评论
打印
So I'm starting us out today with a historical mystery.
我将以一个历史小谜团开启我们今天的演讲。
In 1957, there were two young women, both in their 20s, both living in the same city, both members of the same political group.
在1957年，有两个女人，她们都是20多岁，住在同一个城市，而且同属一个政治团体。
That year, both decided to commit violent attacks.
就在那一年，两个人都决定要实施暴力袭击。
One girl took a gun and approached a soldier at a checkpoint. The other girl took a bomb and went to a crowded café.
一个女孩携带枪，走近关卡士兵，另一个女孩则携带着一个炸弹，去了一个拥挤的咖啡厅。
But here's the thing: one of the those girls followed through with the attack, but the other turned back. So what made the difference?
但是，重点来了，其中一个女孩完成了这次行动，但是另一个却转身走了。是什么原因导致她们截然不同的行为呢？
I'm a behavioral historian, and I study aggression, moral cognition and decision-making in social movements. That's a mouthful.
我是一名行为历史学家，我研究攻击性行为、道德认知，以及社会运动中的决策过程。有点绕口，对吧。
So, the translation of that is: I study the moment an individual decides to pull the trigger,
换句话说，我研究个体扣动板机的那个瞬间的抉择，
the day-to-day decisions that led up to that moment and the stories that they tell themselves about why that behavior is justified.
导致那一瞬间的日积月累的种种抉择，以及他们为自己讲述的，用来合理化自己激进行为的故事。
Now, this topic -- it's not just scholarly for me. It's actually a bit personal.
这个话题对我来说不是只有学术意义，其实还包含了我的个人经历。
I grew up in Kootenai County, Idaho, and this is very important.
我在爱达荷州库特耐县长大，这个信息很重要。
This is not the part of Idaho with potatoes. We have no potatoes.
爱达荷的这一地区并不盛产马铃薯，我们没有马铃薯。
And if you ask me about potatoes, I will find you.
所以如果你问我关于马铃薯的问题，你就有麻烦了。
This part of Idaho is known for mountain lakes, horseback riding, skiing.
库得耐县以高山湖泊闻名，还有骑马和滑雪。
Unfortunately, starting in the 1980s, it also became known as the worldwide headquarters for the Aryan Nations.
但是不幸的是，从20世纪80年代开始，这里成为了新纳粹主义组织的世界总部。
Every year, members of the local neo-Nazi compound would turn out and march through our town,
每年新纳粹主义组织成员都会出现，在我们镇上到处游行示威，
and every year, members of our town would turn out and protest them.
每年，我们城镇的百姓也会走出家门进行抗议。
Now, in 2001, I graduated from high school, and I went to college in New York City. I arrived in August 2001.
2001年高中毕业后，我去了纽约读大学。我在2001年8月到了纽约。
As many of you probably are aware, three weeks later, the Twin Towers went down.
你们大概知道，三个星期后，双子塔倒塌了。
Now, I was shocked. I was incredibly angry.
我震惊了，已经完全出离愤怒。
I wanted to do something, but the only thing that I could think of doing at that time was to study Arabic.
我想做一些事，但是那时候我可以想到的唯一一件事是：去学习阿拉伯文化。
I will admit, I was that girl in class that wanted to know why "they" hate "us."
我承认，我就是班上那个很想知道“他们”为什么恨“我们”的女生。
I started studying Arabic for very wrong reasons. But something unexpected happened.
就这样阴差阳错地，我开始了学习阿拉伯文化的旅程。出乎意料的事情发生了。
I got a scholarship to go study in Israel. So the Idaho girl went to the Middle East.
我获得了去以色列学习的奖学金。就这样，这个爱德荷女孩去了中东。
And while I was there, I met Palestinian Muslims, Palestinian Christians, Israeli settlers, Israeli peace activists.
在那里，我结识了巴勒斯坦穆斯林、巴勒斯坦基督徒、以色列定居者、以色列和平主义者。
And what I learned is that every act has an ecology. It has a context.
那时，我明白了，每个行为的背后都有一个生态系统，都有其特定的背景。
Now, since then, I have gone around the world, I have studied violent movements,
从那时候开始，我去了世界各地，我研究了暴力运动，
I have worked with NGOs and ex-combatants in Iraq, Syria, Vietnam, the Balkans, Cuba.
还与各地非政府组织，以及伊拉克、叙利亚、越南、巴尔干和古巴的的前作战队员合作。
I earned my PhD in History, and now what I do is I go to different archives and I dig through documents,
我完成了我的历史博士学位，我现在的工作是去不同的档案室，翻找各式各样的档案，
looking for police confessions, court cases, diaries and manifestos of individuals involved in violent attacks.
找寻警察的审问记录、庭审案件，还有暴力袭击事件中的激进分子写下的日记和宣言书。
Now, you gather all these documents -- what do they tell you?
现在收集了这么多资料，它们能告诉我们些什么呢？
Our brains love causal mysteries, it turns out.
研究发现，我们的大脑喜欢因果奥秘。
So any time we see an attack on the news, we tend to ask one question: Why? Why did that happen?
所以每次在新闻上看到袭击事件，我们都会问自己：为什么？为什么会发生这种事？
Well, I can tell you I've read thousands of manifestos, and what you find out is that they are actually imitative.
我可以告诉各位，我看过上千份宣言书，发现其实它们都是抄袭而来。
They imitate the political movement that they're drawing from.
他们模仿了他们所借鉴的政治运动。
So they actually don't tell us a lot about decision-making in that particular case.
所以在这个特定的案例中，你实际上看不到很多关于决策的内容。
So we have to teach ourselves to ask a totally different question. Instead of "Why?" we have to ask "How?"
因此，我们要学会问自己一个全新的问题：不是问“为什么”，而是问“怎么做到的”。
How did individuals produce these attacks, and how did their decision-making ecology contribute to violent behavior?
个人是怎样制造出这样的袭击的，以及帮助他们做出决策的生态系统是怎样导致这种激进行为的？
There's a couple things I've learned from asking this kind of question.
通过不断询问这类问题，我学到了这样几点。
The most important thing is that political violence is not culturally endemic. We create it.
最重要的一点是，政治暴力并不是某种文化所特有的，而是我们创造出来的。
And whether we realize it or not, our day-to-day habits contribute to the creation of violence in our environment.
不管我们有没有意识到，是日积月累的习惯塑造了我们环境中的这些暴力行为。
So here's a couple of habits that I've learned contribute to violence.
通过研究，我发现，有这样几个习惯会导致激进行为。
One of the first things that attackers did when preparing themselves for a violent event was they enclosed themselves in an information bubble.
激进分子在筹划暴力袭击过程中会做的其中一件事是，把自己封闭在一个信息泡沫里。
We've heard of fake news, yeah? Well, this shocked me: every group that I studied had some kind of a fake news slogan.
我们都听过“假消息”，对吗？令我震惊的是，我研究的群体都有不一样的“假消息”称号。
French communists called it the "putrid press." French ultranationalists called it the "sellout press" and the "treasonous press."
法国共产党称之为“腐烂的报道”。法国极端民族主义者称之为“出卖原则的报道”和“叛国的报道”。
Islamists in Egypt called it the "depraved news." And Egyptian communists called it... "fake news."
埃及的伊斯兰主义者称之为“堕落的报道”。埃及共产主义者则简单称之为“假消息”。
So why do groups spend all this time trying to make these information bubbles?
为什么这些团体要花大量的时间来制造这些信息泡沫呢？
The answer is actually really simple. We make decisions based on the information we trust, yeah?
答案其实很简单。我们都是根据我们相信的信息去做决定的，对吗？
So if we trust bad information, we're going to make bad decisions.
如果我们相信错误的信息，就会做出错误的决定。
Another interesting habit that individuals used when they wanted to produce a violent attack
当激进分子策划制造一次暴力袭击时，他们的另一个有趣的习惯是
was that they looked at their victim not as an individual but just as a member of an opposing team.
他们会把袭击对象仅仅看成是一名敌方成员，而不是一个独立的个体。
Now this gets really weird. There's some fun brain science behind why that kind of thinking is effective.
这就很奇怪了。一些有趣的脑科学理论可以解释这个想法为何有效。
Say I divide all of you guys into two teams: blue team, red team.
举个例子，我把你们分成两队：红队和蓝队。
And then I ask you to compete in a game against each other.
然后让你们两队在游戏中互相竞争。
Well, the funny thing is, within milliseconds,
有趣的是，在一刹那间，
you will actually start experiencing pleasure, pleasure, when something bad happens to members of the other team.
当对方的成员遭遇困境的时候，你会感到愉悦，对，愉悦。
The funny thing about that is if I ask one of you blue team members to go and join the red team, your brain recalibrates,
更有趣的是，如果我让一位蓝队的成员加入到红队里，你的大脑会立刻修正信号，
and within milliseconds, you will now start experiencing pleasure when bad things happen to members of your old team.
同样在一瞬间，当原来队的成员遭遇困境的时候，你会感到愉悦。
This is a really good example of why us-them thinking is so dangerous in our political environment.
这个例子很好地说明了区分“我们”和“他们”的思想在我们的政治环境中具有的危险性。
Another habit that attackers used to kind of rev themselves up for an attack was they focused on differences.
激进分子为了让自己更进入状态，所使用的另一个习惯是，把注意力放在人和人的差异上。
In other words, they looked at their victims, and they thought,
换句话说，他们看着眼前的袭击对象，会想：
"I share nothing in common with that person. They are totally different than me."
“我和那个人完全没有任何共同之处。他们跟我完全不一样。”
Again, this might sound like a really simple concept, but there's some fascinating science behind why this works.
虽然这个概念听起来很简单，但是，其背后也有脑科学理论的支持。
Say I show you guys videos of different-colored hands and sharp pins being driven into these different-colored hands, OK?
比如，我给大家播放几段视频，视频中不同颜色的手分别被很尖的针戳中。准备好了吗？
If you're white, the chances are you will experience the most sympathetic activation, or the most pain, when you see a pin going into the white hand.
如果你是白人，当你看到白肤色的手被针扎的时候，你的同情心会被最大程度地激发，你会身同感受地体会到被针扎的痛楚。
If you are Latin American, Arab, Black,
如果你是拉丁美洲人、阿拉伯人、黑人，
you will probably experience the most sympathetic activation watching a pin going into the hand that looks most like yours.
当你看到与你肤色相近的手被针扎的时候，你的同情心会被最大程度地激发。
The good news is, that's not biologically fixed. That is learned behavior.
好消息是，这在生物学上并不是一成不变的。这个行为是后天习得的。
Which means the more we spend time with other ethnic communities
这意味着，我们与不同种族群体相处的时间愈长，
and the more we see them as similar to us and part of our team, the more we feel their pain.
我们就更能看到彼此的相似之处，把大家视作一个群体，也更能体会到他们的痛楚。
The last habit that I'm going to talk about
我将要提到的最后一个习惯是，
is when attackers prepared themselves to go out and do one of these events, they focused on certain emotional cues.
当激进分子在策划袭击的过程中，他们会把注意力放在一些特定的情感信号上。
For months, they geared themselves up by focusing on anger cues, for instance.
比如，他们持续几个月来一直关注愤怒的信号。
I bring this up because it's really popular right now.
我提到个话题，是因为它最近很火。
If you read blogs or the news, you see talk of two concepts from laboratory science: amygdala hijacking and emotional hijacking.
如果你有看博客，或者新闻，你会看到实验科学的这两个概念：大脑杏仁核劫持和情感劫持。
Now, amygdala hijacking: it's the concept that I show you a cue -- say, a gun
杏仁核劫持的意思是：当我给你展现一个信号，例如说，一把枪，
and your brain reacts with an automatic threat response to that cue.
你的大脑会迅速反应出威胁的存在。
Emotional hijacking -- it's a very similar concept.
情感劫持是一个非常相似的概念。
It's the idea that I show you an anger cue, for instance, and your brain will react with an automatic anger response to that cue.
假如，当我给你传递了一个愤怒的信号，你的大脑就会不知不觉地以愤怒回应这个信号。
I think women usually get this more than men.
我相信女人通常比男人更能明白这点。
That kind of a hijacking narrative grabs our attention. Just the word "hijacking" grabs our attention.
这种劫持性的描述抓住了我们的注意。只是“劫持”二字就抓住了我们的注意。
The thing is, most of the time, that's not really how cues work in real life.
问题是，大多数情况下，信号在现实生活中其实并不是这样工作的。
If you study history, what you find is that we are bombarded with hundreds of thousands of cues every day.
如果你研究一下历史，就会发现我们每天都被成千上万种信号围攻。
And so what we do is we learn to filter. We ignore some cues, we pay attention to other cues.
因此我们学会了过滤信息，我们忽略一些信号，把注意力放在其他的信号上。
For political violence, this becomes really important,
这点对政治暴力来说非常重要，
because what it meant is that attackers usually didn't just see an anger cue and suddenly snap.
因为它意味着袭击者通常并不是只看到一个愤怒信号就突然动怒。
Instead, politicians, social activists spent weeks, months, years flooding the environment with anger cues, for instance,
事实是，政治家和社会活动家日复一日，年复一年地让我们的周遭充斥着愤怒的信号，
and attackers, they paid attention to those cues, they trusted those cues, they focused on them, they even memorized those cues.
而袭击者，他们关注这些信号，相信它们，专注在这些信号上，甚至铭记于心。
All of this just really goes to show how important it is to study history.
这里的种种都展现了研习历史的重要性。
It's one thing to see how cues operate in a laboratory setting.
值得研究的是这些信号在实验室环境下的作用方式。
And those laboratory experiments are incredibly important. They give us a lot of new data about how our bodies work.
这些实验极其重要。它们给我们提供了关于人体如何运作的大量新数据。
But it's also very important to see how those cues operate in real life.
但是，研究信号在现实生活中的作用方式也非常重要。
So what does all this tell us about political violence? Political violence is not culturally endemic.
那么，这一切说明了什么呢？政治袭击不是文化特色。
It is not an automatic, predetermined response to environmental stimuli. We produce it. Our everyday habits produce it.
它不是一个应对环境刺激自动形成的、预设好的回应。而是我们人为制造的。这是我们点点滴滴的生活习惯所形成的。
Let's go back, actually, to those two women that I mentioned at the start.
让我们回到我演讲开始提到的两个女人。
The first woman had been paying attention to those outrage campaigns, so she took a gun and approached a soldier at a checkpoint.
第一个女人一直把注意力放在那些让人义愤填膺的宣传中，所以她携带着枪，走近关卡士兵。
But in that moment, something really interesting happened.
就在那一瞬间，有趣的事情发生了。
She looked at that soldier, and she thought to herself, "He's the same age as me. He looks like me."
她看着那个士兵，她想，“他与我年纪相仿，他跟我很像”。
And she put down the gun, and she walked away. Just from that little bit of similarity.
于是她放下枪，离开了。就因为那一点点的相似。
The second girl had a totally different outcome.
第二个女孩却面临着一个截然不同的结果。
She also listened to the outrage campaigns,
她也听了那些愤怒的宣传，
but she surrounded herself with individuals who were supportive of violence, with peers who supported her violence.
她周围围绕着一群暴力袭击的支持者和支持她暴力行为的同伴。
She enclosed herself in an information bubble. She focused on certain emotional cues for months.
她把自己封闭在一个信息泡沫里。数月以来，她一直聚焦于某些特定的情感信号。
She taught herself to bypass certain cultural inhibitions against violence.
她教会了自己如何对那些反对暴力的文化规则视而不见。
She practiced her plan, she taught herself new habits,
她不断进行演练，养成了新的习惯，
and when the time came, she took her bomb to the café, and she followed through with that attack.
当那一刻来临的时候，她携带着炸弹到咖啡厅，完成了这次袭击。
This was not impulse. This was learning. Polarization in our society is not impulse, it's learning.
这不是冲动，这是学习的结果。社会上的两极化不是冲动，而是学习的结果。
Every day we are teaching ourselves: the news we click on, the emotions that we focus on,
每天我们都在学习：我们点开的新闻，我们关注的情绪，
the thoughts that we entertain about the red team or the blue team.
我们所形成的关于红队或蓝队的见解。
All of this contributes to learning, whether we realize it or not.
这一切都是在学习，不论我们有没有意识到。
The good news is that while the individuals I study already made their decisions, we can still change our trajectory.
不过好消息是，虽然我所研究的个体已经做出了决定，但是我们仍可以改变我们未来的行为轨迹。
We might never make the decisions that they made, but we can stop contributing to violent ecologies.
我们可能从来不会做出他们那样的决定，但是我们可以停止给暴力生态系统做出贡献。
We can get out of whatever news bubble we're in,
我们可以从置身其中的新闻泡沫中走出来，
we can be more mindful about the emotional cues that we focus on, the outrage bait that we click on.
留心我们关注的情感信号，我们点击的引发愤怒的诱饵。
But most importantly, we can stop seeing each other as just members of the red team or the blue team.
最重要的是，我们可以不再将彼此仅仅视为是红队或蓝队的成员。
Because whether we are Christian, Muslim, Jewish, atheist, Democrat or Republican, we're human.
因为不管我们是基督教徒、穆斯林、犹太人、无神论者，支持民主党还是共和党，我们都是人。
We're human beings. And we often share really similar habits.
我们都是人类。我们都有非常相似的习惯。
We have differences. Those differences are beautiful, and those differences are very important.
人和人之间总是存在差异，但这些差异很美好，也很重要。
But our future depends on us being able to find common ground with the other side.
我们的将来取决于我们是否能够与另一边找到共通点。
And that's why it is so, so important for us to retrain our brains and stop contributing to violent ecologies. Thank you.
所以，重新训练我们的大脑，停止助长暴力生态系统的行为，真的非常非常重要。谢谢！
