大家好生棍，我是德研社的創(chuàng)始人姜沈勵足绅，今天我們繼續(xù)學(xué)習《Thinking in bets》這本好書。前兩課：

1.1段多，我們通過橄欖球爭議決策的案例介紹了什么是結(jié)果導(dǎo)向偏見进苍；

1.2觉啊，我們通過CEO解雇副總裁的案例介紹了結(jié)果導(dǎo)向偏見的危害杠人；

那么今天的1.3 我們將從大腦生物學(xué)角度來了解嗡善，是什么導(dǎo)致了種種偏見

在開始今天的1.3節(jié)之前罩引，社長再送大家一個福利袁铐，也是辛辛苦苦做的一個聽譯經(jīng)典視頻哈（謝謝上期給我打賞的朋友們剔桨！第一次被打賞领炫，很激動哈）帝洪。

上一期視頻我們看到了頂級世界牌手Daniel Negreanu面對悲慘結(jié)果后很快調(diào)整了自己的狀態(tài)砚哗。但是今天的視頻蛛芥，我們的另一位職業(yè)牌手Matt沒有那么好的控制住自己的情緒仅淑，可能是因為：結(jié)果實在是太慘不忍睹了涯竟。庐船。筐钟。

職業(yè)牌手Matt沒有控制住情緒

看完了視頻篓冲，我們也感受到纹因，人們的大腦對于預(yù)期外的結(jié)果很難表現(xiàn)出絕對的理性瞭恰。那么惊畏，我們的大腦究竟是如何工作的呢？

我們來開始今天的學(xué)習：

作者說道：

The irrationality displayed by Pete Carroll’s critics and the CEO should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with behavioral economics.

皮特·卡羅爾的批評者和那位CEO表現(xiàn)出的非理性對于任何熟悉行為經(jīng)濟學(xué)的人來說都不會感到驚訝。

Thanks to the work of many brilliant psychologists, economists, cognitive researchers, and neuroscientists, there are a number of excellent books that explain why humans are plagued by certain kinds of irrationality in decision-making. here’s a summary.

多虧了許多杰出的心理學(xué)家缰盏、經(jīng)濟學(xué)家口猜、認知研究人員和神經(jīng)科學(xué)家的工作济炎，出版了許多優(yōu)秀的書籍解釋了為什么人類在決策中會受到某種非理性的困擾须尚。這里有一個總結(jié)耐床。

To start, our brains evolved to create certainty and order. We are uncomfortable with the idea that luck plays a significant role in our lives. We recognize the existence of luck, but we resist the idea that, despite our best efforts, things might not work out the way we want. It feels better for us to imagine the world as an orderly place, where randomness does not wreak havoc and things are perfectly predictable. We evolved to see the world that way. Creating order out of chaos has been necessary for our survival.

首先咙咽，我們通過大腦進化來創(chuàng)造確定性和秩序钧敞。我們對運氣在我們的生活中起著重要作用的想法感到不舒服溉苛。我們承認運氣的存在弄诲，但是我們抗拒一個想法寂玲，這種想法是：盡管我們盡了最大努力拓哟，事情可能不會按照我們想要的方式發(fā)展伶授。對我們來說，把世界想象成一個有序的地方會感覺更好漱凝，在這個地方茸炒，隨機性不會造成破壞扣典，事情是完全可以預(yù)測的贮尖。我們用這樣的方式看待世界湿硝。從混亂中創(chuàng)造秩序是我們生存和進化的必要條件关斜。

When our ancestors heard rustling on the savanna and a lion jumped out, making a connection between “rustling” and “l(fā)ions” could save their lives on later occasions. Finding predictable connections is, literally, how our species survived. Science writer, historian, and skeptic Michael Shermer, in The Believing Brain, explains why we have historically (and prehistorically) looked for connections even if they were doubtful or false. Incorrectly interpreting rustling from the wind as an oncoming lion is called a type I error, a false positive. The consequences of such an error were much less grave than those of a type II error, a false negative. A false negative could have been fatal: hearing rustling and always assuming it’s the wind would have gotten our ancestors eaten, and we wouldn’t be here.

當我們的祖先聽到熱帶稀樹草原上的沙沙聲，一只獅子跳了出來鳍侣，把“沙沙聲”和“獅子”聯(lián)系起來倚聚，可以在以后的場合拯救他們的生命惑折。事實上，找到可預(yù)測的聯(lián)系是我們物種生存的方式白热∥萑罚科學(xué)作家乍恐、歷史學(xué)家和懷疑論者邁克爾·舍默(Michael Shermer)在《可信的大腦》疑問中解釋了為什么我們在歷史上(和史前)尋找聯(lián)系百匆，即使這些聯(lián)系是可疑或錯誤的呜投。錯誤地將風中的沙沙聲解讀為迎面而來的獅子被稱為I型錯誤雕拼，一種假陽性錯誤啥寇。這種錯誤的后果遠不如第二類錯誤(假陰性)嚴重辑甜。假陰性可能是致命的：聽到沙沙聲磷醋，總是假設(shè)是風邓线。那獅子早把我們的祖先給吃掉了骇陈，如果是這樣，社長也就不會在這里給大家直播了谍憔。

這段話习贫，從字面上理解起來有一點難度苫昌。因為作者引入了幾個統(tǒng)計學(xué)的概念奥务，第一類型錯誤 袜硫，假陽性錯誤帚称；第二類型錯誤 闯睹，假陰性錯誤楼吃。這些術(shù)語層出現(xiàn)在大學(xué)數(shù)學(xué)統(tǒng)計學(xué)的假設(shè)檢驗章節(jié)里，在應(yīng)用領(lǐng)域中也會經(jīng)常遇到浮创，例如在AI領(lǐng)域檢驗人工智能算法效果上斩披。但是垦沉，大家不要太有壓力，我已經(jīng)粗翻了整本書贩疙，后面的內(nèi)容不需要對這些術(shù)語有太多的了解组民〕羰ぃ可以讓社長我試著用人話乱陡，重新解釋一遍憨颠。

咳咳，中國有句古話淫茵，叫做寧可信其有，不可信其無蹬跃。如果我們選擇“寧可信其有”匙瘪，對一類可能成立可能不成立的事情，選擇全部去相信蝶缀，那么我們會犯下“第一類型錯誤”丹喻，也就是假陽性錯誤，即有一些本來是假的事情翁都，我們也會當做是真的碍论；反之，如果“信其無”柄慰，選擇不相信這件事情鳍悠，那么我們就會犯下“第二類型錯誤”蠢挡，假陰性錯誤消略，即有一些本來是真的事情晓殊，我們也會當做是假的介汹。

作者安妮用了草原上的沙沙聲和獅子來了做了舉例叹卷。我再給大家舉一個例子蒙揣，就是我們的曹操殺人的故事挎狸。

按照《三國演義》的說法恐锣，曹操在行刺董卓失敗之后赫段，只得逃出洛陽撩银。董卓下令全國追捕曹操抄邀，并且許諾了豐厚的賞金钥飞。曹操路過昔日老友呂伯奢家结闸，呂伯奢出去買酒款待曹操。但是曹操卻偷聽到呂伯奢家人磨刀之聲鳖眼，曹操以為他們要劫殺自己膊畴，于是先下手為強，殺了呂伯奢的家人。

對于曹操碾篡，“磨刀聲”與“劫殺自己”到底有沒有關(guān)系，就需要馬上做出一個判斷辅髓。曹操選擇的是“寧教我負天下人 休教天下人負我”樟遣，于是選擇了“信其有”伤柄，寧愿相信他們是要劫殺自己。

拿到底曹操的猜測正確與否呢怨酝？

《魏書》有不同的觀點，《魏書》講呂伯奢的兒子和賓客共謀搶劫曹操一行人楞慈，結(jié)果曹操反擊殺了數(shù)人。這算正當防衛(wèi)，沒什么不仁可言。但是《魏書》畢竟是曹家寫的，世人所疑不是完全沒有道理慷丽。

再舉一個更加尖銳的例子容握，就發(fā)生在我們的周圍竹祷。有一個說法，千萬不要拍孕婦的肩膀，否則孩子會容易流產(chǎn)趟章。

你可能相信，你可能不信；但是即使你不信，你也不太敢隨便地去拍孕婦的肩膀骂租。一個原因是你怕別人會在意這種“迷信“；第二個原因是你怕萬一流產(chǎn)別人會聯(lián)想到你當時拍肩膀斑司；第三個原因是渗饮，你也不是100%肯定拍肩膀與流產(chǎn)沒有關(guān)系。

如果你在百度搜索“拍肩膀 流產(chǎn)”陡厘，有80萬條相關(guān)記錄抽米，有一些自媒體試圖通過科學(xué)依據(jù)來解釋“拍肩膀”導(dǎo)致“流產(chǎn)”的內(nèi)部原因。

拍肩膀會導(dǎo)致容易流產(chǎn)嗎糙置？或許沒人知道，但是人們偏向于相信“會”是目。因為不相信帶來的后果大家都不敢谤饭、不愿去承擔。

事實真相或許已經(jīng)不重要了懊纳，但是通過這幾個案例揉抵，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)，人們常常選擇“寧可信其有嗤疯，不可信其無”冤今。這種選擇，一方面使得人類可以生存繁衍茂缚，另一方面又帶來了迷信戏罢、宗教等衍生產(chǎn)物。

好了脚囊，我們的衍生討論有點走遠了龟糕，我們回到作者的文章。再看看其他一些科學(xué)家的觀點悔耘。

Seeking certainty helped keep us alive all this time, but it can wreak havoc on our decisions in an uncertain world. When we work backward from results to figure out why those things happened, we are susceptible to a variety of cognitive traps, like assuming causation when there is only a correlation, or cherry-picking data to confirm the narrative we prefer. We will pound a lot of square pegs into round holes to maintain the illusion of a tight relationship between our outcomes and our decisions.

尋求確定性幫助我們一直生存著讲岁，但它會在一個不確定的世界里對我們的決定造成嚴重破壞。當我們從結(jié)果中反向研究這些事情發(fā)生的原因時，我們很容易受到各種認知陷阱的影響缓艳，比如當只有關(guān)聯(lián)時假設(shè)因果關(guān)系校摩，或者挑選數(shù)據(jù)來證實我們喜歡的敘述。我們將把許多方形的釘子釘入圓孔阶淘，以保持我們的結(jié)果和我們的決定之間緊密聯(lián)系的錯覺衙吩。

Different brain functions compete to control our decisions. Nobel laureate and psychology professor Daniel Kahneman, in his 2011 best- selling Thinking, Fast and Slow, popularized the labels of “System 1” and “System 2.” He characterized System 1 as “fast thinking.” System 1 is what causes you to hit the brakes the instant someone jumps into the street in front of your car. It encompasses reflex, instinct, intuition, impulse, and automatic processing. System 2, “slow thinking,” is how we choose, concentrate, and expend mental energy. Kahneman explains how System 1 and System 2 are capable of dividing and conquering our decision-making but work mischief when they conflict.

不同的大腦功能競相控制我們的決定。諾貝爾獎得主兼心理學(xué)教授丹尼爾·卡尼曼(Daniel Kahneman)在2011年的暢銷書《思考舶治，快與慢》中推廣了“系統(tǒng)1”和“系統(tǒng)2”兩種做決定的方式分井。他將系統(tǒng)1描述為“快速思考”∶姑停“系統(tǒng)1可以當有人跳到你車前時讓你緊急剎車尺锚。它包括反射、本能惜浅、直覺瘫辩、沖動和自動處理。系統(tǒng)2坛悉，“緩慢思考”是關(guān)于我們?nèi)绾沃斏鬟x擇伐厌、集中和消耗精神能量÷阌埃卡尼曼解釋了系統(tǒng)1和系統(tǒng)2如何能夠劃分和控制我們的決策挣轨，但是當它們發(fā)生沖突時，就會帶來危害轩猩。

I particularly like the descriptive labels “reflexive mind” and “deliberative mind” favored by psychologist Gary Marcus. In his 2008 book, Kluge: The Haphazard Evolution of the Human Mind, he wrote, “Our thinking can be divided into two streams, one that is fast, automatic, and largely unconscious, and another that is slow, deliberate, and judicious.” The first system, “the reflexive system, seems to do its thing rapidly and automatically, with or without our conscious awareness.” The second system, “the deliberative system . . . deliberates, it considers, it chews over the facts.”

我特別喜歡心理學(xué)家蓋里·馬庫斯(GaryMarcus)青睞的描述性標簽“反射性思維”和“審慎性思維”卷扮。他在2008年的著述中寫道，“我們的思維可以分為兩股均践，一股是快速的晤锹、自動的、很大程度上是無意識的彤委，另一股是緩慢的鞭铆、深思熟慮的、明智的焦影〕邓欤“第一個系統(tǒng)”，反射系統(tǒng)偷办，無論我們有沒有意識到艰额，似乎都可以快速自動地完成它的任務(wù)〗费模“第二個系統(tǒng)”柄沮，審慎系統(tǒng)......是深思熟慮，它會咀嚼事實。"

Automatic processing originates in the evolutionarily older parts of the brain, including the cerebellum, basal ganglia, and amygdala. Our deliberative mind operates out of the prefrontal cortex.

自動處理起源于大腦進化較久的部分祖搓，包括小腦狱意、基底神經(jīng)節(jié)和杏仁核。我們的深思熟慮的頭腦是在前額葉皮層之外運作的拯欧。

Colin Camerer, a professor of behavioral economics at Caltech and leading speaker and researcher on the intersection of game theory and neuroscience, explained to me the practical folly of imagining that we could just get our deliberative minds to do more of the decision- making work. “We have this thin layer of prefrontal cortex made just for us, sitting on top of this big animal brain. Getting this thin little layer to handle more is unrealistic.” The prefrontal cortex doesn’t control most of the decisions we make every day. We can’t fundamentally get more out of that unique, thin layer of prefrontal cortex. “It’s already overtaxed,” he told me.

加州理工學(xué)院的行為經(jīng)濟學(xué)教授详囤、博弈論和神經(jīng)科學(xué)交叉領(lǐng)域的領(lǐng)軍人物和研究員科林·卡梅爾（Colin Camerer）向我解釋，想象我們可以讓我們深思熟慮的頭腦做更多的決策工作實際上是不現(xiàn)實的镐作〔亟悖“我們有一層只適用于我們的薄薄的前額皮質(zhì)，位于我們大腦的頂部该贾。讓這薄薄的一層去處理更多事情是不現(xiàn)實的羔杨。“前額葉皮層并不控制我們每天做出的大多數(shù)決定杨蛋。我們基本無法從前額葉皮層這個獨特的薄層中獲得更多兜材。“負擔已經(jīng)過重了逞力，”他告訴我曙寡。

These are the brains we have and they aren’t changing anytime soon.* Making more rational decisions isn’t just a matter of willpower or consciously handling more decisions in deliberative mind. Our deliberative capacity is already maxed out. We don’t have the option, once we recognize the problem, of merely shifting the work to a different part of the brain, as if you hurt your back lifting boxes and shifted to relying on your leg muscles.

這些就是我們擁有的大腦，它們在短期內(nèi)不會很快改變寇荧。做出更理性的決定不僅僅是意志力或是深思熟慮的頭腦中有意識地處理更多決定的問題举庶。我們的審慎能力已經(jīng)耗盡。一旦我們意識到這個問題揩抡，我們就別無選擇灯变，只能把工作轉(zhuǎn)移到大腦的不同部分，就好像你提箱時傷了背部捅膘，轉(zhuǎn)而依靠腿部肌肉一樣。

Both deliberative and reflexive mind are necessary for our survival and advancement. The big decisions about what we want to accomplish recruit the deliberative system. Most of the decisions we execute on the way to achieving those goals, however, occur in reflexive mind. The shortcuts built into the automatic processing system kept us from standing around on the savanna, debating the origin of a potentially threatening sound while its source devoured us. Those shortcuts keep us alive, routinely executing the thousands of decisions that make it possible for us to live our daily lives.

審慎性思維和反射性思維都是我們生存和進步所必需的滚粟。我們做出重大決策時會召喚審慎系統(tǒng)寻仗。然而，我們在實現(xiàn)這些目標的過程中所做的大多數(shù)決定都發(fā)生在反射性思維中凡壤。自動處理系統(tǒng)內(nèi)置的快捷方式阻止我們站在熱帶草原上在聲音的來源吞噬我們之時還在爭論潛在威脅聲音的來源署尤。這些捷徑讓我們活著，例行公事地執(zhí)行成千上萬的決定亚侠，讓我們有可能過上日常生活曹体。

We need shortcuts, but they come at a cost. Many decision-making missteps originate from the pressure on the reflexive system to do its job fast and automatically. No one wakes up in the morning and says, “I want to be closed-minded and dismissive of others.” But what happens when we’re focused on work and a fluff-headed coworker approaches? Our brain is already using body language and curt responses to get rid of them without flouting conventions of politeness. We don’t deliberate over this; we just do it. What if they had a useful piece of information to share? We’ve tuned them out, cut them short, and are predisposed to dismiss anything we do pick up that varies from what we already know.

我們需要捷徑，但是要付出代價硝烂。許多決策失誤源于反射系統(tǒng)快速自動完成工作的壓力箕别。沒有人在早上醒來時會說:“我想閉上眼睛，對別人不屑一顧〈。“但是除抛，當我們專注于工作，一個頭腦遲鈍一貫討厭的同事走近時母截，會發(fā)生什么呢到忽？我們的大腦已經(jīng)在使用肢體語言和簡短的回應(yīng)來擺脫它們。我們不會深思熟慮地去考慮這個問題清寇，我們就直接這么做了喘漏。如果那些愚鈍討厭的同事有有用的信息可以分享呢？我們已經(jīng)拒絕了它們华烟，打斷了他們翩迈。

Most of what we do daily exists in automatic processing. We have habits and defaults that we rarely examine, from gripping a pencil to swerving to avoid an auto accident. The challenge is not to change the way our brains operate but to figure out how to work within the limitations of the brains we already have. Being aware of our irrational behavior and wanting to change is not enough, in the same way that knowing that you are looking at a visual illusion is not enough to make the illusion go away. Daniel Kahneman used the famous Müller-Lyer illusion to illustrate this.

我們每天做的大部分事情都存在于自動處理中。我們有一些很少去仔細檢視的習慣垦江，例如從抓鉛筆到轉(zhuǎn)向以避免車禍帽馋。我們面臨的挑戰(zhàn)不是要改變我們大腦的運作方式，而是要找出如何在我們現(xiàn)有大腦的限制范圍內(nèi)去磨合比吭。僅僅意識到我們的非理性行為并想要改變是不夠的绽族，就像知道你在看一個視錯覺卻不足以讓錯覺消失一樣。丹尼爾·卡尼曼用著名的米勒-萊爾錯覺來說明這一點衩藤。

MüLLER-LYER ILLUSION

Muller-Lyer 米勒-萊爾錯覺-萊爾

Which of these three lines is longest? Our brain sends us the signal that the second line is the longest, but you can see from adding the measurement lines that they are the same length.

這三條線中哪一條最長吧慢？我們的大腦向我們發(fā)出第二條線是最長的信號，但是你可以從增加的測量線中看出它們的長度相同赏表。

We can measure the lines to confirm they are the same length, but we can’t make ourselves unsee the illusion.

我們可以測量線條來確認它們的長度相同检诗，但是我們不能讓自己看不見幻覺 。

What we can do is look for practical work-arounds, like carrying around a ruler and knowing when to use it to check against how your brain processes what you see. It turns out that poker is a great place to find practical strategies to get the execution of our decisions to align better with our goals. Understanding how poker players think can help us deal with the decision challenges that bedevil us in our workplaces, financial lives, relationships—even in deciding whether or not passing the ball was a brilliant play.

我們所能做的就是尋找實際的解決辦法瓢剿，比如隨身攜帶一把尺子逢慌，并知道何時使用它來檢查你的大腦如何處理你看到的東西。事實證明间狂，撲克是一個很好的可以找到切實可行的策略來執(zhí)行我們決定攻泼，從而更好地與我們的目標保持一致的地方。了解撲克玩家的思維方式可以幫助我們應(yīng)對工作場所鉴象、經(jīng)濟生活忙菠、人際關(guān)系方面困擾我們的決策挑戰(zhàn)。

當當當纺弊！ 終于競技撲克可以出場了牛欢。

（德研社聯(lián)合創(chuàng)始人，中國德?lián)渑瘢褐靵喯＃?/p>