I want to draw a distinction right at the start between two kinds of diversity on the one hand.

我想一開始就把兩種多樣性區分開來，一方面是。

Demographic diversity, which is the thing that we often think about when we think about this term.

人口多樣性，這是我們在想到這個詞的時候，經常會想到的事情。

On the other hand, there is cognitive diversity, which is about differences in perspectives and insight on the models and heuristics we deploy to make sense of the world around us and also perhaps, differences in thinking styles.

另一方面，還有認知的多樣性，這涉及到我們為理解周圍的世界而部署的模型和啟發式方法的視角和洞察力的差異，也可能是思維方式的差異。

Some people are quite analytical thinkers and others mawr, holistic and contextual thinkers.

有的人是相當分析性的思維，有的人則是毛爾、整體和情境性的思維。

Imagine you're putting together a group off sprint relay runners and let's say the fastest four runners are all the same gender, the same race the same age.

想象一下，你把一組短跑接力選手放在一起，假設最快的四名選手都是同一性別、同一種族、同一年齡。

They will have two Children watch the same TV programs, so they're not terribly diverse demographically, and probably not cognitively either.

他們會有兩個孩子看同樣的電視節目，所以他們在人口結構上並不是非常多樣化，可能在認知上也不是。

And suppose somebody said to you, You know what?

假如有人對你說，你知道嗎？

If you could diversify that team, diversity really matters, and you then started selecting slower runners who were indeed diverse.

如果你能讓這個團隊多元化，多元化真的很重要，然後你就開始選拔跑得慢的選手，他們確實是多元化的。

Would this help you in the Olympic gold medal?

這對你的奧運金牌有幫助嗎？

No.

不知道

It would undermine your chances of winning Olympic gold medal in a sprint relay team.

這將破壞你在短跑接力隊中獲得奧運金牌的機會。

You want tohave the fastest runners, and that's basically the only criterion of selection If you want to win the race.

你要有最快的選手，這基本上是唯一的選擇標準，如果你想贏得比賽。

And if you could take the fastest runner on hypothetically, clone that runner, let's call that person Usain Bolt.

如果你能把跑得最快的人假設出來，克隆出那個跑者，就叫他烏塞恩-博爾特吧。

So you now have a team of Usain Bolt's.

所以你現在有了一隊Usain Bolt的人。

That's a fantastic team, a team of clones who are identical to each other because every member of your team is faster than any member of any other team that's gonna win the Olympic Games.

那是一支神奇的隊伍，一支由彼此相同的克隆人組成的隊伍，因為你的隊伍中的每一個成員都比其他任何一支隊伍的成員都要快，都要贏得奧運會的冠軍。

But now let's shift from a simple, linear tasks, like running to a complex tasks like economic forecasting.

但現在讓我們從一個簡單的、線性的任務，比如跑步，轉向一個複雜的任務，比如經濟預測。

Let me share briefly, a brilliant piece of research by a psychologist from Duke University called Jack Soul.

我簡單分享一下，杜克大學的一位心理學家的精彩研究，他叫傑克魂。

He took 258 economic forecasters, and he measured their track record.

他帶著258名經濟預測員，衡量他們的業績。

He was trying to figure out who were the most accurate forecasters aunt.

他想弄清楚誰是最準確的預報員阿姨。

He found that there was a distribution that was a bell shaped curve.

他發現，有一種分佈是鐘形曲線。

He also found that the most accurate forecaster was 5% more accurate than an average forecaster, but then solve took the top six forecasters and put them in what you might call a nominal team and he took the average of their forecasts.

他還發現，最準確的預報員比平均預報員的準確率高5%，但後來解把前六名預報員放在一個你可以稱之為名義的團隊中，他把他們的預報的平均值。

But when Soul took the average off, the top six forecasters in the bed it with the with the most accurate forecaster, What do you think was more accurate?

但是當Soul把平均數拿掉的時候，前六名的預測者在床它與與最準確的預測者，你認為什麼更準確？

I mean, I've given the game away here that the average of the top six.

我的意思是，我在這裡把前六名的平均水平的比賽給了別人。

But it wasn't just 1% more accurate or 5% more accurate or 10% more accurate.

但這不僅僅是1%的準確率，也不僅僅是5%的準確率或10%的準確率。

It was 15% more accurate in the reason hinges on cognitive diversity.

它的準確率是15%，原因是鉸鏈的認知多樣性。

Economic forecasters like the rest of us, they use a model in order to make a prediction, a way of thinking about the world.

經濟預測者和我們其他人一樣，他們使用一個模型來進行預測，這是一種思考世界的方式。

Each of these models, if the Economist is worth their salt, contains some useful information.

如果《經濟學人》值得一讀的話，這些模型都包含一些有用的資訊。

But because economists use different models, the information contained in six moderately valid models must b'more information than any one model alone.

但由於經濟學家使用不同的模型，6箇中等有效的模型所包含的資訊一定b'比任何一個模型單獨使用的資訊多。

If you're thinking, each of these models probably also contains missed aches and myths and blind spots and errors, that is true.

如果你在想，這些模型中可能每一個也都包含著遺漏的痛點和迷思，以及盲點和錯誤，這是真的。

But the technique of averaging eliminates the errors but pulls the information.

但平均法的技術可以消除誤差，但可以拉動資訊。

If that makes sense, this is a powerful thing, and it's a robust finding in social science, sometimes called the wisdom of the crowds.

如果有道理的話，這是一個很強大的東西，這是社會科學的一個強大的發現，有時候叫做眾人的智慧。

But here's the interesting thing.

但有趣的是

When it comes to tasks that we're more familiar with, like problem solving and coming up with creative ideas and strategies or new products and businesses, the power of cognitive diversity is even more profound.

當涉及到我們比較熟悉的任務時，比如解決問題，提出創造性的想法和策略，或者新產品和新業務，認知多樣性的力量更加深遠。

Perhaps a good way to make the point conceptually is to imagine you're putting together a group of 10 people in the team to come up with creative ideas to do the next big thing in your business or organization.

也許從概念上講，一個很好的方法是想象你在團隊中召集10個人，提出創造性的想法，來做你的企業或組織的下一件大事。

Let's also assume that this is a talented group of people, each of whom comes up with 10 genuinely useful ideas.

我們也假設這是一群有才華的人，每個人都能提出10個真正有用的想法。

But if they're cognitively homogeneous, if they think in the same way and they come up with the same 10 ideas, you only have 10% overall.

但如果他們的認知是同質的，如果他們的思維方式是一樣的，他們提出的10個想法也是一樣的，你的整體只有10%。

If, on the other hand, there cognitively diverse and come up with different ideas from one another, you could have 100 useful ideas.

如果在另一方面，有認知上的多樣性，並提出彼此不同的想法，你可以有100個有用的想法。

Think about that for a second.

想一想吧。

These air two teams composed of individuals who are equally talented but the cognitively diverse team comes up with almost 1000% additional creative ideas in the space off innovation which is going to dominate the future of our economy.

這兩支空氣團隊由同樣有天賦的個人組成，但認知多元化的團隊在創新的空間裡提出了幾乎1000%的額外創意，這將主導我們經濟的未來。

our political institutions and mawr engineering cognitive diversity relative to the context, you get this massive uplifting.

我們的政治體制和毛澤東工程認知的多樣性相對於背景，你會得到這種大規模的提升。

What I call collective intelligence on the tragedy is two things.

我所說的集體智慧對悲劇的影響是兩點。

One a psychological point.

一個一個心理點。

We are attracted unconsciously to people who think like us.

我們會不自覺地被和我們想法一樣的人所吸引。

When people are mirroring our perspective back to us, it makes us feel smarter.

當人們把我們的觀點反射給我們時，會讓我們覺得自己更聰明。

It validates our worldview.

它驗證了我們的世界觀。

When it's a simple task, that's fine.

當它是一個簡單的任務，這很好。

Any one person has a solution.

任何一個人都有解決辦法。

You surround yourself with like minded others, you are able to deliver the solution.

你身邊有志同道合的人，你就能提供解決方案。

But as the complexity increases and no one brain is sufficient to solve the problem when you're attracted to people who think in the same way you're getting no uplift it all in collective intelligence, and by mirroring each other's perspectives, you become more confident about a solution that might be gravely mistaken.

但隨著複雜度的增加，沒有一個大腦足以解決問題，當你被那些以同樣方式思考的人所吸引時，你就會在集體智慧中得到不升反降，通過互相映照對方的觀點，你會對一個可能是嚴重錯誤的解決方案更加自信。

This is why cognitive diversity is so important and, I believe, will become the key feature of competitive advantage for the next 50 years.

這就是為什麼認知多樣性如此重要的原因，我相信，這將成為未來50年競爭優勢的關鍵特徵。

But here's another thing.

但還有一件事。

It's not just a psychological problem.

這不僅僅是一個心理問題。

It's a conceptual one.

這是一個概念性的。

I talked to one of the most eminent economic forecasters in the world, I said, Do you prefer working with people who think like you or who think differently.

我跟世界上最傑出的經濟預測家之一，我說，你是喜歡跟跟你一樣的人合作，還是跟不同的人合作。

And he said, If I truly believe that my model is the best one out there, then by definition I should be working with people who think like me.

他說，如果我真的相信我的模式是最好的模式，那麼按理說我應該和那些和我一樣想法的人合作。

That logic is extremely compelling.

這個邏輯是非常有說服力的。

It is also spectacularly wrong.

這也是驚人的錯誤。