52. 我们能在多大程度上定制自己的世界？

2468。

2468.

我们该感谢谁？

Who do we appreciate?

安吉拉，安吉拉，安吉拉。

Angela, Angela, Angela.

我是安吉拉·达克沃斯。

I'm Angela Duckworth.

我是史蒂文·杜布纳。

I'm Steven Dubner.

你正在收听的是《没有愚蠢的问题》。

And you're listening to no stupid questions.

本期节目主题：日益增长的定制化产品需求将如何塑造我们社会的未来？

Today on the show, how will the rising demand for customized products shape the future of our society?

有太多果酱和太多坚果种类了。

With too many jams and too many kinds of nuts.

另外，多任务处理真的能提高效率吗？

Also, does multitasking actually increase productivity?

尽管我非常专注于与安吉拉·达克沃斯的对话，但我同时也在呼吸和坐着。

Even though I'm pretty focused on speaking with Angela Duckworth, I'm also breathing and sitting.

我可能还在消化食物。

I'm probably digesting.

安吉拉，我想请教你一个问题，这个问题是受到我们为《魔鬼经济学》电台收到的听众邮件启发。

Angela, I wanna ask you a question that's inspired by some of the listener emails we receive for Freakonomics Radio.

听起来不错。

Sounds good.

典型的邮件可能会这样写：'我很喜欢你们的节目，但如果你们再像第400期那样做某件事，我就不听了。'

So a typical email might read something like, I love your show, but if you ever do this again or that again as you did on episode number 400 whatever, I'm gonna stop listening.

有时候是他们不喜欢的特定嘉宾，可能是因为意识形态或政治原因，但通常是因为嘉宾的说话方式，比如频繁使用升调或声音沙哑。

Sometimes it's a particular guest they dislike, maybe for ideological reasons or political reasons, but usually, it's the way a guest will talk, maybe a lot of uptalk or maybe with vocal fry.

还有些声音会惹恼听众，比如用警笛声作为音效——我们早就意识到这确实很烦人，因为如果你骑车或走路时听播客

There are also sounds that annoy people, sirens being used as sound effects, which we realized a long time ago is truly annoying because if you're out listening to a podcast on your bike or walking

你无法分辨那是不是真的警笛声。

You don't know if it's a real siren.

没错。

Exactly.

所以我们去掉了那个音效。

So we got rid of that.

还有我们停用的另一个东西。

And then there's something else we stopped.

这里有一封我们不久前收到的邮件。

Here, this is an email we got not long ago.

一位听众写道：看在老天爷的份上，请永远不要再在你们的播客里录制有人啜饮或咀嚼的声音了。

Please, someone writes, for the love of all that is good and holy, never record someone slurping or chewing on your podcast again.

我这么说完全是出于关爱，为了所有听到这些声音就会怒火中烧的人们。

I say this out of love and for everyone who is overcome with murderous rage when they hear those noises.

请不要再播放啜饮或咀嚼的声音。

Please don't play slurps or chewing.

事实上，我们确实做过关于恐音症的节目。

In fact, we've actually done episodes about misophonia.

那是什么？

What is that?

恐音症是一种听到某些口腔声音（如啜饮声和咀嚼声）会感到非常痛苦的病症。

Misophonia is a condition whereby it's very painful to hear certain oral sounds like slurping and chewing.

事实上，尽管我们知道这一点，尽管我们做过相关主题的节目，最近还是尝试了一种新的所谓'音效标识'——就像二十世纪福克斯那种能让人产生品牌联想的小声音标志。

In fact, even though we knew this, even though we'd done an episode on this topic, we recently tried out a new what's called a sting, which is a little sonic stamp that you hear meant to brand something like twentieth Century Fox.

哦，对。

Oh, right.

对。

Right.

对。

Right.

就像Netflix那个众所周知的音效。

Like the Netflix sound that everyone knows.

没错。

Exactly.

所以我们的技术总监Greg Rippon——他既出色又富有创意——为Freakonomics Radio网络设计了一个新的声音标识，因为我们正在推出新节目，包括这个节目本身。

So our technical director, Greg Rippon, who's wonderful and creative, created a new sonic stamp to represent the Freakonomics Radio network since we're starting new shows, including this very show.

而且不是那个收银机的音效。

And it's not the cash register thing.

确实不是。

It's not.

我们取消了那个收银机音效，我一直很讨厌它，因为它就像在说'现在要播放一条收费广告了'。

We got rid of the cash register thing, which I always hated because it said, like, here's an ad that we're playing now for money.

总之，Greg Rippon创作了这个美妙的新片头，采用了我们主题曲的前几个节拍，就是那种'咚 咚 咚 咚 咚 咚 咚 咚 咚'的旋律。

Anyway, Greg Rippon created this new beautiful sting, which was the first couple beats of our theme song, which goes bump bump bump bump bump bump bump bump bump.

对吧？

Right?

这是首经典的新奥尔良风格乐曲，有铜管乐和鼓点之类的元素。

It's a good old New Orleans song with horns and drums and whatnot.

它只是前几个节拍，接着是有人咬苹果的声音，因为我们的Freakonomics标志是我们所称的'Orple'。

It was just the first few beats followed by the sound of someone biting into an apple since our Freakonomics logo is what we call an Orple.

哦，那个橙子苹果的玩意儿。

Oh, the orange apple thing.

对。

Right.

紧接着，我们就开始收到来自恐音症患者的焦虑邮件，说你们不明白。

And immediately, the distraught emails from misophonia sufferers started coming in saying, you don't understand.

听到那种声音很痛苦。

Hearing that sound is painful.

所以如果某件事即使对一小部分人来说也非常困扰，你该怎么办？

So if something is very disturbing to even a small share of people, what do you do about it?

那就改变它。

You change it.

我们把它取消了。

We killed it.

如果这是帕累托最优的，尤其是当你做出改变后，那些患有中间音厌恶症的人会受益，而其他人也不会受损。

If it's Pareto optimal, especially, that if you change it, the sufferers of mesophonia like, they are better off and nobody else is worse off.

嗯，我认为格雷格·里彭会争辩说这不是帕累托最优，因为他创造了某个东西。

Well, I think Greg Rippon would argue that it wasn't Pareto optimal because he'd created something.

哦，确实。

Oh, yeah.

格雷格是受损的一方。

Greg was worse off.

这是帕累托最优减一。

It was Pareto optimal minus one.

是的。

Yeah.

总之，我的观点是这样的。

So, anyway, here's my point.

当有人提出非常具体的投诉或请求时，无论是针对数百万人消费的产品，还是餐厅为他们准备的餐食。

When someone lodges a very specific complaint or request, whether it's for a product that millions of people are consuming or it's a meal that's being prepared for them in a restaurant.

这让我不禁思考，我们对这个世界的可定制性究竟抱有多大的期望。

It makes me wonder just how customizable we expect the world to be.

或者说，我真正想让你回答的是，安吉拉，如何权衡总是得到想要的东西的价值与接受现状的价值？

Or, really, what I'd like you to answer is how do you assess the value, Angela, of getting what you want all the time versus the value of being able to accept what already exists?

这个问题之所以如此精彩，是因为我们正经历着前所未有的定制化时代。

The reason why this is such a great question is that we're living through ever more customization availability.

你还记得只有三大电视网的那个年代吗？

Do you remember the days where there were three major television networks?

我记得。

I do.

我还记得用圆珠笔在电视节目表上圈出《爱之船》的播出时间，周四晚上8点，迫不及待想看。

And I remember paging through the TV guide and actually with a ballpoint pen circling, like, oh, Thursday night, 08:00, love boat.

都等不及了。

Can't wait.

那个时代的美好之处在于我们都在同一时间观看同样的节目。

And the nice thing about that era was that we all were watching things at the same time.

我认为我们那时有更多共同的经历。

We had more, I think, shared experience.

你还记得《花生漫画》特别节目播出的时候吗？

Do you remember when there would be the peanuts specials?

第二天到学校，所有人都在讨论它。

And you'd come to school the next day, and everybody's talking about it.

我们不仅在字面意义上看着相同的电视指南，在隐喻层面也保持着同步。

We were all literally on the same page if you don't wanna think about TB guide and sort of metaphorically on the same page.

你能相信大南瓜居然没出现吗？

Could you believe the great pumpkin didn't come?

太悲剧了。

So tragic.

我有点怀念那个时代，也许我只是在浪漫化社交媒体推送定制化之前的岁月——那时你无法只看到自己认同的内容。

I kind of missed that, and maybe I'm just romanticizing the era before you could customize your social media feed to be only people that you agree with.

但我确实认为我们失去了一些东西。

But I do think that we have lost something.

我接受你这位长者论点中的一些观点，也认同其中部分内容，因为确实，简单之中蕴含着美好。

I embrace elements of your old person's argument, and I share some of them because, yes, there is something wonderful about simplicity.

而且，没错，共同经历等等等等。

And, yes, shared experiences yada yada yada.

但即便那种状态更令人向往，它也早已一去不复返了。

But even if that were more desirable, it's long gone.

你瞧。

And look.

如果你愿意，完全可以把选择范围设定得非常狭窄。

You can customize things to have a very narrow choice set if that's what you want.

要是你想把家里的有线电视只锁定ABC、NBC和CBS这几个频道，我相信这很容易做到。

If you wanna program your cable at home to have only ABC, NBC, and CBS, I'm sure you can quite easily.

真正的挑战在于：当数字世界让一切变得更可定制时，我们是否要将这种模式延伸到人际关系、工作等领域？

The challenge really is as the digital world especially makes things more customizable, do we want to extend that into our relationships, our work, and so on?

或者，再问一次：让自己更适应环境是否才是更好的选择？

Or, again, is it better to make yourself more adaptable to circumstances?

所以常识告诉我后者更可取，与其做一个拥有固定偏好、特质或关系的人，不如学会随遇而安，在各种情境下与各类人群相处融洽。

So common sense tells me the latter, that rather than being a person who has a very fixed set of preferences or traits or relationships, it would be good to be able to go with the flow, to get along with all sorts of people in all sorts of situations.

但或许更好的期待是世界来适应你，而非你去适应世界？

But is it perhaps better to expect that the world should become you rather than you become the world?

对。

Yeah.

谁该做出妥协？

Who should do the bending?

首先，我要论证一个我认为定制化绝对有益且应该大力推广的领域。

First, I'm gonna argue for one domain in which I think customization is hands down good, and we should do more of it.

那就是教育领域。

And that is in education.

个性化教学是指通过软件程序或教师，根据学习者当下需求提供精准内容，而非按部就班地推进统一课程。

Personalized instruction is when a software program or, in fact, a teacher gives you as a student or a learner exactly what you need at that moment instead of what the next chapter says we should all be doing.

你还记得那种感觉吗？当老师讲授着自以为适合全班的内容时，你却坐在那里无聊透顶——因为那些内容显然不适合你。

You recall what it was like to be sitting there just bored as could be while the teacher said something that the teacher thought was applicable to most of the class, but certainly wasn't applicable to you.

比如，你已经知道第17题的答案了，根本不需要看老师在黑板上演算。

Like, you already know what the answer to number 17 was, and you don't need it worked out on the board.

这简直是浪费时间。

And it's a waste of time.

当你开始感到沮丧时，对第18题什么的就更提不起兴趣了。

And as you start to get frustrated, you're less engaged in whatever question 18 is.

你早就兴致全无了。

You're not interested already.

学习中的两西格玛效应指的是：如果让学生只专注于他们真正需要学习的内容，而非其他学生需要学习的内容，学习效果会有两个标准差（约30个百分点）的提升。

The two sigma effect in learning refers to this finding that you would have a two standard deviation increase, enormous learning gains, if you would only allow students to be working on exactly what they needed to be working on, not what all the other students need to be working on.

经济学家们一直在研究个性化教学，发现这确实是一种极其可靠的方法——在不改变学习本质的前提下，通过调整课程进度和反馈方向等方式显著提升学习效果。

Economists have been studying personalized instruction and finding that indeed, it's an extremely reliable way to improve learning without changing the nature of what was being learned just to customize where in the curriculum that person should be and where the feedback needs to be directed, etcetera.

我记得第一次听说这种定制化教育理念，大概是在十到十二年前。

I remember first learning about this kind of thing, customized education, probably ten, eleven, twelve years ago.

当时纽约市教育局有个试点项目叫'一人一校'，后来演变成由乔尔·罗斯运营的营利性项目'新教室'。

There was a pilot program in the New York City Department of Ed called School of One, which then morphed into a for profit program called New Classrooms run by a guy named Joel Rose.

所以我不知道你是否熟悉这个特定的项目或公司。

So I don't know if you're familiar with this particular program or company.

我知道。

I am.

乔尔·罗斯是一位教育家。

Joel Rose is an educator.

他的平台非常强调教育中个性化不足的问题，他曾说，我们为什么要这样做？

His platform is very much about how there is not enough customization in education, and he was like, why would we do that?

难道我们都应该穿同样尺码的鞋吗？

Should we all wear the same size shoe?

当然不应该。

Like, of course not.

是啊。

Yeah.

当我第一次听说这个理念时，觉得它非常有道理。

And when I first heard about it, it made so much sense.

他的观点是，数学技能的掌握程度因人而异。

His argument was that with math, skill acquisition is so heterogeneous.

每个人的学习速度和理解维度都存在巨大差异。

People acquire vastly different speeds and dimensions.

因此他和团队设计了一种方法：先评估每个学生的能力，然后通过多种教学模式进行授课。

So he and his team came up with a way to measure each student's ability, then receive a lesson in any number of different modalities.

可能是传统的大班授课——一位老师面对许多学生。

There might be a teacher at the head of a classroom with many kids.

也可能是小班教学。

There might be a smaller group.

可能是同伴互助学习。

It might be peer learning.

也可能是虚拟课堂。

It might be virtual.

然后在每次教学后进行测试，观察每个学生在哪种教学模式下学习效果最佳。

And then test each kid after each learning session and see which kid learned best under which modality.

然后你运用这个神奇的算法，将信息输入其中，第二天每个孩子就能拥有最适合自己的个性化学习算法，包含对他们最有效的不同教学模式。

Then you take your magical algorithm, feed that information into it, and the next day, every kid has their own customized learning algorithm with the different modalities that work best for them.

总之，这就是他的模型。

So, anyway, that's his model.

根据那家公司的说法，效果相当不错。

According to that firm, it works pretty well.

显然，疫情的一个副作用是推动了虚拟和异步教育的发展，但令我惊讶的是，这个理念似乎对整体教育领域影响甚微。

Obviously, one side effect of the pandemic is that there's been some move toward virtual and asynchronous education, but I've been astonished by how little that idea seems to have invaded education generally.

也许是我没注意到。

And maybe I'm missing it.

我的孩子们已经不小了，但看起来这方面的进展并不大。

My kids are no longer young, but it seems like it's not made that much headway.

史蒂文，我很遗憾地说，对于教育界接受常识性创新总是慢如蜗牛这件事，我从不感到惊讶。

I am sad to say, Steven, that I'm never astonished at the snail's pace at which education seems to embrace common sense innovation.

我不太了解的一个方面是教师——尤其是教师工会——对这种改革运动的抵制程度，我记得当年报道'一人一校'项目时曾向乔尔提出过这个问题。

One area I don't know more about is the degree to which teachers and especially teachers' unions are against this movement, and I know that was a question that I asked Joel way back then when I was reporting on School of One.

他的回答是，拥有这种技术和可定制的教育并不一定意味着需要更少的教师。

And his reply was, well, having this kind of technology and customizable education doesn't necessarily presume there will be the need for fewer teachers.

事实上，可能需要更多教师，因为可能会有更多情境和教学模式。

In fact, there might be more because there might be more circumstances and more modalities.

但我认为，每当事物保持现状时，总有一部分人出于各种原因（其中一些是合理的）不愿改变。

But I think whenever something is the way it's been, there's always a quadrant that is reluctant to change for all kinds of reasons, some of them good.

嗯，我不确定是教师个人不愿改变，还是存在某种制度惯性。

Well, I'm not sure it's individual teachers who are reluctant or whether there's a kind of institutional inertia.

你知道，我们已经使用了这些教材，而且花了很多钱购买。

You know, we have all these textbooks that we've been using, and we spent a lot of money on them.

我们所有的专业发展培训都已经为明年安排好了。

And all of our professional development trainings are already set up for the next year.

这些都是各种原因。

This is all kinds of reasons.

不过我要补充一点，虽然我们很多人都渴望改变，但正如俗话所说，还是会固守熟悉的事物。

Although I would add to that very long list, individually, many of us yearn for change but cling to the familiar as the saying goes.

但我们不会倒退。

But we are not going backward.

我们只会向前迈进。

We are only going forward.

想想可汗学院、Zurn数学这些项目，因为使用人数众多，我们已开始视其为理所当然——它们都是可定制的。

And just think about Khan Academy, Zurn Math, all of these programs that we're starting to take for granted because so many people are using them, they're all customizable.

你看。

And look.

每个领域情况都不同。

It's different in every realm.

以医疗为例，天啊，个性化定制医疗已成为多年来的口号，不仅针对癌症这类复杂疾病，总体而言，医生掌握的患者数据越多，现有治疗方案数据越丰富，理论上疗效就会越好。

If you think about medicine, I mean, goodness, customizable personalized medicine has been a mantra now for many years, not just for things like cancer that are so complicated, but generally, the more data a doctor, for instance, has on you and the more data there exists on potential treatments, the better the outcomes, theoretically, at least.

另外，网上有个工具叫配置器数据库项目。

Also, there is a tool online called the configurator database project.

这个例子说明了大众定制化从消费者端来看有多普遍。

This is an example of how widespread mass customization is from the consumer end.

所以当你想买东西时，可以上这个配置器数据库项目，查看不同公司——17个行业中超过1300家企业——从定制化角度提供的产品，无论是露营装备、服装、汽车等等。

So when you wanna buy stuff, you can go on this configurator database project and look at how different companies, more than 1,300 companies in 17 industries, what they offer from a customized perspective, whether it's camping gear, clothing, cars, and so on.

对于那些习惯使用它的人来说，可选方案变得异常丰富。

And the options become, for those who are comfortable using it, unbelievably bountiful.

但我认为世界如此迅速地提供这么多选择，对人们来说是种负担。

But I think that the world offering so many options so quickly is overwhelming for people.

尽管很容易论证定制化的好处很大，但那种压迫感或困惑因素会促使一些人直接拒绝。

And while it's pretty easy to make an argument that the benefits are large to customizing, I think the intimidation or the confusion factor persuades some people to say, nah.

我只要我那三个频道就够了。

I just want my three channels.

别来烦我。

Get out of my face.

这就是我提出这个问题时感受到的阻力。

And that's the friction that I'm feeling when I ask this question.

这简直和Trader Joe's的理念完全相反。

This is like the opposite of Trader Joe's then.

对吧？

Right?

我喜欢去Trader Joe's的原因就是，那里不会给你17种腰果让你选。

What I love about going to Trader Joe's is when you go, you don't have 17 kinds of cashews.

你基本上只有一个选择，要么买，要么不买。

You basically have a choice, and you buy them or you don't.

其实我特别喜欢这种选择被简化的感觉。

And I love the reduction of choice, actually.

就像Sheena Iyengar著名的果酱研究证明的那样：如果在漂亮的超市里展示24种不同果酱，会有很多人停下来免费品尝，但实际购买的人并不多；而如果只展示3到6种口味，虽然停下来看热闹的人会变少，但购买的人反而更多。

Or as Sheena Iyengar proved with her famous jams study, if you have, like, 24 different types of jam on display in a beautiful grocery store, many, many, many people will stop for a free taste if that's what you're offering, but not that many people will buy as opposed to if you have three or six flavors on display and offer a sample, then fewer people may stop by the spectacle, but more will buy.

这就是选择悖论的典型案例。

That's the paradox of choice lesson.

现在想想选择悖论——果酱种类太多、坚果种类太多、定制选项太多其实很糟糕，这里面存在隐性成本。

Now when you think about paradox of choice and with too many jams and too many kinds of nuts and customization can be really bad, actually, or there's this hidden cost of it.

也许技术会再次拯救我们，毕竟正是它制造了选择过剩的问题。

It may be that technology will rescue us once again, having created a problem of too much choice.

它会通过人工智能算法来拯救我们，这些算法会为你提供个性化推荐。

It'll rescue us because of artificial intelligence algorithms that serve you up.

你知道吗？

You know?

就像Alexa刚刚告诉我下一本应该读的书。

Like, Alexa just told me the next book I should read.

Netflix会告诉我下一部可能想看的电影。

Netflix is gonna tell me the next movie I might wanna watch.

而我提到的教育程序不会给你14道不同的数学题让你选择。

And the education programs that I mentioned aren't giving you 14 different math problems that you could do next.

它只会说：做这道题，这是根据非常复杂的计算、你的历史记录等因素为你精选的。

It's just gonna say, do this one, and it's been selected for you based on this very sophisticated computation and your past history and so forth.

所以你可以说技术是来拯救我们的。

So you could argue technology to the rescue.

但我认为定制化的代价在于，如果你把孩子培养成总是希望一切都能完全如他们所愿，我认为你正在为他们埋下一些不快乐的种子。

But I think the tax of customization is that if you raise your children to always want things to be ever more just so for them, you are, I think, setting them up for a bit of unhappiness.

他们永远不会满足于已有的东西，因为总会有空间让事物更贴合他们独特的偏好。

They're never gonna be satisfied with what they got because there's always gonna be some room for things to be a little more customized to your idiosyncratic preferences.

我得说这听起来有点像是你提出的一个出奇守旧的观点。

I have to say that sounds a little bit like a surprisingly antediluvian argument coming from you.

那个词'antediluvian'是什么意思？

What does that word antediluvian mean?

老派的，可以这么说。

Old fashioned, let's say.

'deluvian'又是什么意思？

What does deluvian mean?

那是在Deluvia时代之前的事。

It was before the age of Deluvia.

哦，'anti'表示'之前'的意思。

Oh, anti as in before.

是的。

Yes.

哦，我一直以为是反对迪鲁维亚（Diluvia）的人，或是迪鲁维亚这个国家之类的。

Oh, I always thought, like, who's against Diluvia, the nation of Diluvia or something.

那是指大洪水之前的时代，圣经里的大洪水，前迪鲁维亚时期。

It's the time before the flood, the biblical flood, anti Diluvian.

所以，就是很久以前。

So, like, a long time ago.

所以你听起来像个老古板，我理解怀旧的部分，也理解共享社区的部分。

So you sound like an old fogey, and I get the nostalgia part, and I get the shared community part.

但你难道不希望年轻人、老年人、所有人都能拥抱人类文明存在的所有可能性吗？

But don't you want young people, old people, every people to embrace all the possibilities that exist in humankind and civilization?

换句话说，你难道不希望大家关注每年只导致一千人死亡的疾病吗？

In other words, don't you want people to be concerned about a disease that only kills a thousand people a year?

你难道不希望艺术家思考可能只对世界上万人重要的想法吗？

Don't you want artists to think about an idea that may matter only to 10,000 people in the world?

因为这不正是我们谈论拥抱多样性时真正的含义吗？

Because isn't that what we really mean when we talk about our embrace of diversity?

嗯，两件事可以同时成立，但会给你不同的行动建议。

Well, two things can be true at the same time that give you different prescriptive recommendations.

你可以治愈癌症的同时只有三个电视频道。

You can cure cancer and have only three TV stations the same time.

这正是我的观点。

That's exactly my point.

我们意见一致。

We're on the same page.

不。

No.

我的意思是，在某些方面，定制化非常棒。

My point being that in some ways, customization is amazing.

我很高兴技术让定制化不仅存在于医疗和教育领域，还延伸到消费品等领域。

And I'm so glad that technology has made customization not only in medicine, not only in education, but in consumer goods and so forth.

比如，我就很喜欢能买到精确到咖啡豆种类、咖啡因含量、研磨度的咖啡，一切都很好。

Like, I love that I can buy exactly the coffee bean, caffeination, grind, all good.

所以说，定制化是值得欢呼点赞的。

So that says, yay, thumbs up on customization.

我们应该推广更多定制化。

Let's have more of it.

但与此同时，我认为必须认识到当每个人都各行其是时，我们会失去某些东西。

At the same time, I think it's possible to recognize that when everybody is doing their own thing, there's something lost there.

这并不是说其中一种方式永远优于另一种。

And it's not that one is always better than the other.

我很不愿意这么说。

I hate to say this.

用安吉拉·达克沃斯的话说，我强烈同意你的观点。

In the words of Angela Duckworth, I violently agree with you.

事实上，我主要是站在魔鬼代言人的立场，因为我也享受集体纽带和共同体验这件事——那唯一的一件事。

And in fact, I was mostly taking the devil's advocate position because I too enjoy the communal bond and shared experience of the thing, the one thing.

但我确实觉得这是个非常有趣的谜题，尤其是代际之间的谜题。

But I do find it to be a really interesting puzzle and especially a generational puzzle.

我们的孩子正处于青少年晚期，他们成长在一个选择多元化的时代，尤其是那些二三十年前根本不存在的数字选项。

Our kids are of the age, they're in their late teens, where they've grown up with a palette of options, especially digital options that plainly didn't exist twenty or thirty years ago.

我真的很想看看这会在非数字领域如人际关系、工作等方面如何发展。

And I'm really interested to see how that will play out in non digital realms like relationships and work and so on.

你知道，我有个朋友——这完全是非科学观察——他的两个孩子结婚很早，而大多数高学历家庭的孩子不会这么早结婚。

You know, a friend of mine this is totally nonscientific, but a friend of mine whose two kids got married quite early, and most highly educated families' kids don't get married so early.

不会。

No.

他们结婚更晚。

They're getting married later.

但他们确实结婚了。

But they did.

他说，如今年轻人可以借助技术在极短的时间内浏览完所有潜在伴侣的选择范围。

And he said, these days, young people, they can go through the entire universe of prospective mates in a very, very, very short time because of technology.

你基本上能找到尽可能匹配的对象，排除许多不理想的选择，然后就会想‘好吧，我们继续吧’。

You can basically find as close to a match as possible and eliminate a lot of nonoptimal choices, and then you're like, well, let's get on with it.

再次强调，这简直毫无科学依据可言。

Again, that is about as unscientific as it gets.

比如，你可以通过浏览他们的Facebook账号了解大量信息，使得筛选过程如此高效，以至于你可能在23岁就结婚，而不是等到三十多岁。

Like, you can, for example, go on their Facebook account and learn so many things about them that the search process is so efficient that you could maybe marry somebody when you're 23 versus in your thirties or something.

是啊。

Yeah.

这真有意思。

That is so interesting.

我的意思是，我并不否认你能更快地了解事物，但我认为定制化文化带来的一个不幸后果是，我们有时会设定一些根本无法达到的标准。

I mean, I don't disagree that you can learn things more quickly, I think the unhappy consequence of a culture of customization is that we have standards which are sometimes impossible to meet.

还有很多人坚持等待一个能完全符合他们所有定制要求的人。

And there are many people who just are holding out for somebody who's even more customized to everything they wanted.

他们没有意识到，比起找到一个完全符合你定制要求的人，更重要的是共同经营一段关系，实际上需要双方做出很多妥协。

They don't realize that more than getting the customized person that you want, it's about building a relationship together and actually doing a lot of bending, honestly.

不过我的确觉得这种想法有点...怎么说呢。

But I do think this kind of like, hey.

也许我再坚持久一点，就能遇到更好的人。

Maybe if I hold out a little longer, I can get someone who's even better.

我确实觉得这种想法有点问题。

I do think that's kind of problematic.

我明白你的意思。

I see your point.

你知道吗，我们孩子小时候流行过一句话。

You know, was a mantra going around when our kids were little.

不知道费城那边是不是也流行同样的说法。

I don't know if you had the same mantra in Philadelphia.

得到什么就是什么。

You get what you get.

而且不能生气。

And you don't get upset.

生气。

Upset.

是的。

Yes.

在费城更好，因为你在费城得不到那么多。

Even better in Philadelphia because you don't get that much in Philadelphia.

但为什么我们要在孩子进入一个这完全不符合现实的年龄段时告诉他们这些呢？

But why the heck are we telling this to our children when they're entering into an age where that's not at all true?

不如要求更多，专门给史蒂文·杜布纳发邮件，也许他会改变主意。

How about ask for more, email Steven Dubner specifically, and maybe he'll change it.

接下来在《无脑问题》节目中。

Still to come on no stupid questions.

安吉拉要测试史蒂文的多任务处理能力。

Angela tests Steven's multitasking skills.

从数字11开始，加上17，然后继续加下去。

Start with the number 11 and add 17 and just keep going.

我还希望你回答我的下一个问题。

I also want you to answer my next question.

你能同时做这两件事吗？

Can you do those two things in parallel?

嘿。

Hey.

史蒂文，我想给你读一封听众的邮件。

Steven, I'd like to read you an email from one of our listeners.

鲍勃·班诺克写道：我最近听了《没有愚蠢的问题》第42期。

Bob Bannock writes, I recently listened to no stupid questions episode 42.

哦，42期很棒。

Oh, 42 is a good one.

在节目中，史蒂文开玩笑地回应安吉拉说人们可以多任务处理。

In it, Steven jokingly responds to Angela that people can multitask.

丽贝卡在节目最后没有核实这一点，但我认为你们应该在未来的节目中讨论这个话题，因为我读到的相关文章都说，当你多任务处理时，最终哪项任务都做不好。

Rebecca did not fact check the point at the end of the episode, but I think you should address the topic in a future episode since the stories I've read on the subject say, when you multitask, you end up not doing your best on any of the tests.

我认为这是个值得你们深入探讨的话题。

I think it is a worthy topic for your investigation.

首先，我很喜欢鲍勃在核实事实或缺乏事实核查这一点。

So first of all, I love that Bob is fact checking or fact checking or lack thereof.

是啊。

Yeah.

非常元。

Very meta.

当我开玩笑说人们可以多任务处理时，我们当时在讨论美国疫情期间生育率下降的问题，而你说这是因为大家都在狂看网飞。

When I jokingly said that people can multitask, we were talking about the fact that fertility has fallen in The US during the pandemic, and you said it's because everybody's binging on Netflix.

然后我说，难道你不能同时做两件事吗？

And I said, well, can't you do two things at the same time?

是的。

Yes.

嗯，我想这取决于你是否把其中一件事设为自动模式。

Well, I guess it depends on whether you've put one of those two things on autopilot.

自动模式。

Autopilot.

但鲍勃实际上并没有提出问题。

But Bob didn't actually ask a question.

他说这是个值得探讨的话题。

He says it's a topic worth investigating.

那么，安吉拉，我们把它变成一个或两个问题来问鲍勃如何？

So, Angela, how about we turn it into a question for Bob or maybe two?

首先可能是，什么是多任务处理？

Starting with perhaps, what is multitasking?

我认为这个词最早出现在20世纪60年代，当时讨论的是计算机，特别是IBM计算机，这个概念是指计算机可以像人类一样同时执行多个任务。

I believe the word first arose in the nineteen sixties talking about computers, IBM computers specifically, and the idea was that a computing machine could literally execute multiple tasks simultaneously unlike a human.

但它后来有了别的含义，我想我们都知道，但或许应该先定义一下。

But it's come to mean something else, which I think we all know, but we should probably define.

我认为多任务处理这个术语通常指同步执行两项任务，我认为这是关键，不是按顺序，而是同时进行。

I think the term multitasking refers generally to doing two tasks synchronously, and I think that's the key, not in series, but at the same time.

但如果你说同步执行两项任务，我可以说，就像现在，尽管我正专注于和安吉拉·达克沃斯交谈，但我同时也在呼吸和坐着。

But if you say two tasks synchronously, I could say, well, right now, even though I'm pretty focused on speaking with Angela Duckworth, I'm also breathing and sitting.

我可能正在消化食物。

I'm probably digesting.

我之前吃过午饭了。

I ate lunch earlier.

希望我正在消化。

I hope I'm digesting.

从这个角度看，我就像一台六十年代的计算机，但这显然不是鲍勃想表达的意思。

So in that regard, I'm just like a nineteen sixties computer, but that's not what Bob means plainly.

我猜鲍勃更关心的是我们讨论的那种认知层面的多任务处理。

I gather Bob is much more concerned with the sort of cognitive multitasking that we talk about.

对吗？

Yes?

嗯，我认为当你提到自己在呼吸等等时，这些活动从某种意义上说也是认知性的，因为你的大脑参与其中。

Well, I think that when you talk about the fact that you are breathing and so forth, those are also cognitive in the sense that your brain has a role.

哦，你现在开始跟我卖弄聪明了。

Oh, now you're getting all smarty pants on me.

是啊。

Yeah.

我要进入神经学模式了。

I'm going neuro.

顺便说一句，我可是有神经生物学和神经科学学位的人，让我们稍微炫耀一下。

And by the way, I have, like, a degree in neurobiology and degree in neuroscience, so let's flex a little bit here.

嘿。

Hey.

你知道吗？

You know what?

现在一切都值得了。

It's all worth it now.

没错。

Yeah.

说得对。

That's right.

嗯，我觉得我要说的话其实并不需要那些学位。

Well, I think what I'm about to say, it didn't really need those degrees.

这不是一个微不足道的例子，比如我在呼吸。

It is not a trivial example to say, I'm breathing.

我在消化。

I'm digesting.

你也在用你的眼睛。

You're also using your eyes.

你的视觉系统正在处理大量信息。

Your visual system is processing lots of information.

你至少应该承认存在并行处理。

You should at least just acknowledge that there's parallel processing.

我认为更有趣且更切中鲍勃问题要害的是，比如说，如果我让你从数字11开始，不断加17会怎样。

I think what is intriguing and maybe more to the point for Bob's question is, what about, for example, if I said, Steven, I want you to start with the number 11 and add 17 and just keep going.

然后如果我说，史蒂文，我还要你回答我的下一个问题。

And then if I said, Steven, I also want you to answer my next question.

你能同时做这两件事吗？

Can you do those two things in parallel?

这类高层次问题很难与另一个同类型高层次问题同步进行。

That's the kind of higher level problem that is hard to do in synchrony with another higher level problem of the same kind.

没错。

Right.

而且计算质数相加本身就很难。

And adding prime numbers is just hard.

是的。

Yes.

确实如此。

It is.

如果我说从零开始每次加二，你可能能做到。

You might be able to do if I said, like, start with zero and add twos.

顺便说一句，我认为实际上仍然会很困难。

By the way, I think it would actually still be hard.

我们试试看。

Let's try it.

二四六八。

Two four six eight.

我们该感谢谁？

Who do we appreciate?

安吉拉，安吉拉，安吉拉。

Angela, Angela, Angela.

那我母亲告诉我什么，史蒂文？

And then what did my mother tell me, Steven?

你母亲告诉你十、十二、十四、十六、十八

Your mother told you that ten, twelve, fourteen, sixteen, eighteen

我母亲告诉我，得到什么就是什么，不要抱怨。

My mother told me you get what you get, but you don't get upset.

+1，820-2224。

+1, 820-2224.

其实告诉你这句话的并不是你母亲，因为这话是在你母亲之后才出现的。

It wasn't actually your mother that told you that because that came after your mother.

你现在提到的是一场远古时期的对话。

You're referring to an antediluvian conversation now.

26，28，三十，三十。

26, 28, thirty, thirty.

顺便说一句，你把这些数字念出声来，可能反而能帮助你更好地进行多任务处理。

And by the way, the fact that you are saying it out loud, that might have been a way for you to actually multitask a little better.

168。

168.

但多任务处理本身其实是神经科学家和心理学家激烈争论的话题。

But multitasking itself is actually a topic of lively debate among neuroscientists and psychologists as well.

人脑确实能毫不费力地同时处理某些并行任务。

There are things that the human brain is able to do in parallel with other things at no cost.

我认为体力活动和认知活动通常占用的是不同的大脑区域。

I think physical and cognitive can are very often take different real estate.

比如，你可以一边走路一边听播客。

Like, you can walk, and you can listen to a podcast at the same time.

我认为问题在于：

I think the question is this.

显然，某些高级脑力任务——比如进行复杂运算或思考生命意义——确实存在干扰问题。

Clearly, there are certain higher level mental tasks, doing really hard arithmetic, thinking about the meaning of life, that does seem to have an interference problem.

科学界有个合理共识：存在一种所谓的'稀缺意识注意力资源'，关于它为何有限、具体如何有限、神经架构如何运作等问题仍在争论中。

And there's a reasonable consensus in the scientific community that there is something of a, quote, unquote, scarce resource of conscious attention, and that is debated about why it is finite, what is exactly the sense in which it's finite, how does the neural architecture work.

但大脑无法并行处理某些任务这一发现本身是无可争议的。

But the finding itself that some things the brain can't do in parallel is pretty incontrovertible.

你提到了意识注意力的有限供给。

You mentioned a finite supply of conscious attention.

有没有办法增加这种供给？

Is there a way to increase that supply?

资源有限性可能有两种表现方式。

There are two ways in which a resource can be finite.

注意力可能是有限的，因为它会耗尽。

Attention might be finite in the sense that it runs out.

注意力和认知控制的有限性还有另一种含义，即在任何特定时刻，我只有一定的量。

There's another sense in which attention and cognitive control can be finite, and that is that any given moment, I only have a certain amount.

它更像是带宽。

It's more like bandwidth.

如果被一件事占据，就会挤占其他事情的空间，但不会随时间减少。

And if it's being taken up by one thing, it crowds out something else, but it's not diminished over time.

它不会被耗尽。

It's not depleted.

我认为一个重大争议是这些认知控制和注意力资源是否属于第一种有限性。

And I think one of the big controversies is whether these cognitive control, attentional resources are finite in the first sense.

比如，嘿。

Like, hey.

如果我花很多精力专注在史蒂文身上，那么播客结束后我就得回家小睡或放纵自己的冲动——这与第二种有限性不同。

If I spend a lot of energy focusing on Steven, then after this podcast session, I'll have to go home and take a nap or indulge my impulses versus the second kind.

科学界日益达成的共识是，这些认知控制资源更像是带宽意义上的有限——在任何特定时刻，你只能将其分配到某一件事上。

The growing consensus in the scientific community is that these cognitive control resources are more finite in the sense of bandwidth, that at any given time, you can only allocate them to one thing or the other.

而这可能是多任务处理困难的核心原因。

And that may be the crux of why multitasking is difficult.

当你驾驶汽车时，如果此刻想查看短信，你的注意力就无法分配到例如对向车流或作为驾驶员需要留意的其他路况上。

When you are driving a car, if you want to check your text messages at that moment, Your attention is not allocated to, for example, the oncoming traffic or what else is going on that you need to be aware of as a driver.

正是在这个意义上，注意力和认知控制是有限的。

That's the sense in which attention and cognitive control is finite.

这也意味着你无法真正实现同步的多任务处理。

That is a sense in which you cannot truly synchronously multitask.

你只能进行串行处理。

You have to do it in series.

这个关于注意力两种有限性的解释既精妙又实用。

That was such a lovely and useful explanation of the two different ways in which attention can be finite.

要知道，我花了很长时间才想明白这点，因为自我损耗理论在心理学界曾是个重要课题。

You know, it took me a long time to figure that out because ego depletion as a theory has been a big deal in psychology.