Do politics make us irrational? - Jay Van Bavel

翻译人员: Carol Wang 校对人员: Candace Hwang

In 2013, a team of researchers held a math test.

2013 年，一组研究人员 进行了一次数学测试。

The exam was administered to over 1,100 American adults,

测试对象是 1100 多名美国成年人，

and designed, in part, to test their ability to evaluate sets of data.

测试设计为从某种程度上 检测其评估数据集的能力。

Hidden among these math problems were two almost identical questions.

在这些数学问题中， 隐藏着两个几乎相同的问题。

Both problems used the same difficult data set,

这两个问题都使用了 相同难度的数据集，

and each had one objectively correct answer.

且每个问题 都有一个客观正确的答案。

The first asked about the correlation between rashes and a new skin cream.

第一个问题是关于皮疹 和一种新护肤霜间的相关性，

The second asked about the correlation between crime rates

第二个问题

则是关于犯罪率 和枪支管制立法间的关系。

and gun control legislation.

Participants with strong math skills

对数学能力强的测试者来说，

were much more likely to get the first question correct.

他们更可能答对第一题。

But despite being mathematically identical,

尽管从数学上来看 这是两个相同的问题，

the results for the second question looked totally different.

但第二个问题的答案 看起来却大相径庭。

Here, math skills weren’t the best predictor

这时，数学能力并不能有效预测

of which participants answered correctly.

哪些测试者回答正确。

Instead, another variable the researchers had been tracking came into play:

相反，研究人员跟踪的 另一个变量发挥了作用：

political identity.

政治认同。

Participants whose political beliefs

对于正确解读数据的结果

aligned with a correct interpretation of the data

与其政治信仰一致的参与者来说，

were far more likely to answer the problem right.

他们更容易答对第二题，

Even the study’s top mathematicians

当正确答案挑战其政治信仰时，

were 45% more likely to get the second question wrong

即使是这项研究中最顶尖的数学家，

when the correct answer challenged their political beliefs.

也有 45% 的可能会答错第二题。

What is it about politics that inspires this kind of illogical error?

到底政治与导致该不合逻辑的 错误之间存在什么关系呢?

Can someone’s political identity actually affect their ability

一个人的政治认知

to process information?

真会影响其处理信息的能力吗？

The answer lies in a cognitive phenomenon

答案就在公众生活中一个 越来越明显的认知现象：

that has become increasingly visible in public life: partisanship.

党派偏见。

While it’s often invoked in the context of politics,

虽然这是政治环境中常提到的词，

partisanship is more broadly defined as a strong preference or bias

但党派偏见被广泛定义为

对任何特定群体 或观点的强烈偏好或偏见。

towards any particular group or idea.

Our political, ethnic, religious, and national identities

我们的政治、种族、宗教和国家认同

are all different forms of partisanship.

都是党派偏见的不同形式。

Of course, identifying with social groups

当然，社会群体认同

is an essential and healthy part of human life.

是人类生活中不可或缺 而又健康的组成部分。

Our sense of self is defined not only by who we are as individuals,

我们的自我意识 不仅由我们作为个体的身份决定，

but also by the groups we belong to.

也由我们所属的群体决定。

As a result, we’re strongly motivated to defend our group identities,

因此，我们有强烈的动机 去捍卫我们的群体身份，

protecting both our sense of self and our social communities.

保护我们的自我意识 和我们的社会群体。

But this becomes a problem when the group’s beliefs

但当团队的信念与现实不符时，

are at odds with reality.

问题就产生了。

Imagine watching your favorite sports team commit a serious foul.

试想一下，你看到 自己最喜欢的球队严重犯规了，

You know that’s against the rules,

你知道这违反比赛规则，

but your fellow fans think it’s totally acceptable.

但你们这些粉丝 则认为这是完全可以接受的。

The tension between these two incompatible thoughts

这两种矛盾思想之间的紧张关系，

is called cognitive dissonance,

就称为认知失调，

and most people are driven to resolve this uncomfortable state of limbo.

它会驱使多数人 去解决这种不舒服的悬疑状态。

You might start to blame the referee, complain that the other team started it,

你可能会开始责怪裁判， 抱怨是对方先开始犯规的，

or even convince yourself there was no foul in the first place.

甚至说服自己其实根本就没犯规。

In a case like this,

在这种情况下，

people are often more motivated to maintain a positive relationship

人们往往更愿选择 与其团队观点保持一致，

with their group than perceive the world accurately.

而非准确地感知世界。

This behavior is especially dangerous in politics.

这种行为在政治上尤其危险，

On an individual scale,

从个人层面来看，

allegiance to a party allows people to create a political identity

效忠政党给人们创建了政治身份，

and support policies they agree with.

并支持他们赞同的政策。

But partisan-based cognitive dissonance can lead people to reject evidence

但是，基于党派的认知失调

that’s inconsistent with the party line or discredits party leaders.

会导致人们拒绝接受与政党路线相左 或使党领导人名誉扫地的证据。

And when entire groups of people revise the facts in service of partisan beliefs,

当整个群体为了自己的党派信仰 而去篡改事实的时候，

it can lead to policies that aren’t grounded in truth or reason.

会引导并非以事实 或正当理由为基础的政策。

This problem isn’t new—

这个问题并不新鲜——

political identities have been around for centuries.

政治认同已经存在了几个世纪。

But studies show that partisan polarization

但研究表明，

has increased dramatically in the last few decades.

在过去的几十年里， 党派分化程度急速加剧。

One theory explaining this increase

一种解释这种增长的理论说，

is the trend towards clustering geographically in like-minded communities.

是由思想主张相似的社区 在地理上聚集的趋势所造成；

Another is the growing tendency to rely on partisan news

另一种解释是，

or social media bubbles.

因为人们越来越依赖党派新闻 或社交媒体泡沫的趋势所导致。

These often act like echo chambers,

这些现象的作用就像回音室，

delivering news and ideas from people with similar views.

只传递观点相似的人的新闻和主张。

Fortunately, cognitive scientists have uncovered some strategies

幸运的是，认知科学家 已经发现了一些策略，

for resisting this distortion filter.

来反抗这种扭曲过滤。

One is to remember that you’re probably more biased than you think.

一是要记住，你可能 比自己想象的更有偏见。

So when you encounter new information,

因此，当遇到新信息时，

make a deliberate effort to push through your initial intuition

你要有意识地努力推动 你最初的直觉，

and evaluate it analytically.

并进行分析性评估。

In your own groups, try to make fact-checking and questioning assumptions

在你自己的团队中，

努力将事实核查和质疑假设 变成团队文化的重要部分。

a valued part of the culture.

Warning people that they might have been presented with misinformation

警告人们得到的可能是错误信息，

can also help.

这也会有所帮助。

And when you’re trying to persuade someone else,

当你试图说服别人的时候，

affirming their values and framing the issue in their language

先肯定他们的价值观， 并用他们的语言来阐述问题，

can help make people more receptive.

会更有助于他们接受你的观点。

We still have a long way to go before solving the problem of partisanship.

在解决党派偏见之前， 我们还有很长的路要走，

But hopefully, these tools can help keep us better informed,

希望这些工具 能帮助我们更好地了解情况、

and capable of making evidence-based decisions about our shared reality.

并针对你我的共同现实 做出基于证据的决策。