直觉总是对的吗（上）
正文翻译
Is gut instinct always right?
直觉总是对的吗？
Is gut instinct always right?
直觉总是对的吗？
评论翻译
Dushka Zapata, I also write about life on Instagram (@dushkaamateur)
In his book The Gift of Fear, Gavin De Becker says that humans have been given marvelous, complex, highly evolved instincts designed to keep us out of harm's way.
The problem is that we override internal alarms in the name of being "polite" or "reasonable".
He illustrates his point with the following example: Say that you are waiting for an elevator. The doors open and you see someone already inside that sends a chill down your spine (or turns your stomach into a knot.)
But, it would be so rude, even offensive, to stare at the person and then refrain from getting on the elevator, right?
You decide to ignore your own message, telling yourself that being afraid of someone you've never met makes no sense and determine that it instead makes a lot of sense to get into a small, sound proof, inescapable metal box with someone you instinctively are afraid of.
This story blew me away. Because I make these types of decisions all the time: doing things against my better judgment in an attempt to "make sense". Making an elaborate intellectual effort to convince myself my instincts cannot possibly be right. And, I love my instincts. They are so often correct! They were put there to help me.
I've decided they deserve more respect than this. Not just mine - everyone's. So I invite you to listen to yours too.
杜什卡萨帕塔，我也在Instagram上写一写关于生活的随笔。（@杜什卡马特尔）
加文·德·贝克尔在他的《恐惧给你的礼物》一书中说，人类被赋予了奇妙、复杂、高度进化的本能，旨在让我们远离伤害。
问题在于，我们经常会以“礼貌”或“合理”的名义无视我们心中或者脑海中发出的警报。他用下面的例子来说明他的观点：假设你在等电梯。门打开之后，你看到里面已经有人了，并且这让你感觉到毛骨悚然（或者说感觉胃打了个结）。
但是，你盯着那个人，却不坐电梯，这就太粗鲁，甚至可以说是无礼了，对吧？
你决定忽略自己的感觉，告诉自己害怕一个你从未见过的人是没有意义的，而所谓的很有意义的是，你决定与你本能地感到害怕的人进入一个小小的、隔音的、无法逃脱的金属盒子里。
这个故事触动到了我。因为我一直在做这类决定：做一些让我没法好好去判断的事情，试图去做“有意义”的事。我绞尽脑汁地说服自己：我的直觉不可能是正确的。但我喜欢我的直觉。它们经常都是正确的！它们很多时候都能帮助到我。
所以我觉得它们（直觉）应该得到更多的重视。不仅仅是我的重视，而是每个人都重视。所以我想邀请你们也去听听你们的直觉。
In his book The Gift of Fear, Gavin De Becker says that humans have been given marvelous, complex, highly evolved instincts designed to keep us out of harm's way.
The problem is that we override internal alarms in the name of being "polite" or "reasonable".
He illustrates his point with the following example: Say that you are waiting for an elevator. The doors open and you see someone already inside that sends a chill down your spine (or turns your stomach into a knot.)
But, it would be so rude, even offensive, to stare at the person and then refrain from getting on the elevator, right?
You decide to ignore your own message, telling yourself that being afraid of someone you've never met makes no sense and determine that it instead makes a lot of sense to get into a small, sound proof, inescapable metal box with someone you instinctively are afraid of.
This story blew me away. Because I make these types of decisions all the time: doing things against my better judgment in an attempt to "make sense". Making an elaborate intellectual effort to convince myself my instincts cannot possibly be right. And, I love my instincts. They are so often correct! They were put there to help me.
I've decided they deserve more respect than this. Not just mine - everyone's. So I invite you to listen to yours too.
杜什卡萨帕塔，我也在Instagram上写一写关于生活的随笔。（@杜什卡马特尔）
加文·德·贝克尔在他的《恐惧给你的礼物》一书中说，人类被赋予了奇妙、复杂、高度进化的本能，旨在让我们远离伤害。
问题在于，我们经常会以“礼貌”或“合理”的名义无视我们心中或者脑海中发出的警报。他用下面的例子来说明他的观点：假设你在等电梯。门打开之后，你看到里面已经有人了，并且这让你感觉到毛骨悚然（或者说感觉胃打了个结）。
但是，你盯着那个人，却不坐电梯，这就太粗鲁，甚至可以说是无礼了，对吧？
你决定忽略自己的感觉，告诉自己害怕一个你从未见过的人是没有意义的，而所谓的很有意义的是，你决定与你本能地感到害怕的人进入一个小小的、隔音的、无法逃脱的金属盒子里。
这个故事触动到了我。因为我一直在做这类决定：做一些让我没法好好去判断的事情，试图去做“有意义”的事。我绞尽脑汁地说服自己：我的直觉不可能是正确的。但我喜欢我的直觉。它们经常都是正确的！它们很多时候都能帮助到我。
所以我觉得它们（直觉）应该得到更多的重视。不仅仅是我的重视，而是每个人都重视。所以我想邀请你们也去听听你们的直觉。
Marcus Geduld, 35 years of study in psychology, as a lay reader.
Not in my case. My gut instincts, though often correct, will sometimes turn out to be wrong, and there's no signifier that will tell me if one is likely to be right or wrong.
For instance, I'll know I put my keys in my pocket, when, in fact, I'veI left them on the coffee table. I won't think they're in my pocket. I'll have that same sense of knowing that I get when I say, "I know I have two hands." Or I'll know a particular TV show will be cancelled, but it turns out to be really popular and lasts for nine more seasons. Or I'll know someone has broken into my apartment, but it will turn out to be the wind making something rattle outside...
There's a ton of research on instincts, and most of it is summarized and explained in Thinking, Fast and Slow: Daniel Kahneman.
马库斯·格杜尔德，作为一个外行读者研究了35年心理学。
我的情况不是这样。
我的直觉，虽然通常是正确的，有时也会被证明是错误的，而且没有意符（符号的语音形象）能告诉我一个直觉可能是对的还是错的。
例如，我感觉我把钥匙放在口袋里了，事实上，我把钥匙忘在咖啡桌上了。但我不会认为它们在我口袋里。当我说“我知道我有两只手”时，我也会有同样的感觉。或者我感觉某个电视节目会被停播，但结果它很受欢迎，并且还能再演九季。或者我感觉有人闯进了我的公寓，但结果那只是风吹得外面有什么东西在嘎嘎作响。
关于直觉的研究有很多，其中大部分都在丹尼尔·卡尼曼的《思考，快与慢》一书中得到了总结和解释。
Not in my case. My gut instincts, though often correct, will sometimes turn out to be wrong, and there's no signifier that will tell me if one is likely to be right or wrong.
For instance, I'll know I put my keys in my pocket, when, in fact, I'veI left them on the coffee table. I won't think they're in my pocket. I'll have that same sense of knowing that I get when I say, "I know I have two hands." Or I'll know a particular TV show will be cancelled, but it turns out to be really popular and lasts for nine more seasons. Or I'll know someone has broken into my apartment, but it will turn out to be the wind making something rattle outside...
There's a ton of research on instincts, and most of it is summarized and explained in Thinking, Fast and Slow: Daniel Kahneman.
马库斯·格杜尔德，作为一个外行读者研究了35年心理学。
我的情况不是这样。
我的直觉，虽然通常是正确的，有时也会被证明是错误的，而且没有意符（符号的语音形象）能告诉我一个直觉可能是对的还是错的。
例如，我感觉我把钥匙放在口袋里了，事实上，我把钥匙忘在咖啡桌上了。但我不会认为它们在我口袋里。当我说“我知道我有两只手”时，我也会有同样的感觉。或者我感觉某个电视节目会被停播，但结果它很受欢迎，并且还能再演九季。或者我感觉有人闯进了我的公寓，但结果那只是风吹得外面有什么东西在嘎嘎作响。
关于直觉的研究有很多，其中大部分都在丹尼尔·卡尼曼的《思考，快与慢》一书中得到了总结和解释。
Our brains are pattern-matching machines, and so, for example, if I've remembered to put my keys in my pocket 10 days in a row, my brain will assume they are in my pocket on the 11th day. And it doesn't generally pay for me to feel skepticism—or to just "think" they're in my pocket—because that will evoke slower, more-costly brain processes. In general, I evolved to feel a sense of being sure or "just knowing." That can create some problems, but in general it doesn't harm my chances to survive and reproduce, which is what Natural sextion "cares about." In fact, it makes me more efficient in most situations, better able to make speedy, confident decisions that are usually right.
(Sometimes this system breaks: I seem incapable of trusting my gut that I've turned the thermostat down before going to bed. Too many times, I've woken up in a sweat, because I forgot. So now my brain starts up a skeptical process as soon as I get upstairs, even though I know I turned down the heat. So on most nights, I feel the need to go back downstairs and check, and almost every time I do, I discover my gut was right, and checking was a waste of time. It's incredibly inefficient for me to not trust my gut in this case, and at times it even harms my sleep, as I'll only become skeptical as I'm drifting off, and that will wake me up.)
我们的大脑是范例匹配机器，所以，举个例子，如果我连续10天记得把钥匙放在口袋里，那么第11天的时候我的大脑就会认为钥匙就在我的口袋里。而且这种想法通常不会让我感到怀疑，或者只是让我“认为”它们在我的口袋里，如果这样的话，会引发更慢、成本更高的大脑思考过程。总的来说，我进化出了一种确定或者“只是知道”的感觉。这可能会引发一些问题，但总的来说，它不会损害我生存和繁殖的机会，而生存和繁殖才是自然选择所“关心的”。事实上，它（直觉）使我在大多数情况下会更有效率，能更好地、快速并且自信地做出通常都是正确的决定。
（但有时这个系统会失灵：我似乎无法相信自己的直觉。比如我已经在睡觉前把恒温器的温度调低了。
但有很多次，因为我忘记调低温度，导致我醒来时满头大汗。
所以现在我一上楼，我的大脑就开始怀疑（我没有把恒温器调低），即使我知道我已经把暖气关小了。
所以在大多数晚上，我都觉得有必要下楼检查，而且几乎每次我这么做的时候，我就发现我的直觉是对的，检查是在浪费时间。
在这种情况下，如果我不相信自己的直觉，我的效率会非常低，并且，因为我只会在朦胧中开始怀疑，而这（怀疑直觉）会把我吵醒，所以有时候，怀疑直觉甚至损害到了我的睡眠质量。
(Sometimes this system breaks: I seem incapable of trusting my gut that I've turned the thermostat down before going to bed. Too many times, I've woken up in a sweat, because I forgot. So now my brain starts up a skeptical process as soon as I get upstairs, even though I know I turned down the heat. So on most nights, I feel the need to go back downstairs and check, and almost every time I do, I discover my gut was right, and checking was a waste of time. It's incredibly inefficient for me to not trust my gut in this case, and at times it even harms my sleep, as I'll only become skeptical as I'm drifting off, and that will wake me up.)
我们的大脑是范例匹配机器，所以，举个例子，如果我连续10天记得把钥匙放在口袋里，那么第11天的时候我的大脑就会认为钥匙就在我的口袋里。而且这种想法通常不会让我感到怀疑，或者只是让我“认为”它们在我的口袋里，如果这样的话，会引发更慢、成本更高的大脑思考过程。总的来说，我进化出了一种确定或者“只是知道”的感觉。这可能会引发一些问题，但总的来说，它不会损害我生存和繁殖的机会，而生存和繁殖才是自然选择所“关心的”。事实上，它（直觉）使我在大多数情况下会更有效率，能更好地、快速并且自信地做出通常都是正确的决定。
（但有时这个系统会失灵：我似乎无法相信自己的直觉。比如我已经在睡觉前把恒温器的温度调低了。
但有很多次，因为我忘记调低温度，导致我醒来时满头大汗。
所以现在我一上楼，我的大脑就开始怀疑（我没有把恒温器调低），即使我知道我已经把暖气关小了。
所以在大多数晚上，我都觉得有必要下楼检查，而且几乎每次我这么做的时候，我就发现我的直觉是对的，检查是在浪费时间。
在这种情况下，如果我不相信自己的直觉，我的效率会非常低，并且，因为我只会在朦胧中开始怀疑，而这（怀疑直觉）会把我吵醒，所以有时候，怀疑直觉甚至损害到了我的睡眠质量。
When you have a gut instinct, it usually means your brain has detected a pattern, which may mean that you're in a situation now that closely fits a pattern from the past (e.g. walking towards the car with keys probably in pocket). The sense of sureness you feel is a sign that you're sure the pattern exists, but your brain may well be interpreting it wrong. Or it may be interpreting it correctly, but there are some aspects of the environment—aspects you have no way of knowing about—that make your correct interpretation invalid. (E.g. maybe I did put my keys in my pocket, but there's a hole in it.)
The tricky thing about instincts is that they're often right, which means that you'd be foolish to discount them. But they can be wrong, which means you're also foolish to just treat them like gospel. But an in-between path is very difficult.
You hear how difficult it is when people rush to aphorisms like "Once a cheater, always a cheater." In fact, that's not true. There are people who are unfaithful for a while but then turn over a new leaf and never cheat again. But it's also true that lots of cheaters (maybe the majority) relapse, so the aphorism is an easy (often right) heuristic. But if you want to make sure your chances of experiencing the truth are maximized, you have to embrace a really difficult heuristic, such as "Once a cheater, almost always a cheater, but there are certainly exceptions, and while you should maybe expect an individual re-offend, you shouldn't assume he will without evidence."
当你有一种直觉时，通常意味着你的大脑已经发现了一种范例，这可能意味着你现在所处的情况与过去的某种范例非常吻合（例如，你朝着一辆车走过去的时候钥匙可能还在口袋里）。
你所感受到的确定感是你确定这种范例所存在的标志，但你的大脑很可能解读错误了。
或者它可能正确地解释了它，但是由于一些你无法知道的环境的某些方面因素，导致你正确的解释无效。（例如，也许我确实把钥匙放在口袋里了，但里面有个洞，所以钥匙掉出去了。）
直觉的微妙之处在于，它们往往是正确的，这意味着你不相信它们是很愚蠢的。但它们也可能是错的，这意味着你把他们当作福音来对待也是愚蠢的。但想要找到直觉的错与对的中间界限是非常困难的。
你其实很难听到人们说出类似“一旦成为骗子，就永远是骗子”这样的格言。其实并不是这样。有些人曾经出轨过一段时间，但后来改过自新，就再也没有出轨过。但是，许多骗子（可能是大多数）会故技重施，这也是事实，所以这句格言只是对我们的一个简单的（通常是正确的）启发。但是，如果你想确保你接触到真相的机会最大化，你就必须接受一个非常困难的事情，比如“一旦成为骗子，那么他几乎一直都会是骗子，但当然也有例外，尽管你可能期待一个人再次犯罪，但你不应该在没有证据的情况下就假设他会再次犯罪。”
The tricky thing about instincts is that they're often right, which means that you'd be foolish to discount them. But they can be wrong, which means you're also foolish to just treat them like gospel. But an in-between path is very difficult.
You hear how difficult it is when people rush to aphorisms like "Once a cheater, always a cheater." In fact, that's not true. There are people who are unfaithful for a while but then turn over a new leaf and never cheat again. But it's also true that lots of cheaters (maybe the majority) relapse, so the aphorism is an easy (often right) heuristic. But if you want to make sure your chances of experiencing the truth are maximized, you have to embrace a really difficult heuristic, such as "Once a cheater, almost always a cheater, but there are certainly exceptions, and while you should maybe expect an individual re-offend, you shouldn't assume he will without evidence."
当你有一种直觉时，通常意味着你的大脑已经发现了一种范例，这可能意味着你现在所处的情况与过去的某种范例非常吻合（例如，你朝着一辆车走过去的时候钥匙可能还在口袋里）。
你所感受到的确定感是你确定这种范例所存在的标志，但你的大脑很可能解读错误了。
或者它可能正确地解释了它，但是由于一些你无法知道的环境的某些方面因素，导致你正确的解释无效。（例如，也许我确实把钥匙放在口袋里了，但里面有个洞，所以钥匙掉出去了。）
直觉的微妙之处在于，它们往往是正确的，这意味着你不相信它们是很愚蠢的。但它们也可能是错的，这意味着你把他们当作福音来对待也是愚蠢的。但想要找到直觉的错与对的中间界限是非常困难的。
你其实很难听到人们说出类似“一旦成为骗子，就永远是骗子”这样的格言。其实并不是这样。有些人曾经出轨过一段时间，但后来改过自新，就再也没有出轨过。但是，许多骗子（可能是大多数）会故技重施，这也是事实，所以这句格言只是对我们的一个简单的（通常是正确的）启发。但是，如果你想确保你接触到真相的机会最大化，你就必须接受一个非常困难的事情，比如“一旦成为骗子，那么他几乎一直都会是骗子，但当然也有例外，尽管你可能期待一个人再次犯罪，但你不应该在没有证据的情况下就假设他会再次犯罪。”
One way to mitigate misleading instincts is to acquaint yourself with common biases and be on the lookout for them. Books like Predictably Irrational can help in this regard, but only so much. Being-on-the-lookout for biases is also a costly process, so your brain simply won't let you do it all the time.
We didn't evolve to be 100% rational. We evolved to take many thinking shortcuts, because they are usually good enough for survival and reproductive purposes and the alternatives (gathering evidence, logical reasoning, etc.) are costly.
There's even research that suggests people who pride themselves on being smart and rational are especially prone to biases. My experience backs that up. I suspect this is because, ironically, they have a gut instinct—a sense of knowing—that they're too smart to make dumb mistakes. And they simply trust it. Have you ever known, without any real evidence, that you haven't made a particular mistake, because you're not the sort of person who makes mistakes like that?
减轻误导性直觉的一种方法是让自己熟悉一些常见的偏见，并留意它们。像《怪诞行为学》这样的书在这方面有所帮助，但仅此而已，真正要做到减轻直觉还是要靠自己。警惕偏见也是一个代价高昂的过程，所以你的大脑不会让你一直这样做。
我们没有进化到100%的理性。因为许多思维捷径通常足以满足我们生存和繁殖的目的，所以我们进化到经常会去走思维捷径，而其他的选择（收集证据、逻辑推理等）代价很高昂（以致于我们并不会去用这些方法来解决问题）。
甚至有研究表明，以聪明和理性为傲的人特别容易产生偏见。我的经验也证明了这一点。
我怀疑这是因为，具有讽刺意味的是，他们有一种直觉——一种知道自己太聪明了，不会犯愚蠢的错误的直觉。所以他们相信直觉。
那么你是否知道，因为你自己不是会犯这种愚蠢的错误的人，所以在没有任何证据的情况下，你都没有犯过什么特别的错误（你是否也觉得自己太聪明了，所以你根本不会犯这种愚蠢的错误呢）？
We didn't evolve to be 100% rational. We evolved to take many thinking shortcuts, because they are usually good enough for survival and reproductive purposes and the alternatives (gathering evidence, logical reasoning, etc.) are costly.
There's even research that suggests people who pride themselves on being smart and rational are especially prone to biases. My experience backs that up. I suspect this is because, ironically, they have a gut instinct—a sense of knowing—that they're too smart to make dumb mistakes. And they simply trust it. Have you ever known, without any real evidence, that you haven't made a particular mistake, because you're not the sort of person who makes mistakes like that?
减轻误导性直觉的一种方法是让自己熟悉一些常见的偏见，并留意它们。像《怪诞行为学》这样的书在这方面有所帮助，但仅此而已，真正要做到减轻直觉还是要靠自己。警惕偏见也是一个代价高昂的过程，所以你的大脑不会让你一直这样做。
我们没有进化到100%的理性。因为许多思维捷径通常足以满足我们生存和繁殖的目的，所以我们进化到经常会去走思维捷径，而其他的选择（收集证据、逻辑推理等）代价很高昂（以致于我们并不会去用这些方法来解决问题）。
甚至有研究表明，以聪明和理性为傲的人特别容易产生偏见。我的经验也证明了这一点。
我怀疑这是因为，具有讽刺意味的是，他们有一种直觉——一种知道自己太聪明了，不会犯愚蠢的错误的直觉。所以他们相信直觉。
那么你是否知道，因为你自己不是会犯这种愚蠢的错误的人，所以在没有任何证据的情况下，你都没有犯过什么特别的错误（你是否也觉得自己太聪明了，所以你根本不会犯这种愚蠢的错误呢）？
Sarah Booth, studied at New College, University of Oxford
Gut instinct doesn't predict the future. Gut instinct tells you how you really feel about a situation. So it is always right in that respect.
Gut instinct is a signal from our primitive limbic brain, which is a binary system that can simply tell you 'this is safe' or 'this is not safe'.
Subconsciously, we are constantly monitoring our surroundings for potential threats. We're primed to pick up on the slightest discrepancy in what people say or do, or what should/shouldn't be there. This needs to be a subconscious process because otherwise we just wouldn't be able to function in the world.
Usually we are in relatively safe environments OR we are consciously aware of the threats around us. Gut instinct kicks in when we haven't consciously noticed a threat. Our poor limbic brain is too primitive to communicate in language so it just sends out danger signals and hopes we will be able to interpret them.
莎拉·布斯，就读于牛津大学新学院。
直觉不能预测未来。直觉只是会告诉你你对某一情况的真实感受。所以在这方面它总是正确的。
直觉是来自我们原始大脑边缘的信号，它就像是一个二进制系统，可以简单地告诉你“这是安全的”或“这是不安全的”。
潜意识里，我们不断地监控着周围的潜在威胁。我们习惯于去发现人们所说或所做的，或者什么应该出现、什么不应该出现之间细微的差异。这是一个需要潜意识的过程，否则我们就无法在这个世界上发挥作用。
通常我们处于相对安全的环境中，或者我们可以意识到我们周围的威胁。但当我们还没有意识到威胁的时候，直觉就开始起作用了。我们可怜的大脑边缘太原始了，无法用语言来表达危险，所以它只是发出危险信号，希望我们能够理解它们想要表达的意思。
Gut instinct doesn't predict the future. Gut instinct tells you how you really feel about a situation. So it is always right in that respect.
Gut instinct is a signal from our primitive limbic brain, which is a binary system that can simply tell you 'this is safe' or 'this is not safe'.
Subconsciously, we are constantly monitoring our surroundings for potential threats. We're primed to pick up on the slightest discrepancy in what people say or do, or what should/shouldn't be there. This needs to be a subconscious process because otherwise we just wouldn't be able to function in the world.
Usually we are in relatively safe environments OR we are consciously aware of the threats around us. Gut instinct kicks in when we haven't consciously noticed a threat. Our poor limbic brain is too primitive to communicate in language so it just sends out danger signals and hopes we will be able to interpret them.
莎拉·布斯，就读于牛津大学新学院。
直觉不能预测未来。直觉只是会告诉你你对某一情况的真实感受。所以在这方面它总是正确的。
直觉是来自我们原始大脑边缘的信号，它就像是一个二进制系统，可以简单地告诉你“这是安全的”或“这是不安全的”。
潜意识里，我们不断地监控着周围的潜在威胁。我们习惯于去发现人们所说或所做的，或者什么应该出现、什么不应该出现之间细微的差异。这是一个需要潜意识的过程，否则我们就无法在这个世界上发挥作用。
通常我们处于相对安全的环境中，或者我们可以意识到我们周围的威胁。但当我们还没有意识到威胁的时候，直觉就开始起作用了。我们可怜的大脑边缘太原始了，无法用语言来表达危险，所以它只是发出危险信号，希望我们能够理解它们想要表达的意思。
So - can gut instinct be wrong in picking up threats? For sure!
We are conditioned by our experiences (and especially our early experiences) to remember and react to patterns that lead to danger, and patterns that lead to safety. This is the whole Pavlov's Dog thing (Classical conditioning) and I think it is at the root of anxiety disorders, phobias etc. And of course, anxiety disorders and phobias can be very destructive to people's lives.
Equally, a non-trustworthy person might not be giving off signals that your limbic brain recognises as dangerous so you might feel a gut instinct to trust them with your money or your heart, and then they might betray you.
BUT it's a really clever system that is analysing millions of times more information than you can be consciously aware of, so it's probably the best tool you've got. Ignore at your peril!
那么，直觉在识别威胁时会出错吗？肯定会的！我们受我们的经验（特别是我们早期的经验）的制约，记住了那些导致危险的范例，以及那些让我们安全的范例，并且可以对它们做出反应。这就像是巴甫洛夫的狗的事例（经典条件反射），我认为这是焦虑障碍、恐惧症等的根源。当然，焦虑症和恐惧症对人们的生活有很大的破坏性。
同样地，一个不值得信任的人可能不会让你的大脑边缘发出认为这是危险的信号，所以你可能会本能地把你的钱或你的心交给他们，然后他们可能会背叛你。
但这是一个非常聪明的系统，它分析的信息比你自己所意识到的要多出数百万倍，所以它可能是你拥有的最好的工具。无视它的话你可能会有危险！
We are conditioned by our experiences (and especially our early experiences) to remember and react to patterns that lead to danger, and patterns that lead to safety. This is the whole Pavlov's Dog thing (Classical conditioning) and I think it is at the root of anxiety disorders, phobias etc. And of course, anxiety disorders and phobias can be very destructive to people's lives.
Equally, a non-trustworthy person might not be giving off signals that your limbic brain recognises as dangerous so you might feel a gut instinct to trust them with your money or your heart, and then they might betray you.
BUT it's a really clever system that is analysing millions of times more information than you can be consciously aware of, so it's probably the best tool you've got. Ignore at your peril!
那么，直觉在识别威胁时会出错吗？肯定会的！我们受我们的经验（特别是我们早期的经验）的制约，记住了那些导致危险的范例，以及那些让我们安全的范例，并且可以对它们做出反应。这就像是巴甫洛夫的狗的事例（经典条件反射），我认为这是焦虑障碍、恐惧症等的根源。当然，焦虑症和恐惧症对人们的生活有很大的破坏性。
同样地，一个不值得信任的人可能不会让你的大脑边缘发出认为这是危险的信号，所以你可能会本能地把你的钱或你的心交给他们，然后他们可能会背叛你。
但这是一个非常聪明的系统，它分析的信息比你自己所意识到的要多出数百万倍，所以它可能是你拥有的最好的工具。无视它的话你可能会有危险！
Robert Teszka, Cognitive psychologist doing a MSc at UCL & working at Brunel.
People have provided examples of when gut instincts can be useful and correct, and warned that sometimes they can be wrong - but why should this be the case?
The decision-making researcher Gerd Gigerenzer has published research papers and a book entitled Gut Feelings in which he argues that gut feelings are the results of unconscious heuristics being applied.
Heuristics are mental rules of thumb that are "fast and frugal" - they don't reguire a lot of time and resources on the part of the brain, and only use a small fraction of all the information available to the agent. The theory is that they evolved as strategies that generally work quite well in the natural world, but when placed in tricky or non-natural situations can go awfully wrong.
Some famous work by Kahneman & Tversky has shown that people make all sorts of biased judgements and reason incorrectly when doing tasks involving basic logic or probability, but Gigerenzer's theory is supported by the fact that when those tasks are recast in natural situations without abstract terms, people do much better, faster.
So no, gut feelings aren't always right - they are right only in the correct circumstances, and we must be careful to understand how they work if we want to use them to maximal advantage.
罗伯特·特兹卡，一名在伦敦大学学院攻读理学硕士学位的认知心理学家，目前也在布鲁内尔工作。
人们提供了直觉有用和正确的例子，并警告说有时直觉也会出错，但为什么会是这样呢？
决策研究者格尔德·吉格伦泽发表了一些研究论文，并出版了一本名为《半秒直觉》的书，他在书中指出，直觉是无意识启发的结果。
启发式是一种“快速而节俭”的思维法则——它们不需要大脑的一部分去投入大量时间和资源，只需要使用所有可用信息中的一小部分就足够。其理论是，它们作为一种策略在自然界中通常很有效，但当置于棘手或非自然的情况下，就会出现严重的错误。
卡尼曼和特沃斯基的一些著名研究表明，人们在执行涉及基本逻辑或概率的任务时，会做出一些带有各种有偏见的判断和错误的推理，但吉格伦泽的理论得到了这样一个事实的支持：这些任务在一些非特定条件下的自然环境中会被改动，然后人们会做得更好、更快。
所以，直觉并不总是正确的，只有在恰好合适的情况下，它们才是正确的，如果我们想最大限度地利用它们，我们必须仔细去理解它们是如何工作的。
People have provided examples of when gut instincts can be useful and correct, and warned that sometimes they can be wrong - but why should this be the case?
The decision-making researcher Gerd Gigerenzer has published research papers and a book entitled Gut Feelings in which he argues that gut feelings are the results of unconscious heuristics being applied.
Heuristics are mental rules of thumb that are "fast and frugal" - they don't reguire a lot of time and resources on the part of the brain, and only use a small fraction of all the information available to the agent. The theory is that they evolved as strategies that generally work quite well in the natural world, but when placed in tricky or non-natural situations can go awfully wrong.
Some famous work by Kahneman & Tversky has shown that people make all sorts of biased judgements and reason incorrectly when doing tasks involving basic logic or probability, but Gigerenzer's theory is supported by the fact that when those tasks are recast in natural situations without abstract terms, people do much better, faster.
So no, gut feelings aren't always right - they are right only in the correct circumstances, and we must be careful to understand how they work if we want to use them to maximal advantage.
罗伯特·特兹卡，一名在伦敦大学学院攻读理学硕士学位的认知心理学家，目前也在布鲁内尔工作。
人们提供了直觉有用和正确的例子，并警告说有时直觉也会出错，但为什么会是这样呢？
决策研究者格尔德·吉格伦泽发表了一些研究论文，并出版了一本名为《半秒直觉》的书，他在书中指出，直觉是无意识启发的结果。
启发式是一种“快速而节俭”的思维法则——它们不需要大脑的一部分去投入大量时间和资源，只需要使用所有可用信息中的一小部分就足够。其理论是，它们作为一种策略在自然界中通常很有效，但当置于棘手或非自然的情况下，就会出现严重的错误。
卡尼曼和特沃斯基的一些著名研究表明，人们在执行涉及基本逻辑或概率的任务时，会做出一些带有各种有偏见的判断和错误的推理，但吉格伦泽的理论得到了这样一个事实的支持：这些任务在一些非特定条件下的自然环境中会被改动，然后人们会做得更好、更快。
所以，直觉并不总是正确的，只有在恰好合适的情况下，它们才是正确的，如果我们想最大限度地利用它们，我们必须仔细去理解它们是如何工作的。
Gus Griffin, Master your instincts, master life
Some people have great gut instincts. You can watch them on Monday Night Football ... and on Dragon's Den.
Some people have terrible gut instincts. You can go and visit them in prison.
Asking - Is gut instinct always right? - is like asking - Will a thrown dart always hit the bullseye?
The answer becomes so obvious, it's not worth asking the question. When you leave out the variable of whose instinct, it has no practical application. It's not asking about the real world. It's an abstraction that doesn't work.
(Not unless you thought that God was the determining factor, not the thrower of the dart or the possessor of the gut. But I assume we're leaving that metaphysical dimension out of this.)
格斯·格里芬，掌握你的直觉，就能掌握生活。
有些人有很强的直觉。（直觉强到）你甚至可以在周一足球之夜和龙潭虎穴上看到他们的出现。
有些人的直觉很差。（差到会犯很多错误以致于）你可以去监狱探望他们。
提问：直觉总是对的吗？，就像是在问：投出的飞镖总是能命中靶心吗？
答案显而易见，所以不值得问这个问题。如果你不考虑是谁的直觉这个变量，那么它就没有实际应用价值。这不是在以真实的世界为背景而提问。这是一个抽象概念。
（除非你认为决定性的因素是上帝，而不是飞镖的投掷者。但我想我们把这个形而上学的维度排除在外了。）
Some people have great gut instincts. You can watch them on Monday Night Football ... and on Dragon's Den.
Some people have terrible gut instincts. You can go and visit them in prison.
Asking - Is gut instinct always right? - is like asking - Will a thrown dart always hit the bullseye?
The answer becomes so obvious, it's not worth asking the question. When you leave out the variable of whose instinct, it has no practical application. It's not asking about the real world. It's an abstraction that doesn't work.
(Not unless you thought that God was the determining factor, not the thrower of the dart or the possessor of the gut. But I assume we're leaving that metaphysical dimension out of this.)
格斯·格里芬，掌握你的直觉，就能掌握生活。
有些人有很强的直觉。（直觉强到）你甚至可以在周一足球之夜和龙潭虎穴上看到他们的出现。
有些人的直觉很差。（差到会犯很多错误以致于）你可以去监狱探望他们。
提问：直觉总是对的吗？，就像是在问：投出的飞镖总是能命中靶心吗？
答案显而易见，所以不值得问这个问题。如果你不考虑是谁的直觉这个变量，那么它就没有实际应用价值。这不是在以真实的世界为背景而提问。这是一个抽象概念。
（除非你认为决定性的因素是上帝，而不是飞镖的投掷者。但我想我们把这个形而上学的维度排除在外了。）
This would hardly be worth mentioning, except for the fact that so very many people accept this abstraction on the subject of instincts and intuition. Like there's an assumption that one person's instinct is identical to another person's instinct, even though we know that everything else about them isn't identical but only similar.
This inclination to believe in gut instincts obviously stems from the fact that they feel so right when you get them.
The motivational types who tell you to trust your gut do so because their gut has been good to them and, not being able to actually see what your instinctive "gut" looks like (it being an intangible), they assume it's the same as theirs. But that's an outrageous assumption based on no research at all, or worse, which actually flies in the face of general life experience. It's really like saying: I have great hearing, deep down everybody has great hearing, so you should rely more on your hearing.
格斯·格里芬，掌握你的直觉，就能掌握生活。
有些人有很强的直觉。（直觉强到）你甚至可以在周一足球之夜和龙潭虎穴上看到他们的出现。
有些人的直觉很差。（差到会犯很多错误以致于）你可以去监狱探望他们。
提问：直觉总是对的吗？，就像是在问：投出的飞镖总是能命中靶心吗？
答案显而易见，所以不值得问这个问题。如果你不考虑是谁的直觉这个变量，那么它就没有实际应用价值。这不是在以真实的世界为背景而提问。这是一个抽象概念。
（除非你认为决定性的因素是上帝，而不是飞镖的投掷者。但我想我们把这个形而上学的维度排除在外了。）
除非有很多人接受这种关于本能和直觉的抽象概念，不然这几乎不值得一提。就像有一种假设，一个人的直觉和另一个人的直觉是一样的，尽管我们知道他们的其他一切都不一样，他们只是在某些地方相似而已。这种相信直觉的倾向显然源于这样一个事实：当你感觉到直觉的时候，会觉得直觉是对的。但吃冰激凌也是如此，大多数人迟早都会想到这一点。
This inclination to believe in gut instincts obviously stems from the fact that they feel so right when you get them.
The motivational types who tell you to trust your gut do so because their gut has been good to them and, not being able to actually see what your instinctive "gut" looks like (it being an intangible), they assume it's the same as theirs. But that's an outrageous assumption based on no research at all, or worse, which actually flies in the face of general life experience. It's really like saying: I have great hearing, deep down everybody has great hearing, so you should rely more on your hearing.
格斯·格里芬，掌握你的直觉，就能掌握生活。
有些人有很强的直觉。（直觉强到）你甚至可以在周一足球之夜和龙潭虎穴上看到他们的出现。
有些人的直觉很差。（差到会犯很多错误以致于）你可以去监狱探望他们。
提问：直觉总是对的吗？，就像是在问：投出的飞镖总是能命中靶心吗？
答案显而易见，所以不值得问这个问题。如果你不考虑是谁的直觉这个变量，那么它就没有实际应用价值。这不是在以真实的世界为背景而提问。这是一个抽象概念。
（除非你认为决定性的因素是上帝，而不是飞镖的投掷者。但我想我们把这个形而上学的维度排除在外了。）
除非有很多人接受这种关于本能和直觉的抽象概念，不然这几乎不值得一提。就像有一种假设，一个人的直觉和另一个人的直觉是一样的，尽管我们知道他们的其他一切都不一样，他们只是在某些地方相似而已。这种相信直觉的倾向显然源于这样一个事实：当你感觉到直觉的时候，会觉得直觉是对的。但吃冰激凌也是如此，大多数人迟早都会想到这一点。
They don't assume any other ability you exhibit will be exactly the same as theirs, so why do they assume this? Because it pays them to do so. In other words, they really do it because gullible people buy it, and for no other reason at all.
Let's bring instincts out of the Dark Ages and into the 21st century and accept that they vary in effectiveness from person to person like every other faculty of mind and body.
BTW: If you want to know why a bad gut instinct can feel so very right ... but that's another question.
因为冲动型的人通常感受到的直觉对他们都是好的，所以他们会告诉你要相信自己的直觉，但他们并不能真正看到你自己的“直觉”是什么样子（它是无形的），他们只是认为你的直觉会和他们的一样。但这是一个基于根本没有经过研究的很离谱的假设，或者说，更糟糕的是，实际上这与一般的生活经验背道而驰。就像说：我有很好的听力，那么每个人内心深处都有很好的听力，所以你应该更多地去依靠你的听力。
他们并不认为你展示的任何其他能力都会和他们的完全一样，那他们为什么还要这么认为呢（认为你的直觉会和他们的一样都是很好的）？因为这样做是值得的。换句话说，他们这么做仅仅是因为容易上当受骗的人才会为这些事情买账，而没有的其他原因。
让我们把直觉从中世纪黑暗时代带到21世纪，并接受它们在人与人之间的有效性不同，就像其他所有的身心能力一样。
顺便说一句：如果你想知道为什么我们往往会觉得一个坏的直觉是正确的，那就是另一个问题了。
Let's bring instincts out of the Dark Ages and into the 21st century and accept that they vary in effectiveness from person to person like every other faculty of mind and body.
BTW: If you want to know why a bad gut instinct can feel so very right ... but that's another question.
因为冲动型的人通常感受到的直觉对他们都是好的，所以他们会告诉你要相信自己的直觉，但他们并不能真正看到你自己的“直觉”是什么样子（它是无形的），他们只是认为你的直觉会和他们的一样。但这是一个基于根本没有经过研究的很离谱的假设，或者说，更糟糕的是，实际上这与一般的生活经验背道而驰。就像说：我有很好的听力，那么每个人内心深处都有很好的听力，所以你应该更多地去依靠你的听力。
他们并不认为你展示的任何其他能力都会和他们的完全一样，那他们为什么还要这么认为呢（认为你的直觉会和他们的一样都是很好的）？因为这样做是值得的。换句话说，他们这么做仅仅是因为容易上当受骗的人才会为这些事情买账，而没有的其他原因。
让我们把直觉从中世纪黑暗时代带到21世纪，并接受它们在人与人之间的有效性不同，就像其他所有的身心能力一样。
顺便说一句：如果你想知道为什么我们往往会觉得一个坏的直觉是正确的，那就是另一个问题了。
Ganesh Ramakrishnan
Is gut instinct important to pay attention to? Yes. A lot of behavioral economics books and leadership books have recently elaborated on the irrational patterns underlying human actions, and how there could be useful and important clues in our gut feeling.
Is gut instinct always right? Of course not.
Just like right-brain thinking and creative abilities are overemphasized to counter the cultural obsession with left-brained, analytical methods and thinking techniques, gut feel has taken center stage in the past decade. Unless one subscribes to beliefs about supernatural forces acting behind such instincts, it is prudent to continue applying common sense and rational uation of situations and decisions. Ultimately the neuron networks in our body, however mysteriously they operate, are limited by what we have experienced so the gut instinct is also evolving and can get better with time.
blx by Gladwell is an entertaining and thought-provoking book but I don't think it would help you in deciding on the question asked here.
I recommend two books, one new and one a little old.
How We Decide by Jonah Lehrer http://www.amazon.com/How-We-Decide-Jonah-Lehrer/dp/0618620117 is an excellent book that covers which type of situations benefit by careful deliberation and which type benefit by relying on instinctual responses. Its narration of a Gulf War incident that saved lives was summarized in this LATimes article http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/24/entertainment/et-book24. There are many examples in the book of how gut feel can mislead. The European edition of this book is titled, "The Decisive Moment".
The Gift of Fear by Gavin de Becker illustrates how fear, one of the most primitive emotions we feel, can be a useful alarm indicator that we often try to ignore or suppress. His examples are from scenarios of crime and violence but make an effective argument to learn to trust the signals from our gut.
甘尼什·拉玛克里希南
注意直觉重要吗？的确。许多行为经济学书籍和领导力书籍最近都详细阐述了人类行为背后的非理性模式，以及如何在我们的直觉中找到有用而重要的线索。
直觉总是正确的吗？当然不是。
正如右脑思维和创造能力被过分强调以用于对抗左脑思维、分析方法和思维技术的文化迷恋一样，直觉在过去十年中占据了中心地位。除非一个人会相信超自然力量在这种直觉背后起作用，否则谨慎的做法是继续运用常识以及对情况和决定的理性评估。最终，我们身体中的神经元网络，不管它们如何神秘地运作，都会受到我们的经历所限制，因此直觉也在进化，并且会随着时间的推移变得更好。
格拉德威尔的《决断两秒间》是一本有趣又发人深省的书，但我认为这对你在这里提出的问题没有帮助。
所以我想推荐两本书，一本是最近出的，一本以及出版了好些年头了。
约拿·莱勒的《为什么大猩猩比专家高明》，这是一本极好的书，书中讲述了哪种情况得益于我们仔细的思考，哪种情况得益于本能的反应。这篇文章总结了它对海湾战争中救人事件的叙述。书中有许多例子阐明了直觉是如何误导人的。这本书的欧洲版标题是“决定性时刻”。
加文·德·贝克尔的《恐惧给你的礼物》中介绍了恐惧是我们感受到的最原始的情感之一，书中讲述了恐惧是如何成为一个有用的警报指示器，但我们常常会试图忽略或抑制它。他的例子来自犯罪和暴力的场景，但他提出了一个有效的论点：让我们学会相信来自我们内心的信号。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Is gut instinct important to pay attention to? Yes. A lot of behavioral economics books and leadership books have recently elaborated on the irrational patterns underlying human actions, and how there could be useful and important clues in our gut feeling.
Is gut instinct always right? Of course not.
Just like right-brain thinking and creative abilities are overemphasized to counter the cultural obsession with left-brained, analytical methods and thinking techniques, gut feel has taken center stage in the past decade. Unless one subscribes to beliefs about supernatural forces acting behind such instincts, it is prudent to continue applying common sense and rational uation of situations and decisions. Ultimately the neuron networks in our body, however mysteriously they operate, are limited by what we have experienced so the gut instinct is also evolving and can get better with time.
blx by Gladwell is an entertaining and thought-provoking book but I don't think it would help you in deciding on the question asked here.
I recommend two books, one new and one a little old.
How We Decide by Jonah Lehrer http://www.amazon.com/How-We-Decide-Jonah-Lehrer/dp/0618620117 is an excellent book that covers which type of situations benefit by careful deliberation and which type benefit by relying on instinctual responses. Its narration of a Gulf War incident that saved lives was summarized in this LATimes article http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/24/entertainment/et-book24. There are many examples in the book of how gut feel can mislead. The European edition of this book is titled, "The Decisive Moment".
The Gift of Fear by Gavin de Becker illustrates how fear, one of the most primitive emotions we feel, can be a useful alarm indicator that we often try to ignore or suppress. His examples are from scenarios of crime and violence but make an effective argument to learn to trust the signals from our gut.
甘尼什·拉玛克里希南
注意直觉重要吗？的确。许多行为经济学书籍和领导力书籍最近都详细阐述了人类行为背后的非理性模式，以及如何在我们的直觉中找到有用而重要的线索。
直觉总是正确的吗？当然不是。
正如右脑思维和创造能力被过分强调以用于对抗左脑思维、分析方法和思维技术的文化迷恋一样，直觉在过去十年中占据了中心地位。除非一个人会相信超自然力量在这种直觉背后起作用，否则谨慎的做法是继续运用常识以及对情况和决定的理性评估。最终，我们身体中的神经元网络，不管它们如何神秘地运作，都会受到我们的经历所限制，因此直觉也在进化，并且会随着时间的推移变得更好。
格拉德威尔的《决断两秒间》是一本有趣又发人深省的书，但我认为这对你在这里提出的问题没有帮助。
所以我想推荐两本书，一本是最近出的，一本以及出版了好些年头了。
约拿·莱勒的《为什么大猩猩比专家高明》，这是一本极好的书，书中讲述了哪种情况得益于我们仔细的思考，哪种情况得益于本能的反应。这篇文章总结了它对海湾战争中救人事件的叙述。书中有许多例子阐明了直觉是如何误导人的。这本书的欧洲版标题是“决定性时刻”。
加文·德·贝克尔的《恐惧给你的礼物》中介绍了恐惧是我们感受到的最原始的情感之一，书中讲述了恐惧是如何成为一个有用的警报指示器，但我们常常会试图忽略或抑制它。他的例子来自犯罪和暴力的场景，但他提出了一个有效的论点：让我们学会相信来自我们内心的信号。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Savitha Kartha, studied at University of Mumbai
Thanks for A2A Nasser.
Your gut feeling may not be always right but if something in me tells me it isn't right i follow my gut feeling.
For example, if something in a person doesn't seem right ,be it their manners, their way of talking to me makes me feel not right , I ignore them . I just follow my feeling . It maybe wrong but then that's my feeling about that person and i would follow my feeling.
It could be the opposite too. You follow your gut feeling and end up thinking wrong about something or someone.
A neighbour of mine used to always come to my place And use my landline number and talk for hours. In the beginning I didn't mind much , but then later I started thinking she's? being cunning and manipulating me for getting her work done. Then when I confronted her , she told me she's facing lot of problems in her house and her husband wouldn't allow her to use the phone line at their place and was torturing her physically and mentally so she was visiting my place to call up her relatives. So coming to say, I was wrong in thinking something about her and the truth turned out to be something else.
萨维莎·卡莎，就读于孟买大学。
谢谢你的提问，纳赛尔。
你的直觉可能并不总是正确的，但如果我内心的某些东西告诉我某些事不正确，我会跟随我的直觉。
例如，如果一个人的某些地方看起来不对劲，不管是他们的举止，还是他们跟我说话的方式让我觉得不对，我就会忽略他们。我只是跟着感觉走。这也许是错的，但那就是我对那个人的感觉，我会追随我的直觉。
也可能是相反的。你跟随你的直觉，最终对某事或某人的想法是错误的。
我的一个邻居经常来我家，用我的固定电话号码，聊上几个小时。一开始我并不介意，但后来我开始想她是谁？为了完成她的工作而狡猾地利用我。后来当我和她对质时，她告诉我她家里有很多问题，她丈夫不允许她使用他们家的电话线，对她进行身心上的折磨，所以她去我家给亲戚打电话。所以我要说的是，我对她的想法是错误的，事实是另一回事（是和我的直觉相反的事）。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Thanks for A2A Nasser.
Your gut feeling may not be always right but if something in me tells me it isn't right i follow my gut feeling.
For example, if something in a person doesn't seem right ,be it their manners, their way of talking to me makes me feel not right , I ignore them . I just follow my feeling . It maybe wrong but then that's my feeling about that person and i would follow my feeling.
It could be the opposite too. You follow your gut feeling and end up thinking wrong about something or someone.
A neighbour of mine used to always come to my place And use my landline number and talk for hours. In the beginning I didn't mind much , but then later I started thinking she's? being cunning and manipulating me for getting her work done. Then when I confronted her , she told me she's facing lot of problems in her house and her husband wouldn't allow her to use the phone line at their place and was torturing her physically and mentally so she was visiting my place to call up her relatives. So coming to say, I was wrong in thinking something about her and the truth turned out to be something else.
萨维莎·卡莎，就读于孟买大学。
谢谢你的提问，纳赛尔。
你的直觉可能并不总是正确的，但如果我内心的某些东西告诉我某些事不正确，我会跟随我的直觉。
例如，如果一个人的某些地方看起来不对劲，不管是他们的举止，还是他们跟我说话的方式让我觉得不对，我就会忽略他们。我只是跟着感觉走。这也许是错的，但那就是我对那个人的感觉，我会追随我的直觉。
也可能是相反的。你跟随你的直觉，最终对某事或某人的想法是错误的。
我的一个邻居经常来我家，用我的固定电话号码，聊上几个小时。一开始我并不介意，但后来我开始想她是谁？为了完成她的工作而狡猾地利用我。后来当我和她对质时，她告诉我她家里有很多问题，她丈夫不允许她使用他们家的电话线，对她进行身心上的折磨，所以她去我家给亲戚打电话。所以我要说的是，我对她的想法是错误的，事实是另一回事（是和我的直觉相反的事）。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
很赞 0
收藏