评论
打印
In 2013, a team of researchers held a math test.
2013年，一组研究人员进行了一次数学测试。
The exam was administered to over 1,100 American adults, and designed, in part, to test their ability to evaluate sets of data.
测试对象是1100多名美国成年人，测试设计为从某种程度上检测其评估数据集的能力。
Hidden among these math problems were two almost identical questions.
在这些数学问题中，隐藏着两个几乎相同的问题。
Both problems used the same difficult data set, and each had one objectively correct answer.
这两个问题都使用了相同难度的数据集，且每个问题都有一个客观正确的答案。
The first asked about the correlation between rashes and a new skin cream.
第一个问题是关于皮疹和一种新护肤霜间的相关性。
The second asked about the correlation between crime rates and gun control legislation.
第二个问题则是关于犯罪率和枪支管制立法间的关系。
Participants with strong math skills were much more likely to get the first question correct.
对数学能力强的测试者来说，他们更可能答对第一题。
But despite being mathematically identical, the results for the second question looked totally different.
尽管从数学上来看这是两个相同的问题，但第二个问题的答案看起来却大相径庭。
Here, math skills weren't the best predictor of which participants answered correctly.
这时，数学能力并不能有效预测哪些测试者回答正确。
Instead, another variable the researchers had been tracking came into play: political identity.
相反，研究人员跟踪的另一个变量发挥了作用：政治认同。
Participants whose political beliefs aligned with a correct interpretation of the data were far more likely to answer the problem right.
对于正确解读数据的结果与其政治信仰一致的参与者来说，他们更容易答对第二题。
Even the study's top mathematicians were 45% more likely to get the second question wrong when the correct answer challenged their political beliefs.
当正确答案挑战其政治信仰时，即使是这项研究中最顶尖的数学家，也有45%的可能会答错第二题。
What is it about politics that inspires this kind of illogical error?
到底政治与导致该不合逻辑的错误之间存在什么关系呢？
Can someone's political identity actually affect their ability to process information?
一个人的政治认知真会影响其处理信息的能力吗？
The answer lies in a cognitive phenomenon that has become increasingly visible in public life: partisanship.
答案就在公众生活中一个越来越明显的认知现象：党派偏见。
While it's often invoked in the context of politics, partisanship is more broadly defined as a strong preference or bias towards any particular group or idea.
虽然这是政治环境中常提到的词，但党派偏见被广泛定义为对任何特定群体或观点的强烈偏好或偏见。
Our political, ethnic, religious, and national identities are all different forms of partisanship.
我们的政治、种族、宗教和国家认同都是党派偏见的不同形式。
Of course, identifying with social groups is an essential and healthy part of human life.
当然，社会群体认同是人类生活中不可或缺而又健康的组成部分。
Our sense of self is defined not only by who we are as individuals, but also by the groups we belong to.
我们的自我意识不仅由我们作为个体的身份决定，也由我们所属的群体决定。
As a result, we're strongly motivated to defend our group identities, protecting both our sense of self and our social communities.
因此，我们有强烈的动机去捍卫我们的群体身份，保护我们的自我意识和我们的社会群体。
But this becomes a problem when the group's beliefs are at odds with reality.
但当团队的信念与现实不符时，问题就产生了。
Imagine watching your favorite sports team commit a serious foul.
试想一下，你看到自己最喜欢的球队严重犯规了。
You know that's against the rules, but your fellow fans think it's totally acceptable.
你知道这违反比赛规则，但你们这些粉丝则认为这是完全可以接受的。
The tension between these two incompatible thoughts is called cognitive dissonance, and most people are driven to resolve this uncomfortable state of limbo.
这两种矛盾思想之间的紧张关系，就称为认知失调，它会驱使多数人去解决这种不舒服的悬疑状态。
You might start to blame the referee, complain that the other team started it, or even convince yourself there was no foul in the first place.
你可能会开始责怪裁判，抱怨是对方先开始犯规的，甚至说服自己其实根本就没犯规。
In a case like this, people are often more motivated to maintain a positive relationship with their group than perceive the world accurately.
在这种情况下，人们往往更愿选择与其团队观点保持一致，而非准确地感知世界。
This behavior is especially dangerous in politics.
这种行为在政治上尤其危险。
On an individual scale, allegiance to a party allows people to create a political identity and support policies they agree with.
从个人层面来看，效忠政党给人们创建了政治身份，并支持他们赞同的政策。
But partisan-based cognitive dissonance can lead people to reject evidence that's inconsistent with the party line or discredits party leaders.
但是，基于党派的认知失调，会导致人们拒绝接受与政党路线相左或使党领导人名誉扫地的证据。
And when entire groups of people revise the facts in service of partisan beliefs, it can lead to policies that aren't grounded in truth or reason.
当整个群体为了自己的党派信仰而去篡改事实的时候，会引导并非以事实或正当理由为基础的政策。
This problem isn't new -- political identities have been around for centuries.
这个问题并不新鲜，政治认同已经存在了几个世纪。
But studies show that partisan polarization has increased dramatically in the last few decades.
但研究表明，在过去的几十年里，党派分化程度急速加剧。
One theory explaining this increase is the trend towards clustering geographically in like-minded communities.
一种解释这种增长的理论说，是由思想主张相似的社区在地理上聚集的趋势所造成。
Another is the growing tendency to rely on partisan news or social media bubbles.
另一种解释是，因为人们越来越依赖党派新闻或社交媒体泡沫的趋势所导致。
These often act like echo chambers, delivering news and ideas from people with similar views.
这些现象的作用就像回音室，只传递观点相似的人的新闻和主张。
Fortunately, cognitive scientists have uncovered some strategies for resisting this distortion filter.
幸运的是，认知科学家已经发现了一些策略，来反抗这种扭曲过滤。
One is to remember that you're probably more biased than you think.
一是要记住，你可能比自己想象的更有偏见。
So when you encounter new information, make a deliberate effort to push through your initial intuition and evaluate it analytically.
因此，当遇到新信息时，你要有意识地努力推动你最初的直觉，并进行分析性评估。
In your own groups, try to make fact-checking and questioning assumptions a valued part of the culture.
在你自己的团队中，努力将事实核查和质疑假设变成团队文化的重要部分。
Warning people that they might have been presented with misinformation can also help.
警告人们得到的可能是错误信息，这也会有所帮助。
And when you're trying to persuade someone else, affirming their values and framing the issue in their language can help make people more receptive.
当你试图说服别人的时候，先肯定他们的价值观，并用他们的语言来阐述问题，会更有助于他们接受你的观点。
We still have a long way to go before solving the problem of partisanship.
在解决党派偏见之前，我们还有很长的路要走。
But hopefully, these tools can help keep us better informed, and capable of making evidence-based decisions about our shared reality.
希望这些工具能帮助我们更好地了解情况、并针对你我的共同现实做出基于证据的决策。
