直覺(jué)總是對(duì)的嗎（上）

Is gut instinct always right?

2021-06-15 遼闊天空 8240 13 0 收藏糾錯(cuò)&舉報(bào)

譯文簡(jiǎn)介

加文·德·貝克爾在他的《恐懼給你的禮物》一書(shū)中說(shuō)，人類被賦予了奇妙、復(fù)雜、高度進(jìn)化的本能，旨在讓我們遠(yuǎn)離傷害。

正文翻譯

Is gut instinct always right?

直覺(jué)總是對(duì)的嗎？

原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://nxnpts.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處

評(píng)論翻譯

Dushka Zapata, I also write about life on Instagram (@dushkaamateur)
In his book The Gift of Fear, Gavin De Becker says that humans have been given marvelous, complex, highly evolved instincts designed to keep us out of harm's way.
The problem is that we override internal alarms in the name of being "polite" or "reasonable".
He illustrates his point with the following example: Say that you are waiting for an elevator. The doors open and you see someone already inside that sends a chill down your spine (or turns your stomach into a knot.)
But, it would be so rude, even offensive, to stare at the person and then refrain from getting on the elevator, right?
You decide to ignore your own message, telling yourself that being afraid of someone you've never met makes no sense and determine that it instead makes a lot of sense to get into a small, sound proof, inescapable metal box with someone you instinctively are afraid of.
This story blew me away. Because I make these types of decisions all the time: doing things against my better judgment in an attempt to "make sense". Making an elaborate intellectual effort to convince myself my instincts cannot possibly be right. And, I love my instincts. They are so often correct! They were put there to help me.
I've decided they deserve more respect than this. Not just mine - everyone's. So I invite you to listen to yours too.

杜什卡薩帕塔，我也在Instagram上寫(xiě)一寫(xiě)關(guān)于生活的隨筆。（@杜什卡馬特爾）
加文·德·貝克爾在他的《恐懼給你的禮物》一書(shū)中說(shuō)，人類被賦予了奇妙、復(fù)雜、高度進(jìn)化的本能，旨在讓我們遠(yuǎn)離傷害。
問(wèn)題在于，我們經(jīng)常會(huì)以“禮貌”或“合理”的名義無(wú)視我們心中或者腦海中發(fā)出的警報(bào)。他用下面的例子來(lái)說(shuō)明他的觀點(diǎn)：假設(shè)你在等電梯。門(mén)打開(kāi)之后，你看到里面已經(jīng)有人了，并且這讓你感覺(jué)到毛骨悚然（或者說(shuō)感覺(jué)胃打了個(gè)結(jié)）。
但是，你盯著那個(gè)人，卻不坐電梯，這就太粗魯，甚至可以說(shuō)是無(wú)禮了，對(duì)吧？
你決定忽略自己的感覺(jué)，告訴自己害怕一個(gè)你從未見(jiàn)過(guò)的人是沒(méi)有意義的，而所謂的很有意義的是，你決定與你本能地感到害怕的人進(jìn)入一個(gè)小小的、隔音的、無(wú)法逃脫的金屬盒子里。
這個(gè)故事觸動(dòng)到了我。因?yàn)槲乙恢痹谧鲞@類決定：做一些讓我沒(méi)法好好去判斷的事情，試圖去做“有意義”的事。我絞盡腦汁地說(shuō)服自己：我的直覺(jué)不可能是正確的。但我喜歡我的直覺(jué)。它們經(jīng)常都是正確的！它們很多時(shí)候都能幫助到我。
所以我覺(jué)得它們（直覺(jué)）應(yīng)該得到更多的重視。不僅僅是我的重視，而是每個(gè)人都重視。所以我想邀請(qǐng)你們也去聽(tīng)聽(tīng)你們的直覺(jué)。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://nxnpts.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處

Marcus Geduld, 35 years of study in psychology, as a lay reader.
Not in my case. My gut instincts, though often correct, will sometimes turn out to be wrong, and there's no signifier that will tell me if one is likely to be right or wrong.
For instance, I'll know I put my keys in my pocket, when, in fact, I'veI left them on the coffee table. I won't think they're in my pocket. I'll have that same sense of knowing that I get when I say, "I know I have two hands." Or I'll know a particular TV show will be cancelled, but it turns out to be really popular and lasts for nine more seasons. Or I'll know someone has broken into my apartment, but it will turn out to be the wind making something rattle outside...
There's a ton of research on instincts, and most of it is summarized and explained in Thinking, Fast and Slow: Daniel Kahneman.

馬庫(kù)斯·格杜爾德，作為一個(gè)外行讀者研究了35年心理學(xué)。
我的情況不是這樣。
我的直覺(jué)，雖然通常是正確的，有時(shí)也會(huì)被證明是錯(cuò)誤的，而且沒(méi)有意符（符號(hào)的語(yǔ)音形象）能告訴我一個(gè)直覺(jué)可能是對(duì)的還是錯(cuò)的。
例如，我感覺(jué)我把鑰匙放在口袋里了，事實(shí)上，我把鑰匙忘在咖啡桌上了。但我不會(huì)認(rèn)為它們?cè)谖铱诖?。?dāng)我說(shuō)“我知道我有兩只手”時(shí)，我也會(huì)有同樣的感覺(jué)?；蛘呶腋杏X(jué)某個(gè)電視節(jié)目會(huì)被停播，但結(jié)果它很受歡迎，并且還能再演九季?；蛘呶腋杏X(jué)有人闖進(jìn)了我的公寓，但結(jié)果那只是風(fēng)吹得外面有什么東西在嘎嘎作響。
關(guān)于直覺(jué)的研究有很多，其中大部分都在丹尼爾·卡尼曼的《思考，快與慢》一書(shū)中得到了總結(jié)和解釋。

Our brains are pattern-matching machines, and so, for example, if I've remembered to put my keys in my pocket 10 days in a row, my brain will assume they are in my pocket on the 11th day. And it doesn't generally pay for me to feel skepticism—or to just "think" they're in my pocket—because that will evoke slower, more-costly brain processes. In general, I evolved to feel a sense of being sure or "just knowing." That can create some problems, but in general it doesn't harm my chances to survive and reproduce, which is what Natural sextion "cares about." In fact, it makes me more efficient in most situations, better able to make speedy, confident decisions that are usually right.
(Sometimes this system breaks: I seem incapable of trusting my gut that I've turned the thermostat down before going to bed. Too many times, I've woken up in a sweat, because I forgot. So now my brain starts up a skeptical process as soon as I get upstairs, even though I know I turned down the heat. So on most nights, I feel the need to go back downstairs and check, and almost every time I do, I discover my gut was right, and checking was a waste of time. It's incredibly inefficient for me to not trust my gut in this case, and at times it even harms my sleep, as I'll only become skeptical as I'm drifting off, and that will wake me up.)

我們的大腦是范例匹配機(jī)器，所以，舉個(gè)例子，如果我連續(xù)10天記得把鑰匙放在口袋里，那么第11天的時(shí)候我的大腦就會(huì)認(rèn)為鑰匙就在我的口袋里。而且這種想法通常不會(huì)讓我感到懷疑，或者只是讓我“認(rèn)為”它們?cè)谖业目诖?，如果這樣的話，會(huì)引發(fā)更慢、成本更高的大腦思考過(guò)程?？偟膩?lái)說(shuō)，我進(jìn)化出了一種確定或者“只是知道”的感覺(jué)。這可能會(huì)引發(fā)一些問(wèn)題，但總的來(lái)說(shuō)，它不會(huì)損害我生存和繁殖的機(jī)會(huì)，而生存和繁殖才是自然選擇所“關(guān)心的”。事實(shí)上，它（直覺(jué)）使我在大多數(shù)情況下會(huì)更有效率，能更好地、快速并且自信地做出通常都是正確的決定。
（但有時(shí)這個(gè)系統(tǒng)會(huì)失靈：我似乎無(wú)法相信自己的直覺(jué)。比如我已經(jīng)在睡覺(jué)前把恒溫器的溫度調(diào)低了。
但有很多次，因?yàn)槲彝浾{(diào)低溫度，導(dǎo)致我醒來(lái)時(shí)滿頭大汗。
所以現(xiàn)在我一上樓，我的大腦就開(kāi)始懷疑（我沒(méi)有把恒溫器調(diào)低），即使我知道我已經(jīng)把暖氣關(guān)小了。
所以在大多數(shù)晚上，我都覺(jué)得有必要下樓檢查，而且?guī)缀趺看挝疫@么做的時(shí)候，我就發(fā)現(xiàn)我的直覺(jué)是對(duì)的，檢查是在浪費(fèi)時(shí)間。
在這種情況下，如果我不相信自己的直覺(jué)，我的效率會(huì)非常低，并且，因?yàn)槲抑粫?huì)在朦朧中開(kāi)始懷疑，而這（懷疑直覺(jué)）會(huì)把我吵醒，所以有時(shí)候，懷疑直覺(jué)甚至損害到了我的睡眠質(zhì)量。

When you have a gut instinct, it usually means your brain has detected a pattern, which may mean that you're in a situation now that closely fits a pattern from the past (e.g. walking towards the car with keys probably in pocket). The sense of sureness you feel is a sign that you're sure the pattern exists, but your brain may well be interpreting it wrong. Or it may be interpreting it correctly, but there are some aspects of the environment—aspects you have no way of knowing about—that make your correct interpretation invalid. (E.g. maybe I did put my keys in my pocket, but there's a hole in it.)
The tricky thing about instincts is that they're often right, which means that you'd be foolish to discount them. But they can be wrong, which means you're also foolish to just treat them like gospel. But an in-between path is very difficult.
You hear how difficult it is when people rush to aphorisms like "Once a cheater, always a cheater." In fact, that's not true. There are people who are unfaithful for a while but then turn over a new leaf and never cheat again. But it's also true that lots of cheaters (maybe the majority) relapse, so the aphorism is an easy (often right) heuristic. But if you want to make sure your chances of experiencing the truth are maximized, you have to embrace a really difficult heuristic, such as "Once a cheater, almost always a cheater, but there are certainly exceptions, and while you should maybe expect an individual re-offend, you shouldn't assume he will without evidence."

當(dāng)你有一種直覺(jué)時(shí)，通常意味著你的大腦已經(jīng)發(fā)現(xiàn)了一種范例，這可能意味著你現(xiàn)在所處的情況與過(guò)去的某種范例非常吻合（例如，你朝著一輛車(chē)走過(guò)去的時(shí)候鑰匙可能還在口袋里）。
你所感受到的確定感是你確定這種范例所存在的標(biāo)志，但你的大腦很可能解讀錯(cuò)誤了。
或者它可能正確地解釋了它，但是由于一些你無(wú)法知道的環(huán)境的某些方面因素，導(dǎo)致你正確的解釋無(wú)效。（例如，也許我確實(shí)把鑰匙放在口袋里了，但里面有個(gè)洞，所以鑰匙掉出去了。）
直覺(jué)的微妙之處在于，它們往往是正確的，這意味著你不相信它們是很愚蠢的。但它們也可能是錯(cuò)的，這意味著你把他們當(dāng)作福音來(lái)對(duì)待也是愚蠢的。但想要找到直覺(jué)的錯(cuò)與對(duì)的中間界限是非常困難的。
你其實(shí)很難聽(tīng)到人們說(shuō)出類似“一旦成為騙子，就永遠(yuǎn)是騙子”這樣的格言。其實(shí)并不是這樣。有些人曾經(jīng)出軌過(guò)一段時(shí)間，但后來(lái)改過(guò)自新，就再也沒(méi)有出軌過(guò)。但是，許多騙子（可能是大多數(shù)）會(huì)故技重施，這也是事實(shí)，所以這句格言只是對(duì)我們的一個(gè)簡(jiǎn)單的（通常是正確的）啟發(fā)。但是，如果你想確保你接觸到真相的機(jī)會(huì)最大化，你就必須接受一個(gè)非常困難的事情，比如“一旦成為騙子，那么他幾乎一直都會(huì)是騙子，但當(dāng)然也有例外，盡管你可能期待一個(gè)人再次犯罪，但你不應(yīng)該在沒(méi)有證據(jù)的情況下就假設(shè)他會(huì)再次犯罪?！?/b>

One way to mitigate misleading instincts is to acquaint yourself with common biases and be on the lookout for them. Books like Predictably Irrational can help in this regard, but only so much. Being-on-the-lookout for biases is also a costly process, so your brain simply won't let you do it all the time.
We didn't evolve to be 100% rational. We evolved to take many thinking shortcuts, because they are usually good enough for survival and reproductive purposes and the alternatives (gathering evidence, logical reasoning, etc.) are costly.
There's even research that suggests people who pride themselves on being smart and rational are especially prone to biases. My experience backs that up. I suspect this is because, ironically, they have a gut instinct—a sense of knowing—that they're too smart to make dumb mistakes. And they simply trust it. Have you ever known, without any real evidence, that you haven't made a particular mistake, because you're not the sort of person who makes mistakes like that?

減輕誤導(dǎo)性直覺(jué)的一種方法是讓自己熟悉一些常見(jiàn)的偏見(jiàn)，并留意它們。像《怪誕行為學(xué)》這樣的書(shū)在這方面有所幫助，但僅此而已，真正要做到減輕直覺(jué)還是要靠自己。警惕偏見(jiàn)也是一個(gè)代價(jià)高昂的過(guò)程，所以你的大腦不會(huì)讓你一直這樣做。
我們沒(méi)有進(jìn)化到100%的理性。因?yàn)樵S多思維捷徑通常足以滿足我們生存和繁殖的目的，所以我們進(jìn)化到經(jīng)常會(huì)去走思維捷徑，而其他的選擇（收集證據(jù)、邏輯推理等）代價(jià)很高昂（以致于我們并不會(huì)去用這些方法來(lái)解決問(wèn)題）。
甚至有研究表明，以聰明和理性為傲的人特別容易產(chǎn)生偏見(jiàn)。我的經(jīng)驗(yàn)也證明了這一點(diǎn)。
我懷疑這是因?yàn)?，具有諷刺意味的是，他們有一種直覺(jué)——一種知道自己太聰明了，不會(huì)犯愚蠢的錯(cuò)誤的直覺(jué)。所以他們相信直覺(jué)。
那么你是否知道，因?yàn)槟阕约翰皇菚?huì)犯這種愚蠢的錯(cuò)誤的人，所以在沒(méi)有任何證據(jù)的情況下，你都沒(méi)有犯過(guò)什么特別的錯(cuò)誤（你是否也覺(jué)得自己太聰明了，所以你根本不會(huì)犯這種愚蠢的錯(cuò)誤呢）？

Sarah Booth, studied at New College, University of Oxford
Gut instinct doesn't predict the future. Gut instinct tells you how you really feel about a situation. So it is always right in that respect.
Gut instinct is a signal from our primitive limbic brain, which is a binary system that can simply tell you 'this is safe' or 'this is not safe'.
Subconsciously, we are constantly monitoring our surroundings for potential threats. We're primed to pick up on the slightest discrepancy in what people say or do, or what should/shouldn't be there. This needs to be a subconscious process because otherwise we just wouldn't be able to function in the world.
Usually we are in relatively safe environments OR we are consciously aware of the threats around us. Gut instinct kicks in when we haven't consciously noticed a threat. Our poor limbic brain is too primitive to communicate in language so it just sends out danger signals and hopes we will be able to interpret them.

莎拉·布斯，就讀于牛津大學(xué)新學(xué)院。
直覺(jué)不能預(yù)測(cè)未來(lái)。直覺(jué)只是會(huì)告訴你你對(duì)某一情況的真實(shí)感受。所以在這方面它總是正確的。
直覺(jué)是來(lái)自我們?cè)即竽X邊緣的信號(hào)，它就像是一個(gè)二進(jìn)制系統(tǒng)，可以簡(jiǎn)單地告訴你“這是安全的”或“這是不安全的”。
潛意識(shí)里，我們不斷地監(jiān)控著周?chē)臐撛谕{。我們習(xí)慣于去發(fā)現(xiàn)人們所說(shuō)或所做的，或者什么應(yīng)該出現(xiàn)、什么不應(yīng)該出現(xiàn)之間細(xì)微的差異。這是一個(gè)需要潛意識(shí)的過(guò)程，否則我們就無(wú)法在這個(gè)世界上發(fā)揮作用。
通常我們處于相對(duì)安全的環(huán)境中，或者我們可以意識(shí)到我們周?chē)耐{。但當(dāng)我們還沒(méi)有意識(shí)到威脅的時(shí)候，直覺(jué)就開(kāi)始起作用了。我們可憐的大腦邊緣太原始了，無(wú)法用語(yǔ)言來(lái)表達(dá)危險(xiǎn)，所以它只是發(fā)出危險(xiǎn)信號(hào)，希望我們能夠理解它們想要表達(dá)的意思。

So - can gut instinct be wrong in picking up threats? For sure!
We are conditioned by our experiences (and especially our early experiences) to remember and react to patterns that lead to danger, and patterns that lead to safety. This is the whole Pavlov's Dog thing (Classical conditioning) and I think it is at the root of anxiety disorders, phobias etc. And of course, anxiety disorders and phobias can be very destructive to people's lives.
Equally, a non-trustworthy person might not be giving off signals that your limbic brain recognises as dangerous so you might feel a gut instinct to trust them with your money or your heart, and then they might betray you.
BUT it's a really clever system that is analysing millions of times more information than you can be consciously aware of, so it's probably the best tool you've got. Ignore at your peril!

那么，直覺(jué)在識(shí)別威脅時(shí)會(huì)出錯(cuò)嗎？肯定會(huì)的！我們受我們的經(jīng)驗(yàn)（特別是我們?cè)缙诘慕?jīng)驗(yàn)）的制約，記住了那些導(dǎo)致危險(xiǎn)的范例，以及那些讓我們安全的范例，并且可以對(duì)它們做出反應(yīng)。這就像是巴甫洛夫的狗的事例（經(jīng)典條件反射），我認(rèn)為這是焦慮障礙、恐懼癥等的根源。當(dāng)然，焦慮癥和恐懼癥對(duì)人們的生活有很大的破壞性。
同樣地，一個(gè)不值得信任的人可能不會(huì)讓你的大腦邊緣發(fā)出認(rèn)為這是危險(xiǎn)的信號(hào)，所以你可能會(huì)本能地把你的錢(qián)或你的心交給他們，然后他們可能會(huì)背叛你。
但這是一個(gè)非常聰明的系統(tǒng)，它分析的信息比你自己所意識(shí)到的要多出數(shù)百萬(wàn)倍，所以它可能是你擁有的最好的工具。無(wú)視它的話你可能會(huì)有危險(xiǎn)！
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://nxnpts.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處

Robert Teszka, Cognitive psychologist doing a MSc at UCL & working at Brunel.
People have provided examples of when gut instincts can be useful and correct, and warned that sometimes they can be wrong - but why should this be the case?
The decision-making researcher Gerd Gigerenzer has published research papers and a book entitled Gut Feelings in which he argues that gut feelings are the results of unconscious heuristics being applied.
Heuristics are mental rules of thumb that are "fast and frugal" - they don't reguire a lot of time and resources on the part of the brain, and only use a small fraction of all the information available to the agent. The theory is that they evolved as strategies that generally work quite well in the natural world, but when placed in tricky or non-natural situations can go awfully wrong.
Some famous work by Kahneman & Tversky has shown that people make all sorts of biased judgements and reason incorrectly when doing tasks involving basic logic or probability, but Gigerenzer's theory is supported by the fact that when those tasks are recast in natural situations without abstract terms, people do much better, faster.
So no, gut feelings aren't always right - they are right only in the correct circumstances, and we must be careful to understand how they work if we want to use them to maximal advantage.

羅伯特·特茲卡，一名在倫敦大學(xué)學(xué)院攻讀理學(xué)碩士學(xué)位的認(rèn)知心理學(xué)家，目前也在布魯內(nèi)爾工作。
人們提供了直覺(jué)有用和正確的例子，并警告說(shuō)有時(shí)直覺(jué)也會(huì)出錯(cuò)，但為什么會(huì)是這樣呢？
決策研究者格爾德·吉格倫澤發(fā)表了一些研究論文，并出版了一本名為《半秒直覺(jué)》的書(shū)，他在書(shū)中指出，直覺(jué)是無(wú)意識(shí)啟發(fā)的結(jié)果。
啟發(fā)式是一種“快速而節(jié)儉”的思維法則——它們不需要大腦的一部分去投入大量時(shí)間和資源，只需要使用所有可用信息中的一小部分就足夠。其理論是，它們作為一種策略在自然界中通常很有效，但當(dāng)置于棘手或非自然的情況下，就會(huì)出現(xiàn)嚴(yán)重的錯(cuò)誤。
卡尼曼和特沃斯基的一些著名研究表明，人們?cè)趫?zhí)行涉及基本邏輯或概率的任務(wù)時(shí)，會(huì)做出一些帶有各種有偏見(jiàn)的判斷和錯(cuò)誤的推理，但吉格倫澤的理論得到了這樣一個(gè)事實(shí)的支持：這些任務(wù)在一些非特定條件下的自然環(huán)境中會(huì)被改動(dòng)，然后人們會(huì)做得更好、更快。
所以，直覺(jué)并不總是正確的，只有在恰好合適的情況下，它們才是正確的，如果我們想最大限度地利用它們，我們必須仔細(xì)去理解它們是如何工作的。

Gus Griffin, Master your instincts, master life
Some people have great gut instincts. You can watch them on Monday Night Football ... and on Dragon's Den.
Some people have terrible gut instincts. You can go and visit them in prison.
Asking - Is gut instinct always right? - is like asking - Will a thrown dart always hit the bullseye?
The answer becomes so obvious, it's not worth asking the question. When you leave out the variable of whose instinct, it has no practical application. It's not asking about the real world. It's an abstraction that doesn't work.
(Not unless you thought that God was the determining factor, not the thrower of the dart or the possessor of the gut. But I assume we're leaving that metaphysical dimension out of this.)

格斯·格里芬，掌握你的直覺(jué)，就能掌握生活。
有些人有很強(qiáng)的直覺(jué)。（直覺(jué)強(qiáng)到）你甚至可以在周一足球之夜和龍?zhí)痘⒀ㄉ峡吹剿麄兊某霈F(xiàn)。
有些人的直覺(jué)很差。（差到會(huì)犯很多錯(cuò)誤以致于）你可以去監(jiān)獄探望他們。
提問(wèn)：直覺(jué)總是對(duì)的嗎？，就像是在問(wèn)：投出的飛鏢總是能命中靶心嗎？
答案顯而易見(jiàn)，所以不值得問(wèn)這個(gè)問(wèn)題。如果你不考慮是誰(shuí)的直覺(jué)這個(gè)變量，那么它就沒(méi)有實(shí)際應(yīng)用價(jià)值。這不是在以真實(shí)的世界為背景而提問(wèn)。這是一個(gè)抽象概念。
（除非你認(rèn)為決定性的因素是上帝，而不是飛鏢的投擲者。但我想我們把這個(gè)形而上學(xué)的維度排除在外了。）

This would hardly be worth mentioning, except for the fact that so very many people accept this abstraction on the subject of instincts and intuition. Like there's an assumption that one person's instinct is identical to another person's instinct, even though we know that everything else about them isn't identical but only similar.
This inclination to believe in gut instincts obviously stems from the fact that they feel so right when you get them.
The motivational types who tell you to trust your gut do so because their gut has been good to them and, not being able to actually see what your instinctive "gut" looks like (it being an intangible), they assume it's the same as theirs. But that's an outrageous assumption based on no research at all, or worse, which actually flies in the face of general life experience. It's really like saying: I have great hearing, deep down everybody has great hearing, so you should rely more on your hearing.

格斯·格里芬，掌握你的直覺(jué)，就能掌握生活。
有些人有很強(qiáng)的直覺(jué)。（直覺(jué)強(qiáng)到）你甚至可以在周一足球之夜和龍?zhí)痘⒀ㄉ峡吹剿麄兊某霈F(xiàn)。
有些人的直覺(jué)很差。（差到會(huì)犯很多錯(cuò)誤以致于）你可以去監(jiān)獄探望他們。
提問(wèn)：直覺(jué)總是對(duì)的嗎？，就像是在問(wèn)：投出的飛鏢總是能命中靶心嗎？
答案顯而易見(jiàn)，所以不值得問(wèn)這個(gè)問(wèn)題。如果你不考慮是誰(shuí)的直覺(jué)這個(gè)變量，那么它就沒(méi)有實(shí)際應(yīng)用價(jià)值。這不是在以真實(shí)的世界為背景而提問(wèn)。這是一個(gè)抽象概念。
（除非你認(rèn)為決定性的因素是上帝，而不是飛鏢的投擲者。但我想我們把這個(gè)形而上學(xué)的維度排除在外了。）
除非有很多人接受這種關(guān)于本能和直覺(jué)的抽象概念，不然這幾乎不值得一提。就像有一種假設(shè)，一個(gè)人的直覺(jué)和另一個(gè)人的直覺(jué)是一樣的，盡管我們知道他們的其他一切都不一樣，他們只是在某些地方相似而已。這種相信直覺(jué)的傾向顯然源于這樣一個(gè)事實(shí)：當(dāng)你感覺(jué)到直覺(jué)的時(shí)候，會(huì)覺(jué)得直覺(jué)是對(duì)的。但吃冰激凌也是如此，大多數(shù)人遲早都會(huì)想到這一點(diǎn)。

They don't assume any other ability you exhibit will be exactly the same as theirs, so why do they assume this? Because it pays them to do so. In other words, they really do it because gullible people buy it, and for no other reason at all.
Let's bring instincts out of the Dark Ages and into the 21st century and accept that they vary in effectiveness from person to person like every other faculty of mind and body.
BTW: If you want to know why a bad gut instinct can feel so very right ... but that's another question.

因?yàn)闆_動(dòng)型的人通常感受到的直覺(jué)對(duì)他們都是好的，所以他們會(huì)告訴你要相信自己的直覺(jué)，但他們并不能真正看到你自己的“直覺(jué)”是什么樣子（它是無(wú)形的），他們只是認(rèn)為你的直覺(jué)會(huì)和他們的一樣。但這是一個(gè)基于根本沒(méi)有經(jīng)過(guò)研究的很離譜的假設(shè)，或者說(shuō)，更糟糕的是，實(shí)際上這與一般的生活經(jīng)驗(yàn)背道而馳。就像說(shuō)：我有很好的聽(tīng)力，那么每個(gè)人內(nèi)心深處都有很好的聽(tīng)力，所以你應(yīng)該更多地去依靠你的聽(tīng)力。
他們并不認(rèn)為你展示的任何其他能力都會(huì)和他們的完全一樣，那他們?yōu)槭裁催€要這么認(rèn)為呢（認(rèn)為你的直覺(jué)會(huì)和他們的一樣都是很好的）？因?yàn)檫@樣做是值得的。換句話說(shuō)，他們這么做僅僅是因?yàn)槿菀咨袭?dāng)受騙的人才會(huì)為這些事情買(mǎi)賬，而沒(méi)有的其他原因。
讓我們把直覺(jué)從中世紀(jì)黑暗時(shí)代帶到21世紀(jì)，并接受它們?cè)谌伺c人之間的有效性不同，就像其他所有的身心能力一樣。
順便說(shuō)一句：如果你想知道為什么我們往往會(huì)覺(jué)得一個(gè)壞的直覺(jué)是正確的，那就是另一個(gè)問(wèn)題了。

Ganesh Ramakrishnan
Is gut instinct important to pay attention to? Yes. A lot of behavioral economics books and leadership books have recently elaborated on the irrational patterns underlying human actions, and how there could be useful and important clues in our gut feeling.
Is gut instinct always right? Of course not.
Just like right-brain thinking and creative abilities are overemphasized to counter the cultural obsession with left-brained, analytical methods and thinking techniques, gut feel has taken center stage in the past decade. Unless one subscribes to beliefs about supernatural forces acting behind such instincts, it is prudent to continue applying common sense and rational uation of situations and decisions. Ultimately the neuron networks in our body, however mysteriously they operate, are limited by what we have experienced so the gut instinct is also evolving and can get better with time.
blx by Gladwell is an entertaining and thought-provoking book but I don't think it would help you in deciding on the question asked here.
I recommend two books, one new and one a little old.
How We Decide by Jonah Lehrer http://www.amazon.com/How-We-Decide-Jonah-Lehrer/dp/0618620117 is an excellent book that covers which type of situations benefit by careful deliberation and which type benefit by relying on instinctual responses. Its narration of a Gulf War incident that saved lives was summarized in this LATimes article http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/24/entertainment/et-book24. There are many examples in the book of how gut feel can mislead. The European edition of this book is titled, "The Decisive Moment".
The Gift of Fear by Gavin de Becker illustrates how fear, one of the most primitive emotions we feel, can be a useful alarm indicator that we often try to ignore or suppress. His examples are from scenarios of crime and violence but make an effective argument to learn to trust the signals from our gut.

甘尼什·拉瑪克里希南
注意直覺(jué)重要嗎？的確。許多行為經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)書(shū)籍和領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力書(shū)籍最近都詳細(xì)闡述了人類行為背后的非理性模式，以及如何在我們的直覺(jué)中找到有用而重要的線索。
直覺(jué)總是正確的嗎？當(dāng)然不是。
正如右腦思維和創(chuàng)造能力被過(guò)分強(qiáng)調(diào)以用于對(duì)抗左腦思維、分析方法和思維技術(shù)的文化迷戀一樣，直覺(jué)在過(guò)去十年中占據(jù)了中心地位。除非一個(gè)人會(huì)相信超自然力量在這種直覺(jué)背后起作用，否則謹(jǐn)慎的做法是繼續(xù)運(yùn)用常識(shí)以及對(duì)情況和決定的理性評(píng)估。最終，我們身體中的神經(jīng)元網(wǎng)絡(luò)，不管它們?nèi)绾紊衩氐剡\(yùn)作，都會(huì)受到我們的經(jīng)歷所限制，因此直覺(jué)也在進(jìn)化，并且會(huì)隨著時(shí)間的推移變得更好。
格拉德威爾的《決斷兩秒間》是一本有趣又發(fā)人深省的書(shū)，但我認(rèn)為這對(duì)你在這里提出的問(wèn)題沒(méi)有幫助。
所以我想推薦兩本書(shū)，一本是最近出的，一本以及出版了好些年頭了。
約拿·萊勒的《為什么大猩猩比專家高明》，這是一本極好的書(shū)，書(shū)中講述了哪種情況得益于我們仔細(xì)的思考，哪種情況得益于本能的反應(yīng)。這篇文章總結(jié)了它對(duì)海灣戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)中救人事件的敘述。書(shū)中有許多例子闡明了直覺(jué)是如何誤導(dǎo)人的。這本書(shū)的歐洲版標(biāo)題是“決定性時(shí)刻”。
加文·德·貝克爾的《恐懼給你的禮物》中介紹了恐懼是我們感受到的最原始的情感之一，書(shū)中講述了恐懼是如何成為一個(gè)有用的警報(bào)指示器，但我們常常會(huì)試圖忽略或抑制它。他的例子來(lái)自犯罪和暴力的場(chǎng)景，但他提出了一個(gè)有效的論點(diǎn)：讓我們學(xué)會(huì)相信來(lái)自我們內(nèi)心的信號(hào)。

Savitha Kartha, studied at University of Mumbai
Thanks for A2A Nasser.
Your gut feeling may not be always right but if something in me tells me it isn't right i follow my gut feeling.
For example, if something in a person doesn't seem right ,be it their manners, their way of talking to me makes me feel not right , I ignore them . I just follow my feeling . It maybe wrong but then that's my feeling about that person and i would follow my feeling.
It could be the opposite too. You follow your gut feeling and end up thinking wrong about something or someone.
A neighbour of mine used to always come to my place And use my landline number and talk for hours. In the beginning I didn't mind much , but then later I started thinking she's? being cunning and manipulating me for getting her work done. Then when I confronted her , she told me she's facing lot of problems in her house and her husband wouldn't allow her to use the phone line at their place and was torturing her physically and mentally so she was visiting my place to call up her relatives. So coming to say, I was wrong in thinking something about her and the truth turned out to be something else.

薩維莎·卡莎，就讀于孟買(mǎi)大學(xué)。
謝謝你的提問(wèn)，納賽爾。
你的直覺(jué)可能并不總是正確的，但如果我內(nèi)心的某些東西告訴我某些事不正確，我會(huì)跟隨我的直覺(jué)。
例如，如果一個(gè)人的某些地方看起來(lái)不對(duì)勁，不管是他們的舉止，還是他們跟我說(shuō)話的方式讓我覺(jué)得不對(duì)，我就會(huì)忽略他們。我只是跟著感覺(jué)走。這也許是錯(cuò)的，但那就是我對(duì)那個(gè)人的感覺(jué)，我會(huì)追隨我的直覺(jué)。
也可能是相反的。你跟隨你的直覺(jué)，最終對(duì)某事或某人的想法是錯(cuò)誤的。
我的一個(gè)鄰居經(jīng)常來(lái)我家，用我的固定電話號(hào)碼，聊上幾個(gè)小時(shí)。一開(kāi)始我并不介意，但后來(lái)我開(kāi)始想她是誰(shuí)？為了完成她的工作而狡猾地利用我。后來(lái)當(dāng)我和她對(duì)質(zhì)時(shí)，她告訴我她家里有很多問(wèn)題，她丈夫不允許她使用他們家的電話線，對(duì)她進(jìn)行身心上的折磨，所以她去我家給親戚打電話。所以我要說(shuō)的是，我對(duì)她的想法是錯(cuò)誤的，事實(shí)是另一回事（是和我的直覺(jué)相反的事）。

原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://nxnpts.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處

直覺(jué)

很贊 ( 0 )

收藏