Paul Bloom on the Psychology of Children, and the Morality of Empathy and Disgust (Ep. 218)

Hello, everyone, and welcome back to Conversations with Tyler.

大家好，欢迎回到《与泰勒对话》。

Today I’m delighted to be speaking with Paul Bloom, who is a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto and emeritus at Yale University.

今天我很高兴能与保罗·布鲁姆交谈，他是多伦多大学心理学教授、耶鲁大学名誉教授。

Paul is also one of North America’s best-known public intellectuals on children, the psychology of children, empathy, human emotions, and various features of cognition.

保罗也是北美最著名的儿童、儿童心理学、同理心、人类情感和各种认知特征领域的公共知识分子之一。

Tyler, it’s very nice to talk to you.

泰勒，很高兴与你交谈。

I have just some very general questions about psychologists, and I’d like to hear your take on it.

我只是有一些关于心理学家的非常普遍的问题，我想听听你的看法。

They run along the lines of, how much do you people understand anyway?

他们的思路是，你们到底了解多少？

Your partner, I believe, is a psychologist.

我相信你的伴侣是一位心理学家。

You’re a psychologist.

你是一位心理学家。

If you’re sitting in a restaurant and you’re listening to a couple talk at the other table, do you two feel you understand them better than two smart non-psychologists?

如果你坐在一家餐馆里，正在听另一桌的一对夫妇谈话，你们两个是否觉得自己比两个聪明的非心理学家更能理解他们？

No, not in the slightest.

不，一点也不。

Not in the slightest.

一点也不。

We have no special ability to manipulate people, to understand people.

我们没有特殊的能力去操纵人、理解人。

You could say that that reflects a weakness of the field, and maybe it does, but I don’t think psychologists are any savvier about human nature in that sort of day-to-day, on-the-spot way than anybody else.

你可以说这反映了该领域的弱点，也许确实如此，但我认为心理学家在日常、现场的方式上并不比其他人更了解人性。

So you don’t think, say, that you’re better parents, on average?

那么，平均而言，你不认为自己是更好的父母吗？

No, I don’t.

不，我不。

I think we tend to be good parents because the sort of person who becomes a psychologist is probably more sensitive to other people’s feelings, well-educated, and tends to be affluent enough to provide kids with good stuff.

我认为我们往往会成为好父母，因为成为心理学家的人可能对其他人的感受更敏感，受过良好教育，并且往往足够富裕，可以为孩子提供好东西。

But no, not any more so than an anthropologist or a biochemist.

但不，并不比人类学家或生物化学家更重要。

Let’s say I took two economists, and I flew them to a poor nation that they didn’t really know anything about, and I asked them to make some guesses about what might be wrong with the economy.

假设我带了两名经济学家，让他们飞到一个他们一无所知的贫穷国家，然后我让他们对经济可能出现的问题做出一些猜测。

They would do better than equivalently smart people who are not economists.

他们会比同等聪明的非经济学家做得更好。

What’s the feature of psychological research that stops it from translating into higher understanding?

心理学研究的哪些特点阻碍了它转化为更高层次的理解？

How do you model what you all produce?

你们如何对你们生产的产品进行建模？

I think we understand certain subdomains.

我认为我们了解某些子域。

I think I have a better understanding of memory and the fallibility of memory than a lot of people.

我想我比很多人更了解记忆和记忆的错误性。

I think I have more of a grasp of mental disorders.

我想我对精神障碍有了更多的了解。

I know maybe a bit more about child development in the sense of what ages things will come about.

我对儿童发展的了解可能更多一些，从年龄的角度来看，事情会发生。

I can say, I think, some reasonably intelligent, maybe surprising things about social movements and how people behave in groups.

我认为，我可以说，关于社会运动和人们在群体中的行为方式，有一些相当聪明、也许令人惊讶的事情。

Let’s say we took a batch of you and trained you for two years to do that translation.

假设我们对一批人进行了两年的培训来完成这项翻译工作。

The people who are the most insightful, who, let’s say, are not psychologists, but they’re astute observers of human nature, and they train you all for two years.

最有洞察力的人，比如说，不是心理学家，但他们是人性的敏锐观察者，他们对你们进行了两年的培训。

Would you then be better than others?

那么你会比别人更好吗？

Are you trainable?

你可以训练吗？

Maybe.

或许。

It’s a good question.

这是一个好问题。

Are people trainable?

人是可以训练的吗？

Phil Tetlock talks about super-forecasters and talks about, how do you get people who could better predict the future?

Phil Tetlock 谈论超级预测家，并谈论如何让人们能够更好地预测未来？

You could imagine training people, either by weeding them out in some program where you try to find the most naturally gifted and understanding people, or training them in certain techniques which probably are available that would make them better at understanding other people.

你可以想象对人们进行培训，要么在某个项目中淘汰他们，试图找到最有天赋和最善解人意的人，要么用某些可能可以让他们更好地理解他人的技术来培训他们。

It just brings us quite a distance from psychology as is normally studied.

它只是让我们与通常研究的心理学相去甚远。

I commonly hear the view that psychologists have more neuroses than non-psychologists.

我经常听到这样的观点：心理学家比非心理学家有更多的神经症。

Is that actually true?

这真的是真的吗？

Is there data behind it?

背后有数据吗？

Or is that just a poke people want to make?

或者这只是人们想要的一个戳？

A joke we make within the department is that it’s the clinical psychologists who are all a bit crazy.

我们在部门内开的一个玩笑是，临床心理学家都有点疯狂。

The ones who study memory and development and neurotransmitters are normal.

研究记忆和发育以及神经递质的人都是正常的。

I don’t think it’s true.

我认为这不是真的。

I think it is mostly a joke.

我认为这主要是一个笑话。

It could be true in some degree in clinical psychology, where people might go into the field in order to address issues and problems that they have.

在临床心理学中，这在某种程度上可能是正确的，人们可能会进入这个领域来解决他们遇到的问题。

It’s hard to distinguish some issues of cause and effect here.

这里有些问题很难区分因果关系。

Now, on infants and children, there’s a question my daughter — who’s a big fan of yours — wanted me to ask you, and that’s, “What is the most misunderstood thing about children that most parents could practically use to improve their relationships with kids?”

现在，关于婴儿和儿童，我的女儿 ——“谁是你的忠实粉丝”——想要我问你一个问题，那就是，“关于孩子，最容易被误解的事情是什么？大多数父母实际上可以用来改善与孩子的关系？”

Oh, that’s nice.

哦，那太好了。

Probably the most misunderstood thing, period, is that they’re blank slates.

也许最容易被误解的事情是，它们是白纸。

A lot of people walk around thinking that babies know nothing, and that’s not true.

很多人认为婴儿什么都不懂，但事实并非如此。

There’s a tremendous body of evidence now showing a quite sophisticated understanding of the physical and social world was there from the get-go.

现在有大量证据表明，人们从一开始就对物质世界和社会世界有相当复杂的理解。

It’s some research I’ve been involved in, but researchers like Elizabeth Spelke and Renée Baillargeon have really charted the baby’s mind and found some extraordinary things.

这是我参与过的一些研究，但像 Elizabeth Spelke 和 Renée Baillargeon 这样的研究人员确实绘制了婴儿的思维图，并发现了一些非同寻常的事情。

Let’s say two people are having an argument, and one is being a jerk and the other is not being a jerk.

假设两个人正在争论，一个是混蛋，另一个不是混蛋。

At what age are young children old enough to figure out who’s being the jerk?

小孩子几岁才能知道谁是混蛋？

Does a two-year-old know?

两岁的孩子知道吗？

A three-year-old?

三岁小孩？

Well, if you take the notion of jerk broadly enough, the nine-month-old knows.

好吧，如果你对混蛋的概念有足够广泛的理解，九个月大的孩子就知道了。

In some experiments that I’ve been involved in at Yale, you show babies little one-act plays where you have this little thing trying to get up a hill, and one character helps it up the hill, and the other one shoves it down.

在我在耶鲁大学参与的一些实验中，你向婴儿展示小型独幕剧，其中有一个小东西试图上山，一个角色帮助它上山，另一个角色将它推下山。

What’s your theory of how they tell the difference?

您对它们如何区分的理论是什么？

Well, the origin of this, I think, is natural selection.

嗯，我认为这的根源是自然选择。

I think some part of our moral capacity is hardwired.

我认为我们道德能力的某些部分是与生俱来的。

What else might they be aware of that we don’t necessarily know about?

他们还可能知道哪些我们不一定知道的事情？

You might know about it, but I don’t.

你可能知道，但我不知道。

Who’s a jerk, who’s not a jerk.

谁是混蛋，谁不是混蛋。

What else?

还有什么？

Well, there’s some lovely work by Katie Kinzler on how children break the world up into us versus them.

凯蒂·金兹勒（Katie Kinzler）有一些可爱的作品，讲述了孩子们如何将世界分成我们和他们。

You might think that they do it like adults do, on the basis of race, which is very, very common in some way, and sooner or later, they do that.

你可能会认为他们像成年人一样这样做，基于种族，这在某种程度上非常非常普遍，而且迟早他们会这样做。

But early on, they take language very seriously.

但在早期，他们非常重视语言。

At what age do you think children can “really believe in God”?

您认为孩子几岁才能“真正信神”？

With a student, Konika Banerjee, we wrote an article a while ago called “Would Tarzan Believe in God?” Will somebody who, without a cultural support, come to believe in God?

不久前，我们和学生柯尼卡·班纳吉 (Konika Banerjee) 一起写了一篇文章，题为“泰山会相信上帝吗？”没有文化支持的人会信上帝吗？

We came to the conclusion that he’d end up being polytheistic, that he’d see gods everywhere.

我们得出的结论是，他最终会成为多神论者，他会到处看到神。

He’d see them as triggered by nature and everything.

他认为它们是由自然和一切触发的。

Say, if you were to give it a number, how many years old?

比如说，如果你要给它一个数字，那么它有多少岁了？

Four.

四。

Do you think that’s the same age at which a kid can really believe in Santa Claus, or there’s a difference?

你认为孩子真正相信圣诞老人的年龄是相同的，还是有区别的？

Is God a tougher climb or is it the same?

上帝是一个更艰难的攀登还是一样？

There are fundamentalist parents who don’t want their kids to believe in Santa Claus.

有些原教旨主义父母不希望他们的孩子相信圣诞老人。

The logic is, once they hear that Santa Claus isn’t real, they’ll jettison God as well.

逻辑是，一旦他们听说圣诞老人不是真的，他们也会抛弃上帝。

Okay, and you may see Santa Claus in a department store, right?

好吧，你可能会在百货公司看到圣诞老人，对吧？

Exactly.

确切地。

That’s going to make it really easy.

这会让事情变得非常容易。

You don’t sit on God’s lap, but Santa, you do.

你不坐在上帝的腿上，但圣诞老人，你却坐在上帝的腿上。

Now, if you think Tarzan is going to start off polytheistic, why is it, in the world, we see so much monotheism?

现在，如果你认为人猿泰山会开始多神教，为什么在世界上我们看到这么多一神教？

There’s a billion Muslims, over a billion Christians.

有十亿穆斯林，超过十亿基督徒。

Now, maybe they’re not all very strictly monotheistic, but still, monotheism has been the trend for a long time.

现在，也许他们并不都是严格的一神论者，但一神论仍然是很长一段时间的趋势。

It has been.

它一直。

It has been.

它一直。

Why that?

为什么呢？

Why something that runs counter to instinct that would be dominating?

为什么要做出一些与本能相反的事情来占据主导地位呢？

One idea — and this is Robert Wright’s claim, but I think other people have argued this — is that polytheism is the default.

一个想法——这是罗伯特·赖特的主张，但我认为其他人也争论过这一点——多神论是默认的。

Society starts off polytheistic.

社会始于多神教。

Even in the Hebrew Bible, it might begin rather polytheistic.

即使在希伯来圣经中，它的开头也可能相当多神论。

When God talks about not worshipping other gods instead of him, he’s literally talking about other gods.

当上帝谈到不敬拜其他神来代替他时，他实际上是在谈论其他神。

But you’re right, monotheism has won, and there has to be some sort of design features that allow it to win even though it may not be our natural default.

但你是对的，一神论赢了，并且必须有某种设计特征让它获胜，尽管它可能不是我们自然的默认设置。

That’s enforced through some kind of group selection mechanism?

这是通过某种群体选择机制强制执行的吗？

Cultural group selection would be the idea, yes.

是的，文化群体选择就是这个想法。

In general, how bullish are you on the notion of group selection as a mechanism?

总的来说，您对群体选择作为一种机制的概念有多乐观？

Very critical of it as an evolutionary mechanism.

对它作为一种进化机制非常批评。

I’ve been convinced that it could happen in principle.

我坚信这原则上是可能发生的。

I’ve been convinced, as Dawkins viewed it, that it doesn’t happen in practice.

正如道金斯所认为的那样，我确信这在实践中不会发生。

But it seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to talk in terms of cultures, to say that some cultures do better than others, those cultures thrive.

但就文化而言，某些文化比其他文化做得更好，这些文化蓬勃发展，这似乎是完全合理的事情。

Now, we’re not talking about genes; we’re talking about communities of people.

现在，我们不是在谈论基因；而是在谈论基因。我们谈论的是人们的社区。

At what age do infants, on net, actually start enjoying life?

网上的婴儿从几岁开始真正享受生活？

That on the Benthamite calculus, they’re a plus rather than a minus?

在边沁微积分中，它们是加号而不是减号？

I did a Twitter poll asking people, “Are babies overall happy or sad, based on your experience?” It came out happy won.

我在 Twitter 上进行了一项民意调查，询问人们：“根据你们的经历，婴儿总体上是快乐还是悲伤？”结果高兴得赢了。

It probably depends on the baby.

这可能取决于宝宝。

But averaging.

但要平均。

Average 100 babies.

平均100个婴儿。

In our society, I think the life of a young baby is probably pretty difficult if your needs are not immediately satisfied.

在我们的社会中，我认为如果你的需求不能立即得到满足，一个小婴儿的生活可能会相当困难。

You have a lot of needs.

你有很多需求。

You’re in a lot of pain all the time.

你一直很痛苦。

You have gas pain, you’re hungry, you’re struggling, you’re afraid.

你气痛、饥饿、挣扎、害怕。

I would think that roughly around the age of two, you get much more autonomy, and then life starts looking up, and then it just gets better and better.

我认为，大约在两岁左右，你会获得更多的自主权，然后生活开始好转，然后会变得越来越好。

I would think at one and a half, on net, they’re happy, based on my limited data sample.

根据我有限的数据样本，我认为在网上，一岁半他们会很高兴。

Do you think it corresponds to the burgeoning of language?

您认为这与语言的兴起相对应吗？

No. I just think in wealthy countries, they’re fed enough and they just smile more.

不，我只是认为在富裕国家，他们吃得足够多，而且他们只是微笑更多。

It seems to me they take pleasure in more things.

在我看来，他们对更多事物感到高兴。

Seeing a dog on TV or seeing a car go by — they seem to enjoy in a way where I, at least, don’t witness them enjoying that at seven months.

在电视上看到一只狗或看到一辆汽车驶过——他们似乎很享受，至少我在七个月大的时候没有看到他们享受这种乐趣。

Yes, that makes sense.

是的，这是有道理的。

There’s a sense in which wealthy countries might be at a disadvantage, where in a lot of wealthy countries, babies sleep apart from their parents.

从某种意义上说，富裕国家可能处于不利地位，在许多富裕国家，婴儿与父母分开睡觉。

There’s a separate room with a crib.

有一个单独的房间，配有婴儿床。

You cry it out and so on.

你哭出来等等。

I’m not judging.

我不是在评判。

I did that with one of my kids a long time ago, but it’s very hard on the kid.

很久以前我就对我的一个孩子这样做过，但这对孩子来说非常困难。

In less wealthy countries, the kid co-sleeps and sleeps in the same room.

在不太富裕的国家，孩子们会睡在同一个房间里。

I think that’s better off for the kid.

我觉得这样对孩子比较好。

Rough on the parents, but better for the kid.

对父母不好，但对孩子更好。

Now, as you’ve noted in your research, young children sometimes, maybe often, will think that the lives of 10 dogs are worth more than the life of a single human.

现在，正如您在研究中指出的那样，幼儿有时（也许经常）会认为 10 只狗的生命比一个人的生命更有价值。

Are they wrong?

他们错了吗？

Yes.

是的。

Why?

为什么？

What’s the right number?

正确的数字是多少？

A million dogs?

一百万只狗？

This is a challenge because if I say I’m wrong, you could just keep that .

这是一个挑战，因为如果我说我错了，你可以保留它。

.

。

.

。

No, one human is worth more.

不，一个人更有价值。

You could keep upping the number of dogs.

你可以继续增加狗的数量。

Your view aligns with that of Matti Wilks, who is my collaborator, an ex-postdoc, who ran this research, and she’s very much of a utilitarian and an animal rights person.

你的观点与马蒂·威尔克斯（Matti Wilks）的观点一致，她是我的合作者，一位前博士后，负责这项研究，她是一个非常功利主义者和动物权利人士。

She thinks kids are superior.

她认为小孩子是最优秀的。

She finds in this work you’re talking about, kids are less speciesist than adults.

她发现在你谈论的这项工作中，孩子们比成年人更少物种歧视。

They even will favor 10 pigs over one human.

他们甚至会偏爱 10 头猪而不是 1 个人。

Adults in our sample never do that.

我们样本中的成年人从来不会这样做。

I don’t think we can make utility comparisons across species.

我认为我们无法对物种之间的效用进行比较。

I think we can make limited claims of potential gains from trade with humans and dogs a lot; humans and pigs quite a bit less, but still somewhat; and that ultimately, maybe we can apply some semi-Christian-like idea of mercy to how we should treat animals, and that we only have partial comparisons.

我认为我们可以对与人类和狗的贸易中的潜在收益做出有限的主张；人类和猪的数量要少一些，但还是有一些；最终，也许我们可以将一些半基督教般的仁慈理念应用于我们应该如何对待动物，而我们只有部分比较。

That would be my answer.

这就是我的答案。

Maybe we can’t, but in some way, we have to when we think about animal experimentation or, of course, using animal food.

也许我们不能，但在某种程度上，当我们考虑动物实验，或者当然是使用动物食品时，我们必须这样做。

If somebody said, there’s a research we’re going to do which will save a child’s life, but it will involve killing a million dogs, I think people might balk at it, but if it was killing two dogs, people wouldn’t.

如果有人说，我们要做的一项研究将拯救一个孩子的生命，但它将涉及杀死一百万只狗，我认为人们可能会犹豫，但如果它杀死两只狗，人们就不会。

But I also can’t fix a number.

但我也无法确定一个数字。

There’s that other question you’ve asked in your work — how much would you have to be paid to strangle a cat?

您在工作中还问过另一个问题 —— 要花多少钱才能勒死一只猫？

It’s not my question, but yes.

这不是我的问题，但是是的。

But you can take that money and save human lives.

但你可以用这笔钱来拯救人们的生命。

I think Oxfam has claimed it’s a few thousand dollars well spent if it could save a human life.

我认为乐施会声称，如果能拯救一个人的生命，花几千美元是值得的。

Whatever the sum is, it’s not ginormous, right?

不管金额是多少，都不是很大，对吧？

So, how much would you have to be paid to strangle a cat?

那么，掐死一只猫需要多少钱呢？

One reason why I have liked that question is, people want a lot of money.

我喜欢这个问题的原因之一是，人们想要很多钱。

In fact, this was an experiment done by Thorndike, the great behaviorist, over a hundred years ago, and he asked that question.

事实上，这是伟大的行为学家桑代克一百多年前所做的一个实验，他提出了这个问题。

He also asked people, “How much would I have to pay you for you to take a pair of pliers and pull out one of your front teeth?” And people want more money to strangle a cat than to have this painful, agonizing, disfiguring thing, which, I think, says something nice about people.

他还问人们：“我要付多少钱让你用一把钳子拔掉你的一颗门牙？”人们想要更多的钱来勒死一只猫，而不是拥有这种痛苦、痛苦、毁容的东西，我认为这对人们来说是件好事。

Do you feel you should try to train yourself out of being unwilling to strangle the cat, or you’re going to double down on how you are?

你是否觉得你应该努力训练自己，让自己不再不愿意勒死猫，或者你会加倍努力？

I double down on a few things.

我在一些事情上加倍努力。

My utilitarian friends tell me that my affection and the resources I put into my children are irrational, that I should not be favoring them over strangers, certainly not to the extent I do.

我功利主义的朋友告诉我，我对孩子的感情和投入的资源是不合理的，我不应该偏爱他们而不是陌生人，当然不应该偏向我这样做的程度。

I hold back on that.

我对此持保留态度。

If you offered me a pill that would get rid of my favoring my children, I would not take it.

如果你给我一颗药丸来消除我对孩子的偏爱，我不会接受。

For animals and treatment of animals and cat strangling, I think we should try to talk ourselves out of this.

对于动物以及动物的治疗和猫勒死，我认为我们应该尝试说服自己不要这样做。

I think we should, in some way, try to reason to make the world a better place even if it involves strangling some cats.

我认为我们应该以某种方式尝试讲道理，让世界变得更美好，即使这涉及到勒死一些猫。

I have some questions about intelligence for you.

我有一些关于智力的问题想问你。

If we think of large language models, should we let them feel disgust so that they avoid left-wing bias?

如果我们想到大型语言模型，我们是否应该让它们感到厌恶，从而避免左翼偏见？

Why would disgust make them avoid left-wing bias?

为什么厌恶会让他们避免左翼偏见？

Maybe we’re not sure it would, but there are various claims in the literature that for people on the right, disgust is a more fundamental emotion, and that a greater capacity to feel disgust encourages people in some ways to be more socially conservative.

也许我们不确定是否会这样，但文献中有多种说法，对于右翼人士来说，厌恶是一种更基本的情感，而更大的厌恶感能力会在某种程度上鼓励人们在社会上更加保守。

Debatable, but I don’t think it’s a crazy view.

有争议，但我不认为这是一个疯狂的观点。

So, if you build LLMs, and you give them, say, a lot of empathy and not much or any disgust, you’re going to get left-leaning LLMs, which you might say, “Well, that was my goal.” But obviously, not everyone will accept that conclusion either.

因此，如果你培养法学硕士，并且给他们很多同理心，而不是太多或任何厌恶，你就会得到左倾的法学硕士，你可能会说，“好吧，这就是我的目标。”但显然，也不是所有人都会接受这个结论。

I wouldn’t want woke LLMs.

我不想让法学硕士醒来。

I think there’s a lot in extreme —

我认为有很多极端的事情 ——

You’ve got them, of course.

当然，你已经拥有它们了。

I’ve got them.

我有它们。

I think Gemini is the one, if I wanted to go — the woke LLM of choice.

我认为如果我想去 ——觉醒的法学硕士，双子座就是我的最佳选择。

Because I think the doctrine called wokeness leads to a lot of moral problems and makes the world worse in certain ways, but I wouldn’t mind left-wing LLMs.

因为我认为所谓“觉醒”的学说会导致很多道德问题，并在某些方面让世界变得更糟，但我不介意左翼法学硕士。

So, you wouldn’t just cut back on it at the margin.

所以，你不会只是削减边际。

You would just take disgust out of people if you could?

如果可以的话，你会消除人们的厌恶吗？

I’m conscious enough about the limits of our knowledge, which is that I would be very trepidatious before removing an emotion from people because you don’t know what the consequences would be, but yes.

我非常清楚我们知识的局限性，也就是说，在消除人们的情绪之前我会非常害怕，因为你不知道后果会是什么，但是是的。

It’s hard to think, and maybe you could think of an example where disgust has made the world better.

这很难想象，也许你可以想一个例子，说明厌恶让世界变得更好。

Well, disgust combined with other views might make people more cautious.

好吧，厌恶与其他观点相结合可能会让人们更加谨慎。

If you take Canada — while I’ve been very positive on Canada’s pro-migration policies, there needs to be some limit.

如果你以加拿大为例，虽然我对加拿大的支持移民政策非常积极，但需要有一些限制。

And maybe it’s some form of disgust, mixed in with other views, that will enforce that limit.

也许是某种形式的厌恶，与其他观点混合在一起，会强制执行这一限制。

Your view is — and I’ve written on empathy, and I’ve heard a similar argument for this, which is, you could have a decision which you ground — you may be thinking about immigration on a rational cost-benefit analysis.

你的观点是 — 我写过关于同理心的文章，我也听到过类似的论点，也就是说，你可以做出一个基于你的决定 — 你可能会根据理性的成本效益分析来考虑移民。

You might say, “Look, for people to act towards this decision, your average person won’t do it my way.

你可能会说，“听着，如果人们按照这个决定采取行动，一般人不会按照我的方式去做。

They would need some emotion.

他们需要一些情感。

Maybe they need disgust or empathy to take them there.” You might want to argue that without disgust, Canadians wouldn’t be motivated to a policy that, on balance, would be better for them.

也许他们需要厌恶或同情才能把他们带到那里。”你可能会说，如果没有厌恶感，加拿大人就不会主动采取一项总体而言对他们更有利的政策。

Possibly.

可能吧。

I just think back, and I figure, well, disgust must have been socially functional at some stage of development.

我回想起来，我想，厌恶在发展的某个阶段一定具有社会功能。

Not perfectly functional, but it had some benefits.

功能并不完美，但它有一些好处。

You might have a very detailed argument for why all those earlier benefits have vanished, but I think I would be skeptical.

对于为什么所有这些早期的好处都消失了，你可能有一个非常详细的论据，但我想我会持怀疑态度。

I’m surprised you think that, say, your views toward migration are not equally emotional as, say, the social conservatives.

我很惊讶你认为你对移民的看法并不像社会保守派那样情绪化。

Yours might be correct, but do you think yours are that much less emotional and more rational?

你的想法可能是正确的，但你认为你的想法是否那么情绪化而更加理性呢？

I think, on a whole, some views are more rational than others.

我认为，总体来说，有些观点比其他观点更为理性。

I’m the wrong person to ask.

我问错人了。

Everybody’s going to tell you their views are grounded in the rational equation, they thought them out, and everything like that.

每个人都会告诉你他们的观点是基于理性方程式，他们经过深思熟虑，诸如此类。

I’m sympathetic enough to Jonathan Haidt’s line that often we delude ourselves and we’re driven by these emotions.

我对乔纳森·海特的说法深表同情，我们经常欺骗自己，并被这些情绪所驱使。

I don’t know.

我不知道。

Your view that there’s too much empathy — you wrote a book called Against Empathy — what emotion in you does that come from?

你认为同理心太多了——你写了一本叫做《反对同理心》的书——你的这种情绪来自于什么？

For me, it comes from frustration with other people.

对我来说，它来自于对其他人的挫败感。

I hold that same view, but I feel it’s rooted in my emotions as much as my reason.

我也持有同样的观点，但我觉得它既植根于我的情感，也植根于我的理性。

I then rationalize it with my reason.

然后我用我的理由合理化它。

I see, ex post, my emotions are actually somewhat correct, but it stems from my frustration with others.

事后看来，我的情绪实际上有些正确，但它源于我对他人的挫败感。

Maybe, for me, shame and guilt.

也许，对于我来说，羞耻和内疚。

I think I’ve made a lot of mistakes and moral mistakes in my life by being too caught up in empathy.

我认为我在生活中因过于陷入同理心而犯了很多错误和道德错误。

My argument against empathy is limited.

我反对同理心的论点是有限的。

It argues that empathy is a poor moral guide.

它认为同理心是一种糟糕的道德指南。

It leads to bad decisions.

它会导致错误的决定。

If I have to ground in my own emotions, it might be regret over my own bad decisions.

如果我必须立足于自己的情绪，那可能会对自己的错误决定感到遗憾。

I think I suffer from an abundance of empathy.

我想我患有丰富的同理心。

I think at the margin, I’ve moved against empathy more being a podcast host, that I’ll ask a question —

我认为在边缘，作为一名播客主持人，我更反对同理心，我会问一个问题 -

Wait.

等等。

Why being a podcast host?

为什么成为播客主持人？

Well, I’ll ask a question, and a lot of guests think it’s high status simply to signal empathy rather than giving a substantive answer.

好吧，我会问一个问题，很多客人认为只是表达同理心而不是给出实质性答案就代表了很高的地位。

The signaling-empathy answers I find quite uninteresting, and I think a lot of my listeners do, too.

我觉得信号同理心的答案很无趣，我想我的很多听众也这么认为。

Yet people will just keep on doing this, and I get frustrated.

然而人们会继续这样做，我感到沮丧。

Then I think, “Well, Tyler, you should turn a bit more against empathy for this reason.” And I think that’s correct.

然后我想，“好吧，泰勒，因此你应该更加反对同理心。”我认为这是正确的。

Okay.

好的。

Well, I appreciate where you’re coming from, and I feel your frustration.

好吧，我很欣赏你的出身，我也能感受到你的沮丧。

What do you think we learn about language from large language models being so good?

您认为我们从如此优秀的大型语言模型中学到了什么？

The success of large language models is the biggest surprise in my intellectual life.

大型语言模型的成功是我学术生涯中最大的惊喜。

We learned that a lot of what we used to believe may be false and what I used to believe may be false.

我们了解到，我们曾经相信的很多东西可能是错误的，而我曾经相信的也可能是错误的。

I used to really accept, to a large degree, the Chomskyan argument that the structures of language are too complex and not manifest in input so that you need to have innate machinery to learn them.

我曾经在很大程度上接受乔姆斯基的论点，即语言的结构太复杂并且在输入中不明显，因此你需要有天生的机制来学习它们。

You need to have a language module or language instinct, and it’s impossible to learn them simply by observing statistics in the environment.

你需要有一个语言模块或语言本能，而仅仅通过观察环境中的统计数据是不可能学习它们的。

Now, the day we’re taping this, coincidentally, is the same day that GPT-4o came out, which probably you haven’t played around with yet.

巧合的是，我们录制这段视频的那天正是 GPT-4o 发布的同一天，您可能还没有使用过 GPT-4o。

It’s only been out for about an hour.

才出来一个小时左右。

I was with it before taping.

在录制之前我就和它在一起了。

It seems to me amazing, but how good are LLMs as therapists?

在我看来，这似乎很神奇，但法学硕士作为治疗师有多好呢？

There’ve been experiments which have pitted them against people in short-term interactions.

已经有一些实验让他们与人进行短期互动。

You talk about your troubles, and then you get a person like me to give a response.

你谈论你的烦恼，然后你让像我这样的人给出回应。

Then you get GPT-4o to respond.

然后你会得到 GPT-4o 的响应。

Over and over and over again, people rate the AI responses more empathic, more understanding.

一次又一次，人们认为人工智能的反应更具同理心、更理解。

Now, I think that this is impressive.

现在，我认为这令人印象深刻。

There’s a version of GPT-4 which does have memory.

有一个版本的 GPT-4 确实有内存。

It’s only been, I think, for about a week, and I haven’t tested it yet.

我想，这才持续了大约一周，我还没有测试过。

I don’t know how good the memory is.

不知道记忆力有多好。

Some people prefer to turn the memory off, actually, but it’s very much on the verge of being here.

事实上，有些人更喜欢关闭记忆，但它已经快要出现了。

If you include, by “therapy,” somebody just regularly talking to an LLM about their problems and getting some advice and everything, I think that human interaction within not too many years will be the minority of interactions.

如果你通过“治疗”来包括某人定期与法学硕士谈论他们的问题并获得一些建议和一切，我认为在不久的将来，人际互动将成为互动的少数。

I think people will be very drawn to AI therapists.

我认为人们会对人工智能治疗师非常感兴趣。

The people who are best at working with LLMs — what kind of psychological intelligence do you think they have?

最擅长与法学硕士合作的人 ——您认为他们拥有什么样的心理智力？

Who’s going to be good at that?

谁会擅长这个？

I think you need a certain flexibility, a certain degree of patience.

我认为你需要一定的灵活性，一定程度的耐心。

You need to develop a theory of mind with LLMs that is different from the theory of mind you need for people.

你需要与法学硕士一起发展一种不同于人们所需的心理理论。

I recently asked Claude — I use it a lot — I asked it, “There’s a phenomenon in children I found.

我最近问克劳德 —— 我经常使用它 —— 我问它，“我在孩子身上发现了一个现象。

Does the same phenomenon show up in adults?” I plainly framed the question that I wanted the answer to be yes.

同样的现象也会出现在成年人身上吗？我明确地提出了我希望答案是肯定的问题。

They said, “Yes, it is.

他们说：“是的，确实如此。

Here are three papers that show it decisively.” None of the papers were real.

这里有三篇论文明确地表明了这一点。”这些文件都不是真实的。

It hallucinated it because it’s what I wanted.

它产生了幻觉，因为这就是我想要的。

Here’s a simple question.

这是一个简单的问题。

What’s the best test of whether someone or something has a theory of mind?

检验某人或某物是否具有心理理论的最佳标准是什么？

I think sustained conversation.

我认为持续的对话。

There are technical tests, like the false-belief task or Reading of the Mind in the Eyes task, but those are easily gamed.

有一些技术测试，例如错误信念任务或“从眼睛里读心”任务，但这些很容易被欺骗。

LLMs will succeed on them because they’ve seen thousands and thousands of instances on them.

法学硕士会在这些方面取得成功，因为他们已经看到了成千上万的实例。

I think in conversation, a lack of theory of mind quickly reveals itself.

我认为在谈话中，缺乏心理理论很快就会显现出来。

Success of solving a Turing test is success of theory of mind.

解决图灵测试的成功就是心理理论的成功。

Claude 3 can converse very well, but I’m pretty sure it doesn’t have a theory of mind, or do you think it does?

克劳德 3 可以很好地交谈，但我很确定它没有心理理论，或者你认为它有吗？

I’m using theory of mind, a word like theory of mind, meaning the manifestation as if it did.

我使用的是心理理论，一个类似心理理论的词，意思是表现得好像它确实发生了一样。

Does it really think that other people have minds?

它真以为别人有思想吗？

Does it have a model of people’s psychology?

它有人类心理的模型吗？

When it says, “I understand exactly what you’re feeling,” does it call back its own experiences?

当它说“我完全理解你的感受”时，它会回想起自己的经历吗？

I doubt it.

我对此表示怀疑。

Maybe in some way, you’re asking an even easier question, which is, what will show that it has consciousness?

也许在某种程度上，你问的是一个更简单的问题，那就是，什么可以证明它有意识？

But you could have consciousness and not a theory of mind, right?

但你可以有意识而不是心理理论，对吧？

Yes.

是的。

But you were saying, I think, that to have theory of mind involves something you might call consciousness.

但我认为，你是说，拥有心理理论涉及到你可能称之为意识的东西。

But what’s the extra thing about having consciousness that indicates a person has a theory of mind?

但是，拥有意识还有什么额外的意义表明一个人拥有心理理论呢？

We reject the false-belief test.

我们拒绝错误信念测试。

That makes sense to me.

这对我来说很有意义。

What is it, then?

那它是什么？

What’s the test?

测试是什么？

I think what you’d have to do — and you could do this on the fly, you could work it out — would be develop .

我认为你必须做的事情是开发。

.

。

.

。

I’m afraid I’m going to fail that test.

我担心我会考试不及格。

I always think of strange imaginary endings that are improbable, and occasionally, they come to pass.

我总是会想到一些奇怪的想象中的结局，这些结局是不可能的，但偶尔它们也会实现。

I think my endings are often much better than what they end up putting on the screen.

我认为我的结局通常比他们最终呈现在屏幕上的要好得多。

My dad is great.

我的爸爸很棒。

When we watched TV together as a kid — and of course, the TV was very different and much more predictable — but a character would be about to say something, and then he would say it.

当我们小时候一起看电视时——“当然，电视非常不同，而且更容易预测——”但是一个角色正要说些什么，然后他就会说出来。

He would say it simultaneously with the character.

他会和角色同时说出这句话。

My wife does this too.

我的妻子也这样做。

She’s great at this.

她很擅长这个。

I’ve done some research suggesting that they might of a sort.

我做了一些研究表明它们可能是某种类型的。

The sort of cognitive dissonance we were interested in is that when you choose something, say out of a choice of two things, that makes you like it more and makes you like the things that you didn’t choose less.

我们感兴趣的那种认知失调是，当你选择某样东西时，比如从两件事中选择，这会让你更喜欢它，并使你更少喜欢你没有选择的东西。

In some work with Laurie Santos, who had a thriving monkey lab, we found that Capuchins did the same thing.

劳里·桑托斯（Laurie Santos）拥有一个蓬勃发展的猴子实验室，在与他的一些合作中，我们发现卷尾猴也做了同样的事情。

We also found three-year-olds did the same thing.

我们还发现三岁的孩子也做了同样的事情。

Endowment effects, right?

禀赋效应吧？

That’s a separate thing, but I think there’s some evidence that monkeys also show endowment effects.

这是另一回事，但我认为有一些证据表明猴子也表现出禀赋效应。

Are we sure that’s dissonance?

我们确定这是不和谐吗？

The endowment effects — I’m less sure that there’s dissonance.

禀赋效应 — 我不太确定是否存在不和谐。

There are alternative explanations.

还有其他解释。

Favoring that which you chose is a textbook example of dissonance.

偏爱你选择的东西是不和谐的教科书例子。

That’s dissonance if anything is.

如果有什么的话，那就是不和谐。

What if you want to carry a story with you of what it meant to you, and your act of choosing helped create and define the story, and you value things through this narrative function, and you actually ought to be that way?

如果你想随身携带一个故事，说明它对你意味着什么，并且你的选择行为帮助创建和定义了这个故事，并且你通过这种叙事功能来重视事物，而你实际上应该这样做，该怎么办？

Is that so improbable?

这有那么不可能吗？

No, no. I guess the experiments that test it aren’t open to that kind of interpretation.

不，不。我想测试它的实验不接受这种解释。

It could often be like, we give you two M&Ms, and you just choose one at random.

通常情况下，我们给你两颗 M&M 巧克力豆，你就随机选择一颗。

Then later, when you rank the taste of the M&Ms, you say, “Oh, the one I picked is tastier than the one I didn’t pick,” while if we simply handed it to you, you wouldn’t get that effect.

然后，当你对巧克力豆的味道进行排序时，你会说：“哦，我挑的比我没挑的好吃。”而如果我们只是把它交给你，你就不会得到这样的效果。

There’s not much of a narrative to that, but I agree that when you get it more complicated in life, it could serve all sorts of other functions.

对此没有太多的叙述，但我同意，当你在生活中变得更加复杂时，它可以发挥各种其他功能。

How much does formal education boost IQ?

正规教育对智商的提高有多大？

The data are, a little bit.

数据是，一点点。

Each year you’re in school, your IQ goes a little bit up.

你在学校的每一年，你的智商都会提高一点。

The skeptics will say — I think Bryan Caplan says — you get better at taking tests, you get better at a scholastic way of thinking.

怀疑论者会说“我认为布莱恩·卡普兰说的是”你在考试方面会变得更好，你在学术思维方式上会变得更好。

I do think, though, that education, period, does play a role in making you smarter.

不过，我确实认为教育确实可以让你变得更聪明。

It gives you practice in dealing with abstractions, with hypotheticals, the sorts of things that we often use as markers of intelligence.

它让你练习处理抽象概念、假设以及我们经常用作智力标记的事物。

Do people overestimate or underestimate your intelligence?

人们是否高估或低估了你的智力？

You.

你。

My own?

我自己的？

Yes.

是的。

You must know.

你一定知道。

Either way, it’s a humiliating answer, but I would imagine — particularly when I was at Yale — they overestimated.

不管怎样，这都是一个令人羞辱的答案，但我可以想象——尤其是当我在耶鲁大学时——他们高估了。

People sometimes ask me questions about domains which I have no knowledge about, and they take me seriously about that.

人们有时会问我一些我不了解的领域的问题，他们很认真地对待我。

Isn’t that an overestimation?

这不是高估了吗？

What about you?

你呢？

Oh, they way overestimate my intelligence, but they underestimate how much I know.

哦，他们高估了我的智力，但他们低估了我的知识。

It’s interesting.

这很有趣。

I know a lot, and they mistake that for innate intelligence, is what happens in my case.

我知道很多，他们误认为这是天生的智力，这就是我的情况。

You know even more than you seem to know, which is quite a lot.

你知道的甚至比你看起来知道的还要多，这是相当多的。

In my opinion.

在我看来。

I’m being both modest and not modest —

我既谦虚又不谦虚 ——

I noticed, yes.

我注意到了，是的。

— with each part of the answer.

— 答案的每个部分。

I think I take good care to try to apply what I know, and people mistake that for, again, high IQ.

我认为我很小心地尝试运用我所知道的知识，而人们又将其误认为是高智商。

It’s not entirely clear that isn’t high IQ, that IQ might be largely built on a scaffolding of a lot of knowledge.

目前还不完全清楚这不是高智商，智商可能很大程度上建立在大量知识的基础上。

Partly, yes, but it’s something else as well.

是的，有部分原因，但也有别的原因。

There’s some kind of G where I think I’m actually much weaker.

在某种 G 方面，我认为自己实际上要弱得多。

Yes, yes.

是的，是的。

Maybe there’s a tradeoff, which is, the more knowledge you have, the less G you need to get to the same point, where somebody with less knowledge would need a lot of G to get to that point.

也许存在一个权衡，即你拥有的知识越多，达到同一点所需的 G 就越少，而知识较少的人需要大量的 G 才能达到该点。

Why do you think it’s worked out the way it has, that people overestimate your intelligence?

你认为为什么人们会高估你的智力？

Because you are at Yale?

因为你在耶鲁？

Yes.

是的。

Prestige bias.

声望偏见。

I’m a university professor.

我是一名大学教授。

I’m at Yale.

我在耶鲁。

Maybe I benefit from other forms of privilege, being an older white man, but I don’t know.

作为一名年长的白人，也许我受益于其他形式的特权，但我不知道。

I show all the markers of a smart guy.

我展示了聪明人的所有特征。

You think when you interact with other people that you’re too much impressed by their intelligence, or not enough?

您认为当您与其他人互动时，您对他们的智慧印象深刻还是不够？

Because a lot of smart people overvalue smarts in others.

因为很多聪明人高估了别人的聪明才智。

Why not just drive that out of your calculus?

为什么不把它从你的计算中剔除呢？

Is it so hard?

有那么难吗？

No. I read your talent book, and it was actually very, very useful to me because it taught me other ways, other things to look for.

不，我读了你的天赋书，它实际上对我非常非常有用，因为它教会了我其他方法，其他需要寻找的东西。

When it comes to choosing graduate students, for instance, I tend to rank intelligence very highly.

例如，在选择研究生时，我倾向于对智力的评价非常高。

A good conversation with someone who’s quicker than me and smart on their feet and everything — I value that very highly.

与比我更快、脚步更聪明的人进行一次愉快的交谈 —— 我非常看重这一点。

It’s only recently I started to try to also value things like productivity and work ethic and other things and a certain degree of creativity, but I go too much for smarts.

直到最近我才开始尝试重视生产力、职业道德等其他因素以及一定程度的创造力，但我太看重聪明了。

What do you think is psychologically the hardest trait for us to value properly?

您认为从心理上来说，我们最难正确评价的特质是什么？

Disagreeableness or something else?

是性格不合还是其他原因？

Because after all, they might be disagreeing with you, right?

因为毕竟他们可能不同意你的观点，对吗？

Yes.

是的。

Disagreeableness.

不愉快。

Probably honesty.

大概是诚实。

One of the tropes on social media I hate the most is when somebody says, “Well, here I am, and now I’m a professor.

我最讨厌社交媒体上的比喻之一是有人说：“好吧，我在这里，现在我是一名教授。

I want to say to somebody who was my adviser many years ago, who said I’d never make it, well, you’re a jerk.” And everybody laughs at the person who said they’d never make it.

我想对多年前担任我顾问的人说，他说我永远不会成功，你就是个混蛋。”每个人都嘲笑那些说他们永远不会成功的人。

To be honest with somebody — and in that case, they were wrong — but even if you’re right, people hate you.

老实说， ——在这种情况下，他们错了—— 但即使你是对的，人们也会恨你。

On your Substack, Small Potatoes, you wrote a post on doing academic interviews.

在你的子堆栈小土豆上，你写了一篇关于进行学术采访的文章。

The interviewers, at a general level — what’s the bias they’re most likely to have?

面试官，在一般层面上 — 他们最有可能有什么偏见？

Oh, all sorts of biases.

哦，各种偏见。

I’m almost leaning towards — your book aside — jettisoning interviews sometimes, getting rid of them.

我几乎倾向于 —— 你的书放在一边 —— 有时放弃采访，摆脱它们。

But all sorts of biases.

但各种偏见。

They’re biased by charm.

他们因魅力而产生偏见。

They’re biased by quickness.

他们对速度有偏见。

They’re biased by flattery.

他们因奉承而有偏见。

In fact, part of my advice, to put it somewhat cynically, is for people on job interviews, know the person you’re talking to, do the research, because it’s flattering.

事实上，我的建议的一部分，有点愤世嫉俗地说，是对参加工作面试的人来说，了解你正在交谈的人，进行研究，因为这很讨人喜欢。

Somebody comes into my office and says, “Oh, my God, it’s such an honor to meet you.

有人走进我的办公室说：“天啊，很荣幸见到你。

I read Against Empathy, and it changed my life.” I don’t want it to sway me, but it’s hard for it not to, and so yes, that’s our weakness.

我读了《反对同理心》，它改变了我的生活。”我不想让它影响我，但它很难不影响我，所以，是的，这就是我们的弱点。

I’ve wondered quite often, why is flattery undersupplied in these contexts?

我经常想知道，为什么在这些情况下奉承话很少？

Because by no means does everyone do it.

因为绝不是每个人都这么做。

It’s not very costly.

这不是很昂贵。

Even if you’re not fully believed, it can have a positive impact on the person.

即使你不完全相信，它也会对这个人产生积极的影响。

Why isn’t the supply of flattery just way, way up there?

为什么奉承话的供应量不那么高？

Every job interview.

每次工作面试。

I think it’s such a cheap thing.

我认为这是一件很便宜的事情。

It starts off with, “Oh, I read your article two years ago.

它的开头是：“哦，我两年前读过你的文章。

It was wonderful.

太棒了。

It changed how I think about tax incidence.” But not every interview starts that way.

它改变了我对税收负担的看法。”但并不是每次面试都是这样开始的。

Most do not.

大多数没有。

Why not?

为什么不呢？

I tell the story in my Substack of a very famous speaker — I never met him before — comes into my office and was like, “Oh my God, it is such a delight to meet you,” and talks all about my work extensively.

我在我的子堆栈中讲述了一位非常著名的演讲者的故事——“我以前从未见过他”——他走进我的办公室，说，“天哪，很高兴见到你”，并广泛谈论了我的工作。

I fully knew — even my ego is not so .

我完全知道——甚至我的自我也不是这样。

.

。

.

。

I fully knew he read up on me, but it still felt great.

我完全知道他阅读了我的资料，但这仍然感觉很棒。

I don’t know.

我不知道。

I feel maybe people are uncomfortable flattering.

我觉得人们可能会因为奉承而感到不舒服。

Maybe there’s an awkwardness when you’re talking to somebody who is of a higher status than you, when you want a job and maybe it feels inappropriate to flatter.

当你和地位比你高的人交谈时，当你想要一份工作时，也许觉得奉承是不合适的，这可能会让你感到尴尬。

“Who am I to tell this person their work is great?” I don’t know.

“我有什么资格告诉这个人他们的工作很棒？”我不知道。

You still think they ought to do it more, right?

你仍然认为他们应该做得更多，对吗？

As do I.

我也一样。

I do.

我愿意。

Yes.

是的。

I do.

我愿意。

There should be — there’s a flattery shortage in the world.

应该有——世界上缺乏奉承。

It’s going back to a criticism abundance sometimes, where I think people have a false theory of mind where they go to somebody, and they say, “I read your stuff, and I think it’s really poorly thought out.” It could be very helpful from a friend; not a good tactic when you’re looking for a job.

有时这会回到批评的丰富性，我认为人们有一种错误的心理理论，他们去找某人，他们说，“我读了你的东西，我认为它真的没有经过深思熟虑。”来自朋友的帮助可能会非常有帮助；当你找工作时，这不是一个好策略。

How can we train people to be better flatterers?

我们怎样才能训练人们成为更好的阿谀奉承者？

What do we need to do?

我们需要做什么？

Maybe it’s some degree of theory of mind, which is, you just ask people, and you’re like, “How do you feel when somebody tells you how wonderful you are?” I think that will help them do it.

也许这是某种程度的心理理论，也就是说，你只要问别人，你就会说，“当有人告诉你你有多棒时，你感觉如何？”我认为这将帮助他们做到这一点。

It doesn’t seem like a very difficult thing to pick up.

这似乎并不是一件很难的事情。

I don’t know.

我不知道。

It’s a mystery.

这是一个谜。

If we should train flattery, how do you think we should best tax empathy?

如果我们应该训练奉承，你认为我们应该如何最好地培养同理心？

In the broad sense of tax, right?

广义的税收吧？

Yes.

是的。

I think we should tax empathy through social disapproval.

我认为我们应该通过社会的反对来激发同理心。

Here’s what I’m thinking: A lot of American politicians say racist things and have racist policies, but almost always, they cloak it, they dog-whistle it, they cloak it.

我的想法是这样的：许多美国政客都说种族主义的话，制定种族主义政策，但几乎总是，他们掩盖它，他们吹口哨，他们掩盖它。

Maybe they aren’t even aware of it themselves because when somebody says something avowed, clearly racist, people boo them.

也许他们自己都没有意识到这一点，因为当有人公开说出明显的种族主义言论时，人们就会嘘他们。

They suffer a huge social cost.

他们承受着巨大的社会成本。

I’d like to see the same thing with regard to overt displays of empathy.

我希望在公开表达同理心方面看到同样的情况。

Where is the empathy problem worse, Canada or the United States?

加拿大和美国哪里的同理心问题更严重？

I think everything is both worse and better in the United States.

我认为美国的一切既好又坏。

There’s broader variance?

还有更广泛的差异吗？

There’s broader variance.

存在更广泛的差异。

Politics is more intense, a lot more interesting.

政治更加激烈，也更加有趣。

I think the degree of empathic pandering, as well as the degree of everything else, is more accelerated in the States.

我认为同理心迎合的程度以及其他一切的程度在美国更快。

I think part of Canadian politics or parliament encourages more vibrant debate and discussion, often at a pretty high level that you don’t see in the States.

我认为加拿大政治或议会的一部分鼓励更有活力的辩论和讨论，通常是在美国看不到的相当高的水平。

Do you think there are any humans who are what I would call truly egalitarian?

你认为有人是我所说的真正平等的人吗？

There are plenty of people who genuinely want to redistribute wealth, but typically, I think they have other status markers.

有很多人真心希望重新分配财富，但通常情况下，我认为他们还有其他地位标志。

It could be intellect, it could be empathy, it could be a certain kind of left-wing politics.

这可能是智力，可能是同理心，也可能是某种左翼政治。

Are there people who are genuinely egalitarian across all dimensions?

有没有真正在各个方面都平等的人？

No. I think you’d cease to become a person.

不，我认为你不再是一个人了。

To become indifferent between the present and the future, indifferent between your child and a stranger, to not care about somebody’s looks or intelligence or kindness would be .

在现在和未来之间变得冷漠，在你的孩子和陌生人之间冷漠，不关心某人的外表、智力或善良。

.

。

.

。

You could imagine an LLM program for that, but I think when we encountered the LLM, we’d find it repellent.

你可以想象一个法学硕士课程，但我认为当我们遇到法学硕士时，我们会发现它令人厌恶。

The person would disgust us?

这个人会让我们厌恶吗？

Yes.

是的。

That’s a case where disgust might be useful, right?

在这种情况下，厌恶可能会有用，对吗？

Yes.

是的。

You have come full circle on me.

你已经绕了我一圈。

Yes.

是的。

Why do so many people enjoy horror movies?

为什么这么多人喜欢看恐怖片？

For the most part, I do not, I’ll interject, but clearly many do.

在大多数情况下，我不会，我会插话，但显然很多人都这样做。

Do you enjoy any movies that scare you, of a lighter sort?

您喜欢一些让您感到害怕的轻松电影吗？

Not gory, not chainsaw stuff, but lighter.

不是血腥的，不是电锯的东西，而是更轻。

That, I enjoy.

那，我很享受。

Darth Vader comes on the screen.

达斯·维达出现在银幕上。

I wouldn’t say I’m scared, but I feel the negative evil presence, and I respond to that in an aesthetically positive way.

我不会说我害怕，但我感受到了负面邪恶的存在，并且我以一种美学上积极的方式对此做出反应。

I think that that’s right, where we take some sort of pleasure from negative emotions: sadness and fear and disgust and even guilt, shame.

我认为这是对的，我们从负面情绪中获得某种快乐：悲伤、恐惧、厌恶，甚至内疚、羞耻。

But there’s a lot of variation in which emotions people like — some people like a good cry; some people like to scream — and the intensity of it.

但人们喜欢的情绪有很多差异——有些人喜欢大哭，有些人喜欢大哭。有些人喜欢尖叫——以及尖叫的强度。

I do like scary movies, but for me it’s like The Babadook or It Follows.

我确实喜欢恐怖电影，但对我来说，它就像《巴巴杜克》或《它跟随》。

The gory ones, I can’t bear to watch.

血腥的，我不忍心看。

You’ve posed this question in your work as a hypothetical: Is consenting sex between adult siblings morally wrong?

您在工作中作为假设提出了这个问题：成年兄弟姐妹之间同意的性行为在道德上是错误的吗？

What’s your view?

你的看法是什么？

Yes, I do think it’s morally wrong.

是的，我确实认为这在道德上是错误的。

Why?

为什么？

Because although as adults, there’s a strong supposition that they’re free to do what they want, I think that the problem is that when they’re not adults, the fact that later on they can have sex — and worse, between, say, a stepfather and a stepdaughter or an uncle and a niece — the idea that sex is a possibility in the future when they’re adults corrodes the relationship early on.

因为虽然作为成年人，人们有一个强烈的假设，即他们可以自由地做自己想做的事，但我认为问题是，当他们还没有成年时，事实上，他们后来可以发生性行为——更糟糕的是，在继父和继女之间，或者叔叔和侄女之间发生性行为——这种认为成年后发生性行为是未来可能性的想法很早就腐蚀了这种关系。

Does that make sense?

这有道理吗？

I think you have a disgust reaction.

我认为你有厌恶反应。

That’s fine.

没关系。

It sounds to me like an argument that it’s imprudent, which can slide into morally wrong, but I still think there’s something out of sync between the strength of our disgust reaction and the degree of moral wrongness it has.

在我看来，这听起来像是一种轻率的论点，可能会陷入道德错误，但我仍然认为，我们厌恶反应的强度和道德错误的程度之间存在一些不同步。

I think that’s right.

我认为这是对的。

I think that if that was my argument, say, making this ratchet it up a bit and make it a relationship between a father and an adult daughter and —

我认为，如果这是我的论点，比如说，将其加强一点，使其成为父亲和成年女儿之间的关系，并且 -

Let’s say brother-sister.

就说哥哥姐姐吧。

I could reword the question.

我可以改写这个问题。

I said siblings, so brother and sister, or two sisters for that matter.

我说兄弟姐妹，所以兄弟姐妹，或者两个姐妹。

That seems much less wrong than the stepfather and the daughter.

这似乎比继父和女儿的错要少得多。

It does, because in some way, as it brings us down to childhood, there’s less of a power asymmetry.

确实如此，因为在某种程度上，当它把我们带回到童年时，权力不对称的情况就会减少。

There’s less of a case of an adult carefully grooming a child so that when she is of age, they could then have sex, and it would be okay.

很少有成年人仔细地打扮一个孩子，这样当她长大后，他们就可以发生性行为，那就没问题了。

I have a visceral response to it.

我对此有一个发自内心的反应。

Now, as a CWT listener, might you be up for a round of overrated versus underrated?

现在，作为 CWT 听众，您可能会面临一轮被高估与被低估的情况吗？

Yes, I was hoping for this.

是的，我就是这么希望的。

Hit me.

打我。

Okay, these are all easy.

好吧，这些都很简单。

Jean Piaget — overrated or underrated?

Jean Piaget — 被高估还是低估？

Underrated.

被低估了。

He is wrong in just about everything he said about kids.

他关于孩子所说的几乎所有话都是错误的。

There’ve been studies finding that just about every claim he makes is mistaken and overridden, but he was a great scientist with a great encompassing theory.

有研究发现，他提出的几乎每一个主张都是错误的和被推翻的，但他是一位伟大的科学家，拥有伟大的包罗万象的理论。

A lot of his theoretical foundation, particularly the notion that children are like scientists exploring the world, has stood the test of time.

他的许多理论基础，特别是“孩子就像科学家探索世界”的观点，都经受住了时间的考验。

Also, he was a sweet guy.

而且，他是一个可爱的人。

Unlike Freud, Piaget was a genuinely decent guy.

与弗洛伊德不同，皮亚杰是一个真正正派的人。

So, I’d say he’s underrated.

所以，我想说他被低估了。

The notion of mirror neurons?

镜像神经元的概念？

Oh, it shouldn’t be rated at all.

哦，根本不应该评价。

Horribly —

可怕的是 ——

It’s just false.

这只是错误的。

Right?

正确的？

I’m not enough of a neuroscientist to say it’s entirely dead.

我的神经科学家还不足以说它已经完全死了。

Maybe.

或许。

People have talked about mirror neurons and primates being involved in certain aspects of motor learning.

人们已经讨论过镜像神经元和灵长类动物参与运动学习的某些方面。

I’m not expert enough to say that that’s all bogus, but it was once hugely overrated, in that this was the solution to everything.

我不够专业，不能说这都是假的，但它曾经被严重高估，因为这是解决一切问题的方法。

Explained autism, explained language learning, explained empathy.

解释自闭症，解释语言学习，解释同理心。

And the whole field, I think, crashed.

我认为整个领域都崩溃了。

It’s still overrated because some people don’t know it crashed.

它仍然被高估，因为有些人不知道它崩溃了。

That was an easy one.

那是一件容易的事。

Sociopaths — overrated or underrated?

反社会者 — 被高估还是低估？

That’s harder, right?

那更难，对吧？

You mean the idea or the people?

你指的是想法还是人？

No, the actual ones.

不，是实际的。

They’re very productive, a lot of them, right?

他们的生产力非常高，而且很多，对吧？

They are.

他们是。

I think they’re overrated.

我认为他们被高估了。

I think that there’s a sexiness to this.

我认为这有一种性感。

There was a woman who was profiled in The New York Times recently, who described herself as a sociopath or a psychopath.

《纽约时报》最近对一位女性进行了专题报道，她称自己是反社会者或精神病患者。

I read that.

我读到了。

I don’t know.

我不知道。

I think there’s a lot of allure to it, and a lot of drama.

我认为它有很多吸引力，也有很多戏剧性。

Many studies of psychopaths and sociopaths find that they’re actually often below normal intelligence.

许多针对精神变态者和反社会者的研究发现，他们的智力实际上常常低于正常水平。

They tend to be depressed.

他们往往情绪低落。

They’re more likely to kill themselves.

他们更有可能自杀。

They live lousy lives.

他们过着糟糕的生活。

They’re not the sexy, conscience-free people we like to imagine, suggesting that to some degree, you and I — the non-sociopaths — are sensitive to this, and when we see a sociopath, we run away.

他们并不是我们想象中的性感、无良心的人，这表明在某种程度上，你和我——非反社会者——对此很敏感，当我们看到反社会者时，我们就会逃跑。

You’re assuming I’m a non-sociopath, right?

你假设我不是一个反社会者，对吗？

Oh, I know you well from the podcast.

哦，我从播客中很了解你。

A lot of people just think they’re psychopaths like they’re all serial killers, and that’s not true at all.

很多人只是认为他们是精神病患者，就像他们都是连环杀手一样，但事实并非如此。

No.

不。

Maybe they lack a moral sense.

也许他们缺乏道德感。

If they can learn to behave according to incentives, maybe a lot just fit in.

如果他们能够学会根据激励措施行事，也许很多人都能融入其中。

They learn how to flatter, say, because they’re not held back by these other weird feelings that you shouldn’t flatter your interviewer.

例如，他们学会了如何奉承，因为他们不会被其他奇怪的感觉所阻碍，比如你不应该奉承你的面试官。

You could get very far.

你可以走得很远。

But the thing about the people we want to be around is, we want them to be nice to us even when the incentives aren’t present.

但我们想要身边的人的问题是，即使没有激励措施，我们也希望他们对我们友善。

Carl Jung — overrated or underrated?

卡尔·荣格——被高估还是低估？

Oh, yes, hardly rated at all these days, I think maybe just because of Jordan Peterson, who has been promoting him.

哦，是的，这些天几乎没有评分，我想也许只是因为乔丹·彼得森（Jordan Peterson）一直在宣传他。

I often get people saying, “Why didn’t you talk about Carl Jung in your book?” I’ll say underrated in that what little I know about him seems quite interesting.

我经常听到人们说：“你为什么不在你的书中谈论卡尔·荣格？”我想说他被低估了，因为我对他知之甚少，但似乎很有趣。

I think maybe he’s been so eclipsed by Freud that nobody gives his ideas any attention.

我想也许他在弗洛伊德的影响下黯然失色，以至于没有人关注他的想法。

Certainly, some of his ideas about the unconscious are worth studying, so mildly underrated.

当然，他关于无意识的一些想法值得研究，但被轻微低估了。

Memories, Dreams, and Recollections is a great book, I think.

我认为《回忆、梦想和回忆》是一本很棒的书。

I believe, with LLMs, Jung will make a comeback.

我相信，凭借法学硕士学位，荣格将会东山再起。

In a sense, LLMs are tapping into a Jungian subconscious of all the data we’ve put out there.

从某种意义上说，法学硕士正在利用我们所提供的所有数据的荣格潜意识。

That sort of collective unconscious is now coming online.

这种集体无意识现在正在网上出现。

But there’s a reinforcement learning applied to it, so it’s also suppressed in the Freudian way.

但它应用了强化学习，所以它也以弗洛伊德的方式被抑制。

You get this weird mix of Jung and Freud in contemporary LLMs.

在当代法学硕士中，你会看到荣格和弗洛伊德的奇怪组合。

There’s a book there somewhere.

某处有一本书。

Yes.

是的。

Asian Tiger parenting — over- or underrated?

亚洲虎养育 — 被高估还是低估？

Amy Chua, who is a friend of mine, who brought the idea in her Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother.

我的朋友蔡美儿（Amy Chua）在她的《虎母战歌》中提出了这个想法。

I think underrated.

我认为被低估了。

I tend to be a rather permissive parent, but the thing about it is, a lot of these tiger parents end up with kids who are not merely successful, but happy and love their parents.

我往往是一个相当宽容的父母，但问题是，很多虎父母最终生下的孩子不仅成功，而且快乐并且爱他们的父母。

It doesn’t work for everybody, not for every kid, nor for every parent.

它并不适合每个人，不适合每个孩子，也不适合每个父母。

I could not fashion myself as a tiger dad, but I think we should take it more seriously.

我不能把自己塑造成一个虎爸爸，但我认为我们应该更认真地对待它。

Do you need the whole community for it to work?

您需要整个社区才能使其发挥作用吗？

Oh, yes.

哦是的。

It’s like everything else — cell phones, smartphones, and social media, and — I don’t know — sex, alcohol, where if you’re one individual within the community doing it, it’s extremely difficult.

就像其他一切一样——手机、智能手机和社交媒体，还有——我不知道——性、酒精，如果你是社区中的一个人做这件事，那是极其困难的。

It’s much easier to be any parent if everybody else around you is the same sort of parent.

如果你周围的人都是同一类型的父母，那么成为任何父母都会容易得多。

Big Five personality theory.

大五人格理论。

Underrated.

被低估了。

Stood the test of time.

经受住了时间的考验。

Often, when people complain about the replication crisis, they throw away all of psychology, but personality psychology has proven surprisingly robust, and I think there’s a lot of sense in the idea.

通常，当人们抱怨复制危机时，他们会抛弃所有的心理学，但事实证明人格心理学出人意料地强大，我认为这个想法很有意义。

I know you actually were somewhat critical of this in your book Talent — the idea of the Big Five, the idea that you could characterize somebody in terms of five numbers, determining their openness and their conscientiousness and so on.

我知道你实际上在你的《人才》一书中对此有些批评——“大五”的想法，即你可以用五个数字来描述一个人的特征，确定他们的开放性和责任心等等。

What do you think on that?

您对此有何看法？

I think it’s overrated by people who use it in hiring, but I still think, in general, it’s somewhat underrated, so we’re maybe not far apart.

我认为在招聘中使用它的人高估了它，但我仍然认为，总的来说，它有点被低估了，所以我们可能相差不远。

People who don’t know about the categories at all would do well to learn them.

根本不了解这些类别的人最好学习它们。

That’s how I would put it.

我就是这么说的。

Yes.

是的。

Once you know about them, you should be flexible and not take them too, too seriously.

一旦你了解了它们，你就应该保持灵活性，不要太认真地对待它们。

What’s a neglected classic in psychology that more people should read?

有哪些被忽视但值得更多人阅读的心理学经典著作？

Well, psychologists don’t read.

好吧，心理学家不读书。

We don’t read books.

我们不读书。

We don’t read anything from the past.

我们不读任何过去的事情。

But you read.

但你读了。

I have gone through my adult life, my whole life, without ever reading Principles of Psychology by William James.

我的成年生活，我的一生，都没有读过威廉·詹姆斯的《心理学原理》。

Then a couple of friends of mine invited me on their podcast to talk about his chapter on habit, and I read it, and it blew me away.

然后我的几个朋友邀请我在他们的播客上谈论他关于习惯的章节，我读了它，它让我震惊。

It’s an incredible book.

这是一本不可思议的书。

It’s an incredible book.

这是一本不可思议的书。

It was well written.

写得很好。

It is sharp.

它很锋利。

He talks about instinct.

他谈到本能。

It is a very contemporary voice.

这是一种非常现代的声音。

He’s a lyrical, beautiful writer, and it’s full of insights.

他是一位抒情、美丽的作家，而且充满洞察力。

Maybe it’s an embarrassment to psychology that you use it for an intro psych class and you would gain a lot.

也许这对心理学来说是一种尴尬，因为你用它来上心理学入门课，但你会收获很多。

Why do religious people cry when their loved ones die?

为什么宗教人士在亲人去世时会哭泣？

Assuming they believe in heaven, of course.

当然，假设他们相信天堂。

Not all religions do.

并非所有宗教都如此。

Yes.

是的。

I think the answer is more .

我认为答案是更多。

.

。

.

。

Some people say — and I have atheist friends — “Well, they’re hypocrites.

有些人说 — 我有无神论者朋友 — “好吧，他们是伪君子。

They don’t really believe in heaven.

他们并不真正相信有天堂。

If they really believed in heaven, they wouldn’t cry.

如果他们真的相信天堂，他们就不会哭泣。

They would rejoice.

他们会很高兴。

The same thing with their own death.”

他们自己的死亡也是如此。”

What does the Hebrew Bible most get right and wrong about social psychology?

希伯来圣经关于社会心理学最正确和最错误的是什么？

It has a mimetic desire, right?

它有一种模仿的欲望，对吗？

Peter Thiel will tell us that.

彼得泰尔会告诉我们这一点。

How good is it as a text in social psychology?

作为社会心理学的教科书，它有多好？

I think it’s a great text in social psychology and personality psychology and even a little bit of cognitive psychology.

我认为这是社会心理学和人格心理学方面的一本很棒的书，甚至还涉及一点认知心理学。

It captures in a very stark way the us-them biases that are present, that social psychology makes so much out of.

它以一种非常鲜明的方式捕捉到了存在的美国与他们之间的偏见，而社会心理学正是利用了这种偏见。

It captures the idea of prejudice.

它抓住了偏见的想法。

It captures the idea of thinking about men and women, children and adults, in-group, out-group separately.

它体现了分别思考男人和女人、儿童和成人、内群体和外群体的想法。

I think it’s brilliant on the mentality of whiners, like the Book of Job, even Moses at times.

我认为这对抱怨者的心态非常精彩，就像《约伯记》，有时甚至是摩西。

You should write a book on social psychology in the Hebrew Bible.

你应该用希伯来圣经写一本关于社会心理学的书。

That’s an idea.

这是一个想法。

Do you know what I like?

你知道我喜欢什么吗？

God has so much patience for whiners in that there are so many scenes where God destroys people with the slightest lack of faith in him.

神对抱怨者有如此多的耐心，因为有很多场景，神会毁灭那些对他有丝毫缺乏信心的人。

But when it comes to Moses pushing back, “I don’t want to do this,” God says, “Okay, let’s compromise.” Or he ends up negotiating, when he destroys the world in the flood, over how many people to leave behind.

但当摩西反击时，“我不想这样做，”上帝说，“好吧，让我们妥协吧。”或者，当他用洪水毁灭世界时，他最终会就留下多少人进行谈判。

If you whine to God, as Job did, sometimes he listens.

如果你像约伯那样向上帝抱怨，有时他会倾听。

What do you, Paul Bloom, maximize?

保罗·布鲁姆，你想最大化什么？

Most recently, time with those I love.

最近，是和我爱的人在一起的时光。

That’s what I try.

这就是我尝试的。

Also, time writing my Substack.

另外，是时候写我的子堆栈了。

The ones you love — they’re all busy right now, and thus, you’re talking to me.

你爱的人 ——他们现在都很忙，所以你才跟我说话。

That’s right.

这是正确的。

You can make —

你可以做 —

They all turned you down, right?

他们都拒绝了你，对吗？

Our relationship is just beginning.

我们的关系才刚刚开始。

Who knows?

谁知道？

That’s right.

这是正确的。

I maximize different things than I did when I was younger.

我最大化了与年轻时不同的事情。

I try to maximize money less.

我尽量减少金钱的最大化。

I still take money very seriously because we want to renovate our house, we want to travel, and stuff like that.

我仍然非常重视金钱，因为我们想要翻新我们的房子，我们想要旅行，诸如此类的事情。

I’ve been very lucky to have deep connections with friends, my wife, my children who are now adults.

我很幸运能够与朋友、我的妻子、我现在已经成年的孩子们建立深厚的联系。

I sometimes have to remind myself.

有时我必须提醒自己。

You end up forgetting that this is what I ultimately want to maximize.

你最终会忘记这是我最终想要最大化的。

What’s your most unusual successful work habit?

你最不寻常的成功工作习惯是什么？

This is an easy one, as you may know.

正如您所知，这是一件简单的事情。

They’re all easy in this episode.

在这一集中他们都很容易。

No, the one about lessons from social psychology from the Hebrew Bible was not an easy one.

不，关于希伯来圣经中社会心理学的教训并不容易。

That’s an approximation?

这是一个近似值？

Or you’ve set it like a timer?

或者你把它设置成一个计时器？

Or is the timing internal?

还是内部时间安排？

Not an approximate, I have a timer.

不是近似值，我有一个计时器。

When my timer beeps, I could be mid-word.

当我的计时器响起时，我可能正在说话。

I’ll stop and go on to the next.

我会停下来继续下一个。

For me, (a) this keeps me from getting bored.

对我来说，(a) 这让我不会感到无聊。

Also, by stopping mid-word or stopping wherever I’m stopping, when I go back to it, the energy is still there to want to continue.

此外，通过在单词中间停下来或在我停下来的地方停下来，当我回到它时，能量仍然存在，想要继续。

I highly recommend it to everybody.

我强烈推荐给大家。

I’ve advocated a similar system, that you should stop writing each day before you feel you’re done.

我提倡一个类似的系统，即你应该在感觉完成之前停止每天的写作。

Yes, that’s right.

是的，没错。

That’s right.

这是正确的。

When you don’t want to stop, you’re just about to write something really good, that’s when — no more.

当你不想停下来的时候，你正要写出一些非常好的东西，那就是 —— 不再了。

Back to it tomorrow.

明天再说吧。

Many people do the opposite.

许多人却做相反的事。

They have nice closure on this.

他们对此有很好的总结。

They ended the paragraph, they ended the chapter.

他们结束了这一段，他们结束了这一章。

And then it’s hard to start up next time.

然后下次就很难启动了。

That’s right.

这是正确的。

Excellent advice.

非常好的建议。

And they’re a little exhausted.

他们有点累了。

Very last question — what will you do next?

最后一个问题 —— 接下来你会做什么？

I’m thinking I want to write a new book, but I’m not exactly sure of the topic.

我想我想写一本新书，但我不太确定这个主题。

I’ve been playing around with different topics.

我一直在尝试不同的话题。

I have something which I like, but it’s too early for me to talk about.

我有一些我喜欢的东西，但现在谈论还为时过早。

I really want to write a new book.

我真的很想写一本新书。

What’s the algorithm you use to decide which topic it will be?

您使用什么算法来决定哪个主题？

For this book, I started to write a proposal on an idea, and I just couldn’t make it interesting enough, because I work by writing a proposal and sending it to my agent, and so on.

对于这本书，我开始写一个关于一个想法的提案，但我就是无法让它变得足够有趣，因为我的工作方式是写一份提案并将其发送给我的经纪人，等等。

Often, if I could write a good proposal, then I know I have a good book.

通常，如果我能写出一份好的提案，那么我就知道我有一本好书。

Not that the book’s going to match the proposal in any interesting sense, but it means that the material is there.

这并不是说这本书会在任何有趣的意义上与提案相匹配，但这意味着材料已经存在。

I guess another way of putting it is, by the time I’m done with that, I know it’ll be a good book for me if I couldn’t live without writing it.

我想另一种说法是，当我完成这件事时，我知道如果我不写它就活不下去，这对我来说将是一本好书。

If nobody wanted it, I read it anyway.

如果没人想要，我还是读了。

Paul Bloom, thank you very much.

保罗·布鲁姆，非常感谢你。

Listeners, you can buy all of Paul’s books.

听众们，你们可以购买保罗的所有书籍。

Again, his new Substack is Small Potatoes.

同样，他的新子堆栈是小土豆。

Just Google Paul Bloom, B-L-O-O-M, Small Potatoes.

只要谷歌一下保罗·布鲁姆，B-L-O-O-M，小土豆。

Thank you, Paul.

谢谢你，保罗。

Thank you, Tyler.

谢谢你，泰勒。

That was great.

那很棒。