Why you think youre right even if youre wrong Julia Galef

So I’d like you to imagine for a moment

that you’re a soldier
in the heat of battle.

Maybe you’re a Roman foot soldier
or a medieval archer

or maybe you’re a Zulu warrior.

Regardless of your time and place,
there are some things that are constant.

Your adrenaline is elevated,

and your actions are stemming
from these deeply ingrained reflexes,

reflexes rooted in a need
to protect yourself and your side

and to defeat the enemy.

So now, I’d like you to imagine
playing a very different role,

that of the scout.

The scout’s job is not
to attack or defend.

The scout’s job is to understand.

The scout is the one going out,

mapping the terrain,
identifying potential obstacles.

And the scout may hope to learn
that, say, there’s a bridge

in a convenient location across a river.

But above all, the scout
wants to know what’s really there,

as accurately as possible.

And in a real, actual army, both
the soldier and the scout are essential.

But you can also think of each
of these roles as a mindset –

a metaphor for how all of us
process information and ideas

in our daily lives.

What I’m going to argue today
is that having good judgment,

making accurate predictions,
making good decisions,

is mostly about which mindset you’re in.

To illustrate these mindsets in action,

I’m going to take you back
to 19th-century France,

where this innocuous-looking
piece of paper

launched one of the biggest
political scandals in history.

It was discovered in 1894
by officers in the French general staff.

It was torn up in a wastepaper basket,

but when they pieced it back together,

they discovered
that someone in their ranks

had been selling
military secrets to Germany.

So they launched a big investigation,

and their suspicions
quickly converged on this man,

Alfred Dreyfus.

He had a sterling record,

no past history of wrongdoing,
no motive as far as they could tell.

But Dreyfus was the only
Jewish officer at that rank in the army,

and unfortunately at this time,
the French Army was highly anti-Semitic.

They compared Dreyfus’s handwriting
to that on the memo

and concluded that it was a match,

even though outside
professional handwriting experts

were much less confident
in the similarity,

but never mind that.

They went and searched
Dreyfus’s apartment,

looking for any signs of espionage.

They went through his files,
and they didn’t find anything.

This just convinced them more
that Dreyfus was not only guilty,

but sneaky as well, because clearly
he had hidden all of the evidence

before they had managed to get to it.

Next, they went and looked
through his personal history

for any incriminating details.

They talked to his teachers,

they found that he had studied
foreign languages in school,

which clearly showed a desire
to conspire with foreign governments

later in life.

His teachers also said that Dreyfus
was known for having a good memory,

which was highly suspicious, right?

You know, because a spy
has to remember a lot of things.

So the case went to trial,
and Dreyfus was found guilty.

Afterwards, they took him out
into this public square

and ritualistically tore
his insignia from his uniform

and broke his sword in two.

This was called
the Degradation of Dreyfus.

And they sentenced him
to life imprisonment

on the aptly named Devil’s Island,

which is this barren rock
off the coast of South America.

So there he went,
and there he spent his days alone,

writing letters and letters
to the French government

begging them to reopen his case
so they could discover his innocence.

But for the most part,
France considered the matter closed.

One thing that’s really interesting
to me about the Dreyfus Affair

is this question of why the officers
were so convinced

that Dreyfus was guilty.

I mean, you might even assume
that they were setting him up,

that they were intentionally framing him.

But historians don’t think
that’s what happened.

As far as we can tell,

the officers genuinely believed
that the case against Dreyfus was strong.

Which makes you wonder:

What does it say about the human mind

that we can find such paltry evidence

to be compelling enough to convict a man?

Well, this is a case of what scientists
call “motivated reasoning.”

It’s this phenomenon in which
our unconscious motivations,

our desires and fears,

shape the way we interpret information.

Some information, some ideas,
feel like our allies.

We want them to win.
We want to defend them.

And other information
or ideas are the enemy,

and we want to shoot them down.

So this is why I call
motivated reasoning, “soldier mindset.”

Probably most of you have never persecuted

a French-Jewish officer for high treason,

I assume,

but maybe you’ve followed sports
or politics, so you might have noticed

that when the referee judges
that your team committed a foul,

for example,

you’re highly motivated
to find reasons why he’s wrong.

But if he judges that the other team
committed a foul – awesome!

That’s a good call,
let’s not examine it too closely.

Or, maybe you’ve read
an article or a study

that examined some controversial policy,

like capital punishment.

And, as researchers have demonstrated,

if you support capital punishment

and the study shows
that it’s not effective,

then you’re highly motivated
to find all the reasons

why the study was poorly designed.

But if it shows
that capital punishment works,

it’s a good study.

And vice versa: if you don’t
support capital punishment, same thing.

Our judgment is strongly
influenced, unconsciously,

by which side we want to win.

And this is ubiquitous.

This shapes how we think
about our health, our relationships,

how we decide how to vote,

what we consider fair or ethical.

What’s most scary to me
about motivated reasoning

or soldier mindset,

is how unconscious it is.

We can think we’re being
objective and fair-minded

and still wind up ruining the life
of an innocent man.

However, fortunately for Dreyfus,
his story is not over.

This is Colonel Picquart.

He’s another high-ranking officer
in the French Army,

and like most people,
he assumed Dreyfus was guilty.

Also like most people in the army,
he was at least casually anti-Semitic.

But at a certain point,
Picquart began to suspect:

“What if we’re all wrong about Dreyfus?”

What happened was,
he had discovered evidence

that the spying for Germany had continued,

even after Dreyfus was in prison.

And he had also discovered
that another officer in the army

had handwriting that perfectly
matched the memo,

much closer than Dreyfus’s handwriting.

So he brought these discoveries
to his superiors,

but to his dismay,
they either didn’t care

or came up with elaborate rationalizations
to explain his findings,

like, “Well, all you’ve really shown,
Picquart, is that there’s another spy

who learned how to mimic
Dreyfus’s handwriting,

and he picked up the torch of spying
after Dreyfus left.

But Dreyfus is still guilty.”

Eventually, Picquart managed
to get Dreyfus exonerated.

But it took him 10 years,

and for part of that time,
he himself was in prison

for the crime of disloyalty to the army.

A lot of people feel like Picquart
can’t really be the hero of this story

because he was an anti-Semite
and that’s bad, which I agree with.

But personally, for me,
the fact that Picquart was anti-Semitic

actually makes his actions more admirable,

because he had the same prejudices,
the same reasons to be biased

as his fellow officers,

but his motivation to find the truth
and uphold it trumped all of that.

So to me,

Picquart is a poster child
for what I call “scout mindset.”

It’s the drive not to make
one idea win or another lose,

but just to see what’s really there

as honestly and accurately as you can,

even if it’s not pretty
or convenient or pleasant.

This mindset is what
I’m personally passionate about.

And I’ve spent the last few years
examining and trying to figure out

what causes scout mindset.

Why are some people, sometimes at least,

able to cut through their own prejudices
and biases and motivations

and just try to see the facts
and the evidence

as objectively as they can?

And the answer is emotional.

So, just as soldier mindset
is rooted in emotions

like defensiveness or tribalism,

scout mindset is, too.

It’s just rooted in different emotions.

For example, scouts are curious.

They’re more likely to say
they feel pleasure

when they learn new information

or an itch to solve a puzzle.

They’re more likely to feel intrigued
when they encounter something

that contradicts their expectations.

Scouts also have different values.

They’re more likely to say
they think it’s virtuous

to test your own beliefs,

and they’re less likely to say
that someone who changes his mind

seems weak.

And above all, scouts are grounded,

which means their self-worth as a person

isn’t tied to how right or wrong
they are about any particular topic.

So they can believe
that capital punishment works.

If studies come out showing
that it doesn’t, they can say,

“Huh. Looks like I might be wrong.
Doesn’t mean I’m bad or stupid.”

This cluster of traits
is what researchers have found –

and I’ve also found anecdotally –

predicts good judgment.

And the key takeaway I want
to leave you with about those traits

is that they’re primarily
not about how smart you are

or about how much you know.

In fact, they don’t correlate
very much with IQ at all.

They’re about how you feel.

There’s a quote that I keep
coming back to, by Saint-Exupéry.

He’s the author of “The Little Prince.”

He said, “If you want to build a ship,

don’t drum up your men
to collect wood and give orders

and distribute the work.

Instead, teach them to yearn
for the vast and endless sea.”

In other words, I claim,

if we really want to improve
our judgment as individuals

and as societies,

what we need most
is not more instruction in logic

or rhetoric or probability or economics,

even though those things
are quite valuable.

But what we most need
to use those principles well

is scout mindset.

We need to change the way we feel.

We need to learn how to feel proud
instead of ashamed

when we notice we might
have been wrong about something.

We need to learn how to feel intrigued
instead of defensive

when we encounter some information
that contradicts our beliefs.

So the question I want
to leave you with is:

What do you most yearn for?

Do you yearn to defend your own beliefs?

Or do you yearn to see the world
as clearly as you possibly can?

Thank you.

(Applause)

所以我想让你想象一下

,你是一名
处于激战状态的士兵。

也许您是罗马步兵
或中世纪弓箭手,

或者您是祖鲁战士。

无论您的时间和地点如何,
有些事情是不变的。

你的肾上腺素升高了

,你的行动
源于这些根深蒂固的反应,这些

反应植根
于保护自己和身边

以及击败敌人的需要。

所以现在,我想让你想象
扮演一个非常不同的角色,

即侦察员。

侦察员的工作
不是进攻或防守。

侦察员的工作是理解。

侦察员是外出的人,

绘制地形图,
识别潜在障碍。

侦察员可能希望
知道,比如说,

在一个方便的位置有一座桥穿过河。

但最重要的是,侦察员
想尽可能准确地知道那里的真实

情况。

而在一支真正的军队中
,士兵和侦察兵都是必不可少的。

但您也可以
将这些角色中的每一个视为一种心态

——隐喻我们所有人如何在日常生活中
处理信息和想法

我今天要论证的
是,拥有良好的判断力、

做出准确的预测、做出正确
的决定

,主要是关于你

所处的心态。为了说明这些心态在行动中的作用,

我将带你
回到 19 日—— 世纪法国

,这张看似无害
的纸引发

了历史上最大的
政治丑闻之一。

它于 1894 年
被法国总参谋部的军官发现。

它被一个废纸篓撕碎了,

但当他们拼凑起来时,

他们发现
他们的队伍中

有人一直在
向德国出售军事机密。

于是他们展开了一场大调查

,他们的怀疑
很快就集中在了这个人身上,

阿尔弗雷德德雷弗斯。 据他们所知

,他有出色的记录,

没有过去的不法行为历史,也
没有动机。

但德雷福斯是
军队中唯一一个该级别的犹太军官

,不幸的是,此时
的法国军队是高度反犹太主义的。

他们将德雷福斯的笔迹
与备忘录上的笔迹进行了比较

,得出的结论是匹配,

尽管外部
专业笔迹专家

对相似性的信心要小得多,

但没关系。

他们去搜查了
德雷福斯的公寓,

寻找任何间谍活动的迹象。

他们翻阅了他的档案
,却一无所获。

这让他们更加
确信德雷福斯不仅有罪,

而且还偷偷摸摸,因为很明显
,在他们设法找到之前,他已经隐藏了所有的证据

接下来,他们查看
了他的个人历史,

寻找任何有罪的细节。

他们与他的老师交谈,

他们发现他在学校学习过
外语,

这显然表明他
希望在

以后的生活中与外国政府合谋。

他的老师还说,德雷福斯
以记忆力好而著称,

这很可疑,对吧?

你知道,因为间谍
必须记住很多事情。

于是案件进入审判阶段
,德雷福斯被判有罪。

随后,他们将他带到
了这个公共广场,

并按照仪式
从他的制服上撕下了他的徽章,

并将他的剑折成两半。

这被称为
德雷福斯的退化。

他们将他
判处无期徒刑,关押

在名副其实的恶魔岛,

也就是
南美洲海岸外的这块贫瘠的岩石。

所以他去了
那里,在那里他独自度过了他的日子

,写信
给法国政府,

请求他们重新审理他的案子,
这样他们就可以发现他的清白。

但在大多数情况下,
法国认为此事已经结束。

关于德雷福斯事件,我真正感兴趣的一件事

是为什么军官
们如此

确信德雷福斯有罪。

我的意思是,你甚至可以
假设他们是

在陷害他,是故意陷害他。

但历史学家并不认为
这就是发生的事情。

据我们所知

,官员们真的
认为针对德雷福斯的案子是强有力的。

这让你想知道:

我们能找到如此微不足道的

证据足以证明一个人有罪,这说明了人类的思想是什么?

嗯,这是科学家
所谓的“动机推理”的一个例子。

正是这种现象,
我们的无意识动机、

我们的欲望和恐惧

塑造了我们解释信息的方式。

一些信息,一些想法,
感觉就像我们的盟友。

我们希望他们赢。
我们想保护他们。

其他信息
或想法是敌人

,我们想击落它们。

所以这就是为什么我将
动机性推理称为“士兵心态”。

我想你们中的大多数人可能从来没有

因为叛国罪迫害过法国犹太军官

但也许你们关注过体育
或政治,所以你可能已经注意到

,当裁判
判定你的球队犯规时,

例如,

你 ‘非常有
动力找到他错的原因。

但如果他判断对方
犯规——太棒了!

这是一个很好的电话,
让我们不要仔细检查它。

或者,也许你读过
一篇文章或一项研究

,探讨了一些有争议的政策,

比如死刑。

而且,正如研究人员所证明的那样,

如果你支持死刑

并且研究
表明它无效,

那么你就会非常有
动力找到

研究设计不佳的所有原因。

但如果它
表明死刑有效,

这是一项很好的研究。

反之亦然:如果你不
支持死刑,同样的事情。

我们的判断在
不知不觉中受到强烈影响,

我们想赢哪一方。

这是无处不在的。

这决定了我们如何
看待我们的健康、我们的人际关系、

我们如何决定如何投票、

我们认为什么是公平或道德的。 动机推理或士兵心态

对我来说最可怕的

是它是多么无意识。

我们可以认为我们是
客观和公正的

,但最终还是毁
了一个无辜者的生活。

然而,对德雷弗斯来说幸运的是,
他的故事还没有结束。

这是皮夸特上校。

他是法国军队的另一位高级军官

和大多数人一样,
他认为德雷福斯是有罪的。

也像军队中的大多数人一样,
他至少是随便的反犹太主义者。

但在某个时刻,
皮夸特开始怀疑:

“如果我们都错了德雷福斯怎么办?”

所发生的事情是,
他发现了证据

表明,即使在德雷福斯入狱之后,德国的间谍活动仍在继续

而且他还
发现军队中的另一名军官

的笔迹
与备忘录完美匹配,

比德雷福斯的笔迹更接近。

所以他把这些发现
告诉了他的上级,

但令他沮丧的是,
他们要么不在乎,

要么想出精心的理由
来解释他的发现,

比如,“好吧,你真正证明
的只是还有另一个间谍

他学会了如何模仿
德雷福斯的笔迹,

并在德雷福斯离开后拿起了间谍的火炬

但德雷福斯仍然有罪。”

最终,皮夸特
设法让德雷福斯无罪。

但他花了10年

时间,其中一部分时间,
他本人因

对军队不忠而入狱。

很多人觉得皮夸特
不能真正成为这个故事的英雄,

因为他是一个反犹太人
,这很糟糕,我同意这一点。

但就我个人而言,对我来说,
皮夸特是反犹分子的事实

实际上让他的行为更令人钦佩,

因为他和他的同事有着同样的偏见
,同样的理由有偏见

但他发现真相并坚持真相的动机
胜过 所有的。

所以对我来说,

Picquart
是我所说的“童子军心态”的典型代表。

它的动力不是让
一个想法成败,

而只是

尽可能诚实和准确地看到那里的真实情况,

即使它不漂亮
、不方便或不愉快。

这种心态是
我个人所热衷的。

在过去的几年里,我一直在
研究并试图

找出导致童子军心态的原因。

为什么有些人,至少有时,

能够打破自己的偏见
、偏见和动机

,尽可能客观地看待事实
和证据

答案是情绪化的。

因此,正如士兵
心态植根于

防御或部落主义等情绪一样,

侦察心态也是如此。

它只是植根于不同的情绪。

例如,侦察兵很好奇。

当他们学习新信息

或渴望解决难题时,他们更有可能说他们感到高兴。

当他们遇到

与他们的期望相矛盾的事情时,他们更有可能感到好奇。

童子军也有不同的价值观。

他们更有可能说
他们认为测试你自己的信念是有道德的

,他们不太可能
说改变主意的人

看起来很软弱。

最重要的是,球探是脚踏实地的,

这意味着他们作为一个人的自我价值与

他们对任何特定主题的正确或错误无关。

所以他们可以
相信死刑有效。

如果研究
表明事实并非如此,他们可以说,

“嗯。看起来我可能是错的。
并不意味着我很坏或很愚蠢。”

这组特征
是研究人员发现的

——我也发现了轶事——

预示着良好的判断力。

关于这些特征,我想告诉你的关键点

是,它们主要
不是关于你有多聪明

或你知道多少。

事实上,它们
与智商根本没有太大关系。

它们是关于你的感受。

圣埃克苏佩里有一句名言,我一直
在重复。

他是《小王子》的作者。

他说:“如果你想造船,

不要鼓动你的人
去拾柴发号施令

而要教他们
向往广阔无垠的大海。”

换句话说,我声称,

如果我们真的想提高
我们作为个人

和社会的判断力,

我们最需要
的不是更多的逻辑

、修辞、概率或经济学方面的指导,

即使这些东西
非常有价值。

但我们最需要
很好地运用这些原则的

是侦察员的心态。

我们需要改变我们的感觉。 当我们发现自己可能在某件事上做错时,

我们需要学习如何感到自豪
而不是感到羞耻

当我们遇到一些
与我们的信念相矛盾的信息时,我们需要学习如何感到好奇而不是防御。

所以我想
留给你的问题是:

你最渴望什么?

你渴望捍卫自己的信仰吗?

还是您渴望
尽可能清楚地看世界?

谢谢你。

(掌声)