The Intelligence  智能

of Intuition

Gerd Gigerenzer 格尔德·吉格伦泽

THE INTELLIGENCE OF INTUITION
直觉的智慧

People often confuse intuition with a sixth sense or the arbitrary judgments of inept decision-makers. In this book, Gerd Gigerenzer analyzes the war on intuition in the social sciences beginning with gendered perceptions of intuition as female, followed by the opposition between biased intuition and logical rationality, popularized in dual-system theories. Technological paternalism amplifies these views, arguing that human intuition should be replaced by perfect algorithms. Contrary to these beliefs, this book proposes that intuition is a form of unconscious intelligence based on years of experience that has evolved to deal with uncertain and dynamic situations where logic and big data algorithms are of little benefit. Gigerenzer introduces the scientific study of intuition and shows that intuition is not irrational caprice, but is instead based on smart heuristics. Researchers, students, and general readers with an interest in decision-making, heuristics and intelligence, cognitive psychology, and behavioral public policy will benefit.
人们经常将直觉与第六感或无能决策者的武断判断混淆。在这本书中，格尔德·吉格伦泽分析了社会科学中对直觉的攻击，从将直觉视为女性的性别化认知开始，接着是有偏见的直觉与逻辑理性之间的对立，这在双系统理论中得到了普及。技术专制主义加剧了这些观点，主张人类的直觉应该被完美的算法取代。与这些观念相反，这本书提出直觉是一种基于多年经验演化而来的无意识智慧，用于处理逻辑和大数据算法无法带来益处的不确定和动态情况。吉格伦泽介绍了对直觉的科学研究，并表明直觉并非不理性的一时冲动，而是基于聪明的启发式的。对决策、启发式和智能、认知心理学以及行为公共政策感兴趣的研究人员、学生和一般读者将受益。

gerd gigerenzer is Director of the Harding Center for Risk Literacy at the University of Potsdam and Emeritus Director of the Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Germany. He trains federal judges, physicians, and managers in decision-making and has written award-winning books, including Calculated Risks, Gut Feelings, Risk Savvy, and How to Stay Smart in a Smart World, which have been translated into more than 20 languages. The Swiss Duttweiler Institute has distinguished him as one of the top ıoo Global Thought Leaders worldwide.
格尔德·吉格伦泽是波茨坦大学哈丁风险素养中心主任，德国马克斯·普朗克人类发展研究所名誉主任。他培训联邦法官、医生和经理进行决策，并撰写了屡获殊荣的书籍，包括《计算风险》、《直觉感觉》、《风险明智》和《如何在智能世界中保持聪明》，这些书已被翻译成 20 多种语言。瑞士杜特韦勒研究所将他评为全球前 100 位思想领袖之一。

THE INTELLIGENCE OF INTUITION
直觉的智慧

GERD GIGERENZER 格德·吉格伦泽

Max Planck Institute for Human Development
马克斯·普朗克人类发展研究所

Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge Св 2 8EA, United Kingdom
剑桥沙夫茨伯里路，邮编 CB2 8EA，英国

One Liberty Plaza, 20th Floor, New York, NY iooo6, USA
一自由广场，20 楼，纽约，纽约州 10006，美国

477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, viC 3207, Australia
477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, VIC 3207, 澳大利亚

314-321, 3rd Floor, Plot 3, Splendor Forum, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi - 110025, India
314-321，第三层，Splendor Forum，Jasola 区中心，新德里 - 110025，印度

I03 Penang Road, #o5-06/07, Visioncrest Commercial, Singapore 238467
I03 槟城路，＃o5-06/07，Visioncrest 商业，新加坡 238467

Cambridge University Press is part of Cambridge University Press & Assessment,
剑桥大学出版社是剑桥大学出版社与评估的一部分

a department of the University of Cambridge.
剑桥大学的一个部门。

We share the University's mission to contribute to society through the pursuit of education, learning and research at the highest international levels of excellence.
我们与大学分享使命，通过追求教育、学习和研究在最高国际水平上的卓越贡献社会。

www.cambridge.org

Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781009304863
关于这个标题的信息：www.cambridge.org/9781009304863

DOI: IO.1017/9781009304887
DOI：IO.1017/9781009304887

(c) Gerd Gigerenzer 2023

This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press & Assessment.
本出版物受版权保护。除法定例外情况和相关集体许可协议的规定外，未经剑桥大学出版社和评估的书面许可，任何部分的复制均不得进行。

First published 2023 2023 年首次出版

A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library.
这本出版物的目录记录可从英国图书馆获取。

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
国会图书馆编目数据

names: Gigerenzer, Gerd, author.
名字：Gigerenzer，Gerd，作者。

title: The intelligence of intuition / Gerd Gigerenzer, Max Planck Institute for Human
标题：直觉的智慧 / 格尔德·吉格伦泽，马克斯·普朗克人类研究所

Development. 发展。

description: Cambridge, United Kingdom ; New York, NY : Cambridge University Press, 2023. |
描述：剑桥，英国；纽约，纽约州：剑桥大学出版社，2023 年。

Includes bibliographical references and index.
包括参考文献和索引。

IDENTIFIERS: LCCN 2023005663 (print) | LCCN 2023005664 (ebook) | ISBN 978I009304863
标识符：LCCN 2023005663（印刷版）| LCCN 2023005664（电子书）| ISBN 978I009304863

(hardback) | ISBN 978 IoO9304894 (paperback) | ISBN 978 IOO9304887 (epub)
（精装）| ISBN 978 IoO9304894（平装）| ISBN 978 IOO9304887（epub）

subJeCTs: lCSH: Intuition. | Decision making.
主题：LCSH：直觉。| 决策。

CLASSIFICATION: LCC BF3I5.5 .G543 2024 (print) | LCC BF315.5 (ebook) |
分类：LCC BF3I5.5 .G543 2024（印刷版）| LCC BF315.5（电子书）|

DDC I53.4/4-dc23/eng/20230415

LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023005663
LC 记录可在 https://lccn.loc.gov/2023005663 找到。

LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023005664
LC 电子书记录可在 https://lccn.loc.gov/2023005664 找到

ISBN 978-I-009-30486-3 Hardback
ISBN 978-I-009-30486-3 精装版

ISBN 978-I-009-30489-4 Paperback
ISBN 978-I-009-30489-4 平装书

Cambridge University Press & Assessment has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.
剑桥大学出版社及评估对本出版物中提及的外部或第三方互联网网站的 URL 的持久性或准确性不承担责任，并不保证这些网站上的任何内容是准确或适当的，也不保证这些内容将保持准确或适当。
for Raine 为 Raine

Contents 内容

List of Figures and Tables page ..... viii
图表目录页 ..... viii
Preface ..... ix 前言 ..... ix
Acknowledgments .....
致谢 .....
I We Know More Than We Can Tell ..... I
我们知道的比我们能说出来的更多.....我
PART I THE WAR ON INTUITION
第一部分 直觉之战
2 Female Intuition Versus Male Reason: The Battle
2 个女性直觉对抗男性理性：战斗
for Intelligence .....
对于智能 .....
3 Biases: Mistaking Intuition for Irrationality ..... 42
3 个偏见：将直觉误认为是非理性..... 42
4 Governmental and Technological Paternalism ..... 68
4 政府和技术的家长式管理 ..... 68
PART II INTUITION AND ITS INTELLIGENCE
第二部分直觉及其智能
5 Heuristics: The Tools of Intuition .....
5 条启发法则：直觉的工具 .....
6 Embodied Heuristics ..... IO9
6 具体启发式..... IO9
7 Moral Intuition ..... I 25
7 道德直觉 ..... I 25
8 Simple Heuristics to Run a Research Group ..... I 4 I
8 个管理研究小组的简单启发法则 ..... I 4 I
References ..... I 54
参考资料 ..... I 54
Index ..... I72 索引 ..... I72

Figures and Tables 数字和表格

Figures 数字

I.I Fluency heuristic ..... page 5
我。我流利启发式 ..... 第 5 页
3.I Risk versus uncertainty ..... 46
3. 风险与不确定性 ..... 46
3.2 Which glass is half full, which half empty? ..... 49
3.2 哪个杯子是半满的，哪个是半空的？..... 49
3.3 Throwing a fair coin four times ..... 53
3.3 抛掷一枚公平硬币四次 ..... 53
3.4 The special case where the length of the string (here three)
3.4 字符串长度为三的特殊情况
is the same as the length of the sequence ..... 54
与序列 ..... 54 的长度相同
3.5 Citation bias in favor of articles reporting that people
3.5 有利于报道人们的文章的引用偏见
have biased statistical intuitions ..... 62
具有偏见的统计直觉 ..... 62
4.I An example of boosting: fact box for ovarian cancer
4. 促进的一个例子：卵巢癌事实框
screening, based on randomized studies with 200,000 women ..... 73
筛查，基于拥有 20 万名妇女的随机研究.....73
5.I A model of Elon Musk's one-good-reason heuristic for hiring ..... 98
5.埃隆·马斯克的“一个好理由”招聘启发式模型.....98
5.2 A model of Jeff Bezos's sequential decision process for hiring ..... 99
5.2 杰夫·贝索斯（Jeff Bezos）的连续决策过程模型招聘..... 99
5.3 Ecological rationality ..... IOI
5.3 生态合理性 ..... IOI
5.4 Balancing false positives and misses .....
5.4 平衡假阳性和漏检.....
5.5 An illustration of the ecological rationality of the
5.5 生态合理性的一个例证
recognition heuristic ..... IOS
识别启发式 ..... IOS
6. I Gaze heuristic ..... I I 4
6. 我凝视启发式 ..... 我 4
6.2 Predators (dark hawks) pursuing prey (white ducks) ..... I 20
6.2 捕食者（黑隼）追逐猎物（白鸭）..... I 20
6.3 British controllers' reliance on the gaze heuristic to direct
6.3 英国控制器依赖凝视启发来指导
fighter planes to intercept German bombers ..... I 22
战斗机拦截德国轰炸机..... I 22
Tables 表格
6.I The as-if trajectory calculation model and the gaze
6.仿佛轨迹计算模型和凝视
heuristic compared ..... page IIs
启发式比较.....页面 IIs
7.I A four-card problem: A social contract with a
7.一个四张牌的问题：与社会契约
perspective change ..... I 3 I
视角改变 ..... I 3 I

Preface 前言

Intuition is an ultimate experience, beyond words: We know more than we can tell. This phenomenon upsets those who believe in rationality as a purely conscious activity. Its detractors tend to dismiss intuition as crazed superstition, while others have confused it with God's voice. The Intelligence of Intuition extends the argument for the rationality of intuition made in my book Gut Feelings (2007) with a deeper scientific analysis. I locate intuition in its larger societal context and argue that intuition is based on the unconscious use of adaptive heuristics. These simple rules make intuition smart.
直觉是一种超越言语的终极体验：我们知道的比我们能说出来的更多。这种现象让那些相信理性是纯粹意识活动的人感到不安。它的批评者往往会将直觉视为疯狂的迷信，而其他人则将其与上帝的声音混淆。《直觉的智慧》延伸了我在《直觉感觉》（2007 年）一书中对直觉理性性的论述，进行了更深入的科学分析。我将直觉定位在更广泛的社会背景中，并认为直觉是基于无意识使用适应性启发式的。这些简单规则使直觉变得聪明。

Part I looks at the war against intuition. This battle began centuries ago to justify male paternalism by placing female intuition in opposition to male reason. With rising gender equality, this opposition was tailored to justify governmental paternalism by opposing female and male intuition to logical reasoning. In addition, the claim emerged that artificial intelligence (AI) will soon be, if it is not already, superior to human intuition, thereby justifying technological paternalism. All these clashes overlook that, like nature and nurture, intuition and deliberate reasoning act hand in hand. They are not antagonistic, nor is one of the partners superior. The false dichotomy serves obscured goals to exercise power over others.
第一部分探讨了对直觉的战争。这场战斗始于几个世纪前，旨在通过将女性直觉与男性理性对立来证明男性家长主义的正当性。随着性别平等的提升，这种对立被调整为通过将女性和男性的直觉与逻辑推理对立来证明政府家长主义的正当性。此外，有人声称人工智能（AI）很快将（如果还没有的话）优于人类直觉，从而证明技术家长主义的正当性。所有这些冲突都忽视了直觉和深思熟虑的行为是相辅相成的，就像自然和培养一样。它们并不对立，也没有一个伙伴是优越的。这种虚假的二元论是为了实施对他人的权力而服务的模糊目标。

Part II provides a closer view of the nature of intuition. Intuition is neither caprice nor irrationality, but unconscious intelligence based on long experience. The theoretical framework for understanding its nature is that of ecological rationality - the study of how mental processes are adapted to their environments. It is based on Herbert Simon's notion of bounded rationality, that is, how people make decision-making under uncertainty - in situations where the future is uncertain and the best action cannot be calculated. Good intuitions rely on adaptive heuristics that are not logically, but ecologically, rational. In this book, I weave together new chapters with previously published papers, which have been revised, updated, and integrated into a coherent structure.
第二部分提供了直观本质的更近距离视角。直觉既不是一时冲动，也不是非理性，而是基于长期经验的无意识智慧。理解其本质的理论框架是生态合理性 - 研究心理过程如何适应其环境。它基于赫伯特·西蒙(Herbert Simon)有限理性的概念，即人们如何在不确定性下做出决策 - 在未来不确定且最佳行动无法计算的情况下。良好的直觉依赖于适应性启发式，这些启发式不是逻辑上的，而是生态上的合理。在本书中，我将新章节与先前发表的论文编织在一起，这些论文已经过修订、更新，并整合成一个连贯的结构。

In a nutshell, The Intelligence of Intuition explores the myth of intuition's fallibility by positioning it as a unique form of intelligence that complements rather than opposes rationality.
简而言之，《直觉的智慧》探讨了直觉的不可靠性神话，将其定位为一种独特的智慧形式，它与理性相辅相成，而非相互对立。

Acknowledgments 致谢

Although single-authored, the ideas in this book emerged from years of collaboration with my graduate students, post-docs, and colleagues, including the members and guests of the ABC Research Group at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Berlin, and previously at the Max Planck Institute for Psychological Research in Munich. Many of them kindly commented on the chapters and ideas in this book. My thanks go Colin Allen, Hal Arkes, Florian Artinger, Will Bennis, Sonja Bißbort, Edward Cokely, Leda Cosmides, Adam Feltz, Nadine Fleischhut, David Funder, Wolfgang Gaissmaier, Mirta Galesic, Andrew Gelman, Daniel G. Goldstein, Jonathan Haidt, Robert P. Hamlin, Reid Hastie, Ralph Hertwig, Ulrich Hoffrage, Perke Jacobs, Linnea Karlsson, Konstantinos V. Katsikopoulos, Gary Klein, Shenghua Luan, Laura Martignon, Björn Meder, Joshua B. Miller, Shabnam Mousavi, Jonathan Nelson, Hans-Jörg Neth, Andreas Ortmann, Ernst Pöppel, David Preiss, Markus Raab, Lael Schooler, Jan-Gerrit Schuurman, Özgür Simsek, Robert Sternberg, Jeffrey R. Stevens, Joline Tan, Peter M. Todd, John Tooby, Elisabetta Versace, Riccardo Viale, Kirsten Volz, Odette Wegwarth, and Tom Wells. I am grateful for the intellectual and emotional support of my wife, Lorraine Daston, and for her help in directing my way through the stacks of Cambridge University Library to search for material on the idea of a peculiarly female intelligence. My special thanks go to Rona Unrau, who edited the entire manuscript and helped me to improve the first drafts. Christel Fraser went over the final draft and edited footnotes and references, and Sarah Otterstetter helped with the figures. I am lucky to have had the generous and unique support of the Max Planck Society and to profit from its intellectual and interdisciplinary atmosphere. It's research paradise.
尽管是单人撰写，但这本书中的思想是在多年与我的研究生、博士后和同事们合作的基础上产生的，包括柏林马克斯·普朗克人类发展研究所 ABC 研究小组的成员和客人，以及之前在慕尼黑马克斯·普朗克心理研究所的同事们。其中许多人友善地评论了这本书中的章节和思想。我要感谢 Colin Allen、Hal Arkes、Florian Artinger、Will Bennis、Sonja Bißbort、Edward Cokely、Leda Cosmides、Adam Feltz、Nadine Fleischhut、David Funder、Wolfgang Gaissmaier、Mirta Galesic、Andrew Gelman、Daniel G. Goldstein、Jonathan Haidt、Robert P. Hamlin、Reid Hastie、Ralph Hertwig、Ulrich Hoffrage、Perke Jacobs、Linnea Karlsson、Konstantinos V. Katsikopoulos、Gary Klein、Shenghua Luan、Laura Martignon、Björn Meder、Joshua B. Miller、Shabnam Mousavi、Jonathan Nelson、Hans-Jörg Neth、Andreas Ortmann、Ernst Pöppel、David Preiss、Markus Raab、Lael Schooler、Jan-Gerrit Schuurman、Özgür Simsek、Robert Sternberg、Jeffrey R. Stevens、Joline Tan、Peter M. Todd、John Tooby、Elisabetta Versace、Riccardo Viale、Kirsten Volz、Odette Wegwarth 和 Tom Wells。 我感激我的妻子洛林·达斯顿在智力和情感上的支持，感谢她在剑桥大学图书馆的书架中帮助我寻找关于特殊女性智力概念的资料。特别感谢编辑整个手稿并帮助我改进初稿的罗娜·安劳，克里斯特尔·弗雷泽检查了最终稿并编辑了脚注和参考文献，莎拉·奥特斯泰特帮助处理了图表。我很幸运能够得到马克斯·普朗克学会慷慨独特的支持，并从其智力和跨学科氛围中受益。这是一个研究天堂。

We Know More Than We Can Tell
我们知道的比我们能说的更多

The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing.
心有其理由，理智所不知道。

Blaise Pascal  布莱斯·帕斯卡

Intuition is a very powerful thing, more powerful than intellect.
直觉是一种非常强大的东西，比智力更强大。

Steve Jobs  史蒂夫·乔布斯

After years of conducting research as a cognitive psychologist, I remain fascinated by the power of intuition - the ability to know more than we can explain. Most people recognize a face without being able to specify its features. An experienced physician can sense in a blink of an eye when something is wrong with a patient, without being able to articulate why. Chess masters such as Judith Polgár and Magnus Carlson report that their intuitive play is the secret of their success. Intuition emerges from years of experience and is a form of unconscious intelligence.
经过多年作为认知心理学家进行研究，我仍然对直觉的力量着迷 - 能够知道比我们能解释的更多。大多数人能够识别一个面孔，但却无法具体说明其特征。一位经验丰富的医生可以在一眨眼间感觉到病人有什么问题，却无法解释为什么。象 Judith Polgár 和 Magnus Carlson 这样的国际象棋大师报告说，他们的直觉性下棋是他们成功的秘诀。直觉源自多年的经验，是一种无意识的智慧。

Intuition and reason are no opposing war parties. The physician's hunch initiates a deliberate search for the ailment. A musician's conscious and meticulous practice is the very basis from which those precious moments of flow emerge, where improvisation progresses without conscious guidance. Similarly, the majority of 17 Nobel Laureates explained in an interview that their "big leap" had occurred by them switching back and forth between intuition and analysis. This interplay has enabled generations of scientists and engineers to create technology. Blaise Pascal, the French mathematician whose beautiful words are cited in this chapter's epigraph, was also one of the inventors of the calculus of probability. Intuition and reason not only go together, they depend on each other. Without reason, there would be no mathematics. Without intuition, there would be little innovation.
直觉和理性并不是对立的战争派对。医生的直觉引发了对疾病的有意识搜索。音乐家的自觉和细致的练习是那些宝贵的流动时刻产生的基础，即即兴进行而无需有意识的指导。同样，17 位诺贝尔奖获得者中的大多数在一次采访中解释说，他们的“重大飞跃”是通过在直觉和分析之间来回切换实现的。这种相互作用使得几代科学家和工程师能够创造技术。法国数学家布莱兹·帕斯卡，他的美丽言辞被引用在本章的题词中，也是概率论的发明者之一。直觉和理性不仅共存，它们彼此依赖。没有理性，就不会有数学。没有直觉，就不会有创新。

Nevertheless, intuition is subject to increasing mistrust. People confuse it with God's voice or the arbitrary decisions of an inept political leader. Some psychological theories even portray intuition as suspect and reason as superior. Representatives of tech companies at popular artificial intelligence (AI) events contrast dubious human feelings with trustworthy algorithms in their efforts to convince us that we should be anxious to give away our private data and let machines make our personal decisions. However, this mistrust was not born in the digital age. Albert Einstein already noted it when he said:
尽管如此，直觉却备受怀疑。人们将其与上帝的声音或无能政治领导人的武断决定混淆。一些心理理论甚至将直觉描绘为可疑的，而将理性视为更优越。在流行的人工智能（AI）活动中，科技公司的代表将可疑的人类感觉与可信赖的算法进行对比，试图说服我们应该担心放弃我们的个人数据并让机器做出我们的个人决定。然而，这种不信任并非诞生于数字时代。阿尔伯特·爱因斯坦在说到这一点时已经指出了。

The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant.
直觉的心灵是一份神圣的礼物，理性的心灵是一个忠实的仆人。

We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.
我们创造了一个尊重仆人但忘记了礼物的社会。

Einstein was so right. Whereas calling something intuitive indicates great respect in the hard sciences, the term is often used to indicate irrationality in the social sciences as something generally inferior that should be avoided whenever possible. As we will see, this disrespect of intuition has a history. But first, let us be clear about what intuition is.
爱因斯坦是如此正确。在硬科学中，称某事为直觉表明了极大的尊重，但这个术语常常被用来表示社会科学中的非理性，通常被视为一种应尽量避免的低劣品质。正如我们将看到的，对直觉的不尊重有其历史。但首先，让我们明确直觉是什么。

What Is Intuition? 什么是直觉？

Thomas Aquinas and other medieval philosophers believed that angels are endowed with intuition. Angels have no bodies and thus no sensory organs that could deceive them; therefore, they can intuit the truth directly with impeccable clarity. Similarly, philosophers, including René Descartes and Immanuel Kant, were looking for certainty beyond mere experience. Intuition could make us "see" the self-evident truths in mathematics, morals, or God. While philosophers have debated the function of intuition, they themselves widely hold that they rely on it. The link between intuition and certainty was disentangled in the sciences when the great 19th-century physiologist Hermann von Helmholtz spoke of unconscious inferences and the 2oth-century psychologist Egon Brunswik spoke of the mind as an intuitive statistician. They were not the first; the idea that intuition is uncertain inference rather than direct knowledge of truths had been anticipated by David Hume and others before him. Unlike angels, mortals cannot perceive the world directly and have to rely on cues to infer their world. Similarly, the idea that intuition would not need experience became dispelled. Unlike Kant who was looking for certainty independent of experience, Helmholtz and Brunswik understood intuition as a result of experience. In this way, intuition eventually became divorced from (the illusion of) certainty and wedded to learning from experience.
托马斯·阿奎那和其他中世纪哲学家相信天使天生具有直觉。 天使没有身体，因此没有可能欺骗他们的感官器官；因此，他们可以直接以无可挑剔的清晰度直觉到真理。 同样，包括勒内·笛卡尔和伊曼纽尔·康德在内的哲学家们正在寻找超越单纯经验的确定性。 直觉可以使我们“看到”数学、道德或上帝中的不证自明的真理。 虽然哲学家们一直在辩论直觉的功能，但他们自己广泛认为他们依赖于它。 在科学领域，直觉与确定性之间的联系在 19 世纪伟大的生理学家赫尔曼·冯·赫尔姆霍兹谈到无意识推理以及 20 世纪心理学家埃贡·布伦斯维克谈到心智作为直觉统计学家时被解开。 他们并不是第一个； 直觉是不确定推理而不是对真理的直接认识的想法已经被大卫·休谟和他之前的其他人所预期。 与天使不同，凡人无法直接感知世界，必须依赖线索来推断他们的世界。 同样，直觉不需要经验的想法被驳倒了。 与康德寻求独立于经验的确定性不同，赫尔姆霍兹和布伦维克理解直觉是经验的结果。这样，直觉最终与（确定性的幻觉）分离，并与从经验中学习结合在一起。

Nevertheless, those philosophers who think of intuition as directly providing certain knowledge, and those psychologists who think of it as uncertain inference based on experience, share one important belief. Both assume that intuition is a form of intelligence. For Descartes, intuition was the most fundamental of the two routes to knowledge, the other being deduction. For Helmholtz, unconscious inferences enable the amazing intelligence of perception and, at the same time, explain perception illusions. Following this tradition of unconscious inferences, I understand intuition as unconscious intelligence.
尽管如此，那些认为直觉直接提供确定知识的哲学家和那些认为它是基于经验的不确定推理的心理学家，分享一个重要信念。两者都假设直觉是一种智力形式。对笛卡尔来说，直觉是两种知识途径中最基本的一种，另一种是演绎。对于赫尔姆霍兹来说，无意识的推理使感知的惊人智能成为可能，并同时解释了感知的错觉。沿着这种无意识推理的传统，我理解直觉为无意识智能。

In this book, I use a working definition:
在这本书中，我使用一个工作定义：

An intuition is a feeling:
直觉是一种感觉

I. based on long experience,
我。基于长期经验，

2. that appears quickly in one's consciousness, and
   出现在一个人意识中的东西，和
3. whose underlying rationale is unconscious.
   其基本原理是无意识的。

The emphasis on experience contrasts with the idea that intuition is arbitrary, a sixth sense, or God's voice. The cases of the doctor and the chess masters emphasize the role of experience. The learning of one's first language is another case in point. Consider the sentence "I could not agree to you." A native speaker would sense immediately that something is wrong with that sentence without necessarily being able to say what rules of grammar are violated. Someone with another mother tongue who hasn't mastered the language cannot depend on intuition in the same way.
强调经验与直觉是任意的、第六感或上帝的声音的观念形成鲜明对比。医生和国际象棋大师的案例强调了经验的作用。学习第一种语言也是一个例子。考虑句子“我不能同意你。”一个母语者会立即感觉到这个句子有问题，尽管不一定能说出违反了哪些语法规则。另一种母语不是该语言的人不能像同样依赖直觉。

Learning from experience requires feedback, meaning that having good intuitions in one domain does not guarantee having good intuitions in others. Intuitions are domain-specific. Professional tennis players may have excellent intuitions about the perfect forehand, but not about investing their money. Be it acting, driving, dancing, programming, or playing bridge and chess - the superior intuitions of experts require extensive training, with elite performance estimated at some 10,000 hours of deliberate practice. The importance of experience also contrasts with rational choice theory, whose axioms are about being consistent and where experience plays little role.
从经验中学习需要反馈，这意味着在一个领域有良好直觉并不保证在其他领域也有良好直觉。直觉是领域特定的。职业网球运动员可能对完美的正手击球有出色的直觉，但对投资自己的钱却没有。无论是表演、驾驶、跳舞、编程，还是打桥牌和下棋 - 专家的卓越直觉需要大量训练，精英表现被估计需要约 1 万小时的刻意练习。经验的重要性也与理性选择理论形成对比，后者的公理是关于一致性，经验在其中起到很小的作用。

The second aspect, "appears quickly in one's consciousness," provides a first indication of why intuition is indispensable. When fast decisionmaking is required, people have to act within the constraints of time. In life-and-death situations, deliberating all possible options can be fatal. Similarly, soccer players have to decide in a fraction of a second where to pass the ball. They may occasionally err, but would otherwise always miss opportunities if they deliberated extensively during a game. That limit of thinking too long is well known and time pressure is often considered a regrettable circumstance. However, the scientific study of intuition has revealed a stunning phenomenon: If players had more time to make a decision, their performance would not necessarily improve. Thinking deliberately can actually decrease performance. For an experienced player, intuition is guided by a simple rule:
第二个方面，“迅速出现在一个人的意识中”，提供了直观为何不可或缺的第一个指示。当需要快速决策时，人们必须在时间的限制内行动。在生死关头，仔细考虑所有可能的选择可能是致命的。同样，足球运动员必须在一瞬间决定把球传给哪里。他们偶尔可能会出错，但如果他们在比赛中进行深思熟虑，就会总是错失机会。过长思考的限制是众所周知的，时间压力通常被认为是一个令人遗憾的情况。然而，直觉的科学研究揭示了一个惊人的现象：如果球员有更多时间做决定，他们的表现未必会提高。深思熟虑实际上可能会降低表现。对于经验丰富的球员，直觉是由一个简单的规则引导的。

Fluency heuristic: Choose the first option that comes to mind.
流畅启发式：选择第一个浮现在脑海中的选项。

Studies with expert handball and golf players show that options come to mind in the order of their validity. That is, the first option is typically the best, the next option second-best, and so on (Figure 1.I). This explains why following one's first hunch is likely the best decision. If the first option cannot be carried out in the situation at hand, then following the second impulse is probably the best decision. In an experiment, experienced handball players were shown io-second video sequences from top games. Then the sequences were frozen and the players had to say what option they would take, such as throw at the goal or pass to the right. After their immediate and intuitive response, they were given another 45 seconds to deliberately inspect the frozen image and asked once again what they now thought the best option was. In about 40 percent of the cases, the players changed their minds. Yet, more time did not lead to better choices. Most of the time, the first intuitive choice was better than the action chosen after reflection. Similarly, when experienced golfers were given only 3 seconds to make their put, they were more successful in getting the ball into the hole than when given unlimited time. Novices, in contrast, have not yet developed good intuitions and perform better when granted more time. They need deliberation because they lack
专家手球和高尔夫球员的研究表明，选项按其有效性的顺序浮现在脑海中。也就是说，第一个选项通常是最好的，下一个选项次之，依此类推（图 1.I）。这解释了为什么跟随第一直觉很可能是最佳决定。如果第一个选项在当前情况下无法实施，那么跟随第二个冲动可能是最佳决定。在一项实验中，经验丰富的手球运动员观看了来自顶级比赛的 10 秒视频序列。然后，序列被冻结，运动员必须说出他们会选择什么选项，比如投向球门或向右传球。在他们立即和直觉的回答之后，他们被给予另外 45 秒的时间来仔细检查冻结的图像，并再次被问及他们现在认为最佳选项是什么。在大约 40％的情况下，运动员改变了主意。然而，更多的时间并没有导致更好的选择。大多数情况下，第一次直觉选择比反思后选择的行动更好。 同样，当有经验的高尔夫球手只有 3 秒的时间推杆时，他们比有无限时间时更成功地将球推入洞内。相比之下，新手还没有形成良好的直觉，当给予更多时间时表现更好。他们需要审慎考虑，因为他们缺乏

Beilock et al. (2004).
Beilock 等人（2004 年）。
}

Figure I.I. Fluency heuristic. For expert players, the quality of options decreases with the order they come to mind (adapted from Johnson & Raab, 2003). Thus, relying on the fluency heuristic enables not only fast but also accurate decisions. Note that this heuristic requires expertise and does not work as well for novices.
图 I.I. 流畅启发式。对于专家玩家来说，选项的质量随着它们浮现在脑海中的顺序而降低（改编自 Johnson & Raab，2003）。因此，依赖流畅启发式不仅能够做出快速决策，还能做出准确决策。请注意，这种启发式需要专业知识，对于新手来说效果不佳。

experience. The fluency heuristic is one illustration of how intuition is aided by heuristics.
经验。流畅启发是直觉如何受启发的一个例证。

Studies with chess players showed similar results: The first option that came to mind to chess masters (grand masters and international masters) was nearly always the best one. Moreover, under time pressure, their decisions did not suffer, whereas less experienced chess players then chose inferior moves. The higher the expertise, the more the chess players trust their intuition and the more often they are right in doing so.
研究表明，国际象棋选手的情况也类似：国际象棋大师和国际象棋特级大师脑海中首先浮现的选项几乎总是最佳选择。此外，在时间压力下，他们的决策不会受到影响，而经验较少的国际象棋选手则会选择次优的着法。专业水平越高，国际象棋选手越信任自己的直觉，也越经常做出正确的决策。

Thus, the first two aspects of intuition form a close couple: The more experience in a domain, the more likely that what quickly comes to mind is actually the best option. Note that this finding contradicts the hypothesis of a general speed-accuracy trade-off, where less time leads to less accurate decisions. As we have seen, this trade-off holds for novices, but not necessarily for experts. Fast decisions are not automatically inferior to slow decisions. How then did fast thinking come to be associated with errors and slow thinking with rationality? Psychological experiments mostly enlist undergraduates or crowdworkers who have no experience with the task at hand or confront them with artificial tasks they have never seen before. In this situation, the speed-accuracy trade-off does exist. The story of fast, intuitive decisions that are often wrong versus slow, reasoned decisions that are generally better is an overgeneralization based on the study of nonexpert undergraduates.
因此，直觉的前两个方面形成了一个密切的关系：在某个领域的经验越丰富，脑海中迅速浮现的选择越有可能是最佳选项。请注意，这一发现与一般速度与准确性的权衡假设相矛盾，即时间越少导致决策越不准确。正如我们所看到的，这种权衡对于新手是成立的，但对于专家来说并非必然如此。快速决策并不自动比慢速决策差。那么，为什么快速思考会被认为与错误相关，而慢速思考则与理性相关呢？心理实验大多招募没有相关任务经验的本科生或众包工作者，或者让他们面对从未见过的人工任务。在这种情况下，速度与准确性的权衡确实存在。快速、直觉的错误决策与慢速、理性的更好决策的故事是基于对非专业本科生研究的过度概括。

The third defining feature of intuition is crucial: that the process underlying an intuition is unconscious. To repeat the words of Pascal, "the heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing." A skillful player is unaware of the process that generates the first option that comes to their mind. Unconscious processes are not oddities, but essential for cognitive functioning. Conscious attention is a limited resource, which is the reason why multitasking is difficult:
直觉的第三个定义特征至关重要：直觉背后的过程是无意识的。重复帕斯卡的话，“心有其理由，理性所不知。” 一个熟练的玩家并不知道生成首选项的过程，这是他们脑海中首先出现的选项。 无意识过程并非怪事，而是认知功能的必要条件。 意识注意力是有限的资源，这就是为什么多任务处理困难的原因：

If one simultaneously performs two tasks that require deliberate attention, one's performance on each of the tasks deteriorates.
如果同时执行两项需要专注的任务，每项任务的表现都会下降。

Human attention can fully focus on one task alone, meaning that multitasking leads to a decrease in performance on the task(s) that demand focus. Our brain's solution is to perform as many tasks as possible unconsciously. If all of its tasks, including breathing and walking upright, needed to take place consciously, they would interfere with each other. In the words of the Portuguese poet Fernando Pessoa, "Could it think, the heart would stop beating." Once a process is unconscious, it no longer interferes with attention. Breathing while driving does not interfere with driving safety; texting while driving does.
人类的注意力只能完全集中在一项任务上，这意味着多任务处理会导致需要专注的任务表现下降。我们大脑的解决方案是尽可能地无意识地执行多项任务。如果所有任务，包括呼吸和直立行走，都需要有意识地进行，它们会相互干扰。用葡萄牙诗人费尔南多·佩索阿的话来说，“如果它能思考，心脏就会停止跳动。” 一旦一个过程变得无意识，它就不再干扰注意力。在驾驶时呼吸不会影响驾驶安全；在驾驶时发短信会。

Nevertheless, the unconscious has not received much appreciation in consciousness-centered philosophy, particularly in the 2oth-century analytic tradition. In psychology, the unconscious has similarly met with suspicion. Sigmund Freud's revelation that our behavior is heavily influenced by unconscious processes has been hailed as the third blow dealt to the human ego - after Copernicus and Kepler demonstrated that the Earth is not the center of the solar system, and Darwin found that humans and animals have common ancestors. Freud's unconscious processes were discovered when studying hypnosis and hysteria, which he investigated mostly in women. While unconscious influences, as embodied in the term
尽管如此，在以意识为中心的哲学中，无意识并没有得到太多赞赏，特别是在 20 世纪的分析传统中。在心理学中，无意识同样受到怀疑。西格蒙德·弗洛伊德揭示我们的行为受无意识过程影响很大，被誉为对人类自我的第三次打击 - 在哥白尼和开普勒证明地球不是太阳系中心之后，达尔文发现人类和动物有共同祖先。弗洛伊德的无意识过程是在研究催眠和癔症时发现的，他主要在女性身上进行了调查。虽然无意识的影响体现在这个术语中。

Freudian slips, are now common wisdom, accounts of them are mostly negative and refer to unintentional influences that cannot be controlled and should better not happen.
弗洛伊德口误现在是常识，对它们的描述大多是负面的，指的是无意识的影响，无法控制，最好不要发生。

The supposed link between unintentional and unconscious is, however, a misconception. Unconscious processes are typically initiated by intention. For instance, an experienced driver drives intuitively, but intentionally. An experienced scientist may have a sudden hunch while pondering a puzzling finding, but the hunch is motivated by conscious intention. Similarly, when typing, we do not move our fingers consciously, but typing is nevertheless an act of intention. These unconscious, but intentional, processes are the subject of psychological research on the automaticity of higher mental processes. The general lesson is: The fact that much of what we do is unconscious does not mean that it is irrational or unintentional. Unconsciousness is a necessary condition for a rational being.
所谓无意识和潜意识之间的联系实际上是一个误解。无意识过程通常是由意图引发的。例如，有经验的司机驾驶时是凭直觉，但是有意识的。有经验的科学家在思考一个令人困惑的发现时可能会突然有直觉，但这种直觉是由有意识的意图驱动的。同样，当打字时，我们并不是有意识地移动手指，但打字仍然是一种有意图的行为。这些无意识但有意图的过程是心理学研究中关于高级心理过程自动性的主题。总体教训是：我们做的许多事情是无意识的，并不意味着它是非理性或无意图的。无意识是理性存在的必要条件。

Fear of Admitting Gut Decisions
害怕承认直觉决策

Not being able to explain one's intuitions has led philosophers and psychologists to mistrust intuitive decisions. Those who cannot explain their actions are subject to suspicion. Mistrust of intuition fuels a culture of post hoc justification, motivated by fear of liability. In large corporations and administrations, justification and self-protection have become the primary motive in place of achievement. In this world, intuition is not talked about openly, but relied on surreptitiously.
无法解释自己的直觉导致哲学家和心理学家不信任直觉决策。不能解释自己行为的人会受到怀疑。对直觉的不信任助长了事后辩解的文化，这是出于对责任的恐惧。在大型企业和管理机构中，辩解和自我保护已经取代了成就成为主要动机。在这个世界里，直觉不会公开讨论，但却被秘密依赖。

In a series of studies, I asked hundreds of executives from half a dozen international corporations how often an important professional decision they made or participated in was ultimately a gut decision (their term for intuition). That is, if the available data did not provide a clear answer, which often happens in the uncertain world of business, how frequently did they rely on their intuitions? On average, the answer was for 50 percent of important decisions.
在一系列研究中，我询问了数百名来自半打国际公司的高管，询问他们在做出或参与的重要专业决策中，最终是凭直觉（他们对直觉的术语）的频率有多高。也就是说，如果可用数据没有提供明确答案，这在商业不确定的世界中经常发生，他们有多频繁地依赖自己的直觉？平均而言，对于 50％的重要决策，答案是。

Yet, the majority of the same executives would never admit to this practice in public. Many executives were unwilling to take personal responsibility for their decisions. They feared making errors and being blamed if they were unable to explain an intuitive decision.
然而，大多数同样的高管在公开场合永远不会承认这种做法。许多高管不愿意对自己的决定承担个人责任。他们害怕犯错，担心如果无法解释一个直觉决定而受到责备。

The Business of Justifying Decisions Post Hoc
事后辩解决策的业务

I have observed two ways in which managers cope with this anxiety. The first is to hire a consulting firm to justify the intuitive decision after the fact. Curious about how often this happens, I asked the principal of one of the largest consulting firms worldwide what proportion of their customer contacts involved justifying decisions post hoc. On the condition of anonymity, he disclosed that it was more than 50 percent. That gives a rough idea of the time, resources, and intelligence spent on concealing intuitive decisions and avoiding responsibility. In these cases, the function of reasoning and argumentation is to rationalize intuitive decisions and to hide them from view.
我观察到管理者处理这种焦虑的两种方式。第一种是聘请咨询公司在事后证明直觉决策的合理性。对于这种情况发生的频率，我询问了全球最大咨询公司之一的负责人，问他们的客户联系中有多少涉及事后证明决策的比例。在匿名的条件下，他透露超过 50％。这给出了一个大致的时间、资源和智力花费，用于掩盖直觉决策和避免责任。在这些情况下，推理和论证的功能是为了合理化直觉决策并将其隐藏起来。

A second strategy is even more expensive for the companies: defensive decision-making. It occurs when a manager feels that option is the best for the company, yet nevertheless recommends and pursues a second-best option B that is less risky for their own career if something goes awry. In my studies with managers from large corporations, the majority admitted to such practices for an average of percent of all their important professional decisions.
一种更昂贵的策略是公司的防御性决策。当经理觉得选项 对公司最有利，但仍然推荐并追求次优选项 B，以降低自己职业生涯风险时，就会出现这种情况。在我与大型公司经理的研究中，大多数人承认在所有重要职业决策中平均有 % 的时间采取这种做法。

Both strategies to camouflage intuitive decisions - hiring consulting firms or choosing second-best decisions - are costly. For every I percent loss in corporate income due to defensive decisions, a rough estimate is that, in highly industrialized countries such as Germany, large corporations lose billions of dollars each year. In family-owned businesses, by contrast, there is much less fear of admitting to following one's intuition; after all, it is their own money that is at stake, and most plan a generation ahead rather than up to the next quarterly report. If there is skin in the game, good intuitions are welcome. Wasting one's own money to cover these up would be a poor business strategy. Independent of whether leaders admit or deny gut decisions, both the analysis of data and intuition are required. Intuition and reasoning work with, not against, each other.
两种伪装直觉决策的策略——聘请咨询公司或选择次优决策——都是昂贵的。对于因防御性决策而导致企业收入损失的每个百分点，一个粗略估计是，在德国等高度工业化国家，大型企业每年损失数十亿美元。相比之下，家族企业很少害怕承认遵循直觉；毕竟，他们押上的是自己的钱，大多数人计划超前一代，而不是仅限于下一个季度报告。如果有利益关系，好的直觉是受欢迎的。浪费自己的钱来掩盖这些将是一种糟糕的商业策略。无论领导人是否承认或否认直觉决策，都需要数据分析和直觉。直觉和推理是相辅相成的，而不是相互对立的。

Reasoning and Intuition: Two Sides of the Same Coin
推理和直觉：同一枚硬币的两面

Intuition is based on experience. There are two ways in which experience is gathered: by implicit or explicit learning. In implicit learning, also called incidental learning, a person is not aware of the process (such as a heuristic or a grammar) underlying an intuition. The learning of one's first language proceeds in this way without being aware of the rules of grammar underlying one's speech. Second languages, in contrast, are typically taught by making the rules of grammar (and their exceptions) explicit. Similarly, in order to catch a fly ball, baseball outfielders rely on the gaze heuristic without being fully aware of it (see Chapter 6). Yet, ever since research figured out the heuristic process, it can be explicitly taught to novices. The important point is that the same heuristic rules, such as those of grammar and of catching a ball, underlie both intuition and deliberate reasoning.
直觉是基于经验的。经验的收集有两种方式：隐式学习和显式学习。在隐式学习中，也称为偶然学习，一个人并不意识到支撑直觉的过程（如启发式或语法）。第一语言的学习就是这样进行的，而不需要意识到支撑自己言语的语法规则。相比之下，第二语言通常通过明确地传授语法规则（及其例外）来教授。同样，为了接住一个飞球，棒球外野手依赖凝视启发式，而并不完全意识到它（见第 6 章）。然而，自从研究弄清楚了启发式过程以来，就可以明确地教给新手。重要的一点是，相同的启发式规则，如语法和接住球的规则，支撑着直觉和刻意推理。

Intuition can also start out as deliberate reasoning, that is, by explicit learning. Tying shoelaces is learned consciously, as a sequence of movements, but, with experience, it becomes unconscious. Once this state is achieved, the process works fast and flawlessly. At that point, consciously thinking about the sequence of movements can actually disrupt one's ability to tie the laces. Similarly, a difficult piece on the piano is learned consciously by paying attention to the right sequence and timing of fingers, but true music starts when piano players are no longer conscious of what their fingers are doing. Many skills have passed through this trajectory from deliberate to intuitive. Alfred Whitehead, the English mathematician who coauthored the Principia Mathematica with Bertrand Russell, emphasized this trajectory to counter the axiom that deliberate thinking is all that matters:
直觉也可以作为刻意推理的开始，也就是说，通过明确的学习。系鞋带是有意识地学习的，作为一系列动作，但是随着经验的积累，它变得无意识。一旦达到这种状态，这个过程就会快速而无缺。在那时，有意识地思考系鞋带的动作顺序实际上会干扰一个人系鞋带的能力。同样，钢琴上的一首难曲是通过有意识地关注手指的正确顺序和节奏来学习的，但是真正的音乐开始于钢琴演奏者不再意识到他们的手指在做什么。许多技能都经历了从刻意到直觉的这一轨迹。与伯特兰·罗素合著《数学原理》的英国数学家阿尔弗雷德·怀特黑德强调了这一轨迹，以反驳刻意思考是唯一重要的公理。

It is a profoundly erroneous truism, repeated by all copy-books and by eminent people when they are making speeches, that we should cultivate the habit of thinking of what we are doing. The precise opposite is the case. Civilization advances by extending the number of operations which we can perform without thinking about them.
这是一个深刻错误的陈词滥调，所有抄写本和杰出人士在演讲时都会重复，即我们应该培养思考我们正在做的事情的习惯。事实恰恰相反。文明是通过扩展我们可以在不加思考的情况下执行的操作数量而进步的。

Contrast Whitehead's statement with the belief that free will denotes always consciously deciding before acting. In the widely discussed experiments by the American neuroscientist Benjamin Libet, for instance, a change in participants' electroencephalogram (EEG) signals occurred before the participants actually reported their decision to act (a simple motor action). The conscious decision thus did not appear to cause the action, a finding that has been interpreted by others as proof that free will is illusory. Yet that conclusion assumes volition and intention to be unremittingly conscious, and it overlooks the fact that intuitive processes guide many of our decisions. Our unconscious is every bit part of our identity. We would get nowhere by deliberating all day long, leaving our body to wait patiently for orders.
将怀特黑德的声明与自由意志意味着总是在行动之前有意识地做出决定的信念进行对比。例如，美国神经科学家本杰明·利贝特进行了广泛讨论的实验中，参与者的脑电图（EEG）信号发生变化，而参与者实际上报告他们决定行动（简单的运动行为）之前。因此，意识决定似乎并没有导致行动，这一发现被其他人解释为自由意志是虚幻的证据。然而，这一结论假设意志和意图是持续意识的，并忽视了直觉过程指导我们许多决定的事实。我们的无意识是我们身份的一部分。如果我们整天都在深思熟虑，让我们的身体耐心等待命令，我们将一事无成。

Einstein's concern that we have forgotten the gift of intuition is as timely today as it was then. And the campaign against intuition has a history.
爱因斯坦担心我们已经忘记了直觉的天赋，这一点在今天和当时一样及时。而对直觉的打压也有历史。

The War on Intuition
直觉之战

Even into the 2oth century, prominent psychologists were convinced that men are rational and women intuitive and that only men could master abstract thought. It was asserted as a scientific fact that women's concrete and intuitive thinking prevented them from grasping abstract moral principles, going so far as to claim that women who lied were simply incapable of comprehending that their actions were evil. According to this line of reasoning, women needed men's guidance and should be kept out of politics, economics, and other important decision-making domains. In Chapter 2, I tell the story of this peculiar idea of women's intuitive intelligence and how the opposition of female intuition and male reason faded away due to the emerging concept of a single intelligence shared by both sexes. Women and men were eventually deemed equal partners, but intuition and rationality were kept unequal.
即使进入 20 世纪，知名心理学家仍然坚信男性是理性的，女性是直觉的，只有男性才能掌握抽象思维。有人断言作为科学事实，女性的具体和直觉思维阻碍了她们理解抽象的道德原则，甚至声称说谎的女性简单地无法理解她们的行为是邪恶的。根据这种推理，女性需要男性的指导，应该远离政治、经济和其他重要决策领域。在第 2 章中，我讲述了关于女性直觉智慧的这种奇特观念以及由于新兴概念——男女共享的单一智力概念的出现而消失的女性直觉与男性理性的对立。最终，女性和男性被认为是平等的伙伴，但直觉和理性仍然是不平等的。

In spite of these changes, women continue to be associated with intuition today. For instance, when asked whether women recognize emotions better than men, women and men responded in the affirmative, a result also consistently obtained in self-report questionnaires on emotional intelligence. However, when actually testing people's abilities, studies did not find a difference for strong expressions of emotions; for emotional expressions of lower intensity, the results are inconsistent. In one study, 5,000 participants were shown 24 faces with emotional expressions, either at a high or low intensity, and were asked to rate these on each of six emotions: anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, and surprise. Both genders rated the target emotions equally correctly, regardless of whether the expression was intensive or subtle. There was no evidence that women have better intuitions than men about others' emotional expressions.
尽管有这些变化，今天女性仍然被认为与直觉有关。例如，当被问及女性是否比男性更擅长识别情绪时，女性和男性都肯定回答，这一结果也在情绪智力的自我报告问卷中一贯得到。然而，当实际测试人们的能力时，研究并未发现在强烈表达情绪方面有差异；对于情绪表达较低强度的情况，结果是不一致的。在一项研究中，5000 名参与者被展示了 24 张带有情绪表达的面孔，无论是高强度还是低强度，并被要求对这些面孔上的六种情绪进行评分：愤怒、厌恶、恐惧、快乐、悲伤和惊讶。无论表达是强烈还是微妙，两性都同样正确地评价了目标情绪。没有证据表明女性比男性更擅长直觉地识别他人的情绪表达。

Beginning in the I970s, a group of psychologists and behavioral economists began a new war on intuition, pitting it once again against rationality. This time, the target of attack extended beyond female intuition to include everyone's intuition. The key message, spread by bestselling books such as Ariely's Predictably Irrational (2008), Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow, (201 Ia), or Thaler and Sunstein's Nudge (2008), is that only the abstract logic of rational choice theory is worthy of trust. Just as female intuition had been opposed to male reason, two antagonistic systems were posited, one fast, intuitive, inconsistent, and often wrong, and the other slow, rational, and apparently always right. Humans err if the rational "System 2" does not pay sufficient attention and fails to correct what the intuitive "System I" gets wrong. The similarity of this new opposition with that of female intuition versus male reason may not be entirely coincidental. It is based on a philosophical and psychological tradition that differs strongly from the angelic view of intuition. From the igth century to the first half of the 20th century, it was not uncommon that psychologists contrasted what they believed to be the intuitive, primitive, and fast judgments of children, women, and the mentally retarded, with the slower and more deliberate rational judgments of male adults. In the more current view, everyone's intuition is riddled by dozens of cognitive biases, many of which have become household words.
上世纪 70 年代开始，一群心理学家和行为经济学家展开了一场新的直觉之战，再次将其与理性对立起来。这一次，攻击的目标不仅仅是女性的直觉，还包括每个人的直觉。畅销书籍如阿里尔的《可预测的非理性》（2008 年）、卡内曼的《思考，快与慢》（2011 年）或萨尔和桑斯坦的《推动》（2008 年）传播的关键信息是，只有理性选择理论的抽象逻辑值得信任。正如女性的直觉被对立于男性的理性一样，被提出了两种对立的系统，一种快速、直觉、不一致且常常错误，另一种缓慢、理性、似乎总是正确。如果理性的“系统 2”没有足够的注意力并未能纠正直觉的“系统 1”所犯的错误，人类就会犯错。这种新对立与女性的直觉与男性的理性之间的对立有些相似，这可能并非完全巧合。它基于一种与直觉的天使视角截然不同的哲学和心理传统。 从 19 世纪到 20 世纪上半叶，心理学家常常将他们认为的儿童、女性和智力障碍者的直觉、原始和快速判断与成年男性的更慢和更深思熟虑的理性判断进行对比，这并不罕见。在更现代的观点中，每个人的直觉都被数十种认知偏见所困扰，其中许多已成为家喻户晓的词汇。

The new target is a specific kind of intuition, namely, understanding chance and randomness, at which humans are claimed to be miserably incompetent. This dismal picture, however, is surprising. Prior to the I970s, two decades of psychological research concurred that human intuition about chance and randomness is fairly accurate - at least by age or so, as Swiss psychologists Jean Piaget and Bärbel Inhelder were the first to conclude in 195I. Why did people show fairly good intuitions about chance before the I970s and shoddy ones thereafter? The I970s brought the Watergate scandal, the end of the Vietnam War, and the death of Elvis Presley. But how would such events explain a decline in our intuition?
新目标是一种特定类型的直觉，即理解机会和随机性，人类据称在这方面表现得非常不称职。然而，这幅惨淡的画面令人惊讶。在 1970 年代之前，两十年的心理研究一致认为，人类对机会和随机性的直觉相当准确 - 至少到 岁左右，瑞士心理学家让·皮亚杰和巴贝尔·因赫勒在 1951 年首次得出结论。为什么人们在 1970 年代之前对机会表现出相当好的直觉，而之后表现出糟糕的直觉？1970 年代带来了水门事件、越战结束和猫王埃尔维斯·普雷斯利的去世。但这些事件如何解释我们直觉的下降？

Weapons of Destruction 毁灭性武器

I argue that there was no such decline in intuition in the first place. Rather, three measures were taken to make human intuition look wanting. For one, quite a few researchers bore a "bias bias," that is, a tendency to spot cognitive biases even when there were none. This led them to mistake what were, in fact, people's intelligent intuitions for persistent irrationality. Second, studies demonstrating biases introduced a new kind of classroom and online experiment that produces data in a few minutes and does not allow participants to learn from experience. Pre-I 970 s psychological experiments, by contrast, gave participants the opportunity to learn. When people can learn from experience, their intuitions about chance, randomness, and risk are not perfect, but fairly good. It was only recently understood that this change in experimental practice was one of the factors that made intuitions suddenly appear to be infected with biases. Strikingly few people are even aware of research unveiling the marvels of intuition. This blind spot is fueled by a third measure, a conspicuous citation bias: Studies reporting good intuitions are rarely mentioned and cited, whereas those reporting biases are highly popularized. The bias bias and the lack of learning opportunities were crucial in producing the new negative view of intuition, and the massive citation bias, now and then, makes the untrustworthiness of intuition appear to be a hard, scientific fact.
我认为一开始并没有直觉下降这种情况。相反，采取了三项措施，使人类的直觉看起来有所不足。首先，相当多的研究人员持有“偏见偏见”，即倾向于发现认知偏见，即使实际上并没有。这导致他们错误地将人们的智能直觉误认为是持续的非理性。其次，展示偏见的研究引入了一种新型的课堂和在线实验，可以在几分钟内产生数据，不允许参与者从经验中学习。相比之下，1970 年代之前的心理实验给予参与者学习的机会。当人们可以从经验中学习时，他们对机会、随机性和风险的直觉并不完美，但相当不错。最近才意识到，实验实践的这种变化是使直觉突然出现受到偏见影响的因素之一。令人惊讶的是，很少有人意识到揭示直觉奇迹的研究。 这个盲点受到第三个措施的推动，即显著的引文偏见：报告良好直觉的研究很少被提及和引用，而报告偏见的研究却被广泛宣传。偏见偏见和缺乏学习机会对产生对直觉的新负面看法至关重要，而大量的引文偏见时不时地使直觉的不可信性看起来像是一个坚实的科学事实。

These three weapons in the war against intuition have created a distorted picture of intuition and reinforced the misleading idea that intuition is hostile to reason. This war, eventually called the great rationality debate, or rationality war, spilled over into politics. If ordinary people's intuitions are riddled with biases, citizens cannot make appropriate decisions by themselves and therefore need steady guidance by experts and governments. Governments, so the argument continues, know better what their citizens really want and should nudge them along that path. This new paternalism is reminiscent of the male paternalism of the past, where women were seen as irrational and in need of male guidance. Now the verdict is on people's intuition across the board, and governments have a scientific blueprint to nudge their citizens into "proper" behavior. Once again, intuition has been discredited in the name of science.
这场反对直觉的战争中的这三种武器创造了对直觉的扭曲看法，并加强了直觉对理性的敌意的误导性观念。这场战争最终被称为伟大的理性辩论，或理性战争， 并波及到政治领域。如果普通人的直觉充满偏见，公民就无法自行做出适当的决定，因此需要专家和政府的稳定指导。因此，论点继续认为，政府更了解他们的公民真正想要什么，并应该引导他们走上这条道路。 这种新的家长式管理让人想起过去的男性家长式管理，那时女性被视为不理性，需要男性的指导。现在，对人们的直觉做出了全面的裁决，政府有了一份科学蓝图，可以引导他们的公民进入“正确”的行为轨迹。再次，直觉在科学的名义下被贬低。

The Bias Bias in the Service of Governmental Paternalism and Reckless Companies
政府的偏见偏见服务和鲁莽公司

Male paternalism is, of course, not the same as governmental paternalism, even if both have been justified by attacking intuition. Yet there are striking parallels. Female intuition had been linked to moral flaws, while in the 2Ist century, intuition was linked to individual moral weaknesses and considered the cause of individual wrongdoings such as failure to take care of one's health, to use condoms as protection from AIDS, and to save money for the future. Moreover, intuition was increasingly seen to be at the root of social problems, causing more than individual damage. Obesity was suspected to result from a "present bias" (overweighting the present moment), addictive gambling from wrong statistical intuitions, and the financial crisis of 2008 from traders' overconfidence bias. Once again, governments were called to step in and nudge their citizens in order to protect them - not from criminals, but from themselves. As we will see, these brash claims were rarely based on independent evidence. In fact, when my colleagues and I reviewed over a thousand studies, we found little reliable evidence that so-called biases of intuition are associated with loss of wealth, health, happiness, or any other measurable costs. Yet, blaming intuition for society's ills has become a story too powerful to be disturbed by facts.
男性的家长作风当然不同于政府的家长作风，即使两者都曾被攻击直觉来证明。然而，两者之间存在着明显的相似之处。女性的直觉曾被联系到道德缺陷，而在 21 世纪，直觉被联系到个人道德弱点，并被认为是导致个人错误行为的原因，比如不注意健康、不使用避孕套预防艾滋病，以及不为未来存钱。此外，直觉越来越被视为社会问题的根源，导致的不仅仅是个人损害。肥胖被怀疑是由于“现在偏见”（过分看重当前时刻）造成的，成瘾赌博是由于错误的统计直觉，2008 年的金融危机是由于交易员的过度自信偏见。再次，政府被要求介入，引导他们的公民以保护他们 - 不是免受罪犯的伤害，而是免受自己的伤害。正如我们将看到的，这些大胆的说法很少基于独立证据。 事实上，当我和同事们审查了一千多项研究时，我们发现很少有可靠证据表明所谓的直觉偏见与财富、健康、幸福或任何其他可衡量的成本有关。 然而，责怪直觉导致社会问题已经成为一个过于强大的故事，无法被事实打破。

Attributing obesity or financial crises to a failure of the brain's rational part to prevent its intuitive part from irrational action amounts to a onesided, individualistic view of responsibility. This internal narrative deflects attention from some of the real culprits in the external world. The food industry earns billions from advertising and selling unhealthy food, the gambling industry has deliberately designed personalized slot machines to make people addicted, and legal systems allow bankers to profit from taking undue risks and letting taxpayers pick up the bill. In this way, the war against intuition can serve quite a few parties' interests. For instance, the House of Lords criticized the UK government under former prime minister David Cameron for nudging citizens to avoid obesity instead of considering more efficient solutions such as prohibiting the television advertising of products high in sugar, salt, and fat.
将肥胖或金融危机归因于大脑理性部分未能阻止其直觉部分进行非理性行为，这等于是一种片面的、个人主义的责任观。这种内部叙事转移了对外部世界一些真正罪魁祸首的注意力。食品行业通过广告和销售不健康食品赚取数十亿美元，赌博行业故意设计个性化老虎机让人上瘾，法律体系允许银行家从冒险并让纳税人买单中获利。这样，对抗直觉的战争可以为许多利益相关方服务。例如，上议院批评了前首相戴维·卡梅伦领导下的英国政府，因为他们敦促公民避免肥胖，而不是考虑更有效的解决方案，比如禁止高糖、高盐、高脂肪产品的电视广告。

Focusing on systematic errors made by human intuition is also of interest for companies that severely pollute the environment, as the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska illustrates. In 1994, an Alaskan federal jury awarded billion to fishermen and others whose livelihoods had been devastated by the spill. When Exxon waged its appeal, a new line of research emerged that used studies with mock juries to question jurors' intuitions. Without mentioning that it had funded the research, Exxon argued "that jurors are generally incapable of performing the tasks the law assigns to them in punitive damage cases." The results served Exxon well in court. This new line of research on jurors' intuitions eventually became part of a new field known as behavioral law and economics. Its key program is to show how intuition fails in legal contexts.
专注于人类直觉产生的系统性错误也对那些严重污染环境的公司感兴趣，正如 1989 年阿拉斯加埃克森美孚瓦尔迪兹石油泄漏事件所示。 1994 年，阿拉斯加联邦陪审团判给渔民和其他因泄漏而生计受到严重影响的人 亿美元。当埃克森提出上诉时，出现了一项新的研究领域，利用模拟陪审团的研究来质疑陪审员的直觉。 埃克森辩称“陪审员通常无法完成法律在惩罚性赔偿案件中分配给他们的任务。” 结果在法庭上对埃克森有利。 这种关于陪审员直觉的新研究领域最终成为一个被称为行为法律与经济学的新领域的一部分。 其主要目标是展示直觉在法律环境中的失败。

By no means do I defend intuition for its own sake. A "war on reason" would be equally dangerous. The scientific method has struggled for centuries to promote fact over opinion and encourage people to look at the evidence rather than to defend their favored theories. Today, we witness new versions of this long-standing struggle, amplified by the rapid dissemination of fake news by social media. The international Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) study reported that over 90 percent of 15 -year-olds worldwide do not know how to distinguish facts from mere opinion or fake news. Even worse, many do not seem to be motivated to do so in the first place. Social scientists and philosophers themselves struggle to respect the evidence if it does not validate their theories, as the accounts of female intuition versus male reason and of the bias bias illustrate.
绝不是为了直觉本身而辩护。对“理性的战争”同样危险。科学方法已经努力了几个世纪，以促进事实胜于观点，并鼓励人们看证据而不是捍卫他们偏爱的理论。今天，我们目睹了这场长期斗争的新版本，由社交媒体快速传播虚假新闻而加剧。国际学生评估计划（PISA）的研究报告称，全球超过 90％的 15 岁学生不知道如何区分事实和纯粹观点或假新闻。更糟糕的是，许多人似乎没有动力去做这件事。社会科学家和哲学家们自己也在努力尊重证据，如果证据不支持他们的理论，如女性直觉与男性理性以及偏见偏见的描述。

This struggle has a long history. In the early th century, disputes among scholars grew so fierce and insults so intolerable that the Royal Society of London prevented scholars from publishing their pet theories and focused on oddities of nature instead. For about half a century, the annals were filled with striking observations for which no theories existed, such as double-headed calves, blood rain in Bavaria, and cold light. Francis Bacon, one of the spearheads of the movement, complained that observations are too often contaminated with arbitrary dogmas. Looking at strange facts helped to reduce the avalanche of personal insults.
这场斗争有着悠久的历史。在 世纪初，学者之间的争执变得如此激烈，侮辱如此不堪，以至于伦敦皇家学会禁止学者们发表他们的个人理论，转而专注于自然的奇异现象。大约半个世纪的时间里，年鉴中充满了一些引人注目的观察结果，而这些结果并没有相应的理论来解释，比如双头小牛、拜仁的血雨和冷光。运动的先锋之一弗朗西斯·培根抱怨说，观察结果往往受到任意教条的污染。看着奇怪的事实有助于减少个人侮辱的雪崩。

Common Sense, Freedom, and Dignity
常识、自由和尊严

The war on intuition, be it on female's or everyone's intuition, intersects with the struggle for freedom and dignity of a group of people and the effort of others to control them. Thomas Paine's Common Sense, written in I776 against the rule of authority - about the then king of Great Britain and his injustices to American colonists - exemplifies the ideal that people should be free and trust their own senses to rule themselves. Common Sense swept through the colonies like a firestorm, selling half a million copies and fueling the American War of Independence.
对直觉的战争，无论是对女性的还是对每个人的直觉，都与一群人的自由和尊严的斗争以及其他人控制他们的努力交汇。托马斯·潘恩在 1776 年写的《常识》，反对当时大不列颠国王的统治 - 关于他对美国殖民地人的不公正 - 体现了人们应该自由并信任自己的感官来统治自己的理想。《常识》像一场火灾席卷殖民地，销售了 50 万册，助长了美国独立战争。

Today, digital technology is being misused to convince people that they should submit to a new rule of authority, technological paternalism. We are told that Google knows us better than we ourselves do and that we would be better off following the recommendations of algorithms rather than our own intuition. Underlying technological paternalism is the idea that algorithms will soon outperform human intelligence in all respects, if they have not done so already, and it is thus only prudent to stop making decisions on our own and defer to AI. In this view, AI is seen not as a complement to human intuition, but as an authoritative superintelligence that is immune to the errors we make. Yet, the evidence to back such technological paternalism is as scarce as for the claim that women are intuitive and men rational. What drives this narrative is marketing hype and techno-religious faith. Statistical machines such as deep artificial neural networks are excellent for some tasks, but incorporating intuition and common sense into AI remains an enormous challenge.
今天，数字技术被滥用，说服人们应该服从一种新的权威规则，即技术家长制。我们被告知，谷歌比我们自己更了解我们，我们最好遵循算法的建议，而不是我们自己的直觉。技术家长制的基本观念是，如果算法在各方面还没有超越人类智能，那么它们很快就会做到，因此停止自己做决定，转而依赖人工智能是明智的。在这种观点中，人工智能被视为一种权威的超级智能，免疫我们所犯的错误，而不是作为人类直觉的补充。然而，支持这种技术家长制的证据与声称女性具有直觉而男性具有理性一样稀缺。推动这一叙事的是营销炒作和技术宗教信仰。深度人工神经网络等统计机器在某些任务上表现出色，但将直觉和常识融入人工智能仍然是一个巨大的挑战。

Toward a Science of Intuition
走向直觉科学

To develop a scientific perspective on intuition, we first need to dispense with the old and misleading dualistic opposition of intuition and reason that has survived in many psychological theories. Instead, intuition and reason go hand in hand: In the case of the doctor who feels that something is wrong with a patient, intuition comes first, followed by a deliberate search for what is wrong. Even in abstract disciplines such as mathematics, both intuition and reasoning are needed. As George Pólya emphasized, finding a problem or discovering a proof requires intuition and heuristics; checking whether the proof is correct requires logic and analysis.
要发展对直觉的科学观点，我们首先需要摒弃在许多心理理论中仍然存在的旧的和误导性的直觉与理性的二元对立。相反，直觉和理性是相辅相成的：在医生觉得病人有问题时，直觉先行，然后是对问题的刻意搜索。即使在数学等抽象学科中，直觉和推理都是必需的。正如乔治·波利亚强调的那样，找到问题或发现证明需要直觉和启发；检查证明是否正确需要逻辑和分析。

Accordingly, psychological studies do not support the polarization of intuition and reason. If intuition and analysis were exclusive poles, their use would be negatively correlated (either the one or the other). An evaluation of 75 studies, however, showed that intuition and analysis were uncorrelated. Nor is the alignment of intuition with heuristics and biases in popular dual-systems theories supported by evidence. Every heuristic can be used both intuitively (unconsciously) and consciously; intuition can lead to errors, but so can deliberate reasoning, logical argument, and big data. Although the dichotomies in dual systems are quite vague, it is easy to see that they do not even align. Rather, they reflect the centuries-old view that pits reason against intuition, with reason as the dominant force. Instead of simply positing value-laden polar opposites, it is more fruitful to empirically study the nature of intuition and its relation to reason.
因此，心理学研究并不支持直觉和理性的极端对立。如果直觉和分析是互斥的极端，它们的使用将呈负相关（要么一个，要么另一个）。然而，对 75 项研究的评估显示，直觉和分析之间没有相关性。 直觉与启发式和偏见在流行的双系统理论中的对齐也没有得到证据支持。每种启发式都可以在直觉（无意识）和有意识的情况下使用；直觉可能导致错误，但刻意推理、逻辑论证和大数据也可能如此。 尽管双系统中的二元对立相当模糊，但很容易看出它们甚至不对齐。相反，它们反映了几个世纪以来将理性与直觉对立起来，以理性为主导力量的观点。与其简单地假设价值观负载的极端对立，更有益的是从经验上研究直觉的本质及其与理性的关系。

To get there, we also need to dispose of the bias bias, that is, the preoccupation with showing that people's intuition is flawed, even when evidence of that is scarce or nonexistent. For instance, at the beginning of the Covid-I9 pandemic, Bloomberg published an article entitled "The Cognitive Bias That Makes Us Panic About Coronavirus." The author confidently asserted that "most people in North America and Europe do not need to worry much about the risk of contracting the disease" and are "more scared than they have any reason to be." People's fear of getting infected was attributed to a bias of intuition, probability neglect. This means that people overestimate the danger because they fixate their attention solely on the potentially severe consequences of Covid-19 and neglect the low probability of these actually happening. At that time, however, nobody could know whether the probability was low or high, or how the pandemic would develop. When, during the following months, hundreds of thousands of people became infected with the virus and died, it became clear that people's intuitions were not so wrong. Other fighters in the war against intuition now blamed people for underestimating how quickly the virus spreads. People were said to suffer from an exponential growth bias, that is, a flawed understanding of the virus's exponential growth. Many people have never been taught exponential functions and, thus, may indeed have difficulties in understanding them, but that is not the point. As it turned out, the spread of the virus was not exponentially increasing, but instead came in waves, growing and fading. The Covid-19 pandemic was a situation of uncertainty, not calculable risk, where no one could know the ever-changing probabilities and ups and downs, which left both experts at the World Health Organization (WHO) and ordinary people in the dark.
为了到达那里，我们还需要摆脱偏见，即对展示人们直觉错误的偏见，即使证据稀少或不存在。例如，在 Covid-19 大流行开始时，彭博社发表了一篇名为“让我们恐慌于冠状病毒的认知偏见”的文章。作者自信地断言“北美和欧洲大多数人不需要过多担心感染疾病的风险”，并且“比他们有任何理由害怕的更害怕”。人们对感染的恐惧被归因于直觉偏见，概率忽视。这意味着人们会高估危险，因为他们只专注于 Covid-19 可能造成的严重后果，而忽视这些后果实际发生的低概率。然而，当时没有人知道概率是低还是高，或者大流行会如何发展。在接下来的几个月里，数十万人感染病毒并死亡，人们的直觉并没有那么错误，这一点变得清楚。 在对抗直觉的战争中，其他战士现在指责人们低估了病毒传播速度。据说人们患有指数增长偏见，即对病毒指数增长的理解存在缺陷。 许多人从未接受过指数函数的教育，因此可能确实难以理解，但这不是重点。事实证明，病毒的传播并非呈指数增长，而是呈波浪式增长和减退。新冠疫情是一种不确定性情况，而非可计算风险，没有人能够了解不断变化的概率和起伏，这让世界卫生组织（WHO）的专家和普通人都一筹莫展。

Thus, there are two indispensable preconditions for a mature science of intuition. First, one needs to eliminate the opposition between intuition and reason, both of which are needed for human intelligence. Second, one needs to eliminate the bias bias. Only by taking both intuition and reasoning seriously can we find out how they work, how they relate to each other, and when they each err.
因此，直觉科学有两个不可或缺的前提条件。首先，需要消除直觉和理性之间的对立，这两者对人类智慧都是必需的。其次，需要消除偏见。只有认真对待直觉和推理，我们才能找出它们是如何运作的，它们如何相互关联，以及它们何时出错。

What Follows 什么接下来

Part I of this book deals with the widespread mistrust of intuition. It begins with the opposition of female intuition versus male reason in the context of ideas about female intelligence. This chapter not only presents the history of the idea of a peculiarly female intelligence but also provides a larger context for the struggle to understand the mystery of intelligence and for the historical bias against women masked as science. It shows how the polarity eventually became resolved, even though beliefs in male superiority have not yet been fully extinguished. However, the opposition between intuition and reason has survived in present-day dual-systems theories of reasoning, which wage a new war against intuition. I make the case that there is little evidence for this opposition, even after it was cleansed of its problematic association with gender. The last chapter in Part I shows, in more depth, how the war against intuition has not only fueled male paternalism but also governmental and technological paternalism.
本书的第一部分涉及对直觉的普遍不信任。它始于女性直觉与男性理性在有关女性智力的观念背景下的对立。这一章节不仅呈现了关于独特女性智力观念的历史，还为理解智力之谜的斗争和作为科学的历史偏见掩盖的更大背景提供了上下文。它展示了极性最终如何得以解决，尽管对男性优越性的信念尚未完全熄灭。然而，直觉与理性之间的对立在当今的推理双系统理论中仍然存在，这些理论对直觉发动了新的战争。我认为几乎没有证据支持这种对立，即使在与性别有问题的关联被清除之后。第一部分的最后一章更深入地展示了对直觉的战争不仅助长了男性家长主义，还助长了政府和技术家长主义。

In Part II, I address the question of the nature of intuition. I argue that intuition is guided by the unconscious use of adaptive heuristics. These heuristics are ecologically rational and can lead to better decisions with little to no deliberate thinking. The fluency heuristic is an example. Heuristics can be embodied, that is, enlist motor and perceptual abilities without awareness. I also show how professional intuitions can be explicated by models of heuristics, such as the heuristics that Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos have used for hiring. The final chapter looks at the social world of science: How can one establish and maintain an environment that fosters successful collaboration in a research group? Using my 20 years of experience in directing a research group at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Berlin as a case study, I illustrate how heuristics shape the intellectual and social climate of research and how they influence whether a group culture can become more or less open, more or less formal, and more or less inclusive.
在第二部分中，我探讨直觉的本质问题。我认为直觉是由无意识使用适应性启发式引导的。这些启发式是生态合理的，可以在几乎没有刻意思考的情况下做出更好的决策。流畅启发式就是一个例子。启发式可以体现在身体上，即在没有意识的情况下利用运动和感知能力。我还展示了如何通过启发式模型来解释专业直觉，比如埃隆·马斯克和杰夫·贝索斯用于招聘的启发式。最后一章探讨科学的社会世界：如何建立和维护一个促进研究小组成功合作的环境？利用我在柏林马克斯·普朗克人类发展研究所领导研究小组的 20 年经验作为案例研究，我阐明了启发式如何塑造研究的智力和社会氛围，以及它们如何影响一个团体文化是否变得更加开放、更加正式、更加包容。

The important point is that intuition and adaptive heuristics can deal with situations of uncertainty (where we cannot know all possible future states and their consequences), with situations of intractability (where no computer can find the best solution), and with incommensurability (where there is no common currency). Rational choice theory cannot deal with these situations and is forced to reduce uncertainty to risk (where one knows everything that can happen in the future), to ignore intractability, and to exclude all problems where a dollar value cannot be attached to each option.
重要的一点是直觉和适应性启发法可以处理不确定性情况（我们无法知道所有可能的未来状态及其后果），处理难以解决的情况（没有计算机能找到最佳解决方案），以及处理不可比性（没有共同的货币）。理性选择理论无法处理这些情况，被迫将不确定性降低到风险（在这种情况下，人们知道未来可能发生的一切），忽视难以解决性，并排除所有无法为每个选项附加美元价值的问题。

PART I 第一部分

The War on Intuition
直觉之战

Intuition was more or less a casualty of early 2oth-century psychology's efforts to purge itself of metaphysical baggage.
直觉在 20 世纪早期心理学努力清除形而上学包袱的过程中多少成为了牺牲品。

Lisa M. Osbeck and Barbara S. Held
Lisa M. Osbeck 和 Barbara S. Held

Osbeck & Held (2OI4), p. 8.

Female Intuition Versus Male Reason The Battle for Intelligence
女性直觉对抗男性理性 智力之战

Her philosophy is not to reason, but to sense.
她的哲学不是推理，而是感知。

Immanuel Kant (I764) 伊曼努尔·康德（1764 年）

Her logical thought is slower, but her associations quicker than those of man, she is less troubled by inconsistencies, and has less patience with the analysis involved in science and invention.
她的逻辑思维较慢，但她的联想比男性更快，她不太受到不一致的困扰，并且对科学和发明中涉及的分析有更少的耐心。

G. Stanley Hall (1904)
G. Stanley Hall（1904）

Immanuel Kant's conviction that women's nature is sense rather than reason surprised few scholars during the Enlightenment. Learned ladies, Kant believed, were worse than useless, and the very thought of women intellectuals interested in Greek philosophy or the foundations of mechanics seemed almost comical in his eyes. Kant stood in a long and tenacious tradition of scholars convinced that the mind of a woman differs from that of a man. It can be traced back to Aristotle's influential contention that "the female is softer in disposition, is more mischievous, less simple, more impulsive, and more attentive to the nurture of the young; the male, on the other hand, is more spirited, more savage, more simple and less cunning . . . She is, furthermore, more prone to despondency and less hopeful than the man, more void of shame, more false of speech, more deceptive, and of more retentive memory." At the beginning of the 20th century, psychology reiterated the idea that women are qualitatively different. The founder and first president of the American Psychological Association, G. Stanley Hall, held that women are intuitive and emotional, slow in logical thought, better at mental reproduction than production, and too impatient for analysis and science:
康德坚信，女性的本性是感性而非理性，这一观点在启蒙时期并未令多少学者感到惊讶。康德认为，博学的女士们毫无用处，他甚至觉得女性智者对希腊哲学或力学基础感兴趣的想法在他看来几乎是滑稽可笑的。康德站在一派长期坚信女性思维与男性不同的学者传统中。这一传统可以追溯到亚里士多德的有影响力的论断：“女性性情较为柔和，更加淘气，不那么简单，更加冲动，更加关注幼儿的养育；而男性则更富有斗志，更为凶猛，更为简单，不那么狡猾……她还更容易沮丧，比男性更缺乏希望，更不知羞耻，言辞更虚伪，更具欺骗性，记忆力更强。”20 世纪初，心理学重申了女性在质性上与男性不同的观点。美国心理学协会的创始人兼首任主席 G.斯坦利·霍尔认为，女性是直觉和情感的，逻辑思维较慢，比起创造更擅长心理再现，对于分析和科学太不耐烦

She works by intuition and feeling; fear, anger, pity, love, and most of the emotions have a wider range and greater intensity. If she abandons her natural naiveté and takes up the burden of guiding and accounting for her life by consciousness, she is likely to lose more than she gains, according to the old saw that she who deliberates is lost.
她凭直觉和感觉工作；恐惧、愤怒、怜悯、爱情等大多数情绪具有更广泛和更强烈的强度。如果她放弃了她的天真本性，担起了通过意识引导和解释生活的重担，她可能会得不偿失，正如古谚所说的那样，犹豫不决者失去了。

Hall, then president of Clark University, consequently opted against coeducation. Like Clark University, Harvard set up a female institution in the 1890 s, Radcliffe College, next to the all-male Harvard College. But even there, women were treated differently. Not until I967 did Harvard's Lamont Library open its doors to female students, an opening vehemently opposed by the administration and the majority of male undergraduates, on the grounds that females would distract male students and that there weren't even bathroom facilities for women. It took yet another io years before Harvard terminated its policy of admitting only one female student for every four male students.
霍尔，当时是克拉克大学的校长，因此选择反对男女同校。与克拉克大学一样，哈佛大学在 19 世纪 90 年代成立了一个女子学院，莱德克利夫学院，与全男性的哈佛学院相邻。但即便如此，女性仍然受到不同对待。直到 1967 年，哈佛的兰蒙特图书馆才向女性学生开放，这一举措遭到了管理层和大多数男性本科生的强烈反对，理由是女性会分散男性学生的注意力，而且甚至没有为女性提供卫生间设施。直到另外 10 年后，哈佛才终止了每四名男性学生只招收一名女性学生的政策。

Hall expressed what psychologists at the time held to be a law of nature, traces of which can be found in people's thinking today. When my colleagues and I asked representative samples of 21st-century Germans and Spaniards about gender differences, the result was surprising - or perhaps not. The vast majority of women and men, young and old, believed that women had better intuitions than men about personal affairs, but not about science and finance. 5 And the rejection of learned ladies persists: Most contemporary American men in search of a partner on online dating sites find women with a Master's or degree unattractive and prefer those with lower education.
霍尔表达了当时心理学家认为是自然法则的观点，这种观点的痕迹今天仍然可以在人们的思维中找到。当我和同事询问 21 世纪德国人和西班牙人代表性样本关于性别差异的看法时，结果令人惊讶 - 或许也不足为奇。绝大多数女性和男性，无论年轻还是年长，都认为女性在个人事务方面比男性更具直觉，但在科学和金融方面则不是。对学有才女的排斥仍然存在：大多数当代美国男性在在线约会网站上寻找伴侣时，认为拥有硕士或 学位的女性不具吸引力，更喜欢那些受教育程度较低的女性。

This chapter is a case study on how the lack of theory about the nature of intelligence enabled cultural biases about women to be presented as science by major psychologists. A discipline that is unaware of the errors in its history is potentially hazardous: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." I reconstruct the history of the idea of a peculiarly female intelligence in three overlapping views. In the first view, from Aristotle through to the mid-19th century, the idea of intelligence as we encounter it today - as a general ability that is measurable and is largely independent of personality and moral character - did not exist. Instead, the difference between men and women was understood in terms of polarities that were a mixture of intellect, personality, and moral character, such as men's reason versus women's intuition. The notion of these polarities wore away in the mid-I9th century and was supplanted by the concept of an inherited "natural ability" (soon to be named intelligence), mainly through the writings of the English polymath Francis Galton. As a consequence, in this second view, men and women no longer differed in quality, but in quantity: On average, it was thought, women had inherited a smaller share of intelligence. The psychologist Lewis Terman put an end to this view by eliminating particular test items from his test (the StanfordBinet test, which I discuss in the section "Binet's Intelligence Test Crosses the Atlantic and Becomes Seen as a Test of Genetic Ability") and balancing the rest so that girls and boys had the same mean IQ. The eliminated items landed in a personality scale called "masculinity-femininity" (see the section "How Differences in Intelligence Become Differences in Personality"), which illustrates the arbitrariness of what counted as a measurement of intelligence rather than of personality. What remains debated to the present day is the third view, promoted by sexologist Havelock Ellis (I859-1939). It alleges that men's intelligence varies more than that of women, implying the existence of more male idiots and geniuses.
本章是关于智力本质缺乏理论如何使有关女性的文化偏见被主要心理学家呈现为科学的案例研究。一个对自身历史中的错误毫无察觉的学科可能是危险的：“那些不能记住过去的人注定要重蹈覆辙。”我重建了关于女性智力特质的观念的历史，这包括三种重叠的观点。在第一个观点中，从亚里士多德到 19 世纪中叶，我们今天所遇到的智力观念——作为一种可测量的普遍能力，与个性和道德品质基本独立——并不存在。相反，男性和女性之间的差异被理解为一种混合了智力、个性和道德品质的极性，比如男性的理性与女性的直觉。这些极性的概念在 19 世纪中叶逐渐消失，被一个继承的“自然能力”概念所取代（很快被称为智力），主要是通过英国博学家弗朗西斯·高尔顿的著作。 因此，在这第二种观点中，男性和女性不再在质量上有所不同，而是在数量上有所不同：一般认为，女性继承了较少的智力份额。心理学家刘易斯·特曼通过从他的测试中消除特定的测试项目（斯坦福-比奈测试，我在“比奈的智力测试跨越大西洋并被视为遗传能力测试”部分讨论）来终结这种观点，并平衡其余部分，使女孩和男孩的平均智商相同。被消除的项目落入一个名为“男性-女性”的人格量表中（请参阅“智力差异如何变成个性差异”部分），这说明了什么被视为智力而不是个性的测量的任意性。到目前为止仍在争论的是第三种观点，由性学家哈维洛克·埃利斯（1859-1939）提倡。它声称男性的智力变化比女性更大，暗示着存在更多的男性白痴和天才。

Whatever the hallmark of a peculiarly female intelligence has been polarities, lower average, or lower variability - it has served the dubious purpose of justifying men's dominant role in society. Similarly, whatever the supposed mental differences were, these became presented as part of the natural order, expressed in the female body and women's reproductive function.
无论是女性智力的特点是极性、平均水平较低，还是变异性较低——它都为证明男性在社会中的主导地位服务了可疑的目的。同样，无论所谓的心理差异是什么，这些都被呈现为自然秩序的一部分，体现在女性身体和女性的生殖功能中。

Before Intelligence: Female Intuition Versus Male Reason
在智慧之前：女性直觉对抗男性理性

Intelligence, as we know it from IQ tests, refers to a general ability that can be measured by a single number and is assumed to be largely independent of personality and moral character. IQ tests have been given to millions of children, recruits, and job applicants, and continue to influence access to education and jobs. The IQ has often been presented as a hard fact, and debates have raged over how much of its variability is due to nature or nurture. These debates ignored the fact that intelligence as we know it was "invented" in the late 19 th and early 20 th centuries.
智力，正如我们从智商测试中所了解的那样，指的是一种可以通过一个数字来衡量的普遍能力，被认为在很大程度上独立于个性和道德品质。智商测试已经被给予数百万儿童、新兵和求职者，并继续影响着教育和就业机会。智商常被呈现为一个硬性事实，围绕其变异程度有多少是由天性或教养所致的争论一直在进行。这些争论忽视了我们所了解的智力是在 19 世纪末和 20 世纪初“发明”的这一事实。

Before that time, what we now call the intellect was considered neither as a single general ability nor as largely unrelated to moral and personality traits. Rather, psychological theories conceived the mind as a collection of faculties or talents. For instance, the key concept of sensibility in early 18th-century psychology encompassed both perceptual and emotional sensitivity as the precondition for empirical knowledge and the emotions of charity and compassion. Reason was even more closely identified with morality because the light of reason enabled one to recognize all forms of truth, including the distinction between good and evil. No single one of these faculties or a combination thereof corresponds to the contemporary concept of intelligence.
在那个时候，我们现在称之为智力的东西既不被视为单一的普遍能力，也不被视为与道德和个性特征大部分无关。相反，心理学理论将心智看作是一组能力或才能。例如，18 世纪早期心理学中的感性这一关键概念包括知觉和情感敏感作为经验知识和慈善和同情情感的前提。理性甚至更紧密地与道德联系在一起，因为理性之光使人能够认识到所有形式的真理，包括善恶之间的区别。这些能力中的任何一个单独的或其组合都不对应当代智力概念。

The prototypical male and female occupied opposite poles on the spectrum of these faculties. For instance, men were characterized by judgment, abstract thought, and genius, while women were considered to lack these and, instead, excel in intuition, concrete thought, and retentive memory. Male strength was opposed to female delicacy or bodily and mental weakness. This supposed weakness was, in turn, seen as evidence that nature intended women to confine themselves to the home and subordinate themselves to men. It was reasoned that because men's thought was abstract, they could comprehend truth, including moral truth, while women's concrete thinking prevented them from grasping abstract moral principles. Hence, women who lied or stole were considered incapable of understanding that their actions were evil. When Hall, in 1904, wrote that women, guided by intuition and feeling, were unfit for science and invention because they lacked patience, he was simply reiterating the timeworn conviction that women did not have the necessary selfdiscipline and stamina to reason by following a lengthy chain of argument.
原型男性和女性在这些能力范围的相反极端占据了位置。例如，男性以判断、抽象思维和天才为特征，而女性被认为缺乏这些特征，反而擅长直觉、具体思维和记忆力。男性的力量与女性的细腻或身心上的弱点相对立。这种所谓的弱点被视为自然意图女性限制自己在家中，并服从于男性。有人推断，因为男性的思维是抽象的，他们能够理解真理，包括道德真理，而女性的具体思维阻碍了她们理解抽象的道德原则。因此，那些撒谎或偷窃的女性被认为无法理解她们的行为是邪恶的。1904 年，霍尔写道，由直觉和感觉引导的女性因缺乏耐心而不适合从事科学和发明，因为他们缺乏必要的自律和耐力来通过遵循漫长的论证链推理。

Women's and men's virtues were also seen as diametrically opposed. For centuries (and in many contexts even today), chastity was considered the chief female virtue and its violation a cardinal sin for women alone. Timidity, in contrast, was a cardinal sin for men, but easily excused in women. The view that women's intellect, character, and moral traits are intimately connected to their biology survived in various forms into early 2oth-century philosophy. Consider the controversial Austrian philosopher Otto Weininger, hailed by Freud and Wittgenstein as a great genius. In his book Sex & Character, Weininger drew on a wide range of philosophers and psychologists to assert that reasoning and feeling are equivalent in women who, as a consequence, are prone to suggestibility, hypnosis, and hysteria, as documented by Freud. These alleged flaws correspond to Aristotle's view that women's memory is easier to imprint. From biologists Sir Patrick Geddes and John Arthur Thomson, Weininger borrowed the conviction that each cell in a woman's body is sexually marked to make the female in every respect passive, submissive, and lacking in personality. Unlike man, he wrote, "woman is non-logical and non-moral." Faced with the fact that more men stand trial for crimes, he argued that behind every lawbreaker is a woman who proposes the crime and profits from it. Weininger gained great popularity when he killed himself at the age of 23 at a spectacular site, the room in which Ludwig van Beethoven had died. This dramatic finale led to huge book sales and an enthusiastic reception by many contemporaries, including the Swedish playwright and novelist August Strindberg, who claimed that Weininger's book had finally solved "the problem of women."
妇女和男子的美德也被视为截然相反。几个世纪以来（甚至在许多情境中，直到今天），贞洁被认为是主要的女性美德，而其违反则是妇女独有的重罪。相比之下，胆怯是男性的重罪，但在女性身上却容易被原谅。认为妇女的智力、品格和道德特质与其生物学密切相关的观点以各种形式延续至 20 世纪初的哲学中。考虑引起争议的奥地利哲学家奥托·魏宁格，被弗洛伊德和维特根斯坦誉为伟大的天才。在他的著作《性与品格》中，魏宁格借鉴了广泛的哲学家和心理学家的观点，声称女性的推理和感情是等同的，因此容易受到暗示、催眠和歇斯底里的影响，这些都被弗洛伊德所记录。这些所谓的缺陷对应于亚里士多德的观点，即女性的记忆更容易被印记。从生物学家帕特里克·盖德斯爵士和约翰·阿瑟·汤姆森那里，魏宁格借来了这样一种信念，即女性身体中的每个细胞都被性别标记，使得女性在各个方面都 passively、顺从且缺乏个性。 与男人不同，他写道，“女人是非逻辑和非道德的。” 面对更多男性因犯罪而受审的事实，他认为每个犯罪者背后都有一个提出犯罪并从中获利的女人。魏宁格在 23 岁时在一个引人注目的地点自杀，那就是贝多芬去世的房间。这个戏剧性的结局导致了巨大的书籍销售量，并受到许多同时代人的热烈欢迎，包括瑞典剧作家和小说家奥古斯特·斯特林伯格，他声称魏宁格的书终于解决了“女性问题”。" "

In sum, for millennia, a fairly consistent view reigned about women's intellect as differing fundamentally from that of men. My brief account does scant justice to the variations of this view among scholars and centuries. Yet, the common denominator between them is that there was no concept of a general intelligence, which was, instead, defined by a number of diametrically opposed polarities attributed to the prototypical male and female, a combination of what were only later separated into intelligence, personality, and moral traits. While the specific descriptions of the female and male attributes varied, they revolved around the poles of female intuition and male reason. This opposition, allegedly handed down by nature, was so manifestly true to psychologists and philosophers that evidence could not compromise the narrative. It was driven by motives outside of science, in particular the attempt to defend male's intellectual and moral dominance over females as part of the natural order. That is history, one might contend, and will not repeat itself. Yet, Chapter 3 shows that, in the 2 Ist century, the opposition between intuition and reason has been resurrected in psychology and once again embraced as a persuasive narrative that is held to be self-evident.
总的来说，几千年来，关于女性智力与男性有根本区别的观点一直相对一致。我的简要描述未能充分展现学者和世纪间这种观点的变化。然而，它们之间的共同点是，当时并没有普遍智力的概念，相反，这是由于被归因于原型男性和女性的一系列截然相反的极性所定义的，这些极性后来才被分开为智力、个性和道德特征。尽管对女性和男性属性的具体描述有所不同，但它们都围绕着女性直觉和男性理性这两极展开。这种对立，据说是由自然传承下来的，对心理学家和哲学家来说是如此明显真实，以至于证据无法动摇这一叙事。这是由科学之外的动机驱使的，特别是试图捍卫男性在智力和道德上对女性的支配地位，作为自然秩序的一部分。这就是历史，有人可能会争辩说，历史不会重演。 然而，第 3 章显示，在 21 世纪，直觉与理性之间的对立在心理学中得以复活，并再次被视为一种有说服力的叙述，被认为是不言自明的。

The Invention of a General Inherited Intelligence
一般继承智能的发明

The idea of mental faculties was slowly abandoned in the late I9th century for that of a single overarching intelligence. However, the associated idea that this intelligence combines cognitive abilities, personality, and moral traits did not fade away until the early 2oth century. The transition from multiple mental faculties to a single intelligence was driven not by data or by experiment, but by concerns outside the realm of science, chief among them being Francis Galton's interpretation of evolutionary theory, his fascination with measurement, and his involvement with the fateful eugenics program.
19 世纪末，心理能力的概念逐渐被单一的智力概念所取代。然而，直到 20 世纪初，人们仍然认为这种智力结合了认知能力、个性和道德特质。从多个心理能力到单一智力的转变并非是由数据或实验驱动的，而是受到科学领域之外的担忧影响，其中最主要的是弗朗西斯·高尔顿对进化理论的解释、他对测量的着迷以及他参与的命运攸关的优生计划。

Women Are Granted the Same Kind of Intelligence As Men, but Less of It
女性被赋予与男性相同类型的智慧，但数量较少

Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, promoted a strict distinction between nature and nurture, which had not been considered mutually exclusive before his time. This artificial distinction later led to a flood of psychological research seeking an answer to the (wrong) question of what percentage of the variation in intelligence is due to nature and to nurture (as opposed to asking how genes and environment interact, as in epigenetics). For Darwin's theory of evolution to work, it was clear that something must be passed on to the next generation and inherited by both boys and girls. In Hereditary Genius, Galton called this something natural ability (later known as intelligence). As he saw it, evolution implied that men and women must have the same kind of natural ability and also that this ability shows variability between individuals, given that variation is a driver of evolution. Men and women were assumed (no measurements or tests were involved) to exhibit the same bell-shaped ("normal") distribution of intelligence, an assumption Galton justified by analogy with height. Using the same analogy, he assumed the female distribution to have a lower average. Consequently, in Hereditary Genius, women feature solely as the mothers or wives of male geniuses.
高尔顿是查尔斯·达尔文的表亲，他提倡自然和培育之间的严格区分，在他之前这种区分并未被视为互相排斥。这种人为的区分后来导致了大量心理研究，试图回答智力变异中多少百分比是由自然和培育所致的（而不是询问基因和环境如何相互作用，如表观遗传学）。为了达尔文的进化理论能够成立，显然必须有某种东西传递给下一代，并由男孩和女孩继承。在《遗传天才》中，高尔顿称这种东西为自然能力（后来被称为智力）。在他看来，进化意味着男性和女性必须具有相同类型的自然能力，而且这种能力在个体之间表现出变异，因为变异是进化的驱动因素。假定男性和女性（没有涉及测量或测试）表现出相同的呈钟形（“正态”）智力分布，高尔顿通过身高类比来证明这一假设。使用相同的类比，他假定女性分布的平均值较低。 因此，在《遗传天才》中，女性仅仅作为男性天才的母亲或妻子出现。

Galton maintained the view that natural ability is a combination of intellect, personality, and moral traits, such as capacity, zeal, and the power to do laborious work. With respect to morals, he wrote that it is the nature of all of us to believe blindly in what we love, rather than in what we think most wise:
高尔顿认为，自然能力是智力、个性和道德特质（如能力、热情和劳动力）的结合。在道德方面，他写道，我们所有人的本性是盲目地相信我们所热爱的，而不是我们认为最明智的。

We are indignant when others pry into our idols, and criticize them with impunity, just as a savage flies to arms when a missionary picks his fetish to pieces. Women are far more strongly influenced by these feelings than men; they are blinder partisans and more servile followers of custom.
当别人窥探我们的偶像并毫无顾忌地批评他们时，我们感到愤慨，就像野蛮人在传教士拆解他的偶像时拔刀相向一样。女性受这些情感的影响要比男性强烈得多；她们是更盲目的支持者，更顺从于习俗的追随者。

The invention of a single, general form of intelligence, or natural ability, allowed Galton and his followers to compare men and women on a single dimension, similar to how he compared humans of different racial categories and even animal species. For instance, he conjectured that what he called the "negro race" differed from the "Anglo-Saxons" in their lower mean, not in the nature of their intelligence, and that certain gifted dogs had superior intelligence to some human "idiots and imbeciles." 19
单一、普遍的智力形式或自然能力的发明，使高尔顿及其追随者能够在一个维度上比较男性和女性，类似于他比较不同种族类别甚至动物物种的人类。例如，他推测所谓的“黑人种族”与“盎格鲁-撒克逊人”在智力的本质上并无差异，只是在平均水平上有所不同，并且某些有天赋的狗比某些“白痴和低能者”具有更高的智力。19

Today, the idea of a general kind of intelligence is mostly related to Charles Spearman's "g" factor. In fact, Spearman was strongly influenced by Galton, and his main statistical tool was correlation, developed by Galton. Like Galton, he thought that high-sensory discrimination and high intelligence are part of the same universal intellectual function. Unlike Galton, however, Spearman steered clear of prejudices about women or non-whites being genetically inferior in their intelligence.
今天，一般智力的概念主要与查尔斯·斯皮尔曼的“g”因素相关。实际上，斯皮尔曼受到高尔顿的很大影响，他的主要统计工具是高尔顿开发的相关性。像高尔顿一样，他认为高感知辨别力和高智力是同一种普遍智力功能的一部分。然而，与高尔顿不同的是，斯皮尔曼避免了关于女性或非白人在智力上遗传劣势的偏见。

The Failure to Measure Intelligence
未能衡量智力

After Galton had invented the concept of general intelligence, he tried to measure it in his Anthropometric Laboratory in London, which opened in 1884. He started with the hypothesis that intelligence, being inherited, can be found in the mind and body - in the entire nervous system. From that perspective, greater sensory acuity would be the external sign of higher intelligence. Inspired by Galton, James McKeen Cattell established another anthropometric laboratory at Cambridge University, which also focused on sensory acuity. However, a student of Cattell's, Clark Wissler, could not find a clear relationship between sensory acuity and mental ability when looking at college freshmen's grades. Moreover, the various acuity measures did not appear to correlate with each other. Rather than acknowledging this failure as an invalidation of his hereditary theory of intelligence, Galton assumed a need for better measures of innate ability. His quest failed.
加尔顿发明了智力的概念后，他试图在伦敦的人类测量实验室中测量智力，该实验室于 1884 年开放。他最初假设智力是遗传的，可以在头脑和身体中找到 - 在整个神经系统中。从这个角度来看，更大的感觉敏锐度将是更高智力的外部标志。受加尔顿启发，詹姆斯·麦金·卡特尔在剑桥大学建立了另一个人类测量实验室，该实验室也专注于感觉敏锐度。然而，卡特尔的一名学生克拉克·维斯勒在查看大学新生的成绩时，未能找到感觉敏锐度与智力之间的明确关系。此外，各种敏锐度测量似乎不相互相关。加尔顿没有承认这一失败是对他的智力遗传理论的否定，而是假设需要更好的天赋能力测量。他的追求失败了。

The key to measuring intelligence was found later in the work of Alfred Binet and Théodore Simon in France. In contrast to Galton and his followers, however, neither Binet nor Simon conceived intelligence as fixed or inherited, and Simon protested against the misuse of their test in England and the USA for measuring an allegedly inherited ability.
在法国，后来在阿尔弗雷德·比奈和西蒙·西奥多的工作中发现了衡量智力的关键。然而，与高尔顿及其追随者相比，比奈和西蒙都没有将智力看作是固定的或遗传的，西蒙还抗议他们的测试在英国和美国被误用来衡量一种据称是遗传的能力。

How Women's and Men's Average Intelligence Were Made Equal
女性和男性的平均智力如何变得相等

Binet, a member - and, later, director - of the Free Society for the Psychological Study of Children, was concerned about the unreliable diagnoses of children with intellectual disabilities in France. One and the same child might be classified according to the categories back then as "imbecile," "idiot," "feeble-minded," or "degenerate" in different certificates. Around I899, Binet set out to classify these children in an objective way with scientific precision. His goal was to place children with intellectual disabilities in special schools geared to improve their abilities, as in the German school system at the time, and also to ensure that children without any intellectual disabilities would not be placed in special classrooms solely because they were behaviorally challenging. But Binet had no coherent idea how to measure intelligence. Like Galton, he searched in vain for correlations with sensory acuity and tried almost everything else that seemed viable, including assessing intelligence on the basis of facial features (physiognomy), measurements of the head (cephalometry), and handwriting (graphology). For instance, he presented handwriting samples from convicted murderers mixed with those from normal citizens and asked expert graphologists for character assessments, only to find out that even the most eminent experts arrived at disastrously false assessments. The results were consistently disappointing. It remained a mystery what intelligence was and how to measure it.
比奈，自由儿童心理学研究协会的成员，后来成为该协会的主任，他对法国对智力障碍儿童的不可靠诊断感到担忧。同一个孩子可能根据当时的分类被称为“低能”，“白痴”，“智力低下”或“退化”在不同的证书中。约在 1899 年左右，比奈开始以科学精确的方式对这些儿童进行分类。他的目标是将智力障碍儿童安置在专门改善他们能力的学校中，就像当时的德国学校体系一样，并确保没有智力障碍的儿童仅因为行为有挑战性而被安置在特殊教室中。但比奈并没有一个连贯的想法如何衡量智力。像高尔顿一样，他徒劳地寻找与感官敏锐度的相关性，并尝试几乎所有看似可行的方法，包括根据面部特征（相面学）、头部测量（头颅测量学）和书写（笔迹学）来评估智力。 例如，他展示了来自被定罪的凶手和普通公民的书写样本，并向专家笔迹学家询问性格评估，结果发现即使是最杰出的专家也得出了灾难性错误的评估。结果一直令人失望。智力是什么以及如何衡量它仍然是一个谜。

Eventually, however, Binet and Simon found an ingenious answer to the question of finding a test that correlated with teachers' assessments. They developed questions about subjects that mirrored what was taught at school, such as reasoning skills, knowledge, memory, and attention. Children's answers to these questions now correlated with their school grades as well as with teachers' evaluations. By 1905, Binet and Simon had their first test of intelligence for classifying intellectually challenged children into several levels of developmental delay; in 1908, the test was revised and called a test of the "development of intelligence among children." Note that the test was intended to sort children into categories, not to assign them a single number such as an intelligence quotient. It was also not intended to measure innate intelligence, but to replace teachers' and physicians' unreliable diagnoses of children with intellectual disabilities, as a "means of prophylaxis, a means of escaping conscious and unconscious error."
最终，比奈和西蒙找到了一个巧妙的答案，解决了与教师评估相关的测试问题。他们设计了关于学科的问题，反映了学校所教授的内容，如推理能力、知识、记忆和注意力。孩子们对这些问题的回答现在与他们的学校成绩以及教师的评估相关联。到 1905 年，比奈和西蒙制定了第一个智力测试，用于将智力受挑战的儿童分类为几个发展延迟水平；1908 年，测试进行了修订，称为“儿童智力发展测试”。请注意，该测试旨在将儿童分类，而不是为他们分配智商等单一数字。它也不是用来衡量先天智力，而是用来取代教师和医生对智力障碍儿童的不可靠诊断，作为“预防手段，逃避有意识和无意识的错误的手段。”

Binet and Simon's test questions still reflected the meaning of intelligence as a combination of intellect, character, and moral traits. For instance, the test included questions such as: "If you are late for school, what would you do?" and "Why should one judge a person by his acts rather than by his words?" Today, one might call this social intelligence, but Binet and Simon thought of social judgment as inseparable from intelligence. Now they had a test, but without a theory of intelligence, apart from a loose definition of intelligence as "judgment, otherwise called good sense, practical sense, initiative, the faculty of adapting oneself to circumstances. To judge well, to comprehend well, to reason well, these are the essential activities of intelligence. Shortly before his death, Binet (I9II) wrote: "Thus we return to our favorite theory: intelligence is marked by the best possible adaptation of the individual to his environment" and "to this we really do not want to add another thing." To which his biographer Theta H. Wolf added: "How strikingly inept is such a pronouncement if we think of the excellent 'adaptation' to their environment of mice and moose!" Measuring without precisely knowing what one is measuring has been, and still is, one of the striking features of research on intelligence. This feature conveniently allowed researchers to adjust the facts about female intelligence.
Binet 和 Simon 的测试问题仍然反映了智力的含义，即智力、品格和道德特质的结合。例如，测试包括问题如：“如果你上学迟到了，你会怎么做？”和“为什么应该根据一个人的行为而不是他的言辞来评判一个人？”今天，人们可能称之为社会智力，但 Binet 和 Simon 认为社会判断与智力是不可分割的。现在他们有了一个测试，但没有智力理论，除了将智力定义为“判断，又称为良好的判断力、实践力、主动性，适应环境的能力。判断得当，理解得当，推理得当，这些是智力的基本活动。 在他去世前不久，Binet（1911 年）写道：“因此，我们回到了我们最喜欢的理论：智力是个体对环境最佳适应的标志”，“我们真的不想再添加任何东西。” 他的传记作者 Theta H. Wolf 补充说：“如果我们考虑到老鼠和驼鹿对环境的出色‘适应’，这样的声明是多么令人尴尬啊！ 在不确切知道自己在测量什么的情况下进行测量，一直以来都是智力研究的一个显著特征，而且至今仍然如此。这一特征方便了研究人员调整有关女性智力的事实。

Binet's Intelligence Test Crosses the Atlantic and Becomes Seen As a Test of Genetic Ability
比奈智力测试跨越大西洋，被视为遗传能力测试

After obtaining his PhD under G. Stanley Hall at Clark University, Lewis Terman joined the faculty at Stanford University and gained a reputation as the leading US researcher on intelligence. Terman was more interested in gifted children than in intellectually challenged ones. In line with Hall and Galton, he firmly believed that intelligence was inherited. He translated Binet and Simon's test into English, added and deleted some questions, and published the product in 1916, which became known as the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales.
在克拉克大学获得 G. Stanley Hall 博士学位后，刘易斯·特曼加入了斯坦福大学教职，并成为美国领先的智力研究者。特曼对天才儿童比对智力受挑战的儿童更感兴趣。与霍尔和高尔顿一致，他坚信智力是遗传的。他将比奈和西蒙的测试翻译成英文，添加和删除了一些问题，并于 1916 年出版了这一产品，被称为斯坦福-比奈智力量表。

Yet, Terman had made important alterations that went largely unnoticed in the USA, but were to have damaging implications. He named the test an IQ test (the term was originally introduced by the German psychologist William Stern), where IQ was the ratio between mental age and chronological age. He believed that whatever the test measured was fixed and inherited, or at least predominantly so. Whereas Binet and Simon thought of the test as a means to send children with intellectual disabilities to special schools so that they could ideally be channeled back into normal classrooms, Terman instead advocated for special institutions and the sterilization of the "mentally retarded." 30 Terman had a strongly biased vision of what would happen once his test was widely applied: "There will be discovered enormously significant racial differences in general intelligence, differences which cannot be wiped out by any scheme of mental culture."
然而，特曼进行了重要的修改，这在美国基本上没有引起注意，但却会产生破坏性的影响。他将这项测试命名为智商测试（这个术语最初是由德国心理学家威廉·斯特恩引入的），其中智商是心理年龄与实际年龄之间的比率。他相信测试所测量的东西是固定的和遗传的，或者至少主要是如此。而比奈和西蒙认为这项测试是将智力障碍儿童送往特殊学校的手段，以便他们最好能够重新进入正常教室，而特曼则主张设立特殊机构和对“智力低下者”进行绝育。特曼对他的测试被广泛应用后会发生什么有着极其偏见的看法：“将会发现普遍智力上存在极其重要的种族差异，这些差异无法被任何心智文化方案消除。”

Under the leadership of Robert Yerkes, president of the American Psychological Association and a member of the Eugenics Record Office's Committee on the Inheritance of Mental Traits, the Army Alpha and Beta Tests, based on Terman's IQ test, were applied to 1.75 million men in World War I. Yerkes and his staff were convinced that the test measured native intelligence, even though it included items such as "The Overland car is made in Buffalo/Detroit/Flint/Toledo." They recommended about 8,900 men with low test results to be immediately discharged from service, many of whom were foreign born or illiterate. The Army officers disagreed with the psychologists, pointing out that these men would become good soldiers after training. Nevertheless, Yerkes hailed the test a great success, despite little evidence that it had made recruiting more efficient or had contributed to winning the war. In fact, it was the war that helped to win publicity for mass testing - if only because the psychologists had shown that such testing could be accomplished. On that wobbly basis, IQ testing spread across the USA.
在美国心理学协会主席、优生学记录办公室遗传心理特征委员会成员罗伯特·耶尔克斯的领导下，基于特曼的智商测试的陆军阿尔法和贝塔测试被应用于一百七十五万名一战士兵。耶尔克斯和他的工作人员坚信这项测试衡量了天生智力，尽管其中包括了“Overland 汽车是在水牛城/底特律/弗林特/托莱多制造”的题目。他们建议将约 8900 名测试结果较低的士兵立即解除服役，其中许多是外国出生或文盲。军官们不同意心理学家的观点，指出这些人在接受训练后会成为优秀的士兵。尽管如此，耶尔克斯称赞这项测试取得了巨大成功，尽管几乎没有证据表明它使招募更加高效或有助于赢得战争。事实上，正是战争帮助赢得了大规模测试的宣传——仅仅因为心理学家们表明这种测试是可行的。在这种摇摇欲坠的基础上，智商测试传播到了整个美国。

Binet did not live to see what happened to the Binet-Simon test once it crossed the Atlantic, but Simon did. He objected to the term IQ because it suggested a fixed, inherited mental age. In interviews with Binet's biographer Theta Wolf, Simon even called the term and its genetic interpretation a betrayal ("trahison") of their test's original objective.
Binet 没有活到看到宾尼-西蒙测试穿越大西洋后发生了什么，但 Simon 活着。他反对 IQ 这个术语，因为它暗示了一个固定的、遗传的心智年龄。在与 Binet 的传记作者 Theta Wolf 的采访中，Simon 甚至称这个术语及其遗传解释是对他们测试原始目标的背叛("trahison")。

Men and Women Are Assigned the Same Mean Intelligence
男性和女性被分配相同的平均智力

Without much fanfare, Terman eradicated the idea that females have lower average intelligence. In his revised Stanford-Binet test, he deleted questions for which boys and girls had different success rates and balanced the rest so that, on average, girls ended up with the same IQ as boys. Terman was not particularly explicit about this correction, nor about its reasons. But his decision finally made women equal to men in terms of IQ, at least on average.
特尔曼毫不张扬地消除了女性智力平均值较低的观念。在他修改后的斯坦福-比奈智力测验中，他删除了男孩和女孩成功率不同的问题，并平衡了其余部分，使女孩的平均智商与男孩相同。特尔曼对这一修正并没有特别明确，也没有说明其原因。但他的决定最终使女性在智商方面与男性平等，至少在平均水平上。

What was Terman's motivation? Terman and Maude A. Merrill later explained that they plotted the difficulties of each item against age groups "for the sexes separately as a basis for eliminating tests which were relatively less 'fair' to one sex than the other. Moreover, "a considerable number of those retained show statistically significant differences in the percentages of success for boys and girls, but as the scales are constructed these differences largely cancel out." The explanation of "fairness" appears strange in the face of Terman's intention to measure largely genetic differences in intelligence. And fair to whom? Were boys or girls originally better, and whose mean was upgraded? Terman and Merrill did not say.
特曼的动机是什么？特曼和莫德·A·梅里尔后来解释说，他们将每个项目的困难程度与年龄组“分别为性别制定基础，以便消除相对于另一性别而言较不‘公平’的测试。 此外，“保留的相当数量的项目显示男孩和女孩成功百分比存在统计学上显著差异，但由于所构建的量表，这些差异在很大程度上抵消了。” “公平”的解释在特曼试图主要衡量智力遗传差异的背景下显得奇怪。公平对谁来说？男孩还是女孩最初更好，谁的平均值被提升了？特曼和梅里尔没有说。

Others proposed that Terman made the means equal to reckon with the fact that girls usually perform better in school or in response to pressure generated by the increasing women's movement of the period. third explanation is that Terman, working closely with a large number of women coworkers (according to his biographer, Henry Minton, sometimes too closely), was influenced by them. Yet, all three explanations assume that boys initially tested better than girls and that item deletion served to upgrade the girls' average. Who really did perform better in the original set of test, girls or boys?
其他人提出，特曼将平均数设定为相等，以考虑到女孩通常在学校表现更好，或者是为了应对当时不断增长的妇女运动所带来的压力。第三种解释是，特曼与大量女性同事密切合作（根据他的传记作者亨利·明顿的说法，有时过于密切），受到她们的影响。然而，这三种解释都假设男孩最初的测试结果优于女孩，并且删除项目有助于提升女孩的平均水平。在原始测试中，到底是女孩还是男孩表现更好呢？

It took me a while to find an answer in Terman's writings. It appeared years later, in a different context, in the study on gifted children by Terman and Melita Oden, hidden in a side remark on another topic, the question of why there were more boys than girls in the group of gifted children. Terman and Oden discussed the possibility of a nomination bias (teachers nominate more boys than equally gifted girls) and also the possibility of "a real average superiority of boys in the intellectual function tested." They concluded that such a real average superiority is unlikely because for the 905 subjects on whom the 1916 Stanford-Binet test was standardized, the mean IQ was slightly higher in girls. In other words, Terman appears to have found that girls had higher average scores in his intelligence test than boys and then deleted items and balanced others to lower the mean of the girls to match the inferior mean of the boys!
在特曼的著作中花了一段时间才找到答案。几年后，特曼和梅利塔·奥登在研究中提到，天才儿童群体中男孩比女孩多的问题，隐藏在另一个话题的旁敲侧击中。特曼和奥登讨论了提名偏见的可能性（老师提名男孩比同样有天赋的女孩更多），以及“男孩在智力功能测试中的真实平均优势”。他们得出结论，这种真实的平均优势不太可能存在，因为在 1916 年斯坦福-比奈智力测验标准化的 905 名受试者中，女孩的平均智商略高。换句话说，特曼似乎发现女孩在他的智力测试中的平均分数比男孩高，然后删除了一些项目，平衡了其他项目，以降低女孩的平均分数，使其与男孩的较低平均分数相匹配！

One might ask what would have happened if girls had had the lower scores. Would Terman also have deleted items to even the averages out? If not, the test might have been standardized such that females' average IQ was a few points lower than that of males.
有人可能会问，如果女孩得分较低会发生什么。特曼是否也会删除项目以平衡平均值？如果不是，测试可能已经标准化，使女性的平均智商比男性低几分。

Terman's decision to make the average IQ of males and females equal put an end to the second idea of a peculiarly female intelligence. It also illustrates the deep problem of how to measure something in the absence of a theory, where there is wiggle room to make decisions about test items that produce the result one favors - for fairness or whatever other reasons. In principle, Terman could have designed a test in which women are superior to men or where certain cultures or races are superior or inferior to white Americans. The problem is this: One can measure whether women and men differ in a specific and clearly defined task, such as memory span. But if one has neither a clearly defined task nor a theory and, instead, selects dozens of test items and adds the points up to determine an IQ, there are many degrees of freedom that allow for tinkering with the test to fit its result with preconceived beliefs and biases.
特曼决定让男性和女性的平均智商相等，结束了关于女性智力的特殊性的第二个观念。这也说明了在没有理论的情况下如何衡量某物的深层问题，人们可以在测试项目上做出决策，以产生自己喜欢的结果 - 无论是出于公平还是其他原因。原则上，特曼可以设计一个测试，其中女性优于男性，或者某些文化或种族优于或劣于白人美国人。问题在于：人们可以衡量女性和男性在特定和明确定义的任务中是否有差异，比如记忆跨度。但如果既没有明确定义的任务，也没有理论，而是选择了几十个测试项目，并将分数相加以确定智商，那么就有许多自由度可以对测试进行调整，以使其结果符合先入为主的信念和偏见。

This key problem of measuring IQ is not always acknowledged. Consider Hans-Jürgen Eysenck, who once was the most frequently cited living psychologist and one of the most controversial intelligence researchers. In his The Intelligence Controversy with Leon Kamin, he reified the equal averages, complaining that psychologists "are said to have selected items in such a way that equal scores are achieved regardless of whether there might or might not be genuine differences between the sexes. This accusation is false." He continued: "Given that unselected items give the sexes equal IQ scores, it was only reasonable for other test designers to avoid bias in favour of one or the other sex." However, there is no such thing as "unselected" items in the absence of a theory of what intelligence is and how it can be measured. Terman himself occasionally reified the equality of mean IQ to support women's equality. In Sex and Personality, Terman and Catherine Cox Miles wrote: "Intelligence tests, for example, have demonstrated for all time the falsity of the once widespread prevalent belief that women as a class are appreciably or at all inferior to men in the major aspects of intellect." All in all, Terman's IQ test ended the view that females have lower average intelligence than males so that men and women were finally seen as equally intelligent - at the expense of favoring racial prejudice.
测量智商的这个关键问题并不总是被承认。考虑一下汉斯-尤尔根·艾森克，他曾经是被引用最频繁的现存心理学家之一，也是最具争议的智力研究者之一。在他与利昂·卡明合著的《智力争议》中，他实现了平均值的概念，抱怨心理学家“据说选择项目的方式是这样的，以至于无论男女之间是否存在真正的差异，都能获得相同的分数。这种指责是错误的。”他继续说：“考虑到未经选择的项目给出了男女相同的智商分数，其他测试设计者避免偏袒其中一方是合理的。”然而，在没有智力是什么以及如何衡量的理论的情况下，并不存在“未经选择”的项目。特曼本人有时也实现了平均智商以支持妇女的平等。在《性别与个性》中，特曼和凯瑟琳·考克斯·迈尔斯写道：“例如，智力测试一直证明了一种曾经普遍流行的信念的虚假，即作为一个阶级的女性在智力的主要方面明显或完全不如男性。” 总的来说，特曼的智商测试结束了女性智商平均值低于男性的观点，使男性和女性最终被视为同样聪明 - 以偏袒种族偏见为代价。

How Differences in Intelligence Become Differences in Personality
智力差异如何转变为个性差异

In the introduction to Sex and Personality, Terman and Miles noted that it appears impossible to explain sex differences in behavior wholly in terms of biological factors and complained that the concepts of masculinity and femininity are even more vague than the 19 th-century concepts of intelligence. By way of example, they referred to the stereotype of the "occidental" woman whose moral life is shaped less by principles than by personal relationships and whose everyday behavior is more determined by emotion, submissiveness, and inferior steadfastness of purpose.
在《性别与个性》的介绍中，特尔曼和迈尔斯指出，似乎不可能完全用生物因素来解释行为上的性别差异，并抱怨男性气质和女性气质的概念甚至比 19 世纪的智力概念更加模糊。举例来说，他们提到了“西方”女性的刻板印象，她们的道德生活不是完全由原则塑造，而是更多地受个人关系影响，日常行为更多地由情感、顺从和目的坚定度决定。

Nevertheless, Terman and Miles did not present a theory that replaced the vagueness and stereotypes to which they objected. How then could they measure personality differences between men and women? Terman and Miles came up with an ingenious solution, which was initiated as subtly as Terman's strategy to discard test questions had been. It turns out that the discarded questions ended up in their "masculinity-femininity scale." That action guaranteed differences between males and females on the new scale, which contained, among others, questions on interests such as movies and amusement, opinions such as "The unmarried mother deserves the scorn she gets" and "Blondes are less trustworthy than brunettes," and information such as "The most gold is produced in Alaska/NY/Tennessee/Texas." Once seen as items that measured inherited intelligence, these now served to measure personality and gender-specific knowledge. In the absence of a theory of intelligence that determines what questions are relevant, one-and-the-same item can be applied to measure sex differences in intelligence or in personality. In various forms, the masculinity-femininity scale remains in use and is still presented as measuring sex differences in personality.
然而，特曼和迈尔斯并没有提出一种取代他们反对的模糊和刻板印象的理论。那么，他们如何衡量男性和女性之间的个性差异呢？特曼和迈尔斯想出了一个巧妙的解决方案，这个解决方案像特曼丢弃测试问题的策略一样巧妙。事实证明，被丢弃的问题最终出现在他们的“男性-女性量表”中。这一举动确保了新量表上男性和女性之间的差异，其中包括关于电影和娱乐等兴趣、观点如“未婚母亲应受到她所受到的鄙视”和“金发比深发信任度更低”以及信息如“阿拉斯加/纽约/田纳西/得克萨斯产金最多”。这些曾被视为衡量遗传智力的项目，现在用来衡量个性和性别特定知识。在没有一个能够确定哪些问题相关的智力理论的情况下，同一项目可以用来衡量智力或个性中的性别差异。 以各种形式，男性-女性量表仍在使用中，并仍被用来衡量个性中的性别差异。

Larger Variability in IQ Justifies Male Superiority
智商的更大变异性证明了男性的优越性

In 2006, Harvard president Larry Summers resigned from his position in the wake of a no-confidence vote by his faculty. Among the reasons cited by the faculty was a remark he had made regarding women's intelligence and ability. On the question of women's aptitude for science, Summers said: "It does appear that on many, many different human attributes height, weight, propensity for criminality, overall IQ, mathematical ability, scientific ability - there is relatively clear evidence that whatever the difference in means - which can be debated - there is a difference in the standard deviation, and variability of a male and a female population." From that he drew the conclusion that the greater variability of males explains why top universities such as Harvard hired relatively few women as professors.
2006 年，哈佛大学校长拉里·萨默斯因其教职人员对其的不信任投票而辞职。教职人员列举的原因之一是他对女性智力和能力的评论。关于女性在科学方面的能力问题，萨默斯说：“似乎在许多不同的人类属性上，如身高、体重、犯罪倾向、整体智商、数学能力、科学能力等，有相对清晰的证据表明，无论在平均值上有何差异（这是可以争论的），男性和女性人口的标准差和变异性存在差异。” 由此，他得出结论，男性变异性较大解释了为什么哈佛等顶尖大学聘用相对较少的女性教授。

Summers' statement simply repeated a hypothesis discussed in psychological research for over a century: that the variability of women's physical and mental traits, including IQ, is smaller than that of men. This variability hypothesis both explains and justifies observations that there are more male geniuses than female ones and also explains why there are more male idiots at the other end of the IQ distribution.
Summers 的声明只是简单地重复了一个在心理研究中讨论了一个世纪的假设：即女性的身体和心理特征，包括智商的变异性比男性小。这个变异性假设既解释也证明了男性天才比女性天才更多的观察结果，也解释了为什么在智商分布的另一端有更多的男性白痴。

After Galton replaced the first version of intelligence - that men's and women's mental abilities were at opposite poles, such as reason versus intuition - with one common intelligence, and Terman, in turn, put an end to the subsequent idea of average differences, the only possible remaining difference on the bell curve was the variability, or standard deviation, in IQ. After all, a bell curve has only two parameters, mean and standard deviation. The variability hypothesis became the third and last bastion for the idea of a specifically female intelligence, contributing to Summers' fall. Its origins seem to lie in an observation by Darwin in the second edition of Animal and Plants Under Domestication that male animals tend to be more variable than females, although Darwin himself devoted little attention to this issue. Instead, the claim of greater male variability was promoted by the English sexologist Havelock Ellis.
加尔顿替换了智力的第一个版本 - 即男性和女性的智力能力处于相反的极端，比如理性与直觉 - 用一个普通的智力取代了这一观点，而特曼则结束了后来的平均差异观念，钟形曲线上唯一可能剩下的差异是智商的变异性或标准差。毕竟，钟形曲线只有两个参数，均值和标准差。变异性假说成为了特别女性智力观念的第三和最后的堡垒，导致了萨默斯的倒台。它的起源似乎可以追溯到达尔文在《动物与植物的驯化》第二版中的一项观察，即雄性动物倾向于比雌性更具变异性，尽管达尔文本人对这个问题关注不多。相反，更大的雄性变异性的说法是由英国性学家哈维洛克·埃利斯提出的。

The Variability Hypothesis
可变性假说

Ellis rebelled against the conspiracy of silence surrounding the sexes and decided to devote his life to their scientific study. For him, women and men were different, but complementary - in contrast to Galton, who did not see much usefulness in women's lower average natural ability. In the first edition of Man and Woman, Ellis wrote: "From an organic standpoint, therefore, men represent the more variable and the more progressive element, women the more stable and conservative element, in evolution. It is a metaphorical as well as a literal truth that the center of gravity is lower in women and less easily disturbed." (In the fourth and fifth edition, Ellis left out the "progressive element," indicating second thoughts about the generalizability of biological variation, particularly to politics.) He wrote that women's smaller stature approximated that of humans' ancestors, and that women - as in witches and soothsayers - preserved ancient custom and methods of intuitive knowledge. Women had "an organic tendency to stability and conservatism, involving a diminished individualism and variability." To exemplify, he made the case that women had opposed the French Revolution, albeit also noting that the revolutionary movement of Christianity was, to a considerable extent, furthered by women. While acknowledging that the facts are very complex and that that the claim of absolute inferiority for either sex is untenable, Ellis nonetheless concluded: "It is undeniably true that the greater variational tendency of the male is a psychic as well as a physical fact." 47
埃利斯反抗了围绕性别的沉默阴谋，并决定将自己的一生奉献给对性别的科学研究。对他来说，女性和男性是不同的，但是互补的 - 与高尔顿相反，他并不认为女性较低的平均自然能力有多大用处。在《男人与女人》的第一版中，埃利斯写道：“因此，从有机的角度来看，男性代表着更多变和更具进步性的元素，而女性代表着更稳定和保守的元素，在进化中。从隐喻的角度来看，女性的重心较低，不容易受到干扰。”（在第四和第五版中，埃利斯删除了“进步性元素”，表明他对生物变异的一般性产生了疑虑，特别是对政治的适用性。）他写道，女性较小的身材接近于人类的祖先，女性 - 如女巫和占卜者 - 保留了古老的习俗和直觉知识的方法。女性具有“有机倾向于稳定和保守，涉及减少的个人主义和变异性。 举例来说，他提出女性反对法国大革命的论点，尽管他也指出基督教的革命运动在很大程度上是由女性推动的。尽管承认事实非常复杂，而且任何一方绝对劣势的说法都站不住脚，埃利斯仍然得出结论：“不可否认的是，男性更大的变异倾向是一种心理和生理事实。"47"

Man and Woman received scant attention when it first appeared. Yet, this changed when the statistician Karl Pearson vigorously attacked Ellis' variability hypothesis. Pearson was a committed socialist and promoted feminism and eugenics, both of which were considered progressive and revolutionary at the time. Pearson argued that the claim of greater male variability contradicts Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, which emphasizes variability as one of the driving forces of evolution, but postulates that the more intense the struggle is, the less is the variability. Therefore, he expected men, not women, to be less variable. Next, he criticized Ellis' inconclusive evidence, based almost entirely on pathological variation such as criminality and color-blindness. Finally, Pearson contended that measuring the variability of absolute variables such as the length of bones (as opposed to ratios such as cephalic index) by the standard deviation, as Ellis did, was an error. Instead, one needed to calculate the coefficient of variation, that is, the standard deviation divided by the mean. After all, women's bodies were smaller than men's and so, therefore, was the standard deviation of bodily measures. Pearson concluded from his own physical measures that the coefficient of variation is slightly larger for women, not smaller, reflecting their "slightly less severe struggle for existence." 50
男人和女人在首次出现时受到了很少的关注。 然而，当统计学家卡尔·皮尔逊积极攻击埃利斯的变异假设时，情况发生了变化。 皮尔逊是一位坚定的社会主义者，他推动了女权主义和优生学，这两者在当时被认为是进步和革命性的。皮尔逊认为声称男性变异性更大与达尔文的自然选择进化理论相矛盾，后者强调变异性是进化的推动力之一，但假设斗争越激烈，变异性就越小。因此，他预期男性，而不是女性，会变异性较小。接下来，他批评埃利斯的证据不足，几乎完全基于病理变异，如犯罪和色盲。最后，皮尔逊认为，像埃利斯那样通过标准偏差来测量绝对变量的变异性（而不是比率，如头脑指数）是错误的。相反，需要计算变异系数，即标准偏差除以均值。 毕竟，女性的身体比男性的身体小，因此身体测量的标准偏差也较小。皮尔逊根据自己的身体测量得出结论，变异系数对于女性略大一些，而不是较小，反映了她们“对生存的斗争略微较少”。50

In an Appendix in Man and Woman, Ellis rejected Pearson's "hostile" criticism at length, which Pearson did not deem worthy of a response. Pearson's sole reaction was a footnote in an article unrelated to variability, in which he noted that Ellis' response required no reply as Ellis did not appear to understand that scientific evidence, not vague generalities, was what counted. Afterwards, Pearson did not pursue the variability hypothesis any further.
在《男人与女人》的附录中，埃利斯详细地拒绝了皮尔逊的“敌对”批评，而皮尔逊并未认为值得回应。皮尔逊唯一的反应是在一篇与变异性无关的文章中的脚注中，他指出埃利斯的回应不需要回复，因为埃利斯似乎没有意识到科学证据而不是模糊的概括才是重要的。 之后，皮尔逊没有进一步探讨变异性假设。

Why did this bitter controversy over females' allegedly lower variability erupt? According to Ellis' biographer Phyllis Grosskurth, one likely reason was personal resentment. Many women of the time found Ellis, who with his flowing beard resembled "a combination of archetypal Father and sensual Faun," irresistibly attractive. The South African writer Olive Schneider was one of the women upon whom Ellis had a strong influence, before she fell in love with Karl Pearson. Whatever the motivation, Pearson's critique of the variability hypothesis in fact contributed to making the hypothesis popular.
为什么会爆发关于女性据称变异性较低的激烈争论？根据埃利斯的传记作者菲利斯·格罗斯库斯的说法，一个可能的原因是个人怨恨。当时许多女性发现埃利斯，他那流动的胡须使他看起来像是“原型父亲和感性的泛神的结合体”，令人难以抗拒。南非作家奥利夫·施耐德就是埃利斯对其产生了强烈影响的女性之一，后来她爱上了卡尔·皮尔逊。无论是什么动机，皮尔逊对变异性假设的批评实际上有助于使这一假设变得流行。

Ever since, psychologists, biologists, and statisticians have debated the variability hypothesis. Whereas Ellis and Pearson related it to both physical and mental traits, psychologists have focused largely on intelligence. Quinn McNemar and Terman reported greater variability in boys on the Stanford-Binet and other tests, but, given the inconsistent evidence, were careful not to draw any general conclusions. In 1932, Scotland undertook the ambitious project of testing all 1 -year-old Scottish children with the goal of discovering the amount of mental deficiency in the country. Because suppliers demanded too much money for the nearly 100,000 commercial tests, the Council used the Morey House Test in place of the Stanford-Binet test. The conclusion was that boys and girls did not differ in average IQ, but that the standard deviation of boys was one IQ point higher than that of girls. In 1947, the same project was repeated with all I I-year-olds at that time, and again the standard deviation was one point higher for boys. This appeared to support the hypothesis of both higher and lower male intelligence. Although this result was hailed as the most comprehensive demonstration of the greater variability of mental ability among males, the small difference in variability in the 1947 study was, in fact, mainly due to an excess of males with very low scores, not to male genius. The primary impetus of the 1947 study (and that of 1932) was not variability, but rather the concern that the nation's intelligence would decline because people with lower mental ability tended to have more children. Yet, the children scored no worse than those studied is years earlier; in fact, their average IQ went up by about one point in boys and three points in girls.
自那时以来，心理学家、生物学家和统计学家一直在辩论变异性假说。埃利斯和皮尔逊将其与身体和心理特征联系起来，心理学家主要关注智力。麦克纳马和特曼报告称，在斯坦福-比奈和其他测试中，男孩的变异性更大，但鉴于证据不一致，他们小心翼翼地没有得出任何一般性结论。1932 年，苏格兰开始了一项雄心勃勃的项目，测试所有 1 岁的苏格兰儿童，目的是发现该国的智力缺陷程度。由于供应商要求支付近 10 万份商业测试的费用太高，委员会使用莫雷豪斯测试代替斯坦福-比奈测试。结论是男孩和女孩的平均智商没有差异，但男孩的标准差比女孩高一个智商点。1947 年，同样的项目在当时的所有 11 岁儿童中重复进行，男孩的标准差再次高出一个点。这似乎支持了男性智力更高和更低的假设。 尽管这一结果被誉为男性心智能力更大变异性的最全面展示，但 1947 年研究中变异性的小差异实际上主要是由于低分男性过多，而不是男性天才。1947 年研究（以及 1932 年研究）的主要动机不是变异性，而是担心国家的智力会下降，因为心智能力较低的人往往会生更多的孩子。然而，这些孩子的得分并不比早些年研究的孩子差；事实上，他们的平均智商男孩提高了约一个点，女孩提高了三个点。

Follow-ups of the Scottish children study have shown similar, inconclusive results. In 1939, the Council found no significant difference in variability between boys and girls; in 1949 , it reported slightly larger standard deviations in boys; and in 1958 , it reported a greater proportion of females than males at the lower end of the IQ scale. Thus, one could find support for or against the variability hypothesis in intelligence, depending on the age group and study. More fundamentally, findings about variability - like mean differences - always depend on how the test items are selected and weighted. Just as Terman made the means between males and females equal, one can select items to make the variability equal.
苏格兰儿童研究的后续显示出类似的、不确定的结果。1939 年，委员会发现男孩和女孩之间的变异性没有显著差异；1949 年，它报告男孩的标准偏差略大；1958 年，它报告智商尺度下端女性比男性比例更高。因此，人们可以根据年龄组和研究来支持或反对智力变异性假设。更根本地，关于变异性的发现 - 就像平均差异一样 - 总是取决于测试项目的选择和权重。正如特曼使男性和女性之间的平均值相等一样，人们可以选择项目使变异性相等。

Outspoken advocates have presented greater male variability as a biological fact, possibly due to sex linkage, speculating that intelligence might be located on the chromosome. According to this line of reasoning, intelligence in males can express itself without interference of a second chromosome, thereby causing greater variability in IQ. This ignores the fact that the same hypothesis could likewise be used to predict that females have higher average intelligence than men, thanks to their two chromosomes, once again illustrating the utter arbitrariness of genetic explanations in the absence of a theory. Whereas the first two ideas about a peculiarly female intelligence had been conceived and debated virtually entirely by men, the variability hypothesis was challenged by an early generation of women scientists. Helen Bradford Thompson conducted her own studies and criticized Ellis' conclusions. Her critique of the variability hypothesis was widely read, yet had no equivalent impact. In the most systematic critique of the variability hypothesis at the time, Leta Setter Hollingworth reported no evidence of this in her review of the literature. Beth Wellman found in her review slight support for greater variability in boys, which, however, depended on the measure of variability used, the selection of children, and other details. The variability hypothesis remains a matter of discussion. In her 2012 review of the state of art in sex differences in cognitive abilities, the former president of the American Psychological Association, Diane Halpern, accepted it, concluding "that females and males are very similar when we consider the average performance, and they are highly dissimilar when we consider performance at the high and low extremes."
坦率的倡导者将男性变异性增大作为一种生物事实，可能是由于性连锁，推测智力可能位于 染色体上。根据这种推理，男性的智力可以在没有第 染色体干扰的情况下表现出来，从而导致智商的变异性增大。 这忽视了同样的假设也可以被用来预测女性比男性具有更高的平均智力，这要归功于她们的两个 染色体，再次说明了在没有理论的情况下，基因解释的绝对武断性。尽管关于女性特有智力的前两个想法几乎完全是由男性构思和辩论的，但变异性假设却受到了早期一代女性科学家的挑战。 海伦·布拉德福德·汤普森进行了自己的研究并批评了埃利斯的结论。 她对变异性假设的批评被广泛阅读，但没有相应的影响。在当时对变异性假设进行的最系统的批评中，莱塔·塞特·霍林沃斯在她对文献的审查中报告没有这方面的证据。 贝丝·韦尔曼在她的评论中发现了对男孩更大变异性的轻微支持，然而这取决于所使用的变异性度量、儿童的选择以及其他细节。 变异性假设仍然是一个讨论的问题。在她 2012 年对认知能力性别差异状况的评论中，美国心理学协会前主席黛安·哈尔班接受了这一点，并得出结论：“当我们考虑平均表现时，女性和男性非常相似，但当我们考虑高低极端表现时，它们是非常不同的。”" "

As with the question of whether males and females differ in their average IQ, the absence of a theoretical understanding of what a test actually measures opens the door to including or excluding items that make the mean and variance of IQ equal or different.
关于男性和女性在平均智商上是否有差异的问题，对于测试实际测量的理论理解的缺乏打开了包括或排除使智商的均值和方差相等或不同的项目的大门。

Lessons Learned 学到的教训

In sum, the idea of a peculiarly female intelligence emerged in three different and unrelated versions: male-female polarities, female lower mean intelligence, and female lower variability. The idea that men and women occupy opposite poles on a continuum, such as analytic versus intuitive, is the oldest; it reigned for millennia. It began to fade away when Francis Galton invented intelligence (natural ability) as a single dimension, which later morphed into IQ or g (general intelligence), so that the minds of men and women now had the same quality, but with women having less of it. The idea that women have lower intelligence expired in the hands of Lewis Terman, who eliminated test items so that both males and females had the same average IQ - otherwise, female means would, in fact, have been higher. The third idea was that while the means are the same, woman's variability is smaller, resulting in more male geniuses and idiots. This variability hypothesis is still debated today. It remains the last bastion of those who cling to the idea of male supremacy.
总的来说，一个特别的女性智力的概念以三种不同且无关的版本出现：男女极性、女性较低的平均智力和女性较低的变异性。男女在一个连续体上占据相反极点的想法，比如分析性与直觉性，是最古老的；它统治了千年。当弗朗西斯·高尔顿发明了智力（天赋）作为一个单一维度时，它开始消失，后来演变为智商或 g（一般智力），使得男性和女性的思维现在具有相同的质量，但女性的智力较低。女性智力较低的想法在刘易斯·特曼手中消失了，他消除了测试项目，以便男性和女性的平均智商相同 - 否则，女性的平均值实际上会更高。第三个想法是，虽然平均值相同，女性的变异性较小，导致更多的男性天才和白痴。这种变异性假设今天仍在争论中。它仍然是那些坚持男性至上观念的最后堡垒。

Despite the differences in these three ideas about a peculiarly female intelligence, their justifications are strikingly similar, and the supposed nature of women features prominently in all three. A woman's mind was said to be determined by her reproductive biology, her body, her genes, and her naturally ordained functions. The first president of the American Psychological Association, G. Stanley Hall, staunchly believed that the female mind was created for nursing and motherhood, serving the production of men of genius and of daughters to bear future male geniuses. Education, he felt, would damage women's reproductive organs, particularly coeducation in competition with men. Like many others at the time, Hall did not think of women as generally inferior, but instead idealized them. In his view, women who entered the men's world of education and business became innocent victims of man's evil nature, losing their purity and sainthood.
尽管这三种关于女性智力的独特想法存在差异，但它们的理由却惊人地相似，而女性的特征在这三种想法中都占据着重要地位。据说女性的思维受到她的生殖生物学、身体、基因和自然赋予的功能的影响。美国心理学协会的第一任主席 G. Stanley Hall 坚定地认为女性的思维是为了哺乳和母性而创造的，为了培养天才男性和未来生育男性天才的女儿。他认为，教育会损害女性的生殖器官，尤其是与男性竞争的男女同校教育。与当时许多人一样，霍尔并不认为女性普遍劣等，而是将她们理想化。在他看来，进入男性教育和商业世界的女性成为了男性邪恶本性的无辜受害者，失去了纯洁和圣洁。

The historian of psychology, Edwin Boring, famously said that intelligence is whatever the IQ tests measure. But that is precisely the problem. The idea of a peculiarly female intelligence is a striking case of measurement without understanding what one is measuring, paired with the hope that sophisticated correlation statistics and factor analyses could fill this theoretical void. From Galton to Binet to Terman, researchers variously believed that one could measure intelligence in terms of sensory acuity, head size, facial features, handwriting, memory capacity, or knowledge of facts, or by asking questions about proper social behavior.
心理学史学家埃德温·博林曾经著名地说过，智力就是智商测试所测量的东西。但这正是问题所在。特别是女性智力的概念，是一个明显的测量案例，没有理解自己在测量什么，却带着希望，认为复杂的相关统计和因素分析可以填补这个理论空白。从高尔顿到比奈再到特尔曼，研究者们曾经相信可以通过感官敏锐度、头部大小、面部特征、书写、记忆能力、或者知识事实，或者通过询问有关适当社会行为的问题来衡量智力。

This absence of theory left too many points of entry for biases and preset convictions, to the detriment of many. Galton's vision was to promote the eugenics program: to detect the less well-endowed and prevent them from reproducing. Both Ellis and Pearson were early feminists but also proponents of eugenics, both of which were considered progressive movements at the time. Binet and Simon intended to give children with intellectual disabilities a second chance through special education. Yet, when adapted "to American conditions and needs," as the editor's introduction to the 1916 edition of Terman's The Measurement of Intelligence put it, their test came to serve the various goals of eugenics, sterilization, racism, feminism, and, last but not least, a multibillion testing industry.
这种缺乏理论为偏见和预设信念留下了太多的入口，对许多人造成了损害。高尔顿的愿景是推动优生学计划：发现智力较差的人，并防止他们繁殖后代。埃利斯和皮尔逊早期是女权主义者，也是优生学的支持者，这两者当时被视为进步运动。比奈和西蒙打算通过特殊教育给智力障碍儿童第二次机会。然而，正如特曼 1916 年版《智力测量》的编辑介绍所说，当他们的测试“适应美国的条件和需求”时，他们的测试开始为优生学、绝育、种族主义、女权主义以及一个价值数十亿美元的测试产业服务。

Why Is History Relevant?
为什么历史是相关的？

Knowing one's history provides an opportunity to learn from errors and to avoid repeating these. Differences between men and women, as well as their causes, have been an emotionally and politically charged topic for centuries. Firm convictions continue to be enforced in the guise of new technology. For instance, Diane Halpern warns that modern neuroscience is being misused to justify sex role stereotypes in how men and women think, a program dubbed "neurosexism." Basing conclusions about human thinking and behavior on the firing of neurons or changes in blood oxygen levels entails a long leap in logic. Such leaps are not new; we have already seen one, for instance, in the argument that the smaller brain of females is responsible for woman's alleged intellectual inferiority. The stereotypes of the past also tenaciously survive in popular psychology bestsellers that present men and women as if they were alien species, as in Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus. In a throwback to the view of women being submissive by nature, such books imply that a wife's role is to hide her intelligence, to admire and appreciate her husband, and to not offer him advice unless he asks. Online communities such as Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) and TradWives revive the traditional view that the position of men is above women.
了解自己的历史提供了学习错误并避免重复的机会。男性和女性之间的差异，以及造成这些差异的原因，几个世纪以来一直是一个情感和政治上充满争议的话题。坚定的信念继续以新技术的形式得到强化。例如，黛安·哈尔彭警告说，现代神经科学被滥用来证明男性和女性思维方式中的性别角色刻板印象，这一计划被称为“神经性别歧视”。基于神经元的激活或血氧水平变化得出关于人类思维和行为的结论需要进行逻辑上的长跳。这样的跳跃并不新鲜；例如，我们已经看到一个，比如，女性较小的大脑是女性所谓智力低下的原因的论点。过去的刻板印象也顽固地存活在流行的心理学畅销书中，这些书将男性和女性描绘得好像他们是外星物种，就像《男人来自火星，女人来自金星》一样。回到认为女性天生应该顺从的观点，这些书暗示妻子的角色是隐藏她的智慧，钦佩和欣赏她的丈夫，并且除非他要求，否则不给他提供建议。 在线社区，如 Men Going Their Own Way（MGTOW）和 TradWives，复兴了男性地位高于女性的传统观点。

What is the current consensus about differences in men's and women's cognitive abilities? According to Halpern, the list of differences is relatively small, and the similarities between the sexes are larger in number. Few of the differences that have been claimed over the years are stable across age, task, and culture. Among the few exceptions are that women have better memories than men and excel in reading and verbal abilities, while males excel in science and mathematics. What causes these differences is far from being understood.
目前关于男性和女性认知能力差异的共识是什么？根据哈尔班，差异列表相对较小，性别之间的相似之处更多。多年来声称存在的差异中，很少有一些是跨年龄、任务和文化稳定的。少数例外是，女性比男性记忆力更好，在阅读和语言能力方面表现出色，而男性在科学和数学方面表现出色。这些差异的原因远未被理解。

This history of the idea of a peculiarly female intelligence can teach us several general lessons. The first is to beware of research that evaluates the sexes in terms of polarities and, in general, uses polarities as a means to understand the human mind. Second, beware of composite index numbers, such as IQ. Unless there is a strong theory, test items can be selected to verify any existing bias "scientifically." Third, keep in mind that intelligence is about cognitive processes. All in all, we would be well advised to replace polarities and IQ numbers with the study of the actual processes underlying intelligent behavior, a scientific research agenda that would also leave little room for individual and cultural biases.
女性智力独特性的概念历史可以教给我们几个一般性的教训。第一点是要警惕评估性别的研究，以极性为基础，并且通常使用极性来理解人类思维的方法。第二，要警惕复合指数，如智商。除非有一个强有力的理论，否则测试项目可以被选择来“科学地”验证任何现有的偏见。第三，要记住智力是关于认知过程的。总的来说，我们最好用研究智能行为基础的实际过程来取代极性和智商数值，这样的科学研究议程也会减少个人和文化偏见的空间。

Beyond Polarities and IQ: Intelligent Decision Processes
超越极端和智商：智能决策过程

The history of the idea of a peculiarly female intelligence shows, in my view, that the field of sex differences in intelligence, and of intelligence in general, could benefit from a fresh start. Herbert Simon's and Alan Newell's work on heuristics and artificial intelligence (AI), which has inspired my own research on both intuitive and deliberative heuristic decision-making, offers such a new framework. Heuristics are strategies that help agents to make decisions and solve problems in an intelligent and efficient way. After all, what we call intelligence manifests itself in the quality of the decisions we make. In Part II, I describe the research agenda in more detail, which centers on two questions: (i) What is the repertoire of intelligent strategies (such as heuristics) at a person's disposal for making decisions? And (ii) what is a person's ability to choose a proper strategy for the situation at hand? In this framework, intelligence has a very concrete meaning that connects cognitive abilities with behavioral strategies, namely, the "adaptive toolbox" of strategies available and the ability to choose a strategy wisely to achieve a particular goal.
女性智力独特性的观念历史表明，在我看来，智力差异领域以及智力领域都可以从头开始受益。赫伯特·西蒙和艾伦·纽厄尔关于启发式和人工智能（AI）的研究，启发了我对直觉和深思熟虑的启发式决策制定的研究，提供了这样一个新框架。启发式是帮助代理人以智能和高效的方式做出决策和解决问题的策略。毕竟，我们所称的智力体现在我们所做决策的质量上。在第二部分中，我更详细地描述了研究议程，重点关注两个问题：（i）一个人在做决策时可以使用的智能策略（如启发式）有哪些？（ii）一个人在特定情况下选择适当策略的能力是什么？在这个框架中，智力具有非常具体的含义，将认知能力与行为策略联系起来，即可用的“适应性工具箱”策略和明智选择策略以实现特定目标的能力。

Although the study of intelligent heuristics is well established, it has had a blind spot for sex differences in how males and females search for information, when they stop searching, and how they make or delay decisions. One exception is the work of Joan Meyers-Levy and Barbara Loken, who reported that, in consumer choice, females search more extensively for information than males, while males are more selective in search and rely on faster stopping rules. Moreover, they concluded that females are more sensitive to environmental cues, whereas men more often ignore these and rely on the same heuristics across contexts, indicating less ability in adaptive choice. As for social heuristics, they found that women are more likely to base decisions on trust and are more likely to be trusted. Note that these are preliminary findings, but they indicate a different kind of question to pursue: abandon studying polarities and differences in IQ test outcomes and, instead, ask whether there are concrete differences in the way males and females search for information and make decisions.
尽管智能启发式研究已经得到很好的建立，但在男性和女性寻找信息的方式、何时停止搜索以及如何做出或延迟决策方面存在一个盲点。一个例外是琼·迈尔斯-莱维（Joan Meyers-Levy）和芭芭拉·洛肯（Barbara Loken）的研究，他们报告称，在消费者选择中，女性比男性更广泛地搜索信息，而男性在搜索中更加选择性，并依赖更快的停止规则。此外，他们得出结论，女性更加敏感于环境线索，而男性更经常忽视这些线索，并在不同情境下依赖相同的启发式，表明在适应性选择方面能力较弱。至于社会启发式，他们发现女性更有可能基于信任做出决策，并更容易获得信任。请注意，这些是初步发现，但它们表明了一个不同类型的问题：放弃研究智商测试结果中的极性和差异，而是询问男性和女性在搜索信息和做出决策方面是否存在具体差异。

The Myth of Female Intuition and Male Reason
女性直觉和男性理性的神话

It is telling that quite a few smart men in the social, biological, and medical sciences insisted on female inferiority as a scientific fact, in terms of both intellect and morals. Many of the tribulations mankind has had to endure were attributed to Eve's weakness when facing the serpent. After females were allowed to attend schools and universities during the 2oth century, it became evident that science had previously been informed by prejudice. The opposition between female intuition and male reason then disappeared from the social sciences and women were no longer accused of naivete, hasty conclusions, lack of logic, or low moral principles. Nevertheless, traces of these prejudices still surface occasionally. Why are so few females hired as professors in philosophy departments? Some male philosophers have argued that intuition is gendered, and that women have wrong philosophical intuitions more often than men.
很多社会、生物和医学科学中的聪明人坚持认为女性在智力和道德方面处于劣势是科学事实，这一点很明显。人类所经历的许多苦难被归因于夏娃在面对蛇时的软弱。20 世纪期间，女性被允许参加学校和大学后，科学明显地表明先前受到偏见的影响。女性直觉与男性理性之间的对立随后消失在社会科学中，女性不再被指责为天真、草率的结论、缺乏逻辑或道德原则低下。然而，这些偏见的痕迹仍然偶尔浮出水面。为什么哲学系中聘用女性教授的人数如此之少？一些男性哲学家认为直觉是有性别差异的，女性比男性更经常有错误的哲学直觉。

In the course of time, women and men have become increasingly equal partners - but not intuition and rationality.
随着时间的推移，女性和男性已经越来越成为平等的伙伴 - 但直觉和理性并没有。

Biases: Mistaking Intuition for Irrationality
偏见：将直觉误认为非理性

Mental illusions should be considered the rule rather than the exception.
心理错觉应被视为规则，而非例外。

Richard Thaler  理查德·塞勒

Kahneman and Tversky are more responsible than anybody for the powerful trend to mistrust human intuition and defer to algorithms. Michael Lewis, The Undoing Project
卡尼曼和特沃斯基比任何人都更负责任，引发了对人类直觉的不信任和对算法的推崇。迈克尔·刘易斯，《逆转项目》

When psychology struggled for its independence from philosophy in the late 19th century, intuition was one of its casualties. In a radical turn from philosophers' and theologians' view of intuition as "direct" knowledge and as one of the highest intellectual powers, intuition became seen as a primitive, impulsive, and developmentally earlier mental process. Studies in the 1920 sought to show that children and those with cognitive impairments excel in making rapid, intuitive judgments of physical quantities; results were inconclusive. Others tried to show that women's judgments of children's character are more intuitive than male's rational judgments, again without finding such a difference in comparison to the judgments of character made by children's teachers. Behaviorists such as B. F. Skinner did not even deem the study of intuition (and other nonobservable processes) worthy of rigorous science, distancing themselves from what they saw as unscientific mysticism. Between 1985 and 2004, an analysis of 2.1 million articles in the PsychINFO database found only 355 peer-reviewed articles that featured "intuition" in the title. There are, however, notable exceptions to this general dismissal. Jean Piaget explained that his studies of the development of intuitions about time and motion were prompted by questions suggested by Albert Einstein, and his research in turn stimulated contemporary analyses of intuitive physics and intuitive psychology.
当心理学在 19 世纪末争取摆脱哲学的独立性时，直觉成为了其中的牺牲品。与哲学家和神学家将直觉视为“直接”知识和最高智力之一的观点形成激烈对立，直觉被视为一种原始、冲动的、在发展上较早的心理过程。1920 年的研究试图表明，儿童和认知障碍者在对物理量进行快速、直觉性判断方面表现出色；结果并不明确。其他人试图表明，女性对儿童性格的判断比男性的理性判断更具直觉性，但与儿童老师的性格判断相比，并未发现明显差异。行为主义者如 B.F.斯金纳甚至认为直觉（以及其他不可观察的过程）不值得进行严格科学研究，远离他们所认为的非科学的神秘主义。在 1985 年至 2004 年间，对 PsychINFO 数据库中 210 万篇文章的分析发现，仅有 355 篇同行评议文章以“直觉”为标题。 然而，这种普遍的否定也有明显的例外。让·皮亚杰解释说，他对时间和运动直觉发展的研究是由爱因斯坦提出的问题引发的，而他的研究反过来刺激了当代对直觉物理学和直觉心理学的分析。

By the 21st century, the association of intuition with women was dropped in psychology, albeit continuing in parts of the general public. Yet, after being stripped of gender, intuition has once again been opposed to reason and, like female intuition, has been classified as inferior. The polarity morphed into two supposed systems of reasoning, referred to as Systems I and 2. System I is said to be fast and unconscious, to work by intuition and heuristics, to lack rationality, and to be the source of error. System 2, in contrast, is said to be slow and conscious, to work by logic and statistics, and to make no apparent errors in reasoning. At the same time, System 2, as mentioned in Chapter I, is held responsible for the errors System I makes by failing to detect and correct these. Just as men were once held responsible for preventing females from committing mistakes, a logical system is now assigned the paternalistic task of keeping the intuitive system in check. Logical reasoning is always rational, we are told, while intuition is not.
到了 21 世纪，直觉与女性的关联在心理学中被取消，尽管在一些普通大众中仍然存在。然而，在被剥夺性别特征后，直觉再次被对立于理性，就像女性直觉一样，被归类为低劣。这种极性演变成了两种被认为是推理系统的系统，被称为系统 I 和 2。据说系统 I 是快速且无意识的，通过直觉和启发式工作，缺乏理性，并且是错误的根源。相比之下，系统 2 被认为是缓慢和有意识的，通过逻辑和统计工作，并且在推理中没有明显错误。与此同时，正如第一章中提到的那样，系统 2 被认为要对系统 I 犯下的错误负责，因为它未能检测和纠正这些错误。正如男性曾经被认为要阻止女性犯错一样，一个逻辑系统现在被赋予了保持直觉系统受控的家长式任务。据我们所知，逻辑推理总是理性的，而直觉则不是。

Logic Versus Intuition 逻辑与直觉

Imagine a patient with a serious heart condition who is pondering whether or not to have a potentially risky surgery. They consult with their doctor regarding their prospects. The doctor informs them:
想象一下，一个患有严重心脏病的患者在考虑是否要接受一项可能存在风险的手术。他们咨询医生关于他们的前景。医生告诉他们：

Five years after surgery, 90 percent of patients are alive.
手术后五年，90％的患者仍然存活。

The patient's intuition may tell them that the doctor is encouraging them to decide in favor of surgery, which they might do. But what if the doctor had said:
患者的直觉可能告诉他们，医生鼓励他们决定支持手术，他们可能会这样做。但如果医生说：

Five years after surgery, io percent of patients are dead.
手术后五年，10% 的患者已经去世。

In this case, the patient might infer that the doctor is presenting a warning and might think twice before forgoing the surgery. Studies show that more people are willing to agree to a medical treatment if the doctor uses a positive frame ( 90 percent alive) than a negative frame (io percent dead). This phenomenon is known as the framing effect - people listen to how a message is framed and may change their decision.
在这种情况下，患者可能会推断医生是在发出警告，并在决定放弃手术之前三思。研究表明，如果医生使用积极框架（90％存活）而不是消极框架（10％死亡），更多人愿意同意接受医疗治疗。这种现象被称为框架效应 - 人们会听取信息的表述方式并可能改变他们的决定。

Should a patient listen to how the doctor frames a message? Economic theory has traditionally not considered psychological factors such as making implicit recommendations by framing a message. However, an influential group of behavioral economists, led by psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, took logic and Homo economicus more literally than many economists and went a step further. Any difference between human judgment and abstract logic was perceived as a fault in human intuition. Accordingly, patients should not listen to how a doctor frames the message because the positive and negative frames are logically equivalent. Patients who decide for or against surgery on the basis of the frame are said to lack rationality and suffer from a cognitive bias.
病人应该听医生如何表达信息吗？传统经济理论通常不考虑心理因素，比如通过表达信息来做出隐含建议。然而，由心理学家丹尼尔·卡尼曼和阿莫斯·特沃斯基领导的一群有影响力的行为经济学家比许多经济学家更字面地理解逻辑和经济人。人类判断与抽象逻辑之间的任何差异都被视为人类直觉的错误。因此，病人不应该听医生如何表达信息，因为积极和消极的表达在逻辑上是等效的。据说根据表达来决定是否接受手术的病人缺乏理性，并且受认知偏见影响。

Commenting on the surgery problem, behavioral economist Richard Thaler and legal scholar Cass Sunstein concluded that "framing works because people tend to be somewhat mindless, passive decision makers" and framing thus offers a "brief glimpse at human fallibility." Kahneman has considered the attention paid to framing as "embarrassing" evidence for cognitive biases, which people repeatedly fall for: "in their stubborn appeal, framing effects resemble perceptual illusions more than computational errors." (Although it should be acknowledged here that Kahneman appears to have qualified his contentions over the years, later speaking of both the marvels and flaws of intuition. ) In this view, logical thinking is the sole ingredient of rationality, while intuition is a steady source of bias.
评论手术问题时，行为经济学家理查德·塞勒和法学学者卡斯·桑斯坦得出结论：“框架有效是因为人们往往是有些心不在焉、被动的决策者”，因此框架提供了“对人类易犯错误的简短一瞥”。卡内曼认为对框架的关注是认知偏见的“令人尴尬”证据，人们反复上当：“在它们顽固的吸引力中，框架效应更像是感知错觉，而不是计算错误。”（尽管应该承认卡内曼似乎多年来已经对自己的主张进行了修正，后来谈到直觉的奇迹和缺陷。）在这种观点中，逻辑思维是理性的唯一成分，而直觉是偏见的稳定来源。

Intuition Versus Rationality Anew
直觉与理性的新对比

The framing effect is just one of a long list of transgressions that intuition allegedly commits against reason according to influential psychologists and behavioral economists, whose research focused on the flaws of intuition. These "biases" have attained the status of truisms and provided justification for new paternalistic policies, popularly known as nudging, adopted by governments in the UK, the USA, and elsewhere. The argument is not simply that people sometimes make mistakes or lack training in logical or statistical thinking - that would be nothing new. Rather, something inside our mind is said to make virtually everyone err in the same systematic way, with little hope of remedying the problem. In Dan Ariely's words, "we are not only irrational, but predictably irrational - that our irrationality happens the same way, again and again." The argument leading from biased intuition to governmental paternalism - in short, the irrationality argument - consists of three assertions and one conclusion:
框架效应只是直觉据称违背理性的一长串过失中的一个，这是根据有影响力的心理学家和行为经济学家的研究，他们的研究集中在直觉的缺陷上。这些“偏见”已经成为真理，并为新的父权政策提供了理由，这些政策通常被称为“推动”，被英国、美国和其他国家政府采纳。论点不仅仅是人们有时会犯错误或缺乏逻辑或统计思维的训练 - 这并不是什么新鲜事。相反，据说我们心中的某些东西几乎让每个人以同样的系统方式犯错，几乎没有希望解决问题。用丹·阿里埃利的话说，“我们不仅是非理性的，而且是可预测的非理性 - 我们的非理性一次又一次地发生在同样的方式上。”从有偏见的直觉到政府父权主义的论点 - 简而言之，非理性论点 - 包括三个断言和一个结论：

Biased intuition: People's intuitions are systematically biased and lack rationality. Stubbornness: Intuition is stubborn and, like visual illusions, hardly educable. Real-world costs: Biased intuition incurs substantial costs such as lower wealth, health, and happiness.
偏见直觉：人们的直觉系统性地带有偏见，缺乏理性。固执：直觉固执己见，像视觉错觉一样，几乎无法教育。现实世界的代价：偏见的直觉会带来巨大的代价，如降低财富、健康和幸福。

Conclusion: Biased intuitions justify governmental paternalism.
结论：有偏见的直觉证明了政府的家长式管理。

These three assumptions - biased intuition, stubbornness, and costs imply that chances are slim to nonexistent of the public ever learning or being educated out of their biases; instead, governments need to step in and nudge them into proper behavior. This new paternalism aims not at protecting people from external dangers or imperfections of the market, but from the enemy within: their own irrationality. Rationality, from this perspective, entails always obeying the logical axioms of consistency, maximizing one's expected utility, and updating probabilities via Bayes' rule. Let us call this ensemble logical rationality, for short. Maintaining that
这三个假设——偏见直觉、固执和成本意味着公众几乎没有机会学习或摆脱偏见；相反，政府需要介入并促使他们采取适当的行为。这种新的家长式管理旨在保护人们不受外部危险或市场的不完善之处的影响，而是保护他们免受内部敌人的影响：自己的非理性。从这个角度来看，理性意味着始终遵守逻辑一致性公理、最大化预期效用，并通过贝叶斯规则更新概率。让我们简称这种集合为逻辑理性。坚持

SMALL WORLD 小世界

Risk

Logic

Probability 概率

LARGE WORLD 大世界

Uncertainty 不确定性

Intuition

Heuristics

Figure 3.1. Risk versus uncertainty. In situations of risk, all possible future events, along with their consequences and probabilities, are known. In situations of uncertainty, that knowledge is not attainable. Uncertainty requires more than logic and probability: intuition and heuristics.
图 3.1。风险与不确定性。在风险情况下，所有可能的未来事件以及它们的后果和概率都是已知的。在不确定性情况下，这种知识是无法获得的。不确定性需要超出逻辑和概率：直觉和启发式。

patients should pay attention solely to the logical part of a doctor's message, not to its psychological part, is an instance of logical rationality. Note that logical rationality is content-free and thus knowledge, intelligence, emotion, and common sense are assumed to be of no relevance for rational decision-making.
患者应该仅关注医生信息的逻辑部分，而不是其心理部分，这是逻辑合理性的一个例子。请注意，逻辑合理性是无内容的，因此知识、智慧、情感和常识被认为对理性决策无关。

What if logical rationality is of value only for some problems and not for all? If logic were all we needed, our psychology would not have evolved into what it is, with its intuitions, heuristics, emotions, and social intelligence. Instead, our brains would have become superb calculating machines.
逻辑合理性只对某些问题有价值，而不是所有问题都适用的话，会怎么样呢？如果逻辑是我们所需要的一切，我们的心理学就不会进化成现在这个样子，拥有直觉、启发法、情感和社交智能。相反，我们的大脑会变成出色的计算机。

The crucial point is that logical rationality assumes a small world of known risk, as in games of roulette or slot machines with known payoffs, where the expected loss can be calculated and intuition is of no additional help. In a situation of risk, everything that can happen in the future is known, including all consequences of actions and their probabilities (Figure 3.I). Our brain, however, evolved to deal with a world of uncertainty. Uncertainty inhabits our lives in many forms: uncertainty about diagnosis and treatment, the intentions of others, financial markets, warfare, pandemics, natural disasters, and the future in general. I return to this important distinction in Chapter 5.
关键点在于逻辑合理性假设一个已知风险的小世界，就像轮盘赌博或有已知回报的老虎机游戏中，预期损失可以计算，直觉并不能提供额外帮助。在风险情况下，未来可能发生的一切都是已知的，包括行动的所有后果及其概率（图 3.I）。然而，我们的大脑进化出来是为了处理不确定性的世界。不确定性以多种形式存在于我们的生活中：诊断和治疗的不确定性，他人的意图，金融市场，战争，流行病，自然灾害以及未来的不确定性。我将在第 5 章再次回到这一重要区别。

My point is not that intuition never errs. Of course it can err, just as logical analysis does; that's why we need both. Instead, my argument is that, in situations of uncertainty, relying on logical rationality can be seriously misleading - as can mistaking intelligent processes to deal with uncertainty for biased intuition.
我的观点不是直觉永远不会出错。当然它也会出错，就像逻辑分析一样；这就是为什么我们需要两者。相反，我的论点是，在不确定的情况下，依赖逻辑理性可能会导致严重误导 - 就像误将处理不确定性的智能过程误认为有偏见的直觉一样。

The Bias Bias 偏见偏见

It is striking how much emphasis is placed on pointing out errors in intuition and how little reflection occurs on whether logical rationality
强调直觉中的错误有多重要，而对逻辑合理性是否发生反思却很少
is, in fact, a reasonable norm. That is not to say that the value of intuitive judgments is consistently denied in the literature on cognitive biases. However, every single experiment in this literature was designed to show, and concluded, that intuition fails. There appears to be a group dynamic that leads researchers to hunt for the next new bias. I call this extreme desire to attack intuition the bias bias:
事实上，这是一个合理的规范。这并不是说直觉判断的价值在认知偏见文献中一直被否定。然而，这个文献中的每一个实验都旨在展示，并得出结论，直觉是错误的。似乎存在一种团体动态，导致研究人员寻找下一个新的偏见。我称之为攻击直觉的极端欲望为偏见偏见：

Bias bias: The tendency to see systematic biases in intuition even if there is only unsystematic error or no verifiable error at all.
偏见偏见：即使只有非系统性错误或根本没有可验证的错误，也倾向于在直觉中看到系统性偏见。

Let us look at several celebrated biases that are widely taken for genuine cognitive errors.
让我们看看几种被广泛认为是真正认知错误的著名偏见。

Framing 构架

As I have mentioned, in a world of risk, where knowledge is certain, the framing of options (such as positive vs. negative) should have no impact on choice. Neoclassical economics assumes that rationally acting people have stable preferences and changing these according to the framing of a message is seen as a preference reversal. However, certainty does not exist for most important decisions, such as whether to undergo a dangerous surgery. Under uncertainty, preferences should not all be fixed, and asking for advice and information can be helpful. By framing an option, a speaker can communicate information that is not contained in the verbatim message, but which the intelligent listener is able to decode and incorporate into the choice accordingly. This decoding is known in the study of language comprehension as invited inferences, which are largely intuitive and more intellectually challenging than logical inferences. The great physiologist Hermann von Helmholtz spoke of unconscious inferences, which are the very backbone of human intelligence.
正如我所提到的，在一个充满风险的世界中，知识是确定的，选项的构架（如积极 vs. 消极）不应该对选择产生影响。新古典经济学假设，理性行事的人有稳定的偏好，并根据信息的构架改变这些偏好被视为偏好逆转。然而，对于大多数重要决策，如是否接受危险手术，确定性并不存在。在不确定性下，偏好不应全部固定，寻求建议和信息可能是有帮助的。通过构架一个选项，演讲者可以传达信息，这些信息在字面信息中并不存在，但聪明的听众能够解码并相应地纳入选择中。这种解码在语言理解研究中被称为邀请性推理，这些推理在很大程度上是直觉的，比逻辑推理更具智力挑战性。伟大的生理学家赫尔曼·冯·赫尔姆霍兹谈到了无意识推理，这是人类智慧的基础。

Surgery 手术

Consider the surgery problem again. For the patient, at issue is not logical consistency, but a life-and-death decision. To that end, the two relevant questions are: Is expected survival higher with or without surgery? Do possible harms associated with surgery lead to reduced quality of life? Neither " 90 percent alive" nor "Io percent dead" provides any of this information. What the patient needs to know is the survival rate without surgery along with the potential benefits and harms of surgery. This essential information is missing from the doctor's message. Thus, participants have to rely on their social intelligence to make an informed guess.
再次考虑手术问题。对于患者来说，问题不在于逻辑一致性，而在于生死抉择。为此，两个相关问题是：手术后预期存活率是高还是低？手术可能带来的伤害是否会降低生活质量？“90%存活”或“10%死亡”都没有提供这些信息。患者需要知道的是没有手术的存活率以及手术的潜在益处和危害。这些基本信息在医生的信息中缺失。因此，参与者必须依靠他们的社会智慧来做出明智的猜测。

By framing the option, speakers can convey information about the missing information, something listeners tend to understand intuitively. Experiments showed that if the no-surgery option was worse than surgery ("fewer patients survive without surgery"), then percent of the speakers (doctors) chose the "survival" frame. When, by contrast, no surgery was the better option ("more patients survive without surgery"), then the survival frame was chosen less frequently. Thus, by choosing a survival frame, the doctor can communicate that surgery has a substantial benefit compared to no surgery and can make an implicit recommendation.
通过设置选项，演讲者可以传达有关缺失信息的信息，这是听众往往能直观理解的。实验证明，如果不做手术的选择比手术更糟糕（"没有手术的患者存活率更低"），那么 ％的演讲者（医生）选择了"生存"框架。相比之下，如果不做手术是更好的选择（"没有手术的患者存活率更高"），那么生存框架被选择的频率较低。 因此，通过选择生存框架，医生可以传达手术相对于不做手术具有实质性好处，并可以做出隐含的建议。

There are various reasons why doctors may omit information or not explicitly communicate recommendations. In the USA, for instance, tort law encourages malpractice suits, which fuels a culture of blame in which doctors fear making explicit recommendations. By selecting a positive or negative frame, physicians can indirectly communicate their belief as to whether surgery has a substantial benefit compared to no surgery. And most patients understand the message.
医生可能会省略信息或不明确传达建议的原因有很多。例如，在美国，侵权法鼓励医疗事故诉讼，这助长了一种责备文化，使医生害怕明确提出建议。通过选择积极或消极的框架，医生可以间接传达他们对手术是否比不手术有实质益处的信念。大多数患者能理解这个信息。

In an uncertain world such as that of medical treatment, logically equivalent frames are not necessarily informationally equivalent. Here, following logic can cost lives.
在诸如医疗治疗之类的不确定世界中，逻辑上等价的框架未必在信息上等价。在这里，遵循逻辑可能会造成生命的损失。

Is the Glass Half Full or Half Empty?
玻璃是半满还是半空？

The choice of frame can also implicitly communicate other relevant information. The mother of all framing problems makes that clear:
框架的选择也可以隐含地传达其他相关信息。所有框架问题的根源变得清晰：

The glass is half full.
玻璃是半满的。

The glass is half empty.
玻璃是半空的。

Once again, both frames are the same logically, but not psychologically. Imagine that there are two glasses on a table, one full and one empty (Figure 3.2). You are asked to pour half of the water in glass (b) into glass (a). Then you are requested to take the half-empty glass and move it to the edge of the table. Which would you pick? Most likely, you would intuitively pick the glass that was previously full.
再次强调，逻辑上两个杯子是一样的，但在心理上不同。想象一下桌子上有两个杯子，一个装满了水，一个空着（图 3.2）。你被要求把杯子（b）里的一半水倒入杯子（a）中。然后你被要求把半空的杯子移到桌子边缘。你会选择哪个？很可能，你会直觉地选择之前装满水的那个杯子。

An experiment showed that most people did exactly that. Likewise, when asked to take the half-full cup, they chose the one that was previously empty. Framing conveys unspoken information, and a careful listener understands that half full and half empty are not identical.
一项实验显示，大多数人确实是这样做的。同样，当被要求拿半满的杯子时，他们选择了之前是空的那个。框架传达了未言明的信息，一个细心的听众会明白半满和半空并不相同。

(a)
2.

(b)

(c)

(d)

Figure 3.2. Which glass is half full, which half empty? I: Two glasses, (a) empty and (b) full. 2: Half of glass (b) is poured into glass (a). 3: Two glasses, (c) half full, (d) half empty.
图 3.2。哪个杯子是半满的，哪个是半空的？1：两个杯子，（a）空的和（b）满的。2：将杯子（b）的一半倒入杯子（a）。3：两个杯子，（c）半满，（d）半空。

The intuitive ability to use a frame to communicate unspoken information, as well as to decode this information, is based on heuristics. For instance, listeners expect that what and how the speaker communicates is relevant - the relevance maxim. An example is the implication that a speaker is likely making an unspoken recommendation when using a positive frame for an option, whereas a negative frame likely indicates a warning. In general, the ability to listen carefully and pay attention to how messengers frame messages is a form of intelligence, not a bias of intuition.
直觉能力使用框架传达未言之信息，以及解码这些信息的能力，是基于启发式。例如，听众期望说话者传达的内容和方式是相关的 - 相关性最大化。一个例子是，当说话者使用积极的框架来表达一个选择时，暗示说话者可能在暗示推荐，而负面的框架则可能表示警告。总的来说，仔细倾听并注意信使如何构建信息的能力是一种智慧，而不是直觉的偏见。

The Asian Disease Problem Reassessed
亚洲疾病问题重新评估

Perhaps the most widely cited example of a framing effect stems from the "Asian disease problem," which figures prominently in virtually all textbooks:
也许最广泛引用的框架效应示例源自“亚洲疾病问题”，这在几乎所有教科书中都占据重要地位

Imagine that the USA is preparing for an outbreak of an unusual Asian disease, which is expected to kill 600 people. Two alternative programs to combat the disease have been proposed. Assume that the exact scientific estimates of the consequences of the programs are as follows:
想象一下，美国正在为一种不同寻常的亚洲疾病爆发做准备，预计将导致 600 人死亡。已经提出了两种对抗这种疾病的替代方案。假设这两种方案的科学估计后果如下：

[Positive Frame:] [积极框架：]

If Program A is adopted, 200 people will be saved.
如果采用方案 A，将会拯救 200 人。

If Program B is adopted, there is a probability that 600 people will be saved and a probability that no people will be saved.
如果采用 B 方案，有 的概率会有 600 人得救，有 的概率没有人会得救。

[Negative Frame:] 负面框架:

If Program A is adopted, 400 people will die.
如果采用方案 A，将有 400 人死亡。

If Program B is adopted, there is a probability that nobody will die and a probability that 600 people will die.
如果采用 B 计划，有 的概率没有人会死亡，有 的概率会有 600 人死亡。

Kahneman and Tversky argued that the positive and negative frames are logically equivalent, meaning that framing should not alter the preference order. Nevertheless, when given the positive frame, most people favored Program A, but, when given the negative frame, favored Program B. This difference was interpreted as evidence that people are risk-averse for gains (choosing the "certain" option in the positive frame) and risk-seeking for losses (choosing the "risky" option in the negative frame). In this purely logical interpretation, the responses to the Asian disease problem - just as to the surgery problem - violate the assumption of stable preferences and show that people's intuitions can be easily manipulated.
卡尼曼和特沃斯基认为，积极和消极框架在逻辑上是等价的，这意味着框架不应改变偏好顺序。然而，当给出积极框架时，大多数人更喜欢 A 计划，但是当给出消极框架时，更喜欢 B 计划。这种差异被解释为证据，表明人们对收益是风险规避的（在积极框架中选择“确定”选项），而对损失是风险寻求的（在消极框架中选择“冒险”选项）。在这种纯粹逻辑的解释中，对亚洲疾病问题的回应 - 就像对手术问题一样 - 违反了稳定偏好的假设，并显示出人们的直觉很容易被操纵。

Now recall the psychological analysis of the surgery problem: If people notice that part of the information is omitted, such as the effect of no surgery, they tend to make intuitive inferences. The psychologist Anton Kühberger and I noted that the Asian disease problem is of a similar nature: The risky option is always spelled out entirely in both frames (e.g., a probability that 600 people will be saved and a probability that no one is saved), whereas the "certain" option is never complete. For instance, it communicates that 200 people will be saved, but not that 400 will not be saved. This systematic asymmetry matters neither from the logical norm of description invariance nor for prospect theory, given that the framing in terms of loss and gains is preserved. But it should matter if people question the intentions underlying this asymmetry and make intuitive inferences. To test these two competing explanations - logical error or intelligent inference - all that needs to be done is to complete the missing options in both frames. Here is the complete version for the positive frame:
现在回想一下手术问题的心理分析：如果人们注意到部分信息被省略，比如没有手术的效果，他们往往会做直觉推断。心理学家安东·库赫贝格和我注意到，亚洲疾病问题具有类似的性质：风险选项在两种情况下都完全呈现（例如，有 概率拯救 600 人和有 概率一个人都不会被拯救），而“确定”的选项从未完全呈现。例如，它传达了将拯救 200 人的信息，但没有提到将有 400 人不会被拯救。这种系统性的不对称性既不符合描述不变性的逻辑规范，也不符合前景理论，因为损失和收益的框架得以保留。但如果人们质疑这种不对称性背后的意图并做出直觉推断，这就很重要。要测试这两种竞争性解释——逻辑错误或智能推断——需要做的就是完成两种情况下缺失选项的完整版本。以下是正面框架的完整版本：

If Program A is adopted, 200 people will be saved and 400 people will not be saved.
如果采用方案 A，将会拯救 200 人，但也会导致 400 人无法获救。

If Program B is adopted, there is a probability that 600 people will be saved and a probability that no people will be saved.
如果采用 B 方案，有 的概率会有 600 人得救，有 的概率没有人会得救。

If any of the logical explanations given - people's susceptibility to framing errors, their risk-aversion for gains and risk-seeking for losses, or the value function of prospect theory - were true, this addition should not matter. However, Kühberger found that it changes the entire result. When people were provided with the full information, the effect of positive versus negative frames disappeared. Subsequent studies replicated this striking finding. As further studies indicated, many people notice that the information is asymmetric and infer that the incomplete option means that at least 200 people are saved because, unlike in Program B, the information for how many will not be saved is not provided. In other words, they infer that Program A guarantees that 200 or more people will be saved, as opposed to exactly 200 .
如果给出的任何逻辑解释 - 人们对框架错误的易感性，他们对收益的风险规避和对损失的风险追求，或者前景理论的价值函数 - 是真实的，这个附加项就不重要。然而，Kühberger 发现这改变了整个结果。当人们获得完整信息时，正面与负面框架的效应消失了。随后的研究复制了这一惊人的发现。 正如进一步的研究所指出的，许多人注意到信息是不对称的，并推断出不完整选项意味着至少会有 200 人得救，因为与 B 计划不同，没有提供多少人将不会得救的信息。 换句话说，他们推断出 A 计划保证会有 200 人或更多人得救，而不是恰好是 200 人。

Thus, people's judgments appear to have little to do with loss-aversion or unstable preferences due to positive versus negative framing. The asymmetry of the information communicated instead drives the entire effect. When supplied with incomplete information, people have to make intelligent inferences.
因此，人们的判断似乎与厌恶损失或由正面与负面框架引起的不稳定偏好关系不大。而是信息传达的不对称性驱动了整个效应。当提供不完整信息时，人们必须做出明智的推断。

Intelligent Inferences Mistaken for Biases
智能推理被误认为偏见

In all of these cases, the same bias bias is seen: mistaking intelligent intuitive inferences for biases. Frames carry information beyond their literal content, meaning that their interpretation requires not logical, but psychological, analysis. The bias bias emerges from a view that eliminates all psychology by assuming that logically equivalent statements must be informationally equivalent. This principle of "descriptive invariance" has been hailed as an essential condition for rational choice. However, the art of reading between the lines is more cognitively demanding than the narrow logic of descriptive invariance.
在所有这些情况下，都可以看到相同的偏见：将智能直觉推断误认为是偏见。框架携带超出其字面内容的信息，这意味着它们的解释不需要逻辑分析，而是需要心理分析。偏见偏见源自一种观点，即通过假设逻辑上等价的陈述必须在信息上等价来消除所有心理学。这种“描述不变性”原则被誉为理性选择的基本条件。然而，阅读行间的艺术比描述不变性的狭隘逻辑更具认知要求。

Once again, there is a difference between the natural and social sciences. Framing has long been considered an art in mathematics and physics, as the importance of notation and number representation illustrates. For example, Newton and Leibniz had different notations for the calculus, each having its advantages, which are discussed to the present day. Although logically equivalent, they are not identical. The physicist Richard Feynman pointed out the importance of simultaneously working with different formulations of the same physical law, even if they are logically equivalent: "Psychologically they are different because they are completely unequivalent when you are trying to guess new laws.".
再次，自然科学和社会科学之间存在差异。在数学和物理学中，构架长期以来被认为是一门艺术，因为符号和数字表示的重要性得到了体现。例如，牛顿和莱布尼茨对微积分有不同的符号表示，各有其优势，这些优势至今仍在讨论中。尽管在逻辑上是等价的，但它们并不相同。物理学家理查德·费曼指出了同时使用同一物理定律的不同表述的重要性，即使它们在逻辑上是等价的：“从心理上讲，它们是不同的，因为当你试图猜测新的定律时，它们完全不等价。”。

In sum, the principle of logical equivalence or description invariance is a poor guide to understanding how human intelligence deals with an uncertain world where not everything is, or can be, stated explicitly. It misses the very nature of social intelligence, the ability to make inferences beyond the bare information given. Logic is without doubt a tool of rationality, but not the exclusive one in the cognitive toolbox.
总的来说，逻辑等价性或描述不变性原则是理解人类智能如何处理不确定世界的一个不好的指导，因为并非一切都是或可以明确陈述的。它忽略了社会智能的本质，即能够在提供的基本信息之外进行推断的能力。逻辑无疑是理性的工具，但并非认知工具箱中的唯一工具。

Intuitions About Randomness
关于随机性的直觉

Psychology classrooms often resemble magic shows, where professors perform tricks to demonstrate how everyone's intuition can be fooled. Consider a stock-in-trade attraction, where someone throws a coin to see whether it lands heads or tails (T). The quiz is:
心理学课堂经常类似于魔术表演，教授们表演戏法来展示每个人的直觉是如何被愚弄的。考虑一个常见的吸引力，有人抛硬币看它是正面还是反面（T）。这个小测验是：

You take a fair coin and flip it four times in a row. Which string will you more likely observe?
你拿一枚公平的硬币连续抛掷四次。你更有可能观察到哪个字符串？

HHT

Most people's intuition says that HHT is more likely. Yet, a psychology professor may argue that the intuition is faulty because the two strings have the same probability of occurring. The probability of a head is always the same as of a tail; thus, the probability of each string is the same, the students are told. Upon reflection, they may be inclined to concede that the intuition was wrong, even though it still intuitively feels right. This has happened to many participants in psychological experiments, and it appears to prove the first two assertions about biased intuition: that people lack rationality and that intuition is hardly educable: Even after being proven wrong, people stubbornly hang on to their biased intuition. The bias has a name, the law of small numbers, which is one of the two key experimental findings on intuitions of randomness:
大多数人的直觉认为 HHT 更有可能。然而，心理学教授可能会认为直觉是错误的，因为这两个字符串发生的概率是相同的。学生们被告知，正面的概率总是与反面的概率相同；因此，每个字符串的概率都是相同的。经过反思，他们可能倾向于承认直觉是错误的，即使它仍然在直觉上感觉正确。这在许多心理实验的参与者身上发生过，似乎证明了关于有偏见直觉的前两个断言：人们缺乏理性，而直觉几乎无法教育：即使被证明错误，人们仍然固执地坚持他们有偏见的直觉。这种偏见有一个名字，叫做小数定律，这是关于随机直觉的两个关键实验发现之一。

I. The law of small numbers: People think a string is more likely the closer the number of heads and tails corresponds to the underlying equal probabilities. For instance, the string HHT is deemed more likely than , and is deemed more likely than .
I. 小数定律：人们认为，当正反面的数量与潜在的相等概率相对应时，串更有可能。例如，串 HHT 被认为比 更有可能，而 被认为比 更有可能。

2. Irregularity: If the number of heads and tails is the same in two strings, people think that the one with a more irregular pattern is more
   不规则性：如果两个字符串中正反面的数量相同，人们认为具有更不规则模式的那个更多

The Law of Small Numbers
小数法则

Irregularity 不规则

HTHTHT
HTTHTH

Fine-Tuned Intuition Mistaken for Bias
细致调整的直觉被误认为是偏见

The Hot Hand Fallacy: Professional Intuition Mistaken for Bias
热手谬误：将专业直觉误认为偏见

The Hot Hand Exists
热手现象存在

Generality of the Bias Bias
偏见的普遍性

2. Biased sample estimators are mistaken for people's biases: The statistics of small samples can systematically differ from the population parameters. Intuitions about chance and the hot hand are examples.
   偏倚样本估计器被误认为是人们的偏见：小样本的统计数据可能会与总体参数有系统性差异。关于机会和热手的直觉就是例子。
3. Experimenters' sampling of questions is biased: Overconfidence defined as mean confidence minus percent correct - results from selected questions that are untypical, but it disappears when questions are chosen representatively.
   实验者对问题的抽样是有偏见的：过度自信被定义为平均自信减去正确百分比 - 这是来自选择的不典型问题的结果，但当问题被代表性地选择时，这种现象就消失了。
4. Unsystematic errors are mistaken for systematic biases: Confusing regression to the mean with a systematic error is an example. Unsystematic errors have been misinterpreted as a miscalibration (another version of overconfidence) as well as an overestimation of small risks and an overestimation of large risks.
   非系统误差被误认为是系统偏差：将回归到平均值与系统误差混淆是一个例子。非系统误差被误解为误校准（另一种过度自信的版本）以及对小风险和大风险的高估。
5. Situations of risk (where probability theory can provide the best answer) are not distinguished from situations of uncertainty (where heuristics can be superior): This is the key problem underlying most erroneous diagnoses of biases.
   风险情况（概率论可以提供最佳答案的情况）与不确定性情况（启发式可能更优）没有明显区别：这是导致大多数错误偏见诊断的关键问题。

Citation Bias 引用偏见

Stubbornness: The Myth That Intuition Is Hardly Educable
固执：直觉几乎无法教育的神话

authorities needed to steer it toward correct decisions. Its author spoke with both the proponents of biases and nudging and with my research group. According to legal scholar Dan Kahan, many specialists conclude that the public will never really be capable of prudent decision-making without any external help, meaning that "risk decision-making should be concentrated to an even greater extent in politically insulated expert agencies.") The task of these agencies would be to nudge people into making better decisions.
当局需要引导它朝着正确的决策方向。 其作者与偏见和推动力的支持者以及我的研究小组进行了交谈。根据法学专家丹·卡汉（Dan Kahan）的说法，许多专家得出结论，公众在没有任何外部帮助的情况下永远不会真正有能力做出谨慎的决策，这意味着“风险决策应更多地集中在政治上隔离的专家机构中。”） 这些机构的任务将是推动人们做出更好的决策。

Real-World Costs: The Myth of Substantial Costs
现实世界的成本：实质成本的神话

The Return of the Dichotomy: Intuition Versus Reason
二分法的回归：直觉对抗理性

Governmental and Technological Paternalism
政府和技术的家长式管理

The Revival of Paternalism
家长式管理的复兴

- Hard paternalism (no choice): Control citizens for their own
强硬的家长式管理（没有选择）：控制公民为了他们自己的利益

• Libertarian paternalism (nudging): Nudge citizens for their own benefit. "Choice architects," as proponents of libertarian paternalism define themselves, decide what is best for citizens and influence their behavior using psychological methods of persuasion. Nudging does not eliminate options (which is why it is called libertarian), but instead exploits people's biases to steer them into certain options (paternalism).
  自由主义父权制（推动）：为了公民的利益而推动。作为自由主义父权制的支持者所定义的“选择建筑师”决定了对公民最有利的事情，并利用心理说服方法影响他们的行为。推动不会消除选项（这就是为什么它被称为自由主义），而是利用人们的偏见引导他们选择某些选项（父权制）。
• Positive liberty (boosting): Boost citizens so that they can make informed decisions for themselves. The key task of governments is to invest in empowering citizens. This includes providing access to good schools and clean information as well as basic training in scientific argumentation and risk literacy.
  积极自由（提升）：增强公民的能力，使他们能够为自己做出明智的决定。政府的关键任务是投资于赋予公民权力。这包括提供良好学校和清洁信息的获取，以及科学论证和风险识别的基本培训。

Paternalizing or Boosting?
父权化还是提升？

Hard Paternalism: No Choice
强硬的父权主义：没有选择

Nudging: Uninformed Choice
推动：未知选择

Boosting: Informed Choice
提升：知情选择