Nicholas Christakis: The hidden influence of social networks

譯者: Adrienne Lin 審譯者: Wang-Ju Tsai

For me, this story begins about 15 years ago,

大約15年前

when I was a hospice doctor at the University of Chicago.

我在芝加哥大學擔任安寧病房醫生

And I was taking care of people who were dying and their families

我負責照顧那些瀕臨死亡的人，與他們的家人

in the South Side of Chicago.

就在芝加哥南端

And I was observing what happened to people and their families

我觀察這些疾病末期的人，與他們家人，

over the course of their terminal illness.

疾病帶給他們的影響

And in my lab, I was studying the widower effect,

我在實驗室研究守寡效應

which is a very old idea in the social sciences,

這個想法不新穎

going back 150 years,

150年前就有了

known as "dying of a broken heart."

就是大家所知的「心碎而死」

So, when I die, my wife's risk of death can double,

就是，我死了，我妻子的死亡率在第一年

for instance, in the first year.

會增加一倍。

And I had gone to take care of one particular patient,

當時我照顧一個

a woman who was dying of dementia.

失智症的婦人

And in this case, unlike this couple,

不像其他病人

she was being cared for

她是由她女兒

by her daughter.

負責照顧。

And the daughter was exhausted from caring for her mother.

為照顧母親，她女兒已心力憔悴

And the daughter's husband,

而她女婿

he also was sick

也因為妻子的憔悴

from his wife's exhaustion.

而生病了。

And I was driving home one day,

我有天開車回家

and I get a phone call from the husband's friend,

接到一通女婿的朋友打來的電話

calling me because he was depressed

他說，因為他朋友（女婿）生病

about what was happening to his friend.

他也心情低落。

So here I get this call from this random guy

這通陌生人的電話

that's having an experience

讓我有了這個體驗

that's being influenced by people

原來人與人的影響

at some social distance.

不止於親近的人。

And so I suddenly realized two very simple things:

我因此意識到兩件很簡單的事情

First, the widowhood effect

第一，守寡效應

was not restricted to husbands and wives.

並不侷限於夫妻

And second, it was not restricted to pairs of people.

第二，並不侷限於兩個人而已

And I started to see the world

我開始以全新的視角

in a whole new way,

來看這世界

like pairs of people connected to each other.

人們一對對連結著

And then I realized that these individuals

然後又有其他個體

would be connected into foursomes with other pairs of people nearby.

與鄰近的這對連結，變成兩對

And then, in fact, these people

然後這些人

were embedded in other sorts of relationships:

又被其他關係包圍著

marriage and spousal

婚姻、夫妻、

and friendship and other sorts of ties.

友情等等連結

And that, in fact, these connections were vast

事實上，這些連結很廣

and that we were all embedded in this

我們每個人之間

broad set of connections with each other.

都是被這許多的連結連起來的。

So I started to see the world in a completely new way

我開始用全新的角度看這世界

and I became obsessed with this.

並為此著迷

I became obsessed with how it might be

我著迷於圍繞著

that we're embedded in these social networks,

每個人的人際網路

and how they affect our lives.

與它的影響。

So, social networks are these intricate things of beauty,

人際關係是種美麗亦複雜的東西

and they're so elaborate and so complex

它既精密、複雜

and so ubiquitous, in fact,

卻又普及，事實上，

that one has to ask what purpose they serve.

我們會問，它的功能是什麼？

Why are we embedded in social networks?

我們為什麼會處於人際網路中？

I mean, how do they form? How do they operate?

它們如何形成？怎麼運作？

And how do they effect us?

是怎麼影響我們的？

So my first topic with respect to this,

我的第一個要探討的主題，

was not death, but obesity.

不是關於死亡，而是肥胖

It had become trendy

突然間，大家都討論著

to speak about the "obesity epidemic."

「肥胖流行症」

And, along with my collaborator, James Fowler,

我和James Fowler合作

we began to wonder whether obesity really was epidemic

共同研究為什麼肥胖會流行

and could it spread from person to person

還有它的傳染是否像我剛所提的

like the four people I discussed earlier.

那四個人那樣

So this is a slide of some of our initial results.

這是我們最初的結果

It's 2,200 people in the year 2000.

2000年研究的2200人

Every dot is a person. We make the dot size

每個點是一個人，我們依據

proportional to people's body size;

體型來做點的大小

so bigger dots are bigger people.

大點點的人體型較大

In addition, if your body size,

還有，體型、

if your BMI, your body mass index, is above 30 --

BMI值超過30以上的

if you're clinically obese --

在醫學上被診斷為肥胖的

we also colored the dots yellow.

我們標為黃點

So, if you look at this image, right away you might be able to see

各位可以看到這張圖

that there are clusters of obese and

肥胖的人聚成一團

non-obese people in the image.

不胖的人聚成一團

But the visual complexity is still very high.

不過視覺上看起來還是很複雜

It's not obvious exactly what's going on.

真正的情況看得不明顯。

In addition, some questions are immediately raised:

另一個馬上想到的問題是

How much clustering is there?

圖中有多少聚集？

Is there more clustering than would be due to chance alone?

聚集的產生是否不單因為巧合？

How big are the clusters? How far do they reach?

這些聚集有多大？各自距離有多遠？

And, most importantly,

最重要的還有

what causes the clusters?

形成聚集原因是什麼？

So we did some mathematics to study the size of these clusters.

所以我們將這些聚集的大小數據化

This here shows, on the Y-axis,

可以看到，縱軸是

the increase in the probability that a person is obese

一個人因為週遭朋友

given that a social contact of theirs is obese

而變胖的可能性

and, on the X-axis, the degrees of separation between the two people.

橫軸是兩個人之間，分離的程度

On the far left, you see the purple line.

最左邊，紫色長條顯示

It says that, if your friends are obese,

如果你的朋友都過胖

your risk of obesity is 45 percent higher.

你過胖的機率比別人高45%

And the next bar over, the [red] line,

旁邊的紅色長條

says if your friend's friends are obese,

代表如果你朋友的朋友都過胖

your risk of obesity is 25 percent higher.

你過胖的機率比平均高出25%

And then the next line over says

下一個長條表示

if your friend's friend's friend, someone you probably don't even know, is obese,

如果你朋友的朋友的朋友－即使你都不認識－過胖

your risk of obesity is 10 percent higher.

你過胖的機率比平均高出10%

And it's only when you get to your friend's friend's friend's friends

只有到了你朋友的朋友的朋友的朋友

that there's no longer a relationship

幾乎沒有關係可言

between that person's body size and your own body size.

你們的體型才不會互相影響。

Well, what might be causing this clustering?

那形成這種聚集的原因是什麼？

There are at least three possibilities:

至少三種可能

One possibility is that, as I gain weight,

第一，當我體重增加

it causes you to gain weight.

你體重也增加

A kind of induction, a kind of spread from person to person.

這是誘導性，在人與人之間的傳染

Another possibility, very obvious, is homophily,

第二，很明顯的，同質性

or, birds of a feather flock together;

也就是「物以類聚，人以群分」

here, I form my tie to you

我和你的聯繫

because you and I share a similar body size.

是因為我們體型相同

And the last possibility is what is known as confounding,

最後一個可能性是混雜法

because it confounds our ability to figure out what's going on.

我們搞不清楚狀況是什麼

And here, the idea is not that my weight gain

意思是，你體重增加的原因

is causing your weight gain,

不是因為我體重增加

nor that I preferentially form a tie with you

也不是我選擇與你有關聯

because you and I share the same body size,

而是因為我們有一樣的體型

but rather that we share a common exposure

所以我們會去類似的地方

to something, like a health club

例如健身房等等

that makes us both lose weight at the same time.

我們一起瘦身的地方

When we studied these data, we found evidence for all of these things,

我們研究這些數據，發現以下一些證據

including for induction.

包含誘導性

And we found that if your friend becomes obese,

我們發現，如果你的朋友變胖

it increases your risk of obesity by about 57 percent

同一時期裡，你變胖的機會

in the same given time period.

立刻增加57%

There can be many mechanisms for this effect:

造成這種效果有很多機制

One possibility is that your friends say to you something like --

一種情況是，你朋友的行為傳染給你

you know, they adopt a behavior that spreads to you --

他們可能會對你說：

like, they say, "Let's go have muffins and beer,"

「我們吃馬芬鬆糕配啤酒吧」

which is a terrible combination. (Laughter)

這搭配好糟糕

But you adopt that combination,

但你習慣這樣吃以後

and then you start gaining weight like them.

你就會開始和他們一樣變胖

Another more subtle possibility

另一種可能

is that they start gaining weight, and it changes your ideas

是他們開始增胖，你開始改變了

of what an acceptable body size is.

對於正常體型的看法

Here, what's spreading from person to person

這種人與人傳染情況

is not a behavior, but rather a norm:

不是行為改變，而是標準改變。

An idea is spreading.

有越來越多人接受這種想法。

Now, headline writers

有些記者

had a field day with our studies.

將我們的研究寫成報導

I think the headline in The New York Times was,

我想紐約時報的頭條是：

"Are you packing it on?

「變胖了嗎？」

Blame your fat friends." (Laughter)

「怪你朋友吧！」

What was interesting to us is that the European headline writers

我們覺得有趣的是，歐洲的記者

had a different take: They said,

寫了不同的頭條：

"Are your friends gaining weight? Perhaps you are to blame."

「你朋友變胖了嗎？是你害的！」

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

And we thought this was a very interesting comment on America,

我們覺得很有趣，這反應出美國人那種

and a kind of self-serving,

有點自私、

"not my responsibility" kind of phenomenon.

「不干我的事」的態度

Now, I want to be very clear: We do not think our work

到此，我要澄清，我們並不認為

should or could justify prejudice

這研究能被拿來

against people of one or another body size at all.

當作身材歧視的正當理由

Our next questions was:

我們下一個問題是：

Could we actually visualize this spread?

這種擴散要如何視覺化？

Was weight gain in one person actually spreading

一個人變胖是否會連帶影響

to weight gain in another person?

另一個人的體重？

And this was complicated because

這很複雜

we needed to take into account the fact that the network structure,

因為我們要考慮到網路的結構、

the architecture of the ties, was changing across time.

連結的構造方式，是隨時在改變的

In addition, because obesity is not a unicentric epidemic,

還有，肥胖症不是種只有單一中心的流行病

there's not a Patient Zero of the obesity epidemic --

沒有肥胖流行病的「零號病人」－

if we find that guy, there was a spread of obesity out from him --

疾病的原始帶原者是不存在的

it's a multicentric epidemic.

它是有許多中心的

Lots of people are doing things at the same time.

很多人同時做著相同的事

And I'm about to show you a 30 second video animation

我給大家看個30秒動畫

that took me and James five years of our lives to do.

我和James花五年研究出來的

So, again, every dot is a person.

每個點都是一個人

Every tie between them is a relationship.

每條線表示他們的關連

We're going to put this into motion now,

我們現在放給大家看

taking daily cuts through the network for about 30 years.

一睹30年的人際網路變化

The dot sizes are going to grow,

點的大小開始變化

you're going to see a sea of yellow take over.

會看到越來越多黃點

You're going to see people be born and die --

也可以看到人們的出生、死亡

dots will appear and disappear --

點的消失與形成

ties will form and break, marriages and divorces,

連結的形成與斷裂，結婚與離婚

friendings and defriendings.

友情的產生與破裂

A lot of complexity, a lot is happening

非常複雜，這30年時間

just in this 30-year period

發生了許多事情

that includes the obesity epidemic.

包括肥胖的流行

And, by the end, you're going to see clusters

最後，你可以看到

of obese and non-obese individuals

肥胖、不肥胖的個體

within the network.

在這網路裡

Now, when looked at this,

看著這張圖

it changed the way I see things,

改變了我看事情的角度

because this thing, this network

因為這個網路

that's changing across time,

隨時間變換的網路

it has a memory, it moves,

它是有記憶的、會移動的

things flow within it,

裏面也有很多流動

it has a kind of consistency --

它擁有著一種持續性

people can die, but it doesn't die;

人會死亡，但它不會

it still persists --

永久存在

and it has a kind of resilience

它有種恢復力

that allows it to persist across time.

能隨時間存在著

And so, I came to see these kinds of social networks

我將這些人際網路視為

as living things,

活的東西

as living things that we could put under a kind of microscope

是我們可以放到顯微鏡下觀察、研究、

to study and analyze and understand.

並加以了解的東西

And we used a variety of techniques to do this.

我們用了很多方式研究

And we started exploring all kinds of other phenomena.

並開始探索其他現象

We looked at smoking and drinking behavior,

我們觀察吸菸、酗酒的人、

and voting behavior,

有投票習慣的人、

and divorce -- which can spread --

離婚的人－這也會傳染

and altruism.

還有無私。

And, eventually, we became interested in emotions.

最後，我們對情緒感興趣

Now, when we have emotions,

人的情緒一來

we show them.

馬上展現出來

Why do we show our emotions?

為什麼展現情緒？

I mean, there would be an advantage to experiencing

我是說，如果能把生氣、開心等情緒

our emotions inside, you know, anger or happiness.

放在心裡應該是種優點吧

But we don't just experience them, we show them.

我們不只有情緒，我們會展現出來

And not only do we show them, but others can read them.

我們不只會展現出來，其他人還解讀的出來

And, not only can they read them, but they copy them.

他們不只解讀的出來，還會複製那情緒

There's emotional contagion

這就是人類社會的

that takes place in human populations.

情緒傳染

And so this function of emotions

這些情緒的功能

suggests that, in addition to any other purpose they serve,

還顯示他們有其他用途

they're a kind of primitive form of communication.

他們是一種最基本的溝通方式

And that, in fact, if we really want to understand human emotions,

如果我們真想了解人類的情緒

we need to think about them in this way.

我們就需要將之視為如此

Now, we're accustomed to thinking about emotions in this way,

我們短時間內，已經習慣

in simple, sort of, brief periods of time.

將情緒視為溝通方式

So, for example,

舉個例子，

I was giving this talk recently in New York City,

我最近在紐約也做了演講

and I said, "You know when you're on the subway

我說：「你搭地鐵時，」

and the other person across the subway car

「坐你對面的人」

smiles at you,

「對你微笑」

and you just instinctively smile back?"

「你會直覺的也對他微笑。」

And they looked at me and said, "We don't do that in New York City." (Laughter)

觀眾看著我，說：「在紐約沒人這樣做。」

And I said, "Everywhere else in the world,

我說：「紐約除外，世界其他地方」

that's normal human behavior."

「這是正常現象。」

And so there's a very instinctive way

這是種直覺性的動作

in which we briefly transmit emotions to each other.

簡單的將情緒傳給他人

And, in fact, emotional contagion can be broader still.

事實上，這種情緒傳染是可以很廣的

Like we could have punctuated expressions of anger,

就像暴動中，展現憤怒情緒

as in riots.

的間接表達

The question that we wanted to ask was:

我們想問的問題是：

Could emotion spread,

情緒傳染是否不止

in a more sustained way than riots, across time

在地鐵中相互微笑的兩人而已

and involve large numbers of people,

是否可以有更多人

not just this pair of individuals smiling at each other in the subway car?

甚至是更永續、跨時間的方式？

Maybe there's a kind of below the surface, quiet riot

或許有那種表面下的暴動

that animates us all the time.

永久地控制我們。

Maybe there are emotional stampedes

也許人際網路中也有

that ripple through social networks.

情緒潰散的情形

Maybe, in fact, emotions have a collective existence,

又或許，情緒有種聚集存在

not just an individual existence.

而非只是個體存在。

And this is one of the first images we made to study this phenomenon.

這是我們為這個研究所做的圖

Again, a social network,

同樣的，一個人際網路

but now we color the people yellow if they're happy

黃點是快樂的人

and blue if they're sad and green in between.

藍點是傷心的，綠點是其他

And if you look at this image, you can right away see

這張圖可以明顯看出

clusters of happy and unhappy people,

快樂、不快樂的人聚集

again, spreading to three degrees of separation.

有三種程度的分散

And you might form the intuition

馬上看的出來

that the unhappy people

不快樂的人

occupy a different structural location within the network.

聚集在網路裡的不同地點

There's a middle and an edge to this network,

網路有中間及邊緣

and the unhappy people seem to be

而不快樂的人似乎都

located at the edges.

聚在邊緣

So to invoke another metaphor,

用東西來比喻的話

if you imagine social networks as a kind of

可以將人際網路想成是

vast fabric of humanity --

一塊人性的布料

I'm connected to you and you to her, on out endlessly into the distance --

我與你連結、你與她連結，無限的距離

this fabric is actually like

這塊布料就有點像

an old-fashioned American quilt,

老舊的美製棉被

and it has patches on it: happy and unhappy patches.

上面有補丁，開心的、傷心的補丁

And whether you become happy or not

而你快樂與否

depends in part on whether you occupy a happy patch.

取決於你是否在快樂補丁上

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

So, this work with emotions,

所以，我們對情緒的研究

which are so fundamental,

是非常基本的

then got us to thinking about: Maybe

後來我們想，也許

the fundamental causes of human social networks

影響人際關係的根本原因

are somehow encoded in our genes.

也許和基因有關

Because human social networks, whenever they are mapped,

因為人際關係，不論如何塑造

always kind of look like this:

都是長這樣

the picture of the network.

這是人際網路圖

But they never look like this.

但從來不會像這樣

Why do they not look like this?

為什麼不像這樣？

Why don't we form human social networks

為什麼我們的人際網路

that look like a regular lattice?

不像這樣的點陣圖？

Well, the striking patterns of human social networks,

人際網路的獨特圖形

their ubiquity and their apparent purpose

這種普遍性，和明顯的目的

beg questions about whether we evolved to have

引出了一個問題：我們是否

human social networks in the first place,

天生就有這種人際網路，

and whether we evolved to form networks

或者我們網路獨特樣貌的形成

with a particular structure.

是後天進化的？

And notice first of all -- so, to understand this, though,

要解答這問題

we need to dissect network structure a little bit first --

我們需要解剖這網路

and notice that every person in this network

注意這網路的每個人

has exactly the same structural location as every other person.

與其他人同處相同的地點

But that's not the case with real networks.

但真正的網路並非如此

So, for example, here is a real network of college students

這裡是一間東北方頂尖大學的

at an elite northeastern university.

學生人際關係圖

And now I'm highlighting a few dots.

我標出幾個明顯的點

If you look here at the dots,

看看這些點

compare node B in the upper left

比較左上的節點B

to node D in the far right;

與最右邊的節點D

B has four friends coming out from him

B有四個朋友

and D has six friends coming out from him.

而D有六個朋友

And so, those two individuals have different numbers of friends.

這兩個人有不同數量的朋友

That's very obvious, we all know that.

很明顯啊，不用解釋

But certain other aspects

但其他方面

of social network structure are not so obvious.

這種人際結構就沒那麼明顯了

Compare node B in the upper left to node A in the lower left.

比較節點B與左下的節點A

Now, those people both have four friends,

這些人各有四個朋友

but A's friends all know each other,

但A的朋友互相認識

and B's friends do not.

而B的朋友則不是

So the friend of a friend of A's

所以A的朋友的朋友

is, back again, a friend of A's,

也是A的朋友

whereas the friend of a friend of B's is not a friend of B's,

然而，B的朋友的朋友，不是B的朋友

but is farther away in the network.

而是在網路的更遠端

This is known as transitivity in networks.

這是網路的傳遞性

And, finally, compare nodes C and D:

最後，比較節點C、節點D

C and D both have six friends.

兩者都有六個朋友，

If you talk to them, and you said, "What is your social life like?"

如果你問：「你的社交生活如何？」

they would say, "I've got six friends.

他們會答：「我有六個朋友，」

That's my social experience."

「這是我的交友經驗」

But now we, with a bird's eye view looking at this network,

現在我們鳥瞰這張圖

can see that they occupy very different social worlds.

可以發現他們的社交圈是完全不同的

And I can cultivate that intuition in you by just asking you:

現在用直覺回答這問題：

Who would you rather be

如果有種致命病毒

if a deadly germ was spreading through the network?

正在這網路傳播

Would you rather be C or D?

你要選節點C還是D？

You'd rather be D, on the edge of the network.

你會選D，在人際網路邊緣

And now who would you rather be

現在，如果是聊八卦

if a juicy piece of gossip -- not about you --

講別人的八卦，不是你的

was spreading through the network? (Laughter)

這種情況你選哪個？

Now, you would rather be C.

你會選C吧

So different structural locations

所以不同的結構點

have different implications for your life.

對於人生有不同的含意

And, in fact, when we did some experiments looking at this,

事實上，我們為此做了些實驗

what we found is that 46 percent of the variation

朋友數量多寡的差異

in how many friends you have

有46%都是可以用基因

is explained by your genes.

來解釋

And this is not surprising. We know that some people are born shy

這並不新奇，我們都知道，有些人天生害羞

and some are born gregarious. That's obvious.

有些人天生合群，這是顯而易見的

But we also found some non-obvious things.

但我們也發現了些不那麼明顯的東西

For instance, 47 percent in the variation

例如，你的朋友們是否互相認識

in whether your friends know each other

其中47%的差異

is attributable to your genes.

是和你的基因有關。

Whether your friends know each other

你的朋友是否互相認識

has not just to do with their genes, but with yours.

是與你的基因有關，而不是他們的。

And we think the reason for this is that some people

我們認為，這原因在於有些人

like to introduce their friends to each other -- you know who you are --

喜歡把自己的朋友介紹給彼此

and others of you keep them apart and don't introduce your friends to each other.

而其他人喜歡把朋友們分開，不介紹給彼此

And so some people knit together the networks around them,

所以有些人將他們的人際網路編織在一起

creating a kind of dense web of ties

形成了緊密的網路

in which they're comfortably embedded.

並舒服的身處其中

And finally, we even found that

最後，我們還發現

30 percent of the variation

不論你是處在

in whether or not people are in the middle or on the edge of the network

網路中心或邊緣，30%的差異

can also be attributed to their genes.

也是和基因有關

So whether you find yourself in the middle or on the edge

所以不管你是在中心還是邊緣

is also partially heritable.

有一部分是遺傳的

Now, what is the point of this?

所以，這表示什麼？

How does this help us understand?

它如何讓我們了解這世界？

How does this help us

它如何幫助我們

figure out some of the problems that are affecting us these days?

了解我們現在所面臨的問題？

Well, the argument I'd like to make is that networks have value.

我的論點是，這些人際網路充滿價值

They are a kind of social capital.

就如一種社會資產

New properties emerge

新特性的出現

because of our embeddedness in social networks,

是因為包圍我們的人際網路

and these properties inhere

以及形成網路結構

in the structure of the networks,

所固有的這些特性

not just in the individuals within them.

不單只是其中的個體而已

So think about these two common objects.

看看這兩個常見的東西

They're both made of carbon,

都用碳做的

and yet one of them has carbon atoms in it

但其中一個是碳原子

that are arranged in one particular way -- on the left --

以獨特的方式組合而成

and you get graphite, which is soft and dark.

就是左邊的石墨，柔軟漆黑

But if you take the same carbon atoms

一樣的碳原子

and interconnect them a different way,

以不同的方式組合

you get diamond, which is clear and hard.

就變成鑽石，透徹堅硬

And those properties of softness and hardness and darkness and clearness

而這些柔軟、堅硬、漆黑、透徹的屬性

do not reside in the carbon atoms;

並不是碳原子造成的

they reside in the interconnections between the carbon atoms,

而是碳原子間的組合方式

or at least arise because of the

或者說，至少是因為

interconnections between the carbon atoms.

碳原子間的組合方式造成的

So, similarly, the pattern of connections among people

同樣的，人與人之間的關聯

confers upon the groups of people

也賜與各組群

different properties.

不同的屬性

It is the ties between people

正是這種連結

that makes the whole greater than the sum of its parts.

讓整體變的比個體還好很多。

And so it is not just what's happening to these people --

所以，不只是這些人所經歷的事－

whether they're losing weight or gaining weight, or becoming rich or becoming poor,

像減肥、增肥，變有錢或變窮、

or becoming happy or not becoming happy -- that affects us;

變得快樂、不快樂－在影響著我們

it's also the actual architecture

同時影響我們的

of the ties around us.

還有我們的連結架構。

Our experience of the world

我們在世上的經歷

depends on the actual structure

取決於我們所處網路的

of the networks in which we're residing

實際連結架構

and on all the kinds of things that ripple and flow

以及在網路中，各種事情

through the network.

所激盪的漣漪

Now, the reason, I think, that this is the case

我想，這是因為

is that human beings assemble themselves

人類形成群落

and form a kind of superorganism.

組合成一種「超級個體」

Now, a superorganism is a collection of individuals

超級個體是每個獨立個體的集合

which show or evince behaviors or phenomena

表現出的行為或現象

that are not reducible to the study of individuals

無法藉由研究個體而得知。

and that must be understood by reference to,

而需要了解、研究

and by studying, the collective.

整個群體

Like, for example, a hive of bees

例如，一窩蜜蜂

that's finding a new nesting site,

正在找新的巢穴地點

or a flock of birds that's evading a predator,

還有一群躲避掠食者、

or a flock of birds that's able to pool its wisdom

或是利用群體智慧

and navigate and find a tiny speck

尋找太平洋裡的

of an island in the middle of the Pacific,

一座小島的鳥兒

or a pack of wolves that's able

或是一群合作

to bring down larger prey.

攻擊獵物的狼。

Superorganisms have properties

超級個體的屬性

that cannot be understood just by studying the individuals.

無法藉由研究單一個體來了解

I think understanding social networks

我認為，了解人際關係

and how they form and operate

了解它的形成與運作

can help us understand not just health and emotions

可以幫助我們了解健康和情感

but all kinds of other phenomena --

甚至其他現象－

like crime, and warfare,

例如犯罪、福利、

and economic phenomena like bank runs

或是經濟現象，例如銀行擠兌、

and market crashes

市場崩盤、

and the adoption of innovation

對於創新的適應、

and the spread of product adoption.

產品適應的傳播等。

Now, look at this.

看這結果

I think we form social networks

我想，我們彼此建立關係

because the benefits of a connected life

是因為這種連結的生活

outweigh the costs.

利大於弊

If I was always violent towards you

如果我總是對你暴力相向

or gave you misinformation

或給你錯誤資訊

or made you sad or infected you with deadly germs,

或讓你難過、傳染致命病毒給你

you would cut the ties to me,

你就會和我斷交

and the network would disintegrate.

這關係就會因此瓦解

So the spread of good and valuable things

美好事物的傳播

is required to sustain and nourish social networks.

需要永續、良好的人際關係

Similarly, social networks are required

相同的，人際關係也需要

for the spread of good and valuable things,

美好事物的傳播

like love and kindness

像是愛與善良、

and happiness and altruism

快樂與無私、

and ideas.

新點子

I think, in fact, that if we realized

我認為，如果我們可以意識到

how valuable social networks are,

人際關係的價值

we'd spend a lot more time nourishing them and sustaining them,

我們就會花更多時間來培養、維持

because I think social networks

因為我認為人際關係

are fundamentally related to goodness.

在本質上是與善良相連的

And what I think the world needs now

我想現在世界所需的

is more connections.

是更多連結

Thank you.

謝謝

(Applause)

(掌聲)