Dr. Jamil Zaki: How to Cultivate a Positive, Growth-Oriented Mindset
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Welcome to the Huberman Lab podcast, where we discuss science and science-based tools for everyday life.
欢迎来到休伯曼实验室播客，我们在这里讨论科学和基于科学的日常生活工具。
I'm Andrew Huberman, and I'm a professor of neurobiology and ophthalmology at Stanford School of Medicine.
我是安德鲁·胡伯曼，斯坦福大学医学院神经生物学和眼科教授。
My guest today is Dr. Jamil Zaki.
今天我的客人是贾米尔·扎基博士。
Dr. Jamil Zaki is a professor of psychology at Stanford University.
贾米尔·扎基博士是斯坦福大学心理学教授。
He is also the director of the Social Neuroscience Laboratory at Stanford.
他还是斯坦福大学社会神经科学实验室的主任。
His laboratory focuses on key aspects of the human experience, such as empathy and cynicism, which lie at the heart of our ability to learn and can be barriers to learning, such as the case with cynicism.
他的实验室专注于人类经验的关键方面，例如同理心和愤世嫉俗，它们是我们学习能力的核心，也可能成为学习的障碍，例如愤世嫉俗的情况。
Today, you'll learn the optimal mindsets to adopt when trying to understand how to learn, conflict resolution, and how to navigate relationships of all kinds and in all contexts, including personal relationships and in the workplace.
今天，您将学习在尝试了解如何学习、解决冲突以及如何在所有环境（包括个人关系和工作场所）中处理各种关系时应采用的最佳心态。
What sets Dr. Zaki's work apart from others is that he's able to take laboratory research and apply that to real-world scenarios to direct optimal strategies for things like how to set personal boundaries, how to learn information in uncertain and sometimes even uncomfortable environments, and then how to bring that to bear in terms of your relationship to yourself, your relationship to others, and how to collaborate with others in more effective ways.
扎基博士的工作与其他人的不同之处在于，他能够进行实验室研究并将其应用到现实世界的场景中，以指导最佳策略，例如如何设定个人界限，如何在不确定的、有时甚至不舒服的环境中学习信息，然后如何将其运用到你与自己的关系、与他人的关系以及如何以更有效的方式与他人合作等方面。
I want to be very clear that today's discussion, while focused on cynicism, trust, and empathy, is anything but squishy.
我想明确表示，今天的讨论虽然聚焦于愤世嫉俗、信任和同理心，但绝不是软弱的。
In fact, it focuses on experimental data derived from real-world contexts.
事实上，它侧重于从现实世界背景中得出的实验数据。
So it is both grounded in solid research and it is very practical, such that by the end of today's episode, you'll be armed with new knowledge about what cynicism is and is not, what empathy is and is not.
因此，它既基于扎实的研究，又非常实用，因此，在今天的节目结束时，您将获得关于什么是犬儒主义、什么不是犬儒主义、什么是同理心、什么不是同情心的新知识。
This is very important because there's a lot of confusion about these words and what they mean.
这非常重要，因为人们对这些词及其含义存在很多困惑。
But I can assure you that by the end of today's discussion, you will have new frameworks and indeed new tools, protocols that you can use as strategies to better navigate situations and relationships of all kinds, and indeed to learn better.
但我可以向您保证，在今天的讨论结束时，您将拥有新的框架，甚至新的工具、协议，您可以将它们用作策略，以更好地驾驭各种情况和关系，并确实更好地学习。
I'd also like to mention that Dr. Zaki has authored a terrific new book entitled "Hope for Cynics: The Surprising Science of Human Goodness," and I've read this book and it is spectacular.
我还想提一下，扎基博士写了一本很棒的新书，题为《愤世嫉俗者的希望：人类善良的令人惊讶的科学》，我读过这本书，它非常精彩。
There is a link to the book in the show note captions.
显示注释标题中有该书的链接。
Before we begin, I'd like to emphasize that this podcast is separate from my teaching and research roles at Stanford.
在开始之前，我想强调一下，这个播客与我在斯坦福大学的教学和研究角色是分开的。
It is, however, part of my desire and effort to bring zero cost to consumer information about science and science-related tools to the general public.
然而，我的愿望和努力的一部分是向公众提供有关科学和科学相关工具的零成本消费者信息。
In keeping with that theme, I'd like to thank the sponsors of today's podcast.
为了与这个主题保持一致，我要感谢今天播客的赞助商。
Our first sponsor is Maui Nui.
我们的第一个赞助商是毛伊努伊岛。
Maui Nui Venison is the most nutrient-dense and delicious red meat available.
毛伊努伊鹿肉是营养最丰富、最美味的红肉。
I've spoken before on this podcast about the fact that most of us should be seeking to get about one gram of quality protein per pound of body weight every day.
我之前在这个播客上谈到过这样一个事实：我们大多数人都应该寻求每天每磅体重摄入一克优质蛋白质。
That protein provides critical building blocks for things like muscle repair and synthesis, but also promotes overall health given the importance of muscle as an organ.
这种蛋白质为肌肉修复和合成等提供了关键的组成部分，而且考虑到肌肉作为器官的重要性，它还可以促进整体健康。
Eating enough quality protein each day is also a terrific way to stave off hunger.
每天吃足够的优质蛋白质也是消除饥饿的好方法。
One of the key things, however, is to make sure that you're getting enough quality protein without ingesting excess calories.
然而，关键的事情之一是确保您获得足够的优质蛋白质而不摄入过多的热量。
Maui Nui Venison has an extremely high-quality protein-to-calorie ratio, such that getting that one gram of protein per pound of body weight is both easy and doesn't cause you to ingest an excess amount of calories.
毛伊努伊鹿肉具有极高品质的蛋白质与卡路里比率，因此每磅体重获取一克蛋白质既容易又不会导致您摄入过量的卡路里。
Also, Maui Nui Venison is absolutely delicious.
另外，茂宜岛鹿肉绝对美味。
They have venison steaks, ground venison, and venison bone broth.
他们有鹿肉排、鹿肉末和鹿骨汤。
I personally like and eat all of those.
我个人喜欢并吃所有这些。
In fact, I probably eat a Maui Nui Venison burger pretty much every day, and occasionally I'll swap that for a Maui Nui steak.
事实上，我可能几乎每天都会吃毛伊努伊鹿肉汉堡，偶尔我会把它换成毛伊努伊牛排。
And if you're traveling a lot or simply on the go, they have a very convenient Maui Nui Venison jerky, which has 10 grams of quality protein per stick at just 55 calories.
如果您经常旅行或只是在旅途中，他们有一种非常方便的 Maui Nui 鹿肉干，每棒含有 10 克优质蛋白质，热量仅为 55 卡路里。
While Maui Nui offers the highest quality meat available, their supplies are limited.
虽然毛伊努伊岛提供最优质的肉类，但供应有限。
Responsible population management of the axis deer on the island of Maui means that they will not go beyond harvest capacity.
对毛伊岛上的轴鹿进行负责任的种群管理意味着它们不会超出收获能力。
Signing up for a membership is therefore the best way to ensure access to their high-quality meat.
因此，注册会员是确保获得高品质肉类的最佳方式。
If you'd like to try Maui Nui Venison, you can go to mauinuivenison.com/huberman to get 20% off your membership or first order.
如果您想尝试 Maui Nui 鹿肉，您可以访问 mauinuivenison.com/huberman 享受会员资格或首次订单 20% 的折扣。
Again, that's mauinuivenison.com/huberman.
同样，这是 mauinuivenison.com/huberman。
Today's episode is also brought to us by Joovv.
今天的节目也是Joovv给我们带来的。
Joovv makes medical-grade red light therapy devices.
Joovv 生产医疗级红光治疗设备。
Now, if there's one thing I've consistently emphasized on this podcast, it's the incredible impact that light can have on our biology.
现在，如果我在这个播客中一直强调一件事，那就是光对我们的生物学产生的令人难以置信的影响。
Now, in addition to sunlight, red light and near-infrared light have been shown to have positive effects on improving numerous aspects of cellular and organ health, including faster muscle recovery, improved skin health and wound healing, even improvements in acne, reducing pain and inflammation, improving mitochondrial function, and even improving vision itself.
现在，除了阳光之外，红光和近红外光已被证明对改善细胞和器官健康的许多方面具有积极作用，包括更快的肌肉恢复、改善皮肤健康和伤口愈合，甚至改善痤疮、减轻疼痛和炎症、改善线粒体功能，甚至改善视力本身。
What sets Joovv lights apart and why they're my preferred red light therapy devices is that they use clinically proven wavelengths, meaning it uses specific wavelengths of red light and near-infrared light in combination to trigger the optimal cellular adaptations.
Joovv 灯的与众不同之处以及它们成为我首选红光治疗设备的原因在于它们使用经过临床验证的波长，这意味着它结合使用特定波长的红光和近红外光来触发最佳的细胞适应。
Personally, I use the Joovv handheld light both at home and when I travel.
就我个人而言，我在家中和旅行时都会使用 Joovv 手持灯。
It's only about the size of a sandwich, so it's super portable and convenient to use.
它只有三明治大小，因此超级便携且使用方便。
I also have a Joovv whole body panel, and I use that about three or four times per week.
我还有一个 Joovv 全身面板，我每周大约使用三到四次。
If you'd like to try Joovv, you can go to Joovv, spelled J-O-O-V-V, .com/huberman.
如果您想尝试 Joovv，可以访问 Joovv，拼写为 J-O-O-V-V，.com/huberman。
Joovv is offering an exclusive discount to all Huberman Lab listeners with up to $400 off select Joovv products.
Joovv 向所有 Huberman Lab 听众提供独家折扣，精选 Joovv 产品最高可享受 400 美元的折扣。
Again, that's Joovv, J-O-O-V-V, .com/huberman to get $400 off select Joovv products.
同样，Joovv、J-O-O-V-V、.com/huberman 精选 Joovv 产品可享受 400 美元优惠。
Today's episode is also brought to us by Waking Up.
今天的节目也是由Wakeing Up为我们带来的。
Waking Up is a meditation app that offers hundreds of guided meditation programs, mindfulness trainings, yoga nidra sessions, and more.
Waking Up 是一款冥想应用程序，提供数百个引导冥想计划、正念训练、瑜伽休息课程等。
I started practicing meditation when I was about 15 years old, and it made a profound impact on my life.
我大约15岁的时候开始练习冥想，它对我的生活产生了深远的影响。
And by now, there are thousands of quality peer-reviewed studies that emphasize how useful mindfulness meditation can be for improving our focus, managing stress and anxiety, improving our mood, and much more.
到目前为止，已有数以千计的高质量同行评审研究强调正念冥想对于提高我们的注意力、管理压力和焦虑、改善我们的情绪等等有多么有用。
In recent years, I started using the Waking Up app for my meditations because I find it to be a terrific resource for allowing me to really be consistent with my meditation practice.
近年来，我开始使用“Waking Up”应用程序进行冥想，因为我发现它是一个很棒的资源，可以让我真正坚持我的冥想练习。
Many people start a meditation practice and experience some benefits, but many people also have challenges keeping up with that practice.
许多人开始冥想练习并体验到一些好处，但许多人也面临着跟上练习的挑战。
What I and so many other people love about the Waking Up app is that it has a lot of different meditations to choose from, and those meditations are of different durations.
我和许多其他人喜欢“醒来”应用程序的原因是它有很多不同的冥想可供选择，而且这些冥想的持续时间也不同。
So it makes it very easy to keep up with your meditation practice, both from the perspective of novelty, you never get tired of those meditations, there's always something new to explore and to learn about yourself and about the effectiveness of meditation, and you can always fit meditation into your schedule, even if you only have two or three minutes per day in which to meditate.
所以它让你很容易跟上你的冥想练习，无论是从新奇的角度来看，你永远不会厌倦这些冥想，总有一些新的东西可以探索和了解你自己以及冥想的有效性，而且你总是可以将冥想纳入你的日程安排，即使你每天只有两到三分钟的冥想时间。
I also really like doing Yoga Nidra, or what is sometimes called non-sleep deep rest, for about 10 or 20 minutes because it is a great way to restore mental and physical vigor without the tiredness that some people experience when they wake up from a conventional nap.
我也非常喜欢做约 10 或 20 分钟的瑜伽休息术，有时也被称为非睡眠深度休息，因为这是恢复精神和身体活力的好方法，而且不会像某些人从传统午睡中醒来时那样感到疲劳。
If you'd like to try the Waking Up app, please go to wakingup.com/huberman, where you can access a free 30-day trial.
如果您想尝试 Waking Up 应用程序，请访问 wakingup.com/huberman，在这里您可以免费试用 30 天。
Again, that's wakingup.com/huberman to access a free 30-day trial.
同样，访问 wakingup.com/huberman 即可获得 30 天免费试用。
And now for my discussion with Dr. Jamil Zaki.
现在我与贾米尔·扎基博士进行了讨论。
Dr. Jamil Zaki, welcome.
贾米尔·扎基博士，欢迎光临。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Thanks so much for having me.
非常感谢你邀请我。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Delighted to have you here and to learn from you.
很高兴您来到这里并向您学习。
You have decided to tackle an enormous number of very interesting and challenging topics.
您决定解决大量非常有趣且具有挑战性的主题。
Challenging because my read of it, not just your book, but of these fields and the science that you've done, is that people default to some complicated states and emotions sometimes that in some ways serve them well, in some ways serve them less well.
具有挑战性的是，因为我读到的，不仅仅是你的书，还有你所做的这些领域和科学，是人们默认的一些复杂的状态和情绪，有时在某些方面对他们有好处，在某些方面对他们不太好。
So I'd like to talk about this at the level of the individual and interactions between pairs and larger groups and so on.
所以我想在个人层面以及成对和更大群体之间的互动等层面上讨论这个问题。
But just to kick things off, what is cynicism?
但首先，什么是犬儒主义？
I have my own ideas, but what is cynicism?
我有自己的想法，但什么是犬儒主义？
What does it serve in terms of its role in the human mind?
它在人类思维中的作用是什么？
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
The way that psychologists think of cynicism these days is as a theory, a theory about human beings.
如今，心理学家将犬儒主义视为一种理论，一种关于人类的理论。
It's the idea that generally, people at their core are selfish, greedy, and dishonest.
人们普遍认为，人的本质都是自私、贪婪和不诚实的。
Now, that's not to say that a cynical person will deny that somebody could act kindly, for instance, could donate to charity, could help a stranger.
现在，这并不是说一个愤世嫉俗的人会否认某人可以表现出善意，例如可以向慈善机构捐款，可以帮助陌生人。
But they would say all of that kind and friendly behavior is a thin veneer covering up who we really are, which is self-interested.
但他们会说，所有这些友善和友好的行为只是一层薄薄的外表，掩盖了我们的真实身份，这是自私的。
Another way of putting this is there are these ancient philosophical questions about people.
另一种说法是存在这些关于人的古老哲学问题。
Are we good or bad, kind or cruel, caring or callous?
我们是好人还是坏人、善良还是残忍、关心还是冷酷？
And cynicism is answering all of those in the relatively bleak way that you might.
犬儒主义正在以一种相对黯淡的方式回答所有这些问题。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I believe in your book, you quote Kurt Vonnegut, who says, "We are who we pretend to be, so we need to be careful who we pretend to be." What do you think that quote means?
我相信你的书中，你引用库尔特·冯内古特的话，他说：“我们是我们假装的人，所以我们需要小心我们假装的人。”你认为这句话意味着什么？
How do you interpret that quote?
你如何解释这句话？
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Thanks for bringing that up, Kurt Vonnegut, one of my favorite authors.
感谢您提出这个问题，库尔特·冯内古特，我最喜欢的作家之一。
And to me, that quote is enormously powerful because it expresses the idea of self-fulfilling prophecies.
对我来说，这句话非常有力，因为它表达了自我实现预言的想法。
There's this subjective sense that people have that our version of the world is the world, that we are passively taking in information veridically, dispassionately, and in fact, that's not the case.
人们有一种主观感觉，认为我们的世界就是世界，我们被动地、真实地、冷静地接收信息，但事实上，情况并非如此。
We each construct our own version of the world.
我们每个人都构建了自己版本的世界。
And so, for instance, if you think about cynicism, are people kind or cruel?
举例来说，如果你考虑愤世嫉俗，人们是善良的还是残忍的？
That's pretty much an unanswerable question at the level of science.
这在科学层面上几乎是一个无法回答的问题。
It's a philosophical, some could argue even a theological question.
这是一个哲学问题，有些人甚至可能认为这是一个神学问题。
But it turns out that the way you answer that goes a long way in constructing and shaping the life that you live, the decisions that you make.
但事实证明，你的回答方式对构建和塑造你的生活以及你做出的决定大有帮助。
So cynics, maybe it's not so much about who they pretend to be, but it's about who they pretend everybody else is.
所以愤世嫉俗者，也许问题不在于他们假装自己是谁，而在于他们假装其他人是谁。
Right?
正确的？
If you decide that other people are selfish, for instance, you'll be far less likely to trust them.
例如，如果你认为其他人很自私，你就不太可能信任他们。
And there's a lot of evidence that cynics, when they're put in situations with new people, even when they interact with their friends, romantic partners, and families, that they still have their guard up, that they're not able to make trusting and deep connections with other people.
有大量证据表明，愤世嫉俗者在与新朋友相处时，即使他们与朋友、恋人和家人互动，他们仍然保持警惕，无法与其他人建立信任和深厚的联系。
But guess what?
但你猜怎么着？
When you treat other people in that way, a couple of things happen.
当你以这种方式对待他人时，会发生一些事情。
One, you're not able to receive what most of us need from social connections.
第一，你无法从社交关系中获得我们大多数人所需要的东西。
There's one really classic and very sad study where people were forced to give an extemporaneous speech about a subject they don't know much about, a very stressful experience that raised people's blood pressure.
有一项非常经典且非常悲伤的研究，人们被迫就一个他们不太了解的主题进行即兴演讲，这是一种非常紧张的经历，会让人血压升高。
Some of these folks had a cheerleader, not an actual cheerleader, but a friendly stranger who was with them while they prepared saying, "You've got this.
其中一些人有一个啦啦队长，不是真正的啦啦队长，而是一个友好的陌生人，在他们准备的时候和他们在一起，说：“你做到了。
I know you can do it.
我知道你能做到。
I'm in your corner." Other people had no support.
我就在你的角落里。”其他人没有得到支持。
As you know, one of the great things about social support is that it buffers us from stress.
如您所知，社会支持的好处之一是它可以帮助我们缓解压力。
So most people, when they had this friendly person by their side, their blood pressure as they prepared for the speech went up only half as much as when they were alone.
所以大多数人，当他们有这个友善的人在身边时，他们在准备演讲时的血压只比他们独处时升高一半。
But cynical people had a spike in their blood pressure that was indistinguishable in magnitude whether or not a person was by their side or not.
但愤世嫉俗的人的血压会急剧上升，无论是否有人在他们身边，其幅度都无法区分。
One way that I think about this is Social connection is a deep and necessary form of psychological nourishment.
我对此的看法是，社交联系是一种深刻且必要的心理滋养形式。
And living a cynical life, making the decision that most people can't be trusted, stops you from being able to metabolize those calories, leaves you malnourished in a social way.
过着愤世嫉俗的生活，做出大多数人不值得信任的决定，会阻止你代谢这些卡路里，让你在社交方面营养不良。
A second thing that happens when you choose to pretend that others are selfish, greedy, and dishonest is that you bring out the worst in them.
当你选择假装别人自私、贪婪和不诚实时，发生的第二件事是你暴露了他们最坏的一面。
There's a lot of research that finds that cynical people tend to do things like monitoring others, spying on them, or threatening them to make sure that that other person doesn't betray them.
有很多研究发现，愤世嫉俗的人倾向于做一些事情，比如监视他人、监视他们或威胁他们，以确保其他人不会背叛他们。
But of course, other people can tell how we're treating them, and they reciprocate our kindness and retaliate against our unkindness.
当然，其他人可以看出我们如何对待他们，他们会回报我们的善意，并对我们的不友善进行报复。
So cynical people end up bringing out the most selfish qualities of others, telling a story full of villains, and then ending up stuck living in that story.
因此，愤世嫉俗的人最终会暴露出他人最自私的品质，讲述一个充满恶棍的故事，然后最终陷入这个故事中。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
How early in life does cynicism show up?
愤世嫉俗在生命中多久就会出现？
I'm thinking about "Sesame Street" characters, which to me embody different neural circuits.
我正在考虑《芝麻街》中的角色，对我来说它们体现了不同的神经回路。
You've got Cookie Monster, some strong dopaminergic- ...
你有饼干怪物，一些强大的多巴胺能 - ...
drive there.
开车去那里。
Knows what he wants, knows what he likes, and he's going to get it.
知道他想要什么，知道他喜欢什么，并且他会得到它。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
That great prefrontal system, maybe.
也许是那个伟大的前额叶系统。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Right.
对。
Even if he has to eat the box- ...
即使他必须吃掉盒子——
in order to get to the cookie quicker.
为了更快地获取 cookie。
You have Elmo, who's all loving, and you have Oscar the Grouch.
你有充满爱心的埃尔莫，还有爱发牢骚的奥斯卡。
Somewhat cynical-
有点愤世嫉俗——
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
but certainly grouchy.
但肯定是脾气暴躁。
And then in essentially every fairy tale or every Christmas story, there seems to be sort of a skeptic or somebody that can't be brought on board the celebration-
然后，基本上在每个童话故事或每个圣诞节故事中，似乎都有某种怀疑论者或无法参加庆祝活动的人-
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
that one would otherwise have.
否则的话就会有。
But even though kids are learning about cynicism and grouchiness and curmudgeons, I often think about those phenotypes in older folks, because that's how they've been written into most of those stories.
但即使孩子们正在学习愤世嫉俗、脾气暴躁和脾气暴躁，我也经常想到老年人的这些表型，因为这就是他们被写入大多数故事的方式。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I guess Oscar the Grouch is, we don't know how old Oscar is.
我猜奥斯卡是爱发牢骚的人，我们不知道奥斯卡有多大。
If one observes children, how early can you observe classically defined cynicism?
如果观察儿童，你多久可以观察到经典定义的犬儒主义？
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
That's a great question.
这是一个很好的问题。
Classically defined cynicism would be hard to measure very early in life because you typically measure it through self-report, so people have to have relatively well-developed, elaborated stories that they can tell you about their version of the world.
经典定义的犬儒主义在生命的早期很难衡量，因为你通常通过自我报告来衡量它，所以人们必须有相对完善、详尽的故事，他们可以告诉你他们对世界的看法。
That said, one early experience and one early phenotype that's very strongly correlated with generalized mistrust and unwillingness to count on other people would be insecure attachment early in life.
也就是说，一种与普遍不信任和不愿依赖他人密切相关的早期经历和早期表型将是生命早期的不安全依恋。
So for instance, you might know, but just for listeners, insecure attachment is a way of describing how kids experience the social world.
例如，您可能知道，但仅对于听众而言，不安全依恋是描述孩子如何体验社交世界的一种方式。
It's often tested using something known as the strange situation, where a one-year-old is brought to a lab with their caregiver, mother, father, whoever is caring for them.
它通常使用一种被称为奇怪情况的方法进行测试，即一个一岁的孩子被带到实验室，与他们的照顾者、母亲、父亲以及任何照顾他们的人一起。
They're in a novel environment, and researchers are observing how much do they explore the space, how comfortable do they seem.
他们处于一个新的环境中，研究人员正在观察他们探索这个空间的程度以及他们看起来有多舒服。
Then after that, a stranger enters the room.
之后，一个陌生人进入了房间。
A couple of minutes after that, their mother leaves the room, or their caregiver leaves the room, which is, of course, incredibly strange and stressful for most one-year-olds.
几分钟后，他们的母亲离开房间，或者他们的照顾者离开房间，这对于大多数一岁的孩子来说当然是非常奇怪和有压力的。
The caregiver then returns after a minute, and what researchers look at is a few things.
一分钟后，护理人员返回，研究人员会关注一些事情。
One, how comfortable is the child exploring a space with their caregiver present?
第一，孩子在看护者在场的情况下探索一个空间有多舒服？
Two, how comfortable are they when other people are around?
第二，当其他人在身边时，他们感觉有多舒服？
Three, how do they react when their caregiver leaves?
第三，当照顾者离开时，他们有何反应？
And four, how do they react at the reunion with their caregiver?
第四，他们在与照顾者重聚时有何反应？
And the majority of kids, approximately two-thirds of them, are securely attached, meaning that they are comfortable exploring a new space.
大多数孩子（大约三分之二）都有安全依恋，这意味着他们可以轻松地探索新空间。
They get really freaked out, of course, as you might, when their caregiver leaves, but then they soothe quickly when their caregiver returns.
当然，当他们的照顾者离开时，他们会像你一样感到非常害怕，但当他们的照顾者回来时，他们很快就会平静下来。
The remaining third or so of kids are insecurely attached, meaning that they're skittish in new environments, even when their parent or caregiver is there.
剩下的三分之一左右的孩子是不安全依恋的，这意味着他们在新环境中会感到不安，即使他们的父母或照顾者在那里。
They really freak out when their caregiver leaves, and they're not very soothed upon their return.
当他们的照顾者离开时，他们真的很害怕，而当他们回来时，他们也不会感到很平静。
Now, for a long time, attachment style was viewed in very emotional terms, and it is an emotional reaction first and foremost.
现在，很长一段时间以来，依恋风格被视为非常情绪化的术语，它首先是一种情绪反应。
But researchers more recently have started to think about, well, what are the cognitive schemas?
但研究人员最近开始思考，认知模式是什么？
What are the underpinnings, the ways that children think when they are securely or insecurely attached?
孩子们在安全依恋或不安全依恋时的思维方式是什么？
And one brilliant study used looking time.
一项出色的研究利用了观察时间。
Looking time in kids is a metric of what surprises them.
观察孩子的时间是衡量他们惊讶的指标。
If something really surprising happens, they look for a very long time.
如果真的发生了令人惊讶的事情，他们会寻找很长时间。
And researchers found that insecurely attached kids, when they saw a video of a reunion of a caregiver and infant acting in a way that felt loving and stable, they looked longer, as though that was surprising.
研究人员发现，不安全依恋的孩子，当他们看到看护者和婴儿以一种充满爱和稳定的方式重聚的视频时，他们看起来会更长，似乎这令人惊讶。
Kids who were securely attached didn't look very long at those stable interactions, but looked longer at interactions that were unstable.
安全依恋的孩子不会长时间关注那些稳定的互动，但会更长时间地关注不稳定的互动。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Interesting.
有趣。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
It's almost as though there's a setup that kids develop very early.
就好像孩子们很早就形成了一种设置。
Can I count on people?
我可以依靠人吗？
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Am I safe with people?
我与人相处安全吗？
And insecure attachment is a signal coming early in life, no, you're not safe with people, that I think, well, and the data show, elaborates later in life into mistrust in other relationships.
不安全的依恋是生命早期出现的一个信号，不，你与人相处并不安全，我认为，数据显示，在以后的生活中，它会导致对其他关系的不信任。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
How different is cynicism from skepticism?
犬儒主义与怀疑主义有何不同？
I can think of some places where they might overlap.
我能想到它们可能重叠的一些地方。
But cynicism seems to carry something of a lack of anticipation about any possibility of a positive future.
但愤世嫉俗似乎意味着对积极未来的任何可能性缺乏预期。
Is that one way to think about it?
这是一种思考方式吗？
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
That's a very sharp way of thinking about it, actually.
实际上，这是一种非常敏锐的思考方式。
And I wish that people knew more about the discrepancy between these two ways of viewing the world.
我希望人们更多地了解这两种看待世界的方式之间的差异。
Cynicism and skepticism, people often use them interchangeably.
犬儒主义和怀疑主义，人们经常互换使用它们。
In fact, they're quite different, and I would argue that one is much more useful for learning about the world and building relationships than the other.
事实上，它们是完全不同的，我认为其中一种对于了解世界和建立关系比另一种更有用。
Again, cynicism is a theory that's kind of locked in, that no matter what people show you, their true colors are, again, untrustworthy and self-oriented.
再说一次，犬儒主义是一种被锁定的理论，无论人们向你展示什么，他们的真实面目都是不值得信任和以自我为中心的。
It's a hyper-Darwinian view, right, that ultimately people are red in tooth and claw.
这是一种超达尔文主义的观点，对吧，最终人类的牙齿和爪子都是红色的。
Skepticism is instead the, I guess, restlessness with our assumptions, a desire for new information.
我想，怀疑主义是对我们的假设的不安，是对新信息的渴望。
One way I often think about it is that cynics think a little bit like lawyers, right?
我经常想到的一种方式是，愤世嫉俗者的想法有点像律师，对吧？
They have a decision that they've already made about you and about everybody, and they're just waiting for evidence that supports their point.
他们已经对你和每个人做出了决定，他们只是在等待支持他们观点的证据。
And when evidence comes in that doesn't support their point, they explain it away.
当出现不支持他们观点的证据时，他们就会进行解释。
Right?
正确的？
And you see this, actually, that cynical people will offer more ulterior motives when they see an act of kindness, for instance.
事实上，你会发现，愤世嫉俗的人在看到善意的行为时会表现出更多不可告人的动机。
They'll explain it away.
他们会解释清楚。
In that way, I think cynics actually are quite similar to the naive, trusting, gullible folks that they love to make fun of.
这样一来，我认为愤世嫉俗者实际上与他们喜欢取笑的天真、轻信、容易上当受骗的人非常相似。
Right?
正确的？
Naiveté, gullibility, is trusting people in a credulous, unthinking way.
天真，即轻信，是以一种轻信、不假思索的方式信任别人。
I would say cynicism is mistrusting people in a credulous and unthinking way.
我想说，犬儒主义是以轻信和不假思索的方式不信任别人。
So if cynics then think like lawyers, sort of in the prosecution against humanity, skeptics think more like scientists.
因此，如果愤世嫉俗者像律师一样思考，有点像起诉反人类，那么怀疑论者则更像科学家。
Skepticism classically in philosophy is the belief that you can never truly know anything.
哲学中的经典怀疑论相信你永远无法真正了解任何事情。
But as we think about it now, it's more the desire for evidence to underlie any claim that you believe.
但正如我们现在思考的那样，更多的是渴望证据来支持你所相信的任何主张。
And the great thing about skepticism is it doesn't require an ounce of naiveté.
怀疑主义的伟大之处在于它不需要一丝天真。
You can be absolutely sharp in deciding, I don't want to trust this person, or I do want to trust this person.
你可以绝对敏锐地决定，我不想信任这个人，或者我确实想信任这个人。
But it allows you to update and learn from specific acts, specific instances, and specific people.
但它允许你更新特定的行为、特定的实例和特定的人并从中学习。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
When I think about scientists, one of the first things I think about is not just their willingness, but their excitement to embrace complexity.
当我想到科学家时，我首先想到的不仅仅是他们的意愿，还有他们拥抱复杂性的兴奋。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Yes.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Like, okay, these two groups disagree, or these two sets of data disagree, and it's the complexity of that interaction that excites them.
就像，好吧，这两组不同意，或者这两组数据不同意，正是这种相互作用的复杂性让他们兴奋。
Whereas when I think of cynics in the way that it's framed up in my mind, which I'm getting more educated now, but admittedly, my understanding of cynicism is still rather superficial.
然而，当我以我脑海中的方式思考愤世嫉俗时，我现在受到了更多的教育，但不可否认的是，我对愤世嫉俗的理解仍然相当肤浅。
You'll change that in the course of our discussion.
您将在我们的讨论过程中改变这一点。
But that cynics are not embracing the complexity of disagreement.
但愤世嫉俗者并没有接受分歧的复杂性。
They are moving away from certainly any notion of excitement by complexity.
他们肯定正在远离任何因复杂而令人兴奋的概念。
It seems like it's a heuristic.
看起来这是一个启发式的方法。
It's a way to simplify the world around you.
这是一种简化您周围世界的方法。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
That's exactly right.
完全正确。
Phil Tetlock has a great term for this called integrative complexity.
Phil Tetlock 有一个很好的术语来形容这种情况，称为综合复杂性。
To what extent can you hold different versions of the world, different arguments in mind?
你能在多大程度上记住世界的不同版本、不同的论点？
To what extent can you pick from each one what you believe based on the best evidence available, right?
根据现有的最佳证据，您可以在多大程度上从每个人中选出您所相信的内容，对吧？
And integrative complexity is a great way to learn about the world and about the social world, whereas cynicism, as you rightly point out, is much more of a heuristic.
综合复杂性是了解世界和社会世界的好方法，而犬儒主义，正如你正确指出的那样，更多的是一种启发式的方法。
It's a black-and-white form of thinking.
这是一种非黑即白的思维方式。
And the really sad thing is that cynicism then puts us in a position where we can't learn very much.
真正可悲的是，愤世嫉俗会让我们陷入无法学到很多东西的境地。
This is what, in learning theory, is called a wicked learning environment, where-- And I don't want to get too nerdy.
在学习理论中，这就是所谓的“邪恶的学习环境”，我不想变得太书呆子气。
Well, I guess I can get nerdy here and there.
好吧，我想我到处都会变得书呆子气。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
You can get as nerdy as you want.
你可以随心所欲地变得书呆子。
This audience likes nerdy.
这个观众喜欢书呆子。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
So let's think in Bayesian terms, right?
那么让我们用贝叶斯的术语来思考，对吗？
So Bayesian statistics is where you have a set of beliefs about the world.
所以贝叶斯统计是你对世界有一套信念的地方。
You take new information in, and that new information allows you to update your priors, right, into a posterior distribution, into a new set of beliefs.
你接受新的信息，而新的信息可以让你将你的先验更新为后验分布，更新为一组新的信念。
And that's great.
那太好了。
That's a great way to learn about the world, to adapt to new information and new circumstances.
这是了解世界、适应新信息和新环境的好方法。
A wicked learning environment is where your priors prevent you from gathering the information that you would need to confirm or disconfirm them.
在恶劣的学习环境中，你的先验知识会阻止你收集确认或反驳它们所需的信息。
So think about mistrust, for instance, right?
例如，考虑一下不信任，对吗？
It's easy to understand why people mistrust.
人们不信任的原因很容易理解。
Some of us are insecurely attached, and we've been hurt in the past.
我们中的一些人没有安全感，过去曾受过伤害。
We're trying to stay safe.
我们正在努力保持安全。
We don't want to be betrayed.
我们不想被背叛。
This is a completely natural response.
这是完全自然的反应。
It's a totally understandable response.
这是一个完全可以理解的回应。
But when we decide to mistrust, we never are able to learn whether the people who we are mistrusting would have been trustworthy or not.
但当我们决定不信任时，我们永远无法知道我们不信任的人是否值得信任。
When we trust, we can learn whether we've been right or not, right?
当我们信任时，我们可以知道我们是否正确，对吗？
Somebody can betray us, and that hurts, and we remember it for years.
有人可能背叛我们，这很痛苦，我们会记住很多年。
Or more often than not, the data turn out to show us they can honor that trust.
或者更常见的是，数据向我们表明他们能够兑现这种信任。
We can build a relationship.
我们可以建立关系。
We can start a collaboration.
我们可以开始合作。
We can live a full social life.
我们可以过上充实的社交生活。
And it turns out that the problem is that trusting people incorrectly, you do learn from, but mistrusting people incorrectly, you don't learn from, because the missed opportunities are invisible to us.
事实证明，问题在于，错误地信任别人，你确实可以从中学习，但错误地不信任别人，你就不会从中吸取教训，因为我们看不到错过的机会。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Well, there's certainly a lot there that maps to many people's experience.
嗯，其中肯定有很多内容符合许多人的经历。
So you pointed out that some degree of cynicism likely has roots in insecure attachment.
所以你指出，某种程度的愤世嫉俗可能源于不安全的依恋。
That said, if one looks internationally Do we find cultures where it's very hard to find cynics?
也就是说，如果放眼国际，我们会发现很难找到愤世嫉俗者的文化吗？
And there could be any number of reasons for this, or perhaps even more interestingly, do we find cultures where there really isn't even a word for cynicism?
造成这种情况的原因可能有很多，或者更有趣的是，我们是否发现某些文化中真的没有犬儒主义这个词？
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Wow.
哇。
I love that question.
我喜欢这个问题。
There is a lot of variance in-- And the data on cynicism are much more local to the US, typically.
存在很大差异——而且关于愤世嫉俗的数据通常更多地发生在美国本土。
For better and for worse, a lot of research on this is done in an American context.
无论好坏，很多这方面的研究都是在美国背景下进行的。
But that said, there's a lot of data on generalized trust, which you could say is an inverse of cynicism, right?
但话虽如此，有很多关于普遍信任的数据，你可以说这是犬儒主义的反面，对吧？
So for instance, there are national and international samples of major surveys which ask people whether they agree or disagree that most people can be trusted.
例如，有一些国家和国际的重大调查样本询问人们是否同意大多数人是可以信任的。
And there's a lot of variance around the world.
世界各地存在很大差异。
In general, the cultures that are most trusting have a couple of things in common.
一般来说，最值得信任的文化有一些共同点。
One, they are more economically equal than untrusting cultures.
第一，他们在经济上比不信任的文化更加平等。
So there's a lot of great work from Kate Willett and Richard Wilkinson.
凯特·威利特和理查德·威尔金森有很多出色的工作。
They have a book called "The Spirit Level," where they look at inequality across the world and relate it to public health outcomes, and one of them is trust.
他们有一本名为《精神水平》的书，在书中他们审视了世界各地的不平等现象，并将其与公共卫生结果联系起来，其中之一就是信任。
There's also a variance in trust over time.
随着时间的推移，信任也会发生变化。
So you can look at not just are there places or cultures that trust more than others, but when does a culture trust more or less?
因此，你不仅可以看看是否有比其他地方或文化更信任的地方或文化，还可以看看一种文化什么时候信任程度更高或更低？
And in the US, that's sadly a story of decline.
可悲的是，在美国，这是一个衰落的故事。
In 1972, about half of Americans believed that most people can be trusted, and by 2018, that had fallen to about a third of Americans.
1972 年，大约一半的美国人认为大多数人是可以信任的，到 2018 年，这一比例已下降到约三分之一的美国人。
And that's a drop as big, just to put it in perspective, as the stock market took in the financial collapse of 2008.
从长远来看，这一跌幅与 2008 年金融崩溃时股市的跌幅一样大。
So there's a lot of variance here, both across space and time, and one of the, not the only, but one of the seeming characteristics of cultures that tracks that is how unequal they are.
因此，这里存在着很多差异，无论是在空间还是时间上，而文化的表面特征之一（不是唯一的，但也是表面上的特征之一）就是它们的不平等程度。
In part because research suggests that when you are in a highly unequal society economically, there's a sense of zero-sum competition that develops.
部分原因是研究表明，当你身处一个经济上高度不平等的社会时，就会产生一种零和竞争的感觉。
There's a sense that, "Wait a minute, anything that another person gets, I lose." And if you have that inherent sense of zero-sum competition, then it's very difficult to form bonds.
有一种感觉是，“等一下，别人得到的任何东西，我都会失去。”如果你有那种固有的零和竞争意识，那么就很难形成联系。
It's very difficult to trust other people because you might think, "Well, in order to survive, this person has to try to outrun me.
信任别人是非常困难的，因为你可能会想：“好吧，为了生存，这个人必须试图超越我。
They have to try to trip me.
他们必须想办法绊倒我。
They have to try to make me fail for themselves to succeed."
他们必须设法让我失败，才能让他们自己成功。”
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I'd like to take a quick break and acknowledge our sponsor, AG1.
我想稍微休息一下并感谢我们的赞助商 AG1。
By now, many of you have heard me say that if I could take just one supplement, that supplement would be AG1.
到目前为止，你们很多人都听我说过，如果我只能服用一种补充剂，那么该补充剂就是 AG1。
The reason for that is AG1 is the highest quality and most complete of the foundational nutritional supplements available.
原因是 AG1 是现有的基础营养补充剂中质量最高、最全面的。
What that means is that it contains not just vitamins and minerals, but also probiotics, prebiotics, and adaptogens to cover any gaps you may have in your diet and provide support for a demanding life.
这意味着它不仅含有维生素和矿物质，还含有益生菌、益生元和适应原，可以弥补您饮食中可能存在的任何空白，并为高要求的生活提供支持。
For me, even if I eat mostly whole foods and minimally processed foods, which I do for most of my food intake, it's very difficult for me to get enough fruits and vegetables, vitamins and minerals, micronutrients, and adaptogens from food alone.
对我来说，即使我主要吃天然食品和最低限度加工的食品（这是我摄入的大部分食物的一部分），我也很难仅从食物中获取足够的水果和蔬菜、维生素和矿物质、微量营养素和适应原。
For that reason, I've been taking AG1 daily since 2012, and often twice a day, once in the morning or mid-morning, and again in the afternoon or evening.
因此，自 2012 年以来，我每天服用 AG1，通常每天两次，一次在早上或上午，一次在下午或晚上。
When I do that, it clearly bolsters my energy, my immune system, and my gut microbiome.
当我这样做时，它明显增强了我的能量、我的免疫系统和我的肠道微生物组。
These are all critical to brain function, mood, physical performance, and much more.
这些对于大脑功能、情绪、身体表现等都至关重要。
If you'd like to try AG1, you can go to drinkag1.com/huberman to claim their special offer.
如果您想尝试 AG1，可以访问 Drinkag1.com/huberman 以获得特别优惠。
Right now, they're giving away five free travel packs plus a year's supply of vitamin D3 K2.
目前，他们赠送五个免费旅行包以及一年的维生素 D3 K2。
Again, that's drinkag1.com/huberman to claim that special offer.
再次强调，您可以通过 Drinkag1.com/huberman 领取特别优惠。
What is the relationship, if any, between cynicism and happiness or lack of happiness?
愤世嫉俗与幸福或缺乏幸福之间有什么关系（如果有的话）？
When I think of somebody who's really cynical, I think of Oscar the Grouch or a curmudgeon-like character.
当我想到真正愤世嫉俗的人时，我会想到爱发牢骚的奥斯卡或脾气暴躁的角色。
And as I ask this question, I'm thinking specifically about what you said earlier about how cynicism prevents us from certain forms of learning that are important and very valuable to us.
当我问这个问题时，我正在特别思考您之前所说的关于愤世嫉俗如何阻止我们进行某些对我们来说很重要且非常有价值的学习形式的内容。
Here's the reason why.
原因如下。
I'll give just a little bit of context.
我将提供一些背景信息。
I remember when I was a kid, my dad, who went to classic boarding schools.
我记得当我还是个孩子的时候，我的父亲就读于传统的寄宿学校。
He grew up in South America, but he went to these boarding schools that were very strict.
他在南美洲长大，但他就读于这些非常严格的寄宿学校。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And he was taught, he told me, that to be cheerful and happy, people would accuse you of being kind of dumb.
他告诉我，他被教导说，要保持快乐和幸福，人们就会指责你有点愚蠢。
Whereas if you were cynical and you acted a little bored with everything-
然而，如果你很愤世嫉俗，并且对一切都表现得有点无聊——
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
people thought that you were more discerning.
人们认为你更有洞察力。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
But that he felt it was a terrible model for going through life because it veered into cynicism.
但他觉得这是一个糟糕的人生模式，因为它会变得愤世嫉俗。
My dad happens to be a scientist.
我爸爸碰巧是一位科学家。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
He's, I think, a relatively happy person.
我认为他是一个相对幸福的人。
Sorry, Dad.
对不起，爸爸。
A happy person.
一个快乐的人。
Seems happy.
看起来很高兴。
But meaning he's a person who has happiness, and he has other emotions, too.
但这意味着他是一个有幸福的人，他也有其他的情感。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Sure.
当然。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I wouldn't say he's happy all the time, but-
我不会说他一直都很快乐，但是-
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Of course
当然
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
he experiences joy and pleasure in daily small things and big things in life.
他在生活中的日常小事和大事中体验到快乐和快乐。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
So clearly, he rescued himself from the forces that were kind of pushing him down that path.
很明显，他将自己从推动他走上这条道路的力量中解救出来。
But that's the anecdote, but I use that question more as a way to frame up the possible collaboration between cynicism and exuding boredom, or a challenge in shifting somebody towards a happier affect.
但这是轶事，但我更多地使用这个问题作为一种方式来构建愤世嫉俗和流露出无聊之间可能的合作，或者将某人转向更快乐的情感的挑战。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Because when I think about cynics, I think that they're kind of unhappy people.
因为当我想到愤世嫉俗者时，我认为他们是一些不快乐的人。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And when I think about people who are not very cynical, I think of them as kind of cheerful and curious, and there's some ebullience there.
当我想到那些不太愤世嫉俗的人时，我认为他们是开朗和好奇的，并且有一些热情洋溢。
They might not be Tigger-like in their affect , but they kind of veer that direction.
他们的情感可能不像跳跳虎，但他们会转向那个方向。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Andrew, I love this trip down memory lane.
安德鲁，我喜欢这次记忆之旅。
I'm having all these childhood memories of Tigger and Sesame Street.
我对《跳跳虎》和《芝麻街》有很多童年回忆。
There's so much in what you're saying.
你说的话里有很多东西。
I want to try to pull on a couple of threads here if that's okay.
如果可以的话，我想尝试在这里拉几条线索。
First, and this one is pretty straightforward, the effect of cynicism on wellbeing is just really documented and quite negative.
首先，这个问题非常简单，犬儒主义对幸福感的影响确实有记录，而且相当负面。
So there are large prospective studies with tens of thousands of people, several of these studies, that measure cynicism and then measure life outcomes in the years and decades afterwards.
因此，有针对数万人的大型前瞻性研究，其中有几项研究衡量犬儒主义，然后衡量随后几年和几十年的生活结果。
And the news is pretty bleak for cynics, right?
对于愤世嫉俗者来说，这个消息相当惨淡，对吧？
So absolutely lower levels of happiness, flourishing satisfaction with life, greater incidence of depression, greater loneliness.
因此，幸福感绝对较低，对生活的满意度也较低，抑郁症的发生率较高，孤独感也较高。
But it's not just the neck up that cynicism affects.
但犬儒主义影响的不仅仅是脖子。
Cynics over the course of their lives also tend to have greater degrees of cellular inflammation, more incidence of heart disease, and they even have higher rates of all-cause mortality, so shorter lives than non-cynics.
愤世嫉俗者在一生中也往往有更严重的细胞炎症，心脏病的发病率更高，甚至全因死亡率更高，因此比非愤世嫉俗者的寿命更短。
And again, this might sound like, wait a minute, you go from a philosophical theory to a shorter life.
再说一次，这听起来可能像是，等一下，你从哲学理论转向了更短的寿命。
The answer is, yeah, you do.
答案是，是的，你知道。
And again, these are correlational studies, so I don't want to draw too many causal claims, but they're quite rigorous and control for a lot of other factors.
再说一次，这些都是相关研究，所以我不想得出太多因果关系，但它们相当严格，并且控制了许多其他因素。
But I would say that this is consistent with the idea that really one of the great protectors of our health is our sense of connection to other people.
但我想说，这与以下观点是一致的：我们与他人的联系感实际上是我们健康的伟大保护者之一。
And if you are unable or unwilling to be vulnerable around others, to really touch in to that type of connection, it stands to reason that things like chronic stress and isolation would impact not just your mind, but all through your body and your organ systems.
如果你无法或不愿意在他人面前表现得脆弱，无法真正接触到这种类型的联系，那么按理说，慢性压力和孤立之类的事情不仅会影响你的思想，还会影响你的整个身体和器官系统。
So again, the news here is not great, and I often think about one of the best encapsulations of a cynical view of life comes from Thomas Hobbes, the philosopher who in his book "Leviathan" said, "We need a restrictive government because left to our own devices, human life is nasty, brutish, and short." And ironically I think that might describe the lives of cynics themselves more than most people.
再说一次，这里的消息并不好，我经常想到愤世嫉俗的人生观的最佳概括之一来自哲学家托马斯·霍布斯，他在他的《利维坦》一书中说，“我们需要一个限制性的政府，因为如果任由我们自己决定，人类的生命是肮脏的、野蛮的和短暂的。”讽刺的是，我认为这可能比大多数人更能描述愤世嫉俗者自己的生活。
So that's point one, is that there is this pretty stark negative correlation between cynicism and a lot of life outcomes that we might want for ourselves.
所以，第一点是，愤世嫉俗与我们可能想要的许多生活结果之间存在着非常明显的负相关关系。
But point two, I think, is related to what your dad also noticed, which is that if cynicism hurts us so much, why would we adopt it?
但我认为第二点与你父亲也注意到的事情有关，那就是如果犬儒主义对我们伤害如此之大，我们为什么要采用它？
If there was a pill that as its side effects listed depression, loneliness, heart disease, and early death, it would be a poison.
如果有一种药丸的副作用列出了抑郁、孤独、心脏病和早逝，那么它就是一种毒药。
It would have a skull and crossbones on the bottle.
瓶子上会有骷髅和交叉骨。
But yet we're swallowing it.
但我们还是吞下了它。
More of us are swallowing it than we did in years and decades past.
与过去几年和几十年相比，我们中有更多的人正在吞下它。
Why?
为什么？
Well, one of the answers, I think, is because our culture glamorizes cynicism.
嗯，我认为答案之一是因为我们的文化美化犬儒主义。
It's because of the very stereotype that your father pointed out, which is that if you're happy-go-lucky, if you trust people, that kind of seems dull.
这是因为你父亲指出的刻板印象，那就是如果你无忧无虑，如果你信任别人，那就显得很乏味。
It seems like maybe you're not that sharp.
看来你可能没那么敏锐。
Maybe you don't understand the world.
也许你不了解这个世界。
And there is that strong relationship in our stereotypes, in our models of the world.
我们的刻板印象和我们的世界模型之间存在着密切的关系。
Susan Fiske and many other psychologists have studied warmth and competence.
苏珊·菲斯克和许多其他心理学家研究了热情和能力。
How friendly and caring does somebody seem, and how able do they seem to accomplish hard things?
这个人看起来有多友善和有爱心，他们完成困难事情的能力如何？
And it turns out that in many studies, people's perception is that these are inversely correlated.
事实证明，在许多研究中，人们的看法是这些是负相关的。
That if you're warm, maybe you're not that competent, and if you're competent, maybe you shouldn't be that warm.
如果你很热情，也许你没有那么有能力，如果你有能力，也许你不应该那么热情。
And in fact, if you tell people to act as competently as they can, they'll often respond by being a little bit less nice, a little bit less warm than they would be otherwise.
事实上，如果你告诉人们要尽可能表现得有能力，他们的反应通常会比平时表现得不那么友善、不那么热情。
There's also data that find that where people are presented in surveys with a cynic and a non-cynic.
还有数据发现，人们在调查中分为愤世嫉俗者和非愤世嫉俗者。
They're told about, "Oh, here's one person.
他们被告知，“哦，这里有一个人。
They really think that people are great overall, and they tend to be trusting.
他们确实认为人们总体上都很棒，并且倾向于信任别人。
Here's another person who thinks that people are kind of out for themselves and really doesn't trust most folks." And then they'll ask those people, "Who should we pick for this difficult intellectual task?" And 70% of respondents pick a cynical person over a non-cynic for difficult intellectual tasks.
还有一个人认为人们有点只顾自己，而且真的不信任大多数人。”然后他们会问那些人：“我们应该选择谁来完成这项艰巨的智力任务？” 70% 的受访者选择愤世嫉俗的人而不是非愤世嫉俗的人来完成困难的智力任务。
85% of people think that cynics are socially wiser, that they'd be able, for instance, to detect who's lying and who's telling the truth.
85% 的人认为愤世嫉俗者在社交方面更明智，例如，他们能够辨别谁在说谎，谁在说真话。
So most of us put a lot of faith in people who don't have a lot of faith in people ironically, and even more ironically, we're wrong to do so.
因此，讽刺的是，我们大多数人都对那些不太信任别人的人抱有很大的信任，更讽刺的是，我们这样做是错误的。
Olga Stavrova, this great psychologist who studies cynicism, has this paper called "The Cynical Genius Illusion," where she documents all these biases, the way that we think cynics are bright and wise, and then uses national data, tens of thousands of people, to show that actually, cynics do less well on cognitive tests, on mathematical tests, that trust is related with things like intelligence and education, and that in other work, this is not from Olga Stavrova, but from others, that actually cynics do less well than non-cynics in detecting liars.
奥尔加·斯塔夫洛娃（Olga Stavrova），这位研究愤世嫉俗的伟大心理学家，有一篇名为《愤世嫉俗的天才错觉》的论文，她在其中记录了所有这些偏见，以及我们认为愤世嫉俗者聪明睿智的方式，然后使用全国数据，数以万计的人，表明实际上，愤世嫉俗者在认知测试、数学测试中表现不佳，信任与智力和教育等因素有关，而在其他工作中，这不是来自奥尔加·斯塔夫洛娃，而是从其他人看来，实际上愤世嫉俗者在识别说谎者方面不如非愤世嫉俗者做得好。
Because if you have a blanket assumption about people, you're not actually attending to evidence in a sharp way.
因为如果你对人有一个笼统的假设，你实际上并没有以敏锐的方式关注证据。
You're not actually taking in new information and making wise decisions.
你实际上并没有接受新信息并做出明智的决定。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
In other words, cynics are not being scientific.
换句话说，愤世嫉俗者并不科学。
Their hypothesis is cast, but they're not looking at the data equally.
他们的假设成立，但他们并没有平等地看待数据。
And we should remind people that a hypothesis is not a question.
我们应该提醒人们，假设不是问题。
Every great experiment starts with a question, and then you generate a hypothesis.
每一个伟大的实验都从一个问题开始，然后你产生一个假设。
...
...
a theory or a conclusion essentially made up front, and then you go collect data, and you see if you prove or disprove the hypothesis.
本质上是预先提出的理论或结论，然后你去收集数据，看看你是否证明或反驳了这个假设。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And you can never really prove a hypothesis.
你永远无法真正证明一个假设。
You can only support it or not support it with the data that you collect, depending on the precision of your tools.
您只能用您收集的数据来支持它或不支持它，这取决于您的工具的精度。
But that's very interesting because I would think that if we view cynics as smarter, which clearly they're not as a group, right?
但这非常有趣，因为我认为，如果我们认为愤世嫉俗者更聪明，那么显然他们不是一个群体，对吧？
You're saying cynics are not more intelligent, right?
你是说愤世嫉俗者并不更聪明，对吗？
I believe that's covered in your book.
我相信这在你的书中有所涉及。
And if one knows that, then why do we send cynics in kind of like razors to assess what the environment is like?
如果人们知道这一点，那么我们为什么要派遣愤世嫉俗的人去评估环境呢？
Is that because we'd rather have others deployed for us to kind of weed people out?
这是因为我们宁愿让其他人为我们部署来淘汰人员吗？
Is it that we're willing to accept some false negatives?
是我们愿意接受一些假阴性吗？
Meaning, for those that, I guess we're using a little bit of semi-technical language here, false negatives would be you're trying to assess a group of people that would be terrific employees.
意思是，对于那些我想我们在这里使用了一点半技术语言的人来说，误报就是你试图评估一群会成为优秀员工的人。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And you send in somebody to interview them that's very cynical.
然后你派人去采访他们，这是非常愤世嫉俗的。
So presumably, in one's mind, that filter of cynicism is only going to allow in people that are really, really right for the job.
所以想必，在人们看来，这种愤世嫉俗的过滤器只会让那些真正非常适合这份工作的人进来。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And we're willing to accept that there are probably two or three candidates that would also be right for the job, but we're willing to let them go.
我们愿意接受可能有两到三名候选人也适合这份工作，但我们愿意让他们离开。
Some false negatives, as opposed to having someone get through the filter who really can't do the job.
一些误报，而不是让那些真正无法完成这项工作的人通过过滤器。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Like we're willing to let certain opportunities go by being cynical or by deploying a cynic as the, I'm imagining the person with the clipboard.
就像我们愿意通过愤世嫉俗或部署一个愤世嫉俗者来放弃某些机会一样，我想象的是拿着剪贴板的人。
Very rigid.
非常僵化。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Cynicism and rigidity seem to go together.
愤世嫉俗和僵化似乎是相辅相成的。
So that's why I'm lumping these kind of psychological phenotypes.
这就是为什么我将这些心理表型归为一类。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
No, I think that's absolutely right.
不，我认为这是绝对正确的。
And so a couple of things.
还有几件事。
One, you said that if we know that cynics aren't smarter than non-cynics, why are we deploying them?
第一，你说如果我们知道愤世嫉俗者并不比非愤世嫉俗者聪明，我们为什么要部署他们？
Well, let's be clear.
好吧，让我们说清楚。
We know this, meaning you and I know this, and scientists know this, but the data show that most people don't know this, that we maintain the stereotype in our culture that being negative about people means that you've been around the block enough times, that it is a form of wisdom.
我们知道这一点，这意味着你和我都知道这一点，科学家也知道这一点，但数据显示，大多数人不知道这一点，我们在文化中保持着刻板印象，即对人持消极态度意味着你已经在街区里待了足够多的时间，这是一种智慧。
So that's a stereotype that I think we need to dispel, first of all.
所以我认为我们首先需要消除这种刻板印象。
But I do think that to your point, when we deploy cynics out in the field, when we say, "I'm going to be nice, but I want somebody who's really pretty negative, who's really pretty suspicious to protect me or to protect my community," I think that's a really, again, understandable instinct, almost from an evolutionary perspective.
但我确实认为，就你的观点而言，当我们在现场部署愤世嫉俗者时，当我们说：“我会表现得很好，但我想要一个非常消极、非常可疑的人来保护我或保护我的社区”，我认为这几乎是从进化的角度来看，这是一种真正可以理解的本能。
We are built to pay lots of attention to threats in our environment and threats to our community.
我们生来就非常关注我们环境中的威胁和对我们社区的威胁。
And in the early social world, just to do some back-of-the-envelope evolutionary psychology, if you wind the clock back 100,000, 150,000 years, what is the greatest threat to early communities?
在早期的社会世界中，只要做一些粗略的进化心理学，如果你把时钟拨回10万年、15万年，对早期社会来说最大的威胁是什么？
It's people, right?
是人，对吧？
It's people who would take advantage of our communal nature, right?
人们会利用我们的集体本性，对吧？
The thing that allows human beings to thrive is that we collaborate.
让人类蓬勃发展的是我们的合作。
But that collaboration means that a free rider, somebody who chooses to not pitch in, but still take out from the common pool anything that they want, can do exceptionally well.
但这种合作意味着搭便车的人，即选择不参与但仍从公共池中取出他们想要的任何东西的人，可以做得非常好。
They can live a life of leisure on the backs of a community that's working hard.
他们可以在努力工作的社区的支持下过上悠闲的生活。
And if you select then for that type of person, if that type of person proliferates, then the community collapses.
如果你选择那种人，如果这种人激增，那么社区就会崩溃。
So it makes sense that we depend on cynics from that perspective, from a threat mitigation perspective, from a risk aversion perspective.
因此，从这个角度、从威胁缓解的角度、从风险规避的角度来看，我们依赖愤世嫉俗的人是有道理的。
But it doesn't make sense from the perspective of trying to optimize our actual social lives, right?
但从试图优化我们实际社交生活的角度来看，这是没有意义的，对吧？
And I think that oftentimes we are risk averse in general, meaning that we're more scared of negative outcomes than we are enticed by positive outcomes.
我认为，我们通常都是厌恶风险的，这意味着我们更害怕负面结果，而不是被正面结果所吸引。
But in the social world, that risk aversion is, I think, quite harmful in a lot of demonstrable ways.
但我认为，在社会世界中，这种风险规避在很多方面都是相当有害的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Is cynicism domain specific?
犬儒主义有特定的领域吗？
And there again, I'm using jargon, meaning if somebody is cynical in one environment, like cynical about the markets, like, "Well, things are up now, but have an election come, so things could go this way or that way, depending on..." Do they tend to be cynical about other aspects of life, other domains?
再说一遍，我使用了行话，意思是如果有人在某种环境下愤世嫉俗，比如对市场愤世嫉俗，比如，“好吧，事情已经发生了，但是选举到来了，所以事情可能会这样或那样发展，具体取决于……”他们是否倾向于对生活的其他方面、其他领域感到愤世嫉俗？
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
So there's a little bit of data on this, and it suggests a couple of things.
关于这一点有一些数据，它表明了一些事情。
One, left to our own devices, our levels of cynicism tend to be pretty stable over time, and also decline in older adulthood, contra the stereotype of the curmudgeonly older person.
第一，如果任由我们自己决定，随着时间的推移，我们的愤世嫉俗程度往往相当稳定，并且在成年后也会下降，这与脾气暴躁的老年人的刻板印象相反。
But another is that cynicism does tend to be pretty domain general.
但另一个问题是，愤世嫉俗确实往往是相当普遍的。
So for instance, cynics, and this makes sense if you look at questionnaires that assess cynicism, which are things like, "People are honest chiefly through fear of getting caught," or, "Most people really don't like helping each other." If you're answering those questions positively, you're probably not great at parties.
举例来说，愤世嫉俗者，如果你看一下评估愤世嫉俗的问卷，这是有道理的，这些问卷是这样的，“人们之所以诚实，主要是因为害怕被抓住”，或者“大多数人真的不喜欢互相帮助”。如果你对这些问题的回答是积极的，那么你可能不太擅长参加聚会。
You're not a fan of people.
你不是人们的粉丝。
And it turns out that people who answer the, this is an old scale developed by a couple of psychologists named Walter Cooke and Donald Medley in the 1950s.
事实证明，回答这个问题的人是，这是由沃尔特·库克（Walter Cooke）和唐纳德·梅德利（Donald Medley）夫妇在 20 世纪 50 年代开发的旧量表。
If you answer the Cooke-Medley Hostility Scale, if you answer these questions positively, you tend to be less trusting of strangers, but you also tend to, for instance, have less trust in your romantic partnerships.
如果你回答库克-梅德利敌意量表，如果你积极回答这些问题，你往往不太信任陌生人，但你也往往不太信任你的浪漫伙伴关系。
You have less trust in your friends, and you have less trust in your colleagues.
你对朋友的信任度越来越低，对同事的信任度也越来越低。
So this is sort of an all-purpose view of the world, at least as Cooke and Medley first thought about it.
所以这是一种万能的世界观，至少库克和梅德利最初是这么认为的。
But I do want to build on a great intuition you have, which is that different environments might bring out cynicism or tamp it down.
但我确实想建立在你的伟大直觉之上，那就是不同的环境可能会引发愤世嫉俗或压制它。
And it turns out that that's also very true.
事实证明这也是千真万确的。
As trait-like as cynicism can be, there's lots of evidence that the type of social environment we're in matters a lot One of my favorite studies in this domain came from southeastern Brazil.
尽管愤世嫉俗可能具有类似的特质，但有大量证据表明，我们所处的社会环境类型非常重要。我在这个领域最喜欢的研究之一来自巴西东南部。
There are two fishing villages in southeastern Brazil.
巴西东南部有两个渔村。
They're separated by about 30, 40 miles.
他们相距大约30、40英里。
They're similar in socioeconomic status, religion, culture, but there's one big difference between them.
他们在社会经济地位、宗教、文化方面相似，但他们之间有一个很大的区别。
One of the villages sits on the ocean, and in order to fish on the ocean, you need big boats, heavy equipment.
其中一个村庄坐落在海边，为了在海上捕鱼，你需要大船和重型设备。
You can't do it alone.
你无法独自完成这件事。
You must work together.
你们必须共同努力。
The other village is on a lake where fishermen strike out on small boats alone, and they compete with one another.
另一个村子在湖边，渔民们单独划着小船出海，互相竞争。
About 10 years ago, economists, this was a study led by Andreas Libren, a really great economist.
大约十年前，经济学家们，这是由安德烈亚斯·利布伦（Andreas Libren）领导的一项研究，他是一位非常伟大的经济学家。
They went to these villages, and they gave the folks who worked there a bunch of social games to play.
他们去了这些村庄，给在那里工作的人们提供了很多社交游戏。
These were not with fellow fishermen, but with strangers.
这些人不是和其他渔民在一起，而是和陌生人在一起。
Games like, would you trust somebody with some money and see if they then want to share dividends with you?
类似这样的游戏，你会相信某人有一些钱，然后看看他们是否愿意与你分享红利吗？
Or given some money yourself, would you like to share some of it with another person?
或者你自己给了一些钱，你愿意与别人分享一些吗？
And they found that when they start in their careers, lake fishermen and ocean fishermen were equally trusting and equally trustworthy as well.
他们发现，当他们开始职业生涯时，湖泊渔民和海洋渔民同样相互信任，同样值得信赖。
But over the course of their careers, they diverged.
但在他们的职业生涯中，他们出现了分歧。
Being in a collaborative environment where people must count on one another to survive made people, over time, more trusting and more trustworthy.
在一个人们必须相互依赖才能生存的协作环境中，随着时间的推移，人们会变得更加信任、更加值得信赖。
Being in a competitive zero-sum environment over time made people less trusting and less trustworthy.
随着时间的推移，处于竞争性的零和环境中，人们会变得越来越不信任、越来越不值得信赖。
Now, one thing that always amazes me about this work is that people in both of these environments are right.
现在，这项工作总是让我感到惊讶的一件事是，在这两种环境中的人都是对的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
If you're in a competitive environment, you don't trust, and you're right to not trust.
如果你处于竞争环境中，你就不会信任，而且你不信任也是对的。
If you're in a collaborative environment, you do trust, and you're right to trust.
如果你处于协作环境中，你就会信任，而且你的信任是正确的。
And this is from the point of view of economic games, and I think much broadly construed as well.
这是从经济博弈的角度来看的，我认为也可以进行更广泛的解释。
So one question then becomes, well, which of these environments do we want to be in, right?
那么一个问题就变成了，我们想要处于其中哪一种环境中，对吗？
I think the costs in terms of well-being and relationships is quite obvious if you're in a competitive environment.
我认为，如果你处于竞争激烈的环境中，幸福感和人际关系方面的成本是相当明显的。
And then the second question, of course, is how do we put ourselves in the type of environment that we want, knowing that that environment will change who we are over the course of our lives?
当然，第二个问题是，我们如何将自己置于我们想要的环境中，并且知道该环境会在我们的一生中改变我们的身份？
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
So much of schooling in this country is based on, at first, cooperation.
这个国家的很多学校教育首先都是建立在合作的基础上的。
We're all going to sit around and listen to a story, and then we're going to work in small groups.
我们都会围坐在一起听故事，然后分成小组进行工作。
But in my experience, over time, it evolves into more independent learning and competition.
但根据我的经验，随着时间的推移，它会演变成更加独立的学习和竞争。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Yep.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
They post the distribution of scores.
他们发布分数分布。
That's largely the distribution of individual scores.
这主要是个人分数的分布。
There are exceptions to this, of course.
当然，也有例外。
I've never been to business school, but I think they form small groups and work on projects.
我从未去过商学院，但我认为他们会组成小组并从事项目工作。
It's true in computer science at the undergraduate level and so on.
在本科阶段的计算机科学等领域也是如此。
But to what extent do you think having a mixture of cooperative learning, still competition perhaps between groups, as well as individual learning and competition, can foster an erosion of cynicism?
但你认为合作学习、团体之间的竞争以及个人学习和竞争的混合在多大程度上可以促进犬儒主义的侵蚀？
Because it sounds like being cynical is, I don't want to be hard on the cynics here, but they're probably already hard on themselves and everybody else.
因为这听起来像是愤世嫉俗，我不想对这里的愤世嫉俗者严厉，但他们可能已经对自己和其他人严厉了。
We know they're hard on everybody else.
我们知道他们对其他人都很严厉。
But-- Oh, there was my presumption.
但是——哦，这是我的推测。
Okay.
好的。
I'm going to stay open-minded.
我将保持开放的态度。
Maybe they're not.
也许他们不是。
You'll tell me.
你会告诉我的。
That they are, on average, less intelligent is what I'm hearing, and that there's something really big to be gained from anybody who decides to embrace novel ideas, even if they decide to stick with their original decision about others or something.
我所听到的是，平均而言，他们的智力较低，而任何决定接受新奇想法的人都会获得很大的收获，即使他们决定坚持对他人或某事的最初决定。
Provided they explore the data in an open-minded way, even transiently, it sounds like there's an opportunity there.
只要他们以开放的方式探索数据，即使是短暂的，听起来也有机会。
You gave a long-term example of these two fishing scenarios.
您给出了这两种钓鱼场景的长期示例。
So the neuroplasticity takes years, but we know neuroplasticity can be pretty quick.
因此，神经可塑性需要数年时间，但我们知道神经可塑性可以非常快。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I would imagine if you expose a cynic to a counterexample to their belief, that it's not going to erode all of their cynicism, but it might make a little dent in that neural circuit for cynicism.
我想，如果你让一个愤世嫉俗者面对他们信仰的反例，这不会削弱他们所有的愤世嫉俗，但可能会对愤世嫉俗的神经回路产生一点影响。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Yeah, this is a great perspective.
是的，这是一个很棒的视角。
And a couple of things I want to be clear on.
我想澄清一些事情。
One, I am not here to judge or impugn cynics.
第一，我不是来评判或指责愤世嫉俗者的。
I should confess that I myself struggle with cynicism and have for my entire life.
我应该承认，我自己一生都在与愤世嫉俗作斗争。
Part of my journey to learn more about it and even to write this book was an attempt to understand myself and to see if it is possible to unlearn cynicism, because frankly, I wanted to.
我更多地了解它，甚至写这本书的过程中，有一部分是试图了解自己，看看是否有可能摆脱愤世嫉俗，因为坦率地说，我想这样做。
So you will get no judgment from me of people who feel like it's hard to trust.
所以我不会对那些感觉难以信任的人做出任何评判。
I think that another point that you're bringing out that I want to cosign is that saying that competition over the long term, zero-sum competition can erode our trust, isn't the same as saying that we should never compete.
我认为你提出的我想共同签名的另一点是，长期竞争、零和竞争会侵蚀我们的信任，并不等同于说我们永远不应该竞争。
Competition is beautiful.
竞争是美丽的。
The Olympics are going on right now, and it's amazing to see what people do when they are at odds, trying to best one another.
奥运会正在如火如荼地进行，看到人们在发生争执、试图互相取胜时所做的事情真是令人惊奇。
Incredible feats are accomplished when we focus on the great things that we can do, and oftentimes, we are driven to greatness by people we respect who are trying to be greater than us.
当我们专注于我们能做的伟大事情时，就会实现令人难以置信的壮举，而且常常，我们所尊敬的那些试图比我们更伟大的人驱使我们走向伟大。
So absolutely, competition can be part of a very healthy social structure and a very healthy life.
因此，竞争绝对可以成为非常健康的社会结构和非常健康的生活的一部分。
I think that the broader question is whether we construe that competition at the level of a task or at the level of the person, right?
我认为更广泛的问题是我们是否将竞争理解为任务层面的竞争还是人层面的竞争，对吧？
In fact, there's a lot of work in the science of conflict and conflict resolution that looks at the difference between task conflict and personal conflict.
事实上，在冲突和冲突解决科学方面有很多工作着眼于任务冲突和个人冲突之间的区别。
You can imagine in a workplace, two people have different ideas for what direction they want to take a project in.
您可以想象在工作场所中，两个人对于项目的发展方向有不同的想法。
Well, that's great if it leads to healthy debate and if that is mutually respectful.
好吧，如果它能引发健康的辩论并且相互尊重，那就太好了。
But the minute that that turns into Blanket judgments about the other person.
但那一刻就变成了对另一个人的全面判断。
"Oh, the reason that they want this direction is because they're not so bright, or because they don't have vision, or because they're trying to gain favor." That's when we go from healthy, skeptical conflict into cynical and destructive conflict.
“哦，他们之所以想要这个方向，是因为他们不那么聪明，或者是因为他们没有远见，或者是因为他们想博取青睐。”那时我们就会从健康的、怀疑的冲突转变为愤世嫉俗的、破坏性的冲突。
And you see this with athletes as well.
你在运动员身上也看到了这一点。
Athletes often are very good friends, and some of the people that they respect the most are the folks who they're battling.
运动员通常是非常好的朋友，他们最尊敬的一些人就是他们的对手。
In the case of contact sports and boxing, literally battling.
就接触运动和拳击而言，实际上是战斗。
But they can have immense and positive regard for one another outside of the ring in those contexts.
但在这种情况下，他们可以在擂台之外对彼此产生巨大而积极的尊重。
So I think that there's a huge difference between competition that's oriented on tasks which can help us be the best version of ourselves, and competition that bleeds into judgment, suspicion, and mistrust.
所以我认为，以能够帮助我们成为最好的自己的任务为导向的竞争，与导致判断、怀疑和不信任的竞争之间存在着巨大的差异。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I'd like to take us back just briefly to these developmental stages.
我想简单地带我们回顾一下这些发展阶段。
Maybe I'm bridging two things that don't belong together, but I'm thinking about the young brain, which, of course, is hyperplastic-
也许我正在弥合两个不属于一起的事物，但我正在考虑年轻的大脑，当然，它是增生的-
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Mm-hmm
嗯嗯
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
and comparing that to the older brain.
并将其与较老的大脑进行比较。
But the young brain learns a number of things while it does a number of things.
但年轻的大脑在做很多事情的同时，也学到了很多东西。
It handles heart rate, digestion, et cetera, unconsciously.
它会无意识地处理心率、消化等。
And then, in many ways, the neuroplasticity that occurs early in life is to establish these maps of prediction.
然后，在很多方面，生命早期发生的神经可塑性就是建立这些预测图。
If things fall down, not up, in general.
一般来说，如果事情下跌，而不是上涨。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Things fall down, not up, and so on.
东西会掉下来，而不是向上，等等。
So that mental real estate can be used for other things and learning new things.
这样心理空间就可以用于其他事情和学习新事物。
So I'm thinking about the sort of classic example of object permanence.
所以我正在思考物体持久性的经典例子。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Mm.
嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
You show a baby a block or a toy, and then you hide that toy, and they, at a certain age, a very young age, will look as if it's gone.
你给婴儿看一个积木或一个玩具，然后你把那个玩具藏起来，他们在某个年龄，很小的时候，看起来就像它消失了一样。
And then you bring it back, and then they're amazed.
然后你把它带回来，他们就会感到惊讶。
And then at some point along their developmental trajectory, they learn object permanence.
然后，在他们发展轨迹的某个时刻，他们学会了客体持久性。
They know that it's behind your back, okay?
他们知道这是在你背后，好吗？
And then we hear that characters like Santa Claus are real, and then eventually we learn that they're not, and so on and so on.
然后我们听说像圣诞老人这样的角色是真实的，然后最终我们知道它们不是，等等。
In many ways, we go from being completely non-cynical about the physical world to being-
在很多方面，我们从对物质世界完全不愤世嫉俗变成了——
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Mm-hmm
嗯嗯
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
one could sort of view it as cynical about the physical world, right?
人们可能会认为它是对物质世界的愤世嫉俗，对吗？
I love to see magic.
我喜欢看魔术。
In fact, we had probably the world's best, or among the very best magicians on this podcast, Ozzie Wind.
事实上，在这个播客中，我们可能拥有世界上最好的魔术师，或者说是最好的魔术师之一，Ozzie Wind。
He's a mentalist and magician.
他是一位心灵学家和魔术师。
And to see him do magic, even as an adult who understands that the laws of physics apply, they seem to defy the laws of physics in real time.
看到他施展魔法，即使作为一个理解物理定律适用的成年人，他们似乎也实时违背了物理定律。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Wow.
哇。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And it just blows your mind to the point where you, "That can't be," but you sort of want it to be, and at some point, you just go, "You know what?
它只会让你大吃一惊，“那不可能”，但你有点希望它是这样，在某些时候，你就会说，“你知道吗？
It's what we call magic." So it seems to me that cynics apply almost physics-like rules to social interaction.
这就是我们所说的魔法。”所以在我看来，愤世嫉俗者将几乎类似物理学的规则应用于社交互动。
Like that they talk in terms of first principles of-
就像他们谈论的首要原则一样——
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Yes
是的
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
human interactions.
人类互动。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Right?
对吗？
They talk about this group always this, and that group always that, right?
他们总是谈论这个群体，而谈论那个群体，总是那样，对吗？
These strict categories, thick black lines between-
这些严格的类别，之间的粗黑线-
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
between categories, as opposed to any kind of blending of understanding or a blending of rules.
类别之间，而不是任何类型的理解混合或规则混合。
And one can see how that would be a really useful heuristic, but as we're learning, it's not good in the sense that we don't want to judge.
人们可以看到这将是一种非常有用的启发式方法，但正如我们正在学习的那样，从我们不想做出判断的意义上来说，这并不好。
But it's not good if our goal is to learn more about the world or learn the most information about the world.
但如果我们的目标是更多地了解世界或者了解最多的关于世界的信息，那就不好了。
Can we say that?
我们可以这么说吗？
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Yes, and I appreciate you saying.
是的，我很欣赏你的说法。
Yeah, I also try to avoid good-bad language-
是的，我也尽量避免好坏的语言——
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Yeah
是啊
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
...
...
or moral judgment.
或道德判断。
But I think that many of us have the goals of having strong relationships and of flourishing psychologically, and of learning accurately about the world.
但我认为我们许多人的目标是建立牢固的人际关系、心理健康、准确地了解世界。
And if those are your goals, I think it's fair to say that cynicism can block your way towards them.
如果这些是你的目标，我认为可以公平地说，愤世嫉俗会阻碍你实现这些目标。
I've never thought about it in this way, but I love that perspective.
我从来没有以这种方式思考过这个问题，但我喜欢这个观点。
And there is almost a philosophical certainty.
这几乎是哲学上的确定性。
Maybe it's not a happy philosophical certainty.
也许这不是一个令人愉快的哲学确定性。
Human beings love explanatory power.
人类喜欢解释力。
We love to be able to have laws that determine what will happen, and the laws of physics are some of our most reliable, right?
我们希望能够拥有决定将要发生的事情的定律，而物理定律是我们最可靠的定律，对吧？
And really, we all use theories to predict the world, right?
事实上，我们都用理论来预测世界，对吧？
We all have a theory of gravity that lives inside our head.
我们脑子里都有一个万有引力理论。
We don't think objects with mass attract one another, but we know if we drop a bowling ball on our foot, we're going to probably maybe not walk for the next week at least, right?
我们不认为有质量的物体会相互吸引，但我们知道，如果我们把一个保龄球掉到脚上，我们可能至少在下周就不能走路了，对吧？
So we use theories to provide explanatory simplicity to a vast and overwhelmingly complex world.
因此，我们利用理论为广阔而极其复杂的世界提供简单的解释。
And absolutely, I think cynicism has a great function in simplifying.
当然，我认为犬儒主义在简化方面具有很大的作用。
But of course, in simplifying, we lose a lot of the detail.
但当然，在简化过程中，我们丢失了很多细节。
We lose a lot of the wonder that maybe we experienced earlier in life.
我们失去了很多早年经历过的奇迹。
And your beautiful description of kids and their sort of sense of, I suppose, perennial surprise makes me think about another aspect of what we lose to cynicism, which is the ability to witness the beauty of human action and human kindness.
你对孩子们的美丽描述以及他们那种常年感到惊讶的感觉让我想到了我们因愤世嫉俗而失去的另一个方面，那就是见证人类行为和人类善良之美的能力。
My friend Dacher Keltner studies awe, this emotion of experiencing something vast and also experiencing ourselves as small and a part of that vastness.
我的朋友达彻·凯尔特纳（Dacher Keltner）研究敬畏，这种体验巨大事物的情感，同时也体验自己的渺小和广阔的一部分。
And he wrote a great book on awe, and in it, he talks about his research where he cataloged what are the experiences that most commonly produce awe in a large representative sample of people.
他写了一本关于敬畏的好书，在书中，他谈到了他的研究，在其中他对大量有代表性的人群中最常产生敬畏的经历进行了分类。
Now, I don't know about you, Andrew, but when I think about awe, my first go-to is Carl Sagan's Pale Blue Dot.
现在，我不了解你，安德鲁，但当我想到敬畏时，我的第一个选择是卡尔·萨根的《淡蓝点》。
This image of a kind of nebula band, or a sort of cluster, basically, stardust, really.
这张图像是一种星云带，或者一种星团，基本上是星尘，真的。
And there's one dot in it with an arrow, and Carl Sagan says, "That dot is Earth, and every king and tyrant and mother and father, and every person who's ever fallen in love, and every person who's ever had their heart broken, they're all on that tiny dot there." I go to that.
其中有一个带有箭头的点，卡尔·萨根说：“那个点就是地球，每一位国王、暴君、母亲和父亲、每一个曾经坠入爱河的人、每一个曾经心碎过的人，他们都在那儿的那个小点上。”我去那儿。
I show that to my kids all the time.
我一直向我的孩子们展示这一点。
When I think of awe, I think of outer space, I think of groves of redwood trees, I think of drone footage of the Himalayas.
当我想到敬畏时，我想到了外太空，我想到了红杉树林，我想到了喜马拉雅山的无人机镜头。
But Dacher finds that if you ask people what they experience awe in response to, the number one category is what he calls moral beauty.
但达彻发现，如果你问人们对什么感到敬畏，排名第一的类别就是他所说的道德美。
Everyday acts of kindness, giving, compassion, and connection.
日常的善意、给予、同情和联系的行为。
This is also related to what Dacher and Jon Haidt talk about in terms of moral elevation, witnessing positive actions that actually make us feel like we're capable of more.
这也与 Dacher 和 Jon Haidt 所谈论的道德提升有关，见证积极的行动实际上让我们感觉自己有能力做更多的事情。
And moral beauty is everywhere.
道德之美无处不在。
If you are open to it, it is the most common thing that will make you feel the vastness of our species, and to have a lawful, physics-like prediction about the world that blinkers you from seeing that, that gives you tunnel vision and prevents you from experiencing moral beauty, seems like a tragic form of simplicity.
如果你对此持开放态度，这是最常见的事情，它会让你感受到我们物种的浩瀚，而对世界做出一种合法的、类似物理学的预测，却蒙蔽了你的双眼，让你视野狭隘，阻止你体验道德之美，这似乎是一种简单的悲剧形式。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I'd like to take a quick break and thank one of our sponsors, Function.
我想稍微休息一下，并感谢我们的赞助商之一 Function。
I recently became a Function member after searching for the most comprehensive approach to lab testing.
在寻找最全面的实验室测试方法后，我最近成为了 Function 成员。
While I've long been a fan of blood testing, I really wanted to find a more in-depth program for analyzing blood, urine, and saliva to get a full picture of my heart health, my hormone status, my immune system regulation, my metabolic function, my vitamin and mineral status, and other critical areas of my overall health and vitality.
虽然我长期以来一直热衷于血液检测，但我真的很想找到一个更深入的程序来分析血液、尿液和唾液，以全面了解我的心脏健康状况、我的激素状态、我的免疫系统调节、我的代谢功能、我的维生素和矿物质状态以及我整体健康和活力的其他关键领域。
Function not only provides testing of over 100 biomarkers key to physical and mental health, but it also analyzes these results and provides insights from top doctors on your results.
Function 不仅提供对身心健康至关重要的 100 多种生物标志物的测试，还分析这些结果并提供顶级医生对结果的见解。
For example, in one of my first tests with Function, I learned that I had too high levels of mercury in my blood.
例如，在我第一次使用 Function 进行测试时，我发现我的血液中汞含量过高。
This was totally surprising to me.
这让我完全惊讶。
I had no idea prior to taking the test.
参加考试之前我不知道。
Function not only helped me detect this, but offered medical doctor-informed insights on how to best reduce those mercury levels, which included limiting my tuna consumption, because I had been eating a lot of tuna, while also making an effort to eat more leafy greens and supplementing with NAC, N-acetylcysteine, both of which can support glutathione production and detoxification and worked to reduce my mercury levels.
功能不仅帮助我发现了这一点，而且还为我提供了如何最好地降低汞含量的医生知情见解，其中包括限制我的金枪鱼消费，因为我一直在吃大量金枪鱼，同时还努力多吃绿叶蔬菜并补充 NAC、N-乙酰半胱氨酸，这两者都可以支持谷胱甘肽的产生和解毒，并有助于降低我的汞含量。
Comprehensive lab testing like this is so important for health, and while I've been doing it for years, I've always found it to be overly complicated and expensive.
像这样的综合实验室测试对健康非常重要，虽然我已经这样做了很多年，但我总是发现它过于复杂和昂贵。
I've been so impressed by Function, both at the level of ease of use, that is getting the test done, as well as how comprehensive and how actionable the tests are, that I recently joined their advisory board, and I'm thrilled that they're sponsoring the podcast.
Function 给我留下了深刻的印象，无论是在易用性方面，还是在完成测试方面，以及测试的全面性和可操作性方面，我最近加入了他们的顾问委员会，我很高兴他们赞助了这个播客。
If you'd like to try Function, go to functionhealth.com/huberman.
如果您想尝试 Function，请访问 functionhealth.com/huberman。
Function currently has a wait list of over 250,000 people, but they're offering early access to Huberman Lab listeners.
Function 目前有超过 250,000 人的等待名单，但他们正在为 Huberman Lab 听众提供早期访问机会。
Again, that's functionhealth.com/huberman to get early access to Function.
同样，可以通过 functionhealth.com/huberman 提前访问 Function。
I love that your examples of awe, both pale blue dot and everyday compassion, bridge the two, what I think of as time domains, or I should say space-time domains that the brain can encompass.
我喜欢你的敬畏的例子，无论是淡蓝色的点还是日常的同情心，将两者联系起来，我认为是时间域，或者我应该说大脑可以包含的时空域。
This has long fascinated me about the human brain, and presumably other animals' brains as well, which is that we can sharpen our aperture to something so, so small and pay attention to just the immense beauty.
长期以来，我对人类的大脑很着迷，想必其他动物的大脑也很着迷，那就是我们可以将我们的视野放大到如此微小的东西，并只关注巨大的美丽。
I have a lot of ants in my yard right now, and lately, I've been watching them interact because they were driving me crazy.
我的院子里现在有很多蚂蚁，最近我一直在观察它们的互动，因为它们快把我逼疯了。
They're everywhere this summer, and they're climbing on me, and I thought, I'm just going to watch what they do, and clearly, there's a structure there.
今年夏天它们无处不在，它们正在向我攀爬，我想，我只是要看看它们做什么，很明显，那里有一个结构。
I know Deborah Gordon at Stanford has studied ant behavior and others, and it's like there's a lot going on there, but then you look up from that and you're like, "Wow, there's a big yard." And then the sense of awe for me is that interactions like that must be going on everywhere-
我知道斯坦福大学的黛博拉·戈登（Deborah Gordon）研究了蚂蚁的行为和其他行为，好像那里发生了很多事情，但当你抬头看去时，你会说，“哇，有一个大院子。”然后对我来说敬畏的感觉是这样的互动一定在任何地方都在发生——
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Yes
是的
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
in this yard.
在这个院子里。
And it frames up that the aperture of our cognition in space and in time, covering small distances quickly or small distances slowly, and then we can zoom out literally and think about us on this ball in space, right?
它规定了我们在空间和时间上的认知孔径，快速覆盖小距离或缓慢覆盖小距离，然后我们可以从字面上缩小并在空间中的这个球上思考我们，对吧？
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And that ability, I think, is incredible, and that awe can be captured at these different extremes of space-time cognition.
我认为这种能力是令人难以置信的，这种敬畏可以在时空认知的这些不同的极端中被捕捉到。
Amazing.
惊人的。
It seems to me that what you're saying is that cynicism and awe are also at opposite ends of the continuum, and that's taking us in a direction slightly different than I was going to try and take us, but I love that we're talking about awe because, to me, it feels like it's a more extreme example of delight.
在我看来，你所说的是，愤世嫉俗和敬畏也处于连续体的两端，这将我们带向与我试图带我们稍微不同的方向，但我喜欢我们谈论敬畏，因为对我来说，感觉这是一个更极端的快乐例子。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Mm.
嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And I'd like you to perhaps, if there's any examples of research on this, touch on to what extent a sense of cynicism divorces us from delight and awe, or I guess their collaborator, which is creativity.
如果有任何这方面的研究例子，我希望你能谈谈愤世嫉俗感在多大程度上使我们与喜悦和敬畏分开，或者我猜他们的合作者就是创造力。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Mm.
嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
To me, everything you're saying about cynicism makes it sound anti-creative because by definition, you're eliminating possibility, and creativity, of course, is the unique, original combination of existing things or the creation of new things altogether.
对我来说，你所说的关于愤世嫉俗的一切听起来都是反创造力的，因为根据定义，你正在消除可能性，而创造力当然是现有事物的独特的、原创的组合或新事物的创造。
Creativity.
创造力。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
So what, if anything, has been studied about the relationship between cynicism, I guess we call it open-mindedness-
那么，如果有什么关于愤世嫉俗之间的关系的研究，我想我们称之为开放心态-
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Mm-hmm
嗯嗯
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
and creativity and/or awe?
和创造力和/或敬畏？
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Great questions, and there is some work on this, and a lot of it comes actually in the context of the workplace, right?
很好的问题，对此有一些工作，其中很多实际上是在工作场所的背景下进行的，对吗？
So you can examine, these Brazilian fishing villages were, after all, workplaces that led people to more or less cynicism, but other workplaces also have structures that make people more or less able to trust one another.
所以你可以审视一下，巴西的这些渔村毕竟是一些让人或多或少愤世嫉俗的工作场所，但其他工作场所也有让人们或多或少能够相互信任的结构。
One version of this is what's known as stack ranking, and this is where managers are forced to pick the highest-performing and lowest-performing members of their team and, in essence, eliminate the people who are at the bottom 10% every 6 or 12 months.
其中一个版本就是所谓的堆栈排名，管理者被迫挑选团队中绩效最高和绩效最低的成员，实质上每 6 或 12 个月淘汰掉 10% 的底部人员。
Stack ranking has thankfully mostly fallen out of favor in the corporate world, but it was very de rigueur in the late 20th and early 21st century, up until 10 or so years ago, and it still exists in some places.
值得庆幸的是，Stack 排名在企业界已经不再受青睐，但它在 20 世纪末和 21 世纪初非常流行，直到 10 年前左右，而且在某些地方仍然存在。
And the idea, again, was if you want people to be creative, if you want them to do their best, tap into who they really are.
同样，这个想法是，如果你希望人们具有创造力，如果你希望他们尽力而为，那就挖掘他们的真实身份。
And who are we really?
我们到底是谁？
We are really a hyper-individualistic, again, Darwinian species.
我们确实是一个超级个人主义的物种，又是达尔文主义的物种。
Really, stack ranking is a social Darwinist approach to management.
实际上，堆栈排名是一种社会达尔文主义的管理方法。
And the idea is, well, great, if you threaten people, if you make them want to defeat one another, they will be at their most creative when they are trying to do that.
这个想法是，嗯，很棒，如果你威胁人们，如果你让他们想要互相击败，那么当他们试图做到这一点时，他们就会发挥出最大的创造力。
That it will bring out their best.
这将发挥出他们最好的一面。
The opposite is true.
事实恰恰相反。
Stack-ranked workplaces, of course, are miserable.
当然，堆栈排名的工作场所是悲惨的。
The people in them are quite unhappy and more likely to leave their jobs.
他们中的人非常不高兴，更有可能离职。
But some of the more interesting work pertains to what stack ranking does to creativity.
但一些更有趣的工作涉及堆栈排名对创造力的影响。
Because it turns out that if your job is to just not be at the bottom of the pile, then the last thing you want to do is take a creative risk.
因为事实证明，如果你的工作只是不处于最底层，那么你最不想做的就是承担创造性的风险。
You do not want to go out on a limb.
你不想冒险出去。
You do not want to try something new if other people are going to go after you for doing that.
如果其他人会因为你这样做而追随你，你就不想尝试新事物。
And if you screw up or if it doesn't go well, you're eliminated from the group.
如果你搞砸了或者进展不顺利，你就会被从团队中淘汰。
So I think you're exactly right that these cynical environments are also highly conservative.
所以我认为你说得对，这些愤世嫉俗的环境也是高度保守的。
I, of course, don't mean politically conservative, I mean conservative in terms of the types of choices that people make.
当然，我并不是指政治上的保守，而是指人们做出的选择类型方面的保守。
And that's sort of, I think, at the level of individual creativity.
我认为，这在个人创造力的层面上。
But there's also a cost at the level of what we might call group creativity.
但在我们所谓的团队创造力层面上也存在成本。
A lot of our best ideas come not from our minds, but from the space between us, from dialogue, or from group conversation.
我们的许多最好的想法不是来自我们的头脑，而是来自我们之间的空间、对话或小组对话。
And it turns out that in stack rank zero-sum environments, people are less willing to share knowledge and perspective, because doing so amounts to helping your enemy succeed, which is the same as helping yourself fail.
事实证明，在堆栈等级零和环境中，人们不太愿意分享知识和观点，因为这样做相当于帮助敌人成功，这与帮助自己失败是一样的。
So to the extent that creativity requires a sort of collaborative mindset, then cynicism is preventative of that.
因此，就创造力需要某种协作心态而言，犬儒主义可以预防这种情况。
And there's actually some terrific work by Anita Woolley and colleagues that looks at group intelligence, collective intelligence.
事实上，安妮塔·伍利（Anita Woolley）和同事们在研究群体智慧、集体智慧方面做了一些了不起的工作。
This is the idea that, of course, people have levels of intelligence that can be measured in various ways and have various forms of intelligence as well.
当然，人们的智力水平可以通过多种方式测量，并且智力也有多种形式。
But groups, when they get together, have a type of intelligence, and especially creative problem-solving intelligence that goes above and beyond the sum of their parts, that can't be explained, and actually, in some cases, is almost orthogonal to the intelligence of the individuals in that group.
但是，当群体聚集在一起时，就会有一种智力，尤其是创造性的解决问题的智力，这种智力超出了各个部分的总和，这是无法解释的，而且实际上，在某些情况下，几乎与该群体中个体的智力正交。
Controlling for the intelligence of individuals, there's a group factor that still matters.
在控制个人智力的情况下，群体因素仍然很重要。
And so Anita Woolley and others have looked at, well, what predicts that type of collective intelligence, and a couple of factors matter.
因此，安妮塔·伍利（Anita Woolley）和其他人研究了什么可以预测这种类型的集体智慧，以及几个重要的因素。
One is people's ability to understand each other's emotions, so interpersonal sensitivity.
一是人们理解彼此情绪的能力，即人际敏感性。
But another is their willingness to, in essence, pass the mic, to share the conversation, and to collaborate.
但另一个本质上是他们愿意传递麦克风、分享对话和合作。
And so again, succeeding, thriving, optimizing, and being creative, both at the individual and at the group level, require environments where we feel free and where we feel safe, and where we feel that contributing to somebody else can also contribute to ourselves.
同样，无论是在个人层面还是在团队层面，成功、蓬勃发展、优化和发挥创造力都需要我们感到自由、感到安全的环境，并且我们认为为他人做出贡献也可以为自己做出贡献。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
It's so interesting to think about all of this in the context of neuroplasticity.
在神经可塑性的背景下思考这一切是非常有趣的。
I feel like one of the holy grails of neuroscience is to finally understand what are the gates to neuroplasticity.
我觉得神经科学的圣杯之一就是最终了解神经可塑性的大门是什么。
We understand a lot about the cellular mechanisms.
我们对细胞机制了解很多。
We know it's possible throughout the lifespan.
我们知道这在整个生命周期都是可能的。
We know that there's, sure, an involvement of different neuromodulators and so on.
我们知道，当然，不同的神经调节剂等都参与其中。
But at the level of human behavior and emotional stance, not a technical term but I'll use it, of, say, being curious.
但在人类行为和情感立场的层面上，这不是一个技术术语，但我会用它，比如说，好奇。
To me, curiosity is an interest in the outcome with no specific emotional attachment-
对我来说，好奇心是对结果的兴趣，没有特定的情感依恋——
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
to the outcome.
到结果。
But of course, we could say you're curious with the hope of getting a certain result, so one could modify it.
但当然，我们可以说你很好奇，希望得到某个结果，所以可以修改它。
But there is something about that childlike mind, so-called beginner's mind, where you're open to different outcomes.
但孩子般的心态，即所谓的初学者心态，会让你对不同的结果持开放态度。
And it seems like the examples that you're giving keep bringing me back to these developmental themes, because if it's true that cynics exclude a lot of data that could be useful to them, it seems that the opportunities for neuroplasticity are reduced for cynics.
你给出的例子似乎不断让我回到这些发展主题，因为如果愤世嫉俗者确实排除了许多可能对他们有用的数据，那么对于愤世嫉俗者来说，神经可塑性的机会似乎就会减少。
To flip it on its head, to what extent are we all a little bit cynical, and how would we explore that?
反过来说，我们在多大程度上都有点愤世嫉俗，我们将如何探索这一点？
If I were in your laboratory and you had 10 minutes with me, what questions would you ask me to determine how cynical I might be or how not cynical I might be?
如果我在你的实验室，你有 10 分钟的时间和我在一起，你会问我什么问题来确定我可能有多愤世嫉俗，或者我可能有多不愤世嫉俗？
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Well, the first thing that I would do is give you that classic questionnaire from Cook and Medley, which would just ask you about your theories of the world.
好吧，我要做的第一件事就是给你一份来自库克和梅德利的经典调查问卷，它只会询问你关于世界的理论。
What do you think people are like?
你认为人是什么样的？
Do you think that people are generally honest?
你认为人们普遍诚实吗？
Do you think that they are generally trustworthy?
您认为他们总体上值得信赖吗？
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
So it loads the questions, or it's open-ended where would you say, "What are people like?" And then I would just kind of free associate about that?
所以它会加载问题，或者是开放式的，你会说“人们是什么样的？”然后我就可以自由联想了？
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
No, it's a series of 50 statements.
不，这是一系列 50 条陈述。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm.
嗯。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
And you're asked in a binary way, do you agree or disagree with each of these statements?
然后以二元的方式问你，你同意还是不同意这些陈述？
Since then, Olga Stavrova and others have adapted Cook-Medley and made it a shorter scale and turned the questions into continuous one to nine or one to seven answers.
此后，奥尔加·斯塔夫罗娃（Olga Stavrova）等人对库克混合泳进行了改编，将其规模缩小，并将问题变成连续的一比九或一比七的答案。
But generally speaking, these are discrete questions that numerically or quantitatively tap our general theories of people.
但一般来说，这些是离散的问题，在数字或定量上挖掘我们关于人类的一般理论。
If you were in my lab, I might also ask you to play some different economic games.
如果你在我的实验室，我可能还会要求你玩一些不同的经济游戏。
The trust game being the number one that we might use here.
信任游戏是我们在这里可能使用的第一个游戏。
So I can explain it.
所以我可以解释一下。
So the trust game involves two players, and one of them is an investor.
所以信任博弈涉及两个玩家，其中一个是投资者。
They start out with some amount of money, let's just say $10.
他们一开始有一定数额的钱，比如说 10 美元。
They can send as much of that money as they want to a trustee.
他们可以将任意数量的资金发送给受托人。
The money is then tripled in value.
那么这笔钱的价值就会增加三倍。
So if the investor sends $10, in the hands of the trustee, it becomes $30.
因此，如果投资者发送 10 美元，到了受托人手中，它就变成了 30 美元。
The trustee can then choose to give back whatever amount they want to the investor.
然后，受托人可以选择向投资者返还他们想要的任何金额。
So they can be exactly fair and give $15 back, in which case both people end up pretty much better off than they would have without an act of trust.
因此，他们可以完全公平地返还 15 美元，在这种情况下，双方最终都会比没有信任行为时的情况好得多。
The trustee can keep all $30 themselves, betraying the investor, or the trustee can give more than $50 back.
受托人可以自己保留所有 30 美元，背叛投资者，或者受托人可以退还 50 美元以上。
They can say, "Well, I started out with nothing.
他们可以说：“好吧，我一开始什么都没有。
Why did you take two-thirds back?" And this is one terrific behavioral measure of trust, and it can be played in a couple of different ways.
为什么要收回三分之二？”这是一种很棒的信任行为衡量标准，可以通过多种不同的方式发挥作用。
One is binary, where I would say, "Andrew, you can send $10 to an internet stranger, or you can send nothing, and they can choose to send you back half, or they can choose to send you back nothing." Would you do it?
一种是二元的，我会说，“安德鲁，你可以向互联网上的陌生人发送 10 美元，或者你可以什么也不发送，他们可以选择向你退回一半，或者他们可以选择不向你退回任何内容。”你会做吗？
Actually, I'm curious.
其实我很好奇。
Would you do that?
你会这么做吗？
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Oh, I absolutely zip it over to them.
哦，我绝对把它交给他们了。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Yeah, I'm curious.
是的，我很好奇。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Great.
太棒了。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And I'm willing to lose the money, so I suppose that factors in as well.
我愿意损失这笔钱，所以我想这也是因素之一。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Follow-up question.
后续问题。
In that type of study, what percentage of trustees do you think make the trustworthy decision of sending back the money?
在此类研究中，您认为有多少比例的受托人做出了退回资金的可信决定？
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Hmm.
嗯。
Gosh.
天哪。
55%.
55%。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Yeah.
是的。
So your prediction there is quite aligned with most people's.
所以你的预测与大多数人的预测非常一致。
There's a great study by Fetchenhauer and Dunning, that found that people, when they're asked to forecast, they say, "I bet 50 to 55% of people will send this money back, will make this binary trust decision." In fact, 80% of trustees make the pro-social and trustworthy decision.
Fetchenhauer 和 Dunning 进行了一项出色的研究，发现人们在被要求进行预测时会说，“我打赌 50% 到 55% 的人会退回这笔钱，会做出这种二元信任决定。”事实上，80% 的受托人做出了有利于社会且值得信赖的决定。
And again, what Fetchenhauer and Dunning found is that when we have negative assumptions, we're less likely to send over the money, and therefore less likely to learn that we were wrong.
费钦豪尔和邓宁再次发现，当我们有负面假设时，我们不太可能把钱汇过来，因此也不太可能知道我们错了。
Right?
正确的？
And so it's another example of where cynical beliefs-- You're interesting because you had the belief that it's a 50% chance, but you still chose to trust, right?
这是愤世嫉俗的信念的另一个例子——你很有趣，因为你相信有 50% 的机会，但你仍然选择相信，对吗？
So from a Bayesian perspective, when that person actually sent the money back, which they would have an 80% chance of doing, and if I were to ask you again, what percentage of people give back, you might update your perception.
因此，从贝叶斯的角度来看，当那个人真的把钱退回来时，他们有 80% 的机会这样做，如果我再问你，有多少百分比的人退回钱，你可能会更新你的看法。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Absolutely.
绝对的。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Right?
对吗？
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
But without any evidence, you can't update your perception.
但没有任何证据，你就无法更新你的看法。
And this is just one of many examples.
这只是众多例子之一。
It turns out that there's a lot of evidence that when asked to estimate how friendly, trustworthy, compassionate, or open-minded others are, people's estimates come in much lower than data suggest.
事实证明，有大量证据表明，当被要求评估他人是否友善、值得信赖、富有同情心或思想开放时，人们的评估结果远低于数据显示的结果。
And this, to me, is both the tragedy of cynical thinking, those heuristics that we're using, and a major opportunity for so many of us.
对我来说，这既是我们正在使用的愤世嫉俗思维的悲剧，也是我们许多人的一个重大机会。
Right?
正确的？
It's a tragedy because we're coming up with these simple black-and-white physics-like predictions about the world, and they're often wrong.
这是一场悲剧，因为我们对世界提出了这些简单的黑白物理学预测，但它们往往是错误的。
They're often unduly negative.
他们常常过于消极。
An opportunity because to the extent that we can tap into a more scientific or curious mindset, to the extent that we can open ourselves to the data, pleasant surprises are everywhere.
这是一个机会，因为只要我们能够采用更科学或更好奇的思维方式，只要我们能够向数据开放自己，惊喜就无处不在。
The social world is full of a lot more positive and helpful and kind people than we realize, right?
社交世界充满了比我们想象的更积极、更乐于助人、更善良的人，对吗？
The average person underestimates the average person.
普通人低估了普通人。
This is not to say that there aren't people who do awful things every day around the world.
这并不是说世界上没有人每天都在做可怕的事情。
There, of course, are.
当然有。
But we take those extreme examples and over-rotate on them.
但我们会采取一些极端的例子，并对其进行过度旋转。
We assume that the most toxic, awful examples that we see are representative when they're not.
我们认为我们看到的最有毒、最可怕的例子是具有代表性的，但实际上它们并非如此。
So we miss all these opportunities.
所以我们错过了所有这些机会。
But understanding that, I hope, opens people to gaining more of those opportunities, to using them, and to finding out more accurate and more hopeful information about each other.
但我希望，了解这一点能让人们获得更多的机会，利用它们，并找到关于彼此的更准确、更有希望的信息。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
There does seem to be a salience about negative interactions or somebody stealing from us or doing something that we consider cruel to us or to others.
负面互动或有人偷窃我们的东西或做一些我们认为对我们或他人残忍的事情似乎确实很突出。
Nowadays with social media, we get a window into, gosh, probably billions of social interactions in the form of comments and clap backs and- ...
如今，借助社交媒体，我们可以通过评论和拍手的形式了解数十亿的社交互动，而且——……
retweets and there certainly is benevolence on social media.
转发，社交媒体上肯定有善意。
But what, if any, data exists about how social media either feeds or impedes cynicism, or maybe it doesn't change it at all?
但是，关于社交媒体如何助长或阻止愤世嫉俗的数据，如果有的话，有哪些数据存在，或者它根本不会改变它呢？
And I should say that there's also the kind of-- I have to be careful.
我应该说，还有一种——我必须小心。
I'm trying not to be cynical.
我努力不显得愤世嫉俗。
I maintain the view that certain social media platforms encourage a bit more negativity than others.
我坚持认为某些社交媒体平台比其他社交媒体平台更鼓励消极情绪。
And certainly, there are accounts, I'm trying to think of accounts on Instagram, like Upworthy.
当然，也有一些账户，我正在考虑 Instagram 上的账户，比如 Upworthy。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Which its whole basis is to promote positive stuff.
其全部基础是促进积极的事物。
I like that account very much.
我非常喜欢这个帐户。
But certainly, you can find the full array of emotions on social media.
但当然，你可以在社交媒体上找到各种各样的情感。
To what extent is just being on social media, regardless of platform, increasing or decreasing cynicism?
无论平台如何，仅仅出现在社交媒体上会在多大程度上增加或减少愤世嫉俗？
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
It's a terrific question.
这是一个很棒的问题。
It's hard to provide a very clear answer, and I don't want to get out over my skis with what is known and what's not known.
很难提供一个非常明确的答案，而且我不想带着已知和未知的东西走出我的滑雪板。
Social media has been a tectonic shift in our lives.
社交媒体已经给我们的生活带来了结构性转变。
It has coincided with a rise in cynicism, but as you know, history is not an experiment, so you can't take two temporal trends that are coincident with one another and say that one caused the other.
它与犬儒主义的兴起同时发生，但正如你所知，历史不是一场实验，所以你不能把两个彼此一致的时间趋势说为其中一个导致了另一个。
That said, my own intuition and a lot of the data suggests that in at least some ways, social media is a cynicism factory, right?
也就是说，我自己的直觉和大量数据表明，至少在某些方面，社交媒体是一个愤世嫉俗的工厂，对吧？
So let's first stipulate how much time we're spending on there.
因此，我们首先规定我们要在那里花费多少时间。
The average person goes through 300 feet of social media feed a day.
一般人每天浏览 300 英尺的社交媒体内容。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Is that right?
是这样吗？
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
They've measured it in feet?
他们用英尺来测量吗？
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Approximately the height of the Statue of Liberty, yeah.
大约是自由女神像的高度，是的。
So we're doing one Statue of Liberty worth of scrolling a day, much of it doom scrolling, if you're anything like me, at least.
所以我们每天都会滚动一尊自由女神像，其中大部分都是厄运滚动，至少如果你和我一样的话。
And so then the question becomes, what are we seeing when we scroll for that long?
那么问题就变成了，当我们滚动那么长时间时，我们看到了什么？
Who are we seeing?
我们在见谁？
And are they representative of what people are really like?
它们代表了人们的真实面貌吗？
And the answer, in a lot of ways, is no. What we see on social media is not representative of the human population.
从很多方面来看，答案是否定的。我们在社交媒体上看到的内容并不代表人类。
So there's a lot of evidence, a lot of this comes from William Brady, now at Northwestern, and Molly Crockett, that when people tweet, for instance, a lot of this is done on the site formerly known as Twitter, when people tweet in outrage, and when they tweet negatively, and when they tweet about, in particular, immorality, right?
因此，有很多证据，其中很多来自现在西北大学的威廉·布雷迪（William Brady）和莫莉·克罗克特（Molly Crockett），例如，当人们发推文时，很多都是在以前称为 Twitter 的网站上完成的，当人们愤怒地发推文时，当他们发表负面推文时，以及当他们特别是关于不道德的推文时，对吗？
Moral outrage, that algorithmically, those tweets are broadcast further.
道德上的愤怒，从算法上讲，这些推文会被进一步传播。
They're shared more.
他们分享的更多。
And this does a couple of things.
这有几件事。
One, it reinforces the people who are already tweeting in that way.
第一，它强化了已经以这种方式发推文的人。
So William Brady has this great work using a kind of reinforcement learning model, right?
威廉·布雷迪 (William Brady) 使用强化学习模型完成了这项伟大的工作，对吗？
Reinforcement learning is where you do something, you're rewarded, and that reward makes you more likely to do that same thing again.
强化学习是指你做了某件事，你就会得到奖励，而这种奖励会让你更有可能再次做同样的事情。
And it turns out that Brady found that when people tweet in outrage and then get egged on, and oftentimes, I should say, this is tribal in nature.
事实证明，布雷迪发现，当人们愤怒地发推文然后受到怂恿时，我应该说，这通常是部落性质的。
It's somebody tweeting against somebody who's an outsider and then being rewarded by people who they consider to be part of their group, right?
这是一个人在推特上反对一个局外人，然后得到他们认为属于他们群体的人的奖励，对吗？
When that happens, that person is more likely in their future tweets to turn up the volume on that outrage and on that moral outrage in particular.
当这种情况发生时，那个人更有可能在未来的推文中加大愤怒的力度，尤其是道德愤怒。
So there's a sort of ratchet effect, right, on the people who are sharing.
因此，对于共享的人来说，存在一种棘轮效应，对吧。
But a second question becomes, well, what about the people watching?
但第二个问题是，观众怎么办？
What about the rest of us?
那我们其他人呢？
Claire Robertson has a great paper on this where she documents that a vast majority, 90-plus percent of tweets are created by the 10% of the most active users, right?
Claire Robertson 在这方面有一篇很棒的论文，她记录了绝大多数（90% 以上）的推文是由 10% 最活跃的用户创建的，对吧？
And this is in the political sphere.
这是在政治领域。
And these are probably not representative, these folks, not representative of the rest of us in terms of how extreme, and maybe how bitter their opinions are.
这些人可能不具有代表性，他们的观点有多极端，甚至可能有多尖酸刻薄，不能代表我们其他人。
And so we, when we're scrolling that Statue of Liberty's worth of information, we think that we're seeing the world.
因此，当我们滚动自由女神像的信息时，我们认为我们正在看到这个世界。
We think that we're seeing our fellow citizens.
我们认为我们正在见到我们的同胞。
We think that we're getting a picture of what people are like.
我们认为我们正在了解人们是什么样的。
In fact, we're pulling from the fringes, and what this leads to is a misconstrual of what the world is really like.
事实上，我们正在脱离边缘，这导致了对世界真实面貌的误解。
This is, by the way, not just a part of social media.
顺便说一句，这不仅仅是社交媒体的一部分。
It's also part of legacy media.
它也是传统媒体的一部分。
Communication theorists talk about something called the mean world syndrome, right?
传播理论家谈论的是一种叫做“卑鄙世界综合症”的东西，对吗？
Where the more time that you spend looking at the news, for instance, the more you think violent crime is up in your area.
例如，您花在看新闻上的时间越多，您就越认为您所在地区的暴力犯罪率越高。
The more you think you're in danger of violent crime, even during years when violent crime is decreasing.
您越认为自己面临暴力犯罪的危险，即使在暴力犯罪减少的年份也是如此。
I'm old enough to remember when stranger danger was this big, massive story.
我已经足够大了，还记得陌生人的危险是什么时候这么大的故事。
And every time you wanted cereal, the milk carton would have a picture of a kid who had been kidnapped by a stranger.
每次你想要麦片时，牛奶盒上都会有一张被陌生人绑架的孩子的照片。
And during that time, if you asked people how many kids are being kidnapped by strangers in the US, they would in many cases say 50,000 children are being kidnapped each year in the US.
在那段时间里，如果你问人们美国有多少孩子被陌生人绑架，他们大多会说美国每年有 5 万名儿童被绑架。
Can you imagine what the world would-- There would be SWAT teams on every corner.
你能想象世界会怎样吗——每个角落都会有特警队。
The real number in those years was closer to 100 kids per year.
那些年的实际数字每年接近 100 名。
Now, let me be clear, each one of those is an absolute tragedy, but there's a big difference here.
现在，让我澄清一下，每一个都是绝对的悲剧，但这里有很大的区别。
And oftentimes, when we tune into media, we end up with these enormously warped perceptions where we think that the world is much more dangerous than it really is.
通常，当我们关注媒体时，我们最终会产生这些极其扭曲的观念，我们认为世界比实际情况要危险得多。
We think that people are much more extreme than they really are.
我们认为人们比实际情况要极端得多。
And because stories of immorality go viral so much more often than stories of everyday goodness, I love Upworthy as well, but it's not winning right now in the social media wars.
因为不道德的故事比日常善良的故事更容易被病毒传播，所以我也喜欢 Upworthy，但它目前在社交媒体战争中还没有获胜。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Not yet.
还没有。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Not yet.
还没有。
And so this leaves us all absolutely exhausted and also feeling alone.
因此，这让我们所有人都筋疲力尽，而且感到孤独。
People who feel like, "Wow, I actually don't feel that much outrage," or, "I don't want to feel that much outrage.
人们感觉“哇，我实际上并没有感到那么愤怒”，或者“我不想感到那么愤怒。
I actually don't want to hate everybody who's different from me," for instance.
我实际上不想讨厌每个与我不同的人，”例如。
"I'm just exhausted by all this." We feel like, well, I guess I'm the only one because everybody else seems real excited about this battle royale that we've put ourselves in.
“我只是被这一切弄得筋疲力尽了。”我们觉得，好吧，我想我是唯一的一个，因为其他人似乎都对我们投入的这场大逃杀感到非常兴奋。
But in fact, most people are just like the exhausted majority, right?
但事实上，大多数人都像疲惫不堪的大多数人一样，对吗？
We're paying so much attention to a tiny minority of what the journalist Amanda Ripley calls conflict entrepreneurs, people who stoke conflict on purpose, that we're confusing them with the average.
我们过于关注记者阿曼达·里普利（Amanda Ripley）所说的冲突企业家（即故意煽动冲突的人）中的极少数人，以至于我们将他们与普通人混淆了。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Oof, so much there.
噢，就这么多。
I have, I suppose, a mixed relationship to social media.
我想，我与社交媒体的关系是复杂的。
I teach there and I learn there, and I also have to be very discerning in terms of how I interact with it.
我在那里教书，在那里学习，而且我在如何与它互动方面也必须非常有洞察力。
And you made this point that I've never heard anyone make before, which is that many people feel alone by virtue of the fact that they don't share in this warring nature that they see on social media.
你提出了我以前从未听过任何人说过的观点，即许多人因为不参与社交媒体上看到的这种交战本质而感到孤独。
It's almost like sometimes I feel like I'm watching a combat sport that I don't feel quite cut out for.
有时候我感觉自己好像在观看一项格斗运动，但我觉得自己不太适合这项运动。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And then when I'm away from it, I feel better.
然后当我远离它时，我感觉好多了。
But I, like everybody else, sometimes will get sucked into the highly salient nature of a combat between groups on social media.
但我和其他人一样，有时会陷入社交媒体上群体之间斗争的高度显着本质。
It can be very alluring in the worst ways.
它可以以最糟糕的方式非常诱人。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
This mean world syndrome, what's the inverse of that?
这是平均世界综合症，它的反面是什么？
A kind world syndrome, I suppose.
我想这是一种善良的世界综合症。
But attempts at creating those sorts of social media platforms have been made, things like Blue Sky-
但已经尝试创建此类社交媒体平台，例如蓝天-
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
which has other aspects to it as well, and while it may be thriving, I don't know, I haven't checked recently, it seems like people aren't really interested in being on there as much as they are these other platforms.
它还有其他方面，虽然它可能正在蓬勃发展，但我不知道，我最近没有检查过，似乎人们对在那里的兴趣并不像对其他平台那样感兴趣。
Clearly, the numbers play out that way.
显然，这些数字就是这样发挥的。
Why do you think that is?
你认为这是为什么？
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Well, we, as a species, I think, are characterized by what we would call negativity bias, right?
嗯，我认为，作为一个物种，我们的特点是所谓的消极偏见，对吧？
Negative events and threats loom larger in our minds, and that happens in a number of domains.
负面事件和威胁在我们的脑海中变得更加突出，并且这种情况发生在许多领域。
Our decision-making is negatively biased in that we'd prefer to avoid a negative outcome than to pursue a positive outcome.
我们的决策存在消极偏见，因为我们宁愿避免消极结果，也不愿追求积极结果。
That's the classic work of Kahneman and Tversky, for instance.
例如，这是卡尼曼和特沃斯基的经典作品。
The impressions that we form are often negatively skewed.
我们形成的印象常常是负面的。
So classic work in psychology going back to the 1950s shows that if you teach somebody about a new person who they've never met and you list three positive qualities that this person has and three negative qualities, people will very much judge the person on their worst qualities, and also remember more about their negative qualities than about their positive qualities.
追溯到 20 世纪 50 年代的经典心理学著作表明，如果你教某人认识一个从未见过的新人，并列出这个人所具有的三种积极品质和三种消极品质，那么人们会更多地根据这个人最差的品质来评判这个人，并且更多地记住他们的消极品质，而不是他们的积极品质。
And again, you can see why this would be part of who we are, because we need to protect one another.
再说一次，你会明白为什么这会成为我们的一部分，因为我们需要互相保护。
We also tend to, by the way, not just think in a negatively biased way, but speak and share in a negatively biased way.
顺便说一句，我们不仅倾向于以消极偏见的方式思考，而且以消极偏见的方式说话和分享。
In my lab, we had a study where people witnessed other groups of four playing an economic game where they could be selfish or they could be positive.
在我的实验室里，我们进行了一项研究，人们目睹了其他四人小组玩经济游戏，他们可以是自私的，也可以是积极的。
And we asked them, "Okay, we're going to ask you to share a piece of information about one of the people you were playing this game with for a future generation of participants.
我们问他们，“好吧，我们要请你为下一代参与者分享一些关于你一起玩这个游戏的人的信息。
Who would you like to share about?" And when somebody in a group acted in a selfish way, people shared information about them three times more often than when they acted in a generous way.
你想和谁分享？”当群体中的某人以自私的方式行事时，人们分享有关他们的信息的频率是他们以慷慨的方式行事时的三倍。
So we gossip negatively.
所以我们消极地八卦。
And again, that gossip is pro-social.
再说一次，这种八卦是有利于社会的。
The idea is, if there's somebody out there harming my community, of course I'm going to shout about them from the rooftops because I want to protect my friends.
我的想法是，如果有人伤害我的社区，我当然会在屋顶上大声喊叫，因为我想保护我的朋友。
It's a very noble instinct in a way.
在某种程度上，这是一种非常崇高的本能。
But we further found that when we actually showed a new generation of participants the gossip that the first generation shared, and we asked, "Hey, how generous and how selfish were people in that first generation?" They vastly underestimated that group's generosity.
但我们进一步发现，当我们向新一代参与者展示第一代人分享的八卦时，我们会问：“嘿，第一代人有多慷慨和自私？”他们大大低估了该团体的慷慨。
Does that make sense?
这有道理吗？
In other words, in trying to protect our communities, we send highly biased information about who's in our community and give other people the wrong idea of who we are.
换句话说，在试图保护我们的社区时，我们发送了关于我们社区中的成员的高度偏见的信息，并让其他人对我们是谁有了错误的认识。
And I see that unfolding on social media every day of my life.
我每天都在社交媒体上看到这种情况的发生。
Every day that I'm on social media, I do try to take breaks, but when I'm on there, I see it.
每天我在社交媒体上时，我都会尝试休息一下，但当我在社交媒体上时，我就会看到这一点。
And to your question, what do we do here?
对于你的问题，我们在这里做什么？
Why don't positive networks, positive information, why doesn't it proliferate more?
为什么积极的网络、积极的信息没有更多地扩散？
I think it's because of these ingrained biases in our mind.
我认为这是因为我们头脑中根深蒂固的偏见。
And I understand that that can sound fatalistic, because it's like, "Oh, maybe this is just who we are." But I don't think that we generally accept our instincts and biases as a life sentence, as destiny.
我知道这听起来有些宿命论，因为这就像，“哦，也许这就是我们。”但我不认为我们普遍接受我们的本能和偏见作为无期徒刑，作为命运。
A lot of us, well, human beings in general, have the instinct to trust and be kinder towards people who look like us versus people who don't.
我们中的很多人，一般来说，都有本能去信任和友善地对待那些与我们相似的人，而不是那些与我们不同的人。
For instance, who share our racial makeup.
例如，谁与我们有共同的种族构成。
None of us, I think, or few of us sit here and say, "Well, I have that bias in my mind, so I guess I'm always going to be racially biased." We try to counteract those instincts.
我想，我们中没有人，或者很少有人坐在这里说：“好吧，我心里有这种偏见，所以我想我总是会存在种族偏见。”我们试图抵消这些本能。
We try to become aware of those biases.
我们试图意识到这些偏见。
Depressed people have the bias to see themselves as worthless and to interpret new information they receive through that framework.
抑郁症患者倾向于认为自己毫无价值，并通过该框架解释他们收到的新信息。
Well, therapy is the attempt to say, "I don't want to feel this way anymore.
嗯，治疗就是试图说：“我不想再有这种感觉了。
I want to fight the default settings in my mind.
我想与我心中的默认设置作斗争。
I want to try to explore curiosity, to explore something new." So to say that this toxic environment that we're in corresponds with some of our biases is, to me, not the same as saying we are destined to remain in that situation.
我想尝试探索好奇心，探索新事物。”因此，对我来说，说我们所处的这种有毒环境与我们的一些偏见相对应，并不等于说我们注定要保持这种情况。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Do you think it's possible to be adequately informed about threats, to be able to live one's life in the most adaptive way, while not being on social media?
您认为在不使用社交媒体的情况下，是否有可能充分了解威胁，以最适应的方式生活？
None of the social media platforms.
没有一个社交媒体平台。
Can you have a great life that way?
这样你就能过上美好的生活吗？
A safe life?
安全的生活？
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
This is a quasi-philosophical question, but from my perspective, absolutely.
这是一个准哲学问题，但从我的角度来看，绝对是。
I think some of the threats that we learn about on social media are simply wrong.
我认为我们在社交媒体上了解到的一些威胁根本就是错误的。
They're phantom threats.
他们是幻影威胁。
We're made to fear something that actually is not happening, made to fear a group of people who are not as dangerous as they're made out to be on social media.
我们生来就害怕一些实际上没有发生的事情，害怕一群并不像社交媒体上宣传的那么危险的人。
Of course, I think being informed about the world around us matters to staying safe.
当然，我认为了解我们周围的世界对于保持安全很重要。
But again, I think we can also more broadly construe what safety is.
但同样，我认为我们也可以更广泛地解释什么是安全。
If being on social media makes you avoidant of taking chances on people, if it makes you feel as though anybody who's different from you ideologically, for instance, is bloodthirsty and extreme, that's going to limit your life in very important ways.
如果在社交媒体上让你避免在别人身上冒险，如果它让你觉得任何与你意识形态不同的人都是嗜血和极端的，那么这将以非常重要的方式限制你的生活。
And you can talk about being safe in terms of safe from acute threats, but as we've talked about, living a diminished and disconnected life is its own form of danger over a longer time horizon.
你可以谈论免受严重威胁的安全，但正如我们所讨论的，从长远来看，过着减少和脱节的生活本身就是一种危险。
So really, there are a lot of ways in which in the attempt to stay safe right now, we introduce ourselves to long-term danger.
因此，实际上，在当前试图保持安全的过程中，我们有很多方法将自己引入长期危险之中。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I'm not anti-social media, but I have to circle back on this yet again.
我并不反对社交媒体，但我必须再次讨论这一点。
A former guest on this podcast, one of our most popular episodes, is with a former Navy SEAL, David Goggins, who's known for many things, but chief among them is striving and pushing oneself.
这个播客是我们最受欢迎的节目之一，他的前任嘉宾是前海豹突击队员大卫·戈金斯，他因很多事情而闻名，但其中最重要的是努力和推动自己。
And David has said many times that nowadays it's easier than ever to be extraordinary because most people are basically spending time just consuming experiences on social media and doing a lot less.
大卫多次说过，现在比以往任何时候都更容易变得非凡，因为大多数人基本上只是把时间花在社交媒体上消费体验，而做的事情却少得多。
Just literally doing a lot less.
只是字面上做得少了很多。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Not just exercising and running as he does, although, by the way, he's in school to become a paramedic.
不只是像他那样锻炼和跑步，尽管顺便说一句，他在学校是要成为一名护理人员。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Wow.
哇。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
So he's essentially gone to medical school, and is always doing a bunch of other things as well.
所以他基本上上过医学院，并且总是在做很多其他事情。
So, he's also an intellectual learner.
所以，他也是一个智力学习者。
Now, I don't know if I agree with him completely, but it's an interesting statement.
现在，我不知道我是否完全同意他的观点，但这是一个有趣的说法。
If social media is bringing out our cynicism, polarizing us, and perhaps taking away, I would probably agree with David, at least to some extent, taking away our time where we could be generative, writing, thinking, socializing-
如果社交媒体引发了我们的愤世嫉俗，使我们两极分化，甚至可能夺走了我们的时间，我可能会同意大卫的观点，至少在某种程度上，它夺走了我们可以进行创作、写作、思考和社交的时间——
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
building in other ways that one builds their life, then I guess an important question is, do you think social media could be leveraged to decrease cynicism or, as you referred to it, to generate hopeful skepticism?
如果人们以其他方式构建自己的生活，那么我想一个重要的问题是，您认为社交媒体是否可以用来减少愤世嫉俗，或者正如您所提到的，产生充满希望的怀疑主义？
This notion of hopeful skepticism as a replacement for cynicism is something that is really intriguing.
这种用充满希望的怀疑主义来代替愤世嫉俗的想法确实很有趣。
What would that look like?
那会是什么样子？
If we were just going to do the gedanken experiment here, what would a feed on social media look like that fed hopeful skepticism as opposed to cynicism?
如果我们只是要在这里进行 gedanken 实验，那么社交媒体上的内容会是什么样子，会引发充满希望的怀疑而不是愤世嫉俗？
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Here's a far-out example.
这是一个遥远的例子。
I love this train of thought, so I'm going to try to take it to a logical conclusion that would never actually occur in real life.
我喜欢这个思路，所以我将尝试得出一个在现实生活中永远不会发生的合乎逻辑的结论。
But a great way to generate more accurate and hopeful skepticism, and by hopeful skepticism, I mean skepticism as we've described, a scientific mindset, a scientific perspective, and a curiosity, a hunger for information.
但这是产生更准确和充满希望的怀疑主义的好方法，而充满希望的怀疑主义，我指的是我们所描述的怀疑主义，科学的心态，科学的观点，以及好奇心，对信息的渴望。
And then the hopeful piece, I simply mean skepticism that begins with the understanding that our defaults are often too negative, so that I'm going to be open and I'm going to realize that my gut instinct is probably leading me towards the negative and can be challenged, that I don't have to listen to it all the time.
然后是充满希望的部分，我只是指怀疑论，首先要理解我们的默认设置往往过于消极，这样我就会持开放态度，我会意识到我的直觉可能引导我走向消极，并且可以受到挑战，我不必一直听它。
So, just as a working definition.
所以，只是作为一个工作定义。
I think that what I would want in a social media feed would be for it to have more data.
我认为我希望社交媒体源能够拥有更多数据。
If you could compel every person on Earth to post to social media about what they're doing today, about what they're thinking, about what they want, about their values.
如果你能迫使地球上的每个人在社交媒体上发布他们今天在做什么、他们在想什么、他们想要什么、他们的价值观。
If you could compel each-- Of course, that's dystopic in many ways, but just as a thought experiment.
如果你能强迫每一个——当然，这在很多方面都是反乌托邦的，但只是作为一个思想实验。
And then people's feed was a representative sample of real people on the planet.
然后人们的饲料是地球上真实人类的代表性样本。
Real people and people who over time, as I scroll through my Statue of Liberty now, I see what people are really like.
真实的人，随着时间的推移，当我滚动浏览我的自由女神像时，我看到了人们真正的样子。
I see the people who are extreme and negative and toxic, but I also see a grandmother who's driving her grandkid to hockey practice.
我看到了那些极端、消极、有毒的人，但我也看到了一位带着孙子去练习曲棍球的祖母。
I see a nurse who's coming in to help an elderly patient.
我看到一位护士要进来帮助一位老年病人。
I see somebody who's made an unlikely connection with somebody who they disagree with.
我看到有人与他们不同意的人建立了不太可能的联系。
A veridical, accurate feed, I think, would drive hopeful skepticism.
我认为，真实、准确的反馈会引发充满希望的怀疑。
And that's, again, one of the things that has struck me most over the last few years of doing this research is that we stereotype hope and positivity, as you were saying earlier, as kind of dim, naive, a rose-colored pair of glasses.
在过去几年的研究中，最让我印象深刻的一件事是，正如您之前所说，我们对希望和积极性的刻板印象是一种昏暗、天真的、一副玫瑰色的眼镜。
But in fact, I think what the data show us is that we're all wearing a pair of soot-colored glasses all the time.
但事实上，我认为数据向我们展示的是，我们无时无刻都戴着一副烟灰色的眼镜。
And actually, the best way to make people more hopeful is to ask them to look more carefully.
事实上，让人们更有希望的最好方法就是让他们看得更仔细。
Not to look away, but look towards in a more accurate and open fashion.
不是移开视线，而是以更准确、更开放的方式看向。
And there's one version of this that we've tried at Stanford in our own backyard.
我们在斯坦福大学自家后院尝试过这种方法的一个版本。
So my lab and I, we've for years been surveying as many Stanford undergraduates as we can about their social health.
因此，我和我的实验室多年来一直在尽可能多地调查斯坦福大学本科生的社会健康状况。
So, how connected are they?
那么，它们之间的联系如何？
How mentally healthy are they?
他们的心理健康状况如何？
And a couple of years ago, we asked thousands of undergraduates to describe both themselves and the average Stanford student on a number of dimensions.
几年前，我们要求数千名本科生从多个方面描述自己和斯坦福大学的普通学生。
For instance, how empathic are you?
例如，你的同理心有多强？
How empathic is the average Stanford student?
斯坦福大学学生的平均同理心有多强？
How much do you like helping people who are struggling?
你有多喜欢帮助那些有困难的人？
What do you think the average Stanford student would respond to that?
你认为普通斯坦福大学的学生对此会有何反应？
How much do you want to meet new people on campus?
你有多想在校园里结识新朋友？
How do you think the average student would respond?
你认为普通学生会如何反应？
And we discovered not one, but two Stanfords.
我们发现的不是一个，而是两个斯坦福大学。
The first was made up of real students who are enormously compassionate, who really want to meet new friends, who want to help their friends when they're struggling.
第一个是由真正的学生组成，他们非常富有同情心，他们真的想结识新朋友，他们想在朋友遇到困难时帮助他们。
The second Stanford existed in students' minds.
学生心目中存在着第二个斯坦福。
Their imagination of the average undergraduate was much less friendly, much less compassionate, much pricklier, and more judgmental than real students were.
他们想象中的普通本科生比真正的学生更不友善、更不富有同情心、更敏感、更挑剔。
So again, we've got this discrepancy between what people perceive and social reality.
再次强调，人们的认知与社会现实之间存在差异。
We found that students who underestimated their peers were less willing to do things like strike up a conversation with a stranger or confide in a friend when they were struggling, and that left them more isolated and lonelier.
我们发现，低估同龄人的学生在遇到困难时不太愿意与陌生人交谈或向朋友吐露心声，这让他们更加孤立和孤独。
This is the kind of vicious cycle of cynicism, right?
这就是一种犬儒主义的恶性循环吧？
But more recently, my lab, led by a great post-doc, Ray Pe, tried an intervention, and the intervention was as simple as you can imagine.
但最近，我的实验室在一位伟大的博士后 Ray Pe 的领导下尝试了一种干预措施，而且干预措施就像你想象的一样简单。
It was show students the real data.
它向学生展示了真实的数据。
We put posters in a number of dorms, experimental dorms we called them, that simply said, "Hey, did you know 95% of students at Stanford would like to help their friends who are struggling?
我们在一些我们称之为实验宿舍的宿舍里张贴了海报，上面简单地写着：“嘿，你知道吗，斯坦福大学 95% 的学生都愿意帮助他们陷入困境的朋友？
85% want to make friends with new students." We also worked with Frosh 101, a one-unit class that most first-year students take, and showed them the data.
85% 的人想与新学生交朋友。”我们还与大多数一年级学生参加的单单元课程 Frosh 101 合作，并向他们展示了数据。
We're just showing students to each other.
我们只是向学生展示彼此。
And we found that when students learned this information, they were more willing to take social risks, and six months later, they were more likely to have a greater number of friends to be more socially integrated.
我们发现，当学生了解这些信息时，他们更愿意承担社交风险，六个月后，他们更有可能拥有更多的朋友，从而更加融入社会。
So here again is a tragic and vicious cycle, but then there's a virtuous cycle that can replace it if we just show people better information.
因此，这又是一个悲剧性的恶性循环，但如果我们向人们展示更好的信息，就会有一个良性循环可以取代它。
Again, I don't imagine that there'll ever be a social media feed where everybody has to post and you see an actually representative sample of the world.
再说一次，我不认为会有一个社交媒体供稿，每个人都必须发帖，而你会看到一个真正具有代表性的世界样本。
But if we could, I do think that that would generate a more hopeful perspective because the truth is more hopeful than what we're seeing.
但如果我们可以的话，我确实认为这会产生更有希望的观点，因为事实比我们所看到的更有希望。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Do you think there's a version of AI that is less cynical than people tend to be?
你认为有一个版本的人工智能不像人们那样愤世嫉俗吗？
The reason I ask this is I'm quite excited about and hopeful about AI.
我之所以问这个问题，是因为我对人工智能感到非常兴奋和充满希望。
I'm not one of these, I don't know what you call them, but AI-
我不是其中之一，我不知道你怎么称呼他们，但是人工智能-
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Doomers?
厄运？
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Doomers.
厄运。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And it's here.
它就在这里。
It's happening.
它正在发生。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
It's happening in the background now, and I've started using AI in a number of different realms of life, and I find it to be incredible.
现在它正在后台发生，我已经开始在生活的许多不同领域使用人工智能，我发现它令人难以置信。
It seems to me to combine neural networks and Google search with PubMed, and it's fascinating.
在我看来，将神经网络和谷歌搜索与 PubMed 结合起来，这很有趣。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Oh, yeah.
哦，是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
It's not perfect.
它并不完美。
It's far from perfect.
它远非完美。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Right.
对。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
But that's also part of its beauty, is that it mimics a human lack of perfectness well enough that it feels something kind of brain-like, personality-like.
但这也是它美丽的一部分，因为它很好地模仿了人类的不完美性，以至于给人一种类似大脑、类似个性的感觉。
You could imagine that given the enormous amount of cynicism that's out there, that some of the large language models that make up AI would be somewhat cynical, would put filters that were overly stringent on certain topics.
你可以想象，鉴于存在大量的愤世嫉俗，构成人工智能的一些大型语言模型会有些愤世嫉俗，会对某些主题设置过于严格的过滤器。
You also wouldn't want AI that was not stringent enough.
你也不希望人工智能不够严格。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Yep.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Right?
对吗？
Because we are already and soon to be using AI to bring us information extremely quickly, and the last thing we want are errors in that information.
因为我们已经并且很快就会使用人工智能以极快的速度为我们提供信息，而我们最不希望的就是信息中出现错误。
So, if we were to take what we know from humans and the data that you've collected and others have collected about ways to shift ourselves from cynicism to hopeful skepticism, do you think that's something that could be laced into these large language models?
因此，如果我们要利用我们从人类那里了解到的信息以及您和其他人收集的数据来了解如何将我们自己从愤世嫉俗转变为充满希望的怀疑态度，您认为这可以融入到这些大型语言模型中吗？
I'm not talking about at the technical level.
我不是在技术层面谈论。
That's certainly beyond my understanding.
这当然超出了我的理解范围。
But could you build an AI version of yourself that could forage the internet for news and what's going on out there, that is where you tune down the cynicism a little bit since it's difficult to be less cynical.
但是，你能否构建一个自己的人工智能版本，可以在互联网上搜索新闻和外面发生的事情，这就是你可以稍微降低愤世嫉俗的地方，因为很难不那么愤世嫉俗。
In other words, could it do a better job of being you than you- ...
换句话说，它能否比你更好地成为你——......
and then therefore make you better?
然后让你变得更好？
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Wow.
哇。
I love that question.
我喜欢这个问题。
I think that there is-- I could imagine an opportunity for that.
我认为我可以想象有这样的机会。
I think one roadblock that I don't think is insurmountable, but that you would need to face in that really fascinating goal is that AI models are, of course, products of the data that we feed them.
我认为一个我认为不是不可克服的障碍，但在这个真正令人着迷的目标中你需要面对的一个障碍是，人工智能模型当然是我们提供给它们的数据的产物。
And so if basically AI models eat the internet, right, swallow it, and then give it back to us in some form, to the extent that the internet is asymmetrically weighting, right, is over-weighting negative content and cynical content, then AIs that swallow that will reflect it as well.
因此，如果基本上人工智能模型吃掉互联网，对吧，吞下它，然后以某种形式把它还给我们，在某种程度上，互联网的权重不对称，对吧，过度重视负面内容和愤世嫉俗的内容，那么吞下它的人工智能也会反映这一点。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
I think that, and I could imagine, and it's blowing my mind in real-time to think about, but you could imagine retuning the way that AI takes information to account for negativity bias and to correct.
我认为，我可以想象，这让我实时思考，但你可以想象重新调整人工智能获取信息的方式来解释消极偏见并进行纠正。
This is what you're getting at, I think, right?
我想这就是你要表达的意思，对吧？
To correct for that negativity bias and then produce an inference that is less biased, more accurate, and less cynical, and then give that as a kind of digest to people, right?
纠正这种消极偏见，然后产生一个更少偏见、更准确、更少愤世嫉俗的推论，然后将其作为一种摘要提供给人们，对吗？
So don't make me go through my social media feed.
所以不要让我浏览我的社交媒体动态。
Go through it for me, correct, right, de-bias it, and then give it to me in a more accurate way.
给我过一遍，纠正，对，消除偏见，然后以更准确的方式给我。
That's an incredible idea.
这是一个令人难以置信的想法。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
That's what I want.
这就是我想要的。
I was thinking about my Instagram feed and cynicism versus hopeful skepticism versus, I guess, awe, and I'll use the following examples.
我在思考我的 Instagram 动态，愤世嫉俗与充满希望的怀疑，我想，敬畏，我将使用以下例子。
I subscribe to an Instagram account that I like very much, which essentially just gives me images of beautiful animals in their ultimate essence.
我订阅了一个我非常喜欢的 Instagram 帐户，它基本上只是为我提供了美丽动物的终极本质的图像。
It's an account by a guy named Joel Sartore, who works for "National Geographic," and he's created what's called the Photo Ark.
这是一个名叫乔尔·萨托 (Joel Sartore) 的人的账户，他为《国家地理》工作，他创建了所谓的“照片方舟”。
He's trying to get images of all the world's animals ...
他试图拍摄世界上所有动物的图像......
that really capture their essence, and many of them are endangered.
真正抓住了它们的本质，其中许多都濒临灭绝。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Wow.
哇。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And some very close to extinction.
还有一些濒临灭绝。
Others are more prolific right now.
其他人现在更加多产。
Nonetheless, I think of that account as all goodness, all benevolence.
尽管如此，我认为这个说法完全是善良、仁慈的。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Mm.
嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And then at the other extreme, I subscribe to an animal account called Nature is Metal.
然后在另一个极端，我订阅了一个名为“自然是金属”的动物帐户。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
I subscribe to that one as well.
我也订阅了那个。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
We've actually collaborated with Nature is Metal on a great white shark grabbing a tuna video that I didn't take, but someone I was with took, and we got their permission to post it.
事实上，我们与 Nature is Metal 合作制作了一段大白鲨抓住金枪鱼的视频，我没有拍，但和我一起的人拍了，我们得到了他们的许可发布它。
In any event, Nature is Metal is all about the harshness of nature.
无论如何，《自然是金》讲述的是自然的严酷。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And then I think about the "Planet Earth" series, hosted by David Attenborough and so forth, which sort of has a mixture of-
然后我想到了由大卫·阿滕伯勒等人主持的“地球脉动”系列，其中混合了-
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
beautiful ducklings and, but then also animals hunting each other and dying of old age or of starvation, and so the full array.
美丽的小鸭，但也有动物互相狩猎，因年老或饥饿而死，等等。
So I think about that as an example of if you look at Nature is Metal long enough, and it's a very cool account.
所以我认为这是一个例子，如果你看《自然是金属》足够长的时间，这是一个非常酷的帐户。
I highly recommend people follow all three of these accounts.
我强烈建议人们关注这三个帐户。
But if you look at it long enough, you get the impression nature is hard.
但如果你观察得足够久，你就会得到大自然是艰难的印象。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Life is hard out there.
外面的生活很艰难。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And it can be.
确实可以。
You look at the Sartore account, and you get the impression that animals are just beautiful.
你看一下萨托的描述，你就会觉得动物很美丽。
They're just being them.
他们只是他们。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Right?
对吗？
And he has a gift for capturing the essence of insects, reptiles, and mammals, and everything in between.
他具有捕捉昆虫、爬行动物、哺乳动物以及介于两者之间的一切动物本质的天赋。
So when I think about social media or I even just think about our outlook onto the landscape of real life-
因此，当我想到社交媒体，或者甚至只是想到我们对现实生活的看法时——
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Mm-hmm
嗯嗯
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
non-virtual life, I feel like the human brain potentially can like all these things.
非虚拟生活，我觉得人脑可能会喜欢所有这些东西。
But what you're describing in cynicism is the people that, for whatever reason, they're skewed toward this view that life is hard, and therefore I need to protect myself and protect others at all times.
但你所描述的愤世嫉俗的是人们，无论出于何种原因，他们都倾向于这样一种观点：生活是艰难的，因此我需要时刻保护自己并保护他人。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
In reality, how dynamic is cynicism?
事实上，犬儒主义有多活跃？
Earlier you described how it can be domain specific.
之前您描述了它如何是特定于域的。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
But if somebody is pretty cynical, and they're older than 25, they're outside the sort of developmental plasticity range.
但如果有人非常愤世嫉俗，而且年龄超过 25 岁，那么他们就超出了发育可塑性范围。
What are the things that they can do on a daily basis to either tune down their cynicism or create room for this hopeful skepticism in a way that enriches them?
他们每天可以做哪些事情来减少自己的愤世嫉俗，或者为这种充满希望的怀疑主义创造空间，从而丰富自己？
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Let's just start with them.
让我们从他们开始吧。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Because after all, they're cynics.
因为毕竟他们是愤世嫉俗者。
We can't bait them with the good that they'll do for the world, but they'll do that, too.
我们不能用他们为世界做的好事来引诱他们，但他们也会这样做。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
What are some tools that we can all apply towards being less cynical?
我们可以运用哪些工具来减少愤世嫉俗？
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
It's a brilliant question, and you're right.
这是一个很好的问题，你是对的。
I think a lot of us are very tuned into the metal side of life, and heavy metal is great.
我认为我们很多人都非常喜欢生活中的金属一面，重金属很棒。
But life is not all metal, so how do we retune ourselves?
但生命并不全是金属，那么我们如何重新调整自己呢？
I think about this a lot, in part because over the last several years, I haven't just been studying cynicism, I've been trying to counteract it in myself and in others.
我经常思考这个问题，部分原因是在过去的几年里，我不仅在研究犬儒主义，而且一直在努力抵制自己和他人的犬儒主义。
So I've focused on practical, everyday things that I can do, and I guess they come in a bunch of categories.
所以我专注于我能做的实用的日常事情，我想它们分为很多类别。
I'm going to try to tick through them, but I really want to hear your thoughts.
我会尝试勾选它们，但我真的很想听听你的想法。
The first has to do with our mindsets and the ways that we approach our own thinking.
第一个与我们的心态以及我们思考的方式有关。
So I like to engage in a practice that I call being skeptical of my cynicism.
所以我喜欢进行一种我称之为对我的愤世嫉俗持怀疑态度的做法。
So that is, in essence, taking tools from cognitive behavioral therapy and applying them to my cynical inferences.
因此，从本质上讲，这就是从认知行为疗法中获取工具并将其应用到我愤世嫉俗的推论中。
So again, my default mode, my factory settings are pretty suspicious.
再说一次，我的默认模式、我的出厂设置非常可疑。
I want to lay my cards on the table.
我想把我的牌摊到桌面上。
It's ironic given what I study, but there we are.
考虑到我所研究的内容，这很讽刺，但我们就是这样。
So I often find myself in new situations suspecting people, mistrusting people, wondering if they might take advantage of me.
所以我经常发现自己在新的情况下怀疑别人，不信任别人，想知道他们是否会利用我。
And what I do these days that I didn't do in the past is say, "Well, wait a minute, Zaki.
这些天我所做的、过去没有做过的事情就是说：“好吧，等一下，扎基。
Where is this coming from?
这是从哪里来的？
You're a scientist.
你是一位科学家。
Defend your inference.
捍卫你的推论。
Defend your hypothesis.
捍卫你的假设。
What evidence do you have to back it up?" And very often, I find that the evidence is thin to nonexistent.
你有什么证据支持？”很多时候，我发现证据很少甚至不存在。
So that challenge, that just unearthing of, wait a minute, are you sure?
所以那个挑战，刚刚发掘的，等一下，你确定吗？
No, you're not, can tap into a little bit of intellectual humility.
不，你不是，可以利用一点智力上的谦逊。
A second thing that I try to do is apply what my lab and I call a reciprocity mindset.
我尝试做的第二件事是应用我和我的实验室所说的互惠心态。
That is understanding that, yes, people vary in how trustworthy they are, but what you do also matters.
是的，人们的可信度各不相同，但你所做的事情也很重要。
Research finds that when you trust people, they're more likely to become trustworthy because they want to reciprocate.
研究发现，当你信任别人时，他们更有可能变得值得信任，因为他们想要回报。
You've honored them in this small way, and so they step up.
你以这种小小的方式向他们表示敬意，所以他们会站出来。
It's known as earned trust in economics.
这被称为经济学中赢得的信任。
And when you mistrust people, they become less trustworthy.
当你不信任别人时，他们就会变得不那么值得信任。
So in my lab, we found that when you teach people this, when you teach people to own the influence that they have on others, they're more willing to be trusting.
因此，在我的实验室中，我们发现，当你教人们这一点时，当你教人们承认自己对他人的影响力时，他们会更愿意信任。
And when you're more trusting, then, of course, the other person reciprocates, which again turns into this positive cycle.
当你更加信任时，当然，对方也会回报，这又变成了这个良性循环。
So I try, when I make a decision as to whether or not I'm going to trust somebody, I think the default is to say, "Whoa, I'm taking on this risk.
所以我尝试，当我决定是否信任某人时，我认为默认的做法是：“哇，我要承担这个风险。
Is this a good choice for me?" And I try to rotate that a little bit and say, "What am I doing for the relationship here?
这对我来说是一个好的选择吗？”我试着稍微扭转一下，然后说：“我为这里的关系做了什么？
Is this act of trust maybe a gift to this other person?
这种信任的行为可能是给另一个人的礼物吗？
How can it positively influence who they become in the course of this interaction?" And then a third thing on the sort of mindset side, and then we can get to some behaviors, is what I call social savoring.
在这种互动过程中，它如何对他们成为什么样的人产生积极影响？”然后是心态方面的第三件事，然后我们可以讨论一些行为，我称之为社交品味。
I do this a lot with my kids, actually.
事实上，我经常和我的孩子们这样做。
Savoring is a general term for appreciating good things while they happen.
品味是对美好事物发生时欣赏的总称。
It's related to gratitude, but gratitude is more appreciating the things that have happened to us in the past that are good.
它与感恩有关，但感恩更多的是欣赏过去发生在我们身上的美好的事情。
Savoring is, let's grab this moment right now and think about it.
品味就是，让我们抓住此时此刻，思考一下。
So My kids and I started savoring practices a couple of years ago.
所以我和我的孩子们几年前就开始尝试练习。
I call it classes.
我称之为课程。
So I'll say, "Today, we're going to do an ice cream eating class," or, "We're going to do a sunset watching class."
所以我会说，“今天，我们要上吃冰淇淋的课程”，或者“我们要上看日落的课程”。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Oh, cool.
哦，酷。
Are you adopting children?
你收养孩子吗？
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Applications are coming in now.
申请现已开始。
We're evaluating them on a rolling basis.
我们正在滚动评估它们。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I've already graduated college.
我已经大学毕业了。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
So we'll just sit there and eat ice cream slowly, not so that it melts, but we'll say, "What are you enjoying about this?
所以我们就坐在那里慢慢吃冰淇淋，不要让它融化，但我们会说，“你喜欢这个什么？
Is it the texture?
是质感吗？
Is it the flavor?
是味道吗？
What do you want to remember about this moment?" And I noticed more recently while working on this book that all of this was sensory.
这一刻你想记住什么？”最近，我在写这本书时注意到，所有这些都是感官性的。
Sunsets, somersaults, ice cream, you name it, but it wasn't very social.
日落、翻筋斗、冰淇淋，凡是你能想到的，但它并不是很社交。
And what they were hearing from me about other people was negatively skewed because gossip is negatively skewed, right?
他们从我那里听到的关于其他人的信息是负面歪曲的，因为八卦是负面歪曲的，对吗？
If somebody cut me off in traffic while I'm driving them to summer camp, they learn all about that person, but they don't learn about the people who are politely following traffic laws all around us, which is 90-plus percent of drivers.
如果我开车送他们去夏令营时有人在交通中抢道，他们会了解那个人的一切，但不会了解我们周围90％以上的司机中有礼貌地遵守交通法规的人。
And so I started a practice of social savoring, where I try to share with my kids positive things that I notice about other people.
因此，我开始了一种社交品味的实践，我尝试与我的孩子分享我注意到的其他人的积极的事情。
You could call it positive gossip as well.
你也可以称之为积极的八卦。
And one thing that I noticed is that that habit of savoring for them changed my mental processing.
我注意到的一件事是，品尝它们的习惯改变了我的心理处理过程。
It actually changed what I noticed, because of course, if you're trying to tell somebody about something, you look for examples that you can tell them about.
它实际上改变了我注意到的，因为当然，如果你想告诉某人某件事，你会寻找可以告诉他们的例子。
So a habit of action, of speech in that case, became a habit of mine.
因此，行动的习惯，也就是言语的习惯，就成了我的习惯。
So those three things, being skeptical of my cynicism, adopting a reciprocity mindset, and social savoring, those are three of the psychological pieces.
所以这三件事，对我的愤世嫉俗持怀疑态度，采取互惠心态，以及社交品味，这是心理方面的三部分。
And I can get to some actions, but yeah, I wonder what you think of these.
我可以采取一些行动，但是，是的，我想知道你对此有何看法。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
No, I love those three, and I love the distinguishing features of savoring versus gratitude because there's so much data to support gratitude practices, and I don't think I've ever heard those two distinguished from one another.
不，我喜欢这三个，我喜欢品味与感恩的区别特征，因为有太多数据支持感恩实践，而且我想我从来没有听说过这两者之间有什么区别。
But clearly, savoring things is going to be equally powerful towards our neurochemistry and our wellbeing.
但显然，品尝事物对我们的神经化学和我们的健康同样有强大的作用。
And I love that you include both sensory and interpersonal aspects to this.
我喜欢你将感官和人际方面都纳入其中。
These are highly actionable, and I'm sure people are as excited about them as I am because all this knowledge from the laboratory is indeed wonderful.
这些都是高度可操作的，我相信人们和我一样对它们感到兴奋，因为来自实验室的所有这些知识确实很棒。
But of course, we always want to know what can we do now that you've made such a strong case for tuning down our cynicism a little bit in order to make ourselves smarter, better, happier, and in touch with awe on a more regular basis.
当然，我们总是想知道，既然你已经提出了如此有力的理由，让我们稍微降低我们的愤世嫉俗，以使我们自己更聪明、更好、更快乐，并更经常地保持敬畏，我们能做什么。
Would love to hear about some of the actions one can take as well.
我也很想听听人们可以采取的一些行动。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Yeah.
是的。
So if you imagine the mindset shifts that I've talked about as thinking more like a scientist about the social world, then the second step to me is to act more like a scientist in the social world.
因此，如果你把我所说的心态转变想象为更像科学家一样思考社会世界，那么对我来说第二步就是在社会世界中表现得更像科学家。
The monk and author Pema Chödrön, this great writer-
僧侣兼作家 Pema Chödrön，这位伟大的作家——
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
That's wonderful
太棒了
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
...
...
has written beautifully about treating your life like an experiment.
写得很精彩，把你的生活当作一个实验。
In this moment, you could interrupt the defaults.
此时，您可以中断默认设置。
You could interrupt the patterns and look around more carefully, and I try to do that, and I encourage other people to do that as well.
你可以打断这些模式并更仔细地环顾四周，我尝试这样做，并且我鼓励其他人也这样做。
One form of this is what I call taking leaps of faith on other people.
其中一种形式就是我所说的对他人的信任。
Collecting more social data requires risk.
收集更多的社交数据需要承担风险。
So I try to do that.
所以我尝试这样做。
I try to take more risks, become less risk-averse in a social context.
我尝试承担更多风险，在社会环境中变得不那么厌恶风险。
Now, this is not to say that I share my bank information with a prince who's going to wire me $14 million.
现在，这并不是说我与一位要向我电汇 1400 万美元的王子分享我的银行信息。
You need to be calculated.
你需要计算一下。
You need to be smart and safe in the risks that you take.
您在承担风险时需要保持明智和安全。
But I would argue that many of us are far too risk-averse in the social world, and there are lots of ways that I try to do this and lots of ways that people can do this.
但我认为，我们中的许多人在社交世界中过于规避风险，我尝试了很多方法来做到这一点，人们也可以通过很多方法来做到这一点。
One is to just be more open to the social world.
一是对社会更加开放。
I'm an introvert.
我是一个内向的人。
Andrew, I think you've said you're an introvert as well.
安德鲁，我想你也说过你是一个内向的人。
Is that true?
这是真的吗？
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I am.
我是。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Yeah.
是的。
And so as introverts, we tend to think that the social world is maybe tiring, and we need to recharge on our own.
因此，作为内向的人，我们倾向于认为社交世界可能很累，我们需要自己充电。
It's completely valid.
这是完全有效的。
I experience that all the time.
我一直都有这样的经历。
I think that sometimes my introversion morphs into something else where I underestimate the joy of social contact.
我认为有时我的内向会演变成其他的事情，导致我低估了社交接触的乐趣。
There are so many times that before a dinner party, I would pay an embarrassing amount of money for the other party to cancel on me.
有很多次，在一次晚宴之前，我会支付一大笔令人尴尬的钱让对方取消我的活动。
I don't want to be the person to cancel, but I would feel so relieved if they canceled.
我不想成为取消的人，但如果他们取消，我会感到很欣慰。
But then while I'm there and afterwards, I feel totally fulfilled by the experience.
但当我在那里以及之后，我对这次经历感到完全满足。
It's a little bit like running.
这有点像跑步。
Running is another thing that I love, but there are many times that before a run, I think, "Gosh, I really don't want to do this." And then afterwards, I'm so grateful to have done so.
跑步是我喜欢的另一件事，但很多时候在跑步之前，我会想，“天哪，我真的不想这样做。”之后，我非常感激自己这么做了。
There's a bunch of research that finds that people in general are like this.
有大量研究发现，一般人都是这样的。
If you ask them to forecast what it would be like to talk with a stranger, to open up about a problem that they're having with a friend, to express gratitude, to try to help somebody, even to have a disagreement on ideological grounds, people forecast that these conversations would be awful, awkward, cringe, painful, and in the case of disagreement, harmful even.
如果你让他们预测与陌生人交谈、与朋友谈论他们遇到的问题、表达感激之情、试图帮助别人、甚至在意识形态上存在分歧会是什么样子，人们会预测这些对话会是可怕的、尴尬的、令人畏缩的、痛苦的，在出现分歧的情况下，甚至是有害的。
This is work from Nick Epley, Juliana Schroeder, and many others, by the way, on something known as undersociality.
顺便说一句，这是尼克·艾普利（Nick Epley）、朱莉安娜·施罗德（Juliana Schroeder）和许多其他人关于“不社交”现象的研究。
And because we have these forecasts, we simply don't pursue the conversations.
因为我们有这些预测，所以我们根本不继续进行对话。
We don't go deeper.
我们不再深入。
We stay on the surface.
我们停留在表面。
Nick, Juliana, and others then challenge people.
尼克、朱莉安娜和其他人随后向人们发起挑战。
They say, "Go and do this.
他们说：“去做吧。
Have this conversation, then report back." And people's actual experiences are vastly more positive and more fulfilling than their forecasts.
进行这次谈话，然后报告。”人们的实际经历比他们的预测要积极得多、更有成就感。
So I try to remember this in my own life.
所以我试着在自己的生活中记住这一点。
I try to realize when my forecasts are too risk-averse and too negative and say, "Let me just jump in.
当我的预测过于规避风险和过于消极时，我会尝试意识到，并说：“让我介入吧。
Let me take this chance.
让我抓住这个机会。
If it goes badly, well, fine.
如果进展不好，好吧，好吧。
And if it goes well, even better." The second piece here, though, is not just to take those risks, but to document their effects.
如果进展顺利，那就更好了。”不过，这里的第二部分不仅仅是承担这些风险，而是记录它们的影响。
Right?
正确的？
I call this encounter counting.
我把这种现象称为“相遇计数”。
Right?
正确的？
So, in essence, gathering new data from the world is great, but if you forget those data, well, then the effects might be short-lived.
因此，从本质上讲，从世界上收集新数据固然很棒，但如果你忘记了这些数据，那么效果可能是短暂的。
I try to really remember when a social encounter is a mismatch with my expectations.
当社交遭遇与我的期望不符时，我会尝试真正记住。
I have a relative who, for instance, I disagree with politically quite a bit, and when I was working on this book, I said, "Let me take a chance.
例如，我有一个亲戚，我在政治上非常不同意，当我写这本书时，我说：“让我碰碰运气。
We've known each other for 30 years.
我们已经认识 30 年了。
We've never talked politics.
我们从来没有谈论过政治。
Let me try." And so I invited her to have this conversation about an issue we really disagree on.
让我试试。”所以我邀请她就一个我们确实不同意的问题进行对话。
And we did not agree by the end of the conversation, but it was an immensely deep and meaningful conversation, and I actually felt like I knew her better, even though we've been close for decades.
谈话结束时我们并没有达成一致，但这是一次非常深刻和有意义的谈话，我实际上觉得我更了解她，尽管我们已经亲密了几十年。
And I could just say, "Well, that was nice," and then forget all about it and imagine that any future conversations on disagreement would be terrible.
我可以只是说，“嗯，那很好”，然后忘记这一切，并想象未来任何关于分歧的对话都会很糟糕。
But I tried to write down in my journal sort of this is what happened.
但我试图在日记中写下这就是发生的事情。
This is how it counteracted my expectations.
这就是它抵消了我的期望的方式。
Try to lock in that learning from the social world so that pleasant surprises, hopefully, aren't as surprising anymore.
尝试锁定从社交世界中学习的知识，这样惊喜就不再那么令人惊讶了。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I love those practices.
我喜欢这些做法。
And thank you for reinforcing the process of reinforcing the- ...
感谢您加强了加强-...
the experiences because many times, I'll be listening to an audiobook, or I'll think of something when I'm running, and I'll put it into my voice memos or notes in my phone, and then I move them to this very notebook or another similar to it, and I'll go back and read it.
因为很多时候，我会听有声读物，或者在跑步时想到一些东西，然后我会把它放进我的语音备忘录或手机笔记中，然后我把它们移到这个笔记本或另一个类似的笔记本上，然后我会回去阅读它。
But many things don't get passed through the filters that I forget because I didn't do that.
但很多事情并没有通过我忘记的过滤器，因为我没有这样做。
And we know this is one of the best ways to solidify information is to think about experiences and information after being exposed to it.
我们知道，巩固信息的最佳方法之一就是在接触到经验和信息后对其进行思考。
This is true studying, this is true clearly for emotional learning and our own personal evolution.
这是真正的学习，对于情感学习和我们自己的个人进化来说显然也是如此。
Which brings me to another example of somebody from the, I don't know what to call them.
这让我想起了另一个例子，我不知道该怎么称呼他们。
Is it sort of philosophy, wellness, self-help space?
这是一种哲学、健康、自助空间吗？
You mentioned Pema Chödrön.
您提到了 Pema Chödrön。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Wonderful writer.
很棒的作家。
There's someone else more or less in that space, Byron Katie, who a lot of her work is about challenging beliefs by simply asking questions about our core beliefs.
拜伦·凯蒂（Byron Katie）或多或少也在这个领域，她的很多工作都是通过简单地询问我们的核心信念来挑战信念。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Mm.
嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
This is something that I've started to explore a bit.
这是我已经开始探索的事情。
One could have the idea that good people always, I don't know, show up on time.
人们可能会认为，我不知道，好人总是准时出现。
And wouldn't we all love to be punctual?
难道我们不都喜欢守时吗？
And as an academic , I confess for me, everything starts 10 minutes after the hour, so we're consistently on time but late, right?
作为一名学者，我承认，一切都在下班后 10 分钟开始，所以我们总是准时但迟到，对吗？
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
To the non-academics.
对于非学者。
My friends from the military have a saying, which is, "Five minutes early is on time, on time is late, and if you're late, you better bring lunch." So that kind of thing.
部队里的朋友有句俗话，就是“早五分钟准时，准时就是迟到，迟到了最好带午饭。”诸如此类的事情。
In any event, the practice that she promotes, in essence, is to take a core belief and then just start challenging it from a number of different directions.
无论如何，她所提倡的实践本质上是接受一个核心信念，然后开始从多个不同的方向挑战它。
Is that always true?
这总是正确的吗？
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Are there cases where that's not true?
是否存在事实并非如此的情况？
What would that look like, et cetera, as a way to really deconstruct one's own core beliefs, which is, I think, a bit of what you're talking about.
作为一种真正解构自己核心信念的方式，这会是什么样子，我想，这就是你所说的一些内容。
And I feel like this could go in at least two directions.
我觉得这至少可以朝两个方向发展。
You can have a core belief that leads in the direction of cynicism that you can deconstruct by just simply asking questions.
你可以有一个导致愤世嫉俗的核心信念，你只需简单地提出问题就可以解构它。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Is that always true?
这总是正确的吗？
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Are there ever instances where that's not true?
是否存在事实并非如此的情况？
And what would it mean if that weren't true in a given instance, this sort of thing.
如果在特定情况下这不是真的，那么这意味着什么？
And then on the other side, where we tend to err toward a hopeful skepticism as opposed to cynicism, there too, I could imagine it would be useful to explore hopeful skepticism also as a scientist, right?
另一方面，我们倾向于错误地采取充满希望的怀疑主义，而不是愤世嫉俗，我也可以想象，作为一名科学家，探索充满希望的怀疑主义也是有用的，对吗？
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Yes.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Are there cases where hopeful skepticism, here I'm going to be cynical, can really get us into trouble?
在某些情况下，满怀希望的怀疑论（在这里我要愤世嫉俗）真的会给我们带来麻烦吗？
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
For instance.
例如。
Anyway, obviously I haven't run a study on this just because I came up with this example on the fly, but does what I just described fit more or less into the framework that you're describing?
不管怎样，显然我还没有对此进行研究，只是因为我临时想出了这个例子，但是我刚才描述的内容或多或少适合您所描述的框架吗？
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Absolutely.
绝对的。
I think that it's, in essence, being skeptical about our beliefs, putting them through their paces, right?
我认为本质上是对我们的信仰持怀疑态度，并让它们走上自己的步伐，对吗？
Kicking the tires on our own beliefs.
依靠我们自己的信念踢轮胎。
And again, this reminds me of cognitive behavioral therapy, right?
再说一次，这让我想起了认知行为疗法，对吧？
A person who's socially anxious might tell their therapist, "I think all my friends secretly hate me." They might believe that to their core.
一个有社交焦虑的人可能会告诉他们的治疗师，“我想我所有的朋友都暗地里恨我。”他们可能从骨子里相信这一点。
It might affect every decision that they make.
这可能会影响他们做出的每一个决定。
And the therapist might challenge them and say, "Well, wait.
治疗师可能会挑战他们并说：“好吧，等等。
What's the evidence that you have for that?
你有什么证据可以证明这一点？
Are there any instances in your entire life where that seemed to not be true?" And to your point, from Byron Katie, what would it mean if it weren't true?
在你的一生中，是否有任何事例表明事实并非如此？”就拜伦·凯蒂的观点而言，如果这不是真的，那意味着什么？
So this is the bedrock of one of the most successful forms of therapy for depression and anxiety and phobia in the world.
因此，这是世界上治疗抑郁症、焦虑症和恐惧症最成功的疗法之一的基础。
I do want to also, I guess, zoom in on something that you're sharing there about our core beliefs, because I think that in addition to testing our core beliefs, one thing that I wish we would do more is share our core beliefs, because I don't think we know what each other's core beliefs are.
我想，我确实想重点关注您在那里分享的有关我们核心信念的内容，因为我认为除了测试我们的核心信念之外，我希望我们做更多的一件事就是分享我们的核心信念，因为我认为我们不知道彼此的核心信念是什么。
And I think oftentimes, we think that we are more alone in our core beliefs than we actually are.
我认为，很多时候，我们认为自己的核心信念比实际情况更加孤独。
So this is true in our politics, for instance.
例如，在我们的政治中也是如此。
The amount of people from every part of the political spectrum who want more compromise, more peace, and less conflict is north of 80% in surveys that my lab has conducted, but people don't know that.
在我的实验室进行的调查中，来自不同政治派别希望更多妥协、更多和平和更少冲突的人数超过 80%，但人们并不知道这一点。
And so the lack of evidence, the lack of data about what other people want is a hindrance to the goals that we actually all share.
因此，缺乏证据、缺乏关于其他人想要什么的数据阻碍了我们实际上共同的目标的实现。
This is also true in workplaces.
在工作场所也是如此。
So in the course of my work, I've done sort of some different projects with school systems, hospital systems, businesses, and one of the things I love doing is starting with an anonymous survey of everybody in the community.
因此，在我的工作过程中，我与学校系统、医院系统、企业完成了一些不同的项目，我喜欢做的事情之一就是从对社区中每个人的匿名调查开始。
And I ask, "How much do you value empathy and collaboration?
我问：“你有多重视同理心和协作？
How much would you prefer a workplace or community defined by cooperation Versus competition.
您在多大程度上更喜欢合作与竞争所定义的工作场所或社区？
And invariably, and I'm talking about some places where you might imagine people would be competitive, invariably, a super majority of individuals in those communities want compassion, cooperation, and collaboration, right?
我总是在谈论一些你可能认为人们会具有竞争力的地方，这些社区中的绝大多数人总是希望同情、合作和协作，对吗？
Much more than they want competition or isolation.
他们想要的不仅仅是竞争或孤立。
So one of the things that I love to do when I speak for those groups is to say, "Hey, look, here are some data.
因此，当我代表这些团体发言时，我喜欢做的一件事就是说：“嘿，看，这里有一些数据。
Look around you.
看看你的周围。
Here you've got 90% of people in this organization who want more cooperation.
组织中 90% 的人都希望加强合作。
So if you just take a look in your periphery, almost everybody around you wants that as well." I also survey these communities and say, "What do you think the average person would respond to these questions?" And invariably, they're wrong.
因此，如果你看看你的周围，几乎你周围的每个人都希望如此。”我还调查了这些社区并说，“你认为普通人会对这些问题做出什么反应？”但他们总是错的。
And so I say, "You have underestimated each other, and now I'm giving you permission to stop." And I think this is one of the other actions that we can take if we're in a leadership position anywhere, right?
所以我说：“你们低估了对方，现在我允许你们停下来。”我认为，如果我们在任何地方处于领导地位，这是我们可以采取的其他行动之一，对吧？
I think that looking for more data is great.
我认为寻找更多数据很棒。
If you're a leader, you can collect those data, and you can show people to themselves.
如果您是领导者，您可以收集这些数据，并向人们展示自己。
You can unveil the core beliefs of your community, and oftentimes those core beliefs are incredibly beautiful and surprising to the people in those communities.
您可以揭示社区的核心信念，而这些核心信念通常对于这些社区的人们来说是非常美丽和令人惊讶的。
And give them what I would call not peer pressure, but peer permission to express who they've been all along.
给他们我所说的不是同侪压力，而是同侪允许他们表达自己一直以来的样子。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I love that.
我喜欢那个。
And one of the things that we've done on this podcast is to always invite comments and questions, critique, and so forth in the comments section on YouTube.
我们在此播客中所做的事情之一就是始终邀请 YouTube 评论部分中的评论、问题、批评等。
And I always say, and I do read all the comments, and sometimes it takes me a while, and I'm still sifting through them.
我总是说，我确实阅读了所有评论，有时需要一段时间，但我仍在筛选它们。
But I think comment sections can be, yes, they can be toxic in certain environments, in certain contexts.
但我认为评论部分可能是，是的，它们在某些环境、某些情况下可能是有毒的。
But they can also be tremendously enriching, not just for the reader, but for the commenter, and to see what people's core beliefs are really about.
但它们也可以极大地丰富读者的内容，也可以让评论者了解人们的核心信念到底是什么。
Now, oftentimes comments are of a different form, and that's okay.
现在，评论通常有不同的形式，这没关系。
That's all right.
没关系。
But I think that because of the anonymity involved, I think I can see that now through the lens of what you're saying as a license for people to really share their core beliefs about something as something that can be really informative and really enriching.
但我认为，由于涉及匿名，我想我现在可以通过你所说的镜头看到这一点，这是人们真正分享他们对某些事物的核心信念的许可，这些事物可以真正提供信息并真正丰富。
Although I much prefer, I confess, the model that you're presenting where people are doing this in real-time face-to-face as opposed to just online.
尽管我承认，我更喜欢您所展示的模型，人们可以实时面对面地而不是仅仅在网上进行此操作。
As long as we're talking about polarization and the wish for less polarization, what are the data saying about the current state of affairs?
只要我们谈论两极分化和减少两极分化的愿望，数据对当前事态的说明是什么？
We're recording this about, what, three months or so out from an election, or 90 some days or so from an election-
我们正在记录大约距离选举三个月左右的时间，或者距离选举大约 90 天的时间-
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
presidential election.
总统选举。
So without getting into discussions about political camps per se, what do your data and understanding about cynicism and hopeful skepticism tell us about that whole process and how the two camps are presenting themselves?
因此，在不讨论政治阵营本身的情况下，您对犬儒主义和充满希望的怀疑主义的数据和理解告诉我们什么关于整个过程以及两个阵营如何展现自己？
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
There is so much to say about this.
关于这一点有很多话要说。
I'm going to try to not give a lecture here.
我会尽量不在这里演讲。
But so like so many of the themes in this conversation, right?
但就像这次谈话中的许多主题一样，对吧？
I think that the headline for me when I look at the data on polarization, and I'm going to talk about perceived polarization as well, is twofold.
我认为，当我查看有关两极分化的数据时，我也将讨论感知的两极分化，标题是双重的。
One, it's tragic because we are underestimating one another.
第一，这是一场悲剧，因为我们低估了彼此。
And two, there's a lot of opportunity here because the delta between the world that we think we're in and the one that we're actually in is great, and it's positive as well.
第二，这里有很多机会，因为我们认为自己所处的世界与我们实际所处的世界之间的差距很大，而且也是积极的。
So there's a bunch of work on political perceptions.
因此，有很多关于政治观念的工作。
This is work done by folks like Mina Cikara at Harvard, my colleague Rob Willer in sociology at Stanford, our colleague Rob Willer.
这项工作是由哈佛大学的 Mina Cikara、我在斯坦福大学社会学领域的同事 Rob Willer 以及我们的同事 Rob Willer 等人完成的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
And a lot of this focuses on what people think the average member of the other side is like.
其中很多都集中在人们对另一方普通成员的看法上。
So if you're a Republican, what do you think the average Democrat believes?
那么，如果您是共和党人，您认为一般民主党人相信什么？
What do you think they're like?
你觉得他们是什么样的？
If you're a Democrat, what do you think the average Republican is like?
如果您是民主党人，您认为共和党人的平均水平如何？
And so I'll stop talking about Republicans and Democrats here because a lot of these data are bipartisan.
因此，我将不再在这里谈论共和党和民主党，因为其中很多数据都是两党的。
The biases are pretty even across camps.
各个阵营的偏见相当均匀。
And it turns out that in all cases, we are dead wrong about who's on the other side.
事实证明，在所有情况下，我们对于谁是另一方的判断都是完全错误的。
We're even wrong demographically about who's on the other side.
我们甚至在人口统计学上错误地判断了谁是另一方。
For instance, Democrats think that 25% of Republicans make more than $250,000 a year.
例如，民主党人认为 25% 的共和党人年收入超过 25 万美元。
The actual number is 2%, but the stereotype of Republicans that Democrats hold is that they're wealthy, I suppose.
实际数字是 2%，但我想民主党对共和党人的刻板印象是他们很富有。
Republicans vastly overestimate the percentage of Democrats who are part of the LGBTQ community, for instance.
例如，共和党人大大高估了 LGBTQ 群体中民主党人的比例。
Again, it's just a cultural stereotype.
再说一次，这只是一种文化刻板印象。
So we're wrong about even who's on the other side, but we're even more wrong about what they believe and what they want.
因此，我们甚至对对方的看法都是错误的，但我们对他们的信仰和想要什么的判断就更错误了。
So data suggests that there is perceived polarization, that is what we think the other side believes, is much greater than real polarization.
因此，数据表明，感知到的两极分化，即我们认为对方所认为的，比真正的两极分化要大得多。
First of all, we are divided.
首先，我们是分裂的。
Let's stipulate that.
我们这样规定吧。
And those divisions can be really dangerous and are, in some cases, existential.
这些分歧可能非常危险，在某些情况下甚至是生死存亡的。
But the division in our mind is much greater than the division that we actually have.
但我们心中的分歧比我们实际的分歧要大得多。
My late friend Emile Bruneau collected some data where he gathered Republicans' and Democrats' views on immigration.
我已故的朋友埃米尔·布鲁诺收集了一些数据，收集了共和党和民主党对移民的看法。
He said, "What would you want immigration to look like, where zero is the borders are totally closed and 100 is they're totally open?" And he plotted the distributions of what that looks like.
他说：“你希望移民是什么样的？零是边界完全关闭，100 是边界完全开放？”他绘制了它的分布图。
He also asked people on either side, "What do you think the other side would respond if asked that same question?" And he plotted those distributions as well.
他还问双方的人：“如果问同样的问题，你们认为对方会怎么回答？”他还绘制了这些分布图。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Other side meaning which group?
另一边是指哪一组？
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
If you're a Democrat, what do you think Republicans would want?
如果你是民主党人，你认为共和党人会想要什么？
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Got it.
明白了。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
And if you're a Republican, what would Democrats want?
如果你是共和党人，民主党人会想要什么？
And the distributions are totally different.
而且分布完全不同。
The distributions of our actual preferences are like a hill with two peaks.
我们实际偏好的分布就像一座有两个山峰的小山。
So Republicans want more closed borders, Democrats want them more open, but they're not that far apart, first of all, the means, and there's a lot of overlap in the distributions.
因此，共和党希望更封闭的边界，民主党希望它们更加开放，但他们的差距并没有那么远，首先是手段，而且分配上有很多重叠。
The distributions of our perceptions are two hills on opposite sides of a landscape.
我们的感知分布是风景两侧的两座山。
Republicans think that Democrats want totally open borders, and Democrats think Republicans want totally closed borders.
共和党人认为民主党人想要完全开放的边界，而民主党人则认为共和党人想要完全封闭的边界。
And the same pattern plays out for all sorts of issues, where we think the other side is much more extreme.
同样的模式也适用于各种问题，我们认为另一方要极端得多。
We think the average member of the other side is much more extreme than they really are.
我们认为对方的普通成员比他们的实际情况要极端得多。
There's also work on meta perceptions.
还有关于元感知的工作。
What do you think the other side thinks about you?
你认为对方对你的看法如何？
And it turns out that people on both sides imagine that their rivals hate them twice as much as their rivals really do.
事实证明，双方的人都认为他们的对手对他们的恨意是他们的对手真正恨他们的两倍。
There's work on democratic norms that my grad student, Luisa Santos, collected, where we overestimate how anti-democratic the other side is by two times.
我的研究生路易莎·桑托斯（Luisa Santos）收集了有关民主规范的著作，其中我们高估了对方的反民主程度两倍。
And Rob has collected data on violence.
罗布收集了有关暴力的数据。
How much do you think the other side would support violence to advance their aims?
您认为对方会在多大程度上支持使用暴力来实现他们的目标？
And here, the overestimates are 400%.
在这里，高估了 400%。
So we think that the average person on the other side is four times as enthusiastic about violence as they really are.
因此，我们认为另一方的普通人对暴力的热情是实际情况的四倍。
We have an image in our mind of the other as violent extremists who want to burn down the system.
我们脑海中的形象是，对方是想要摧毁整个系统的暴力极端分子。
And again, we've talked about the warped media ecosystem that we're in, and that probably contributes here.
我们再次讨论了我们所处的扭曲的媒体生态系统，这可能对此有所贡献。
But the fact is that those misperceptions are making all the problems that we fear worse.
但事实是，这些误解正在使我们担心的所有问题变得更糟。
Because if you think that the other side is gearing up for war, what do you do?
因为如果你认为对方正在准备战争，你会怎么做？
You have to defend yourself.
你必须保护自己。
And so we're caught in this almost cycle of escalation that really very few of us want.
因此，我们陷入了这个几乎是我们中很少有人想要的升级循环。
Now, I want to be really clear here that I'm not saying that we don't have actual disagreements.
现在，我想在这里明确表示，我并不是说我们没有实际的分歧。
I'm also not saying that people across our political spectrum are all peaceable and all kind.
我也不是说我们各个政治派别的人都是和平且善良的。
There are absolutely extreme and violent people around our country that represent their political views in horrible and toxic ways.
我们国家绝对有极端和暴力的人，他们以可怕和有毒的方式表达他们的政治观点。
But that's not the average.
但这不是平均值。
And again, I want to get back to this point that the average person underestimates the average person.
再次，我想回到这一点：普通人低估了普通人。
Not that we underestimate everybody, but that we're wrong about most people.
并不是我们低估了所有人，而是我们对大多数人的看法都是错误的。
And so again, to me, this is a tragedy and an opportunity.
对我来说，这又是一个悲剧，也是一个机会。
Rob and Mina and lots of other people find that when you ask people to actually pay attention to the data, when you show them, "Hey, actually, the other side fears violence just as much as you do," when you show them that actually the other side is terrified of losing our democracy, when you show them that the other side doesn't actually hate you, that mitigates, that pulls back all of these escalatory impulses.
罗布和米娜以及许多其他人发现，当你要求人们真正关注数据时，当你向他们展示“嘿，实际上，另一方和你一样害怕暴力”时，当你向他们展示另一方实际上害怕失去我们的民主时，当你向他们展示另一方实际上并不恨你时，这会减轻、拉回所有这些升级的冲动。
In essence, you can decrease the threat that people feel from the other side by showing them who the other side really is.
从本质上讲，您可以通过向人们展示对方的真实身份来减少他们感受到的来自对方的威胁。
I understand this is such a massive and toxic sort of environment that we're in.
我知道我们所处的环境如此巨大且有毒。
I'm not saying that hopeful skepticism will solve our divided political landscape, will solve our problems.
我并不是说充满希望的怀疑主义将解决我们分裂的政治格局，将解决我们的问题。
But I do think it's worth noting how wrong we are, and that being a little bit less wrong can at least open a door, maybe let our minds wander towards a place of greater compromise and peace, which is what most people actually want.
但我确实认为值得注意的是我们的错误有多大，而错误少一点至少可以打开一扇门，也许让我们的思想走向更大的妥协与和平，这才是大多数人真正想要的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Wow.
哇。
I say that for several reasons.
我这么说有几个原因。
First of all, I've never heard the landscape described that way, and I confess I didn't know that the landscape was as toward the center as it turns out it is.
首先，我从来没有听过这样的风景描述，而且我承认我不知道风景是像事实那样朝向中心的。
I have also many theories about how media and social media, and podcasts for that matter, might be contributing to this perceived polarization as opposed to the reality.
关于媒体和社交媒体以及播客如何可能导致这种与现实相反的感知两极分化，我还有很多理论。
And there's certainly a lot to explore in terms of what we can each and all do to remedy our understanding of what's going on out there.
当然，我们每个人都可以做些什么来弥补我们对正在发生的事情的理解，还有很多值得探索的地方。
As a consequence, I'll ask, can some of the same tools that you described to better interact with one's own children, with one's own self- ...
因此，我会问，你所描述的一些相同的工具是否可以更好地与自己的孩子、自己的互动……
with other individuals and in small groups be used to sort of defragment some of the cynicism circuitry that exists in us around this perceived-
与其他个人和小团体一起，可以用来整理我们体内存在的围绕这种感知的一些犬儒主义回路。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
highly polarized political landscape?
高度两极分化的政治格局？
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
I love that clarification.
我喜欢这个澄清。
Yeah, absolutely.
是的，绝对是。
I think that the answer is yes.
我认为答案是肯定的。
There is lots of evidence that we are actively avoiding having conversations, in part because of who we think the other side is.
有大量证据表明，我们正在积极避免对话，部分原因是我们认为对方是谁。
There was an amazing study that was conducted during Thanksgiving of 2016, which, as you may recall, was directly after a very polarizing election.
2016 年感恩节期间进行了一项令人惊叹的研究，您可能还记得，那是在一场两极分化严重的选举之后。
And researchers used geo-tracking on people's cell phones to examine whether, in order to go to Thanksgiving dinner, they crossed between a blue county into a red county, or a red county into a blue county.
研究人员利用人们手机上的地理跟踪来检查，为了去吃感恩节晚餐，他们是否从蓝色县穿越到了红色县，或者从红色县穿越到了蓝色县。
In other words, are they going into, and I'm using air quotes here, quote unquote, "enemy territory" for Thanksgiving dinner.
换句话说，他们是否要进入感恩节晚餐的“敌方领土”，我在这里使用空气引号，不带引号。
And they used that as a proxy of whether they're having dinner with people they disagree with.
他们以此作为衡量是否与意见不同的人共进晚餐的指标。
And it turns out that people who crossed county lines, who crossed into enemy territory, again in quotes, this is perceived polarization, they had dinners that were 50 minutes shorter than people who were dining with folks who presumably they agreed with.
事实证明，那些跨越县界、进入敌方领土的人，再次用引号引起来，这就是所谓的两极分化，他们的晚餐时间比那些与他们可能同意的人一起用餐的人短 50 分钟。
So we're talking about forsaking pie, Andrew.
所以我们正在谈论放弃馅饼，安德鲁。
They're giving up pie in order to not talk with people they disagree with.
他们放弃馅饼是为了不与他们不同意的人交谈。
And I think a lot of us are very skittish about these conversations, because if you believe that the other side is a bunch of bloodthirsty marauders, why would you want to talk with them?
我认为我们很多人都对这些对话感到非常不安，因为如果你相信对方是一群嗜血的掠夺者，你为什么要与他们交谈？
Why have a beer with a fascist?
为什么要和法西斯喝啤酒？
That's just not a great plan.
这不是一个伟大的计划。
The truth, though, is that when we can collect better data, oftentimes we end up with better perceptions, and I mean better in two ways, one, more positive, and two, more accurate.
但事实是，当我们能够收集更好的数据时，通常我们最终会得到更好的看法，我的意思是更好有两种方式，一是更积极，二是更准确。
Right?
正确的？
Now, again, I want to say that there are real threats in our political environment.
现在，我想说，我们的政治环境中存在真正的威胁。
I'm not asking anybody to make themselves unsafe in any way.
我并不是要求任何人以任何方式让自己变得不安全。
But in our lab, again, my wonderful graduate student, Luiza Santos, ran a study where we had about 160 people, these are folks from all over the country, who took part in Zoom conversations.
但在我们的实验室，我优秀的研究生 Luiza Santos 进行了一项研究，我们有大约 160 人参加了 Zoom 对话，这些人来自全国各地。
We made sure that they really disagreed about gun control, immigration, and climate change, and they talked about those issues.
我们确保他们在枪支管制、移民和气候变化问题上确实存在分歧，并且他们讨论了这些问题。
We asked them to forecast what those conversations would be like, and we asked other folks to forecast what those conversations would be like, and the forecasts went from neutral to negative.
我们要求他们预测这些对话会是什么样子，我们又要求其他人预测这些对话会是什么样子，预测从中性变为负面。
Some people thought, "It won't make any difference," and other people thought it would be counterproductive.
有些人认为，“这不会有任何影响”，而另一些人则认为这会适得其反。
Some folks in our survey said, "Dialogue is dead.
我们调查中的一些人说：“对话已经死了。
There's no point in any of these conversations." We then brought these folks together-- Oh, and I should say, among the people who were cynical about these conversations and who forecasted that they would go poorly was us, the research team.
这些谈话都毫无意义。”然后我们把这些人聚集在一起——哦，我应该说，对这些谈话持愤世嫉俗并预测他们会进行得很糟糕的人就是我们，研究团队。
Luiza and I spent hours talking about what if people start to threaten each other, or doxx each other, or look up each other's addresses.
路易莎和我花了几个小时讨论如果人们开始互相威胁、互相人肉搜索、或者互相查找对方的地址怎么办。
You know, Andrew, that we have institutional review boards that make sure that we're keeping human subjects safe, and the IRB wanted all sorts of safeguards in place because we all thought that these conversations might go really poorly.
你知道，安德鲁，我们有机构审查委员会来确保我们保证人类受试者的安全，而 IRB 希望采取各种保障措施，因为我们都认为这些对话可能会进展得很糟糕。
After the conversations occurred, we asked folks who had taken part in them to rate how positive they were on a one to 100 scale.
对话发生后，我们要求参与对话的人从 1 到 100 的范围内评价他们的积极程度。
And the most common, the modal response that people gave us was 100 out of 100.
最常见的是，人们给我们的模态反应是 100 分中的 100 分。
And it wasn't just that they liked the conversation.
这不仅仅是因为他们喜欢这次谈话。
They were shocked by how much they liked the conversation.
他们对自己如此喜欢这次谈话感到震惊。
They also reported less negative emotion for the other side as a whole, not just for the person that they talked with, and they reported more intellectual humility, more openness to questioning their own views.
他们还报告称，对对方整体的负面情绪较少，而不仅仅是对与他们交谈的人。他们报告说，他们在知识上更加谦逊，更愿意质疑自己的观点。
So here are conversations that we, as a culture, are actively avoiding because of our priors.
因此，作为一种文化，由于我们的先验，我们正在积极避免以下对话。
Our priors are wrong given the data, but we don't know that, and we don't give ourselves chances to learn that we're wrong, because we don't collect the data.
考虑到数据，我们的先验是错误的，但我们不知道这一点，而且我们也不给自己机会知道我们错了，因为我们不收集数据。
And when we do collect the data, when we step in and take that leap of faith, take that social risk, we are shocked and humbled, and feel more positive, and maybe even feel a slightly greater sense of hope that there can be some way out of this toxic environment that we're all trapped in.
当我们收集数据时，当我们勇敢地介入并承担社会风险时，我们会感到震惊和谦卑，并感到更加积极，甚至可能会感到一种更大的希望，因为我们都被困在这个有毒的环境中，可以找到某种出路。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Well, Jamil, Dr. Zaki, thank you so much for sharing your incredible, what can only be described as wisdom into this area of humanity.
好吧，贾米尔、扎基博士，非常感谢你们分享你们在人类这一领域的不可思议的智慧。
Right?
正确的？
To be a cynic is one potential aspect of being human.
愤世嫉俗是人类潜在的一个方面。
But you've made very clear that we have control.
但你已经明确表示我们拥有控制权。
There is plasticity over this aspect of ourselves if we adopt the right mindsets, apply the right practices.
如果我们采取正确的心态，应用正确的做法，我们自己的这方面就具有可塑性。
And it's so clear, based on everything you've shared today, that humans are operating rationally and yet irrationally at the same time.
根据您今天分享的所有内容，很明显，人类的运作既理性又非理性。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I'm certainly not the first to say that.
我当然不是第一个这么说的人。
But in the context of cynicism and in the context of being happier individuals, and families, and couples, and groups, that to really take a hard look at how cynical we are, and to start to make even minor inroads into that through belief testing.
但在愤世嫉俗的背景下，在成为更幸福的个人、家庭、夫妻和团体的背景下，要真正认真地审视我们有多么愤世嫉俗，并开始通过信念测试在这一点上做出哪怕是很小的进展。
I wrote down as we were talking that what I really feel you're encouraging us to do, correct me if I'm wrong, is to do both internal and external reality testing-
当我们谈话时，我写下了我真正觉得你鼓励我们做的事情，如果我错了，请纠正我，就是进行内部和外部现实测试 -
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Mm
毫米
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
in an effort to move us away toward internal and external polarization.
努力使我们摆脱内部和外部的两极分化。
And I can't think of any higher calling than that, and you're giving us the tools, and those tools are supported by data.
我想不出还有什么比这更高的使命了，你们为我们提供了工具，而这些工具是由数据支持的。
These aren't just ideas.
这些不仅仅是想法。
They are data-supported ideas, and I just want to thank you for your incredible generosity in coming here today to talk about those ideas.
它们是有数据支持的想法，我只想感谢你们今天来到这里谈论这些想法的慷慨大方。
Your book is phenomenal.
你的书太棒了。
I already learned so much from it, and I highly encourage people to read it.
我已经从中学到了很多东西，我强烈鼓励人们阅读它。
And what you've shared with us today is phenomenal.
您今天与我们分享的内容非常精彩。
And I do hope to have you back again to talk about another topic that you are expert in, which is empathy, but we'll have to all wait with bated breath for that, myself included.
我确实希望你能再次回来谈论你擅长的另一个话题，那就是同理心，但我们所有人都必须屏息等待，包括我自己。
So once again, I just want to thank you for your time, the incredible work that you're doing, and the evolution that you're taking us on.
所以，我想再次感谢您抽出宝贵的时间，感谢您所做的令人难以置信的工作，以及您带领我们取得的进步。
So on behalf of myself and everyone listening and watching, thank you ever so much.
我谨代表我自己以及所有聆听和观看的人，非常感谢你们。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
Andrew, this has been an absolutely delightful conversation, and I will say my forecast of it was very high, and it has exceeded that forecast.
安德鲁，这是一次绝对令人愉快的谈话，我会说我对它的预测非常高，而且它已经超出了这个预测。
I also just want to take a moment to thank you for your work as a science communicator.
我还想花一点时间感谢您作为科学传播者所做的工作。
As somebody who believes in not just trying to generate knowledge, but also to share knowledge, I think that it's absolutely one of the most important services that we can do as folks who have been trained and learned all this stuff to bring that information to as many people as we can, and I think it's an incredible mission, and clearly has had such wonderful impact.
作为一个不仅相信创造知识，而且相信分享知识的人，我认为这绝对是我们可以做的最重要的服务之一，因为我们已经接受过培训并学习了所有这些知识，可以将这些信息带给尽可能多的人，我认为这是一项令人难以置信的使命，并且显然已经产生了如此美妙的影响。
So it's an honor to be part of that conversation, and to be part of that effort.
因此，我很荣幸能够参与这场对话并参与这项努力。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Oh, well, thank you.
哦，好的，谢谢你。
I'll take that in.
我会把它带进去。
And it's a labor of love, and an honor and a privilege to sit here today with you.
这是一种爱的劳动，我很荣幸今天能和你们坐在一起。
So thank you ever so much, and please do come back again.
非常感谢您，请再次回来。
Dr. Jamil Zaki:
贾米尔·扎基博士：
I would love that.
我会喜欢的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Thank you for joining me for today's discussion with Dr. Jamil Zaki.
感谢您参加今天与贾米尔扎基博士的讨论。
To learn more about his work and to find a link to his new book, "Hope for Cynics," please see the links in the show note captions.
要了解有关他的作品的更多信息并找到他的新书《愤世嫉俗者的希望》的链接，请参阅演出注释标题中的链接。
If you're learning from and/or enjoying this podcast, please subscribe to our YouTube channel.
如果您正在学习和/或喜欢此播客，请订阅我们的 YouTube 频道。
That's a terrific zero-cost way to support us.
这是支持我们的绝佳零成本方式。
Another terrific zero-cost way to support us is to follow the podcast on both Spotify and Apple.
另一种很棒的零成本支持方式是关注 Spotify 和 Apple 上的播客。
And on both Spotify and Apple, you can leave us up to a five-star review.
在 Spotify 和 Apple 上，您都可以给我们五星级的评价。
Please check out the sponsors mentioned at the beginning and throughout today's episode.
请查看今天节目开头和整个节目中提到的赞助商。
That's the best way to support this podcast.
这是支持这个播客的最佳方式。
If you have questions for me or comments about the podcast or guests or topics that you'd like me to consider for the Huberman Lab podcast, please put those in the comments section on YouTube.
如果您对我有疑问，或者对播客或嘉宾有意见，或者您希望我为 Huberman Lab 播客考虑的主题，请将这些意见放入 YouTube 的评论部分。
I do read all the comments.
我确实阅读了所有评论。
For those of you that haven't heard, I have a new book coming out.
对于那些还没有听说过的人，我即将出版一本新书。
It's my very first book.
这是我的第一本书。
It's entitled "Protocols: An Operating Manual for the Human Body." This is a book that I've been working on for more than five years, and that's based on more than 30 years of research and experience, and it covers protocols for everything from sleep to exercise to stress control, protocols related to focus and motivation, and of course, I provide the scientific substantiation for the protocols that are included.
它的标题是“协议：人体操作手册”。这是我花了五年多时间编写的一本书，它基于 30 多年的研究和经验，涵盖了从睡眠到运动到压力控制的各个方面的方案，以及与注意力和动机相关的方案，当然，我还为所包含的方案提供了科学依据。
The book is now available by presale at protocolsbook.com.
该书现已在protocolbook.com 上预售。
There you can find links to various vendors.
在那里您可以找到各个供应商的链接。
You can pick the one that you like best.
您可以选择您最喜欢的一个。
Again, the book is called "Protocols: An Operating Manual for the Human Body." If you're not already following me on social media, I'm Huberman Lab on all social media platforms.
同样，这本书的名字是“协议：人体操作手册”。如果您还没有在社交媒体上关注我，我是所有社交媒体平台上的 Huberman Lab。
So that's Instagram, X, formerly known as Twitter, Threads, Facebook, and LinkedIn.
这就是 Instagram、X，以前称为 Twitter、Threads、Facebook 和 LinkedIn。
And on all those platforms, I cover science and science-related tools, some of which overlaps with the content of the Huberman Lab podcast, but much of which is distinct from the content on the Huberman Lab podcast.
在所有这些平台上，我介绍了科学和科学相关的工具，其中一些与胡伯曼实验室播客的内容重叠，但其中大部分与胡伯曼实验室播客的内容不同。
Again, that's Huberman Lab on all social media channels.
同样，这是所有社交媒体渠道上的 Huberman Lab。
If you haven't already subscribed to our Neural Network Newsletter, our Neural Network Newsletter is a zero-cost monthly newsletter that has protocols which are one to three-page PDFs that describe things like optimizing your sleep, how to optimize your dopamine, deliberate cold exposure.
如果您还没有订阅我们的神经网络时事通讯，我们的神经网络时事通讯是一份零成本的月度时事通讯，其中包含一到三页的 PDF 协议，描述诸如优化睡眠、如何优化多巴胺、故意冷暴露等内容。
We have a foundational fitness protocol that describes resistance training, sets and reps, and all of that, as well as cardiovascular training that's supported by the scientific research, and we have protocols related to neuroplasticity and learning.
我们有一个基本的健身方案，描述阻力训练、组数和次数等，以及科学研究支持的心血管训练，我们还有与神经可塑性和学习相关的方案。
Again, you can find all that at completely zero cost by going to hubermanlab.com.
同样，您可以通过访问 hubermanlab.com 以完全零成本找到所有这些内容。
Go to the Menu tab in the right corner, scroll down to Newsletter, you put in your email, and we do not share your email with anybody.
转到右上角的“菜单”选项卡，向下滚动到“时事通讯”，输入您的电子邮件，我们不会与任何人共享您的电子邮件。
Thank you once again for joining me for today's discussion with Dr. Jamil Zaki, and last but certainly not least, thank you for your interest in science.
再次感谢您参加今天与贾米尔·扎基博士的讨论，最后但同样重要的是，感谢您对科学的兴趣。