2021年12月六级第1套长篇阅读匹配原文翻译及答案

A) The economist J.K. Galbraith once wrote, "Faced with a choice between changing one's mind and proving there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy with the proof."

经济学家J.K.加尔布雷思曾写道：“面对改变主意或证明无需改变的选择时，几乎所有人都会忙于证明。”

B) Leo Tolstoy was even bolder. "The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."

列夫·托尔斯泰更为大胆。“如果最迟钝的人尚未对最困难的主题形成任何观念，那么这些主题可以向他解释清楚；但即使是最聪明的人，如果他坚信自己早已毫无疑问地了解摆在面前的事物，那么最简单的事情也无法向他阐明。”

C) What's going on here? Why don't facts change our minds? And why would someone continue to believe a false or inaccurate idea anyway? How do such behaviors serve us? Humans need a reasonably accurate view of the world in order to survive. If your model of reality is wildly different from the actual world, then you struggle to take effective actions each day. However, truth and accuracy are not the only things that matter to the human mind. Humans also seem to have a deep desire to belong.

这是怎么回事？为什么事实不能改变我们的想法？为什么有人会继续相信错误或不准确的观念？这种行为对我们有何益处？人类需要一个相当准确的世界观才能生存。如果你的现实模型与实际世界大相径庭，那么你每天都会难以采取有效行动。然而，真理和准确性并非人类心智唯一在意的东西。人类似乎还有一种深深的归属渴望。

D) In Atomic Habits, I wrote, "Humans are herd animals. We want to fit in, to bond with others, and to earn the respect and approval of our peers. Such inclinations are essential to our survival. For most of our evolutionary history, our ancestors lived in tribes. Becoming separated from the tribe—or worse, being cast out—was a death sentence."

在《原子习惯》中，我写道：“人类是群居动物。我们想要融入他人，与他人建立联系，并赢得同龄人的尊重和认可。这种倾向对我们的生存至关重要。在我们进化的大部分历史中，祖先生活在部落中。与部落分离——或更糟的是，被驱逐——是死刑判决。”

E) Understanding the truth of a situation is important, but so is remaining part of a tribe. While these two desires often work well together, they occasionally come into conflict. In many circumstances, social connection is actually more helpful to your daily life than understanding the truth of a particular fact or idea. The Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker put it this way," People are embraced or condemned according to their beliefs, so one function of the mind may be to hold beliefs that bring the belief-holder the greatest number of allies, protectors, or disciples (信徒), rather than beliefs that are most likely to be true."

理解情况的真相很重要，但保持部落成员身份同样重要。虽然这两种愿望通常能很好地协同，但偶尔会发生冲突。在许多情况下，社交联系实际上比理解某个特定事实或观念的真相对日常生活更有帮助。哈佛心理学家史蒂文·平克这样说道：“人们因其信念而受到接纳或谴责，因此心智的一个功能可能是持有能为信念持有者带来最多盟友、保护者或信徒的信念，而不是最可能为真的信念。”

F) We don't always believe things because they are correct. Sometimes we believe things because they make us look good to the people we care about. I thought Kevin Simler put it well when he wrote, "If a brain anticipates that it will be rewarded for adopting a particular belief, it's perfectly happy to do so, and doesn't much care where the reward comes from—whether it's pragmatic(实用主义的)(better outcomes resulting from better decisions), social (better treatment from one's peers), or some mix of the two."

我们并不总是因为正确才相信事物。有时我们相信事物，是因为它们让我们在在乎的人眼中显得更好。我认为凯文·西姆勒写得很好：“如果大脑预期采纳某个特定信念会获得奖励，它就会很乐意这样做，而且不太关心奖励来自哪里——无论是实用主义的（由于更好的决策导致更好的结果）、社会的（来自同龄人的更好对待），还是两者的混合。”

G) False beliefs can be useful in a social sense even if they are not useful in a factual sense. For lack of a better phrase, we might call this approach "factually false, but socially accurate." When we have to choose between the two, people often select friends and family over facts. This insight not only explains why we might hold our tongue at a dinner party or look the other way when our parents say something offensive, but also reveals a better way to change the minds of others.

错误的信念在社交意义上可能有用，即使在事实意义上无用。缺乏更好的说法，我们可以称这种方法为“事实上错误，但社交上准确”。当必须在两者之间选择时，人们往往选择朋友和家人而非事实。这一见解不仅解释了为什么我们可能在晚宴上保持沉默，或当父母说冒犯性话语时视而不见，还揭示了一种改变他人想法的更好方式。

H) Convincing someone to change their mind is really the process of convincing them to change their tribe. If they abandon their beliefs, they run the risk of losing social ties. You can't expect someone to change their mind if you take away their community too. You have to give them somewhere to go. Nobody wants their worldview torn apart if loneliness is the outcome.

说服某人改变想法，实际上是说服他们改变部落的过程。如果他们放弃信念，就面临失去社会联系的风险。你不能期望有人在失去社群的同时改变想法。你必须给他们一个去处。如果结果是孤独，没有人愿意自己的世界观被撕裂。

I) The way to change people's minds is to become friends with them, to integrate them into your tribe, to bring them into your circle. Now, they can change their beliefs without the risk of being abandoned socially.

改变人们想法的方式是成为他们的朋友，将他们融入你的部落，将他们带入你的圈子。现在，他们可以改变信念而不冒被社会抛弃的风险。

J) Perhaps it is not difference, but distance, that breeds tribalism and hostility. As proximity increases, so does understanding. I am reminded of Abraham Lincoln's quote, "I don't like that man. I must get to know him better."

也许不是差异，而是距离滋生了部落主义和敌意。随着接近度增加，理解也随之增加。我想起亚伯拉罕·林肯的名言：“我不喜欢那个人。我必须更好地了解他。”

K) Facts don't change our minds. Friendship does. Years ago, Ben Casnocha mentioned an idea to me that I haven't been able to shake: The people who are most likely to change our minds are the ones we agree with on 98 percent of topics. If someone you know, like, and trust believes a radical idea, you are more likely to give it merit, weight, or consideration. You already agree with them in most areas of life. Maybe you should change your mind on this one too. But if someone wildly different than you proposes the same radical idea, well, it's easy to dismiss them as nuts.

事实不能改变我们的想法。友谊可以。几年前，本·卡斯诺查向我提到一个我一直无法摆脱的观点：最可能改变我们想法的人，是我们在98%的话题上意见一致的人。如果你认识、喜欢并信任的人相信一个激进的想法，你更可能给予它价值、重视或考虑。你在生活中的大部分领域已经同意他们。也许你也应该在这个想法上改变想法。但如果一个与你截然不同的人提出同样的激进想法，嗯，很容易将他们斥为疯子。

L) One way to visualize this distinction is by mapping beliefs on a spectrum. If you divide this spectrum into 10 units and you find yourself at Position 7, then there is little sense in trying to convince someone at Position 1. The gap is too wide. When you're at Position 7, your time is better spent connecting with people who are at Positions 6 and 8, gradually pulling them in your direction.

可视化这种区别的一个方法是将信念映射在一个光谱上。如果你将这个光谱分成10个单位，并发现自己位于位置7，那么试图说服位于位置1的人意义不大。差距太大了。当你位于位置7时，你的时间最好花在连接位置6和8的人上，逐渐将他们拉向你的方向。

M) The most heated arguments often occur between people on opposite ends of the spectrum, but the most frequent learning occurs from people who are nearby. The closer you are to someone, the more likely it becomes that the one or two beliefs you don't share will bleed over into your own mind and shape your thinking. The further away an idea is from your current position, the more likely you are to reject it outright. When it comes to changing people's minds, it is very difficult to jump from one side to another. You can't jump down the spectrum. You have to slide down it.

最激烈的争论往往发生在光谱两端的人之间，但最频繁的学习来自于附近的人。你与某人越接近，你们不共享的一两个信念越可能渗入你自己的思想并塑造你的思考。一个想法离你当前位置越远，你越可能直接拒绝它。当涉及到改变人们的想法时，从一端跳到另一端非常困难。你不能跳下光谱。你必须滑下它。

N) Any idea that is sufficiently different from your current worldview will feel threatening. And the best place to ponder a threatening idea is in a non-threatening environment. As a result, books are often a better vehicle for transforming beliefs than conversations or debates. In conversation, people have to carefully consider their status and appearance. They want to save face and avoid looking stupid. When confronted with an uncomfortable set of facts, the tendency is often to double down on their current position rather than publicly admit to being wrong. Books resolve this tension. With a book, the conversation takes place inside someone's head and without the risk of being judged by others, It's easier to be open-minded when you aren't feeling defensive.

任何与你当前世界观足够不同的想法都会感觉具有威胁性。而思考威胁性想法的最佳场所是在非威胁性环境中。因此，书籍通常比对话或辩论是转变信念的更好载体。在对话中，人们必须仔细考虑自己的地位和形象。他们想要保全面子，避免显得愚蠢。当面对一系列令人不适的事实时，倾向于加倍坚持当前立场，而不是公开承认错误。书籍解决了这种紧张关系。通过一本书，对话发生在某人的脑海里，没有被他人评判的风险，当你不感到防御时，更容易保持开放心态。

O) There is another reason bad ideas continue to live on, which is that people continue to talk about them. Silence is death for any idea. An idea that is never spoken or written down dies with the person who conceived it. Ideas can only be remembered when they are repeated. They can only be believed when they are repeated, I have already pointed out that people repeat ideas to signal they are part of the same social group. But here's a crucial point most people miss: People also repeat bad ideas when they complain about them. Before you can criticize an idea, you have to reference that idea. You end up repeating the ideas you're hoping people will forget—but, of course, people can't forget them because you keep talking about them. The more you repeat a bad idea, the more likely people are to believe it.

坏想法继续存在的另一个原因是人们继续谈论它们。沉默对任何想法都是死亡。一个从未被说出或写下的想法会随着构思者而死亡。想法只有被重复时才能被记住。只有被重复时才能被相信。我已经指出，人们重复想法是为了表明他们属于同一社会群体。但这里有一个大多数人忽视的关键点：人们在抱怨坏想法时也会重复它们。在批评一个想法之前，你必须引用那个想法。你最终会重复你希望人们忘记的想法——但当然，人们无法忘记它们，因为你一直在谈论它们。你重复坏想法的次数越多，人们越可能相信它。

P) Let's call this phenomenon Clear's Law of Recurrence: The number of people who believe an idea is directly proportional to the number of times it has been repeated during the last year—even if the idea is false.

让我们称这种现象为“克利尔重复定律”：相信一个想法的人数与过去一年中它被重复的次数成正比——即使这个想法是错误的。