Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

  • Transcriber: Leslie Gauthier Reviewer: Camille Martínez

    譯者: Jing-Ai Huang 審譯者: Amanda Zhu

  • So I'm starting us out today with a historical mystery.

    我今天先來談談一個歷史謎團。

  • In 1957, there were two young women,

    在 1957 年,有兩名年輕的女人,

  • both in their 20s,

    他們都 20 幾歲、

  • both living in the same city,

    住在同一個都市、

  • both members of the same political group.

    是同一個政治團體的成員。

  • That year, both decided to commit violent attacks.

    那年,他們倆決定進行暴力襲擊。

  • One girl took a gun and approached a soldier at a checkpoint.

    其中一個女生,拿著槍,

  • The other girl took a bomb and went to a crowded café.

    朝著一名檢察站的軍人前進。

  • But here's the thing:

    另一名女生拿著炸彈 走向擁擠的咖啡廳。

  • one of the those girls followed through with the attack,

    但重點是兩者當中,

  • but the other turned back.

    一名女生繼續照著計畫做,

  • So what made the difference?

    另一 名女生卻放棄了。

  • I'm a behavioral historian, and I study aggression,

    那這個決定是什麼造成的呢?

  • moral cognition

    我是個行為歷史專家

  • and decision-making in social movements.

    研究社會運動中的侵略性、

  • That's a mouthful. (Laughs)

    道德認知和決策。

  • So, the translation of that is:

    聽起來很繞口吧。(笑)

  • I study the moment an individual decides to pull the trigger,

    換句話說,

  • the day-to-day decisions that led up to that moment

    我研究的是一個人 決定扣扳機的那一刻;

  • and the stories that they tell themselves about why that behavior is justified.

    事情的發展如何引導他 在那一刻決定扣下板機,

  • Now, this topic --

    以及他們如何說服自己 這樣做是合理的。

  • it's not just scholarly for me.

    這個話題

  • It's actually a bit personal.

    並不只是學術性的,

  • I grew up in Kootenai County, Idaho,

    它對我來說是個挺私人的問題。

  • and this is very important.

    我在愛達荷州 Kootenai 郡長大,

  • This is not the part of Idaho with potatoes.

    這點非常重要。

  • We have no potatoes.

    這一部份的愛達荷州 並沒有馬鈴薯。

  • And if you ask me about potatoes,

    我們沒有馬鈴薯。

  • I will find you.

    如果你問我馬鈴薯的問題,

  • (Laughter)

    你要小心一點。

  • This part of Idaho is known for mountain lakes,

    (笑聲)

  • horseback riding,

    我住的地方以高山湖泊、

  • skiing.

    騎馬、滑雪而知名。

  • Unfortunately, starting in the 1980s,

    不幸的是,1980 年代開始,

  • it also became known as the worldwide headquarters

    它也被稱為雅利安民族的總部。

  • for the Aryan Nations.

    每年當地的新納粹主義者 會從他們的聚落傾巢而出,

  • Every year, members of the local neo-Nazi compound

    在我們城裡遊行,

  • would turn out and march through our town,

    城裡的居民就會出來抗議。

  • and every year,

    在 2001 年,我高中畢業,

  • members of our town would turn out and protest them.

    並上了在紐約的一間大學。

  • Now, in 2001, I graduated from high school,

    我在 2001 年的八月抵達學校。

  • and I went to college in New York City.

    你們知道,

  • I arrived in August 2001.

    三週後,

  • As many of you probably are aware,

    世貿雙子星大樓就倒塌了。

  • three weeks later,

    我很震驚。

  • the Twin Towers went down.

    我非常生氣。

  • Now, I was shocked.

    我想做點事情,

  • I was incredibly angry.

    但是那時我只有想到

  • I wanted to do something,

    我可以學阿拉伯語。

  • but the only thing that I could think of doing at that time

    我承認,我是班上那個想要知道

  • was to study Arabic.

    「他們」為什麼會 討厭「我們」的女生。

  • I will admit,

    以這個理由學習阿拉伯語真的很糟。

  • I was that girl in class that wanted to know why "they" hate "us."

    但是出乎意料的事情發生了。

  • I started studying Arabic for very wrong reasons.

    我拿到一個以色列學校的獎學金。

  • But something unexpected happened.

    因此,愛達荷州的女孩去了中東。

  • I got a scholarship to go study in Israel.

    我在那裡留學時, 遇到了巴勒斯坦穆斯林、

  • So the Idaho girl went to the Middle East.

    巴勒斯坦基督教徒、

  • And while I was there, I met Palestinian Muslims,

    以色列定居者、

  • Palestinian Christians,

    以色列和平主義者。

  • Israeli settlers,

    我了解到,每一個行為都有其生態。

  • Israeli peace activists.

    它都會有原因。

  • And what I learned is that every act has an ecology.

    從那次之後,我走遍了全世界,

  • It has a context.

    研究暴力運動。

  • Now, since then, I have gone around the world,

    我也與伊拉克、敘利亞、 越南、巴爾幹、

  • I have studied violent movements,

    古巴的非政府組織 和前戰鬥人員們合作。

  • I have worked with NGOs and ex-combatants in Iraq,

    我獲得了歷史博士學位,

  • Syria,

    現在要做的就是去不同的檔案館,

  • Vietnam,

    翻閱文件,

  • the Balkans,

    尋找警察的供詞紀錄、

  • Cuba.

    法庭案件、

  • I earned my PhD in History,

    暴力襲擊者的日記和宣言。

  • and now what I do is I go to different archives

    當你搜集了所有的檔案,

  • and I dig through documents,

    他們會說什麼呢?

  • looking for police confessions,

    我們都喜歡

  • court cases,

    意想不到的謎團。

  • diaries and manifestos of individuals involved in violent attacks.

    所以每次我們在 新聞上看到攻擊事件,

  • Now, you gather all these documents --

    我們都會問:

  • what do they tell you?

    「為什麼?

  • Our brains love causal mysteries,

    為什麼會發生這種事?」

  • it turns out.

    我已經看過上千個宣言,

  • So any time we see an attack on the news,

    所以我可以告訴你, 他們其實都在模仿別人。

  • we tend to ask one question:

    他們從模仿的對象 汲取政治運動的宣言。

  • Why?

    所以在這種情況下,

  • Why did that happen?

    我們看不出來他們的決策方式。

  • Well, I can tell you I've read thousands of manifestos,

    所以我們必須問一個 完全不一樣的問題。

  • and what you find out is that they are actually imitative.

    我們不該問:「為什麼?」 我們應該問:「怎麼會這樣?」

  • They imitate the political movement that they're drawing from.

    他們是如何攻擊的,

  • So they actually don't tell us a lot about decision-making

    他們的決策生態 又如何導致這種暴力行為?

  • in that particular case.

    我從問這種問題中學到了幾件事。

  • So we have to teach ourselves to ask a totally different question.

    最重要的是,

  • Instead of "Why?" we have to ask "How?"

    政治暴力不是某些文化特有的,

  • How did individuals produce these attacks,

    而是我們創造的。

  • and how did their decision-making ecology contribute to violent behavior?

    不論我們有沒有注意到,

  • There's a couple things I've learned from asking this kind of question.

    我們的日常習慣都可能在

  • The most important thing is that

    生活的環境中造成暴力。

  • political violence is not culturally endemic.

    因此,我學到的是, 有幾種行為會促成暴力行為。

  • We create it.

    攻擊者在準備執行暴力事件時,

  • And whether we realize it or not,

    做的第一件事,

  • our day-to-day habits contribute to the creation of violence

    就是把自己包在一個 假新聞的洗腦泡泡裡。

  • in our environment.

    我們都聽說過假新聞吧。

  • So here's a couple of habits that I've learned contribute to violence.

    讓我挺震驚的是,

  • One of the first things that attackers did

    我研究的每個小組 都有某種假新聞口號。

  • when preparing themselves for a violent event

    法國共產黨叫它「腐爛的新聞」。

  • was they enclosed themselves in an information bubble.

    法國超民族主義者叫它「暢銷新聞」

  • We've heard of fake news, yeah?

    和「叛逆新聞」。

  • Well, this shocked me:

    在埃及的伊斯蘭主義者 叫它「墜落的新聞」。

  • every group that I studied had some kind of a fake news slogan.

    埃及的共產主義者就會叫它

  • French communists called it the "putrid press."

    「假新聞」。

  • French ultranationalists called it the "sellout press"

    所以他們為什麼會花那麼多時間, 創造這些假新聞泡泡呢?

  • and the "treasonous press."

    答案其實非常簡單。

  • Islamists in Egypt called it the "depraved news."

    我們都會根據我們信任的資訊, 作出決定,是吧。

  • And Egyptian communists called it ...

    所以如果我們相信不對的資訊,

  • "fake news."

    我們就會做不好的決定。

  • So why do groups spend all this time trying to make these information bubbles?

    有趣的,一個人想要發動

  • The answer is actually really simple.

    暴力攻擊的另一個習慣是,

  • We make decisions based on the information we trust, yeah?

    他們只會把受害者當成

  • So if we trust bad information,

    敵對組織的成員看待, 而不是把它看作是一個人。

  • we're going to make bad decisions.

    這很奇怪。

  • Another interesting habit that individuals used

    這些想法的背後是 一些有趣的腦科學。

  • when they wanted to produce a violent attack

    假設我把你們分成兩隊:

  • was that they looked at their victim not as an individual

    藍隊

  • but just as a member of an opposing team.

    和紅隊。

  • Now this gets really weird.

    我再叫你們在遊戲中互相競爭。

  • There's some fun brain science behind why that kind of thinking is effective.

    有趣的是,

  • Say I divide all of you guys into two teams:

    轉眼間你的心態就變了;

  • blue team,

    你會因為對手的失誤而感到開心。

  • red team.

    更有趣的是,如果我叫一名藍隊的成員

  • And then I ask you to compete in a game against each other.

    轉到紅隊,

  • Well, the funny thing is, within milliseconds,

    你的大腦就會重新調整,

  • you will actually start experiencing pleasure -- pleasure --

    轉眼間,

  • when something bad happens to members of the other team.

    當您的舊隊友發生失誤時,

  • The funny thing about that is if I ask one of you blue team members

    您也會開始感到愉悅。

  • to go and join the red team,

    這就是一個很好的例子,

  • your brain recalibrates,

    來說明以「我們」、「他們」 將人群歸類的思維,

  • and within milliseconds,

    在我們的政治環境有多麼危險。

  • you will now start experiencing pleasure

    另一個攻擊者常有的習慣是,

  • when bad things happen to members of your old team.

    他們會專注在他與受害者之間的差異。

  • This is a really good example of why us-them thinking is so dangerous

    換句話說,他們會看受害者,並想著:

  • in our political environment.

    「我與他沒有共同之處。

  • Another habit that attackers used to kind of rev themselves up for an attack

    他跟我完全不一樣。」

  • was they focused on differences.

    這聽起來像是一個很簡單的概念,

  • In other words, they looked at their victims, and they thought,

    但是它的背後其實有一些有趣的科學。

  • "I share nothing in common with that person.

    假設我給你們看一個影片, 影片中會秀出不同顏色的手,

  • They are totally different than me."

    並用很尖的針刺穿這些手。

  • Again, this might sound like a really simple concept,

    好嗎?

  • but there's some fascinating science behind why this works.

    如果你是白人,

  • Say I show you guys videos of different-colored hands

    當你看到那個白人的手掌被刺穿,

  • and sharp pins being driven into these different-colored hands,

    你就會展現最強的交感神經啟動反應,

  • OK?

    意思就是會覺得那個手最痛。

  • If you're white,

    如果你是拉丁美洲人、 阿拉伯人、黑人,

  • the chances are you will experience the most sympathetic activation,

    你就會在看到與你 膚色相同的手被針穿過時,

  • or the most pain,

    有同樣的反應。

  • when you see a pin going into the white hand.

    好消息是,這並不是天生的,

  • If you are Latin American, Arab, Black,

    這是個學習而得的行為。

  • you will probably experience the most sympathetic activation

    這意味著,我們與其他種族族群 相處的時間越多,

  • watching a pin going into the hand that looks most like yours.

    我們就越會覺得他們與我們相似、

  • The good news is, that's not biologically fixed.

    和我們是同隊的,

  • That is learned behavior.

    我們就會更加感受到他們的痛苦。

  • Which means the more we spend time with other ethnic communities

    我要聊的最後一個習慣是

  • and the more we see them as similar to us and part of our team,

    當攻擊者準備出門做這些事情時,

  • the more we feel their pain.

    他們會將注意力集中在 某些情緒暗示上。

  • The last habit that I'm going to talk about

    在之前的幾個月裡,

  • is when attackers prepared themselves to go out and do one of these events,

    他們專注於我們讓他們生氣的事, 以便一心一意地和我們對抗。

  • they focused on certain emotional cues.

    我之所以提到這個 是因為現在這個很紅。

  • For months, they geared themselves up by focusing on anger cues, for instance.

    如果你讀部落格或新聞,

  • I bring this up because it's really popular right now.

    您會看到來自實驗室科學 關於兩個概念的討論:

  • If you read blogs or the news,

    杏仁核劫持和情感劫持。

  • you see talk of two concepts from laboratory science:

    杏仁核劫持的概念,舉例來說,

  • amygdala hijacking and emotional hijacking.

    我向您顯示一個暗示 ——例如:槍支——

  • Now, amygdala hijacking:

    負責「戰或逃」反應的杏仁核

  • it's the concept that I show you a cue -- say, a gun --

    就會讓你做出受到威脅時的反應。

  • and your brain reacts with an automatic threat response

    情感劫持也是類似的概念;

  • to that cue.

    我對你做一個引起生氣反應的暗示,

  • Emotional hijacking -- it's a very similar concept.

    你的大腦就會讓你不自主地

  • It's the idea that I show you an anger cue, for instance,

    做出生氣的反應。

  • and your brain will react with an automatic anger response

    我想女性在這方面 比男性更有經驗。(笑)

  • to that cue.

    (笑聲)

  • I think women usually get this more than men. (Laughs)

    那種關於劫持的敘述 引起了我們的注意。

  • (Laughter)

    單是「劫持」這個詞 就可以引起我們的注意。

  • That kind of a hijacking narrative grabs our attention.

    實話說,

  • Just the word "hijacking" grabs our attention.

    大多時候,這並不是那些暗示 在現實生活中的運作方式。

  • The thing is,

    如果你深入了解歷史,

  • most of the time, that's not really how cues work in real life.

    你會發現我們每天都被

  • If you study history,

    成千上萬的暗示轟炸,

  • what you find is that we are bombarded with hundreds of thousands of cues

    所以我們學會了過濾暗示。

  • every day.

    我們會忽略某些暗示,

  • And so what we do is we learn to filter.

    並專注在其他暗示上。

  • We ignore some cues,

    這對政治暴力很重要,

  • we pay attention to other cues.

    因為那說明了,攻擊者通常都不會

  • For political violence, this becomes really important,

    因為激發他憤怒的暗示 而突然作出行動。

  • because what it meant is that attackers usually didn't just see an anger cue

    事實是,政治家和社會運動家

  • and suddenly snap.

    花了數週、數月、數年的時間 製造憤怒的暗示,

  • Instead,

    讓我們的社會被這些暗示淹沒。

  • politicians, social activists spent weeks, months, years

    攻擊者專注在那些暗示上,

  • flooding the environment with anger cues, for instance,

    他們相信那些暗示,

  • and attackers,

    他們專注在那些暗示上,

  • they paid attention to those cues,

    他們甚至把那些暗示背下 來。

  • they trusted those cues,

    這些都告訴我們探究歷史的重要性。

  • they focused on them,

    在實驗環境中觀察 暗示如何運作是一回事。

  • they even memorized those cues.

    這些實驗其實非常重要。

  • All of this just really goes to show how important it is to study history.

    他們提供我們很多關於 身體運作方式的數據。

  • It's one thing to see how cues operate in a laboratory setting.

    但是,了解這些暗示 如何在現實生活中運作也很重要。

  • And those laboratory experiments are incredibly important.

    那麼,這一切會告訴我們 政治暴力的什麼事?

  • They give us a lot of new data about how our bodies work.

    政治暴力並不是某些文化特有的。

  • But it's also very important to see how those cues operate in real life.

    這不是對環境刺激 所做的自動、本能反應。

  • So what does all this tell us about political violence?

    這些反應是我們自己產生的,

  • Political violence is not culturally endemic.

    我們的日常習慣造成的。

  • It is not an automatic, predetermined response to environmental stimuli.

    讓我們回到我一開始 提到的那兩個女人。

  • We produce it.

    第一個女人一直在關注 那些煽動暴力的宣傳,

  • Our everyday habits produce it.

    因此她拿著槍,

  • Let's go back, actually, to those two women that I mentioned at the start.

    朝著一名在檢查站的軍人前進。

  • The first woman had been paying attention to those outrage campaigns,

    但就在那時,發生了一些有趣的事情。

  • so she took a gun

    她看著那個軍人,

  • and approached a soldier at a checkpoint.

    想說:

  • But in that moment, something really interesting happened.

    「他跟我年紀相仿。

  • She looked at that soldier,

    他看起來就像我。」

  • and she thought to herself,

    就只因為他們有一點相似,

  • "He's the same age as me.

    所以她把槍放下,離開了。

  • He looks like me."

    第二個女孩有完全不一樣的結果。

  • And she put down the gun, and she walked away.

    她也有關注煽動暴力的宣傳,

  • Just from that little bit of similarity.

    但是她周圍的人

  • The second girl had a totally different outcome.

    都支持暴力,

  • She also listened to the outrage campaigns,

    朋友也都支持她的暴力行為。

  • but she surrounded herself with individuals

    她把自己包在洗腦泡泡裡。

  • who were supportive of violence,

    幾個月以來她一直專注於情緒暗示上。

  • with peers who supported her violence.

    她學到方法來避開 文化中對暴力的限制。

  • She enclosed herself in an information bubble.

    她預演了她的計畫,

  • She focused on certain emotional cues for months.

    她自學了新的習慣。

  • She taught herself to bypass certain cultural inhibitions against violence.

    時間到的時候, 她將炸彈帶到了咖啡廳,

  • She practiced her plan,

    依照計畫執行暴力攻擊。

  • she taught herself new habits,

    這並不是一種衝動,

  • and when the time came, she took her bomb to the café,

    這是一種學習。

  • and she followed through with that attack.

    我們社會的兩極分化不是衝動,

  • This was not impulse.

    而是學習。

  • This was learning.

    我們每天都在自學:

  • Polarization in our society is not impulse,

    我們所點擊的新聞,

  • it's learning.

    我們關注的情緒,

  • Every day we are teaching ourselves:

    我們對紅隊或藍隊的想法。

  • the news we click on,

    無論我們是否有意識到,

  • the emotions that we focus on,

    這些都會幫助我們學習。

  • the thoughts that we entertain about the red team or the blue team.

    好消息是,

  • All of this contributes to learning,

    即使我研究的人都已經做了決定,

  • whether we realize it or not.

    我們仍然可以改變我們的軌道。

  • The good news

    我們可能永遠都不會做出 他們所做出的決定,

  • is that while the individuals I study already made their decisions,

    但是我們可以不再激發暴力生態。

  • we can still change our trajectory.

    我們可以擺脫那些洗腦泡泡,

  • We might never make the decisions that they made,

    可以更加關注自己的情緒暗示

  • but we can stop contributing to violent ecologies.

    和我們點擊的憤怒誘餌。

  • We can get out