知識(shí)越多可能越愚昧，好奇心比知識(shí)更重要

Ask a left-wing Brit what they believe about the safety of nuclear power, and you can guess their answer. Ask a right-wing American about the risks posed by climate change, and you can also make a better guess than if you didn’t know their political affiliation. Issues like these feel like they should be informed by science, not our political tribes, but sadly, that’s not what happens.

問(wèn)一個(gè)左翼英國(guó)人對(duì)于核安全的看法，你能夠大致猜到答案。在明確其政治傾向的情況下，問(wèn)一個(gè)右翼美國(guó)人關(guān)于氣候變化的威脅，則你更加容易猜到他們的主張。還有很多類似的問(wèn)題，明明你應(yīng)該聽(tīng)從科學(xué)的解釋，但是往往是你的政治立場(chǎng)決定你的態(tài)度，聽(tīng)起來(lái)挺荒謬的吧，但事實(shí)如此。

Psychology has long shown that education and intelligence won’t stop your politics from shaping your broader worldview, even if those beliefs do not match the hard evidence. Instead, your ability to weigh up the facts may depend on a less well-recognised trait – curiosity.

心理學(xué)研究表明， 你的世界觀會(huì)逐步形成你的政治立場(chǎng)，而且不容易受到你的教育程度和智商的左右，哪怕這些政治主張和既定事實(shí)嚴(yán)重不符。然而，好奇心這個(gè)平時(shí)容易忽略的特質(zhì)卻會(huì)幫助你重新評(píng)估這些事實(shí)。

It is a mistake to think that you can somehow ‘correct’ people’s views on an issue by giving them more facts.

要是你以為給別人很多的事實(shí)就能糾正別人錯(cuò)誤的觀點(diǎn)，那就太天真啦。

There is now a mountain of evidence to show that politics doesn’t just help predict people’s views on some scientific issues; it also affects how they interpret new information. This is why it is a mistake to think that you can somehow ‘correct’ people’s views on an issue by giving them more facts, since study after study has shown that people have a tendency to selectively reject facts that don’t fit with their existing views.

諸多事實(shí)表明，人們的政治傾向不光能讓你預(yù)測(cè)他們的科學(xué)觀，它同時(shí)還會(huì)影響公眾對(duì)于新信息的理解。這就是為什么光靠提供更多的事實(shí)是沒(méi)法糾正人們的觀點(diǎn)的，因?yàn)樘嗟难芯勘砻鳎藗儠?huì)選擇性地排斥掉那些與自己既有觀念相悖的事實(shí)。

This leads to the odd situation that people who are most extreme in their anti-science views – for example skeptics of the risks of climate change – are more scientifically informed than those who hold anti-science views but less strongly.

這也導(dǎo)致一種怪象，那些極端反科學(xué)的人，比如那些氣候變化的懷疑論者，反而比那些非極端的反科學(xué)者(受政治立場(chǎng)影響)，了解更多氣候變化相關(guān)的科學(xué)知識(shí)。

People who have the facility for deeper thought about an issue can use those cognitive powers to justify what they already believe.

那些就某個(gè)問(wèn)題能進(jìn)行深入思考的人，往往會(huì)用自己的認(rèn)知來(lái)強(qiáng)化自己的觀點(diǎn)。

But smarter people shouldn’t be susceptible to prejudice swaying their opinions, right? Wrong. Other research shows that people with the most education, highest mathematical abilities, and the strongest tendencies to be reflective about their beliefs are the most likely to resist information which shouldcontradict their prejudices. This undermines the simplistic assumption that prejudices are the result of too much gut instinct and not enough deep thought.

聰明人就不會(huì)因?yàn)檎纹?jiàn)而改變自己的觀點(diǎn)，對(duì)吧?當(dāng)然不是，另一項(xiàng)研究表明，那些教育程度最高的、擁有最高的數(shù)學(xué)天賦、最有可能對(duì)自己的信仰自省的人，往往是對(duì)于有悖自己觀點(diǎn)的信息最抵觸的人。這就打破了“偏見(jiàn)是由于臆斷太多而深思不足”的假設(shè)。

It’s a messy picture, and at first looks like a depressing one for those who care about science and reason. A glimmer of hope can be found in new research from a collaborative team of philosophers, film-makers and psychologists led by Dan Kahan of Yale University.

真是亂象一片，而且，第一眼看的時(shí)候讓那些愿意相信科學(xué)和事實(shí)推理的人感到寒心。不過(guò)，最近有耶魯大學(xué)的Dan Kahan 牽頭，由心理學(xué)家、電影制片人、哲學(xué)家組成的一個(gè)聯(lián)合小組就此問(wèn)題進(jìn)行了一項(xiàng)新研究，研究結(jié)果讓我們看到了一絲曙光。

Kahan and his team were interested in politically biased information processing, but also in studying the audience for scientific documentaries and using this research to help film-makers. They developed two scales. The first measured a person’s scientific background. The second scale was a person’s curiosity about scientific issues, not how much they already knew.

Kan和他的團(tuán)隊(duì)不但對(duì)人們處理信息時(shí)的政治偏見(jiàn)感興趣，同時(shí)也對(duì)那些對(duì)科學(xué)記錄片的觀眾感興趣，他們把研究成果用來(lái)幫助電影制片人。他們最終確定了兩個(gè)維度來(lái)進(jìn)行研究。第一個(gè)維度研究被調(diào)查者的科學(xué)背景。另一個(gè)維度則是被調(diào)查者對(duì)于科學(xué)知識(shí)的好奇程度，而非他們已經(jīng)知道了多少。

With the scientific knowledge scale the results were depressingly predictable. Higher levels of scientific education results in a greater polarization between the groups, not less.

在科學(xué)背景這個(gè)維度，人們的可預(yù)測(cè)行高得讓人郁悶。越高的科學(xué)素養(yǎng)越會(huì)把人帶到兩個(gè)極端對(duì)立陣營(yíng)。

But scientific curiosity showed a different pattern. Their opinions were at least heading in the same direction.

而科學(xué)好奇心這方面則表現(xiàn)出不同的模式。至少人們的觀念是在往一個(gè)方向走的。

The team gave participants a choice of science stories, either in line with their existing beliefs, or surprising to them. Those participants who were high in scientific curiosity defied the predictions and selected stories which contradicted their existing beliefs.

小組給被調(diào)查成員一些科學(xué)案例讓他們選擇閱讀，這些案例有些與他們的觀點(diǎn)相近，有的則會(huì)震驚到他們。那些具有高度科學(xué)好奇心的參與者令人吃驚地選擇與自己觀點(diǎn)不同的材料來(lái)閱讀。

So, curiosity might just save us from using science to confirm our identity as members of a political tribe.

所以，對(duì)事物探索的好奇心或許能幫我們不去把科學(xué)當(dāng)成鞏固政治偏見(jiàn)的工具。