Name: 大腦在政治中的作用 | 灰色地帶 (Your brain's role in your politics | The Gray Area)
Uploaded: 2025-06-17T17:02:56.000Z
Duration: 48 min 12 s

A word you hear a lot these days is ideology.

最近經常聽到的一個詞是意識形態。

In fact, you could argue this is the political term of the moment.

事實上，你可以說這是當下的政治術語。

When Trump is denouncing the left, he's talking about gender ideology or critical race theory or DEI.

當特朗普譴責左派時，他談論的是性別意識形態、批判種族理論或 DEI。

When the left is denouncing Trump, they're talking about fascism or Project 2025.

當左派譴責特朗普時，他們談論的是法西斯主義或 "2025 計劃"。

Wherever you look, ideology is being used to explain or justify policies, and buried in all that is an unstated assumption that the real ideologues are on the other side.

無論從哪裡看，意識形態都被用來解釋或證明政策的合理性，而這一切都埋藏著一個未說明的假設，即真正的意識形態主義者在另一方。

Often to call someone ideological is to imply that they're fanatical or dogmatic.

通常情況下，稱某人為 "意識形態"，就是暗示他狂熱或教條。

Most of us don't think of ourselves as ideological for that reason.

是以，我們大多數人都不認為自己是意識形態。

And if someone does call you an ideologue, you might recoil a little bit.

如果有人說你是意識形態主義者，你可能會有點反感。

I mean, sure, you have beliefs, you have a worldview, but you're not an ideologue.

我的意思是，當然，你有信仰，你有世界觀，但你不是一個意識形態主義者。

Maybe this isn't the best way to think about ideology.

也許這並不是思考意識形態的最佳方式。

Maybe we don't really know what we're talking about when we talk about ideology.

也許當我們談論意識形態時，我們並不知道自己在說什麼。

Is it possible that we're all ideological in ways we don't recognize?

我們是否都在意識形態方面存在著自己沒有意識到的問題？

And if we could see ourselves a little more clearly, might that help us see others more clearly?

如果我們能更清楚地看清自己，是否能幫助我們更清楚地看清他人？

I'm Sean Elling, and this is The Gray Area.

我是肖恩-艾林，這裡是《灰色地帶》。

She's a cognitive neuroscientist and the author of The Ideological Brain.

她是一位認知神經科學家，也是《意識形態大腦》一書的作者。

The book makes the case that our political beliefs aren't just beliefs.

這本書說明，我們的政治信仰不僅僅是信仰。

They're neurological signatures written into our neurons and reflexes.

它們是寫入我們神經元和條件反射的神經特徵。

That's a fancy way of saying that how we think and what we believe is a product of the way our brains are wired.

這句話的意思是，我們的思維方式和信念是我們大腦連線方式的產物。

To be clear, she isn't saying that our beliefs are entirely shaped by our biology.

說白了，她並不是說我們的信念完全是由生物學決定的。

The point isn't that brain is destiny, but she is saying that the way our brains handle change and uncertainty may shape not only the beliefs we adopt, but how fiercely we cling to those beliefs.

她的意思並不是說大腦就是命運，而是說我們的大腦處理變化和不確定性的方式不僅會影響我們的信念，還會影響我們對這些信念的堅持程度。

A book like this feels especially relevant in such a polarized moment, because it's hard to imagine bridging the divides in our society without understanding ourselves and each other much better.

在這樣一個兩極分化的時代，這樣一本書顯得尤為重要，因為如果不更好地瞭解我們自己和彼此，就很難想象彌合我們社會中的分歧。

And part of that understanding is knowing what's really motivating us.

而這種理解的一部分就是要知道我們的真正動機是什麼。

利爾-麥格拉斯，歡迎來到節目。

Let's try that again.  Leor McGrath, welcome to the show.

我們再來一次  利爾-麥格拉斯，歡迎來到節目。

This is a very interesting book, full of a lot of provocative, compelling claims.

這是一本非常有趣的書，其中充滿了許多挑釁性的、令人信服的主張。

Before we do, I am just curious, what drew you to this question?

在此之前，我很好奇，是什麼吸引你提出這個問題的？

Well, in many ways, ideology is all around us.

從很多方面來說，意識形態就在我們身邊。

But often we don't really know what it is, right?

但很多時候，我們並不知道它是什麼，對嗎？

We kind of say, well, an ideology is just a system of beliefs or just a kind of insult.

我們會說，意識形態只是一種信仰體系，或者只是一種侮辱。

We used to kind of demean someone who believes something totally different to us, which we think is wrong.

我們習慣於貶低那些信仰與我們完全不同的人，因為我們認為這是錯的。

And I was really interested in delving into what it means to think ideologically and what it means for a brain to really be immersed in ideology and whether that's a kind of experience that can change the brain, that certain brains might be more prone to taking an ideology and kind of embracing it in an extreme and intense way.

我很有興趣深入研究意識形態思維的含義，以及大腦真正沉浸在意識形態中意味著什麼，這是否是一種可以改變大腦的體驗，某些大腦可能更容易接受意識形態，並以一種極端而強烈的方式接受它。

And that's why in the book, in The Ideological Brain, I really delve into this question of what makes people gravitate towards ideologies and what is it about some brains that makes them especially susceptible.

是以，在《意識形態的大腦》一書中，我深入探討了是什麼讓人們對意識形態情有獨鍾，是什麼讓某些人的大腦特別容易受到影響。

And in doing that, I'm really interested in thinking about ideology in a more precise way than we typically think about it as, which is not just as a broad system of beliefs floating above our heads in an ambiguous way or something that's purely historical or sociological, but it's something that's really deeply psychological and that we can see inside people's brains.

在這樣做的過程中，我真正感興趣的是以一種比我們通常認為的更精確的方式來思考意識形態，這不僅僅是以一種模稜兩可的方式漂浮在我們頭頂上的廣泛的信仰體系，也不僅僅是純粹歷史學或社會學的東西，而是一種真正深層次的心理學的東西，我們可以在人們的大腦中看到它。

What does it mean to think ideologically?

How are you defining it and how is that different from how people typically define it?

您是如何定義它的，它與人們通常的定義有何不同？

So the way I think about ideology is as really being comprised of two components.

是以，我認為意識形態實際上由兩個部分組成。

One is a very fixed doctrine, a kind of set of descriptions about the world that's very absolutist, that's very black and white, and that is very resistant to evidence.

一種是非常固定的學說，是對世界的一套描述，非常絕對化，非常非黑即白，非常抗拒證據。

So an ideology will always have a certain kind of causal narrative about the world that describes what the world is like and also how we should act within that world.

是以，一種意識形態總會有某種關於世界的因果敘事，描述世界是什麼樣的，以及我們在這個世界中應該如何行動。

It gives prescriptions for how we should act, how we should think, how we should interact with other people, but that's not the end of the story.

它為我們應該如何行動、如何思考、如何與他人互動開出了處方，但這並不是故事的終結。

To think ideologically is both to have this fixed doctrine and also to have a very fixed identity that you really kind of judge everyone with.

從意識形態的角度思考問題，既要有這種固定的理論，也要有非常固定的身份，你真的會用這種身份來評判每個人。

And that fixed identity stems from the fact that every ideology, every doctrine will have believers and non-believers.

而這種固定的身份來源於這樣一個事實，即每一種意識形態、每一種學說都會有信徒和非信徒。

And so you kind of, when you think ideologically, you're really embracing those rigid identity categories and deciding to exclusively affiliate with people who believe in your ideology and really reject anyone who doesn't.

是以，當你從意識形態角度思考問題時，你就是在接受這些僵化的身份分類，並決定只與信仰你的意識形態的人為伍，而拒絕任何不信仰你的人。

The degree of ideological extremity can really be mapped onto how hostile you are to anyone with differing beliefs, whether you're willing to potentially harm people in the name of your ideology.

意識形態的極端程度實際上可以映射為你對持不同信仰的人有多敵視，你是否願意以你的意識形態的名義傷害他人。

You write that, and now I'm quoting, not all stories are ideologies and not all forms of collective storytelling are rigid and oppressive, end quote.

你寫道，現在我引用一下，並非所有的故事都是意識形態，也並非所有形式的集體敘事都是僵化和壓迫性的，引用完畢。

How do you, for instance, distinguish an ideology from a religion?

例如，如何區分意識形態和宗教？

Is there even room for a distinction like that in your framework?

在你的框架中，還有這樣區分的餘地嗎？

What I think about often is the difference between ideology and culture, because culture can encompass eccentricities.

我經常思考的是意識形態和文化之間的區別，因為文化可以包含怪癖。

It can encompass deviation, different kinds of traditions or patterns from the past.

它可以包括偏差、不同種類的傳統或過去的模式。

But it's not about legislating what one can do or what one can't do.

但這並不是要立法規定一個人可以做什麼或不可以做什麼。

The moment we detect an ideology is the moment when you have very rigid prescriptions about what is permissible and what is not permissible.

當我們發現意識形態的時候，就是你對什麼是允許的、什麼是不允許的做出非常嚴格規定的時候。

And when you stop being able to tolerate any deviation, that's when you've moved from culture, which can encompass a lot of deviation and kind of reinterpretations, where as an ideology, there is no room for those kinds of non-conformities or differences.

當你不再能夠容忍任何偏差時，你就已經從文化中走出來了，而文化可以包含很多偏差和重新詮釋，作為一種意識形態，它沒有任何空間容納這些不一致或差異。

What you're doing here and what you do in the book that is interesting to me and novel as far as I know, is this reframing of ideology more as a style of thinking rather than just a set of beliefs.

你在這裡所做的，以及你在書中所做的，對我來說很有趣，而且據我所知也很新穎，那就是將意識形態重構為一種思維方式，而不僅僅是一套信仰。

I mean, as you know, like the conventional way to think about ideology has always been to focus on the content, on what people believe, not how they think.

我的意思是，正如你所知道的，思考意識形態的傳統方式一直是關注內容，關注人們相信什麼，而不是他們是如何思考的。

What does this understanding let us see that other definitions missed?

這種理解讓我們看到了其他定義所忽略的什麼？

What that inversion reveals is that embracing an ideology in an extreme way and thinking really about what are the mechanics of thinking ideologically, what are the ways in which reason gets shifted, how emotion gets distorted, how our biological and kind of even physiological responses to the world get distorted, is that we stop thinking about ideologies as things that just envelop us from outside and that just kind of are almost tipped into us by external forces.

這種反轉所揭示的是，以一種極端的方式擁抱意識形態，並真正思考意識形態思維的機制是什麼，理性是如何被改變的，情感是如何被扭曲的，我們對世界的生物甚至生理反應是如何被扭曲的，這就是我們不再將意識形態視為只是從外部籠罩我們的東西，只是一種幾乎被外力傾覆到我們身上的東西。

And we start to see how it's a much more dynamic process and that we can even see parallels between ideologues who believe in very different things and partisans to completely different parties, to different missions.

我們開始發現，這是一個更加動態的過程，我們甚至可以看到那些信仰截然不同的東西的意識形態主義者與完全不同的黨派、不同使命的黨派成員之間的相似之處。

But that really it's how they think that's very similar, even if what they think is very different.

但實際上，他們的思維方式非常相似，即使他們的想法非常不同。

I mean, some people might be more ideological than others, but does everyone more or less have an ideology, even if they don't think of themselves as having an ideology?

我的意思是，有些人可能比其他人更有意識形態，但是否每個人或多或少都有意識形態，即使他們並不認為自己有意識形態？

I kind of think about ideological thinking as something more specific, that it's this antagonism to evidence, this very kind of tight embrace of a particular narrative about the world and rules about how the world works and how you should behave within that world.

我認為意識形態思維是一種更具體的東西，它是對證據的對抗，是對關於世界的特定敘事和關於世界如何運作以及你在這個世界中應該如何行為的規則的緊緊擁抱。

And so when we think about it as that kind of fixed, rigid set of behaviors, of compulsions, we see that not everyone is obviously equally ideological.

是以，當我們把它看作是一套固定、僵化的行為和強迫症時，我們就會發現，顯然並不是每個人都有同樣的意識形態。

And I don't know whether there's a perfect human being completely without any ideology, but in the book I do talk about, you don't think so.

我不知道是否存在完全沒有意識形態的完美人類，但在我談及的這本書中，你不這麼認為。

I don't think so, we'll get there, but I don't think so.

我不這麼認為，我們會成功的，但我不這麼認為。

I think that you can be a lot less ideological and that's almost the challenge that I talk about in the book is what does it mean to think non-ideologically about the world, maybe anti-ideologically about the world?

我認為你可以不那麼意識形態化，這幾乎就是我在書中談到的挑戰，即對世界進行非意識形態化思考，也許是反意識形態化思考，這意味著什麼？

Well, tell me how you test for cognitive flexibility versus rigidity.

那麼，請告訴我你是如何測試認知的靈活性和僵化性的。

So in order to test someone's cognitive rigidity or their flexibility, one of the most important things is not just to ask them because people are terrible at knowing whether they're rigid or flexible.

是以，要測試一個人的認知僵化或靈活程度，最重要的一點不是直接問他，因為人們不知道自己是僵化還是靈活。

The most rigid thinkers will tell you they're fabulously flexible and the most flexible thinkers will not know it.

最僵化的思想家會告訴你他們非常靈活，而最靈活的思想家卻不知道這一點。

And so that's why we need to use these kind of unconscious assessments, these cognitive tests and games that tap into your natural kind of capacity to be adaptable or to resist change.

是以，我們需要使用這些無意識評估、認知測試和遊戲，來挖掘你天生的適應能力或抵禦變化的能力。

And so one test to do this is called the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, which is a card sorting game where people are presented with a deck of cards that they need to sort.

威斯康星紙牌分類測試是一種紙牌分類遊戲，人們會收到一副紙牌，需要對其進行分類。

And initially they don't know what the rule that governs the game is.

起初，他們並不知道遊戲規則是什麼。

So they try and figure it out and quickly they'll realize that they should match the cards in their deck according to their color.

於是，他們試著找出答案，很快他們就會意識到，他們應該根據牌的顏色來匹配牌中的牌。

So they'll start putting a blue card with a blue card, a red card with a red card, and they'll get affirmation, the kind of positive feedback that they're doing it right.

這樣，他們就會開始把藍卡和藍卡、紅卡和紅卡放在一起，他們就會得到肯定，得到那種他們做得對的積極反饋。

And so they start enacting this rule, adopting it, kind of applying it again and again and again.

於是，他們開始頒佈這項規則，通過這項規則，一而再、再而三地應用這項規則。

And after a while, unbeknownst to them, the rule of the game changes and suddenly this color rule doesn't work anymore.

過了一段時間，在他們不知道的情況下，遊戲規則發生了變化，這個顏色規則突然失效了。

And so that's the moment of change that I'm most interested in because some people will notice that change and they will adapt.

是以，這就是我最感興趣的變化時刻，因為有些人會注意到這種變化，他們會適應這種變化。

They will then go looking for a different rule and they'll quickly figure out that they should actually sort now the cards according to the shape of the objects on the card and find they'll follow this new rule.

然後，他們會去尋找不同的規則，他們很快就會發現，其實應該根據卡片上物體的形狀來對卡片進行分類，並發現他們會遵循這個新規則。

Those are very cognitively flexible individuals.

But there are other people who will notice that change and they will hate it.

但也有其他人會注意到這種變化，他們會討厭這種變化。

字幕列表影片播放

大腦在政治中的作用 | 灰色地帶 (Your brain's role in your politics | The Gray Area)

vulnerable

cognitive

sort

approach