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

要從概念上解釋這樣的結果，我們或許能想像自己組成了一個由十個人所組成的團隊，要來一起來為公司或組織重要的下一步思考出有創意的點子。

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

我們假設大家各個才華洋溢，每個人都能想出十個真的相當不錯且可行的點子。

So, 10 people in the team, each of whom is coming up with 10 useful ideas; How many useful ideas do you have in total?

所以我們的團隊有十個人，每個人能想出十個點子。這樣的話我們最後能有多少可用的點子呢？

This is a slightly trick question, cos you think, one would think 100…. 10 people, 10 ideas each.

這其實算是個陷阱題，因為你，或是隨便一個人都會覺得應該要是一百個點子... 因為有十個人，美人有十個點子。

But if they're cognitively homogenous—if they think in the same way—and they come up with the same 10 ideas, you only have 10 overall!

但要是這十個人在認知上都是同質的，也就是全部用同樣的思維來思考的話，他們每個人便只會想出同樣的十個點子，讓你最後只能獲得十個點子而已！

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

另一方面，如果他們的認知有著多樣性，他們每個人便能各自想出不一樣的點子，最後讓你能獲得一百個可用的點子。

In the space of innovation, which is gonna dominate the future of our economy, our political institutions, and more, engineering cognitive diversity, relative to the context, you get this massive uplift in what I call collective intelligence.

創新領域在未來將主導我們經濟與政治機構，而在工程學上與議題脈絡相關的認知多樣性越高，在討論時我所謂的「集體智慧」便能獲得大量的提升。

And the tragedy is two things.

但這裡隱藏著兩個悲劇。

One a psychological point: we are attracted unconsciously to people who think like us.

一個是心理學上的層面：我們會在無意識間被與我們有著相同思維的人所吸引。

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

當其他人與我們的觀點有所共鳴時，這會讓我們覺得自己更加聰明，並進一步檢驗了我們固有的世界觀。

The pleasure centers of our brains light up in brain scanners when people are telling us things we already suspect or believe, or confirm our prejudices.

當其他人向我們訴說我們自己本來就懷疑或相信的事物，或是呼應了我們的偏見時，我們腦中的愉悅中樞便會在腦部掃描器中閃爍起來。

And can you see the problem?

你看出這有什麼問題了嗎？

When it's a simple task, that's fine. Any one person has the solution—you surround yourself with like-minded others, you are able to deliver the solution.

如果我們面對的是簡單的任務，那沒什麼問題。每個人心中都有同一個解法，而你被和自己思維相似的人們圍繞，最終大家便能提出一個解決方案。

But as the complexity increases, and no one brain is sufficient to solve the problem, when you are attracted to people who think in the same way, you're getting no uplift at all in collective intelligence.

但隨著任務複雜性的增加，單獨一個腦袋不足以解決問題，而當你被有著同樣思維的人所吸引時，你們的集體智慧便完全無法提升。

And by mirroring each other's perspectives, you become more confident about a solution that might be gravely mistaken.

而通過反映對方的觀點，你可能會對即將鑄成大錯的解決方案感到更加自信。

This is why cognitive diversity is so important, and I believe it 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，而且我相信它將成為未來五十年的關鍵競爭優勢。

But here's another thing: it's not just a psychological problem, it's a conceptual one.

但還有另一個層面：這不僅是個心理學上的問題，更是概念上的問題。

Whilst researching the book I talked to one of the most eminent economic forecasters in the world, 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.

在研究本書時，我與最著名的預測者之一交談過。他說如果我真的相信我的模型是世界上最好的，那麼根據定義，我應該和那些和我的思維一樣的人一起工作。

That logic is extremely compelling—it is also spectacularly wrong.

這個邏輯聽起來非常吸引人－卻也錯得離譜。