评论
打印
Meanwhile owls will be more likely to see it as blue.
与此同时，夜猫子型的人更有可能觉得它是蓝色的。
Their brain will assume it's the kind of incandescent light they see inside at night.
他们的大脑会认为这是他们在晚上看到的那种白炽灯光。
And under that kind of light, the dress is blue.
在那种光线下，裙子是蓝色的。
He tested this theory with a sample of about 1,000 people, many of whom he recruited from an article he published in Slate.
他用了大约1000人的样本来验证这一理论，其中许多人是他从发表在Slate杂志上的一篇文章中招募的。
Okay, back to Pascal.
好了，请帕斯卡回到节目。
What we found is the more you identify as a night owl, the more black and blue you think that image is--it's a dose-dependent effect.
我们发现，你越认为自己是夜猫子，你就越觉得这条裙子是黑色和蓝色的——这是一种剂量依赖效应。
These are very, very strong effects.
这些都是非常非常强烈的影响。
But still--chronotype is just a proxy for the thing Pascal was really trying to measure, which was what assumptions your brain made when viewing the image. He needed to go deeper.
但是，生物钟只是帕斯卡真正想要测量的东西的一个代表，也就是你的大脑在看图像时做出的假设。他还需要更深入地研究。
The next step was to replicate the result in a new context to show that it wasn't a one-off fluke and what you saw really did come down to assumptions your brain made about ambiguity.
下一步就是在新的环境中复制结果，以证明这不是一次侥幸，你所看到的确实归因于你的大脑对模糊性的假设。
So here's what I thought, "What's the principle here?" So first of all, we need to introduce uncertainty.
我是这么想的，“原则是什么?”首先，我们需要引入不确定性。
We need to take an image, an image that could be any color, and put it under artificial lighting and take all context cues away.
我们需要拍一张图片，一张可以是任何颜色的图片，把它放在人造光下，把所有的背景线索都移除。
So you're creating another condition where it's not immediately obvious what the colors should be.
你又创造了一种情况，让它的颜色并不那么显而易见。
My collaborator, Michael Karlovich, came up with the idea of using Crocs and socks.
我的合作者迈克尔·卡洛维奇想出了用洞洞鞋和袜子的主意。
Ah, Crocs--those funny plastic shoes that come in a whole range of colors. There's no default color for them.
啊，洞洞鞋——那种好玩的塑料鞋，有各种各样的颜色。它们没有默认颜色。
Crocs can be any color really. I think there's something like 28 different kinds of Crocs, yes?
洞洞鞋可以是任何颜色。我想大概有28种不同的洞洞鞋，对吧?
Okay, so I've got the Crocs and socks image up on my computer screen right now.
好，现在我的电脑屏幕上已经出现了洞洞鞋和袜子的图像。
The socks are almost like a neon green. And the Crocs are a very bland color--maybe gray? I guess I'd call them beige.
袜子几乎是霓虹绿色的。洞洞鞋是一种很淡的颜色——也许是灰色?我觉得它应该是米色。
Great. Now here's the thing, here's the crazy thing...so we were able to do the following.
很好。是这样的，很疯狂的是……我们可以这样做。
So, first of all, I have the…it's too bad, if I had known that…I would bring the Crocs.
首先，我有，真可惜，早知道我就带洞洞鞋来了。
I have the Crocs. The Crocs…the Crocs are pink-undeniably they are just as pink as the blue dress is blue.
我有洞洞鞋。洞洞鞋……粉色的洞洞鞋——毫无疑问，它是粉色的，就像那条蓝裙子就是蓝色的。
Really?
真的吗?
If you put the Crocs under--on a black background, and we did this in my attic--we blacked out my attic, and then you illuminate the Crocs ... and you put them under green light, that will add up to gray.
如果你把洞洞鞋放在——黑色的背景上，我们在我的阁楼上就是这么做的——我们把阁楼弄黑，然后你照亮洞洞鞋……如果你把它们放在绿光下，它们就会变成灰色。
And at that point, it's unclear if you're looking at gray Crocs on a black background under normal light or pink Crocs under green light.
这时候，你就不知道你是在正常光线下看到了黑色背景上的灰色洞洞鞋，还是在绿光下看到了粉色的洞洞鞋。
So it's just like the dress--what you see depends on what you assume about the lighting.
就像那条裙子一样——你看到的东西取决于你对光线的假设。
But there's one dead giveaway. It's not just the Crocs.
但有一点很明显。这种现象不仅限于洞洞鞋。
It's the Crocs and the socks. Here's the kicker: when I was young, socks like that were always white--always, always, always.
是洞洞鞋和袜子。问题是：我小的时候，这样的袜子永远是白色的——永远、永远、永远。
So if I shine green light on these pink Crocs, even though they look gray, I will know the socks will look green, subjectively.
因此，如果我用绿色的光照射这些粉色的洞洞鞋，即使它们看起来是灰色的，我也会主观地认为袜子看起来是绿色的。
But I know that the socks are white, so I can mentally subtract the green from the socks to then color calibrate.
但是我知道袜子是白色的，所以我可以主观上移除绿色，然后进行颜色校准。
Wait, the socks are white? Oh, wow! This is so bizarre!
等等，袜子是白色的?哦，哇！这也太奇怪了!
As you were talking about the white socks, I had this immediate recognition that, "oh, these are those white tube socks that everyone used to wear when I was a kid."
你谈到白袜子的时候，我立刻意识到，“哦，这些是我小时候每个人都穿的白色筒袜。”
As that recognition clicked, the Crocs turned pink.
当我意识到这一点时，我看到的洞洞鞋就变成了粉色。
It was almost instantaneous. It's so wild. I've never experienced anything like this.
这几乎是瞬间发生的。太疯狂了。我从来没有经历过这样的事情。
We asked people, "What do you see the Crocs as? And what do you see the socks as?"
我们问人们：“你觉得洞洞鞋是什么颜色?你觉得袜子是什么颜色?”
And to make a long story short, and I have to send you the paper on this…the people who saw the socks as white and who are sure about this ... 80 percent or something like that see the Crocs as pink, even though they actually look gray at face value.
长话短说，我必须把这方面的论文发给你们，那些看到袜子是白色的并且确信这一点的人……80%左右的人认为洞洞鞋是粉色的，尽管它们表面上看起来是灰色的。
So what's happening here is that people who assumed the socks could be green, which is the color they objectively look, just based on wavelength, see the Crocs as gray or beige.
所以，假设袜子是绿色的人，这也是他们基于波长真实看到的颜色，会看到灰色或米色的洞洞鞋。
But people who saw Bob--that is, they knew the socks were white because they're always white--they color corrected and saw the Crocs as their true color, which is pink.
但看到鲍勃的人——也就是说，他们知道袜子是白色的，因为它一直都是白色的——他们对颜色进行了校正，看到了洞洞鞋的真实颜色，也就是粉色。
Once again, your brain is processing ambiguity by relying on your prior assumptions, and you don't even realize it.
这再次说明，你的大脑会依靠你先前的假设来处理分歧，而你甚至没有意识到这一点。
Pascal, do you think there are larger lessons we can take away from this?
帕斯卡，你觉得我们能从中学到更重要的东西吗?
Well, I think the biggest lesson is: don't be so sure of yourself.
我认为最大的教训是：不要对自己太自信。
Just because you're sure does not mean you're right. This uncertainty is hidden from you, yes?
你确定不代表你就是对的。这种不确定性是隐匿的，对吧?
Oh, I was absolutely certain the dress was white. And when I heard other people saying they saw blue, I felt incredulous.
我很确定那条裙子是白色的。当我听到其他人说他们看到了蓝色时，我感到难以置信。
But you're saying that maybe next time, instead of immediately assuming that everyone else is denying reality, I should be more open to the idea that I am the one who is wrong?
不过你的意思是，也许下次，与其立即假设其他人都在否认现实，我应该更开放地接受是我错了?
Your brain doesn't say, "I have absolutely no idea...." It doesn't say that.
你的大脑不会说，“我完全不知道....”它不会这么说。
Your brain tells you, "I think it's white and gold." That's it.
你的大脑只会告诉你，“我觉得它是白金相间的。”就是这样。
It doesn't flag to you, "Oh, and by the way, I made a guess here."
它不会向你暗示，“哦，顺便说一下，这里面有我的猜测。”
Your brain is just making a judgment call, and you never even realize how uncertain it was in the first place.
你的大脑只是在做判断，你甚至没有意识到它一开始是多么的不确定。
Yeah. It's like a game show. It's our best guess; it's our final answer. But it doesn't tell you that-that it made a guess.
是的。这就像游戏节目。它是我们最好的猜测；是我们的最终答案。但它并没有告诉你这只是猜测。
So if we're not careful, we can end up with a bunch of ignorant overconfidence.
所以，如果我们不留意，可能会变成过度自信的无知之人。
I think we need a culture of awareness and intellectual modesty that counteracts this evolutionary tendency to jump to conclusions and then commit to them.
我觉得，我们需要意识和智力谦虚的文化，以抵消这种急于得出结论然后坚持下去的进化倾向。
We think that what we see represents stone-cold reality.
我们认为自己看到的就是无可辩驳的现实。
And that can be a problem because it turns out that we have a natural blind spot for the ways we might misinterpret reality.
这可能是个问题，因为事实证明，我们有一个天然的盲点，可能会误解现实。
Psychologists have a term for this: "naive realism" is the assumption that the way we see the world is the way it really is. We are blind to our blind spots.
心理学家对此有一个术语：“朴素现实主义”，它是指我们看待世界的方式就是它的真实方式。我们对自己的盲点视而不见。
Pascal's experiments are on visual perception, but they highlight a concept that's true in many aspects of science: the uncertainty we don't perceive can warp our view.
帕斯卡的实验是关于视觉感知的，但它们强调了一个在科学很多方面都适用的概念：我们感知不到的不确定性会扭曲我们的观点。
