耶魯大學(xué)校長(zhǎng)2016年新生會(huì)上演講全文（中英雙語(yǔ)）

8月27日，耶魯大學(xué)本科迎來(lái)一批新的學(xué)子，耶魯大學(xué)校長(zhǎng)彼得·沙洛維對(duì)新生作了題為“對(duì)失實(shí)表述說(shuō)不”的演講。演講中，沙洛維沒(méi)有談?wù)摳叽笊系脑掝}，而是詳細(xì)闡述了在耶魯接受教育的一個(gè)重要內(nèi)容：學(xué)習(xí)如何辨別和應(yīng)對(duì)“失實(shí)表述”。在他看來(lái)，成為一個(gè)更加審慎的批判性思考者，才能提高而不是削弱洞察力。

耶魯大學(xué)第23任校長(zhǎng)彼得·沙洛維

以下為演講全文

各位同事、各位家長(zhǎng)，尤其是2020屆的本科新生們，早上好！歡迎你們參加今天的活動(dòng)。

2020這個(gè)數(shù)字總會(huì)讓人浮想聯(lián)翩。如今它已成為你們?cè)谝�魯�(shù)陌嗉?jí)代號(hào)，我相信無(wú)論是你們的直覺、思維敏銳性，還是意志力，都會(huì)在這里得到提升。招辦的工作人員向我保證，你們是經(jīng)過(guò)層層篩選以后勝出的佼佼者。

2020屆新生陸續(xù)抵校，他們來(lái)自全美50個(gè)州，留學(xué)生則來(lái)自全球50個(gè)國(guó)家和地區(qū)。撥打400-618-8866進(jìn)行咨詢

盡管如此，我還是想在開學(xué)第一天這個(gè)特殊的日子里，好好思考一下，你們?cè)谝�魯就讀期間，什么可能削弱你們的洞察力，什么又有可能讓它得到提升？

多年來(lái)，我為很多新生上過(guò)“心理學(xué)入門”。每次講到與社會(huì)心理學(xué)相關(guān)的內(nèi)容時(shí)，我總會(huì)問(wèn)學(xué)生，他們是怎么看待在不同社會(huì)情境中幫助別人這個(gè)問(wèn)題的。同樣是在緊急情況下，為什么有時(shí)我們會(huì)出手相助，有時(shí)卻又袖手旁觀？

我想從一個(gè)大家都知道的悲劇——Kitty Genovese事件說(shuō)起。1964年，29歲的Kitty在位于紐約皇后區(qū)Kew Garden的家中被害，這一案件引起了廣泛關(guān)注和熱議，也許你也聽說(shuō)過(guò)關(guān)于此事的好幾個(gè)版本。據(jù)《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》報(bào)道，有38個(gè)人從自家窗戶看到了行兇過(guò)程，但只有一人報(bào)警，且報(bào)警時(shí)為時(shí)已晚。

這些年來(lái)，我多次描述這一令人震驚的案件，其他講授類似課程的社會(huì)心理學(xué)家們也是如此，還有一些社會(huì)學(xué)家試圖據(jù)此分析為什么目擊者們會(huì)如此冷漠無(wú)情，竟然能眼睜睜地看著這樣的犯罪行為發(fā)生，卻無(wú)動(dòng)于衷。

問(wèn)題在于：標(biāo)準(zhǔn)版Kitty Genovese案件描述在某些關(guān)鍵細(xì)節(jié)上出了錯(cuò)。

Kitty的弟弟Bill Genovese，去年制作了一部名為《目擊者》（The Witness）的紀(jì)錄片。根據(jù)他在這部電影中所展示的實(shí)拍場(chǎng)景，并非所有旁觀者都冷漠無(wú)情：一個(gè)目擊者在窗口大聲呵斥兇手，另一個(gè)目擊者在Kitty離世時(shí)將其抱在懷中，也有其他目擊者在此期間報(bào)了警。

那么，為什么五十多年來(lái)，社會(huì)學(xué)家們一直在不斷復(fù)述這個(gè)故事的失實(shí)版本，并將其作為旁觀者極端冷漠的典型案例？撥打400-618-8866進(jìn)行咨詢

暫且不論其他，這至少意味著，在不經(jīng)意間，我們已經(jīng)被“失實(shí)表述”混淆了視聽。這種“失實(shí)表述”雖然部分真實(shí)，但已被歪曲，就像上述案件被報(bào)道歪曲了一樣，因?yàn)閳?bào)紙想激起人們憤慨、恐懼、憎惡等強(qiáng)烈的負(fù)面情緒。

作為一名人類情緒的研究者，我知道即使是最負(fù)面的感受對(duì)我們而言也不可或缺：憤怒能有效地警示在實(shí)現(xiàn)目標(biāo)路上有阻力；恐懼提醒人們謹(jǐn)慎行事并有所準(zhǔn)備；憎惡讓我們對(duì)壞人壞事敬而遠(yuǎn)之。

然而，有時(shí)我們的朋友、家人，還有政客、廣告主、各路專家會(huì)出于各自目的而操控我們的情感。憤怒、恐懼、憎惡這些情緒可以有效驅(qū)使我們?nèi)ゴ蜷_網(wǎng)頁(yè)、購(gòu)買商品、為政客投票。

我們每天都在經(jīng)受著各種各樣 “失實(shí)表述”的狂轟濫炸，它們的殺傷力不容小覷。當(dāng)前正值美國(guó)的大選季，你可以毫不費(fèi)力地找到種種這樣的案例。

我說(shuō)這些的目的，不是為了嘲諷說(shuō)謊之人，也不是為了給歪曲事實(shí)者貼上“匹諾曹”的標(biāo)簽。我只是想讓你們明白，選擇任何一種立場(chǎng)都可能導(dǎo)致夸大、歪曲或者忽略一些重要的事實(shí)，從而助長(zhǎng)憤怒、恐懼和憎惡的情緒。

如果我的上述說(shuō)法成立，那么你們?cè)诖私邮芙逃�的一個(gè)重要內(nèi)容就是：學(xué)習(xí)如何辨別和應(yīng)對(duì)這些失實(shí)表述。

在此過(guò)程中，你們應(yīng)該特別留心那些與你自己的想法高度一致的表述。如果你在政治、文化、宗教或經(jīng)濟(jì)議題上持有堅(jiān)定的立場(chǎng)，樂(lè)于接受那些能證實(shí)你原有觀點(diǎn)、妖魔化相反意見的論調(diào)，那就會(huì)像很多人一樣，掉入認(rèn)知陷阱。

我們都強(qiáng)烈傾向于接受與我們?cè)�有觀念相符的故事版本，忽略或者拒絕接受那些不相符的。社交媒體、博客圈和政治活動(dòng)正充斥著失實(shí)表述，為負(fù)能量煽風(fēng)點(diǎn)火，既阻礙著理性調(diào)查，也阻礙著不同意見的充分交流，甚至還會(huì)妨礙我們對(duì)全球共同面臨的挑戰(zhàn)性問(wèn)題達(dá)成共識(shí)。點(diǎn)擊此處名師為你量身定制留學(xué)方案

你們現(xiàn)在意氣風(fēng)發(fā)，滿懷希望地想理解這個(gè)世界，找準(zhǔn)你在其中所處的位置，并弄明白如何為它的進(jìn)步貢獻(xiàn)你的力量。那么，當(dāng)你對(duì)不同意見產(chǎn)生重大懷疑時(shí)，怎么去抵制“失實(shí)表述”的魅惑呢？

我對(duì)那些在你們這樣的年輕學(xué)子，以及整個(gè)高等教育界頗有市場(chǎng)的“失實(shí)表述”高度警惕。我有滿滿一架子關(guān)于當(dāng)代社會(huì)的書，它們?cè)噲D讓我相信：

頂尖名校的學(xué)生不過(guò)是優(yōu)秀的綿羊

文科生畢業(yè)就等于失業(yè)

真正有想法有勇氣的學(xué)生都輟學(xué)去創(chuàng)業(yè)了

沒(méi)有主見的“千禧一代”需要父母出謀劃策

大學(xué)教授的政治觀點(diǎn)千篇一律

現(xiàn)在的學(xué)生都是柔弱的溫室花朵

不放棄言論自由就不可能形成開放包容的校園文化

我們的高等學(xué)府是與現(xiàn)實(shí)隔絕的象牙塔，等等。

耶魯大學(xué)教授威廉·德雷謝維奇著《優(yōu)秀的綿羊》，他認(rèn)為美國(guó)精英教育培養(yǎng)出來(lái)的學(xué)生大都聰明有天分，但同時(shí)又充滿焦慮、膽小怕事。

作為回應(yīng)，我想說(shuō)，你們?cè)谝�魯所受的教育不僅會(huì)釋放你的想象力，增進(jìn)你的學(xué)識(shí)，推動(dòng)你的職業(yè)生涯，更會(huì)提高你的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力，讓你在這個(gè)兩極分化加劇的浮躁時(shí)代發(fā)揮更加積極的作用——而這種能力無(wú)疑相當(dāng)重要。

特別值得一提的是，你們的老師和導(dǎo)師都非常出色。他們的生活經(jīng)歷和職業(yè)生涯有力地見證了訓(xùn)練有素地、理性審慎地追尋光明和真理是多么有價(jià)值。

我們的老師（無(wú)論是工程專業(yè)、經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)專業(yè)，還是英語(yǔ)專業(yè)、環(huán)境學(xué)專業(yè)），都秉承著同一價(jià)值觀，那就是，任何簡(jiǎn)單粗暴、煽風(fēng)點(diǎn)火、歪曲誤導(dǎo)的表述都值得懷疑。點(diǎn)擊此處名師為你量身定制留學(xué)方案

當(dāng)然，沒(méi)有人能完全擺脫偏見。但是，作為學(xué)者，我們力求審慎，對(duì)于所調(diào)查和最看重之事能有理有據(jù)地表達(dá)意見。如果學(xué)術(shù)界喪失這一理想準(zhǔn)則，我們就會(huì)迷失；如果高等學(xué)府失去這一準(zhǔn)則，整個(gè)世界都將迷失。

我可以提供一份長(zhǎng)長(zhǎng)的耶魯教師名單，這些耶魯人數(shù)十年如一日地在實(shí)驗(yàn)室、檔案館、圖書館和田野調(diào)查的現(xiàn)場(chǎng)，尋找證據(jù)，挑戰(zhàn)已經(jīng)被廣為接受的觀點(diǎn)、失實(shí)的表述，以及高度可疑的所謂常識(shí)。以下是一些例子：

？ 很多人認(rèn)為我們的法律系統(tǒng)幾乎完全建立在世俗傳統(tǒng)之上，當(dāng)代法律中的質(zhì)詢體系是對(duì)中世紀(jì)經(jīng)典本質(zhì)性的背離。但耶魯中世紀(jì)歷史學(xué)教授Anders Winroth反駁了這個(gè)“失實(shí)表述”，他提供了很多證據(jù)，證明當(dāng)代法律其實(shí)根植于中世紀(jì)傳統(tǒng)。

？ 過(guò)去，宇宙天體學(xué)的重要理論多建立在“地球是宇宙中獨(dú)一無(wú)二的星球”這一假設(shè)之上。天文學(xué)教授Debra Fischer卻發(fā)現(xiàn)銀河系中有很多類似于太陽(yáng)系的、行星圍繞恒星而轉(zhuǎn)的結(jié)構(gòu)。

？ 醫(yī)學(xué)研究者們多年來(lái)一直以為性別與疾病傳播基本無(wú)關(guān)。耶魯婦女健康研究中心主任Carolyn Mazure，一直在研究性別在大范圍的生物體系中造成的重要差異，并將其運(yùn)用到新的健康醫(yī)療實(shí)踐中。

？ 大多數(shù)科班出身的古典經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家將仔細(xì)計(jì)算成本和利益過(guò)程作為人類決策的模型。諾貝爾獎(jiǎng)獲得者Robert Shiller挑戰(zhàn)了“個(gè)人和市場(chǎng)是理性的”這一觀點(diǎn)，推動(dòng)了人類行為理論的重大修正。

？ 當(dāng)我還在讀心理學(xué)研究生的時(shí)候，當(dāng)時(shí)主流的說(shuō)法是人類所學(xué)到的一切幾乎都來(lái)源于經(jīng)歷。但是心理學(xué)教授Karen Wynn告訴我們，嬰兒有令人驚訝的天賦， 5個(gè)月大的嬰兒就能做初步的運(yùn)算。西利曼學(xué)院的新院長(zhǎng)、心理學(xué)教授Laurie Santos，則向我們展示了猴子也先天地具有憎恨、嫉妒、認(rèn)知失調(diào)等復(fù)雜狀態(tài)。

？ 最后我要提到研究非裔美國(guó)人和美國(guó)學(xué)的教授Hazel Carby。她的第一本著作《重構(gòu)女性特質(zhì)》（Reconstructing Womanhood）研究了19世紀(jì)美國(guó)黑人女作家是如何在白人主導(dǎo)的社會(huì)中，改變女性的家庭和文學(xué)形象的。Carby教授還在為另一本書所作的序中，有力地評(píng)說(shuō)了對(duì)邊緣人群失實(shí)和片面的描述：我們看到了不充足的證據(jù)是怎么重新組合，從而產(chǎn)生一種新的表述，看到了沉默是如何產(chǎn)生的……”

人們會(huì)很自然地建構(gòu)起對(duì)自己有利的表述。但在面臨壓力時(shí)，“失實(shí)表述”就會(huì)控制公眾的理智，操控輿論，煽動(dòng)消極情緒，激化矛盾，我對(duì)此深感憂慮。特別是在我們這個(gè)時(shí)代，失實(shí)信息會(huì)在瞬間傳播，成倍放大。由此，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)有時(shí)憤怒、恐懼或者憎惡會(huì)遮蔽我們的雙眼，讓我們無(wú)視世界的復(fù)雜性，放棄尋求對(duì)于重大議題的更深入的理解。免費(fèi)獲取私人定制留學(xué)方案

因此，耶魯教育的重要內(nèi)容是，讓你成為一個(gè)更加審慎的批判性思考者——學(xué)習(xí)怎樣正確地評(píng)估證據(jù)，考慮得更廣更全面，從而得出你自己的結(jié)論。

尤其值得一提的是，耶魯會(huì)教會(huì)你怎樣以及為何要去了解那些與你持不同意見的人，它們將挑戰(zhàn)你曾經(jīng)深信不疑的想法。它也會(huì)讓你們明白，為什么我們需要超乎尋常的訓(xùn)練、勇氣和終其一生的堅(jiān)持，才能構(gòu)筑起一個(gè)全新的基石，去解決我們這個(gè)時(shí)代最棘手的問(wèn)題。

你已經(jīng)來(lái)到了一個(gè)高度重視不同觀點(diǎn)和深度反思的地方，這里鼓勵(lì)觀點(diǎn)的多樣性和最大程度的言論自由。

我相信你會(huì)立刻發(fā)現(xiàn)耶魯?shù)淖顚氋F之處，那就是：師長(zhǎng)、同學(xué)會(huì)激勵(lì)你、啟發(fā)你，幫助你作好最充足的準(zhǔn)備，去成為這個(gè)世界極度需要的調(diào)查者、有遠(yuǎn)見之人，以及領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者。

校長(zhǎng)加入Stacy Phillips的樂(lè)隊(duì)，司職貝斯手

只有完成上述使命，我們才能迎來(lái)一個(gè)更好的世界，抑或一個(gè)更包容、更振奮人心的耶魯。而事實(shí)上，正是你們?yōu)槲覀儙��?lái)了希望，你們是我們成為教育家的初衷，也是我們今天相聚于此的理由。

歡迎來(lái)到耶魯！

為了提高大家的英文閱讀水平，附上英文版本供大家學(xué)習(xí)：免費(fèi)獲取私人定制留學(xué)方案

Good morning and welcome: to my colleagues here on stage, to the family members who have joined us today, and—especially—to the Yale College Class of 2020.

Twenty-twenty—a term that inevitably brings to mind perfect eyesight. And now that all of you are wearing 2020 as your class label in Yale College, I am confident your intuition and your mental acuity will develop here to an equivalent level of strength. The admissions office assures me that everything possible has been done to guarantee this outcome.

Nonetheless, I’d like to reflect—on your “first day of school”—about what might impede your insight and what might advance it in the course of your education here.

For many years, I taught introductory psychology to large numbers of freshmen. In the part of the course devoted to social psychology, I would ask my students to consider what we know about helping others in various kinds of social situations. Specifically, why is it that we offer assistance, or fail to offer assistance, in emergencies?

I would begin with the tragic and well known case of Kitty Genovese, a twenty-nine-year-old woman who lived in Kew Gardens, Queens, and was murdered there in 1964. Her case received enormous attention and commentary, and you have probably heard some version of her story. As reported in the New York Times, thirty-eight individuals watched the murder from their apartment windows, but only one called the police, and by then it was too late.

Over the years, I have described this shocking incident many times. So have other social psychologists teaching similar courses, and so did the social scientists who sought to explain how witnesses could exhibit such callous indifference to a horrific crime taking place before their eyes.【定制留學(xué)專屬規(guī)劃，提高名校入讀機(jī)率】

Here’s the trouble: the standard account of the Kitty Genovese case is wrong in some of its crucial details.

Kitty’s brother, Bill Genovese, produced a film last year called The Witness. In it, he documents that some bystanders were not indifferent: one witness shouted out the window at the attacker, another witness held Kitty in her arms as she died, and several called the police during the attack.

So what does it mean that social scientists have been retelling an incorrect version of this story for over fifty years as a paradigmatic example of extreme bystander indifference? Well, among other things, it means that inadvertently we have been perpetuating what could rightly be called a false narrative—a version of events that, while partly true, had been shaped, in this case by a newspaper report, to elicit strong negative emotions like anger, fear, or disgust.

As an investigator of human emotions, I know that even the most negative feelings can be important to our survival. Anger effectively signals that a goal is being blocked. Fear motivates caution and preparation. Disgust moves us away from things that can make us ill. However, sometimes our friends, family members, politicians, advertisers, pundits, and others look to manipulate our emotions for their own purposes. Anger, fear, and disgust can be highly effective ways to drive eyeballs to websites, consumers to products, or voters to the polls.

My sense is that we are bombarded daily by false narratives of various kinds, and that they are doing a great deal of damage. In a national election season, you do not need to look very hard to find them.

It is not my purpose today to mock the biggest “whoppers” or award “Pinocchios” for the biggest distortions. Rather, I am only hoping to persuade you that advocates on any side of a question can be tempted to exaggerate or distort or neglect crucial facts in ways that serve primarily to fuel your anger, fear, or disgust.

If I am correct, then an important aspect of your education here will be learning how to recognize and address these kinds of accounts. In the course of that, you should pay especially close attention to the narratives that seem to align best with your own beliefs. To the extent you hold strong political or cultural or religious or economic beliefs, you will simply be like all the rest of us if you gravitate toward explanations that seem to provide confirmation for those beliefs or to demonize those who hold different ones. All of us are strongly predisposed to accept accounts that align with the opinions we already hold, and to ignore or dismiss those that do not. Social media, the blogosphere, and the political process are increasingly drenched with such narratives, inflaming our negative emotions and presenting real barriers to reasoned investigation, productive exchanges between differing views, and the search for common ground on the most challenging problems facing our global societies.

So, you are now embarking on an ambitious and hopeful effort to understand the world, your place in it, and what you can contribute to forward progress. How can you address the seductive power of false narratives, especially in a time when grave mistrust on many sides seems to be fueling ever more of them?【定制留學(xué)專屬規(guī)劃，提高名校入讀機(jī)率】

It will not surprise you that I am highly aware of false narratives circulating about students like yourselves and higher education in general. I have a thick shelf of contemporary books assuring me that students at elite universities are merely excellent sheep, that a liberal arts degree is a ticket to unemployment, that truly inspired and courageous learners drop out of college to found tech companies, that millennials cannot make decisions without consulting their parents, that college professors have uniform political views, that students these days are fragile hothouse flowers, that it is not possible to achieve an inclusive campus culture without giving up on free speech, and that our colleges and universities are cut off from reality.

In response, I want to claim that your Yale education will not only enlarge your imagination, advance your knowledge, and propel your career, but also that it will be absolutely critical to your capacity for playing a positive, leadership role in these increasingly polarized and fractious times. In particular, you are about to be taught by outstanding teachers and mentors, whose lives and careers constitute a powerful witness for the value of a disciplined, reasoned, and careful search for light and truth.

What unites our faculty (from engineering to economics to English to environmental studies) is a stubborn skepticism about narratives that oversimplify issues, inflame the emotions, or misdirect the mind. No one is free of biases, of course, but as a community of scholars we subscribe to the ideal of judicious, searching inquiry in the service of reasoned discourse about the matters we investigate and care about the most. We would be lost as academics without this ideal, and our global societies would be lost if universities stopped being places defined by this ideal.

I could supply you with a long list of the Yale faculty who have spent decades of their lives in laboratories, archives, libraries, and field settings collecting evidence to challenge some received notion, some distorted narrative, or some common wisdom that turned out to be highly questionable. Here are some examples:

Many people assume that our legal system was built almost entirely on a secular tradition. But Yale’s professor of medieval history, Anders Winroth, counters the false narrative that contemporary legal reasoning is a radical departure from medieval canon law by showing that in many ways it is rooted in it.

Important cosmologies of the past depended on the assumption that the planet Earth is unique in the universe. Astronomy professor Debra Fischer has discovered many “worlds” (called exoplanets) orbiting around “suns” in solar systems spread throughout our galaxy.

Medical researchers assumed for many years that gender has little to do with the prevalence and course of most illnesses, and that findings from studies with men automatically generalize to women. Carolyn Mazure, the director of the Women’s Health Research Center at Yale, has been investigating critical differences that gender makes in a wide range of biological systems and translates those findings into new health practices.

Most classically trained economists have modeled human decisions as the result of careful calculations of costs and benefits. Nobel Prize winner Robert Shiller has emerged at the forefront of those who challenge the idea of rational individuals and markets, forcing major revisions to the theory of human behavior on which his field is based.

When I was a graduate student in psychology, the dominant narrative held that humans learn virtually everything from experience. But psychology professor Karen Wynn has been teaching us that human infants have surprising innate capacities. Five-month olds appear able to make rudimentary arithmetic calculations. And psychology professor Laurie Santos, the new head of Silliman College, has been showing us that monkeys, too, seem pre-wired for such complex states as resentment, envy, and cognitive dissonance.

I will close my list of examples by referencing professor of African American and American studies Hazel Carby. Her first book, Reconstructing Womanhood, was an exceptional exploration of the ways in which 19th century black women writers in America confronted and transformed the domestic and literary ideals of womanhood in white society. Professor Carby wrote a telling remark in her foreword to a book called Silencing the Past, highlighting the power of challenging false or incomplete narratives about the marginalized: “We learn how scanty evidence can be repositioned to generate new narratives, how silences can be made to speak for themselves. . .”

People naturally construct narratives to make sense of their world. I have been concerned to point out that in times of great stress, false narratives may dominate the public mind and public discourse, inflaming negative emotions and fanning discord. In our times especially, a wide array of instantaneous transmissions rapidly amplify such narratives. As a result, we sometimes find that anger, fear, or disgust can blind us to the complexity of the world and the responsibility to seek deeper understandings of important issues.【定制留學(xué)專屬規(guī)劃，提高名校入讀機(jī)率】

One point of your Yale education, then, is for you to become a more careful and critical thinker—to learn the difficult, painstaking skills you will need in order to evaluate evidence, to deliberate more broadly and more carefully, and to arrive at your own conclusions.

More particularly, Yale is a place for you to learn how and why to gravitate toward people who view things differently than you do, who will test your most strongly held assumptions. It is also a place to learn why it takes extraordinary discipline, courage, and persistence—often over a lifetime—to construct new foundations for tackling the most intractable and challenging questions of our time. You have come to a place where civil disagreements and deep rethinking are the heart and soul of the enterprise, where we prize exceptional diversity of views alongside the greatest possible freedom of expression.

So I trust that you will begin immediately to seek out what is best about this place: the faculty and staff and peers who will both inspire you and prepare you to become the investigators, visionaries, and leaders the world so sorely needs.

None of us here can hope for a better world, or even for a more inclusive and exhilarating learning community at Yale, unless we succeed at this mission. You are in fact what gives us hope. You are why we became educators. You are why we are here.

Welcome to Yale!

了解更多外語(yǔ)培訓(xùn)信息：

點(diǎn)擊 >>>新通名師在線咨詢 或 添加微信鄭小新（XTJY7002）咨詢更多內(nèi)容。

相關(guān)閱讀推薦>>