大家好，我是德研社的创始人姜沈励，今天我们继续学习《Thinking in bets》这本好书。前两课：

1.1，我们通过橄榄球争议决策的案例介绍了什么是结果导向偏见；

1.2，我们通过CEO解雇副总裁的案例介绍了结果导向偏见的危害；

那么今天的1.3 我们将从大脑生物学角度来了解，是什么导致了种种偏见

在开始今天的1.3节之前，社长再送大家一个福利，也是辛辛苦苦做的一个听译经典视频哈（谢谢上期给我打赏的朋友们！第一次被打赏，很激动哈）。

上一期视频我们看到了顶级世界牌手Daniel Negreanu面对悲惨结果后很快调整了自己的状态。但是今天的视频，我们的另一位职业牌手Matt没有那么好的控制住自己的情绪，可能是因为：结果实在是太惨不忍睹了。。。

职业牌手Matt没有控制住情绪

看完了视频，我们也感受到，人们的大脑对于预期外的结果很难表现出绝对的理性。那么，我们的大脑究竟是如何工作的呢？

我们来开始今天的学习：

作者说道：

The irrationality displayed by Pete Carroll’s critics and the CEO should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with behavioral economics.

皮特·卡罗尔的批评者和那位CEO表现出的非理性对于任何熟悉行为经济学的人来说都不会感到惊讶。

Thanks to the work of many brilliant psychologists, economists, cognitive researchers, and neuroscientists, there are a number of excellent books that explain why humans are plagued by certain kinds of irrationality in decision-making. here’s a summary.

多亏了许多杰出的心理学家、经济学家、认知研究人员和神经科学家的工作，出版了许多优秀的书籍解释了为什么人类在决策中会受到某种非理性的困扰。这里有一个总结。

To start, our brains evolved to create certainty and order. We are uncomfortable with the idea that luck plays a significant role in our lives. We recognize the existence of luck, but we resist the idea that, despite our best efforts, things might not work out the way we want. It feels better for us to imagine the world as an orderly place, where randomness does not wreak havoc and things are perfectly predictable. We evolved to see the world that way. Creating order out of chaos has been necessary for our survival.

首先，我们通过大脑进化来创造确定性和秩序。我们对运气在我们的生活中起着重要作用的想法感到不舒服。我们承认运气的存在，但是我们抗拒一个想法，这种想法是：尽管我们尽了最大努力，事情可能不会按照我们想要的方式发展。对我们来说，把世界想象成一个有序的地方会感觉更好，在这个地方，随机性不会造成破坏，事情是完全可以预测的。我们用这样的方式看待世界。从混乱中创造秩序是我们生存和进化的必要条件。

When our ancestors heard rustling on the savanna and a lion jumped out, making a connection between “rustling” and “lions” could save their lives on later occasions. Finding predictable connections is, literally, how our species survived. Science writer, historian, and skeptic Michael Shermer, in The Believing Brain, explains why we have historically (and prehistorically) looked for connections even if they were doubtful or false. Incorrectly interpreting rustling from the wind as an oncoming lion is called a type I error, a false positive. The consequences of such an error were much less grave than those of a type II error, a false negative. A false negative could have been fatal: hearing rustling and always assuming it’s the wind would have gotten our ancestors eaten, and we wouldn’t be here.

当我们的祖先听到热带稀树草原上的沙沙声，一只狮子跳了出来，把“沙沙声”和“狮子”联系起来，可以在以后的场合拯救他们的生命。事实上，找到可预测的联系是我们物种生存的方式。科学作家、历史学家和怀疑论者迈克尔·舍默(Michael Shermer)在《可信的大脑》疑问中解释了为什么我们在历史上(和史前)寻找联系，即使这些联系是可疑或错误的。错误地将风中的沙沙声解读为迎面而来的狮子被称为I型错误，一种假阳性错误。这种错误的后果远不如第二类错误(假阴性)严重。假阴性可能是致命的：听到沙沙声，总是假设是风。那狮子早把我们的祖先给吃掉了，如果是这样，社长也就不会在这里给大家直播了。

这段话，从字面上理解起来有一点难度。因为作者引入了几个统计学的概念，第一类型错误 ，假阳性错误；第二类型错误 ，假阴性错误。这些术语层出现在大学数学统计学的假设检验章节里，在应用领域中也会经常遇到，例如在AI领域检验人工智能算法效果上。但是，大家不要太有压力，我已经粗翻了整本书，后面的内容不需要对这些术语有太多的了解。可以让社长我试着用人话，重新解释一遍。

咳咳，中国有句古话，叫做宁可信其有，不可信其无。如果我们选择“宁可信其有”，对一类可能成立可能不成立的事情，选择全部去相信，那么我们会犯下“第一类型错误”，也就是假阳性错误，即有一些本来是假的事情，我们也会当做是真的；反之，如果“信其无”，选择不相信这件事情，那么我们就会犯下“第二类型错误”，假阴性错误，即有一些本来是真的事情，我们也会当做是假的。

作者安妮用了草原上的沙沙声和狮子来了做了举例。我再给大家举一个例子，就是我们的曹操杀人的故事。

按照《三国演义》的说法，曹操在行刺董卓失败之后，只得逃出洛阳。董卓下令全国追捕曹操，并且许诺了丰厚的赏金。曹操路过昔日老友吕伯奢家，吕伯奢出去买酒款待曹操。但是曹操却偷听到吕伯奢家人磨刀之声，曹操以为他们要劫杀自己，于是先下手为强，杀了吕伯奢的家人。

对于曹操，“磨刀声”与“劫杀自己”到底有没有关系，就需要马上做出一个判断。曹操选择的是“宁教我负天下人 休教天下人负我”，于是选择了“信其有”，宁愿相信他们是要劫杀自己。

拿到底曹操的猜测正确与否呢？

《魏书》有不同的观点，《魏书》讲吕伯奢的儿子和宾客共谋抢劫曹操一行人，结果曹操反击杀了数人。这算正当防卫，没什么不仁可言。但是《魏书》毕竟是曹家写的，世人所疑不是完全没有道理。

再举一个更加尖锐的例子，就发生在我们的周围。有一个说法，千万不要拍孕妇的肩膀，否则孩子会容易流产。

你可能相信，你可能不信；但是即使你不信，你也不太敢随便地去拍孕妇的肩膀。一个原因是你怕别人会在意这种“迷信“；第二个原因是你怕万一流产别人会联想到你当时拍肩膀；第三个原因是，你也不是100%肯定拍肩膀与流产没有关系。

如果你在百度搜索“拍肩膀 流产”，有80万条相关记录，有一些自媒体试图通过科学依据来解释“拍肩膀”导致“流产”的内部原因。

拍肩膀会导致容易流产吗？或许没人知道，但是人们偏向于相信“会”。因为不相信带来的后果大家都不敢、不愿去承担。

事实真相或许已经不重要了，但是通过这几个案例，我们发现，人们常常选择“宁可信其有，不可信其无”。这种选择，一方面使得人类可以生存繁衍，另一方面又带来了迷信、宗教等衍生产物。

好了，我们的衍生讨论有点走远了，我们回到作者的文章。再看看其他一些科学家的观点。

Seeking certainty helped keep us alive all this time, but it can wreak havoc on our decisions in an uncertain world. When we work backward from results to figure out why those things happened, we are susceptible to a variety of cognitive traps, like assuming causation when there is only a correlation, or cherry-picking data to confirm the narrative we prefer. We will pound a lot of square pegs into round holes to maintain the illusion of a tight relationship between our outcomes and our decisions.

寻求确定性帮助我们一直生存着，但它会在一个不确定的世界里对我们的决定造成严重破坏。当我们从结果中反向研究这些事情发生的原因时，我们很容易受到各种认知陷阱的影响，比如当只有关联时假设因果关系，或者挑选数据来证实我们喜欢的叙述。我们将把许多方形的钉子钉入圆孔，以保持我们的结果和我们的决定之间紧密联系的错觉。

Different brain functions compete to control our decisions. Nobel laureate and psychology professor Daniel Kahneman, in his 2011 best- selling Thinking, Fast and Slow, popularized the labels of “System 1” and “System 2.” He characterized System 1 as “fast thinking.” System 1 is what causes you to hit the brakes the instant someone jumps into the street in front of your car. It encompasses reflex, instinct, intuition, impulse, and automatic processing. System 2, “slow thinking,” is how we choose, concentrate, and expend mental energy. Kahneman explains how System 1 and System 2 are capable of dividing and conquering our decision-making but work mischief when they conflict.

不同的大脑功能竞相控制我们的决定。诺贝尔奖得主兼心理学教授丹尼尔·卡尼曼(Daniel Kahneman)在2011年的畅销书《思考，快与慢》中推广了“系统1”和“系统2”两种做决定的方式。他将系统1描述为“快速思考”。“系统1可以当有人跳到你车前时让你紧急刹车。它包括反射、本能、直觉、冲动和自动处理。系统2，“缓慢思考”是关于我们如何谨慎选择、集中和消耗精神能量。卡尼曼解释了系统1和系统2如何能够划分和控制我们的决策，但是当它们发生冲突时，就会带来危害。

I particularly like the descriptive labels “reflexive mind” and “deliberative mind” favored by psychologist Gary Marcus. In his 2008 book, Kluge: The Haphazard Evolution of the Human Mind, he wrote, “Our thinking can be divided into two streams, one that is fast, automatic, and largely unconscious, and another that is slow, deliberate, and judicious.” The first system, “the reflexive system, seems to do its thing rapidly and automatically, with or without our conscious awareness.” The second system, “the deliberative system . . . deliberates, it considers, it chews over the facts.”

我特别喜欢心理学家盖里·马库斯(GaryMarcus)青睐的描述性标签“反射性思维”和“审慎性思维”。他在2008年的著述中写道，“我们的思维可以分为两股，一股是快速的、自动的、很大程度上是无意识的，另一股是缓慢的、深思熟虑的、明智的。“第一个系统”，反射系统，无论我们有没有意识到，似乎都可以快速自动地完成它的任务。“第二个系统”，审慎系统......是深思熟虑，它会咀嚼事实。"

Automatic processing originates in the evolutionarily older parts of the brain, including the cerebellum, basal ganglia, and amygdala. Our deliberative mind operates out of the prefrontal cortex.

自动处理起源于大脑进化较久的部分，包括小脑、基底神经节和杏仁核。我们的深思熟虑的头脑是在前额叶皮层之外运作的。

Colin Camerer, a professor of behavioral economics at Caltech and leading speaker and researcher on the intersection of game theory and neuroscience, explained to me the practical folly of imagining that we could just get our deliberative minds to do more of the decision- making work. “We have this thin layer of prefrontal cortex made just for us, sitting on top of this big animal brain. Getting this thin little layer to handle more is unrealistic.” The prefrontal cortex doesn’t control most of the decisions we make every day. We can’t fundamentally get more out of that unique, thin layer of prefrontal cortex. “It’s already overtaxed,” he told me.

加州理工学院的行为经济学教授、博弈论和神经科学交叉领域的领军人物和研究员科林·卡梅尔（Colin Camerer）向我解释，想象我们可以让我们深思熟虑的头脑做更多的决策工作实际上是不现实的。“我们有一层只适用于我们的薄薄的前额皮质，位于我们大脑的顶部。让这薄薄的一层去处理更多事情是不现实的。“前额叶皮层并不控制我们每天做出的大多数决定。我们基本无法从前额叶皮层这个独特的薄层中获得更多。“负担已经过重了，”他告诉我。

These are the brains we have and they aren’t changing anytime soon.* Making more rational decisions isn’t just a matter of willpower or consciously handling more decisions in deliberative mind. Our deliberative capacity is already maxed out. We don’t have the option, once we recognize the problem, of merely shifting the work to a different part of the brain, as if you hurt your back lifting boxes and shifted to relying on your leg muscles.

这些就是我们拥有的大脑，它们在短期内不会很快改变。做出更理性的决定不仅仅是意志力或是深思熟虑的头脑中有意识地处理更多决定的问题。我们的审慎能力已经耗尽。一旦我们意识到这个问题，我们就别无选择，只能把工作转移到大脑的不同部分，就好像你提箱时伤了背部，转而依靠腿部肌肉一样。

Both deliberative and reflexive mind are necessary for our survival and advancement. The big decisions about what we want to accomplish recruit the deliberative system. Most of the decisions we execute on the way to achieving those goals, however, occur in reflexive mind. The shortcuts built into the automatic processing system kept us from standing around on the savanna, debating the origin of a potentially threatening sound while its source devoured us. Those shortcuts keep us alive, routinely executing the thousands of decisions that make it possible for us to live our daily lives.

审慎性思维和反射性思维都是我们生存和进步所必需的。我们做出重大决策时会召唤审慎系统。然而，我们在实现这些目标的过程中所做的大多数决定都发生在反射性思维中。自动处理系统内置的快捷方式阻止我们站在热带草原上在声音的来源吞噬我们之时还在争论潜在威胁声音的来源。这些捷径让我们活着，例行公事地执行成千上万的决定，让我们有可能过上日常生活。

We need shortcuts, but they come at a cost. Many decision-making missteps originate from the pressure on the reflexive system to do its job fast and automatically. No one wakes up in the morning and says, “I want to be closed-minded and dismissive of others.” But what happens when we’re focused on work and a fluff-headed coworker approaches? Our brain is already using body language and curt responses to get rid of them without flouting conventions of politeness. We don’t deliberate over this; we just do it. What if they had a useful piece of information to share? We’ve tuned them out, cut them short, and are predisposed to dismiss anything we do pick up that varies from what we already know.

我们需要捷径，但是要付出代价。许多决策失误源于反射系统快速自动完成工作的压力。没有人在早上醒来时会说:“我想闭上眼睛，对别人不屑一顾。“但是，当我们专注于工作，一个头脑迟钝一贯讨厌的同事走近时，会发生什么呢？我们的大脑已经在使用肢体语言和简短的回应来摆脱它们。我们不会深思熟虑地去考虑这个问题，我们就直接这么做了。如果那些愚钝讨厌的同事有有用的信息可以分享呢？我们已经拒绝了它们，打断了他们。

Most of what we do daily exists in automatic processing. We have habits and defaults that we rarely examine, from gripping a pencil to swerving to avoid an auto accident. The challenge is not to change the way our brains operate but to figure out how to work within the limitations of the brains we already have. Being aware of our irrational behavior and wanting to change is not enough, in the same way that knowing that you are looking at a visual illusion is not enough to make the illusion go away. Daniel Kahneman used the famous Müller-Lyer illusion to illustrate this.

我们每天做的大部分事情都存在于自动处理中。我们有一些很少去仔细检视的习惯，例如从抓铅笔到转向以避免车祸。我们面临的挑战不是要改变我们大脑的运作方式，而是要找出如何在我们现有大脑的限制范围内去磨合。仅仅意识到我们的非理性行为并想要改变是不够的，就像知道你在看一个视错觉却不足以让错觉消失一样。丹尼尔·卡尼曼用著名的米勒-莱尔错觉来说明这一点。

MÜLLER-LYER ILLUSION

Muller-Lyer 米勒-莱尔错觉-莱尔

Which of these three lines is longest? Our brain sends us the signal that the second line is the longest, but you can see from adding the measurement lines that they are the same length.

这三条线中哪一条最长？我们的大脑向我们发出第二条线是最长的信号，但是你可以从增加的测量线中看出它们的长度相同。

We can measure the lines to confirm they are the same length, but we can’t make ourselves unsee the illusion.

我们可以测量线条来确认它们的长度相同，但是我们不能让自己看不见幻觉 。

What we can do is look for practical work-arounds, like carrying around a ruler and knowing when to use it to check against how your brain processes what you see. It turns out that poker is a great place to find practical strategies to get the execution of our decisions to align better with our goals. Understanding how poker players think can help us deal with the decision challenges that bedevil us in our workplaces, financial lives, relationships—even in deciding whether or not passing the ball was a brilliant play.

我们所能做的就是寻找实际的解决办法，比如随身携带一把尺子，并知道何时使用它来检查你的大脑如何处理你看到的东西。事实证明，扑克是一个很好的可以找到切实可行的策略来执行我们决定，从而更好地与我们的目标保持一致的地方。了解扑克玩家的思维方式可以帮助我们应对工作场所、经济生活、人际关系方面困扰我们的决策挑战。

当当当！ 终于竞技扑克可以出场了。

（德研社联合创始人，中国德扑女神：朱亚希）