And, in your own mind, you are almost 100 percent certain that the earth is spherical and the moon is, unfortunately not made of delicious melty cheddar but boring old rocks.

而你，你幾乎是百分之百肯定地球是球形的；可惜的是，月亮不是美味鬆軟的巧達做成的，而是滿地坑洞的老岩石。

Yet incredibly you end up losing these arguments against utterly moronic people.

但令人難以置信的是，最後竟然吵輸了那些笨蛋。

You know that you should have won the argument and you provided them with countless irrefutable evidence yet no matter what you say, you somehow fail to change their mind, or remotely shake their ostentatious self-confidence in their erroneous views.

你明明是可以吵贏的，而你也提出了無數個無可反駁的證據，不過不管你說什麼，還是沒有辦法改變他們的想法，更不用說可以稍為動搖他們對發表謬論時所散發浮誇的自信。

Why is it so difficult to argue with stupid people?

為什麼跟笨蛋吵架如此地難？

Why do they fail to listen to empirical evidence and instead favor the wisdom that the smelly old weird bloke told them at the pub?

為什麼他們總是無法聽信有依據的證據，但卻認同那個在酒吧遇到的奇怪的臭老頭口中所提出所謂的智慧？

And why do they often think themselves far more intelligent than their words and actions would lead you to believe?

為什麼他們都認為自己比言語和行動都來得聰明，更能讓你信服？

Let's find out.

現在我們來看看吧！

Neuroscientists think there are very real and fascinating reasons and explanations for this frustrating phenomenon but before we talk about those, we must first establish whether our suspicions are true, do people think they're smarter than they are.

神經科學家認為有很多真實且引人入勝的原因和解釋去說明這令人沮喪的現象。但在我們開始討論之前，我們必須先證明到底我們的疑惑是否屬實，到底人們是否真的認為自己比想像中還聰明？

Over the past twenty years, two social psychologists have been attempting to answer this question, David Dunning and Justin Kruger.

過去的 20 年裡， David Dunning 和 Justin Kruger 兩位社會心理學家一直想要解答這方面的問題。

David Dunning was inspired to begin this research after reading a feature in the 1996 World Almanac.

David 在看完 1996 年的《世界年鑑》後，受到啟發而開啟他的研究計劃。

About a Pittsburgh bank robber, McArthur Wheeler, who held up a bank at gunpoint, in broad daylight, without a mask.

那個案例是一位來自匹兹堡的銀行小偷 McArthur Wheeler，在光天化日之下，沒有戴面罩持槍到銀行。

But strangely his face was covered in lemon juice.

但奇怪的是，他在臉上抹上了檸檬汁。

When the police arrested him later at his home he said: "but I wore the juice!".

後來警察上門逮捕時，他回說：「但我塗了檸檬汁欸！」

He explained how, since lemon juice is sometimes used as invisible ink he thought that by covering his face in lemon juice, he would somehow become invisible to other people and the security cameras.

他解釋說因為檸檬汁可以用作隱形墨水，所以他認為利用檸檬汁塗臉可以在人前或鏡頭前隱形。

He apparently took a picture of himself whilst wearing the lemon juice before the robbery to confirm his theory and remarkably, albeit according to Wheeler's own account, his face was not visible in the photo - police were never quite able to explain this.

據說，他為了驗證這個理論，臉上塗上檸檬汁去搶劫前還拍了照片，不過根據他自己的說法，在照片裡的確是看不到臉，而這點警方也沒有辦法解釋。

But then, this is a man who tried to make himself invisible with lemon juice so I wouldn't put too much thought into it.

不過要話說回來，這只是一位男子嘗試利用檸檬汁希望可以讓自己隱形，那我就不多說了。

Inspired by this blatant idiocy Dunning teamed up with Kruger and conducted a series of experiments in which they got participants to rate themselves on their grammar, logical reasoning and sense of humor.

這愚蠢的行為給 Dunning 帶來靈感，更與 Kruger 一起合作並進行一系列的實驗，讓受試者對自己的語法、邏輯推理和幽默感進行評價。

They then compared the participant's self-appraisals with the results of a series of tests they asked them to complete.

他們要求受試者進行自我評鑑，接著比對他們的結果。

The studies all concluded that people consistently rate themselves as being far more competent at everything than they actually are.

研究結果顯示，人們總是認為自己其實比實際上還有能力。

Most people in the studies performed far worse on the tests than they believed they had done.

但實際上大多數人的測試表現比他們認為的要差得多。

A poll in 1980 conducted by a Swedish Psychologist illustrated this nicely when it showed that 93% of American drivers considered their driving ability to be above average - just think about that for a second, the maths don't quite add up.

1980 年，一名瑞典心理學家進行的一項民意調查恰好地解釋了這說法，結果指出有 93% 的美國司機認為自己的駕駛能力高於平均水平。但讓我們來想一想，其實不太合理。

The research shows that an overestimation of our talents is something we, mostly, all do, albeit some of us significantly more so than others and that the more inferior a person's talents and/or intelligence are, the greater the degree with which they overestimate these.

研究指出大部分的人都會高估自己的才能，儘管有不少人在這方面的想法是更為明顯，而一個人的才能和 / 或智力愈低，他們高估的想法就愈大。

One of the biggest factors driving this is the brain's natural egocentric bias.

一個最重要的因素是我們的大腦都會自然產生自我中心的偏見。

First identified by psychologists in 1979, it turns out that the brain absolutely loves itself and does everything it can do to make itself look good.

於 1979 年，心理學家第一次發現其實我們的大腦是愛自己的，會極盡可能地讓自己看起來很棒。

Repeated studies have demonstrated that the egocentric bias is present in all types and ages.

多次重複的研究顯示，不管什麼類型或年齡的人都會有自我中心的偏見。

For example, we tend to associate ourselves very closely with positive events, and we take credit for things that other people achieve, such as "My team played well" whereas when our favorite sports team loses we try to distance ourselves "They performed poorly".

比如，我們傾向於把自己和正面的事件綁在一起，我們會對由其他人所獲得的成功就表示讚賞，「我的那隊表現太好了」，但當我們喜對的球隊輸掉的時候，我們會試圖把距離拉開，「他們的表現太差了。」

Similarly, we have no problem when we are overpaid for work but we think it's a bit unfair when others are.

與此同時，當公司多支付我們薪水的時候，我們覺得沒有問題；但倘若是別人的話，就會覺得有點不公平了。

We think that anyone who drives faster than us is a lunatic yet anyone who drives slower is an idiot.

就像我們都認為開得比自己快的人是瘋子，但開得比自己慢的是白痴。

You get the idea, your brain thinks it is the best thing since single-celled organisms.

了解概念了吧！你的大腦認為這很棒，因為它是個單細胞生物。

But how does this relate to winning arguments?

可是這跟吵贏有什麼關係？

Basically, the brain will do absolutely anything it needs to in order to save face.

基本上，大腦為了面子，絕對會完成任何事情。

Your brain must look good no matter what. Even if this involves ignoring facts, making up facts or browbeating your intellectually-superior opponent into submission.

無論如何你的大腦看起來要好好的，即使它會忽略事實、捏造事實或是恫嚇比你聰明的對手屈服。

Your brain isn't being a dick for the sake of it, evolutionarily the egocentric bias makes a lot of sense for self-preservation.

其實你的大腦並沒有這麼混蛋，在人類的進化上來說，這偏見只是一種自我保護。

The hunter that steals the prey from other hunters is more likely to survive after all.

我們以自我為中心的偏見是如此強烈，以致即使我們無法改變輸了爭論的事實，但我們也會在自己的腦海中說服自己其實在某程度上是獲勝的。

Our egocentric bias is so strong that even when we irrevocably lose an argument, we convince ourselves in our own minds that we somehow won.

我們以自我為中心的偏見是如此強烈，以致即使我們無法改變輸了爭論的事實，但我們也會在自己的腦海中說服自己其實在某程度上是贏了。

As the legendary author Dale Carnegie of the seminal "How to Win Friends And Influence People" wrote, "You can't win an argument - Nine times out of ten, an argument ends with each of the contestants more firmly convinced than ever that he is absolutely right.”

如一位傳奇的作家 Dale Carnegie 曾在一本具影響力的書 How to Win Friends And Influence People 中寫道，「你無法在爭論分出勝負，因為有百分之九十的爭論，爭辯者其實都會在過後更堅信自己的理據是正確的。」

There is, however, another reason why learned people often walk away from arguments with those who possess the intellectual aptitude of a veritable sea sponge feeling wholly disappointed.

然而，博學多才的人也不會想要與那些名副其實吸收知識如海量般的天才而爭論不休，怕會因此而感到難過。

There is a general fear amongst the human race of intelligence, even amongst the intelligentsia themselves.

人類普遍是擔心天才，連知識分子也不例外。

This is a very real phenomenon that numerous neuroscientists have observed - true, we admire those of heightened intelligence yet we simultaneously fear them.

這是真實的現象，有許多神經科學家觀察到，我們在欽佩那些高智商的同時，其實我們也害怕他們。

In modern society, we have no need to fear those of superior physical might over oneself, unless you just made a pass at their wife.

現代的社會中，其實我們沒有必要害怕體能比我們強的人，除非你非禮了他的老婆。

But say you meet a huge burly bloke at a dinner party with guns larger than your entire torso.

又比如說，你在晚宴裡遇到一位魁梧的傢伙，二頭肌比你整個人還大。

Most of us could converse with him rather happily, without feeling intimidated.

我們大多數人還是可以愉快地跟他聊天，且不會感到害怕。

Yet if we meet a weedy old professor of astrophysics at a dinner party who knows general relativity better than you know where you left your car keys, then suddenly, and for reasons which are unclear to yourself, you feel intimidated by him.

不過，如果我們在晚宴上遇到一位看起來瘦弱的天體物理學老教授，他對廣義相對論非常了解，而你只想要把車鑰匙放哪會更好。在剎那間，你也不知道為什麼，你會被他嚇到。

Perhaps you don't, if so, congratulations, you're probably rather intelligent or a psychopath.

也許你並不會這樣想，但如果你會的話，我先恭喜你，你要嘛是個聰明人要嘛就是個神經病。

The reason for this disparity is strangely related to the egocentric brain.

而這差異很不可思議地是和我們自我為中心的大腦有關。

We know how the bodybuilder gained his mass, by relentlessly pounding the gym and protein.

我們都知道健美運動員是如何持續不斷地往健身房跑以及攝取大量蛋白質以提升肌肉質量。

We know that if we could be half as arsed or inclined as he then we too could match his level of esteemed physical prowess and look like a Soviet tank.

都知道如果我們有他們一半勤奮，或是有他身材的一半，我們也許就可以有跟他差不多的體力，看起來會像台蘇聯的坦克般。

And most importantly, we can usually predict his intentions and actions, we don't need to be as strong as him to know what he will probably do. If we piss him off, he hits us in the face.

最重要的是，我們通常都可以預測他下一步的意圖或是行動，我們根本不用練得像他們一樣就可以知道，如果我們惹怒他，他會一拳打在我們臉上。

Yet the scientist, unless we are intellectually superior than he, and even if we are - then we will be unable to predict what he might say or do.

那麼科學家呢？除非我們在智商上比他還高，又即使我們是，還是無法預測他可能會說什麼或做什麼。

He could say something that will reveal our lack of intelligence and make us look stupid.

他會說出一些話以顯現出我們慧根不足，讓我們看起很愚蠢。

Thus we fear him, to compound this fear, unlike the bodybuilder most of us will feel that even if we read 100 books we could never reach the scientist's level of intelligence.

所以我們會害怕他，而且這種恐懼感是加倍的。這和健美運動員不一樣的是，我們都覺得即使我們閱讀了 100 本書，也不會達至他們的水平。

And rather pessimistically, research supports the idea that many people are most likely, unable to do so.

且悲觀的事實是，研究結果也證實了這說法，大部分的人都做不到。

As I have previously covered in another video, we all have the ability to improve our crystallized intelligence, our bank of facts and knowledge, but once we hit our mid-20s the brain becomes less plastic, it is not totally, but mostly set in its ways.

就如我之前另外一支影片中說明，我們大家都可以改善我們的晶體智力，也就是充實我們大腦的事實和知識庫，但我們在 25、26 歲開始，大腦的可塑性就沒這麼高了，也不是完全不可塑，但就是會一直維持差不多的狀態。

Like a car that has already been built, parts can be swapped out and polished up but ultimately there's a hard limit to what one can do with its performance.

就像一台已出產的汽車，我們可以換掉零件再拋光，但對於它的性能不會有太大的影響。

And thus, after our mid-20, we lose the ability to improve our fluid intelligence - that is the ability to pick up new skills quickly, think on the spot, outwit your opponents and problem solve.

因此在 25、26 歲之後，我們流體智力會逐漸衰退，那是負責讓我們可以快速掌握新技能、有臨場思考能力、可以智勝對手和擁有解決問題的能力。

So if the scientist has, not only greater crystallized intelligence but also greater fluid intelligence than us, then we subconsciously know that this is a level of mental acuity that we are most likely, unable to ever reach.

如果科學家的晶體智力比我們還強，同時流體智力也比我們厲害，那我們下意識知道自己根本沒有辦法可以如他們一般靈敏。

Biologically we are hard-wired to be scared of this prospect and we will feel a natural propensity to repel that which we cannot better.

從生物學的角度來看，我們對這難以感到害怕，因為我們會自然排斥我們無法做得到的事。

So you may defensively say something rather stupid to the scientist, even if it is a joke, such as "oh, a scientist, you think you're so clever, don't you?' even if he gave us no obvious reason to feel so intimidated.

也許你會為了武裝自己面科學家面前說些愚蠢的事情，甚至開個玩笑說：「身為一個科學家，你是不是認為自己很聰明？」就算他們不回應，我們還是會感到害怕。

This has a reciprocal effect - clever people are generally well aware of others fear and distrust of their intelligence and so feel less self-confident when in an argument or a debate with a peer, even if they know they could easily win.

這是相互影響的，聽明的人都知道別人對他們智商上的那種恐懼和質疑，也會因此而在爭論過程中顯得缺乏自信，就算他們知道要吵贏是件輕鬆的事。

Also, most people become intelligence because they have a proclivity to question their surroundings and their self.

而且大部分的人開始變得聰明，因為他們開始會對周圍環境和自我表示質疑。

Intelligent people are generally more aware of the fact that they don't know everything - especially in the scientific fields it is normal and expected for one to criticize their own theories and for their colleagues and peers to cross-examine them.

聰明的人都較會意識到其實有很多他們並不了解的事情，允其是在科學領域，同事和朋友間互相批評自己的理論更是件平常事。

Thus smart people will always question whether they are as intelligent as they think they are, whether they put their own point across adequately, and if, perhaps their opponent does, in fact, have a point in their ardent cheesy moon and flat Earth beliefs, as bonkers as they may sound.

所以聰明的人會常常問自己是否真的如自己想像中聰明，或是否有充分表達自己的觀點，但如果對方熱烈的想要討論起司做的月亮或是地平說的想法時，這只會讓他們聽起來像瘋子。

So they will come away from the debate with their head swirling with questions and self-doubt.

他們也就會逃離帶著滿腦子的問題和自我懷疑爭論。

Conversely, stupid people are far less likely to question things including themselves, they tend to be less introspective, that's probably why they are still so stupid.

但相反地，愚蠢的人不太可能會質疑事情，包括對自己，他們往往比較不會自省，也許這就是為什麼他們一直都是這麼笨。

So they seem and are far more confident in their moronic, unfounded theories.

因此，他們總是對他們的愚蠢、毫無根據的理論充滿信心。

They don't need to question them or see how they actually stack up when confronted with empirical evidence because they have never done this before and they possess not a shred of self-doubt anyway.

他們不需要質疑自己或是不用目睹他們是如何比較已經放在他們眼前的證據，因為他們根本從沒試過，而且沒有任何一絲自我懷疑的想法。

To add to all this, as the Dunning-Kruger effect proved, stupid people rarely think of themselves as stupid.

總結來說，如達克效應所證明的，笨蛋都不怎麼認為自己是笨蛋。

They have absolutely no idea that they have less intelligence than a Swiss cheese.

他們完全不知道自己的智力還不如一塊瑞士起司。

As Dunning and Kruger's research demonstrated, there is a direct correlation between a lack of intelligence and one's high confidence in their intelligence and vice-versa.

也如兩位心理學家的研突結果，智力較低的人會有更高的自信是有直接的關聯，反之亦然。

To put it simply, inept people think they are proficient and proficient people think themselves less so.

簡而言之，無能的人認為他們都事事精通，熟練的人認為自己其實沒那麼熟悉。

Keep in mind that the Dunning Kruger effect is not an absolute but a general trend, not all stupid people overestimate their intelligence and some intelligent people are very aware of how smart they are and will happily tell anyone who will listen.

要知道達克效應並不是絕對，而是一般的趨勢。並非所有愚蠢的人都會高估自己，而且還有一些聰明的人非常清楚自己是多聰明，還巴不得要告訴所有想要傾聽的人。

I'll leave you with a brilliant quote by the late great comedian George Carlin that anyone who has ever despaired with human stupidity will sympathise with "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."

最後留給你一句名言，已故的偉大喜劇演員 George Carlin 曾說道，「想想普通人是多麼愚蠢，並且還發現他們中的一半人比那群愚蠢的人還愚蠢。」這是任何曾經對人類的愚蠢感到絕望時都能感到體諒的。

I've recently launched my first book which I'm crowdfunding 'Stick a Flag in it: 1,000 years of bizarre history from Britain and beyond'.

我最近出版了第一本書，而我也在募資出版 Stick a Flag in it: 1,000 years of bizarre history from Britain and beyond。

The crowdfunding campaign has reached to 100% so it's definitely going to be published, thanks to everyone who has pledged.

募資活動已達標，所以這本書是絕對會出版，感謝大家兌現承諾。

But there are still stretch goals to reach.

不過距離目標還有一段路。

So if you want a first-edition signed copy then head on over to Unbound Publishing, the link is in the description, and pledge today.

所以如果你們想要初版有簽名的版本，請到 Unbound Publishing 登記，網址就在下面。

Thank you.

謝謝大家！