Researcher in Causal Inference
最近是五年一次的肖邦钢琴大赛。不算是古典乐粉丝的我，被YouTube推了视频——也许是因为上一届我也在追的缘故（因为小说《蜜蜂与远雷》的影响）。于是我最近听了很多肖邦。
It’s the quinquennial Chopin Piano Competition. Though I’m not a classical music enthusiast, YouTube recommended videos to me—perhaps because I followed the last competition (which is due to the influence of the novel “Honeybees and Distant Thunder”). So I’ve been listening to a lot of Chopin lately.
听得多了，自然会有个问题：选手之间的差别到底在哪里？目前，我听不同钢琴家弹同一首曲子，感觉”过了一定水准就差不多”。
Listening extensively, a question naturally arises: what are the actual differences between contestants? Currently, when I hear different pianists play the same piece, I feel “once they pass a certain threshold, they sound similar.”
那我猜，为了能分辨，我应该学习肖邦的乐理分析。学了理论之后呢？我大概会开始这样说：”啊，肖邦这里有个和弦转换的设计。选手A把它弹成了忧郁的情绪，选手B弹成了激昂的情绪。”
So I figured, to discern differences, I should study Chopin’s music theory. After learning theory? I’d probably start saying things like: “Ah, Chopin designed a chord change here. Pianist A plays it melancholically, Pianist B plays it passionately.”
但我害怕一件事：学习是给我新的耳朵，还是覆盖我原来的耳朵？
But I fear one thing: Will learning give me new ears, or overwrite my original ones?
这时候，我是真的听到了差异，耳朵进步了；还是被理论框架说服了，被洗脑了？我无法判断。这就是最uncomfortable的地方。
At that point, did I actually hear the difference and my ear improved? Or was I convinced by the theoretical framework, brainwashed? I can’t tell. This is the most uncomfortable part.
同样，第一次听Ed Sheeran的《Shape of You》时，我的第一反应是：这不就是《Thinking Out Loud》或《Photograph》的旋律和和弦，只是加快了速度，做了些微调？感觉像是在炒冷饭。但到处都在放这首歌。重复暴露让我的大脑不再批判，而是开始rationalize——从”糊弄”变成了”还不错”。更难的是，当所有人都说这歌好，我很难坚持说它”很水”。
Similarly, when I first heard Ed Sheeran’s “Shape of You,” my immediate reaction was: isn’t this just the melody and chords from “Thinking Out Loud” or “Photograph,” sped up with minor adjustments? Feels like reheated leftovers. But the song was everywhere. Repeated exposure stopped my brain from being critical and started rationalizing instead—transforming from “lazy” to “actually pretty good.” What’s harder: when everyone says it’s good, it becomes difficult to insist it’s mediocre.
让我难受的不是改变了想法，而是失去了那个能做出sharp判断的自己。
What troubles me isn’t changing my mind—it’s losing the version of myself who could make sharp judgments.
我意识到，我把”听出Shape of You在炒冷饭”当作某种清醒的试炼。一个test：我是那种有洞察力的人吗？还是我也会被裹挟？
I realized I was treating “recognizing Shape of You as derivative” as a test of lucidity. A test: am I someone with insight? Or will I too be swept along?
我害怕的逻辑链条是：如果我连Shape of You都开始觉得”还不错”，也就是如果我失去了”听起来差不多”的诚实，那我是不是就会随着主流的框架走？
The logic chain I fear: if I start thinking Shape of You is “actually good,” if I lose the honesty of “they sound similar,” will I simply follow mainstream frameworks?
我希望我是那种能分辨的人，保持清醒的人。同时，我也希望我是一个跟大家不同的人。我project的风险就是随着主流的框架走。当这个能力被磨钝，感觉像是：”我不再是那个能一眼看穿的人了。”
I want to be someone who can discern, who stays awake. At the same time, I want to be different from everyone else. The risk I project is following mainstream frameworks. When this ability dulls, it feels like: “I’m no longer someone who can see through things at a glance.”
类似的焦虑还有：读批判理论的人害怕自己开始真心喜欢商业片；懂球帝害怕自己看球开始看热闹；美食家害怕自己觉得连锁快餐”也还行”。不是害怕”被带着走”本身，而是害怕成为那种”也还行”的人——失去edge，失去那个挑剔的、sharp的自己。
Similar anxieties: critical theory readers fearing they genuinely start enjoying commercial films; soccer connoisseurs fearing they watch games casually; gourmets fearing they find fast food chains “acceptable.” It’s not about fearing “being swept along” itself, but fearing becoming that “it’s fine” person—losing edge, losing that discerning, sharp self.
真正让我难受的可能不是”失去判断”，而是：我还能trust我自己的判断吗？如果连我都开始觉得Shape of You是首”还不错”的歌，那我跟那些一开始就这么觉得的人，区别在哪？我之前的”看穿”有意义吗？还是我只是后来被同化了的、earlier version的他们？
What truly troubles me might not be “losing judgment,” but: can I still trust my own judgment? If even I start thinking Shape of You is “pretty good,” what’s the difference between me and those who thought so from the start? Did my earlier “seeing through” mean anything? Or am I just an assimilated, earlier version of them?
这种不确定性——”我现在的感受是genuine的，还是被植入的”——才是最uncomfortable的部分。我知道这样的担忧是有道理的。我内心的判断是内卷不健康，而有些在内卷中成功的人会合理化内卷，从而使内卷继续。那我的大脑可能为了节能也rationalize这件事，那就很危险。
This uncertainty—”is my current feeling genuine, or implanted”—is the most uncomfortable part. I know this worry has merit. My internal judgment is that involution is unhealthy, yet some who succeed within it rationalize involution, perpetuating it. My brain might rationalize this too for energy conservation—that would be dangerous.
学了理论之后，我确实不可能再unhear那些结构。这是不可逆的。”变成读文字读设计读想法”——这是真实的风险。我不再是在听，而是在”检查是否听到了应该听到的东西”。如果我训练之后，再去尝试回答不同选手、不同钢琴家之间弹同一乐曲的区别时，免不了就会变成这样：啊，这个乐曲当时肖邦是这么写的，写的时候会有这么一个设计，但是选手A就把这个设计弹成了xxx的情绪，选手B就把这个设计弹成了yyy的情绪。这样的话就感觉变成一种读文字、读设计、读想法的感觉，而并没有通过耳朵去反应我的直觉。我的耳朵变成了一个verification device，而不是exploration device。
After learning theory, I truly cannot unhear those structures. This is irreversible. “Becoming reading text, reading design, reading intentions”—this is a real risk. I’m no longer listening, but “checking whether I heard what I should hear.” After training, when trying to describe differences between performers playing the same piece, it inevitably becomes: ah, this is how Chopin wrote it, with this design, but Pianist A plays this design with xxx emotion, Pianist B with yyy emotion. It feels like reading text, reading design, reading intentions, rather than responding to my instinct through my ears. My ears become a verification device, not an exploration device.
而且更要命的是：我可能会开始鄙视那些说”它们听起来差不多”的人。我的虚荣心会需要他们”蠢”，来证明我学的那些理论、付出的那些努力是值得的。
What’s worse: I might start disdaining those who say “they sound similar.” My vanity would need them to be “stupid” to prove that the theories I learned, the efforts I made, were worthwhile.
也许一开始的”差不多”，和学习后的”区别”，都是真的。
Perhaps the initial “similar” and post-learning “differences” are both true.
第一种可能性：我一开始确实听不出，因为缺工具。就像不懂调性的人听不出转调。这些不是bullshit，是我的耳朵还没建立起分辨的categories。第二种可能性：但也许，真的有很多所谓的”区别”是invented的。学院派过度阐释，为了justify performer的different choices而生造出来的，像皇帝的新衣。我不可能提前知道是哪一个。这就是让人难受的地方。
First possibility: I genuinely couldn’t hear it initially because I lacked tools. Like how people who don’t understand tonality can’t hear modulation. This isn’t bullshit—my ears haven’t established the categories for discrimination. Second possibility: but perhaps many so-called “differences” are invented. Academic over-interpretation, fabricated to justify performers’ different choices, like the emperor’s new clothes. I can’t know in advance which it is. This is what’s distressing.
我害怕接受知识后就会拒绝我一开始的instinct。但反过来问：如果我学了之后真的听出区别了，怎么判断这是我的耳朵进步了（真实的），还是我被框架说服了（虚假的）？答案是：我判断不了。
I fear that after accepting knowledge, I’ll reject my initial instinct. But conversely: if after learning I truly hear differences, how do I judge whether my ear improved (real) or I was convinced by the framework (false)? Answer: I can’t tell.
就像Ed Sheeran那个例子：我后来觉得Shape of You”还不错”，是我被洗脑了？还是我发现了第一次没注意到的东西？我无法站在一个neutral的位置来裁判。
Like the Ed Sheeran example: when I later thought Shape of You was “pretty good,” was I brainwashed? Or did I discover something I didn’t notice the first time? I can’t judge from a neutral position.
但我可以故意保持质疑空间。学完之后问自己：这个”和弦转换的精彩”，我是真的hear到了，还是我know到了？如果我blind test，不知道是谁弹的，我真的能听出A和B的情绪差异吗？如果不能，那说明什么？
But I can deliberately maintain space for doubt. After learning, ask myself: this “brilliant chord change”—do I really hear it, or do I just know it? In a blind test, not knowing who’s playing, can I really tell the emotional difference between A and B? If not, what does that mean?
Shape of You和Ed Sheeran之前hit song的结构类似，这是真相。但觉得它是”炒冷饭”，这个判断可能有问题——其实”炒冷饭”这个词本身就不太对。基于一个很work的框架去generalize，是一件很正常的事情。我们研究出一个新的统计test，就可以看看它在不同的setting下怎么work，发好几篇paper。音乐上的equivalent是：你看看一套结构在ballad和电子风格下分别是什么样的song，并且这个事情work——市场会买账，你的fan群体有惯性。
That Shape of You’s structure resembles Ed Sheeran’s previous hits is true. But judging it as “reheated leftovers” might be problematic—actually, “reheated leftovers” itself isn’t quite right. Generalizing based on a working framework is perfectly normal. We develop a new statistical test, then see how it works in different settings, publish several papers. The musical equivalent: seeing what a structural framework produces in ballad versus electronic styles, and this works—the market buys it, your fan base has inertia.
然后我因为大众的情绪改变了对它的态度，再开始细品歌曲设计的巧妙性，发现它和弦运用的好处，这也没啥问题。我觉得uncomfortable的是：因为大众的惯性，所以我不得不听很多遍，从而改变了对它的态度。这里我的assumption是：一个框架火过之后就应该换其他人的新框架来。但我自己作为一个researcher，也会希望自己的一套框架可以火得长久一些，因为发现一个好框架需要很久。
Then I changed my attitude toward it due to public sentiment, started appreciating the song’s clever design, discovered the virtues of its chord usage—this is also fine. What makes me uncomfortable is: because of public inertia, I had to listen many times, thus changing my attitude. My assumption here is: after a framework becomes popular, someone else’s new framework should come. But as a researcher myself, I’d also hope my framework could stay popular longer, because discovering a good framework takes a long time.
所以我可能真正不舒服的是：大众惯性太大。与其主动寻找新框架，大部分人只是在旧框架里被动消费。而作为创作者/研究者，虽然我也希望自己的框架能持续work，但我也会actively思考：这个框架还能用多久？什么时候该换？
So what truly makes me uncomfortable might be: public inertia is too strong. Rather than actively seeking new frameworks, most people just passively consume within old frameworks. As a creator/researcher, though I also hope my framework can continue working, I’d actively think: how long can this framework last? When should it change?
有研究让专业小提琴家blind test Stradivarius vs 现代琴，大部分人分辨不出来。但如果告诉他们哪把是Strad，他们会elaborate地描述它的superiority。不是说差异不存在，而是：人类的auditory discrimination能力，可能没有我们的narrative ability那么精细。我们很擅长用语言建构出elaborate的差异描述，但耳朵可能真的听不出那么多。
Research had professional violinists blind test Stradivarius vs. modern violins—most couldn’t tell them apart. But if told which is the Strad, they’d elaborately describe its superiority. It’s not that differences don’t exist, but: human auditory discrimination ability may not be as refined as our narrative ability. We’re very good at constructing elaborate difference descriptions with language, but ears may truly not hear that much.
我没有在质疑音乐分析框架的合理性。我理解一些爱好者们建立客观分析和评价体系这件事，来比较功力的深浅。我只是在质疑我自己要不要唯专业的framework为王。其实很多艺术家，比如陈丹青，已经说过：你去看画，你自己觉得好就是好，不用听别人怎么说。
I’m not questioning the legitimacy of music analysis frameworks. I understand enthusiasts establishing objective analysis and evaluation systems to compare skill levels. I’m only questioning whether I should treat professional frameworks as supreme. Actually, many artists, like Chen Danqing, have said: when you view paintings, if you think it’s good, it’s good—no need to listen to what others say.
现在我面对一个选择：要不要进入这个可能fundamentally不诚实的system？我可以拒绝进入，保持”我觉得差不多”的诚实，但永远是outsider，无法参与。我可以进入但保持cynical awareness，学会那套discourse，但internally知道这是个game。风险是：cynicism会不会消解掉genuine的欣赏？我也可以进入并genuinely相信。也许学了之后真的能听出深刻差异。但永远不确定：这是真听到，还是被initiate进belief system？
Now I face a choice: do I enter this potentially fundamentally dishonest system? I can refuse entry, maintain the honesty of “I think they’re similar,” but remain forever an outsider, unable to participate. I can enter but maintain cynical awareness, learn that discourse, but internally know it’s a game. The risk: will cynicism dissolve genuine appreciation? I can also enter and genuinely believe. Perhaps after learning I’ll truly hear profound differences. But never certain: is this really hearing, or being initiated into a belief system?
我曾以为保持清醒意味着：找到一个永远不被影响的standpoint。但现在我意识到，也许真正的清醒是：承认自己会被影响、会改变、可能错——但仍然保持质疑。不是”我要跟大家不同”，而是：即使跟大家一样，也知道为什么一样。
I once thought staying awake meant: finding a standpoint that’s never influenced. But now I realize, perhaps true awareness is: admitting you will be influenced, will change, may be wrong—but still maintaining skepticism. Not “I must be different from everyone,” but: even when I’m the same as everyone, I know why I’m the same.
学了之后，继续问自己：这个”和弦转换的精彩”，我是真的hear到了，还是我know到了？Blind test时，我真的能听出差异吗？如果不能，那说明什么？
After learning, keep asking myself: this “brilliant chord change”—do I really hear it, or do I just know it? In a blind test, can I really tell the difference? If not, what does that mean?
也许我的第一直觉”差不多”——既是蠢（缺工具），也是诚实（真的差不多）。学习——既是进步（获得discriminating tools），也是污染（获得elaborate bullshit的能力）。这个古典音乐体系——既preserve了某些真实valuable的东西，也built on一些questionable premises。我不可能提前知道比例是多少。
Perhaps my first instinct “they’re similar”—is both stupid (lacking tools) and honest (they really are similar). Learning—is both progress (gaining discriminating tools) and contamination (gaining ability to elaborate bullshit). This classical music system—both preserves something genuinely valuable and is built on questionable premises. I can’t know the proportions in advance.
但至少，保持怀疑本身——这个能力，是可以protect的。学了之后，继续问：我是听到了，还是我被说服了？这个问题，值得一直问下去。
But at least, maintaining doubt itself—this ability can be protected. After learning, keep asking: did I hear it, or was I convinced? This question is worth asking forever.
写这篇文章时，我还没有学肖邦的乐理分析。也许一年后重读，我会觉得现在的自己很蠢。也许一年后重读，我会发现自己失去了某种清醒。无论哪种情况，我都想记录下此刻的直觉——在它消失之前。
Writing this, I haven’t yet studied Chopin’s music theory. Perhaps rereading in a year, I’ll think my current self is stupid. Perhaps rereading in a year, I’ll find I’ve lost a certain awareness. Either way, I want to record this moment’s instinct—before it disappears.