评论
打印
They also applied it to the famous prisoner's dilemma.
他们还将其应用于著名的囚徒困境。
The prisoner's dilemma is a scenario in which you imagine that you and a friend are both arrested for committing a crime.
囚徒困境是这样一种场景：你想象和一个朋友都因为犯罪而被捕。
If you both say nothing, you'll each get, say, a year in jail.
如果你们两个什么都不说，每个人都会被判可能一年监禁。
If you rat out your friend, you might get off scot-free while your friend gets a maximum sentence.
如果你出卖了朋友，你可以被释放，但你的朋友会被判最高刑期。
And if you both rat each other out, you'll both get a few years.
如果你们两个互相告发，就都会有判处几年刑期。
So, if your friend doesn't say anything, selfishly speaking, it's in your best interest to rat them out.
所以，如果你的朋友什么都不说，自私地讲，把他们供出来对你最有利。
And if your friend does say something, it is also in your best interest to rat them out.
如果你的朋友真的说了什么，你也是最好把他们供出来。
It's another case of the sure thing principle.
这是肯定原则的另一个例子。
And yet, many versions of this experiment have shown that
然而，这个实验的许多版本表明，
if someone doesn't know what the other is doing, they're less likely to snitch.
如果一个人不知道另一个人在做什么，他们就不太可能告密。
Even though it's better for them to snitch either way!
即使他们最好还是告密！
Just like with the coin flipping, this seems to defy logic—but quantum probability theory can accurately predict that result.
就像掷硬币一样，这似乎违背了逻辑，但量子概率论可以准确地预测结果。
In general, though, the way someone answers a question can be unpredictable for a lot of reasons.
不过，总的来说，由于很多原因，一个人回答问题的方式是不可预测的。
In fact, just the order of questions you ask someone has a big effect on the answers they give.
事实上，你问别人问题的顺序对他们给出的答案有很大的影响。
For example, imagine that I ask you, "How was your vacation?"
例如，假设我问你，“你的假期过得怎么样？”
And after you answer, I might follow that up with,
在你回答之后，我可能会接着说，
"How did you get along with your sister?"
“你和妹妹相处得怎么样？”
But if I asked those questions in the opposite order—and if you'd gotten in a fight with your sister,
但是如果我以相反的顺序问这些问题，如果你和妹妹吵架了，
you might say that you liked your vacation less than you would have otherwise.
你可能会说你不太喜欢你的假期。
Which, from a purely logical standpoint, is kind of weird.
从纯逻辑的角度来看，这有点奇怪。
Like, if you think of your brain as a computer, it already has all the information it needs to answer both questions,
比如，如果你把大脑想象成一台电脑，它已经拥有了回答这两个问题所需的所有信息，
and the order of the questions doesn't change that…but somehow the order can still change your answer.
问题的顺序不会改变这一点。但不知何故，顺序仍然可以改变你的答案。
And classical models have trouble explaining that, but quantum mechanics might be able to help here, too.
经典模型很难解释这一点，但量子力学或许也能帮上忙。
See, in quantum mechanics, things that seem like basic math—like multiplication—aren't so straightforward.
看，在量子力学中，像乘法这样的基础数学并不是那么简单。
For instance, A times B will often give you a different answer than B times A.
例如，A乘以B通常会给出与B乘以A不同的答案。
So quantum models have to account for those weird rules to make accurate predictions.
所以，量子模型必须考虑这些奇怪的规则才能做出准确的预测。
And oddly enough, psychologists have managed to do a similar thing.
奇怪的是，心理学家们也做了类似的事情。
By using quantum-inspired math, they built rules that account for order into their models.
通过使用量子数学，他们在模型中建立了解释有序性的规则。
And because of that, they were able to do something really unusual.
正因为如此，他们才做出了一些非常不寻常的事情。
In 2014, they made a specific, numeric prediction about how an experiment would turn out before it even happened.
2014年，他们做了一个具体的数字预测，预测在做一个实验之前会发生什么。
That's a run-of-the-mill step in lots of kinds of science, but it's really rare in psychology.
这在很多科学领域都是很普通的一步，但在心理学领域却很少见。
Psychologists often don't know enough about the underlying causes of a person's behavior to make specific predictions.
心理学家通常对一个人行为的潜在原因了解不够，无法做出具体的预测。
But in this experiment, a team of researchers analyzed 70 national surveys conducted by Pew and Gallup
但在这个实验中，一组研究人员分析了皮尤和盖洛普进行的70项全国性调查，
that randomly ordered pairs of questions.
这些调查是随机排列的问题对。
They made a specific prediction about how the order of the questions would affect the answers, and the results proved they were right!
他们对问题的顺序如何影响答案做了具体的预测，结果证明他们是对的！
Which suggests there are ways to predict human behavior, even when it doesn't seem to make logical sense.
这表明有方法可以预测人类的行为，即使它似乎没有逻辑意义。
Human behavior isn't the only element of our cognition that can be unpredictable, though.
然而，人类的行为并不是我们认知中唯一不可预测的因素。
Even the things we perceive can sometimes seem inexplicable.
即使是我们感知到的东西有时也会显得莫名其妙。
Think about one of those optical illusions where the same image can take on two different forms.
想想那些光学错觉中的一种，同一个图像可以呈现两种不同的形式。
This is called bistable perception, and it's been baffling scientists for hundreds of years.
这就是所谓的双稳态感知，几百年来一直困扰着科学家们。
For instance, this Necker cube was introduced in 1832.
例如，这个Necker立方体是在1832年引入的。
Now, you might perceive it as either jutting out of the screen or coming into it—
现在，你可能会感觉到它要么伸出屏幕，要么进入屏幕，
and if you stare long enough, your perception will randomly switch back and forth.
如果凝视足够长的时间，你的感知就会随机地来回切换。
But why?
但为什么呢？
You'd think that one set of input information, like the lines of the cube, should only be able to create one image in the brain.
你可能认为一组输入信息，比如立方体的线条，应该只能在大脑中产生一个图像。
Again, the tools of quantum mechanics can give us a way to understand it.
同样，量子力学的工具可以给我们一种理解它的方法。
In quantum mechanics, something like an electron exists in multiple positions at once—
在量子力学中，类似电子的东西同时存在于多个位置，
until you observe it, when those multiple possibilities instantaneously collapse down to one.
直到你观察到它时，这些多个可能性瞬间坍缩成一个。
This is called superposition, and similarly, when you perceive an optical illusion,
这被称为叠加，同样，当你感知到一个视错觉时，
it's kind of like you're seeing it in multiple states at once.
就好像你同时在多种状态下看到它。
It's just when you focus on observing the object that those multiple states collapse down to one.
当你专注于观察一个物体时，多个状态就变成了一个。
And there's more Different people see different versions of optical illusions, but each person tends to see one version over the other.
有更多不同的人看到不同版本的视错觉，但是每个人都倾向于看到一个版本。
That suggests that the illusion has a certain probability of being viewed in a certain state.
这表明，这种错觉在某种状态下有一定的被观察概率。
And that fits the analogy, because in quantum superposition, an electron has a certain probability of being observed in any given location.
这符合类比性，因为在量子叠加中，一个电子在任何给定的位置都有被观测到的概率。
So by using this same statistical approach, we can at least characterize the way our brains process optical illusions, even if we don't fundamentally understand why.
因此，通过使用同样的统计方法，我们至少可以描述大脑处理视觉错觉的方式，即使我们根本不知道为什么。
For example, in 2007 a team of scientists modeled the brain's response to the Necker cube as a simple, two-state quantum system.
例如，2007年，一组科学家将大脑对内克尔立方体的反应模拟成简单的双态量子系统。
That system modeled how often a person's view of the cube flipped from one version to the other.
该系统模拟了一个人看到的立方体视图，从一个版本切换到另一个版本的频率。
Then the scientists compared the frequency of those flips to two biological timescales the amount of time it takes the brain to process new sensory input,
然后科学家们将这些翻转的频率与大脑处理新的感觉输入所需时间的两个生物时间尺度进行比较，
and the amount of time it takes us to react to that new information.
以及我们对新信息作出反应所需的时间。
When they compared this quantum-inspired model to the real results of past experiments,
当他们将这个量子激发的模型与过去实验的真实结果进行比较时，
they found that it generally predicted the way people's brains responded to this illusion.
他们发现它通常能预测人们大脑对这种错觉的反应方式。
Now quantum mechanics and cognition might seem about as far apart as two scientific disciplines can get,
现在，量子力学和认知似乎是两个科学学科所能达到的最远的距离，
but this shows us why it can be useful to look for answers in non-obvious places.
但这向我们展示了为什么在不明显的地方寻找答案是有用的。
Because in all of these situations, our friends in physics can make unpredictable humans a little easier to understand.
因为在所有这些情况下，我们的物理学朋友可以让不可预知的人类更容易理解。
Thanks for watching this episode of SciShow Psych!
感谢收看本期《心理科学秀》节目！
And if you're interested in learning more about the quantum world, you can head over to our main SciShow channel for more videos on that.
如果你有兴趣了解更多关于量子世界的信息，你可以访问我们的SciShow频道获取有关这方面的更多视频。
