How Genes Shape Your Risk Taking & Morals | Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
There is a reward that we can see in the brains of people when they see someone suffer if that person is first portrayed as a wrongdoer.
当人们看到某人受苦时，如果这个人首先被描绘成一个不法分子，我们可以在他们的大脑中看到一种奖励。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
So ordinarily, if you see someone be shocked, you have anterior insula.
因此，通常情况下，如果您看到某人感到震惊，则您患有前岛叶。
It's like you're being shocked, too, unless that person is first portrayed as violating some moral or social norm, in which case, dopamine.
就像你也感到震惊一样，除非那个人首先被描述为违反了某些道德或社会规范，在这种情况下，就是多巴胺。
You get a reward out of seeing that person punished.
看到那个人受到惩罚，你就会得到奖励。
I think that it is a lust just as much as lust for substances or lust for sexual partners.
我认为这是一种欲望，就像对物质的欲望或对性伴侣的欲望一样。
It is a desire.
这是一个愿望。
People want to see people punished.
人们希望看到人们受到惩罚。
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. Kathryn Paige Harden.
今天我的嘉宾是凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士。
She is a psychologist and geneticist, and a professor at the University of Texas Austin.
她是一位心理学家和遗传学家，也是德克萨斯大学奥斯汀分校的教授。
Dr. Harden is an expert in how our genes shape our life trajectory, especially how they interact with life events during our adolescence and how they impact our long-term mental and physical health.
哈登博士是基因如何塑造我们生命轨迹的专家，特别是它们如何与我们青春期的生活事件相互作用以及它们如何影响我们的长期身心健康。
Today we discuss the interplay of nature and nurture in addiction, criminality, susceptibility to trauma, and the larger themes of sin, sociopathy, empathy, and forgiveness.
今天，我们讨论先天和后天在成瘾、犯罪、对创伤的敏感性以及罪恶、反社会、同理心和宽恕等更大主题中的相互作用。
As you'll soon see, Dr. Harden is unique in her ability to define how biology, psychology, and the sometimes randomness of life interact to drive people's choices.
正如您很快就会看到的那样，哈登博士的独特之处在于她能够定义生物学、心理学以及生活中有时的随机性如何相互作用来驱动人们的选择。
Today, we talk about known differences between males and females, the role of hormones and hormone-independent influences on male-female differences, and how people assume different roles in life depending on the power structures they find themselves in.
今天，我们讨论男性和女性之间已知的差异、激素的作用以及与激素无关的对男女差异的影响，以及人们如何根据自己所处的权力结构在生活中扮演不同的角色。
I want to be very clear that this is not a tap dance around the big issues episode.
我想明确表示，这不是围绕重大问题的踢踏舞。
Today, you are going to hear a very direct conversation about what the best science says about the role of genes and environment on human choice, and how the biology, meaning genes and everything downstream of them, neurotransmitters, hormones, et cetera, drive what choices are available to people and which ones they tend to make.
今天，你将听到一场非常直接的对话，内容涉及最好的科学如何解释基因和环境对人类选择的作用，以及生物学，即基因及其下游的一切，神经递质，激素等，如何驱动人们可以做出哪些选择以及他们倾向于做出哪些选择。
I've long been a fan of Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden's work because I know of no one else researching these topics with the level of rigor that she is, and as you'll soon hear, she is an exceptional educator.
长期以来，我一直是凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登 (Kathryn Paige Harden) 博士的作品的粉丝，因为据我所知，没有人像她一样严谨地研究这些主题，而且您很快就会听到，她是一位杰出的教育家。
She's clear, she's direct to the question, and her compassion and belief in people's ability to better themselves, no matter what their genes are, and to better the world, is woven into everything she says, and it's all backed by data.
她很清楚，她直接回答问题，她的同情心和信念融入了她所说的一切，无论他们的基因是什么，人们都有能力改善自己，并改善世界，而且这一切都有数据支持。
I should also mention that I learned during today's episode that Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden has a new book coming out soon.
我还应该提到的是，我在今天的节目中了解到凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士即将出版一本新书。
It is entitled "Original Sin: On the Genetics of Vice, the Problems with Blame, and the Future of Forgiveness," and you can find that anywhere books are sold.
这本书的标题是《原罪：罪恶的起源、责备的问题和宽恕的未来》，你可以在任何卖书的地方找到它。
It's now available for presale.
现在可以预售了。
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, today's episode does include sponsors.
为了与这个主题保持一致，今天的节目确实有赞助商。
And now for my discussion with Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden.
现在我与凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士进行了讨论。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden, welcome.
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士，欢迎。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Hi.
嗨。
Thank you for having me.
谢谢你有我。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Few things are as interesting to people as the relationship between genes and behavior, or what we call genotype and phenotype, the expression of all the stuff downstream of genes.
对于人们来说，没有什么比基因和行为之间的关系，或者我们所说的基因型和表型，即基因下游所有物质的表达更有趣的了。
And few things are as interesting as adolescence and puberty and the home we grew up in, and how our genes interact with our choices, et cetera.
很少有事情比青春期和青春期、我们长大的家庭以及我们的基因如何与我们的选择相互作用等更有趣。
You work at the intersection of all of those, which is a very brave thing to do.
你在所有这些的交叉点上工作，这是一件非常勇敢的事情。
Could you just frame for us why you selected to study the relationship between genes and outcomes using adolescence as the time point in which you jump off from those questions?
您能否向我们解释一下为什么您选择以青春期为跳出这些问题的时间点来研究基因与结果之间的关系？
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Because it could have been from infancy or in old age.
因为它可能是从婴儿期开始的，也可能是从老年开始的。
Why adolescence?
为什么是青春期？
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
So I did my PhD at the University of Virginia, and I was trained as a clinical psychologist, and if you're looking at when does mental illness emerge, when does this risk for mental illness really start to increase, it's in adolescence.
所以我在弗吉尼亚大学获得了博士学位，并接受了临床心理学家的培训，如果你正在研究精神疾病何时出现，这种精神疾病的风险何时真正开始增加，那就是在青春期。
So most cases of substance use disorders or addiction begin in adolescence.
因此，大多数物质使用障碍或成瘾病例始于青春期。
That's when people's risk for depression goes up.
那时人们患抑郁症的风险就会上升。
If you're going to have a first psychotic episode, that's going to be in late adolescence, early adulthood.
如果你第一次出现精神病发作，那会发生在青春期末期、成年早期。
So from a clinical perspective, adolescence is really interesting.
所以从临床角度来看，青春期确实很有趣。
And then I also was trained as a lifespan developmental psychologist, so thinking about how does what's happening early in the life reverberate, really through the rest of your lifespan.
然后我还接受了终身发展心理学家的培训，所以思考生命早期发生的事情如何影响你的余生。
And if you think about when in life do individual differences between people emerge, canalize, get deeper, when are people's life trajectories really starting to be apparent?
而如果你想一想，在生活中，人与人之间的个体差异何时会出现、疏导、加深，人们的人生轨迹何时真正开始显现？
It's in adolescence.
已经到了青春期了。
So I came into this field really interested in teenagers, late childhood and the teenage years, so thinking about puberty, sexual behavior, but then from there, what's happening in adolescence?
所以我进入这个领域时对青少年、童年晚期和青少年时期非常感兴趣，所以思考青春期、性行为，但从那里开始，青春期发生了什么？
It's also rule-breaking or aggression or, again, risk for alcohol and drug use.
这也是违反规则或攻击性的行为，或者是酗酒和吸毒的风险。
So my research program was really based on, okay, well, what's happening in this period of life where the genes we're born with and the family environments we were raised with, how do they combine to shape people's lives?
所以我的研究计划实际上是基于，好吧，好吧，我们出生的基因和我们长大的家庭环境在这个生命时期发生了什么，它们如何结合起来塑造人们的生活？
By the time people finish their teenage years, they begin adulthood.
当人们结束青少年时期时，他们就开始成年。
They're beginning adulthood on such different life trajectories.
他们正以截然不同的人生轨迹开始成年生活。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
What ages constitute adolescence?
哪些年龄属于青春期？
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
That's changing, I think, right now.
我认为现在这种情况正在改变。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Okay.
好的。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
We typically think of adolescence as beginning with the physical changes of puberty, right?
我们通常认为青春期是从青春期的身体变化开始的，对吗？
Adolescence is this period of transition to reproductive and social maturity.
青春期是向生殖和社会成熟过渡的时期。
So we're thinking of adolescence as beginning-
所以我们认为青春期是一个开始——
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm-hmm
嗯嗯
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
...
...
between 10 and 13 when people are going through puberty.
10岁到13岁之间，正值青春期。
I think more controversial is when does adolescence end?
我觉得比较有争议的是青春期什么时候结束？
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm.
嗯。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Because historically, we've defined that as you're an adult when you take on the social roles of adulthood, and that keeps being For various reasons, economic, social reasons, pushed back later and later.
因为从历史上看，当你承担起成年期的社会角色时，我们就定义了你是一个成年人，但由于各种原因，经济、社会原因，这一点一直被推迟。
So I've typically studied people between 10 and 25, so that kind of 15-year period.
所以我通常研究 10 到 25 岁之间的人，也就是 15 年的时期。
A 10-year-old is clearly a child.
10岁的孩子显然还是个孩子。
A 25-year-old is about to be kicked off their parents' insurance.
一名 25 岁的年轻人即将被取消父母的保险。
They can finally rent a car.
他们终于可以租车了。
They can technically take on the social roles of adulthood.
从技术上讲，他们可以承担成年后的社会角色。
And that's a long period of time where a lot of things are happening in the body and the brain.
在这段很长的时间内，身体和大脑中发生了很多事情。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
This may be outside the scope of what you work on, but I've always been struck by the fact that while kids, including myself, generally hit puberty somewhere, as you said, between 10 and 13 or maybe 14, some seem to go through puberty for a much longer period of time.
这可能超出了你的工作范围，但我一直对这样一个事实感到震惊：虽然孩子们，包括我自己，通常会在某个地方进入青春期，正如你所说，在 10 岁到 13 岁之间，或者可能是 14 岁之间，但有些人似乎会经历更长的青春期。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And I think of puberty as perhaps one of the biggest developmental milestones because the brain changes, hormones change, of course, but perceptually and how people perceive you changes completely.
我认为青春期可能是最大的发展里程碑之一，因为大脑会发生变化，荷尔蒙会发生变化，当然，但在感知上以及人们对你的看法完全改变了。
And the acquisition of what we know as secondary sex characteristics seems to occur at such different rates.
我们所知道的第二性征的获得似乎以如此不同的速度发生。
So, I can be open about this.
所以，我可以对此持开放态度。
I know I hit puberty by, I know at 14.
我知道我已经进入青春期了，我知道我已经14岁了。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Uh-huh.
嗯嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
But then I didn't really shave until I was almost graduating college.
但直到大学快毕业时我才真正刮胡子。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
But I had grown, right?
但我已经成长了，对吗？
Whereas there were other kids that we went home for the summer-
而我们还有其他孩子回家过暑假——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
And they came back and they were-
他们回来了，他们——
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
and they came back, not a grown man, but looking like, "This guy is-"
他们回来了，不是一个成年人，但看起来就像，“这个家伙是——”
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Looking like a grown man.
看上去就像一个成年男子。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Yeah.
是的。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And kicking our butts in soccer, and he's just in terms of everything, right?
在足球场上踢我们的屁股，他在一切方面都是如此，对吧？
But then, and I don't want to out this person, but then when I look at us now, it seems that the people that went through puberty more quickly may have aged more quickly in general.
但是，我不想把这个人排除在外，但是当我现在看看我们时，似乎那些更快地经历青春期的人可能总体上衰老得更快。
Is there any notion of a clock, and the rate of that clock turning can be sort of visualized in puberty and predict longevity?
是否存在时钟的概念，并且时钟转动的速率可以在青春期可视化并预测寿命？
Is there any relationship there?
这里面有什么关系吗？
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
We are working on this right now.
我们现在正在努力解决这个问题。
So we can think about individual differences in puberty in three ways.
所以我们可以从三个方面来思考青春期的个体差异。
We can think about pubertal timing.
我们可以考虑青春期的时间。
So when does it start?
那么什么时候开始呢？
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
For girls, early pubertal timing seems to be the best predictor of risk for mental health problems, physical health problems, earlier menopause, shorter lifespan.
对于女孩来说，青春期提前似乎是心理健康问题、身体健康问题、更年期提前和寿命缩短风险的最佳预测指标。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Early onset of puberty.
青春期提前。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Early onset of puberty.
青春期提前。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
So it's not looking at the sort of rate of-
所以它不是在考虑某种比率-
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Rate
率
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
characteristics.
特点。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
For boys, it seems that the difference in pubertal pace or pubertal, some people call it pubertal tempo, so not just how early does it start-
对于男孩来说，似乎青春期速度或青春期的差异，有人称之为青春期节奏，所以不仅仅是多早开始——
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm
毫米
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
...
...
but how long does it take-
但这需要多长时间——
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm
毫米
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
...
...
for all of those changes to unfold.
让所有这些变化得以展开。
We did a study many years ago where we found that boys were less affected by when it started, but more affected, at least for their emotional development, by how quickly it happened, with boys where they changed overnight, having the hardest time sort of assimilating all these changes that are happening because your cognition is not necessarily maturing as quickly as your height or your musculature or your hormones.
我们多年前做过一项研究，发现男孩受这种变化开始时间的影响较小，但受到变化发生的速度的影响更大，至少对他们的情绪发展来说是这样，男孩一夜之间就发生了变化，在吸收所有这些正在发生的变化方面经历了最困难的时期，因为你的认知不一定像你的身高、肌肉组织或荷尔蒙那样成熟得那么快。
And so, it seemed that boys seem to be particularly sensitive to going through puberty very quickly.
因此，男孩似乎对快速度过青春期特别敏感。
What we've been looking at recently is how the epigenome changes during this period of time.
我们最近关注的是表观基因组在这段时间是如何变化的。
So the genome is your DNA, it's the DNA sequence in your cells, and that doesn't change with development.
所以基因组就是你的 DNA，它是你细胞中的 DNA 序列，并且不会随着发育而改变。
But the epigenome is everything on top of the genome that affects how DNA is used by the body, used by the cells.
但表观基因组是基因组之上的一切，影响身体和细胞如何使用 DNA。
And there's one epigenetic mechanism known as DNA methylation, which is a methyl group is basically this chemical tag, and it can get kind of tagged on to the genome.
有一种称为 DNA 甲基化的表观遗传机制，甲基基本上就是这种化学标签，它可以被标记到基因组上。
So there's great work in aging that shows that the epigenetic clock, measured by DNA methylation, starts ticking in infancy, and faster biological aging, as measured by the epigenome, predicts shorter lifespan, worse health, earlier mortality.
因此，在衰老方面的大量工作表明，通过 DNA 甲基化测量的表观遗传时钟在婴儿期就开始计时，而通过表观基因组测量的生物衰老速度更快，预示着寿命更短、健康状况更差、死亡率更早。
What we looked at is, well, instead of training an epigenetic clock on age, can we train it on pubertal development, so how physically mature you are.
我们所关注的是，我们可以不根据年龄来训练表观遗传时钟，而是根据青春期发育来训练它，比如你的身体成熟程度吗？
And what we found is you can.
我们发现您可以。
So the clock is ticking as you get older, but there's another clock that's also ticking as you become more physically mature.
因此，随着年龄的增长，时钟会滴答作响，但随着你的身体变得更加成熟，另一个时钟也会滴答作响。
And those two things are correlated.
这两件事是相关的。
So the epigenetic changes that we see as you go through puberty faster do seem to be related to aging more rapidly, even in older life.
因此，当你更快地经历青春期时，我们看到的表观遗传变化似乎确实与更快的衰老有关，甚至在老年时也是如此。
So our reproductive development is, I think, very tied at a cellular, molecular level with our lifespan development.
因此，我认为，我们的生殖发育在细胞、分子水平上与我们的寿命发育密切相关。
And we see this across species.
我们在各个物种中都看到了这一点。
If you genetically engineer mice to go through puberty earlier, they die earlier.
如果你对老鼠进行基因改造，使其更早进入青春期，它们就会更早死亡。
So we have this trade-off between reproductive maturity and lifespan across species, within species, and I think now we're beginning to see that at the molecular level, too.
因此，我们在物种之间、物种内部的生殖成熟度和寿命之间存在这种权衡，我认为现在我们也开始在分子水平上看到这一点。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Fascinating.
令人着迷。
I also like the way that answer lands because I had a very protracted puberty.
我也喜欢这个答案的落地方式，因为我的青春期非常漫长。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah .
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And I feel grateful for that-
我对此感到感激——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
in retrospect because in terms of athletic ability and things like that, I wasn't really delayed, but I also couldn't get past the sort of middle of the distribution.
回想起来，因为在运动能力等方面，我并没有真正落后，但我也无法超越分布的中间部分。
But then over time, it's like this is kind of wild.
但随着时间的推移，这似乎有点疯狂。
I feel like I look very different.
我觉得我看起来很不一样。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And I looked very different at 30 than I did at 20, markedly different-
我 30 岁的时候看起来和 20 岁的时候有很大不同，明显不同——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
without doing anything except existing.
除了存在之外不做任何事情。
Some people seem kind of frozen in their adult look at this earlier age.
有些人在这么早的年龄看起来似乎有点冻结在他们的成人形象中。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
At this earlier age.
在这个年纪。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And from the animal literature, and I'm thinking the studies from my colleague, Eric Knudsen, in particular, where he was looking at plasticity in barn owls, but it's been looked at elsewhere.
从动物文献中，我想到了我的同事埃里克·克努森（Eric Knudsen）的研究，特别是他在研究仓鸮的可塑性，但它已经在其他地方被研究过。
There's this really striking correlation between the onset of puberty and the end of the So-called critical period-
青春期的开始和所谓的关键期结束之间确实存在着惊人的相关性——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Mm-hmm
嗯嗯
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
for neuroplasticity.
为了神经可塑性。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yes.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Of course, plasticity can go on throughout the lifespan, but the plasticity that occurs until and around puberty-
当然，可塑性可以持续整个生命周期，但可塑性发生在青春期之前和前后——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Mm-hmm
嗯嗯
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
is an order of magnitude greater than the plasticity that's available as, say, a 30-year-old or 40-year-old.
比 30 岁或 40 岁时的可塑性大一个数量级。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
So they've done the experiments of over-ovariectomizing animals or taking the testicles out of animals and somewhat preventing puberty, and it doesn't seem to extend that window.
因此，他们进行了过度切除动物卵巢或切除动物睾丸并在一定程度上阻止青春期的实验，但似乎并没有延长这个窗口。
So in humans, is there any relationship between cognition, brain flexibility, and the onset of puberty, the timing of the onset of puberty?
那么在人类中，认知、大脑灵活性和青春期的开始、青春期开始的时间之间有什么关系吗？
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
That's a really interesting question, and it's complicated, in part because it's like, well, what part of plasticity are you looking at?
这是一个非常有趣的问题，而且很复杂，部分原因是，你在关注可塑性的哪一部分？
What part of brain development are you looking at?
您关注的是大脑发育的哪一部分？
And also with humans, we can't, unlike animals, manipulate the onset of puberty in quite the same way.
对于人类来说，与动物不同，我们不能以完全相同的方式控制青春期的开始。
So it does seem like there are some cognitive functions.
所以看起来确实有一些认知功能。
If you're thinking about executive function ability, your ability to shift attention or update the things that are tested by a standard IQ test, those seem to be much more age related, whereas your ability to learn from peers versus your parents, your sensitivity to risk and certain types of emotions, that seems to be more tied to pubertal development than with age.
如果你考虑的是执行功能、转移注意力或更新标准智商测试所测试事物的能力，这些似乎与年龄相关性更大，而你向同龄人和父母学习的能力、你对风险的敏感度和某些类型的情绪，似乎与青春期发育的关系比与年龄的关系更大。
But they're so confounded within observational studies in humans that it's a continuing challenge to try to pull these apart.
但在人类的观察研究中，它们是如此令人困惑，以至于试图将它们分开是一个持续的挑战。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I'd like to take a quick break and acknowledge our sponsor, BetterHelp.
我想稍微休息一下并感谢我们的赞助商 BetterHelp。
BetterHelp offers professional therapy with a licensed therapist carried out entirely online.
BetterHelp 提供由持证治疗师完全在线进行的专业治疗。
I've been doing therapy for a very long time, and I can tell you that it's a lot like physical workouts.
我从事治疗很长时间了，我可以告诉你，这很像体育锻炼。
There are days when I want to do it, and there are days when I don't want to do it.
有想做的日子，也有不想做的日子。
But when I finish a therapy session, every single time, I come away feeling better and knowing that the time was well spent.
但当我完成一次治疗后，每一次，我都会感觉好多了，并且知道我的时间花得很值。
And typically when I finish therapy, I come away with a valuable insight or new perspective on something I'm working through, whether that's with work, with relationships, in my personal life, or simply in my relationship with myself.
通常，当我完成治疗时，我会对我正在经历的事情产生宝贵的见解或新的视角，无论是工作、人际关系、我的个人生活，还是仅仅是我与自己的关系。
There's just so much benefit that comes through effective therapy.
有效的治疗可以带来很多好处。
With BetterHelp, they make it very easy to find an expert therapist who can help provide the benefits that come from effective therapy.
通过 BetterHelp，他们可以很容易地找到可以帮助提供有效治疗带来的好处的专家治疗师。
They have a short questionnaire to help you match to a therapist that's right for you.
他们有一份简短的调查问卷，可以帮助您匹配适合您的治疗师。
And while BetterHelp has an industry-leading match rate, if you aren't happy with your match, you can switch to a different therapist at any time.
虽然 BetterHelp 拥有行业领先的匹配率，但如果您对匹配不满意，您可以随时更换为其他治疗师。
Also, because BetterHelp is done entirely online, it's extremely time efficient.
此外，由于 BetterHelp 完全在线完成，因此非常省时。
There's no driving to a therapist office, looking for parking, et cetera.
无需开车去治疗师办公室、寻找停车位等。
If you'd like to try BetterHelp, go to betterhelp.com/huberman to get 10% off your first month.
如果您想尝试 BetterHelp，请访问 betterhelp.com/huberman，第一个月可享受 10% 的折扣。
Again, that's betterhelp.com/huberman.
再说一次，这是 betterhelp.com/huberman。
Today's episode is also brought to us by Lingo.
今天的节目也是Lingo给我们带来的。
Lingo helps you track your glucose to support better metabolic health, mental clarity, and sustained energy.
Lingo 可以帮助您追踪血糖，以支持更好的代谢健康、思维清晰和持续的能量。
Glucose directly impacts our brain function, mood, and energy levels, and it may even affect our levels of tenacity and willpower.
葡萄糖直接影响我们的大脑功能、情绪和能量水平，甚至可能影响我们的坚韧和意志力水平。
This is why I use the continuous glucose monitor from Lingo.
这就是我使用 Lingo 连续血糖监测仪的原因。
I absolutely love it, and I'm thrilled to have them as a sponsor of the podcast.
我非常喜欢它，我很高兴他们成为播客的赞助商。
Lingo helps me track my glucose in real time to see how the foods I eat and the actions I take impact my glucose.
Lingo 帮助我实时跟踪我的血糖，以了解我吃的食物和我采取的行动如何影响我的血糖。
When glucose in your body spikes or crashes, your cognitive and physical performance do too.
当您体内的葡萄糖激增或崩溃时，您的认知和身体表现也会随之增加。
In fact, large glucose peaks and valleys lead to brain fog, fatigue, irritability, and hunger.
事实上，大的葡萄糖峰值和谷值会导致脑雾、疲劳、烦躁和饥饿。
What you eat, of course, plays a major role in your glucose.
当然，你吃的东西对你的血糖起着重要作用。
Some foods cause sharp spikes and big crashes, and others do not.
有些食物会导致急剧的峰值和严重的崩溃，而另一些则不会。
But not everyone is the same in terms of how they respond to particular foods.
但并不是每个人对特定食物的反应都是一样的。
Seeing your glucose in real time helps you build eating and other habits that support metabolic health, mental clarity, and sustained energy.
实时查看您的血糖有助于您养成饮食和其他习惯，从而支持代谢健康、思维清晰和持续精力充沛。
Lingo has helped me to better understand what foods to eat, when to eat, and how things like a brief walk after a meal can help keep my glucose stable and much more.
Lingo 帮助我更好地了解该吃什么食物、何时吃以及饭后短暂散步等活动如何帮助我保持血糖稳定等等。
If you'd like to try Lingo, Lingo is offering Huberman Podcast listeners in the US 10% off a four-week Lingo plan.
如果您想尝试 Lingo，Lingo 将为美国的 Huberman 播客听众提供为期 4 周的 Lingo 计划 10% 的折扣。
Terms and conditions apply.
条款和条件适用。
Visit hellolingo.com/huberman for more information.
请访问 hellolingo.com/huberman 了解更多信息。
The Lingo glucose system is for users 18 and older, not on insulin.
Lingo 葡萄糖系统适用于 18 岁及以上的用户，不适用于胰岛素使用者。
It is not intended for the diagnosis of diseases, including diabetes.
它不适用于诊断疾病，包括糖尿病。
Individual responses may vary.
个人反应可能有所不同。
I recall some mouse data showing that if you expose young pre-pubescent mice to older males, they enter puberty earlier.
我记得一些小鼠数据表明，如果将青春期前的年轻小鼠暴露于年长的雄性小鼠中，它们会更早进入青春期。
Does that exist in humans as well?
人类也存在这种情况吗？
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
So this is a controversial area of research.
所以这是一个有争议的研究领域。
It is true that human girls who are raised with a non-biological father do, on average, tend to go through puberty earlier.
确实，平均而言，由非亲生父亲抚养长大的人类女孩往往会更早进入青春期。
And some have hypothesized that it's a similar sort of cue from the environment about the stability and availability of resources.
一些人假设这是来自环境的关于资源稳定性和可用性的类似提示。
If Dad is gone, maybe the provisioning of the environment is going to be less stable.
如果爸爸走了，也许环境的供应会不太稳定。
Maybe evolution would favor a reproductive strategy where you go through puberty earlier rather than this continued...
也许进化会倾向于一种生殖策略，让你更早地经历青春期，而不是继续这样……
Childhood is so costly, right?
童年的代价就是这么大，不是吗？
A human childhood is long.
人的童年是漫长的。
It takes a lot.
这需要很多。
I have three kids.
我有三个孩子。
It takes a lot to feed them, to grow an adult.
喂养它们、让它们长大成人需要付出很多。
And so it might make sense to say, "Okay, well, if resources are going to be scarce, or if resources are going to be unpredictable, it might be better for me to have this strategy where I go through puberty earlier." What's difficult about that is that people don't end up in family structures at random.
因此，这样说可能是有道理的：“好吧，如果资源将变得稀缺，或者如果资源将变得不可预测，那么对我来说，采用这种提前度过青春期的策略可能会更好。”困难之处在于人们并不是随机进入家庭结构的。
And moms who go through puberty are more likely to have sex at younger ages, more likely to end up in non-marital childbearing family structures, and are likely to have daughters who are being raised without a biological father.
经历青春期的妈妈更有可能在更年轻的时候发生性行为，更有可能最终进入非婚生育家庭结构，并且很可能拥有在没有亲生父亲的情况下抚养的女儿。
So is it the biological father absence that's causing the earlier puberty, or is it that Mom has genes that predispose her towards early puberty?
那么，到底是亲生父亲的缺席导致了青春期提前，还是妈妈的基因导致了她青春期提前呢？
That changes her reproductive life And then she's more likely to be in this certain family structure and pass on those genes to her daughters.
这改变了她的生殖生活 然后她更有可能处于这种特定的家庭结构中并将这些基因传递给她的女儿们。
It seems to be a little bit of both, which is kind of the standard answer to all of our questions about nature and nurture, that there's a very strong genetic effect on the timing of puberty for both boys and girls, but that also the environment is pushing it in different directions.
似乎两者都有一点，这是我们所有关于先天和后天问题的标准答案，即男孩和女孩的青春期时间都受到非常强烈的遗传影响，但环境也将其推向不同的方向。
And that's part of why we're seeing that the age of puberty keeps going down with every successive cohort.
这就是为什么我们看到青春期年龄随着每一个连续的群体而不断下降的部分原因。
It's been falling for the last, basically as long as we've been keeping data, people have been going through puberty earlier.
它一直在下降，基本上只要我们一直保存数据，人们就会更早地经历青春期。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I'm realizing that you have a very, very difficult job- ...
我意识到你的工作非常非常困难-...
because the languaging is so delicate.
因为语言是如此微妙。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
So I'm just going to jump on the bed of nails for you.
所以我要为你跳上钉子床。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Okay.
好的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I've also heard that if the biological father is present, it provides a, quote-unquote, protective effect against this earlier onset-
我还听说，如果亲生父亲在场，它就会对这种早期发作提供一种保护作用——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Mm-hmm
嗯嗯
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
of puberty in the presence of the non-biological father.
在非亲生父亲在场的情况下度过青春期。
But just that language, protective effect-
但就是那句话，保护作用——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
implies that a one-year shift or two-year shift earlier puberty is somehow bad.
意味着青春期提早一年或两年的转变在某种程度上是不好的。
I think the human brain just works this way, right?
我认为人类的大脑就是这样工作的，对吗？
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
For understandable reasons, like, oh, these young girls that were supposed to go into puberty at 14, they're now going to puberty at 10 because the dad was absent.
出于可以理解的原因，比如，哦，这些本来应该在 14 岁进入青春期的年轻女孩，现在因为父亲缺席而在 10 岁进入青春期。
They, we, the human brain-
他们、我们、人类的大脑——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
They pathologize it
他们将其病理化
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
they pathologize it, and they write a script.
他们将其病态化，然后编写剧本。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And then, as you point out, there's things related to the situation as it relates to the mother and her choices-
然后，正如你所指出的，有些事情与情况有关，因为它与母亲和她的选择有关——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Mm-hmm
嗯嗯
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
and her genes, and it's a real barbed wire mess-
和她的基因，这是一个真正的铁丝网混乱-
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
for the typical person to try and pull apart.
对于典型的人来说，他们会尝试分开。
You're pulling these things apart beautifully, but it's also fodder for anyone that wants to drive a narrative.
你把这些东西分解得很漂亮，但它也是任何想要推动叙事的人的素材。
That's tough.
这很难。
How do you navigate that?
你如何导航？
Because I'm going to ask you about adolescence- ...
因为我要问你关于青春期的事-...
and genes, and sexual promiscuity, right?
和基因，还有性乱，对吗？
We're talking about s- today we're going to talk about sin.
我们谈论的是——今天我们要谈论的是罪。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And so how do you look at these things that, I know you look at them objectively, but then how does one choose to communicate about these things in a way that doesn't-
那么你如何看待这些事情，我知道你客观地看待它们，但是人们如何选择以一种不-
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Mm-hmm
嗯嗯
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
arm people to kind of run their own agendas, whether they realize it or not?
武装人们去执行自己的议程，无论他们是否意识到？
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
I'm not sure I'm the best person to give advice about that.
我不确定我是提供这方面建议的最佳人选。
I'm a scientist.
我是一名科学家。
I'm a mother.
我是一位母亲。
I'm a college professor.
我是一名大学教授。
I teach Intro Psych at UT, and so I'm always thinking about what does the science say, how would I explain this to my 13-year-old, how would I explain this to my undergrads?
我在 UT 教授心理学入门课程，所以我总是在思考科学是怎么说的，我该如何向我 13 岁的孩子解释这一点，我该如何向我的本科生解释这一点？
And with a sense of awe and respect for how amazing a human body and brain is, right?
对人类的身体和大脑的神奇之处抱有敬畏和尊重，对吗？
Like to think about we as women, as at one time girls, are equipped with a brain that's looking out into the environment and integrating all of these signals about internal and external, about resources and stress and body weight and light, and integrating that to say, "Okay, now's the best time for us in our situation to go.
想想我们作为女性，就像曾经的女孩一样，配备了一个大脑，可以观察周围的环境，整合所有这些关于内部和外部、关于资源和压力、体重和光线的信号，并整合这些信号来说，“好吧，现在是我们所处情况的最佳时机。
Now is the time for our bodies to change in these amazing ways." That is puberty.
现在是我们的身体以这些惊人的方式发生改变的时候了。”那就是青春期。
I feel like I keep coming back to if we have respect for the amazingness of the human body and the brain, and I'm trying to communicate it with clarity and empathy in the way that my 13-year-old son would understand it.
我觉得我一直在思考我们是否尊重人体和大脑的神奇之处，并且我正在尝试以我 13 岁的儿子能够理解的方式清晰且富有同理心地传达这一点。
I don't always succeed at that goal, but that's really my-- I feel like that as an educator, that's how I'm approaching these topics.
我并不总是能成功实现这个目标，但这确实是我的——我觉得作为一名教育者，这就是我处理这些话题的方式。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
All right.
好吧。
Well, I appreciate you saying that.
嗯，我很欣赏你这么说。
I didn't ask that to kind of inoculate against anything.
我要求这样做并不是为了预防任何事情。
But now we can really get into the- ...
但现在我们可以真正进入——...
tangle.
纠结。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Now you can let her rip.
现在你可以让她撕裂了。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Yeah.
是的。
I have long thought that the hypothalamus, right, these various clusters of neurons-
我一直认为下丘脑，对吧，这些不同的神经元簇——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
above the roof of our mouth that drive hunger and sex behavior and thirst and aggression and a bunch of other interesting things, is sort of the seat of the seven deadly sins.
在我们的上颚上方，它驱动着饥饿、性行为、口渴、攻击性以及其他一些有趣的东西，它是七大罪的所在地。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
I've heard you say this before.
我以前听你说过这句话。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Yeah.
是的。
And of course, all those brain circuits and structures interact with other brain circuits-
当然，所有这些大脑回路和结构都与其他大脑回路相互作用——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
and structures.
和结构。
There's no one location in the brain that governs a behavior entirely, with some rare exceptions.
大脑中没有一个位置可以完全控制一种行为，除了一些罕见的例外。
How do you think about the genetic programming of the hypothalamus in terms of people's proclivity for addiction, promiscuity, aggression-
你如何看待下丘脑的基因编程对人们成瘾、滥交、攻击性的倾向——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Mm-hmm
嗯嗯
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
being overly passive in a way that might harm them or other people as well?
过于被动，可能会伤害自己或其他人？
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
I don't really think that much about the hypothalamus, per se, actually, in relation to those behaviors.
实际上，我对下丘脑本身与这些行为的关系并没有太多的看法。
So just stepping back one step, when you made this reference to the seven deadly sins, right?
所以，当你提到七宗罪时，退一步来说，对吧？
So if I can remember all of them, there's wrath, there's envy, there's lust, there's greed, there's sloth.
所以如果我能记住所有这些，那就是愤怒，嫉妒，欲望，贪婪，懒惰。
And what do the seven deadly sins have in common?
七大罪有什么共同点？
How can we operationalize that more scientifically?
怎样才能更科学地实施呢？
What those behaviors all have in common is, I mean, except envy for a second, is doing something that might be pleasurable in the short term, to the extent that there's negative consequences.
我的意思是，这些行为的共同点是，除了嫉妒之外，都是做一些短期内可能令人愉快的事情，但会产生负面后果。
Negative consequences to yourself, or negative consequences to other people.
对自己产生负面影响，或对他人产生负面影响。
I think envy is interesting because you're seeing other people enjoying pleasures, and you're like, "I want that one," right?
我认为嫉妒很有趣，因为你看到其他人享受快乐，你会想，“我想要那个，”对吗？
So it's kind of looking at other people-
所以这有点像看别人——
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Yeah
是啊
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
...
...
other people's pursuit of things.
别人对事物的追求。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I think of envy as a severe opportunity cost, because as long as you're envying what someone else has or is doing, then you're-
我认为嫉妒是一种严重的机会成本，因为只要你嫉妒别人拥有或正在做的事情，那么你就——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Oh, that's interesting
哦，这很有趣
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
then you're missing all the stuff that's happening now that you could Now build your life on
那么你就错过了现在发生的所有事情，而你现在可以以此为基础构建你的生活
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
I think of envy as like a clue to what do you desire that you haven't admitted to yourself.
我认为嫉妒就像一条线索，告诉你你想要什么，但你自己却没有承认。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Hmm.
嗯。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
One question I ask graduate students when I'm recruiting them is, "Whose career do you want?
当我招聘研究生时，我问他们的一个问题是：“你想要谁的职业？
Whose career do you envy?" Because that tells me more about where they really want to go with their lives-
你羡慕谁的职业生涯？”因为这告诉我更多关于他们一生真正想要去往的地方——
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm-hmm
嗯嗯
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
...
...
than their kind of prepared speech that they have for me.
比他们为我准备的演讲更重要。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Great question.
很好的问题。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Let's take wrath, or let's take lust.
让我们接受愤怒，或者让我们接受欲望。
Anger is an emotion that's useful.
愤怒是一种有用的情绪。
Sexual desire is an emotion that's useful.
性欲是一种有用的情感。
When do they become sins?
他们什么时候成为罪孽呢？
They become sins in our minds when people are engaging that behavior in situations where we think it's going to be harmful, not just to themselves, but to other people.
当人们在我们认为不仅对他们自己而且对其他人有害的情况下做出这种行为时，它们就成为我们心目中的罪恶。
From a clinical psychology perspective, we would never say we're going to study the seven deadly sins.
从临床心理学的角度来看，我们永远不会说我们要研究七大罪。
But we do have clinical language or diagnoses where the predominant symptoms that you see are people engaging in behaviors that are impulsive, that are maybe immediately pleasurable, but in the long term, harmful to themselves or other people.
但我们确实有临床语言或诊断，您看到的主要症状是人们从事冲动行为，这些行为可能会立即令人愉悦，但从长远来看，对自己或他人有害。
So the obvious constellation of this is substance use disorders, right?
所以最明显的现象就是物质使用障碍，对吗？
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
So it's, I'm ingesting a substance, it feels good, and I'm doing that at significant cost to myself and other people.
所以，我正在摄入一种物质，感觉很好，但我这样做给自己和其他人带来了巨大的代价。
We can also think about in childhood what would be called conduct disorder, which are people who are children who are engaging in wrath.
我们还可以想想童年时期所谓的品行障碍，即那些在孩童时期就容易发怒的人。
They're engaging in aggression towards other people, that hurts other people, their parents, their teachers, their schools, the law is mad at them, and they're doing it anyways.
他们对他人进行攻击，伤害了他人、他们的父母、他们的老师、他们的学校，法律对他们很生气，但他们还是这么做了。
So what we're interested in scientifically is, are there genes that affect the likelihood of developing these disorders?
因此，从科学角度来说，我们感兴趣的是，是否存在影响这些疾病发生可能性的基因？
Yes.
是的。
Are there genetic overlaps between these different things?
这些不同事物之间是否存在基因重叠？
So are the genes that make it more likely for you to become addicted to substances also make you more likely to have many sexual partners, also make you more likely to engage in impulsive aggression?
那么，那些让你更容易对物质上瘾的基因是否也会让你更有可能拥有很多性伴侣，也让你更有可能进行冲动攻击呢？
That also appears to be the question.
这似乎也是一个问题。
Yes.
是的。
And then if we're looking at genes that have these associations, not just with substances or not just with sexual behavior or not just with aggression, but have crosscutting effects on all of them, what are they?
然后，如果我们正在研究具有这些关联的基因，不仅与物质、性行为或攻击性相关，而且对所有这些都有交叉影响，那么它们是什么？
Like what are those genes?
那些基因是什么？
Where are they active in the brain?
它们在大脑的哪个部位活跃？
When are they expressed in development?
它们什么时候体现在发展中？
So that's work that our group has been doing for eight years now to try to discover what these genes-- We have a good idea from twin and adoption studies that there are genetic influences on these things, and now we want to figure out what are they and where are they active in the brain.
这就是我们小组八年来一直在做的工作，试图发现这些基因的含义——我们从双胞胎和收养研究中得到了一个好主意，即遗传对这些基因有影响，现在我们想弄清楚它们是什么以及它们在大脑中活跃的位置。
And it turns out that it's not just hypothalamus, it's really broadly distributed throughout your brain.
事实证明，它不仅仅是下丘脑，它确实广泛分布在整个大脑中。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I'll update my-
我会更新我的-
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
messaging.
消息传递。
And I did couch it as a hypothesis.
我确实把它当作一个假设。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Yes.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I never said that there were-
我从来没有说过有——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
that you could lesion one of the-
你可能会损害其中之一-
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
the sins.
的罪恶。
There are genes that vary between individuals-
个体之间存在差异的基因——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yes
是的
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
that predict addiction, predict impulsivity-
预测成瘾，预测冲动——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Mm-hmm
嗯嗯
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
and other things.
和其他事情。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
You're exploring how the genes that predict addiction might predict impulsivity for other types of behaviors.
您正在探索预测成瘾的基因如何预测其他类型行为的冲动。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yes.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I think I heard that the answer is yes.
我想我听说答案是肯定的。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Indeed, there's overlap.
确实，有重叠。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
So I'd be very curious to know what those genes encode for.
所以我很好奇这些基因编码的内容。
What are the protein systems and neural-
什么是蛋白质系统和神经系统
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
circuit systems, hormone systems downstream of those genes?
那些基因下游的回路系统、激素系统？
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
If we go back one step, just why did we think that there were going to be genes that overlap between this?
如果我们退一步，为什么我们认为这之间会有重叠的基因呢？
The biggest set of results that supported this hypothesis were adoption and pedigree studies.
支持这一假设的最大一组结果是收养和谱系研究。
So these big data registries, you get them in Sweden, you get them in the Scandinavian countries that keep track of every single one of their citizens.
因此，这些大数据登记册，你可以在瑞典获得，也可以在斯堪的纳维亚国家获得，它们可以跟踪每一位公民。
And what you see is that the seven deadly sins run in families.
你所看到的是七宗罪是家族遗传的。
So if you have an adoptive parent who's addicted to alcohol, you are more likely to have many sexual partners, and you're also more likely to be diagnosed with conduct disorder or be arrested for a violent crime.
因此，如果你有一个酗酒成瘾的养父母，你就更有可能有很多性伴侣，而且你也更有可能被诊断为行为障碍或因暴力犯罪而被捕。
Even if you were never raised by that parent, and it's not just substance use to substance use or violence to violence or risky sexual behavior to risky sexual behavior.
即使您从未由该父母抚养长大，这不仅仅是药物滥用或药物滥用或暴力或暴力行为或危险性行为。
It seems that having a family history of any of these things increases your likelihood of manifesting any one of them.
似乎有任何这些事情的家族史都会增加你表现出其中任何一种的可能性。
So that's why we thought that there was this genetic commonality across them.
这就是为什么我们认为他们之间存在这种遗传共性。
So what we found is that there's many, many, many genes that affect all of these behaviors.
所以我们发现有很多很多基因影响所有这些行为。
It's massively, what we call polygenic, so it's not just one thing in one part of your genome.
它是巨大的，我们称之为多基因，所以它不仅仅是基因组某一部分中的一件事。
It's distributed throughout your genome.
它分布在您的整个基因组中。
And that those genes are most expressed in neurodevelopment in utero, in second and third trimester.
这些基因在子宫内、妊娠中期和晚期的神经发育中表达最多。
So if you look at genes that are associated with all of these things, and you see, okay, when in the human lifespan are they most active, they're active during cortical development in the second and third trimester.
因此，如果你观察与所有这些事物相关的基因，你会发现，好吧，在人类寿命中它们最活跃的时候，它们在孕中期和孕晚期的皮质发育过程中很活跃。
So there's something very early neurodevelopmental that's going on there, and it seems to be affecting the brain's balance of inhibition and excitation.
因此，那里正在发生一些非常早期的神经发育过程，它似乎正在影响大脑抑制和兴奋的平衡。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Hmm.
嗯。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
So as your brain is developing while you're in utero, the GABA system, which is inhibitory, and the glutamate system, which is excitatory, sort of being tuned, and the balance between those two things is being worked out.
因此，当您的大脑在子宫内发育时，具有抑制性的 GABA 系统和具有兴奋性的谷氨酸系统会进行调整，并且正在解决这两者之间的平衡。
If children are born preterm, part of the reason that that affects their psychological development negatively is because it affects this balance between inhibition and excitation.
如果孩子早产，对其心理发展产生负面影响的部分原因是它影响了抑制与兴奋之间的平衡。
So I think we're still very at the beginning of this, understanding the bioannotation of it, the biological mechanisms of it.
所以我认为我们还处于起步阶段，了解它的生物注释和生物学机制。
But what it suggests to us is that You know, sometimes you hear like ADHD is a neurodevelopmental disorder.
但它向我们表明的是，你知道，有时你听说多动症是一种神经发育障碍。
I think that substance use disorders are every bit as a neurodevelopmental disorder as ADHD.
我认为物质使用障碍与多动症一样都是一种神经发育障碍。
I think conduct disorder, which is characterized by impulsive aggression is every bit a neurodevelopmental disorder as ADHD.
我认为以冲动攻击为特征的行为障碍完全是一种神经发育障碍，就像多动症一样。
Because if you look at the genes that are causing them, they seem to be affecting this pattern of brain development so very early in life, and this balance between the brain's inhibition and excitation.
因为如果你观察导致它们的基因，它们似乎在生命的早期就影响着大脑的这种发育模式，以及大脑的抑制和兴奋之间的平衡。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Fascinating.
令人着迷。
I have to be careful not to go down this rabbit hole, but I started off as a developmental neurobiologist.
我必须小心，不要掉进这个兔子洞，但我一开始是一名发育神经生物学家。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
So, fetal brain wiring is-
所以，胎儿的大脑接线是——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
That's your-
那是你的——
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
We've never really talked about it on this podcast, but we've talked about the effect of fetal exposure to hormones-
我们从未在这个播客上真正讨论过它，但我们讨论过胎儿接触激素的影响 -
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
in the brain in particular, in terms of sexual differentiation.
特别是在大脑中，在性别分化方面。
But yeah, there's a ton going on in there-
但是，是的，里面发生了很多事情——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
at these stages.
在这些阶段。
And when I hear you talk broadly about the balance between excitation and inhibition, and some disruption in that or some alteration in that, setting up a probability-
当我听到你广泛谈论兴奋和抑制之间的平衡，以及其中的一些破坏或一些改变时，建立一个概率-
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Mm-hmm
嗯嗯
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
of the expression of some behavioral disorder or choice-
某种行为障碍或选择的表达-
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
set of choices, it makes me wonder about brain function more broadly is, does that somehow make these choices to use a given substance or to do a impulsive behavior?
一系列的选择，这让我想知道更广泛的大脑功能，是否以某种方式做出这些选择来使用给定的物质或做出冲动的行为？
Is it...
难道是……
But we have to be careful not to project, but is it an attempt to restore some sort of order to that balance, or is it an expression of an imbalanced system?
但我们必须小心，不要投射，但这是否是试图恢复某种平衡的秩序，还是系统不平衡的表现？
It's just a seesaw that doesn't tilt all the way-
这只是一个不会一直倾斜的跷跷板——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
to one side or the other.
到一侧或另一侧。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
I think that's a really good question, and I don't know the answer to that.
我认为这是一个非常好的问题，但我不知道答案。
When you talk to people who are experiencing a substance use disorder, sometimes you hear narratives that are very much in this kind of self-medication frame, right?
当您与正在经历药物滥用障碍的人交谈时，有时您会听到类似自我药疗框架的叙述，对吗？
Like, "I took this substance and it made me feel normal, and I didn't feel normal before I had that."
就像，“我服用了这种物质，它让我感觉正常，而在服用之前我感觉不正常。”
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
But that's not everyone.
但并不是所有人都是这样。
Addiction is a very heterogeneous disorder, and so I think people's perceptions of their motivations to engage in substance use that's harmful for them, and then how does that relate to the brain mechanism, and then how does that relate to early neurodevelopment?
成瘾是一种非常异质性的疾病，所以我认为人们对自己从事对他们有害的物质使用的动机的看法，然后这与大脑机制有何关系，然后与早期神经发育有何关系？
I don't think we know the specifics of those links to the extent that you exist.
我认为我们不知道您存在的这些链接的具体情况。
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
My colleague, Anna Lembke, who wrote "Dopamine Nation"-
我的同事安娜·伦布克（Anna Lembke）是《多巴胺国家》的作者——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
she once said that many addicts, behavioral addictions, I guess they call them process addictions or chemical addictions, that they have this feeling that unless they're experiencing something really intense-
她曾经说过，许多成瘾者，行为成瘾，我猜他们称之为过程成瘾或化学成瘾，他们有这样的感觉，除非他们正在经历非常强烈的事情-
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Mm-hmm
嗯嗯
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
like life isn't really happening.
就像生活并没有真正发生一样。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Like they crave this intensity of experience.
就像他们渴望这种强度的体验一样。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
They want peak experience.
他们想要巅峰体验。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Either to numb themselves, it could be a trough experience in the case of sedatives, but, and that stuck with me.
要么是为了麻痹自己，对于镇静剂来说，这可能是一次低谷经历，但是，这一直困扰着我。
Implied in that is that not everyone is seeking these kind of extreme states, and so layered on what you just described in terms of excitation-inhibition balance, I kind of wonder if people who struggle with addiction are craving getting out of too much inhibition or too much excitation in, but this is probably an overly simplistic hypothesis.
这意味着并不是每个人都在寻求这种极端状态，因此根据你刚才描述的兴奋-抑制平衡，我有点想知道与成瘾作斗争的人是否渴望摆脱太多的抑制或太多的兴奋，但这可能是一个过于简单化的假设。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
So just thinking about that sensation-seeking thing, that driving for intensity.
所以只要想想那种寻求感觉的事情，那种追求强度的事情。
Usually, when we think of people who are chronically engaging in some behavior despite it having negative consequences for themselves and other people, so this could be drug use, this could be aggression, this could be risky sexual behavior.
通常，当我们想到那些长期从事某些行为的人，尽管这会给自己和他人带来负面影响，所以这可能是吸毒，这可能是攻击性，这可能是危险的性行为。
We can typically think of three dimensions of sort of personality and temperament that are often at play, and one of them is this sensation-seeking drive for intensity.
我们通常可以想到经常发挥作用的人格和气质的三个维度，其中之一就是这种追求强度的感觉驱动力。
So I want it, and I want a lot of it, right?
所以我想要它，而且我想要很多，对吗？
And then one is this disinhibition, failure of self-control.
第一个是抑制解除，自我控制失败。
I can't stop myself.
我无法阻止自己。
And then another, which I think is less well-studied, is what people call antagonism or callousness, which is, I know this has negative consequences for other people, but I don't really care.
还有一个，我认为没有得到很好的研究，就是人们所说的对抗或冷酷，也就是说，我知道这会给其他人带来负面影响，但我真的不在乎。
Like that doesn't bother me.
就像这并不困扰我。
And I think what you see is that the combination of factors that goes into any one person's behavior can really vary.
我认为你所看到的是，影响任何一个人行为的因素的组合确实会有所不同。
So for some people, it's like, "This feels great.
所以对于一些人来说，就像是，“这感觉很棒。
This feels good.
这感觉很好。
I want the high.
我想要高的。
I want it to be intense.
我希望它是激烈的。
I'm not disinhibited.
我并没有失控。
I'm deliberately seeking out this behavior.
我正在刻意寻找这种行为。
I plan the drugs that I'm going to use for the club the whole week, and I plan my week afterwards." It's not disinhibited at all.
我计划了俱乐部整整一周要使用的药物，并计划了之后的一周。”它根本没有解除抑制。
It's very purposeful.
这是非常有目的的。
And then there are people that are like, "I wasn't planning, but now I'm at the club, and someone offered this to me, and I can't stop myself." And then other people are like, "I like it okay, and I could stop myself, but these negative consequences that people keep harping on, the fact that my partner doesn't like this or the police don't like this," like, "Oh, I'm indifferent," right?
然后有些人会说，“我没有计划，但现在我在俱乐部，有人向我提供了这个，我无法阻止自己。”然后其他人会说，“我喜欢这样，没关系，我可以阻止自己，但是人们一直在喋喋不休地谈论这些负面后果，我的伴侣不喜欢这个或警察不喜欢这个，”就像，“哦，我漠不关心，”对吗？
And so, all of that to say, I think we need to be aware of the complexity and the heterogeneity of different people's motivations when they're doing these behaviors.
因此，综上所述，我认为我们需要意识到不同人在做出这些行为时动机的复杂性和异质性。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Yeah, and these days we hear a lot about the role of trauma in addiction.
是的，现在我们听到很多关于创伤在成瘾中的作用。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I can't do a single post or podcast-
我无法发表任何帖子或播客 -
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
about addiction and the biology and not hear, well, it's trauma related, but of course, genes come from our parents.
关于成瘾和生物学，但没有听到，嗯，它与创伤有关，但当然，基因来自我们的父母。
We'll talk about that-
我们会讨论这个-
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
heritability.
遗传力。
And so generational trauma or just childhood trauma-
所以世代创伤或只是童年创伤-
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
doesn't even have to be transgenerational.
甚至不必是跨代的。
It can get layered in there in a complicated way.
它可以以复杂的方式分层。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yes.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And I'm not trying to say that trauma doesn't play a role.
我并不是想说创伤不起作用。
Clearly, it does.
显然，确实如此。
But It seems that genes could be primary trauma in the parents, trauma in the children, traumatizing, hurt people, hurt people kind of-
但看来基因可能是父母的主要创伤，孩子的创伤，造成创伤，伤害人，伤害人——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
it's the one cliché that seems to stand the test of time.
这是一种似乎经得起时间考验的陈词滥调。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
I think it's very hard to say that something is primary or secondary because everything's interacting with everything else.
我认为很难说某件事是主要的还是次要的，因为一切都在与其他一切相互作用。
One of the scientific challenges, and then also one of the very human tragedies that we often see, is that the parents who have genetic risks, who are passing those on to their kids, are also the caregivers for those kids.
科学挑战之一，也是我们经常看到的人类悲剧之一，是有遗传风险的父母，他们将这些风险遗传给孩子，同时也是这些孩子的照顾者。
And so the kids who would most benefit from firm, warm, stable, nurturing parenting are also the least likely to get it because the parents themselves are also dealing with their own stuff, and they're also leading their own complicated lives.
因此，那些最能从坚定、温暖、稳定、养育的养育中受益的孩子也最不可能得到这种养育，因为父母自己也在处理自己的事情，而且他们也在过着自己复杂的生活。
And so it's a tapestry.
所以它是一幅挂毯。
There's a warp and a weft to a piece of cloth.
一块布有经纱和纬纱。
There's the threads that go this way and this way.
有这样和那样的线程。
And I think that's how I think about the relationship between genes and trauma early experience, is that really they both are woven together to build the brain and the body and the personality that then struggles with these behaviors later on in their life.
我认为这就是我对基因和早期创伤经历之间关系的看法，它们实际上是交织在一起的，共同构建了大脑、身体和人格，然后在以后的生活中与这些行为作斗争。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
So if we were to have access to our genomes heading into adolescence-
因此，如果我们在进入青春期时能够访问我们的基因组——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
or to our kids' genomes, and we know, based on your work and the work of others, presumably, that some of the genes that predispose to impulsive behavior, addictive behavior, promiscuity, et cetera, that would be useful information, I would think.
或者我们孩子的基因组，根据你和其他人的工作，我们知道，一些容易产生冲动行为、成瘾行为、滥交等的基因，我认为这将是有用的信息。
Right?
正确的？
Then one could think carefully about friend choices, situational choices, install buffers-
然后就可以仔细考虑朋友的选择，情境的选择，安装缓冲区——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
it sounds so mechanical, but have people around who can help buffer against these-
这听起来很机械，但是周围有人可以帮助缓冲这些-
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Mm
毫米
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
genetic predispositions, which no doubt, as you just said, weave into situational-
遗传倾向，毫无疑问，正如你刚才所说，与情境交织在一起——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
predispositions.
倾向。
Why don't people want that information, or do they want that information?
为什么人们不想要这些信息，或者他们想要这些信息？
Because I remember in the '80s hearing, "Oh, soon we're going to have genomes," and- ...
因为我记得在 80 年代的听证会中，“哦，很快我们就会拥有基因组”，而且——...
"You can know if you're going to get Huntington's."
“你可以知道自己是否会患上亨廷顿舞蹈症。”
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
This very destructive, degenerative disorder.
这是一种极具破坏性的退行性疾病。
And then people said, "Well, I wouldn't want to know." I think many people would also want to know.
然后人们说：“好吧，我不想知道。”我想很多人也想知道。
And especially parents, if they can just get past their guilt that it has something to do with them, I think they'd want to help their kids avoid these predispositions, given that most of what we're talking about are maladaptive predispositions.
尤其是父母，如果他们能够克服与他们有关的内疚感，我认为他们会想帮助他们的孩子避免这些倾向，因为我们谈论的大部分都是适应不良倾向。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
So this is a complicated and really rapidly growing area of research, which is what happens if you return people's genetic information back to them.
因此，这是一个复杂且发展迅速的研究领域，如果将人们的遗传信息返还给他们，就会发生这种情况。
So if you have ever done 23andMe or some sort of direct-to-consumer genetics company, you might have gotten, like, "This is your genetic risk for Crohn's disease," or, "This is your genetic risk for Parkinson's or Alzheimer's." And now there are more companies that are expanding into that genetic information around many gene indices, we call them polygenic indices or polygenic scores, that are correlated with someone's risk for developing an alcohol use disorder, say.
因此，如果您曾经做过 23andMe 或某种直接面向消费者的遗传学公司，您可能会得到这样的信息：“这是您患克罗恩病的遗传风险”，或者“这是您患帕金森病或阿尔茨海默病的遗传风险”。现在有更多的公司正在围绕许多基因指数扩展遗传信息，我们称之为多基因指数或多基因评分，它们与某人患酒精使用障碍的风险相关。
I think there's a couple of things to keep in mind here.
我认为这里有几件事需要记住。
One is that our genetic information is rapidly improving.
一是我们的遗传信息正在迅速改善。
It's still not very good at the level of predicting an outcome for an individual.
它在预测个人结果方面仍然不是很好。
So, as an example, you can think cities that are at higher altitude tend to be colder.
因此，举个例子，您可以认为海拔较高的城市往往更冷。
That's a correlation of around .4, .5.
相关性约为 0.4、0.5。
You can know that if you're trying to think about, okay, well, which cities are colder on average than others?
你可以知道，如果你尝试思考，好吧，好吧，哪些城市平均比其他城市更冷？
That's not going to tell you, do you need to pack a sweater if you're going to Montreal next Tuesday, right?
这不会告诉你，如果你下周二要去蒙特利尔，你需要带一件毛衣吗？
That's a specific weather incident.
这是一个特定的天气事件。
Polygenic scores right now are like, I can tell you that in general, these people have a higher risk than these people, but they're not a pregnancy test or even a Huntington's disease test.
现在的多基因分数就像，我可以告诉你，一般来说，这些人比这些人有更高的风险，但它们不是妊娠测试，甚至不是亨廷顿病测试。
They're not prognosticators of an individual person's risk for an alcohol use disorder.
它们不能预测个人患酒精使用障碍的风险。
There's some uncertainty there.
这里面存在一些不确定性。
The other question is what are the ethics of telling someone that they have a low genetic risk, especially if we're uncertain about that?
另一个问题是，告诉某人他们的遗传风险较低，尤其是当我们对此不确定时，道德是什么？
You've talked a lot about how no alcohol on average is better for you than some alcohol.
您已经多次谈到，平均而言，没有任何酒精比某些酒精对您更好。
We think about the risks of telling someone that they're genetically predisposed towards a negative life outcome.
我们会考虑告诉某人他们在基因上倾向于消极生活结果的风险。
But there's also risks to telling someone that they're not genetically proposed, because are they going to interpret that as license to drink more?
但告诉某人他们不是基因提议的也有风险，因为他们会把这解释为喝更多酒的许可吗？
"I don't need to worry about that.
“我不需要担心这个。
I don't need to worry about my consumption because this company told me that I'm at low risk." And then the other thing you're picking up on is that there are individual differences in desire for deliberate ignorance.
我不需要担心我的消费，因为这家公司告诉我我的风险很低。”然后你注意到的另一件事是，对故意无知的渴望存在个体差异。
So there's a great study after the wall came down in Berlin that was conducted on whether or not people want to know the contents of their Stasi files, like who was reporting on them.
因此，柏林墙倒塌后，人们进行了一项伟大的研究，研究人们是否想知道斯塔西档案的内容，比如谁在报告这些档案。
And some people were like, "Of course I want to know.
有些人说：“我当然想知道。
Of course I want to know who was saying what about me." And other people were saying, "No, I don't.
我当然想知道谁在说我的事。”其他人则说：“不，我不这么认为。
Deliberate ignorance.
故意无知。
Ignorance is bliss.
无知是福。
Deliberate ignorance is what I want."
故意的无知就是我想要的。”
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
This is what other people were saying about them.
这是其他人对他们的评价。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yes, yes.
是的，是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Don't read the comments.
不要阅读评论。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Deliberate ignorance.
故意无知。
Don't read the comments is also a form of deliberate ignorance.
不看评论也是一种故意无知的表现。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
This is like an avid-
这就像一个狂热的
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
debate between podcasters.
播客之间的争论。
Rogan is Mister Don't Read the Comments.
罗根是先生，请勿阅读评论。
Lex Fridman and I go back and forth on this.
莱克斯·弗里德曼和我在这个问题上反复讨论。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
On guarding the comments.
关于捍卫评论。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
It can be useful.
它可能很有用。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
So all of that to say, I think we're in a situation in which the science is rapidly developing.
综上所述，我认为我们正处于科学快速发展的境地。
It's not nearly at a point where it's going to be a high-confidence predictor There's also risks to being told that you have a low genetic risk, because it might act as a permission structure-
它还远没有达到成为高置信度预测因子的程度。被告知您的遗传风险较低也存在风险，因为它可能充当许可结构 -
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm-hmm
嗯嗯
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
...
...
for behavior that might ultimately prove to be risky.
对于最终可能被证明有风险的行为。
And also, people psychologies are complicated, and not everyone responds to more information as a good thing.
而且，人们的心理很复杂，并不是每个人都认为更多的信息是好事。
Not everyone wants to read the comments of their DNA.
并不是每个人都愿意阅读他们 DNA 的评论。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
This isn't a pushback, but I feel like most people, even if they don't understand genes and heritability, understand that they got their genes from their parents.
这并不是一种阻力，但我觉得大多数人，即使他们不了解基因和遗传性，也明白他们的基因是从父母那里遗传的。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
So there is an argument to be made perhaps that people are already doing this.
因此，有人认为人们可能已经在这样做了。
Like someone whose father was an alcoholic, whose grandfather was an alcoholic-
就像一个人的父亲是个酒鬼，他的祖父也是一个酒鬼——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yes
是的
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
could say, "Well, yeah, I got to be really careful, because obviously this runs in my family."
可以说，“嗯，是的，我必须非常小心，因为显然这是我的家族遗传。”
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Right?
对吗？
And then someone say, "Well, your mom doesn't have an issue with alcohol.
然后有人说：“好吧，你妈妈没有酗酒的问题。
She could have a couple drinks, no big deal." So you're protected, and we don't know how gene dosing protects us or makes us vulnerable.
她可以喝几杯，没什么大不了的。”所以你受到了保护，但我们不知道基因剂量如何保护我们或使我们变得脆弱。
No one knows, but we all do this, right?
没有人知道，但我们都这样做，对吗？
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yes.
是的。
I think we do.
我想我们做到了。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I mean, we'll get into discussions about genes and heritability, but the topic of eugenics and genetic selection even within embryos is super dicey nowadays.
我的意思是，我们将讨论基因和遗传力，但优生学和遗传选择的话题即使在胚胎内也是非常危险的。
It's so scary to even have the discussion, but then I've always said, I mean, people do a-
即使进行讨论也是如此可怕，但我总是说，我的意思是，人们会-
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Pick sperm
挑选精子
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
kind of genetic selection
遗传选择的种类
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Sperm donors.
精子捐赠者。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
They pick sperm donors, and they pick partners-
他们挑选精子捐献者，他们挑选伴侣——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yes.
是的。
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
oftentimes based on a combination of traits-
通常基于特征的组合-
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah, they have filters
是的，他们有过滤器
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
which clearly involve genes.
这显然涉及基因。
So people are doing a genetic selection in partner choice anyway, and so to me, maybe it's just the scientist in me, the conversation feels unnecessarily scary.
所以无论如何，人们在选择伴侣时都会进行基因选择，所以对我来说，也许这只是我内心的科学家，谈话感觉不必要的可怕。
But when it comes to things like substance use disorder, I mean, tell me if I'm wrong, I think it makes sense to look at your parents and say, "Listen, if one of them has an issue with alcohol or both of them have an issue with alcohol, I have to be very careful with alcohol."
但当涉及到药物使用障碍等问题时，我的意思是，告诉我我是否错了，我认为看看你的父母并说：“听着，如果他们中的一个人有酒精问题，或者他们两人都有酒精问题，我必须对酒精非常小心。”
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
And with your children too, right?
也和你的孩子一起，对吧？
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
I think as parents, at least as a mother, I look at my kids and I think they don't have the same temperament.
我认为作为父母，至少作为母亲，我看着我的孩子，我认为他们没有同样的气质。
They don't have the same personality.
他们没有相同的性格。
I think the risks of cannabis use is different for my son and for my daughter.
我认为使用大麻的风险对我的儿子和我的女儿来说是不同的。
And so I think an attuned parent is going to be thinking about, what do I know about my kid as they go into adolescence?
所以我认为，一个调和的父母会思考，当我的孩子进入青春期时，我对他们了解多少？
How does that inform how I'm helping shape their environment?
这如何告诉我如何帮助塑造他们的环境？
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
I think what you're picking up here is that oftentimes people treat genetic information as if it exists in a vacuum, and it's the only thing we know about a person, and that's obviously not true.
我认为你在这里了解到的是，人们常常将遗传信息视为存在于真空中，这是我们对一个人唯一了解的信息，但这显然不是真的。
There are phenotypes that we see in our family members, in our prospective mates, in our children.
我们在家庭成员、未来的伴侣、孩子身上看到了一些表型。
And most of the research can also act as if you would be returning genetic information about a child or about a person to that person, and it's the only thing that they know, and that's not true.
大多数研究也可以表现得好像你将有关一个孩子或一个人的遗传信息返回给那个人，这是他们唯一知道的事情，但事实并非如此。
So I think that we really are at a place where we need more meta science, science about the science, in what is the most responsible way to give people access to their genetic information in a way that permits them to make the best choices.
所以我认为我们确实需要更多的元科学，关于科学的科学，以最负责任的方式让人们获得他们的遗传信息，让他们能够做出最好的选择。
But we're not going to be able to do that if we're continuing to pretend that genetic information exists somehow siloed from all of the other things that people are paying attention to when they're observing themselves and their family members.
但如果我们继续假装遗传信息的存在与人们在观察自己和家人时所关注的所有其他事物无关，我们就无法做到这一点。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
If you're a regular listener of the Huberman Lab podcast, you've no doubt heard me talk about the vitamin mineral probiotic drink AG1.
如果您是 Huberman Lab 播客的常客，您无疑听过我谈论过维生素矿物质益生菌饮料 AG1。
And if you've been on the fence about it, now's an awesome time to give it a try.
如果您一直对此持观望态度，那么现在正是尝试的好时机。
For the next few weeks, AG1 is giving away a full supplement package with your first subscription to AG1.
在接下来的几周内，AG1 将在您首次订阅 AG1 时赠送完整的补充包。
They're giving away a free bottle of vitamin D3+K2, a bottle of omega-3 fish oil capsules, and a sample pack of the new sleep formula, AGZ, which by the way, is now the only sleep supplement I take.
他们免费赠送一瓶维生素 D3+K2、一瓶 omega-3 鱼油胶囊和新睡眠配方 AGZ 样品包，顺便说一下，它是我现在唯一服用的睡眠补充剂。
It's fantastic.
太棒了。
My sleep on AGZ is out of this world good.
我在 AGZ 的睡眠质量非常好。
AGZ is a drink, so it eliminates the need to take a lot of pills.
AGZ 是一种饮料，因此无需服用大量药片。
It tastes great, and like I said, it has me sleeping incredibly well, waking up more refreshed than ever.
它味道好极了，就像我说的，它让我睡得非常好，醒来时比以往任何时候都精神焕发。
I absolutely love it.
我非常喜欢它。
Again, this is a limited time offer, so make sure to go to drinkag1.com/huberman to get started today.
再次强调，这是限时优惠，因此请务必立即访问 Drinkag1.com/huberman 开始。
I feel like the more information we have about our parents and their parents-
我觉得我们拥有更多关于我们的父母和他们的父母的信息-
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Mm-hmm
嗯嗯
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
and their positive traits and their, let's just call them maladaptive, destructive traits to themselves or to others, the more informed our choices can be.
我们的选择越明智，他们的积极特质以及他们的（让我们称之为适应不良的）对自己或他人具有破坏性的特质就越大。
But I do understand that it can start to set up some constraints in our mind of what we are capable of or not capable of.
但我确实明白，它可能会开始在我们的思维中对我们能做什么或不能做什么设置一些限制。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
But I also feel like, especially in the United States, there's this notion that we can become anything.
但我也觉得，尤其是在美国，有一种观念认为我们可以成为任何人。
It wasn't until I was in a relationship with somebody from Southern Europe that I realized that that notion growing up with that-
直到我和一个来自南欧的人建立了关系，我才意识到这个想法是伴随着成长的——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
is kind of outrageous to some people in the world.
对世界上的一些人来说有点令人愤慨。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Because in a lot of areas of the world, as you know, people get siloed really early on.
因为如您所知，在世界许多地区，人们很早就被孤立了。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Not everyone grows up thinking they could be an amazing athlete if they chose that path.
并不是每个人在成长过程中都认为，如果选择这条道路，他们就能成为一名出色的运动员。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
They could be a billionaire if they chose that path.
如果他们选择这条路，他们可能会成为亿万富翁。
But in the United States, we love this notion of anyone can get to any position if they just work hard enough and believe in themselves-
但在美国，我们喜欢这样的观念：只要足够努力并相信自己，任何人都可以达到任何职位——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
and align with the right people.
并与合适的人结盟。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
So I think that you think of it probably as another source of data, and is it more data better?
所以我认为你可能认为它是另一个数据源，数据越多越好吗？
Like isn't we improve our decision-making when we have more variables at hand?
当我们手头有更多变量时，我们的决策不是会得到改善吗？
That's a very scientific way to think about genetic information, whereas I think for many people in the broader public, there can be a temptation to see genes as a very special sort of information.
这是一种思考遗传信息的非常科学的方式，而我认为对于广大公众中的许多人来说，可能存在将基因视为一种非常特殊的信息的诱惑。
Genetic has a myth around it that maybe this is my data on my heart rate variability doesn't have about it.
遗传学有一个神话，也许这是我的心率变异性数据，但没有相关信息。
Often I think that people can fall into these really essentialist stories about genetics, that it's telling them something about their deepest or truest selves, and that's when the delivery of genetic information, without correcting their perception of what genes are really telling us, can start to be dangerous.
我常常认为人们可能会陷入这些关于遗传学的本质主义故事，认为它告诉他们一些关于他们最深层或最真实的自我的事情，而那时传递遗传信息，而不纠正他们对基因真正告诉我们什么的看法，可能会开始变得危险。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Yeah.
是的。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
I mean, I think about 23andMe, their tagline for many years was, "Welcome to you." "Spit in this tube.
我的意思是，我想到 23andMe，多年来他们的口号是“欢迎来到你”。 “吐在这个管子里。
Welcome to you," that we are not just going to give you another piece of information about yourself to add to all of the things that you could be using.
欢迎您”，我们不仅仅会向您提供另一条有关您自己的信息，以添加到您可能使用的所有内容中。
We are going to tell you who you really are.
我们将告诉你你到底是谁。
And it's when the genetic information lapses into these more essentialist stories that I think things get to be, in your words, a little bit thornier, a little bit riskier.
当遗传信息融入到这些更本质主义的故事中时，我认为事情会变得有点棘手，有点冒险。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I never did 23andMe, but they were just right up the road, but somehow never did it.
我从来没有做过 23andMe，但他们就在路上，但不知何故从未这么做过。
But I did hear that one of the surprising results of 23andMe and companies like it was that a not insignificant number of people discovered they have relatives-
但我确实听说 23andMe 和类似公司的令人惊讶的结果之一是，不少人发现他们有亲戚——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yes
是的
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
that they didn't know they had.
他们不知道自己有。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yes, or that their father isn't the father that they thought they had.
是的，或者他们的父亲并不是他们想象中的父亲。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Which is a pretty major psychological frame shift.
这是一个相当重大的心理框架转变。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Yeah.
是的。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
I gave a talk at a small college, and it was a writing class, and they had to write about a book, and they chose my book to write about, which is great.
我在一所小型大学做了一次演讲，那是一个写作课，他们必须写一本书，他们选择了我的书来写，这很棒。
It's like freshmen, and they all have to actually write something, and they chose a book that was deliberately a little bit controversial to give them something to push off on.
就像新生一样，他们都必须真正写一些东西，他们选择了一本故意有点争议的书，以便给他们一些可以推进的东西。
And I asked him, I said, "You're a writing professor.
我问他，我说：“你是一位写作教授。
How did you find my book?" And he said, "Well, I did 23andMe, and I realized that the man who raised me is not my biological father.
你怎么找到我的书的？”他说：“好吧，我做了23andMe，我意识到抚养我长大的人不是我的亲生父亲。
My parents didn't know this.
我的父母不知道这一点。
It was our fertility doctor who was my biological father, and I have something like 26 half siblings because this guy had been doing it in his practice for years.
我们的生育医生是我的亲生父亲，我有大约 26 个同父异母的兄弟姐妹，因为这个人多年来一直在做这件事。
The doctor is now deceased." And I just was like, that's so much more interesting than anything I'm going to talk about with these freshmen, this story.
现在医生已经去世了。”我只是想，这比我要和这些新生谈论的任何事情都要有趣得多，这个故事。
And I think that speaks to he had a whole narrative about his life and his family, and then he got this piece of genetic information, and it blew that story out of the water because there was something about the genetic lineage that is really important to our sense of who we are, and he really had to reconstruct his family story and his identity in the light of that information.
我认为这说明他对自己的生活和家庭有一个完整的叙述，然后他得到了这条遗传信息，这让这个故事彻底失败了，因为遗传谱系中的某些东西对于我们对自己是谁的认识非常重要，他确实必须根据这些信息重建他的家庭故事和他的身份。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
It's so interesting because I've heard of people learning something unfortunate, bad, about their grandparent or parent that they weren't aware of, and then internalizing that somehow they are bad.
这很有趣，因为我听说人们了解到一些他们不知道的关于他们的祖父母或父母的不幸、不好的事情，然后内化到他们不知何故是不好的。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Especially young kids can internalize that message.
尤其是年幼的孩子可以将这一信息内化。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
This is a message to all people who may end up divorced.
这是给所有可能最终离婚的人的信息。
Don't badmouth the other parent because you're essentially telling your kids that they come from-
不要说父母另一方的坏话，因为你实际上是在告诉你的孩子，他们来自——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
there's badness in them.
他们有不好的一面。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And we all think that this is about people's behavior, but my understanding, I've spent a little bit of time with this literature, just how people interpret information-
我们都认为这是关于人们的行为，但我的理解是，我花了一点时间研究这些文献，了解人们如何解释信息-
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
and how kids interpret information is that they're like, "Oh, I come from something bad." And there's all these movies about this.
孩子们解释信息的方式是，“哦，我来自一些不好的事情。”所有这些电影都是关于这个的。
"Star Wars" has this and other movies.
《星球大战》有这部电影和其他电影。
Our genetic origins and how those played out in previous generations-
我们的遗传起源以及这些起源如何在前几代中发挥作用-
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
can frighten people about themselves.
可以让人们害怕自己。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yes.
是的。
So to go back to your earlier question about how do we talk about genetics in relation to these phenotypes that are really part of our identities, another thing is that I don't think anyone's bad.
因此，回到你之前的问题，即我们如何谈论与这些表型相关的遗传学，这些表型实际上是我们身份的一部分，另一件事是我不认为任何人都是坏人。
I don't think anyone's all good either.
我也不认为谁都是好人。
I think that humans are complicated, and our behaviors are complicated, and none of us can be reduced to one thing we've done or one gene we have or one aspect of our phenotype.
我认为人类是复杂的，我们的行为也是复杂的，我们中的任何一个人都不能被简化为我们所做的一件事情或我们拥有的一种基因或我们表型的某一方面。
But that is a really common perception, that genetics is telling us something essential about ourselves, and that it might turn out that that essential thing is a bad thing.
但这是一种非常普遍的看法，即遗传学告诉我们一些关于我们自己的重要信息，而结果可能是一件坏事。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
I write in my new book about this letter that I got from a man who is in prison.
我在我的新书中写到这封信是我从一个监狱里的人那里收到的。
He's been in prison since he was 16 for a horrific crime that he committed.
他从 16 岁起就因犯下可怕的罪行而入狱。
It's a sexually violent crime that he committed when he was 15 years old.
这是他15岁时犯下的性暴力犯罪。
So still an adolescent, still a growing brain, still not an adult.
所以仍然是一个青少年，仍然是一个正在成长的大脑，仍然不是成年人。
In Texas, you can be tried an adult at 15, and he's been in prison ever since then.
在得克萨斯州，15 岁就可以作为成年人接受审判，从那时起他就一直在监狱里。
And he read about my lab, our behavior genetics lab at Texas, in an issue of Texas Monthly Magazine, which I guess the prison subscribes to, and he wrote me a letter, and it showed up in my university mailbox, and it was him saying, "I've done this thing.
他在《德克萨斯月刊》杂志上读到了我的实验室，我们在德克萨斯州的行为遗传学实验室，我猜监狱订阅了这本杂志，他给我写了一封信，信出现在我大学的邮箱里，他说：“我已经做了这件事。
Let me tell you about myself.
让我告诉你关于我自己的事。
I've been in prison my whole adult life, even before then.
我的整个成年生活都在监狱里度过，甚至在那之前也是如此。
What do you think makes a child go bad, nature or nurture?" And that question haunted me because I could give him a technical answer, which is I could say, it's we know that nature matters.
你认为是什么让孩子变坏，是先天的还是后天的？”这个问题一直困扰着我，因为我可以给他一个技术性的答案，我可以说，我们知道自然很重要。
We know that nurture matters.
我们知道培养很重要。
We know that all of our behaviors are influenced by both nature and nurture.
我们知道，我们所有的行为都受到先天和后天的影响。
But I think when he's writing me, he's not just asking for a science lesson.
但我认为当他写信给我时，他不仅仅是要求上科学课。
He's someone who's done something horrible, and he's saying, "I feel like I am inherently a horrible person, and that might be because of my genetics.
他是一个做了可怕事情的人，他说：“我觉得我本质上是一个可怕的人，这可能是因为我的基因。
Do my genetics make me bad?" And I think that's a story about genetics which has no scientific basis, but really pops up in a lot of places in our culture, and it makes it very difficult to talk about because you're here saying, "These genetic variants are expressed at this point in prenatal development, and that increases your probability of having these behaviors." But if someone hears that as, "I could be born bad," or "I could be born broken," that's absolutely not what we're saying, but that story about genetics is really woven through our culture.
我的基因让我变坏了吗？”我认为这是一个关于遗传学的故事，没有科学依据，但在我们文化的很多地方确实出现过，这使得它很难谈论，因为你在这里说，“这些遗传变异在产前发育的这个阶段表达，这增加了你出现这些行为的可能性。”但如果有人听到“我可能生来就是坏的”或“我可能生来就是破碎的”，那绝对不是我们所说的，但关于遗传学的故事确实融入了我们的文化。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
The bad seed.
坏种子。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
The bad seed, bad to the bone, natural-born killer.
坏种子，坏到骨子里，天生的杀手。
I think the fact that we can come up with English idioms and phrases for this so easily tells us something about the way that we think about behavior, morality, the self, and biology.
我认为我们可以如此轻松地想出英语习语和短语，这一事实告诉我们一些关于我们思考行为、道德、自我和生物学的方式。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I have so many questions, but I think the first one I want to ask is a developmental one.
我有很多问题，但我想我想问的第一个问题是发展问题。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I think most of us presumably carry this idea that it's during puberty and the activation of hormones, in particular testosterone-
我想我们大多数人大概都有这样的想法，那就是在青春期和荷尔蒙激活期间，特别是睾丸激素-
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Mm-hmm
嗯嗯
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
that takes a sweet kid and makes them a bad kid.
这会让一个可爱的孩子变成一个坏孩子。
I think that's not true.
我认为这不是真的。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I don't believe that's true.
我不相信这是真的。
But are there examples in the literature of kids prior to puberty being destructive in a sociopathic way?
但是，文学中是否有关于青春期前的孩子以反社会的方式进行破坏的例子呢？
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yes.
是的。
And that's one of the biggest predictors of what people have called a life course persistent pattern of antisocial offending, which is onset before the age of 10.
这是人们所说的一生中持续存在的反社会犯罪模式的最大预测因素之一，这种犯罪在 10 岁之前就开始出现。
Antisocial behavior that's not just destruction of property, but also aggression against other children.
反社会行为不仅是破坏财产，还包括对其他儿童的攻击。
And when we're thinking about aggression, oftentimes we discriminate between aggression when provoked versus proactive-
当我们思考攻击行为时，我们常常会区分被激怒时的攻击行为和主动攻击行为——
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm
毫米
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
...
...
kind of cold aggression.
一种冷酷的攻击性。
So the worst prognosis we would anticipate would be a male child who begins to aggress against other children or against animals before the age of 10 and doesn't feel guilt or remorse around that.
因此，我们预计最糟糕的预后是男孩在 10 岁之前就开始攻击其他儿童或动物，并且不会对此感到内疚或悔恨。
That has kind of this cold callousness about it.
这有一种冷酷无情的感觉。
That's a poor prognosticator of having well-regulated behavior into adulthood.
这是一个对成年后行为规范良好的不良预测。
So of those kids who have conduct disorder, especially before the age of 10 with these callous emotional features, we would expect that 50% to 75% of them will have a substance use disorder in adulthood.
因此，对于那些患有品行障碍的孩子，尤其是在 10 岁之前具有这些冷酷情绪特征的孩子，我们预计其中 50% 到 75% 的人在成年后会患有药物滥用障碍。
A non-trivial percentage will meet criteria for antisocial personality or another personality disorder in adulthood.
相当大的百分比将满足成年后反社会人格或其他人格障碍的标准。
And so again, I think we're looking at a subset of children where there's clearly a heavy genetic component.
再说一次，我认为我们正在研究一个明显具有大量遗传成分的儿童子集。
There's clearly a heavy nurture component.
显然，其中有很重的教养成分。
It's very neurodevelopmental in terms of its origins and early brain development.
就其起源和早期大脑发育而言，它与神经发育非常相关。
And currently, we have vanishingly few effective treatments.
目前，我们几乎没有有效的治疗方法。
And again, I think that's because people have maybe implicitly or unconsciously interpreted the genetic research or the biological research as these kids were born bad, not these kids were born with a set of neurodevelopmental liabilities, and we really need to figure out how to help them.
再说一遍，我认为这是因为人们可能隐含或无意识地将基因研究或生物学研究解释为这些孩子生来就不好，而不是这些孩子生来就有一系列神经发育缺陷，我们真的需要弄清楚如何帮助他们。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
What are the treatments we can offer them?
我们可以为他们提供哪些治疗方法？
And when people see something as a moral failing, they're less likely to see it as a biomedical problem that we can throw the weight of science behind.
当人们将某些事情视为道德败坏时，他们就不太可能将其视为我们可以抛开科学负担的生物医学问题。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
What percentage of these kids younger than 10 that show this antisocial behavior are male versus female?
表现出这种反社会行为的 10 岁以下儿童中男性和女性的比例分别是多少？
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
The sex ratio varies, but sometimes it's two to one, sometimes it's as high as four to one.
性别比例各不相同，但有时是二比一，有时高达四比一。
So-
所以——
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Wow.
哇。
It can't be explained by post-utero testosterone because they haven't hit puberty yet.
这不能用子宫后睾酮来解释，因为他们还没有进入青春期。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
So it either is an early organizing effect in utero, or there's something on the Y chromosome-
所以这要么是子宫内的早期组织效应，要么是 Y 染色体上有什么东西——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
that creates a susceptibility.
这会产生敏感性。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
And we really don't know.
我们真的不知道。
Actually, one of my former postdocs is working on this now, the analysis of the X chromosome, because most genetic studies just focus on the autosome.
事实上，我以前的一位博士后现在正在研究 X 染色体的分析，因为大多数遗传学研究只关注常染色体。
So just focused on the non-sex chromosomes.
所以只关注非性染色体。
The other thing is we also see this in animals, that male guinea pigs are much more vulnerable to the effects of preterm birth than female guinea pigs.
另一件事是我们在动物身上也看到了这一点，雄性豚鼠比雌性豚鼠更容易受到早产的影响。
Again, preterm birth disrupts that same kind of GABA to glutamate excitatory inhibitory balance that we're also seeing popping up in the genetic research.
同样，早产会破坏 GABA 与谷氨酸的兴奋性抑制平衡，我们在基因研究中也看到了这种情况。
Also, I have three kids.
另外，我还有三个孩子。
I have two girls and one boy, and even with humans, the labor and delivery nurse will be like, "Okay, well, we got to keep him in longer," because those early boys, they struggle.
我有两个女孩和一个男孩，即使是人类，临产护士也会说，“好吧，好吧，我们得让他待更长时间，”因为那些早期的男孩，他们很挣扎。
They know that the male fetus seems to be more vulnerable to these insults than the female fetus.
他们知道，男性胎儿似乎比女性胎儿更容易受到这些侮辱。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Are the guinea pigs sociopathic?
豚鼠有反社会人格吗？
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Guinea pigs, all of these things, you used to work with non-human animal models.
豚鼠，所有这些东西，你曾经使用过非人类动物模型。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
For better or worse, I've worked with so many different species.
无论好坏，我都与许多不同的物种一起工作过。
I have to say, I do not miss working with animals-
我不得不说，我很怀念与动物一起工作的时光——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
for a variety of reasons.
由于各种原因。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
That's how I ended up in the clinical psych program is as an-
这就是我最终进入临床心理学项目的原因——
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Yeah.
是的。
Humans can consent to be in an experiment.
人类可以同意参与实验。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
As an animal lover, it eventually wore on my soul too much.
作为一名动物爱好者，它最终对我的灵魂造成了太大的影响。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And I understand where it's necessary.
我明白哪里有必要。
I also think there's an excess, in particular, and I'll lose some friends with this, but in particular, with some of the larger primate work, one really needs to justify.
我还认为这是多余的，特别是，我会因此失去一些朋友，但特别是，对于一些更大的灵长类动物工作，人们确实需要证明其合理性。
And there are instances where there's good justification, but, yeah, I've worked with a lot of different animals.
在某些情况下，这是有充分理由的，但是，是的，我和很多不同的动物一起工作过。
But I was about to say, I know we're both dog lovers, there's this saying, there are no bad dogs, just bad owners.
但我想说，我知道我们都是爱狗人士，有句话说，没有不好的狗，只有不好的主人。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
But we don't say that about humans.
但我们不会这样说人类。
We don't say, "Oh, there are no bad people.
我们不会说：“噢，世界上没有坏人。
Everyone is a good person, they're just bad parents." At some point, usually 18, we say, "You're responsible for your actions regardless of what happened to you, regardless of the genes you came into this world with." And things shift, where people understandably are responsible for their behavior in a different way.
每个人都是好人，他们只是坏父母。”在某个时刻，通常是 18 岁，我们会说：“无论你身上发生了什么，无论你带着什么基因来到这个世界，你都要对自己的行为负责。”事情发生了变化，人们以不同的方式对自己的行为负责，这是可以理解的。
Sounds like in Texas, it can come in earlier-
听起来像在德克萨斯州，它可以早点到来-
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yes
是的
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
depending on the crime.
取决于犯罪行为。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
But I assume all dogs are good dogs, that they're trustworthy, that they would never harm you or another dog.
但我认为所有的狗都是好狗，它们是值得信赖的，它们永远不会伤害你或其他狗。
Maybe an animal, because I've seen what happens when certain dogs get ahold of certain animals.
也许是动物，因为我见过当某些狗抓住某些动物时会发生什么。
But I don't think we make the same assumption about people.
但我认为我们不会对人做出同样的假设。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
I don't think we do either.
我认为我们也不这样做。
I titled my new book "Original Sin" to really spotlight this exact thing.
我将我的新书命名为“原罪”，以真正强调这一点。
Before I was a scientist, the first 20 years of my life, I was an evangelical Christian.
在我成为一名科学家之前，也就是我生命的前 20 年，我是一名福音派基督徒。
So I was raised in a very fundamentalist household, Southern, praise God and pass the ammunition in lots of ways.
所以我在一个非常原教旨主义的南方家庭长大，赞美上帝并以多种方式传递弹药。
And in my brand of Christianity that I was raised in, which was Protestant, Reformed, Calvinist, I really was raised with this idea of original sin, which is that humans are born bad, that they're born depraved, that they're born broken.
在我成长的基督教品牌中，即新教、改革宗、加尔文教，我确实是在原罪的观念中长大的，即人类生来就是坏的，他们生来是堕落的，他们生来是破碎的。
And I don't believe that's true, but that's the explicit teaching of some religious traditions.
我不相信这是真的，但这是某些宗教传统的明确教导。
And that's a religious tradition that was really foundational to our culture and our institutions.
这是一种宗教传统，是我们文化和机构的真正基础。
So I don't think it's a coincidence that we talk about how there's no bad dogs, but we assume people can be inherently bad, because I think many of us were taught that from a young age, that all of us or some of us, if you're thinking about Calvinist theology of some people are the elect and some people are that, that some of us are inherently bad.
所以我不认为我们谈论没有坏狗是巧合，但我们假设人本质上是坏的，因为我认为我们中的许多人从小就被教导，我们所有人或我们中的一些人，如果你考虑加尔文主义神学，有些人是选民，有些人是，我们中的一些人本质上是坏的。
So you can be raised with a religious tradition that really is talking about inherent depravity, and then you have a scientific tradition that's studying, well, how do genes affect bad things that people do?
因此，你可以在真正谈论内在堕落的宗教传统中长大，然后你就有一个研究基因如何影响人们所做的坏事的科学传统？
And then we have debates about how science should be used, and that's where I think things get really thorny and really tricky, which is how do we apply the science without lapsing into this really ancient way of thinking, which is interpreting the science as proof that we're broken, that people are broken.
然后我们就应该如何使用科学进行辩论，这就是我认为事情变得非常棘手和棘手的地方，这就是我们如何应用科学而不陷入这种真正古老的思维方式，这种思维方式将科学解释为我们破碎的证据，人们破碎的证据。
At the same time, going back to this letter that I received, people do horrible shit.
与此同时，回到我收到的这封信，人们做了可怕的事情。
People do horrible things to each other.
人们互相做出可怕的事情。
And I think about that man who wrote me a letter, and I can say I think he did a horrible thing, and I think he probably, everything I know scientifically, I think he probably had horrible luck in terms of his parents and his genes and his birth experiences and his childhood experiences.
我想到那个给我写信的人，我可以说我认为他做了一件可怕的事情，我认为他可能，我从科学上知道的一切，我认为他可能在他的父母、他的基因、他的出生经历和他的童年经历方面运气不佳。
And so how do we put those together?
那么我们如何将它们组合在一起呢？
What does it mean to hold someone responsible for how they behave?
让某人对自己的行为负责意味着什么？
I do think that we're responsible for ourselves and responsible to each other, while also keeping in mind the fact that no one created themselves from scratch.
我确实认为我们要对自己负责，对彼此负责，同时也要牢记这样一个事实：没有人从头开始创造自己。
By the time he was an adult, he was already in prison for the things that had happened to him while he was still technically a child.
当他成年时，他已经因为严格意义上还是个孩子时发生在他身上的事情而入狱。
I wrote this book, my new book, because I was really attempting to wrestle through that question.
我写了这本书，我的新书，因为我真的试图解决这个问题。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I think I'm getting this story right.
我想我对这个故事的理解是正确的。
It's a true story that was told by our former director of neurosciences at Stanford, Bill Newsome, about the guy who went up in the tower at UT Austin-
这是斯坦福大学前神经科学主任比尔·纽瑟姆（Bill Newsome）讲述的一个真实的故事，讲述的是一个登上德克萨斯大学奥斯汀分校塔楼的人——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yes.
是的。
Uh-huh
嗯嗯
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
and shot a bunch of people and killed them.
并射杀了一群人并杀死了他们。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
The tower shooter.
塔楼射手。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
The tower shooter.
塔楼射手。
I think he was eventually taken out by a security guard.
我认为他最终被保安带走了。
The remarkable thing about the story is, at least the way I remember it, is that this guy knew something was wrong with him, thought that the site of the problem was in his brain, was asking people to look at his brain and help him.
这个故事的非凡之处在于，至少在我的记忆中，这个人知道自己出了问题，认为问题出在他的大脑中，所以要求人们检查他的大脑并帮助他。
I think I'm getting this right.
我想我做对了。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yes.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
We'll double-check.
我们会仔细检查。
And then said at the point where he realized he was going to go through with this thing, with this act, that he wanted them to look at his brain.
然后，当他意识到自己要经历这件事、经历这个行为时，他说他希望他们看看他的大脑。
And it turned out he had a tumor in a, I think it was some temporal lobe region that-
结果发现他的某个颞叶区域长了肿瘤——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
It was amygdala.
那是杏仁核。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Oh, it was actually in the amygdala.
哦，它实际上是在杏仁核中。
So you know the story clearly.
所以你对这个故事了解得很清楚。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And it's where you work.
这就是你工作的地方。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yes.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Fortunately, occurred long before you work.
幸运的是，这发生在你工作之前很久。
Terrible that it happened at all, but in this age of school shooters and public massacres, right?
发生这种事真是太可怕了，但在这个校园枪击事件和公共屠杀横行的时代，对吗？
People just going up into a Vegas hotel window and hosing people with bullets.
人们冲进维加斯一家酒店的窗户，用子弹射击人们。
This case is a unique one because the guy knew there was something wrong with him, in some sense, wanted help, but you can kind of create this picture of angel devil conversations in his head between neural circuitry that's saying, "Don't do this, don't do this.
这个案例很独特，因为这个人知道自己出了问题，从某种意义上来说，需要帮助，但你可以在他的大脑中想象出天使魔鬼在神经回路之间对话的画面，说：“不要这样做，不要这样做。
Ask for help, and do this, do this."
寻求帮助，然后这样做，这样做。”
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
It's like the cartoon or movie with the angel and the devil-
就像动画片或电影里的天使和魔鬼一样——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
on the shoulder or in each ear.
放在肩膀上或每只耳朵里。
What are we to make of that?
我们该怎么办？
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Gosh, the Whitman case is so interesting because he did say that there was something wrong with him.
天哪，惠特曼的案子太有趣了，因为他确实说过他有问题。
He did ask for help.
他确实寻求帮助。
After he died, the state of Texas ordered an autopsy, and they found that they had this tumor, and the whole thing was basically labeled almost like a natural disaster had occurred.
他死后，得克萨斯州下令进行尸检，发现他们患有这种肿瘤，整个事情基本上被标记为几乎发生了自然灾害。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm.
嗯。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
So the report talks about the catastrophe or this incident that happened.
所以报告谈到了这场灾难或发生的这起事件。
So they ultimately, when trying to make sense of Whitman's shooting people from the tower at Texas, took what some philosophers have called this objective view.
因此，当他们试图理解惠特曼从德克萨斯州塔楼射杀人们的行为时，他们最终采取了一些哲学家所说的客观观点。
So basically, they weren't viewing him as an agent who's choosing, who's doing something in the realm of good or bad, a moral failing.
所以基本上，他们并没有把他视为一个正在选择、在做善事或坏事、道德败坏的特工。
They were viewing him as kind of a machine that's gone haywire.
他们把他视为一台失控的机器。
Right?
正确的？
He got a tumor in his amygdala, and he wouldn't have done it if he hadn't had this tumor.
他的杏仁核长了一个肿瘤，如果没有这个肿瘤他就不会这么做。
How would they have made sense of his behavior if he hadn't asked for a brain autopsy, if they didn't know about this tumor?
如果他没有要求进行脑部尸检，如果他们不知道这种肿瘤，他们怎么能理解他的行为呢？
How many other people have something going on with them in a specific location that, if we knew about it, might help us understand how this behavior came across?
有多少人在某个特定地点发生了一些事情，如果我们知道的话，可能会帮助我们理解这种行为是如何发生的？
I write in my book this story of this Dutch family where basically all the women in the family were functioning okay, but half the men in the family were, one raped his sister, one stabbed his boss with a pitchfork, one committed arson, multiple of the men were in prison.
我在书中写了这个荷兰家庭的故事，基本上家里所有的女人都过得很好，但家里一半的男人却生活得很好，一个强奸了他的妹妹，一个用干草叉刺伤了他的老板，一个纵火，多名男人入狱。
And at some point, I guess one of the women was like, "You all, you have to figure out what's going on with the men in our family.
在某些时候，我猜其中一位女士会说，“你们所有人，你们必须弄清楚我们家里的男人们发生了什么事。
This is too much to be a coincidence." And what they found is that on the X chromosome, they had inherited a rare mutation in the MAOA gene.
这太巧合了。”他们发现，在X染色体上，他们继承了MAOA基因的罕见突变。
So MAOA is an enzyme that degrades monoamines that regulate how your neurons are talking to one another.
MAOA 是一种降解单胺的酶，单胺可以调节神经元之间的相互交流方式。
And women have two X chromosomes, so if they inherit a bad version, there's still the other version, whereas men only have one X.
女性有两条 X 染色体，所以如果她们继承了一个坏版本，仍然会有另一个版本，而男性只有一条 X。
And so from their mom, they got a 50/50 shot.
所以从他们的妈妈那里，他们得到了 50/50 的机会。
Am I going to get the mutated version or the non-mutated version?
我要获得变异版本还是非变异版本？
I find this study fascinating on so many levels.
我发现这项研究在很多层面上都很有趣。
That the single letter change in your DNA could have this massive effect on your behavior.
DNA 中单个字母的变化可能会对你的行为产生巨大影响。
But also that all of these men were in the criminal justice system and had not been obviously flagged as something organic or biological or mental illness going on with them.
而且所有这些人都在刑事司法系统中，并没有被明显标记为患有器质性、生物性或精神疾病。
And later, there was another group that found this ostensibly rare mutation in several other impulsively aggressive boys that had been referred to their hospital.
后来，另一个小组在其他几个被转诊到医院的冲动攻击性男孩中发现了这种表面上罕见的突变。
And they ended their scientific paper on what I find one of the most haunting notes in the scientific literature, which is, is this actually rare, or is it that when we're faced with people doing horrible things, we never even stop to look for what might be causing it from a genetic or neurobiological, from organic way?
他们的科学论文结束了我在科学文献中发现的最令人难以忘怀的注释之一，那就是，这实际上是罕见的，还是当我们面对人们做可怕的事情时，我们甚至从未停下来从遗传或神经生物学、有机的角度寻找可能导致这种情况的原因？
Which I think that's a really, really chilling thought.
我认为这是一个非常非常令人不寒而栗的想法。
I think the question that you're asking is an important one, which is in the absence of some smoking gun, the mutated gene, the amygdalar tumor, how do we put together our knowledge as scientists, as people who read the science, that, yes, it's genes, yes, it's environment, yes, it goes into the behavior.
我认为你问的问题是一个重要的问题，在没有确凿证据、突变基因、杏仁核肿瘤的情况下，我们作为科学家、作为阅读科学的人如何整合我们的知识，是的，是基因，是的，是环境，是的，它影响到行为。
And also, we're humans, we have this outrage and naturally this blame towards people that harm each other.
而且，我们是人类，我们对互相伤害的人有这种愤怒和自然的责备。
How do we, as humans, hold both of those truths at the same time?
作为人类，我们如何同时掌握这两个真理？
I think that's the real challenge.
我认为这才是真正的挑战。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I think once somebody is harmed, our empathy shifts to the victim-
我认为一旦有人受到伤害，我们的同情心就会转移到受害者身上——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yes.
是的。
Mm-hmm
嗯嗯
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
or victims-
或受害者——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yes
是的
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
in a way that maybe even at times, depending how close we are to the victims or how much we identify with it, that occludes our even care.
在某种程度上，甚至有时，取决于我们与受害者的距离有多近，或者我们对受害者的认同程度，这会阻碍我们的公平关怀。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yes.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Okay, this guy-
好吧，这个家伙——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Our benevolent concern for them
我们对他们的善意关怀
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
this guy went up on this-- I'm describing it historically.
这个人对此进行了讨论——我正在历史性地描述它。
This guy went up on this tower, killed a few.
这家伙上了这座塔，杀了几个人。
The security guard eventually got him.
保安最终把他抓住了。
But the parent of that kid that was-
但那个孩子的父母是——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Mm-hmm
嗯嗯
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
just walking to class or the young woman who was freshman year or whatever, she's dead now.
只是步行去上课或一年级的年轻女子或其他什么，她现在已经死了。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
She's gone.
她走了。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yes.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And so I think that in a healthy way, we think, "The hell with that guy.
所以我认为，以一种健康的方式，我们会想，“那个家伙见鬼去吧。
Glad they killed him." People will say that, right?
很高兴他们杀了他。”人们会这么说，对吗？
People say that.
人们这么说。
I guess in some sense, if I just stand back and my reflexive response is like, this guy killed a lot of people.
我想从某种意义上说，如果我退后一步，我的本能反应就是，这家伙杀了很多人。
I understand he was driven to it.
我知道他是被迫这样做的。
He was stricken with something.
他被某件事击中了。
But it's hard for me to get to, okay, well, there's a genetic thing that set him up from a glioma in the amygdala, of all places, bad luck.
但我很难理解，好吧，好吧，有一种遗传因素让他患上了杏仁核神经胶质瘤，在所有地方，运气都不好。
Because we assume that people can intervene in their own behavior.
因为我们假设人们可以干预自己的行为。
This gets down to kind of free will type-
这归结为一种自由意志类型——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yes
是的
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
stuff that my colleague Robert Sapolsky-
我的同事罗伯特·萨波尔斯基的东西-
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
he'll argue till the end of time-
他会争论到最后——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
That we don't have it
以至于我们没有它
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
that there's no free will-
没有自由意志——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
That's what we-
这就是我们——
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
which is a frustrating one for many of us.
这对我们许多人来说是一件令人沮丧的事情。
But he's a hell of a smart guy.
但他是个非常聪明的人。
I think that the issue for many people is that genes are fairly far upstream from behavior.
我认为对许多人来说，问题在于基因距离行为的上游相当远。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yes.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
If I said, okay, there was this guy down in Los Angeles, and he got rabies from a dog he was trying to save from the LA River, and then three days later-
如果我说，好吧，洛杉矶有一个人，他从洛杉矶河中救出的一只狗感染了狂犬病，然后三天后——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yes
是的
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
he randomly committed this crime.
他是随机犯下这个罪行的。
He killed somebody.
他杀了人。
You'd say, well, he had rabies.
你会说，好吧，他患有狂犬病。
He was rabid.
他很狂热。
We can make the connection very easily, but that's a neural virus that hits the amygdala, among other things, and causes people to get very aggressive.
我们可以很容易地建立联系，但这是一种神经病毒，它会攻击杏仁核等，导致人们变得非常具有攻击性。
We'd go, okay.
我们就走，好吧。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Well, you can imagine him without the rabies.
好吧，你可以想象他没有狂犬病。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
There's some distance between the self that is the object of moral judgment-
与作为道德判断对象的自我之间存在着一定的距离——
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm-hmm
嗯嗯
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
...
...
and the cause that you're locating as the salient cause for this behavior.
以及您认为造成此行为的显着原因的原因。
And if there's daylight between those, then you can say, okay, well, I can imagine what he was like before the rabies.
如果这些之间有阳光，那么你可以说，好吧，好吧，我可以想象他在狂犬病之前是什么样子。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Genes make it harder to do that.
基因使得做到这一点变得更加困难。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm.
嗯。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Because when we think of them as so essential to the making of the self that is the object of moral judgment, who is the person that has different genetics, right?
因为当我们认为它们对于作为道德判断对象的自我的形成如此重要时，谁是具有不同基因的人，对吧？
We can imagine what Whitwin would've been like if he didn't have the tumor.
我们可以想象，如果惠特温没有患上肿瘤，他会是什么样子。
We could imagine what the guy would be like if he didn't get with rabies.
我们可以想象，如果这个人没有感染狂犬病，他会是什么样子。
But who is the person who has a different genotype?
但拥有不同基因型的人是谁呢？
It's very difficult To cast a different self.
塑造一个不同的自己是非常困难的。
And so it's very difficult to rescue that self from our condemnation.
因此，要将那个自我从我们的谴责中拯救出来是非常困难的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I'll say something controversial on the back of what you just said, which is there may even be, I'm speculating here, you're the geneticist, there may even be some deeply hardwired, unconscious notion around genes that we know that genes can be inherited, that if somebody has a gene which makes them a "bad seed" or predisposes them to a really bad behavior, and then they engage in it, and then they're in jail for the rest of their life, or they get shot by the security guard, we hear the words good riddance.
我会在你刚才所说的背后说一些有争议的事情，这甚至可能是存在的，我在这里推测，你是遗传学家，甚至可能有一些关于基因的根深蒂固的、无意识的观念，我们知道基因可以遗传，如果某人有一种基因，使他们成为“坏种子”或使他们倾向于做出非常坏的行为，然后他们参与其中，然后他们在监狱里度过余生，或者他们被保安枪杀，我们听到“好摆脱”这句话。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Good riddance implies good, those genes were now stopped.
摆脱意味着好的，那些基因现在被停止了。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
We don't know if they reproduced before that.
我们不知道他们是否在此之前复制过。
So there's something which makes the example you gave before, especially eerie, of the IVF doc that was literally seeding these-
所以有一些东西让你之前给出的例子尤其令人毛骨悚然，IVF 文档实际上是在播种这些——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Mm-hmm
嗯嗯
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
eggs with his own genes, and then somebody is like...
带有自己基因的鸡蛋，然后有人就像......
The implication is not that that person was killing themselves, but whoever that physician was, not somebody, A, it's terribly unethical at every level.
其含义并不是说那个人正在自杀，而是无论那个医生是谁，而不是某个人，A，这在各个层面上都是非常不道德的。
But B-
但是B——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
And he's replicating
他正在复制
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
he's replicating his bad genes, right?
他正在复制他的坏基因，对吗？
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Whereas if somebody who has a genetic predisposition to be sociopathic or really destructive is eliminated, for lack of a better word, or taken out of society, sure, I can orient to the empathy around this person who feels stricken, but I believe we are more hardwired to think about inheritance and propagation of genes-
然而，如果一个有反社会倾向或真正具有破坏性的遗传倾向的人因为缺乏更好的词而被淘汰，或者被逐出社会，当然，我可以对这个感到受打击的人产生同理心，但我相信我们更倾向于思考基因的遗传和传播——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Mm-hmm
嗯嗯
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
than maybe we are consciously aware of.
可能比我们有意识地意识到的要多。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Growing up, my dad's, I wouldn't say he's super old school, but I remember growing up, one of the messages I got was, "If you're going to date someone, meet the parents.
在我父亲的成长过程中，我不会说他是超级老派，但我记得在成长过程中，我收到的信息之一是，“如果你要和某人约会，就去见见他的父母。
You can learn a lot by meeting the parents."
通过与父母见面，你可以学到很多东西。”
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Which on the one hand is really cool.
一方面这真的很酷。
It's like, oh, see how their family is and how they interact.
就像，哦，看看他们的家人怎么样以及他们如何互动。
But it has a genetic-
但它有一个基因——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
inheritance implication.
继承的含义。
Like if they're kind people, are you looking for pathology?
就像如果他们是善良的人，你在寻找病理吗？
No. You might be, but you're mainly looking for good features or what's there.
不。你可能会，但你主要是在寻找好的功能或现有的东西。
No one talks about this openly these days, I feel like.
我觉得现在没有人公开谈论这个问题。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
It's a really hot button issue.
这是一个非常热门的问题。
But if I asked you, for instance, if the guy in prison had four kids before he went to prison, does that worry you?
但如果我问你，例如，如果监狱里的那个人入狱前有四个孩子，你会担心吗？
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
I feel like those kids statistically would need more.
我觉得从统计数据来看，那些孩子需要更多。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
A lot of this research didn't pan out, but as a metaphor, I think it's really still useful, is the idea of dandelions and orchids.
很多研究都没有成功，但作为一个比喻，我认为它仍然有用，就是蒲公英和兰花的想法。
Or sunflowers and orchids.
或者向日葵和兰花。
I do think there are some children who, by virtue of their temperament, brain development, are pretty resilient across a variety of different environments.
我确实认为有些孩子，由于他们的气质和大脑发育，在各种不同的环境中都具有相当的适应力。
And then I think there are children who, back to dogs, just like there are dogs that you can be a lazy dog owner and the dog will still be fine, or you can have a dog where because of their size and because of their temperament and because of their breeding, they need a skilled and loving owner.
然后我认为有些孩子，回到狗，就像有些狗一样，你可以成为一个懒惰的狗主人，狗仍然会很好，或者你可以养一只狗，因为它们的体型、因为它们的性情、因为它们的繁殖，它们需要一个熟练且充满爱心的主人。
And we can think of that very clearly.
我们可以非常清楚地想到这一点。
So my dog, I got him as a rescue, and we think they were being bred as fighting dogs in Texas.
所以我的狗，我把他当作救援犬，我们认为它们是在德克萨斯州被培育成斗犬的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm.
嗯。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
And you can be like, well, there's a vicious attack dog.
你可能会说，好吧，有一只恶毒的攻击狗。
He's being bred as a fighting dog, and you found out he's had a litter of puppies.
他被当作斗犬饲养，你发现他已经生了一窝小狗。
Does that make you feel appalled or like they're bad puppies?
这会让你感到震惊还是觉得它们是坏小狗？
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm.
嗯。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Or are you like, "No, they need really good homes.
或者你会说，“不，他们需要真正好的家。
We have to find really good homes for these puppies."
我们必须为这些小狗找到真正好的家。”
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
My friend Whitney Cummings would be on her way.
我的朋友惠特尼·卡明斯将会在路上。
She's constantly adopting, rescuing pit bull after pit bull.
她不断地收养、拯救斗牛犬。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yes, exactly.
是的，完全正确。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I think she subscribes to the idea, I don't want to put words in her mouth, but there are no bad dogs, just bad owners.
我认为她同意这个想法，我不想把话放在她嘴里，但没有坏狗，只有坏主人。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And there are many sweet, sweet, sweet pit bulls that come from fighting camps.
还有许多来自战斗营地的可爱、可爱、可爱的斗牛犬。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
In many ways, I feel like as soon as we get out of how we relate to each other as humans, and we think about this, we can think about dog behavior more objectively than we can about human behavior.
在很多方面，我觉得一旦我们摆脱了人类之间的关系，并思考这一点，我们就可以比人类行为更客观地思考狗的行为。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
And we can think even if personality and temperament is heritable, and even if the parent did terrible things, the offspring are still not bad puppies.
我们可以认为，即使性格和气质是遗传的，即使父母做了可怕的事情，后代仍然是不坏的小狗。
They're puppies that are higher needs puppies, or they're puppies that need a more skillful care.
它们是需要更高要求的小狗，或者是需要更熟练护理的小狗。
And that's how I also think about this.
我也是这么想的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
I don't know about hardwired to pay attention to heritable traits.
我不知道关注遗传特征的硬连线。
I do think we are evolved to matter to each other in a way that we call moral.
我确实认为我们进化到以一种我们称之为道德的方式彼此重视。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
I think that we are a social species that evolved to cooperate, and at every point in our evolutionary history, every cooperative system has some mechanism of enforcement.
我认为我们是一个为了合作而进化的社会物种，在我们进化历史的每个阶段，每个合作系统都有某种执行机制。
If you have bacteria, colonies of bacteria, and one bacterium starts to soak up too much of the iron or some mineral in the environment that they all need, the others will send out signals to try to hurt that one.
如果你有细菌、细菌菌落，并且一种细菌开始吸收它们都需要的环境中过多的铁或某种矿物质，其他细菌就会发出信号试图伤害该细菌。
And they're like, "Stop doing that.
他们就像，“停止这样做。
Stop freeloading.
停止贪图便宜。
Stop taking too much." If we go all the way back to the beginning of our evolutionary history, we have cooperation and enforcement of failures to cooperate, and I think that evolutionary history is a big part of why we feel so intensely when someone harms one another.
别再吃太多了。”如果我们追溯到进化史的开端，我们就会发现合作和合作失败的情况，我认为进化史是我们在有人互相伤害时感到如此强烈的一个重要原因。
So Sapolsky can make all his arguments that we're not supposed to feel moral outrage at people, and for me, that's like telling me that everyone should be abstinent.
因此，萨波尔斯基可以提出他的所有论点，即我们不应该对人们感到道德愤怒，对我来说，这就像告诉我每个人都应该禁欲。
I think that- Mattering to each other in the way we call moral is as deeply baked into the sauce of what it is to be human as sexuality is.
我认为，以我们所谓的道德方式对彼此的重视，就像性一样，深深地融入了人类的本质之中。
And so of course, we get caught in what philosophers call this rescue blame trap, which is they did a horrible thing.
当然，我们陷入了哲学家所说的救援指责陷阱，即他们做了一件可怕的事情。
We think of humans as having agency.
我们认为人类具有代理权。
Of course, they're to blame for it.
当然，他们也难辞其咎。
They deserve to be punished.
他们应该受到惩罚。
Oh, but wait, his genes, his brain, his trauma, his childhood environment, he was also a victim here.
哦，但是等等，他的基因，他的大脑，他的创伤，他的童年环境，他也是这里的受害者。
Maybe he needs to be rescued from blame.
也许他需要被从指责中解救出来。
Oh, but he did it, and he was so bad.
哦，但是他做到了，而且他太糟糕了。
And we go back and forth.
我们来回走动。
We go back and forth about ourselves, right?
我们来来回回地谈论自己，对吗？
If you've ever done something that you really regret, you have probably done this, where you're like, "Here's all the reasons, and I was trying, and these were my good intentions, but, oh, I can't believe..." And how do we find our way through the rescue blame trap?
如果你曾经做过一些让你真正后悔的事情，你可能就做过这样的事，你会想，“这就是所有的原因，我正在努力，这些都是我的良好意图，但是，哦，我不敢相信......”我们如何找到摆脱救援指责陷阱的方法？
And for me, it was thinking about bad luck doesn't negate responsibility.
对我来说，考虑坏运气并不能否认责任。
It might not have been my fault, but it's still my responsibility.
这也许不是我的错，但这仍然是我的责任。
But holding people accountable doesn't have to mean harsh punishment.
但追究人们的责任并不一定意味着严厉的惩罚。
That accountability doesn't mean making someone suffer.
这种责任并不意味着让某人受苦。
And keeping both of those in the same mind is really what made me feel like I could push through this rescue blame trap.
保持这两点一致确实让我觉得我可以摆脱这个救援指责陷阱。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I'm letting that sink in.
我要让这一点深入人心。
Everything you say resonates, and I, therefore, am updating my hypothesis.
你所说的一切都会引起共鸣，因此我正在更新我的假设。
Again, just a hypothesis that people have an inherent desire to stop the progression of the bad seed.
再说一次，这只是一个假设，即人们有一种内在的愿望来阻止坏种子的蔓延。
I'm intentionally using this language.
我是有意使用这种语言的。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
If that person is-- Sure, stuff happened to them, but guess what?
如果那个人——当然，他们发生了一些事情，但你猜怎么着？
Stuff happened to them because their parents were bad.
他们发生了一些事情，因为他们的父母不好。
And guess what?
你猜怎么着？
They're bad because their parents were bad, and they're a bad seed.
他们不好是因为他们的父母不好，他们是坏种子。
At the extremes, of course.
当然，在极端情况下。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I also think, because based on your dog example of adopting puppies from fighting parents, that in that example, there is this notion that with the appropriate amount of love and care, that we can rescue them, but also we can choose whether or not they have puppies.
我还认为，因为根据你从打架的父母那里收养小狗的狗的例子，在那个例子中，有这样一种观念，即通过适当的爱和关怀，我们可以拯救它们，但我们也可以选择他们是否有小狗。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
So I do think that there is this idea that if we see children in really horrible circumstances, that I think it's a very human, hardwired thing that we can rescue the lineage.
所以我确实认为，如果我们看到孩子们处于非常可怕的环境中，我认为这是一个非常人性化、根深蒂固的事情，我们可以拯救血统。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Mm.
嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Yeah, that we can rescue lineage.
是的，我们可以拯救血统。
One thing that's always fascinated me and encouraged me is I think, yes, there's lots of transgenerational trauma, whether or not it's purely through genes or through experience is still debated, but probably both.
一直让我着迷并鼓励我的一件事是，我认为，是的，存在很多跨代创伤，无论它是纯粹通过基因还是通过经验仍然存在争议，但可能两者兼而有之。
But that also in a single generation, that the child of severe alcoholics who makes the choice not to drink or to quit drinking, to then pair with somebody who can have a healthy relationship to alcohol-
但这也是在一代人的时间内，严重酗酒者的孩子选择不喝酒或戒酒，然后与可以与酒精保持健康关系的人配对-
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
They're cycle breakers
他们是循环破坏者
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
they're cycle breakers.
他们是循环破坏者。
I think we understand this without understanding genetics.
我认为我们无需了解遗传学就能理解这一点。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
We don't have to take a class and understand Mendelian genetics-
我们不必去上课并了解孟德尔遗传学-
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Mm-hmm
嗯嗯
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
to understand that in one generation, something can start or stop in a family line.
了解在一代人的时间里，某些事情可以在家族中开始或结束。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And I think most people are wise to the idea that family lines no longer exist in small tribes.
我认为大多数人都明白小部落中不再存在家族血统的想法。
You see shows like "Succession," right?
你看过像《继承之战》这样的节目，对吧？
Where it's over like, oh, let's talk about the propagation of sociopathic-ish- ...
事情结束了，哦，我们来谈谈反社会人格的传播——......
narcissistic traits.
自恋的特征。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
They were not trying to be cycle breakers.
他们并不想成为周期破坏者。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
No.
不。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
They were trying to maintain the cycle that had fed them-
他们试图维持养活他们的循环——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yes
是的
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
in their niche.
在他们的利基市场。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
I think the other thing with regards to cycle breakers is also people tend to think of genetics in terms of how it makes you like your parents.
我认为关于周期破坏者的另一件事是，人们倾向于认为遗传学是如何让你喜欢你的父母。
You got your genes from your parents.
你的基因来自你的父母。
But the other thing that I think is really important to keep in mind is genes recombine, right?
但我认为真正需要记住的另一件事是基因重组，对吗？
You are not just like your dad or like your mom.
你不仅像你的爸爸或你的妈妈。
You are a random draw of all the potential draws that you could've gotten from their genotypes.
您是从他们的基因型中获得的所有潜在抽奖的随机抽奖者。
And so even within a family with the same parents, you see tons of differences.
因此，即使在同一个父母的家庭中，你也会看到很多差异。
I have three kids, and they are different personalities, definitely different risks for addiction and conduct disorder problems across the three of them.
我有三个孩子，他们的性格不同，他们三个的成瘾和行为障碍问题的风险也不同。
And so I think it's a mistake to think of lineage as genes being an unbroken lineage because our genes are getting recombined in these novel ways with every generation.
因此，我认为将谱系视为基因是一个不间断的谱系是错误的，因为我们的基因在每一代人中都以这些新颖的方式重新组合。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Right.
对。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
That writer Andrew Solomon says that we should never use the word reproduce.
作家安德鲁·所罗门说我们永远不应该使用“再现”这个词。
Reproduce is something that lulls parents into thinking that they're copying themselves.
复制会让父母误以为他们在复制自己。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm.
嗯。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
But that every child is produced.
但每个孩子都是被生产出来的。
Every child is a new product, and it's unpredictable what that product's going to be.
每个孩子都是一个新产品，并且无法预测该产品会是什么。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Oh, that's interesting.
哦，这很有趣。
I never thought about that word in that way.
我从来没有这样想过这个词。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Wild.
狂野。
Who said that?
谁说的？
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Andrew Solomon.
安德鲁·所罗门。
He wrote "Far From the Tree," which is about-
他写了《远离树》，内容是——
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Okay
好的
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
...
...
children who are very different from their parents in some way.
在某些方面与父母截然不同的孩子。
So deaf children of hearing parents, savants whose parents are like, "We don't know where this chess or music or math came from." And then also interviewed Dylan Klebold's mother.
因此，听力正常的父母的聋子孩子，父母的专家就像是，“我们不知道这些国际象棋、音乐或数学来自哪里。”然后还采访了迪伦·克莱伯德的母亲。
So Dylan Klebold was one of the Columbine-
所以迪伦·克莱伯德是哥伦拜恩家族的一员——
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Oh, yeah
哦，是的
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
...
...
shooters.
射手。
So normal suburban parents who-
所以普通的郊区父母——
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Yeah
是啊
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
...
...
ended up having a child who was a school shooter.
最终生了一个孩子，他是一名校园枪击者。
And he talks about this idea of horizontal versus vertical identities.
他谈到了横向与纵向身份的概念。
So you get your vertical identity from your parents, but then you are not your parents.
所以你从你的父母那里得到了你的垂直身份，但你不是你的父母。
You are not a reproduction of them.
你不是他们的复制品。
They produced you, and that there's an identity that's separate from that lineage.
他们创造了你，并且有一个与该血统不同的身份。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Beautiful.
美丽。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
He's a great writer.
他是一位伟大的作家。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I'd like to take a quick break to acknowledge our sponsor, Our Place.
我想稍微休息一下，以感谢我们的赞助商“我们的地方”。
Our Place makes my favorite pots, pans, and other cookware.
我们的地方生产我最喜欢的锅、平底锅和其他炊具。
Surprisingly, toxic compounds such as PFAS, or forever chemicals, are still found in 80% of non-stick pans, as well as utensils, appliances, and countless other kitchen products.
令人惊讶的是，80% 的不粘锅以及餐具、电器和无数其他厨房产品中仍然含有 PFAS 或永久化学物质等有毒化合物。
As I've discussed before on this podcast, these PFAS, or forever chemicals like Teflon, have been linked to major health issues such as hormone disruption, gut microbiome disruption, fertility issues, and many other health problems.
正如我之前在这个播客中讨论过的那样，这些 PFAS 或特氟龙等永久性化学物质与荷尔蒙破坏、肠道微生物群破坏、生育问题和许多其他健康问题等重大健康问题有关。
So it's very important to avoid them.
因此，避免它们非常重要。
This is why I'm a huge fan of Our Place.
这就是为什么我是《我们的地方》的超级粉丝。
Our Place products are made with the highest quality materials and are all PFAS and toxin-free.
我们的 Place 产品采用最优质的材料制成，不含 PFAS 和毒素。
I particularly love their Titanium Always Pan Pro.
我特别喜欢他们的 Titanium Always Pan Pro。
It's the first non-stick pan made with zero chemicals and zero coating.
这是第一个采用零化学品和零涂层制成的不粘锅。
Instead, it uses pure titanium.
相反，它使用纯钛。
This means it has no harmful forever chemicals and does not degrade or lose its non-stick effect over time.
这意味着它不含永久有害的化学物质，并且不会随着时间的推移而降解或失去其不粘效果。
It's also beautiful to look at.
看起来也很漂亮。
I cook eggs in my Titanium Always Pan Pro almost every morning.
我几乎每天早上都会用 Titanium Always Pan Pro 煮鸡蛋。
The design allows for the eggs to cook perfectly without sticking to the pan.
该设计使鸡蛋能够完美烹饪而不会粘在锅上。
I also cook burgers and steaks in it, and it always puts a really nice sear on the meat.
我还用它来做汉堡和牛排，它总是能让肉有很好的烤焦效果。
But again, nothing sticks to it, so it's really easy to clean and it's even dishwasher safe.
但同样，没有任何东西粘在上面，所以它非常容易清洁，甚至可以用洗碗机清洗。
I love it and I use it constantly.
我喜欢它并且经常使用它。
Our Place now has a full line of Titanium Pro cookware that uses the first-of-its-kind titanium non-stick technology.
我们的地方现在拥有全系列 Titanium Pro 炊具，采用首创的钛不粘技术。
So if you're looking for non-toxic, long-lasting pots and pans, go to fromourplace.com/huberman and use the code Huberman.
因此，如果您正在寻找无毒、耐用的锅碗瓢盆，请访问 fromourplace.com/huberman 并使用代码 Huberman。
With a 100-day risk-free trial, free shipping, and free returns, you can try Our Place with zero risk, and you can see why more than one million people have made the switch to Our Place kitchenware.
通过 100 天无风险试用、免费送货和免费退货，您可以零风险试用 Our Place，您就会明白为什么超过一百万人已改用 Our Place 厨具。
I like to believe that despite the fact that humans have some selfish wiring, that we are all inherently good, can be drawn toward goodness, can, in the right conditions and with the right amount of effort, can-
我愿意相信，尽管人类有一些自私的倾向，但我们本质上都是善良的，可以被吸引向善，可以在适当的条件下，通过适当的努力，可以——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Mm-hmm
嗯嗯
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
direct ourselves in ways that are really beneficial, learn from mistakes, be benevolent, all that.
以真正有益的方式指导自己，从错误中学习，仁慈，等等。
So I think I believe that.
所以我想我相信这一点。
I think most people believe that.
我想大多数人都相信这一点。
We want to believe that.
我们愿意相信这一点。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
If we step a little bit away from the extremes of severe psychopathology and sociopathy and some people are more mercenary than others.
如果我们稍微远离严重的精神病理学和反社会人格的极端，就会发现有些人比其他人更加唯利是图。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And our society, in certain careers, tends to favor that.
我们的社会，在某些职业中，往往倾向于这一点。
When I was coming up in science, I don't know what it was like in psychology, but there was this cohort of scientists, neuroscientists in New York.
当我进入科学领域时，我不知道心理学是什么样子，但纽约有一群科学家、神经科学家。
They were called the New York Neuroscience Mafia.
他们被称为纽约神经科学黑手党。
Two of them have Nobel Prizes.
其中两人获得过诺贝尔奖。
I'm friendly with these guys.
我和这些人很友好。
But you'd go to meetings, and they would hold court in a way that it was all about them, it was all about their displays.
但当你去参加会议时，他们会以一种一切都与他们有关、一切与他们的展示有关的方式举行会议。
They're brilliant.
他们很聪明。
They've done brilliant work.
他们做了出色的工作。
But for a lot of people coming up, it was sort of a pressure test.
但对于很多人来说，这是一种压力测试。
Do you think we could make it in this field?
您认为我们能在这个领域取得成功吗？
We're going to have to either wait till these guys die or somehow integrate with this scene.
我们要么等到这些人死了，要么以某种方式融入这个场景。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And they would pick favorites, and they would decide who they'd go to drinks with and who-- It was very hierarchical.
他们会挑选最喜欢的，他们会决定和谁一起喝酒，和谁一起喝酒——这是非常等级化的。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Every scientific field is like this.
每个科学领域都是如此。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Yeah, okay, good.
是啊，好吧，很好。
Okay.
好的。
All right.
好的。
So I'm both relieved and dismayed that every field is like that.
所以我既欣慰又沮丧，因为每个领域都是如此。
And very different than the West Coast version of it, because we are a little softer on the West Coast.
与西海岸的版本非常不同，因为我们西海岸的风格要温和一些。
But on the West Coast, there was a more cryptic version of it.
但在西海岸，有一个更神秘的版本。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Southerners are like that, too.
南方人也是这样。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Oh, is that right?
哦，是吗？
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
It's not that they aren't mercenary, it's that they hide it -
并不是说他们不是唯利是图，而是他们隐藏了这一点——
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm
毫米
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
...
...
under a blanket of softness.
在柔软的毯子下。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Is the Midwest the only place where people are truly decent?
中西部是唯一人们真正正派的地方吗？
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Have you ever seen that thing where it divides the country into quadrants and it's like acts mean, is mean.
你有没有见过那种把国家分成四个象限的东西，就像行为卑鄙一样，是卑鄙的。
Acts nice is mean, that's the South.
表现得好就是卑鄙，这就是南方。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Okay.
好的。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
And then I think it's the Pacific Northwest is acts nice, is nice.
然后我认为太平洋西北地区表现得很好，很好。
But I don't know about the Midwest, but y-
但我不知道中西部的情况，但是你-
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
What was California?
加利福尼亚州是什么？
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
I don't remember.
我不记得了。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Oh, probably acts nice, is mean.
哦，也许表现得很好，其实很卑鄙。
Is that the sort of-
是不是那种——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Probably.
可能吧。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
It could be.
可能是。
Could be.
可能是。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah, I don't know.
是的，我不知道。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Here we're focusing on the dark, but there's good people in every field.
在这里，我们关注的是黑暗，但每个领域都有好人。
But I remember thinking going to a meeting meant you couldn't let your guard down.
但我记得我认为参加会议意味着你不能放松警惕。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yes.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And-
还有——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yes
是的
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
and I now know because I'm adjacent to it now because I don't depend on them for grant reviews or I don't need anything from those guys anymore.
我现在知道了，因为我现在与它相邻，因为我不再依赖他们进行拨款审查，或者我不再需要那些人的任何东西。
I remember the moment where they sort of invited me in was based where one kind of took a little jab at me-
我记得他们邀请我进来的那一刻是基于一种对我的攻击——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Mm
毫米
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
and I jabbed right back, but I hit him harder.
我立即回击，但打得更重了。
Why would it be that you get invited into a group with special resources by virtue of being kind of a jerk?
为什么你会因为自己是个混蛋而被邀请加入一个拥有特殊资源的团体？
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I'm going to be a jerk to you, and if you can be a jerk back, we can be jerks together.
我会成为你的混蛋，如果你能成为混蛋，我们就可以一起成为混蛋。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
It's a status dominance.
这是一种地位优势。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
It really sucks.
真的很糟糕。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
It's a status dominance-
这是一种地位优势——
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
It sucks
太糟糕了
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
...
...
move.
移动。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Yeah.
是的。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
It's saying, I'm signaling to you that I'm confident enough in whatever this is that I don't need to cower or submit.
它是说，我向你发出信号，我对任何事情都有足够的信心，我不需要畏缩或屈服。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm.
嗯。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
And then someone's like, "Oh, maybe I don't want to be in a status dominance-
然后有人会说，“哦，也许我不想处于地位主导地位——
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm
毫米
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
...
...
aggression competition with him because he might win."
与他进行侵略性竞争，因为他可能会赢。”
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Yeah.
是的。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
So now we're going to...
所以现在我们要...
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm.
嗯。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
I have a theory that a lot of scientific fields, and men in scientific fields, are a little bit like mice in that mice have very rigid social hierarchies-
我有一个理论，很多科学领域，以及科学领域的人，有点像老鼠，因为老鼠有非常严格的社会等级制度——
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm-hmm
嗯嗯
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
...
...
that they establish through aggression.
他们通过侵略建立的。
And once everyone's figured out who can bite whom without getting bitten back-
一旦每个人都弄清楚谁可以咬谁而不被反咬回来-
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm
毫米
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
...
...
then they can settle into their nice hierarchy.
然后他们就可以适应自己良好的等级制度。
And you bit back, so you were like, "No, I'm higher in the hierarchy than you think that I am."
你反驳道，“不，我的职位比你想象的要高。”
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I grew up in a pack of guys.
我是在一群人中长大的。
I never was the aggressor.
我从来都不是侵略者。
But if you don't bite back-
但如果你不反咬一口——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
when somebody with more power than you pokes on you, you-
当比你更有权力的人攻击你时，你——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
But you were saying, "I'm not acting like you have more power than me.
但你是在说：“我的表现并不像你比我更有权力。
I'm acting like I can poke back." Right?
我表现得好像我可以反击。”正确的？
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
But it doesn't feel good, right?
但感觉不太好，对吧？
We would all like to believe that we can ascend in our fields, settle into our place, without having to do that.
我们都愿意相信，我们可以在我们的领域提升，安顿在我们的位置，而不必这样做。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Throw elbows.
扔肘部。
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Yeah, because anyway.
是的，因为无论如何。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
So I think one thing that this story gets at, too, is We talk about impulsivity and desire for intensity and disagreeableness, like I don't actually care who I'm hurting in this, as unambiguously bad things.
所以我认为这个故事也涉及到一件事，那就是我们谈论冲动、对强度和不愉快的渴望，就像我实际上并不关心我在这件事中伤害了谁，这是明确的坏事。
But a little bit of those actually can be very adaptive in some circumstances.
但其中的一些实际上在某些情况下可以非常适应。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
You don't want your surgeon to be like, "Oh, am I hurting them by cutting them open?" You want someone who's a little bit callous to your physical pain because they're focusing on you as a body and doing this.
你不希望你的外科医生说，“哦，我切开它们会伤害它们吗？”你想要一个对你的身体疼痛有点麻木不仁的人，因为他们专注于你的身体并这样做。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
If you look at studies of who is a successful entrepreneur by the age of 30, they are white men, so social advantage, high IQ as measured by a standardized test, history of a little bit of adolescent delinquency.
如果你看一下谁是 30 岁成功企业家的研究，你会发现他们都是白人，因此具有社会优势，通过标准化测试衡量的智商很高，有一点青少年犯罪史。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Right?
对吗？
And that makes sense if you're thinking about adolescent delinquency was a manifestation of risk tolerance, of sensation-seeking.
如果你认为青少年犯罪是风险承受能力和寻求刺激的表现，那么这是有道理的。
And who are the people who are not going to be real great at having a boss, but able to tolerate the risk of starting a business, right?
哪些人不擅长拥有老板，但能够承受创业的风险，对吗？
Academia is full of people like that-
学术界充满了这样的人——
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm-hmm
嗯嗯
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
...
...
that are like, "I want to think about what I want to think about, and I don't want anyone telling me what to do, and I don't really care if other people think this is useful, and I'm willing to be really competitive to get resources."
就像，“我想考虑我想考虑的事情，我不想让任何人告诉我该怎么做，我并不真正关心其他人是否认为这有用，而且我愿意真正竞争以获得资源。”
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And I'll use taxpayer dollars, thank you, to do it with.
谢谢，我将使用纳税人的钱来做这件事。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Exactly.
正是如此。
So I have this thought experiment in my book where I think, again, thought experiment, I'm not recommending this, where I think, what if we did have the means to select every baby that was born.
所以我在我的书中有这个思想实验，我想，再次，思想实验，我不推荐这个，我想，如果我们确实有办法选择每个出生的婴儿会怎样。
Every reproducing couple is going to do IVF, they're going to create as many embryos as they can, and we're going to select the ones that have the lowest antisocial behavior substance use traits.
每对有生育能力的夫妇都会进行试管受精，他们将创造尽可能多的胚胎，我们将选择具有最低反社会行为物质使用特征的胚胎。
And we have a generation that is the most puritanical, risk-intolerant, non-sensation-seeking, controlled, not disinhibited, very inhibited.
我们这一代人是最清教徒、最不能容忍风险、最不追求刺激、最有节制、没有解除抑制、非常压抑的一代。
Is that a good thing?
这是一件好事吗？
Is that a world that we would want-
这就是我们想要的世界吗？
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
You don't want my opinion on this
你不想听我的意见
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
...
...
to live in?
住在？
I do.
我愿意。
I would love to hear your opinion of this.
我很想听听您对此的看法。
I mean, I-
我的意思是，我——
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I mean, I don't want sociopathy.
我的意思是，我不想有反社会人格。
The really dark examples are so salient.
真正黑暗的例子是如此突出。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I have to be careful not to end up there.
我必须小心，不要到了那里。
But I watched that-- I didn't watch the Dahmer thing on Netflix.
但我看了那个——我没有在 Netflix 上看《达默》。
I would pay money to not see that.
我愿意付钱看不到这一点。
I don't want to see that.
我不想看到那个。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
No. No, I don't have the tolerance for that either.
不，不，我也没有这个容忍度。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
But I did watch the Richard Ramirez Night Stalker story a few years before that was on Netflix, and it was done exceedingly well at the level of, it scares the shit out of you.
但几年前，我确实在 Netflix 上看过理查德·拉米雷斯《夜行者》的故事，而且它做得非常好，达到了让你害怕的程度。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And he was a true sociopath by all measures.
从各方面来看，他都是一个真正的反社会者。
But then when you hear the history of his childhood-
但当你听到他童年的历史时——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Mm-hmm
嗯嗯
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
just horrible treatment of being-
只是可怕的待遇——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
I think, if I think I have this right, being tied to a gravestone-
我想，如果我认为我有这个权利，被绑在墓碑上——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Oh
哦
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
in a cemetery overnight as a young kid, like three or five.
当我还是个小孩子的时候，大约三五岁的时候，我在墓地里过夜。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Ugh.
呃。
Like overtly traumatized.
就像受到明显的创伤一样。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Just left there.
刚刚离开那里。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
His father did the-- I mean, just horrible things.
我的意思是，他父亲做了一些可怕的事情。
But again, it doesn't change...
但话又说回来，一切都没有改变……
What I see is the guy with the pentagram written on his hand in the court, the mental imagery, right?
我看到的是法庭上那个手上写着五角星的家伙，心里的意象，对吧？
So taking away guys like that, people like that, I think you go, okay, yeah.
所以带走这样的人，这样的人，我想你就走吧，好吧，是的。
I mean, he was a sadistic killer at every level.
我的意思是，他在各个层面上都是一个虐待狂杀手。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
But then a bunch of just pure passivity everywhere.
但随后到处都是一堆纯粹的被动。
I don't know.
我不知道。
I guess it depends on how far it goes, because in the earlier example, when we were talking about this academic interaction, my friend Jocko Willink, former Navy SEAL-
我想这取决于它能走多远，因为在前面的例子中，当我们谈论这种学术互动时，我的朋友乔科·威林克（Jocko Willink），前海豹突击队队员-
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Mm-hmm
嗯嗯
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
he's very active in...
他非常活跃于...
And now we're talking about kids' health and education, and he's doing a lot there.
现在我们正在谈论孩子的健康和教育，他在这方面做了很多工作。
And he reposted something recently that I had a good chuckle at.
他最近转发了一些我笑得很开心的东西。
It was certainly true for me, which was that it said 90% of being a dude is making fun of your friends to their face- ...
这对我来说当然是真的，那就是说，作为一个男人，90% 的人就是当面取笑你的朋友——......
and cheering them on behind their backs.
并在背后为他们加油。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Oh.
哦。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And I think every guy that had a lot of guy friends or has a lot of guy friends growing up, or even just a couple good ones-
我认为每个有很多男性朋友或成长过程中有很多男性朋友的人，甚至只是几个好朋友——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
knows that that's true, and the inverse of that are the people you're trying to select out.
知道这是真的，而与此相反的是你要选择的人。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Right?
对吗？
You don't want somebody who's nice to your face and then behind your back is trying to backstab.
你不希望有人表面上对你很好，但背后却想背后捅刀子。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Right?
对吗？
Or be kind and then backstab.
或者先友善一点，然后再背后捅刀子。
But yeah, a lot of being a dude is making fun of each other, but then rooting each other on at the same time.
但是，是的，作为一个男人，很多时候都是互相取笑，但同时又互相支持。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
That's kind of how we grow up.
这就是我们成长的方式。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
So I wouldn't want a society where people wouldn't make fun of me and I couldn't make fun of them.
所以我不想要一个人们不会取笑我而我也不能取笑他们的社会。
But the encouragement part is also really important.
但鼓励部分也非常重要。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And I don't know what it is for girls.
而且我不知道这对女孩来说是什么。
I have a sister, and she's a very, very, very kind person, and I was always shocked the way that girls treated one another.
我有一个姐姐，她是一个非常非常善良的人，我总是对女孩们对待彼此的方式感到震惊。
So they can be really mean.
所以他们可能真的很刻薄。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Girls can be very mean.
女孩可能很刻薄。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
They can be really mean.
他们可能真的很刻薄。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
You know?
你知道吗？
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Relational aggression, there's literature on this.
关系攻击，有这方面的文献。
When we talk about aggression, we so often think in terms of physical aggression.
当我们谈论攻击行为时，我们经常想到的是身体攻击行为。
I'm punching you, I'm stabbing you, I'm hurting you.
我打你，我刺你，我伤害你。
Relational aggression, where you're destroying someone's reputation or social standing or making them feel isolated, is just as painful as physical aggression, if not more so.
关系攻击，即你破坏某人的名誉或社会地位，或让他们感到孤立，与身体攻击一样痛苦，甚至更痛苦。
There's few things that humans are more attuned to than that feeling of, oh, am I being pushed out of the group, right?
人类最能适应的事情莫过于这样的感觉：哦，我是不是被赶出了群体，对吧？
Because ancestrally, that means death.
因为对于祖先来说，这意味着死亡。
And so what we see research is that the same genes that predict physical aggression in boys predict relational aggression in girls, and relational aggression can be every bit as damaging.
因此，我们在研究中发现，预测男孩身体攻击行为的基因也可以预测女孩的关系攻击行为，而关系攻击行为同样具有破坏性。
But I think also kind of bewildering to the adults around it.
但我认为这也让周围的成年人感到困惑。
It's more covert, right?
这样比较隐蔽吧？
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
And it's hard to see it.
而且很难看到它。
I was shocked at how early that started.
我对这件事开始得这么早感到震惊。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Hmm.
嗯。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
I thought it was going to be something I dealt with with my daughter when she got to be a teenager.
我以为这将是我女儿十几岁时我要处理的事情。
Mm-mm.
嗯嗯。
Four years old.
四岁了。
"Ellery said this," and, "Lily isn't my friend anymore," and, "I met with her preschool teacher," and I was like, "What is going on?" And she was like, "This is what four-year-old girls do.
“埃勒里这么说，”并且，“莉莉不再是我的朋友了，”并且，“我见过她的学前班老师，”我想，“发生了什么事？”她说：“这就是四岁女孩所做的事情。
They make relationship conflict, and then they repair relationship conflict, and they do it all the time, every day, and that is why they are so much less bewildered by repairing relationship conflict than your average teenage boy is by the time they reach adolescence." And I was just completely thrown and fascinated by this experience.
他们制造关系冲突，然后修复关系冲突，他们每天都在这样做，这就是为什么他们在进入青春期时，比一般的十几岁男孩更少对修复关系冲突感到困惑。”我完全被这次经历迷住了。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Yeah.
是的。
Boys sort it out in-
男孩们解决这个问题——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Differently
不同地
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
such primitive ways.
如此原始的方式。
I can remember dirt clod wars where somebody broke the fundamental rule, which is you can't throw rocks.
我记得在泥土战争中，有人违反了基本规则，那就是你不能扔石头。
They threw a rock, then someone gets upset, then they get into a scrap.
他们扔了一块石头，然后有人感到不安，然后他们就陷入了争吵。
And then sometimes somebody went home.
然后有时有人回家。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
But the longest it lasted in terms of a fracture-
但就骨折而言持续时间最长的是——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
in the group or the relationship was a day-
在团体或关系中度过了一天-
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
maximum.
最大。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And then we'd just kind of forget about it.
然后我们就会忘记它。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Yeah.
是的。
And it was kind of understood that someone was going to push the boundaries.
人们可以理解有人会突破界限。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
I'm not completely confident that I'm remembering this study correctly, so if your listeners are like, "No, Paige, you got this wrong." But I remember hearing about a study that was about marital conflict, where they had married partners keep diaries of their interactions, and then also, I think maybe spit into a tube every morning and evening.
我并不完全相信我正确地记住了这项研究，所以如果你的听众会说，“不，佩奇，你错了。”但我记得听说过一项关于婚姻冲突的研究，他们让已婚伴侣记录他们的互动日记，然后，我想也许每天早上和晚上都会向管子里吐口水。
And they looked at how long did men's cortisol remain elevated after an argument compared to the wives' cortisol.
他们还比较了争吵后男性的皮质醇与妻子的皮质醇保持升高的时间有多长。
It was basically like they had the fight, his spiked up, and then it went down.
基本上就像他们打架一样，他的表现飙升，然后又下降。
Classic Trier curve of pshew.
pshew 的经典特里尔曲线。
And hers was elevated for 24 hours afterwards.
此后 24 小时内，她的体温一直升高。
And if you think about what that means for their psychological sense of what's happening in their relationship, she's like, "I'm still amped about this." And he's like, "What are you talking about?
如果你想想这对他们对他们的关系中发生的事情的心理感觉意味着什么，她会说，“我仍然对此感到兴奋。”他就像是，“你在说什么？
We had that fight, and then my cortisol, we're over it." Right?
我们经历了那场战斗，然后我的皮质醇，我们已经结束了。”正确的？
So I do think there's some interesting sex differences in the relationship between our physiological arousal and our conflict styles and just the timeline that that plays out.
所以我确实认为我们的生理唤醒和冲突风格之间的关系以及发生的时间线之间存在一些有趣的性别差异。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Fascinating.
令人着迷。
Yeah, so many ideas.
是的，有很多想法。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
You're thinking of all the examples.
你正在考虑所有的例子。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Well, I'm thinking of some examples and of course what the evolutionary benefit is of those-
好吧，我正在考虑一些例子，当然还有这些例子的进化好处是什么——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
different cycles.
不同的周期。
There's certain interactions you don't want to forget.
有些互动是您不想忘记的。
It can be damaging to self-
它可能会损害自我
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Mm-hmm
嗯嗯
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
to forget fights-
忘记争吵——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
so quickly.
这么快。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I can say I've had interactions where at the moment it felt so vital, and then a day later I'm like, "How is it that this might not be good, that I'm not still thinking about this?"
我可以说，我曾经有过一些互动，当时感觉如此重要，但一天后我会想，“这怎么可能不好，我没有仍在考虑这个？”
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
But life is carrying on.
但生活还在继续。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Life moves on.
生活继续前进。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Yeah, the conveyor belt's still moving.
是的，传送带还在运转。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
So, I think it's only fair that I ask about, we talked about pathology as expressed in boys, and it always seems to come out as aggressive violence, et cetera.
所以，我认为我问这个问题是公平的，我们讨论了男孩所表达的病态，而且它似乎总是表现为攻击性暴力，等等。
In girls, you're saying that the social dynamics can be benevolent, right?
对于女孩来说，你是说社会动态可以是仁慈的，对吧？
Because you did say conflict and repair.
因为你确实提到了冲突和修复。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
That sounds healthy.
听起来很健康。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
But in terms of genes that predispose for addiction, do those show up differently in girls?
但就容易上瘾的基因而言，这些基因在女孩身上的表现是否有所不同？
I think the assumption that some people have is like, "Oh, it's always going to be promiscuity." But nowadays, especially because of access to prescription drugs, I was told this by a former guest, Keith Humphreys, if you look at addiction, men and women, it tended to lean more towards men than women until you get to prescription drugs.
我认为有些人的假设是，“哦，乱交总是会发生。”但如今，特别是因为可以获得处方药，一位前客人基思·汉弗莱斯告诉我，如果你观察男性和女性的成瘾情况，你会发现，在获得处方药之前，男性往往比女性更倾向于男性。
Because there's something, I don't know, less seedy.
因为有一些东西，我不知道，不那么肮脏。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
The social opportunity is different.
社会机会不同。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
What we see in the twin studies and the adoption studies and then also in the newer studies where we're looking directly at people's DNA, is that the manifestations of at least the genes we've discovered so far are remarkably consistent between men and women.
我们在双胞胎研究和收养研究以及直接观察人们 DNA 的最新研究中看到的是，至少我们迄今为止发现的基因表现在男性和女性之间是非常一致的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Hmm.
嗯。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
So if you have a genetic liability towards disinhibition, problems with self-regulation, that can manifest as alcohol use, that can manifest as aggression and antisocial behavior, but there aren't really strongly sex-typed manifestations where it always looks like this in women and always looks like this in men.
因此，如果你有抑制解除的遗传倾向，自我调节问题，可能表现为酗酒，可能表现为攻击性和反社会行为，但并不存在真正强烈的性别型表现，在女性中总是如此，在男性中总是如此。
We haven't discovered all the genes, and we haven't looked at the sex chromosomes yet, so there might be something different.
我们还没有发现所有的基因，我们还没有研究性染色体，所以可能会有不同的东西。
But the theory so far that seems to have the best evidence is that the underlying etiology is remarkably consistent across men and women, and it's just really the mean that differs between men and women.
但迄今为止似乎拥有最好证据的理论是，男性和女性的潜在病因学非常一致，而男性和女性之间的差异实际上只是平均值而已。
So you just get higher rates of all of these behaviors in men, but the underlying disposition is really similar across the sexes.
因此，男性中所有这些行为的发生率更高，但不同性别的潜在倾向确实相似。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
So if we were to say sensation-seeking-
所以如果我们说寻求感觉-
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
novelty-seeking, equally distributed.
求新，平均分配。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
But men act out more.
但男人表现得更多。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
So what you see is that men show slightly higher sensation-seeking, but the genes that predispose a man towards sensation-seeking seem to be similar in women.
所以你看到的是，男性表现出略高的感觉寻求能力，但使男性倾向于寻求感觉的基因在女性中似乎相似。
If a woman has a fraternal twin who's a boy, his sensation-seeking will predict hers just as well as if she had a twin sister.
如果一个女人有一个异卵双胞胎，而且是个男孩，那么他的感觉寻求就会预测她的情况，就像她有一个双胞胎姐妹一样。
So similar genes, just a mean shift.
如此相似的基因，只是均值变化。
What you see is that actually in adolescence, boys and girls have very similar trajectories of sensation-seeking.
你看到的是，实际上在青春期，男孩和女孩的寻求感觉的轨迹非常相似。
Where they differ is in the evolution of their inhibitory control.
它们的不同之处在于抑制控制的演变。
So girls mature in terms of their impulse control faster than boys do.
因此，女孩在冲动控制方面比男孩成熟得更快。
We did a study maybe 10 years ago now.
大约十年前我们做了一项研究。
It took until men around the age of 24 to be as controlled as your average 15-year-old girl.
直到 24 岁左右的男人才能像普通 15 岁女孩一样有控制力。
Was.
曾是。
There's a decade-long gap in the maturation of impulse control.
冲动控制的成熟度有十年之久的差距。
You're nodding-
你点点头——
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
That tracks
那个跟踪
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
...
...
and I used to be a 15-year-old boy.
我曾经是一个15岁的男孩。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Yeah, that tracks.
是的，有轨迹。
I think the point is that men develop more slowly.
我认为关键是男人发育得更慢。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
But presumably they catch up, but then they die earlier, so...
但想必他们赶上了，但他们死得更早，所以……
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Well, they go through puberty later-
好吧，他们后来会经历青春期——
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm-hmm
嗯嗯
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
...
...
and they have a more extended increase up to having adult levels of reproductive hormones.
而且他们的生殖激素的增长幅度更大，达到成人水平。
Men's testosterone is increasing.
男性的睾丸激素正在增加。
Puberty is over, but their testosterone is still going up through their teen years and into their 20s.
青春期已经结束，但他们的睾丸激素在青少年时期和二十多岁时仍在上升。
And they die earlier, but women have that long, they're alive, but they're not healthy on average at the end of their life.
他们死得更早，但女性却有那么长的寿命，她们还活着，但在生命的尽头，她们的平均健康状况并不好。
The difference in health span is less different than lifespan, as you know.
如您所知，健康寿命的差异与寿命的差异较小。
So there's something interesting about the ways in which men seem to be slower developing in uterus.
因此，男性在子宫内发育缓慢的方式似乎很有趣。
They're getting to reproductive maturity later, and they're getting to adult levels of personality later.
他们的生殖成熟期要晚一些，他们的人格水平也要晚一些。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
We need more patience.
我们需要更多的耐心。
Women are all thinking, "We've given you enough patience.
女人们都在想：“我们已经给了你足够的耐心。
We require more patience."
我们需要更多的耐心。”
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
That's the right phrasing.
这是正确的措辞。
Let's talk about punishment.
我们来谈谈惩罚吧。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
But maybe also talk about rewarding good behavior.
但也许也可以谈谈奖励良好的行为。
A while back, I think it was Zimbardo at Stanford who was talking about that everyday heroes, that we were supposed to start orienting towards, rewarding the everyday heroes of life.
不久前，我想是斯坦福大学的津巴多在谈论日常英雄，我们应该开始以之为导向，奖励生活中的日常英雄。
This was kind of a thing in the early 2000s, as I recall, and there's the positive psychology notion, and I feel like psychology is kind of split into dark and light.
我记得这是 2000 年代初的事情，当时有积极心理学的概念，我觉得心理学有点分为黑暗和光明。
The people who like to look at the dark stuff versus the light, and-
那些喜欢观察黑暗事物与光明事物的人，以及——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Oh, that's probably true
哦，这可能是真的
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
we call it morality.
我们称之为道德。
But I'm an outsider.
但我是一个局外人。
I don't know.
我不知道。
But we spend a lot of time thinking about whether and how we should punish people.
但我们花了很多时间思考是否应该以及如何惩罚人们。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Mm.
嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And of course, at the extremes, it's obvious, right?
当然，在极端情况下，这是显而易见的，对吧？
To the legal system, it's obvious.
对于法律体系来说，这是显而易见的。
But the middle ground is the interesting ground.
但中间立场是有趣的地方。
Penalty boxing people, maybe not even with social isolation, but who we reward and place into positions of leadership.
惩罚拳击手，甚至可能不会与社会隔离，但我们会奖励他们并让他们担任领导职务。
This is very salient right now, and it comes with a lot of assigning of labels about psychopathology from people that may or may not be qualified to assign those labels, right?
现在这一点非常突出，并且伴随着许多可能有资格或可能没有资格分配这些标签的人分配有关精神病理学的标签，对吧？
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
How do you think about the genetic and evolutionary, but also the societal labels of punishment and forgiveness?
您如何看待惩罚和宽恕的遗传和进化以及社会标签？
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Oh, such a good question.
哦，真是个好问题。
So first of all, let's just define punishment, because that actually can mean different things to different people.
首先，让我们来定义惩罚，因为这实际上对不同的人来说意味着不同的事情。
So as a psychologist, I think about punishment is applying an aversive stimulus in an attempt to reduce the frequency of a behavior.
因此，作为一名心理学家，我认为惩罚是施加厌恶刺激，试图减少行为的频率。
Right?
正确的？
So it's the rat is in its Skinner box, and every time it goes into this area, you give it a shock, and that's a punishment to make it not go into this area of the box.
所以，老鼠在它的斯金纳盒子里，每次它进入这个区域，你就给它一个电击，这是一种惩罚，让它不进入盒子的这个区域。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
If you have a child, punishment is you're going to be in time out, or I'm going to spank you, I'm going to give you some sort of thing that I know you're not going to like in order to try to reduce the frequency of this behavior.
如果你有孩子，惩罚就是让你超时，或者我要打你屁股，我会给你一些我知道你不会喜欢的东西，以试图减少这种行为的频率。
From psychology, we know from decades of evidence that punishing bad behavior doesn't work nearly as well for shaping behavior as rewarding the behavior that you want.
从心理学角度，我们从数十年的证据中得知，惩罚不良行为对于塑造行为的作用远不如奖励你想要的行为那么有效。
Right?
正确的？
So if you reward a rat for pressing a lever, it'll do that all day long.
因此，如果你奖励一只按下杠杆的老鼠，它会整天这样做。
If you give a rat alcohol every time it presses a bar, and then you stop mid-experiment, and you start shocking it, some rats will stop pressing the bar, and other rats will actually increase their rate of behavior.
如果每次老鼠按下杠时你给它酒精，然后你在实验中停止并开始电击它，一些老鼠会停止按下杠，而其他老鼠实际上会增加它们的行为率。
They'll be like, "Maybe this time.
他们会说，“也许这一次。
Maybe this time it'll be..." It's the same thing with kids.
也许这一次会……”对于孩子来说也是如此。
We know from all of our research on corporal punishment that children who are spanked do not behave better than children who aren't spanked, and if anything, they behave worse.
我们从所有关于体罚的研究中得知，被打屁股的孩子并不比没有被打屁股的孩子表现得更好，甚至更糟。
So you've had Dr. Becky Kennedy on here.
贝基·肯尼迪博士也来了。
She has been, I think, so influential in that you need to have consequences, but attempting to help your child behave better through harshness is, on average, going to be a losing strategy.
我认为，她的影响力如此之大，以至于你需要承担后果，但试图通过严厉来帮助你的孩子表现得更好，平均而言，将是一个失败的策略。
And then, I think you said, maybe at the extremes with the criminal justice system, but we also see that in the criminal justice system.
然后，我想你说过，也许在刑事司法系统中处于极端，但我们也在刑事司法系统中看到了这一点。
That increasing the harshness of criminal penalties doesn't predict a decline in crime.
刑事处罚的严厉性并不意味着犯罪率的下降。
The thing that seems to predict it is the likelihood of getting caught and having other potential opportunities to get the rewards that you want in your social structure.
似乎可以预测这一点的是被抓住的可能性以及有其他潜在机会在你的社会结构中获得你想要的奖励的可能性。
But just increasing penalties for crime doesn't, on average, reduce crime.
但平均而言，仅仅增加对犯罪的惩罚并不能减少犯罪。
So whether we're talking about rats or children or prisoners, adding more harshness is not, we know, the most effective way to get the behaviors that we want.
因此，无论我们谈论的是老鼠、儿童还是囚犯，我们知道，增加更多的严厉并不是获得我们想要的行为的最有效方法。
This is also true going back to dogs, right?
回到狗身上也是如此，对吧？
What is the best dog training method?
最好的狗训练方法是什么？
It's never harshly punishing them or applying pain for behavior you don't want.
它绝不是严厉惩罚他们或对你不想要的行为施加痛苦。
It's firmness, boundaries, but rewarding the behavior that you do want.
它是坚定的、有界限的，但会奖励你真正想要的行为。
And also in the context of building trust in a relationship with your dog.
也是在与你的狗建立信任关系的背景下。
So I feel like no luck doesn't obviate responsibility.
所以我觉得任何运气都不能免除责任。
We are still responsible for the people that we are, even though we're shaped by factors that aren't in control.
尽管我们受到无法控制的因素的影响，但我们仍然对我们自己负责。
But in terms of holding people responsible- punishing them harshly doesn't bring about what we really want, other than just satisfying that retributive itch.
但就追究人们的责任而言，严厉惩罚他们并不能带来我们真正想要的东西，除了满足报应性的渴望之外。
It's giving them opportunities in the reward structure to be rewarded by the things we do want, that we know is the most effective strategy all in all.
这让他们有机会在奖励结构中获得我们想要的东西的奖励，我们知道这是最有效的策略。
So I think the slide that people make is if someone's responsible, if someone had agency, then they deserve to be punished.
所以我认为人们制作的幻灯片是，如果有人负责，如果有人有代理权，那么他们就应该受到惩罚。
And what I'm trying to separate is those two things.
我试图将这两件事分开。
Can someone be responsible?
有人可以负责吗？
They had agency.
他们有代理权。
We want to hold them accountable.
我们想让他们承担责任。
But how do we do that without immediately jumping to, and so therefore they deserve to suffer, and so therefore they deserve to hurt.
但是，我们如何才能做到这一点而不立即跳到，因此他们应该受苦，因此他们应该受到伤害。
And there's no one-size magic bullet to making that happen, right?
没有一种万能的灵丹妙药可以实现这一目标，对吗？
That's how do we relate to each other as people.
这就是我们作为人如何相互联系。
But as a mother, my strategy with my own kids has been really heavily influenced by thinking about punishment is not the most effective way.
但作为一名母亲，我对自己孩子的策略确实受到了很大影响，因为我认为惩罚并不是最有效的方法。
That doesn't mean we live in a there's-no-rules, anything-goes household, right?
这并不意味着我们生活在一个没有规则、一切皆有可能的家庭，对吧？
We have consequences, we have accountability, we have boundaries, but there's always space to say, "Reflect on what you did.
我们有后果，我们有责任，我们有界限，但总有空间说，“反思你所做的事情。
Reflect on what needs to be different for your behavior to be different in the future, and how can we create an environment that helps you grow, helps that happen?" I'm pretty anti-punishment.
反思一下你未来的行为需要做出哪些改变，以及我们如何才能创造一个帮助你成长、帮助实现这一目标的环境？”我非常反对惩罚。
I'm pro-responsibility and pretty anti-punishment as a way of holding each other responsible.
我支持责任，并且非常反对惩罚作为让彼此承担责任的一种方式。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I'd like to take a quick break and acknowledge our sponsor, Helix Sleep.
我想稍微休息一下并感谢我们的赞助商 Helix Sleep。
Helix Sleep makes mattresses and pillows that are customized to your unique sleep needs.
Helix Sleep 生产根据您独特的睡眠需求定制的床垫和枕头。
Now, I've spoken many times before on this and on other podcasts about the fact that getting a great night's sleep is the foundation of mental health, physical health, and performance.
现在，我之前曾多次在这个播客和其他播客上谈到这样一个事实：睡个好觉是心理健康、身体健康和表现的基础。
When we aren't getting great sleep on a consistent basis, everything suffers.
当我们不能持续获得良好的睡眠时，一切都会受到影响。
And when we are sleeping well and enough, our mental health, physical health, and performance in all endeavors improve markedly.
当我们睡眠充足且良好时，我们的心理健康、身体健康和所有努力的表现都会显着改善。
Now, the mattress you sleep on makes a huge difference in the quality of sleep that you get each night.
现在，您所睡的床垫会对您每晚的睡眠质量产生巨大影响。
How soft it is or how firm it is all play into your comfort and need to be tailored to your unique sleep needs.
它的柔软度或硬度都会影响您的舒适度，并且需要根据您独特的睡眠需求进行定制。
If you go to the Helix website, you can take a brief two-minute quiz, and it will ask you questions such as, do you sleep on your back, your side, or your stomach?
如果你访问 Helix 网站，你可以做一个两分钟的简短测验，它会问你一些问题，比如你是仰卧、侧卧还是俯卧？
Maybe you know, maybe you don't.
也许你知道，也许你不知道。
Do you tend to run hot or cold during the night?
你晚上容易感到热还是冷？
Things of that sort.
诸如此类的事情。
You answer those questions, and Helix will match you to the ideal mattress for you.
您回答这些问题，Helix 将为您匹配理想的床垫。
For me, that turned out to be the Dusk, D-U-S-K, mattress.
对我来说，这就是 Dusk、D-U-S-K 床垫。
I've been sleeping on a Dusk mattress for more than four years now, and it's been far and away the best sleep that I've ever had.
我已经在 Dusk 床垫上睡了四年多了，这无疑是我睡过的最好的睡眠。
If you'd like to try Helix, you can go to helixsleep.com/huberman, take that two-minute sleep quiz, and Helix will match you to a mattress that's customized for you.
如果您想尝试 Helix，可以访问 helixsleep.com/huberman，参加两分钟的睡眠测验，Helix 将为您匹配专为您定制的床垫。
Right now, Helix is giving up to 27% off their entire site.
目前，Helix 整个网站提供高达 27% 的折扣。
Helix has also teamed up with TrueMed, which allows you to use your HSA, FSA dollars to shop Helix's award-winning mattresses.
Helix 还与 TrueMed 合作，允许您使用 HSA、FSA 美元购买 Helix 屡获殊荣的床垫。
Again, that's helixsleep.com/huberman to get up to 27% off.
再次强调，helixsleep.com/huberman 提供高达 27% 的折扣。
In the last few years, there's been a real shift, it seems, in how we hold people accountable for their behavior in teen years, and I think it's with all the cameras and everything.
在过去的几年里，我们让人们对青少年时期的行为负责的方式似乎发生了真正的转变，我认为这与所有的摄像机和一切有关。
There have been a few examples, for instance, of text message threads were unearthed of people who are now in their 20s and 30s from their teen years.
例如，有一些例子表明，20 多岁和 30 多岁的人从青少年时期就发现了短信线索。
I think in one instance it was a group of friends, and people were making racist comments.
我认为有一个例子是一群朋友，人们发表了种族主义言论。
And then I think the ultimate decision was, okay, if this person apologized, their whole life shouldn't be ruined on the basis of a comment made earlier, five, six years earlier in a different context, et cetera.
然后我认为最终的决定是，好吧，如果这个人道歉了，他们的整个生活不应该因为之前、五、六年前在不同背景下发表的评论而被毁掉。
And I think that's how it moved forward.
我认为这就是它向前发展的方式。
But there were people calling for, "Hey, this person is a racist.
但也有人呼吁：“嘿，这个人是种族主义者。
They should be forbidden from having a government job."
应该禁止他们从事政府工作。”
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Hmm.
嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And I think it played out pretty quickly, but nowadays with social media, everyone can chime in.
我认为它很快就结束了，但现在有了社交媒体，每个人都可以参与其中。
So we're not really talking about courtroom decision, we're talking about court of public opinion.
因此，我们并不是真正在谈论法庭判决，而是在谈论公众舆论法庭。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
A different example, perhaps, that I'd like your thoughts on is Kanye, a year or two ago, made a bunch of really anti-Semitic remarks.
也许，我想请您考虑一下坎耶（Kanye）的另一个例子，一两年前，他发表了一系列真正的反犹太主义言论。
He was wearing a swastika T-shirt and then-
他穿着一件纳粹党徽 T 恤，然后——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Mm-hmm
嗯嗯
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
recently published an apology.
近日发表道歉声明。
He said he was sorry.
他说他很抱歉。
He wasn't in the right state of mind, et cetera.
他的精神状态不太对劲等等。
He's talked about some mental health challenges and things of that sort, and he seems to be largely forgiven.
他谈到了一些心理健康挑战和类似的事情，他似乎基本上被原谅了。
At least that seems to be the sentiment.
至少看起来是这样的。
Now, of course, he also brings something that a lot of people want, which is music that people love to hear.
当然，现在他也带来了很多人想要的东西，那就是人们喜欢听的音乐。
So there's always this kind of value add, value subtraction thing when we punish people, versus the anonymous person, right?
因此，当我们惩罚人们（而不是匿名者）时，总是会出现这种增值或减值的情况，对吗？
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
They're not doing anything for people, so they're more quick to just say, "Well, just punish them.
他们没有为人们做任何事，所以他们更快地说：“好吧，惩罚他们吧。
Lock them away." It's fascinating because even though these are public-facing examples, we use these as a template for how to deal with someone who got too drunk at the dorm party on Friday and said something really stupid, and you got a bunch of offended people.
把他们锁起来。”这很有趣，因为即使这些都是面向公众的例子，我们也用它们作为模板来处理那些周五在宿舍聚会上喝醉了并且说了一些非常愚蠢的话的人，然后你就得到了一群被冒犯的人。
Do you kick him out of school?
你把他赶出学校吗？
Maybe.
或许。
Or her.
或者她。
Or do you sit them down and go, "Hey, that was really insensitive," and they have to do a bunch of sensitivity training, and then you go, "Okay, they're healed."
或者你让他们坐下来，“嘿，这真的太不敏感了，”他们必须做一系列敏感性训练，然后你说，“好吧，他们痊愈了。”
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I don't have any answers to this, but this is how it seems to play out in the real world, is sort of very salient examples.
我对此没有任何答案，但这就是现实世界中的情况，是一些非常突出的例子。
Not at the super extremes.
不是处于超级极端。
Racism's bad, but he didn't kill anyone, so then the punishment is either do we keep him or do we isolate him?
种族主义是不好的，但他没有杀任何人，所以惩罚是我们要么留下他，要么孤立他？
And then what happens does set the course of what happens at more everyday levels.
然后发生的事情确实决定了在更日常层面上发生的事情的进程。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
So I think what you're pointing to Is America is an incredibly punitive retributive culture There is a reward that we can see in the brains of people when they see someone suffer if that person is first portrayed as a wrongdoer.
所以我认为你所指的是美国是一种令人难以置信的惩罚性报应文化。当人们看到某人遭受痛苦时，如果这个人首先被描述为不法分子，我们可以在他们的大脑中看到一种奖励。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
So ordinarily, if you see someone be shocked, you have anterior insula.
因此，通常情况下，如果您看到某人感到震惊，则您患有前岛叶。
It's like you're being shocked, too.
看来你也很震惊。
Unless that person is first portrayed as violating some moral or social norm, in which case, dopamine, you get a reward out of seeing that person punished.
除非那个人首先被描述为违反了某种道德或社会规范，在这种情况下，多巴胺，你会因为看到那个人受到惩罚而得到奖励。
I think that it is a lust, just as much as lust for substances or lust for sexual partners.
我认为这是一种欲望，就像对物质的欲望或对性伴侣的欲望一样。
It is a desire.
这是一个愿望。
People want to see people punished.
人们希望看到人们受到惩罚。
Nietzsche was an amazing observer of human nature before there was a scientific psychology, and he wrote about why do we use monetary terms to describe people being punished, pay their debt to society.
在科学心理学出现之前，尼采是一位令人惊叹的人性观察家，他写了关于为什么我们使用货币术语来描述人们受到惩罚、偿还他们对社会的债务的文章。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm.
嗯。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
People shouldn't get off scot-free.
人们不应该逍遥法外。
Scot is a word for tax.
Scot 是税收的意思。
What is that?
那是什么？
And what he theorized is that what you're being paid back with is the pleasure of seeing a fellow human hurt.
他的理论是，你得到的回报是看到人类同胞受到伤害的快乐。
You hurt someone, and we can't undo that hurt.
你伤害了某人，我们无法挽回这种伤害。
We can't magic it away.
我们无法用魔法将其消除。
How does them being punished pay their debt to society?
受到惩罚的他们如何偿还对社会的亏欠？
And he wrote, maybe it's that cruelty is a currency, and that all of us have a primitive desire to be the punisher, and that's what's being repaid.
他写道，也许残酷是一种货币，我们所有人都有一种原始的欲望，想要成为惩罚者，而这就是所得到的回报。
Blew my mind when I was reading it, and now that I see it, I see that everywhere.
当我读到它时，我感到震惊，现在我看到它，我到处都看到它。
I think we see that in cancel culture mobs.
我认为我们在取消文化暴民中看到了这一点。
I think we see that in politics.
我认为我们在政治中看到了这一点。
I think we see, in America, a real lust to make other people suffer, and finding ways that they're guilty that allows us to feel entitled to that pleasure of punishing them or entitled to that pleasure of witnessing them being punished absolutely runs through our culture, top to bottom, both sides of the political spectrum.
我认为，在美国，我们看到了一种真正渴望让他人受苦的欲望，并找到让他们有罪的方式，让我们感到有权享受惩罚他们的快乐，或者有权享受目睹他们受到惩罚的快乐，这绝对贯穿我们的文化，从上到下，政治光谱的双方。
One of my favorite books that I read when I was writing my book is this book called, One of Us, and it's about the Norwegian mass shooter who shot all of those children at a summer camp.
我在写书时最喜欢读的一本书是《我们中的一个》，这本书讲述了一名挪威大规模枪击案凶手在夏令营中枪杀了所有儿童的故事。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm.
嗯。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Who was someone who was afflicted with terrible luck.
这是一个运气不佳的人。
From the time he was a child, he was described as someone who had a temper, who was socially odd.
从他还是个孩子的时候起，他就被描述为一个脾气暴躁、社交古怪的人。
His mother was very unstable.
他的母亲情绪非常不稳定。
A lot of nature and nurture and circumstance conspired.
许多先天、后天和环境共同作用。
And during his trial, they had this whole debate about is he insane?
在他的审判期间，他们就他疯了吗？
Is he not insane?
他不是疯了吗？
And they had a psychologist who gave testimony, and he said, "No matter what's happening, he's one of us.
他们有一位心理学家提供证词，他说：“无论发生什么，他都是我们中的一员。
He's part of our society.
他是我们社会的一部分。
So how are we going to deal with him without exiling him, throwing away the key?" And all of the examples that you described are people trying to make this decision about who do we keep in our group?
那么我们该如何处理他，而不把他放逐，扔掉钥匙呢？”您描述的所有例子都是人们试图做出关于我们将谁保留在我们的团队中的决定？
Do they have enough for us that it's worth keeping them?
他们为我们提供的足够多值得保留吗？
And who do we get to exile and then feel entitled to feel the pleasure of watching them suffer?
我们应该放逐谁，然后又觉得有权享受观看他们受苦的乐趣？
And I think that's a fundamentally inhuman way to look at art.
我认为这是一种根本上不人道的看待艺术的方式。
I think that we are a society, and that means everyone, even people who do terrible things, they're still one of us.
我认为我们是一个社会，这意味着每个人，即使是那些做了可怕事情的人，他们仍然是我们中的一员。
They're still one of God's creatures.
他们仍然是上帝的创造物之一。
They're still part of our human circle.
他们仍然是我们人类圈子的一部分。
But how do we shift our culture away from this glee at punishment?
但我们如何才能改变我们的文化，摆脱这种对惩罚的欢欣鼓舞呢？
I don't know.
我不知道。
If you want to talk about sin, I think that's the original sin of American culture, is our delight in punitiveness.
如果你要谈论罪孽，我认为这就是美国文化的原罪，就是我们对惩罚的喜爱。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Incredible.
难以置信。
Incredibly sad, incredibly important, and an incredible opportunity for us, hopefully, to navigate out of what seems to be one of the deeper troughs of this that we've been in at least since I've been alive.
令人难以置信的悲伤，极其重要，对我们来说是一个难以置信的机会，希望能够走出至少从我活着以来我们一直处于的更深的低谷之一。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yes.
是的。
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I want to just ask about this cruelty currency-
我只想问一下这种残酷的货币——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
because I learned a long time ago that one needs to be very careful about coming up with evolutionary just-so stories.
因为我很久以前就知道，在想出进化论的故事时需要非常小心。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
It's so easy to do.
这很容易做到。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yes.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
It's so seductive, and it can be oh so wrong .
它是如此诱人，但也可能是错误的。
So with that stated, you said that if somebody observes somebody else being harmed, it activates areas of the brain that are associated with empathy and presumably a surge of hormones and neurotransmitters that make us feel bad.
话虽如此，你说如果有人观察到别人受到伤害，就会激活大脑中与同理心相关的区域，并且可能会导致激素和神经递质激增，让我们感觉不好。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
If that person was a perpetrator, and we're aware of that, then it feels good.
如果那个人是肇事者，并且我们知道这一点，那么感觉很好。
It's not just neutral.
这不仅仅是中立的。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Right.
对。
Yes.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
It's the inverse of that.
这是相反的。
And then you said that Nietzsche described it as a cruelty currency.
然后你说尼采将其描述为一种残酷的货币。
And I've been wondering about something, and forgive me, I don't know if I can articulate this very well because I haven't thought about it out loud.
我一直在想一些事情，请原谅我，我不知道我是否能很好地表达这个问题，因为我没有大声思考过。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Just think through it.
想清楚吧。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
If we return to the idea that every species, including our own, wants to make more of itself, care for its young, and propagate, that there are some forces there, clearly.
如果我们回到这样的观点，即每个物种，包括我们自己的物种，都希望自我成长、照顾后代并繁衍后代，那么很明显，那里存在着一些力量。
I've often thought about dopamine as the universal currency of reward, and certainly-
我经常认为多巴胺是奖励的通用货币，当然-
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Mm
毫米
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
there are other chemical currencies of punishment, and maybe drops in dopamine are punishment and increases or et cetera.
还有其他化学货币的惩罚，也许多巴胺的下降是惩罚和增加，等等。
Overly simplified, but I think we have enough data to support those statements.
过于简化，但我认为我们有足够的数据来支持这些说法。
And then I think about how we punish people, and let's think about on a hockey rink, you put someone in a penalty box.
然后我想到我们如何惩罚人们，让我们想想在曲棍球场上，你把某人放在禁区里。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
You take them out of play.
你让他们退出游戏。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
In society, somebody could be canceled, either permanently or they got to take a break.
在社会中，某人可能会被取消，要么是永久取消，要么是暂时休息一下。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Or somebody's put in jail.
或者有人被关进监狱。
They're taken out of society.
他们被带出了社会。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Several examples came up already today of people who were able to propagate their genes or not propagate their genes, depending on honest, like finding a partner, making the decision about, consciously or unconsciously, their genetics, their personality, et cetera, and okay, I'm going to create children with this person.
今天已经出现了几个例子，人们能够传播他们的基因或不传播他们的基因，这取决于诚实，比如寻找伴侣，有意识或无意识地做出决定，他们的基因，他们的个性等等，好吧，我要和这个人生孩子。
I'm going to create new life.
我要创造新的生活。
Versus the IVF doc who cheated in one of the most egregious examples I've ever heard, creating new life.
与体外受精医生的作弊行为是我听过的最令人震惊的例子之一，创造了新生命。
And I think about-
我想——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
maybe the currency that is dopamine is about energy and the opportunity to create more life.
也许多巴胺这种货币与能量和创造更多生命的机会有关。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Mm.
嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
It's like life energy.
这就像生命能量。
It gets a little bit woo.
它有点令人向往。
But when I think about it, it's like if somebody gets something by virtue of their hard work, we expect and want them to be rewarded for it.
但当我想到这一点时，就像如果有人通过努力工作获得了一些东西，我们期望并希望他们得到回报。
If they lie to get it, like a Bernie Madoff-
如果他们为了得到它而撒谎，就像伯尼·麦道夫那样——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
who admitted to lying, so I don't think I'm going to get in any trouble by saying.
谁承认撒谎了，所以我认为我说出来不会惹上任何麻烦。
I think he agreed he lied to get all that money.
我认为他同意他撒谎是为了得到所有这些钱。
Then he robbed people of currency.
然后他抢了人们的钱。
He got a lot of currency and we hate that.
他有很多货币，我们讨厌这一点。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
He got more life energy.
他得到了更多的生命能量。
And when we're punished, we lose, even if there's not an explicit behavioral punishment, that hopefully the shame, the regret, it takes us out of the running a bit.
当我们受到惩罚时，我们就输了，即使没有明确的行为惩罚，但愿羞耻、遗憾会让我们稍微退出比赛。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And people will play these games.
人们会玩这些游戏。
They'll try and manipulate around this.
他们会尝试围绕这个问题进行操纵。
But a lot of life is about doing things that give you more opportunity, that give you more life energy, that allow you to move forward.
但生活的很多事情就是做一些能给你更多机会、给你更多生命能量、让你前进的事情。
And a lot of the ways that we punish people is by trying to take away-
我们惩罚人们的很多方式就是试图夺走——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yes
是的
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
life energy, forgive the term, that we feel you didn't deserve that.
生命能量，请原谅这个词，我们觉得你不值得。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yes.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Or you did something so that you shouldn't be able to continue to propagate your life energy.
或者你做了一些事情，让你无法继续传播你的生命能量。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And so it gets in, I'm weaving it partially in with reproduction, but it's really about resources for your family so that your kids can have more.
所以它进入了，我将它部分地与繁殖编织在一起，但这实际上是关于你的家庭的资源，以便你的孩子可以拥有更多。
But I do think that in the end, what we're competing for is energy, and what we're punishing for is people that we think got it unfairly.
但我确实认为，最终我们争夺的是能源，而我们惩罚的是那些我们认为不公平地获得能源的人。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yes.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And we definitely reward people that we feel gave us energy through a song, through art, et cetera, with money, which is really opportunity.
我们肯定会用金钱奖励那些我们认为通过歌曲、艺术等给予我们能量的人，这确实是机会。
There's nothing inherently valuable about it.
它本身没有什么价值。
Even gold backing it doesn't do that.
即使有黄金支持也不能做到这一点。
So, I feel like in the end, we're playing an evolutionary game for energy and the opportunity to propagate our genes.
所以，我觉得最终，我们正在玩一场关于能量和传播基因的机会的进化游戏。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Okay, so just some responses to that.
好的，所以只是对此的一些回应。
Like, as you were talking, I was reminded of certain things.
就像你说话的时候，我想起了某些事情。
If you look at punishment, I won't even say punishment.
如果你看惩罚，我什至不会说惩罚。
If you look at enforcement, if you look at enforcement of cooperative norms in non-human species, even in not even in animals, a really consistent feature of that is reducing the punished organism's fitness opportunities.
如果你看看执行情况，如果你看看非人类物种（甚至动物）中合作规范的执行情况，其中一个真正一致的特征是减少受惩罚有机体的适应机会。
I'm going to block your access to mates.
我会阻止你与朋友的接触。
I'm going to eat your eggs so that, I'm going to...
我要吃你的鸡蛋，这样我就……
Wasps reproduce via figs, and if the fig tree detects that the wasp is being a lazy pollinator, it will rot and wither away the figs that the wasp has laid its eggs in.
黄蜂通过无花果繁殖，如果无花果树发现黄蜂是一个懒惰的传粉者，它就会腐烂并枯萎黄蜂产卵的无花果。
It's denying it reproductive opportunity as a retaliation against fitness.
它剥夺了它的繁殖机会，作为对健康的报复。
So I think what you're picking up on is like, the ways that we punish people rob them of fitness opportunities.
所以我认为你所了解到的是，我们惩罚人们的方式剥夺了他们的健身机会。
That's something that we see as an evolutionary through line.
我们认为这是一条进化的路线。
If we think about when we're trying to understand animal societies, what counts as a punishing behavior?
如果我们想一想，当我们试图了解动物社会时，什么算作惩罚行为？
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Is it reducing their fitness opportunities of the punished thing?
难道是减少了他们健身机会的受罚嘛？
But the thing about our language is just saying, like, penalty box.
但我们语言的特点只是说，比如，惩罚框。
A hockey player is put into a penalty box.
一名曲棍球运动员被放入禁区。
They don't get beaten with a red hot poker when they're in there.
当他们在那里时，他们不会被烧红的扑克殴打。
They're just not allowed to play the game for a period of time.
他们只是在一段时间内不被允许玩游戏。
And I think this is where people get somewhat confused between retributive punishment and boundaries to keep the person and their teammates, which is all of us, since we're in a society, safe.
我认为这就是人们在报应性惩罚和保护个人及其队友（因为我们生活在社会中的我们所有人）安全的界限之间感到有些困惑的地方。
Right?
正确的？
So I'm not against people being in prison necessarily.
所以我并不一定反对人们入狱。
The prison abolitionists will be mad at me for saying that, but we've never had a society of any sort where there isn't some mechanism to say, we need to be protected from this person, and this person needs an opportunity to have a timeout from society while they reflect on how they're going to behave differently in the future.
监狱废奴主义者会因为我这么说而生气，但我们从来没有一个社会没有某种机制可以说，我们需要受到保护，免受这个人的侵害，而这个人需要一个机会，在社会中暂停，同时反思自己未来将如何采取不同的行为。
But we don't have to design that system the way that we designed it here, right?
但我们不必按照我们在这里设计的方式来设计该系统，对吧？
There's this Instagram meme which is, is this a Scandinavian prison or a London hotel room?
Instagram 上有这样一条表情包：这是斯堪的纳维亚监狱还是伦敦酒店房间？
And people can't tell the difference.
人们无法区分。
It's just a surveillance dome on the ceiling.
这只是天花板上的一个监视球。
And that speaks to something, which is that the purpose is not to make the person suffer.
这说明了一些事情，那就是目的不是让人们受苦。
The purpose is to put them in the penalty box to protect the rest of us from their behavior.
目的是将他们置于惩罚箱中，以保护我们其他人免受他们行为的影响。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
How do we get it so that our reactions to each other when we're holding boundaries is more like you're in the penalty box and less like, I want to make you suffer and I'm going to feel delighted that you're suffering?
我们怎样才能做到这一点，以便当我们坚守界限时，我们对彼此的反应更像是你在禁区里，而不是“我想让你受苦，我会因为你受苦而感到高兴”？
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
The Danes are wonderful people, and do seem to have this sense of morality and decency.
丹麦人是很棒的人民，而且似乎确实有这种道德感和正派感。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
And social contract.
还有社会契约。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And social contract.
还有社会契约。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Although, in fairness, I think there's been some criticism that some northern European countries have been too lenient on violent offenders and it's made society more dangerous.
不过，公平地说，我认为有人批评一些北欧国家对暴力犯罪者过于宽容，这使社会变得更加危险。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
This is a very complicated literature, and I'm not saying that it's just their prison system.
这是一本非常复杂的文献，我并不是说这只是他们的监狱系统。
But their rates of violent crime are astonishingly low compared to America as a whole, and particularly as compared to Texas.
但与整个美国相比，特别是与德克萨斯州相比，他们的暴力犯罪率低得惊人。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Yeah, I think that these templates for punishment versus reward, because we haven't really talked much about reward-
是的，我认为这些惩罚与奖励的模板，因为我们还没有真正讨论过奖励-
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
I'm realizing.
我正在意识到。
The punishment piece Can be scaled.
惩罚件可以缩放。
Penalty box versus-
罚球区 vs-
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
flogging.
鞭打。
Forgive me for telling you another story.
请原谅我告诉你另一个故事。
I've been reading a history of the counterculture movement mostly in California recently.
我最近读了一本关于反文化运动的历史，主要是在加利福尼亚州。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Oh, interesting.
哦，有趣。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
But also the human psychology evolution movement, and it takes us to Big Sur inevitably.
也是人类心理进化运动，它不可避免地把我们带到了大苏尔。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And some interesting-- Joseph Campbell was there and worked there and wrote there.
还有一些有趣的事情——约瑟夫·坎贝尔在那里工作并在那里写作。
But Hunter Thompson was a security guard up there at a-
但亨特·汤普森是那里的一名保安——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
A security guard?
保安？
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Yeah.
是的。
At 20 years old, he was hired as a security guard because he had a gun, and he could keep order on this place where people would come to use the baths, and it wasn't quite counterculture yet, but there's a story, and I believe it's true, that he was making some homophobic remarks, and there were some gay bodybuilders up from Venice, California.
20岁时，他被聘为保安，因为他有枪，他可以维持这个人们会来洗澡的地方的秩序，这还不是很反主流文化，但有一个故事，我相信这是真的，他发表了一些仇视同性恋的言论，还有一些来自加利福尼亚州威尼斯的同性恋健美运动员。
So the group decided what his punishment would be.
因此，小组决定了对他的惩罚。
His punishment would be that these bodybuilders were going to hold him over the cliffs above the ocean- ...
他的惩罚将是这些健美运动员将把他推到海洋上方的悬崖上——......
which is maybe 300, 400 feet to his drop-
距离他的落点可能有 300、400 英尺——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Oh, my God
哦，我的上帝
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
until he renounced homophobia.
直到他放弃对同性恋的恐惧。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Oh.
哦。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Which eventually he did.
最终他做到了。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And then they let him back on, and then he was able to live on and work, and they're like, "Okay, he's cured."
然后他们让他回来，然后他就能够继续生活和工作，他们就像，“好吧，他痊愈了。”
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
So it's a ridiculous example.
所以这是一个可笑的例子。
On the other hand, everyone participated in this decision.
另一方面，每个人都参与了这个决定。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And apparently, he was very frightened.
显然，他非常害怕。
And I don't know, I didn't know him, but apparently, he adjusted at least his behavior.
我不知道，我不认识他，但显然，他至少调整了自己的行为。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Kind of an interesting, silly-
有点有趣、愚蠢——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
funny enough but serious enough example.
足够有趣但足够严肃的例子。
Nowadays, it would be very different, right?
如今，情况会非常不同，对吗？
He would've lost his job, and no amount of apology would've rescued his job.
他会丢掉工作，再多的道歉也无法保住他的工作。
Which on the one hand, you could say, okay, well, he's homophobic.
一方面，你可以说，好吧，他恐同。
They didn't want anyone homophobic working there.
他们不希望任何恐同者在那里工作。
On the other hand, the opportunity to potentially convert his thinking is lost.
另一方面，他失去了潜在转变思想的机会。
And so I think that's what you're talking about, that there are certain forms of punishment that give the opportunity not just to protect others, but to really help people evolve their moral concept.
所以我认为这就是你所说的，某些形式的惩罚不仅提供了保护他人的机会，而且真正帮助人们发展他们的道德观念。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yes.
是的。
I think sometimes people talk about this as the difference between a backward-looking conception of justice versus a forward-looking conception of justice.
我认为有时人们会将此视为向后看的正义观与前瞻性的正义观之间的区别。
So a backward-looking conception of justice, you are often caught in this, again, this rescue blame trap, which is does he deserve to be punished?
那么一个向后看的正义观，你常常会陷入这样、又这样、这种救援归咎的陷阱，这是他应该受到的惩罚吗？
Or maybe he doesn't deserve to be punished that badly because of these extenuating circumstances.
或者也许他不应该因为这些情有可原的情况而受到如此严厉的惩罚。
Oh, but he did this horrible thing.
哦，但他做了这件可怕的事。
He made these homophobic comments.
他发表了这些恐同言论。
Whereas a forward-looking conception of justice is, given that we are where we are today, and given the harm that he has caused, and given the brain and the body that he has, how do we best maximize our chances of other people being protected from future harm and him changing?
然而，前瞻性的正义观念是，考虑到我们今天所处的位置，考虑到他所造成的伤害，考虑到他所拥有的大脑和身体，我们如何才能最好地最大限度地保护其他人免受未来伤害和他改变的机会？
Even if he doesn't change in his heart of hearts, changing the words that come out of his mouth, taking responsibility for what he says.
即使他内心没有改变，改变他嘴里说的话，为他所说的话承担责任。
The rule in my house with my kids is you're not allowed to tell me about what your brother did.
我家和孩子们的规矩是你不可以告诉我你哥哥做了什么。
Your brother will tell me about what your brother did, and you'll tell me about what you did, and then we're going to talk about what you want to happen in the future, and then we're going to talk about what everyone needs to do so that we can not have this argument.
你哥哥会告诉我你哥哥做了什么，你也会告诉我你做了什么，然后我们要讨论你将来想要发生什么，然后我们要讨论每个人都需要做什么，这样我们就不会发生这种争论。
But this constant attempt to figure out how much does he deserve to hurt, I feel like it's an abyss.
但不断地试图弄清楚他应该受到多少伤害，我觉得这是一个深渊。
You just drown in it.
你只是淹没在其中。
And you drown in it with yourself too.
而你自己也深陷其中。
If you've made comments that you regret yourself, how much do I deserve to be punished for that versus, but I can remember all the extenuating circumstances.
如果你发表了让自己后悔的评论，我应该为此受到多少惩罚，但我可以记住所有情有可原的情况。
No. It's what do I need to do better in the future, and what do other people need to know that they are safe around me now?
不。这是我将来需要做得更好的事情，以及其他人需要知道他们现在在我身边是安全的吗？
Which might be a penalty box, but thinking about punishment not as, again, it's not about some justice for attempt to weigh the scales in the past.
这可能是一个惩罚箱，但考虑惩罚并不是因为过去试图衡量天平的正义。
It's about how do we make things better in the future?
这是关于我们如何让未来变得更好？
How do we keep people safe and repair things in the future?
未来我们如何保证人们的安全并修复问题？
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Before moving to reward, one thing that occurs to me is people seem to integrate what people deserve now on the backdrop of all the shit they had to put up with in the past.
在转向奖励之前，我想到的一件事是，人们似乎将他们现在应得的东西与他们过去不得不忍受的所有狗屎的背景结合起来。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Not just from that person.
不只是来自那个人。
I feel like we're all integrating on the backdrop of how we were treated, how much pain and frustration we've had to endure, and that weaves in with how much forgiveness we have for when people screw up or when they're being just jerks, or they're being outright awful.
我觉得我们都在融入这样的背景：我们受到了怎样的待遇，我们不得不忍受多少痛苦和挫折，当人们搞砸了，当他们只是混蛋，或者他们简直太糟糕时，我们有多少宽恕。
So I feel like it's an almost impossible problem to wrap our arms around, except at the very extremes.
所以我觉得这几乎是一个不可能解决的问题，除非是在极端的情况下。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
So I think when people feel that they've been victimized, accurately or inaccurately, that amps up that retributive urge.
所以我认为，当人们感觉自己受到了受害者的影响时，无论准确还是不准确，都会增强报复的冲动。
And again, I'm not saying that this is just some people.
再说一次，我并不是说这只是某些人。
I think this is part of being human, that when we feel hurt, we want to hurt back, and we want the person that hurt us to be hurt, and we're trying to keep some ledger of power and victimhood in our minds.
我认为这是人类的一部分，当我们感到受伤时，我们想要回报，我们希望伤害我们的人也受到伤害，我们试图在我们的脑海中保留一些权力和受害者的账本。
I think that's, to some extent, an inescapable emotion of being human, but we don't just have to respond on our emotions.
我认为，在某种程度上，这是人类不可避免的情感，但我们不仅仅需要对我们的情感做出反应。
We don't have to let that lead, right?
我们不必让这种情况主导，对吧？
We don't have to let that run the show.
我们不必让它主导一切。
So I do think that you're right, that in all situations, we're thinking about the situation and also the backdrop of the situation and thinking very much about power.
所以我确实认为你是对的，在所有情况下，我们都会考虑情况以及情况的背景，并非常考虑权力。
Going back to what we can learn about punishment from looking at non-human animals, or not even not animals, even trees, even bacteria, is who is punished and who is the punisher is always a statement about the social roles Within a group, and those social roles are structured by power.
回到我们可以通过观察非人类动物，甚至不是动物，甚至树木，甚至细菌来了解惩罚的内容，谁受到惩罚以及谁是惩罚者始终是关于群体内社会角色的陈述，而这些社会角色是由权力构成的。
I talk in my book about how you can have alpha queen wasps and they eat some proportion of the eggs of the beta queens within their colony, but if she eats too many of the eggs, her sisters will bite her.
我在我的书中谈到如何拥有阿尔法蜂王黄蜂，它们会吃掉蜂群内部分贝塔蜂王的卵，但如果她吃掉太多的卵，她的姐妹们就会咬她。
They will be like, "Okay.
他们会说：“好吧。
You're allowed this much power, but no more, and we're going to enforce those limits." So I think a lot of the debates that we're having about punishment in our society, who should be punished, are really debates about who gets to have power and to what degree-
你被允许拥有这么多权力，但不能再多了，我们将强制执行这些限制。”所以我认为我们社会中关于惩罚的很多辩论，谁应该受到惩罚，实际上是关于谁拥有权力以及权力到什么程度的辩论——
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm-hmm
嗯嗯
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
...
...
in our society.
在我们的社会中。
What's interesting to me is how much the language of choice is leveraged or used in those debates.
我感兴趣的是在这些辩论中所选择的语言有多少被利用或使用。
Once you listen for it, it's really, really common that as soon as someone wants to justify punishment, they don't say, "I'm justifying this to prevent harm," or, "I'm justifying this to maintain or change a power structure." They say something about how the person being punished chose that.
一旦你听过，就会发现，一旦有人想要为惩罚辩护，他们不会说：“我证明这是为了防止伤害”，或者“我证明这是为了维持或改变权力结构”。他们讲述了受惩罚的人如何选择这一点。
They chose to be there.
他们选择在那里。
They chose this thing.
他们选择了这个东西。
I think a lot of our focus on choice in American culture is really an interest in being entitled to punish people.
我认为，在美国文化中，我们对选择的关注实际上是出于有权惩罚他人的利益。
If you're on a plane and they're trying to get people to check their bags, they'll never say that the airline chose to overbook the plane.
如果你在飞机上，他们试图让人们托运行李，他们永远不会说航空公司选择超额预订飞机。
They'll say, "If you've chosen to bring more than one bag with you, then you're going to need to check it." Right?
他们会说：“如果您选择携带不止一件行李，那么您需要检查一下。”正确的？
Which is like, you chose, so therefore, you can be inconvenienced.
这就像，你选择了，因此，你可能会感到不便。
You'll hear it everywhere now.
现在你到处都会听到它。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I'm going to listen for this.
我要听听这个。
Okay.
好的。
Reward.
报酬。
The good stuff.
好东西。
When I was a kid, we'd go to dinner, and we didn't go out to dinner very often.
当我还是个孩子的时候，我们会去吃饭，但我们不经常出去吃饭。
It just wasn't our family.
只是这不是我们的家人。
But when we did, we could get soda.
但当我们这样做时，我们可以获得苏打水。
We couldn't have it at home.
我们不能在家里拥有它。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And I would drink some soda, then my sister would make sure that she drank a little less soda so that at any point in the meal she had more soda than me- ...
我会喝一些苏打水，然后我姐姐会确保她少喝一点苏打水，这样在吃饭的任何时候她都会比我喝更多的苏打水-......
even though we started off with more soda.
尽管我们一开始喝了更多的苏打水。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
That is such a classic sibling thing.
这真是经典的姐弟恋啊。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Okay.
好的。
So she's a wonderful person.
所以她是一个很棒的人。
I adore my sister, and yet she had to win that competition.
我很喜欢我的妹妹，但她必须赢得那场比赛。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And so-
所以——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
That's some primal stuff there
那是一些原始的东西
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
That's some primal stuff.
那是一些原始的东西。
I don't know if it's the hypothalamus, but it's- ...
我不知道是不是下丘脑，但它是——...
it's definitely-
这绝对是——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Do my parents love me more?
我的父母更爱我吗？
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Yeah.
是的。
Exactly.
确切地。
And if you feed two dogs at once-
如果你同时喂两只狗-
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
because I had a bulldog mastiff, my girlfriend at the time had a pit bull, and whoever got food first, and I swear they're paying attention to the size of the little-
因为我养了一只斗牛犬獒，我当时的女朋友养了一只斗牛犬，无论谁先拿到食物，我发誓他们会注意小狗的大小——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yes
是的
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
sip.
啜饮。
But I mean-
但我的意思是——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yes
是的
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
they are processing that at laser speed.
他们正在以激光速度处理它。
What's going on?
这是怎么回事？
We pay attention to how much people are rewarded.
我们关注人们获得了多少奖励。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yes.
是的。
We do.
我们做到了。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And we get something about rewards that go beyond just the reward.
我们得到的奖励不仅仅是奖励。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Again, we are a species that's evolved in cooperation, and there's really nothing worse for a cooperative society than freeloading.
再说一次，我们是一个在合作中进化的物种，对于合作社会来说，没有什么比贪图便宜更糟糕的了。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Someone being rewarded without putting effort into the collective.
某人没有为集体付出努力而获得奖励。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
There's this great study that was run by these economists where people were put into these basically online kind of societies where they could interact with one another, and you could pick which village did you want to join, and you could switch villages at any time.
这些经济学家进行了一项伟大的研究，人们被放入这些基本上是在线的社会中，他们可以彼此互动，你可以选择你想加入哪个村庄，并且可以随时切换村庄。
And in both villages, everyone who was in that online society, online game, was given an allocation of digital money, and they had to decide how much are they going to donate from their personal wallet into the collective.
在这两个村庄中，网络社会、网络游戏中的每个人都获得了数字货币的分配，他们必须决定从个人钱包中向集体捐赠多少。
And so that's a classic economic trade-off game, which is what's best for my self-interest is if I don't contribute anything and everyone else contributes the maximum, and then I get to benefit from the common good, right?
所以这是一个经典的经济权衡游戏，对我的自身利益来说最好的就是我不贡献任何东西而其他人贡献最大，然后我就可以从共同利益中受益，对吗？
That's the freeloading problem.
这就是贪图便宜的问题。
But if everyone does that, then there's nothing in the common good.
但如果每个人都这样做，那就没有什么共同利益了。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Okay.
好的。
So in one of these societies, this is back to reward and punishment, people were given the ability to see how much other people donated and could pay to punish people who they didn't think had donated enough.
因此，在这些社会中，这又回到了奖励和惩罚的问题，人们有能力看到其他人捐赠了多少，并且可以支付惩罚那些他们认为捐赠不足的人。
So we're in a society, and if we're in the punishing society, then I can see that you got rewarded with this, and then you didn't contribute enough of it back to the collective good, and then I could pay my own money to take away some of yours.
所以我们处在一个社会中，如果我们处在惩罚性社会中，那么我可以看到你得到了回报，然后你没有为集体利益贡献足够的钱，然后我可以用自己的钱拿走你的一些。
And in the other society, people got to make their decisions, but they were anonymous, and you couldn't respond to other people's decisions.
在另一个社会中，人们必须做出自己的决定，但他们是匿名的，你无法对其他人的决定做出回应。
The rules are transparent.
规则是透明的。
It's not mysterious what's happening.
发生的事情并不神秘。
And at the beginning of the experiment, participants are allowed to pick, which village do I want to be in?
在实验开始时，参与者可以选择，我想在哪个村庄？
And they think, "I'm against punishment, and I don't want other people to know my business, so I'm going to go to the non-punishing society." And then it basically collapses in three rounds because everyone's keeping their stuff to themselves and not contributing to the good.
他们想，“我反对惩罚，我不想让别人知道我的事，所以我要去非惩罚社会。”然后它基本上在三轮后就崩溃了，因为每个人都把自己的东西留给自己，而不是为善做出贡献。
A few people pick the society where they have the opportunity to punish from the very beginning, and they immediately establish a strong norm of if you get a lot, you give a lot.
有些人从一开始就选择了一个有机会惩罚的社会，他们立即建立了一个强有力的规范：如果你得到很多，你就会给予很多。
There's not going to be some asymmetry between how much you're taking, how much you're keeping for yourself, and how much you're contributing to our collective society.
你拿走多少、为自己保留多少以及为我们的集体社会贡献多少之间不会存在任何不对称。
By the end of the game, the non-punishing society has collapsed, and everyone has migrated to the punishing society.
到游戏结束时，非惩罚社会已经崩溃，所有人都迁移到了惩罚社会。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Incredible.
难以置信。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
And they are incredibly attuned to freeloading.
而且他们非常喜欢吃白吃。
So your sister is like, "He's not getting more soda than me, is he?" And if I'm going to feel something, I want to feel like I have more soda than my brother does.
所以你姐姐会说，“他喝的苏打水并不比我多，是吗？”如果我想要感觉到什么，我想要感觉我比我哥哥有更多的苏打水。
I told my kids last week, I was like, "I'm going to just start acting like a capricious dictator and just make no more attempts to keep things even Steven so that you can understand what unfair really feels like," because I'm so sick of this, "Jonah got half a- ...
上周我告诉我的孩子们，我当时想，“我要开始表现得像个反复无常的独裁者，不再尝试让史蒂文也能保留一切，这样你就能明白不公平的真正感觉，”因为我对此感到厌倦，“乔纳有一半......
chocolate chip more than me in this cookie." Why is seeing someone punished if they've done something wrong, why dopamine?
这块饼干里的巧克力片比我还多。”为什么看到做错事的人受到惩罚，为什么是多巴胺？
Why that?
为什么呢？
It's because it is so foundational to our survival as a cooperative species to have social norms and see that they're enforced.
这是因为，作为一个合作物种，制定社会规范并确保这些规范得到执行，对于我们的生存至关重要。
And seeing someone get rewarded when it doesn't feel like it's fair, I think activates all of our "Freeloader alert, freeloader alert, we cannot have this" module.
看到有人在感觉不公平的情况下获得奖励，我认为激活了我们所有的“贪图便宜者警报，贪图便宜者警报，我们不能有这个”模块。
Paul Bloom, who's a child psychologist, has a great paper where he says people prefer inequality to unfairness.
儿童心理学家保罗·布鲁姆（Paul Bloom）发表了一篇很棒的论文，他说人们更喜欢不平等而不是不公平。
It's not things being unequal that they necessarily dislike, it's things being unfair.
他们不一定不喜欢不平等的事物，而是不公平的事物。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
It's when the inequality feels unfair-
当不平等感觉不公平时——
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm-hmm
嗯嗯
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
...
...
that people are like, "No."
人们会说“不”。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
These days, I love observing online behavior.
这些天，我喜欢观察网上行为。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
That makes one of us.
这就是我们中的一员。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
It's the-
这是——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
So dystopian
如此反乌托邦
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
it's just the scientist in me.
这就是我内心的科学家。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Well, I feel like there's something to be learned from it if one has a little bit of, like if you-
嗯，我觉得如果一个人有一点点，就可以从中学到一些东西，比如如果你——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
If you can have some distance
如果可以有一段距离
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
have some distance from it.
与它有一定的距离。
And I think, I don't spend all my time in the comments section, but it's sometimes interesting things play out and you can see this.
我想，我不会把所有的时间都花在评论部分，但有时会发生有趣的事情，你可以看到这一点。
And it's really this concept of who gets money, attention, et cetera-
这实际上是关于谁获得金钱、关注等等的概念——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Who gets what
谁得到什么
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
which is really life energy and gets to keep playing the game of life-
这是真正的生命能量，可以继续玩生命游戏-
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
versus who's getting batted back and penalty boxed.
与谁被反击并受到处罚。
And I think fairness lets us rest, the sense that there's fairness-
我认为公平让我们休息，感受到公平——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Mm-hmm
嗯嗯
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
lets us rest.
让我们休息吧。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I think that some people more than others, like the sense of seeing injustice, feeling injustice activates people, and it activates them in a direction, typically, that they don't get paid for, that is taking away from their other life energy.
我认为有些人比其他人更喜欢看到不公正的感觉，感受到不公正会激活人们，并且它会激活他们朝着一个通常不会得到报酬的方向，这会夺走他们的其他生命能量。
The media, I'm not going to blame social media, or the algorithms.
媒体，我不会责怪社交媒体或算法。
That's no longer a good argument, in my opinion.
在我看来，这不再是一个好的论点。
But I do think that there are monetization systems that try and hijack people's sense of injustice to drive more clicks and views-
但我确实认为，有些货币化系统试图劫持人们的不公正感，以推动更多的点击和观看——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Mm-hmm
嗯嗯
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
more advertising, and that's how you get people moving forward.
更多的广告，这就是你推动人们前进的方式。
But they're not really-- The illusion is that they're moving forward.
但他们并不是真的——幻觉是他们正在前进。
In fact, the financial incentive there is to just keep people on a treadmill where they feel like they see more injustice, and they're angrier and angrier, and they just continue-
事实上，经济激励只是让人们继续跑步，让他们觉得自己看到了更多的不公正，他们越来越愤怒，他们只是继续——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Mm-hmm
嗯嗯
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
and nothing changes.
一切都没有改变。
And I'm not dystopian, but I think one has to be careful not to get caught up in that.
我不是反乌托邦主义者，但我认为人们必须小心，不要陷入其中。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Mm.
嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
It's very different than a game, like a game of football or who gets more soda.
这与游戏非常不同，例如足球比赛或谁得到更多苏打水。
I think that right now who gets rewarded seems to be more under control than who gets punished.
我认为现在谁得到奖励似乎比谁受到惩罚更容易受到控制。
I think a lot of people feel like the bad guys and gals are outside of our control, so now it's a question of just making sure people don't get rewarded.
我认为很多人都觉得坏人和女孩不在我们的控制范围内，所以现在的问题是确保人们不会得到奖励。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
As you're talking, I'm thinking again about that study I was describing where you have the two villages.
当你说话时，我再次思考我所描述的两个村庄的研究。
And the people who are most influential in setting the norms of the society that ended up thriving in this online game were people who engaged in a lot of public punishing and rewarding behavior from the very beginning.
而那些对制定最终在这个网络游戏中蓬勃发展的社会规范最有影响力的人，是那些从一开始就参与了大量公开惩罚和奖励行为的人。
And again, I think this goes back to punishment and reward is a way of establishing power.
再说一次，我认为这可以追溯到惩罚和奖励是建立权力的一种方式。
It is a way of asserting power over what are the rules.
这是一种对规则行使权力的方式。
What are the rules in this society?
这个社会有什么规则？
What are we doing here?
我们在这里做什么？
I'm picking a society that has these rules, and I'm going to enforce them.
我选择一个有这些规则的社会，并且我将执行它们。
We now live in this community collapse where we don't live in isolated villages.
我们现在生活在这个社区崩溃的环境中，但我们并不生活在偏僻的村庄里。
We don't live in small tribes where we interact with each other reciprocally over time in dense kin networks.
我们并不生活在小部落中，随着时间的推移，我们在密集的亲属网络中相互互动。
We are massively connected with a lot of one-time interactions between strangers.
我们与陌生人之间的大量一次性互动有着巨大的联系。
And as you were talking, I was just like, is that taking a psychology that's evolved to be in connection in a small community, where the purpose of rewarding and punishing is to establish the norms for your group?
正如你所说，我就想，这是否是一种在小社区中发展起来的心理学，其中奖励和惩罚的目的是为你的团队建立规范？
But now there isn't a group.
但现在没有群了。
There's no one group.
没有一个团体。
They're not a cohesive group.
他们不是一个有凝聚力的团体。
And so people are, they're essentially arguing about what are the rules are going to be.
所以人们本质上是在争论规则将会是什么。
But it's like they're playing a game, and they're arguing about what the rules are in the middle of the game.
但这就像他们在玩游戏，他们在游戏中间争论规则是什么。
And if you feel like the only tool available for you is to just ratchet up the consequences and yell louder, but yell louder into the void, it's not a real community.
如果你觉得唯一可用的工具就是加大后果并大声喊叫，但对着虚空大声喊叫，那么这不是一个真正的社区。
X is the Internet, right?
X是互联网，对吧？
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
That is not who you're living next to.
那不是你住在旁边的人。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I love doing this podcast, but the reason I continue it is for the opportunity to have conversations like this.
我喜欢做这个播客，但我继续做这个的原因是为了有机会进行这样的对话。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
In person.
亲自。
Yes.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Yeah.
是的。
With you, I get more intellectual stimulation from this job, frankly, than I did when I was in my office at Stanford every day-
坦白说，和你在一起，我从这份工作中得到了更多的智力刺激，比我每天在斯坦福办公室里时得到的更多——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
because we were all so busy.
因为我们都很忙。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
But it's also so people can hear the conversations because what you're describing is very real.
但这也是为了让人们能够听到对话，因为你所描述的内容非常真实。
Things are so diffuse now.
现在事情是如此分散。
And there isn't really an opt-out option.
而且实际上没有选择退出的选项。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Is that legitimate?
这是合法的吗？
Can you say that?
你能这么说吗？
You can't really opt out.
你真的不能选择退出。
I'm opting for opt-out option being a legitimate statement.
我选择退出选项是一个合法的声明。
Where would one go?
一个人会去哪里？
I'm not sure we can get completely offline.
我不确定我们能否完全离线。
I think it's possible in small amounts, but certainly younger generation, I've talked to my niece about this, like, "No. No dice.
我认为少量是有可能的，但对于年轻一代来说，我已经和我的侄女谈论过这个问题，就像，“不。没有骰子。
It's not happening."
这并没有发生。”
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
And so the question is, I guess, how big is your sphere of-
所以问题是，我想，你的范围有多大——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
visibility?
能见度？
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
I think that's a really hard question.
我认为这是一个非常难的问题。
There's a British writer, Oliver Burkeman-
有一位英国作家，奥利弗·伯克曼——
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm-hmm
嗯嗯
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
...
...
who has written, he has this great newsletter called The Imperfectionist.
他写了一本很棒的时事通讯，名叫《不完美主义者》。
And one piece of advice he gives is about letting your energy and your heart be local.
他给出的一条建议是让你的能量和你的心留在本地。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
And for me, I feel like that's a real struggle to think about, how do you not harden your heart to people that are suffering, right?
对我来说，我觉得这是一个真正值得思考的斗争，你如何才能不对正在受苦的人冷酷无情，对吧？
At the same time, how do you let, if you're keeping yourself tender, if you're keeping yourself attuned to caring about fairness, caring about injustice, caring about the vulnerable, where is that energy going?
与此同时，如果你让自己保持温柔，如果你让自己调整到关心公平、关心不公正、关心弱势群体，那么你的能量去哪儿了？
And if it's just going back to the internet, I'm not necessarily sure that it's really helping.
如果只是回到互联网，我不一定确定它真的有帮助。
But if it's to how does my neighborhood organize a winter coat drive, or do I make sure that I fill up a stocking for children whose families can't afford Christmas gifts for my children's preschool?
但如果是我的邻居如何组织冬季外套活动，或者我是否确保为那些家庭无力为我孩子的学前班买圣诞礼物的孩子们填满袜子？
That feels so much more satisfying than any amount of yelling on social media ever will.
这比在社交媒体上大喊大叫更让人感到满足。
So it's how do you be tender to the world but act in your own neighborhood?
那么，这就是你如何对世界温柔，但又在自己的邻里行事呢？
Feels like the balance that I feel the best when I'm there-
当我在那里时感觉最好的平衡-
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm-hmm
嗯嗯
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
...
...
but it's a very difficult balance to maintain.
但这是一个非常难以维持的平衡。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Winning the game of everyday life is exactly what you just described.
赢得日常生活的游戏正是您刚才所描述的。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Okay.
好的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I think one can be online, see what's happening in the world, but there has to be a buffer there.
我认为人们可以上网，看看世界上正在发生什么，但那里必须有一个缓冲区。
There has to be an emotional buffer, because otherwise we'd lose our minds.
必须有一个情感缓冲，否则我们就会失去理智。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
To steal your words from earlier, although I won't say it nearly as eloquently, it's a new technology that's forcing us to reevaluate our morality.
借用你之前的话，虽然我不会这么雄辩地说出来，但这是一项新技术，它迫使我们重新评估我们的道德。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Values.
价值观。
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Our hardwiring hasn't changed.
我们的硬连线没有改变。
Our ability to softwire our brain and modify it hasn't really changed in tens of thousands or more years.
我们对大脑进行软连接和修改的能力在数万年甚至更长的时间里都没有真正改变。
So I think it took about 10 years of smartphone use for us to arrive at this place.
所以我认为我们花了大约 10 年的智能手机使用时间才到达这个地方。
We're like, "Oh, shit." How often should we be on this thing, and what aspects of this are beneficial and healthy, and which aren't?
我们就像，“哦，该死。”我们应该多久做一次这件事，这件事的哪些方面是有益和健康的，哪些方面不是？
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
A lot are not.
很多都不是。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Yeah.
是的。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Well, and the whole world migrated into this-
好吧，整个世界都迁移到了这里——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
the position right before our eyes.
就在我们眼前的位置。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
But then also I say that, and then I'm like, but it's given me such incredible opportunities.
但我也这么说，然后我想，但这给了我如此难以置信的机会。
Would I have written a book without it was Twitter at that time?
如果当时没有 Twitter，我会写一本书吗？
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Would I be here getting this opportunity to talk to you?
我能有这个机会和你谈谈吗？
One of my best friends I met online.
我在网上认识的最好的朋友之一。
So to the extent that it is a tool for real life connection and real life action-
因此，就其作为现实生活联系和现实生活行动的工具而言——
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm-hmm
嗯嗯
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
...
...
then I think it's good.
那么我认为这很好。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm-hmm.
嗯嗯。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
And to the extent that it takes you out of real life, then it's bad, at least for me, is how I have come to think of it.
如果它让你脱离现实生活，那么这就是糟糕的，至少对我来说，我是这么认为的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I'm certainly immensely grateful for the work you do.
我当然非常感谢你所做的工作。
You're a brave one-
你是一个勇敢的人——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Oh, thank you
哦，谢谢你
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
willing to go into these corners of the psyche, corners of human reflexes, for better or worse.
愿意进入心灵的这些角落，人类反应的角落，无论好坏。
And to be willing to talk about issues of morality, sex differences, reward and punishment.
并愿意谈论道德、性别差异、奖励和惩罚等问题。
There's some questions from quote-unquote the audience- ...
有一些问题来自引用-取消引用观众-...
from the dreaded internet.
来自可怕的互联网。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Speaking of the internet, that we've just been talking about-
说到互联网，我们刚才正在谈论——
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Yeah
是啊
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
...
...
this whole time.
一直以来。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
I trust in people.
我信任人。
They're like dogs.
他们就像狗一样。
They just need to be treated right.
他们只需要得到正确的对待。
That's a compliment, by the way.
顺便说一下，这是一种恭维。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
At least coming from me.
至少来自我。
Okay, questions from the interweb.
好的，来自互联网的问题。
Always a fun and dangerous thing.
总是一件有趣又危险的事情。
Now these are excellent questions, and you've answered many of them in our conversation already.
这些都是很好的问题，您已经在我们的谈话中回答了其中的许多问题。
A couple people asked, how can identical twins be so incredibly different?
有几个人问，同卵双胞胎怎么会有如此惊人的差异？
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Oh.
哦。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
What's going on there?
那里发生了什么事？
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
So this is not just identical twins.
所以这不仅仅是同卵双胞胎。
We see this in other genetically identical animals.
我们在其他基因相同的动物中也看到了这一点。
There's studies of inbred mice.
有近交系小鼠的研究。
There's studies of, we were talking earlier about armadillos who give birth to four identical quadruplets.
有研究表明，我们之前讨论过犰狳，它们生下了四个相同的四胞胎。
There's studies of clonal fish.
有克隆鱼的研究。
And what there seems to be is what some scientists have called developmental noise, which is this emergence of individuality that's neither nature nor nurture, but is something about the initial chaos and then path dependence of development.
似乎存在一些科学家所说的发展噪音，即这种个性的出现，它既不是天生的，也不是后天培养的，而是关于发展的最初的混乱和随后的路径依赖。
One of my favorite studies about this, they raised these mice, inbred mice, genetically homogenous.
我最喜欢的研究之一是，他们饲养了这些小鼠，近交系小鼠，遗传上是同质的。
They raised them in identical rearing environments.
他们在相同的饲养环境中饲养它们。
And then at a certain point, put them together in this big vivarium where they could interact.
然后在某个时刻，将它们放在一个大动物园里，让它们可以互动。
And you saw almost immediately just variability, which might have been initially random, in activity levels, aggression levels, where in the cage they like to hang out, and then those differences started to stabilize.
你几乎立刻就看到了活动水平、攻击性水平、它们喜欢在笼子里闲逛的地方的变化，这些变化最初可能是随机的，然后这些差异开始稳定下来。
You basically saw the emergence of individual differences in mouse personality over time, and it's experience.
随着时间的推移，你基本上看到了老鼠性格中个体差异的出现，这就是经验。
It's experience that's there's some randomness, and then there's a path dependence there, and then it's your nervous system responding to experience that leads paths to diverge.
经验存在一定的随机性，然后存在路径依赖性，然后是你的神经系统对经验的反应导致路径分叉。
I actually think that's one of the most interesting things about identical twins is-
事实上，我认为同卵双胞胎最有趣的事情之一是——
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm-hmm
嗯嗯
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
That they can be different.
他们可以不同。
If you have one twin who has schizophrenia, there's only a 50% chance that the other one will.
如果双胞胎中的一个患有精神分裂症，那么另一个患有精神分裂症的可能性只有 50%。
50% is way higher than 1%, which is the base rate, but it's not destiny.
50% 比基本利率 1% 高得多，但这不是命运。
If someone wants a fiction treatment of this, "I Know This Much Is True" is a novel by the novelist Wally Lamb, and it's written by the perspective of an unaffected identical twin whose identical twin has paranoid schizophrenia.
如果有人想用小说来处理这个问题，《我知道这都是真的》是小说家沃利·兰姆的一部小说，它是从一个未受影响的同卵双胞胎的角度写的，而他的同卵双胞胎患有偏执型精神分裂症。
And it's very scientifically interesting because it captures a lot of the, did one of them get exposed to a virus?
它在科学上非常有趣，因为它捕获了很多，其中一个是否接触过病毒？
Did one of them get kind of singled out for maltreatment by the stepfather?
他们中的一个人是否因为继父的虐待而被挑出来？
So some things that might have gone into that difference, but also just the phenomenology of being genetically identical to someone who's having such a different psychological experience as you in life.
所以，有些事情可能会造成这种差异，但也可能是因为与你在生活中拥有如此不同的心理体验的人在基因上相同的现象。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Twins fascinate me.
双胞胎让我着迷。
Just as a nature-nurture thing.
就像一个天生的东西一样。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yes.
是的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Which by the way, we are only saying now in this podcast.
顺便说一句，我们现在只是在这个播客中说。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
I know.
我知道。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Amazing, right?
太棒了，对吧？
Are there specific periods in development when genetic influence is at its strongest, and how does that influence shift relative to environment across the lifespan?
在发育过程中是否存在遗传影响最强的特定时期？这种影响在整个生命周期中如何相对于环境发生变化？
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Oh, this is a really interesting question with a complicated answer.
哦，这是一个非常有趣的问题，但答案很复杂。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm.
嗯。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
So in some ways, genetics matter most when they affect fetal development because that's laying the groundwork for how the brain is wired over time.
因此，在某些方面，当遗传影响胎儿发育时，遗传最为重要，因为这为大脑随着时间的推移如何连接奠定了基础。
When you look at heritability estimates, so when you're estimating how much of the differences between people are due to genetic differences, you can estimate that using twins by looking at how much more similar are identical twins versus fraternal twins.
当您查看遗传力估计值时，当您估计人与人之间的差异有多少是由于遗传差异造成时，您可以通过查看同卵双胞胎与异卵双胞胎的相似程度来估计使用双胞胎。
And what you see is actually that heritability goes up with age.
你看到的实际上是遗传力随着年龄的增长而增加。
So the heritability of cognition, intelligence test scores goes up until around age 12, in which case it stays pretty heritable from then.
因此，认知、智力测试成绩的遗传性会一直上升到 12 岁左右，从那时起，它就保持相当大的遗传性。
Heritability of personality continues to increase until around age 30.
性格的遗传力持续增加，直到30岁左右。
And so how can that be that the older you are, the more your genes matter because you've been acquiring experience all this time?
那么，为什么你年纪越大，你的基因就越重要，因为你一直在获取经验呢？
And part of the answer to that is that people are picking their own experiences.
部分答案是人们正在选择自己的经历。
So people are picking their environments, they're responding to their environments according to their genetically shaped temperament, personality, neurobiology.
所以人们正在选择他们的环境，他们根据他们遗传形成的气质、个性、神经生物学对环境做出反应。
And what that means is that identical twins actually converge over time, even though they are acquiring experience over time.
这意味着同卵双胞胎实际上会随着时间的推移而趋同，尽管他们随着时间的推移而获得经验。
So when do genetics matter more?
那么基因什么时候更重要呢？
It kind of depends on what you mean by matter.
这在某种程度上取决于你所说的物质是什么意思。
When are genetic differences most predictive of your phenotype?
遗传差异何时最能预测您的表型？
Once you're an adult, because you've had a chance to pick your own life experiences.
一旦你成年了，因为你有机会选择自己的生活经历。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
There are several questions that I'm going to merge into one.
我将把几个问题合并为一个。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Okay.
好的。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Earlier, at the very beginning of the conversation, we were talking about possible pheromone, but if not pheromones, then odor effects of timing of puberty because of the presence or absence of a male.
早些时候，在谈话的一开始，我们谈论的是可能的信息素，但如果不是信息素，那么由于男性存在或不存在而导致的青春期时间的气味影响。
It's kind of an interesting example, but I'm sure there are other examples where something about the environment at a chemical level impacts whether or not gene expression is turned on or off.
这是一个有趣的例子，但我确信还有其他例子，其中化学水平上的环境因素会影响基因表达的开启或关闭。
And so this is an infinite space to consider, but depending on where one is born in the world, maybe you're getting longer days and shorter nights for a portion of the year.
因此，这是一个需要考虑的无限空间，但根据一个人出生在世界上的哪个地方，也许你在一年中的一部分时间里白天更长，夜晚更短。
If you're near the equator, less of that.
如果你靠近赤道，那就少了。
If you're in Scandinavia, you're getting some extended periods of lack of sunlight.
如果您在斯堪的纳维亚半岛，您会经历一段长时间缺乏阳光的情况。
And there were a number of questions about how sunlight can impact gene expression.
关于阳光如何影响基因表达存在许多问题。
So if you take two identical twins and you raise them in very different environments, let's say equator versus closer-
因此，如果你有两个同卵双胞胎，并在非常不同的环境中抚养他们，比如说赤道与近地——
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yeah
是啊
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
...
...
to the North Pole, is there any evidence that amount of sunlight, day length across the years, can impact expression of what would otherwise be called genetically determined traits?
到北极，是否有任何证据表明日照量、日照长度会影响基因决定的特征的表达？
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
So I will say that I don't have any expertise specifically around sunlight, or I don't typically study physical environments.
所以我会说我没有任何关于阳光的专业知识，或者我通常不研究物理环境。
I usually am studying social environments.
我通常研究社会环境。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Mm.
嗯。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
There is one hypothesis about how basically people whose ancestors are from equatorial climates, if they are in colder climates, if they are more susceptible to schizophrenia because of activation of risk genes for that.
有一种假设是关于祖先来自赤道气候的人，如果他们生活在寒冷的气候中，如果他们因为危险基因的激活而更容易患精神分裂症。
I don't actually know the current state of the literature on this.
我实际上不知道这方面文献的现状。
The human being is both developmentally programmed in this very resilient way.
人类都是以这种非常有弹性的方式进行发展编程的。
The fact that we manage to grow such a complicated nervous system and psychology from so humble beginnings is really amazing.
事实上，我们能够从如此卑微的起点发展出如此复杂的神经系统和心理学，这真是令人惊奇。
And also, we are incredibly adaptable creatures.
而且，我们是适应性极强的生物。
And the reason why we're adaptable is because our genotype, that developmental programming can respond so flexibly to the environmental inputs that we're in.
我们之所以具有适应性，是因为我们的基因型，即发育编程可以对我们所处的环境输入做出如此灵活的反应。
So that's a very vague answer, but your DNA is a molecule that's sitting in your cells.
所以这是一个非常模糊的答案，但你的 DNA 是一种存在于细胞中的分子。
It's not doing anything until it's acted on to be read, to be transcribed, to be expressed.
在它被阅读、被转录、被表达之前，它并没有做任何事情。
And so that always requires an environment and is sensitive to an environment.
所以总是需要环境并且对环境敏感。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Thank you so much for answering those questions.
非常感谢您回答这些问题。
And you've really expanded everyone's thinking about genes and morality.
你确实拓展了每个人对基因和道德的思考。
And I know that people, including me, but many, many people will really appreciate the thoughtfulness and the rigor that you approach these things because they are dicey topics.
我知道人们，包括我在内，很多很多人都会真正欣赏你对待这些事情的深思熟虑和严谨，因为它们是冒险的话题。
But they're central to who we are and how we're functioning, and it's also very clear from everything you've said that there's a ray of optimism thread through all of it.
但它们对于我们是谁以及我们如何运作至关重要，而且从您所说的一切中也可以清楚地看出，所有这些都充满了乐观情绪。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
I hope so.
我希望如此。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
That we can make positive choices for ourselves.
我们可以为自己做出积极的选择。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Yes.
是的。
Well, I really appreciate the conversation.
嗯，我真的很感谢这次谈话。
I'm an academic, so I'm used to giving talks and getting a Q&A, but it is rare to have an interviewer that is so delightfully varied in their questions and so careful in the questioning, too.
我是一名学者，所以我习惯于发表演讲并接受问答，但很少有面试官的问题如此多样化，提问也如此谨慎。
So, I really appreciate the conversation.
所以，我真的很感谢这次谈话。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Oh, thank you.
哦，谢谢。
Well, we certainly have to have you back again.
好吧，我们当然需要你再次回来。
Before I forget, you have books.
在我忘记之前，你有书。
We'll put links to those.
我们将添加这些内容的链接。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Great.
太棒了。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
What are you most excited about now?
你现在最兴奋的是什么？
I'm sure you're working on something right now.
我确信你现在正在做某事。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
I'm really excited to talk about the book.
我很高兴谈论这本书。
My new book is coming out on March 3rd, and I'm just really excited to be in conversation with people about these issues that I've thought about for a long time.
我的新书将于 3 月 3 日出版，我很高兴能与人们谈论这些我思考了很长时间的问题。
And then-
然后——
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
What's the title of the book?
这本书的书名是什么？
Sorry to interrupt, but I want to make sure.
抱歉打扰，但我想确认一下。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
The book is called "Original Sin: On the Genetics of Vice, the Problem of Blame, and the Future of Forgiveness," and it's out in early March.
这本书的名字是《原罪：论罪恶的遗传学、责备问题和宽恕的未来》，于三月初出版。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Amazing.
太棒了。
All right.
好的。
I am going to go purchase it.
我要去购买它。
Don't send me a free copy.
不要给我发送免费副本。
I always tell people, "Don't send me a copy." I want to buy the book to support, but also to read.
我总是告诉人们，“不要给我发送副本。”我想买书来支持，也想看看。
Amazing.
惊人的。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
Okay, awesome.
好吧，太棒了。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Fantastic.
太棒了。
Well, thank you.
嗯，谢谢。
We'll have to have you back again.
我们必须再次让你回来。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
I would love to.
我很乐意。
Andrew Huberman:
安德鲁·休伯曼：
Thank you for joining me for today's discussion with Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden.
感谢您参加今天与凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士的讨论。
To learn more about her work and to find a link to her new upcoming book, "Original Sin: On the Genetics of Vice, the Problem of Blame, and the Future of Forgiveness," you can simply go to the link in the show note captions.
要了解有关她的工作的更多信息，并找到她即将出版的新书《原罪：论罪恶的遗传学、责备问题和宽恕的未来》的链接，您只需转到节目注释标题中的链接即可。
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。
In addition, please follow the podcast by clicking the Follow button on both Spotify and Apple.
此外，请通过单击 Spotify 和 Apple 上的“关注”按钮来关注播客。
And on both Spotify and Apple, you can leave us up to a five-star review, and you can now leave us comments at both Spotify and Apple.
在 Spotify 和 Apple 上，您可以给我们留下五星级的评论，现在您可以在 Spotify 和 Apple 上给我们留下评论。
Please also check out the sponsors mentioned at the beginning and throughout today's episode.
另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、嘉宾或您希望我考虑在 Huberman 实验室播客中讨论的主题有意见，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.
它的标题是“协议：人体操作手册”。这本书是我花了五年多时间编写的，它基于 30 多年的研究和经验。
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.
它涵盖了从睡眠、锻炼、压力控制、与注意力和动机相关的各个方面的协议，当然，我还为所包含的协议提供了科学依据。
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." And if you're not already following me on social media, I am HubermanLab 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 HubermanLab。
So that's Instagram, X, Threads, Facebook, and LinkedIn.
这就是 Instagram、X、Threads、Facebook 和 LinkedIn。
And on all those platforms, I discuss 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 information on the Huberman Lab Podcast.
在所有这些平台上，我讨论科学和与科学相关的工具，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上的信息不同。
Again, it's HubermanLab on all social media platforms.
同样，所有社交媒体平台上都是 HubermanLab。
And if you haven't already subscribed to our Neural Network Newsletter, the Neural Network Newsletter is a zero-cost monthly newsletter that includes podcast summaries as well as what we call protocols in the form of one to three-page PDFs that cover everything from how to optimize your sleep, how to optimize dopamine, deliberate cold exposure.
如果您还没有订阅我们的神经网络时事通讯，神经网络时事通讯是一份零成本的月度时事通讯，其中包括播客摘要以及我们所说的一到三页 PDF 形式的协议，涵盖从如何优化睡眠、如何优化多巴胺、故意冷暴露等所有内容。
We have a foundational fitness protocol that covers cardiovascular training and resistance training.
我们有一个基本的健身方案，涵盖心血管训练和阻力训练。
All of that is available completely zero cost.
所有这些都是完全零成本可用的。
You simply go to hubermanlab.com, go to the Menu tab in the top right corner, scroll down to Newsletter, and enter your email.
您只需访问 hubermanlab.com，转到右上角的“菜单”选项卡，向下滚动到新闻通讯，然后输入您的电子邮件即可。
And I should emphasize that we do not share your email with anybody.
我要强调的是，我们不会与任何人分享您的电子邮件。
Thank you once again for joining me for today's discussion with Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden.
再次感谢您参加今天与凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士的讨论。
And last but certainly not least, thank you for your interest in science.
最后但并非最不重要的一点是，感谢您对科学的兴趣。
Dr. Kathryn Paige Harden:
凯瑟琳·佩奇·哈登博士：
"I don't think I can be your friend," Isabella said.
“我想我不能成为你的朋友，”伊莎贝拉说。
Rebecca's stomach flipped.
丽贝卡的胃翻腾起来。
This is the love story of real Hinge couple Isabella and Rebecca, written and read by me, Tembi Denton-Hurst.
这是真实的铰链夫妇伊莎贝拉和丽贝卡的爱情故事，由我 Tembi Denton-Hurst 撰写和阅读。
Listen to the free audiobook now.
立即收听免费有声读物。