3 kinds of bias that shape your worldview | J. Marshall Shepherd

翻译人员: jacks peng 校对人员: Maggie Wang

I'm a meteorologist by degree,

我是一名气象学家，

I have a bachelor's, master's and PhD in physical meteorology,

我有物理气象学的学士、 硕士和博士学位，

so I'm a meteorologist, card carrying.

所以我是个气象学家，有证的。

And so with that comes four questions, always.

然而总有4个问题等着我，

This is one prediction I will always get right.

在这件事儿上我的预测总是对的。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

And those questions are,

这些问题是，

"Marshall, what channel are you on?"

“马修，你在哪个频道呢？”

(Laughter)

（笑声）

"Dr. Shepherd, what's the weather going to be tomorrow?"

“谢博德博士，明天天气怎么样?”

(Laughter)

（笑声）

And oh, I love this one:

啊，我喜欢这个：

"My daughter is getting married next September, it's an outdoor wedding.

“我女儿明年九月结婚， 是个户外婚礼。

到时会下雨吗？”

Is it going to rain?"

(Laughter)

（笑声）

Not kidding, I get those, and I don't know the answer to that,

没开玩笑，我总被问这些问题， 然而我并不知道答案，

the science isn't there.

科学在这儿不管用。

But the one I get a lot these days is,

但我这些天经常被问的是，

"Dr. Shepherd, do you believe in climate change?"

“谢博德博士，你相信气候变化吗？”

"Do you believe in global warming?"

“你相信全球变暖吗？”

Now, I have to gather myself every time I get that question.

如今每次被问到这些问题时， 我都得打起精神。

Because it's an ill-posed question --

因为这是个不恰当的问题——

science isn't a belief system.

科学可不是一个信仰体系。

My son, he's 10 -- he believes in the tooth fairy.

我10岁的儿子相信牙仙的存在。

And he needs to get over that, because I'm losing dollars, fast.

他得克服这一点，因为太费钱了。 （传说牙仙会用金币把小孩子掉的牙换走）

(Laughter)

（笑声）

But he believes in the tooth fairy.

他的确相信牙仙。

But consider this.

但想一想这个。

Bank of America building, there, in Atlanta.

这是亚特兰大的美国银行大楼。

You never hear anyone say,

你从没听到人说，

"Do you believe, if you go to the top of that building

“你相信吗，如果你到那个楼顶，

抛个球，它就会掉下去？”

and throw a ball off, it's going to fall?"

You never hear that, because gravity is a thing.

你从没听过，因为重力是实际存在的。

So why don't we hear the question,

所以为什么我们不会听到这个问题，

"Do you believe in gravity?"

“你相信重力吗？”

But of course, we hear the question,

但我们肯定听过这个问题，

"Do you believe in global warming?"

“你相信全球变暖吗？”

Well, consider these facts.

考虑到这些事实：

The American Association for the Advancement of Science, AAAS,

美国科学促进会，简称AAAS，

one of the leading organizations in science,

这是一个在科学领域的主要组织，

queried scientists and the public on different science topics.

曾就不同的科学课题 向科学家和公众提问。

Here are some of them:

这是其中一些课题：

genetically modified food, animal research, human evolution.

转基因产品，动物研究，人类进化。

And look at what the scientists say about those,

看看科学家对这些怎么说，

the people that actually study those topics, in red,

红色代表那些在研究这些课题的人，

versus the gray, what the public thinks.

灰色，则代表公众的态度。

How did we get there?

这是怎么造成的？

How did we get there?

为什么会有这么大的差异？

That scientists and the public are so far apart on these science issues.

科学家和公众在这些 科学问题上意见如此相左。

Well, I'll come a little bit closer to home for me,

好了，我要说个我比较擅长的，

climate change.

气候变化。

Eighty-seven percent of scientists

87%的科学家

believe that humans are contributing to climate change.

认为是人类的行为导致了气候变化，

But only 50 percent of the public?

但只有50%的公众这样认为。

How did we get there?

为什么会这样？

So it begs the question,

这就引出了问题，

what shapes perceptions about science?

是什么塑造了我们对科学的认知？

It's an interesting question

这是个有趣的问题，

我也一直在思考这个问题。

and one that I've been thinking about quite a bit.

I think that one thing that shapes perceptions in the public, about science,

我想有一件事影响了 公众对科学的看法，

is belief systems and biases.

就是信仰体系和偏见，

Belief systems and biases.

信仰体系和偏见。

Go with me for a moment.

我来解释一下。

Because I want to talk about three elements of that:

我想要谈一谈这个问题的三个元素：

confirmation bias, Dunning-Kruger effect

确认偏误，达克效应

and cognitive dissonance.

和认知失调。

Now, these sound like big, fancy, academic terms, and they are.

这些听起来都有点像不切实际的 学术术语，它们也确实是这样的。

But when I describe them, you're going to be like, "Oh!

但当我进一步做出解释时， 你们就会恍然大悟，“哦！

I recognize that; I even know somebody that does that."

我听说过这个； 我甚至知道有人就是这样的。”

Confirmation bias.

确认偏误。

Finding evidence that supports what we already believe.

寻找证据来支持我们已经相信的事。

Now, we're probably all a little bit guilty of that at times.

我们对此可能多少都难辞其咎。

Take a look at this.

看看这个。

I'm on Twitter.

我有自己的Twitter账户。

And often, when it snows,

通常，遇到下雪的时候，

I'll get this tweet back to me.

我会收到这样的转发。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

"Hey, Dr. Shepherd, I have 20 inches of global warming in my yard,

“嘿，谢博德博士，我院子里 有20英寸的全球变暖（指雪），

what are you guys talking about, climate change?"

你们这些家伙在说啥，气候变化？”

I get that tweet a lot, actually.

我其实收到了很多那样的推特。

It's a cute tweet, it makes me chuckle as well.

这条推特挺逗的，也让我忍俊不禁。

But it's oh, so fundamentally scientifically flawed.

但它在科学上是站不住脚的。

Because it illustrates

因为它说明了

that the person tweeting doesn't understand

发推特的人并不理解

the difference between weather and climate.

天气和气候的差异。

I often say, weather is your mood

我常说，天气是你的情绪，

而气候是你的个性。

and climate is your personality.

Think about that.

想想看。

Weather is your mood, climate is your personality.

天气是你的情绪，气候是你的个性。

Your mood today doesn't necessarily tell me anything about your personality,

你今天的情绪不一定 能代表你的个性，

nor does a cold day tell me anything about climate change,

所以即使有一天特别冷， 也不能说明气候变化了，

or a hot day, for that matter.

有一天特别热，也一样不能代表什么。

Dunning-Kruger.

达克效应。 (高估自己的能力）

Two scholars from Cornell came up with the Dunning-Kruger effect.

康奈尔大学的两位学者 提出了达克效应。

If you go look up the peer-reviewed paper for this,

如果你去查阅同行评议的论文，

你会看到各种很炫的术语：

you will see all kinds of fancy terminology:

it's an illusory superiority complex, thinking we know things.

这是一种虚幻的优越感， 以为我们什么都知道。

In other words, people think they know more than they do.

换句话说，人们高估了 自己所掌握的知识。

Or they underestimate what they don't know.

或者说，他们低估了他们的无知。

And then, there's cognitive dissonance.

然后是认知失调。 （新信息冲击现有认知）

Cognitive dissonance is interesting.

认知失调很有趣。

We just recently had Groundhog Day, right?

我们刚刚过了土拨鼠节，是吧？ （北美传统节日，用土拨鼠预测时令）

Now, there's no better definition of cognitive dissonance

对认知失调最好的解释就好比是，

than intelligent people asking me if a rodent's forecast is accurate.

一个聪明人问我 啮齿动物的预测是否准确。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

But I get that, all of the time.

但我一直都能理解。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

我也听说过黄历。

But I also hear about the Farmer's Almanac.

We grew up on the Farmer's Almanac, people are familiar with it.

我们靠着黄历长大，人们很熟悉它。

The problem is, it's only about 37 percent accurate,

但问题在于，根据 宾夕法尼亚州立大学的研究，

according to studies at Penn State University.

它的准确性只有37%。

But we're in an era of science

但我们身在科学的时代，

我们确实可以预测天气。

where we actually can forecast the weather.

不管信不信，我知道你们有些人 会说：“好吧好吧，你说的都对”，

And believe it or not, and I know some of you are like, "Yeah, right,"

我们对天气预测的 准确率有90%或者更高。

we're about 90 percent accurate, or more, with weather forecast.

You just tend to remember the occasional miss, you do.

但你们只会记得偶尔几次的 失误，可别不承认。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

So confirmation bias, Dunning-Kruger and cognitive dissonance.

所以确认偏误，达克效应和认知失调。

I think those shape biases and perceptions that people have about science.

我认为是这些形成了 人们对科学的偏见和看法。

But then, there's literacy and misinformation

但是，文化素养和错误信息

that keep us boxed in, as well.

也会让我们陷入困境。

During the hurricane season of 2017,

在2017年的飓风季，

media outlets had to actually assign reporters

媒体机构不得不指派记者，

to dismiss fake information about the weather forecast.

驳斥有关天气预报的虚假信息。

That's the era that we're in.

这就是我们所在的时代。

I deal with this all the time in social media.

我一直在社交媒体上应对这些问题。

Someone will tweet a forecast --

有人会在推特上发布预报——

that's a forecast for Hurricane Irma, but here's the problem:

这是飓风厄玛的预报，但问题是：

it didn't come from the Hurricane Center.

它不是官方飓风中心发布的。

But people were tweeting and sharing this; it went viral.

但人们在推特上分享这个， 消息就扩散开了。

It didn't come from the National Hurricane Center at all.

它根本就不是国家飓风中心发布的。

So I spent 12 years of my career at NASA

在来到乔治亚大学之前，

before coming to the University of Georgia,

我在NASA工作了12年，

and I chair their Earth Science Advisory Committee,

我是地球科学咨询委员会的主席，

我上周刚刚去过华盛顿。

I was just up there last week in DC.

我看到了一些很有趣的事情。

And I saw some really interesting things.

Here's a NASA model and science data from satellite

这是NASA的模型和 来自卫星的科学数据

showing the 2017 hurricane season.

显示了2017年飓风季的情况。

You see Hurricane Harvey there?

你们看到那边的哈维飓风没？

Look at all the dust coming off of Africa.

看看这些从非洲飘来的尘土。

Look at the wildfires up in northwest US and in western Canada.

看看美国西北部和加拿大西部的野火。

There comes Hurricane Irma.

飓风厄玛来了。

This is fascinating to me.

这对我很有吸引力。

But admittedly, I'm a weather geek.

无可否认，我是个气象迷。

But more importantly, it illustrates that we have the technology

但更重要的是，它展示了我们拥有的科技

to not only observe the weather and climate system,

不仅可以观察天气和气候系统，

but predict it.

而且可以预测它。

There's scientific understanding,

这就是科学理念，

so there's no need for some of those perceptions and biases

所以我们刚才说的那些观念和偏见

that we've been talking about.

是真的毫无用处。

We have knowledge.

我们拥有知识。

But think about this ...

但是想想这个…

This is Houston, Texas, after Hurricane Harvey.

这是飓风哈维过后的 德克萨斯州休斯顿。

Now, I write a contribution for "Forbes" magazine periodically,

现在，我定期为《福布斯》杂志撰稿，

and I wrote an article a week before Hurricane Harvey made landfall, saying,

在飓风哈维登陆前一周， 我写了一篇文章说，

"There's probably going to be 40 to 50 inches of rainfall."

“可能会有40到50英寸的降雨量。”

I wrote that a week before it happened.

我在它发生的前一周写了这个文章。

But yet, when you talk to people in Houston,

但是，当你和休斯敦的人交谈时，

people are saying, "We had no idea it was going to be this bad."

人们会说，“我没想到会这么糟糕。”

I'm just...

我只能…

(Sigh)

（叹息）

(Laughter)

（笑声）

A week before.

整整提前了一周。

But --

但是——

I know, it's amusing, but the reality is,

我知道这有点可笑，但现实是，

we all struggle with perceiving something outside of our experience level.

让我们理解经验水平之外的 东西真的很困难。

People in Houston get rain all of the time,

休斯顿的人总在经历下雨，

雨水泛滥很平常。

they flood all of the time.

But they've never experienced that.

但他们从没有遭受过那样的情况。

Houston gets about 34 inches of rainfall for the entire year.

休斯顿全年降雨量约为34英寸。

They got 50 inches in three days.

而那段时间，他们 在3天内遭受了50英寸。

That's an anomaly event, that's outside of the normal.

这是异常事件，超出了正常范围。

So belief systems and biases, literacy and misinformation.

所以信仰体系和偏见， 文化素养和错误信息。

How do we step out of the boxes that are cornering our perceptions?

我们如何走出左右我们认知的框框？

Well we don't even have to go to Houston, we can come very close to home.

我们甚至不需要去休斯顿， 在家附近就可以观察到。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

Remember "Snowpocalypse?"

还记得“末日暴雪”吗？

(Laughter)

（笑声）

Snowmageddon?

雪魔？

Snowzilla?

雪巨人？

不管你怎么称呼她，

Whatever you want to call it.

All two inches of it.

都只有两英寸的雪。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

Two inches of snow shut the city of Atlanta down.

两英寸厚的雪就使亚特兰大市瘫痪了。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

But the reality is, we were in a winter storm watch,

但事实是，我们在严防冬季风暴，

we went to a winter weather advisory,

我们去了冬季天气咨询机构，

and a lot of people perceived that as being a downgrade,

很多人都认为雪灾会降级，

"Oh, it's not going to be as bad."

“哦，不会那么糟的。”

事实上，人们的感觉是，不会这么糟糕，

When in fact, the perception was that it was not going to be as bad,

but it was actually an upgrade.

但其实雪灾升级了。

随着模型的出现，情况在变得更糟。

Things were getting worse as the models were coming in.

So that's an example of how we get boxed in by our perceptions.

这就是我们被自己的 认知束缚的一个例子。

So, the question becomes,

所以问题就变成了，

how do we expand our radius?

我们如何扩大我们的认知半径？

The area of a circle is "pi r squared".

圆的面积是 π R的平方。

We increase the radius, we increase the area.

我们增加半径，就能增加面积。

How do we expand our radius of understanding about science?

我们如何扩大我们理解科学的半径？

Here are my thoughts.

这是我的思考。

You take inventory of your own biases.

你们列出自己的偏见。

And I'm challenging you all to do that.

我想让你们所有人都这么做。

Take an inventory of your own biases.

列出你们的偏见。

Where do they come from?

它们来自哪里？

Your upbringing, your political perspective, your faith --

你的教养，你的政治观点，你的信仰——

what shapes your own biases?

你自己的偏见是如何形成的？

Then, evaluate your sources --

然后，评估你的信息来源——

where do you get your information on science?

你在哪里获取科学信息？

What do you read, what do you listen to,

你读什么，你听什么，

to consume your information on science?

什么是你获得科学信息的来源？

And then, it's important to speak out.

然后，重要的是说出来。

Talk about how you evaluated your biases and evaluated your sources.

谈谈你如何评估你的偏见和信息来源。

I want you to listen to this little 40-second clip

我想让你们听听这个40秒的小片段，

from one of the top TV meteorologists in the US, Greg Fishel,

来自美国顶尖的电视 气象学家之一，格雷格·费舍尔，

in the Raleigh, Durham area.

他住在Durham的Raleigh地区。

He's revered in that region.

他在那个地区很受尊敬。

But he was a climate skeptic.

但他是个气候怀疑论者。

But listen to what he says about speaking out.

但是听听他关于发声是怎么说的。

Greg Fishel: The mistake I was making

格雷格·费舍尔： “我犯过的错误，

and didn't realize until very recently,

并且直到最近我才意识到的是，

was that I was only looking for information

我只看那些

to support what I already thought,

能支撑我想法的信息，

and was not interested in listening to anything contrary.

从来不对任何相反的信息感兴趣。

And so I woke up one morning,

所以有一天早晨我醒来，

and there was this question in my mind,

脑海中有个问题，

"Greg, are you engaging in confirmation bias?

‘格雷格，你是不是陷入了确认偏误？

Are you only looking for information to support what you already think?"

你是不是只看那些支持你想法的信息。’

And if I was honest with myself, and I tried to be,

如果我对自己诚实，也试图对自己诚实，

I admitted that was going on.

我得承认是这样的。

And so the more I talked to scientists

所以我和科学家交谈的次数越多，

and read peer-reviewed literature

阅读同行评议的文献越多，

and tried to conduct myself the way I'd been taught to conduct myself

我也努力像我在 宾夕法尼亚州立大学上学时

at Penn State when I was a student,

被教导的那样去要求自己，

it became very difficult for me to make the argument

对我来说，就越难证明

that we weren't at least having some effect.

我们一点也没有被影响。

Maybe there was still a doubt as to how much,

也许，到底被影响了多少还是个疑问，

but to say "nothing" was not a responsible thing for me to do

但作为一个科学家或一个人， 说‘一点也没被影响’

as a scientist or a person.

是一件不负责任的事情。”

JMS: Greg Fishel just talked about expanding his radius

JMS：格雷格·费舍尔刚刚在说

of understanding of science.

扩大他认知科学的半径。

And when we expand our radius,

当我们扩大我们的半径时，

it's not about making a better future,

不是为了创造一个更好的未来，

but it's about preserving life as we know it.

而是为了保留我们所知的生活。

So as we think about expanding our own radius in understanding science,

所以当我们想要扩大 我们对科学的理解范围时，

it's critical for Athens, Georgia, for Atlanta, Georgia,

这对乔治亚州的雅典和亚特兰大，

for the state of Georgia, and for the world.

对乔治亚州和整个世界都很重要。

So expand your radius.

所以，扩大你的半径吧。

Thank you.

谢谢。

(Applause)

（鼓掌）