert Fry is one of the leading researchers on perception detection. And he has found in so many studies that it's really hard to detect whether someone is lying reliably. And that people, especially police officers, people who do investigative interviewing, they have this high confidence level that they, because of their vast experience, can in fact tell whether the person across from them is lying to them, this witness, this suspect. And the answer to that, even that, if you take them into experimental settings, they are no better than chance at detecting lies, and yet they think they are. And so again, you get into this path where you're going to miss people who are actually lying to you potentially, and you're going to potentially point at innocent people and say, I think you're guilty of this crime.

然后你会对那个人采取强硬手段，甚至可能导致错误的定罪。

And you go hard on that person in a way that might even lead to a wrongful conviction.

所以，事实是谎言很难被侦测，而执法过程中的过度自信造成了巨大的问题。

So it's the fact that it's very difficult to detect lies and overconfidence in policing creates a huge problem.

不仅仅是在执法中，在人际关系和许多其他情境下也是如此。我的意思是，很多嫉妒源于不确定性。嫉妒并不是‘我确切知道你做了威胁我们关系的事’。很多嫉妒是我想象出来的，因为我假设你可能在想或做某件事。这基本上也是一种谎言检测的实践。

Not just policing, in relationships and in lots of other contexts as well. I mean, a lot of jealousy is born out of uncertainty. Jealousy isn't, I know for sure that you have done something that is threatening our relationship. A lot of jealousy is what's in my head because I am assuming that you might be thinking or doing x. And that is also basically an exercise in lie detection.

而在那方面，我们同样非常不擅长。

And there as well, we are very bad at it.

黑暗四人格特质（Dark Tetrad）和一个人说谎的能力之间有关联吗？比如，是否具有某些特质的人，比如精神病态者，比其他人更擅长说谎？

Is there a combination of the dark tetrad and how good you are at lying? Like, are are people with the certain traits, maybe psychopathy, are better at lying than others?

确实有一些研究支持精神病态者更擅长说谎的观点。还有一些研究专门关注在诸如假释决定中‘装好人’的行为。所以，当需要做出法律决定，判断某人是否可以从监狱或一般拘留中释放时，这个人会以一种特定的方式行事，模仿一个好囚犯，模仿一个可以安全释放回社会的人。然后委员会就会觉得，‘哦，这个人表现很好，可以释放了’。结果他们做出了错误的决定，因为那个人一直在伪装。

There's definitely some research to support the idea that people with psychopathy are better at lying. There's also some research specifically on faking good in, for example, parole decisions. So when it comes up to someone who is there's a legal decision to be made as to whether this person can be released from prison or released from just detention in general, And then the person will act in a particular way, sort of mimic a good prisoner, mimic someone who's safe to be released into society. And then the committee goes, oh, well, you know, this this person's doing great, and so they're ready to to be released. And then they make the wrong decision because that person's been faking it.

所以我认为对于精神病态，情况有点复杂。历史上也存在一些担忧，认为某些针对精神病态的治疗，特别是以共情为重点的治疗，可能会让精神病态患者更倾向于伪装共情并将其武器化。但也有其他研究发现，如果采用其他类型的干预措施，比如加利福尼亚的Jennifer Scheme，她研究犯下严重罪行的精神病态患者。她特别设计了这些治疗方案，不仅仅是围绕共情，更多的是学习社会规则，并说服人们实际上亲社会行为是在生活中获得想要的东西的更好方式。因此，确实需要量身定制的治疗方法来处理，特别是某些人格特质、黑暗人格特质，试图说服人们，实际上，亲社会是更好的途径，而不是仅仅强行灌输共情等他们可能并不认为是自身缺点的东西。

So I think with psychopathy, it's a bit complicated. It's there has been some historically as well, some concern that certain treatment for psychopathy, especially empathy focused treatment, makes people with psychopathy more likely to fake empathy and to weaponize it. But then there's other research which finds that if you use other kinds of interventions it's like Jennifer Scheme in California who does research on people with psychopathy who have committed severe crimes. And she specifically creates these treatment programs that aren't just around empathy, but they're more around almost learning the rules of society and convincing people that actually being prosocial is a better way to get what you want in life. And so there's there's a real need for tailored treatments to deal with, especially certain kinds of personality traits, dark personality traits, to try and convince people basically, actually, being prosocial is the better path, rather than just going hard on, you know, empathy and things that they don't maybe also see as faults with themselves.

对所谓的怪物产生共情是否有心理原因？你在书中引用了尼采的话。你知道的？凝视深渊，深渊也在凝视你。

Is there a psychological cause to empathizing with so called monsters? You referenced Nietzsche in the book. You know? Gaze into the abyss. The abyss gazes into you.

如果你研究所谓的邪恶或研究怪物，你可能会有点变成那样。是否存在这种危险？

If you study, quote unquote, evil or study monsters, it you may a bit become that. Is there a danger of that?

我不这么认为。我认为那是人们所害怕的。所以我使用的很多尼采语录，有些我喜欢是因为它们与我写的章节和问题相关。但有些我也喜欢是因为它们反映了人们对邪恶和被贴上邪恶标签的人的看法。我认为凝视深渊和深渊回望，更多的是你在试图寻找它。

I don't think so. I think that's what people fear. So a lot of the Nietzsche quotes I use as well are some of them I like because they speak to the chapters I write about, but and the issues I write about. But some of them I also like because they are how people think about evil and people who are labeled evil. And I do think with gazing into the abyss and the abyss gazing back, it's more of a you're trying to find it.

这就是为什么在某些方面这实际上并不奏效，因为它并非完全空白。它不是深渊。事实上，有些事情你可以看到，即使只是表面上的，你可以识别出模式来帮助你和关键决策者，特别是在法律环境中，对这样的人做出更好的决定。所以当他们看到这些模式时，他们会采取更好的行动。是的，我作为犯罪心理学家经常被问到，你是否会一直带着你处理的案件？

And and that's why in some ways that doesn't work actually because it isn't a total blank. It isn't the abyss. There are in fact things that you can see, even even if it's just superficially, and patterns you can recognize to help you and key decision makers, especially in legal settings, make better decisions around people like this. So when they see these patterns, they act a better way. So, yeah, I I I get asked a lot as a criminal psychologist, do you carry the cases that you deal around with you?

所以有些案件涉及大量的证人，大量的潜在受害者。在这些案件中，有时会有对滔天罪行的非常直观的描述。我认为作为从事这项工作的人，你不能把它看作除了谜题之外的任何东西。所以你必须看着它，说，这里是不同的信息片段。我正在做的是模式识别。

So some of the cases involve, you know, huge amounts of witnesses, huge amounts of potential victims. And so in these cases, there are very visceral descriptions sometimes of heinous crimes. And I think that as someone who does this work, you can't be someone who sees it as anything other than a puzzle. So you have to look at it and go, here's the different pieces of information. What I am doing is pattern recognition.

我不是来这里对每个受害者或潜在受害者投入情感的。那不是我的角色。有治疗师做那项工作。有其他人做那项工作。我在这里是与警方合作。

I'm not here to emotionally invest in each of these victims or potential victims. That's not my role. There's therapists for that. There's other people who do that work. I am here working with the police.

我正在与律师们一起工作，更客观地审视这一切是如何相互关联的。我认为这就是我参与其中的方式，把它看作是一个我正在努力解开的谜题。

I'm here working with lawyers. I'm here looking at it more sort of objectively to see how this all fits together. And so I think that's how I engage with it. I see it as this this puzzle that I'm trying to figure out.

我担心自己的大脑，当我面对他人并将他们视为谜题时——我确实如此，我能看到谜题中的美。所有谜题在我眼中都很美。有时我就像陀思妥耶夫斯基《白痴》中的米什金王子角色，你看到的不是人性中的善，而是谜题中的美。我认为如果你过于欣赏一切事物的美，可能会在道德景观中迷失方向。因为，就像，每个人都很有趣。

I worry for my own brain that when I confront people and see them as a puzzle, which I do, I see the beauty in the puzzle. All the puzzles look beautiful to me. I'm sometimes like a prince Mishkan character from The Idiot by Dostoevsky, where you just see it's not the good in people, but the beauty in the puzzle. And I think you can lose your footing on the moral landscape if you see the beauty in everything a bit too much. Because, like, everyone is interesting.

每个人都很复杂。

Everyone is complicated.

这也是科学家对社会上其他人反应的经典回应。他们会说，哦，这太可怕了，或者发生了暴行，或者我刚刚发现的这个引发存在主义危机的震惊事件让我陷入存在主义危机。而科学家们会说，哇。你也能看到发现中的喜悦。我认为有时科学家会被认为冷漠，因为我们享受这种知识的发现和洞察的获得。

It's the classic scientist response as well to what other people in society go, oh. They go, you know, this is horrible or this atrocious thing has happened or this shocking existential crisis inducing thing I've just found is, you know, giving me existential crisis. And scientists, as I go, wow. And you can sort of see the delight in discovery as well. And I think sometimes scientists read us callous because we enjoy this discovery of knowledge and the discovery of insights.

感觉就像一个小灯泡亮了起来，你会说，哦，我对人类经验或周围世界的理解又多了一点点。我认为这一定是相似的。我不觉得或担心自己会变得所谓的更‘邪恶’。我认为更多的是你增加了这种细微差别，我猜有时这可能会让他人感到疏远。所以就是这样。

And it just feels like this little light bulb has gone off, you go, oh, I understand a tiny bit more about the human experience or about the world around us. And I think it must be similar. I don't I don't know that I feel or worry that I sort of become more, quote unquote, evil. I think it's more that you add this nuance, which I guess sometimes can be estranging to other people. So there's that.

所以当你与他人交谈时，有时，就像即使我说我们不应该使用‘邪恶’这个词，人们也会说，不，你必须用。这是否意味着你在 trivializing 事情？答案是否定的。我没有 trivializing。

So when you speak with others, sometimes, like, even when I say we shouldn't use the word evil, people go, no. But you have to. Does that mean you're trivializing things? And the answer is no. I'm not trivializing.

我只是试图理解。此外，同情或对那些被他人否定的人产生共情，总是会得到一些人的这种反应。而且，我的意思是，关于我们为谁提供平台，这带来了什么，以及我们作为内容创作者——我们两人——在谈论的人和我们如何报道他们方面扮演什么角色，存在真实的问题。在我所做的真实犯罪工作中，我经常遇到这种情况，因为我被邀请做电视节目。我主持电视节目，也主持BBC的播客。

I'm just trying to understand. Also, like, sympathizing or being empathetic towards people whom others have written off is always going to get that response from some people. And, I mean, there are real questions around whom we're platforming and what that has and what role we have as content creators, both of us, of the people we talk about, how we cover them. I often come across this in true crime work that I do because I get asked to do TV shows. I host TV shows, and I host, BBC podcasts.

还有一个问题是，有时人们为了出名而犯下谋杀罪。我们是否应该全面禁止报道这些案件？还是应该以不同的方式报道？或者我们应该匿名处理，但这并不意味着你永远不该报道那个案件。只是意味着你需要仔细考虑。

And there's always the question of sometimes people commit murder to become famous. And should it be a blanket ban that we don't cover those cases? Or should we cover those cases but in a different way? Or should we anonymize the so there's it doesn't mean that you shouldn't never cover that case. It just means that you need to think about it.

说到这个，你做了很多很棒的内容，比如播客节目。其中一个就是《坏人播客》。你是联合主持人，已经有超过100集，每集都涉及一个犯罪案件。你们报道过的最令人不安的案件可能是哪一个？

Speaking of which, you've done a lot of really great stuff, podcast shows. One of them is Bad People Podcast. You cohost it. It has over a 100 episodes, each covering a crime. What's maybe the most disturbing crime you've covered?

我们在《坏人播客》中报道过的最令人不安的案件之一——先说清楚，《坏人播客》这个标题，就像‘邪恶’这个词一样，有点讽刺意味，意思是这些人是我们口中的‘坏人’。然后问题总是，这些所谓的‘坏人’是谁，我们是否都有能力做出这些可怕的事情？但我们报道过的最有问题、最黑暗的案件之一无疑是罗伯特·皮克顿案。这几集的标题叫‘小猪宫殿’，因为那是罗伯特·皮克顿农场的外号，他把绑架来的受害者带到那里，然后杀害他们，并对他们的尸体做了可怕的事情。据传言，他确实把一些受害者喂给了猪。

One of the most disturbing crimes that we covered on Bad People and just to be clear, Bad People, much like the title evil, is sort of tongue in cheek, where the idea is it's people whom we refer to as bad people. And then it's always a question of, like, who are these quote unquote bad people, and are we all capable of doing these terrible things? But one of the most certainly problematic dark cases that we covered was the Robert Pickton case. And the episodes are called Piggy's Palace because that was the nickname for the farm where Robert Pickton brought victims whom he had kidnapped. And then he killed them and he did terrible things to their bodies, And rumors have it certainly that he fed some of these victims to pigs.

我报道这个案子的原因之一，实际上是因为它对我自己的职业生涯产生了影响。罗伯特·皮克顿是加拿大有史以来最著名的连环杀手之一。当我在加拿大的西蒙菲莎大学读本科时，我的老师是斯蒂芬·哈特。斯蒂芬·哈特是罗伯特·皮克顿审判的专家证人。所以他一直让我们了解他正在跟进的一些进展。

Now one of the reasons I covered that case is actually because it was influential in my own career. So Robert Pickton is one of the most famous Canadian serial killers of all time. And as I was doing my undergrad at Simon Fraser University in Canada, I was being taught by someone called Stephen Hart. And Stephen Hart was an expert witness on the Robert Pickton trial. And so he was keeping us abreast of some of the developments of what he was covering.

我觉得这非常有趣。而且我很喜欢斯蒂芬·哈特这个人，尽管面对 arguably 加拿大历史上最恶劣的人之一，他似乎有一种幽默感，一种黑色幽默。我觉得这太有意思了，一个人可以如此友善、如此善良、如此出色，却为这种人做专家证人。这也是我进入这个领域的原因之一。所以我们邀请他上了节目。

And it I found it so interesting. And I loved Stephen Hart as a person, and he seemed to have a sense of humor, this gallows humor around it all despite being faced with one of the arguably worst people in Canadian history. And I thought that that was so interesting, that someone could be so nice and so kind and so wonderful and be an expert witness for these kinds of people. And so that's one of the reasons I went to the field is because of this case as well. And so we had him on the show.

所以他来到了《坏人播客》，我们采访了他。

So he came on to Bad People, we interviewed him for it.

我想他处理过很多非常棘手的案子。

And he has done, I imagine, a lot of really difficult cases.

是的。他处理过许多疑难案件，其他研究人员如伊丽莎白·洛夫特斯也是如此，她是错误记忆研究领域的主要奠基人之一，这也是我的研究方向。我研究记忆、错误记忆和证人陈述。伊丽莎白·洛夫特斯最近还被邀请为吉斯莱恩·麦克斯韦案件提供咨询，她曾出现在媒体报道中。

Yes. He's done a lot of difficult cases, as have other researchers like Elizabeth Loftus, who's one of the main founders of the area of false memory research, which is what I also do. I do research on memory and false memory and witness statements. And Elizabeth Loftus has also been recently asked for the Ghislain Maxwell case. She was in the press.

因此她在许多极具争议的案件中与律师合作，向法庭普及记忆相关的知识。但她的解释方式是，她的角色仅仅是培训和教育人们记忆的工作原理。她不是去判断人们是否有罪或无辜，而是帮助人们区分事实与虚构，特别是在我们的记忆如何运作或失效方面。

And so she has worked with lawyers to educate the court on memory in lots of really, really controversial cases. But the way she would explain it is that it's still her role to just train people and teach people on how memory works. She's not there to decide whether people are guilty or innocent, but she is there to help people distinguish between fact and fiction when it comes to how our memories work or don't.

那么什么样的人会喂受害者给猪吃？这种心理有什么有趣之处？

So what kind of person feeds their victims to pigs? What's interesting about that psychology?

关于罗伯特·皮克顿的心理，他是个复杂的人，我认为他极度孤独。我们在许多连环杀手身上看到这种孤独感，这不仅促使他们最初犯罪，还让他们更容易逍遥法外，因为他们缺乏社交网络或任何能帮助他们进行所谓现实监控的社会联系，以分辨真假。当人们在自己的思想中变得极端化时，无论是精神分裂症中的精神病症状、妄想，可能是命令性幻听——即你以为听到声音有人在命令你必须做某事，通常是对他人有害的事——如果不遵从，这些声音会一直困扰你。这些症状极度痛苦，是精神分裂症中更容易导致暴力行为的因素之一。

The psychology about Robert Pickton, I mean, he was a tricky person because I think he was profoundly lonely. And this is something we see with a lot of serial killers is that they have this loneliness, which I think also not only contributes to them committing the crimes in the first place, but also allows them to get away with things because they don't have as much of a social network or any social network that is helping them to do what's called reality monitoring to understand what's true and what's not. And so when you see people get radicalized in their own thoughts, whether that's in sense in the sense of things like schizophrenia, where you've got psychosis, you've got delusions, maybe command hallucinations, that's when you think you're hearing voices and someone is telling you that you have to do something, usually something harmful to other people. And if you don't follow those, you will hear those voices forever. They're profoundly distressing, and they are one of the aspects of schizophrenia that if you have it, does make you more prone to violence.

因此在这类情况下，如果没有家人或治疗师等干预者询问'你怎么知道这个想法是真实的？也许那个想法...也许你并没有听到那个声音，对吧？也许你思考的这方面并不真实'，并将你拉回更接近现实的轨道。

And so for these kinds of cases, if you don't have someone intervening, whether that's a family member or a therapist saying, how can you tell whether this thought is real? Maybe that thought. Maybe you're not hearing that voice. Right? Maybe that aspect of what you're thinking isn't true and bring you back and closer to reality.

你就可能迷失在自己脑海中可能存在的任何替代宇宙里。其他情境中的极端化也是如此，你会发现人们越来越深入某个持有可能脱离证据、脱离现实的特定信念的群体，随着时间的推移变得越发极端。除非有一条纽带将你拉回现实，让你能够进行现实监控，否则很难找到出路。因此我们在连环杀手身上发现这种现实监控问题，我认为部分原因与人们缺乏社交网络有关。

You can just wander off to whatever alternate universe that you might live in in your head. And it's the same with radicalization in other contexts, is that you see that people who drift more and more into a certain group that has certain beliefs that are maybe divorced from the evidence, divorced from reality, you can see that people will get more extreme over time. And unless you have a tether that brings you back, that allows you to do reality monitoring, it's going to be very difficult to to find your way out of that. So with serial killers, we find this reality monitoring problem, and I think part of that's related to the lack of social networks that people have.

这真令人着迷。所以这是连环杀手的一个重要组成部分。关于他们的心理我们还能说些什么？是什么驱动了他们？如果你看一些著名的连环杀手，如泰德·邦迪、约翰·韦恩·盖西、杰弗里·达默，关于他们的心理动机还有什么可以说的吗？

That's fascinating. So that's one important component of serial killers. What else can we say about the psychology? What motivates them? So if you look at some of the famous serial killers, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Jeffrey Dahmer, is there other things you could say about their psychology that motivates them?

真有趣。与现实相连。我的意思是，孤独是人类处境的一部分。事实上，它的副作用之一就是你会脱离现实。然后对于某些大脑来说，我想这种脱离会走向一些黑暗的地方。

So interesting. The tethered to reality. I mean, loneliness is a part of the human condition. It is, in fact, one of its side effects is you can get untethered. And then with some of these brains, I guess, the untethered goes to some dark place.

脱离现实会走向黑暗之地，而这往往与黑暗四特质中的其他特质相结合。所以你可能会遇到一个精神病态程度高、同理心低的人，一个施虐倾向强烈的人，一个认为追求自己的目标是理所当然的人。而你的目标可能就像杰弗里·达默那样，想要创造完美的伴侣——从某种程度上看，他似乎正是通过杀人、拼接尸体、缝合出一个新版本来实现这一点的。这其中有些东西让我不禁感叹，这太可悲了。我不会说'天啊'。

The untethered goes to a dark place, and it then is often combined with some of these other dark tetrad traits. So you've got someone who maybe is high on psychopathy, low on empathy, someone who's high on sadism, someone who thinks that it's okay pursue your own goals. And your own goal can be like with Jeffrey Dahmer, you can be wanting to create the perfect partner, which in some ways seems to be what he was trying to do, by killing people and piecing them together and sewing up a sort of new version. There's something in that where I can't help but go, that's so sad. I don't go, oh my god.

多么可怕。多么糟糕。当然，这是残暴的。当然，这是令人发指的。但我对此确实怀有同情。

How terrible. How awful. And of course, it's atrocious. Of course, it's heinous. But I have this real sympathy for that.

我认为这对我们来说很重要，不要说我完全无法理解这个人，而是要说那是我曾经感受过的某种情绪的极端表现。我和这个人之间的区别在于这些其他因素。但核心的东西存在于我们每个人心中。

And I think that's important for us to have though, and not to say, I can't relate to this person at all, but to say that is an extreme manifestation of something I have felt. And the difference between me engaging in that and this person engaging in that are these other factors. But the core is is in all of us.

你认为我们所有人都能作恶吗？能做出一些我们称之为邪恶的事情吗？

Do you think all of us are capable of evil? Of some of the things we label as evil?

我认为我们所有人都能做出基本上能想象到的最坏的事情。我这么想的原因之一是，你可以看到邻居们互相攻击，特别是在战争开始或重大政治时刻，历史上那些曾经称彼此为朋友的人会互相举报、互相残杀、做出可怕的事情。所以我认为只需要相信你认为的朋友实际上是你的敌人——无论是在你自己的小世界还是在更大的政治国家格局中——我认为我们不需要太多就能做出可怕的事情。但这也正是为什么在和平时期、当你有能力深入思考重要问题时，训练自己的思维去认识这些事情非常重要：知道像孤独这样的情绪会以极端方式表现出来，知道嫉妒和攻击性可能演变成谋杀，可能变成这些可怕的版本，然后也要在你开始走上那条路时发现危险信号。

I think all of us are capable of doing basically the worst things we can imagine. And one of the reasons I think that is because you can see neighbors turning on each other, especially if you look historically at the start of wars or big political moments where you have people who would have called each other friends, turning each other into the police, killing each other, doing terrible things. So I think all it takes is to become convinced that the people you think are your friends are actually your enemies, whether that's just in your own world or in a larger political national landscape, that I think I don't think it takes all that much for us to be capable of doing terrible things. But that's also why it's really important when things are good and when you're not at war and when you have the capacity to think deeply about important issues to train your mind on these thoughts of knowing that things like loneliness can manifest in these extreme ways, that things like jealousy and aggression that they can turn into murder, that they can turn into these horrible versions, and to then also spot the red flags if you start going down that path.

我认为如果我们不预先'排练'邪恶，如果可以这么说的话，我们就更有可能实施它，特别是在那些没有太多时间或精力真正思考自己在做什么的时刻。

I think if we don't rehearse evil, if you will, we are much more likely to engage in it, especially in those moments where we don't have much time or energy to really think about what we're doing.

是的。我非常欣赏你思考问题的方式以及你谈论这个话题的方式。当我阅读历史书籍时，我会想象自己正在做书中描述的事情。而且我几乎总能诚实地想象出那个场景。

Yeah. Really appreciate the way you think and the way you talk about this. Listening to history, when I'm reading history books, I imagine myself, like, doing the thing I'm reading about. And I almost always can imagine that, like, I'm being honest with myself.

对我们自己承认这一点很重要。关于谋杀幻想的研究发现，大多数男性都曾幻想过杀人，两项研究中约有70%，大多数女性也是如此。超过50%的女性曾幻想过杀人。所以谋杀幻想非常普遍。当然，根据一些研究者的说法，这是一件好事。

And it's important to admit that to ourselves. And research on murder fantasies finds that most men have fantasized about killing someone, about 70% in two studies, and most women as well. More than 50% of women have fantasized about killing somebody. So murder fantasies are incredibly common. And certainly, according to some researchers, that's a good thing.

能够排练和思考做最可怕的事情，这也是对我们不想如何生活的一次很好的彩排。只有当你能够完全思考清楚，如果我真的这样做会是什么样子。我会想什么？我会和谁在一起？我会和哪个群体一起对抗这个人？

Being able to rehearse and think through doing the most terrible things is it's a great dress rehearsal for also how we don't want to live our lives. And only if you are able to fully think through what would I actually be like if I was engaging in this. What would I be thinking? Who would I be with? What would be my the group that I'm charging against this other person?

你知道，我和谁在一起？就像你说的，真正设身处地为那些做过可怕事情的人着想。这样你也会意识到你不想要那些后果。所以，是的，你可能想杀了这个人，但你并不是真的想杀了这个人。那是那种直觉性的、动物性的大脑在起作用。

You know, who who am I there with? As you said, like, really putting yourself in the shoes of these people who've done terrible things. That is how you also realize that you do not want those consequences. And so, yeah, you maybe wanna murder this person, but you don't really wanna murder this person. That's that intuitive sort of animalistic brain coming in.

但幸运的是，我们还有更高层次的理性思考，它会告诉你，如果你仔细想想，这对你自己来说是一个相当可怕的后果。所以更好的做法是不杀这个人。因此，我认为能够幻想和思考这些事情是适应性的。显然，如果你开始陷入反复思考、不断循环的状态，不断幻想做黑暗的事情，尤其是针对某个特定的人，我总是建议去找人谈谈，比如心理学家，因为那确实会成为将黑暗幻想付诸行动的风险因素。但在那之前，如果只是一个转瞬即逝的念头，或者某一天你有这些想法，我认为那是完全健康的。

But then, luckily, we have higher reasoning that goes, actually, if you think this through, that's a pretty terrible consequence for yourself. So the better thing to do is not to murder this person. So I think it's adaptive to be able to fantasize and think about these things. Obviously, if you start getting to a point where you're ruminating and you're going in these circles, where you're constantly fantasizing about doing dark things, especially to a specific person, I'd always advise seeing somebody to talk to, like, a psychologist, for example, because that then does become a risk factor for acting on those dark fantasies. But up to that point, if it's just a fleeting thought or something that sort of in in one day you have these thoughts, that is totally healthy, I would say.

另外，我认为模拟或思考在那种情况下说“不”需要什么也是有用的。意思是，一旦你能想象自己做坏事，你就必须想象抵抗这一艰难的行为。很多人认为他们在纳粹德国会抵抗。嗯，大多数人没有，这是有原因的。这并不容易。

And also, I think it's useful to simulate or think through what it would take to say no in that situation. Meaning, once you're able to imagine yourself doing evil things, you have to imagine the difficult act of resisting. A lot of people think they would resist in Nazi Germany. Well, most people didn't, and there's a reason for that. It's not easy.

同样的原因。我见过这种情况。如果公共街道上发生坏事，大多数人会因为旁观者效应而只是站在那里看着。我一生中见过一次。

Same reason. I've I've seen this. If something bad is happening on a public street, most people it's the bystander effect. Most people just stand there and watch. I've seen it once in my life.

是的。这就是人类。所以实际上，你想要模拟挺身而出的过程。

Yeah. This is humans. So it's actually, you wanna simulate stepping up.

是的。这也被称为英雄想象力。有一位深入研究所谓‘邪恶’的人叫菲利普·津巴多。他进行了斯坦福监狱实验，这个实验虽然现在已被多方质疑，但它对心理学产生了绝对的影响。

Yes. It's also been called the heroic imagination. So someone who has studied evil, quote unquote, at length is called Philip Zimbardo. He did the Stanford Prison Experiment, and that was an experiment which is I mean, it's now been torn apart in various ways. I it was absolutely influential for psychology.

实验中，参与者被随机分配为模拟监狱实验中的囚犯或警卫。在几天的时间里，他们被要求执行各种任务。但情况失控了，警卫的行为远远超出了职责范围，他们实际上开始对这些囚犯或模拟囚犯进行伪折磨。整个实验不得不提前终止，但它从根本上展示了仅仅通过随机分配成为警卫（负责人）或囚犯，人们就能在几天内对彼此产生完全不同的思维方式。菲利普·津巴多也详细论述了邪恶，认为我们所有人在特定环境下都可能作恶，但他也是他所谓的英雄想象力的重要倡导者。

It's where participants were randomly assigned whether they would be prisoners or guards in a mock prison experiment. And then for a number of days, they were told to do various things. And it got out of control, and the guards went way over what they were supposed to be doing, and they effectively started pseudo torturing some of these inmates or these pretend inmates. And the whole thing had to be stopped prematurely, but it was really fundamental in showing how just by randomly being assigned into guard, the person in charge, or inmate, you can within a matter of days have a completely different way of thinking about one another. And so Philip Dombardo has also spoken at length about evil and that all of us are capable of it in the right circumstances, but he also is a big proponent of what he calls the heroic imagination.

英雄想象力正是我所做一切事情的目的。我的目的不仅仅是说‘哦，这很有趣’就到此为止。关键在于要预防它。并且要在我们自身中预防，因为我认为这最终是必须发生的。你不能采取一种自上而下的政府层面方法，试图通过严打犯罪来杜绝犯罪。

And the heroic imagination is really what the purpose of everything I do is. The purpose of what I do isn't just to go, oh, this is curious, and to stop there. The point is to then prevent it. And to prevent it in ourselves, because that's, I think, ultimately what has to happen. You can't do a top down sort of government level approach to trying to be so tough on crime that no one will ever commit crime.

那是不可能的。但你可以改变，用一句俗气的话说，改变个体的 hearts and minds（心态和思想），让他们认识到通往邪恶的路径，然后说：等等，我偏离轨道了。我不想走这条路，我要在这里停下来，以便找回正途。所以，英雄想象力就是在锻炼这种能力。

That's impossible. But you can change, so to say it in a tacky way, the hearts and minds of individuals to recognize the pathways towards evil and to go, wait. I'm I'm off track. I don't wanna go this way, and I'm gonna stop myself here and here so I can find my way back. And so the heroic imagination is exercising that.

我看到街上有人。我如何确保他们没事？我如何不成为一个旁观者？实际上，旁观者现象很有趣，因为有一个非常著名的案例，基蒂·吉诺维斯谋杀案。当时有很多耳闻和目击者。耳闻者是指只听到事情的人，目击者是指看到犯罪发生的人。

I see someone on the street. How do I make sure that they're okay? How do I not become a bystander? And actually, the bystander stuff is interesting because there was a really famous case, the murder of Kitty Genovese, And there were all of these both ear and eyewitnesses. So an earwitness is someone who just hears things and an eyewitness is someone who sees the crime happening.

他们没有干预这起谋杀案。因此，这个案例经常被当作一个几乎可以说明人类有多么可怕的例子。我们只是走过，不关心街上陌生人发生了什么。但实际上，后来的许多其他旁观者实验并没有证实这一点。

And they didn't intervene in the murder of this woman. And so this case was often taken as this almost example of, look how terrible human beings are. We just walk by. We don't care about what's happening to strangers on the streets. And actually, what's happened since is that there's been lots of other bystander experiments, and they have not substantiated this.

因此，我们在审视这些极端案例时必须非常谨慎，不能因为某一个人的遭遇很可怕就认为事情总是如此。事实上，旁观者研究显示，大多数情况下旁观者确实会干预。问题往往出现在人群已经聚集时——你会观察周围环境并假设：既然还没有人出手相助，说明情况并不严重。这种不愿以负面方式引人注目的心理，常常阻碍了英雄行为的产生。

So we need to be very careful with looking at these extreme cases and going how horrible that this happened to this one person, and it is. But that doesn't mean that that's always how it happens. And so actually, what we find in bystander research is that most of the time bystanders do intervene. It's just when there has already been a crowd that has accumulated, you read the room and you assume, well, nobody else has intervened yet, and so it must not be a real problem. That desire to not stand out in a negative way is often what hinders heroicism.

这正是我们敬仰英雄的原因——那些冒着生命危险拯救他人尤其是陌生人的勇士。我们给予他们独一无二的尊崇，因为意识到自己可能做不到同样的事。如果我看到陌生人在河中溺水，真的会冒着生命危险跳下去救人吗？我认为这是个巨大的问号。当人们尤其是那些凭本能反应纵身一跃的瞬间，这种品质确实令人钦佩，作为人类我们理应歌颂这样的行为。

I mean, that's why we look at heroes, people who especially risk their own lives to save others, especially strangers. We see them with a sort of respect that nobody else gets, and that's because we recognize that we might not be capable of that. If I saw a stranger drowning in a river, would I really risk my life jumping in the river to maybe save them? It's I think that's a big question mark. And so when people do that, especially when people almost have this inherent reaction that they just jump in, they just go for it, that is something that is a really admirable quality and that we as humans do celebrate, we should.

我认为我们应该更多地颂扬这些挺身而出的时刻，而非那些未能干预的旁观瞬间。我们应该让干预行为成为常态。

And I think often we should celebrate those incidents more and not the, you know, the bystander moments where we didn't inter intervene. We should be normalizing intervening.

再次强调英雄想象这个概念——实际是模拟自己在众目睽睽之下挺身救人的场景。你提到70%的男性和相当比例的女性曾幻想过谋杀，而我也读到过你写的杀人犯再犯率只有1%到3%。这就引出一个问题：人们为何会犯下谋杀罪？

And again again, this idea of heroic imagination, actually simulating, imagining yourself standing up and saving the person when a crowd is watching, they're drowning to be the one that does in, tries to help. You mentioned 70% of men and some large percentage of women fantasize about murder. And I also read that you wrote that risk recidivism for homicide is only one to three percent. So that raises the question, why do people commit murder?

谋杀是个非常特殊的罪行，因为多数情况下其动机是社会所不容的。作为经常接受媒体采访并与制作真实犯罪节目的制片人交流的从业者——这些人未必深谙心理学——我常需要纠正他们的谬误。比如‘我们不该讨论母亲是否该为凶手的行为负责’，我特别反感那种‘所有作恶者必定有悲惨童年’的创伤叙事，这种论调很有问题。

Murder is a really interesting crime because most of the time, it's perpetrated for reasons that we don't like as a society. So as a person who talks a lot to the news and also to producers who are trying to make true crime shows, who don't necessarily have a deep understanding of psychology, let's just say, and who come at you with myths where you go, oh, no. We're not we're not gonna talk about that. We're not gonna talk about whether or not the mom is to blame for this person killing somebody. I hate that ex that's one of my my least favorite sort of the trauma narrative of all people who do terrible things must have had a terrible childhood, I think is really problematic.

现实中大多数谋杀案（虽然电视从不报道因为太无趣）都是失控的争斗。真实动机往往是‘这人欠我4美元我就杀了他’‘他偷了我的自行车’这类愚蠢理由。这只是瞬间的错误决定，对争执的过度反应，绝非预谋。不是那种心理变态者磨刀数月等待猎杀的剧情。

What really happens in murder most of the time, which is not what you see on TV because it's really boring, is it's a fight that gets out of control. And if you look at the real reasons stated, it's things like this person owed me $4, and so I killed him. This person stole my bike. This person I mean, it's these really stupid reasons, and it is just this bad decision in the moment, an overreaction to a fight, to an argument, and it wasn't planned. It's not some psychopath sharpening their knives, waiting for months to try and kill this person.

我们难以接受这种现象是因为存在‘受害差距’——极端事件对施害者的影响与受害者及其家庭的遭遇之间存在巨大鸿沟。受害者失去的是生命，而施害者最多不过入狱（如果这算正义的话），两者后果完全不对等。我们本能认为极端后果理应源自极端动机。

And we don't like that because there's something called the victimization gap, which is that the impact of this extreme situation on the perpetrator, there's a huge gap between that and the impact on the victim and their family. So the victim loses a life. Whereas the perpetrator, sure, they get imprisoned, but that at best, right, if you will, in terms of justice. But they don't have the same kinds of consequences, And we don't like that. We like things that have extreme consequences to have extreme reasons.

因此，我认为这就是为什么人们真正渴望展示连环杀手和那些长期策划谋杀并最终实施的人，而不是那些失控的打斗、酒驾或不幸的亲密伴侣凶杀——后者虽然常见，是谋杀的四大原因之一，但并非我们在网上或新闻中看到的近乎美化的版本。所以我认为，始终重要的是要谈论谋杀，它很少是个人固有的。很少有人想谋杀，他们可能幻想过，但不想付诸行动。

And so that's why I think there's this real desire to show serial killers and to show people who are, in fact, planning murders for a really long time and then engage in them, rather than this fight that goes out of control or someone drink driving or someone who is I mean, unfortunately, intimate partner homicide is also one of those situations that is common, one of the top four reasons for murder as well. But that's not the almost glamorized version that we see of murder online or that we see in the news. So I think it's always important to talk about murder as something that is rarely inherent to an individual. Very few people want to murder. They might fantasize about it, but they don't wanna go through with it.

而且，很少有人在实施谋杀时是真正想那么做的，更不用说再次实施了。总的来说，我认为我们对许多犯罪的看法是颠倒的。我们将杀人犯长期监禁，因为我们认为这是正义——当然，这是一种'以眼还眼、以命抵命'的版本。还有更极端的死刑，我不赞同，但能理解其合理化：你夺走了别人的生命，所以你不配拥有生命。

And very few people who do engage in murder wanted to do it in that instance, never mind again. I think in general, we have the way that we look at lots of crimes upside down. So we put murderers in prison for a really long time because we think that that's justice, which is sure. That's one version where it's an eye for an eye kind of, you know, life for life. There's obviously the more extreme version of that, which is the death penalty, which I don't adhere to, but I could see the rationalization of, well, you you stole somebody else's life, so you don't deserve to have one.

但另一方面，如果从预防角度看，谋杀犯不太可能再次杀人，所以再犯风险实际上很低。高风险的是欺诈、虐待老人和性暴力等行为。因此，在某些方面，我们的制裁措施在如何真正让社会更安全上是颠倒的，它们更符合我们对正义运作的感知。所以，关于如何组织司法体系及其目的，存在根本性的大问题。

But there's also the other side, which is if we're looking at prevention, murder is really like, they're not gonna people aren't gonna go out and murder again. So that is that's a really low risk in terms of recidivism, actually. And high risk are things like fraud and elder abuse and sexual violence. And so in some ways, sometimes our sanctions are upside down in terms of how we can actually make society safer, and they're in line more just with how we perceive justice to work. So there's there's big fundamental questions about how we organize our justice systems and what we want them to be for.

你能再深入谈谈这一点吗？针对你刚才描述的一切，我们应如何思考刑事司法系统的宽恕？如果这些人不太可能再次谋杀，你会如何改革刑事司法系统？

Can you just linger on that a bit? So how should we think about everything you've just described for how our criminal justice system forgives? If they are very unlikely to murder again, how would you reform the criminal justice system?

我认为宽恕取决于受害者家人。通常，当你与受害者家人交谈时，会出现分歧：一些人更倾向于所谓的恢复性司法，即他们希望 perpetrator 道歉、解释事情是如何发生的。在其他背景下，比如青少年帮派，一个 teenage boy 杀死另一个 teenage boy——这些都是孩子，受害者的父母能理解。

I think forgiveness is up to the victims' families. And quite often, when you speak with victims' families, there is this divide where you have some who are much more keen on something called restorative justice, which is where they what they want is for the person to apologize, the perpetrator to apologize, to explain how it happened. Also quite often, I mean, you look at the some of the other consequences in the other context, it's sort of like teenage boys who are part of gangs, for example, is the other context. And it's a teenage boy killing another teenage boy. Like, these are kids, and the parents of a teenage boy understand that.

他们不认为对方 perpetrator 是成年男子。在这种情况下，这更像是两个 teenage boys 父母之间的斗争。但通常，父母只想了解这一切是如何发生的，并在某种程度上允许另一个 teenage boy 继续生活，而不是也夺走他的生命。所以，在恢复性司法模式中，宽恕属于家庭。当然，有些家庭要求最极端的惩罚。

This isn't, you know, they don't think of this other perpetrator as this grown man who has I don't know. It's I think we think of it as this fight between the parents of both teenage boys in that case. But really, often what parents want is to just understand how this could happen, and in some ways, to allow the other teenage boy to still have a life and to not steal theirs as well or his as well. So there's that restorative justice model where forgiveness, I think, belongs to the families. Some families, of course, want the most extreme punishment.

我也能理解，遭受严重损失后这种反应是触发的。但如果我们想让社会更安全，把杀人者关进监狱实际上不是答案。对吧？因为如果我们希望社会更安全，应该纯粹基于什么最可能威慑犯罪以及谁最可能犯罪。而我认为，我们在这方面搞颠倒了。

That's also I can understand how that would be a a response that's triggered if you've suffered a severe loss. But if we're looking to make society safer, putting people who've killed in prison is actually not the answer. Right? Because if we want society to be safer, it should be based purely on what is most likely to deter crime and who is most likely to engage in it. And that's where I think we've got it upside down.

如果我能坚持听《坏人》播客。有一期关于非自愿独身者的节目叫黑丸。非自愿独身者危险吗？他们到底危不危险？非自愿独身者的心理是怎样的？

If I could just stick to the Bad People podcast. There's an episode on incels called black pill. Are incels dangerous? So are they dangerous? What's the psychology of incels?

那期节目主要探讨了持有某些特定观点意味着什么，尤其是针对女性的观点，以及身处一个助长性别仇恨火焰的环境意味着什么。还有权利感这个概念。我认为在各种犯罪中经常能看到的是，那种权利感驱使人们产生'我有权做某件事因为某种原因'的认知。我觉得我应该拥有这样的生活，但我没有。所以我要去夺取，或者通过行动表达对生活的不满。

So that episode was all about what it means to espouse certain kinds of views, especially about women, and what it means to be in an environment that is fueling the fire of, well, hatred of gender. And so and and the idea of entitlement. So I think one thing that we see often in crimes of all sorts, actually, is the sense of entitlement that drives the perception that I'm allowed to engage in x because of something else. And I deserve to have a life that looks like this, but I don't. And so I'm going to go take it or I'm going to go do something to show my dissatisfaction in life.

如果你认为所有男人都应该拥有幸福生活，就像迪士尼童话那样，家里有女人照顾孩子，这是我们被灌输的白篱笆理想生活。我们被告知这就是我们应该拥有的。我理解这种想法从何而来。但问题是，我们是否有权拥有这些？还是说这只是我们应该追求的目标？我认为答案是否定的。

And so if you think that all men deserve to have a happy life, sort of a Disney version, with with a woman at home who's taking care of the kids, and this is sort of white picket fence ideal that we've been sold. We haven't told that that is what we should have. Like, I I understand where it comes from. And the question though is, are we entitled to that or is that the idea that that's something we should strive towards? And I think the answer is no.

没有人天生有权过上好生活。我希望自由和权利能以这样的方式体现：每个人都能实现自己想要的生活，但你并不天生享有这种权利。这就是容易产生混淆的地方，我们被灌输这些社会上根本不可能人人都实现的谎言。可以理解人们会愤怒。如果你愤怒，如果你觉得自己有权得到什么，如果你身处一个人人都和你想法相同的群体，是的，这可能会让你变得危险。

Nobody's entitled to a good life. I would like to see freedoms and rights manifest in such a way that everyone is able to achieve the kind of life that they themselves want, but you're not entitled to it. And so that's where I think it can get a bit crossed, and we can be sold these lies that are basically impossible for everybody in society to achieve. And and understandably, people get angry. And if you're angry, and if you feel entitled, and if you're in this group where everyone else is thinking the same way as you, yeah, that can make you dangerous.

而互联网给了你展现最糟糕一面的渠道。

And the Internet gives you a mechanism to be your worst self.

它还能强化这种最糟糕的一面。你会看到其他人说：是的，我也有同感。需要我帮你吗？

And it can reinforce that worst self. You see other people saying, yeah. I feel the same way. Do want do you want me to help you?

哦，互联网啊。再说一期节目。你采访了那位被Tinder诈骗的女士塞西莉亚。能说说Tinder诈骗案是怎么回事吗？

Oh, the Internet. So one more episode. You interviewed the lady, Cecilia, who got tender swindled. Can you can you tell what happened with the Tinder swindle situation?

所以Tinder诈骗王，是一个在Tinder上伪装成富家子弟的人，他过着奢华的生活，会在Tinder上与女性匹配，并迅速对她们进行爱情轰炸。他会发送各种消息，立即变得非常情绪化、非常乐于分享，假装是从他的私人飞机上发信息，或者真的从私人飞机上发信息，但假装自己很快就爱上了这个人。然后他会邀请女性，在这个案例中是塞西莉亚，参加非常昂贵奢华的约会。他会带她们飞往巴黎，或者展示他的私人飞机，或者带她们去非常昂贵的餐厅，几乎是为了证明他确实是个非常富有的人。同时，他还会编织关于未来在一起的故事。

So Tinder swindler, that was a person who pretended on Tinder to be a rich guy who had this lavish lifestyle, and he would match with women on Tinder and very quickly love bomb them. So he would send them all kinds of messages and immediately start being very emotional, very sharing, pretend that he's messaging from his private jets or actually message from his private jet, but pretend that he's in love with this person very quickly. And then he would invite women, in this case Cecilia, to very expensive luxurious dates. So he would whisk them away to Paris or he would show them his private jet or he would take them to a really expensive restaurant almost to prove that he, in fact, is this really wealthy guy. And he would simultaneously be building up the story of a future together.

你在很多关系问题严重的人身上也能看到这一点。我的意思是，这不仅发生在诈骗或犯罪环境中，有问题的人际关系风格通常涉及某人正在创造这种未来在一起的想法，你现在就能看到，你知道，我们的孩子在花园里跑来跑去，你是我的唯一，那种语言，就像几乎在第三次约会时就计划你们的婚礼。

And you see this in people who are really problematic in relationships in a lot of way. I mean, this is not just in scams or in criminal settings, but problematic relationship styles often involve someone who is creating this idea of a future together that you can just see it now, you know, our kids in the garden, running around, you're the only one for me, that kind of language, like almost planning your wedding on the third date.

嗯。

Mhmm.

那种事情就是他会利用的武器。而她，塞西莉亚，正在寻找爱情。她想要所有那些东西，所以这非常有效。他最终做的是骗走了她很多钱。她最终不得不贷款，她的家人也给她钱来帮助他所说的这种危急情况，非常典型的诈骗。

That kind of thing is what he would weaponize. And she, Cecilia, was looking for love. She wanted all of those things, and so it worked really well. And what he ended up doing is defrauding her of lots of money. And she ended up taking out loans, and her family were giving her money to help what he was saying was this critical situation, very classic fraud.

危急情况是他被跟踪，他受到攻击，他需要她支付一些东西。他需要她支付一些航班费用，直到她钱用光。然后然后然后她意识到这一切都是一场大骗局。这是一场爱情诈骗。所以我们与她交谈的部分原因是为了展示这是如何发生的。

It's critical situation where he was being followed, he was under attack, and he needed her to pay for some things. He needed her to pay for some flights until she ran out of money. And then then then she realized that this all was a big fraud. This was a a love scam. So the reason that we spoke with her is partly to show how it can happen.

我认为非常重要的一点是提醒人们，这是每个人都可能相信的事情。诈骗之所以有效，是因为人们知道我们想听什么，他们告诉我们我们想听的东西。所以我认为我们所有人，都有一个量身定制的诈骗版本，基本上可以吸引每个人，如果他们掌握了足够关于你的信息。

And I think it's really important to remind people that this is something everybody is capable of believing. Fraud works because people know what we wanna hear, and they tell us the things we wanna hear. And so I think all of us, there's a tailored version of fraud that could appeal to basically everybody if they have enough information about you.

是的。顺便说一下，现在在现代，人工智能可能会越来越擅长做那种事情。做出你愿意相信的故事的定制版本。而爱情是一个在这方面尤其有效的话题。

Yeah. And by the way, now in modern day, AI could probably better and better do that kind of thing. Do the tailored version of the story that you want to believe. And love is a topic on which that would be especially effective.

是的。因为你在玩弄人们的感情，你知道他们在情感上很脆弱。大多数人渴望被爱也渴望去爱。所以这是一种非常操控性的手段，我认为这很可怕，但也是我们几乎都低估的事情。所以我们觉得，我能识别出欺诈。

Yeah. Because you're playing with people's emotions, and you know that they're vulnerable in that way. And most people want to be loved and want to love. And so it's a it's a really manipulative way in, and it's I think it's really horrible, but it's also something that we all almost underestimate. So we think, I would identify fraud.

我本来会知道是否有人想骗我的钱，直到它发生在我们身上，我们才恍然大悟，哦，等等。那那那确实发生了。然后我们感到非常尴尬。所以我认为讨论这件事很重要，并且不要把它看作是只会发生在愚蠢的人身上的事。因为有时它就是这样被描述的。

I would know if someone's trying to scam me of money until it happens to us, then we go, oh, wait. That that that did just happen. And then we get really embarrassed. And so I think talking about it is really important and seeing it as not this thing that happens to dumb people. Because that is sometimes how it's framed.

就好像，呃，真是个白痴。她太容易上当了。嗯。她真的是吗？还是她只是一个善良的人，愿意相信这个人有能力爱她？

It's like, ugh, such an idiot. She was so gullible. Mhmm. Was she? Or was she just a nice person who wanted to believe that this person was capable of loving her?

我希望我们所有人都是这样的人。

Which I would hope we all are.

是的。我希望她和其他成为这类事情受害者的人不要变得愤世嫉俗，而是继续尝试。

Yeah. And I hope she and others that fall victim to that kind of thing don't become cynical and keep trying.

是的。没错。没错。

Yeah. That's right. That's right.

这类事情真的会摧毁你对世界敞开心扉的能力。但我的意思是，听起来同样的事情在各种关系中都很常见。这就是难题所在，如果你发现自己身处一段有毒的关系中，伴随着所谓的“爱意轰炸”。在关系中可能有很多操控欺诈类的事情，对吧，这是一个谱系。

Those kinds of things can really destroy your ability to be vulnerable to the world. But I mean, it sounds like this the same kind of thing is just commonplace in all kinds of relationships. That's the puzzle that it could be if you find yourself inside of a toxic relationship with the quote love bombing. It could be a lot of manipulative fraud type of things, right, inside a relationship and it's a spectrum.

嗯，控制行为正成为一个更严重的问题，比如在一段关系中，某人掌控了财务大权。这通常发生在男性身上，传统上往往沿着性别界限划分。但问题是，如果这个人开始将控制财务作为武器，使用诸如'我要给你零花钱'这样的说法，而不是承认'你和我一样为这个家付出了很多，这是我们的共同财产'，并开始利用这一点来控制事物、控制另一方在关系中的生活方式，这时就进入了所谓的控制行为领域。嫉妒等情绪也可以被以这种方式利用。

Well, and course of control is becoming more of an issue where that's when somebody, for example, in a relationship takes control of the finances. And that's often a man in a relationship. That's sort of traditionally because it falls often along these gender gender lines. But the problem is if that person then starts to weaponize the fact that they're controlling the finances and starts using words like, I'm gonna give you your allowance instead of going, you've paid as much into this as I have, and so this is our shared money, and starts using that and controlling things and controlling how the other person lives in that relationship, that's when you get into things that are called course of control. And things like jealousy can also be used in that way.

有办法摆脱这种情况吗？也许通过研究嫉妒，或者一旦出现这类迹象就意味着陷入恶性循环无法挽回？必须赶紧逃离？还是说这只是人类相处时必然要解决的难题？

Is there any way out of that? Maybe the the the jealousy study, or is this is this a vicious downward spiral whenever there's any kinds of signs like this? That means you're screwed. Get out. Or is this just the puzzle of the human condition and humans getting together and having to solve that puzzle?

我对嫉妒持有非传统观点。虽然我不是嫉妒研究员，但我研究过性学。我个人认为嫉妒基本上总是危险信号，因为它意味着嫉妒者对这段关系缺乏安全感。而缺乏安全感的原因要么是这段关系不适合他们，要么是他们自身缺乏安全感。我不认为这是爱的表现。

I have nontraditional views on jealousy. I'm not a jealousy researcher, but I have done some research on sexuality. And I personally think that jealousy is basically always a red flag because what it means is that the person who is jealous isn't secure in the relationship. And the reason that they're not secure in the relationship is either because the relationship is wrong for them or because they are insecure in themselves. And I don't think it is a sign of love.

我不认为这是想要保护伴侣的表现。我认为这主要是控制欲和占有欲。我们知道，嫉妒几乎总是亲密伴侣暴力的前兆——当然不是所有嫉妒都会导致暴力，但所有暴力都有嫉妒作为前兆。而且很多嫉妒是基于想象中伴侣的行为，甚至不是现实情况。这回到我们关于欺骗检测的研究：我们并不擅长判断别人是否在说谎。

I don't think it is a sign of, you know, you wanna protect your mate. I think it is mostly control, and it's the desire to control and to possess. And jealousy, we know, is a precursor to intimate partner violence almost always, as in not all jealousy leads to violence, of course, but all violence is the jealousy is a precursor. And quite a lot of that is imagined things that the the partner is doing, not even based on reality. We go back to our deception detection research, where we're bad at telling whether someone's lying or not.

所以如果你基于错误的说谎检测器来与对方互动，就会做出错误决定。研究也证实大多数人确实不擅长一夫一妻制。大多数人要么曾经出轨过重要伴侣（可能不是现任），要么多次出轨。这是研究中 consistently 发现的结论。

And so if you're basing how you're interacting with that person on a faulty lie detector, you're gonna make bad decisions. So the research also bears out that most people are really bad at monogamy. So most people either have cheated on a significant other, maybe not their current significant other, but a significant other, or have cheated multiple times. And that's that's just consistently found in the research.

所以也许嫉妒是有道理的？

So maybe there's justification to be jealous?

我认为恰恰相反。我觉得一夫一妻制注定让我们失败。我认为一夫一妻制是社会建构，对某些人来说是个美好的想法。但至少基于人们实际行为的研究来看，他们并没有真正践行一夫一妻制。

I think it's the other way around. I think monogamy is setting us up to fail. So I think monogamy is a social construct. That's a nice idea for some people. And I think that at least based on the research on how people actually behave, they're not actually behaving in a monogamous way.

如果你对伴侣不忠，那就不是一夫一妻制。那可能是多角恋，意味着可能爱上多个人。而且这是欺骗行为，其实不必如此。所以我是多角恋者，我相信一个人可以爱多个人。但我不认为每个人都会在同一时间遇到多个他们会爱上的人。

If you're cheating on your partner, that is not monogamy. That is polyamory potentially for the love of multiple people. And it's lying, and it and it's it doesn't have to be that way. So I'm polyamorous, and I I believe that you can love multiple people. I don't know that everyone is always going to meet lots of people at the same time that they're gonna love.

但我认为现在有越来越多的人开始接受开放关系和非传统的关系结构。我认为至少将其作为一个选项是健康的。所以我觉得那种‘一刀切’的关系模式对很多人非常有害，而且确实不适合所有人。

But I think that there's been a move towards more people embracing open relationships and nontraditional relationship structures. And I think that is healthy to at least have as an option. So I think the idea that there's this one size fits all for relationships is really harmful to a lot of people, and it just doesn't really work for everybody.

好吧，如果我们只关注一个方面，在我看来问题之一在于诚实是硬性要求，而良好沟通是另一个硬性要求。因为这似乎是避免所有这些问题的前提条件。

Well, if we could just focus in on one component, it seems to me one of the problems is honesty as a hard requirement, and good communication as another hard requirement. Because that feels like the prerequisites for avoiding all these problems.

关于嫉妒，我想到的其实不是一个嫉妒的实例。而是那种‘我感觉被冷落了’或‘我感觉...’是的。更多的是那种持续存在的‘我是个善妒的人’的感觉。我会说这通常是一个危险信号。你说得对。

And I guess with jealousy, what I'm thinking of is actually not an instance of jealousy. So where you have a feeling of, I feel left out or I feel Yeah. It's more that sort of persistent feeling of I am a jealous person. And that's where I would say that is usually a red flag. And you're right.

这之所以是危险信号，部分是因为它意味着这个人可能不善于沟通，或者你们作为一对伴侣不善于沟通。这不一定是嫉妒者单方面的错。只是在这种动态关系中存在一些心理上不健康的因素，应该加以解决，或者这可能不是合适的关系。

It might it's a red flag partly because it means the person's probably bad at communicating or or you are as a couple. Like, it's not necessarily just jealous of person's fault. It's just that there's something happening in this dynamic that is that is bad psychologically, and that should be addressed, or maybe it's not the right relationship.

那么很多人出轨的事实，是否意味着每个出过轨的人可能都不适合一夫一妻制？我想，如果你能分析所有现存的人类文明，并给出对每个人都绝对正确的建议的话。

So the fact that a lot of people cheat, does that mean every single person that cheated, does that mean they're probably not going to be good at monogamy? I I guess if you can just analyze all of human civilization as it stands and give advice that's definitively true for everyone.

这正是心理学家一直在做的事情。是的。我们做出笼统的...

That's exactly what psychologists do all the time. Yeah. We make sweeping This

是很棒。不，我只是觉得这真的很有趣，因为我认为所有这些事情都很浪漫，选择不出轨，选择全身心投入到另一个人身上。我的意思是，所有这些都很浪漫，然后有些人确实出轨了，你的心碎了，你写了一首歌，然后你继续前进，你尝试修复自己，并对另一个人敞开心扉，等等。

is great. No. I just I I think it's really interesting because I see all those things as romantic, choosing not to cheat, you choosing to dedicate yourself fully to another person. I mean, so all this romantic, and then some people do cheat, your heart is broken, you write a song about it, and then you move on, you try to repair yourself and be vulnerable to another human being and all that.

但为什么要否认自己体验人类美好经历的全光谱呢？我的意思是，这就像余生只吃一顿饭一样。为什么？你不必那样做。你可以让很多美好的人围绕在你身边，并且

But why deny yourself the beautiful spectrum of human experience? Mean, it's like eating one meal for the rest of your life. Like, why? You don't you don't have to do that. You could just you can have lots of beautiful people around and

但对我来说，实际上专注于一件事，你就能探索你提到的拼图。随着时间的推移，你会看到其中的细微差别，就像拼图的美一样。你会意识到真正理解另一个人是一个无限长的项目。所以，如果你专注，你就不会分心。这同样适用。

But what's for me, actually focusing on a single thing, you get to explore you mentioned puzzle. Over time, you get to see the nuance, like, beauty of the puzzle. You you realize it's an infinitely long project to really understand another human being. And so, like, if you focus, you don't get distracted. So that applies.

我是一个这样的人，当我找到我真正喜欢的一餐时，我会坚持很长时间。我认为我绝对是一个一夫一妻制的人。但这也可能与我成长的环境有关，你知道。有一定的文化背景，也许我的大脑不允许自己有某些可能性，你知道。

I'm I'm a person when I find when I find a meal I really like, I'll stick to it for for a long time. I'm definitely a monogamy person, I think. But that also could be a component of, like, where I grew up, you know. There's a certain cultural upbringing, and maybe my brain is not allowing myself certain possibilities, you know.

我认为更多的是我希望人们觉得他们有选择。这才是重要的。我认为我们到处、每时每刻看到的都是一夫一妻制。这是我们生活的一种方式。我认为这不是唯一的，而且我认为与你的伴侣进行对话也很重要，尤其是在早期，以后提出来会更难。

I think it's more that I want people to feel like they have a choice. And that's the important thing. And I think all we see is monogamy everywhere, all the time. And it's this one version of how we can live our lives. And I think it's not the only, and I think that having conversations with your partner as well, especially early, it's harder to bring this up later on.

但要在早期就提出来，你知道，你实际上想如何构建你的生活？我认为你如何想重新构建你的关系作为其中的一部分？特别是如果你要承诺给一个人，一个主要的人或一个独占的人，那是其中的一部分。我认为那样的话，你们也不必互相撒谎，如果你们出轨了，或者你们可以用不同的方式谈论它，如果你觉得有某种能力可以诚实地面对你被谁吸引，以及这可能如何更广泛地影响你的生活。

But to have it early and say, you know, how do you actually wanna structure your life? And I think how do you wanna restructure your relationship as part of that? And especially if you're gonna commit yourself to one person, one primary person or one exclusive person, that's that's part of it. And I think then you also, you know, don't have to lie to each other if you do cheat, or you can talk about it in a different way if you feel like there's, you know, certain capacity to to be honest about whom you're attracted to and how that might impact your life more generally.

那么多角恋有多难？我想很多人会对那种事情感到好奇。嫉妒会出现吗？处理起来困难吗？

So how difficult is polyamory? I think a lot of people would be curious about that kind of stuff. Does jealousy come up? Is it difficult to navigate?

可能是的。我是说，所有关系都可能难以驾驭。这是真的。我认为是一样的。而且风险因素也相同。

Can be. I mean, all relationships can be difficult to navigate. That's true. I think it's the same. It's and the same risk factors.

如果你是为了修复自身的某些问题而进入一段关系，你会很困难。就像和单身人士约会一样。如果你想通过这段关系来解决你觉得自己身上的问题，那会很艰难。但如果你出发点很好，想着我想要开放，想要与人连接，想要爱他人或某个人，那么你会过得更好。

If you're going in because you're trying to fix something about yourself, you're gonna have a hard time. Much like if you're dating a single person. If you're trying to fix something and this is gonna be the the solution to the thing that's you feel is broken about yourself, it's gonna be hard. But if you're going in coming from a good place and you're going, you know, I wanna be open and I wanna connect with people and I wanna love people or person, then you're gonna have a better time.

完美的多角关系是什么样的？你真的能同时深爱多个人吗？

What's, like, the perfect polyamorous relationship look like? Is it can you really love multiple people deeply?

我认为可以。你可以用不同的方式爱人，也可以深爱很多人。而且，双性恋的研究（我自己就是双性恋）也发现，双性恋者更可能处于非传统关系中。其中一个原因可能也是因为我们不断被要求为自己的性取向辩护。比如，如果你和一个人在一起，别人会不断问你一个人够吗？一个性别够吗？如果我和一个男人恋爱，别人会问你想念女人吗？

I think so. You can love people in different ways, and also you can love lots of people deeply, I think. And I think, again, it's so research on bisexuality, so I'm bi, has also found that people who are bi are more likely to be in nontraditional relationships. And one of the reasons for that is probably also because we constantly get asked to justify our sexuality as well. And so if constantly you're being asked if one person's enough for you, if one gender's enough for you, If you're in a relationship with one person, for example, you know, if I'm in a relationship with a man, do you do you miss women?

这就好比，我不会问你如果你和一个女人在一起，你会想念女人吗？你可能会，但那只是其他女人，与你的伴侣无关。这和是不是双性恋没有关系。所以我觉得这种问题不断轰炸：这意味着什么？

And it's like, I don't ask you that if you're in a relationship with a woman. Do you miss women? Like, you probably do, but that's just other women than your partner. It has nothing to do with being bi. And so I think there's this constant barrage of questions of what does it mean?

这是真的吗？你怎么选择？关系应该是什么样子？你是不是总想要三人行？研究中我们还发现，尤其是对女性，存在这种持续的超性化，这也可能导致心理健康和性暴力风险等方面的负面结果。

Is it real? How do you choose? What does a relationship look like? Do you constantly want threesomes? Like, there's this constant hypersexualization also, especially of women that we find in the research that can also lead to really negative outcomes for mental health and for things like risk of sexual violence.

但另一方面，双性恋者自己会说，是的。但我觉得我也有这种超能力，我可以更广泛地去爱，性别在我能够爱谁这方面并不重要。因此，关系结构几乎伴随着这种对话。不是我们需要非一夫一妻制或需要这类关系，更多的是，如果你因为社会的迫使而如此深入地思考自己的性取向，那么你也会更广泛地思考关系结构，然后选择适合自己的那一种。

But on the other hand, you've got bisexual people themselves saying, yeah. But I feel like I also have this superpower that I can love more widely, and gender doesn't really matter in terms of whom I'm capable of loving. And so relationship structures almost come with that conversation. It's not that we need to be non monogamous or that we need to be in these kinds of relationships. It's more that I think if you've engaged so deeply with your sexuality partly because society's forced you to, then you're also gonna be thinking about relationship structures more generally and going, actually, I'm gonna choose this one.

是的，这很有趣。我的意思是，你的性偏好和关系结构偏好，部分选择与社会对此的反应有关。所以如果你每次参加聚会都要解释一遍，你可能就不想这么做，或者不想谈论它，至少不想公开谈论。是的。

Yeah. That's interesting. I mean, your, like, sexual preferences and relationship structure preferences, some of the choice has to do with how society is gonna respond to it. So if you have to explain it every time you go to a party, you might maybe not want to do that or talk about it or at least be open about it. Yeah.

我相信如果你是多角恋者，会有很多烦人的对话必须进行。就像你提到的一些情况。而且，是的，这会产生过度性化相关人群的影响。是的。

I'm sure there's a lot of annoying conversations you have to do if you're polyamorous. Like, some of the which you've you've mentioned. And, yes, there's effects of, like, oversexualizing the people involved. Yeah.

或者认为他们在说谎。所以对于男性，我写了一本书叫《双性恋：隐藏的文化、历史与科学》。嗯。那是在我创建了一个双性恋研究小组之后写的。所以我并不是性学研究专家，但作为一个双性恋者和科学家，我对双性恋的科学很感兴趣，但我找不到相关研究。

Or thinking they're lying. So with men so I I wrote a book called Bi The Hidden Culture, History and Science of Bisexuality. Mhmm. And I did that after I created a bisexual research group. So I wasn't a sexuality researcher, researcher, but as a bi person and a scientist, I was interested in the science of bisexuality, and I couldn't really find it.

很难弄清楚人们实际上对双性恋者了解多少，与其他类型的酷儿人群相比。我发现的一点是，使用的术语不一定是'双性恋'。所以可能是像'多性恋'这样的词。如果你在谷歌学术上搜索双性恋这个词，你会得到很多令人困惑的结果，因为双性恋也被用于指两种性别，比如你有多种性别或者可以改变性别。所以他们是双性恋。

It was really hard to figure out what people were actually learning about bisexual people in comparison to other kinds of queer people. And one of the things I found is that the terms that are used are not necessarily bi. And so it could be things like plurisexual. So if you type into Google Scholar the word bisexual, you're gonna get a lot of confusing things also because bisexual is used for, like, two sexes, where you have multiple sex or you can change. And so they're they're bisexual.

对。

Right.

是的。这完全是不同的。所以我认为部分因为这个原因，研究人员开始使用像'多性恋'这样的词，'泛性恋'是另一个。所以如果你在寻找这方面的研究，'多性恋'可能是关键词。

Yeah. Which is different entirely. And so I think partly out of that, researchers started using words like plurisexual, and omnisexual is another one. And so if you're looking for research on this, plurisexual is probably the word.

泛性恋是什么意思？

What does omnisexual mean?

其实是一样的。只是另一个懂了。另一个词表示它是全部。有时也会用泛性恋这个词。再次强调，其核心思想是它涵盖所有性别。

It's just the same. It's just another Got it. Another word where it's all. Sometimes pansexual is also used. And again, the idea being that it's it's all genders.

那么我们应该如何理解双性恋呢？它是流动的吗？比如日复一日、月复一月、年复一年地流动，你被谁吸引？还是说同时有能力被任何人吸引或被所有人吸引？正确的理解方式是什么？

So how should we think about bi bisexuality? Is it fluid, like, day to day, month to month, year to year fluid, who you're attracted to, Or is it at the same time have the capacity to be attracted to anyone or attracted to everyone? What's the right way to think about it?

我认为正确的理解方式是：我不会被大多数人吸引，但我可能被任何人吸引，无论其性别如何。就像你可能不会被大多数人吸引，但可能会被某个特定性别的人吸引。所以这和异性恋在潜在感兴趣人群范围上是相似的，只是性别变得无关紧要。

I think the right way to think about it is that I'm not attracted to most people, but I can be attracted to people regardless of gender. Much like you're probably not attracted to most people, but you are attracted to people of a certain gender maybe. And so that's it's the same as being heterosexual in terms of potentially my pool of people who might might be interested in. It's just that their gender is irrelevant.

人们对双性恋最大的误解是什么？

What's the biggest thing that people misunderstand about bisexuality?

研究人员发现人们对双性恋最大的误解是认为它是一个阶段，认为它是短暂的、总是在变化的，是一个垫脚石。所以我认为很多人仍然将双性恋视为通往同性恋的中间站，就像你在路上，但还没有完全承诺，仍然受社会期望束缚。你还没有完全放手，但实际上你是同性恋。这对男性尤其如此。所以当你查看关于双性恋男性的研究时——实际上研究就是这样开始的。

The biggest thing that researchers find people misunderstand about bisexuality is that it's a phase, and that it's this idea that it's transient, that it's always changing, and that it's a stepping stone. So I think a lot of people still see bisexuality as on the way to gay town, sort of like, you're you're on your way, but you haven't quite committed, and you're still stuck in expectations of society. You haven't quite let go yet, but really you're gay. And that's especially true for men. And so when you look at research on bisexual men, which is actually how the research started.

所以我认为现在当我们想到双性恋时，我们会想到女性。确实，如今认同为双性恋的女性是男性的两倍。但如果你回顾这段历史以及长期以来关于双性恋的研究，情况恰恰相反。一位名叫阿尔弗雷德·金赛的人无疑是近代史上最早的性行为研究者之一。他在二战后进行了一项名为《人类男性性行为》的大型研究。

So I think now when we think of bisexuality, we think of women. And it's true that today, twice as many women identify as bisexual as men. But if you look at the history of this and the research on bisexuality over time, it was the other way around. So someone called Alfred Kinsey was one of the first sexuality researchers in recent history, certainly. And he, after World War two, did this really big study of sexual behavior in the human male, it was called.

他本人是一名生物学家，所以他以分类学的思维方式思考，当时他正在研究瘿蜂，也就是昆虫。人类性行为这个概念在战后被抛给了他，因为当时还有一股推动人们繁殖、重建美国的运动。所以性行为，特别是性，在研究和政策及资金方面都越来越成为一个关注领域。于是有人问阿尔弗雷德·金赛，你想开一门关于人类性行为的课程吗？他说，我对此一无所知。

He was a biologist himself, and so he thought in taxonomies, and he was doing research on gall wasps, so insects. And this idea of human sexuality was sort of thrown at him after the war because there's also this whole move to get people to, well, reproduce and to rebuild America. And so sexuality was partly and sex, specifically, was becoming more of an area of interest, both in terms of research and in terms of policy and funding. And so Alfred Kinsey was asked, do you want to do a class on human sexual behavior? And he was like, I know nothing about this.

于是他花了大约一年的时间，专门倾听学生们提出的关于性的问题，比如他们想了解什么。他意识到自己正在寻找研究资料来构建这门可能将要教授的课程，但却发现自己无法回答他们的大部分问题，因为相关研究尚未开展。许多问题都围绕着“什么是正常的？”——比如，如果我在性行为中有这种感觉，正常吗？人们的性行为频率是怎样的？

And so he spent about a year just listening to students' questions about like what they wanna know about sex. And he realized that he was looking for research to try and build up this course that he was probably going to teach, and he realized that he couldn't answer most of their questions because the research hadn't been done. And so a lot of the questions were around what is normal? You know, if I feel this during sex, is that normal? How often do people have sex?

我应该有这些欲望吗？这些幻想呢？这意味着什么？如果我有同性恋幻想怎么办？如果我参与这类行为呢？于是他收集整理了所有这些问题，然后外出进行了大规模的研究。

Should I want these? What about these fantasies? What does it mean? What if I have homosexual fantasies? What if I engage in this kind of and so he was looking at all of these questions and collating them, and then he went out and did these huge studies.

他亲自采访了数千人，还聘请了许多研究助理在美国各地采访人们的性行为。想象一下那个时代——二十世纪四十年代，那是相当保守的时期，肯定比我们现在预期的要保守得多。而这位研究者却在向成千上万的人提出极其私密的问题。

And he interviewed thousands of people himself, but also had all these research assistants who were out there interviewing people in America about their sexual behavior, which I mean, just picture the time. It's the nineteen forties. This is quite a conservative time. I mean, certainly more than we might expect now. And here's this researcher asking incredibly personal questions about thousands and thousands and thousands of people.

最终他的研究发现被收录在出版的《人类男性性行为》一书中，这是该书的重大发现之一。这本书畅销整整一年，他的讲座场场爆满。有时甚至需要扩容相邻房间，因为人们对他的性学讲座热情高涨，不得不通过无线电连接到其他礼堂以保证足够的座位。他基本上就像个摇滚明星。再次说明，我认为这挑战了我们对性的误解——我们总认为彩虹旗之类是当代觉醒运动的产物。

And he ended up finding, and this is one of the big findings in this book that he published called Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, which was a best seller for an entire year. He sold out auditoriums. They had to sometimes add the room next to the room he was in because there was so much desire, to go to his lectures about sex that they had to, like, connect radios to other halls to give people enough space to sit down. He was basically a rock star. And, again, I think this challenge is a misconception we have about sexuality, that we think of it as this sort of woke thing now, that the rainbow flag and all this stuff is sort of this this modern invention almost.

但要知道这是四十年代。这一切正在发生：人们参加这些讲座，进行这些对话。他还创建了名为“金赛量表”的体系。

But if you that's this is the forties. This was happening. People were going to these talks. People were having these conversations. And he created something called the Kinsey scale.

金赛量表从0到6分级，他发现用二元划分来定义人们的性欲和性取向并不实用，更有效的方式是将其置于连续谱上。因为大多数人并非绝对同性恋或绝对异性恋，多数人处于中间状态。0代表完全异性恋倾向，6代表完全同性恋倾向。根据受访者的陈述，他将人们定位在量表的某个位置——约半数男性和四分之一女性都处于中间区域，并非绝对倾向某一端。

And so the Kinsey scale is from zero to six, and he found that it was not useful to apply a binary to people's sexual desires and sexual orientation. It was more useful to put them on a continuum Because most people were not exclusively homosexual or exclusively heterosexual. Most people were somewhere in between. And so zero was exclusively heterosexual tendencies, and six was exclusively homosexual. And he would place people based on all the things they told him somewhere on the scale, and about half of men were somewhere in the middle, not exclusively either, and about a quarter of women.

现在请想想那个时代背景。

Now think about the time.

那是一个非常保守的时代。

That was a very conservative time.

嗯，不过那是战后时期。所以我认为这也很重要。有一种叫做'同性社交环境'的现象，这与是否是同性恋无关，而是指你处于只与同性别人群相处的环境。比如监狱这种只有男性或只有女性的场所，还有战争——那时刚刚结束战争。所以有很多男性长期只与其他男性相处，可能会环顾四周心想：既然我的选择范围不同了，也许我会从这个群体中选择伴侣。

Well, and it's postwar, though. So I think that mattered as well. So there's something called a homosocial environment, which has nothing to do with being gay, that has to do with being in a situation where you are with people of the same gender as you. So a homosocial environment are things like prisons, where you only have men or only have women, war, which at that point they just had. And so you have a lot of men who are exclusively in the company of men and maybe looking around going, well, now that my options are different, maybe I'm gonna choose from this pool.

总之，他发现情况是这样的：很多人都有这些幻想或实际参与过的行为。后来也有其他男性研究者发现了类似现象。到了七十年代的某个时期，情况发生了转变，似乎有更多人、更多男性开始认同自己是同性恋。而自称双性恋的人可能变少了，这种现象突然在女性中变得更为常见。所以我认为这其中存在一些社会因素。

Anyway, so he found that it was that way around, that a lot of people have these fantasies or or actions that they've engaged in. And then there were other researchers, other male researchers who found similar things. And then at some point in the seventies, it swapped, and it felt like maybe more people, more men were identifying as gay. And there were maybe less people who are would have called themselves bi, and suddenly this became a thing more for women. So I think that there's some social things going on.

这里面有研究方法的因素，但实际上对双性恋男性的研究也持续很长时间了。

There's some research things going on, but actually bi men are have been studied for a long time as well.

好的。你说了很多有趣的观点。所以事实与社会公认的现象之间存在差异。这里面有社会因素。我...我不太确定。

Okay. So you said a lot of interesting things. So there is a difference between the truth and the socially acknowledged thing. So there's social elements. I I don't know.

这可能只是个案，但我认识几位自认为是双性恋的女性朋友。而我完全不认识任何自称双性恋的男性朋友。他们要么是同性恋，要么是异性恋。所以社会因素仍然在起作用。

This might be anecdotal, but I know a few women, friends of mine who are identified as bisexual. I don't know a single guy friend who's identified as bisexual. They're either gay or straight. So there's still a social thing going on.

确实如此，对吧？绝对是。而且研究一致表明，双性恋男性更倾向于认同为...嗯，同性恋或异性恋。至于同性恋嘛，这要看具体情况。

Definitely. Right? Definitely. And I think that research consistently shows that bisexual men are more likely to identify as, well, as gay or straight. And gay well, it depends.

所以如果他们拥有你可能称之为同性恋生活方式的东西，比如参加酷儿派对，可能使用Grindr或其他同性恋应用，那更像是一种生活方式的选择，意味着你接纳并认同自己作为酷儿群体一员的身份。通常说自己是同性恋比说自己是双性恋要容易得多。这也是因为酷儿群体内部存在恐同现象。所以你可能会听到男同性恋者对双性恋男性说：得了吧，你就是同性恋。

So if they have what you might refer to as a homosexual lifestyle, so they engage in sort of going to queer parties, maybe go on Grindr or other gay apps, that would be much more a lifestyle thing where you've embraced and you you see this part of your identity, that you are part of this queer community. It's much easier to say you're gay than you are bi most often. Also because there's queer phobia within the queer community. And so you might get gay men saying to a bi man, oh, come on. You're right.

我我以前也是双性恋——这可是经典台词。或者：别装了，你其实就是同性恋。对双性恋女性也存在类似但反向的偏见，因为人们认为这是表演性的，觉得双性恋女性是为了吸引注意力才这样做，特别是为了吸引男性的注意力，认为她们反正最后都会回到男性身边，只是玩玩而已。

I I was bi once. That's a classic. I was bi once. Or come on, you're actually gay. It's the same that you get the other way around with bi woman is that because it's seen as performative, the idea being that bisexual women are doing it for attention, but the attention of men specifically, that, well, they're all gonna go back to men anyway, and they're just doing it.

这只是一个阶段。她们这样做实际上是为了对男性显得性感，而不是真的对女性感兴趣。因此存在这种女同性恋对双性恋的排斥现象，虽然不总是但经常带有敌意。同时也有男同性恋对双性恋的不同性质的排斥，同样可能带有敌意。所以在两种情况下，声称自己是双性恋都可能有问题，但对男性而言更为如此。

It's a phase. It's this thing that they're doing actually to be sexy to men, not because they're actually interested in women. And so there's this lesbian bi thing going on, which is often quite hostile, not always, but often. And there's this gay male bi thing that going on, which is different in nature, but is also potentially hostile. So in both, saying you're bi can be can be problematic, but for men more so.

你认为金赛量表作为一种简单的维度缩减方式好吗？我也见过客户性取向网格，它包含多个参数，如被谁吸引、实际行为、性幻想、社交偏好、生活方式偏好等各种因素，自我认同，公开表态等不同维度。还是说金赛量表已经是个相当不错的近似？

Do you like the Kinsey scale as a sort of very simple reduction to that there's a spectrum. I also saw the client sexual orientation grid that has a few parameters, like who you're attracted to, how you're actually behaving, the fantasies you have, social preference, lifestyle preferences, all that kind of stuff, self identification, what you actually say publicly, all those different dimensions. Or is the Kinsey scale, like, pretty damn good approximation?

金赛量表是个好的起点。而我认为克莱因网格在某些方面更有趣。克莱因网格源于阿尔弗雷德·金赛和哈夫洛克·埃利斯等人的研究（我们就不细说埃利斯了）。弗里茨·克莱因是位男性研究者，也研究双性恋。他本身是位治疗师，主要关注那些在性取向上挣扎的人群。

The Kinsey scale is a good start. And the Klein grid, I think, is much more fun in some ways. So the Klein grid came out of research by Alfred Kinsey and others like Havelock Ellis, but we won't get into him. And Fritz Klein was a male researcher doing research also on bisexuality. He was specifically a therapist, and he was looking at people who were struggling with their sexuality.

于是在七八十年代，人们会来到他的诊所说：我在性取向上很挣扎。他会问：我如何能帮助你？他们会说诸如：我希望自己对男性没有兴趣，但我是个男人。然后他会逐步剖析这意味着什么：这是否意味着你不想拥有这些感受？

And so people would show up in the seventies and eighties in his practice, and they would say, I'm struggling with my sexuality. And he would say, how can I help you? And they would say things like, I wish I wasn't interested in men, and I'm a man. And he would then work through sort of what that means. Does that mean you don't wanna have these feelings?

这是否意味着你不想有这些吸引力？还是问题在于朋友和家人会怎么看待你？因此他创建了这个更复杂的量表，我认为无论性取向如何，对每个人都很有意义。因为它促使你思考的不仅是性身份这种简单问题，还包括过去、现在和理想状态的多维度考量。

Does that mean that you don't wanna have these attractions? Does that mean that it's the the implications of, like, how your friends and family will see you that's the problem? And so he created this much more complex scale, which I think is really interesting for everybody to do, no matter what their sexuality is. Because what it is is it gets you to think about things like, yeah, your sexual identity, easy. But it not just that, but in past, present, and ideal.

所以如果你说，嗯，我以前认同自己是异性恋，现在认同自己是双性恋。然后我脑子里有这样一个理想状态——这可能仍然是异性恋，因为社会或许告诉我们应当如此，但也可能是别的。我也有朋友经历过这样的情况，过去和现在都是异性恋，但理想中是双性恋。

And so if you say, well, I used to identify as straight. Now I identify as bisexual. And then I have in my head this doesn't mean that other people think this. In my head, I have an ideal, which could be straight because that's what maybe society has told us we should be, but it could also be something else. And so I've also had friends who've gone, you know, past, present, straight, straight, but ideal bi.

于是你就进入了这些有趣的动态关系中，有时人们纯粹因为其他原因希望自己拥有不同的性取向。量表里还有其他问题涉及你的生活方式，比如你是否参加酷儿派对，是否有酷儿朋友，那么即使你是异性恋，也可能过着同性恋式的生活。但再次强调，这取决于你希望拥有多少这样的生活方式。对我来说，那真是一个顿悟时刻，我看着那些问题心想，哇。

So you get into these interesting dynamics where sometimes people just wish they were a different sexuality than they were for other reasons. And then there's other things in the in the scale that ask about your lifestyle. So for example, if you are in going to parties, queer parties, if you have queer friends, then you might have a homosexual lifestyle even if you're straight. But then, again, it's how how would how much lifestyle would you like? And so for me, that was a real moment where I was looking at that going, wow.

我的生活方式真的很直。嗯。也许我需要改变这一点。他正是利用这些吸引力、幻想、认同以及过去、现在和理想的对比，来帮助人们梳理我们围绕性取向的所有复杂感受，并识别出问题所在，比如那些卡住的地方。

My lifestyle is really straight. Mhmm. And maybe I need to change this. And so he was using these attractions and fantasies and identities and the past present ideal to help people to think through all these complicated feelings we have around our sexuality and to identify problem like sticking points.

是的，这很有趣。所以或许那里的预设是，如果一切都对齐了——幻想、理想伴侣、所有那些方面——那可能就是最健康的状态。

Yeah. That's fascinating. So maybe the the presumption there is if everything is aligned, the fantasies, the ideal partner, the all of those things, that's probably the healthiest place to be.

对。所以他会特别关注理想和现状之间的差异。如果它们不同，比如你说'我希望自己是双性恋，但我是异性恋'，或者'我是双性恋，但我希望自己是异性恋'，或者'我是同性恋，但我希望自己是异性恋'，他会说，我们来谈谈这个。然后尝试解决它。他对那些对自己的性取向感到不适的双性恋者使用的术语是'困扰的双性恋者'。

Right. And so he would look at especially the ideal and the the present. And if those were different, so if you said, I wish I was bi, but I'm straight, or I I am bi, but I wish I was straight, or I'm homosexual and I wish I was straight, He would say, let's talk about that. And he'd try to work through it. And the term he used for bisexual people who were uncomfortable in their own sexuality was being a troubled bisexual.

所以我认为任何性取向都可能感到困扰？我觉得你可能是一个困扰的异性恋者、困扰的同性恋者、困扰的无性恋者，而思考为什么以及哪些方面可能缺失，我认为这对人们来说是非常健康的。

And so I think you can I think any sexuality can be troubled? I think you could be a troubled straight person, a troubled homosexual person, a troubled asexual person, and just thinking about why and which aspects are maybe missing, I think is really healthy for people to do.

意思是你还有一些没完全解开的谜题。也许你还没有对自己诚实面对自己的偏好，诸如此类的事情。

Meaning there's some puzzles that you haven't quite figured out. Maybe you haven't been honest with yourself about your preferences, all that kind of stuff.

我不太喜欢谈论‘对自己诚实’这个话题。我认为这是一个很高的标准，而且它也经常被用作武器来攻击他人，尤其是被男性用来攻击他人——比如这种观念：如果你不够诚实，那你其实就是同性恋。所以我认为这种‘我们对自己的性取向不诚实’的说法，这个词太大了。我觉得更多可能是你还没有找到合适的框架或词汇来思考那些让你困扰的性取向方面。

I don't really like talking about honesty with yourself. I think that's a that's a high bar. And I think it's also often weaponized against people, especially by men, whereas this idea, if you're not really being honest, you're actually gay. And so I think this idea of we're not being honest with our own sexuality, that's a that's a big word. I think it's more that maybe you haven't had the right framework or the right words to think about aspects of your sexuality that are troubling to you.

一个人是双性恋有多明显？识别性取向网格有多明显？就像，表明你是什么性取向的标志有多大？

How obvious when a person's bisexual, how obvious is it to identify, like, the sexual orientation grid? Like, how big is the sign whatever you are?

我认为这个标志比我们想象的要小。我觉得有一种倾向，认为性取向是我们在青少年时期，也许是二十出头时发现、保持并巩固的东西。大学阶段可能也算在内。所以如果你在大学本科期间经历了实验性的阶段，但之后你似乎必须做出选择。我认为对很多人来说，这是一个困难的要求，因为在那时你不可能了解所有可能感兴趣的事物和人。

I think the sign is smaller than we think it is. I think that there are there's this tendency to assume that sexuality is something that we find and keep and consolidate from our teenage years, maybe early twenties. You maybe get university thrown in. So if you get your experimental years in undergrad, but then it you kinda have to choose. And that is a difficult requirement, I think, for a lot of people because you can't possibly know all of the things and all the people you might be interested in at that point.

我们在其他所有方面都会改变，为什么在这方面不会改变呢？所以我认为，给自己重新评估自己的性取向、欲望、关系状态等所有这些方面的能力，对于保持我们的快乐和健康很重要，也能避免遇到许多同性恋和双性恋者面临的问题。比如，研究发现双性恋者更可能自残，更可能成为性暴力的受害者，更可能被孤立，更可能被跟踪。

And we change in every other way. Why wouldn't we change in this way? So I think giving ourselves also the ability to reappraise where we're at with our own sexuality, our own desires, our own relationship status, all these things is important to keep us happy and healthy, and to not run into issues that we know are faced by a lot of homosexual but also bisexual people. Like, has found that bisexual people are more likely to self harm. They're more likely to be the victims of sexual violence, more likely to be isolated, more likely to be stalked.

作为双性恋者有很多负面的方面，原因主要是双性恋者不太可能融入社群。所以当你经历这样的事情，感到与众不同，并且如果你公开性取向就会不断被询问，或者你隐藏它，那也很困扰，你会面临这些负面后果，尤其是如果你不觉得酷儿社群真正适合你。所以这就是为什么找到属于你的人群真的很重要。

There's lots of different aspects of being bi that are negative, and the reason for that is mostly because bi people are at least likely to be plugged into the community. So when you're going through stuff like this and you feel different and you're constantly being asked about your sexuality if you're open about it, or you're hiding it, that's also troubling, you're gonna have these negative consequences, especially if you don't feel like the queer community is really a place for you. So that's why also finding your people really matters.

既然我们谈到了性取向，你在你那本关于邪恶的书中提到的一点是性癖和性幻想。我认为描述那一点的目的是我们经常将其标记为邪恶或不好。关于从写那本书中学到的关于性癖和性幻想的内容，你能说些什么？

Since we're on the topic of sexuality, one of the things you touched on in your book on evil was kinks, sexual fantasies. I think the point of describing that was that we often label that as evil or bad. What can you say about what you've learned from kinks and sexual fantasies from writing that book?

我之所以将性癖、邪恶和性对话等内容包括进来，是因为它们经常被混在同一个对话中。所以如果有人来找我说，茱莉亚，我想让你帮我解释为什么这个人杀了另一个人。他们经常会说，你知道他或她也喜欢（插入某种性癖 here）。或者（插入非传统关系结构 here），或者（插入任何东西 here）。我的回应是，好吧。

So the reason I included kinks and evil and sexual conversations in general is because it is so often thrown into the same conversation. So if someone comes to me and says, Julia, I want you to help me explain why this person killed this other person. And they'll often say, did you know that he or she was also into insert kink here. Or insert nontraditional relationship structure here, or insert whatever. And I respond to that by going, okay.

所以呢？我觉得人们会用这些词，比如，哦，他真的很沉迷BDSM，然后认为这会对我的看法产生重要影响。或者，哦，他们是换偶者。然后我又说，是啊。这几乎就像是，顺便提一句，他们是换偶者。

So? And I think people use these words, like, oh, he was really into BDSM, and think that that's going to have this really important impact on me. Or, oh, they were swingers. And so and again, I go, yeah. That that's, you know, almost like and in other news, they were swingers.

这感觉和这个犯罪完全无关，除非，你知道，其中一方被杀了。但人们把这看作是一种性格缺陷。在很多圈子里，尤其是在更广泛的社会中，特殊性癖好被视为性格缺陷。这让我觉得很不可思议，因为如果你看看关于性幻想和特殊性癖好的研究，很多人至少有一个。所以很多人，BDSM是最常见的，正在参与或对BDSM感兴趣。

It's like that is not related to this crime at all, unless, you know, one of the partners was killed. But people see this as a defective character. And kink is very much seen as a defective character in many circles, especially in sort of broader society. And that is wild to me because if you look at research on sexual fantasies and kinks, a lot of people have at least one. So a lot of people, BDSM being the the most common, are engaging in or interested in BDSM.

所以像窒息、束缚、被羞辱或在床上双方同意的情况下羞辱他人这样的事情，当然，是很多人幻想并参与的。这些特殊性癖好和恋物癖，它们比我们有时认为的要普遍得多。另一方面，我们显然需要小心，不要因为BDSM在色情作品中几乎无处不在，就假设每个人都想要这个。绝对不是这样。但我们也不想边缘化它，说几乎没人喜欢。

So things like choking or things like restraints or being degraded or doing the degrading of other people in bed consensually, of course, that is something that a lot of people fantasize about and a lot of people engage in. And so these kinks and these fetishes, they are much more commonplace than we sometimes think about them as. Now on the other hand, we obviously need to be careful not to assume that because in pornography, BDSM is almost ubiquitous, it feels, that that means everybody wants this. That is absolutely not the case. But we also don't wanna marginalize it and say it's almost nobody.

它是介于两者之间的。最重要的是总是要询问并进行开放的对话，了解人们在床上真正想要什么，并确保有安全词等。所以，你知道，使用束缚工具以确保这些互动是安全和双方同意的，然后能够探索。我的意思是，从扮演小狗的宠物扮演，你可以只是嬉戏或进行性行为，到其他像血液游戏这样的事情，就是刺破皮肤释放某种血液，可以是抓伤，可以是切割，可以是对自己或伴侣，可以是这种一起做禁忌事情的想法，我不知道，它以自己的方式很性感。所以每个人都有自己觉得有吸引力的版本，以及摩擦不知情的人，假装有人在睡觉。

It's it's somewhere in between. And the main thing is always just to ask and to have open conversations about what it is that people actually want in bed and to make sure you have things like safe words. So, you know, putting in the restraints to make sure that these interactions are safe and consensual, and then being able to explore. And I mean, there's everything from, you know, pop play where you dress up as a puppy and you engage in either just general frolicking or sexual behavior to other things like blood play, which is when you pierce the skin to release some sort of blood that can be scratching, can be cutting, that can be of yourself or your partner, that can be this idea of, you know, I don't know, it's this taboo thing you're doing together, and it's sexy in its own way. And so everybody has their own versions of what they find attractive, and rubbing up against people, you know, sort of unsuspecting, pretending that someone's sleeping.

有各种各样的事情，我认为人们也常常对自己感兴趣的事情感到深深的羞耻。我认为这也很可悲，因为它让人们更可能无法活出那部分的自己，也让他们认为自己有问题。这可能会演变成诸如，我是邪恶的吗？我是坏人吗？我是个坏人吗？

There's there's this wide range of things, and I think people also feel often deeply ashamed about the things that they are interested in. And I think that is also really sad because it makes it more likely that people are going to not be able to live that part of themselves and also that they think there's something wrong with them. And that can spiral into things like, am I evil? Am I bad? Am I a bad person?

因为我有这些幻想。不幸的是，这与同性恋和双性恋有关，在历史上和今天世界大部分地区仍然如此。这些酷儿生活和酷儿身份仍然被妖魔化。它们仍然被视为低人一等、不好、是性格缺陷的标志。如果人们在自己身上看到这一点，他们会对自己有不同的看法，而我们，嗯，社会也会以不同的方式对待他们。

Because I have these fantasies. And that ties in, unfortunately, with homosexuality and bisexuality in the way that is certainly historically and in most parts of the world still today. These queer lives and queer identities are still villainized. They're still seen as lesser, as bad, as a sign of a defective character. And if people see that within themselves, they're going to think differently about themselves, and we, well, society is going to treat them differently.

所以这一切都是为了去污名化。

So it's all about destigmatizing.

我真的很喜欢你写的关于BDSM或可能是施虐受虐，或者只是支配与顺从动态的内容，比如为什么那会吸引人，就是那个关于解除抑制的假说。我想这普遍适用于性幻想，如果你去实践它们，你就可以抛开我们在正常社会中承受的所有狗屁事情。他们可以完全投入，全然沉浸在其中的愉悦中。

I really liked what you wrote about I guess it was in the context of BDSM or maybe sadomasochism or maybe just the submissive dominant dynamic, like why that might be appealing, the disinhibition hypothesis. I guess this applies generally to sexual fantasies, is if you live them out, that you could just let go of all the bullshit that we that we put up in normal society. They could just be all in, fully present to the pleasure of it.

没错。研究人员在恋物癖，尤其是BDSM上发现的就是这样，人们说喜欢它的原因——我的意思是，解释为什么会有幻想是很难的。但如果你深入细节问题，真正挖掘下去，你会发现人们会解释说，嗯，我可以真正放手。如果有人在告诉我该做什么，我就不必做任何决定。我一整天都在做无数个决定，而在这个情境下我不必如此。

Right. And that's what researchers found on fetishes, especially on BDSM, is that the reason that people say they like it I mean, it's hard to explain why you have a fantasy. But if you go into the finer questions and really dig deep, you can find that people will explain a version of, well, I can really let go. And I don't have to if someone is telling me what to do, then I don't have to make any decisions. And I've spent all day making millions of decisions, and I don't have to in this context.

我真的很喜欢这一点，因为它让人感到自由。所以这就是那个解除抑制的假说，即我们经常在卧室里做一些在其他情境下我们不喜欢甚至觉得厌恶的事情的原因。比如，在正常生活中，我可能不想被人指使。但也许当你进入卧室时，你会说，是的，但这是一个不同的情境。我有点想要与我日常生活中想要的相反的东西。

And I really like that because it's freeing. And so that's that disinhibition hypothesis, is that the reason that we often go to things in the bedroom that in other contexts we don't like or even find repulsive. Like, I don't, in normal life, potentially wanna be told what to do. But maybe when you move into the bedroom, you go, yeah, but this is a different context. And I kinda want reverse of what I want in my day to day life.

所以我也能理解，比如兽迷和那种完全以另一个物种身份生活的方式，甚至它是一种非常有趣的心理现象，关于释放和摆脱社会压力。

And so I can also understand, like, furries and that sort of completely living as another species of it even is it's a really interesting psychological phenomenon of release and of letting go of social pressure.

但我认为这也适用于——因为你提到了顺从，那更容易理解。我认为这也适用于支配。因为，是的，你不必小心翼翼。它的清晰性很有趣。

But I think that also applies to because you mentioned submissive, that's more straightforward to understand. I think that also applies to dominant. Because, like, yeah, you don't have to walk on eggshells. It's the clarity of it. That was really interesting.

就像，读了你的话后，真的让我想到这其中有一个深刻的真理，关于忠于无论什么样的性幻想。不仅仅是幻想本身吸引人，而是在某种意义上获得自由。

Like, having read that from you, that really made me think that there is a deep truth to that, to, like, being true to whatever the sexual fantasy is. Like, it's not just the fantasy itself that's appealing. It's the being free in some sense.

是那种自由感，而其中的对比是，你因为虚构而自由。就像你在扮演，但它触动了你内心深处的心理层面。所以这感觉有点奇怪，但也说得通。我的意思是，这也是为什么我们喜欢虚构作品，因为它让你可以暂时成为别人，拥有别人的想法，你真的能短暂地以那种身份生活。所以我认为，是的，真实与虚构的循环总是很有趣的。

It's the being free, and the juxtaposition there is that you are free because of the fiction. Like, you're play acting, but it's touching something deep inside you psychologically. And so that's where it sort of feels weird, but it also makes sense. I mean, this is also why we like fiction because it allows you to maybe be somebody else, have someone else's thoughts in your mind for a while, and you really get to live it as that for a bit. So I think, yeah, the truth and fiction sort of circle is always an interesting one.

所以，你在研究那本关于双性恋的书时，对人类性行为总体上有什么发现？比如人性的性本质，以及在不同社群中的实践方式，我相信肯定还有亚文化之类的。嗯，你学到了什么？

So you've you know, for researching the the bi bisexuality book, what have you learned about sexuality in general? Human nature kind of sexuality and how it's practiced in terms of different communities, and I'm sure there's, like, subcultures and stuff. Yeah. What have you learned?

关于人类性行为的研究，我觉得很有意思，因为我们不断发现人们有一些让他们感到奇怪的欲望，除非他们有一个社群或应用程序可以去实现这些幻想，否则这些欲望会让个体感到困扰，甚至影响健康。无论是性取向方面——比如是同性恋却无法以同性恋身份生活，还是想尝试BDSM却没有途径——都会让人不快乐。我认为这种污名化的观点是，那种不快乐会导致某种可怕的犯罪表现。这大多是胡说八道，但我更关心的是那些无法探索自己这些方面的个体所面临的心理健康后果。

So the research on human sexuality, I think, is interesting because we keep finding that people have these desires that they feel weird about, that they unless they have a community or an app that you can go to to live those fantasies, they can feel quite troubling to the individual, and they can make you unwell. And that's true whether it's about your sexuality, so being gay and being unable to live as a gay person, or if that's wanting to engage in BDSM and not having an outlet for that. So that can just make you unhappy. So I think that the the stigma there is that that unhappiness is going to lead to some sort of horrible manifestations of crime. I think that is mostly nonsense, But it's more that I'm concerned about the mental health consequences for the individual who's unable to explore those sides of themselves.

在关于性癖和性行为的研究中，还要确保某些社群有可见的代表性，这也是我最终写双性恋相关内容的原因之一。我在《制造邪恶》中出柜了（《制造邪恶》是英国版书名，美国版是《邪恶》）。我出柜是因为我在写所有我们与‘邪恶’一词关联的事物，而同性恋肯定是其中之一。

And in research on kinks and sexuality, it's just about also making sure that we have visible representation of certain kinds of communities, and so that's one of the reasons I ended up writing bi. I came out in Making Evil. Making Evil is The UK title, evil in The US. I came out because I was writing about all the things we associate with the word evil, and homosexuality certainly is one of those things.

顺便说一下，你是作为双性恋者出柜的。对。

You came out as bisexual, by the way. Yeah.

是的，我是作为双性恋者出柜的。我在书中出柜了。我特意这样做，并且也这样写，是因为我在谈论可见性的重要性，以及通过可见性，你意识到你周围的人、你已经认识和爱的人，其实属于这个否则会觉得陌生、异类的社群。

Yeah. I came out as bisexual. And I came out as bisexual in the book. And I did it specifically, and I wrote it this way as well, because I was talking about the importance of visibility and how it's through visibility that you realize that the people around you, people you already know and love, are part of this community that otherwise feels other. It feels foreign.

它感觉抽象，也许还令人害怕。但如果你意识到你其实有同性恋朋友，或对某些恋物癖感兴趣的朋友，或任何你谈论的性向方面的朋友，你突然就会觉得，哦，要去非人化这些人会难得多。这一切对我来说源自一个相当悲伤的地方。你可以谈论偏见，这个关于爱的项目，以及我当时是如何寻找社群的。我试图写一些能把我们所有人凝聚在一起的东西。

It feels abstract, And maybe it feels scary. But if you realize that actually you've got gay friends or you've got friends who are into certain kinds of fetishes or you've got friends who are whatever sexuality sort of aspect you're talking about, you suddenly go, oh, it's gonna be much harder to dehumanize these people. And and this is where all of this kinda comes to me from a really sad place. There's a you could talk about bias, this project of love and how I was finding the community. I was trying to write something that would sort of bring us all together.

但这也是因为我一直害怕我的权利会被剥夺。我们知道关于同性恋行为的法律以及双性恋者的权利都处于变化中，没有一条直线式的接受之路。仅仅因为我现在碰巧生活在一个可以公开双性恋身份、进行同性活动的时代和地方，并不意味着这会持续下去，甚至在我有生之年都不一定。所以我认为，就像在非战争时期写《邪恶》，能够深入思考这些重要问题一样，我们也需要思考性行为和其他对我们重要的问题。

But it's also because I'm constantly terrified that my rights are going to be stripped back. And we know that the laws around homosexual behavior and the rights around bisexual people as well, they're in flux. There's no straight line of acceptance. And just because right now I happen to live in a time and place where I'm allowed to be openly bisexual and I can engage in homosexual activity, that doesn't mean that that's gonna stay, not even necessarily in my lifetime. And so I think much like writing evil at a time when you're not at war and you're able to think really, know, deeply about these important issues, I think we also need to be thinking about things like sexuality and other issues that are important to us.

如果我们想要维护自己的权利，就需要让这些问题正常化并确保它们可见，这样人们就更难将这些社群非人化。我一直很害怕双性恋者会被过度性化、再次被非人化，害怕会出现针对我本质身份的法律。

And if we wanna preserve our rights, we need to normalize these issues and make sure that they're visible so that people find it harder to dehumanize those communities. And so I'm always terrified that bisexual people are gonna be hypersexualized, dehumanized again, that there's gonna be laws against basically just who I am.

在你提到的那本《制造邪恶之后》出版并出柜后，以及写了那本关于双性恋的书之后，你收到很多双性恋者的来信吗？能分享一些故事吗？我相信——正如你所说，我很少看到相关材料——他们一定因为缺乏社群而感到孤独，对吗？

Did you hear from a bunch of people after Making Evil After Evil, the book you mentioned and coming out in that book, and then writing the bi book that that are bisexual? And maybe what are some stories? I'm sure because I haven't seen much material on it as you spoke to, so I'm sure they felt lonely without a community. Right?

是的。很多人觉得这本书让他们被看见了。所以收到书迷来信和各种反馈真的很美好。我收到了来自世界各地的信件。在书中，我还采访了一些研究人员，他们驻扎或在某些国家做研究，那些地方特别将双性恋行为或同性恋行为视为非法。

Yeah. A lot of people felt seen by the book. So it was really beautiful, the the fan mail I got when the sort of responses to the book. And I got them from all over the world. And so in the book, I also spoke with some researchers who were in like, stationed or doing research in countries where bisexual behavior specifically is illegal or homosexual behavior was illegal.

很长一段时间里，双性恋——尤其是女性双性恋，其实女性同性恋整体而言——某种程度上是一个盲点。因为当时被认为算作性行为的必须是有阴茎参与的性行为。嗯。所以女性之间无法发生性行为。因此许多关于同性恋的法律特别针对男性。

For a long time, bisexuality was, especially in women, well, actually, homosexuality in women in general, was sort of seen as it was it was a blind spot. Because what counted as sex is sex with a penis. Mhmm. And so women can't have sex with one another. And so a lot of laws around homosexuality are specifically applying to men.

当然，历史上确实如此。所以我们谈论的是比如鸡奸法，那涉及男性而非女性。如果你观察法律的演变，有一段时间女性在某种程度上——社会未必接受，但她们在法律上算是逃脱了。但最近尤其随着双性恋也越来越可见，某些国家开始特别将其写入宪法和法律，认为双性恋身份和表现也是有问题的和非法的。所以，这些法律一直在变化。

And certainly, historically, that's the case. So we're talking about like sodomy, and that involves men and not women. And so if you look at the evolution of laws, for a while, women were kind of like, it was socially not necessarily acceptable, but they were kinda getting away with it legally. But then, more recently especially, as bisexuality gets more visible as well, certain countries have started writing it specifically into their constitutions and specifically into their laws that bisexual identities and papers are also seen as problematic and illegal. So again, these laws change all the time.

但就书迷来信而言，尤其是来自那些同性恋和双性恋非法或被视作有问题或受社会谴责的国家的人，这些信特别重要。那些人特别写信来，还有人问，我能不能私下把这本书翻译成另一种语言，然后分发给我的朋友？有人给我发消息说，我在某个机场或某个国家，这本书在这里会被视为违禁品。我的书是一本禁书。趣闻。

But in terms of fan mail, especially from people in countries where homosexuality and bisexuality are illegal or are seen as problematic or socially condemned, that was particularly important. So the those people were particularly writing, saying somebody was also saying, can I translate this into this other language on the DL, like on the down low, and just, like, distribute this to my friends? I I had people sending me messages saying, I'm at x airport or in x country where this is this would be considered contraband, like this book. My book is a banned book. Fun fact.

不错。它被禁了。我把版权卖给了一个外国出版商，刚卖完法律就变了。他们给我发了一封非常遗憾的邮件说，很遗憾我们不能出版你的书了，因为它现在被视为……像是同性恋议程的一部分，宣传同性恋和同性恋生活方式，所以我们不能再出版了。但我对此有点自豪，因为它是一本禁书，不过显然，我也为这背后的含义感到非常难过。

Nice. It's it was banned. I I sold the rights to a foreign publisher, and right after it was sold, the laws changed. And they sent me this really sad email saying, unfortunately, we can't publish your book because it now con it's now considered part of the, like, gay agenda sort of promoting gay gay and homosexual lifestyles, and so we can't publish it anymore. But there's I take, like, a little bit of pride in the fact that it's a banned book, but I find it really sad, obviously, as to what it means.

但这同时也让我觉得它更重要了，而这正是人们写信告诉我的。

But it also makes me feel like it's more important, And that's what people were writing to me about.

对于年轻人，或者任何正在探索自己性取向、或不知如何谈论自己性取向的人，你会给出什么建议？

What advice would you give to young people, or just people in general that are trying to figure out their sexuality, or how to speak about their sexuality?

我会说尝试广泛阅读关于性取向议题的书籍。像我的书，还有其他书籍，可能会帮助你理清有哪些标签可用，以及这些标签是否适合你。我认为像克莱因网格这样的工具非常有用，尤其对于像你我这样分析型思维的人。它提供了一个框架和数字来操作，几乎可以把你的性取向看作一个数学方程式，我觉得这相当有帮助。

I'd say try and read widely on issues around sexuality. Books like mine, but also other books might help you to navigate whether or not your, you know, what labels there are and also whether or not those labels are good for you. I think things like the Klein Grid are really helpful, especially for people who are more analytically minded like you and I. I think it gives you a construct to work with and numbers to work with, and that can be really helpful to try and go almost seeing your sexuality as a mathematical equation. And I think that can be quite useful.

如果你是这样思考的，那就去看看克莱因网格，看它是否能帮你更好地理解这些事情。

And if that's how you think, then look at the Klein Bridge and see if that helps you to navigate things.

这个问题有点棘手，但公开出柜作为非标准性取向有哪些利弊？是从建议的角度吗？有哪些好处，又有哪些挑战？

Bit of a tricky question, but what are the pros and cons of coming out publicly as a nonstandard sexuality? Was that from a recommendation perspective? What are some benefits and what are some challenges?

好处是你可以真实地生活，做你自己。比如，我现在出柜后，在网上更能自由地做自己。因为我是在三十多岁才出柜的，我觉得这也像是一种'得寸进尺'的心理技巧，先迈出一小步，再提出更大的要求。

So the benefits are that you can, well, live authentically. You can just be yourself. So I I do feel more free in who I am and who I'm able to sort of be online, for example, now that I'm out. And because I came out after in my thirties. I think also It was almost a foot in the door technique as well, which is a psychological technique of first coming in and then coming with your big ask.

所以那时我已经出版了两本书。

And so I'd already published two books.

是的。

Yeah.

我当时已经是一位有建树的科学家了。我觉得如果我一开始就公开双性恋身份，首先，我可能无法出版那本书——那是史上第一本关于双性恋的主流书籍。其次，我认为我作为科学家的身份也不会被认真对待。所以先有其他成就，再把双性恋当作一个副业项目，这样才是可被接受的。

I was already an established scientist. I think if I tried bi first, I, a, wouldn't have been able to publish the book. It was the first mainstream book on bisexuality ever. And b, I I don't think I would have been taken seriously as a scientist. And so having the other stuff first and then bi, a sort of a side project, that was acceptable.

但我觉得反过来就不行了。

But I think the other way around wouldn't

确实。但我认为这仍然很勇敢。我记得你在某个采访中提到过，当你涉及性取向话题时，曾担心会被过度性化。

have been. I I think it was still brave. I think I think you mentioned somewhere maybe in in interview that there was some concern of being sexualized when you covered the topic of sexuality.

现在依然有这种担忧。但实际上我发现大多数情况下反而起到了相反效果。作为一个女性，尤其是年轻且备受关注的女性，不幸的是你无论如何都会被性化——这始终是我网络经历中的重要部分。而出柜承认双性恋后，反而会获得一些盟友，他们突然表示'我们支持你'。

There still is. But I actually find that it's it's done the opposite most of the time. So I think as a woman, especially a young woman who's in the public eye, you're sexualized anyway, unfortunately. And so that is and was already a huge part of my online experience. And actually, I think coming out as bi, a, you get sort of allies who suddenly are like, we're on your side.

他们会帮你对抗过度性化现象。人们的反应反而变得——用好的方式说——更拘谨了些。他们会稍微收敛，因为觉得'哦，这是身份认同问题，或许我不该评论她的穿着'。这某种程度上化解了那些带有性化色彩的评论。

We're gonna help you fight sort of the hypersexualization. And people get more, almost more weird about it in a good way. They get a bit quiet about it, because they're like, oh, well, now it's an identity thing. So maybe I shouldn't comment on what she's wearing. And it sort of it almost disarmed some of the more sexualized comments.

所以对我来说，必须说这主要是段积极经历。

So for me, I have to say it was mostly a positive experience.

那些侮辱性言论不知该如何应对。

The insults didn't know what to do with it.

确实。就像，呃。

Exactly. Like, ugh.

或许我们回到最初的问题，是什么让你对犯罪心理学产生兴趣的？

Just to go back to the beginning, maybe, what got you interested in criminal psychology?

嗯，如果你看我进入学术界的发展轨迹，基本上是这样的：我本来准备去学艺术。事实如此。我的作品集都准备好了，打算本科去学艺术，然后我祖父介入说，艺术家的生活非常艰难，也许你应该重新考虑。

Well, you if you look at my trajectory into academia and then through it, basically, happened is I was ready to go study art. That's what happened. I had my portfolio ready to go. I was gonna go study art at undergrad, and then my grandfather intervened and was like, being an artist is a really hard life. Maybe you should reconsider.

哪种艺术？抱歉跑题了。绘画。这真意外。我完全没想到，因为你分析能力这么强。

What kind of art? Sorry to take that tangent. Painting. That is fast. I would not have expected that because you're so super analytical.

是的。我是这样。但我也非常喜欢超现实主义，喜欢颠覆现实感——这显然后来也融入了我的学术工作。这很酷。不过他说得也没错。

Yeah. I am. But I also I really like surrealism, and I really like messing with sense of reality, which again is obviously something that then wove its way into my academic work. That's cool. But he was also right.

我的意思是，这么说吧，我一直是个非常理性的人。我上学时跳了几级，参加过象棋实验室。就像，我完全就是那种聪明孩子。但另一方面，我也觉得艺术真的很美。

I mean, I I've always been very intellectual, let's just say. I skipped a couple of grades in school. I was part of the chess lab. Like, it was very much I was the clever kid. And so but there's also part of me that's just like, but art is beautiful.

我热爱艺术创作，它能与许多人产生共鸣。不过，我祖父说服我不要走这条路，于是我转而申请了心理学专业。虽然那时候只需要申报社会科学大类，不需要具体细分，但我知道自己大概率会选择心理学。原因是我父亲患有偏执型精神分裂症。

I love making art, and it can speak to so many people. Anyway, my grandfather convinced me not to do it, and then I applied instead for psychology. Although at that point, you just had to say social sciences. You didn't have to yet spec specify, but I knew it was probably gonna be psychology. And the reason for that was because my dad has parentized schizophrenia.

因此我认为，自己如此痴迷于'何为真实'这个概念的原因之一——这种痴迷体现在方方面面：从对是非认知的真实性，到我们对世界记忆的真实性；从犯罪事件真相的真实性，到感知能力与神经科学层面的真实性。究竟什么才是真实？

And so I think one of the reasons I'm so obsessed with this idea of what is real, and and that is in every way that that I mean that in terms of what is real in terms of perceptions of right and wrong. What is real in terms of our own memories of the world? What is real in terms of what happened in a crime? What is real in terms of perceptual abilities and neuroscience? What is real?

我的这种追问是全方位展开的。我想这源于我成长过程中目睹某人以独特视角实时解读现实。这样的经历对我影响深远——不仅让我的成长过程充满动荡，更直观地展现出人们确实会看到和听到与你完全不同的事物。若不能由此进一步思考'人们还有哪些感知与我不同'，几乎可以说是错失了重要启示。所以我攻读心理学，部分原因就是为了理解这种现象及其背后的机制。

I mean I mean that on in every way. And I think that's because I grew up with someone who had a unique view of what is real in real time. And so seeing that, I think, just affected me profoundly because not only was it very destabilizing in terms of my upbringing, but also it's just in your face that people quite literally are seeing and hearing different things than you. And to not jump from that to what else are people perceiving differently than me, I think would be almost like a missed opportunity. And so I went to study psychology partly to understand that and what was going on there.

这让我深入探索了现实本质的迷宫。说实话，我选择犯罪心理学方向是因为——本可以选择其他分支——犯罪心理学家是最有意思的群体。我觉得很多心理学家都太过严肃，而我实在没法那样。

And then that took me down the sort of reality hole. And honestly, the reason I went to criminal psychology because I could have gone into any other. The criminal psychologists were the most they were the most fun. I feel like lots of psychologists, they took themselves so seriously. And I just I I couldn't.

我当时就觉得，这不是我想要的气氛。而犯罪心理学家们有种黑色幽默，他们处理着可说是最严重的案件，却依然能保持乐趣并过着不错的生活。我看到他们的状态后就想：我要成为这样的心理学家。于是我就这么做了。

I was like, I don't this isn't the vibe. And so the criminal psychologists were they had this gallows humor. They were doing these, like, arguably the most serious of the the crimes in the in the cases, and yet were somehow having fun and having nice lives. And I saw myself and I went, well, I wanna do this version. And so I did.

是啊。听说你选择犯罪心理学很棒，因为这个领域可能比其他分支更需要直面心智的现实本质。

Yeah. That's great to hear that criminal psychologist, because probably they have to really, more than any other subfield, confront the reality of the mind.

而且这个领域往往很注重程序性。所以我更偏爱应用科学，因为我喜欢思考'我们如何运用这些信息'。从研究角度来说，最让我感兴趣的是——我的博士论文研究的是错误记忆，即植入犯罪行为的虚假记忆，这项研究最终走红网络，因为我是首个开展此类研究的人。我借鉴了前人植入各类情感事件错误记忆的研究，但首次将虚假供词研究与错误记忆研究相结合。这其实是建立在伊丽莎白·洛夫特斯和索尔·卡森的研究基础之上。

And it's often quite procedural. So I'm also much more interested in applied sciences because I like the idea of, you know, what do we do with this information? And the thing that interests me most from a research perspective I mean, I did my PhD in false memories, so implanting false memories of committing crime, which was the study that ended up going viral because I was the first to to do it. And I built on a history of people implanting false memories of various kinds of other emotional events, but it was the first time that someone had combined false confessions research and false memory research. And so that was the research of Elizabeth Loftus and Saul Kassen.

所以虚假供述是索尔·卡森的研究领域，虚假记忆是伊丽莎白·洛夫特斯的专长。而我当时同时在研究这两个课题。核心问题是：能否让人们相信并供认自己犯下过从未发生的罪行？不仅如此，还要让他们确信这事确实发生过，形成真实记忆。简而言之，答案是肯定的，特别是通过特定的诱导性和暗示性审讯技巧就能实现。

So false confessions was Saul Kassen and false memories was Elizabeth Loftus. And I was just doing them both at the same time. And the question was, could you get people to believe that they committed a crime that never happened and confess to it? And not just that, but believe that it actually happened, so remember it. And the answer to that, in short, is yes, you can, especially using specific leading and suggestive interview techniques.

这其中最重要的程序性启示——也是我最关注的——我不认为这只是一种炫技式的把戏。真正重要的是，我们可以据此思考：如何防止这种情况发生？因此我后续培训了警察、律师，还培训了国际刑事法院处理集体记忆的工作人员——他们需要同时处理数百名证人和战争罪行的证词。

And so the procedural learning from that, which is what I'm most interested in, I don't like that's sort of a party trick to be able to actually do And that's just so that you can then take that and go, okay. Well, how do we prevent this? And so I've since trained police, lawyers. I've trained people at the ICC, the International Criminal Court, who deal with collective memories. So they deal with hundreds of witnesses at a time and war crimes.

关键问题在于：如何在不污染记忆的前提下，尽可能保持其原始性？或者说至少避免进一步污染。这正是社会心理学的优势领域——我们做了大量研究，揭示社会环境如何改变人们的陈述，甚至在一定程度上改变其信念。我认为这也正是与人工智能技术的接合点，因为本质上我们与大型语言模型及生成式AI的交互，本质上是一种社交互动——现在大多以对话形式构建。

And the question is, how do we try to preserve as original as possible memory without contaminating it? Because well, or at least without contaminating any more than it already is. And that's where social psychology, I think, excels, is that we have done lots of research on how social settings change what people say and to some extent what people believe. And I think that's also where actually the leap to things like AI, I think is not far because ultimately, the way that we're engaging with large language models is that and generative AI in general is that it it's structured as a social interaction. It's structured as a conversation most of the time now.

这正是我的工作重点——我培训警察的核心内容就是：如何确保在问询过程中不扭曲他人记忆，如何提出有效问题。现在双方都会产生虚构叙述：既来自AI，也来自人类。问题在于还存在第三方因素——即交互过程中的中间地带，这一点目前尚未得到足够重视。

And that is what we do. I that is literally what I train the police on doing is how do we make sure that you don't distort people's memories in the process and how to ask good questions. And so you get confabulations from both sides now. You get confabulations from AI and from the people. And the problem is that there's a third thing, is the in between, that I'm not sure is getting enough attention right now.

我希望能有更多像我这样的社会科学家与从事数十年调查问询的专业人士合作，共同研究这个中间地带的动态，从而既能指导人类，也能教会AI如何在这种情境中做出更恰当的响应。

And I've wish that there was more integration of social scientists like me and people who do investigative interviewing and have done it for decades to understand what is happening in the in between, and so that we can both teach the people and the AI to respond better in that situation.

这确实很有趣。您是否认为当AI与人类交互时，双方都存在某种认知偏差，需要我们特别警惕？

I mean, that's really interesting. Are you saying that there's a drift of some kind in terms of on both AI and human side when they're interacting together that we need to be very clear about?

没错。我们创造的生成式AI本质上堪称终极虚假记忆机器。它营造的定制化体验，大多时候都在输出它认为你想听的内容，并且不加批判地呈现给你。当然有时也会评估信息真实性，但最终它会直接交付内容，而没有任何机制阻止你将其奉为真理，视为自己的过去或记忆。

Yes. There is what we've created with Gen AI is basically the ultimate false memory machine. We have created a tailored experience of something that is most of the time telling you what it thinks you wanna hear, and then it's uncritically giving that to you. Or I mean, sometimes, of course, there's, you know, other things where it's sort of appraising whether or this is truthful or not. But it is giving that to you, and there's no safeguard from you just going, this is truth, and this is my past, or this is how I remembered it.

问题在于，人工智能不仅可能扭曲人们及其记忆，更不用说他们所依赖的事实基础，而且反过来也存在问题——通过提出引导性或有问题的问题，人们正在改变人工智能生成内容的方式，这在某种程度上可能影响其辨别真伪的能力。因此，我认为人类大脑中的虚假记忆与人工智能的虚构现象比我们想象的更为相似。当我第一次看到人工智能虚构或产生幻觉时，我就想，这正是人们一直在做的事情。只是我们不能一直对它们进行事实核查。我们不会在对话中不断追问：这真的正确吗？

And the problem is is that not only are is AI potentially distorting people and their memories and never mind the factual basis on which they're relying, but it's also the other way around is that potentially by asking leading or problematic questions, the people are changing how the AI is creating the content, which is in turn on some fundamental level potentially having an impact on how it's discerning truth from fiction. And so that's where the false memory in human minds and confabulations in AI, I think are much more similar than we think. And when I first saw AI confabulate, hallucinate, I was like, this is what people do all the time. It's just that we can't fact check them all the time. We're not in a conversation constantly being like, well, is that quite right?

我要把这个用在我的作业里。对吧？所以这既有趣又真的很令人担忧。

I'm gonna use that for my homework. Right? So it's oh, this is both juicy and really troubling.

嗯，目前这些互动相当短暂。它们持续时间短，而且互动没有深刻的记忆。但如果人工智能个性化到一定程度，记住关于你的事情，以便在多次互动中开始逐渐灌输你们共同构建的关于你过去的叙事，情况可能会变得更糟。

Well, right now, the interactions are pretty ephemeral. They're short lasting, and there's not really a deep memory to the interactions. But this could get a lot worse if the AI is personalized to a degree where it remembers things about you so that it can then start to, over many interactions, feed the narrative about your past that you construct together with the AI over time.

但你甚至不需要那样。这就是我们在调查性访谈中发现的，即警方对证人和嫌疑人的询问，你只需要一个引导性问题或一个暗示性信息，在短暂的互动中。大多数人，大多数警察不会花很长时间，他们对此人的过去没有记忆。除了与犯罪相关的事情，他们基本上对他们一无所知。然而，我们知道，在那非常短暂，也许半小时、一小时的互动中，人们的故事可能会发生根本性的改变。

But you don't even need that. So this is what we find in investigative interviewing, which is police interviewing of witnesses and suspects, is that all you need is a leading question or a suggestive piece of information in a short interaction. Most people most police officers don't spend a long time, and they don't have no memory of this person's past. They know basically nothing about them except for things related to the crime. And yet, we know that within that very short, maybe half hour, one hour interaction, people's stories can change fundamentally.

问题在于，如果你对某件事有记忆，当你在社交互动中提取它时，它几乎是实时的，是活跃的。嗯。然后当你结束那次互动时，它又沉淀下来。关键是，如果你以不同的方式放回去，接下来会发生的是，下次你会记住最新的版本，而你可能没有意识到它已经改变了。

And the problem is that if you create if you have a memory of something, that when you pull it up, in that social interaction, it's it's sort of live. It's like active. Mhmm. And when you then finish that interaction, it sets back down. And the thing is that if you put it back in a different way, what's gonna happen is the next time you're going to remember the latest version, and you might not realize that it shifted.

因此，随着时间的推移，它可能会改变，而你没有意识到，那就是你的真相。这就是为什么即使短暂的互动也能对人类思维产生深远的影响。

And so over time, it can shift, and you don't realize it, and that's your truth. And that's where even just short interactions can have a profound impact on the human mind.

哇。记忆改变得这么快吗？

Wow. Do you modify memories that quickly?

是的。我们在实验中经常这样做。

Yeah. We do all the time in experiments.

好的。你能再详细说说虚假记忆吗？这真的太迷人了。事情发生在我们身上，我们人类在世界上做事，然后我们记住它们。

Okay. Can you speak a little bit more to false memory? So, like, that's just fascinating. So things happen to us. We humans do things in the world, and then we remember them.

我想我们生活的大部分时间都活在记忆中，回忆发生在我们身上的事情。而你说我们可以修改我们讲述这些经历的故事？这太迷人了。那么关于这种形成虚假记忆的能力，我们知道些什么？

And most of our lives, I guess, is lived in memory and remembering the things that happened to us. And you're saying that we can modify the story we tell about the things that happened to us? That's fascinating. So what do we know about this ability to have false memories?

我们知道虚假记忆很常见，它们是正常健康大脑的一个特征。它们不是故障，而是一个特性。我们知道虚假记忆极其普遍，如果你现在思考任何记忆——我感兴趣的是自传体记忆，这不是对事实的记忆。

We know that false memories are common, that they're a feature of a normal healthy brain. They're not this glitch. They are a feature. And we know that false memories are incredibly common in terms of if you think about basically any memory now I'm interested in autobiographical memories. This isn't memories of facts.

这是对经历的记忆，你在某种程度上经历过的事情。而在这些自传体记忆中，基本上你拥有的每一个自传体记忆都是虚假的。问题不在于它是否虚假，而在于虚假的程度。你刚才一直在盯着那边看。

This is memories of experiences, things that you've lived in some way. And of those autobiographical memories, basically, every single autobiographical memory you have is false. The question isn't whether it's false, the question is how false. You're just staring over there.

嗯，我的意思是，是的。这既美丽又可怕，没有什么是真实的。

Well, I mean, yeah. That's I mean, it's both beautiful and terrifying that none nothing is real.

不。这不是我的意思。

No. That's not that's not what I'm saying.

好的。

Okay.

我只是想说，所有事情都带有一定程度的虚假性。有时候我会因此被指责说，哦，那是不是意味着我们永远不能使用证人证词？我并不是说我们不能使用任何证人证词。我只是说我们需要谨慎，因为即使人们自信满满地陈述，也不一定意味着那是真的。或者即使他们有多感官细节，非常具体地描述他们闻到了什么、听到了什么、无论什么。

I'm just saying that everything has a degree of falsehood to it. And this is where sometimes I'll get accused of being like, oh, but that does that mean we can ever use witness statements? That I'm not saying we can't use any witness statements. I'm just saying that we need to be careful because even if people say things with confidence, it doesn't necessarily mean they're true. Or if they have multisensory details, they're describing in very specific detail what they smelled, what they heard, what they whatever.

这并不一定意味着它是真实的。大多数时候，我们的自传体记忆是足够好的。嗯。这就是记忆科学家所说的要旨记忆，或事件的要旨记忆，就像对文本一样。你抓住了它的要点。

It doesn't mean it's necessarily true. Most of the time, our autobiographical memories are good enough. Mhmm. And that's where memory scientists talk about this as gist memory, or gist memory for events, much like for text. You get the gist of it.

对吧？你足够好。你通常能大致准确地记住发生了什么。但当你涉及到所谓的逐字细节，即记忆的具体细节时，你会发现人们往往非常糟糕。大多数时候，这并不重要，因为你记得你和朋友一起玩，记得你在这所大学，记得你最喜欢的咖啡馆大概是什么，记得这个重要的负面或正面事件，没问题。

Right? You you're good enough. You generally remember accurately approximately what happened. But it's when you get to the so called verbatim details, the specific details of memories that you find people are often really bad. Now, most of the time, that doesn't really matter because you remember you hung out with a friend, you remember you were at this university, you remember approximately what what your favorite cafe was, you remember this important negative or positive event, fine.

你实际上不需要确切知道当时穿什么、喝什么、说什么。但在刑事司法环境中，你确实需要确切记住当时喝什么、说什么以及做什么。对吧？因此，我们需要将人类记忆能力分解到这种细节水平，而这恰恰不是为这种水平设计的。

You don't actually need to know exactly what you were wearing and drinking and saying. But in a criminal justice setting, you do need to remember exactly what you were drinking and saying and and and doing. Right? And so that's where we have this need to break down this human capacity for memory to this level of detail that is just not made for.

所以这就是逐字细节会让你陷入麻烦的地方，因为在刑事案件中，我想最微小的细节确实很重要，因为律师可以真的聚焦于那个特定细节，然后你可能就会编造。然后，正如你所说，带有诱导性的审讯问题可能会改变你对某个特定细节的记忆，然后一切都会悬于那个细节之上。

So that's where the verbatim stuff can get you into trouble because with criminal cases, I suppose the tiniest details really matter, because then the lawyers can, like, really zoom in on that particular detail, and then you can just make that up. And then the interrogation with a leading question, as you were saying, can just alter your memory of a particular detail, and then everything will hang on that detail.

对。如果那个特定细节是某人的脸，那问题就非常大了。没错。而且它也可能是一个完全错误的记忆。所以这就是为什么在我的研究以及类似的研究中，我们植入了所谓的记忆或虚假记忆，即关于从未发生过的经历的虚假记忆。

Right. And if that particular detail is someone's face, then that's a really big problem. Right. And so and and it can also be an entire false memory. So this is where, in my research and in research like mine, we've implanted well, memories, what we call memories or false memories of experiences that never happened at all.

所以，虽然大多数事情都是对真实记忆的修改，但完全虚假的记忆是指你认为自己经历了实际上并未发生的事情。我们都有这样的记忆。我们都有些记忆不可能是真实的。我们通常会在与父母谈论童年、或与朋友聊天时意识到这一点，比如我们会说‘还记得我们那次做了什么吗？’，而你的朋友会说‘那是我经历的事’。

So while most things are modifications of real memories, false memories complete false memories are when you think you experience something that you didn't. And we all have them. We all have some memories that can't be true. And we usually realize them, for example, when we talk to our parents about our childhood, or when we talk to friends, and we say, remember that time we did this? And your friend will go, that happened to me.

那并不是你经历的。

That didn't happen to you.

嗯。

Mhmm.

于是你就成为了研究中所谓的‘记忆窃贼’

And you become what is known in research as a memory thief

嗯。

Mhmm.

你窃取了他人的记忆，并接受它——或者说你的大脑将其接受为自己的记忆。这可能是因为对方讲述得如此生动详细，让你能够想象出那个场景。基本上，你的大脑会觉得‘嗯，现在这感觉像是真的了’。于是下次想到这件事时——可能不是下一次，但经过几次回想后——你就会开始认为‘这是我经历的事’。对吧？

Where you've stolen somebody else's memory, and you've accepted it or your brain has accepted it as your own. And that's possibly because the other person told it in such vivid detail that you could imagine it. And basically, your brain was like, well, this feels real now. And so the next time you thought about that, maybe maybe not the next time, but maybe after a couple of times of thinking about it, you started going, this happened to me. Right?

然后你就将其融入了自己的自传记忆中。

And then you integrated into your autobiography.

植入虚假记忆有多难？

How hard is it to insert false memories?

不难。扭曲记忆或植入小的虚假记忆非常容易。更难的是让人们相信整个事件，尤其是具体事件，关于植入特定虚假记忆到底有多容易，这在学界存在广泛争议。这也是围绕我研究的一大争论焦点，当我撰写《记忆幻觉》——我的第一本书时，以及相关研究期间，我和其他几位学者就虚假记忆的定义以及我们该如何讨论其植入难易度展开了激烈辩论。这至今仍是我们领域最大的科学争议之一。

Not hard. It's very easy to distort memories or to insert small false memories. It's harder to convince people of entire events, especially specific events, and this is widely debated, exactly how easy it is to implant a specific false memory. It's also one of the big debates around my own research, is that when I was writing The Memory Illusion, which was my first book, and the research that was in line with that, there was this huge debate between me and a couple of other academics about what it means for something to be a false memory and how we should talk about the ease with which they're implanted. And that is still one of the biggest scientific debates in our field.

对我来说，编码相关的内容涉及有些人所说的虚假信念与虚假记忆之间的区别。所以是‘我认为这件事发生了’与‘我记得这件事发生了’的区别。这通常很难区分，因为作为社会心理学家，我们唯一能依据的就是你告诉我的内容。我可以问你：你认为这真的发生了吗？你相信它确实发生了吗？

And to me, I think that's so the the the coding stuff is about the difference between what some people call a false belief and a false memory. So I think this thing happened or I remember this thing happened. And that is a really difficult differentiation often because all we have as social psychologists is what you're telling me. And I can ask you, do you think it really happened or not? Do you believe it really happened?

但确实很难区分。因此我一直认为需要询问人们具体细节：你对这个记忆有多确信？在这个记忆中你有感受吗？它感觉像其他类型的记忆吗？更像是描述这种体验的性质，而不是直接问‘你认为这是真实记忆吗？’

But it's really hard to differentiate. And so I've always thought that you need to ask people about the specifics, how confident are you in this memory? Or do you feel things in this memory? Does it feel like other kinds of memory? Sort of the like, describe the nature of this experience rather than being like, do you think this is a real memory?

因为要求人们这样做本身就很困难。

Because that's that's a hard thing to ask people to do.

所以你希望间接获取尽可能多的信号，来表明他们确实相信这件事发生过。

So you you you wanna get indirectly as many signals as possible to show that they actually believe the thing happened.

或者这个记忆在他们心中近似于真实记忆。没错。而不是他们觉得‘可能大概发生过’的事情。是的。但其他人认为这条分界线更容易区分。

Or that it approximates a memory in their minds. That's right. Rather than just the thing they think kinda sorta happened. Yeah. But other people think that it's an easier to differentiate line.

所以对我来说，这两者几乎无法区分。其他人认为区别更明显。而在频率方面，根据我的研究，有百分之七十的人确信自己犯下了一个从未发生过的罪行，或者经历了另一个重要的情感事件。这个数字也受到质疑，人们会说，这是否意味着百分之七十的人会有这样的虚假记忆？答案是否定的。

So for me, that differ that it's almost impossible to differentiate the two. Other people think it's more clear. And then in terms of the frequency, so in my research, seventy percent of people became convinced that they committed a crime that never happened or experienced another important emotional event. And that number as well is is challenged in that people go, well, does that mean that seventy percent of people can have false memories like this? And the answer is no.

显然不是。那只是在我的样本中。那只是这六个特定的虚假记忆。而且我认为百分之百的人都容易产生某种形式的虚假记忆，只是可能不在这个特定的研究中。对吧？

Obviously not. That's that's just in my sample. That's just these specific six false memories. And it could be that I think a hundred percent of people are prone to some version of this, just maybe not in this specific study. Right?

如果我必须设计不同的虚假记忆植入方式，或者如果我是另一个人，人们对我的信任度不同。还有那些社会因素，它们或多或少会影响我能否说服你相信你生活中发生过某件你记不起来的事情。显然，在一项研究中我无法捕捉到这一点。但这也不意味着百分之七十的情况下人们都会这样，可能只有百分之一或千分之一的人会有这些复杂的虚假记忆。

If I had to come up with different false memory implants or if I was a different person myself and people trusted me differently. There's the again, those social factors that make it more or less likely that I'm going to be able to convince you that something happened in your life that you can't remember. And in one study, obviously, I can't capture that. But it also doesn't mean that 70% of the time people are you know, it might be 1% of the time or 0.1 of the time that people have these complex false memories.

我猜你只是在说，你不知道样本的代表性如何。但即使只有一项研究，这也太疯狂了，太不可思议了。

I guess you're just speaking to the fact that, you know, you don't know how representative sample is. But even with one study, that's a crazy that's that's incredible.

嗯，不仅仅是代表性的问题。我们还不能以这种方式看待个别研究。

Well, it's not just representativeness. It's also that we shouldn't take individual studies in that way.