Clay Shirky: How cognitive surplus will change the world

譯者: Lin Su-Wei(林書暐) 審譯者: Zhu Jie

The story starts in Kenya

我要先從

in December of 2007,

2007年12月的肯亞說起，

when there was a disputed presidential election,

當時肯亞的總統大選備受爭議。

and in the immediate aftermath of that election,

選舉後的不久，

there was an outbreak of ethnic violence.

肯亞境內就爆發了種族暴力事件。

And there was a lawyer in Nairobi, Ory Okolloh --

有位來自首都奈洛比的律師，Ory Okolloh--

who some of you may know from her TEDTalk --

各位之中可能有人在TEDTalk聽過她演講--

who began blogging about it on her site,

她在自己的網站寫下這次事件的感想，

Kenyan Pundit.

這網站名為Kenyan Pundit。

And shortly after the election and the outbreak of violence,

在選舉和暴力事件後沒多久，

the government suddenly imposed

政府突然

a significant media blackout.

就封鎖了所有媒體管道。

And so weblogs went from being

網路上的部落格文章，

commentary as part of the media landscape

目的是要嘗試探討暴力事件始末，

to being a critical part of the media landscape

從原本是評論風格的媒體，

in trying to understand where the violence was.

變成了大肆批評的光景。

And Okolloh solicited

Okolloh女士，

from her commenters

對部落格的讀者，

more information about what was going on.

徵求更多關於此事件的資訊。

The comments began pouring in,

讀者的回應如排山倒海的出現了。

and Okolloh would collate them. She would post them.

Okolloh將這些回應做整理後，隨之公開。

And she quickly said, "It's too much.

很快的她就覺得：「這些資訊實在太多了，」

I could do this all day every day

「我得花上一整天做整理工作，」

and I can't keep up.

「真的沒辦法一直持續下去。」

There is more information

「這些有關」

about what's going on in Kenya right now

「肯亞目前情形的資訊，」

than any one person can manage.

「已經多到超過人所能管理的份量。」

If only there was a way to automate this."

「除非有自動化的軟體或相關設備。」

And two programmers who read her blog

有2個程式設計師看到了她的部落格文章，

held their hands up and said, "We could do that,"

說：「我們可以幫妳做這種程式。」

and in 72 hours, they launched Ushahidi.

72小時後，一個名為Ushahidi網站出現了。

Ushahidi -- the name means "witness"

Ushahidi，在斯瓦希里語中(東非地區的第二語言)

or "testimony" in Swahili --

這字的意思是"見證人"或"證詞"，

is a very simple way of taking reports from the field,

在這裡，你能輕易的陳述任何地區的報導，

whether it's from the web or, critically,

不論你是要透過網路發佈訊息，或緊急的時候，

via mobile phones and SMS,

也能透過手機或是簡訊來發佈訊息，

aggregating it and putting it on a map.

網站會蒐集這些資料，並將資訊呈現在地圖上。

That's all it is, but that's all that's needed

這網站就這樣，但就足夠了。

because what it does is it takes the tacit information

因為這個網站將那些心照不宣的資訊

available to the whole population --

公開給大眾瀏覽，

everybody knows where the violence is,

每個人都知道暴力事件在哪發生，

but no one person knows what everyone knows --

但是沒人了解別人到底知道了什麼，

and it takes that tacit information

於是這個網站蒐集了所有隱性訊息，

and it aggregates it,

整理這些訊息，

and it maps it and it makes it public.

然後用地圖的方式公開呈現。

And that, that maneuver

這種手法

called "crisis mapping,"

稱為"危機製圖"(註：crisis mapping)。

was kicked off in Kenya

網站在2008年1月

in January of 2008.

在肯亞正式上線。

And enough people looked at it and found it valuable enough

當網站受到的關注眼光和價值都到了一定程度後，

that the programmers who created Ushahidi

設計Ushahidi網站的2位程式設計師，

decided they were going to make it open source

就決定將網站的程式碼公開

and turn it into a platform.

且將它轉變成一個平台。

It's since been deployed in Mexico

這網站追蹤了

to track electoral fraud.

墨西哥的賄選事件。

It's been deployed in Washington D.C. to track snow cleanup.

它也追蹤了華盛頓的大雪清理過程。(註：2010年2月華盛頓大雪破百年紀錄)

And it's been used most famously in Haiti

海地大地震後的救災行動，

in the aftermath of the earthquake.

這網站也發揮了用處。

And when you look at the map

當你來到Ushahidi的首頁，

now posted on the Ushahidi front page,

能看到目前的地圖資訊，

you can see that the number of deployments in Ushahidi

上面顯示目前Ushahidi

has gone worldwide, all right?

在世界各地的平台點，是吧？

This went from a single idea

這個網站

and a single implementation

只不過是2008年

in East Africa in the beginning of 2008

才從東非竄起的一個小構想和小成果，

to a global deployment

不到3年的時間

in less than three years.

它就成為部屬在世界各地的平台了。

Now what Okolloh did

沒有數位技術，

would not have been possible

Okolloh女士

without digital technology.

根本不可能完成資料的彙整。

What Okolloh did would not have been possible

而沒有群眾大方的提供資訊，

without human generosity.

Okolloh也不可能完成。

And the interesting moment now,

有趣的是，

the number of environments

這是當今

where the social design challenge

社會化設計中(註：socail design，利用網路讓人們能互相交流的行為)，

relies on both of those things being true.

必須要依賴的2個元素。

That is the resource that I'm talking about.

這個是我今天想跟各位談的資源。

I call it cognitive surplus.

我稱這項資源為"認知剩餘"(cognitive surplus)。

And it represents the ability

這是一種

of the world's population

來自全世界群眾的能力，

to volunteer and to contribute and collaborate

它是自願的，貢獻的，合作的，

on large, sometimes global, projects.

並應用於大型，甚至全球性的專案。

Cognitive surplus is made up of two things.

認知剩餘由2種東西組成。

The first, obviously, is the world's free time and talents.

第一個，很明顯的，就是所有人的閒暇時間和才能。

The world has over

全世界

a trillion hours a year

一年有超過1兆小時的閒暇時間

of free time

致力於

to commit to shared projects.

某些共同的項目上。

Now, that free time existed in the 20th century,

20世紀人們就有自己的閒暇時間了，

but we didn't get Ushahidi in the 20th century.

但在20世紀可沒有Ushahidi這個網站。

That's the second half of cognitive surplus.

接著是認知剩餘的另一半。

The media landscape in the 20th century

20世紀的媒體環境

was very good at helping people consume,

助長了人們的消費行為。

and we got, as a result,

也因此，

very good at consuming.

我們非常善於消費。

But now that we've been given media tools --

而當今我們的媒體工具，

the Internet, mobile phones -- that let us do more than consume,

像是網路、手機，這些促使我們做了更多消費的東西，

what we're seeing is that people weren't couch potatoes

讓人們不再是賴在電視前的懶蟲，

because we liked to be.

因為我們想去做別的事情了。

We were couch potatoes because that was

我們會喜歡賴在電視機前，是因為

the only opportunity given to us.

那是我們閒暇時的唯一選擇。

We still like to consume, of course.

當然，我們還是很喜歡消費。

But it turns out we also like to create,

但是新的媒體工具讓我們想要創造東西，

and we like to share.

甚至分享東西。

And it's those two things together --

新的工具和人的閒暇時間一合併，

ancient human motivation

也就是過去人類就有的閒暇時間，

and the modern tools to allow that motivation

加上當今最新的媒體工具，

to be joined up in large-scale efforts --

轉變成為一個更大規模的動力，

that are the new design resource.

就成了一種新的社會性設計資源。

And using cognitive surplus,

認知剩餘的使用，

we're starting to see truly incredible experiments

讓我們開始在許多領域做驚人的嘗試，

in scientific, literary,

像是在科學上，文學上，

artistic, political efforts.

藝術，政治推動。

Designing.

還有設計領域。

We're also getting, of course, a lot of LOLcats.

這些圖片都是來自「LoLcats」網站。

LOLcats are cute pictures of cats

LoLcats網站上都是可愛的小貓圖片，

made cuter with the addition of cute captions.

然後再搭配逗趣的文字(註：圖和文字都是由網友自行上傳設計)。

And they are also

而這正是

part of the abundant media landscape we're getting now.

我們目前豐沛的媒體成果之一。

This is one of the participatory --

這是一種與他人合作的案例。

one of the participatory models

而另一種與他人合作的模式

we see coming out of that, along with Ushahidi.

就是剛介紹的Ushahidi。

Now I want to stipulate, as the lawyers say,

若從一個正經八百的律師的立場來看，

that LOLcats are the stupidest possible

LOLcats可能是個很蠢的

creative act.

創意成果。

There are other candidates of course,

當然我們還有很多類似的網站，

but LOLcats will do as a general case.

但是LOLcats是可以作為一個通例。

But here's the thing:

但其中有一點，

The stupidest possible creative act

就算可能是最蠢的創意成果，

is still a creative act.

它依舊是一個創意。

Someone who has done something like this,

曾經做過類似網站的人，

however mediocre and throwaway,

不論成果是平庸還是已被遺忘，

has tried something, has put something forward in public.

這些人都嘗試過，嘗試這把這些東西散播給大眾。

And once they've done it, they can do it again,

只要有人做過一次，就會有人就會再做一次。

and they could work on getting it better.

而且他們會越做越好。

There is a spectrum between mediocre work and good work,

平庸的作品和很棒的作品之間有個空間。

and as anybody who's worked as an artist or a creator knows,

不管是藝術家或是創意工作者都知道，

it's a spectrum you're constantly

這是你努力向上，爬到頂端之前的

struggling to get on top of.

一個空間。

The gap is between

這個缺口介乎於

doing anything and doing nothing.

有點成果和一事無成的二者之間。

And someone who makes a LOLcat

所以創建LOLcats網站的人

has already crossed over that gap.

就是已經跨越了這個缺口。

Now it's tempting to want to get the Ushahidis

但如果說我們比較需要Ushahidis，

without the LOLcats, right,

並非LOLcats，

to get the serious stuff without the throwaway stuff.

或說我們比較想要嚴肅的產物，而非偏廣告消費性質的。

But media abundance never works that way.

媒體的多樣性並不會導致這種情形。

Freedom to experiment means freedom to experiment with anything.

自由實驗，意思就是你能自由的針對任何事情做嘗試。

Even with the sacred printing press,

即使有了偉大的印刷機，

we got erotic novels 150 years

在科學期刊問世以前，

before we got scientific journals.

我們還不是先用印刷機印了150年的色情小說。

So before I talk about

在我說明Ushahidi和LOLcats

what is, I think, the critical difference

這2個網站的差異之前，

between LOLcats and Ushahidi,

我想先談談

I want to talk about

這2個網站

their shared source.

它們所分享的資源。

And that source is design for generosity.

這種資源來自大眾的慷慨。

It is one of the curiosities of our historical era

在歷史上，目前是我們好奇心最強的時代，

that even as cognitive surplus

認知剩餘

is becoming a resource we can design around,

變成一項被我們利用的資源，

social sciences are also starting to explain

社會學家開始去解釋

how important

我們的內在動機

our intrinsic motivations are to us,

對我們是多麼重要，

how much we do things because we like to do them

我們會做多少事，完全仰賴我們有多喜歡這件事，

rather than because our boss told us to do them,

並非是老闆叫我們去做，

or because we're being paid to do them.

或是為了酬勞。

This is a graph from a paper

畫面上的圖表

by Uri Gneezy and Aldo Rustichini,

是從Uri Gneezy和Aldo Rustichini這2位學者合著的論文而來，

who set out to test, at the beginning of this decade,

這個實驗從10年前就開始進行，

what they called "deterrence theory."

稱之「嚇阻理論」(deterrence theory)。

And deterrence theory is a very simple theory of human behavior:

嚇阻理論是一個非常簡易的人類行為理論。

If you want somebody to do less of something,

若你想要某人事情做少一點，

add a punishment and they'll do less of it.

利用懲罰就能達到效果。

Simple, straightforward, commonsensical --

這種想法非常簡單，直覺，也是常識，

also, largely untested.

但根本沒做過實驗證明。

And so they went and studied

所以他們2位

10 daycare centers in Haifa, Israel.

針對在以色列海法城的10個托兒所進行實驗。

They studied those daycare centers

他們針對這10間托兒所

at the time of highest tension,

一天中最忙的時刻做研究，

which is pick-up time.

也就是下課後的家長接送時間。

At pick-up time the teachers,

在這段接送時間裡，

who have been with your children all day,

托兒所的老師已經和孩子們相處了一整天，

would like you to be there at the appointed hour to take your children back.

因此他們會希望家長能準時把小孩接走。

Meanwhile, the parents -- perhaps a little busy at work, running late, running errands --

但這個時候，這些父母也許因為工作，

want a little slack to pick the kids up late.

會稍微晚於指定的時間。

So Gneezy and Rustichini said,

Gneezy和Rustichini就好奇：

"How many instances of late pick-ups

「在這10個托兒所中，」

are there at these 10 daycare centers?"

「會有多少人在接送時間遲到的？」

Now they saw -- and this is what the graph is,

他們的實驗成果就如這張圖所示，

these are the number of weeks and these are the number of late arrivals --

橫座標是實驗的週數，縱座標是遲到的人數。

that there were between six and 10

平均來說，

instances of late pick-ups

一間托兒所中會遲到的家長數量，

on average in these 10 daycare centers.

大約是在6到10位之間。

So they divided the daycare centers into two groups.

於是他們將這幾間托兒所分成2組。

The white group there

白色線的部分

is the control group; they change nothing.

是對照組，不會有任何改變。

But the group of daycare centers represented by the black line,

黑線是實驗組，

they said, "We are changing this bargain

實驗組會跟父母說：

as of right now.

「讓我們改變一下目前的協議，」

If you pick your kid up more than 10 minutes late,

「若各位晚10分鐘來接小孩，」

we're going to add a 10 shekel fine to your bill.

「我們就被需酌收10謝克爾(約台幣82元)。」

Boom. No ifs, ands or buts."

「就這樣，不能有任何藉口。」

And the minute they did that,

於是實驗就開始了，

the behavior in those daycare centers changed.

托兒所也開始有了轉變。

Late pick-ups went up

在接下來的4週中

every week for the next four weeks

實驗組遲到的人數節節上升，

until they topped out at triple the pre-fine average,

直到罰金數字達到了3倍才緩下來，

and then they fluctuated

之後遲到的人數

at between double and triple the pre-fine average

就是徘徊在

for the life of the fine.

2倍罰金和3倍罰金之間。

And you can see immediately what happened, right?

沒錯，各位能請楚的看到圖表變化。

The fine broke the culture

罰金

of the daycare center.

破壞了托兒所固有的文化。

By adding a fine,

如果有罰金，

what they did was communicate to the parents

等於是跟這些父母說

that their entire debt to the teachers

你們因遲到欠老師的人情

had been discharged

只要付10謝克爾

with the payment of 10 shekels,

就可以獲得清償，

and that there was no residue of guilt or social concern

而這也可以免除

that the parents owed the teachers.

家長心中的罪惡感和社會觀感。

And so the parents, quite sensibly, said,

這些父母明智的認為：

"10 shekels to pick my kid up late?

「用10謝克爾換晚一點接小孩？」

What could be bad?"

「何樂而不為？」

(Laughter)

(笑)

The explanation of human behavior

這說明了我們從20世紀

that we inherited in the 20th century

遺留下來的人類行為，

was that we are all rational, self-maximizing actors,

就是理性和自利行為極大化。

and in that explanation --

托兒所並沒有和家長立定正式契約，

the daycare center had no contract --

所以在理性和自利行為下，

should have been operating without any constraints.

應該不需要任何條件，人都會選擇晚一點接小孩。

But that's not right.

但結果並不是這樣。

They were operating with social constraints

父母甘願交錢換晚一點接小孩是因為「社會約束」所致，

rather than contractual ones.

而非「文件契約」所致。

And critically, the social constraints

關鍵點在於，

created a culture that was more generous

社會約束比文件契約

than the contractual constraints did.

創造了更多樣的文化。

So Gneezy and Rustichini run this experiment for a dozen weeks --

Gneezy和Rustichini將這個實驗做了12週，

run the fine for a dozen weeks --

執行了12週的罰金制度，

and then they say, "Okay, that's it. All done; fine."

然後他們想：「好吧，罰金制度就到此為止。」

And then a really interesting thing happens:

更有趣的事情發生了。

Nothing changes.

遲到的人沒有變少。

The culture that got broken by the fine

固有的托兒所文化被罰金所破壞，

stayed broken when the fine was removed.

在取消罰金後，這固有的文化就無法恢復了。

Not only are economic motivations

不僅是經濟動機

and intrinsic motivations

和內在動機

incompatible,

2者之間的不相容(遲到罰錢造成更多人遲到)，

that incompatibility

而且這種不相容

can persist over long periods.

還會持續一段很長的時間。

So the trick

這種手法

in designing these kinds of situations

設計了一種情境，

is to understand where you're relying on

這讓你了解到，

the economic part of the bargain -- as with the parents paying the teachers --

什麼時候要用經濟來與人做交易，像父母會付10元給老師，

and when you're relying on the social part of the bargain,

什麼時候用社會行為與人做交易，

when you're really designing for generosity.

像是有人無償的設計出共享的網路資源。

This brings me back to the LOLcats

讓我們回到LoLcats

and to Ushahidi.

和Ushahidi。

This is, I think, the range that matters.

我認為，這2個網站跟剛才說的息息相關。

Both of these rely on cognitive surplus.

這2個網站都需要認知剩餘。

Both of these design for the assumption

這2者的設計原理是建立在某種假設上，

that people like to create and we want to share.

假設人們喜歡創造和分享。

Here is the critical difference between these:

但這2者最不同的關鍵點是，

LOLcats is communal value.

LoLcats是集體的價值(communal value)。

It's value created by the participants

這個網站的價值

for each other.

是參與者互相參與交流所建立的。

Communal value on the networks we have

這種人與人互相建立起的集體價值，

is everywhere --

網路上到處都是。

every time you see a large aggregate

你很容易找到一大堆、

of shared, publicly available data,

或是可以分享、公開的可用資料，

whether it's photos on Flickr

不論是在Flickr上的相片

or videos on Youtube or whatever.

或是在Youtube上的影片等等。

This is good. I like LOLcats as much as the next guy,

這種集體價值是很棒的。我跟大家一樣都喜歡LOLcats這個網站，

maybe a little more even,

搞不好喜歡的程度還比較高。

but this is also

這種網站

a largely solved problem.

同時也解決了一個很大的問題。

I have a hard time envisioning a future

因為在未來的日子裡

in which someone is saying,

我很難再遇見這樣講的人：

"Where, oh where, can I find a picture

「我要到哪裡才能找到」

of a cute cat?"

「可愛的貓咪照片阿？」

Ushahidi, by contrast,

相對的，Ushahidi

is civic value.

是一種公民的價值(civic value)。

It's value created by the participants

這網站的價值同樣來自參與者，

but enjoyed by society as a whole.

但整體上來看，它的價值是整個社會所享有的。

The goals set out by Ushahidi

Ushahidi的創立目的

are not just to make life better

不只是為了讓參與者

for the participants,

有更好的生活，

but to make life better for everyone in the society

所有生活在Ushahidi服務範圍的人，

in which Ushahidi is operating.

生活都變得更好。

And that kind of civic value

這種公民價值

is not just a side effect

並不僅僅只是

of opening up to human motivation.

人類需求拓展下的副產物。

It really is going to be a side effect

而應該是一種

of what we, collectively,

由我們全體

make of these kinds of efforts.

共同致力於某件事下的延伸產物。

There are a trillion

這一年的1兆小時

hours a year

是來自

of participatory value

參與者產生的價值，

up for grabs.

且這價值是供人任意使用的。

That will be true year-in and year-out.

這些時間每年都會有。

The number of people who are going to be able

願意參與

to participate in these kinds of projects

類似這些專案的人

is going to grow,

會越來越多。

and we can see that organizations

我們會發現

designed around a culture of generosity

具有這種慷慨奉獻文化的組織，

can achieve incredible effects

往往能達到許多不可思議的成就，

without an enormous amount of contractual overhead --

而且不需要龐大的管理開銷。

a very different model

這種模式是非常不同於

than our default model for large-scale group action in the 20th century.

我們在20世紀的行為模式。

What's going to make the difference here

這種不同點

is what Dean Kamen said,

就像Dean Kamen(兩輪電車Segway的發明者)

the inventor and entrepreneur.

這位發明家與創業家所說的：

Kamen said, "Free cultures get what they celebrate."

「讓我們讚揚這免費的文化吧。」

We've got a choice before us.

現在我們眼前有個選擇。

We've got this trillion hours a year.

現在我們一年有1兆小時可以用。

We can use it to crack each other up, and we're going to do that.

我們可以把這些時間拆散來自己使用，

That, we get for free.

或是用來創造更多共享的東西。

But we can also celebrate

我們應該也要讚揚、

and support and reward the people

協助、獎勵那些

trying to use cognitive surplus

試著將認知剩餘

to create civic value.

轉變成公民價值的人。

And to the degree we're going to do that, to the degree we're able to do that,

若我們都願意這樣做，都有能力這樣做，

we'll be able to change society.

我們就能改變這個社會。

Thank you very much.

謝謝各位。