Ask a left-wing Brit what they believe about the safety of nuclear power, and you can guess their answer. Ask a right-wing American about the risks posed by climate change, and you can also make a better guess than if you didn’t know their political affiliation. Issues like these feel like they should be informed by science, not our political tribes, but sadly, that’s not what happens.

　　问一个左翼英国人对于核安全的看法，你能够大致猜到答案。在明确其政治倾向的情况下，问一个右翼美国人关于气候变化的威胁，则你更加容易猜到他们的主张。还有很多类似的问题，明明你应该听从科学的解释，但是往往是你的政治立场决定你的态度，听起来挺荒谬的吧，但事实如此。

　　Psychology has long shown that education and intelligence won’t stop your politics from shaping your broader worldview, even if those beliefs do not match the hard evidence. Instead, your ability to weigh up the facts may depend on a less well-recognised trait – curiosity.

　　心理学研究表明， 你的世界观会逐步形成你的政治立场，而且不容易受到你的教育程度和智商的左右，哪怕这些政治主张和既定事实严重不符。然而，好奇心这个平时容易忽略的特质却会帮助你重新评估这些事实。

　　It is a mistake to think that you can somehow ‘correct’ people’s views on an issue by giving them more facts.

　　要是你以为给别人很多的事实就能纠正别人错误的观点，那就太天真啦。

　　There is now a mountain of evidence to show that politics doesn’t just help predict people’s views on some scientific issues; it also affects how they interpret new information. This is why it is a mistake to think that you can somehow ‘correct’ people’s views on an issue by giving them more facts, since study after study has shown that people have a tendency to selectively reject facts that don’t fit with their existing views.

　　诸多事实表明，人们的政治倾向不光能让你预测他们的科学观，它同时还会影响公众对于新信息的理解。这就是为什么光靠提供更多的事实是没法纠正人们的观点的，因为太多的研究表明，人们会选择性地排斥掉那些与自己既有观念相悖的事实。

　　This leads to the odd situation that people who are most extreme in their anti-science views – for example skeptics of the risks of climate change – are more scientifically informed than those who hold anti-science views but less strongly.

　　这也导致一种怪象，那些极端反科学的人，比如那些气候变化的怀疑论者，反而比那些非极端的反科学者（受政治立场影响），了解更多气候变化相关的科学知识。

　　People who have the facility for deeper thought about an issue can use those cognitive powers to justify what they already believe.

　　那些就某个问题能进行深入思考的人，往往会用自己的认知来强化自己的观点。

　　But smarter people shouldn’t be susceptible to prejudice swaying their opinions, right? Wrong. Other research shows that people with the most education, highest mathematical abilities, and the strongest tendencies to be reflective about their beliefs are the most likely to resist information which should contradict their prejudices. This undermines the simplistic assumption that prejudices are the result of too much gut instinct and not enough deep thought.

　　聪明人就不会因为政治偏见而改变自己的观点，对吧？当然不是，另一项研究表明，那些教育程度最高的、拥有最高的数学天赋、最有可能对自己的信仰自省的人，往往是对于有悖自己观点的信息最抵触的人。这就打破了“偏见是由于臆断太多而深思不足”的假设。

　　It’s a messy picture, and at first looks like a depressing one for those who care about science and reason. A glimmer of hope can be found in new research from a collaborative team of philosophers, film-makers and psychologists led by Dan Kahan of Yale University.

　　真是乱象一片，而且，第一眼看的时候让那些愿意相信科学和事实推理的人感到寒心。不过，最近有耶鲁大学的Dan Kahan 牵头，由心理学家、电影制片人、哲学家组成的一个联合小组就此问题进行了一项新研究，研究结果让我们看到了一丝曙光。

　　Kahan and his team were interested in politically biased information processing, but also in studying the audience for scientific documentaries and using this research to help film-makers. They developed two scales. The first measured a person’s scientific background. The second scale was  a person’s curiosity about scientific issues, not how much they already knew.

　　Kan和他的团队不但对人们处理信息时的政治偏见感兴趣，同时也对那些对科学记录片的观众感兴趣，他们把研究成果用来帮助电影制片人。他们最终确定了两个维度来进行研究。第一个维度研究被调查者的科学背景。另一个维度则是被调查者对于科学知识的好奇程度，而非他们已经知道了多少。

　　With the scientific knowledge scale the results were depressingly predictable. Higher levels of scientific education results in a greater polarization between the groups, not less.

　　在科学背景这个维度，人们的可预测行高得让人郁闷。越高的科学素养越会把人带到两个极端对立阵营。

　　But scientific curiosity showed a different pattern. Their opinions were at least heading in the same direction.

　　而科学好奇心这方面则表现出不同的模式。至少人们的观念是在往一个方向走的。

　　The team gave participants a choice of science stories, either in line with their existing beliefs, or surprising to them. Those participants who were high in scientific curiosity defied the predictions and selected stories which contradicted their existing beliefs.

　　小组给被调查成员一些科学案例让他们选择阅读，这些案例有些与他们的观点相近，有的则会震惊到他们。那些具有高度科学好奇心的参与者令人吃惊地选择与自己观点不同的材料来阅读。

　　So, curiosity might just save us from using science to confirm our identity as members of a political tribe.

　　所以，对事物探索的好奇心或许能帮我们不去把科学当成巩固政治偏见的工具。