“没有愚蠢的问题”(No Stupid Questions)探讨了当代社会中妥协精神的衰落。安吉拉·达克沃斯(Angela Duckworth)和斯蒂芬·杜布纳(Stephen Dubner)探讨了为什么人们难以改变自己的观点，尤其是在政治和学术问题上。杜布纳感叹，社会规范从妥协转向了义愤填膺，分歧可能导致敌意。他向达克沃斯寻求建议，如何才能更好地进行妥协。 达克沃斯认为，无法妥协是一个普遍存在的问题，与自我保护以及社交媒体塑造的公众形象有关。人们越来越不愿意承认错误或让步，害怕损害自己的声誉。她介绍了“朴素现实主义”的概念，认为人们常常相信自己的观点是客观正确的，因此难以理解或接受不同的观点。这不仅限于道德判断，还包括看似微不足道的偏好，比如咖啡的冲泡方式。 在谈到政治领域时，达克沃斯建议举办一个关于妥协艺术的跨党派国会会议，并建议邀请李·罗斯(Lee Ross)，他提出了朴素现实主义和基本归因错误的概念。虽然承认存在损害伦理原则的“糟糕的妥协”，但达克沃斯强调，在评判之前理解他人的观点具有纯粹的优点。她认为这并不意味着在伦理问题上妥协，而是培养同理心和理解。 杜布纳问是否有当代公众人物可以作为积极的榜样。达克沃斯以拜登总统承认过去的错误为例，例如他过去支持对快克可卡因持有者处以严厉惩罚，认为这是一个智识谦逊的典范。她认为，通过承认错误，公众人物可以鼓励他人也这样做，从而促进开放的态度。 对话转向了智识谦逊和原创性，借鉴了查理·芒格(Charlie Munger)的思想。杜布纳问达克沃斯是花更多时间力求正确，还是花更多时间避免犯错。达克沃斯承认她喜欢正确，并且为了达到这个目标，她必须首先说服自己没有犯错。对话探讨了不犯错和正确之间的区别，达克沃斯描述了她的工作如何侧重于思想的累加性要素。 杜布纳分享了《魔鬼经济学》(Freakonomics)的起源故事，突出了其富有创意和新颖的方法。他问达克沃斯经济学家史蒂夫·列维特(Steve Levitt)的想法源于何处。达克沃斯以体育运动中的“主场优势”为例，说明了质疑传统智慧的重要性。她指出，研究人员已经发现，裁判的偏见才是主要因素，这种偏见受到主场球迷的无意识影响，而不是舒适或疲劳。 对话随后转向了教育体系内部的挑战，该体系因优先考虑考试和死记硬背而不是培养原创性和创造性思维而受到批评。达克沃斯指出，学校要求学生思考解决方案或想法存在局限性。她还补充说，需要真正培养一种创造性的本能。杜布纳表示赞同，强调了培养创造性本能的重要性，而不是仅仅专注于避免犯错。该片段以两人反思他们各自工作中的个人动机作为结束。

"No Stupid Questions" tackles the decline of compromise in contemporary society. Antilla Duckworth and Stephen Dubner explore why people struggle to budge from their perspectives, particularly in politics and intellectual matters. Dubner laments the shift from a norm of compromise to one of righteous indignation, where disagreement can lead to animosity. He asks Duckworth for advice on becoming better at compromise. Duckworth suggests that the inability to compromise is a pervasive issue, linked to ego protection and the curated public personas fostered by social media. Individuals become less willing to admit mistakes or cede ground, fearing damage to their reputation. She introduces the concept of "naive realism," positing that individuals often believe their own perspective is objectively correct, making it difficult to understand or accept differing viewpoints. This extends beyond moral judgments to seemingly trivial preferences like coffee preparation. Addressing the political realm, Duckworth proposes a bipartisan congressional session on the art of compromise, suggesting bringing in Lee Ross, who developed the concept of naive realism and the fundamental attribution error. While acknowledging the existence of "rotten compromises" that undermine ethical principles, Duckworth emphasizes the unalloyed virtue of understanding another person's perspective before judgment. She argues this doesn't mean compromising on ethical issues, but rather, fostering empathy and understanding. Dubner asks if there are contemporary public figures to serve as positive examples. Duckworth cites President Biden's acknowledgment of past mistakes, such as his support for harsh penalties for crack cocaine possession, as a model of intellectual humility. She proposes that by admitting error, public figures can encourage others to do the same, promoting open-mindedness. The conversation shifts to intellectual humility and originality, drawing on the ideas of Charlie Munger. Dubner asks whether Duckworth spends more time trying to be right or trying not to be wrong. Duckworth admits that she likes to be right, and in order to get there she has to first convince herself that she is not wrong. The conversation explores the differences between not being wrong and being right, with Duckworth describing how her work focuses on the additive elements of ideas. Dubner shares the origin story of Freakonomics, highlighting its creative and novel approach. He asks Duckworth about the source of economist Steve Levitt's ideas. Duckworth uses the example of "home field advantage" in sports to illustrate the importance of questioning conventional wisdom. She points out how researchers have identified referee bias, driven by unconscious influence from home fans, as the primary factor, rather than comfort or fatigue. The conversation then turns to the challenges within the education system, which is criticized for prioritizing testing and rote memorization over fostering original and creative thinking. Duckworth notes the limitations of schools asking to think of solutions or ideas. She also adds that there needs to be a creative instinct that really does need to be developed. Dubner agrees, emphasizing the importance of developing a creative instinct rather than focusing solely on avoiding mistakes. The segment concludes with both reflecting on their personal motivations in their work.