Daniel Kahneman on Cutting Through the Noise (Ep. 56 - Live at Mason)
Thank you for coming, Danny.
谢谢你的到来，丹尼。
You’ve worked on so many topics.
你已经研究了很多主题。
Let me start with the issue of happiness.
让我先从幸福的问题开始。
If you have an experience, it seems that how happy you are at the end of the experience depends on the end of the experience and how good was the peak, or how bad was the bottom.
如果你有一次经历，那么你在经历结束时的快乐程度似乎取决于经历的结束以及高峰有多好，或者低谷有多糟糕。
Given that result, should we aim to deliberately structure our experiences so they give us more happiness?
考虑到这个结果，我们是否应该刻意构建我们的经历，以便它们给我们带来更多快乐？
Well, if you want good memories, good endings are really important.
好吧，如果你想要美好的回忆，好的结局真的很重要。
The question is how important good memories are relative to the experience itself.
问题是美好的回忆相对于体验本身有多重要。
But no question, ends are very important.
但毫无疑问，目的非常重要。
They’re particularly important in the context of goal striving.
它们在追求目标的背景下尤其重要。
That is, whether you achieve a goal or don’t achieve a goal colors the whole experience of trying to get it, to get to it.
也就是说，无论你是否实现了一个目标，都会影响你努力实现目标的整个经历。
So ends are very important for memories.
所以结局对于记忆来说非常重要。
Do people structure their vacations to meet the standard, or there’s a kind of market failure?
人们的假期安排是为了达到标准，还是存在某种市场失灵？
If they listen to you, they would have better vacations.
如果他们听你的，他们会度过更好的假期。
I’m not at all sure.
我一点也不确定。
My guess is that people are conscious that they don’t want the peak to be too far from the end.
我的猜测是，人们意识到他们不希望高峰离终点太远。
That’s my guess.
这是我的猜测。
And why does duration of pain seem to matter so little for how we evaluate painful experiences?
为什么疼痛的持续时间对于我们如何评估痛苦的经历似乎并不重要？
If you were asking what are the evolutionary value, then the duration of pain is really not very important.
如果你问进化价值是什么，那么疼痛的持续时间实际上并不是很重要。
What’s important is the intensity because the intensity is a measure of the severity of threat.
重要的是强度，因为强度是威胁严重程度的衡量标准。
The duration is really something else.
持续时间确实是另一回事。
It’s very striking, but it’s completely insignificant.
这非常引人注目，但完全微不足道。
In many situations, it’s completely insignificant, but a striking result.
在许多情况下，这完全无关紧要，但却是一个惊人的结果。
You also have a paper on happiness with Alan Krueger, using what you call the Day Reconstruction Method — how much people enjoy different experiences.
您还与艾伦·克鲁格 (Alan Krueger) 合作发表了一篇关于幸福的论文，使用了您所谓的“日重建法”——“人们享受不同经历的程度”。
One result from that paper is how much people enjoy spending time with their friends.
该论文的一个结果是人们多么喜欢与朋友共度时光。
If that’s so much more enjoyable at the margin, why don’t people do more of it?
如果这在边际上更令人愉快，为什么人们不做更多呢？
Altogether, I don’t think that people maximize happiness in that sense.
总而言之，我不认为人们在这个意义上最大化了幸福。
And that’s one of the reasons that I actually left the field of happiness, in that I was very interested in maximizing experience, but this doesn’t seem to be what people want to do.
这就是我实际上离开幸福领域的原因之一，因为我对最大化体验非常感兴趣，但这似乎不是人们想要做的。
They actually want to maximize their satisfaction with themselves and with their lives.
他们实际上希望最大限度地提高对自己和生活的满意度。
And that leads in completely different directions than the maximization of happiness.
这与幸福最大化的方向完全不同。
Do you think that telling people you’ll be happier a particular way changes their behavior much?
你认为告诉人们你会以某种特定的方式更快乐会极大地改变他们的行为吗？
Or they still stick to maximizing a sense of satisfaction with their lives?
或者他们仍然坚持最大限度地提高对生活的满足感？
No idea.
不知道。
I haven’t tried.
我没试过。
There is a lot of work these days in trying to make people happier and trying to coach people.
如今，在努力让人们更快乐和指导人们方面有很多工作要做。
In the UK, in particular, there is — I wouldn’t call it an industry, but it’s sponsored by government.
特别是在英国，有 —— 我不会称其为产业，但它是由政府赞助的。
My friend, Lord Laird, has started a movement that promotes happiness.
我的朋友莱尔德勋爵发起了一场促进幸福的运动。
There’s a great deal of that happening.
有很多这样的事情发生。
I don’t know how successful it is because the criterion for evaluation — it’s very difficult to conduct evaluations on those things because people who know they’re being subjected to interventions cannot really answer those questions honestly, even if they try.
我不知道它有多成功，因为评估的标准 ——对这些事情进行评估是非常困难的，因为知道自己受到干预的人即使尝试也无法真正诚实地回答这些问题。
So the way to test whether things are successful would to be to ask a person’s friends, has he become or she become happier?
所以检验事情是否成功的方法就是问一个人的朋友，他或者她变得更幸福了吗？
And that hasn’t been done.
但这还没有完成。
And that people want to maximize their overall sense of how their life has gone — do you think that is ultimately Darwinian roots?
人们希望最大限度地了解自己的生活经历 ——你认为这最终是达尔文主义的根源吗？
Why is that the equilibrium?
为什么会是这样的平衡呢？
Happiness feels good, right?
幸福的感觉真好，对吧？
Yeah, happiness feels good in the moment.
是的，幸福的感觉真好。
But it’s in the moment.
但就在此时此刻。
What you’re left with are your memories.
留下的都是你的回忆。
And that’s a very striking thing — that memories stay with you, and the reality of life is gone in an instant.
这是一件非常惊人的事情——记忆会留在你身边，而生活的现实却瞬间消失了。
So memory has a disproportionate weight because it’s with us.
所以记忆的重要性不成比例，因为它就在我们身边。
It stays with us.
它留在我们身边。
It’s the only thing we get to keep.
这是我们唯一能保留的东西。
Happiness feels good in the moment.
幸福的感觉真好。
What you’re left with are your memories.
留下的都是你的回忆。
And that’s a very striking thing — that memories stay with you, and the reality of life is gone in an instant.
这是一件非常惊人的事情——记忆会留在你身边，而生活的现实却瞬间消失了。
So memory has a disproportionate weight because it’s with us.
所以记忆的重要性不成比例，因为它就在我们身边。
It’s the only thing we get to keep.
这是我们唯一可以保留的东西。
If you think of your own life, have you maximized happiness or the overall sense of how your life has gone?
如果你想想自己的生活，你是否最大化了幸福感或对生活的整体感受？
Neither.
两者都不。
Neither.
两者都不。
Citations?
引文？
No.
不。
On bias
关于偏见
If you miss a flight due to a traffic jam outside your control, would you rather be two hours late or just one minute late?
如果您由于无法控制的交通拥堵而错过航班，您愿意晚点两个小时还是晚点一分钟？
Oh, I’m like everybody else.
哦，我和其他人一样。
I’d rather be two hours late.
我宁愿迟到两个小时。
And you think even knowing about this doesn’t change that.
你认为即使知道这一点也不会改变这一点。
You can’t talk yourself out of the bias?
你不能说服自己摆脱偏见吗？
You can talk yourself out of some biases, I think.
我认为你可以说服自己摆脱一些偏见。
I wouldn’t generalize on that, but it would take .
我不会对此一概而论，但这需要时间。
.
。
.
。
I could possibly talk myself out of that one by really repeating to myself how stupid it is.
我可能可以通过对自己重复一遍这是多么愚蠢来说服自己放弃这种想法。
But it would take a lot of work.
但这需要做很多工作。
It’s not that you can decide once and for all, “I will not be subject to that bias.” Doesn’t work that way.
这并不是说你可以一劳永逸地决定“我不会受到这种偏见的影响”。不是这样的。
Do you think we overinvest or underinvest in memories, overall?
总体而言，您认为我们对记忆的投资是过度还是投资不足？
We certainly invest heavily, heavily in memories.
我们当然对记忆进行了大量投资。
Vacations for many people are investment in the formation and maintenance of memories.
对于许多人来说，假期是对记忆形成和维持的投资。
There is a lot of investment.
有大量的投资。
Whether it’s too much or too little, it probably depends a lot on people’s amount of consumption of memory that people engage in.
无论是太多还是太少，它可能在很大程度上取决于人们消耗的内存量。
I, for one, am certainly biased.
就我而言，我当然是有偏见的。
But I do not consume my memories a lot.
但我并没有过多消耗我的记忆。
And I almost never go back to photographs, not deliberately.
我几乎从来不看照片，不是故意的。
If I stumble on something, it will move me.
如果我偶然发现某件事，它会让我感动。
But the idea of going back to relive a vacation — that’s not what I do, so I have little empathy for this.
但回去重温假期的想法——这不是我所做的，所以我对此没有什么同理心。
If we think about, say, sports, they’re a form of bias, right?
例如，如果我们考虑体育运动，它们就是一种偏见，对吗？
Most people root for a home team, or they root for their country in the Olympics.
大多数人在奥运会上支持主队，或者支持自己的国家。
Music, arguably, is a form of bias.
可以说，音乐是一种偏见。
There’s soundtrack music — it affects how you view the movie, even though it’s not changing any facts.
有配乐音乐 ——它会影响你观看电影的方式，尽管它不会改变任何事实。
To what extent should we think of bias as the main thing that gives our lives an overall structure, just as a musical soundtrack is what gives structure to a movie?
我们应该在多大程度上将偏见视为赋予我们生活整体结构的主要因素，就像音乐配乐赋予电影结构一样？
That’s a tendentious way of labeling things, to call them biases.
这是一种带有倾向性的标签方式，称之为偏见。
I wouldn’t call the effect of music a biasing effect.
我不会将音乐的效果称为偏差效果。
It completes the experience.
它完成了体验。
And what were your other examples?
你的其他例子是什么？
Well, sports.
嗯，运动。
You’re consuming bias, right?
你正在消费偏见，对吗？
You don’t actually think your team is better.
你实际上并不认为你的团队更好。
No, but you identify.
不，但你确定。
There are emotions over which you have very little control.
有些情绪是你无法控制的。
It’s a fact that you feel pride when your team wins.
事实上，当你的球队获胜时，你会感到自豪。
In fact, you feel pride if a stranger who lives on your street gets a prize.
事实上，如果住在你街上的陌生人获得奖品，你会感到自豪。
That tendency to identify with what’s around us, and with things that we are connected to, is very powerful.
这种认同我们周围的事物以及与我们相关的事物的倾向是非常强大的。
We derive a lot of emotion from it.
我们从中得到很多感触。
I wouldn’t call that a bias because you can call any emotion a bias.
我不会称其为偏见，因为你可以称任何情绪为偏见。
There’s a well-known article by John List where he argues, if you study how experts trade assets, that a lot of what are called biases go away and become quite small.
约翰·李斯特（John List）有一篇著名的文章，他认为，如果你研究专家如何交易资产，很多所谓的偏见就会消失并变得很小。
What’s your reaction to his research?
你对他的研究有何反应？
It’s beautiful research.
这是一项美丽的研究。
I’m convinced it’s right.
我确信这是对的。
And indeed, you don’t have to go as far as he does to find cases in which people act fairly rationally.
事实上，你不必像他那样走得那么远，就能找到人们行为相当理性的案例。
People act fairly rationally in routine transactions.
人们在日常交易中表现得相当理性。
So if there is a thing that’s loss aversion, that it plays a large role, and that’s less research in novices.
因此，如果有一个东西是损失厌恶，那么它起着很大的作用，而对于新手来说，这方面的研究较少。
They get attached to things, and then they don’t want to sell them.
他们对某些东西很执着，然后就不想卖掉它们。
And they get over it, over time.
随着时间的推移，他们会克服它。
In routine transactions, when I go and I spend some money to get shoes, I feel no loss aversion for the money.
在日常交易中，当我去花一些钱买鞋子时，我不会对这笔钱感到厌恶。
And certainly, the person who sells me the shoes feels no loss aversion for the shoes.
当然，卖给我鞋子的人对鞋子并没有厌恶损失的感觉。
It’s a routine transaction, and it’s a whole domain in which loss aversion doesn’t apply.
这是一项例行交易，而且是一个不适用损失厌恶的领域。
On noise
关于噪音
Much of your last book is about bias, of course.
当然，你上一本书的大部分内容都是关于偏见的。
And much of your next book will be about noise.
你的下一本书的大部分内容将是关于噪音的。
If you think of actual mistakes in human decision-making, how do you now see the relative weight of bias versus noise?
如果您考虑人类决策中的实际错误，您现在如何看待偏见与噪音的相对权重？
I would say this.
我会这么说。
First of all, let me explain what I mean by noise.
首先，让我解释一下噪音的含义。
I mean, just randomness.
我的意思是，只是随机性。
And it’s true within individuals, but it’s especially true among individuals who are supposed to be interchangeable in, say, organizations.
这对于个人来说确实如此，但对于那些被认为可以在组织中互换的个人来说尤其如此。
Can I spend three minutes to explain that?
我可以花三分钟解释一下吗？
Of course, sure.
当然，当然。
I’ll tell you where the experiment from which my current fascination with noise arose.
我会告诉你我现在对噪音的迷恋是从哪个实验开始的。
I was working with an insurance company, and we did a very standard experiment.
我当时与一家保险公司合作，我们做了一个非常标准的实验。
They constructed cases, very routine, standard cases.
他们构建了案例，非常常规的标准案例。
Expensive cases — we’re not talking of insuring cars.
昂贵的案件 ——我们不是在谈论汽车保险。
We’re talking of insuring financial firms for risk of fraud.
我们谈论的是为金融公司提供欺诈风险保险。
So you have people who are specialists in this.
所以你们有这方面的专家。
This is what they do.
这就是他们所做的。
Cases were constructed completely realistically, the kind of thing that people encounter every day.
案件的构建完全是现实的，人们每天都会遇到这种事情。
You have 50 people reading a case and putting a dollar value on it.
您有 50 个人阅读一个案例并对其进行评估。
I could ask you, and I asked the executives in the firm, and it’s a number that just about everybody agrees.
我可以问你，我也问过公司的高管，这是一个几乎每个人都同意的数字。
Suppose you take two people at random, two underwriters at random.
假设您随机选择两个人，随机选择两个承销商。
You average the premium they set, you take the difference between them, and you divide the difference by the average.
您对他们设定的保费进行平均，计算它们之间的差额，然后将差额除以平均值。
By what percentage do people differ?
人们的差异有多大？
Well, would you expect people to differ?
那么，你期望人们有不同的看法吗？
And there is a common answer that you find, when I just talk to people and ask them, or the executives had the same answer.
当我与人们交谈并询问他们时，你会发现一个共同的答案，或者高管们有相同的答案。
It’s somewhere around 10 percent.
大约是百分之十左右。
That’s what people expect to see in a well-run firm.
这就是人们期望在一家经营良好的公司中看到的。
Now, what we found was 50 percent, 5–0, which, by the way, means that those underwriters were absolutely wasting their time, in the sense of assessing risk.
现在，我们发现是 50%，5-0，顺便说一下，这意味着从评估风险的角度来看，这些承销商绝对是在浪费时间。
So that’s noise, and you find variability across individuals, which is not supposed to exist.
所以这就是噪音，你会发现个体之间存在差异，这是不应该存在的。
And you find variability within individuals, depending morning, afternoon, hot, cold.
你会发现个体之间存在差异，取决于早上、下午、炎热、寒冷。
A lot of things influence the way that people make judgments: whether they are full, or whether they’ve had lunch or haven’t had lunch affects the judges, and things like that.
很多事情都会影响人们做出判断的方式：是否吃饱，或者是否吃过午餐都会影响判断，诸如此类。
Now, it’s hard to say what there is more of, noise or bias.
现在，很难说到底是噪音还是偏见更多。
But one thing is very certain — that bias has been overestimated at the expense of noise.
但有一件事是非常确定的——偏见被高估了，而牺牲了噪音。
Virtually all the literature and a lot of public conversation is about biases.
事实上，所有的文献和大量的公众对话都与偏见有关。
But in fact, noise is, I think, extremely important, very prevalent.
但事实上，我认为噪音极其重要，而且非常普遍。
There is an interesting fact — that noise and bias are independent sources of error, so that reducing either of them improves overall accuracy.
有一个有趣的事实——噪声和偏差是独立的误差源，因此减少其中任何一个都可以提高整体准确性。
There is room for .
有空间。
.
。
.
。
and the procedures by which you would reduce bias and reduce noise are not the same.
减少偏差和减少噪音的程序也不同。
So that’s what I’m fascinated by these days.
这就是我这些天着迷的地方。
Now, it’s hard to say what there is more of, noise or bias.
现在，很难说到底是噪音还是偏见更多。
But one thing is very certain — that bias has been overestimated at the expense of noise.
但有一件事是非常确定的——偏见被高估了，而牺牲了噪音。
Virtually all the literature and a lot of public conversation is about biases.
事实上，所有的文献和大量的公众对话都与偏见有关。
But in fact, noise is, I think, extremely important, very prevalent.
但事实上，我认为噪音极其重要，而且非常普遍。
Do you think of low intelligence as yet a third independent source of error?
您是否认为低智力是第三个独立的错误来源？
Or is that somehow subsumed in bias and noise?
或者这是否以某种方式包含在偏见和噪音中？
You mean plain stupidity?
你的意思是简单的愚蠢？
In some cases.
在某些情况下。
Yeah.
是的。
It wouldn’t really be necessarily the same as either bias or noise.
它不一定与偏差或噪声相同。
Getting inadequate information, or not getting adequate information when it’s available, is a stupid thing to do, and a very common thing.
获取不充分的信息，或者在有可用信息时没有获取足够的信息，是一件愚蠢的事情，但却是一件很常见的事情。
It’s not exactly a bias, and it’s not necessarily .
这不完全是一种偏见，也不一定。
.
。
.
。
It would contribute more to noise than to bias, by the way, by and large.
顺便说一句，总的来说，它对噪音的贡献大于对偏差的贡献。
When people collect too little information or are swayed by the first thing that comes to mind, you get noise rather than bias.
当人们收集的信息太少或被首先想到的事情所左右时，你会得到噪音而不是偏见。
Do you see the wisdom of crowds as a way of addressing noise in business firms?
您是否认为群体智慧是解决商业公司噪音的一种方法？
So you take all the auditors, and you somehow construct a weighted average?
所以你把所有审计员都纳入进来，然后以某种方式构建一个加权平均值？
The wisdom of the crowds will work, and pooling opinions will work when errors are independent, that is, when everybody is inclined to make the same mistake, which is then a bias.
当错误是独立的，也就是说，当每个人都倾向于犯同样的错误时，这就是一种偏见，群体的智慧就会发挥作用，汇集意见就会发挥作用。
Right.
正确的。
Then having multiple individuals engaged in it, they share their biases, you’ll get the bias.
然后让多个人参与其中，他们分享他们的偏见，你就会得到偏见。
It’s going to be worsened, and everybody will have much higher confidence in their biased views because other people share them.
情况会变得更糟，每个人都会对自己的偏见观点更有信心，因为其他人也有同样的观点。
So wisdom of the crowd works under quite specified conditions.
因此，群体的智慧是在特定的条件下发挥作用的。
With respect to the underwriters, I would expect, certainly, that if you took 12 underwriters assessing the same risk, you would eliminate the noise.
至于承销商，我当然希望如果你让 12 名承销商评估相同的风险，你就会消除噪音。
You would be left with bias, but you would eliminate one source of error, and the question is just price.
你会留下偏见，但你会消除一个错误来源，问题只是价格。
Google, for example, when it hires people, they have a minimum of four individuals making independent assessments of each candidate.
例如，谷歌在招聘人员时，至少有四个人对每个候选人进行独立评估。
And that reduces the standard deviation of error at least by a factor of two.
这将误差的标准偏差至少减少了两倍。
So is the business world, in general, adjusting for noise right now?
那么，总体而言，商业界现在是否正在针对噪音进行调整？
Or only some highly successful firms?
或者只是一些非常成功的公司？
I don’t know enough about that.
我对此了解不够。
All I do know is that, when we pointed out the results, the bewildering results of the experiment on underwriters, and there was another unit — people who assess the size of claims.
我所知道的是，当我们指出结果时，承保人实验的令人困惑的结果，还有另一个单位——评估索赔规模的人。
Again, actually, it’s more than 50 percent.
事实上，这一比例再次超过了 50%。
Like 58 percent.
比如 58%。
The thing that was the most striking was that nobody in the organization had any idea that this was going on.
最引人注目的是，组织中没有人知道这件事正在发生。
It took people completely by surprise.
着实让人们大吃一惊。
My guess now, that wherever people exercise judgment, there is noise.
我现在猜测，只要人们做出判断，就会有噪音。
And, as a first rule, there is more noise than people expect, and there’s more noise than they can imagine because it’s very difficult to imagine that people have a very different opinion from yours when your opinion is right, which it is.
而且，作为第一条规则，噪音比人们预期的要多，而且比他们想象的要多，因为很难想象当你的观点是正确的时候，人们的观点与你的观点截然不同，事实确实如此。
So that’s the way it works.
这就是它的工作原理。
If you’re called in by a CEO to give advice — and I think sometimes you are — how can I reduce the noise in my decisions, the decisions of the CEO, when there’s not a simple way to average?
如果首席执行官请你提供建议 ——我想有时你会这么做—— 当没有简单的平均方法时，我怎样才能减少我的决策、首席执行官的决策中的噪音呢？
The firm doesn’t have a dozen CEOs.
该公司没有十几个首席执行官。
What’s your advice?
你有什么建议？
My advice is divide and conquer.
我的建议是分而治之。
That is, there is one thing that we know that improves the quality of judgment, I think.
也就是说，我认为我们知道有一件事可以提高判断质量。
And this is to delay intuition.
这是为了延迟直觉。
I think there is in the audience a friend of mine, Gary Klein, who is violently opposed to what I’m saying, as are many others.
我想观众中有一位朋友，加里·克莱因（Gary Klein），他和其他许多人一样强烈反对我所说的话。
But I’m here.
但我在这里。
So I think delaying intuition is a very good idea.
所以我认为推迟直觉是一个非常好的主意。
Delaying intuition until the facts are in, at hand, and looking at dimensions of the problem separately and independently is a better use of information.
推迟直觉，直到事实摆在眼前，并单独、独立地看待问题的各个维度，这是对信息的更好利用。
The problem with intuition is that it forms very quickly, so that you need to have special procedures in place to control it except in those rare cases — and Gary Klein and others have demonstrated that — where you have intuitive expertise.
直觉的问题在于它形成得非常快，因此你需要有特殊的程序来控制它，除非在极少数情况下 ——加里·克莱因和其他人已经证明了 —— 当你拥有直觉专业知识时。
That’s true for athletes — they respond intuitively.
对于运动员来说也是如此——他们会凭直觉做出反应。
It’s true for chess masters.
对于国际象棋大师来说确实如此。
It’s true for firefighters, captains, as Gary Klein has shown.
正如加里·克莱因（Gary Klein）所证明的那样，对于消防员、队长来说也是如此。
So that’s intuitive expertise.
这就是直观的专业知识。
I don’t think CEOs encounter many problems where they have intuitive expertise.
我认为首席执行官在拥有直觉专业知识的情况下不会遇到很多问题。
They haven’t had the opportunity to acquire it, so they better slow down.
他们还没有机会获得它，所以他们最好放慢脚步。
And just take more time on each decision.
并且在每个决定上花更多时间。
Break the decision up.
打破这个决定。
It’s not so much a matter of time because you don’t want people to get paralyzed by analysis.
这并不是时间问题，因为您不希望人们因分析而陷入瘫痪。
But it’s a matter of planning how you’re going to make the decision, and making it in stages, and not acting without an intuitive certainty that you are doing the right thing.
但这是一个计划你将如何做出决定的问题，并分阶段做出，而不是在没有直觉确定你正在做正确的事情的情况下采取行动。
But just delay it until all the information is available.
但只要推迟一下，直到所有信息都可用为止。
And does noise play any useful roles, either in businesses or in broader society?
无论是在企业还是在更广泛的社会中，噪音是否发挥了任何有用的作用？
Or is it just a cost we would like to minimize?
或者这只是我们想要最小化的成本？
There is one condition under which noise is very useful.
在一种情况下，噪声非常有用。
If there is a selection process, evolution works on noise.
如果存在选择过程，那么进化就会作用于噪音。
You have random variation and then selection.
你有随机变化，然后选择。
But when there is no selection, noise is just a cost.
但当没有选择时，噪音就只是一种成本。
But say it were always transparent who would be the winners and who would be the losers from a given decision.
但要说的是，从给定的决定中，谁将成为赢家，谁将成为输家，这始终是透明的。
Wouldn’t we be too emotional, too polarized, engaging in too much rent-seeking?
我们会不会太情绪化、太两极分化、过度寻租？
And having an ambiguity as to cause and effect is, in part, what allows us to get along with each other?
因果关系的模糊性在一定程度上是我们能够相处的原因吗？
You are sort of making a lot of assumptions I’m not used to in this question.
你在这个问题上做了很多我不习惯的假设。
You seem to assume that there is something very competitive that could be alleviated.
你似乎认为有一些竞争非常激烈的事情可以缓解。
But there’s the old saying, say, from the Soviet Union, that meritocracy is very hard to live under.
但有句老话，比如来自苏联的谚语，说精英统治是很难生存的。
That if you really know how many people are better than you are, which, say, a chess player might, there’s something psychologically oppressive to being downgraded.
如果你真的知道有多少人比你强，比如国际象棋棋手可能会知道，那么被降级会带来心理上的压抑。
Whereas noise, you can be overconfident more easily, and we all know overconfidence —
与噪音相比，你更容易变得过度自信，而我们都知道过度自信——
You don’t need noise for that.
为此你不需要噪音。
Bias will do it for you.
偏见会为你做到这一点。
And there is a lot of bias in that direction.
在这个方向上存在很多偏见。
People clearly overestimate what they can do and how good they are.
人们显然高估了自己的能力和能力。
And that’s a blessing, undoubtedly.
毫无疑问，这是一种祝福。
Are there groups of people you feel are less subject to biases?
您认为有哪些人群较少受到偏见的影响？
There’s some papers, for instance, showing that autistics — they have weaker framing effects, smaller endowment effects, maybe because top-down processing works in a different way.
例如，有一些论文表明，自闭症患者的框架效应较弱，禀赋效应较小，这可能是因为自上而下的处理方式不同。
Do you have an opinion on that literature?
您对那篇文献有什么看法吗？
No, I don’t know it well enough.
不，我还不够了解。
If you think of the literature on what are called cognitive disabilities — ADHD — do you think of that as bias or somehow in a different logical category?
如果你想到关于所谓的认知障碍 — 多动症 — 的文献，你是否认为这是偏见或以某种方式属于不同的逻辑类别？
Or .
或者 。
.
。
.
。
?
？
I don’t think it’s a bias, no. I think it’s an attention deficit.
我不认为这是偏见，不。我认为这是注意力缺陷。
It means that people have difficulty controlling their attention, focusing on what they want to focus on, and staying focused.
这意味着人们很难控制自己的注意力，无法专注于自己想要关注的事情，也很难保持专注。
That’s neither bias nor noise.
这既不是偏见，也不是噪音。
Bias and noise do not cover the universe.
偏见和噪音并不能覆盖整个宇宙。
There are other categories.
还有其他类别。
If you think about the issue of, when people think about the world, they find some kind of transactions repugnant.
如果你想一想这个问题，当人们思考这个世界时，他们会发现某种交易令人反感。
Sometimes they just don’t like to sell what they have.
有时他们只是不想卖掉他们拥有的东西。
Other times, they seem to object to markets, say, in kidneys or kidney transplants.
其他时候，他们似乎反对肾脏或肾脏移植等市场。
Do you view that as bias?
您认为这是偏见吗？
Or where does that come from?
或者说它从何而来？
In the sense that this is a norm, and there are things that we’re trained or socialized to find disgusting, to find repugnant.
从某种意义上说，这是一种常态，有些事情我们被训练或社会化，让我们觉得恶心、令人反感。
So there are repugnant transactions.
所以才会出现令人反感的交易。
And you have to treat them as you treat every other moral feeling.
你必须像对待其他道德情感一样对待它们。
We have lots of moral feelings, things that we find unacceptable without any ability to really explain why they are unacceptable.
我们有很多道德感受，我们发现一些不可接受的事情，但没有能力真正解释为什么它们不可接受。
There is such a thing as moral emotion.
有一种东西叫道德情感。
There is such a thing as indignation, as moral disgust.
有一种东西叫愤慨，叫道德厌恶。
And that’s what we’re talking about here.
这就是我们在这里讨论的内容。
So you’re pessimistic about the ability of psychologists to develop structural explanations of where feelings of repugnance come from.
所以你对心理学家对厌恶感从何而来的结构性解释的能力持悲观态度。
Well, in some cases, we know, and you can do that associatively.
好吧，在某些情况下，我们知道，您可以通过关联的方式做到这一点。
It really depends on the social disrupture that is imposed by a given culture.
这实际上取决于特定文化所造成的社会混乱。
To give you a sense of the way that works, there is psychologist Paul Rozin, who has done some brilliant experiments on that.
为了让你了解其运作方式，心理学家保罗·罗津（Paul Rozin）对此做了一些出色的实验。
In one of the experiments, he has people, and they have a glass of orange juice, and they have a sticker.
在其中一个实验中，他邀请了一些人，他们有一杯橙汁，还有一张贴纸。
They’re asked to write on that sticker “cyanide” and to stick it on the juice and then to drink the juice.
他们被要求在贴纸上写上“氰化物”并将其贴在果汁上，然后喝果汁。
And they don’t want to.
但他们不想。
This is something — it’s an emotion over which people have no control, and our socialization has created those emotions in us.
这是一种人们无法控制的情绪，而我们的社会化在我们身上创造了这些情绪。
We’re conditioned to have them under some conditions.
我们习惯于在某些条件下拥有它们。
Other cultures are disgusted by other things.
其他文化对其他事物感到厌恶。
Philip Tetlock has argued that, if we set up long-run tournaments with forecasting, and we measure results, and we test teams against each other, that we can, in the longer run, reduce, I think, both the noise and bias.
菲利普·泰洛克（Philip Tetlock）认为，如果我们建立带有预测的长期锦标赛，衡量结果，并测试团队之间的对抗，那么从长远来看，我认为我们可以减少噪音和偏见。
Do you agree?
你同意？
And do you think there are factors he’s overlooking in how his tournaments are set up?
你认为他在比赛的设置过程中是否忽略了一些因素？
Phil Tetlock is another friend, but he’s also a hero.
菲尔·泰特洛克是另一个朋友，但他也是一位英雄。
I think this is beautiful research.
我认为这是一项美妙的研究。
I think it’s proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that when you have people making forecasts for the medium term — up to six months, say, in many situations — you can help people thinking carefully without any training, who do better than CIA analysts.
我认为，毫无疑问，当你让人们对中期（例如，在许多情况下长达六个月）做出预测时，你可以帮助人们在没有任何培训的情况下仔细思考，他们比中央情报局的分析师做得更好。
That’s fundamentally what he has shown, and he really knows why, or he knows how they do it.
这基本上就是他所展示的，他真的知道为什么，或者他知道他们是如何做到的。
And the tricks are very simple.
而且技巧非常简单。
If you made a list of intelligent ways to go at problems, that’s what people do.
如果你列出了解决问题的明智方法清单，人们就会这么做。
They view the problem as an instance of a category, and then they switch to looking at the problem from the inside.
他们将问题视为某个类别的实例，然后转而从内部看待问题。
Essentially, they adopt different points of view.
本质上，他们采取不同的观点。
It’s not the same thing as what I was saying earlier about breaking up a problem into dimensions and averaging.
这与我之前所说的将问题分解为维度并求平均值不同。
There’s no averaging, but there is looking at a problem from multiple dimensions and collecting a lot of information.
没有平均，而是从多个维度看待问题并收集大量信息。
And that’s basically what creates superforecasters.
这基本上就是创造超级预测家的原因。
So if you’re picking the Daniel Kahneman superforecasting team, what qualities are you looking for in individuals?
因此，如果您选择丹尼尔·卡尼曼超级预测团队，您会寻找个人的哪些品质？
Phil Tetlock really has a comprehensive list, which I’m not going to remember.
Phil Tetlock 确实有一个全面的清单，但我不会记住。
But at the margin, how would you modify, given —
但在边际上，你会如何修改，考虑到——
They will be intelligent, they will be numerate, they’ll be open-minded, they’ll be curious, interested in learning, eager to train their mind.
他们会很聪明，他们会计算，他们会思想开放，他们会好奇，对学习感兴趣，渴望训练他们的思维。
But is there a bias left in how Tetlockians pick their teams?
但是泰特洛克人在选择团队时是否存在偏见呢？
He picks the teams by results, so what he has, he has people competing in making probabilistic forecasts of strategic or economic events in the medium and short term.
他根据结果来挑选团队，所以他所拥有的就是让人们竞争对中短期战略或经济事件进行概率预测。
And some people are more accurate than others.
有些人比其他人更准确。
After a year of that, you select the top 2 percent and you call them superforecasters.
一年后，你选出前 2% 的人，称他们为超级预测者。
That gives them a very good feeling, to be labeled superforecasters.
这让他们有一种非常好的感觉，被贴上超级预测者的标签。
And they do not regress to the mean; that is, the second year they’re just about as good as the first year.
他们并没有退化到平均水平；也就是说，第二年他们的成绩与第一年一样好。
That’s the basic finding.
这是基本的发现。
If you’re picking doctors, where maybe results are hard to measure in some cases, what do you look for when selecting doctors, in broad terms?
如果您正在挑选医生，在某些情况下结果可能难以衡量，那么从广义上讲，您在选择医生时会寻找什么？
I will do the conventional thing.
我会做常规的事情。
I will ask about their reputation because that’s the best measure we have.
我会询问他们的声誉，因为这是我们拥有的最好的衡量标准。
If it’s a surgeon that I’m looking for, then there are real indices, the main one being the number of times he’s performed the operation in question.
如果我要找的是一位外科医生，那么就会有真实的指标，主要是他进行相关手术的次数。
That you know is what you’ve got to examine because people really do get better over time, so measuring how much practice they’ve had.
你所知道的就是你必须检查的，因为随着时间的推移，人们确实会变得更好，所以衡量他们进行了多少练习。
And the practice is fairly specific on different operations.
而且这种做法对于不同的操作来说是相当具体的。
I think I would know how to pick a surgeon.
我想我会知道如何选择外科医生。
There’s a good deal of evidence that people in businesses are overconfident, but do you think they’re more overconfident than they should be?
有大量证据表明企业界人士过度自信，但您认为他们是否过度自信？
Overconfidence has many virtues.
过度自信有很多优点。
In the first place, it’s nice, it’s pleasant to be overconfident, especially if you’re an optimist.
首先，过度自信是件好事，令人愉快，特别是如果你是一个乐观主义者。
Optimism is valuable, much more than overconfidence.
乐观比过度自信更有价值。
Overconfidence is sort of a side effect.
过度自信是一种副作用。
But to exaggerate the odds of success is a very useful thing for people.
但夸大成功的几率对人们来说是一件非常有用的事情。
It will make them more appealing to others, they will get more resources, and they will take risks.
这将使他们对他人更具吸引力，他们将获得更多资源，并且他们将承担风险。
It’s not necessarily good for them.
这对他们来说不一定是好事。
The expected utility of taking risks in the economy is probably moderately negative.
在经济中承担风险的预期效用可能适度为负。
But for society as a whole to have a lot of optimists taking risks — that’s what makes for economic progress, so I call that the engine of capitalism, really, that sort of optimism.
但对于整个社会来说，有很多乐观主义者愿意冒险——这就是经济进步的原因，所以我称其为资本主义的引擎，实际上就是这种乐观主义。
But to exaggerate the odds of success is a very useful thing for people.
但夸大成功的几率对人们来说是一件非常有用的事情。
It will make them more appealing to others, they will get more resources, and they will take risks.
这将使他们对他人更具吸引力，他们将获得更多资源，并且他们将承担风险。
It’s not necessarily good for them…But for society as a whole to have a lot of optimists taking risks — that’s what makes for economic progress, so I call that the engine of capitalism, really, that sort of optimism
这对他们来说不一定有好处……但对于整个社会来说，有很多乐观主义者承担风险 ——这就是经济进步的原因，所以我称其为资本主义的引擎，实际上，这种乐观主义
There’s a collaboration between a human being and a machine, and occasionally the human being overrides the machine.
人与机器之间存在着协作，有时人会凌驾于机器之上。
Do you feel the human beings in those situations are, on average, either too overconfident or too optimistic?
平均而言，您是否认为处于这些情况下的人类要么过于自信，要么过于乐观？
Well, there are certain criteria that you would want to apply before you put a machine to work.
好吧，在让机器投入工作之前，您需要应用某些标准。
You want to validate that.
你想验证这一点。
But once you have a machine making decisions, the conditions under which it’s a good idea for humans to override them are really well known and well understood.
但是，一旦机器做出决策，人类就可以在什么条件下推翻这些决策，这是众所周知的，也很容易理解。
And it’s not that when you get a feeling that the machine is wrong, that’s not enough.
并不是说当你感觉到机器出了问题时，这还不够。
I’ll give you an example where it would be okay to override a machine.
我会给你一个例子，说明可以覆盖机器。
Suppose you have a computer that approves loans, and then you’re the banker, and you see that the person who was approved for a loan has just been arrested for fraud.
假设你有一台批准贷款的计算机，然后你是银行家，你看到被批准贷款的人刚刚因欺诈被捕。
Then you will override the machine.
然后你将覆盖机器。
That’s about the conditions under which it’s worth it.
这就是它值得的条件。
Otherwise, there’ve been many experiments, and when people override formulas, by and large, they do worse than if they hadn’t.
否则，已经有很多实验了，当人们推翻公式时，总的来说，他们的表现比不推翻更糟糕。
Do you side with the analysts, such as Martin Ford, who see really a very large number of jobs being potentially automatable with artificial intelligence, machine learning?
您是否支持马丁·福特等分析师的观点，他们认为大量工作都可以通过人工智能、机器学习实现自动化？
Or will we always need the human beings to work with the machines?
或者我们总是需要人类与机器一起工作？
That we will need human beings is, I think, an illusion.
我认为，我们需要人类只是一种幻想。
Take chess for example.
以国际象棋为例。
Kasparov was beaten 20 years ago, and he went on for a while — and it was true for a while — saying the teams of chess players with grand masters — of programs with grand masters would be stronger than either.
卡斯帕罗夫在 20 年前就被打败了，他继续了一段时间————确实有一段时间————“国际象棋棋手与大师组成的团队”——与大师组成的程序会比任何一个都更强。
And it was true for a while.
有一段时间确实如此。
It is true no longer.
现在不再是这样了。
The programs do not need the grand masters.
这些程序不需要大师。
You know how it happened, and it’s likely to happen in many other fields.
你知道它是如何发生的，而且它很可能发生在许多其他领域。
It’s happening in dermatology.
它发生在皮肤科。
The diagnosis is now better done by programs than by people, and they are not going to need the person very often.
现在，通过程序比由人更好地完成诊断，并且他们不会经常需要该人。
That is, to have a person intervene, with the right to intervene, they will sometimes correct mistakes.
就是要有一个人介入，有了介入的权利，有时候就会纠正错误。
But they will more often, I think, introduce mistakes.
但我认为，他们更经常会引入错误。
So when you have a well-running program, leave it alone.
所以当你有一个运行良好的程序时，就不要管它了。
So we as professors won’t need to grade exams anymore, and I don’t just mean multiple choice.
因此，我们作为教授将不再需要对考试进行评分，而且我指的不仅仅是多项选择。
You run machine learning on papers, you find what correlates with a good paper, you put the paper through the program.
你在论文上运行机器学习，找到与一篇好论文相关的内容，然后将论文放入程序中。
Look, the point is, there is so much noise in essay grading that it’s quite easy to imagine a program that would look at various indices and that would do better than hurried and tired professors.
听着，重点是，论文评分中存在如此多的噪音，因此很容易想象一个会查看各种指数的程序，并且会比匆忙而疲惫的教授做得更好。
If you consider people working in psychology or maybe economics or just social sciences, do you think people persist with their professional and research projects too long or not long enough?
如果你考虑从事心理学、经济学或社会科学工作的人，你认为人们坚持他们的专业和研究项目的时间太长还是不够长？
Where’s the bias?
偏见在哪里？
My guess is too long, but it’s a personal bias.
我的猜测太长了，但这是个人偏见。
Because of sunk costs.
因为沉没成本。
Because of sunk costs.
因为沉没成本。
I think sunk cost is really the enemy when you’re doing research, innovative research.
我认为当你进行研究、创新研究时，沉没成本确实是敌人。
You’re to recognize that something isn’t working and just move on.
你要认识到有些事情不起作用，然后继续前进。
And there are different views on that, but my sense is that this is the direction of the bias, yeah, sunk costs.
对此有不同的看法，但我的感觉是，这就是偏见的方向，是的，沉没成本。
Michael Nielsen is a scientist, and he works at Y Combinator.
Michael Nielsen 是一位科学家，在 Y Combinator 工作。
He tweeted today, “If it weren’t for sunk costs and my respect for them, I wouldn’t ever get anything done.” What do you think?
他今天在推特上写道：“如果没有沉没成本和我对它们的尊重，我永远不会完成任何事情。”你怎么认为？
I mean, you know sunk costs.
我的意思是，你知道沉没成本。
It keeps you at things, right?
它让你专注于事情，对吗？
Yeah, it keeps you at things.
是的，它让你专注于事情。
You stay loyal to your friends.
你对你的朋友保持忠诚。
You become more trustworthy.
你变得更加值得信赖。
When we talk about sunk costs, we talk about something else.
当我们谈论沉没成本时，我们谈论的是其他事情。
It is not true that growing attachment to things that you’re familiar with and that you like and love and increasingly trust — that’s not sunk costs.
对你熟悉的、你喜欢的、喜爱的、越来越信任的事物越来越依恋，这并不是沉没成本。
That’s something else.
那是另一回事了。
Sunk cost is a fairly specific thing.
沉没成本是一个相当具体的事情。
It is that you’re putting a different value on a move or an investment that you make because of investment that you have already made than you would if you were looking at that de novo.
而是因为你已经进行了投资，所以你对你所做的举动或投资的价值与你从头开始考虑时的价值不同。
Sunk costs, by and large, I think, are a negative.
我认为，总体而言，沉没成本是负面的。
We know that when you get a new CEO in place in organizations, the new CEO has one big advantage.
我们知道，当组织中任命一位新首席执行官时，新首席执行官有一个很大的优势。
He’s got no sunk costs with respect to poor ideas that the exiting CEO had and couldn’t let go of.
对于现任首席执行官所拥有且无法放弃的糟糕想法，他没有任何沉没成本。
If you had a perfectly rational, pure Bayesian, would anyone else trust that person?
如果你有一个完全理性、纯粹的贝叶斯主义者，其他人还会信任那个人吗？
Well .
出色地 。
.
。
.
。
would he be nice?
他会好吗？
I don’t think so.
我不这么认为。
That’s what would matter.
这才是重要的。
If you could get me a nice Bayesian, that could be fine.
如果你能给我一个好的贝叶斯模型，那就太好了。
On psychologists
关于心理学家
Some questions about psychologists outside of what you’ve worked on, but maybe related — Freud.
关于心理学家的一些问题超出了你的研究范围，但可能与 — 弗洛伊德有关。
What do you think of Freud’s body of work?
您如何看待弗洛伊德的著作？
And has it influenced you at all?
它对你有影响吗？
If I think of Freud’s two principles of mental functioning, right?
如果我想到弗洛伊德的两个心理功能原理，对吗？
The notion of pleasure principle, reality principle — it’s a little bit like Thinking, Fast and Slow in some ways, with big differences.
快乐原则、现实原则的概念——在某些方面有点像思考、快与慢，但有很大区别。
Well, all dichotomies are alike in some ways.
嗯，所有的二分法在某些方面都是相似的。
And yeah, there are similarities.
是的，有相似之处。
Oddly enough, there is one aspect of Freudian work that I think did influence me.
奇怪的是，我认为弗洛伊德著作的一个方面确实影响了我。
For some reason, when I was a graduate student .
由于某种原因，当我还是一名研究生时。
.
。
.
。
It’s too long a story, but I was exposed to chapter 7 in The Interpretation of Dreams, and I spent a summer studying chapter 7 in The Interpretation of Dreams.
故事太长了，但是我接触到了《释梦》的第七章，我花了一个夏天的时间学习《释梦》的第七章。
In chapter 7, there is, basically, a theory of attention.
第七章基本上有一个注意力理论。
And 25 years later, I published a theory of attention.
25 年后，我发表了注意力理论。
When it was done, I realized that it resembled chapter 7 quite a bit.
当完成后，我发现它与第七章非常相似。
So, yes.
所以，是的。
Personality psychology and five-factor personality theory — is that, for you, a useful way of thinking about human beings?
人格心理学和五因素人格理论——对你来说，这是一种有用的思考人类的方式吗？
Well, it’s a proven way .
嗯，这是一种行之有效的方法。
.
。
.
。
It’s sort of boring.
这有点无聊。
And I mean that seriously.
我是认真的。
This five-factor thing — it’s about 20 years old, and it dominates personality psychology because it works.
这个五因素的东西已经有大约 20 年的历史了，它在人格心理学中占据主导地位，因为它有效。
But it’s boring.
但这很无聊。
It used to be more exciting, to have more complicated mechanisms, but you have something that seems to work.
拥有更复杂的机制曾经更令人兴奋，但现在你有了一些似乎有效的东西。
What did you draw from Herbert Simon?
你从赫伯特·西蒙那里得到了什么？
Directly, nothing.
直接说，没什么。
Indirectly, a lot.
间接的，很多。
And retrospectively, a lot.
回顾起来，很多。
What I mean by indirectly is that the air I breathe was influenced by Herbert Simon.
我所说的间接是指我呼吸的空气受到赫伯特·西蒙的影响。
He had the notion of heuristics.
他有启发法的概念。
It was in the language, and it affected me.
它是用语言表达的，它影响了我。
Of course, it affected the whole zeitgeist; it affected the whole culture.
当然，它影响了整个时代精神。它影响了整个文化。
And retrospectively, when I learned Simon .
回想起来，当我认识西蒙时。
.
。
.
。
but that was after I was in field and after I made some contributions to the field.
但那是在我进入该领域并为该领域做出一些贡献之后。
I discovered that I was following in his footsteps.
我发现我正在追随他的脚步。
But that’s not what I had been doing originally.
但这不是我最初所做的。
I hadn’t viewed myself .
我没有看过自己。
.
。
.
。
and in fact, I wasn’t following in his footsteps.
事实上，我并没有追随他的脚步。
Retrospectively, you find, “Oh yeah, this is what I did,” in the historical perspective.
回顾过去，你会发现，“哦，是的，这就是我所做的”，从历史的角度来看。
And also from classical psychology, either Jung or Piaget — did you draw anything from them?
同样从古典心理学的角度来看，无论是荣格还是皮亚杰——你从他们身上学到了什么吗？
Or is that just a foreign stream?
还是说这只是国外的流媒体？
Yeah, that’s completely foreign.
是的，这完全是外国的。
Completely foreign.
完全是外国的。
If you think about your early work on vision and on Israeli bus drivers, how did your later work on biases and thinking fast, thinking slow come out of your very earliest papers?
如果你回想一下你早期关于视觉和以色列公交车司机的工作，那么你后来关于偏见、快思考、慢思考的工作是如何从你最早的论文中得出的呢？
It didn’t.
事实并非如此。
It was a completely separate thing.
这是完全不同的事情。
I worked originally on a concept for quite a few years, on the notion of effort, mental effort.
我最初在一个概念上花了很多年的时间，关于努力、精神努力的概念。
And when I started work on heuristics and biases with Amos Tversky, that wasn’t on our mind, and it had very little effect.
当我开始与阿莫斯·特沃斯基一起研究启发法和偏见时，我们并没有想到这一点，而且效果也很小。
When I wrote Thinking, Fast and Slow — like 10 years ago — when I was doing that, then it turned out that I put together all my life’s work, and the early work did get into Thinking, Fast and Slow.
当我写《思考，快与慢》的时候——就像10年前那样——当我这样做的时候，结果发现我把我一生的工作都放在了一起，而早期的工作确实进入了《思考，快与慢》。
But it had no effect on my work with Amos Tversky.
但这对我和阿莫斯·特沃斯基的工作没有影响。
But the idea of attention-switching costs — so Israeli bus drivers, it takes time for them to switch attention from one event to another.
但注意力转移的想法需要付出代价——因此以色列公交车司机需要时间才能将注意力从一个事件转移到另一个事件。
Is that not an underlying micro foundation of your, say, 1980s papers on bias?
这难道不是你 20 世纪 80 年代关于偏见的论文的潜在微观基础吗？
No.
不。
That people aren’t switching their attention to the new problem?
人们没有将注意力转移到新问题上？
No.
不。
No.
不。
It’s not.
事实并非如此。
We didn’t think of it.
我们没想到。
That really happens a great deal, and quite often, it happens in a different way.
这种情况确实发生过很多次，而且通常是以不同的方式发生的。
It happens when somebody’s insulted because you didn’t cite him.
当某人因为你没有引用他而受到侮辱时，就会发生这种情况。
He looks at your work, and he says, “That’s just the same as what I’ve said before.” And in some way, it may be true.
他看着你的作品，说道：“这和我之前说的一模一样。”从某种程度上来说，这可能是真的。
There may be some resemblance.
可能有一些相似之处。
It may be true, and yet you were completely uninfluenced by that.
这可能是真的，但你却完全不受其影响。
And it’s the same thing.
这是同样的事情。
I was uninfluenced by my earlier work, I think.
我想我并没有受到我早期作品的影响。
Now your basic distinction between System 1 and System 2, thinking fast and thinking slow — to the extent that particular results do not replicate, do you view that as undercutting the System 1 versus System 2 distinction?
现在，系统 1 和系统 2 之间的基本区别，即快速思考和慢速思考——在特定结果无法复制的范围内，您是否认为这削弱了系统 1 与系统 2 的区别？
Or is that immune to the degree of replicability?
或者这不受可复制程度的影响？
There were whole sets of results that I published in Thinking, Fast and Slow that I wish I hadn’t published because they’re not reliable.
我在《思考，快与慢》中发表了整套结果，我希望我没有发表，因为它们不可靠。
Whether it undercuts .
是否削弱。
.
。
.
。
The idea of two systems is really anchored in a basic sort of fact of experience, that the process by which you get 2 plus 2 is fundamentally different from the way that you get 17 by 24.
两个系统的想法实际上植根于一种基本的经验事实，即得到 2 加 2 的过程与得到 17 × 24 的过程根本不同。
One of them happens automatically, associatively, quickly.
其中之一是自动、关联、快速地发生的。
You have no control.
你无法控制。
The other demands effort and is slow and so on.
另一种需要付出努力并且速度缓慢等等。
That’s immune to replication.
这不受复制影响。
But if there’s a bias in individuals and noise, why should we trust our experience about this apparent sense of having two methods?
但如果个人和噪音存在偏见，我们为什么要相信我们的经验，认为有两种方法的明显感觉呢？
Is it three?
是三个吗？
Is it four?
是四个吗？
Well, in the first place, those are extremes.
嗯，首先，这些都是极端的。
It doesn’t mean that there aren’t others.
这并不意味着没有其他人。
It doesn’t mean that there is not a continuum.
这并不意味着不存在连续体。
But there is at least a continuum to be explored of those two extremes.
但这两个极端至少有一个连续体有待探索。
Of that I’m quite confident.
对此我非常有信心。
Do you think that working outside of your native language in any ways influenced your ideas on psychology?
您认为在母语之外工作是否会以任何方式影响您对心理学的看法？
It makes you more aware of thinking fast versus thinking slow?
它让你更加意识到快速思考与慢速思考？
Or not?
或不？
It’s something I used to think about in the context .
这是我过去常常在上下文中思考的事情。
.
。
.
。
I’m from Israel, and it was thinking whether there was something in common to Israeli intellectuals operating in a second language.
我来自以色列，我在想使用第二语言的以色列知识分子是否有共同点。
And I thought that, in a way, it can be an advantage to operate in a second language, that there are certain things .
我认为，在某种程度上，使用第二语言进行操作可能是一个优势，因为有某些事情。
.
。
.
。
that you can think about the thing itself, not through the words.
你可以思考事情本身，而不是通过言语。
It’s like lower sunk costs in a way.
在某种程度上，这就像降低沉没成本。
I don’t know exactly how to explain it, but I thought that this was not a loss for me, to do psychology in a second language.
我不知道该怎么解释，但我认为用第二语言做心理学对我来说并不是一种损失。
Do you have thoughts on the potential cognitive advantages of bilingualism or trilingualism?
您对双语或三语的潜在认知优势有什么想法吗？
It’s an empirical matter.
这是一个经验问题。
It’s not a matter of thinking.
这不是思考的问题。
And I don’t know enough.
而且我还不够了解。
It appears to be advantageous, but I don’t know the literature.
这似乎是有利的，但我不了解文献。
If we think of therapists, psychiatrists, internists who are trying somehow to fix, improve, or cure people — are they underinvesting in a knowledge of what might be called behavioral economics or your work on psychology?
如果我们想到那些试图以某种方式修复、改善或治愈人们的治疗师、精神病学家、内科医生，他们是否在所谓的行为经济学或你的心理学研究方面投入不足？
Should they be using more of it?
他们应该使用更多吗？
Is that their bias?
这是他们的偏见吗？
I have an opinion on that, and I think it is supported by evidence.
我对此有自己的看法，并且我认为这是有证据支持的。
But there is one line of therapy that clearly works, and it’s evidence based, and it’s supported time and again.
但有一种疗法显然有效，而且是有证据支持的，并且得到了一次又一次的支持。
And that is one style, and it’s cognitive behavioral therapy.
这是一种风格，它是认知行为疗法。
That works, and we know it does.
这确实有效，而且我们知道它确实有效。
Other things work — some of them do, some of them don’t, and it primarily seems to depend on the personality of the therapist and on the interaction between the personality of the therapist and the personality of the patient.
其他事情起作用——有些起作用，有些不起作用，这似乎主要取决于治疗师的个性以及治疗师的个性与患者的个性之间的相互作用。
Whereas cognitive behavioral therapy is a technique, and it’s a technique that works.
而认知行为疗法是一种技术，而且是一种有效的技术。
That’s a fact, and the rest is a lot of bias.
这是事实，其余的都是很多偏见。
A society such as Argentina that relies so heavily on psychoanalysis — as a psychologist, do you see that as bias?
像阿根廷这样的社会如此严重依赖精神分析——作为一名心理学家，你认为这是偏见吗？
Is it a placebo?
它是安慰剂吗？
Is there a placebo effect in psychoanalysis?
精神分析中是否存在安慰剂效应？
You seem to attribute .
您似乎归因于。
.
。
.
。
You seem to think that I think of bias all the time.
你似乎认为我一直在思考偏见。
I can’t imagine why.
我无法想象为什么。
That’s my bias.
这是我的偏见。
It’s like thinking of sex all the time.
就像一直想着性一样。
I really don’t think of bias that much.
我真的不太认为偏见。
But if you want to apply it, then clearly there is a lot of psychoanalysis in Argentina, and there’s no indication that it makes them more sane.
但如果你想应用它，那么显然阿根廷有很多精神分析，而且没有迹象表明这能让他们变得更加理智。
If you were to express, what is the question about gender and your own work that interests you the most?
如果让你表达，关于性别和你自己的工作的问题，你最感兴趣的是什么？
Maybe you’ve never done it, but what would that be?
也许你从未做过，但那会是什么？
I have really never been interested in anything to do with gender, so I have never studied or looked at differences between gender in the kind of research we did.
我真的对与性别有关的任何事情都不感兴趣，所以我从来没有在我们所做的研究中研究或观察过性别之间的差异。
I’ve never been very interested in individual differences and not in gender either, so I don’t know.
我从来都对个体差异不感兴趣，对性别也不感兴趣，所以我不知道。
So it’s the means really that interest you the most.
所以这才是你最感兴趣的方法。
Yeah, it’s the means and it’s some extremes.
是的，这是手段，而且有些极端。
But it’s not cutting and dicing into categories.
但它并没有进行分类。
But being an Israeli .
但作为以色列人。
.
。
.
。
and surely you’ve traveled to many, many countries, at the very least Sweden, among others.
当然，您已经去过很多很多国家，至少是瑞典等。
There are papers on cross-cultural differences in bargaining or in decision biases.
有一些关于讨价还价或决策偏差的跨文化差异的论文。
How much stock do you put in those results?
你对这些结果有多少信心？
I think there’s no question that there are cultural differences.
我认为毫无疑问存在文化差异。
For one thing, for example, there are major cultural differences in the attitude to optimists, to optimism.
例如，一方面，对乐观主义者和乐观主义的态度存在重大文化差异。
In quite a few European countries, optimism is considered rather foolish.
在不少欧洲国家，乐观主义被认为是相当愚蠢的。
It’s for children.
这是给孩子们的。
Idiots smile in Russia, right?
白痴在俄罗斯微笑，对吧？
And in the United States, optimism is clearly a desirable trait.
在美国，乐观显然是一种令人向往的特质。
And similarly, there are differences on whether risk taking is considered a good thing or a bad thing.
同样，冒险是好事还是坏事也存在差异。
So there are certainly cultural differences.
所以肯定存在文化差异。
Do you think of those in functionalist terms?
您是否从功能主义的角度来看待这些？
Some people might argue, “Well, Israelis, they have a tendency to speak directly because they’ve had a lot of crisis situations, where you can’t beat around the bush.
有些人可能会说：“好吧，以色列人，他们倾向于直接说话，因为他们经历过很多危机情况，你不能拐弯抹角。
You need to say what you think.” Or we don’t know?
你需要说出你的想法。”还是我们不知道？
I don’t like those kinds of explanations.
我不喜欢那种解释。
They look facile to me.
他们对我来说看起来很容易。
Right now in psychology, in your own work, what are the open questions you’re most interested in?
现在在心理学领域，在你自己的工作中，你最感兴趣的开放性问题是什么？
Like everybody else, I think, like many others, there are two exciting developments now that one would want to know about.
和其他人一样，我认为，和许多其他人一样，现在有两个令人兴奋的进展值得人们了解。
One would want to know how the brain works, want to know more about how the brain works than we do, and would want to know about artificial intelligence, and if, when, and how it will become more human-like in what it can do.
人们想知道大脑是如何工作的，想比我们更多地了解大脑是如何工作的，想了解人工智能，以及它是否、何时以及如何在它能做的事情上变得更像人类。
And you’re optimistic on that front?
您对此持乐观态度吗？
I’m optimistic on virtually nothing.
我几乎对任何事情都持乐观态度。
I’m optimistic on virtually nothing.
我几乎对任何事情都持乐观态度。
But that AI is developing faster than anybody could have anticipated — no question.
但人工智能的发展速度超出了任何人的预期——毫无疑问。
And if it continues to develop at that rate, meaning a lot faster than we expect, then things are going to happen relatively quickly.
如果它继续以这个速度发展，这意味着比我们预期的要快得多，那么事情就会相对较快地发生。
What do you think are the main obstacles?
您认为主要障碍是什么？
Some people in Silicon Valley will argue AI is stuck at a kind of local optimum.
硅谷的一些人会认为人工智能陷入了一种局部最优状态。
Driverless cars — although they’re ahead of the pace we thought 10 years ago, they may be behind the pace we thought 2 years ago.
无人驾驶汽车 ——尽管它们领先于我们 10 年前想象的速度，但它们可能落后于我们 2 年前想象的速度。
There’s always a problem with emergency situations, the policeman waving you on.
遇到紧急情况总会有问题，警察会向你招手。
The last 1 percent maybe is very, very difficult.
最后百分之一可能是非常非常困难的。
Yeah.
是的。
But I can’t evaluate that.
但我无法评价这一点。
That’s a technical problem — how long it will take to get the cleanup, the last 1 percent.
这是一个技术问题——需要多长时间才能清理掉最后的 1%。
The questions that are of interest as a psychologist is, when can you simulate common sense?
作为心理学家感兴趣的问题是，什么时候可以模拟常识？
There is the really serious question that people raise about computers, whether they know what they’re talking about, whether they understand what they’re talking about.
人们对计算机提出了一个非常严肃的问题，他们是否知道自己在说什么，是否理解自己在说什么。
Without sense or whims, and without the perceptual apparatus that we have and the ability to cause things by acting on the world, they can’t be exactly like us.
如果没有理智或突发奇想，没有我们所拥有的感知器官和通过作用于世界来引起事物的能力，他们就不可能完全像我们一样。
But that sense of understanding .
但那种理解感。
.
。
.
。
nobody actually today would, I think, claim that even the most sophisticated programs have it.
我认为，今天实际上没有人会声称即使是最复杂的程序也拥有它。
Do you think we’ve learned anything general about common sense by having some artificial intelligence?
你认为我们通过人工智能学到了一些一般常识吗？
What we have learned is that our basic ideas about what’s difficult and what’s easy, what’s going to be simple and what’s going .
我们学到的是关于什么是困难的、什么是容易的、什么是简单的、什么是正在发生的基本想法。
.
。
.
。
have undergone a series of revolutionary changes.
发生了一系列革命性的变化。
We used to think that perception would be easy, and thinking would be difficult.
我们曾经以为感知很容易，思考却很困难。
It turns out that thinking was relatively easy and perception was difficult.
事实证明，思考相对容易，感知则困难。
Now, there are ways of handling perceptual problems, and so thinking is difficult again.
现在，有了处理感性问题的方法，思考又变得困难了。
And it’s a very interesting developing thing.
这是一个非常有趣的发展过程。
Moving the chess piece is often harder than figuring out the best move for the program.
移动棋子通常比找出程序的最佳走法更困难。
Looking back on your collaboration with Amos Tversky, which has been written about widely, of course — there’s the famous Michael Lewis book.
回顾一下你与阿莫斯·特沃斯基的合作，当然，这已经被广泛报道了——还有著名的迈克尔·刘易斯的书。
But what is there about that collaboration or about Amos that you feel one could read everything that’s out there but still has been underappreciated or undervalued?
但是，关于这次合作或关于阿莫斯，你觉得人们可以阅读现有的所有内容，但仍然被低估或低估？
So much has been written that I couldn’t point out anything that people have completely ignored.
已经写了这么多，我无法指出人们完全忽略的任何内容。
Actually, the thing that, when I think about him, it was the mental energy, just the joy of thinking and the mental energy.
事实上，当我想到他时，那是精神能量，只是思考的乐趣和精神能量。
And that made him very charismatic.
这让他非常有魅力。
And he was also very funny, and being funny is a major asset in social life.
而且他也很风趣，风趣是社交生活中的一大财富。
And it turned out to be a major asset in our work because our work, our joint work, had a touch of irony to it.
事实证明，它是我们工作中的一项重要资产，因为我们的工作，我们的共同工作，带有一丝讽刺意味。
The fact that we were laughing continuously as we were doing the work was very important to the nature of what we did.
事实上，我们在工作时不断地笑，这对于我们所做工作的性质来说非常重要。
And that stimulates discovery?
这会刺激发现吗？
It breaks down sunk cost bias?
它打破了沉没成本偏见吗？
Or what does it do in formal terms?
或者从正式意义上讲它有什么作用？
What it does is, it makes you look for funny things about .
它的作用是让你寻找有趣的事情。
.
。
.
。
for us, what it did for us — I can’t generalize.
对我们来说，它为我们做了什么 —— 我无法一概而论。
For us, we were examining our own thinking, and finding stupid things in our own thinking, and finding that delightful and very funny.
对我们来说，我们正在审视自己的想法，并在自己的想法中发现愚蠢的事情，并发现这令人愉快且非常有趣。
So we were very lucky in our choice of topic in many ways.
所以我们在选题上从很多方面来说都是非常幸运的。
Our choice of topic lent itself to a lot of things that are virtually impossible in other fields.
我们选择的主题有助于实现许多在其他领域几乎不可能的事情。
Your current collaborators on the noise book — how would you describe that collaboration?
您目前在噪声书上的合作者 ——您如何描述这次合作？
And tell us who they are.
并告诉我们他们是谁。
One of them is Cass Sunstein, who is a very famous jurist and also known for writing three or four books a year.
其中之一是卡斯·桑斯坦（Cass Sunstein），他是一位非常著名的法学家，也以每年写三四本书而闻名。
He writes very easily, and I write with difficulty, so it’s not an accident that we teamed up.
他写得很轻松，我写得很困难，所以我们合作并不是偶然。
The other collaborator is a brilliant Frenchman that you haven’t heard of.
另一位合作者是一位才华横溢的法国人，你可能没有听说过。
He was, for 25 years, at McKinsey, and he became a director at McKinsey.
他在麦肯锡工作了 25 年，并成为麦肯锡的董事。
Then he got bored with that, and he got a PhD.
然后他对此感到厌倦，并获得了博士学位。
He teaches, and he is just extraordinary.
他教书，而且他非常出色。
So I’m very lucky.
所以我很幸运。
And what will the main theme of that book be?
那本书的主题是什么？
It will be that noise is an underestimated problem, and it will be that there is something deep about two ways of thinking that I was working on in Thinking, Fast and Slow, which I called statistical versus causal.
噪音是一个被低估的问题，而且我在《思考，快和慢》中研究的两种思维方式有一些深刻的东西，我称之为统计与因果。
Noise is clearly a statistical way of looking at things, and bias is inherently causal — so the interplay of those forms of thinking.
噪音显然是一种看待事物的统计方式，而偏见本质上是因果关系——因此这些思维形式的相互作用。
Then the idea that if you want to reduce noise, we have a pretty good idea of what you should do in order to induce greater uniformity and to overcome the vulnerability of people to all sorts of irrelevant influences.
然后，如果你想减少噪音，我们非常清楚你应该做什么，以引起更大的一致性并克服人们容易受到各种不相关影响的脆弱性。
And when will that book be out?
那本书什么时候出版？
Who knows?
谁知道？
It was supposed to be out in the fall of 2020.
它原定于 2020 年秋季推出。
I think our publishers just remembered that there is going to be a presidential election at that time and that probably a lot of more interesting books are going to be appearing.
我想我们的出版商只是记得那时将举行总统选举，并且可能会出现很多更有趣的书籍。
So that postponed it to spring 2021.
因此推迟到 2021 年春季。
We now have some time for questions.
我们现在有时间提问。
But Daniel Kahneman, thank you very much.
但是丹尼尔·卡尼曼，非常感谢你。
Q&A
问答
There are mics on each side.
每侧都有麦克风。
I will call on you, and please, questions only.
我会拜访您，请仅提出问题。
This is our chance to hear from Danny Kahneman.
这是我们听取丹尼·卡尼曼讲话的机会。
If you start making a long speech or statement, I will cut you off.
如果你开始发表长篇演讲或声明，我会打断你。
I also have questions from the iPad.
我也有来自 iPad 的问题。
So please get in line if you would like.
因此，如果您愿意，请排队。
To start with the questions here.
首先从这里的问题开始。
First question: could prediction markets reduce both bias and noise?
第一个问题：预测市场能否减少偏差和噪音？
Well, noise certainly, but then averaging does it.
嗯，当然有噪音，但是平均就可以了。
And whether prediction markets consistently beat averaging is, I think, not yet fully established.
我认为，预测市场是否持续优于平均水平尚未完全确定。
Bias, no — if there is a general bias, unless the people who are unbiased also know that they are unbiased, unless they have a way of being sure, so that they can invest more than others and move the price toward the correct answer.
偏见，不——如果存在普遍偏见，除非那些无偏见的人也知道他们是无偏见的，除非他们有办法确定，这样他们就可以比其他人投资更多，并将价格推向正确的答案。
But without that, without this asymmetry of knowledge, if there is a bias, it won’t be reduced.
但如果没有这一点，没有这种知识的不对称，即使存在偏见，它也不会减少。
Noise will be reduced.
噪音将会减少。
First question over here.
第一个问题就在这里。
Good evening.
晚上好。
I have two questions, but they’re short.
我有两个问题，但很短。
My first question is, you briefly talked about moral emotions.
我的第一个问题是，您简单地谈到了道德情感。
Do you see any benefit to shame?
你认为羞耻有什么好处吗？
Because I’ve read conflicting theories there.
因为我在那里读到了相互矛盾的理论。
So the moral emotion of shame and your thoughts.
所以羞耻的道德情感和你的想法。
And two, what is the impact of counterfactual thinking on happiness in your study?
第二，在你的研究中，反事实思维对幸福感有什么影响？
About shame, I really have no idea.
关于羞耻感，我真的不知道。
It’s there.
它就在那里。
Should one wish that it weren’t?
人们应该希望事实并非如此吗？
It’s probably a force that induces better behavior in lots of people who would not be controlled in other ways.
它可能是一种力量，可以促使许多不受其他方式控制的人表现出更好的行为。
So I don’t know how important or how useful it is.
所以我不知道它有多重要或多有用。
It’s painful to the people who feel it, and it might be useful to others who might be affected by bad behavior.
对于有这种感觉的人来说，这是痛苦的，但对于可能受到不良行为影响的其他人来说，这可能是有用的。
As for counterfactuals and happiness, I think that what you referred to — there are counterfactual emotions.
至于反事实和幸福，我认为你提到的 —— 存在反事实的情绪。
Regret is a counterfactual emotion.
遗憾是一种反事实的情绪。
Guilt is a counterfactual emotion.
内疚是一种反事实的情绪。
You can ask in the sense that they are driven by something that didn’t happen, that could have happened but didn’t.
你可以从某种意义上说，他们是被那些没有发生的事情、本来可能发生但没有发生的事情所驱动的。
Some of these emotions seem to be completely superfluous, like regret.
其中一些情绪似乎完全是多余的，比如后悔。
And I think people, by and large, would be better off without regret.
我认为，总的来说，如果没有遗憾，人们会过得更好。
But notice what regret is.
但请注意什么是遗憾。
Regret is what happens the next morning.
遗憾的是第二天早上发生的事情。
And if we didn’t have it, then who knows what we might do.
如果我们没有它，那么谁知道我们会做什么。
Next question over here.
下一个问题在这里。
Yes, sir.
是的，先生。
On this topic of delaying intuition — and I’m delighted that Mr. Klein is in the audience because I spent over a decade myself as an intuitive expert and found myself mostly using recognition-primed decision-making.
关于延迟直觉的话题——我很高兴克莱因先生在观众席上，因为我自己作为直觉专家已经有十多年了，发现自己主要使用以识别为主导的决策。
I’m curious how much you think availability bias, confirmation bias, et cetera, was still affecting my recognition-primed decision-making.
我很好奇你认为可用性偏差、确认偏差等在多大程度上仍然影响着我以认可为导向的决策。
And is recognition-primed decision-making still useful?
以认可为导向的决策仍然有用吗？
Or is it just the best option in a temporally constrained environment?
或者这只是时间有限的环境中的最佳选择？
I think, obviously, recognition-primed decision-making is going to be wonderful if people really can recognize things accurately.
我认为，显然，如果人们真的能够准确地识别事物，那么以识别为主导的决策将会很棒。
If they can diagnose the situation accurately and do it quickly and act intuitively on that basis, then of course it’s beneficial.
如果他们能够准确地诊断情况并快速采取行动并在此基础上凭直觉采取行动，那么当然是有益的。
And there are conditions under which this applies.
这在某些条件下适用。
Gary Klein and I became friends over a period of six years when we were trying to find out, what are the boundaries?
加里·克莱因和我在六年的时间里成为了朋友，当时我们试图找出界限是什么？
I’m sort of a critic of intuition, and he is very much in favor of intuition, of expert intuition.
我是直觉的批评者，而他非常支持直觉，支持专家直觉。
And we were trying to find out, what are the boundaries?
我们试图找出界限是什么？
Because it’s clear that sometimes intuition is wonderful and sometimes it’s awful.
因为很明显，直觉有时很美妙，有时又很糟糕。
We ended up with a fairly obvious set of conclusions about what it is.
我们最终得出了一系列关于它是什么的相当明显的结论。
You’re going to have Gary Klein–type intuition, expert intuition, if you have a regular world.
如果你有一个规律的世界，你就会拥有加里·克莱因式的直觉，专家的直觉。
That’s condition number one.
这是第一条件。
There are regularities that you can pick up.
您可以遵循一些规律。
And if you have a lot of experience and if the feedback is rapid and unequivocal.
如果您有丰富的经验并且反馈迅速且明确。
If you have those three conditions, which are true for chess players — and they’re true for spouses recognizing the emotion of their spouse on the telephone, to give you a completely different example — then intuition will develop and it will be perfect.
如果你具备这三个条件，这对于棋手来说是正确的——对于配偶来说，在电话中识别配偶的情绪也是如此，给你一个完全不同的例子——那么直觉就会发展起来，这将是完美的。
If those conditions do not develop, I don’t think we can trust people who say that they’re experts.
如果这些条件没有发展起来，我认为我们不能相信那些自称是专家的人。
Another iPad question.
另一个 iPad 问题。
Tech entrepreneur Daniel Gross suggested that growing up in Israel was a forcing function for the tech sector.
科技企业家丹尼尔·格罗斯表示，在以色列长大对科技行业来说是一种强迫作用。
How much was Israel a forcing function for your thinking?
以色列对你的思考有多大的影响力？
I don’t really completely understand the term forcing function in this context.
在这种情况下，我并不完全理解强制函数这个术语。
I know that Israel afforded many opportunities when I was growing up, and it probably still does.
我知道以色列在我的成长过程中提供了很多机会，而且可能仍然如此。
I grew up very early in the history of Israel, when the state was small and everyone could make a difference.
我在以色列历史上长大，当时国家很小，每个人都可以有所作为。
And you really could make a difference.
你确实可以有所作为。
I was, as a lieutenant in the army, age 21 or 22 — I made a difference.
作为一名陆军中尉，我当时 21 或 22 岁—— 我做出了改变。
I created an interviewing system for the whole army.
我为全军创建了一个面试系统。
Those kinds of experiences — that you can do things that seemed impossible or unlikely — that is certainly very liberating and encouraging and induces creativity.
这些经历——“你可以做那些看似不可能或不太可能的事情”——这无疑是非常解放、鼓励并激发创造力的。
I grew up very early in the history of Israel, when the state was small and everyone could make a difference.
我在以色列历史上长大，当时国家很小，每个人都可以有所作为。
And you really could make a difference.
你确实可以有所作为。
I was, as a lieutenant in the army, age 21 or 22 — I made a difference.
作为一名陆军中尉，我当时 21 或 22 岁—— 我做出了改变。
I created an interviewing system for the whole army.
我为全军创建了一个面试系统。
Those kinds of experiences — that you can do things that seemed impossible or unlikely — that is certainly very liberating and encouraging and induces creativity.
这些经历——“你可以做那些看似不可能或不太可能的事情”——这无疑是非常解放、鼓励并激发创造力的。
I think some of that is actually present now that the state is bigger and more established.
我认为，随着国家变得更大、更成熟，其中一些实际上已经存在。
I was telling you earlier how my grandson is in the Israeli army — the kinds of experiences that he has as a sergeant.
我早些时候告诉过你我的孙子在以色列军队的经历——他作为中士的经历。
He feels very free in an intelligence unit.
他在情报部门感到非常自由。
He feels that he can use his mind and that he can speak his mind, and it’s going to be wonderful for his future.
他觉得他可以运用自己的思想，可以说出自己的想法，这对他的未来来说将是美好的。
Next question over here.
下一个问题在这里。
You mentioned earlier that you view many things in the world through a basic lens of pessimism.
您之前提到，您通过基本的悲观主义视角来看待世界上的许多事情。
But if you were going to challenge yourself to identify something going on in the world now or in the near term about which to be optimistic, if not for yourself, for your grandchildren, say, or very young people, what should they be optimistic about?
但是，如果你要挑战自己，找出现在或近期世界上正在发生的一些值得乐观的事情，如果不是为了你自己，为了你的孙子，比如说，或者非常年轻的人，他们应该对什么感到乐观？
I’m going to pass.
我要过去了。
Over here.
在这里。
I’m curious about what beliefs you currently hold that you think in the next five to ten years might be proven incorrect, and alternatively, the same question of social science broadly.
我很好奇你目前持有的哪些信念，你认为在未来五到十年内可能会被证明是错误的，或者，广泛的社会科学同样的问题。
If I knew how I would change my mind, I would have changed my mind.
如果我知道如何改变主意，我就会改变主意。
My guess is that there will be completely different frameworks, there will be different ways of thinking.
我的猜测是会有完全不同的框架，会有不同的思维方式。
It’s not going to be this or that detail.
它不会是这个或那个细节。
This is what happens to ideas or to frameworks.
这就是想法或框架所发生的情况。
They, at some point, become irrelevant.
在某些时候，它们变得无关紧要。
And I know that this is going to happen to everything that I believe.
我知道这将会发生在我所相信的一切身上。
Give it a few decades — it’s going to be irrelevant.
再过几十年，它就会变得无关紧要。
I wish I could peer into the future and know what comes next, but I can’t.
我希望我能够展望未来并知道接下来会发生什么，但我不能。
From the iPad, why did the replication crisis take so long to arrive in social psychology?
从iPad开始，为什么复制危机过了这么长时间才到达社会心理学领域？
Well, I would question that.
嗯，我会质疑这一点。
It didn’t take very long.
没花很长时间。
The replication crisis was studied first in medicine, where there were provocative claims by Stanford.
复制危机首先在医学领域进行了研究，斯坦福大学提出了具有挑衅性的主张。
I don’t know .
我不知道 。
.
。
.
。
he’s not a statistician, is he?
他不是统计学家，是吗？
There were provocative claims that most published research in medicine are false, and it started there.
有人提出挑衅性的说法，认为大多数已发表的医学研究都是错误的，这就是从这里开始的。
Then psychology came very soon after.
不久之后心理学就出现了。
In fact, psychology was considered to have been quite rapid in adopting it.
事实上，心理学被认为很快就采用了它。
There was a crisis, and many results were questioned, I think correctly.
出现了危机，许多结果受到质疑，我认为是正确的。
There were aggressors, and there were defenders, and both sides, I think, behaved, quite often, quite badly.
有侵略者，也有防御者，我认为双方的行为常常都很糟糕。
It’s amazing — within a decade, psychology has changed.
太神奇了——十年之内，心理学发生了变化。
Many areas of psychology have changed, and it clearly is a better science than it was 10 years ago because of the replication crisis.
心理学的许多领域都发生了变化，由于复制危机，它显然是一门比 10 年前更好的科学。
Next question.
下一个问题。
I have two questions.
我有两个问题。
The first one is the one that you just answered, not exactly the same.
第一个是你刚才回答的，不完全一样。
What do you think about our replication crisis in psychology that has happened here recently?
您对最近发生的心理学复制危机有何看法？
And the second one is psychologist Martin Seligman, who is also working on happiness for years — he believed there are several dimensions that consist happiness.
第二位是心理学家马丁·塞利格曼（Martin Seligman），他多年来也致力于幸福的研究——他相信幸福有几个维度。
Do you share the same opinion or not?
您是否同意？
The second question was Martin Seligman, his work on happiness, that there are several dimensions of happiness.
第二个问题是马丁·塞利格曼（Martin Seligman）关于幸福的著作，他认为幸福有几个维度。
Do you share his opinion or not?
你同意他的观点吗？
And the first was just more on the replication crisis.
第一个更多的是关于复制危机。
Yeah.
是的。
No.
不。
Next question over here.
下一个问题在这里。
I have a question about bounded rationality over time.
我有一个关于时间有限理性的问题。
With the rise of the internet, the rise of more readily available information — so many prices, things you can see on Amazon — all this price discrimination and differentiation across products has grown with that.
随着互联网的兴起，更容易获得的信息的兴起 ——“如此多的价格，你可以在亚马逊上看到的东西”——所有这些价格歧视和产品差异化也随之增长。
Do you think that people’s biases are improving or getting worse over time as more information, for example, over the past 20, 30 years, has become more readily available?
您认为随着时间的推移，随着更多信息（例如在过去 20 年、30 年）变得更加容易获得，人们的偏见是在改善还是变得更糟？
To the extent that you think of biases as representing human nature in a broad cultural context, it hasn’t changed over the last 30 years.
如果你认为偏见代表了广泛文化背景下的人性，那么它在过去 30 年里并没有改变。
Human nature hasn’t changed.
人性没有改变。
In certain domains, it’s much easier to be rational when you can look things up, when you can search on the computer instead of going out and searching, as you had to when I was a young person.
在某些领域，当你可以查找事物时，当你可以在计算机上搜索而不是像我年轻时那样出去搜索时，你就更容易保持理性。
Then, of course, you can achieve more rational results than you could.
然后，当然，你可以获得比你能得到的更合理的结果。
But whether it has changed anything significant, I doubt it.
但它是否改变了任何重大的事情，我对此表示怀疑。
Human nature hasn’t changed.
人性没有改变。
In certain domains, it’s much easier to be rational when you can look things up, when you can search on the computer instead of going out and searching, as you had to when I was a young person.
在某些领域，当你可以查找事物时，当你可以在计算机上搜索而不是像我年轻时那样出去搜索时，你就更容易保持理性。
Then, of course, you can achieve more rational results than you could.
然后，当然，你可以获得比你能得到的更合理的结果。
But whether it has changed anything significant, I doubt it.
但我怀疑它是否改变了任何重大的事情。
And what is very striking over the last few years is that it’s not only information that is readily available.
过去几年中非常引人注目的是，这不仅仅是容易获得的信息。
Misinformation is also readily available.
错误信息也很容易获得。
So the net effect .
所以净效应。
.
。
.
。
It used to be very clear that this is all to the good, but what we’re seeing in the last few years is that there is a very heavy cost to the availability and the ease of expression that transmits itself over the internet.
过去很明显，这一切都是好的，但我们在过去几年中看到的是，通过互联网传输的可用性和表达的便捷性付出了非常沉重的代价。
Next question.
下一个问题。
I’m aware that I suffer from biases, and I try to hold myself to account and think better.
我知道自己受到偏见的影响，我努力让自己承担责任并更好地思考。
I’m resistant to that, of course, because I always want to think that whatever thought I’m having at the moment is the exception, and I’m thinking it for good reasons.
当然，我对此很抗拒，因为我总是想认为我此刻的想法都是例外，而且我这样想是有充分理由的。
But I fight against that.
但我反对这一点。
When I try to persuade somebody else to listen to one of my opinions with an open mind, is there some particular technique that you would recommend for persuading other people to do better with their own biases?
当我试图说服别人以开放的心态倾听我的观点时，您是否会推荐一些特定的技巧来说服其他人克服自己的偏见做得更好？
Because, of course, they’re even more resistant to that than I am when I challenge myself.
当然，因为当我挑战自己时，他们比我更抗拒。
It’s a game one primarily plays with one’s spouse, and it doesn’t work, I think, by and large.
这是一种主要与配偶一起玩的游戏，我认为总的来说，它不起作用。
Related question from the iPad: how can we use behavioral economics to reduce political polarization?
iPad上的相关问题：我们如何利用行为经济学来减少政治极化？
It’s not that I have an answer and I’m suppressing it.
这并不是说我有答案并且我在压抑它。
Here is a topic where I am optimistic, but I have no idea.
这是一个我很乐观但我不知道的话题。
I don’t have an answer.
我没有答案。
But I think the kind of thinking that is going on, where you’re trying to look at practical manipulations — the word manipulation is a bad word, but I intend it as a good thing — when you look at the practical moves that can make a difference in the way that people think, that way of thinking should be effective in improving the quality of life and improving the quality .
但我认为正在发生的这种想法，即你试图着眼于实际的操纵 ——“操纵这个词是一个坏词，但我认为这是一件好事”—— 当你看到可以改变人们思维方式的实际行动时，这种思维方式应该有效地改善生活质量和质量。
.
。
.
。
How polarization can be reduced is too big a problem for me and, I think, currently for behavioral economics.
如何减少两极分化对我来说是一个太大的问题，我认为目前对行为经济学来说也是如此。
Next question.
下一个问题。
On a practical note, my high school psychology students ask how they can best use your research to make choices about college and career.
实际上，我的高中心理学学生问他们如何才能最好地利用你的研究来做出关于大学和职业的选择。
My research adds absolutely nothing to this.
我的研究对此毫无帮助。
There are sensible ways of choosing colleges, and I think they’re well known.
选择大学有一些明智的方法，我认为它们是众所周知的。
You have to collect a lot of information, and you have to ask yourself what the student really wants and where he or she will really fit.
你必须收集大量信息，并且必须问自己学生真正想要什么以及他或她真正适合什么。
There are obvious ways of doing this.
有明显的方法可以做到这一点。
I have nothing to add, I think.
我想我没什么可补充的。
But say you have a student who has a gut feeling that he or she ought to go to some college for a reason he or she cannot articulate.
但是假设你有一个学生，他有一种直觉，他或她应该去某所大学，但原因他或她无法清楚地表达出来。
Are you telling us they should dismiss that feeling and defer to the algorithm?
您是在告诉我们他们应该消除这种感觉并遵循算法吗？
I would try to probe and understand, where does that feeling come from?
我会尝试去探究和理解，这种感觉从何而来？
Are you asking me as a parent, say?
你是在问我这个家长吗？
Yeah, sure.
是的，当然。
I would really probe.
我真的会探究。
I would feel free.
我会感到自由。
If that’s a very expensive college .
如果那是一所非常昂贵的大学。
.
。
.
。
.
。
.
。
.
。
I think I would feel free to probe, where does that strong wish come from?
我想我可以随意探究一下，这种强烈的愿望从何而来？
And can we discuss it?
我们可以讨论一下吗？
Next question.
下一个问题。
On this side.
在这一边。
Many behavioral economists use the notion of rationality in neoclassical economics as a normative benchmark, and you have said that you don’t think that’s necessarily a good normative benchmark.
许多行为经济学家使用新古典经济学中的理性概念作为规范基准，您说过您认为这不一定是一个好的规范基准。
Instead, something like reasonableness is a better way to think about those things.
相反，诸如合理性之类的东西是思考这些事情的更好方式。
Could you say more about how we might identify, or define and identify, this reasonableness?
您能否详细说明我们如何识别或定义和识别这种合理性？
The rational-agent models are built on the notion of consistency being the one guiding principle.
理性代理模型建立在一致性这一指导原则之上。
Your beliefs and your preferences have to be internally consistent.
你的信念和偏好必须在内部保持一致。
Nobody can tell you what to believe, nobody can tell you what you want.
没有人能告诉你该相信什么，没有人能告诉你你想要什么。
The only thing we know is that you ought to be consistent.
我们唯一知道的是你应该保持一致。
Otherwise you’re not rational.
否则你就不是理性的。
As a normative principle — that consistency is the only normative principle — that strikes me as pretty odd.
作为一项规范性原则——“一致性是唯一的规范性原则”——这让我觉得很奇怪。
There are other things that seem to matter.
还有其他一些事情似乎也很重要。
There is human nature, and human nature is not consistent.
人性是有的，人性也不一致。
We are context dependent, so our emotions are context dependent.
我们是依赖环境的，所以我们的情绪也是依赖环境的。
We ought to have normative theories that are adapted to who we are as people, as humans.
我们应该拥有适合我们作为人、作为人类的规范理论。
And the idea of consistency — it’s completely infeasible for a finite mind, and we have finite minds.
一致性的想法对于有限的思维来说是完全不可行的，而我们的思维也是有限的。
So on that ground alone, it would be questionable as the principle for a normative model.
因此，仅凭这一点，它作为规范模型的原则就值得怀疑。
But in addition, one would want a normative theory that takes into account human nature, which the principle of consistency doesn’t.
但除此之外，人们还需要一种考虑人性的规范理论，而一致性原则则不然。
Last question.
最后一个问题。
You talked a little bit about cultural differences.
您谈到了一些文化差异。
I was just wondering, do you think that there are some cultural aspects that are costly and some that are really good?
我只是想知道，您是否认为有些文化方面的成本很高，而有些文化方面确实很好？
And do you think that something like increased migration or open borders would dissolve these cultural differences and push toward a more optimal equilibrium?
您认为增加移民或开放边界之类的事情会消除这些文化差异并推动实现更佳的平衡吗？
Way beyond what I can talk about responsibly.
远远超出了我可以负责任地谈论的范围。
That migration automatically causes cultural amalgamation — that’s questionable.
这种移民自然会导致文化融合——这是值得怀疑的。
I have no idea how to answer your question.
我不知道如何回答你的问题。
Thank you very much.
非常感谢。
It’s been a great honor to have you.
很荣幸有你。