Dec 6 2021
Making Something Social Destroys the Truth of It 让一些东西变得社会化会破坏它的真相
Science’s biggest breakthroughs came from unpopular people 科学最大的突破来自不受欢迎的人
纳瓦尔：让某件事变得社会化会破坏它的真相，因为社会群体需要共识才能生存——否则他们就会争吵，没法和平共处——而共识就是妥协，而不是寻求真相。
Naval:Making something social destroys the truth of it because social groups need consensus to survive—otherwise they fight and can’t get along—and consensus is all about compromise, not truth-seeking.
科学——至少是自然科学——是一门独特的学科，你可以代表社会其他人进行个体真理探索。其他人验证过，他们确实拥有社会运作（自然法则）的最佳模型，然后可以通过发明将其影响到社会其他人。
Science—at least the natural sciences—was this unique discipline where you could have an individual truth-seeking on behalf of the rest of society. Other individuals verify that they did, indeed, have the best current model of how reality works, and then that could be spread out through inventions to the rest of society.
但社会科学就是这种潜入学术界并占据主导地位的病毒，社会科学完全被侵蚀了。
But the social sciences are this virus that crept into academia and have taken over. Social sciences are completely corrupted.
首先，他们需要向社会募集资金，因此他们有政治动机。然后，他们自己也会受到社会的影响，因为这些研究和模型被用来推动政策。所以，当然，这最后也会被破坏。现在，即使是自然科学也受到社会科学的攻击，而且它们变得越来越社会化。
First, they need to appeal to society for funding, so they are politically motivated. Then, they themselves are influenced in society because the studies and models are used to drive policy. So, of course, that ends up corrupted as well. Now even the natural sciences are under attack from the social sciences, and they’re becoming more and more socialized.
你看到的群体思维越多，你离实际真相就越远。你可以拥有一个和谐的社会，同时仍然允许社会中寻找真理的人找到真理，并为整个群体找到改变和改善现实的方法。
The more groupthink you see involved, the farther from the truth you actually are. You can have an harmonious society while still allowing truth seekers within the society to find truth and to find the means to alter and improve reality for the entire group.
从历史上看，大多数科学突破都不是来自科学机构。其中最大的来自独立的自然哲学家，他们是非常独立的思想家，在他们那个时代受到辱骂，经常受到迫害，他们根据自己发现的真理与社会作斗争。这些真理花了几十年或几个世纪——通常是在他们死后——才被接受。
Historically, most of the scientific breakthroughs didn’t come from scientific institutions. The big ones came from individual natural philosophers who were very independent thinkers who were reviled in their time, often persecuted, who fought against the rest of society on the basis of their truths. And it took decades or centuries—often after their deaths—before those truths were accepted.
许多这些学术理论实际上既经不起复制——如果你看看心理学中正在发生的事情——甚至经不起现实的考验。
A lot of these academic theories don’t actually stand up either to replication—if you look at what’s going on in psychology—or even to reality.
罗里·萨瑟兰 （Rory Sutherland） 有一句很棒的话，他说过这样的话：“营销是一门了解经济学家错误的科学”。经济学家假设完全理性的行为，但人类显然是感性生物，所以你可以利用营销这门科学来否定科学假设。
Rory Sutherlandhas this great quote where he said something along the lines of, “Marketing is the science of knowing what economists are wrong about.” Economists assume perfectly rational behavior, but humans are obviously wetware biological creatures, so you can hack around that using marketing.
纳西姆·塔勒布（Nassim Taleb）会更进一步说，他们假设了错误的理性。人类正在计算毁灭的风险、归零的风险，而学者们在各种假说中犯了错误。他们假设对整体有利的东西对个体有好处，但事实并非如此。
Nassim Taleb would go even further and say that they assume false rationality. Humans are pricing in the risk of ruin, the risk of going to zero, and the academics are making mistakes about ergodic reasoning. They’re assuming that what’s good for the ensemble is good for the individual, and it’s not.
一个人不想归零——不想死——所以他们不会冒损失的风险，也不会冒破产的风险;而一个团体应该愿意承担破产的风险，因为这分散在（由）许多不同的人承担。
An individual doesn’t want to go to zero—doesn’t want to die—so they will not take risks of ruin and they will not take risks of bankruptcy; whereas a group should be willing to take a risk of bankruptcy because that’s spread out among so many different people.
马丽：共识可以让社会稳定、和谐共存，但真理、真相不一定是共识，真理≠共识。真理、真相掌握在少数独立意志的个体（个人）中，在这些个人生活的那个当下，它们(真理)还没有被接受，即使被接受或形成小范围的共识，但因这个共识不利于大社会的稳定和发展，在那个特定时期也不会被广泛传播和推广。反思当下，我们了解到的，社会各大媒体或认知中存在的共识，只是上峰（刚高话语权圈层）有选择的给普世释放的一些观点，打开的一扇窗、推开的一扇门，真相可能在一扇又一扇楚门没有打开的门和窗的后面，它们客观存在，客观存在是无限的，它们只是不在我们的视线和躯体可以触及的空间中，但它们是存在的，人的躯体是有限的，永远相信，真相只有一个—无限、接纳、臣服、谢谢。
持开放包容、敬畏自然与宇宙、拥抱不确定性的心态，观察、接纳当下与未来的一切可能性。
lf his was more than a vague ambition,
if he was determined,
to discover the truth,
there's no way we could prevent him.
No way, mister.
You're going to the top of this mountain,
broken legs and all.
But l always felt safe knowing that.
Because whatever the answer was, we were right or wrong together。
And as he grew, so did the technology.
A human life,recorded on a network of hidden cameras and broadcast live.
