So most of us think that information is the best way to convince people of our truth,
and in fact it doesn’t work that well.We see that all the time.
We see it with climate change, where there’s tons of data suggesting that climate change
is man-made but about 50 percent of the population doesn’t believe it, or with people arguing
about things like how many people were in the presidential inauguration.
因此 我们有事实 但是人们决定他们想听什么事实 想采用什么事实
So we have facts but people decide which facts they want to listen to, which facts they want
to take and change their opinions, and which they want to disregard.
And one of the reasons for this is when something doesn’t conform to what I already believe,
what people tend to do is either disregard it or rationalize it away; because information
因为这些信息没有考虑人类的本质需求 即情感 欲望
doesn’t take into account what makes us human, which is our emotions, our desires,
our motives and our prior beliefs.
比如 在一项研究中 我的同事和我试图看看我们是否可以
So for example, in one study my colleagues and I tried it to see whether we could use
science to change people’s opinions about climate change.
The first thing we did was ask people, “Do you believe in man-made climate change?
Do you support the Paris Agreement?”
And based on their answers we divided them into the strong believers and the weak believers.
And then we gave them information.
对一些人 我们说 科学家已经重新对数据进行了评估 现在得出结论
For some people we said that scientists have reevaluated the data and now conclude that
things are actually much worse than they thought before, that the temperature would rise by
about seven degrees to ten degrees.
对于另外一些人 我们说 科学家已经重新对数据进行了分析 他们现在认为
For some people we said the scientists have reevaluated the data and they now believe
实际上情况并没有他们想象的那么糟糕 正相反 它更好
that actually this situation is not as bad as they thought, it’s much better, and the
rise in temperature would be quite small.
我们发现 那些并不相信气候变化的人 当他们听到
And what we found is that people who did not believe in climate change, when they heard
that the scientists are saying, “Actually it’s not that bad,” they changed their
beliefs even more in that direction, so they became more extremist in that direction, but
但是当他们听到 科学家认为情况更加糟糕的时候 他们没有改变自己的信念太多
when they heard that the scientists think it’s much worse they didn’t nudge.
And the people who already believe that climate change is man-made, when they heard that scientists
当他们听到科学家说 情况比之前认为的更糟时 他们更加趋向于自己原来的信念
are saying things are much worse than they said before, they moved more in that direction,
so they became more polarized, but when they heard scientists are saying it’s not that
bad they didn’t nudge much.
因此 我们给人们信息 结果导致两极化
So we gave people information and as a result it caused polarization, it didn’t cause
people to come together.
So the question is, what’s happening inside our brain that causes this?
And in one study my colleagues and I scanned brain activity of two people who were interacting,
and what we found was when those two people agreed on a question that we gave them, the
brain was really encoding what the other person was saying, the details that they gave; but
但是当两个人意见不一致时 大脑看起来仿佛是关闭的 而不是对其他人说的话进行编码
when the two people disagreed it looked metaphorically as if the brain was switching off and not
结果 当双方达成共识时 他们变得更加自信
encoding what the other person was saying.And as a result when the two agreed they became
even more confident, but when they disagreed there wasn’t as much of a change in their
confidence in their own view.
What has been shown by Kahan and colleagues from Yale University is that the more intelligent
you are the more likely you are to change data at will.
所以 他们做的是 首先对实验中的参与者进行分析 并解决一些数学问题
So what they did is they first gave participants in their experiment analytical and math questions
to solve, and then they gave them data about gun control: is gun control actually reducing violence?
And they found that more “intelligent” people actually were more likely to twist
data at will to make it conform to what they already believed.So it seems that people are
using their intelligence not necessarily to find the truth, but to take in the information
and change it to conform to what they already believe.
因此 这表明 不顾别人立场就给出信息 可能会适得其反
So that suggests that just giving people information without considering first where they’re
coming from may backfire at us, but we don’t always need to go against someone’s conviction
in order to change their behavior, and let me give you an example.
So this is a study that was conducted at UCLA where what they wanted to do is convince parents
to vaccinate their kids.
And some of the parents didn’t want to vaccinate their kids because they were afraid of the
link with autism.So they had two approaches, first they said, “Well the link with autism
“与自闭症的联系实际上并不真实 这里所有的数据表明 接种疫苗与自闭症之间
is actually not real, here’s all the data suggesting there isn’t a link between vaccines
And it didn’t really work that well.
But instead they used another approach.
因此 他们没有这么做 他们采用了另一种方法 让我们不要谈论自闭症
So instead of going that way they used another approach, which was: let’s not talk about
autism, we don’t necessarily need to talk about autism to convince you to vaccinate
他们说 “看 这些疫苗保护孩子免于致命的疾病和麻疹”
Instead they said, “Well look, these vaccines protect kids from deadly diseases, from the
measles,” and they showed them pictures of what the measles are.
Because in this argument about vaccines people actually forgot what the vaccines are for,
what are they protecting us from.
And they highlighted that and didn’t necessarily go on to discuss autism.
That had a much better outcome.
父母更有可能说 “是的 我们会给孩子接种疫苗的”
The parents were much more likely to say, “Yes we are going to vaccinate our kids.”
So the lesson here is that we need to find the common motive.
The common motive in this case was the health of the children, not necessarily going back
to the thing that they were arguing about, that they disagreed about.