US late night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel features a recurring “Lie Witness News” section in his program. In the gag, pedestrians are asked a variety of questions with false premises.
美国深夜脱口秀（鸡毛秀）的主持人吉米•科莫尔的节目中总是包含一个整人单元“Lie Witness News”。在这个搞笑单元中，路人会被问及各种各样莫须有的问题。

In one episode, Kimmel’s crew asked people whether they thought the 2014 film Godzilla was insensitive to survivors of the 1954 giant lizard attack on Tokyo; in another, they asked whether former US president Bill Clinton gets enough credit for ending the Korean War.
比如某一期中，《吉米秀》的工作人员提出的问题就是：你认为2014年的电影《哥斯拉》是否没有顾及1954年东京巨蜥袭击幸存者们的感情？另一期里，人们则被问及：美国总统比尔•克林顿是不是终结了朝鲜战争的大功臣？

These are absurd questions, but surprisingly, many interviewees fall into Kimmel’s trap. Some appear willing to say just about anything on camera to hide their cluelessness about the subject at hand. Others seem eager to please, not wanting to let the interviewer down by giving the most boring response: I don’t know.
这些问题听来荒唐，但令人惊讶的是，很多受访者竟然真得中招。很多人为了掩饰自己的无知，在摄像机前侃侃而谈。另一些人不想用一句扫兴的“我不知道”让采访者失望，于是极力取悦采访者。。

But for some of these interviewees, says David Dunning, a professor of psychology at Cornell University, the trap may be an even deeper one. The most confident-sounding respondents often seem to think they do have some clue.
美国康奈尔大学的心理学教授大卫•达宁表示，对某些受访者而言，这些陷阱也许并不简单，因为其中那些听上去最自信的受访者似乎坚信自己知道一些答案。

Don’t laugh at these “confident idiots”, Dunning says writing in the Pacific Standard website, every one of us might behave just like one in similar situations.
达宁在Pacific Standard网站上的一篇文章中写道：不要嘲笑这些“自信的傻子”，因为大家在类似的情境中都可能表现的和他们一样。

With his colleagues at Cornell, Dunning carries out ongoing research in a lab that is constructed similarly to Kimmel’s gag.
在一个类似吉米•科莫尔搞笑节目的实验室里，达宁与康奈尔大学的其他同事一起正在做一个类似的实验。

They ask survey respondents if they are familiar with certain technical concepts from physics, biology, politics, and geography. A fair number claim familiarity with genuine terms like centripetal force and photon.
他们询问受访者是否熟悉物理、生物、政治以及地理领域的某些概念，结果显示，相当一部分认为自己熟悉这些真实存在的概念，例如，向心力、光子。

But interestingly, they also claim they know about concepts that are entirely made up. In fact, Dunning says, the more knowledgeable respondents considered themselves on a general topic, the more familiarity they claimed with the meaningless terms associated with it.
但有趣的是，他们同样还认为自己也了解一些凭空编造出来的概念。而达宁说，事实上，受访者越是认为自己了解某个领域，就越容易声称自己熟悉那些与之有关的、不存在的术语。

Foggy perception
朦胧的感觉

The result, according to Dunning, is not surprising. For more than 20 years, he has researched people’s understanding and evaluation of their knowledge, reasoning and learning. As it turns out, although what we know is often perceptible to us, even the broad outlines of what we don’t know are all too often completely invisible.
在达宁看来，这一结果并不奇怪。过去的二十多年间，达宁一直致力于研究人类对其知识、推理与学习的理解和评价。研究发现，我们常常能对自己的所知有所认识，但是对于我们所不知道的东西，我们却一点都感觉不到。

To a great degree, Dunning says, we fail to recognize the frequency and scope of our ignorance.
达宁表示，很大程度上，我们并知道自己“无知”的范围。

You’d think our ignorance would leave us confused or cautious. But instead, our ignorance is often accompanied with an inappropriate confidence, boosted by something that feels to us like knowledge.
你可能以为无知会让我们变得迷茫或是谨慎。但是事实却恰恰相反，我们的无知常常与不合理的自信相伴而来，而我们自以为是知识的东西又进一步加深了我们的无知。

Other studies also confirm that people who don’t know much about a given set of cognitive, technical, or social skills tend to greatly overestimate their ability and performance. Dunning gives an example: College students who hand in exams that will earn them Ds and Fs tend to think their efforts will be worthy of far higher grades.
另一些研究也证实：当人们对某一认知、科技或社会技能不甚了解时，更容易高估自己的能力和表现。达宁给出了一个例子：在大学考试中得了D或者F的同学更容易认为，自己所付出的努力应该换回更好的成绩。

Occasionally, Dunning says, our ignorance and misplaced confidence can lead to disasters.
达宁说，有时候，我们的无知加上不该有的自信会引起大灾难。