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，