Everything you do right now is grounded in your assumptions.

你現在所做的一切都以你的假設為基礎。

Not sometimes, but all the time.

不是有時，而是一直如此。

We are kind of hardwired to figure out the intentions of other people.

我們有點硬性規定要弄清其他人的意圖。

We turn the world into us's and thems.

我們把世界變成我們和他們。

And we don't like the thems very much and are often really awful to them.

而且我們不怎麼喜歡他們，經常對他們很不友好。

That's the challenge of our tribalistic world that we're in right now.

這就是我們現在所處的部落主義世界的挑戰。

ROBERT SAPOLSKY: When you look at some of the most appalling realms of our behavior,

羅伯特-薩波爾斯基：當你看到我們行為中一些最令人震驚的領域時。

much of it has to do with the fact that social organisms are really, really hardwired to

其中大部分與社會生物體真的、真的是硬性規定的事實有關

make a basic dichotomy about the social world, which is those organisms who count as us's

對社會世界做了一個基本的二分法，那就是那些算作我們的生物體。

and those who count as thems.

和那些算作他們的人。

And this is virtually universal among humans.

而這在人類中幾乎是普遍現象。

And this is virtually universal among all sorts of social primates that have aspects

這在各種社會性靈長類動物中幾乎是普遍存在的，它們都有一些方面的問題。

of social structures built around separate social groupings, us's and thems.

圍繞獨立的社會群體、我們和他們建立的社會結構。

We turn the world into us's and thems and we don't like the thems very much and are

我們把世界變成了 "我們 "和 "他們"，而我們並不喜歡 "他們"，並且是

often really awful to them.

往往對他們來說是非常可怕的。

And the us's, we exaggerate how wonderful and how generous and how affiliative and how

而我們，我們誇大了自己是多麼美好，多麼慷慨，多麼有歸屬感，多麼

just like siblings they are to us.

就像他們對我們來說是兄弟姐妹一樣。

We divide the world into us and them.

我們把世界分為我們和他們。

And one of the greatest ways of seeing just biologically how real this fault line is is

從生物學角度來看，看到這條斷層線有多麼真實的最大方法之一是

there's this hormone oxytocin.

有這種荷爾蒙催產素。

Oxytocin is officially the coolest, grooviest hormone on Earth because what everybody knows

催產素正式成為地球上最酷、最棒的荷爾蒙，因為大家都知道

is it enhances mother infant bonding, and it enhances pair bonding in couples.

是它增強了母親與嬰兒的聯繫，並增強了夫妻間的配對聯繫。

And it makes you more trusting and empathic and emotionally expressive and better at reading

它使你更信任、更有同情心、更有情感表現力、更善於閱讀。

expressions, more charitable.

表達方式，更有慈善性。

And it's obvious that if you just spritz the oxytocin up everyone's noses on this planet,

而且很明顯，如果你只是把催產素噴到這個星球上每個人的鼻子上。

it would be the Garden of Eden the next day.

第二天就會變成伊甸園。

Oxytocin promotes prosocial behavior, until people look closely.

催產素促進親社會行為，直到人們仔細觀察。

And it turns out, oxytocin does all those wondrous things only for people who you think

而事實證明，催產素只對你認為的人做所有這些神奇的事情。

of as an us, as an in-group member.

作為一個我們，作為一個群體中的成員。

It improves in-group favoritism, in-group parochialism.

它改善了群體內的偏袒，群體內的狹隘主義。

What does it do to individuals who you consider a them?

它對那些你認為是他們的人有什麼影響？

It makes you crappier to them.

這讓你在他們眼裡更蹩腳。

More preemptively, aggressive, less cooperative in an economic game.

在經濟博弈中，更多的是先發制人，咄咄逼人，不太合作。

What oxytocin does is enhance this us and them divide.

催產素所做的是加強這種我們和他們之間的分歧。

So that along with other findings, the classic lines of us versus them along the lines of

是以，與其他發現一起，我們與他們之間的經典路線是：1.

race, of sex, of age, of socioeconomic class, your brain processes these us-them differences

種族、性別、年齡、社會經濟階層的差異，你的大腦會處理這些我們和他們之間的差異

on a scale of milliseconds.

以毫秒為組織、部門。

A 20th of a second, your brain is already responding differently to an us versus them.

在20秒內，你的大腦已經對 "我們 "與 "他們 "做出了不同的反應。

So fabulous studies showing this, this double-edged quality to oxytocin. and this was a study

是以，有許多研究表明，催產素具有雙刃劍的特性。 這是一項研究

done by a group in the Netherlands.

由荷蘭的一個小組完成。

And what they did was they took Dutch University student volunteers and they gave them classic

他們所做的是，他們把荷蘭大學的學生志願者，他們給了他們經典的

philosophy problem, the runaway trolley problem, is it okay to sacrifice one person to save

哲學問題，失控的手推車問題，是否可以犧牲一個人去拯救

five?

五？

Runaway trolley.

逃跑的手推車。

Can you push this big beefy guy onto the track who gets squashed by the trolley but that

你能不能把這個大塊頭推到軌道上，他被小車壓扁了，但那

slows it down so that five people tied to the track...

讓它慢下來，讓五個人綁在軌道上...

Standard problem in philosophy, utilitarianism, ends justifies means.

哲學中的標準問題，功利主義，目的決定手段。

All of that.

所有這些。

So you give people the scenario and people have varying opinions.

是以，你給人們的方案，人們有不同的意見。

And now you give them the scenario where the person you push onto the track has a name.

而現在你給他們的情景是，你推上賽道的人有一個名字。

And either it's a standard name from Netherlands, Dirk.

而且，這也是荷蘭的一個標準名字，德克。

I think he was a Pieter, which, this is like a meat and potatoes Netherlandish name or

我想他是一個叫Pieter的人，這就像一個餑餑尼德蘭的名字或

a name from either of two groups that evoke lots of xenophobic hostility among people

一個來自兩個團體的名字，這兩個團體在人們中喚起了許多仇外的敵意。

from the Netherlands.

來自荷蘭。

Someone with a typically German name.

有一個典型的德國名字的人。

Oh yeah, World War II, that's right.

哦，是的，第二次世界大戰，這是正確的。

That was a problem.

這是個問題。

Or someone with a typically Muslim name.

或者有一個典型的穆斯林名字的人。

So now they're choosing whether to save five by pushing Dirk onto the track or Otto or

是以，現在他們正在選擇是通過將德克推上賽道來節省五人，還是奧托或

Mahmoud.

馬哈茂德。

And in general, give them those names and there's no difference in how people would

一般來說，給他們起這些名字，人們會怎麼做沒有什麼區別。

rate it than if they were anonymous.

比起他們的匿名，他們會對其進行評價。

Give people oxytocin, where they don't know that they've gotten it.

給人們提供催產素，他們不知道他們已經得到了它。

Control group has just placebo spritz up their nose.

對照組只用安慰劑噴灑在他們的鼻子上。

Give people oxytocin and kumbaya, you are far less likely to push Dirk onto the track.

給人以催產素和康巴雅，你就更不可能把德克推上賽道。

And you are now far more likely to push good old Otto or good old Mahmoud onto the rails

而你現在更有可能將老好人奧托或老好人馬哈茂德推上鐵軌。

there.

在那裡。

And you are more likely to sacrifice an out-group member to save five.

而且你更有可能犧牲一個外群體成員來拯救五個人。

And you are less likely to sacrifice an in-group member.

而且，你更不可能犧牲一個內部團體的成員。

All you've done there is exaggerate the us-them divide with that.

你所做的只是誇大了我們和他們之間的分歧。

ALEXANDER TODOROV: There are many, many different inputs to impressions.

亞歷山大-託多羅夫對印象有很多很多不同的輸入。

One is emotional expressions.

一個是情感表達。

There's stereotypes about gender.

有關於性別的定型觀念。

There's cues about age and facial maturity.

有關於年齡和麵部成熟度的線索。

All of this go into our impressions.

所有這些都進入了我們的印象。

Another one that is very interesting is typicality.

另一個非常有趣的是典型性。

So as it turn out, we tend to like faces that are typical.

是以，事實證明，我們傾向於喜歡那些典型的面孔。

That means faces that are closer to what we perceive as typical in our social environment.

這意味著面孔更接近我們在社會環境中所感知的典型面孔。

Now, there's an interesting wrinkle because typicality is also culturally specific, especially

現在，有一個有趣的問題，因為典型性在文化上也是特定的，特別是

if the different cultures are linked to different ethnicities and there's distinctive physionomies.

如果不同的文化與不同的民族相聯繫，並且有獨特的植物學。

And that makes it worse.

而這使情況變得更糟。

We've done a study where we created morphs of a typical Japanese face and a typical Israeli

我們做了一項研究，我們創建了一個典型的日本臉和一個典型的以色列臉的變形。

face.

臉。

And then we can interpolate the morphs, so we can imagine like a typical Japanese face

然後我們可以對變形進行插值，所以我們可以想象像一個典型的日本人的面孔

gradually turning into a typical Israeli face.

逐漸變成了一張典型的以色列人的臉。

Now, if you ask Israeli and Japanese participants to evaluate the faces, what happens is that

現在，如果你要求以色列和日本的參與者對這些面孔進行評價，發生的情況是

as the face becomes more Israeli looking, the Israelis believe that the face is becoming

隨著面孔變得更像以色列人，以色列人認為面孔正在變成

more trustworthy.

更值得信賴。

And the other way around for the Japanese.

而日本人的情況則相反。

So in a sense to a large extent, what we perceive as typical is shaped by our natural environment.

是以，從某種意義上說，在很大程度上，我們所認為的典型是由我們的自然環境塑造的。

And it's something that we very rapidly extract.

而這是我們非常迅速地提取的東西。

We are incredibly good learners about faces.

我們對面孔的學習能力令人難以置信。

And most likely, people who live in New York city, with a hugely diverse face, will have

而最有可能的是，生活在紐約市的人們，面對巨大的多樣性，會有

a different notion of typicality if you live in a small rural town where there's not so

如果你住在一個農村小鎮上，那裡沒有那麼多的人，你就會有不同的典型概念。

much diversity.

多樣性。

In this case, this can lead to different kinds of sub-optimal outcomes because naturally

在這種情況下，這可能會導致不同種類的次優結果，因為自然地

we wouldn't trust people that do not look like us not having any other information.

我們不會相信那些不像我們的人，沒有任何其他資訊。

DAN SHAPIRO: Once you attach to a tribe, something strange happens.

丹-夏普羅：一旦你依附於一個部落，就會發生一些奇怪的事情。

No longer is content as important.

內容不再是那麼重要了。

The substance of the arguments, the policies.

爭論的實質，政策。

That is important.

這很重要。

But at the end of the day, the most important element in terms of being a part of a tribe

但在一天結束時，就成為一個部落的一部分而言，最重要的因素是

is loyalty.

是忠誠。

Loyalty to the tribe.

對部落的忠誠。

And the most serious offense that you can commit against your own tribe is to betray

而你對自己的部落所能犯下的最嚴重的罪行是背叛

that tribe's trust, its loyalty, its essence.

該部落的信任，它的忠誠度，它的本質。

It's to go against the tribe in some way.

這是為了在某種程度上與部落作對。

You look at the United States right now, there are these huge political divides.

你看看現在的美國，有這些巨大的政治分歧。

You see the democratic tribe or tribes.

你看到民主的部落或部落。

You see the Republican tribes as well.

你看共和黨的部落也是如此。

And it's very difficult for either side to even say, "I understand what you're saying."

而且任何一方都很難說："我明白你在說什麼"。

Because some on the inside of each side are gonna say, "Nope, they're betraying our tribe."

因為每一方的內部有人會說，"不，他們在背叛我們的部落"。

And betraying a tribe, that's a taboo.

而背叛一個部落，那是一種禁忌。

If I break a taboo, I can suffer social punishment.

如果我犯了禁忌，我就會受到社會的懲罰。

I'm gonna be ex-communicated.

我將被除名。

I'm gonna be ridiculed or worse.

我將會被嘲笑，或者更糟。

But that's the challenge of our tribalistic world that we're in right now.

但這就是我們現在所處的部落主義世界的挑戰。

AMY CHUA: We don't wanna get to the point where we look at people on the other side

AMY CHUA：我們不想達到這樣的程度，即我們看著另一邊的人

and we see them not just as people that we disagree with, but literally as our enemy.

我們不僅把他們看作是我們不同意的人，而且看作是我們的敵人。

Western democracies at their best or just any democracies are when people have cross-cutting

西方民主國家的最佳狀態或任何民主國家都是當人們有跨領域的

group identities.

群體身份。

So it's like, "Okay, I'm a Democrat or I'm a Republican, but I'm also Asian American

是以，這就像，"好吧，我是民主黨人，或者我是共和黨人，但我也是亞裔美國人。

or African-American or straight or gay, wealthy or not wealthy.

或非裔美國人或異性戀或同志，富有或不富有的人。

I like Dickens.

我喜歡狄更斯。

I like Jane Eyre."

我喜歡《簡愛》。"

Just different ways of dividing yourself so that you don't get entrenched in just two

只是以不同的方式來劃分自己，這樣你就不會只在兩個方面固步自封。

terrible tribes.

可怕的部落。

It's sort of like if I'm talking about sports, I'm with you, but if I'm talking about food

這有點像如果我在談論體育，我支持你，但如果我在談論食品

preferences, I'm with you and you could have different groups that neutralize each other.

喜好，我支持你，你可以有不同的小組，互相中和。

SAPOLSKY: Collectively, this is depressing as hell.

薩波爾斯基：總的來說，這是令人沮喪的事情。

Oh my God, we are hardwired to inevitably be awful to thems and thems along all sorts

哦，我的上帝，我們不可避免地會對他們和他們的各種行為感到可怕。

of disturbing lines of, "Oh, if only we could overcome these us and them dichotomies.

"哦，如果我們能克服這些我們和他們的二分法就好了。

Oh no, why are we hardwired"to divide the world along the lines of race and ethnicity

哦，不，為什麼我們硬要按照種族和民族的界限來劃分世界？

and nationality and all of those disturbing things?"

和國籍以及所有這些令人不安的事情？"

And what becomes clear is when you look closely is it is virtually inevitable that we divide

而當你仔細觀察時，就會發現，我們的分裂幾乎是不可避免的。

the world into us's and thems and don't like thems very much and don't treat them well.

將世界分為我們和他們，並且不喜歡他們，也不善待他們。

But we are incredibly easily manipulated as to who counts as an us and who counts as a

但我們非常容易被操縱，誰算作我們，誰算作一個人

them.

他們。

And those fault lines that we view as, "Oh my God, how ancient can you get," that say

而那些被我們視為 "哦，我的上帝，你能有多古老 "的斷層，說的是

somebody of another race evokes limbic responses in us, commensurate with they are a them.

另一個種族的人喚起了我們的邊緣反應，與他們是他們相稱。

They motivate automatic responses.

它們激發了自動反應。

"Oh my God, "s that just the basic fault line?"

"哦，我的上帝，"這只是基本的斷層線嗎？"

And then you do something like have faces of same race versus other race.

然後你做一些事情，比如讓同一種族的人與其他種族的人面對面。

And either they are or aren't wearing a baseball cap with your favorite team's logo on it.

而且，他們要麼戴著帶有你最喜歡的球隊標誌的棒球帽，要麼不戴。

And you completely redefine who's an us.

而你完全重新定義了誰是我們。

Us is people who like the Yankees and them are Red Sox fans.

我們是喜歡洋基隊的人，他們是紅襪隊的球迷。

And suddenly, you're processing within milliseconds what damn baseball cap they have and race

突然間，你在幾毫秒內處理他們有什麼該死的棒球帽和比賽

is being completely ignored.

正在被完全忽視。

"Oh my God, we are inevitably hardwired to make really distressing us-them."

"哦，我的上帝，我們不可避免地被硬性規定為真正令人痛苦的我們-他們。"

We're manipulated within seconds as to who counts as an us, as a them.

我們在幾秒鐘內就被操縱了，誰算作我們，誰算作他們。

Good news with that, we can manipulate us out of some of our worst us-them dichotomies

好消息是，我們可以把我們從一些最糟糕的我們和他們的二分法中操縱出來

and re-categorize people.

並重新對人進行分類。

Bad news, we could be manipulated by all sorts of ideologues out there as to deciding that

壞消息是，我們可能會被外面的各種思想家操縱，以決定

people who seem just like us really aren't and they're really so different that they

那些看起來和我們一樣的人其實並不一樣，他們真的是如此不同，以至於他們

count as a them.

算是一個他們。

BEAU LOTTO: Well, your brain evolved to evolve is adapted to adapt.

BEAU LOTTO: 嗯，你的大腦是為了進化而進化，是為了適應而適應。

So a deep question is how is it possible to ever see differently if everything you see

是以，一個深刻的問題是，如果你看到的一切，怎麼可能有不同的看法呢？

is a reflex grounded in your history of assumptions?

是以你的假設歷史為基礎的條件反射？

Our assumptions and the process of vision is both our constraint and our savior at the

我們的假設和設想的過程既是我們的制約因素，也是我們的救星，在

same time.

同時間。

Because our brain evolved to take what is meaningless and make it meaningful.

因為我們的大腦進化到把無意義的東西變成有意義的。

If you're not sure that was a predator, it was too late.

如果你不確定那是一個捕食者，那就太晚了。

So your brain evolved to take this meaningless data and make meaning from it.

是以，你的大腦進化到可以接受這些無意義的數據並從中獲得意義。

And that's the process of creating perception.

而這就是創造認知的過程。

And then we hold on to those assumptions.

然後我們堅守這些假設。

They create attractor states in your brain.

它們在你的大腦中創造了吸引器狀態。

And they become very stable.

而且他們變得非常穩定。

So how could we see differently?

那麼，我們怎樣才能看到不同的東西呢？

It's by engaging the process of creating perception.

它是通過參與創造感知的過程。

Well, the first step in that is to not just admit, but embody the fact that everything

好吧，這其中的第一步是不只是承認，而是體現出這樣的事實：一切

you do right now is grounded in your assumptions.

你現在所做的一切都建立在你的假設之上。

Not sometimes, but all the time.

不是有時，而是一直如此。

Because if you don't accept that, then you'll never create the possibility of seeing differently.

因為如果你不接受這一點，那麼你就永遠不會創造出以不同方式看待問題的可能性。

So much of deviate, if people walk away with anything, it's knowing the process of perception,

這麼多的偏差，如果人們走了什麼，那就是知道了感知的過程。

in some sense, I want them to know less at the end than they think they know now.

在某種意義上，我希望他們在最後知道的東西比他們現在認為的要少。

Because nothing interesting begins with knowing, it begins with not knowing.

因為沒有什麼有趣的事情是從知道開始的，它是從不知道開始的。

Because the next step is to then identify your assumptions.

因為下一步是再確定你的假設。

Because most of everything that we do, we don't know why we do what we do.

因為我們所做的大部分事情，我們都不知道為什麼要這樣做。

And then the final step is to question those assumptions.

然後，最後一步是質疑這些假設。

But questioning assumptions is incredibly difficult.

但是質疑假設是非常困難的。

Because to question assumptions, to doubt what you assume to be true already, especially

因為質疑假設，懷疑你認為已經是真實的東西，特別是

if that assumption defines who you are, is to do the one thing that our brain evolved

如果這個假設決定了你是誰，那就是做我們的大腦進化出來的一件事。

to avoid, which is uncertainty.

以避免，這就是不確定性。

TODOROV: The reason why we will never be able to get rid of first impressions is because

託多羅夫。我們永遠無法擺脫第一印象的原因是

they serve important psychological functions.

它們具有重要的心理功能。

That is in the absence of any other information, we are trying the best we could to figure

這是在沒有任何其他資訊的情況下，我們正在盡最大的努力來計算

out what the other people are thinking.

瞭解其他人在想什麼。

That doesn't mean that we wouldn't change our minds.

這並不意味著我們不會改變我們的想法。

On the contrary, when you have a good diagnostic evidence about the person or when you know

相反，當你有關於這個人的良好診斷證據時，或者當你知道

about past behavior, that would change your inferences based on appearance.

關於過去的行為，這將改變你基於外觀的推斷。

But most of the time, if you don't have any other information, people will act on this.

但大多數時候，如果你沒有任何其他資訊，人們會據此行事。

And that may not be in their best interest.

而這可能不符合他們的最佳利益。

Starting back with Cesare Lombroso, who wrote books like the "Criminal Man" and the "Criminal

從切薩雷-隆布羅索開始，他寫了《罪犯》和《罪犯》等書。

Woman," and he claimed that he can identify this inferior types based on their facial

他聲稱，他可以根據這些人的面部特徵來識別這些劣質的類型。

features.

特點。

To Francis Galton, who invented the composite photography.

致弗朗西斯-高爾頓，他發明了複合攝影。

And in fact, all of the today's morphing methods are based on this method of composite photography.

而事實上，今天所有的變形方法都是基於這種合成攝影的方法。