Steven Pinker: Human nature and the blank slate

譯者: Ching Hui Su 審譯者: Wang-Ju Tsai

A year ago, I spoke to you about a book

一年前（意指2002），我跟你們提過一本書

that I was just in the process of completing,

一本我即將完成的書

that has come out in the interim, and I would like to talk to you today

該書在這期間已經出版，而我今天想向你們談談

about some of the controversies that that book inspired.

這本書所引發的一些議題。

The book is called "The Blank Slate,"

這本書叫做《心靈白板論》（The Blank Slate）

based on the popular idea

心靈白板論奠基在常識的觀點上

that the human mind is a blank slate,

認為人類的心靈就像一塊白板

and that all of its structure comes from

而心靈的所有結構都來自

socialization, culture, parenting, experience.

社會化、文化、父母的教育、經驗。

The "blank slate" was an influential idea in the 20th century.

在二十世紀裡，"心靈白板論"是具影響力的觀點。

Here are a few quotes indicating that:

以下有些引言表示了那樣的觀點：

"Man has no nature," from the historian

歷史學家Jose Ortega y Gasset說

Jose Ortega y Gasset;

"人無天性"

"Man has no instincts," from the

人類學家Ashley Montagu說

anthropologist Ashley Montagu;

"人無本能"

"The human brain is capable of a full range of behaviors

前陣子才過世的科學家Stephen Jay Gould說

and predisposed to none," from the late scientist Stephen Jay Gould.

"人腦雖然能夠實踐各種行為，但卻沒有任何先天傾向"

There are a number of reasons to doubt that the human mind

存在著一些理由懷疑心靈白板論

is a blank slate,

亦即懷疑人類心靈是否像一塊白板

and some of them just come from common sense.

而其中有些理由正是來自常識。

As many people have told me over the years,

如同許多人在這幾年裡告訴我的一樣，

anyone who's had more than one child

任何擁有一個小孩以上的人都知道

knows that kids come into the world

來到這個世界的小孩

with certain temperaments and talents;

天生具有某些性格與天賦；

it doesn't all come from the outside.

這些性格或天賦不是來自外在。

Oh, and anyone who

喔，任何擁有

has both a child and a house pet

一個小孩與一隻寵物的人

has surely noticed that the child, exposed to speech,

一定已經注意到，受到語言刺激的小孩

will acquire a human language,

將會習得人類的語言，

whereas the house pet won't,

但是寵物卻不能，

presumably because of some innate different between them.

也許這是因為小孩與寵物之間某個先天的差異。

And anyone who's ever been

任何曾跟異性談過戀愛的人

in a heterosexual relationship knows that

都知道

the minds of men and the minds of women are not indistinguishable.

男人與女人的心理是有差別的。

There are also, I think,

我認為，從對人類的科學研究裡

increasing results from

也有越來越多的研究成果

the scientific study of humans

這些成果顯示我們的心靈

that, indeed, we're not born blank slates.

並不是先天就像一塊白板。

One of them, from anthropology,

其中一個來自人類學的成果

is the study of human universals.

是在研究人類共有的性質。

If you've ever taken anthropology, you know that it's a --

如果你曾上過人類學的課，

kind of an occupational

你會知道

pleasure of anthropologists to show

顯現其他文化可能多麼獨特

how exotic other cultures can be,

是人類學家特有的樂趣。

and that there are places out there where, supposedly,

譬如說，去指出可能有一個地方，

everything is the opposite to the way it is here.

那裡的每件事情都跟這裡的相反。

But if you instead

但是，換個角度看

look at what is common to the world's cultures,

如果你去檢視世界各地文化的共通性，

you find that there is an enormously rich set

從全世界超過六千多種的文化中

of behaviors and emotions

你會發現許多

and ways of construing the world

共通的行為與情緒，

that can be found in all of the world's 6,000-odd cultures.

以及各種分析世界的方式。

The anthropologist Donald Brown has tried to list them all,

人類學家Donald Brown曾試圖將它們全部列出來，

and they range from aesthetics,

範圍從美學、

affection and age statuses

屬性、年齡層

all the way down to weaning, weapons, weather,

一直列到斷奶、武器、氣候

attempts to control, the color white

嘗試控制、白色

and a worldview.

以及世界觀。

Also, genetics and neuroscience

另外，遺傳學與神經科學

are increasingly showing that the brain

越來越多證據顯示大腦

is intricately structured.

有相當複雜的結構。

This is a recent study by the neurobiologist Paul Thompson

以下是神經生物學家Paul Thompson與他的同事

and his colleagues in which they --

最近的研究

using MRI --

他們使用MRI（核磁共振顯影器）

measured the distribution of gray matter --

測量以兩人為一組的許多人

that is, the outer layer of the cortex --

測量這些人的大腦灰質－

in a large sample of pairs of people.

亦即腦皮層的外層－的分布。

They coded correlations in the thickness

他們採取一種人為的色彩編碼方式

of gray matter in different parts of the brain

來對位在大腦不同位置的灰質

using a false color scheme, in which

對這些灰質彼此之間的關連做編碼

no difference is coded as purple,

沒有任何差異的被編碼為紫色，

and any color other than purple indicates

除了紫色之外的顏色

a statistically significant correlation.

顯示有統計上顯著的關連。

Well, this is what happens when you pair people up at random.

嗯，這是當我們隨機配對任何兩個人的結果。

By definition, two people picked at random

根據定義，被隨機挑出的兩個人

can't have correlations in the distribution

不可能在腦皮層的灰質分布上

of gray matter in the cortex.

有任何關聯。

This is what happens in people who share

以下是具有一半相同基因（DNA）的兩個人－異卵雙胞胎－

half of their DNA -- fraternal twins.

的實驗結果。

And as you can see, large amounts of the brain

如同你可以看到的，大腦的絕大部分

are not purple, showing that if one person

都不是紫色的，這顯示如果其中一個人

has a thicker bit of cortex

在那個區塊的腦皮層比較厚

in that region, so does his fraternal twin.

則他的異卵雙胞胎也會是這樣。

And here's what happens if you

如果你有一組人是具有相同基因的－

get a pair of people who share all their DNA --

亦即複製人或同卵雙胞胎－

namely, clones or identical twins.

這裡是他們的結果。

And you can see huge areas of cortex where there are

而且你可以看到腦皮質的絕大部分

massive correlations in the distribution of gray matter.

在灰質的分布上有顯著的關連性。

Now, these aren't just

現在，這不只是

differences in anatomy,

在解剖上的差異，

like the shape of your ear lobes,

像是你耳垂的形狀，

but they have consequences in thought and behavior

它們會在思想與行為上有重要的影響

that are well illustrated in this famous cartoon by Charles Addams:

這可以用Charles Addams著名的漫畫來說明：

"Separated at birth, the Mallifert twins meet accidentally."

"出生時分離，Mallifert雙胞胎意外相遇。"

As you can see, there are two inventors

如同你可以看到的，有兩個發明家

with identical contraptions in their lap, meeting

在專利律師事務所的等候室裡相遇，

in the waiting room of a patent attorney.

膝上的盤子裡有著一模一樣的東西。

Now, the cartoon is not such an exaggeration, because

現在，這幅漫畫並沒有很誇張，

studies of identical twins who were separated at birth

因為對出生就分離的雙胞胎的研究顯示

and then tested in adulthood

當他們在成年時受測試

show that they have astonishing similarities.

他們彼此間會有驚人的相似性。

And this happens in every pair of identical twins

而且對每一組從出生就分離的同卵雙胞胎來說

separated at birth ever studied --

這就是研究的結果

but much less so with fraternal twins separated at birth.

但是對出生就分離的異卵雙胞胎來說，結果沒那麼驚人。

My favorite example is a pair of twins,

我偏好的例子是一對雙胞胎

one of whom was brought up

其中一個在德國被納粹家庭收養

as a Catholic in a Nazi family in Germany,

養育成一名天主教徒的，

the other brought up in a Jewish family in Trinidad.

另一個則是在特立尼達島被猶太家庭收養。

When they walked into the lab in Minnesota,

當他們走進在明尼蘇達的實驗室時，

they were wearing identical navy blue shirts with epaulettes;

他們穿著都有肩章且一模一樣的藍色海軍襯衫，

both of them liked to dip buttered toast in coffee,

他們都喜歡把奶油麵包浸到咖啡裡，

both of them kept rubber bands around their wrists,

他們的手腕上都帶著橡皮筋，

both of them flushed the toilet before using it as well as after,

他們在上廁所的前後都會各沖一次水，

and both of them liked to surprise people

而且他們都喜歡在擁擠的電梯裡，

by sneezing in crowded elevators to watch them jump.

透過打噴嚏來嚇人一跳。

Now --

現在－

the story might seem to good to be true,

這個故事可能看起來不像是真的，

but when you administer

但是當你進行

batteries of psychological tests,

一系列的心理學實驗

you get the same results -- namely,

你會得到一樣的結果－亦即

identical twins separated at birth show

出生就分離的同卵雙胞胎

quite astonishing similarities.

顯現相當驚人的相似性。

Now, given both the common sense

現在，就常識

and scientific data

與科學證據

calling the doctrine of the blank slate into question,

兩者都質疑了心靈白板論，

why should it have been such an appealing notion?

為什麼心靈白板論會有這樣的吸引力呢？

Well, there are a number of political reasons why people have found it congenial.

嗯，有一些政治的理由來解釋為什麼人們會喜歡心靈白板論。

The foremost is that if we're blank slates,

第一個理由是：如果我們的心靈像一塊白板，

then, by definition, we are equal,

根據定義，我們就是平等的，

because zero equals zero equals zero.

因為０等於０等於０等於０。

But if something is written on the slate,

但是，如果白板上已經有寫上東西了，

then some people could have more of it than others,

有些人會比其他人還擁有更多東西，

and according to this line of thinking, that would justify

而且根據這樣的思路，

discrimination and inequality.

這將為歧視與不平等提供理據。

Another political fear of human nature

另一個政治理由是害怕人性

is that if we are blank slates,

如果我們的心靈像一塊白板，

we can perfect mankind --

我們可以透過社會化的過程

the age-old dream of the perfectibility of our species

讓人類變得完美－

through social engineering.

這是人類完善性的古老夢想。

Whereas, if we're born with certain instincts,

如果我們天生就有某些天賦，

then perhaps some of them might condemn us

或許其中有些人會宣告我們有罪

to selfishness, prejudice and violence.

說我們是自私的、偏見的與暴力的。

Well, in the book, I argue that these are, in fact, non sequiturs.

嗯，在書裡，我論證這些說法事實上都是不牢靠的。

And just to make a long story short:

讓我長話短說：

first of all, the concept of fairness

首先，公平的概念

is not the same as the concept of sameness.

不同於等同的概念。

And so when Thomas Jefferson wrote

所以當Thomas Jafferson

in the Declaration of Independence,

在《獨立宣言》裡寫道：

"We hold these truths to be self-evident,

"我們認為這些真理是不證自明的，

that all men are created equal,"

所有的人生而平等"

he did not mean "We hold these truths to be self-evident,

他並不是意指，

that all men are clones."

“所有的人都是相同的”這些真理是不證自明的。

Rather, that all men are equal in terms of their rights,

而是說，所有的人是在權利上平等，

and that every person ought to be treated

而且每個人應該被當作是

as an individual, and not prejudged

一個個體，而且不會受到他們所屬的

by the statistics of particular groups

特定團體的統計資料

that they may belong to.

而有所偏私。

Also, even if we were born

另外，就算我們

with certain ignoble motives,

天生具有某些不好的性格，

they don't automatically lead to ignoble behavior.

這些性格不會自動地導致不好的行為。

That is because the human mind

那是因為人類的心靈

is a complex system with many parts,

是一個具有許多部分的複雜系統，

and some of them can inhibit others.

而且其中的一些可以限制其他的部份。

For example, there's excellent reason to believe

舉例來說，我們有很好的理由去相信

that virtually all humans are born with a moral sense,

事實上所有的人天生就有道德感

and that we have cognitive abilities that allow us

而且我們具有從歷史中

to profit from the lessons of history.

學到教訓的認知能力。

So even if people did have impulses

所以，就算人們確實有

towards selfishness or greed,

自私或貪婪的傾向，

that's not the only thing in the skull,

那不會是在頭顱裡唯一的東西，

and there are other parts of the mind that can counteract them.

而且心靈的其他部份可以反制那些不好的部份。

In the book, I

在書裡，

go over controversies such as this one,

我檢視了像這樣的一個爭議，

and a number of other hot buttons,

以及一堆其他的敏感議題，

hot zones, Chernobyls, third rails, and so on --

像是車諾比事件、政治家不敢討論的議題等等，

including the arts, cloning, crime,

包含藝術、複製人、犯罪、

free will, education, evolution,

自由意志、教育、演化、

gender differences, God, homosexuality,

性別差異、上帝、同性戀、

infanticide, inequality, Marxism, morality,

殺嬰罪、不平等、馬克思主義、道德、

Nazism, parenting, politics,

納粹主義、養育子女、政治、

race, rape, religion, resource depletion,

種族、宗教、資源枯竭、

social engineering, technological risk and war.

社會工程、科技風險與戰爭。

And needless to say, there were certain risks

不用說，在討論這些議題時，

in taking on these subjects.

有某些風險存在。

When I wrote a first draft of the book,

當我寫出那本書的初稿時，

I circulated it to a number of colleagues for comments,

我把初稿拿給我的一些同事看，希望他們提供建議，

and here are some of

以下是一些我在當時

the reactions that I got:

得到的回應：

"Better get a security camera for your house."

"最好在你家裝設安全監控設置"

"Don't expect to get any more awards, job offers

"不要期望會得到任何獎項、工作機會

or positions in scholarly societies."

或是學術社群中的重要位置。"

"Tell your publisher not to list your hometown

"告訴你的出版社，不要在作者簡介裡

in your author bio."

提供你的住址。"

"Do you have tenure?"

"你拿到終身職了嗎？"

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Well, the book came out in October,

那本書在十月時出版，

and nothing terrible has happened.

而且沒有發生任何可怕的事。

I -- I like --

我－我喜歡－

There was indeed reason to be nervous,

確實有需要顧慮的理由，

and there were moments in which I did feel nervous,

而且有些時候我確實感到緊張，

knowing the history

因為我知道歷史上

of what has happened to people

那些在行為科學中

who've taken controversial stands

採取有爭議的立場

or discovered disquieting findings

或是有著讓人顧慮的發現的人

in the behavioral sciences.

會有什麼下場。

There are many cases, some of which I talk about in the book,

有許多人的例子，我在書裡討論了其中的一些例子

of people who have been slandered, called Nazis,

這些人被毀謗，被稱為納粹黨，

physically assaulted, threatened with criminal prosecution

他們被攻擊、被威脅要提起訴訟

for stumbling across or arguing

只是因為他們越界或是

about controversial findings.

討論了那些有爭議的發現。

And you never know when you're going to

你絕不會知道你何時

come across one of these booby traps.

會踏入那些邪惡陷阱中的一個。

My favorite example is a pair of psychologists

我偏好的一個例子是兩個心理學家

who did research on left-handers,

對左撇子的研究，

and published some data showing that left-handers are, on average,

他們發表了一些證據顯示左撇子平均來說，

more susceptible to disease, more prone to accidents

比較容易患病、容易遭逢意外，

and have a shorter lifespan.

以及壽命比較短。

It's not clear, by the way, since then,

順道一提，從那之後，

whether that is an accurate generalization,

我們不清楚那是否是一個正確的普遍宣稱，

but the data at the time seemed to support that.

不過在當時，那些資料似乎支持他們的說法。

Well, pretty soon they were barraged

嗯，很快的，他們受到猛烈的批評

with enraged letters,

接到表達憤怒的信件、

death threats,

死亡的威脅、

ban on the topic in a number of scientific journals,

許多科學期刊都禁止該議題的討論、

coming from irate left-handers

這些都來自被激怒的左撇子

and their advocates,

以及他們的支持者，

and they were literally afraid to open their mail

因為這些他們不慎引起的

because of the venom and vituperation

怨恨與責罵

that they had inadvertently inspired.

他們真的害怕拆開他們的郵件。

Well,

嗯，

the night is young, but the book has been out

現在可能還有點言之過早，但是我的書

for half a year,

已經出版半年，

and nothing terrible has happened.

沒有任何可怕的事發生。

None of the dire professional consequences

沒有可怕的工作危機

has taken place --

發生－

I haven't been

我還沒被

exiled from the city of Cambridge.

逐出劍橋市。

But what I wanted to talk about

但是我想在此談論的是

are two of these hot buttons

在《心靈白板論》收到的

that have aroused the strongest response

八十幾份評論中

in the 80-odd reviews

引起最激烈反應的

that The Blank Slate has received.

兩個敏感議題。

I'll just put that list up for a few seconds,

我將停留幾秒在這頁列出所有議題的畫面

and see if you can guess which two

看看你們是否可以猜到是哪兩個

-- I would estimate that probably two of these topics

－我估計那兩個議題可能

inspired probably 90 percent

在各種評論中

of the reaction in the various reviews

與電台訪問中引發

and radio interviews.

百分之九十的反動。

It's not violence and war,

並不是暴力與戰爭，

it's not race, it's not gender,

也不是種族、也不是性別、

it's not Marxism, it's not Nazism.

不是馬克思主義、不是納粹主義。

They are: the arts and parenting.

它們是：藝術與養育子女。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

So let me tell you what

所以，讓我告訴你

aroused such irate responses,

引起這樣憤怒回應的東西是什麼

and I'll let you decide if whether they --

而且我將讓你決定這些言論

the claims are really that outrageous.

是否真的那麼讓人憤怒。

Let me start with the arts.

讓我先從藝術開始。

I note that among the long list of human universals

我注意到，在一長串人類共通點的列表裡

that I presented a few slides ago

我投影片的前幾張

are art.

其中一項是藝術。

There is no society ever discovered

就算是在世界上最偏遠的角落

in the remotest corner of the world that has not had something

在那裡發現到的社會裡，

that we would consider the arts.

都有藝術的存在。

Visual arts -- decoration of surfaces and bodies --

視覺藝術－外表與物體上的裝飾－

appears to be a human universal.

看起來像是人類共通的地方。

The telling of stories, music,

講故事、音樂、

dance, poetry -- found in all cultures,

舞蹈、詩歌－在所有的文化中被發現，

and many of the motifs and themes

而且藝術中提供我們

that

許多娛樂的

give us pleasure in the arts

中心思想與主題

can be found in all human societies:

可以在所有人類社會中被發現：

a preference for symmetrical forms,

偏好對稱的形式、

the use of repetition and variation,

旋律上重複與變奏的使用、

even things as specific as the fact

甚至是像這樣的具體事實

that in poetry all over the world,

在世界各地的詩歌裡，

you have lines that are very close

都有非常接近三秒鐘長的詩句

to three seconds long, separated by pauses.

用停頓號來分隔。

Now, on the other hand,

現在，另一方面，

in the second half of the 20th century,

在二十世紀的下半葉，

the arts are frequently said to be in decline.

藝術通常被說是在衰退中。

And I have a collection,

從品質比較高的雜誌裡，

probably 10 or 15 headlines, from highbrow magazines

我收集了大約十或十五個標題

deploring the fact that

都在哀嘆著

the arts are in decline in our time.

藝術在我們的時代中衰退。

I'll give you a couple of representative quotes:

我將提供你們幾個具代表性的引文：

"We can assert with some confidence that our own period is

"我們可以自信的斷言，我們的時代是

one of decline, that the standards of culture are lower

衰退的時代，當前文化的標準比五十年前

than they were 50 years ago, and that the evidences of this decline

還低落，而且這個衰退的證據

are visible in every department of human activity."

在每個人類活動的層面都看得到。"

That's a quote from T. S. Eliot, a little more than 50 years ago.

這個引文是引自五十年前T.S. Eliot的一段話。

And a more recent one:

比較近代的一個引文是：

"The possibility of sustaining high culture in our time

"在我們的時代裡，維持高度文化的可能性

is becoming increasing problematical.

已經越來越成問題。

Serious book stores are losing their franchise,

重要的書店漸漸喪失經營權，

nonprofit theaters are surviving primarily

非營利的劇院要透過商業化他們的表演節目

by commercializing their repertory,

來繼續生存，

symphony orchestras are diluting their programs,

交響樂團削減他們的節目，

public television is increasing its dependence

公共電視台逐漸地

on reruns of British sitcoms,

依賴英國喜劇的重播，

classical radio stations are dwindling,

古典樂台漸漸減少了，

museums are resorting to blockbuster shows, dance is dying."

博物館訴諸聳動的展覽，舞蹈正在死去。"

That's from Robert Brustein,

這是引自著名的戲劇評論家與導演

the famous drama critic and director,

Robert Brustein在大約五年前

in The New Republic about five years ago.

寫在《新理想國》的一段話。

Well, in fact, the arts are not in decline.

但是，事實上，藝術並沒有在衰退。

I don't think this will as a surprise to anyone in this room,

我不認為這個房間裡有任何人會感到驚訝，

but by any standard

但是無論用什麼標準來評斷，

they have never been flourishing

藝術也從未

to a greater extent.

大規模的興盛。

There are, of course, entirely new art forms

當然，有完全新穎的藝術形式

and new media, many of which you've heard

以及新的媒體，其中有許多是

over these few days.

在這短短幾天裡你已經聽到的。

By any economic standard,

根據任何經濟學的標準來看，

the demand for art of all forms

對各式各樣藝術形式的要求

is skyrocketing,

不斷上漲，

as you can tell from the price of opera tickets,

如同你可以從歌劇的票價上看到的，

by the number of books sold,

從書籍的銷售量，

by the number of books published,

從已出版的書籍量，

the number of musical titles released,

已發行的音樂專輯數量，

the number of new albums and so on.

新專輯的發行數量等等。

The only grain of truth to this

針對"藝術正在衰退中"的抱怨

complaint that the arts are in decline

唯一一點的真理

come from three spheres.

來自三個範圍。

One of them is in elite art since the 1930s --

其中一個是自1930年代的精緻藝術

say, the kinds of works performed

例如，一流交響樂團演奏

by major symphony orchestras,

的那種作品，

where most of the repertory is before 1930,

他們大部分的曲目都是來自1930年之前，

or the works shown in

或是一流畫廊與博物館中

major galleries and prestigious museums.

展示的作品。

In literary criticism and analysis,

在文學批評與分析裡，

probably 40 or 50 years ago,

大約在40或50年前，

literary critics were a kind of cultural hero;

文學評論家有點像是文化英雄；

now they're kind of a national joke.

現在他們比較像一個全國的笑柄。

And the humanities and arts programs

還有在大學裡的人文與藝術課程

in the universities, which by many measures,

用許多的標準來看

indeed are in decline.

確實是在衰退。

Students are staying away in droves,

在藝術與人文學的領域裡，

universities are disinvesting

流失了大批的學生

in the arts and humanities.

大學也不願意贊助資金。

Well, here's a diagnosis.

然而，對上述情況，這裡有一個診斷。

They didn't ask me, but by their own admission,

儘管他們沒問我，但是他們承認

they need all the help that they can get.

他們需要所有能獲得的幫助。

And I would like to suggest that it's not a coincidence

我想要提醒大家的是

that this supposed decline

在精緻藝術與文學批評裡發生的衰退

in the elite arts and criticism

與歷史上出現對人性的全盤否定

occurred in the same point in history in which

發生在同樣的時間點上

there was a widespread denial of human nature.

而這不會是個巧合。

A famous quotation can be found --

如果你上網搜尋，

if you look on the web, you can find it in

你可以在許多英語核心課程的

literally scores

授課大綱裡

of English core syllabuses --

找到一段著名的引文

"In or about December 1910,

"大約在1910年十二月左右，

human nature changed."

人性改變了。"

A paraphrase of a quote by Virginia Woolf,

這段話是引自Virginia Wolff，

and there's some debate

儘管有爭議在討論

as to what she actually meant by that.

她究竟在那段話裡表達了什麼。

But it's very clear, looking at these syllabuses,

不過，意思表達的很清楚，看看這些授課大綱，

that -- it's used now

現在它被用來做為

as a way of saying that all forms

藝術賞析的所有形式的談論方式

of appreciation of art

這些藝術已經存在

that were in place for centuries, or millennia,

幾個世紀，或是幾千年

in the 20th century were discarded.

但卻在二十世紀裡被拋棄。

The beauty and pleasure in art --

藝術裡的美與樂－

probably a human universal --

或許這是人類的通性－

were -- began to be considered saccharine,

開始被認為是包裹著糖衣、

or kitsch, or commercial.

或是庸俗的、或是商業化的。

Barnett Newman had a famous quote that "the impulse of modern art

Barnett Newman有一段著名的引文：

is the desire to destroy beauty" --

當代藝術的動力是去摧毀美的欲望，

which was considered bourgeois or tacky.

美被視為庸俗或俗不可耐。

And here's just one example.

這只是一個例子。

I mean, this is perhaps a representative example

我是說，這或許是一個具代表性的例子

of the visual depiction of the female form

代表十五世紀對女性的

in the 15th century;

想像描繪；

here is a representative example

這裡有一個二十世紀對女性描繪

of the depiction of the female form in the 20th century.

的代表性例子。

And, as you can see, there -- something has changed

如同你可以看到的－

in the way the elite arts

在精緻藝術中，訴諸感官的方式上

appeal to the senses.

已經有了顯著的改變。

Indeed, in movements of modernism

確實，在現代主義

and post-modernism,

與後現代主義的運動中，

there was visual art without beauty,

有著無美感的視覺藝術、

literature without narrative and plot,

有著不含敘述與情節的文學作品、

poetry without meter and rhyme,

有著沒有節拍與押韻的詩歌、

architecture and planning without ornament,

不具裝飾、人類觀點、綠色空間、自然光的

human scale, green space and natural light,

建築與城市規畫、

music without melody and rhythm,

沒有旋律與押韻的音樂、

and criticism without clarity,

以及不具清晰性、不注意美學

attention to aesthetics and insight into the human condition.

對人類處境毫無洞見的文學批評。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Let me give just you an example to back up that last statement.

讓我提供你們一個例子來支持最後一段話。

But here, there -- one of the most famous literary

這裡－當代著名學者之一

English scholars of our time

英文文學學者

is the Berkeley professor,

Berkeley大學教授

Judith Butler.

Judith Butler

And here is an example of

這裡是一個

one of her analyses:

她對文學分析的例子：

"The move from a structuralist account in which capital

"從結構主義者將資本理解為

is understood to structure social relations

以相對一致的方式建構社會關係

in relatively homologous ways

過渡到一種霸權觀點

to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition,

該觀點認為權力關係會受限於

convergence and rearticulation

重複、收斂與再表述

brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure,

這樣的過渡將暫時性的問題帶進結構的思索中

and marked a shift from the form of Althusserian theory

並且標記著一個轉變，從Althusserian理論

that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects ..."

該理論認為結構整體性是理論上的事物..."

Well, you get the idea.

嗯，你知道這有多晦澀了。

By the way, this is one sentence --

順道一提，這是一句話而已－

you can actually parse it.

你可以實際上去分析這句話。

Well, the argument in "The Blank Slate"

嗯，在《心靈白板論》裡的論證

was that elite art and criticism

認為二十世紀的

in the 20th century,

精緻藝術與文學批評

although not the arts in general,

鄙視美、樂、清晰、洞見與風格，

have disdained beauty, pleasure,

但是一般而言藝術

clarity, insight and style.

不鄙視那些特徵。

People are staying away from elite art and criticism.

人們遠離精緻藝術與文學批評。

What a puzzle -- I wonder why.

多麼奇怪啊－我想知道為什麼？

Well, this turned out to be probably

嗯，這被證明是本書中

the most controversial claim in the book.

可能最具爭議的言論。

Someone asked me whether I stuck it in

有人問我，是不是為了轉移

in order to deflect ire

討論性別與納粹主義、種族等等議題

from discussions of gender and Nazism

可能引起的怒火

and race and so on. I won't comment on that.

而把藝術的議題插進來。就這一點，我沒什麼評論可說。

But it certainly inspired

不過，上述的言論確實引起

an energetic reaction

許多大學教授

from many university professors.

激烈的反應。

Well, the other hot button is parenting.

嗯，另一個敏感議題是養育子女。

And the starting point is the -- for that discussion

討論的出發點是源自一個事實

was the fact that we have all

亦即我們都受限於

been subject to the advice

該如何教養子女

of the parenting industrial complex.

的建議。

Now, here is -- here is a

現在，這裡是一段具代表性的話

representative quote from a besieged mother:

引自一位深受困擾的母親：

"I'm overwhelmed with parenting advice.

"我被養育子女的建議所淹沒。

I'm supposed to do lots of physical activity with my kids

我應該跟子女有許多肢體上的活動

so I can instill in them a physical fitness habit

所以我可以灌輸他們一個讓身體健康的習慣

so they'll grow up to be healthy adults.

使得他們都成長為一個健康的成人。

And I'm supposed to do all kinds of intellectual play

我也應該跟子女玩許多智力遊戲

so they'll grow up smart.

使得他們聰明的長大。

And there are all kinds of play -- clay for finger dexterity,

還有各式各樣的活動－為了讓手指靈活的黏土遊戲、

word games for reading success, large motor play,

幫助閱讀的文字遊戲、大型運動遊戲、

small motor play. I feel like I could devote my life

小型運動遊戲。我覺得我可以窮盡一生

to figuring out what to play with my kids."

來搞清楚要跟子女玩什麼遊戲。"

I think anyone who's recently been a parent can sympathize

我認為任何最近剛成為父母的人

with this mother.

可以跟這位母親感同身受。

Well, here's some sobering facts about parenting.

嗯，關於養育子女，這裡有一些重要的事實。

Most studies of parenting on which this advice is based

這個建議所立基的大多數養育子女研究是無用的。

are useless. They're useless because they don't control

這些研究是無用的，因為它們沒有控制遺傳性。

for heritability. They measure some correlation

他們測量父母的行為與子女的行為

between what the parents do, how the children turn out

之間的關聯性

and assume a causal relation:

並且假設有一個因果關係：

that the parenting shaped the child.

養育子女的方式形塑子女的行為。

Parents who talk a lot to their kids

對子女說很多話的父母

have kids who grow up to be articulate,

其子女長大後會能言善道，

parents who spank their kids have kids who grow up

掌摑子女的父母，其子女長大後

to be violent and so on.

會有暴力的傾向等等。

And very few of them control for the possibility

這些研究中，只有少數注意到

that parents pass on genes for --

父母將基因遺傳給子女的可能性

that increase the chances a child will be articulate

具有能言善道基因的小孩或是暴力傾向基因的小孩

or violent and so on.

長大後口才好的機率或是殘暴的機率是否會增加。

Until the studies are redone with adoptive children,

直到這些研究在被收養兒童上重新操作之前，

who provide an environment

亦即提供環境給子女

but not genes to their kids,

但卻不提供基因給子女的情況，

we have no way of knowing whether these conclusions are valid.

否則我們不會知道那些結論是不是有效的。

The genetically controlled studies

基因控制的研究

have some sobering results.

已經有一些重要的結果。

Remember the Mallifert twins:

還記得Mallifert雙胞胎吧：

separated at birth, then they meet in the patent office --

出生即分離，在專利事務所相遇－

remarkably similar.

驚人的相似。

Well, what would have happened if the Mallifert twins had grown up together?

嗯，如果Mallifert雙胞胎是一起長大，這將會發生什麼事呢？

You might think, well, then they'd be even more similar,

你們可能會想，嗯，他們彼此甚至會更相似，

because not only would they share their genes,

因為他們不僅有一樣的基因，

but they would also share their environment.

他們還有一樣的環境。

That would make them super-similar, right?

這會讓他們無敵相似，不是嗎？

Wrong. Identical twins, or any siblings,

錯了。出生就分離的同卵雙胞胎、

who are separated at birth are no less similar

或出生即分離的兄弟姊妹，就算他們有一樣的生長環境，

than if they had grown up together.

他們也不會更相似。

Everything that happens to you in a given home

在那些歲月裡，你在某個家庭裡

over all of those years

發生的每一件事

appears to leave no permanent stamp

似乎不會在你的個性或智力上，

on your personality or intellect.

遺留下任何永久的痕跡。

A complementary finding, from a completely different methodology,

使用一個完全不同的方法論所得來的補充性發現是

is that adopted siblings reared together --

被收養的兄弟姊妹，即使一起被扶養長大

the mirror image of identical twins reared apart,

同卵雙胞胎被分開來扶養

they share their parents, their home,

他們有一樣的父母、家庭、

their neighborhood,

鄰居、

don't share their genes -- end up not similar at all.

但沒有一樣的基因－結果他們一點都不相似。

OK -- two different bodies of research with a similar finding.

好吧－兩個不同的研究途徑卻有相似的發現。

What it suggests is that children are shaped

這暗示著小孩子並不是被

not by their parents over the long run,

父母長期的教養來型塑的，

but in part -- only in part -- by their genes,

而是部分－只有部分－被基因型塑，

in part by their culture --

部分由所處國家的文化

the culture of the country at large

該國家的文化，總體來說

and the children's own culture, namely their peer group --

而且小孩子自己的文化，亦即同儕－

as we heard from Jill Sobule earlier today,

如同我們先前從Jill Sobule的演講聽到的，

that's what kids care about --

同儕才是小孩子關心的－

and, to a very large extent, larger than most people are prepared to acknowledge,

而且，很大的一部分，超過大多數人準備承認的程度

by chance: chance events in the wiring of the brain in utero;

部分由偶然性型塑：在子宮中大腦迴路的偶發事件；

chance events as you live your life.

在你們人生中發生的偶發事件。

So let me conclude

所以，讓我只用一個評論

with just a remark

來下個結論

to bring it back to the theme of choices.

帶我們回到選擇的主題上。

I think that the sciences of human nature --

我認為，人性的科學－

behavioral genetics, evolutionary psychology,

行為遺傳學、演化心理學、

neuroscience, cognitive science --

神經科學、認知科學－

are going to, increasingly in the years to come,

在即將到來的幾年裡

upset various dogmas,

將會顛覆各種教條，

careers and deeply-held political belief systems.

顛覆歷程與深植人心的政治信念體系。

And that presents us with a choice.

而且那將提供我們一個選擇。

The choice is whether certain facts about humans,

選擇是：某些關於人類的事實

or topics, are to be considered taboos,

或主題，是否該被視為禁忌、

forbidden knowledge, where we shouldn't go there

被視為被禁止的知識，我們不應該繼續探索那個知識領域

because no good can come from it,

因為我們不會從中獲益，

or whether we should explore them honestly.

或是選擇：我們是否應該真正去探索那些知識領域。

I have my own

對於那個問題

answer to that question,

我有自己的答案，

which comes from a great artist of the 19th century,

這個答案來自十九世紀偉大的藝術家

Anton Chekhov, who said,

Anton Chekhov，他說：

"Man will become better when you show him

"當你向一個人展示他是什麼樣的人時，

what he is like."

他將會變得更好。"

And I think that the argument

我認為這個論證

can't be put any more eloquently than that.

不可能用更好的方式來呈現了。

Thank you very much.

非常感謝各位的聆聽。

(Applause)

（鼓掌）