55. What Changes Will Stick When the Pandemic Is Gone?
发布时间 2026-01-04 01:00:00 来源
When I hear the phrase really annoying people, I just immediately join that tribe in my head. I'm Antelod Duckworth. I'm Stephen Dubner. And you're listening to no stupid questions. Today on the show, what changes will we see in post-pandemic society? You've always been living the pandemic lifestyle, Stephen. Also, would you take a confirmation bias vaccine? I might want to be a conspiracy theorist at some point. And this is going to be a real problem.
当我听到“非常烦人的人”这个词组时，我会在脑海中立刻感同身受。我是Antelod Duckworth。我是Stephen Dubner。您正在收听《没有愚蠢的问题》。今天节目的主题是：疫情过后社会会发生哪些变化？Stephen，你总是过着疫情式的生活。另外，你愿意接种偏见确认疫苗吗？我可能某天会想成为一个阴谋论者，这会是个大问题。
So Angela, once the pandemic and the shutdown fade away, what would you say is one permanent change we will see in the life of Professor Angela Duckworth? Well, what's leaping to mind is that I have a nonprofit called Character Lab. And during the pandemic, our small team moved out of our beautiful office space. And everybody started working from home. For the first few months of the pandemic, I thought, well, isn't this a shame? And now we have decided as an organization that we will never go back to business as usual and that we will be a remote first organization.
所以，安吉拉，一旦疫情和封锁过去，您认为我们会在安吉拉·达克沃斯教授的生活中看到哪些永久性的变化呢？嗯，首先想到的是我有一个名为Character Lab的非营利组织。在疫情期间，我们的小团队离开了我们漂亮的办公室，大家都开始在家工作。在疫情最初的几个月里，我觉得这真是遗憾。但现在我们作为一个组织决定，我们将不会回到以往的工作方式，我们将优先选择远程办公。
Was that driven by finances in that you can save all that money on real estate and use it to buy cotton candy instead? Well, it was partly influenced by that we are saving a couple hundred thousand dollars a year by not moving back into our original built out space. And are you distributing that money to people who work for you so that they can add on to their homes since they're not going to be doing all their work from there? We said, make your work from home space, whatever you need it to be. And within reason, we'll support that.
这是否因为财务因素而决定的？你可以省下所有购置房地产的钱，然后用这些钱买棉花糖？嗯，部分原因确实是因为我们节省了每年几十万美元，因为我们没有搬回到最初建造的办公空间。那你们是否把这笔钱分给员工，让他们可以扩建自己的家，因为他们不会在办公室全天工作了呢？我们的建议是，把你的家庭办公空间打造成你需要的样子，我们会在合理范围内提供支持。
So you're obviously one small part of a gigantic trend, which seems to be moving in the direction that you are. But did you consider the options and feel this is going to produce better work? I would say that we thought that it might increase productivity because you're not commuting so you don't have to lose that time. And also, I think for a lot of people, the ability to concentrate is actually better. I know that varies whether you have kids or dogs underfoot or roommates or grandparents or noisy neighbors or construction or enough space in your house. Right.
所以，你显然只是这个巨大趋势中的一小部分，而这个趋势似乎正朝着你所在的方向发展。但你有没有考虑过其他选项，并觉得这样做会产生更好的效果？我认为我们觉得这可能会提高生产力，因为不需要通勤，你就不会浪费那个时间。而且，对于很多人来说，专注的能力实际上会更好。当然，这会因个人情况而异，比如是否有孩子、宠物、室友、祖父母、吵闹的邻居、施工噪音，或者房子够不够大。
I have friends who have really little kids, kids who would otherwise be in preschool or daycare and their home. That's a completely different situation than what I have. Here's my situation. Hey, Lucy, I'm going to be on a Zoom call at 12. Can you make lunch today and bring it to me? So she's basically your waitress. Yes, servant.
我有一些朋友，他们家里有非常年幼的孩子，这些孩子本来应该在幼儿园或托儿所。但这和我的情况完全不同。我的情况是这样的：嘿，露西，我中午12点要开一个Zoom会议。你今天能做午饭并带给我吗？所以她基本上就像你的服务员。是的，仆人。
Yes, I will say just in my own family, we had something of an experiment because when the pandemic first hit my two teenage daughters, my husband and I were all fighting for space, I had already claimed the home office because I, as a professor, had already been working from home on occasion. And so I had this amazing setup with a computer and dual monitors. I had the space that I lay down on the floor to read papers in a patch of sun.
是的，我可以说，在我们自己的家庭中，我们进行了一个小小的"实验"。当疫情刚开始时，我的两个十几岁的女儿、我丈夫和我都在为空间而争夺。我早就占用了家庭办公室，因为作为一名教授，我偶尔已经在家工作了。所以我有一个很棒的工作环境，配有电脑和双屏显示器。我还有一块可以躺在地板上晒太阳、看论文的地方。
Wait, you lie down on the floor to read papers? Yeah, always. It's awesome. Why is that? I don't know. Feels good on the back. You lie down on your back on the floor to read papers? Well, usually I lie down on my stomach. What is that called? Is that being prone or supine or something? I think of it as sniper position, but that's me. Or if you do yoga, it's called the sphinx position, which is a little less aggressive.
等一下，你会躺在地板上看文件吗？是的，一直这样。特别棒。为什么呢？我也不知道，就是觉得对后背挺好的。你是仰面躺在地板上看文件吗？不，我一般趴着。那叫什么姿势呢？这是不是叫俯卧位或者仰卧位什么的？我觉得像狙击手姿势，不过那是我的讲法。在瑜伽里面，这叫做斯芬克斯式，听起来就没那么有攻击性。
That was my pandemic work from home situation. I was pretty darn happy. And then there was the rest of my family who had to scramble and find a nook or cranny in the house. My daughter had to be on her bed while she was working from this makeshift desk. And they were all pretty miserable relative to me. You know, my daughter said, like, oh my gosh, every time I sit down to do work, I just want to go to sleep in this bed.
那是我在疫情期间居家办公的情况。我非常开心。不过，我家里的其他人却不得不东奔西走，在家里找到一个角落或缝隙安置下来。我的女儿只能在床上工作，用临时拼凑的桌子办公。相比之下，他们都觉得相当痛苦。你知道，我女儿常说：“天哪，每次我坐下来工作时，我只想在这张床上睡觉。”
So I have to say that in the circumstances that I was in, working from home was great. But for other people, even in the same family and even under the same roof can be not so great. So if you're fortunate enough to be the kind of person who has the kind of occupation or project that can be done well remotely, and especially if you can continue to earn your living doing that, which would probably describe a fairly large share of this listening audience, but not a fairly large share of the world at large.
我必须说，在我的情况下，居家办公是很棒的。但是，对其他人来说，即使是在同一个家庭或者同一屋檐下，体验可能就没那么好了。因此，如果你足够幸运，拥有一种可以很好地远程完成的工作或项目，尤其是如果你能够继续通过这种方式谋生——这可能适合我们这个听众群体中的很多人，但却并不适合世界上大多数人。
The substitute for working in an office has been much, much more palatable. I did see a paper by several authors, including Rafael Sadoon, who studies productivity and leadership. She found that the average work day during the pandemic is increased by just under an hour, 48 minutes, which is a psychologist hour, and that the number of meetings increased by 13%. Although the average meeting length did decrease a little bit by 11.5%.
在疫情期间，远程办公作为办公室工作的替代方式变得更加令人满意。我看到了一篇由包括研究生产力和领导力的拉斐尔·萨东（Rafael Sadoon）在内的几位作者撰写的论文。她发现疫情期间，平均工作日延长了将近一个小时，也就是48分钟，被称为“心理学的一小时”，而会议次数增加了13%。不过，会议的平均时长略有减少，缩短了11.5%。
But plainly, the work choice set has changed a lot for people. I mean, I was remote before you had to be remote. Yeah, you've always been live in the pandemic lifestyle, Stephen. I have. I'm miserable that it took a pandemic for so many people to try it out, but I'm delighted that so many people see the upsides of it.
但显然，人们的工作选择范围已经发生了很大变化。我的意思是，在大家被迫远程工作之前，我就已经是远程办公了。是的，斯蒂芬，你一直过着疫情生活方式。我确实如此。虽然对很多人来说，直到疫情才开始尝试这种方式让我感到遗憾，但很高兴他们现在能看到其中的好处。
Let's talk about other non-work ramifications. What about, let's say, socializing? One could argue that the pandemic has been less bad for people who are anti-social, who don't really enjoy and look forward to having to interact with people all the time, which I would say kind of describes me. But that doesn't describe you. You love people, don't you? Well, I do love people, but somehow I have not really felt the physical isolation. You don't love people as much as you think you did.
让我们来谈谈工作之外的影响。比如说，社交呢？有人可能会说，对于那些不太喜欢社交、不愿意总是和别人互动的人来说，疫情的影响可能没那么大，而我觉得这有点像在描述我自己。但这并不是在描述你。你喜欢和人接触，不是吗？嗯，我确实喜欢人，但不知为何，我并没有真正感受到那种身体上的隔离。也许你并不像自己以为的那样那么喜欢社交。
Look, I've been quarantining with two of my favorite people and my younger daughter, Lucy and I were like, what's for lunch today? What time should we break for lunch today? Maybe we could sit outside. So I've been hanging out with my daughter, my door, and then occasionally my husband, because he's gone back to work in his office. I do love people, and yet I feel that the reasonably ample diet of Zoom meetings in which I've been interacting with my students and my colleagues and collaborators has been pretty decent supply of social interaction for me.
看，我一直在和我最喜欢的两个人隔离，我的小女儿露西和我在一起。我们就在想着，今天午餐吃什么？今天几点吃午餐？或许我们可以坐在外面吃。所以，我一直和女儿、（住在我）家里的朋友们在一起，偶尔也会和我丈夫一起，因为他已经回办公室工作了。我确实喜欢与人交往，但通过Zoom会议与学生、同事和合作伙伴互动，给了我足够的社交交流，感觉还不错。
But what about the whole notion of collision as the sociologist call it? This whole idea that we choose to live where we live in part because we want to be in a place where we are likely to run into people that we wouldn't expect to, whether these are people we know or don't know, and that therefore we'll have conversations, we'll have ideas that never would have happened without that. Aren't you excited about getting back to that kind of accidental fun?
那么，关于社会学家所说的“碰撞”这一概念呢？这个想法指的是，我们选择住在某个地方，部分原因是我们希望能偶遇一些意想不到的人，无论这些人是我们认识的还是陌生的。通过这样的偶遇，我们可以进行对话、产生新的想法，这些是不会在别的情况下发生的。你不觉得重回这种意外的乐趣中令人兴奋吗？
You're onto something really big there when you ask, like, well, why do students want to get back into high school? Don't they see their friends on Zoom? I do think that the serendipitous collisions, like I just happened to run into this person or have to be sitting next to this person and we struck up such and such conversation. I think those spontaneous social interactions are missing because my 405 PM Zoom call, which has a hard stop at 4.30 PM, does not allow for that kind of spontaneous human interaction.
当你问到“为什么学生们想回到高中上课？难道他们在Zoom上不能见到朋友吗？”的时候，你其实抓住了一个很重要的问题。我确实认为学校里那些偶然的碰面，比如我恰好遇到某个人或者坐在某人旁边，然后就开始了某种对话，这些自发的社交互动是很难在线上实现的。因为我的Zoom会议在下午4:05开始，4:30就结束，这种安排不允许自然的人际互动发生。
On the other hand, I take a lot of calls whenever I can, just like walking around my block. I'm in the sun, I'm getting my steps in. Do you pick up dog poop as you go just out of habit? On my new block since I've moved, I have to say it's been relatively poop free. I'm going to see if Amazon can deliver some poop to your street just to make you feel like you're doing good work.
另一方面，我会尽量抽时间接电话，就像绕着我家附近散步一样。我在阳光下，走着路。在散步的时候，你会习惯性地捡狗屎吗？自从我搬到新的街区以来，我得说这里相对来说没有什么狗屎。我看看能不能让亚马逊送些狗屎到你那街上，让你觉得自己在做好事。
Yes, please do. So my husband has something to do with this day. But my dog walking neighbors and I just ran into each other. That's a collision. When we stopped and saw each other, we had a 15-minute conversation. We made a date to have an outdoor dinner. That's the kind of spontaneous thing that you mean. So maybe we don't have as many spontaneous work collisions, but that doesn't mean we won't have any spontaneous collisions.
好的，请帮我做这件事。这件事和我丈夫有关系。今天，我和遛狗的邻居正好碰到了一起。这是一种偶然的相遇。我们停下来互相看了一眼，然后聊了15分钟。我们还约定了一次户外晚餐。这就是你说的那种自发的事情。可能我们在工作上没有那么多自发的碰面，但这并不意味着我们不会有任何自发的相遇。
So I take your point and I agree. Some spontaneous interaction is elemental. And I think that's also why we don't want to have a hundred percent work from home, never see each other in person kind of policy. Let me ask you about your appetite for social gatherings. Let's say there's a going away party for an employee in your university department. How much in the old days would you have looked forward to that?
我明白你的观点，也同意。自发的交流是非常重要的。这也是为什么我们不想实行百分之百的居家办公政策，永远不见面的原因之一。让我问问你对社交聚会的兴趣吧。假设你的大学部门有一个为员工举行的欢送会。在过去，你会有多期待参加这样的活动？
And then how do you feel about it now? You mean those parties where everybody stands around with a small glass of champagne, hovering over a table of grilled vegetables? Or cake. Completely, honestly, on a scale from zero to 10, or 10 is euphoric and zero is like, oh my God, I'm close to two. That's now a pre-pandemic. Always. I don't really like parties, even though I'm really extroverted. I don't know why.
那么你现在对此感觉如何？你是指那些每个人都端着一小杯香槟，聚在烤蔬菜桌子旁的派对吗？或者是有蛋糕的派对。非常、诚实地说，在从0到10的打分中，10是欣喜若狂，0是天哪，我接近于2。那是疫情之前的情况。一直以来，即使我是一个非常外向的人，我也不太喜欢派对。我也不知道为什么。
Do you feel that the pandemic will give you a little bit of ammunition or cover to turn down those sort of invitations in the future? I don't know how long I can keep saying that, well, since it's a pandemic. No, no, I don't mean that. I mean, you could say, I really appreciate the invitation. I like you, but I really learned a lot about myself during the pandemic. I find that I'm really most comfortable and happy being with myself and my family.
你觉得疫情会给你一些借口或理由来拒绝那些邀请吗？我不确定我还能用“因为疫情”的理由多久。我不是那个意思。我的意思是，你可以说：“我真的很感谢你的邀请，我也很喜欢你，但在疫情期间我对自己了解了很多。我发现，我在和自己及家人在一起时感到最舒服和开心。”
Let's talk sometime on the phone. I think I'm going to go a different way than that, Steven. I recognize that there are reasons why we show up to these social gatherings in person that have nothing to do with our own personal happiness. And I get that it's probably something that not only is good for the whole group, or maybe specific individuals, but also might be a little bit like jogging.
我们找个时间打电话聊聊吧。Steven，我觉得我可能会选择不同的方式。我明白，我们参加这些社交聚会有很多原因，这些原因与个人幸福无关。我知道这不仅可能对整个团体有好处，或者对某些个别人有益，还可能有点像慢跑锻炼一样。
Maybe you don't love it in the moment, but there are all these positive benefits afterwards. Here's the thing that I've always wanted to do, pre-pandemic, now and forever. I want to change all of these, hey, let's get together with a four ounce glass of champagne over cake or grilled vegetables. I want to change it to bowling. I think that instead of having these small talk, chit chat, I'll just stand around. I think if we were all bowling, that'll do it. That'll fix everything. Now I'm at 10. Well, I appreciate your appetite for a distraction from the awkwardness of the gatherings.
也许当下你并不热爱，但之后会有很多积极的好处。这是我一直想做的事情，不论是在疫情之前，现在，还是将来。我想把聚会时小酌四盎司香槟配蛋糕或者烤蔬菜的形式改掉。我想改成去打保龄球。我觉得，如果我们都在打保龄球，而不是站着闲聊，事情会变得更好。现在我非常赞同。感谢你愿意找到一种方法来避开聚会的尴尬。
I guess where I land on this is that I think most people have learned during this shutdown quite a bit about themselves. And of course, there's heterogeneity. So some people desperately missed being around other people from day one, then other people discovered that, wow, I don't miss it. And there are other things I don't miss, like commuting. And then there are others who knew that they didn't like those things. And when they had to do them a lot, it was really costly to them.
我想我的观点是，在这次封锁期间，大多数人对自己有了很多新的认识。当然，每个人的感受会有所不同。有些人从第一天起就非常想念与其他人在一起，而另一些人则发现自己其实并不想念这种社交生活，还有的人发觉自己并不怀念通勤等其他事情。而还有一些人早就知道自己不喜欢这些事情，当他们不得不经常做这些事时，这对他们来说真的很折磨。
And so now, I think they'll be looking for a way to extend this pandemic grace period into the future. But I also think another wrinkle in the mass psychology, we think a lot in this country about polarization. And there's been so much made of it in the last eight or ten years, especially in national politics. But I do think that the circumstances that lead to polarization have grown even stronger during the pandemic since it's so much easier to stick to your own groups.
我认为他们现在会寻找一种方法，将这次疫情宽容期延续到未来。但是，我也认为大众心理中有另一个复杂因素，那就是我们这个国家经常思考的两极化问题。过去八到十年，特别是在国家政治中，这个问题被广泛讨论。我确实认为，由于疫情让人们更加容易固守在自己的群体中，导致两极化的因素在疫情期间变得更加强烈。
And that one of the few ways you have to interact with people is virtually. And so I do wonder once we start to mingle more, whether it's in work or going to ball games or your kids' sporting events, what kind of effect you think that might have, will it be like one of those horror movies where everybody wakes up and they realize that they've totally changed their character? They've gotten in touch with their true character. And it's like, oh my god, I could never stand those friggin people.
你的意思是说，你与他人互动的方式主要是通过虚拟方式。我在想，当我们开始更多地与他人接触时，比如在工作中、在球场上或者参加孩子的体育活动时，你觉得这会产生什么影响？会不会像恐怖电影那样，大家突然惊醒，意识到自己的性格完全改变了？他们接触到了自己真实的性格，然后心想，天哪，我简直无法忍受那些人。
That is a very interesting point. And I think Robert Putnam, the sociologist who, well before the pandemic, worried about this as a trend in the United States. And his most famous book, Bowling Alone, which is exactly what you're not prescribing. You're prescribing bowling in groups. Exactly. He was saying that people used to bowl in leagues and now they're bowling alone. And that sort of thing becomes a vicious cycle. Like the more we are not with each other, the less we understand each other and then the less we want to be with each other, maybe what we need is some countervailing force to bring us together, even if we're going to go remote first for offices.
这是一个非常有趣的观点。我认为社会学家罗伯特·普特南对此早有关注，他在疫情之前就担心这在美国成为一种趋势。他最有名的书是《独自保龄》，这正好和你所建议的相反——你建议的是团队一起打保龄。他指出，人们过去是在联盟中打保龄，现在却越来越多地单独打保龄。这种变化形成了一种恶性循环：我们越是不在一起，就越不了解彼此，然后就更不愿意在一起。或许我们需要一些反作用力来把我们凝聚在一起，即使我们在工作中以远程为主。
Here is one thing that I have seen happen the pandemic. There is much more use of open space like parks than even in Philadelphia anyway. They have shut down certain streets and made them available for outdoor dining or they've shut down certain boulevards and made them available 24-7 for biking and walking and jogging. And it is a wonderful thing to see our, I guess, neighbors who I'd never laid eyes on. Like all the people who live apparently in those buildings next to us out and about.
在疫情期间，我发现了一件事情。在费城，开放空间如公园的使用比以往多得多。他们关闭了某些街道，让它们用于户外用餐，或者关闭了一些大道，让它们全天候开放供人们骑自行车、散步和慢跑。看到我们那些以前从未见过的邻居们，像楼旁边所有住户一样，能出来活动，真是一件美好的事情。
And maybe we will have collisions that are not in the quarters of our office buildings. So when I ask you the question, what you think will be a permanent takeaway for you, I did it knowing full well that most predictions are terrible. I'm still going to make two predictions about the future knowing that I'm quite likely wrong. My first one is a scientific one, which is that mRNA technology and perhaps other medical technologies that became very prominent because of the pandemic.
也许我们将遇到的冲突不再发生在办公楼的四壁之内。因此，当我问你认为对你来说什么会是一个永恒的收获时，我是完全清楚大多数预测都是不准确的。尽管如此，我还是要对未来做出两个预测，尽管我知道自己很可能会搞错。我的第一个预测是科学方面的，那就是mRNA技术以及可能由疫情催化而变得非常显著的其他医学技术。
I'm talking about the underlying technology of the Moderna and the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines. That may become a medical technology and many more arenas having nothing to do with viruses but more to do with, let's say, cancer or other maladies that will save many more lives than the pandemic took. And so maybe that's polyannish, but I do believe that's true. My other prediction is that I think the future will be a lot more like the past than we tend to think.
我在谈论的是Moderna和辉瑞-BioNTech疫苗的基础技术。这种技术可能会成为一种医疗技术，应用于许多与病毒无关而是与癌症或其他疾病相关的领域，从而挽救更多的生命，超过疫情夺去的生命。因此，虽然这听起来过于乐观，但我确实相信这是事实。我的另一个预测是，我认为未来可能会比我们通常认为的更像过去。
I don't think most of us are going to change all that much, honestly. You don't think we're going to be working from home two days a week when before we were working zero days from home? You're right. That is a pretty large change. And a lot of people have made individual changes that seem quite large, but the more that I think about the world and the more that I read history and the more that I understand the way humans respond, they respond pretty consistently over time.
老实说，我觉得我们大多数人不会改变太多。你认为我们从每周零天在家工作到每周两天在家工作不是一个很大的变化吗？你是对的，那确实是个很大的变化。很多人都进行了看似很大的个人改变，但我越了解世界，越读历史，就越明白人类的反应方式一直以来都很一致。
And even when there are big, big, big disruptions, people kind of are people. And so I have a feeling that if we look at a year from now or ten years from now, that it's going to look a lot more like 2019 than we might think. It's interesting. There was a piece by the writer Charles Mann. He wrote in the Atlantic about the pandemic and what kind of effect this would have on a socially. And he was looking back to the 1918 pandemic. The flu? Yeah. What was called the Spanish flu, kind of a misnomer because it didn't originate in Spain. But the deaths from that were massive. The estimates are anywhere from 17 million to 100 million. And again, the world was much, much smaller than. But he writes about the fact that even after the pandemic, the flu didn't even affect US policy making at all. Congress didn't allocate extra money for flu research, for instance, afterwards.
即使在发生重大变故时，人性也是不变的。因此，我觉得如果我们从现在或十年后的视角来看，情况可能比我们想象的更像2019年。这很有趣，作家查尔斯·曼恩写过一篇文章，他在《大西洋月刊》上探讨了疫情对社会的影响。他回顾了1918年的大流感，也被称为“西班牙流感”，其实这个名字有些误导，因为病毒并非源于西班牙。然而，那次流感造成的死亡人数非常庞大，估计在1700万到1亿之间。当时的世界规模要比现在小得多。但他写道，即便是在那场大流感之后，流感对美国政策的影响几乎为零。例如，国会在事后没有专门拨款用于流感研究。
He also wrote that the first history of the 1918 flu wasn't published until 1976. So it's a different world today, for sure, to some degree. But I do wonder if when this is over, will emerge into a world much less changed than we think. And I'm curious whether you agree or disagree. So I agree with you. Human nature is not going to change, right? But you could also take the example of Asia and mask wearing, you know, mask wearing even before the pandemic became something of a cultural norm in many Asian countries and that stuck. So I don't know what's going to stick and what's not going to stick. Another thing from a public health standpoint is that I'm hoping this induction into vaccine and virus science that we've all gotten a lot smarter about. I hope that sticks in a way that people get vaccinated in larger numbers and take basic common sense steps to prevent infectious disease outbreaks. We should be more careful when we're sick around each other. Simple things like washing our hands and not going to work when we have a fever and etc.
他还提到，关于1918年流感的第一本历史书直到1976年才出版。所以，从某种程度上来说，今天的世界确实不同了。但是我在想，当这一切结束后，我们会步入一个与我们想象中变化不大的世界吗？我很想知道你是否同意或不同意。我同意你的看法，人性不会改变，对吧？但你也可以举亚洲和戴口罩的例子，戴口罩在许多亚洲国家早在疫情之前就已成为一种文化常态，并且持续至今。所以我不知道哪些行为会留下，哪些不会。从公共健康的角度来看，我希望我们通过这次疫情学到的有关疫苗和病毒的知识能够保留下来，希望大家能更多地接种疫苗，并采取简单的常识性措施来预防传染病暴发。当我们生病的时候，在彼此相处时应该更加小心。比如简单的事情，比如多洗手，在发烧时不要去工作等等。
You know, Angie, this podcast was born in the pandemic. I guess that's right. That is right. So does that mean that when the pandemic is over, we have to quit? I think that we could say that this podcast is a pandemic behavior that we will merrily continue long after the pandemic. Still to come on no stupid questions. Stephen and Angela debate the value of certain cognitive flaws. I so applaud your self-awareness and humility and willingness to say how bad you are at this. Stephen, I'm going to read you an email from one Brian Gunders door. Okay. Brian writes, here's a scenario and a question for you. In the hypothetical future, the infrastructure developed to produce COVID vaccines will be put to new use. Pharmaceutical companies will start mass producing a new vaccine that combats confirmation bias. Brian, this is so exciting. They can produce enough vaccine for every man, woman and child alive. But participation is voluntary. Would you take a confirmation bias vaccine?
你知道吗，安吉，这个播客是在疫情期间诞生的。我想是的，确实是如此。那么，这是否意味着疫情结束后，我们就要停止这个播客呢？我认为我们可以说，这个播客是一种疫情期间的行为，但我们会在疫情结束后继续乐此不疲地进行。接下来在《没有愚蠢的问题》里，Stephen 和 Angela 会讨论某些认知缺陷的价值。我非常赞赏你的自我意识、谦逊态度和承认自己做得不好的勇气。Stephen，我要给你读一封来自 Brian Gunders 的邮件。布莱恩写道：我有一个情境和一个问题给你们。在一个假想的未来，为生产 COVID 疫苗而开发的基础设施将被用于新的用途。制药公司将开始大规模生产一种新的疫苗，专门对抗确认偏误。布莱恩，这真是令人兴奋。他们可以为在世的每一个男人、女人和孩子生产足够的疫苗，但接种是自愿的。你会接种确认偏误疫苗吗？
And then Brian writes confirmation bias is often in the way of humans arriving at optimal decisions and making polite conversation. But when I consider removing confirmation bias from the equation, the result feels inhuman. Are our conceptual allegiances integral to who we fundamentally are? So just applause to Brian. Standing ovation, Brian. It does call into question. How much do we want to embrace our quote flaws? I think we should start off by defining confirmation bias. I could give a half ass definition, but you're the psychologist. You go and I'll judge you. How's that? Well, now that you put it that way, I can't wait to go. I've seen it described as seeing what you already expect to see, which I think is a pretty good lay person's definition. And here's a dictionary definition confirmation bias. The tendency to gather evidence that confirms pre-existing expectations, typically by emphasizing or pursuing supporting evidence while dismissing or failing to seek contradictory evidence.
然后，布莱恩写道，确认偏误常常妨碍人类做出最佳决策和进行礼貌对话。但当我考虑从这个方程中移除确认偏误时，结果感觉不太人性化。我们的概念忠诚是否是我们本质的一部分？所以，请为布莱恩鼓掌，向布莱恩致敬。这引发了一个问题：我们到底应该在多大程度上接受我们的所谓“缺陷”？我认为我们应该先定义一下什么是确认偏误。我可以给出一个不太完整的定义，但你是心理学家，你来定义，我来评判你，怎么样？既然你这么说，我迫不及待要开始了。我见过一种描述：确认偏误是看到你已经预期会看到的东西，我认为这是一个相当好的通俗定义。这里有个词典上的定义：确认偏误是倾向于收集那些符合既有期望的证据，通常表现为强调或追求支持性证据，同时忽视或不去寻找相反的证据。
So I think we've all encountered confirmation bias in other people. I'm sure we've all done it. We may not think about it in terms of confirmation bias per se. So maybe an example would be useful. Angie, can you think of anything in your life that's fallen prey lately to confirmation bias? I am always doing the following stupid thing. When I'm trying to hire someone, I in the first two or three minutes of an interview have come to some judgment about whether this is going to be a great person for the job or not. And then I spend the next 58 minutes just confirming that it's selectively paying attention to the things that fall in line with that judgment, probably selectively ignoring the things that counteract or contradict that judgment. And then even changing the questions that I'm going to ask just so that person that I like so much keeps looking great or the opposite. And this is why I'm such a terrible person at hiring.
我想我们都在别人身上见过确认偏误。我相信我们自己也都做过。虽然我们可能不会以确认偏误的方式去思考这件事。那么举个例子可能会有所帮助。安吉，你能想起最近生活中有没有被确认偏误影响的事情吗？我总是犯这个愚蠢的错误。面试时，我在前两三分钟内就对这个人是否适合这份工作做出一些判断，然后接下来的58分钟里，我就一直在确认这个判断，只选择性地关注那些与我判断一致的信息，可能还会忽略那些与我判断相反的信息。我甚至会改变要问的问题，以便让我喜欢的人继续表现得很好，或者相反。正因为如此，我在招聘方面总是做得很糟糕。
Wow. I so applaud your self-awareness and humility and willingness to say how bad you are at this horrible because I mean, you're a psychology professor for goodness sake. It makes all the rest of us feel so good that you who we consider so smart and accomplished and so thoughtful on these things are so bad at it. It just makes me want to give you a gold star. Yeah, I feel like it's the opposite of humble bragging. But anyway, I don't want to say that I came to this realization all by myself. I was reading some classic Danny Conneman writing and when he talks about confirmation bias, he gives lots of examples, but he also includes hiring as one of these. He talks about how you could have a six week selection process. But you waste the last five and a half weeks just confirming what you started out thinking.
哇，我非常佩服你的自我认识、谦逊和愿意承认自己在这方面做得很差，因为毕竟，你可是个心理学教授啊。这让我们其他人感觉很好，因为我们认为你在这些事情上如此聪明、成功和深思熟虑，而你却在这方面做得如此糟糕。这真的让我想给你发一颗金星。我觉得这完全不像那种"谦虚炫耀"。不过，我也不是自己突然有这样的领悟，我是在读丹尼尔·卡尼曼的一些经典作品时意识到的。他在谈论确认偏误的时候给出了很多例子，其中也包括招聘过程。他提到，你可能有一个长达六周的选择过程，但最后五个半星期只是用来确认你最初的想法。
Can I just ask what are some traits or characteristics that would cause you to peg someone as either very good or very bad? I really like people who are quick. I think I have probably too much of a fondness for people who are just very fast in a conversation. They're witty. They catch on quickly. You're just describing me from top to bottom, Angela. And humble too, right? Yes. And if they're names, Stephen Dubner, I like them even more. There is a prominent landscaper on Long Island named Stephen Dubner as well. And he's got his name on trucks, which is something I only aspire to. Do you ever get phone calls asking for landscaping? Yeah. Just the other day, I planted a whole row of Arbor Vida for someone. It's good to have a side gig.
我可以问一下，你认为哪些特征或性格使你觉得一个人特别好或特别坏呢？我非常喜欢反应快的人。我可能特别偏爱那些在对话中非常迅速的人。他们很机智，反应迅速。安吉拉，你简直是在形容我。从头到尾都是。而且我也很谦虚，对吧？是的。如果他们的名字是Stephen Dubner，我会更喜欢他们。在长岛有一个知名的景观设计师也叫Stephen Dubner，他的名字还印在一些卡车上，这是我一直想实现的目标。你有没有接到过需要景观设计的电话呢？有，就在前几天，我帮人种了一整排的侧柏。有个副业也不错嘛。
So anyway, if I'm having a conversation with you and it's going really fast and we've got great chemistry, then suddenly, I think that you're also going to be a great, you're also going to have terrific project management skills and that you're going to be terrific when you have to give people negative feedback. We extrapolate. And when you ask Danny, what is it that explains why we even have confirmation bias? I think he might say that there is this need for coherence that is very strong. We want to figure out what's going on here. What's going on with this person? Good for me, bad for me, very often evaluative statements. And this need for coherence means that we take a pretty skimpy amount of information like the beginning of a conversation, a glance at a CV, one recommendation, and we fill in all of the details.
所以，如果我在和你交谈时，谈话进行得非常顺利，我们彼此之间很有默契，那么我可能就会下意识地认为你也有很好的项目管理能力，并且善于给别人负面反馈。这是一种推断。当你问丹尼（Danny）为什么我们会有确认偏误时，他可能会说这是因为我们有一种强烈的归纳需求。我们想弄明白现在的情况，以及这个人对我是否有利。这种归纳需求导致我们在信息不足的情况下，比如仅从谈话的开头、一份简历或一封推荐信中，就过早地填充所有细节。
And I actually think that a lot of the popular personality, in my terms, like there's the enneagram, it's kind of feeding this hunger for coherence. When you're interviewing the person that you've kind of pre-decided is awesome. They're fast, they're sharp. I like them. How much of that do you think is driven by your sense that they like you? Oh, I am quite sure that I am biased toward people who seem to like me. And I have used this trick myself. When I meet somebody, I just want to show them that I really like them early on. And I hope it's not manipulative or Machiavellian, but I do think that inclines people to like you back. Although Machiavellian probably wouldn't like that we call that Machiavellian. You would just call it smart, right?
我实际上认为，现在很多受欢迎的性格分析工具，比如九型人格，都是在迎合人们对和谐的渴望。当你在采访一个你已经预先认为很棒的人时，比如他们反应很快、思维敏捷、令你喜爱，你觉得这种好感有多少是因为你感受到他们也喜欢你呢？哦，我非常确定自己对那些看起来喜欢我的人是有偏向的。我自己也用过这个小技巧。当我遇到某人时，我会尽早表现出我真的很喜欢他们。我希望这并不是操控或权谋的手段，但我确实认为这会让人们更倾向于也喜欢你。虽然擅权者可能不喜欢我们用这个词来形容，他们可能只会称其为聪明，对吧？
Yeah, Machiavellian needs some rebranding. But look, I think in those moments that unfold very quickly in a human interaction, like a job interview, you're trying to signal your likability, they maybe do the same. And then very, very quickly, you're both coming to judgments. Like, do I like you? Do you like me? And I think that's the danger. I was reading this essay. It was a blog post by this investor, Skyrim Graham Duncan. He wrote this essay called What's Going On Here With This Human. And he talks about the art of hiring people. This is one quote. He says, before an interview, I sometimes reread this great passage from Philip Broth's American pastoral. And then he quotes, you might as well have the brain of a tank. You get them wrong before you meet them while you're anticipating meeting them. You get them wrong while you're with them. Then you go home to tell somebody else about the meeting and you get them all wrong again. And it's the same generally goes for them with you.
是的，“马基雅维利式”这个词需要重新包装一下。但你看，在那些快速展开的互动中，比如面试，你试图表现出自己的讨人喜欢，也许对方也是这样。然后，很快地，你们双方就会形成判断：我喜欢你吗？你喜欢我吗？我认为这就是问题所在。我最近读了一篇文章，是投资者Skyrim Graham Duncan写的一篇博文，标题是《这个人发生了什么事》。他讨论了招聘的艺术，其中有一句话给我留下了深刻印象。他说，在面试之前，我有时会重读菲利普·罗斯的《美国牧歌》中的精彩段落，然后引用道：“你可能还不如拥有一辆坦克的头脑。你在见面前就已经误解了他们，在期待见面时也误解了他们。和他们在一起时，你还是误会他们。回家后跟别人描述这次会面时，你又一次误解了他们。对他们来说，对你也是一样的。”
The whole thing is really a dazzling illusion, empty of all perception, an astonishing force of misperception. And then he writes about confirmation bias and how because he understands this at some intellectual level, he has trained himself to go into every interaction assuming that the person, for example, is not going to get hired, even all the way to the end to kind of counteract this sort of like, wow, you're great. Welcome aboard. So let me ask you this. What role do you think confirmation bias plays in conspiracy theories? If I've come to think that for instance, all psychology professors are social deviance and transgressive weirdos. And then I hear on this show, Angela Duckworth talking about collecting all the dog poop in her neighborhood. There you go. And then it confirms everything I've thought about that class of people. Is that a feeder to conspiracy theory, do you think? At least could be said to sustain conspiracy theories.
整个事件实际上是一个令人眼花缭乱的幻觉，完全缺乏感知，是一种令人震惊的误解力量。然后他写到确认偏误，并且因为他在某种智力层面上理解这一点，所以他训练自己在每次互动时都假设对方，比如说，不会被录用，甚至一直坚持到最后，来对抗那种“哇，你很棒。欢迎加入。”的倾向。那么让我问你这个问题。你认为确认偏误在阴谋论中起什么作用？如果我开始认为，比如说，所有心理学教授都是社会异类和行为乖僻的人。然后我在这个节目中听到安吉拉·达克沃思谈论她在她的社区里收集狗便便。这就更确认了我对那类人的所有想法。你认为这是否促进了阴谋论的形成？至少可以说是维持了阴谋论。
This tendency for human beings to come quickly to a judgment and then to selectively tend to an interpret subsequent evidence that's favorable with that original judgment. It happens all the time. I do think it feeds not only conspiracy theories, but political divides, et cetera. Is the following a case of confirmation bias or something different? Let's say you're in a pub with 99 other people, 100 of you are watching an American football game and 50% are Steelers fans and 50% are Ravens fans, okay? Steelers Ravens got it. So rivals, right? That's the idea. And then there's a play. Let's say the Steelers are on offense. There's a pass into the end zone. It's an incomplete pass, not a touchdown, but the referee throws a flag to call a penalty. Immediately, the Steelers fans are like, yes, and not only yes, but yes, that was a great call. Plainly, it was pass interference on the defense. Whereas the Ravens fans are, that was a terrible call. That plainly wasn't pass interference according to the rules.
人类倾向于迅速作出判断，然后选择性地解释随后出现的有利于初始判断的证据。这种情况经常发生。我确实认为这不仅助长了阴谋论，也加剧了政治分歧等。那么，下述情况是确认偏误的例子，还是有所不同呢？假设你在酒吧里，和其他99个人一起观看一场美式橄榄球比赛。其中50%是钢人队的球迷，50%是乌鸦队的球迷。钢人队和乌鸦队，明白了吧，是对手。比赛中，钢人队正在进攻。他们将球传至达阵区，但未能完成达阵，传球未接好。然而，裁判员扔出了一面旗帜，表示有犯规。立刻，钢人队的球迷欢呼说，那是一个很好的判罚，显然是防守方的传球干扰。而乌鸦队的球迷则表示，这是一个糟糕的判罚，按照规则这显然不是传球干扰。
So how can those two people truly see one event so differently? Well, the fact that we can pay attention to only a small part of the possible inputs to our sensory stimuli, like what we see, what we hear, what we're thinking about, that allows two people to be looking at the same thing, but seeing two different pictures. Literally, you mean? Yeah, literally. But it's because you've primed yourself to receive a certain kind of information and to reject a different kind of information, yes? Well, yeah, but there's two things that I'm saying here. One is that it is not possible to pay attention to every possible element of what's going on. So we select human attention is dramatically incomplete in the sense of the proportion of information that we could pay attention to.
那么，为什么这两个人对同一件事情的看法会如此不同呢？其实，这是因为我们只能关注一小部分感官刺激输入，比如我们看到的、听到的、思考的。这使得两个人虽然在看同样的东西，却可能看到不同的画面。这是字面上的意思吗？对，确实是。但这是因为你为自己设定了接收某种信息而排除另一种信息的准备，是吗？嗯，是的，但我想说的有两个方面。首先，我们不可能关注到发生的每一个细节。换句话说，人类的注意力在信息的覆盖比例上是极其有限的。
Then the second thing that I'm saying is that we are motivated. We are not unbiased judges of what's going on. And I think the question that this listener Brian is bringing up is like given the pros and cons of this particular device, would you vaccinate yourself against it? So on the one hand, you'd have to say yes. It'd be wonderful to have a confirmation by vaccine. Let's play that out. What would that be like? I guess the single biggest upside would be that it would allow you to optimize the amount of new and useful information because I'm not coming into a situation thinking I know the answer. I'm not coming into a meeting with someone thinking like you, oh, I'm definitely going to hire them. So I would think that it would lead you to massive potential good things. Like better hiring decisions, for example, you wouldn't rule out so many things, pre-Mafasia, and you also wouldn't decide to do so many things that might end up not being so good. So plainly, that's hugely positive, right?
然后，我想表达的第二件事是，我们都有动机。我们不是对发生的事情毫无偏见的评审。我认为，听众布赖恩提出的问题是：鉴于这个特定设备的优缺点，你会为了抵御它而给自己接种疫苗吗？从某种角度来说，可以说是的。拥有一个能确认的疫苗确实很棒。让我们来想象一下那会是什么样子。 我想，最大的一点好处是，它会让你能够优化获取新的和有用信息的数量，因为我不是带着已经知道答案的想法进入一个情境。我不是带着“哦，我肯定会雇佣他们”的思想进入与某人的会议。因此，我认为这会带来许多潜在的好处。比如，更好的招聘决策，因为你不会预先排除掉这么多事情，你也不会决定去做许多可能结果不太好的事情。所以很明显，这将是非常积极的，对吧？
I'm very thumbs up on having more information. I'm absolutely on board. And in Brian's original note to us, he says not only is confirmation bias, the enemy of optimal decision making, it even gets in the way of conversation. And I think that's right too because you know, those really annoying people who they're just talking at you. It's not like a volley of, okay, I'll talk. I'm scared to say anything now. You, Steven, whenever I hear the phrase really annoying people, I just immediately join that tribe. No, no, the other really annoying people.
我非常赞同获取更多信息。我完全支持这个想法。在布莱恩发给我们的原始笔记中，他提到确认偏见不仅是做出最佳决策的敌人，还会妨碍交流。我认为这完全正确，因为你知道那些特别烦人的人，他们只是单方面地对你说话。这不像是一场对话，我现在都不敢插话了。史蒂文，每当我听到“特别烦人”这个词，我就觉得自己也是这类人之一。不是的，我指的是另外那些特别烦人的人。
So okay, that's the pro side of the vaccine against confirmation bias. It's harder to think of the downsides. So what are we losing by losing confirmation bias? Well, we have talked in the past about the fact that heuristics or these cognitive shortcuts are useful. You couldn't make it through a whole day if you didn't have a whole lot of shortcuts. So they're obviously serving some purpose.
好的，这就是疫苗对抗确认偏误的优点。要想到缺点要困难一些。那么，失去确认偏误我们会失去什么呢？我们过去谈到过，启发式思维或这些认知捷径是有用的。如果没有大量的捷径，你无法顺利度过一天。所以它们显然有其用途。
I think the bigger question isn't really about confirmation bias per se, but about all the anomalies and other biases and quirks that make us who we are. You know, the more I think and learn about artificial intelligence and machine learning, the more I think that what makes us humans interesting and lovable and also terrible is not the norms, but our devious from the norms.
我认为，更大的问题其实不是仅仅关于确认偏误本身，而是那些构成我们人格的异常现象、其他偏见和特殊性格。你知道吗，随着我对人工智能和机器学习的思考和了解越多，我越发觉得使我们人类变得有趣、可爱甚至可怕的，并不是那些常规，而是我们偏离常规的地方。
And so if I took a vaccine against all those biases and anomalies, I think as much as I love Brian's notion and I see the significant upside, I'm going to be anti-vaxx on the confirmation bias vaccine. Really, just because you think that the slightly irrational quirks are part and parcel of who you are, are you kidding me? I'm not kidding you and I think I'm probably making a bad decision here, but it's for the same reason that I don't want laser eye surgery.
如果有一种能消除所有偏见和反常行为的“疫苗”，虽然我很欣赏布赖恩的想法并且能看到它的巨大好处，但我认为我会拒绝打针对确认偏见的疫苗。你真的认为那些略显不理性的怪癖是你个性的一部分吗？没错，我不是在开玩笑，我知道我可能在做一个错误的决定，但理由和我不想做激光眼科手术是一样的。
Like, why not? I got it. It's awesome. Well, yeah, it probably is, but here's the thing. I know I'm imperfect. We're all imperfect, but I'm accustomed to my imperfections and I've learned to work with them. I'm slightly worried about the downsides of correcting those imperfections when there's a fairly significant amount of uncertainty.
为什么不呢？我明白了，真棒。嗯，是的，可能确实不错，但问题是，我知道我自己不完美。我们都是不完美的，但我已经习惯了自己的不完美，并学会了与它们共处。我有点担心在不确定性很大的情况下纠正这些不完美可能带来的负面影响。
And maybe I'm totally wrong. The science says I'm mostly wrong about laser eye surgery, but I just think, you know what? Glasses are kind of a pain in the neck, but they work. I see stuff. And so I think the confirmation bias vaccine, even though I really appreciate the upsides. You're like, who knows? I might want to be a conspiracy theorist at some point.
也许我完全错了。科学表明，我对激光眼科手术的看法大多是错的，但我只是觉得，你知道吗？眼镜虽然有些麻烦，但它们确实有效。我可以看清东西。所以我对"确认偏误疫苗"的看法也是如此，尽管我很感激它的优点。谁知道呢？也许我有一天会想成为一个阴谋论者。
And this is going to be a real problem. But you want the shot. Yeah, I want it, ladies and gentlemen, on everything, Steven, I'm like, go ahead and nuke my eye and give me the confirmation bias vaccine. I guess I'm not thinking through the possible downsides as clearly as you are. I mean, didn't really hesitate at all to get lazy.
这将是一个真正的问题。但你想要这个机会。是的，我想要，各位女士们先生们，对于所有事情，史蒂文，我就像，去吧，用核武器炸我的眼睛，给我打上确认偏误的疫苗。我想我没有像你那样清楚地考虑可能的缺点。我的意思是，我几乎毫不犹豫地选择了懒惰。
And I'm not talking about recently. I'm talking about when it first came out when it was still done by rogue Russians in VW vans driving down the side streets in Philadelphia. I believe I got it from a certified ophthalmologist, but still it was relatively new. And I was like, I'm in. I'm not actually doing what you're supposed to be doing, according to judgment decision-making scientists, which is carefully weighing the counter arguments as well.
我不是在说最近的事。我是在说它刚刚出现的时候，那时还是一些不法的俄罗斯人开着大众汽车在费城的小街上游走。我想我是从一位有认证的眼科医生那里得到这个的，但当时它还是相对较新的。我当时的想法就是：我要参与。我实际上并没有按照判断决策科学家的建议，仔细权衡反对的观点。
So let's just say you get the confirmation bias vaccine. I don't. How many people need to get it for it to be eliminated? Is there herd immunity for this confirmation bias vaccine? I wonder, actually, whether the upside of confirmation bias is that you move forward from this whole decision making process to action.
所以假设你接种了抗确认偏误的疫苗，而我没有。那么需要多少人接种才能消除这种偏误呢？这种确认偏误疫苗是否存在群体免疫？我在想，确认偏误是否有好的一面，比如它能让你从决策过程转向行动。
And if you've just played that out in hiring, you hire the person, right? And you go forward and maybe it was not a great decision in your part ways, but you're not sitting there still deliberating. And I do wonder this about the whole judgment decision-making canon. I have often wondered whether they, in fact, are themselves biased towards judgment and decision-making as being the be all and end all because most of human life is action.
如果你在招聘中是这样做的，你聘用了一名员工，对吧？然后继续进行，也许这不是一个很好的决定，你们最终分道扬镳。但你不会一直坐在那里犹豫不决。我对整个判断和决策的思维方式感到好奇。我常常想知道他们是否在某种程度上偏重于判断和决策，并将其视为解决一切问题的关键，因为大多数情况下，人的生活是由行动构成的。
You got to like move forward, sign the lease or don't sign the lease. Maybe instead of having 80% of people and notculated against confirmation bias and therefore taking many more hours and days to make any decision because they now have to see all the sides of it, maybe instead we could get herd immunity if only say 10% of people got this and we called them the deliberators.
你得往前走，签租约或者不签租约。也许与其让80%的人因为没能避免确认偏误而在做决定时花费更多的时间和精力，因为他们需要全面考虑所有方面，不如只让10%的人具备这种能力，我们称他们为“审慎思考者”，这样我们就能达到一种“群体免疫”。
And every time we had to make a decision, we're like, you deliberators since you have been inoculated and are going to spend all of your time writing out the pros and cons, you guys do that. And the 90% of us who have not been vaccinated, we're going to actually go do stuff. So the deliberators are a kind of Supreme Court that does the heavy cognitive lifting for us.
每次我们需要做决定时，我们就会说：“你们这群深思熟虑的人，因为你们已经接种了疫苗，而且会花时间写下所有的利弊分析，就由你们来负责吧。而我们其余90%没有接种疫苗的人要去实际行动。” 所以，这些深思熟虑的人就像是我们的“最高法院”，为我们承担起繁重的思考任务。
We'll call them the brains or something. I like that. I've also read that confirmation bias seems to be a human phenomenon. So we could also just make dogs the Supreme Court of deliberators. Oh, yes. I think that's more practical, really. Coming up after the break, a fact check of today's conversation.
我们可以称他们为“大脑”或其他什么。我喜欢这个。我还读到确认偏差似乎是人类的现象。所以我们也可以让狗成为最高审议法庭。哦，是的。我认为这更实际。休息之后，我们将对今天的谈话进行事实核查。
And now here's a fact check of today's conversations. Angela says she likes to lie on her stomach on the floor of her office and read papers in a patch of sun. She can't remember whether this position is called prone or supine. The prone position describes a person lying face down or on their stomach. Supine position is the 180 degree difference, a person lying flat on their back.
现在来核实一下今天谈话中的事实。安吉拉说她喜欢趴在办公室的地板上，在阳光照射的地方阅读文件。她不记得这个姿势是叫做俯卧还是仰卧。俯卧指的是一个人面朝下或趴在腹部。仰卧则是完全相反的180度，指一个人平躺在背上。
Listeners may have grown more familiar with the prone position during the pandemic as it was widely discussed by medical journals and news outlets as part of the treatment protocol for patients on ventilators with COVID-19. While gravity suppresses the lungs in the supine position, the prone position allows for better airflow.
在疫情期间，听众可能对俯卧位这个词更加熟悉，因为医学期刊和新闻媒体广泛讨论了它作为COVID-19患者呼吸机治疗方案的一部分。当人体处于仰卧位时，重力会压迫肺部，而俯卧位则可以改善气流。
Later, Steven says that the Spanish flu was a misnomer for the H1N1 virus that caused the 1918 pandemic. This is correct. The virus began to spread towards the end of World War I, and its mortality rate is estimated to have been over three times that of war casualties. To maintain morale, European governments on both sides minimized early reports of the virus. Supine was a neutral country and journalists were able to report on the disease.
后来，史蒂文说“西班牙流感”是对导致1918年大流行的H1N1病毒的误称。这是正确的。该病毒开始传播是在第一次世界大战末期，估计其致死率超过了战争伤亡人数的三倍。为了保持士气，欧洲两边的政府都淡化了关于这种病毒的初期报道。当时西班牙是一个中立国家，记者们可以自由报道这种疾病。
Thus, it appeared as if the flu originated in Spain, even though it hadn't. But because news outlets were transparent about the virus, the pandemic was dubbed the Spanish flu. Finally, Angela worries that her behavior is Machiavellian, and she and Steven wonder how Machiavellia would have felt about having his name used as a descriptor to imply unscriptualism – duplicity and cunning.
因此，虽然流感并非起源于西班牙，但因为媒体对该病毒进行了透明的报道，这场疫情才被称为西班牙流感。最后，安吉拉担心她的行为是否像马基雅维利一样，并且她和史蒂文好奇马基雅维利本人对于他的名字被用来描述不诚实和狡猾的行为会有什么感受。
Nicolo Machiavellian was an Italian Renaissance diplomat who was infamous for his 1513 book, The Prince, a treatise on how to acquire power and keep it. Some scholars have asserted that Machiavellian himself was not very Machiavellian. His later works, discourses on Livy and the Art of War, seem to run counter to the advice given in The Prince.
尼科洛·马基雅维利是一位意大利文艺复兴时期的外交官，他因1513年写的一本书《君主论》而闻名。该书是一篇关于如何获得权力并维持权力的论述。一些学者认为，马基雅维利本人其实并不像其书中描述的那样"马基雅维利主义"（即不择手段地追求权力）。他的后期作品《李维论》和《战争艺术》似乎与《君主论》中给出的建议相悖。
Some historians believe that The Prince is actually a satire piece, meant to ridicule monarchy. And others think that he may have had a change of heart, but I'm sure that all historians would agree. It doesn't seem like Angela's attempts to get others to like her by showing her fondness for them could be construed as Machiavellian adjacent in any context.
一些历史学家认为，《君主论》实际上是一部讽刺作品，旨在嘲讽君主制。而另一些人则认为，作者可能改变了看法，但我相信所有历史学家都会同意一点——安吉拉通过表现出对他人的喜爱来赢得好感的做法，在任何情况下都不能被解读为类似于马基雅维利主义的行为。
That's it for the fact, Jack. No Stupid Questions is produced by Frekenomics Radio and Stitcher. This episode was produced by me, Rebecca Lee Douglas. No Stupid Questions is part of the Frekenomics Radio Network. Our staff includes Alison Craiglow, Greg Ripon, Mark McCluskey, James Foster, Joel Meyer, Trisha Bobita, Zach Blopinski, Mary DeDuke, Brent Katz, Morgan Levy, Emma Torell, Lear Thoudech, Jasmine Plinger, and Jacob Clemente.
就这样，杰克。由弗里克诺米克广播和Stitcher制作的节目《没有愚蠢的问题》结束了。本集由我，Rebecca Lee Douglas制作。《没有愚蠢的问题》是弗里克诺米克广播网络的一部分。我们的团队包括Alison Craiglow、Greg Ripon、Mark McCluskey、James Foster、Joel Meyer、Trisha Bobita、Zach Blopinski、Mary DeDuke、Brent Katz、Morgan Levy、Emma Torell、Lear Thoudech、Jasmine Plinger和Jacob Clemente。
Our theme song is And She Was by Talking Hets. Special thanks to David Byrne and Warner-Chappell Music. If you have a question for a future episode, please email it to NSQ at Frekenomics.com. And if you heard Stephen or Angela reference a study, an expert, or a book that you'd like to learn more about, you can check out Frekenomics.com slash NSQ, where we link to all of the major references that you heard about here today.
我们的主题曲是Talking Heads乐队的《And She Was》。特别感谢大卫·伯恩和华纳-卓越音乐公司。如果你有问题想在未来的节目中得到解答，请发送邮件至NSQ@Freakonomics.com。如果你听到斯蒂芬或安吉拉提到某项研究、某位专家或者某本书，并想了解更多信息，可以访问Freakonomics.com/NSQ，在那里我们提供了今天节目中提到的所有重要参考链接。
Thanks for listening. Look, I've been isolated for the past 15 months and I've discovered that I don't really enjoy parties. So thanks for the invitation. I've discovered that I don't really like you. The Frekenomics Radio Network, the hidden side of everything. Ditcher.
谢谢你的邀请和聆听。听着，我过去15个月都很孤立，我发现自己其实不太喜欢聚会。所以，谢谢你的邀请。我也发现我其实不太喜欢你。Freakonomics Radio Network，一切事物的隐藏面。《Ditcher》。