本集简介
双语字幕
仅展示文本字幕，不包含中文音频；想边听边看，请使用 Bayt 播客 App。
本播客由Talkspace赞助。
This podcast is sponsored by Talkspace.
去年，我经历了很多人生变化。
Last year, I went through many different life changes.
我需要暂停一下，审视自己内心的感受，以便更好地为那些需要我展现最好自我的人提供支持。
I needed to take a pause and examine how I was feeling in the inside to better show up for the ones who need me to be my best version of myself.
当你在应对生活的变迁时，Talkspace可以帮助你。
When you're navigating life's changes, Talkspace can help.
Talkspace是评分最高的在线心理治疗平台，为你提供由持证治疗师和精神科医生提供的专业支持，你可以随时随地获取服务。
Talkspace is the number one rated online therapy, bringing you professional support from licensed therapists and psychiatry providers that you can access anytime, anywhere.
在忙碌的生活中，应对异地恋，成为继父，Talkspace让这些旅程成为可能。
Living a busy life, navigating a long distance relationship, becoming a first stepfather, Talkspace made all of those journeys possible.
我可以在办公室里和我的治疗师交谈。
I could speak with my therapist in the office.
我可以在家里的舒适环境中和我的治疗师交谈。
I could speak with my therapist in the comfort of my home.
我从未感到孤单。
I was never alone.
Talkspace 与大多数主要保险公司合作，大多数有保险的会员无需自付费用。
Talkspace works with most major insurers, and most insured members have a $0 co pay.
没有保险也没关系。
No insurance.
没问题。
No problem.
现在访问 talkspace.com，使用促销代码 space 80，首月立减 80 美元。
Now get $80 off your first month with promo code space 80 when you go to talkspace.com.
今天就前往 talkspace.com，匹配一位持证治疗师。
Match with a licensed therapist today at talkspace.com.
在 talkspace.com 使用代码 space 80，节省 80 美元。
Save $80 with code space 80 at talkspace.com.
大家好。
Hello, everyone.
欢迎收听Mindscape播客。
Welcome to the Mindscape Podcast.
我是您的主持人肖恩·卡罗尔。
I'm your host, Sean Carroll.
如果您是Mindscape的常驻听众，我想我可以很有把握地猜测，您很可能认为自己是一个充满好奇心的人。
And if you're a regular Mindscape listener, I think that it's not too much of a stretch for me to guess that you probably would consider yourself a curious person.
对世界充满好奇，对事物的运作方式充满好奇，等等。
Curious about the world, curious about how things work, and so on.
如果真是这样，那您来对了这一期Mindscape，因为我们将围绕‘好奇心’这个概念进行深入探讨，通过研究好奇心本身来了解它。
And if that's true, you've come to the right episode of Mindscape because we're gonna get meta on the concept of curiosity by talking about curiosity itself, by being curious about curiosity.
它是什么，如何运作，驱动我们的不同种类的好奇心，以及我们如何将好奇心用于不同的目的。
What it is, how it works, the different kinds of curiosity that motivate us, and the different purposes to which we can put our own curiosity.
我们还正在进行一个小实验。
We also are doing a little bit of an experiment.
我们偶尔会这么做。
We do this occasionally.
我们之前做过几次，但今天我们会邀请多位嘉宾。
We've done this a couple times, but we're gonna have more than one guest today.
丹尼·巴塞特是宾夕法尼亚大学的一名物理学家、工程师和神经科学家，如果你喜欢，也可以称他为复杂性理论家。
Danny Bassett is a physicistengineerneuroscientist, complexity theorist, if you like, at the University of Pennsylvania.
佩里·祖恩是美国大学的哲学家，曾撰写过一本名为《好奇心与探究政治》的书，探讨好奇心。
And Perry Zurn is a philosopher at American University, who has previously written about curiosity in a book called Curiosity and The Politics of Inquiry.
关键点在于，佩里和丹尼是双胞胎。
And the punchline is that Perry and Danny are twins.
因此，他们多年来一直在彼此讨论这些话题。
So they have been talking about this stuff with each other for many, many years now.
他们将从这两个跨学科的角度与我们分享他们的见解。
And they share some of their thoughts with us from these two different interdisciplinary perspectives.
他们最近出版了一本新书，名为《连接的力量》。
They have a new book out called The Power of Connection.
这个副标题其实揭示了他们的核心观点，因为他们想表达的是：我们或许天真地认为，好奇心就是我在这里，那里有一些信息、某种谜团或难题，我想去获取它，对吧？
And that subtitle is kind of the secret here to their angle because they're trying to say that we think of curiosity maybe naively as here I am, there is some information or some mystery or some puzzle out there, I would like to go get it, right?
我想去学习它。
I would like to go learn it.
这有点像一种个人主义的做法。
It's kind of an individualistic kind of thing.
但他们想强调好奇心中的连接部分。
But they want to emphasize the connection part of curiosity.
当你充满好奇心时，你会更深入地与世界建立联系，并将不同的信息片段联系起来。
You become more connected to the world and you put different pieces of information together when you're curious.
你会在不同信息片段之间建立联系。
You draw connections between different pieces of information.
所以，对于像我这样的人来说，这是一场非常有趣的对话。
So, it's a very fun conversation for someone like me.
我们触及了所有我喜欢的议题。
We sort of push all the buttons I enjoy.
我们讨论了大脑中的网络，以及这些网络如何相互配合，激发我们的好奇心。
We talk about networks in the brain and how those sort of fit together to make us curious.
我们讨论了好奇心的政治层面。
We talk about political aspects of curiosity.
你对什么感到好奇？
What are you curious about?
社会和 everywhere 的等级制度如何影响它？
How is that impacted by society and hierarchy everywhere?
有没有好奇心不该涉足的地方？
Are there places that curiosity shouldn't go?
好奇心是否带来了意想不到的好结果？
Are there good things that are unanticipated that come out of curiosity?
所以，如果我在这里的引言做得到位，你现在应该对了解更多感到好奇了。
So, if I've done my job with the intro here, you are now curious to learn more.
那我们开始吧。
So, let's go.
丹尼·巴塞特和佩里·祖林。
Danny Bassett and Perry Zurin.
欢迎收听 Mindscape 播客。
Welcome to the Mindscape Podcast.
谢谢邀请我们。
Thanks for having us.
所以这是一次，你知道的，实验。
So this is a, you know, an experiment.
我之前偶尔做过几次，让两个人同时出现在播客里，但每次的格式都不一样。
I've not I have done it a couple times before, having two people at once on the podcast, but it's different formats every time.
所以这次我想这么做：一开始我会直接向你们提出有针对性的问题，这样听众能听到你们的声音，从而在未来能分辨出你们各自的声线。
So what I figured I would do here in this case, I will ask you targeted questions right at the start so that the audience can hear your voices and therefore know what your voices are going forward.
但之后，我会让你们自由发言，随时加入任何你们想讨论的问题。
But then after that, I'll just let you chime in to whatever questions you want.
那么首先，Perry，你写过一本关于好奇心的书。
So for Perry, first, you've written a book about curiosity.
而‘好奇心’这个词本身就带有积极的含义，对吧？
And curiosity is a word that just comes with a positive valence, right?
我们觉得好奇心是件好事。
We think of curiosity as a good thing.
比如，写一本说好奇心是坏的、你不该有它的小说，反而会更大胆。
Like, it would be more daring to write a book that said curiosity is bad, you just shouldn't have it.
但也许你书中的一个主题——如果我没理解错的话——是，尽管我们口头上推崇好奇心，说它很好，但实际并不总是付诸行动。
But maybe one of the themes in your book correct me if I'm wrong is that even though we give lip service to valorizing curiosity and saying it's good we don't always follow through.
我们在制度上或社会层面，并不总是培育人们的好奇心。
We don't always institutionally or societally nurture people's curious impulses.
是这样吗？
Is that right?
是的，我肯定会说，好奇心既可以用于好的方面，也可以用于坏的方面。
Yeah, I would definitely say that curiosity I think curiosity can be used for good or for ill.
我在之前那本叫《好奇心与权力》的书中稍微探讨过这一点。
And I addressed that a little bit in my earlier book called Curiosity and Power.
我感兴趣的是，社会环境和社会制度中的权力与价值结构，如何影响哪些好奇心行为被推崇和放大，而哪些没有。
And what I'm interested in there is thinking about how structures of power, of value in social settings and social institutions inform what practices of curiosity get sort of celebrated and lifted up, and which ones don't.
因此，我认为在好奇心的获取和实践方式上，确实可能存在不平等。
So I do think there's an inequality that can that can arise in how curiosity gets accessed and practiced.
在好奇心的思维中，我们不仅重新定义了什么是好奇心，还探讨了这种能够丰富地连接想法与人的能力，如何从大脑网络结构、教育和社会角度加以支持。
In curious minds, we not only redefine what curiosity is, but we talk about how that kind of curiosity that that capacity to richly connect ideas and people can be supported, not only from a brain network structure perspective, but also from an educational and a social perspective.
因此，我们非常期待从‘连接性’的新视角来思考好奇心——即连接想法、经验和人。
So we're really excited to think about a new vantage point on curiosity as connectional as blinking ideas and experiences and people.
那么，我们该如何支持这种连接性的好奇心呢？从神经科学角度，也从社会角度？
And then how do we support that, again, a neural perspective as much as a social perspective?
我的意思是，你认为存在某些类型的好奇心是坏的吗？
I mean, do you think that there are kinds of curiosity that are bad?
还是你对好奇心持完全支持的态度？
Or are you just uniformly pro curiosity?
是的，我认为某些形式或形态的好奇心并不特别有益。
Yeah, I think that there are formations or shapes of curiosity that are not particularly helpful.
比如那种推动殖民式知识获取的好奇心——外部的人闯入，评估他人的生活方式或行为，客观地加以采集，有时甚至将这种差异 fetishize（ fetishize 译为‘神化’或‘过度美化’）
So the kind of curiosity that drove a kind of colonial approach to knowledge in which one can come in from the outside, one can assess how people live or how people move and just sort of take that objectively and in some cases, fetishize that difference.
这是一种有问题的好奇心。
That's a problematic sort of curiosity.
但这是一种好奇心的结构。
But that's a structure of curiosity.
这种好奇心以我们重新定义好奇心的方式建立联系。
That curiosity is making connections in the way that we redefine curiosity.
但它以某种方式严重疏远了特定群体。
But it's doing so in shapes that really alienate a particular group of people.
因此，我认为好奇心的形式可能令人担忧。
So the formations, I think of curiosity can be troubling.
尽管好奇心本身——即那种联结——并不一定如此。
Although the curiosity itself, which is the linking isn't necessarily.
为了让观众更好地理解，一位物理学家兼生物工程师——我是说，丹尼，是这样吗？
So just so the audience then can get an impression of the different way that a physicistbioengineer I don't know, is that right, Dani?
我们该如何描述你的职业？
How do we describe what you do for a living?
是的，我经常在物理学和神经科学的交叉领域工作，在某些情况下这被称为生物工程。
Yeah, I guess I work at the intersection between physics and neuroscience frequently, which in some cases is called bioengineering.
好的。
Okay.
谁希望这些学科界限存在呢？
Who wants any of these disciplinary boundaries to exist?
我们正是要消除这些界限。
That's what we're trying to get rid of here.
但我知道，和哲学相比，至少你在校园里的位置不同。
But I just, you know, different than philosophy, at least in where you're located on campus.
所以对丹妮来说，我想佩里已经提到了，但你的书副标题中‘连接’这个词非常突出，这也是你书中另一个无法忽视的主题——你强调的不是好奇心仅仅是获取更多信息或渴望获取更多信息，而是渴望以不同方式连接已有的信息、人或想法。
So to Dani, then, you know, I think Perry already mentioned it, but right there in the subtitle of your book the word connections or connecting is very prominent and that's the other theme that is impossible to miss in your book that rather than thinking of curiosity just as getting more information or the desire to get more information, you really emphasize the desire to connect existing information or people or ideas in different ways.
是的，正是如此。
Yes, exactly.
我认为这与以往对好奇心的描述形成了有趣的对比，以往的描述传统上强调或突出好奇心的获取性，即我们走出去，获取零散的信息。
And I think that that's an interesting counterpoint to previous accounts of curiosity, which have traditionally emphasized or foregrounded the acquisitional nature of curiosity, that we go out, we acquire pieces of information.
而且我认为，当你把好奇心视为一种获取行为时，你就会觉得我们的过程就像是走出去收集信息碎片，然后把它们带回家，放进某种容器里。
And I think that, you know, when you focus on curiosity as acquisitional, then you can think of our process as sort of going out and collecting pieces of information and then bringing them back home and putting them in a container of some kind.
那么问题是，这类信息能为你带来什么？
And the question is, what does that kind of information afford you?
如果这些是彼此独立的信息碎片，那你就可以把每一片拿出来，仔细观察、欣赏，甚至可以把它们放进一个珍奇柜里。
Well, if it's independent pieces of information, then you can pull out each piece and you can look at it and you can admire it and you can put it in a cabinet of curiosities if you want to.
但如果你想用它们做点什么，就会非常困难，因为这就像面对一堆沙子。
But if you want to do anything with it, it's very difficult because it's as if you have a big pile of sand.
对吧？
Right?
但一旦你把好奇心理解为关注信息之间的联系，那你就是在构建一种未来可以使用的知识结构。
But once you think about curiosity as focusing on the connections between pieces of information, then what you're doing is that you're building a structure of knowledge that you can use in the future.
这种结构比一堆沙子具有更多可能性。
It has a new affordance, more affordance than a pile of sand.
为了说明这个观点，我想引用约翰·杜威的一段话：知识是一个相互关联的网络，任何过往的经验都会提供一个有利的切入点，帮助你应对新经验中出现的问题。
And to illustrate this idea, I want to pull up a passage from John Dewey where he says that knowledge is such a network of interconnections that any past experience will offer a point of advantage from which to get at the problems presented in a new experience.
因此，他所强调的是，第一，知识是一个相互连接的网络。
And so what he's what he's calling out is that, number one, knowledge is a network of interconnections.
第二，知识让你能够回溯过去，欣赏那些曾经有效的事物。
Number two, knowledge allows you to go back into the past and to appreciate, what you have seen to work there.
同时也能展望未来，将过去与未来相连，从而改变、调整或影响你对未来的决策。
And then also go forward, connect forward in time to change or alter or inform your decisions about the future.
因此，知识在单一时间切片中的连接性，以及它对过去和未来的延伸，赋予了知识一种功能。
And so that the connective nature of knowledge in a single time slice, but also towards the past and towards the future, gives knowledge a function.
这种连接性为知识提供了独立信息片段所不具备的可用性。
It gives it an affordance that you don't have if you think about it as independent pieces of information.
是的。
Right.
因此，我们清楚地看到整个网络理念的来源，而这一点正是你，丹尼，多年来在大脑研究中所关注的。
And so we see very clearly where the whole network idea comes in, which is something that you, Danny, have been studying in the brain for quite a while.
网络无处不在。
Networks are everywhere.
这就像一个新流行词，对吧？
It's like a new it's a buzzword, right?
现在大家都特别喜欢谈网络。
Like people love networks these days.
网络这个方面有哲学层面的意义吗？
Is there a philosophical side to the network aspect of things?
知识不仅仅是一堆事实的列表，而是一组以某种特定方式相互连接的事实？
The fact that knowledge is just not a list of facts, but a list of connected facts and connected in a certain very specific way?
是的，我做过一件事，就是回溯哲学史和西方思想史，思考人们是如何随着时间描述好奇心的，并寻找‘连接’这个词。
Yeah, one of the things that I was able to do is go back through the history of philosophy and the history of Western intellectual thought and think about how it is that people have described curiosity over time and looked for this word connection.
连接、关联、关系、邻近，对吧？
Connection, link, relation, proximity, right?
我找了好几个词来探究：在哲学史上，是否存在一种对好奇心的隐性解释，一种基于连接或隐性网络的解释？
There's a there's a number of words that I looked for to say, is there actually an implicit account, a connectional account or an implicit network account of curiosity in the history of philosophy?
确实存在。
And indeed, there is.
有趣的是，这些联系是多么丰富。
And what was interesting is how rich the connections were.
所以，这不仅仅是想法、经验和感觉之间的联系，还包括自己与过去的自己、自己与环境或周围世界、自己与他人之间的联系，对吧？
So it was it was so it was not only the connections between ideas and experiences and sensations, but also the connection between oneself and one's past self, oneself and one's environment or surroundings, oneself and other people, right?
实际上，哲学中对好奇心的描述中，存在着大量被视作本质组成部分的联系。
There was just like so many connections actually being described as an essential component of what curiosity is in philosophy.
但这个叙事直到这本书出现之前从未被明确提出过。
But that narrative hasn't been called before until this book.
当我们谈论网络时，对普通人来说，就是一堆由线条连接的点，比如社交网络之类的。
Well, when we talk about networks, I mean, to the person on the street, there's a bunch of dots connected by lines that's kind of a network, social network or whatever.
但专业人士思考网络时，其内涵要深刻得多。
But there's a lot more depth to what the professionals think about when they think about networks.
那么，当有人告诉我们‘我们面前有一个网络’时，我们脑海中应该立刻想到哪些概念呢？
So I mean, what are the concepts we should instantly have in our minds when someone says, look, we have a network in front of us?
是的。
Yeah.
所以你通常会想到网络的各个组成部分。
So usually you think about the pieces of a network.
也就是独立的单元。
So independent units.
比如一个想法，我们会称之为网络中的一个节点。
So an idea, for example, we would call it a node in the network.
而两个想法之间则通过一条边相连。
And then two ideas would be connected by an edge.
因此，这两个术语是值得记住的。
And so those are two pieces of jargon that are worth keeping in mind.
然后，节点之间的连接模式可能非常简单，就像建筑翻新时脚手架侧面的矩形结构。
And then the pattern of edges between nodes can be very simple and sort of rectangular the way a scaffold looks on the side of a building that's being redone.
或者它们可能非常随机、无结构，难以描述。
Or they can be very, very random and unstructured in a way that is difficult to describe.
因此，网络科学使我们能够以一种数学上严谨的方式重新描述这些模式，并提供统计评估，使我们能够说这个网络不同于那个网络。
And so what network science allows us to do is to re describe those patterns in a way that is mathematically rigorous and also provides us with statistical assessments that allow us to say this network is different than that network.
这之所以重要，是因为当我们把好奇心视为构建知识网络的工具时，每个人可能都在以非常不同的方式构建，脑海中的结构也截然不同。
And the reason that that becomes important is that when we're thinking about curiosity as something that allows us to build knowledge networks, each of us may be building very, very differently and have structures in our minds that are quite different.
我们脑海中的某些结构可能像建筑外脚手架一样有序，而其他结构则可能非常杂乱无章。
Some of the structures in our minds might look like a scaffold on the side of the building, and then other structures in our minds might look very haphazard.
网络科学为我们提供了数学工具，用以区分这两种结构，并描述它们之间的连续变化。
And network science provides us with the mathematics to distinguish between the two and to describe the continuum between the two.
那么，我们应该思考不同的拓扑结构。
So we should be thinking then about, I guess, different different topologies.
这就是我们用来描述网络的术语吗？
Is that the word that we use to describe networks?
我们之前邀请过斯蒂芬·斯特罗加茨和其他人，比如尼尔·约翰逊，他们在播客中讨论过小世界网络、随机网络和网格结构。
We we've had Stephen Strogatz and other people, Neil Johnson, the podcast talking about small world, random networks, grids.
这些就是我们脑海中应该想象的类型吗？
Are those the kinds of things that we should be visualizing in our minds?
是的，完全正确。
Yes, absolutely.
所以，拓扑确实是正确的术语。
So topology is definitely the word.
我们对拓扑的理解是，它是网络的形状。
And the way that we think about topology is that it's the shape of the network.
它是一种连接模式的形状，而不是体积的形状。
And it's a shape of a connected pattern, not the shape of a volume.
但我们仍然把它看作是一种形状。
But we still think about it as a shape.
是的，这些就是我们头脑中可能存在的不同类型结构，它们将各种信息片段连接在一起。
So yes, those are the different sorts of structures, some of the different sorts of structures that we can have in our minds that connect pieces of information together.
佩里，我不想把话放你嘴里。
And Perry, I don't want to put words in your mouth.
当你研究哲学史时，你真的在绘制小网络吗？
Are you literally plotting little networks when you go into the history of philosophy?
你是在实际观察想法之间的连接，还是人物之间的连接？
Are you actually looking at ideas connecting or people connecting?
这是个很棒的问题。
That's a wonderful question.
我认为在某些情况下，是的，我们确实如此。
I think in some cases, yes, we're definitely doing that.
当哲学家们对某个特定概念进行细致阅读时，我们会追踪它的发展轨迹，它与思想家之间的关系，以及它自身如何变化和演变，还有它与世界中的哪些词语、概念或问题建立或断开了联系。
When we're doing it when philosophers are doing a careful reading of a particular concept, we're we're tracking where it goes and what relationship it has between thinkers and how it changes and morphs in itself and what what words or concepts or problems in the world it gets connected to or disconnected to.
因此，我认为这种历史实践内部可能存在一种隐性的网络方法。
So I do think there might there might be an implicit network method within this kind of historical practice.
很好。
Good.
那么，把这一切综合起来，为什么网络和联系在这里不断出现呢？
And just to put it all together then, the reason why networks and connections keep coming up here is what?
我想说，好奇心是关于充实我们的网络、改变我们的网络。
I want to say curiosity is about filling up our network, changing our network.
网络本身的形态是否暗示了某种缺失，而好奇心则推动我们去填补它？
Does the shape of a network itself imply a lack of something that curiosity is then nudging us to fulfill?
是的，这很有趣。
Yeah, so it's interesting.
心理学中有一种关于好奇心的理论，认为好奇心是填补信息缺口的驱动力。
There is a theory of curiosity in psychology that suggests that curiosity is the drive to fill an information gap.
因此，当我们构建大脑中的这些网络时，可能会注意到网络中的空洞、缺口，或者更通俗地说，是所谓的‘间隙’。
So as we are building these networks in our minds, we might see cavities in the network or holes in the network or what may be called gaps in more common parlance.
于是，我们可能会察觉到这些缺口，并想要填补它们，就像找到一块正好能嵌入我们知道缺失位置的拼图碎片。
And so that may we may notice those gaps and we may want to fill them, almost like finding a puzzle piece that fits into the spot that we know there's something missing.
然后就引出了一个问题：我们正在构建的是什么样的结构？我认为，这引发了一个有趣的问题：是否存在某些结构能为我们提供认知上的优势，而另一些则可能对我们帮助较小？
Then there's the question of what sort of shapes we are building, and that, I think, drives an interesting question of, are there some shapes that provide us with cognitive affordances and others that are maybe less useful to us?
因此，我们在这本书中提出并论证：有可能构建出僵化的知识结构，这些结构具有特定的拓扑连接方式，使得当你面对新信息时，无法再添加内容或重塑、改变你的知识体系。
So it's possible, we think and we argue in the book, to create knowledge structures that are rigid, that are connected with a particular topology that doesn't allow for you to add anything more or to reshape or change the structure of your knowledge when presented with a new piece of information.
因此，我们推测，我们可能会试图在脑海中构建某种程度上能填满空间的网络，但又不至于完全填满，以至于无法改变。
So there's the argument that we may seek to build networks in our minds that are space filling to some degree, but not to such a degree that they can't change.
因此，我们的大脑中可能存在一种持续的权衡：既要填补空缺，又要保留一些缺口，以维持灵活性。
So there could be this consistent trade off in our minds between filling in the holes and leaving some gaps to enable flexibility.
所以，我们很可能都经历过这样的情况：当我们接触到新的信息——无论是关于一个人、一种政治理念，甚至是一种情绪时——我们会突然停住，心想：我需要重新思考我对这个领域、这个人或这个政治行动的所有看法。
So we probably have all had this experience where we are presented with a new piece of information, whether it be about a person or a political idea or even an emotion, and we're stopped in our tracks and we think, I need to rethink everything I thought about this area or this person or this political endeavor.
因此，能够意识到我们的认知需要调整，这种能力在不断变化的世界中对我们来说至关重要。
And so that capacity to notice that there's something that requires a reshaping of the knowledge we have in our minds is something that's really important for us to track and move in this ever changing world.
而这种能力只有通过构建带有缺口的网络才能实现，必须留有足够的空隙，以便
And it's really only supported by building networks that have holes in them, enough gaps that they
能够保持灵活。
can be flexible.
在哲学中，这一点也有非常有趣的呼应。
There's a really interesting resonance for this in philosophy as well.
早期，我们有著名的苏格拉底。
Early on, right, we have the famous Socrates.
他之所以出名，并不是因为他拥有答案，或者他试图寻找答案来填补信息缺口。
And he's well known not because he ever had answers, or that he was looking for answers to fill information gaps.
他之所以著名，是因为他的问题恰恰拆解了已有的联系，制造出越来越大、越来越大的缺口。
He was he's famous for his questions which precisely undid the connections and made bigger and bigger and bigger gaps.
他说他的目标是让我们所有人都陷入‘困惑’状态，这是一个希腊词，意思就是‘我不知道自己身在何处了’，对吧？
He said his goal was to bring all of us into aporea which is a Greek word that simply means I don't know where I am anymore, right?
我真的不知道自己怎么想。
And I don't actually know what I think.
我以为我知道自己怎么想，但关于这件事，我其实并不清楚自己的想法。
I thought I knew what I think, but I don't know what I think about this thing.
所以我认为，这种早期的、古老的哲学实践，某种程度上是为了重新点燃丹尼所提到的那种灵活性，通过在我们的知识网络结构中制造更多缝隙，来松动并增强我们对世界的思考方式的弹性。
And and so I think that kind of maybe that that this early sense ancient practice of philosophy was to reignite in a sense that flexibility that Danny's talking about with more gaps in our network knowledge network structures to loosen and to create more flexibility in what we think about the world.
这确实是个很好的例子，因为众所周知，苏格拉底最终被判处了死刑。
Well, think that's a great example because of course as we know, Socrates got the death penalty.
他的观点并没有得到听众的一致赞赏。
He was not uniformly applauded by his audience.
这正是我想问的。
And that's what I was going to ask.
我的意思是，在我们这个现代高度两极分化的时代，难道我们没有这种感觉：很多人根本不想改变自己的想法吗？
I mean, don't we have this feeling, especially in our modern polarized era, that a lot of people don't want to change their minds about things?
他们对自己的世界观感到满意，当遇到与之不符的数据或信息时，他们会采取策略来忽视或将其隔离。
They're kind of satisfied with their view of the world and when they get data or information that doesn't fit in, they have strategies for ignoring it or for compartmentalizing it.
我认为，在这个日益两极分化的世界里，人们确实倾向于抗拒那些不断提供的机会——重新评估我们所知道的一切。
I think there is definitely a tendency in this increasingly polarized world to resist the chances that are always offered us to reassess what it is that we know.
我感觉人们有一种强烈的防御心态，坚持认为‘我已经知道了’，而且我站在正确的一边。
I think that there's such a defensiveness and an insistence that I already know, and I have I am on the right side of things.
我认为这不仅限制了我们彼此和睦相处、构建有意义的政治社会的能力，也限制了我们作为认知者共同成长的能力。
And that I think that limits not only obviously our ability to get along with one another and build a political society that makes any sense, but it also limits our, I think, our capacity to grow just as knowers and beers in the world together.
因此，恢复我们在构建、重建和解构知识网络时更大的灵活性至关重要。
And so I it is important to recover a greater sense of flexibility in the ways that we build and rebuild and unbuild our knowledge networks.
是的，也许我们可以进一步思考，我们构建的网络如何能支持这种灵活性。
Yeah, and maybe just thinking through even further how the networks that we build could support that flexibility.
我们刚刚讨论过的一种方式是，允许我们的思维中存在足够的空白、足够多的断开部分和空间，以便重新组合事物。
One way that we've just been discussing is allowing there to be enough gaps, enough disconnected pieces, enough spaces in our minds that we could reconfigure things.
所以这是一种方式，就是在结构中留出大量空间。
So that's one way, is just to leave a lot of spaces in the topology.
第二种保持灵活性的方法是主动打破我们之前建立的联系。
A second way to be flexible is to actually break connections that we laid down earlier.
因此，在这本书的大部分内容中，我们专注于知识的构建和联系的建立，但在书的最后，我们也强调了打破那些不再适用于我们现有知识结构和与世界互动方式的联系的重要性。
And so, actually, throughout much of the book, we focus on the building of knowledge and the laying down of connections, but at the very end of the book, we also underscore the importance of breaking connections that are no longer useful to us in our existing knowledge structures and in the way we interact with the world.
所以我想强调的是，这种思维灵活性至少有两种方法。
So I wanna highlight the fact that there are at least two approaches to this mental flexibility.
一种是留出拓扑结构中的空白，另一种是打破我们过去已有的联系。
One is leaving gaps in the topology, and the other one is breaking connections that we've had in the past.
你有没有关于后者——即打破联系——的很好例子？
Do you have any good examples of the latter, of the breaking of connections?
这听起来像是很难有意识地去做的事情。
It sounds like something that is difficult to intentionally do.
我的意思是，一个例子可能是回归任何一种政治抵抗运动。
I mean, one example might just be returning to any kind of political resistance movement.
比如民权运动。
So the civil rights movement, for example.
比如，如果我们有一套被称为白人至上的联系，或者某种认为白人普遍在各方面都更优越的观念，你就需要打破每一个这样的联系。
If if there is a set of connections that we call white supremacy, for example, or some kind of, you know, white people in general are better for this and this and this and this, you need to break each of those connections.
而民权运动的坚持就是：让我们打破这些联系，对吧？
And the insistence of the civil rights movement is let's break those, right?
这些将白人与权力、特权、更高教育、更高智力、更强领导能力等联系起来的关联。
Those associations of whiteness with power, with privilege, with greater education, greater intelligence, greater capacity to lead, etc, etc, etc, etc.
所以我认为，任何政治抵抗运动都在进行这种特定的联系断裂。
So I think any any political resistance movement is doing that specific breaking of connections.
比如，许多人心中潜藏着白人与美人鱼或霍比特人之间的隐性联系，而这些联系其实并不必要存在。
So for example, there's an implicit connection in the mind of many people between whiteness and being a mermaid or being a hobbit And these don't necessarily need to be there.
当你打破这些联系时，人们会感到不安，但也许这正是成长过程的一部分。
And when you break them, people get upset, but maybe it's just part of the growing process.
是的，或者像科学家这样的角色，
Yeah, or a scientist or
实际上，是哲学家。
a philosopher, actually.
你知道，我们所有的领域都受到这些隐性联系或偏见的影响。
And you know, all of our fields sort of suffer from some of these implicit connections or biases.
我不确定哲学界是不是这样，但科学家们非常关注人们心目中科学家的样子。
Well, don't know if they do this in philosophy, but scientists are very preoccupied with the question of what people think scientists look like.
因此，在费米实验室，他们做了一个实验，让一群学生进来画出他们心目中的科学家卡通形象，然后让他们与费米实验室的几位科学家见面，并再次作画。
And so at Fermilab they did an experiment where they had a bunch of school kids come in and draw cartoon images of scientists and then meet a bunch of scientists at Fermilab and also draw it afterward.
当然，之前画的都是爱因斯坦，之后的画作则多样化多了，因为这种小小的接触改变了他们的想法。
And of course before they were all pictures of Albert Einstein and then afterward they were much more diverse because that little bit of exposure to the information changed their minds.
这是一个很棒的研究。
That's a great study.
你也应该对哲学家做同样的实验。
You should do it with philosophers too.
不过我不知道会得出什么样的结果。
Don't know what the answers would look like though.
但好吧，我想说的是，网络和拓扑结构这部分非常棒，我认为这是看待好奇心的一个非常好的角度或视角。
But okay, I mean, let me just the network, the topology stuff is great and I think it's a very good angle or lens to look at Curiosity with.
但也许我应该给你们两人一个机会，来为好奇心做个推销。
But maybe I should also just give you both an opportunity to give the sales pitch for curiosity.
事实上，所谓的推销核心是什么？
The fact that it is I mean, what is the major part of the sales pitch?
是规范性的说法，即好奇心本身就是一种值得追求的善？
Is it a normative one that curiosity is something that is just a good that we should strive for?
还是说，更实际一点，比如好奇心对我们有益？
Or is there sort of a more practical thing like curiosity is good for us?
它让我们更快乐或成为更好的人？
It makes us happier or better people?
我认为其中一个推销点是，好奇心比我们意识到的要复杂得多，它以比我们预期更多样化的方式显现出来。
I think one of the sales pitches is that curiosity is more complicated than we realized, and that it shows up in more diverse ways than we expect.
因此，我们在书中反复强调的一点是，好奇心有不同的风格、不同的行动方式或建立联系的方式。
So one of the things that we press throughout the book is that curiosity has different styles, different ways of moving or different ways of making connections.
我们特别谈到了三种风格：爱管闲事的人、猎人和舞者。
So we talk about three styles in particular: the busybody, the hunter, and the dancer.
爱管闲事的人会松散地连接各种事物，对各种话题都感兴趣。
The busybody connects things quite loosely, is interested in all sorts of things.
猎人则更专注于特定事物，建立更紧密、更局部的联系，而舞者则在产生好奇心时，以更具创造力和想象力的方式建立联系。
The hunter focuses more on something specific and makes tighter connections, more local connections, and then the dancer is someone who is more creative and imaginative in the connections they make when they're curious.
对我们来说，有趣的地方不在于这些是好奇心风格的全部，而在于将我们的注意力转向好奇心的不同风格。
And so what's interesting here for us is not that these are the end all be all of the styles of curiosity, but simply to turn our attention to styles of curiosity.
也就是说，你目前对好奇心如何表现、如何标记你或不标记你的理解是非常有限的。
To say, you know what, the way that you think curiosity shows up or might mark you or not mark you is very limited right now.
我们需要更多地关注好奇心在网络中呈现的多样化形态。
And we have we need a lot more attention to diversifying the shapes that Curiosity makes in networks.
我认为，从网络的角度来看，这一点确实很有帮助。
And I think that the network angle is really helpful for that.
为了进一步说明这一点，我认为有必要先介绍一下我们通常认为的“好奇的人”是什么样子。
Just to sort of follow-up on that, I think that a little bit of background on what we would commonly think of as a curious person is useful.
在课堂环境中，我们常常认为好奇的孩子是那些频繁举手、坐在前排或不断提出问题的人，对吧？
So often, particularly in a classroom situation, we think of curious kids as the ones who will raise their hand frequently or who sit in the front row or who verbalize a lot of questions, right?
但我们也都能想到生活中那些非常好奇的人，他们不会坐在前排，不会举手，也不会主动提出问题。
But we can also all probably think of people in our lives that are very curious people but who wouldn't be the one who sits in the front row, who wouldn't raise their hand, who wouldn't verbalize questions.
也许他们只是在心里充满好奇。
Maybe they're very curious in their minds.
也许他们有点害羞。
Maybe they're a little bit shy.
也许他们更内向。
Maybe they're more introverted.
也许他们通过大量阅读书籍来表达好奇心，而不是在社交场合中展现好奇。
Maybe they are curious by reading a lot of books instead of engaging in their curiosity in more social settings.
所以，我们心中确实有一个关于‘好奇的人’的刻板印象，但同时，我们的潜意识里也存在着反例。
So it is definitely true that we have in our minds this idea of what a curious person is, but we also have, in the background of our minds, counterexamples.
我认为这两者之间的脱节很重要，而我们这本书正是试图弥合这种脱节，说明我们心中之所以存在这些反例，是因为好奇有多种不同的表现方式。
And I think that the disconnect between those two is important, and that disconnect is something that our book is trying to fill, to say that, you know, the reason that we have these counterexamples in our minds is because there are many different ways to be curious.
但我们要如何系统化地理解这一点呢？
But how we systematize that?
我们如何量化它？
How can we quantify it?
我们如何对好奇心的类型进行分类？
How can we categorize styles of curiosity?
我们如何谈论它们为我们带来的作用？
How can we talk about what they do for us?
所有这些都需要一种网络结构，并用数学语言来表述。
All of that requires the the sort of network, formulation in in that mathematical language.
我喜欢好奇心不同风格这个想法，因为从某种意义上说，我不知道的事情是无限的。
And I like the idea of the different styles of curiosity because in some sense, there's an infinite number of things I don't know.
所以如果我想学习更多东西，我就得选择某种策略，对吧？
So if I'm trying to learn more things, I have to choose some kind of strategy, right?
我是不是应该大致这样理解这些不同的风格？
Is that is that roughly how I should think about these different styles?
是的，我认为这些风格确实是每个人都能运用的策略。
Yeah, think the styles are definitely strategies that each of us can access.
但我还认为，有些人总体上倾向于在大部分探索中依赖某一种风格。
But I also think it might be that some of us tend in general to rely on one of the styles for most of our inquiry.
因此，这为我们对好奇心的理解增添了个性化的维度，并促使我们组建更多元的团队，让成员主要使用不同种类的好奇心风格。
So it does give us more of a personality angle on curiosity and invites more of a let's get all hands in a more diverse kind of group or team together who uses primarily different styles of curiosity.
但同时，我们也认为这些风格对任何人都可及，我们可以练习每一种风格，并在最需要的时候运用它们。
But then, yes, we also think that they're accessible to anyone, and we can kind of practice each style and be able to use it when we need it most.
我认为，个人可以练习每一种风格，而人类群体也可以共同练习这些不同的风格。
And I think that we can individually practice each style, but then also collectives of humans can practice the different styles together.
我想谈谈单个人如何运用这三种风格，然后，佩里，也许我可以请你谈谈群体如何在改变社会的过程中运用这些风格。
I want to talk a little bit about how single human can use these three, but then also, Perry, maybe I'll turn it over to you to talk about collectives that might walk through these styles as they change society.
对于个人而言，我会说，首先，当我为了个人乐趣而阅读时，我更像是个爱管闲事的人。
So for an individual person, I'll say that, first of all, when I am reading for personal pleasure, I think I'm much more of a busybody.
我阅读的内容相当随机。
I read pretty randomly.
床头放着的那些书，彼此之间并没有内在联系。
The books that are next to my bed are there's no through line.
这没什么问题。
And that's fine.
我喜欢这样。
I like it that way.
但当我参与一个研究项目时，我认为自己会依次运用不同的好奇心风格。
But when I engage in a research project, I think that I move through the different styles of curiosity.
因此，在科学研究项目的初期，我会参加各种会议，旁听与我当前研究领域无关的研讨会，广泛阅读各类研究文章，最终逐渐形成一个想法。
So at the very beginning of a research project in science, I will go to different conferences, sit in on symposia that may have nothing to do with my current area of research, read pretty eclectically across research articles, and then eventually I'll come up with an idea.
然后我会想，哦，也许这就是我该专注的方向。
And I'll think, oh, maybe that's what I should focus on.
接着我会变得像猎人一样，沿着一条线索寻找新的信息，这可能包括做实验、进行计算实验，或者发展理论。
And then I become much more hunter like and seek new pieces of information along a trail, and that may include doing experiments, it may include doing computational experiments, it may be developing theory.
而在研究项目的末期，当我或我的团队有所发现后，我们会更多地展现出舞者般的好奇心，将我们的发现与其他相关研究领域联系起来，思考：这如何改变我们对某个理论的理解，或如何强化此处的证据，或如何在社会中加以应用。
And then at the end of a research project, after I've discovered something or my team has discovered something, then we, I think, engage much more in a dancer like curiosity where we connect up what we have found to other areas of inquiry around it and say, This is how it could change how we think about that theory, or It underscores this evidence over here, or It could be used in society in this way.
因此，我认为研究过程本身会促使我们依次经历这些不同的风格。
So I think the research process itself sort of encourages us to move through these different styles sequentially.
但佩里，也许你可以简单说说，集体如何也能做到这一点，而不仅仅是单个个体。
But Perry, maybe you can say just a couple words about the way that collectives can do this too, not just single individuals.
是的，我的一些研究集中在分析社会正义运动或政治抵抗运动，并探讨好奇心在这些运动中可能扮演的角色。
Yeah, so some of my work has been to analyze social justice movements or political resistance movements, and to ask what role curiosity might have in those movements.
一般来说，好奇心并未被视为社会正义运动或政治抵抗的重要组成部分。
In general, curiosity hasn't been thought as an important component of social justice movements or political resistance.
人们反而认为，抵抗者带着答案而来。
It's been thought instead that resistors come in with the answers.
他们已经认定，这就是需要改变的东西。
Know, they've already assessed this is what needs to change.
这就是问题所在。
This is the problem.
在这种情况下，你并不需要太多好奇心。
And you don't need a whole lot of curiosity with that.
你只需要说服人们，你对这个问题的看法是正确的。
Just have to convince people that that you're right about that.
但我认为这是一种短视的处理方式。
But I think that's I think that's a shortsighted way of approaching the issue.
我想再次回到民权运动，比如，民权运动早期的许多工作都涉及收集有关种族隔离的数据，探讨它在哪里出现？
I think that so again, I'll return to the civil rights movement and say, for example, much of the early work of the civil rights movement involved gathering data about segregation, saying, where does it show up?
它是如何显现的？
How does it show up?
故事在哪里？
Where are the stories?
数据又在哪里？关于住房、教育、就业等方面的数据显示在哪里？等等等等。
Where, again, where is the data about housing, about education, about job and employment, etc, etc, etc.
因此，收集所有这些信息、提出这些问题，某种程度上就像打探闲事，是一种广泛的调查。
So gathering all that information, asking all those questions, that's sort of busybodying in a sense, it's broad investigation.
但接着它会转向说：嘿，我们得聚焦在这些方面。
But then it moves to saying, you know what, this is what we need to focus on.
好吧，这就是我们需要改变的具体政策，需要沟通的具体人物，对吧？
Okay, here are the specific policies that need to be changed, the specific people that need to be spoken with, right?
因此，这里有一种更强烈的探索，一种对当前必须提出哪些问题的专注。
So there's a much more there's a hunt there's a huntering focus here to what questions must now be asked.
然后我认为，在民权运动的整个过程中，经常会出现这些关于我们想要创造的世界的深刻想象。
And then I do think that regularly throughout civil rights movement, there are these moments of deep imagination about what kind of world it is that we'd want to create.
这可能简单如马丁·路德·金的《我有一个梦想》演讲，但当然还有许多其他例子。
That could be as simple as MLK's I Have a Dream speech, but there's certainly many other examples.
这就是舞者的行动。
And that's the dancer move.
舞者的求知欲也必须成为政治抵抗运动的心跳，因为当你刚开始时，你并不总是知道最终想创造一个怎样的世界。
The dancer curiosity has to also be a heartbeat of political resistance movements, because you you don't always know when you get started, what kind of world you really want to make.
所以，是的，我只是认为所有这三种风格都在这个社会环境中同时发挥作用。
So I yeah, I just think that all styles, all three styles are also at work in this in this social milieu.
我的意思是，把政治运动看作某种意义上的学习过程，这个想法真的很棒。
I mean, really like the idea of just a political movement being a learning process in some sense.
这确实和通常给人的印象很不一样，对吧？
That's very much not how it usually comes across, as you said, right?
在我看来，政治运动的存在或多或少预设了我们已经知道目标是什么，也许也知道策略是什么，但你提供了一种不同的视角来看待这个问题。
Like, the existence of a political movement in my mind more or less presumes we know what the goals are, maybe we know what the strategies are, but you're giving a different slant to how we might think about that.
是的，我觉得这更贴近现实。
Yeah, and I think it's more true to life, really.
但这一点并没有明确表达出来，我想。
But it's not explicit, I guess.
也许如果政治运动明确承认我们还有很多东西要学习，情况会更好，对吧？
Like maybe things would be better if political movements explicitly acknowledged we have things to learn, right?
当然，当然。
Sure, sure.
对。
Yeah.
听起来你并没有推崇这三种好奇心中的任何一种。
And it sounds like you're not valorizing any of the three kinds of curiosity over the others.
但也许有些人会不自觉地或明确地推崇其中一种，对吧？
But maybe implicitly or explicitly, some people do, right?
我认为你提到的普鲁塔克，他当年虽然没有用这些话，但意思就是别当个爱管闲事的人。
I think Plutarch you mentioned as someone who basically back in the day said not in these words but Don't be a busybody.
要做个猎人。
Be a hunter.
专注于你自己的那一个领域。
Be focused on your one area.
我想我们可能都同意，这种态度在现代学术界依然存在。
And I guess we maybe all agree that that attitude lingers on in modern day academia.
当然。
Absolutely.
是的，我们确实有过这样的经历。
Yeah, we've certainly had these sorts of experiences.
要专注，别再这么跨学科，从各个地方拉项目了。
Focus, stop being so interdisciplinary and pulling your projects from all over the place.
安下心来。
Settle down.
你什么时候才能安定下来？
When are you going to settle down?
我刚刚转推了一条威廉·詹姆斯的名言。
I just retweeted a quote from William James.
我想应该是威廉·詹姆斯。
I think it was William James.
天哪，我马上就要忘记他是谁了。
Oh my goodness, I'm going forget who it was.
但不管怎样，他的一个同事曾批评他写了一篇不属于他领域的论文，他说：我不是一头驴。
But anyway, one of his colleagues upbraided him for writing a paper that was not in his area and he says, I am not a donkey.
我没有固定领域。
I do not have a field.
我太喜欢这句话了。
I love that.
这很棒，但假如这种态度真的存在，那一定有它的原因。
Was a great But presumably if that attitude exists, there must be some reason for it.
我的意思是，为什么会更倾向于像猎人那样呢？
Mean, there some reason to be more hunter like?
我的意思是，即使我们一开始像丹尼说的那样到处跳来跳去，但终究还是得卷起袖子专心致志。
I mean, is it even if we're sort of skipping around from place to place at the start, like Danny said, at some point you got to roll up your sleeves and focus.
这就是猎人式的好奇心。
And that's the hunter curiosity.
是的，我有时会想这是否与
Yeah, I sometimes wonder if it has to do
有关
with
可理解性。
legibility.
因为我们是人类，生活在社会中，我们的工作如果使用某个领域的特定术语、该领域重视的方法，并研究该领域已知的问题，就会更容易被他人理解。
So because we are human and we live in a social world, our work is more legible to others if it uses the particular jargon of a field and the methods that are valued in that field and tackles questions that are already known to exist in that field.
一旦我们与某个领域的这种历史建立起联系，我们的工作就会变得更加可理解。
As soon as we connect to kind of this history of a field, then our work becomes more legible.
它有明确的受众。
It has a clear audience.
我们可以清晰地向这个受众传达。
We can communicate it clearly to that audience.
这个受众能理解我们。
That audience understands us.
因此，我认为更具猎人特质会带来某种社会益处。
And so there is a social benefit, I think, to being more hunter like.
我认为，当你展示更像好事之徒或舞者式的方法时，挑战在于你可能使用了与该领域通常用语不同的术语。
I think what's challenging when you illustrate the sort of more busybody like approach or the dancer like approach is that people are you may be using different terms than what a field typically uses.
你可能会引入哲学中的方法来探讨科学中的问题，导致人们不知如何评估它。
You may pull in a method from philosophy and have it speak to something in science and so people don't know how to even evaluate it.
因此，读者、听众或受众需要付出更多努力来理解和评估。
So it requires a lot more effort from the reader or the listener or the audience to understand and assess.
是的，因此我觉得沟通和可理解性是我们倾向于更像猎人式方法的因素。
And, yeah, so I feel like communication and legibility are factors that I think push us towards the more hunter like approach.
展开剩余字幕（还有 274 条）
但我不确定，佩里，你怎么看？
But I don't know, Perry, what do you think?
我觉得这关乎我们重视什么，对吧？
I think it's about what we value, right?
我认为，我们完全可以重视分享故事，建立一种更注重叙事的文化，通过分享故事来彼此关怀、建立联系，这种文化会更看重‘爱管闲事者’。
And and and I think that there are there could be ways of valuing sharing stories, more more of a storytelling culture, and sharing stories in a way that allows us to care for one another and to connect with one another that would value the busybody more, for example.
或者，我们可以建立一种更关注发展新想法，而非维持现有方式和我们处理某些问题的既定模式的文化。
Or we could have a culture that was much more interested in developing new ideas than in sort of maintaining what it is and how it is that we've approached certain questions.
因此，我认为当前学术界对‘猎人式’方法的偏好，既反映了特定的学术文化，也反映了更广泛的、尤其是西方文化。
So I think the current academic preference for huntering is reflective of a particular academic culture, but also a larger sort of especially Western culture.
我认为，世界其他地区的一些学术圈确实运作方式不同，它们更重视以叙事为基础的研究方法，这种做法可能会真正提升‘爱管闲事者’的价值。
And I do think there are other academic enclaves in other parts of the world that do function differently and value, for example, a more storytelling based approach to research that might really lift up something like the busybody.
我就直说我的尴尬吧。
I will just own my embarrassment.
我刚刚才查了一下。
I just looked up.
是马克斯·韦伯说了那句关于驴的名言，不是威廉·詹姆斯。
It was Max Weber who had the donkey quote, not William James.
我不知道为什么我的大脑会把这两个人搞混。
I don't know why my brain would have confused those two people.
他们俩没什么关联。
They don't have a lot to do with each other.
但好吧，确实，我们在学术界或其他领域会做出一些选择，去推崇某种特定类型的好奇心。
But okay, so yeah, there are choices that we make in academia or whatever to valorize certain kinds of curiosity.
我认为你所说的，这些并不是与生俱来的。
They're not I think what you're saying is they're not built in.
就像，这或许不是一种有意识的选择，但我们本可以做出不同的选择。
Like there's a sort of a maybe not a conscious choice but a choice we could have made differently.
也有些人公开或私下里就是反对好奇心。
There's also people who are just anti curiosity either out loud or quietly.
我想，奥古斯丁，圣奥古斯丁就是你提到的例子，他坦言：‘我有这么多好奇心。’
And I guess, Augustine, Saint Augustine is the example that you brought up of someone who's just like, Oh, I have all this curiosity.
这太糟糕了。
It's terrible.
上帝一定对我很生气。
God must be very mad at me.
是的，正是如此。
Yeah, exactly.
在西方思想史上，这种现象很普遍。
There's a lot of that in the history of, Western thought.
那我们该如何为这个观点做最强辩护呢？
So how do we steel man that?
也就是说，不抱好奇心的理由是什么？
Like, what what is the argument for not being curious?
一定有什么原因，让人会认为这种观点是有道理的。
Like what what is the there has to be again some reason why people would think something like that?
在这种情况下，我认为西方知识传统中长期存在反对好奇心的原因在于，好奇心被视为一种以自我为中心的个人兴趣行为，而没有考虑到上帝可能希望你了解的是别的东西。
Well in that case, I think one of the reasons for the very long tradition of being against curiosity in the western intellectual tradition is that curiosity was conceived as a very self directed individual interest sort of practice, and one that didn't take into account that God might want you to know something different.
所以，正是我们自身产生了好奇心，它为我们服务。
So it was it's really that it that it comes from us, the curiosity comes from us and serves us.
它在旧时看来显得自私且傲慢。
It that it felt sort of selfish and and proud in the old way.
这也是为什么好奇心被摒弃，而敬畏感被推崇的原因之一。
And that's part of why it was dismissed in favor of wonder, for example.
因为敬畏更能体现对知识的尊崇。
Because wonder is much more capable of a reverence in knowing.
因此，敬畏反而被珍视。
And so that was that was prized instead.
但在现代科学初期，出现了一个非常有趣的转折，这两者的关系发生了颠倒。
But then there's a really interesting moment right where early modern science starts, the two of them sort of flip.
敬畏变得不再受支持，因为它与简单、粗浅的思维联系在一起，而真正细致、专注、受过教育、博学的探索方式则需要好奇心。
Wonder becomes the thing that's less supported because it's associated with, you know, kind of like simple thoughts and and not a really careful, attentive, educated, erudite approach to things which would require curiosity.
真奇怪，为什么这样的转变会发生。
Weird why things like that flip.
这对我来说非常有趣，因为我一直思考的二元对立并不是好奇与惊奇，而是敬畏与惊奇。
Well, it's very interesting to me because the dichotomy I've always thought about myself is not curiosity versus wonder, but awe versus wonder.
我站在另一方，我支持惊奇的一方。
And I come down the other side, I come down the pro wonder side.
敬畏似乎更像是静静地凝视着这令人惊叹的事物，而惊奇则更像是‘我为什么会有这样的想法？’
Awe seems to be more like just standing silently contemplating this amazing thing whereas wonder is more like I wonder why?
对我来说，惊奇带有一点好奇的意味。
Like wonder has a connotation of curiosity to me a little bit.
也许这只是因为英语词汇并不能完全对应我们所讨论的概念。
Maybe that's just because English words don't map on exactly to the concepts we're talking about.
是的，这真的取决于我们讨论的历史时刻，‘惊奇’这个词在当时具有怎样的内涵。我认为今天值得探讨的是，‘惊奇’这个词如今具有哪些内涵。
Yeah, it really depends on the moment we're we're we're discussing in the in the history of what wonder the term wonder what connotations the term And wonder and I and I think it's interesting to ask today what connotations the term wonder has.
为什么惊奇不像好奇那样无处不在？为什么惊奇没有出现在我们所有高等教育的愿景声明中？
And why isn't wonder, for example, as as, as everywhere, as ubiquitous as curiosity is, why isn't wonder in all of our higher education vision statements?
什么？
What?
为什么不呢？
Why not?
这反映了我们当今对知识的处理方式具有什么样的特点？
What does that say about the kind of configuration of our approach to knowledge these days?
看来，在当前的时代精神下，反对好奇心是不会受欢迎的。
Well, does seem like just with the current zeitgeist, coming out anti curiosity would not be very popular.
但我认为你确实指出，这不过是表面功夫，实际上某些类型的好奇心是被抑制的，或者至少在某种程度上不被鼓励。
But I think you do make the case that that's the lip service but there are certain types of curiosity which are discouraged or I mean, either explicitly discouraged or frowned upon in some way.
我们是否容易区分出‘好的好奇心’和‘不该有的好奇心’，后者是我们应该抵制的？
I mean, it easy to draw or possible to draw a line between okay curiosity and naughty curiosity that we should try to resist?
达尼，你好像已经准备好回答这个问题了。
Dani, it looks like you are ready for that question.
实际上，我正在思考你提出的‘奇观式好奇心’这个概念。
Well, actually, was thinking about your construction of the spectacle curiosity.
所以我一直在点头，因为我正想着那篇相关文章。
So I was nodding because I had that piece in mind.
是的，在我的其他研究中，我讨论过一些令人担忧的好奇心形态，其中‘奇观消抹’就是我提到的一个概念，这是一个带连字符的术语。
Yeah, so in my other work, I talk about, again, formations of curiosity that are troubling, and the spectacle erasure formation is something I talk about, and it is a hyphenated term.
这种对待人或主体的方式，会将他们奇观化，以某种方式加以颂扬或抬高，比如‘这真是个奇特有趣的珍品’，但即便在抬高它的同时，你实际上也在抹去该对象、人物或文化原有的意义与背景。
This approach to people or subjects where you spectacularize, you sort of celebrate or lift up in some way, hey this is a weird interesting curio of some kind, but even in that lifting up you're essentially erasing the the meaning in the context of that object or that person or that culture.
因此，我认为这是长期以来最令人担忧的好奇心形态之一。
So that's certainly one of the more troubling formations, I think, of curiosity that have been around for
所以，这种好奇心几乎带有去人性化的特点，把人、想法或文化当作好奇的对象来对待，而不是当作主体。
So kind of curiosity long as almost dehumanizing or something like a way of treating a person or an idea or a culture as an object of curiosity but nevertheless an object rather than a subject.
是的，正是如此。
Yeah, exactly.
我上过哲学课。
See, I've taken philosophy classes.
这些观点可骗不了我。
You can't get this stuff past me.
对，这确实完全说得通。
Yeah, no, does make perfect sense.
但我想我原本想表达的是，对好奇心的担忧似乎也是完全合理的。
But there's also, I guess what I was aiming at, I mean, seems like a perfectly legitimate worry about curiosity.
但确实有人正在禁书，不让人探索不同的东西。
But there are people out there banning books and not letting people explore different things.
我的意思是，我不想直接否定它，但人类在某种程度上也确实会对过于深入的好奇心，或对某些不该知道的事情，产生抗拒。
I mean, there's also a sort of I don't want to just dismiss it out of hand but there's also a human resistance to being curious too far in some sense, or about things that you shouldn't know about.
是的，这在某种程度上让我们回到了关于网络灵活性或网络如何陷入僵化的讨论。
Yeah, and I think this returns us in some sense to our conversation about network flexibility or network how networks get stuck.
我认为，禁书的部分过程就是网络陷入僵化，无法灵活应对知识的变化，而这种变化常常是由于边缘群体获得了一定立足点和声音所引发的。
I think part of the book banning process is a network getting stuck and unable to flexibly respond to how knowledge is changing, and is changing often in response to marginalized groups of folks who are gaining some kind of foothold and voice.
这是我看待这个问题的一种方式。
That's one of the ways I would approach that.
嗯，正是因为我想更详细地探讨丹尼那边关于大脑中实际发生情况的观点。
Well, like that because I wanted to move I wanted to go a little bit in more detail on Danny's side about what's happening literally in the brain.
因为我们有观念的网络，这听起来有点抽象，但大脑实际上就是神经元彼此交流的网络，对吧？
Because we have networks of ideas and that sounds a little abstract, but the brain is literally a network of neurons talking to each other, right?
860亿，而且那里存在结构。
86,000,000,000 of And there's structure there.
我想，我从你的一次演讲中第一次了解到的一个非常酷的事情是，神经元不仅在大脑内聚集在一起，许多神经元共同处理同一个问题，而且如果我理解得没错的话，单个神经元在人的一生中可能会更换所属的群体。
And I guess one of the very cool things that I think I learned for the first time from one of your talks is that not only do the neurons group together within the brain, like there's a whole bunch of neurons working together on the same problem, but and again correct me if I'm wrong an individual neuron over the lifetime of a person might switch groups.
它可能在早期用于一种目的，而后来又被用于完全不同的目的。
It might be used for one purpose early on and then be used for a totally different purpose later on.
对吗？
Is that right?
是的。
Yes.
对。
Yes.
因此，这些神经单元在时间推移中所承担的功能确实具有灵活性。
So there is absolutely a flexibility in the function that particular neural units might perform over time.
这种灵活性是有用的。
And that flexibility is useful.
它能预测一个人在未来的学习能力。
It is predictive of how much somebody will learn over time.
它还与我们的认知灵活性相关。
It's also correlated with how cognitively flexible we are.
也就是说，我们从一种认知过程切换到另一种认知过程的难易程度。
So how easy it is for us to change from one kind of cognitive process to another kind of cognitive process.
你可以把认知灵活性理解为：从做数学作业切换到和祖母聊天有多容易。
So cognitive flexibility you can think of as how easy is it to switch from doing math homework to talking to my grandmother.
这些是截然不同的认知过程。
So these are wildly different cognitive processes.
有些人觉得这种转换非常困难。
Some people find that sort of transition really difficult.
另一些人则觉得更容易。
Other people find it easier.
这种轻松程度被称为认知灵活性。
And that degree of ease is called cognitive flexibility.
因此，这种认知灵活性由神经灵活性支持，神经灵活性指的是大脑中各个神经单元改变与哪些其他神经单元通信以及为何通信、通信内容的方式。
So that cognitive flexibility is supported by a neural flexibility, which is how independent neural units in the brain change which other neural units they're communicating with and kind of why, what they're communicating.
是的，我认为神经灵活性对于我们理解自己如何变化和学习至关重要。
Yeah, so that neural flexibility is really key, I think, to understanding how we change and learn over our
我的意思是，一个显而易见的假设是，随着年龄增长，我们的神经灵活性会下降。
I mean, there's an obvious hypothesis that our neural flexibility goes away as we get older.
这些数据能证实这一点吗？
Is that something that the data could speak to?
这是个非常有趣的问题。
That's a really interesting question.
我们已经研究了年轻人和儿童的神经灵活性，但尚未涉及老年群体。
We have studied neural flexibility in young adults and childhood scales, but not at the older age range.
因此，这仍然是一个有趣的开放性问题：在生命晚期，神经灵活性是否会发生变化。
So that's something that's sort of an interesting open question, is whether in very late life neural flexibility is altered.
我们还不知道。
We don't know.
但我觉得有趣的是，尽管在晚年神经灵活性和认知灵活性可能发生变化，但也可能存在其他类型认知功能的增强，以及由此延伸出的、与早年相比在晚年更为突出的其他类型的好奇心。
But I think what's interesting is that there is a suggestion that there are, while there may be a change in both neural and cognitive flexibility in late life, there may also be a strengthening of other kinds of cognitive functions and, by extension, other kinds of curiosity that may be present in late life in comparison to early life.
这正是我们未来非常期待深入探索的方向。
And that's something that I think we're really excited to dig into more deeply in the future.
正如你所指出的，我们所学习和好奇的想法本身具有其自身的网络结构，而我们的大脑也具有网络结构。
And the ideas that we're learning and are curious about, as you point out, they have a network structure of their own and our brains have a network structure.
它们是相似的、镜像的，还是只是各自独立存在、互不相干？
Are they analogous, mirrored, or are they just both there doing separate things?
从拓扑结构上看，它们是相似的，因为想法的网络结构和大脑的网络结构都具有小世界组织特征。
Well, they're similar in their topology in the sense that both the network structure of the ideas and the network structure of the brain, they both have a small world organization.
它们既不是完全规则的矩形或三角形。
They're not perfectly rectangular or triangular.
也不是完全随机的。
They're also not perfectly random.
它们具有有趣的中间结构。
They have interesting intermediate structures.
所以这种情况确实是存在的。
So that's definitely the case.
我认为另一个重要的对应关系是，大脑中有一些特定区域在编码我们周围世界中的网络关系。
The other important, I think, correspondence is that there are particular pieces of the brain that are coding for the network relations in the world around us.
大脑中有一个叫做海马体-内嗅皮层系统的区域。
So there's this piece of the brain called the hippocampal entorhinal system.
这个名字挺长的。
It's a mouthful.
当我们接收到信息时，它会编码这些信息的内容，以及它们之间是如何连接的、连接的距离有多远。
Which, when we are presented with information, will code what the pieces of information are and then also which pieces are connected and by how distant they're connected.
因此，它编码了连接与非连接，并且编码了连接的距离。
So, it codes connection versus non connection and it codes the distance of connection.
这个海马体-内嗅皮层系统会生成认知地图或概念地图。
And this hippocampal entorhinal system creates these cognitive maps or conceptual maps.
它们是网络地图。
And they're network maps.
这些地图以连接模式反映了我们的世界。
They're maps of our world in this connective pattern.
因此，大脑中有一部分明确地帮助我们理解世界中的网络结构。
So there is an explicit piece of the brain that's actually helping us to understand the network organization of our world.
大脑非常聪明。
The brain is very smart.
我总是对这个想法印象深刻：
I'm always impressed with the idea of
大脑，
the brain,
它能做什么。
what it can do.
为了进一步说明这一点，我喜欢一个例子，我想我曾经听过你提到过，也许在书里也讲过，我记不清了。
And just to drive that home, I love the example that I think I heard you give once, maybe even in the book, I forget.
但当你和别人交谈并试图向他们解释一系列想法时，时间的线性特性意味着这些想法会按某种顺序出现。
But when you're talking to somebody and you're trying to explain to them a bunch of ideas, the linear nature of time means that the ideas are going to come in some order.
但你真正想要的是提供一个相互关联的整体观念网络，信息的传递者和接收者需要合作，共同重建这个网络，尽管实际的传输只是线性的。
But what you want is to give a whole network of ideas that are connected to each other in some way and there's some cooperation between the giver of the information and the receiver of the information to basically reconstruct that network even though the actual transmission is just linear.
是的，完全正确。
Yes, exactly.
对。
Yeah.
因此，在我们交流时，我们是以线性方式交流的。
So when we communicate, we communicate in a line.
我只能一个词接一个词地说，你也是。
I can only say one word in front of the next, and same with you.
但我们真正试图向彼此传达的，是完整的知识结构。
But what we're actually trying to communicate to one another are whole structures of knowledge.
那么，我们该如何做到这一点呢？
And the question is, how do we do that?
大脑中哪些部分对此至关重要？
What pieces of the brain are important for that?
我们都生活在社会中，对吧？
We're all in society, right?
我们生活在一个社会中，正如某位著名人士曾经说过的话。
We live in a society, as someone famously once said.
我想，这正是佩里的研究更相关的地方。
And this is, I guess, where Perry's work comes in more.
它反馈了我们选择学习和好奇的内容。
It feeds back what we choose to learn and be curious about.
我们刚才稍微谈到了政治运动如何是一种学习，但我们也想学习的内容受到政治影响，也受到社会告诉我们的东西影响，对吧？
We just talked a little bit about how a political movement can be learning, but also what we want to learn is affected by the politics, but affected by what society is telling us, right?
完全正确。
Absolutely.
是的。
Yeah.
而这正是其中一个让我特别感兴趣的视角：思考我们仅仅因为成长于某个特定家庭、特定地点、特定社会结构和文化中，就自然而然吸收的知识网络，与我们每天主动构建的知识结构之间，可能存在怎样的关系。
And this is part of this is what is one of the angles that's really interesting for me is to think about what kind of knowledge networks we gain simply by being raised in a particular family, in a particular location, in particular social structure and culture, etc, etc, and we just kind of imbibe versus the kind of knowledge structures that we are actively building on a daily a day in and day out basis, and what might be the relationship between the two.
我认为，你最初可能会觉得，我们从环境中潜移默化获得的知识网络充满了各种偏见，也许通过构建自己的知识网络，我可以抵抗这些偏见。
I think you might you might at first think that the the network structures of knowledge that we imbibe are from our surroundings have sort of all of these biases, and maybe I can resist those by building my own knowledge network.
但我认为这没那么简单，而且根据环境对我们大脑功能的影响，即使我在主导自己的探索时，也可能会引入并强化某些偏见。
But I don't think it's quite that simple, and certainly what we know from the environment's effect on our own brain function, even when I am leading my own inquiry, right, I can bring in and practice and further certain biases as well.
但有趣的是，一种是主动的，另一种则更被动，我认为学习在这两种方式中都会发生。
But it is interesting that the one is active and the other is more passive and I think learning happens in both ways.
在主动方面，你知道，社会通过仅仅存在于我们周围、存在于我们生活的环境中，就在影响着我们，但有时它会积极地审查我们的好奇心，告诉我们不要去触碰某些领域。
And on the active side, you know, society is impacting us just by being around us and being where we live, but sometimes it actively polices our curiosity and tells us not to go there.
我们已经提到了焚书，但还有没有更微妙的微侵犯或暗示，比如周围的人会以某种方式劝阻你对某些事物产生好奇？
And we already mentioned the book burning, but are there more subtle microaggression nudges kind of ways in which being curious about certain things is discouraged by the people around us?
当然。
Sure.
比如说，那些试图暂停批判性种族理论或美国种族历史教学的努力，还有为将LGBT历史纳入K-12学校课程而进行的漫长斗争，这些都不算太隐蔽。
I mean, think maybe not so subtle is, for example, the work to suspend, you know, critical race theory or learning racial histories of The US, the very, very long fights to try to get LGBT history into K-twelve schools.
这些都是关于人们应该或不应该知道什么、应该或不应该对什么保持好奇的政策层面的争论。
You know, these are these are policy level arguments about what people should and shouldn't know or should and shouldn't be curious about.
但我觉得在日常层面，确实有些事情是被重视的，你可能会因为对这些事情充满好奇而受到赞扬，而其他一些事情则在某种程度上处于边缘地位。
But I think on an everyday level, sure, there's clearly certain things that are valued, and and you may be celebrated for being curious about those things, and then there are other things that are peripheral in some sense.
这可能是因为与某个边缘化群体有关。
It could be for because of a relationship to a marginalized group.
也可能出于其他原因，你对某些事情非常好奇，但别人却并不怎么感兴趣。
It could be for other reasons that you that you might be really curious about, but no one else is really that curious about.
因此，你可能会因此受到抑制，至少不会因为对这些事情好奇而受到推崇。
And, you know, and and you might be just therefore discouraged or at least not like celebrated for the fact that you're curious about that thing.
从科学史的角度来看，这很有趣，因为确实有一些问题曾驱动着某些科学家和哲学家，但……
And it's interesting to think about the history of science, I think, in this respect, because certainly there have been questions that have driven certain scientists and philosophers as well, but.
比如，你真的想弄明白某件事，而你所处时代的文化却认为这是个荒谬的问题，你在浪费时间，你知道的。
To you know, say I really want to know this and their surrounding culture at the time like that's a really ridiculous question, what are you wasting your time on, you know.
而且，你知道，他们得不到资金支持。
And, you know, they don't get funding.
也就是说，这是一种支持或不支持某些问题和好奇心的结构。
I mean, that's a structure that supports or doesn't support certain kinds of questions and curiosities.
资金在哪里？
Where is the funding?
合作者在哪里？
Where the collaborators?
你知道的。
You know?
出版商在哪里？
Where are the publishers?
很多年长的人，你知道的，几百年前，即使他们的哲学著作具有开创性，也无法发表。
Lots of older folks, you know, a couple hundred years ago couldn't get their pieces published, even if they're groundbreaking philosophy
或者
or
科学。
science.
所以我认为，对好奇心的管控无处不在。
So I think it's all around us, the policing of curiosity.
我认为这种情况甚至在本科生阶段也会发生。
I think it also happens even undergraduate level too.
所以当孩子们还小的时候，在课堂上也是如此。
So when kids are younger, well, and in classrooms as well.
但我想举的例子是罗宾·沃尔·金默尔，一位原住民植物学家。
But the example I wanted to bring up is of Robin Wall Kimmerer, who's an indigenous scholar of botany.
她回忆说，自己在攻读植物学本科学位时，曾想弄清楚为什么金盏花和紫菀草生长在同一片田野里时会如此美丽。
And she recounts going for an undergraduate degree in botany and saying that what she wanted to do was to understand why goldenrod and asters, when they exist in a field together, are so beautiful.
她的教授们却说：‘我们这个领域不问这样的问题。’
And her professors were like, That's not a question that we ask in this field.
但她继续沿着这个方向探索，深入研究植物、我们对植物的认知、我们对植物的价值判断，以及这些在不同文化中的差异，最终拥有了一段精彩的职业生涯，激励了全球无数人。
And she continued to follow that and did a lot of work at the intersection of understanding plants, our perception of plants, our valuation of plants, and how that's different among cultures, and had a wonderful career, has inspired so many people across the world.
但同样，这一切都始于一个被轻易否定为无关紧要的问题。
But again, it was started by a question that was dismissed out of hand as a relevant question.
但这把我们带入了非常棘手的领域，我真诚地说，我不知道该如何思考这些问题，因为政治光谱的另一端正用类似的言辞声称，他们的观点正被另一方的不容忍者压制。
But this gets us into very tricky territory, I say that in a very sincere way that I don't know how to think about these things because the sort of other side of the political spectrum is using very similar rhetoric to say that their ideas are being shut down by the intolerant people on the other side.
他们只是想说白人可能比黑人更聪明，但这样做就会受到批评。
All they want to do is say that maybe white people are smarter than black people and they don't get to do that without being criticized.
在值得好奇的事情和不值得好奇的事情之间，是否存在实质性的界限？
And are there substantive lines to be drawn between what it's worth being curious about and not?
还是我们应该说，每个人都应该对一切保持好奇，但同时也要准备好接受我们所学到的任何东西？
Or should we just say that like everybody should be curious about everything, but we should just, you know, be ready to accept whatever it is that we learn?
是的，我的意思是，对我们来说，我们致力于支持那些能促进更多元化世界观的探索，特别是回应那些曾排斥这些知识的历史。
Yeah, mean, I think for us, we're committed to thinking about supporting curiosities that create more support for more diverse ways of thinking about the world, especially in response to histories that have excluded those knowledges.
这种对历史的关联非常重要，因为这样我们才能讨论诸如美国对非洲人的奴役之类的问题，对吧？
And that attachment to histories is really important because then we can talk about things like the enslavement of African people in The US, right?
我们可以讨论美国原住民所遭受的种族灭绝。
We can talk about the genocide of indigenous people in The US.
我们可以讨论那些长期存在、惩罚和刑事化LGBT群体生活的法律。
We can talk about the laws that have been long standing, that have penalized and criminalized LGBT life.
因此，我认为，从历史和那些首先未能生存下来、理应获得更多空间融入我们的归属与认知体系的生命出发，这才是我们希望支持的探索类型。
So I think in relationship to history and the lives that have not been able to live, first of all, and deserve to have more of a place in our schemas of belonging and of knowing, that's the kind of curiosity that we want to support.
我想其中一个担忧是，好奇心的视角无法区分那些可能已被驳斥的观点和那些可能因政治原因被压制的观点。
I guess one worry is that the lens of curiosity doesn't distinguish between ideas that maybe have been discredited and ideas that maybe have been suppressed for political reasons.
我支持好奇心。
I want to be pro curiosity.
我非常支持言论自由。
I'm very pro free speech.
如果某个疯狂的校园团体想请一个疯狂的演讲者来校园，而他们并没有强迫我去听，我完全支持他们这么做。
If some crazy campus group wants to have some crazy speaker on campus and they're not forcing me to go, I'm very much in favor of letting them go.
但我也不想去尊重它。
But I don't want to respect it either.
我不希望说，这种东西应该在课堂上被教授之类。
I don't I don't want to say, like, that should be taught in a classroom or something like that.
所以，我们是不是需要的不仅仅是支持好奇心的态度，来帮助我们区分哪些观点值得深入探究，而哪些已经被我们抛在身后了呢？
So do we need I guess maybe the question is do we need more than just a pro curiosity attitude to help us distinguish with which ideas are worth delving into and which we've moved beyond by now?
是的，我在第一本关于好奇心的书《好奇心与权力》中提出，好奇心需要伙伴。
Yeah, something I argue in my first book on curiosity, curiosity and power is that curiosity needs companions.
这就是我对这个问题的回答。
So this is my answer to that question.
好奇心需要伙伴。
Curiosity needs companions.
它需要与其他价值观和投入相伴，共同引导我们的探索。
It needs to be alongside of other values and investments that guide our inquiries together.
是的，我想回到我们之前讨论的一个部分，我们需要一种不会将对象物化的 curiosity，尤其是当我们好奇的对象不是物体时，对吧？
Yeah, and I think going back to an earlier part of our conversation, we need a curiosity that is not objectifying when what we're curious about is not an object, right?
所以我认为，确保我们保持好奇心，承认并尊重周围人的主体性，是非常关键的。
So I think that ensuring that we are curious and acknowledge and respect the subjectivity of those around us is really key.
从某种意义上说，我们在书中将好奇心定义为连接，并强调这种连接不仅存在于观念之间，也存在于人与人之间，这要求或引入了一种人类互动的伦理，而这正是我们所理解的好奇心的核心所在。
And in a sense, our focus in the book on curiosity as connection and that we push that connection to me not just between ideas but also between people requires or brings in an ethics of interaction between humans that is central to what curiosity for us is doing and can do.
我之前在播客上邀请过保罗·布卢姆。
I had Paul Bloom on the podcast a while back.
我不知道你是否了解他的作品。
I don't know if you know his work.
他写了一本书，他是一名心理学家，书里反对共情。
He wrote a book he's a psychologist he wrote a book against empathy.
我是个支持共情的人。
And I'm a pro empathy kind of guy.
所以我们意见不同。
So, we disagreed.
但他的态度和观点——如果我试着复述一下，听听你们怎么说——大致上是把共情和理性对立起来。
But his attitude, his argument, if I can try to repeat it and I'll hear what you have to say about it, is he contrasts, roughly speaking, empathy to rationality.
他说，当我们评判他人时，无论是在法庭上当陪审员，还是在构建社会制度时，共情听起来很好，但对我们相似的人产生共情，远比对截然不同的人产生共情要容易得多。
He says when we're judging people, whether we're on a jury, in a court, or we're trying to set up society, empathy sounds good, but it's a lot more easy to be empathetic to people like us than to be empathetic with people very, very different.
所以他更希望我们追求客观和理性。
So, prefers that we just aim to be objective and rational.
而我的观点是，就像共情并不总是容易的，理性也并非总是容易做到；如果你以为自己很理性，却不去考虑别人会如何看待这个问题，你可能会欺骗自己，以为自己的理性比实际更优越。
Whereas my argument was, well, just like empathy isn't always easy, rationality isn't always easy either, and if you think you're being rational but not thinking about how other people would view the problem, you can fool yourself into thinking that your rationality is a little bit better than it is.
我不太确定自己想表达什么，但听起来你希望把好奇心和共情以一种有趣的方式结合起来。
I'm not sure where I'm going with that, but it sounds like you want to couple curiosity with empathy in an interesting way.
是的，完全正确。
Yeah, absolutely.
我的意思是，我认为当你说对像我们这样的人更容易产生共情时，一个相反的观点是，我们需要对那些与我们不同的人的经历和信念更加好奇，这样才能对他们也产生共情。
I mean, I think that when you are I think that maybe a counter I would have to empathy is easier to have toward people who are like us is that we need to be more curious about the experiences and beliefs of people who are not like us so that we can also have empathy for them.
因此，我不会说我们应该摒弃共情。
I would not say, therefore, let's remove empathy.
我会说，不，我们需要对各种不同的经历保持共情，但这需要我们去好奇这些人是如何走到这一步的，以及他们为什么这样想等等。
I would say, no, we need empathy for lots of different kinds of experiences, but that requires a curiosity of how those individuals got to that place and why they think that way, etcetera.
是的，我本来就想说，把共情和理性对立起来的这种说法我并不认同，因为理性已经被反复证明存在内在偏见。
Yeah, I was just going say that the contrast between empathy and rationality there is one I don't particularly buy because I think that rationality has been shown repeatedly to have inbuilt biases.
理性只是说，如果我有一些假设和一组信息，我就能从头到尾逻辑地推导出结论。
Rationality is simply if I have a number of assumptions and a set of information, I can build, you know, make sense of that logically from from the beginning to the end.
但也许你所拥有的信息本身就存在偏见。
But maybe the information that you have is biased.
也许数据之间的关系是以一种有偏见的方式构建的。
Maybe the relationships between the data have constructed in a biased way.
即使你再理性地分析这个网络，仍然可能做出错误的决定，对吧？
Well, can be as rational as you want on walking that network and can still like be making a bad move, right?
或者误解了当前的情况。
Or misunderstanding the situation.
因此，我不认为理性能让我们摆脱同理心或主观性所带来的任何问题。
So I don't see rationality as as something that gets us out of whatever the problems of empathy or subjectivity would be.
好的，我明白你的意思。
Okay, I think I get that.
我希望我准确地复述了保罗·布卢姆的观点，而不是歪曲它，但这个回应很有帮助。
I hope I did a good job of repeating Paul Bloom's argument rather than caricaturing it, but that was a useful response.
既然我们快结束了，不如给我们的听众一些切实可行的建议吧。
So as we're winding up, I mean, let's give some actionable take home messages to our listeners out there.
但在那之前，我想问问，你的出版商或同事有没有担心过，你写的这本书其实只是一本自助读物，或者那种‘学习新东西真有趣’的鸡汤书？你有没有遇到过这种阻力？
But I guess before we do that, was there a worry among your publishers or your faculties that what you were writing was really just a self help book or a, you know, rah rah, like learning new things is fun book that you have to climb uphill against that kind of resistance?
没有，我觉得这本书写得非常丰富，深深植根于我们自己的研究，同时也融合了数个世纪的大量学术成果，没人会认为它是一本肤浅的轻量级读物，对吧？
No, I think the book itself is so richly written and so deep, steeped with our own research, but also with so much scholarship and literatures of centuries, no one was worried that it's a light fluff thing, right?
我认为你不能以那种方式来读它，也不能轻易地读它，对吧？
And I don't think that you can read it in that sense, don't think you can read it easily, right?
我认为这本书要求你放慢脚步，无论你从哪个角度切入，都会遇到大量你不熟悉的内容。
I think the book itself demands that you take it slow, And there's going be a lot of stuff you're unfamiliar with, no matter what angle you're coming at the book from.
我们希望这一点能让你感到兴奋，达尼。
And we're hoping that that's exciting, Dani.
是的，绝对如此。
Yeah, absolutely.
我的意思是，我们所提供的是一种与我们作为人类的体验相关的概念性转变。
I mean, I think that what we are offering is a sort of conceptual change related to our experience as humans.
这并不是一本自助书籍。
It's not a self help book.
它关乎的是我们如何理解自己的思维方式，以及我们如何与他人一起思考。
It's a question of sort of how do we even make sense of the way that we think and the way that we think with one another.
我认为这是一种非常不同风格或类型的书。
And that is I think that's a very different style or genre.
这本书的高要求引发了一个有趣的问题，那就是，好奇心似乎很简单，但满足好奇心却常常很困难。
Well, the demandingness of the book raises its own interesting question, which is, you know, curiosity seems so easy, but satisfying one's curiosity can often be kind of hard.
这需要付出努力。
There's an effort involved.
我知道，就我个人而言，有时候我真的提不起劲。
And I know that personally, sometimes I just don't have it in me.
我只是想要一些轻松、浅显的东西。
I just want something easy and fluffy.
但我们在学习欲望和愿意投入的努力之间存在着一种互动关系，这一点在我自己的新书出版时就体现出来了——那本书里有很多方程式，它要求读者耐心地理解这些方程式，而我必须说服他们：这一切努力都是值得的。
But there is an interplay between what we want to learn and the effort we're willing to put into it which I come across because my own book coming out that just came out rather has a lot of equations in it and it asks the reader to sit through the equations and I have to convince them it's worth the effort.
丹尼，这让我想起了你讲过的那些需要付出努力的散步和导师的故事。
Denny, this reminds me of your stories of, effortful walks and mentors.
哦，
Oh,
‘哦’是什么意思，是的。
what's Oh, yeah.
是的。
So, yes.
我认为，你的书和我们的书，当读者与我们一同踏上这段旅程时，就好像他们正与我们同行。
I think that so books are, your book and our book, they are When readers come with us on that journey, it's as if they're walking with us.
他们正在探索这些想法，仿佛是在穿越一张网络，对吧？
And they're walking through the ideas, it's as if they're walking through a network, right?
问题是，我们每个人喜欢什么样的行走，以及和谁一起走？
And the question is, each of us are, what kinds of walks do we like to take and with whom?
我们愿意选择艰难的路，还是更喜欢轻松的路？
And are we willing to take the hard walks or do we want the gentler walks?
答案或许是，我们两种都想要。
And the answer is maybe we want both.
但我清晰地记得，当我们三四岁的时候，祖母带我们去徒步旅行。
But I vividly remember our grandmother taking us hiking when we were probably three or four.
她特别喜欢一条路，对当时三四岁的我们来说，那条路简直像是直上云霄。
And she loved this path that felt as a three or four year old as if it was straight up.
那坡度太陡了。
It was so steep.
也许那路有大约一百码长。
And maybe it was like, I don't know, 100 yards.
我不知道具体有多长，但我们在半路上总会恳求休息吃点零食，因为实在太费力了。
I don't know how long it was, but we would want we would beg for a snack break halfway up because it was that strenuous.
我们很喜欢和她一起去远足，但我记得当时觉得挑战很大，而能获得一次零食休息让我们如释重负，我们也会因为路途艰辛而提前仔细准备。
And we loved hiking with her, but I remember challenging and feeling so relieved that we were allowed to have a snack break and that we would pack very carefully before this hike because of the strenuousness.
无论如何，这让我更广泛地思考我们生活中遇到的导师类型——无论是学术导师还是人生导师，他们为我们展示了思维的道路，不同的好奇心风格，以及需要我们付出多少努力。
Anyway, it makes me think more generally about the kind of mentors that we have in our lives, whether scholarly mentors or personal mentors, that may show us paths of mind, that may show us different styles of curiosity, that may take more or less effort from us.
当我们逐渐接触这些不同的影响时，我们可以选择：我究竟想效仿哪种好奇心风格。
And as we kind of expose ourselves to those different influences, we can choose, you know, which is the style of curiosity that I want to model myself after.
是的。
Right.
作为这本书的作者，我真正想和你一起走的是哪条路。
Which is the path I really want to take with you as an author of the book.
而且，是的，我喜欢我们可以在朋友和同事中做出选择这一事实。
And I, yeah, I love the fact that we have choices among our friends and colleagues.
这涉及到建议的问题。
Well, this goes to the advice question.
我知道给出建议常常是奇怪且无用的，但我们所有人都当过学生的顾问，对吧？
I know that giving advice is often a weird and useless thing, but we've all been advisors to students, right?
你说的例子很好，我也在自己的工作中见过一些糟糕的建议——学生因为对某个问题感到好奇，却被告诉：‘不，这不是我们回答的那种问题。’
And, you know, it's one thing to say, you've given examples, and I've seen examples in my own work of bad advice being given to students because they were curious about some question they were told, No, that's not the kind of question that we answer.
这不够有趣。
That's not interesting.
这不够学术。
That's not academic.
这不够有智力性、学术性，等等。
It's not intellectual, scholarly, whatever.
但我仍然认为，有些问题确实比其他问题更好。
But I'd like to still think that some questions aren't as good as some other questions.
我的意思是，这大概也是建议问题的一部分：我们如何决定让好奇心朝哪个方向发展，而不是仅仅变得有点自我放纵？
Like, I mean, this is, I guess, part of the advice question: How do we decide between the right directions to let our curiosity go in and where we're just being a little bit self indulgent?
这很有趣。
That's interesting.
这让我想起我现在在宾夕法尼亚大学给本科生上的一门课。
It reminds me of this class that I'm teaching right now to undergraduates at Penn.
我试图表达的是，当我们提出问题时，我们是在进行一种思维的运动。
And it's on, what I'm trying to do is to say that when we ask questions, we are engaging in a movement of the mind.
对学生来说，问题是：这种思维运动是什么？
And the question for the student is, what mental movement is that?
是一种滑动吗？
Is it a slide?
是一种迈步吗？
Is it a step?
还是你正用想象力飞翔？
Is it are you flying with imagination?
在描述你思维所进行的这种运动时，你就可以判断：这种运动对当前这个研究项目是否有帮助？
And in sort of describing the kind of movement you're making with your mind, you can then say, is that movement useful for this research project that we're on right now?
有时候答案可能是肯定的，有时候答案可能是否定的。
And sometimes the answer might be yes, and sometimes the answer might be no.
但至少，理解这种思维运动并用语言表达出来，可以帮助导师和学生共同评估其价值。
But at least understanding the mental movement and putting words to it can help both the mentor and the student, I think, evaluate the utility.
而且，如果你决定这种思维运动对当前项目帮助不大，也千万别立刻断定它毫无价值。
And it's really important too, if you decide that the movement is not particularly useful for the project at hand, to not immediately then say it's valueless.
对。
Right.
对吧？
Right?
我们真的希望鼓励自己和学生去探索一些暂时看不出明确成果的好奇心，对吧？
We we do really wanna encourage in ourselves and in our students to practice some curiosities that are not it's not clear what the what the cash out is, right?
而往往正是这些看似无用的探索，最终会成为最有洞察力、最令人兴奋的项目，只是它们需要属于自己的时间。
And and it's often those things that end up being the most insightful, most exciting projects eventually, but they just need their own time.
我的意思是，顾问能做的最好的事情，或许是不要扼杀他们所指导的学生的志趣。
I mean, maybe the best thing an advisor can do is to not crush the spirit of the student that they're trying to advise.
或者更建设性地说，就像你在书中提到的，虽然可能原本是针对小孩子，但我认为这对研究生甚至同事也同样适用——不同的人会有不同的好奇心，认可并帮助他们发展这种好奇心，比试图让他们变成另一种研究者更重要。
Or to put a more constructive way, which I think you did in the book, maybe it was with reference to young kids but I think graduate students also works or maybe even colleagues different people are going to be curious in different ways and acknowledging what that is and helping them develop that is more your job than helping them change into a different kind of researcher.
没错。
Exactly.
对。
Yes.
在我们结束之前，你有什么建议吗？
Any advice on how to do that before we go?
只需对他们多一点好奇心。
Just to be a little bit more curious about them.
我认为，培养一点对他们的社会性好奇心很重要，试着理解他们的思维在往哪个方向移动，以及如何移动。
So I think channeling a little bit of social curiosity is important trying to understand where it is their mind is moving and how.
这完全说得通。
That makes perfect sense.
所以，感谢佩里·祖恩和丹尼·巴塞特参加《葡萄酒景观》播客。
So Perry Zurn and Danny Bassett, thanks very much for being on the Winescape Podcast.
谢谢你们邀请我们。
Thanks for having us.
关于 Bayt 播客
Bayt 提供中文+原文双语音频和字幕，帮助你打破语言障碍，轻松听懂全球优质播客。