经济与社会科学2021pnas.org
个人经历比事实更能弥合道德与政治分歧
Personal experiences bridge moral and political divides better than facts
进阶 · 约 45 分钟读完前置知识：实验心理学基础、基础统计推断、道德与政治心理学
导读
这篇发表在 PNAS 的研究探讨：在弥合道德与政治分歧时，为什么个人经历比事实更有说服力。研究通过一系列实验比较讲述亲身经历与陈述事实的效果，发现人们更难反驳个人经历，也更容易被其打动，从而更能理解、也更愿意接触对立立场的人；而事实容易引发怀疑和反驳。
HN 关注点：当下"事实本身也被怀疑"的认识论危机，以及为什么部落化的头脑更吃"故事"而不是数据；讨论也延伸到共同敌人、媒体碎片化等话题。
HN 评论精选
这几条评论里：支持 2 质疑 1 补充 1
补充与其把经历和事实对立，不如用"亲疏距离"来理解人们对真相的取舍。
有意思的是，这篇论文把事实和个人经历分开来看，仿佛个人经历不占事实的位置。也许更有用的框架是把人与真相的关系理解为"距离远近"：对某个人来说，他的亲身经历完全是事实性的，而且离他最近，所以权重最高。直觉上我们懂这一点，因此也会同样看重别人的经历——因为我们知道，那些经历对他们来说，就像我们的经历对我们一样近。
tacitusarc查看英文原文
It's interesting to me that this delineates between facts and personal experience as if personal experience doesn't occupy the same space as facts. Perhaps a more useful way to think about people's relation to truth is one of proximity. For a given individual, their personal experience is entirely factual, and because it is also most proximate to them, it is weighted the most highly. Intuitively, I think we understand this, so we tend to weight other people's experiences similarly, knowing that those are as proximate to them as our experiences are to us.
支持引用原文指出事实本身被政治化怀疑，是媒体去中心化造成的认识论危机。
关键一点："问题在于，事实——至少在今天——本身就受到质疑，尤其当它与我们的政治信念冲突时。过去几十年，美国的新闻和信息去中心化，让人们可以收集'自己的事实'（即另类事实）。最近，'假新闻'的指控让人们不信任任何与自身政治信念不符的信息，却信任符合自己信念的假新闻。"这就是我们当前面临的认识论危机。直到 70 年代末，我们基本只有三家政治立场中立的电视新闻网；报纸立场可能更明显，但主流报纸大多也偏中间。持极端立场的人会被排斥，受众很小。我们曾经有更共同的叙事，如今已经消失了。
UncleOxidant查看英文原文
Key point: "The problem is that facts—at least today—are themselves subject to doubt, especially when they conflict with our political beliefs (21). In the past decades, America has seen a decentralization of news and information (22) that has allowed people to gather their “own facts” (i.e., alternative facts; ref. 23). Most recently, claims of “fake news” allow people to distrust any information that fails to align with their political beliefs (24, 25) and to trust fake news that aligns with their beliefs (26)." This is the epistemic crisis we're currently facing. Up until about the late 70s we had 3 news networks that were all pretty much middle of the road politically. Newspapers could have more of a discernible political leaning, but even there most of the mainstream ones we're pretty centrist. People who hewed to an extreme political position in either direction were ostracized and thus had a very small audience. We had more of a common narrative which is now gone.
支持个人经历本身就是可靠的事实，外推才是偏见；信任需要"亲身化"。
个人经历就是事实，是我们相当确定、且了解其上下文的事实。当然，一旦从这一经历事实外推，就变成了偏见。非亲历的事实很难让人信任；即便我信任信息来源，也常常不确定自己是否真正理解了它——任何试图读懂一个数学定理的人都有同感。更信任自己的偏见是完全理性的；事实上我认为，信任一个事实的唯一方式，就是把它变成某种你能亲身经历的东西。比如要理解一个数学定理，最好去看它在各种情形下成立（以及不成立）的例子。
auggierose查看英文原文
A personal experience is a fact. It is a fact we can be pretty sure of, and we know the context of that fact. Obviously, once we extrapolate from that experienced fact, it becomes bias. A fact that is not a personal experience is difficult to trust. Even if I trust the source of that fact, I am often not sure if I understand the fact properly. Anyone who has ever tried to understand a math theorem might relate. It is entirely rational to trust more in your personal bias. In fact, I would argue that the only way to trust a fact is to make it somehow into something that you can personally experience. For example, to understand a math theorem, it helps to look at lots of different kinds of examples where it holds (and where it doesn't).
质疑共同敌人比共同事实更能弥合分歧，这是部落心理的现实。
遗憾的是，最能弥合分歧的其实是一个有能动性的共同敌人——它让原本对立的派别团结起来对抗共同的外部群体。这就是我们部落化大脑的残酷现实。看看 GME 事件（共同反派：对冲基金）如何让美国左右两派多年来最靠近（尽管鸿沟仍大）。新冠是一次错失的机会：我们本可以巧妙地把病毒框定为外部威胁（但它缺乏能动性，不是凝聚群体的理想驱动力），结果没有做到。
hntrader查看英文原文
What bridges divides the best is unfortunately a common enemy that has agency, which unites previously warring factions against a common outgroup. This is the unfortunate reality of our tribal brains. Just look at how this whole GME episode (common villain - hedge funds) has brought the US left and right closer together (even though the gulf remains large) than they've been in years. COVID was a missed opportunity, we had an opportunity to cleverly frame as an outgroup threat (which lacked agency, so it's not an ideal driver of group cohesion), which we didn't do.
相关资源
从这篇论文所有 HN 讨论帖的全部评论里整理出来的链接。
历次讨论
- 2021Hacker News 讨论帖388 分 · 164 评
同领域还值得读
一切的回报率，1870–2015
The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870–2015
利用1870–2015年多国的长期数据，估算股票、住房等各类资本的回报率，并将其与经济增长率进行比较。
经济与社会科学2019 · 487 分 · 260 评进阶 · 约 100 分钟编辑精选一切资产的回报率，1870–2015
The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870–2015
构建了 1870–2015 年 16 个国家的长周期资产回报数据集，覆盖股票、住房、政府债券和短期票据，系统比较各类资产的真实回报与波动性。
经济与社会科学2018 · 215 分 · 151 评进阶 · 约 120 分钟编辑精选一切资产的回报率，1870–2015（2019）
The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870–2015 (2019)
这篇发表于《经济学季刊》的论文构建了 1870–2015 年间 16 个主要发达国家的股票、债券、房地产等资产收益率的长周期数据库。
经济与社会科学2024 · 190 分 · 148 评进阶 · 约 80 分钟编辑精选想法是否越来越难找？
Are ideas getting harder to find?
探讨“想法是否越来越难找到”：通过衡量多个领域的“研究生产率”，发现维持相同的增长需要投入指数级增长的研究资源，即研究效率在持续下降。
经济与社会科学2016 · 182 分 · 106 评入门 · 约 60 分钟编辑精选比特币与区块链的经济极限
The Economic Limits of Bitcoin and the Blockchain
芝加哥大学 Eric Budish 的论文从经济学角度分析比特币与区块链的根本限制：核心论点是只要攻击网络（双花或砸盘做空）的收益超过挖矿成本，51% 算力攻击就有利可图，而挖矿…
经济与社会科学2018 · 176 分 · 37 评进阶 · 约 90 分钟编辑精选