无畏者-乔的头像

如何扩展我们对现实的认知模型?

扩展认知模型
7
扩展认知模型
引言
引言
人类大脑发展的本质
人类大脑发展的本质
内群体和外群体
内群体和外群体
同理心与去人性化
同理心与去人性化
扩展我们内在模型的策略
扩展我们内在模型的策略
致谢
致谢
附件
附件
声明
声明
认知疑问
认知疑问
数据机器
数据机器
认知局限
认知局限
认知突破方法
认知突破方法
美好社会
美好社会
主持人介绍
主持人介绍
大脑塑造
大脑塑造
影响因素
影响因素
个体差异
个体差异
研究方向
研究方向
想象差异
想象差异
认知模型差异
认知模型差异
群体偏好
群体偏好
部落生存
部落生存
实际体现
实际体现
群体同理心
群体同理心
同理研究
同理研究
去人性化
去人性化
认知扩展
认知扩展
无他国经历
无他国经历
知道偏见存在
知道偏见存在
行动探索
行动探索
盲选审核
盲选审核
了解手段
了解手段
道德污染
道德污染
多元身份
多元身份
共同爱好群体
共同爱好群体
关系升华
关系升华
结语
结语
英文稿件
英文稿件
单集封面
单集封面

如何扩展我们对现实的认知模型?

01-13
90 次观看
无畏者-乔的头像
无畏者-乔
粉丝:147
主题:8
描述:10
例子:8
类比:1
其他:12
字数:11155

如何扩展我们对现实的认知模型?

01-13
90 次观看
无畏者-乔的头像
无畏者-乔
粉丝:147
无畏者-乔的头像
无畏者-乔
粉丝:147
主题:8
描述:10
例子:8
类比:1
其他:12
字数:11155
声明 声明

🎥 关于本视频:本视频是 Big Think 免费英语课程的中文翻译版,旨在帮助中文观众更好地理解内容,仅供学习使用,非商业用途。原视频版权归 Big Think 及相关作者所有。

🌐 原视频链接Your brain is biased by default. Here’s how to reset it. | David Eagleman

📋 免责声明: 本翻译力求准确,但若有疏漏,请以原视频为准。

🌟 支持原创: 请访问 Big Think 官网获取更多精彩内容,并支持原作者的作品!

扩展认知模型

引言

提问 认知疑问

为什么我们总是毫无疑问地接受自己所认知的现实?

数据机器 认知局限

你就像一台不断运转的数据收集机器,在世界中游走,汲取着每一个能够获得的经验碎片。最终,你所获得的这些经验就构成了你认定的真相。

认知局限

然而,我们的经验是有限的,我们生于地球上的某个特定角落,只能经历一条狭窄的人生轨迹,我们就是基于这些有限的经历来构建我们对世界的认知。正因如此,我们每个人对这个世界的认知都极其有限。

方法 认知突破方法

作为人类,有趣的是我们始终被禁锢在自己的内在认知模型中。这就是我们所能看到的全部世界,但通过科学、文学和哲学的探索,我们能够超越自我的局限,认识到:我理解世界的方式并非唯一的方式。这不是唯一的真理。

展望 美好社会

我们越是能够做到这一点,就越能够携手创造一个更美好的社会。

介绍 主持人介绍

我是David Eagleman,斯坦福大学神经科学研究员,同时也是Inner Cosmos播客的主持人。

人类大脑发展的本质

大脑塑造

人类大脑最引人入胜的特点在于,我们来到这个世界时还处于未完全成熟的状态,随后,是经验塑造了我们的大脑。这意味着我们的大脑具有极强的可塑性。

影响因素 大脑塑造

因此,无论你出生在哪个时代,生活在什么样的文化中,不管你的文化信仰何种神明,不论你的父母是谁,你所处的社区环境如何,你都会不断吸收这些影响。正是这些因素塑造了你的独特个性。

个体差异

由于基因的差异,每个人的大脑都会以细微不同的方式形成神经连接。

介绍 研究方向

我致力于研究这方面的遗传学,目的是开创一个新的领域——知觉基因组学,这门学科旨在理解你、我和每个人基因组中的细微差异,是如何导致我们以不同方式感知世界的。换句话说,我们想要了解:与生俱来的基因如何影响一个人对现实的感知?

想象差异 个体差异

举个例子,当你在脑海中想象事物时的清晰程度。假如我请你想象一只蚂蚁在红白格子桌布上爬行,朝着一罐紫色果酱前进,你可能会在脑海中看到一段生动的画面,就像在播放电影,但也可能完全看不到任何画面,只是对这个场景有一个概念性的理解。每个人的内心体验都是如此不同。

结论 认知模型差异

你的基因构成和人生经历可能与我的大不相同,这使得我们对世界的认知模型也各不相同。这种差异存在于地球上所有80亿人之间。

内群体和外群体

群体偏好

我们的大脑天生就有形成内群体和外群体的倾向。这种倾向使我们形成了一种深层的心理机制:我们倾向于信任和关心内群体成员,而对外群体成员则较为冷漠。

起源 部落生存 群体偏好

这种机制很可能源于进化:因为在人类早期,我们生活在小型部落中,你清楚地知道谁是你的族人,但对于生活在山那边的其他群体,你对他们一无所知。不清楚他们是否怀有敌意。

实际体现 群体偏好

因此,我们不断地划分群体归属,这种归属可能基于国籍,宗教信仰,甚至是支持的运动队。我们更愿意亲近与我们观点相同的人,而对外群体的成员则保持警惕和怀疑。

同理心与去人性化

群体同理心

人类大脑最令人惊叹的特质之一就是我们的同理心。然而研究表明,当面对外群体成员时,我们的同理心会显著降低。说白了,我们就是不那么关心他们。

同理研究 去人性化

几年前,我们在实验室进行了一项研究:我们让受试者躺在脑扫描仪中。他们观看屏幕上显示的六只手,电脑会发出"哔哔"声并转圈,随机选中其中一只手。这只手随后会经历两种情况之一:要么被棉签轻轻触碰,要么被注射器针头刺扎。

当观察到手被刺扎时,受试者大脑中与疼痛感知相关的神经网络就会被激活。

接着,我们为每只手添加了不同的身份标签:基督教徒、犹太教徒、穆斯林、印度教徒、科学教派教徒、无神论者。这时我们想要探究的问题是:你的大脑是否会对外群体成员产生同样的反应?

研究结果显示,确实存在显著差异。当内群体成员的手被刺扎时,你在这个区域,也就是疼痛矩阵区域会产生强烈反应。而当外群体成员的手被刺扎时,这一反应则明显减弱。这一现象在我们测试的所有群体中都普遍存在。

需要说明的是,这项研究并非针对宗教本身,而是揭示了内群体和外群体的身份认同如何影响我们的神经反应。

去人性化

当我们观察世界上的任何冲突时,都能看到相互对立的群体之间的憎恨。当这些群体看待对方时,他们并不会将对方视为有血有肉的人类个体,而是将其视为一个没有生命的物体。因此,负责社会认知的内侧前额叶皮层和其他相关脑区在思考对方时甚至不会被激活。

认知扩展

我们在成长过程中形成的内在认知模型,决定了谁是我们的内群体成员,谁是外群体成员。显然,当人们开始旅行,游历世界时,情况会发生变化。他们的内在认知模型得到扩展,内群体的范围也随之大大扩大。

无他国经历 认知扩展

但是,如果你没有去过世界上的每个国家——事实上我们绝大多数人都没有这样的经历,你很容易就会认为:那个群体,那个文化,对我来说都是完全陌生的存在。

扩展我们内在模型的策略

知道偏见存在

要扩展我们局限的认知模型,第一步就是要认识到这些局限的存在,意识到有些事物是我们目前还看不到的。因此,首要任务是认识到我们都带有偏见,这种偏见是不可避免的。

提问 行动探索

关键问题是,在这种情况下我们能采取什么行动?

盲选审核 知道偏见存在

很多人可能都知道这个例子:多年前,管弦乐团开始采用帘幕后面的盲选试音方式,这样评委就不会受到应试者性别、种族等因素的影响。他们只需要专注于聆听从帘幕后传来的音乐,通过这种方式来判断谁是最优秀的演奏者。

这个例子告诉我们,确实存在多种方法可以帮助我们规避自身的偏见。

了解手段

第二个策略是深入了解去人性化的各种手段,这样我们就能更好地抵御这些影响。

道德污染 了解手段

比如有一种称为"道德污染"的手段,它通过将外群体成员与令人反感的事物联系在一起来达到目的。一旦这种联系建立起来,人们就会本能地排斥这个群体所说的任何话,因为这个群体的形象已经被玷污了。

通过了解这些策略的运作方式,我们就能建立起对它们的免疫力。而一旦我们做到这一点,我们就有机会建立起对他人更全面、更丰富的认知模型。

多元身份

第三个策略是交织多重群体身份,或者说是让你的归属关系变得更加多元化。

共同爱好群体 多元身份

举个例子:如果我遇到你,发现你喜欢冲浪,我也喜欢冲浪;你喜欢某种品种的狗,我也喜欢某种狗;我们逐渐发现彼此有许多共同点。这些共同点就会自然而然地拉近我们之间的距离,即使后来发现我们存在分歧。

这时我会说:"哇,这真有意思!我完全没想到。能跟我详细说说吗?让我更好地理解你的想法。"因为我们已经在其他方面建立了情感联系。

结论 关系升华

这种方式能够帮助我们跨越每个人大脑之间的鸿沟,改善彼此间的沟通。这也帮助我们认识到:每个人在内心体验现实的方式都是独特的。

我们需要建立更深层的情感纽带来维系人与人之间的关系,这样我们就能真正理解他人也是与我们一样的人类,这种理解方式必将为我们的未来带来更多益处。

致谢

结语 结语

特别鸣谢Adobe Stock、APM Music、FILMPAC、Storyblocks。

附件

文稿 英文稿件
Title: Expanding Our Inner Model of Reality

Speaker: David Eagleman

Presented by: Unlikely Collaborators

In Partnership with: Big Think

Introduction

Why do we accept our realities the uncontested truth? You are like a data collection machine, moving through the world, and you vacuum up your little bits of experience that you have. And in the end, whatever you have, that's what you assume to be true. But our experiences are limited. We're born on a particular spot on the planet, and we have a thin little trajectory of experience. And we construct what we believe the world is made up of from there. And as a result, we all have a very limited view of what's going on out there.

The interesting thing about being a human is that we're stuck inside our internal model. It's all we ever see. But with the endeavor of science, literature, and philosophy, what we're able to do is step outside of ourselves and understand, hey, the way that I see the world isn't the only way to see the world. It's not the only truth. And the more we can get good at that, the more we can try to build a better society.

David Eagleman's Background

My name is David Eagleman. I'm a neuroscientist at Stanford, and I run the podcast Inner Cosmos.

The Nature of Human Brain Development

The interesting thing about the human brain in particular is that we drop into the world half-baked, with a certain set of genetics. And then experience wires up our brains. And what that means is our brains are extremely flexible. So, whatever moment in time you're born in, whatever culture you're born in, whatever deities your culture believes in, whoever your parents are, your neighborhood, and so on, you absorb all that. And that crafts who you become.

Now, as a result of the genetics being different, your brain wires up in slightly different ways. My interest in searching out the genetics here is to define a new field called perceptual genomics, which is understanding how slight tweaks in your genome and yours and yours leads to us seeing the world in a different way. In other words, how do the genes that you come to the table with change your perception of reality? For example, how clearly you visualize something on the inside. If I ask you to picture an ant crawling on a red and white tablecloth towards a jar of purple jelly, you might perceive that as a movie in your head. Or you might perceive it without any picture at all, but just sort of the concept of it. People have completely different internal lives.

Your genetics and life experiences might be different from mine, which makes our models somewhat different from each other. And that's true for all 8 billion of us.

In-groups and Out-groups

So, our brains are very predisposed to form in-groups and out-groups. We form the psychological thing of trusting our in-group and caring about our in-group and not so much about the out-group. Presumably, this has an evolutionary basis, because we grew up in small tribes, and you knew who your folks were in your tribe. But that other group across the hill, you have no idea who they are. You don't know if they're enemies. And so, we constantly form the groups that we belong to, whether that's predicated on our country, or our religion, or our favorite sports team. We care more about the people who agree with us, and we're very suspicious of the people who are in the out-groups.

Empathy and Dehumanization

One of the amazing parts about human brains is our sense of empathy. Well, it turns out that when you're dealing with somebody in your out-group, you have less empathy. You just don't care about them as much. In my lab, some years ago, we did an experiment where we put people in the brain scanner. They see six hands on the screen, and the computer goes around, "boop boop boop boop boop," and randomly picks one of the hands. And then the hand either gets touched with a Q-tip, or it gets stabbed with a syringe needle. And when it gets stabbed, these networks in your brain that are involved in pain come online. But now, what we did is we labeled each hand with a one-word label: Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Scientologist, Atheist. And now the question is, does your brain care as much if it's a member of your out-group? And the answer is, your brain does not care as much. If your in-group member gets stabbed, you have a big response in this area, this pain matrix. If an out-group member gets stabbed, you have a smaller response. This is true across all groups that we measured. This isn't an indictment of religion. It's just about who's in your in-group and who's in your out-groups in this case.

When you look at any conflict in the world, and you have two sides that hate each other, when they're looking at the other side, they don't think of them like a human, like a person. They think of them like an object. And therefore, the medial prefrontal cortex and other areas don't even come online when considering them. So, the internal model that you form growing up in your life, that's what determines who's in your in-group and who's in your out-groups. And obviously, we see what happens once people start traveling and going around the world. They expand their internal model. They expand their in-groups greatly. But it's very easy, if you haven't been to every country in the world, which most of us have not, to still feel like, oh, that group, that culture, whatever, is totally foreign to me.

Strategies for Expanding Our Inner Models

The first step to expanding our narrow models is to recognize that there are fence lines and that there are things we're not seeing. So, the first thing is to understand our own biases, because we can't help but have biases. And the question is, is there something that we can do given that situation? Many people are familiar with the way that orchestras, many years ago, started having their auditions behind a screen so that they wouldn't be biased, male, female, white, Black, whatever. All they're hearing is the music pouring over the screen, and they make their decision about who's the best orchestra player that way. There are many ways that you can blind your biases.

The second strategy is learning about the tactics of dehumanization, so that you can be more immune to them. For example, there's what's called moral pollution, where you associate members of your out-group with something repulsive. Whatever's coming out of their mouth now, everyone is a little less eager to hear that, because that group has already been smeared. And as we learn about these tactics, we can be immune to them. Once we do that, that gives us the opportunity to build a richer model of the other person.

The third strategy is entangling group membership, or complexifying your allegiances. If I meet you, and I learn that you like surfing, and I like surfing, and you like this kind of dog, and I like that kind of dog, and we find all these things about one another that we have in common, that's the stuff that allows people to bond. And only later something comes out where we realize we have a disagreement. And then I say, "Wow, that's interesting. I wouldn't have expected that. Tell me about that. Let me understand that a little bit better," because we're already bonded based on other pieces. So, this is a way of making sure that we can improve communication across these gaps between each brain and every other brain. It's a way of making sure that we understand that everyone's not experiencing reality the same way on the inside. And what you need are deeper bonds that hold people together, so that you understand other people as fellow humans, in a way that's more fruitful and beneficial for our future.

Credits

Courtesy of Adobe Stock, APM Music, FILMPAC, Storyblocks.
讨论
随记