Steven Pinker on Coordination, Common Knowledge, and the Retreat of Liberal Enlightenment (Ep. 255)
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 chatting with Steven Pinker.
今天我很高兴能与史蒂文·平克聊天。
Steven needs no introduction, per se, but I will point out, he has a new and excellent book called When Everyone Knows That Everyone Knows .
史蒂文本身不需要介绍，但我要指出的是，他有一本很棒的新书，名为《当每个人都知道每个人都知道》。
.
。
.
。
The subtitle is Common Knowledge and the Mysteries of Money, Power, and Everyday Life.
副标题是《常识以及金钱、权力和日常生活的奥秘》。
Steven, welcome.
史蒂文，欢迎。
Thank you.
谢谢。
How important is the reasoning behind common knowledge?
常识背后的推理有多重要？
Say you get a bunch of men in the room, and at the end of some thinking, one of them concludes that he has spinach on his teeth, using common knowledge.
假设房间里有一群人，经过一番思考后，其中一个人根据常识得出结论，他的牙齿上有菠菜。
Let’s say that mode of reasoning was somehow not allowed to us, how much lower would GDP be?
假设我们不允许这种推理方式，GDP 会低多少？
It would tank.
它会坦克。
It would be almost nonexistent just because all of our economy depends on coordination, on people doing things that are in everyone’s interest if everyone does them the same way, beginning with money itself, with currency.
它几乎不存在，因为我们所有的经济都依赖于协调，依赖于人们做符合每个人利益的事情，如果每个人都以同样的方式做事，从货币本身开始，从货币开始。
Why do we accept a piece of paper in exchange for something of value?
为什么我们接受一张纸来交换有价值的东西？
We know other people will accept it and give us something of value.
我们知道其他人会接受它并给我们一些有价值的东西。
Why do they do that?
他们为什么这么做？
They know that still other people will.
他们知道还有其他人会这样做。
Everyone knows that everyone knows that money has value.
每个人都知道每个人都知道金钱有价值。
That’s what gives it value, as long as they do.
只要他们这样做，这就是赋予它价值的原因。
That can unravel when you have hyperinflation, or a bank run, or a currency attack.
当出现恶性通货膨胀、银行挤兑或货币攻击时，这种情况就会崩溃。
Political power.
政权。
No government can have snipers on every rooftop and telescreens in every room surveilling you 24/7 with the Stasi ready to pounce on you if you break a law.
任何政府都不可能在每个屋顶上都有狙击手，在每个房间里都有电屏，24/7 全天候监视你，如果你违法，斯塔西就会随时准备向你扑来。
A lot of our laws, a lot of recognition of authority, who’s the boss, depend on just common knowledge, namely, he’s the boss or she’s the boss.
我们的很多法律，很多对权威的认可，谁是老板，都依赖于常识，即他是老板或她是老板。
She gets her way because she knows I’ll obey.
她随心所欲，因为她知道我会服从。
I’ll obey because I know she gets her way.
我会服从，因为我知道她会如愿以偿。
For as long as that lasts, as long as that common knowledge lasts, you have structures of authority and reporting and power and responsibility.
只要这种情况持续存在，只要常识持续存在，你就拥有权威、报告、权力和责任的结构。
Again, since it depends on nothing but common expectations, it can unravel as when you have a big public demonstration where people see each other, seeing each other, seeing each other opposing the regime, and then the authority of the regime can evaporate.
再说一次，由于它只取决于共同的期望，所以它可能会瓦解，就像当你举行大型公开示威时，人们互相看到对方，看到对方，看到对方反对政权，然后政权的权威就会消失。
On the difference between coordination and common knowledge
论协调与共同知识的区别
Surely there’s a difference between coordination and common knowledge.
协调和常识之间肯定是有区别的。
I think of common knowledge as an extremely recursive model that typically has an infinite number of loops.
我认为常识是一种极其递归的模型，通常具有无限数量的循环。
Most of the coordination that goes on in the real world is not like that.
现实世界中发生的大多数协调并不是这样的。
If I approach a traffic circle in Northern Virginia, I look at the other person, we trade glances.
如果我接近弗吉尼亚州北部的一个交通环岛，我会看着对方，我们交换眼神。
There’s a slight amount of recursion, but I doubt if it’s ever three loops.
有少量的递归，但我怀疑它是否有过三个循环。
Maybe it’s one or two.
也许是一两个。
We also have to slow down our speeds precisely because there are not an infinite number of loops.
我们还必须放慢速度，因为循环数量不是无限的。
We coordinate.
我们协调。
What percentage of the coordination in the real world is like the traffic circle example or other examples, and what percentage of it is due to actual common knowledge?
现实世界中的协调有多少比例是像交通圈的例子或其他例子，有多少比例是由于实际的常识？
Common knowledge, in the technical sense, does involve this infinite number of arbitrarily embedded beliefs about beliefs about beliefs.
从技术意义上来说，常识确实涉及无限数量的任意嵌入的关于信念的信念。
Thank you for introducing the title with the three dots, dot, dot, dot, because that’s what signals that common knowledge is not just when everyone knows that everyone knows, but when everyone knows that everyone knows that and so on.
感谢您用三个点来介绍标题，点，点，点，因为这表明常识不仅仅是每个人都知道每个人都知道，而是每个人都知道每个人都知道等等。
The answer to your puzzle — and I devote a chapter in the book to what common knowledge — could actually consist of, and I’m a psychologist, I’m not an economist, a mathematician, a game theorist, so foremost in my mind is what’s going on in someone’s head when they have common knowledge.
你的难题的答案 ——我在书中专门用了一章来讨论常识 —— 实际上可能包含什么，我是一名心理学家，我不是经济学家、数学家、博弈论学家，所以我最关心的是当某人拥有常识时，他们的头脑中会发生什么。
You’re right.
你说得对。
We couldn’t think through an infinite number of “I know that he knows” thoughts, and our mind starts to spin when we do three or four.
我们无法思考无数个“我知道他知道”的想法，当我们思考三到四次时，我们的思维就开始旋转。
Instead, common knowledge can be generated by something that is self-evident, that is conspicuous, that’s salient, that you can witness at the same time that you witness other people witnessing it and witnessing you witnessing it.
相反，常识可以由不言而喻的、引人注目的、显着的东西产生，你可以在见证其他人见证它并见证你见证它的同时见证它。
That can grant common knowledge in a stroke.
这可以一举提供常识。
Now, it’s implicit common knowledge.
现在，它是隐性常识。
One way of putting it is you have reason to believe that he knows that I know that he knows that I know that he knows, et cetera, even if you don’t literally believe it in the sense that that thought is consciously running through your mind.
一种说法是，你有理由相信他知道我知道他知道我知道他知道，等等，即使你实际上并不相信这个想法有意识地在你的脑海中闪过。
I think there’s a lot of interplay in human life between this recursive mentalizing, that is, thinking about other people thinking about other people, and the intuitive sense that something is out there, and therefore people do know that other people know it, even if you don’t have to consciously work that through.
我认为，在人类生活中，这种递归心理化（即思考其他人思考其他人）与对某事物存在的直觉之间存在着很多相互作用，因此人们确实知道其他人知道它，即使你不需要有意识地解决这一点。
You gave the example of norms and laws, like who yields at an intersection.
你举了规范和法律的例子，比如在十字路口谁让路。
The eye contact, though, is crucial because I suggest that eye contact is an instant common knowledge generator.
不过，眼神交流至关重要，因为我认为眼神交流是一种即时的常识生成器。
You’re looking at the part of the person looking at the part of you, looking at the part of them.
你看着那个人的一部分，看着你的一部分，看着他们的一部分。
You’ve got instant granting of common knowledge by the mere fact of making eye contact, which is why it’s so potent in human interaction and often in other species as well, where eye contact can be a potent signal.
仅仅通过目光接触，你就可以立即获得常识，这就是为什么它在人类互动中如此有效，而且在其他物种中也经常如此，在这些物种中，目光接触可以是一个有效的信号。
There are even species that can coordinate without literally having common knowledge.
甚至有些物种可以在没有字面意义上的共同知识的情况下进行协调。
I give the example of the lowly coral, which presumably not only has no beliefs, but doesn’t even have a brain with which to have beliefs.
我举了低等珊瑚的例子，它们可能不仅没有信仰，而且甚至没有拥有信仰的大脑。
Coral have a coordination problem.
珊瑚有协调问题。
They’re stuck to the ocean floor.
它们被困在海底。
Their sperm have to meet another coral’s eggs and vice versa.
它们的精子必须与另一个珊瑚的卵相遇，反之亦然。
They can’t spew eggs and sperm into the water 24/7.
它们不能 24/7 将卵子和精子喷入水中。
It would just be too metabolically expensive.
它的新陈代谢成本太高了。
What they do is they coordinate on the full moon.
他们所做的就是在满月时进行协调。
On the full moon or, depending on the species, a fixed number of days after the full moon, that’s the day where they all release their gametes into the water, which can then find each other.
在满月，或者根据物种的不同，在满月后的固定天数里，它们都会将配子释放到水中，然后它们可以找到彼此。
Of course, they don’t have common knowledge in knowing that the other will know.
当然，他们没有常识，无法知道对方会知道。
It’s implicit in the logic of their solution to a coordination problem, namely, the public signal of the full moon, which, over evolutionary time, it’s guaranteed that each of them can sense it at the same time.
它隐含在他们解决协调问题的逻辑中，即满月的公共信号，在进化的过程中，保证他们每个人都能同时感受到它。
Indeed, in the case of humans, we might do things that are like coral.
事实上，就人类而言，我们可能会做一些像珊瑚一样的事情。
That is, there’s some signal that just leads us to coordinate without thinking it through.
也就是说，有一些信号只会引导我们不经过深思熟虑就进行协调。
The thing about humans is that because we do have or can have recursive mentalizing, it’s not just one signal, one response, full moon, shoot your wad.
关于人类的事情是，因为我们确实具有或可以具有递归心理化，所以它不仅仅是一个信号，一个响应，满月，射击你的一团。
There’s no limit to the number of things that we can coordinate creatively in evolutionarily novel ways by setting up new conventions that allow us to coordinate.
通过建立允许我们协调的新惯例，我们可以以进化新颖的方式创造性地协调的事物数量是无限的。
I’m not doubting that we coordinate.
我并不怀疑我们的协调。
My worry is that common knowledge models have too many knife-edge properties.
我担心的是公共知识模型有太多尖锐的特性。
Whether or not there are timing frictions, whether or not there are differential interpretations of what’s going on, whether or not there’s an infinite number of messages or just an arbitrarily large number of messages, all those can matter a lot in the model.
无论是否存在时间冲突，无论对正在发生的事情是否有不同的解释，无论是否有无限数量的消息或只是任意数量的消息，所有这些在模型中都非常重要。
Yet actual coordination isn’t that fragile.
然而实际的协调并没有那么脆弱。
Isn’t the common knowledge model a bad way to figure out how coordination comes about?
难道公共知识模型不是一种弄清楚协调如何产生的糟糕方法吗？
There could be a direct link between a public conspicuous signal and the desire to coordinate.
公众的显着信号与协调愿望之间可能存在直接联系。
I think you’re right.
我认为你是对的。
That’s probably what happens most of the time.
这可能是大多数时候发生的情况。
In cases where there’s doubt as to whether this signal has been received or how it’s interpreted, or where there’s no way in which you can generate such a salient signal, that’s when we get what’s often interesting in life.
如果怀疑该信号是否已被接收或如何解释，或者无法生成如此显着的信号，那就是我们得到生活中经常有趣的事情的时候。
Namely, you’re trying to get inside someone else’s head, and, “Do they know what I know or do they know that I know it?”
也就是说，你试图进入别人的头脑，并且“他们知道我知道什么，还是他们知道我知道这些？”
A lot of our not our routine automatic interactions, but the ones where we stop and think and calibrate our responses, are cases where recursive mentalizing does come into play.
我们的许多非日常自动交互，但我们停下来思考并校准我们的反应的交互，都是递归心理化确实发挥作用的情况。
The choice of words in a fraught situation would be an example.
在令人担忧的情况下的措辞选择就是一个例子。
A veiled bribe, a sexual come-on, a solicitation for a big favor like a donation, where you put some mental effort into exactly how do I frame my overture so that my hearer catches my drift without knowing that I know that they know, which could change the basis of a relationship.
隐秘的贿赂、性挑衅、索取捐赠等大恩惠，你要花一些心思思考如何表达我的提议，以便我的听众明白我的意思，而不知道我知道他们知道，这可能会改变关系的基础。
By the way, I’ve skipped a step here, which is that I suggest that human relationships like friendship, like authority, like romance, like transaction partners are all coordination games that are solved by common knowledge.
顺便说一句，我在这里跳过了一步，那就是我认为人际关系，比如友谊，比如权威，比如爱情，比如交易伙伴，都是通过常识来解决的协调博弈。
Sometimes, when we want not to change the relationship in force, we actually take steps to avoid common knowledge, as in innuendos and euphemisms, where the message gets through, but there’s enough uncertainty as to whether your hearer knows that you know that they know that the relationship can survive the threat from the overture.
有时，当我们不想改变现有的关系时，我们实际上会采取措施来避免常识，例如在暗示和委婉语中传达信息，但存在足够的不确定性，即你的听众是否知道你知道他们知道这种关系可以经受住提议的威胁。
Doesn’t differential knowledge play a big role in helping us understand what will happen?
难道差分知识在帮助我们理解将会发生什么方面发挥着重要作用吗？
Say I’m part of an oligarchic elite, and we all decide the actual lead dictator is about to fall.
假设我是寡头精英的一部分，我们都认为真正的主要独裁者即将倒台。
That becomes common knowledge within the oligarchic elite.
这已成为寡头精英中的常识。
That’s not enough.
这还不够。
Someone has to move first.
必须有人先行动。
Someone has to have differential knowledge that maybe they can take over, or maybe they’re the more courageous one, or maybe they know who in the armed forces will support them.
有人必须拥有不同的知识，也许他们可以接管，或者也许他们是更勇敢的人，或者也许他们知道武装部队中的谁会支持他们。
The actual model of cooperation is this optimal blend of differential and common rather than just common knowledge.
实际的合作模式是差异性知识和共同知识的最佳结合，而不仅仅是共同知识。
No?
不？
Yes, I think that’s right.
是的，我认为这是对的。
Often, once they make their move, they generate the common knowledge that allows everyone to coordinate, but there has to be some kind of either private knowledge or private initiative that launches the proliferation of common knowledge.
通常，一旦他们采取行动，他们就会产生允许每个人进行协调的共同知识，但必须有某种私人知识或私人主动性来启动共同知识的扩散。
I start off with the story of the emperor’s new clothes.
我先从皇帝新装的故事开始。
Why did that little boy blurt out that the emperor was naked, which then generated the common knowledge?
为何那个小男孩会脱口而出皇帝赤身裸体，从而引发众人皆知？
Now everyone knows that everyone knows.
现在大家都知道大家都知道了。
Why him?
为什么是他？
Why then?
那为什么呢？
I think part of the understanding of the story is that children, being naive and innocent about certain conventions and norms that govern adult life, often do blurt out truths; they don’t have the same internal payoff structure that adults do.
我认为对这个故事的部分理解是，孩子们对成人生活的某些习俗和规范天真无邪，常常脱口而出真理；他们没有与成年人相同的内部回报结构。
They don’t have the fear of ostracism or condemnation that adults do.
他们不像成年人那样害怕被排斥或谴责。
For a while now, we’ve had this thing called anonymous posters on the internet.
一段时间以来，我们在互联网上出现了一种叫做匿名海报的东西。
Do you think, on average, they make the world better or worse?
你认为，平均而言，它们会让世界变得更好还是更糟？
Interesting.
有趣的。
Probably worse.
可能更糟。
They help make some things common knowledge.
它们有助于使一些事情变得众所周知。
If there are things that are not common knowledge, some anonymous poster will say it.
如果有不常见的事情，一些匿名发帖者会说出来。
There’ll also be misinformation.
也会有误传。
Is that a clue that maybe at the margin, we have too much common knowledge rather than too little?
这是否表明我们的常识知识太多而不是太少？
It’s a good question.
这是一个好问题。
The way you posed the question is, on average, is it better or worse?
您提出问题的方式是，平均而言，是更好还是更差？
It’s kind of a matter of counting up the cases where it is a little boy saying the emperor was naked and, unlike the story, using anonymity to be able to escape reprisals, punishment for generating the common knowledge.
这有点像是一个小男孩说皇帝赤身裸体的案例，与故事不同的是，他使用匿名来逃避报复，因为产生常识而受到惩罚。
You’d have to count up the number of cases where that happens compared to all of the misinformation, trolling, hiding behind reprisals as a way of being aggressive.
你必须计算出发生这种情况的案例数量，与所有错误信息、恶意攻击、隐藏在报复背后作为攻击行为的方式进行比较。
I think a lot of the shaming mobs, a lot of the trolling, a lot of the degradation of discourse in social media comes because of that anonymity.
我认为社交媒体上的很多羞辱暴徒、很多恶搞、很多贬低言论的现象都是由于匿名造成的。
Is it worth it because sometimes it is a little boy saying the emperor’s naked?
因为有时是一个小男孩说皇帝赤身裸体，这值得吗？
That would be harder to tell.
那就更难说了。
Take even the cases where the anonymous posters are right.
甚至以匿名发帖者正确的情况为例。
As you and I know, there’s a lot of alt-right views out there.
正如你和我所知，那里有很多另类右翼的观点。
In general, I don’t agree with them.
总的来说，我不同意他们的观点。
I think they’re quite wrong.
我认为他们大错特错了。
I also think that if some of them were correct, some of the conspiracy theories, it would actually be better if we don’t all know them, that we would lose too much faith in elites.
我还认为，如果其中一些是正确的，一些阴谋论，我们不知道它们实际上会更好，我们会对精英失去太多信心。
It’s better that we do not have too much common knowledge, again, if those claims were true.
如果这些说法属实的话，我们最好不要有太多常识。
Do you agree?
你同意？
I guess you’d have to set up the hypothetical.
我想你必须建立假设。
That is, are there cases where there’s a noble lie, where we’re better off if everyone believes it?
也就是说，是否存在高尚的谎言，如果每个人都相信它，我们会过得更好？
I think a somewhat different case, other than an utter lie, would be a genteel, benign hypocrisy, where you have a common pretense.
我认为，除了彻头彻尾的谎言之外，还有一种不同的情况，那就是一种优雅、良性的虚伪，你有一个共同的假装。
Your sometime-collaborator Robin Hanson writes about that in his book with Kevin Simler, where he gives some examples, and I actually repeat them and add some of my own, of cases where it’s not an outright lie, but it’s a case where there’s some things that are true that you avoid saying.
你曾经的合作者罗宾·汉森（Robin Hanson）在他与凯文·西姆勒（Kevin Simler）合着的书中写到了这一点，他在书中给出了一些例子，我实际上重复了这些例子，并添加了一些我自己的例子，这些例子不是彻头彻尾的谎言，而是一些你避免说出来的真实的事情。
Robin Hanson gives examples like if someone drinks from a whiskey bottle in a paper bag on a park bench, the paper bag isn’t really fooling anyone, but the police may choose not to arrest him under the pretense that he’s not drinking an alcoholic beverage in public.
罗宾·汉森（Robin Hanson）举了一些例子，比如如果有人在公园长椅上用装在纸袋里的威士忌酒瓶喝酒，纸袋并不能真正愚弄任何人，但警察可能会选择不以他没有在公共场合喝酒精饮料为借口逮捕他。
Why would they do that?
他们为什么要这么做？
If they try to enforce the letter of the law, it would be too much like a police state.
如果他们试图严格执行法律条文，那就太像警察国家了。
It’d be a waste of resources.
这会浪费资源。
On the other hand, if they fail to arrest someone who is overtly drinking, they’d be surrendering the authority of the rule of law in general.
另一方面，如果他们未能逮捕公开饮酒的人，他们就会放弃总体法治的权威。
The paper bag, what it does is it allows them to say the rule of law still holds in general, even if we choose, as we say, and it’s an interesting idiom, to look the other way.
纸袋的作用是让他们说，法治总体上仍然有效，即使我们选择，正如我们所说，这是一个有趣的习语，以另一种方式看待。
There are other cases in law enforcement that work like that.
执法部门还有其他类似的案例。
Escort services.
陪同服务。
Does anyone really believe that someone’s paying only for an escort, but they get away with it?
有人真的相信有人只花钱请护送人员，但他们却侥幸逃脱吗？
Tobacco paraphernalia, which is basically drug paraphernalia.
烟草用具，基本上是毒品用具。
Of course, it’s a question of where you draw the line so that the law doesn’t forfeit all of its authority.
当然，问题在于如何划定界限，以免法律丧失其全部权威。
By which I mean, and going back to the top of the conversation, the common knowledge that the rule of law applies, which is necessary given that the police can’t enforce everything 24/7.
我的意思是，回到谈话的顶部，法治适用的常识是必要的，因为警察无法 24/7 执行一切。
Then on the international stage, things like, is Taiwan a sovereign state?
那么在国际舞台上，比如台湾是一个主权国家吗？
Of course it is, but the official policy of the United States is that it doesn’t exist, and of pretty much every other country, as far as I know.
当然是这样，但据我所知，美国的官方政策是它不存在，几乎所有其他国家也是如此。
Taiwan included, in a funny way.
有趣的是，台湾也包括在内。
Taiwan included, yes.
包括台湾在内，是的。
I don’t know if that would be an example.
我不知道这是否是一个例子。
It’s not exactly a noble lie, but it’s a common pretense.
这不完全是一个高尚的谎言，但却是一个常见的借口。
Again, you can spell out the reason, although if you spell out the reason, then that undermines the reason.
同样，你可以说出原因，尽管如果你说出原因，那就破坏了原因。
The reason, of course, being that it would be considered an affront, a challenge to China’s sense of authority, prestige, standing, preeminence, because it stakes a claim to all of historic China, which, if it was explicitly breached by formally recognizing Taiwan, it would be a challenge to China’s authority.
当然，原因是它会被认为是一种侮辱，是对中国权威、威望、地位和卓越地位的挑战，因为它对整个历史上的中国提出了主权要求，如果正式承认台湾而明确违反这一要求，那将是对中国权威的挑战。
If nations act as if it was a sovereign state without saying it’s a sovereign state, then China can maintain the pretense that its claim is valid.
如果各国表现得就像是一个主权国家而不说自己是一个主权国家，那么中国就可以维持其主张有效的借口。
Yet another example is, does Israel possess nuclear weapons?
再比如，以色列拥有核武器吗？
Their official policy is, “We’re not saying yes, we’re not saying no.” Now, everyone knows that Israel has nuclear weapons.
他们的官方政策是：“我们不会说是，也不会说不。”现在，每个人都知道以色列拥有核武器。
If there wasn’t some suspicion, the weapons would be useless because they wouldn’t be a deterrent.
如果没有任何怀疑，这些武器就毫无用处，因为它们起不到威慑作用。
On the other hand, if it was part of the official policy that Israel was a nuclear state, then its Arab rivals would feel that they had to acquire them as well so as not to lose face and standing.
另一方面，如果以色列是一个核国家是官方政策的一部分，那么它的阿拉伯竞争对手就会觉得他们也必须获得这些国家，以免丢面子和地位。
Say determinism were true and free will were false, it would be disastrous if we all believed that.
假设决定论是正确的而自由意志是错误的，如果我们都相信这一点，那将是灾难性的。
I think it’s a good thing there’s not more common knowledge because I think determinism is true.
我认为没有更多的常识是一件好事，因为我认为决定论是正确的。
That’s a whole other discussion.
那是另外一个讨论了。
One could say that determinism is necessary for the incentive structure that holding people responsible imposes.
人们可以说，决定论对于让人们负责所强加的激励结构是必要的。
Namely, if I condemn you, punish you, shame you, hold you responsible for bad choices, you’re less likely to make those bad choices.
也就是说，如果我谴责你、惩罚你、羞辱你、让你对错误的选择负责，你就不太可能做出那些错误的选择。
That’s why we have a regime of holding people responsible.
这就是为什么我们有一个让人们负责的制度。
Paradoxically, you need some degree of determinism for the idea of holding people responsible for their choices to have any effect.
矛盾的是，要让人们对自己的选择负责才能产生任何效果，你需要一定程度的决定论。
On Schelling points vs. common knowledge
谢林点与常识
Is a Schelling point the same thing as common knowledge in your approach?
谢林点与您方法中的常识相同吗？
A Schelling point, I think it’s more like common salience.
谢林点，我认为这更像是共同的显着性。
It’s closely related.
这是密切相关的。
A Schelling point is a choice that people make to coordinate that has no intrinsic value other than the fact that everyone else knows that it exists.
谢林点是人们为了协调而做出的选择，除了其他人都知道它存在这一事实之外，没有任何内在价值。
It’s something that pops out.
这是弹出来的东西。
Schelling’s original example is a couple separated in New York.
谢林最初的例子是一对在纽约分居的夫妇。
This is before the era of cellphones.
这是在手机时代之前。
How do they coordinate in the absence of common knowledge?
在缺乏共同知识的情况下，他们如何协调？
It can’t just be that each tries to guess where the other one would go, because if he knows that she likes to go to the bookstore, so he goes to the bookstore, the problem might be that she knows he likes to go to the camera store, so she might go to the camera store.
不能只是每个人都试图猜测对方会去哪里，因为如果他知道她喜欢去书店，所以他去了书店，问题可能是她知道他喜欢去相机店，所以她可能会去相机店。
He knows that, so maybe he should go to the camera store, but then she knows that he knows that she likes to go to the bookstore, so she might think, “Oh, he’s going to go to the bookstore after all, ad infinitum.”
他知道这一点，所以也许他应该去相机店，但随后她知道他知道她喜欢去书店，所以她可能会想，“哦，他毕竟会去书店，无穷无尽。”
If there’s some point in the landscape that commends itself as something that is salient enough, obvious enough, recommends itself, like in Schelling’s example, he guessed that the couple would meet at the clock in the middle of Grand Central Station at noon, even if it wasn’t where they would have been separated, simply because if you have to pick some place, what place are you going to pick?
如果景观中的某个点自我标榜为足够突出、足够明显、自我推荐的东西，就像谢林的例子一样，他猜测这对夫妇会在中午中央车站中央的时钟处见面，即使那不是他们分开的地方，仅仅是因为如果你必须选择一个地方，你会选择什么地方？
A Schelling point is something that is salient enough to enough people that they alight on it as a solution to a coordination problem in the absence of common knowledge, per se.
谢林点对于足够多的人来说是足够突出的，以至于他们在缺乏常识的情况下将其视为协调问题的解决方案。
Steven, where would you go in New York to actually meet them?
史蒂文，你会去纽约哪里去真正见到他们？
I know where you’d go to meet me, Grand Central Station.
我知道你会去哪里接我，中央车站。
It would pop into our minds, and each of us knows it would pop into the other’s mind because we both read Tom Schelling.
它会突然出现在我们的脑海中，我们每个人都知道它会突然出现在对方的脑海中，因为我们都读过汤姆·谢林的书。
Nowadays, Grand Central Station isn’t what it used to be, and it’s quite possible that it wouldn’t be a Schelling point.
如今，中央车站已不再是过去的样子，而且很可能不再是谢林点。
That is, a point that serves as a coordination equilibrium simply because each one knows that the other one knows that it will pop into the other one’s mind.
也就是说，一个点可以作为协调平衡，因为每个人都知道另一个人知道它会突然出现在另一个人的脑海中。
Schelling actually addresses that.
谢林实际上解决了这个问题。
He wrote in 1960 when Grand Central was much more influential.
他于 1960 年写作，当时大中央车站的影响力要大得多。
Indeed, I think people did studies, and they showed that people actually would, as he predicted, use the clock at Grand Central, not as a plurality of choices.
事实上，我认为人们做了研究，结果表明人们实际上会像他预测的那样使用中央车站的时钟，而不是作为多种选择。
As Schelling notes, because he noted this is very fragile, he said this is the point when it comes to actually choosing what we now call a Schelling point, common salience, this is where game theory, rational analysis, logic, leave off, and human whimsy, caprice, even poetry, take over.
正如谢林指出的那样，因为他指出这是非常脆弱的，所以他说这就是实际选择我们现在所说的谢林点（共同显着性）的关键点，这就是博弈论、理性分析、逻辑、离开以及人类的奇思妙想、任性甚至诗歌接管的地方。
That is, anything that pops into mind as a possible solution is a solution because it popped into your mind if it’s likely to pop into the other person’s mind.
也就是说，任何作为可能的解决方案突然出现在你脑海中的东西都是一个解决方案，因为如果它可能出现在别人的脑海中，那么它就会出现在你的脑海中。
He suggested maybe the couple will rely on whimsy and look for each other at the lost and found, or maybe something came up in conversation the night before, or maybe there was a guy with a sandwich board advertising a particular coffee shop.
他建议这对夫妇可能会依靠奇思妙想，在失物招领处互相寻找，或者可能是前一天晚上谈话中发生了一些事情，或者可能有一个人拿着三明治板为一家特定的咖啡店做广告。
When it comes to the points that people converge on because the other one knows that they will converge on it, there doesn’t have to be any rhyme or reason other than human psychology.
当谈到人们因为对方知道他们会在这一点上趋同而趋同时，除了人类心理之外，不必有任何韵律或原因。
It pops into your mind.
它会突然出现在你的脑海中。
Where would you pick?
你会选择哪里？
Ess-A-Bagel?
Ess-A-百吉饼？
Somewhere, right?
某处，对吧？
I think it would be probably Times Square, maybe the statue of, what’s his name, Sammy Cahn.
我想那可能是时代广场，也许是萨米·卡恩（Sammy Cahn）的雕像，他叫什么名字。
There’s a grandstand in Times Square with a statue of the Broadway promoter.
时代广场有一个看台，上面有一尊百老汇发起人的雕像。
I don’t think you’re going to meet many people there.
我认为你不会在那里遇到很多人。
Maybe not.
也许不是。
Maybe the former World Trade Center site, I thought of.
我想，也许是前世界贸易中心遗址。
Moynihan Station is not crazy.
莫伊尼汉站并不疯狂。
No. Schelling points this out.
不，谢林指出了这一点。
It is dependent on the context of your relationship with that person.
这取决于您与该人的关系背景。
It would be something that may have come up in conversation, something that you remarked on, a quirk that one of you has that the other one knows about.
这可能是谈话中可能出现的事情，你们评论过的事情，你们中的一个人有另一个人知道的怪癖。
That’s just it, when it comes to a common knowledge generator or a substitute for common knowledge, really common salience, there is no predictability.
就是这样，当涉及到公共知识生成器或公共知识的替代品时，真正的公共显着性，没有可预测性。
There needn’t be any predictability from outsiders other than it’s likely to pop into the mind of the people involved.
外界不需要有任何可预测性，除非它可能会突然出现在相关人员的脑海中。
On rational disagreement
关于理性分歧
Do you agree with Robert Aumann’s argument, at least as he makes it in the model, that if you meet an epistemic peer and you each announce your views, you ought to end up agreeing with them even without debating the issue or exchanging information about the facts?
你是否同意罗伯特·奥曼的论点，至少正如他在模型中所说的那样，如果你遇到一个认知同行并且你们每个人都宣布你的观点，那么即使没有辩论问题或交换有关事实的信息，你最终也应该同意他们的观点？
The mere fact that you have these two opinions, you should be able to converge.
只要你有这两种观点，你就应该能够趋同。
Yes.
是的。
I guess I do.
我想是的。
Of course, it’s dependent on the assumptions that go into the theorem.
当然，这取决于定理中的假设。
This is the famous theorem that rational agents cannot agree to disagree.
这就是著名的定理：理性主体不能同意不同意。
More accurately, rational agents who have the same priors, that is they come to a problem with the same understanding of the situation and hence the same degree of credence in a hypothesis before they even look at any evidence, and they share their posteriors, that is, each one tells the other what their subjective estimate of that idea is, without sharing the evidence that they use to come to that assessment, just what the assessment is, then the theorem says those assessments have to be the same.
更准确地说，具有相同先验的理性主体，也就是说，在他们看到任何证据之前，他们对情况有相同的理解，因此对假设有相同程度的可信度，并且他们共享后验，也就是说，每个人都告诉对方他们对该想法的主观估计是什么，而不共享他们用来进行该评估的证据，只是评估是什么，然后定理说这些评估必须是相同的。
That is, rational agents with the same priors and whose posteriors or common knowledge cannot agree to disagree.
也就是说，具有相同先验且其后验或共同知识的理性主体不能同意不同意见。
Those assumptions are seldom satisfied, but if they are satisfied, then yes.
这些假设很少被满足，但如果它们被满足，那么是的。
How does that actually manifest itself in some real-world situation?
在现实世界的某些情况下，这实际上是如何体现的？
I don’t know if it was Aumann himself, it may have been, I think, Geanakoplos, who pointed out the corollary of Aumann’s theorem, which sounds totally counterintuitive, even crazy, is that rational agents should not engage in speculative trade.
我不知道是不是奥曼本人，我认为可能是吉纳科普洛斯，他指出了奥曼定理的推论，这听起来完全违反直觉，甚至疯狂，那就是理性主体不应该从事投机交易。
That is, buying a stock in the expectation that you know that its value will rise and you can sell it at a profit.
也就是说，购买股票时预期您知道它的价值会上涨，并且您可以出售它以获利。
This is exactly what all the investment analysts tell me.
这正是所有投资分析师告诉我的。
Don’t try to time the market, don’t try to outguess other investors, just buy an index fund and be content to share in the overall appreciation of the market.
不要试图把握市场时机，不要试图猜透其他投资者，只需购买指数基金并满足于分享市场的整体升值。
That’s a corollary of Aumann’s agree to disagree theorem based on the similar intuition, namely since prices are common knowledge, at least in a large public market, if you have insider information that changes the assumption.
这是奥曼同意不同意定理基于类似直觉的推论，即因为价格是常识，至少在大型公共市场上，如果你有改变假设的内幕信息。
But since prices are common knowledge, any hint that you have that some company is coming out with an insanely great gadget or there’s going to be a pent-up demand for this or that is almost certainly already reflected in the price.
但由于价格是众所周知的，所以任何暗示某家公司正在推出一款非常出色的小玩意的暗示，或者对此或那个的需求将被压抑，几乎肯定已经反映在价格中。
You can’t reasonably expect to make a greater profit by speculating on private information.
您无法合理地期望通过猜测私人信息来获得更大的利润。
Am I your epistemic peer when it comes to chocolate?
说到巧克力，我是你的认知同行吗？
I’ve probably eaten a lot more of it than you have.
我吃的可能比你多得多。
I’ve had it in more countries.
我在更多国家都吃过。
I’ve written a book on food.
我写了一本关于食物的书。
If I tell you chocolate is good and you shouldn’t dislike it, should you disagree with me?
如果我告诉你巧克力很好而且你不应该不喜欢它，你应该不同意我的观点吗？
Will you, in fact, just agree with me?
事实上，你会同意我的观点吗？
I won’t.
我不会。
I’m one of those freaks who just does not enjoy the taste of chocolate.
我是那些不喜欢巧克力味道的怪人之一。
Oh, that’s fine, but you can agree you should enjoy the taste of chocolate.
哦，那很好，但是你可以同意你应该享受巧克力的味道。
That I ought to.
我应该这样做。
You ought to.
你应该这样做。
That’s right.
这是正确的。
Yes.
是的。
I ought to.
我应该这样做。
If I had the same constitutional makeup as you, then perhaps.
如果我有和你一样的体质，也许会。
This is a case where the epistemic peers don’t share priors.
这是认知同行不共享先验的情况。
I don’t know if you could talk about the prior probability of a preference, but when it comes to just the brute force gut feeling, look, I just don’t like chocolate, that would be a case where it isn’t irrational to not share those priors.
我不知道你是否可以谈论偏好的先验概率，但是当谈到暴力直觉时，看，我只是不喜欢巧克力，在这种情况下，不分享这些先验并不是不合理的。
That’s the way I’m wired, and I just don’t like it.
这就是我的行事方式，但我就是不喜欢这样。
I don’t like most ballet, but I admit I ought to.
我不喜欢大多数芭蕾舞，但我承认我应该喜欢。
I just don’t have the time to learn enough to appreciate it.
我只是没有时间去学习足够的知识来欣赏它。
Take Alfred Hitchcock.
以阿尔弗雷德·希区柯克为例。
I would say North by Northwest, while a fine film, is really considerably below Rear Window and Vertigo.
我想说，《西北偏北》虽然是一部好电影，但确实比《后窗》和《迷魂记》低得多。
Will you agree with me on that?
你同意我的观点吗？
I don’t agree with you on that.
我不同意你的观点。
Or you think I’m not your epistemic peer on Hitchcock films?
或者你认为我不是你对希区柯克电影的认知同行？
Your preferences are presumably different from beliefs.
您的偏好可能与信念不同。
No. Quality relative to constructed standards of the canon.
不。相对于佳能构建标准的质量。
Oh.
哦。
That is, the criteria exist external to both of us.
也就是说，标准存在于我们双方之外。
We both agree that they’re reasonable.
我们都同意他们是合理的。
We agree that the criteria are reasonable.
我们同意这些标准是合理的。
We agree on everything that went on in both movies.
我们对两部电影中发生的一切都达成共识。
Then we share our assessments.
然后我们分享我们的评估。
I put Rear Window at a 0.7, you put it at a 0.4.
我将“后窗”设置为 0.7，您将其设置为 0.4。
Is one of us irrational?
我们中的一个人是非理性的吗？
Maybe.
或许。
You’re going to budge now, and you’re going to agree that I’m right.
你现在要让步了，你会同意我是对的。
We’re not doing too well on this Aumann thing, are we?
我们在奥曼这件事上做得不太好，是吗？
We aren’t.
我们不是。
Because I’m going to insist North by Northwest, again, while a very good movie is clearly below the other two.
因为我会再次坚持《西北偏北》，而一部非常好的电影显然低于其他两部电影。
You’re going to insist, yes.
你会坚持，是的。
I’m going to insist, and I thought that you might not agree with this, but I’m still convinced that if we had enough time, I could convince you.
我会坚持，我想你可能不同意这一点，但我仍然相信，如果我们有足够的时间，我可以说服你。
Hearing that from me, you should accede to the judgment.
听我这么说，你应该接受这个判决。
I should.
我应该。
No, that is right.
不，是这样。
Oh, okay, I’m open, but crucially, there can be no element of just raw subjective preference.
哦，好吧，我很开放，但最重要的是，不能有纯粹的主观偏好因素。
It has to be, does it meet the criteria of, I don’t know, the majority of Rotten Tomatoes or Roger Ebert and Pauline Kael and a panel of their peers?
它必须是，它是否符合（我不知道）大多数烂番茄或罗杰·艾伯特和波林·凯尔以及他们的同行小组的标准？
Yes, if that existed, then I’d be open.
是的，如果存在的话，那么我会持开放态度。
I’d say, “Well, I don’t agree with Pauline Kael’s criteria, but who am I?”
我会说，“好吧，我不同意宝琳·凯尔的标准，但我是谁？”
You’re not open on chocolate?
你不喜欢吃巧克力吗？
Again, if it’s a matter of just, “Do you like the taste?” there, there’s de gustibus non est disputandum.
再说一次，如果只是问“你喜欢这个味道吗？”那里有“de gustibus non est disputandum”。
When it comes to just preferences, I don’t think that priors apply or are even meaningful.
当涉及到偏好时，我认为先验并不适用，甚至没有意义。
Say I had that gene where cilantro, to me, tasted like soap.
假设我有这样的基因，对我来说，香菜尝起来像肥皂。
I don’t, but if I did, I would admit, “Well, it’s really wonderful.
我不喜欢，但如果我喜欢，我会承认，“嗯，这真的很棒。
I just have this disability,” and you have the chocolate disability.
我只是有这种残疾，”而你有巧克力残疾。
Yes.
是的。
If you reframed it as a descriptive statement about other people’s tastes, then it’s just a question of asking them.
如果你将其重新定义为关于其他人品味的描述性陈述，那么这只是询问他们的问题。
If it’s a question of what is better, better means I would choose it.
如果是哪个更好的问题，更好意味着我会选择它。
There, it seems to me that priors don’t apply, that it’s not a question of a descriptive belief, but there, you really can have your own tastes.
在我看来，先验并不适用，这不是描述性信念的问题，但在那里，你确实可以有自己的品味。
What’s the best Bob Dylan album?
鲍勃·迪伦最好的专辑是什么？
Let’s see.
让我们来看看。
I would say Highway 61.
我会说61号高速公路。
I think I’d say Bringing It All Back Home, Blood on the Tracks, and Highway 61 is number three.
我想我会说《Bringing It All Back Home》、《Blood on the Tracks》和《61 号公路》是第三名。
They’re close.
他们很接近。
What about Blonde on Blonde?
金发女郎对金发女郎怎么样？
Fourth.
第四。
Really?
真的吗？
It’s a little too long.
有点太长了。
True.
真的。
Some of the songs are a little harsh in terms of the sound engineering, I find, but it’s very, very good, right?
我发现有些歌曲在声音工程方面有点苛刻，但它非常非常好，对吧？
Yes.
是的。
Not to mention that in all of the songs, there are some lyrics that are rather misogynistic by today’s contemporary standards, but somehow he gets away with it even retroactively.
更不用说在所有歌曲中，有一些歌词以今天的当代标准来看是相当厌恶女性的，但不知何故，即使追溯起来，他也逃脱了惩罚。
On fading liberal enlightenment
论自由主义启蒙运动的衰落
Is the liberal enlightenment gone forever?
自由主义启蒙运动一去不复返了吗？
I sure hope not.
我当然希望不会。
What do you think?
你怎么认为？
Betting odds, it seems to me what we used to think of it is gone forever.
投注赔率，在我看来，我们以前对它的看法似乎已经一去不复返了。
We may salvage some parts of it for the new thing that will be, whatever that is.
我们可能会抢救其中的某些部分，以用于即将出现的新事物，无论那是什么。
I guess I’ll say not gone forever, but certainly in retreat.
我想我会说不会永远消失，但肯定是在撤退。
Why not gone forever?
为什么不永远消失？
Because it’s got some built-in advantages.
因为它有一些固有的优势。
One of them is a reference for science, which is the truth is what refuses to go away when you stop believing in it.
其中之一是科学的参考，即当你不再相信它时，真理就不会消失。
Any method that is optimized for finding the truth has just that built-in advantage.
任何为寻找真相而优化的方法都具有这种内在的优势。
It can be repressed.
它可以被压制。
There can be censorship.
可能存在审查制度。
There can be irrationality.
可能存在非理性。
In general, something that finds the truth, it’s got that going for it, and universalism, namely that if liberal enlightenment depends on universal human rights, the maximization of human interests, the fact that we’re ultimately birds of a feather, we all want to be alive rather than dead, that there is something logically incoherent in saying, “I deserve rights because I’m me and you don’t because you’re not me.” I can impose that by brute force, but to the extent that we all have to agree on something, we’re not going to agree on me being imperial leader.
总的来说，找到真理的东西就一定会实现，还有普世主义，也就是说，如果自由主义启蒙依赖于普世人权、人类利益的最大化、我们最终都是同类的事实，我们都想活着而不是死，那么说“我应该享有权利，因为我是我，而你不应该享有权利，因为你不是我”，这在逻辑上是不连贯的。我可以用蛮力强加这一点，但如果我们都必须就某些事情达成一致，我们就不会同意我成为帝国领袖。
Now, they aren’t guaranteed to succeed because there is brute force and infirmities in human psychology and cognition, and mob effects and all the rest, nor is liberal enlightenment defenseless.
现在，他们并不能保证成功，因为人类心理和认知中存在暴力和弱点，以及暴民效应和其他所有因素，自由主义启蒙运动也并非毫无防备。
I don’t believe in historical momentum.
我不相信历史动力。
I think that’s mystical, but there are some things that do look, if not irreversible, to have an awful lot of historical momentum.
我认为这很神秘，但有些事情看起来确实具有巨大的历史动力，即使不是不可逆转。
Like human sacrifice.
就像活人祭祀一样。
All the ancient civilizations did it.
所有的古代文明都这么做了。
Now it’s gone.
现在它消失了。
I don’t think it’s coming back.
我不认为它会回来。
Why?
为什么？
A combination of we’ve got enough knowledge about cause and effect to know that throwing a virgin into the volcano will not, in fact, bring good weather or make a plague go away.
我们对因果关系有足够的了解，知道将处女扔进火山实际上不会带来好天气或消除瘟疫。
Some degree of empathy for the average person, so that we don’t want to cut the beating heart out of someone’s chest, on average.
对普通人有一定程度的同理心，因此我们不想从平均水平上切掉某人胸口跳动的心脏。
Likewise, slavery, it exists clandestinely, but we don’t have any legal slavery anymore.
同样，奴隶制是秘密存在的，但我们不再有任何合法的奴隶制。
In Mauritania, don’t we?
在毛里塔尼亚，不是吗？
Don’t we have more slaves in the world today than we did way back when, by some counts?
从某些方面来看，当今世界上的奴隶不是比以前还要多吗？
Not as a proportion of the world’s population.
不是占世界人口的比例。
Sure, but maybe it’s the absolute number that matters.
当然可以，但也许绝对数字才是最重要的。
If you said to a slave, “Don’t worry, you’re only one-tenth of a thousandth of the world’s population,” it wouldn’t be that much of a consolation.
如果你对一个奴隶说：“别担心，你只是世界人口的千分之一”，这不会带来多大的安慰。
No, but if you said to a randomly selected person, “Almost certainly you’re not going to be a slave,” then that does matter.
不，但如果你对一个随机选择的人说，“几乎可以肯定你不会成为奴隶”，那么这确实很重要。
From behind a veil of ignorance, if an average person has some likelihood of being a slave, and that’s way down, then that matters.
在无知的面纱后面，如果一个普通人有可能成为奴隶，而且这种可能性很低，那么这很重要。
In any case, legal slavery, that is enforceable by the state and carried out in open slave markets, no longer exists.
无论如何，由国家强制执行并在公开奴隶市场上进行的合法奴隶制已不复存在。
Will it come back?
它会回来吗？
I think probably not.
我想可能不会。
There are other things where it’s not inexorable, it’s not monotonic, but it certainly seems to have a direction.
还有其他一些事情不是无情的，也不是单调的，但它似乎确实有一个方向。
That doesn’t guarantee that it continues because there is no such thing as literal momentum, but it does indicate that as there are greater means of exchanging information, as there are wider and wider pools of people exchanging information and having to agree on common interests, there is some force, some vector.
这并不能保证它会继续下去，因为不存在所谓的字面动力，但它确实表明，随着交换信息的手段越来越多，随着交换信息并必须就共同利益达成一致的人越来越多，就会有某种力量、某种向量。
Now, again, I don’t want to say it’s going to win, just that it exists.
现在，我再说一次，我不想说它会赢，只是说它存在。
It’s not that liberal enlightenment, I think, is gone forever.
我认为，这并不是说自由主义启蒙运动已经永远消失了。
It isn’t even gone.
它甚至还没有消失。
More countries are democratic than not, even though if it’s fewer than it was 20 years ago.
民主国家多于非民主国家，尽管数量比 20 年前要少。
Liberal democracy is on its heels.
自由民主制紧随其后。
There is some retreat, but we’re still better off than we were in the ’90s, the ’80s, the ’70s, the ’60s, the ’50s in terms of liberal democracy.
虽然有一些退步，但就自由民主而言，我们仍然比 90 年代、80 年代、70 年代、60 年代、50 年代更好。
I don’t think it’s gone forever.
我不认为它会永远消失。
I think my view would be science will do fine, but even the Enlightenment proper did not have universalism to begin with.
我认为我的观点是科学会做得很好，但即使是启蒙运动本身也没有普遍主义。
The future for universalism, to me, looks quite grim.
对我来说，普世主义的未来看起来相当严峻。
I think we will have a steady stream of low-level conflict across major powers.
我认为大国之间将会发生源源不断的低级别冲突。
China does all these cyberattacks on us.
中国对我们进行所有这些网络攻击。
They would have been acts of war way back when, and we just put up with it.
很久以前，这些都是战争行为，而我们只是忍受了。
Russia sabotages EU infrastructure.
俄罗斯破坏欧盟基础设施。
That might have been an act of war way back when.
这可能是很久以前的战争行为。
We just put up with it.
我们只是忍受了。
We’ll just be creeping up, up, up that threshold, not to nuclear war, but we’ll get as close as we can get without deterrence really having to kick in.
我们只会慢慢地爬上、爬上、爬上那个门槛，而不是核战争，但我们会尽可能接近核战争，而无需真正发挥威慑作用。
The world will just be more violent and have more conflict.
世界只会更加暴力、更多冲突。
Why is that wrong?
为什么这是错误的？
I think that’s interesting because, as you say, it doesn’t result in war, and war would be much worse.
我认为这很有趣，因为正如你所说，它不会导致战争，而且战争会更糟。
The invasion of Ukraine, rewinding the clock 100 years, that could have been like the assassination of the archduke in Sarajevo.
入侵乌克兰，让时钟倒转100年，就像萨拉热窝大公被刺杀一样。
It could have been that NATO decided to go all in, and something like World War I or even worse could have happened.
北约可能决定全力以赴，而像第一次世界大战甚至更糟糕的事情可能会发生。
As awful as Ukraine is, and that is awful, it’s not as bad as World War I.
尽管乌克兰很糟糕，而且很糟糕，但它并不像第一次世界大战那么糟糕。
If these cyberattacks, these insults, because of a norm threatened by Putin, no doubt, and by Xi, that you don’t invade your neighbors, you don’t try to rearrange borders by force, we haven’t had another world war.
如果这些网络攻击、这些侮辱是因为普京（毫无疑问）和习近平威胁的一项规范，即你不入侵你的邻居，你不试图用武力重新安排边界，我们就不会再发生另一场世界大战。
If what you said is correct, things could suck, but still, they could suck much worse if we had a world war.
如果你说的是正确的，事情可能会很糟糕，但如果我们爆发世界大战，情况可能会更糟。
I think it is less likely than it was 100 years ago.
我认为与 100 年前相比，这种可能性较小。
If you had to model in as fundamental and abstract a set of terms as possible, not relying on the names of individuals very much, why liberal enlightenment is in retreat today, what does your model look like?
如果你必须用尽可能基本和抽象的一组术语来建模，而不是太依赖个人的名字，那么为什么今天自由主义启蒙运动正在退却，你的模型是什么样的？
I think the most basic answer is that liberal enlightenment is not particularly intuitive.
我认为最基本的答案是自由主义启蒙运动并不是特别直观。
It doesn’t really fit our human nature in the sense of our conception of how our societies ought to be organized.
从我们对社会应该如何组织的观念来看，它并不真正符合我们的人性。
What’s much more natural is tribalism, deference to authority, conformity.
更自然的是部落主义、对权威的尊重、从众。
I think liberal enlightenment is a great idea.
我认为自由主义启蒙是一个好主意。
It’s like a lot of counterintuitive discoveries of organized rationality.
这就像许多有组织理性的反直觉发现。
It is commendable, even if not intuitive.
这是值得称赞的，即使不直观。
I think there’s a natural backsliding.
我认为这是一种自然的倒退。
Unless it’s constantly propped up, people are going to say, “Well, the solution to our problem is we need a strong leader.”
除非它得到不断的支持，否则人们会说：“好吧，解决我们问题的方法是我们需要一个强有力的领导者。”
What is a strong leader?
什么是强有力的领导者？
Once he’s a leader, he gets to say what’s what.
一旦他成为领导者，他就可以说什么就是什么。
The idea that a leader just temporarily presides and is bound by fiduciary duties laid out with checks and balances and safeguards, it’s a fabulous idea.
领导人只是暂时主持并受到制衡和保障措施规定的信托义务的约束，这是一个绝妙的想法。
It’s not particularly intuitive, in the same way that markets are not particularly intuitive, in the same way that science is not particularly intuitive, but they’re still good things.
它不是特别直观，就像市场不是特别直观一样，就像科学也不是特别直观一样，但它们仍然是好东西。
It’s natural to think, why do people have superstition, belief in paranormal, belief in woo-woo?
人们很自然地会想，为什么人们会迷信、相信超自然现象、相信“呜呜”？
Why do they not grasp certain economic fundamentals, like trade is good, it’s not zero-sum?
为什么他们不掌握某些经济基本原理，比如贸易是好的，它不是零和的？
Why is congestion pricing in Uber rational, even though people hate it?
为什么 Uber 的拥堵定价是合理的，尽管人们讨厌它？
There are probably a lot of cases where people, just left to their own devices, backslide away from liberal enlightenment principles.
在很多情况下，人们可能会因为自己的想法而背离自由主义启蒙原则。
Do you think we have stirring liberal thinkers of today who are younger than 55 years old?
您认为我们今天有 55 岁以下的激动人心的自由主义思想家吗？
Not stirring enough.
搅拌不够。
I think we do have such thinkers.
我想我们确实有这样的思想家。
Oh, Derek Thompson, Maarten Boudry, Cathy Young.
哦，德里克·汤普森、马丁·布德里、凯茜·杨。
Although I guess I haven’t kept track of her age.
虽然我想我没有统计过她的年龄。
She’s younger than 70.
她还不到70岁。
Good.
很好。
Yes, there are young people.
是的，有年轻人。
I don’t know.
我不知道。
Ezra Klein.
埃兹拉·克莱因.
I’m talking now about journalists.
我现在谈论的是记者。
If you go into academia, there would probably be even more.
如果你进入学术界，可能会更多。
There are other people that I think our audience may not have heard of that are in my email correspondence.
我认为我们的观众可能没有听说过我的电子邮件通信中的其他人。
Are they stirring enough?
它们搅拌得足够吗？
Are they like whatever Slavoj Žižek has?
它们就像斯拉沃热·齐泽克所拥有的那样吗？
Do they have it?
他们有吗？
Probably not.
可能不会。
Although that might be an inherent problem in that influence by charisma goes against the whole idea of liberal enlightenment, where it ought to just be the quality of the content of your ideas, not who looks more dashing in a scarf.
尽管这可能是一个固有的问题，因为魅力的影响与自由主义启蒙的整个理念背道而驰，它应该只是你的想法内容的质量，而不是谁戴着围巾看起来更潇洒。
Liberal enlightenment is at a disadvantage in that regard, in that it oughtn’t to rely on charismatic thought leaders.
自由主义启蒙运动在这方面处于劣势，因为它不应该依赖有魅力的思想领袖。
How much of a liberal was Napoleon?
拿破仑到底有多自由主义？
Not.
不是。
Wait, no, let me back up there.
等等，不，让我回到那里。
Wasn’t he quite a liberal?
他不是一个很自由的人吗？
He just loved war too much, and he was an egomaniac, and he wanted to take over other countries, and that killed millions, but wasn’t a lot of his program quite liberal?
他只是太喜欢战争了，他是一个自大狂，他想接管其他国家，这导致数百万人死亡，但他的很多计划不是很自由吗？
No, you’re right.
不，你是对的。
There were certain rethinking institutions and laws introducing rational things like the metric system.
某些重新思考的制度和法律引入了公制等理性事物。
It could be that his own malignant narcissism subverted the liberal parts of him.
可能是他自己的恶性自恋颠覆了他的自由主义部分。
On grading Harvard students
关于哈佛学生的评分
Doesn’t everyone at Harvard deserve an A- or an A?
哈佛的每个人不都应该得到 A- 或 A 吗？
They made it into Harvard, right?
他们进入了哈佛，对吗？
Same with Stanford.
斯坦福也一样。
Yes.
是的。
I actually have data on this because that’s what our dean told us, not with a whole lot of conviction, when we had a meeting about grade inflation.
我实际上有这方面的数据，因为这是我们的院长在我们召开关于成绩通胀的会议时告诉我们的，但并没有太多说服力。
She said, “Well, we like to think of it as grade compression.
她说：“嗯，我们喜欢将其视为成绩压缩。
Maybe students are just getting better and better and better.” I just know that that’s not true because I have records from performance on my multiple-choice test in my intro psych course, which I’ve taught for more than 20 years.
也许学生们正在变得越来越好。”我只知道这不是真的，因为我有我的心理学入门课程多项选择测试的表现记录，我已经教授了这门课程 20 多年。
It’s pretty constant year to year, there’s no subjective sliding grade, and the performance has gone down.
每年的情况都相当稳定，没有主观的滑动等级，并且性能有所下降。
Students are not doing as well as they used to.
学生们的表现不如以前了。
I’ve been forced, just so as not to drive away all my students, to inflate my grades.
为了不赶走我所有的学生，我被迫夸大了我的成绩。
I give way more A’s than I used to, just so I don’t have an empty lecture hall.
我比以前给了更多的A，这样我的演讲厅就不会空了。
It’s not because the students are getting better and better.
这并不是因为学生越来越好。
We know that a lot of Harvard students are admitted on nonmeritocratic criteria.
我们知道，很多哈佛学生是按照非精英标准录取的。
Forget about the whole hot button of racial preferences, but legacies, athletics, social action, they sorted clothes for the homeless, they circulated a petition, they hung out with artists in an artist’s colony.
忘记种族偏好的整个热点问题，但遗产、体育、社会行动，他们为无家可归者分类衣服，他们分发请愿书，他们在艺术家的殖民地与艺术家一起闲逛。
Harvard does not admit students on meritocratic grounds.
哈佛不以精英为由录取学生。
If you’re the boss, what would the median grade at Harvard be?
如果你是老板，哈佛的平均成绩是多少？
Median grade?
中位等级？
Median grade, yes.
中位数，是的。
Let’s see.
让我们来看看。
B-.
B-。
How many students at Harvard, what percent do you think essentially deserve A- or A?
您认为哈佛有多少学生基本上值得 A- 或 A？
They’re just very smart, they work hard, they’re great, maybe Harvard classes are harder, but they just ought to have good grades because they’re wonderful?
他们只是非常聪明，他们努力工作，他们很棒，也许哈佛课程更难，但他们应该有好成绩，因为他们很棒？
A quarter, 25%?
四分之一、25%？
Only a quarter?
只有四分之一？
I’d be shocked if it’s only a quarter.
如果只有四分之一，我会感到震惊。
Your admissions department must be terrible then.
那你们的招生部门一定很糟糕。
It is terrible.
太可怕了。
I’ve argued that as much.
我已经论证过这一点。
They use holistic criteria, which is mumbo-jumbo.
他们使用整体标准，这是胡言乱语。
It’s mysticism.
这是神秘主义。
The reason I say that is I think I’m a pretty good lecturer.
我这么说的原因是我认为我是一位非常好的讲师。
Everyone thinks they’re a good lecturer.
每个人都认为自己是一位好讲师。
No, I don’t doubt that.
不，我对此毫不怀疑。
I’m sure you are.
我确信你是。
My lecture hall is two weeks into the semester or three weeks into the semester, it’s half empty.
我的演讲厅在学期开始两周或三周后，一半是空的。
Anyone whose fanny is not in that seat, I think, does not deserve an A because it’s not asking a lot.
我认为，任何一个没有坐在那个座位上的人，都不应该得到 A，因为它要求的并不多。
It’s less than three hours a week, and they get to hear me.
每周不到三个小时，他们就能听到我的声音。
I don’t think I have a big ego, but people in the real world actually pay money for tickets to my events.
我不认为我有很大的自负，但现实世界中的人们实际上会花钱购买我的活动门票。
For Harvard students, it’s already paid.
对于哈佛学生来说，费用已经支付了。
They still stay away because they have more important things to do, like pulling an oar or singing in an acapella group.
他们仍然远离，因为他们有更重要的事情要做，比如划桨或在无伴奏合唱团中唱歌。
Do they deserve an A?
他们应该得到 A 吗？
I frankly think they don’t.
坦率地说，我认为他们没有。
My lecture hall is two weeks into the semester or three weeks into the semester, it’s half empty.
我的演讲厅在学期开始两周或三周后，一半是空的。
Anyone whose fanny is not in that seat, I think, does not deserve an A because it’s not asking a lot.
我认为，任何一个没有坐在那个座位上的人，都不应该得到 A，因为它要求的并不多。
It’s less than three hours a week, and they get to hear me.
每周不到三个小时，他们就能听到我的声音。
I don’t think I have a big ego, but people in the real world actually pay money for tickets to my events.
我不认为我有很大的自负，但现实世界中的人们实际上会花钱购买我的活动门票。
For Harvard students, it’s already paid.
对于哈佛学生来说，费用已经支付了。
They still stay away because they have more important things to do, like pulling an oar or singing in an acapella group.
他们仍然远离，因为他们有更重要的事情要做，比如划桨或在无伴奏合唱团中唱歌。
Do they deserve an A?
他们应该得到 A 吗？
I frankly think they don’t.
坦率地说，我认为他们没有。
On linguistics vs LLMs
关于语言学与法学硕士
Are you discouraged that linguistics has had so little impact on current large language models?
您是否因为语言学对当前大型语言模型的影响如此之小而感到沮丧？
Yes, I am.
我是。
I don’t know whether it’s that linguists themselves have not made themselves useful enough, have not been part of the conversation, or the cynical view is linguistics has just been on the wrong track and it has nothing to contribute.
我不知道是否是语言学家本身没有让自己变得足够有用，没有参与对话，或者愤世嫉俗的观点认为语言学只是走在错误的道路上，没有任何贡献。
I tend to think more of the former.
我倾向于更多地考虑前者。
There are some features in large language models that actually implicitly build in some of the insight of linguistics.
大型语言模型中的一些特征实际上隐含地建立在语言学的一些见解中。
The fact that you’ve got all of these hidden layers is an acknowledgment that the regularities in language and the regularities in thought that language expresses are abstractions.
拥有所有这些隐藏层的事实表明，语言的规律性和语言表达的思想的规律性都是抽象的。
They’re not triggered by individual words, but they’re patterns and patterns and patterns, groupings, and larger and larger groupings.
它们不是由单个单词触发的，而是模式、模式、模式、分组以及越来越大的分组。
The fact that one of the breakthroughs in this generation of large language models is what I call attention heads, which are basically processors that look at temporally separated words in search of regularities, as opposed to adjacent ones.
事实上，这一代大型语言模型的突破之一就是我所说的注意力头，它基本上是一种处理器，可以查看时间上分离的单词以寻找规律性，而不是相邻的单词。
The fact that they’re not trained on the words themselves, but on tokens that correspond to more or less to morphemes.
事实上，他们不是接受单词本身的训练，而是接受或多或少对应于语素的标记。
The fact that they’re trained on embeddings, which is not, again, not the words themselves, but some backhanded indirect representation of meaning.
事实上，他们接受了嵌入训练，这又不是单词本身，而是某种间接的意义表示。
In that case, the context that a word typically occurs in.
在这种情况下，单词通常出现的上下文。
There are a lot of discoveries of linguistics that are implicitly built in, but linguistic theory in the sense of what you see in a journal like Linguistic Inquiry, don’t have direct counterparts.
语言学有很多发现是隐含的，但从你在《语言探究》这样的期刊中看到的意义上来说，语言理论并没有直接的对应物。
Maybe they wouldn’t need all of those gigawatts and all of those GPUs if they were able to cut to the chase quicker by building in linguistic insights.
如果他们能够通过建立语言洞察力更快地切入正题，也许他们就不需要所有这些千兆瓦和所有这些 GPU。
My hunch is yes, but the models are so complex that I can’t say for sure.
我的预感是肯定的，但模型太复杂了，我无法确定。
Does it favor Chomsky?
它有利于乔姆斯基吗？
Does it favor the view that language is simpler than we thought?
它是否支持“语言比我们想象的更简单”这一观点？
Where does it push your intuitions?
它在哪里推动你的直觉？
It has changed my intuitions that these models are capable of more than I would have guessed that they’re capable of, given how they’re built, but that may show that my intuitions break down when it comes to billions, tens of billions, hundreds of billions of parameters, 90 hidden layers, training that would be the equivalent of 30,000 years if a child was listening to it.
它改变了我的直觉，即这些模型的能力比我想象的要多，考虑到它们的构建方式，但这可能表明，当涉及到数十亿、数百亿、数千亿参数、90 个隐藏层、如果一个孩子听的话，训练相当于 30,000 年的训练时，我的直觉就会崩溃。
My intuitions may be useless of what you can accomplish at those scales, which leads to an ignorance of all of us so far until we probe the models to find out what’s in the black box and what’s responsible for their intelligence.
我的直觉可能对你在这些规模上能完成的事情毫无用处，这导致我们所有人迄今为止都一无所知，直到我们探索模型以找出黑匣子中的内容以及它们的智能的原因。
Does it mean that the linguists and cognitive psychologists were wrong all along in saying that you need rules, algorithms, propositions, mental models?
这是否意味着语言学家和认知心理学家所说的“需要规则、算法、命题、心智模型”一直都是错误的？
That it’s all just massive statistical patterns, or is the discrepancy between the fact you have to train these models with the equivalent of 30,000 years and a human child can speak in two years, say that it’s almost a coincidence that they’re as capable as they are?
这一切都只是大量的统计模式，或者说你必须用相当于 30,000 年的时间来训练这些模型，而人类儿童在两年内就能说话，这之间的差异，说他们有如此能力几乎是巧合吗？
They’re capitalizing on all this input that we humans have put out there, and that they’re doing something human-like in a very different manner than the human brain.
他们正在利用我们人类提供的所有这些输入，并且他们正在以与人类大脑非常不同的方式做类似人类的事情。
I tend to think the latter, and the fact that they are so vulnerable to confabulation, hallucination, blends, as my former student, Gary Marcus, insistently points out, is a hint that they’re doing things in a different way than the human brain is doing things.
我倾向于认为后者，事实上，正如我以前的学生加里·马库斯坚持指出的那样，它们如此容易受到虚构、幻觉、混合的影响，这暗示着它们做事的方式与人脑做事的方式不同。
How long do you think it will be before they can write a poem, say, as good as the median poem by Pablo Neruda?
你认为他们需要多长时间才能写出一首诗，比如说，像巴勃罗·聂鲁达的中位诗一样好？
The thing is that the fact that Pablo Neruda didn’t write it itself goes into our assessment of how good a poem it is.
事实是，这首诗不是巴勃罗·聂鲁达本人写的，这一事实影响了我们对这首诗的评价。
A blind taste test, right?
盲品测试，对吗？
Yes, a blind taste test.
是的，盲品测试。
I don’t know.
我不知道。
They’re already better at doing things, probably like composing limericks or higgledy-piggledies on the fly.
他们已经更擅长做事了，可能比如即时创作打油诗或杂乱的小曲。
They’re not great literary quality, but they are often very stringent formal criteria.
它们并不是很高的文学品质，但它们往往是非常严格的正式标准。
They’re remarkably good at that.
他们非常擅长这一点。
Again, going back to the North by Northwest versus Rear Window, what goes into assessment of quality, and to what extent is there such a thing as objective quality of works of art?
再次回到《西北偏北》与《后窗》，质量评估涉及哪些内容？艺术作品的客观质量在多大程度上存在？
I tend to think that our assessment of a work of art isn’t completely extricable from our knowledge of its provenance, which is why a fake da Vinci, an imitation da Vinci, is just not the same as a real da Vinci in terms of the experience, in terms of any judgment.
我倾向于认为，我们对一件艺术品的评估并不完全脱离我们对其出处的了解，这就是为什么赝品达芬奇、仿达芬奇在体验、任何判断方面都与真正的达芬奇不同。
How it’s produced goes into our assessment of what kind of work of art it is.
它的制作方式影响到我们对它是什么样的艺术作品的评估。
Before my last two questions, let me just plug your book again.
在我提出最后两个问题之前，让我再次插入您的书。
It is called When Everyone Knows That Everyone Knows .
它被称为“当每个人都知道时”。
.
。
.
。
The dots are important.
点很重要。
The subtitle is Common Knowledge and the Mysteries of Power, Money, and Everyday Life.
副标题是《常识与权力、金钱和日常生活的奥秘》。
A fascinating read.
一本令人着迷的读物。
Last two questions.
最后两个问题。
First, what’s your favorite song on Rubber Soul?
首先，您最喜欢 Rubber Soul 中的哪首歌？
Mine is “You Won’t See Me.” I’ll announce in advance, but I know it won’t change what you say.
我的歌是《你不会看到我》。我会提前宣布，但我知道这不会改变你所说的。
I really like that song.
我真的很喜欢那首歌。
I think “I’ve Just Seen a Face.”
我想“我刚刚看到了一张脸”。
It’s a good pick.
这是一个不错的选择。
I like the bluegrass rhythms behind it all.
我喜欢这一切背后的蓝草节奏。
Yes, and just the insistent rhythm and the piling up of line on line.
是的，就是坚持的节奏和线上线路的堆积。
Final question.
最后一个问题。
What will you do next?
接下来你会做什么？
Oh, one possibility is to revisit all the indicators of progress.
哦，一种可能性是重新审视所有进展指标。
What’s the report card on the world 10 years after I published Enlightenment Now?
我出版《当下的启蒙》10年后，世界的成绩单是怎样的？
What progress has continued?
持续取得哪些进展？
Where have we backtracked?
我们哪里退缩了？
In a sense, answer your question, what are the prospects for liberal enlightenment?
从某种意义上说，回答你的问题，自由主义启蒙的前景是什么？
Steven Pinker, thank you very much.
史蒂文·平克，非常感谢你。
Thanks so much, Tyler.
非常感谢，泰勒。
Always a pleasure.
总是一种乐趣。
This episode was made possible through the support of the John Templeton Foundation.
这一集是在约翰·邓普顿基金会的支持下得以实现的。