Hell might actually be other people — at least if you’re really smart.

他人沒準(zhǔn)還真是地獄——至少對一個(gè)真正聰明的人來說是這樣的。

That’s the implication of fascinating new research?published last month?in the British Journal of Psychology. Evolutionary psychologists Satoshi Kanazawa of the London School of Economics and Norman Li of Singapore Management University dig in to the question of what makes a life well-lived. While traditionally the domain of priests, philosophers and novelists, in recent years?survey researchers,?economists,?biologists?and scientists have been tackling that question.

這是上個(gè)月在《英國心理學(xué)雜志》發(fā)表的一篇有趣的新研究中說的。兩位進(jìn)化心理學(xué)家，倫敦政治經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)院的Satoshi Kanazawa和新加坡管理大學(xué)的Norman Li，對于如何活出幸福人生進(jìn)行了深入的研究。這個(gè)傳統(tǒng)上被神父、哲學(xué)家和小說家把控的議題，近年來卻被問卷調(diào)查者、經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家、生物學(xué)家和科學(xué)家所關(guān)注。

Kanazawa and Li theorize that the hunter-gatherer lifestyles of our ancient ancestors form the foundation for what make us happy now. “Situations and circumstances that would have increased our ancestors’ life satisfaction in the ancestral environment may still increase our life satisfaction today,” they write.

Kanazawa和Li提出的理論是，我們祖先的狩獵采集生活方式?jīng)Q定了我們感受幸福的底層機(jī)制。他們認(rèn)為，“在原始環(huán)境中能夠使我們祖先得到滿足的情境，或許在今天仍然可以提升我們的滿足感?！?/p>

They use what they call “the savanna theory of happiness” to explain two main findings from an analysis of a?large national survey?(15,000 respondents) of adults aged 18 to 28.

他們使用了這個(gè)所謂的“關(guān)于幸福的熱帶草原理論”來解釋兩個(gè)主要的研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，被研究對象是一項(xiàng)涵蓋了15,000個(gè)18到28歲成年人的大型全國調(diào)查。

First, they find that people who live in more densely populated areas tend to report less satisfaction with their life overall. “The higher the population density of the immediate environment, the less happy” the survey respondents said they were. Second, they find that the more social interactions with close friends a person has, the greater their self-reported happiness.

第一個(gè)發(fā)現(xiàn)是，在高人口密度地區(qū)生活的人們對他們的生活總體上更缺乏滿足感。被調(diào)查者回應(yīng)說“周圍人口密度越大，就越感覺不幸福”。第二個(gè)發(fā)現(xiàn)是，和親密朋友的更多交往伴隨著更多的幸福感。

But there was one big exception. For more intelligent people, these correlations were diminished or even reversed.

但是有一個(gè)明顯的例外，對于高智商人群，上述相關(guān)性會變?nèi)酰踔练崔D(zhuǎn)。

“The effect of population density on life satisfaction was therefore more than twice as large for low-IQ individuals than for high-IQ individuals,” they found. And “more intelligent individuals were actually less satisfied with life if they socialized with their friends more frequently.”

“所以，對于低智商人群來說，人口密度對于生活滿足度的影響會比對于高智商人群大一倍以上”他們還發(fā)現(xiàn)，“高智商人群的生活滿意度甚至?xí)驗(yàn)楹团笥呀煌^多而下降。”

Let me repeat that last one: When smart people spend more time with their friends, it makes them less happy.

容我重復(fù)一下后一個(gè)發(fā)現(xiàn)：如果聰明人在與朋友交往上花更多的時(shí)間，他們反倒會感覺不開心。

Now, the broad contours of both findings are largely uncontroversial.?A large body of previous research, for instance, has outlined what some have called an “urban-rural happiness gradient.” Kanazawa and Li explain: “Residents of rural areas and small towns are happier than those in suburbs, who in turn are happier than those in small central cities, who in turn are happier than those in large central cities.”

現(xiàn)在，兩個(gè)研究發(fā)現(xiàn)的粗線條概要大體是無爭議的。例如，曾有一大批研究項(xiàng)目概括出被有些人稱為“市區(qū)-郊區(qū)幸福梯度”的東西。Kanazawa和Li解釋說：“鄉(xiāng)村和小鎮(zhèn)的居民比近郊居民更幸福，后者又比生活在小型中心城市的居民幸福，而小型中心城市的居民又比生活在大城市的人幸福。”

Why would high population density cause a person to be less happy? There’s a whole body of sociological research?addressing this question. But for the most visceral demonstration of the effect, simply take a 45-minute ride on a crowded rush-hour Red Line train and tell me how you feel afterward.

為什么高人口密度會使一個(gè)人不開心呢？現(xiàn)在已有大量的社會學(xué)研究瞄準(zhǔn)了這個(gè)問題。但是如果要最感同身受地體現(xiàn)這種影響，莫過于在高峰期搭乘45分鐘的擁擠地鐵，然后告訴我你的心情如何。

Kanazawa and Li’s second finding is a little more interesting. It’s no surprise that friend and family connections are generally seen as?a foundational component of happiness and well-being. But why would this relationship get turned on its head for really smart people?

Kanazawa和Li的第二個(gè)發(fā)現(xiàn)則更有意思一些。毫無疑問，親情和友情往往是構(gòu)成個(gè)人生活幸福快樂的基礎(chǔ)之一。但是為什么對于聰明人來說，這種關(guān)系會被反過來呢？

I posed this question to Carol Graham, a Brookings Institution researcher who studies the economics of happiness. “The findings in here suggest (and it is no surprise) that those with more intelligence and the capacity to use it … are less likely to spend so much time socializing because they are focused on some other longer term objective,” she said.

我就此問題請教了在布魯金斯學(xué)會研究幸福經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)的Carol Graham?！斑@個(gè)發(fā)現(xiàn)（毫不奇怪地）表明具有高智商并且能將其駕馭自如的人……較不愿意將大量時(shí)間花費(fèi)在與人交往上面，因?yàn)樗麄儗Ｗ⒂谄渌L期的目標(biāo)，”她解釋道。

Think of the really smart people you know. They may include a doctor trying to cure cancer or a writer working on the great American novel or a human rights lawyer working to protect the most vulnerable people in society. To the extent that frequent social interaction detracts from the pursuit of these goals, it may negatively affect their overall satisfaction with life.

想想你認(rèn)識的真正聰明人。他們也許是一個(gè)試圖治愈癌癥的醫(yī)生，一個(gè)想要寫出一部杰出的美國小說的作者，或是一個(gè)關(guān)注保護(hù)社會弱勢群體的人權(quán)律師。如果社交活動過于頻繁，以至妨礙他們追求這些遠(yuǎn)大目標(biāo)，就會降低他們整體的生活滿意度。

But Kanazawa and Li’s savanna theory of happiness offers a different explanation. The idea starts with the premise that the human brain evolved to meet the demands of our ancestral environment on the African savanna, where the population density was akin to what you’d find today in, say, rural Alaska (less than one person per square kilometer). Take a brain evolved for that environment, plop it into today’s Manhattan (population density:?27,685 people per square kilometer), and you can see how you’d get some evolutionary friction.

但是Kanazawa和Li的熱帶草原幸福理論提供了一個(gè)不一樣的解釋。該理論始于一個(gè)前提，即人類大腦進(jìn)化是為了適應(yīng)我們祖先在非洲大草原上的生存環(huán)境。在這種環(huán)境下的人口密度近似于如今的阿拉斯加荒野（每平方公里不到一人）。從這種環(huán)境下進(jìn)化出的大腦，被丟進(jìn)當(dāng)今的曼哈頓（人口密度每平方公里27,685人），這種進(jìn)化上的摩擦可想而知。

Similarly with friendship: “Our ancestors lived as hunter–gatherers in small bands of about 150 individuals,” Kanazawa and Li explain. “In such settings, having frequent contact with lifelong friends and allies was likely necessary for survival and reproduction for both sexes.” We remain social creatures today, a reflection of that early reliance on tight-knit social groups.

對友情來說也近似：“我們祖先作為狩獵采集者，生活在一個(gè)個(gè)約為150人的小集體里，”Kanazawa和Li解釋說?！霸谶@樣的環(huán)境中，和終生朋友以及盟友的頻繁接觸對于生存和繁衍 很可能是必要的，無論是男性還是女性?！蔽覀冎两袢允巧鐣缘奈锓N，這反映了我們早期對于被社會關(guān)系紐帶緊密編織起來的小集體的依賴。

The typical human life has changed rapidly since then — back on the savanna we didn’t have cars or iPhones or processed food or “Celebrity Apprentice” — and it’s quite possible that our biology hasn’t been able to evolve fast enough to keep up. As such, there may be a “mismatch” between what our brains and bodies are designed for, and the world most of us live in now.

從那時(shí)起，人類生活有了極大改變——在熱帶草原時(shí)期我們可沒有汽車、iPhone、加工食品或是“明星學(xué)徒”【譯注：電視真人秀節(jié)目】——而我們生理特性的進(jìn)化極可能趕不上這些改變。因此，在我們的身心設(shè)定與我們生存的世界之間，可能會存在著“錯(cuò)配”。

To sum it all up:?You’ve heard of the paleo-diet. But are you ready for paleo-happiness?

簡而言之，你知道有舊石器食譜，但是你想不想試試舊石器幸福感？

There’s a twist, though, at least as Kanazawa and Li see it. Smarter people may be better equipped to deal with the new (at least from an evolutionary perspective) challenges present-day life throws at us. “More intelligent individuals, who possess higher levels of general intelligence and thus greater ability to solve evolutionarily novel problems, may face less difficulty in comprehending and dealing with evolutionarily novel entities and situations,” they write.

但是劇情到這里有個(gè)反轉(zhuǎn)，至少Kanazawa和Li這么覺得。聰明人可能更擅長處理現(xiàn)代生活中的新（至少從進(jìn)化的觀點(diǎn)看）挑戰(zhàn)?！澳切└兄腔?，更具有高等的通用智能從而可以更好的解決新進(jìn)化問題的個(gè)體，可能會較易于理解和應(yīng)對進(jìn)化上的新實(shí)體或是新問題，”他們寫道。

If you’re smarter and more able to adapt to things, you may have an easier time reconciling your evolutionary predispositions with the modern world. So living in a high-population area may have a smaller effect on your overall well-being — that’s what Kanazawa and Li found in their survey analysis. Similarly, smarter people may be better-equipped to jettison that whole hunter-gatherer social network — especially if they’re pursuing some loftier ambition.

如果你更聰明，并且更有能力適應(yīng)環(huán)境，你應(yīng)能更容易處理好先天進(jìn)化不足和現(xiàn)代社會生活的錯(cuò)配。所以住在高人口密度地區(qū)可能對你的總體生活舒適程度影響很小——這就是Kanazawa和Li的調(diào)查研究發(fā)現(xiàn)。同樣的，聰明人更有能力能力人更有可能完全放應(yīng)對進(jìn)化上的新實(shí)體或是情景說有些人稱為“市中舍棄那套狩獵采集式的社交網(wǎng)絡(luò)——特別是當(dāng)他們有遠(yuǎn)大目標(biāo)的時(shí)候。

It’s important to remember that this is an argument Kanazawa and Li are proposing and that it’s not settled science. “Paleo-” theories — the idea that our bodies are best adapted to the environment of our earliest ancestors — have?come under fire in recent years, especially as food companies and some researchers over-hyped the alleged benefits of the paleo-diet fad.

值得注意的是，這只是Kanazawa和Li提出的論點(diǎn)，絕非科學(xué)定論。以“舊石器”開頭的理論——基于我們的身體仍與我們最早期的祖先所處環(huán)境相適應(yīng)之假設(shè)——在近年來飽受爭議，特別是由于食品公司和某些學(xué)者過于推崇當(dāng)下流行的舊石器食譜所帶來的可能好處。

Kanazawa and Li’s main findings about population density, social interaction and happiness are relatively uncontroversial. But Brookings’s Carol Graham says one potential flaw in their research is that it defines happiness in terms of self-reported life satisfaction (“How satisfied are you with your life as a whole?”), and doesn’t consider experienced well-being (“How many times did you laugh yesterday? How many times were you angry?” etc.). Survey researchers?know that these two types of questions?can lead to very different assessments of well-being.

Kanazawa和Li對于人口密度，社會交往以及幸福感的主要觀點(diǎn)相對來說并沒有太大的爭議。但是布魯金斯學(xué)會的Carol Graham認(rèn)為他們的研究有個(gè)潛在的缺陷，即用受訪者自我報(bào)告的生活滿意程度來定義幸福（“整體上來說，你對自己的生活滿意么？”），而不考慮受訪者關(guān)于舒適生活的實(shí)際體驗(yàn)（“你昨天笑了幾次？生氣了幾次？”等等）。問卷調(diào)查者都知道這兩類問題對于幸福生活的衡量可以得出完全不同的結(jié)果。

For their part, Kanazawa and Li maintain that that distinction doesn’t matter too much for their savanna theory. “Even though our empirical analyses … used a measure of global life satisfaction, the savanna theory of happiness is not committed to any particular definition and is compatible with any reasonable conception of happiness, subjective well-being, and life satisfaction,” they write.

Kanazawa和Li則認(rèn)為這一區(qū)別對他們的熱帶草原理論影響不大?！半m然我們的實(shí)證研究……使用了總體的生活滿意度，關(guān)于幸福的熱帶草原理論并不局限于任何一種定義，并且適用于任何對于幸福、主觀幸福感和生活滿意度的合理的概念化處理，”他們寫道。

Kanazawa himself is no stranger to controversy. In 2011 he wrote a blog post for Psychology Today entitled “Why Are Black Women Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women?” The post ignited a?firestorm of criticism?and was swiftly taken down.

Kanazawa本人也經(jīng)常處于爭議之中。2011年他給《今日心理學(xué)》寫了一篇名為“為什么黑人女性在生理上不如其他女性具有吸引力？”的博客文章。該文引發(fā)了猛烈的批評，并且被迅速撤下了。

His current research on well-being is not likely to generate as much criticism as that blog post. But the evolutionary perspective on happiness and intelligence is likely to prompt some heated discussion in the field.

他現(xiàn)在關(guān)于幸福的研究不大可能引發(fā)類似的抨擊。但從進(jìn)化角度解讀幸福和智力很可能會在該領(lǐng)域引發(fā)一些熱烈的討論。

In an email, Kanazawa said that his approach to understanding happiness is fundamentally different than the arguments about, say, the benefits of a paleo-diet. “Blindly introducing our ancestors’ diet when we do not have other aspects of the ancestral life seems like a dangerous and nonsensical prescription to me,” he said.

在一封電子郵件里， Kanazawa認(rèn)為他理解幸福的方式和關(guān)于比如說舊石器食譜的好處的論證有著本質(zhì)的區(qū)別。“盲目的引入我們祖先的食譜，而不考慮到我們生活的其他方面與祖先有異，在我看來是危險(xiǎn)且毫無道理的，”他說。

“I only explain nature; I do not tell people what to do or not to do,” he added.

“我只是解釋自然現(xiàn)象；我并不是告訴人們?nèi)プ鍪裁椿蚴遣蛔鍪裁?，”他補(bǔ)充道。