玩耍、做夢(mèng)、走神，這些聽起來(lái)都像是不認(rèn)真學(xué)習(xí)工作的代名詞。但正是這些行為，得以讓大腦思維放飛，不經(jīng)意間就能提供許多問(wèn)題的答案。神經(jīng)學(xué)家和心理學(xué)家正將玩耍和創(chuàng)造力聯(lián)系到一起，認(rèn)為玩耍能激發(fā)人類的創(chuàng)造力。而許多著名作曲家和科學(xué)家的例子，也印證了這一觀點(diǎn)。
?“前路走不通時(shí)，我會(huì)選擇往后退一步，然后重新規(guī)劃路線，這樣能讓我走的更遠(yuǎn)?！痹诮鉀Q問(wèn)題的見(jiàn)解上，19世紀(jì)物理學(xué)家赫爾曼·馮·亥姆霍茲將自己比作登山運(yùn)動(dòng)員，他自省問(wèn)題的方式也為我們提出了一個(gè)問(wèn)題：創(chuàng)造性思維是如何克服低谷到達(dá)下一個(gè)高峰的？
與生俱來(lái)的玩耍能力
思維不像是有組織的生命體或者可以自我組裝的分子，它是很抽象的東西，不可能用常規(guī)的物理或化學(xué)手段來(lái)前進(jìn)。但思維也會(huì)千方百計(jì)地去實(shí)現(xiàn)向前推進(jìn)的目的，這其中最重要的一種方式就是“玩耍”。
這種玩耍不是指有規(guī)則的棋盤游戲或足球競(jìng)技，而更像是隨心所欲，沒(méi)有規(guī)則的游戲，比如像孩子玩樂(lè)高積木，這種玩耍不帶目的性，沒(méi)有利益關(guān)系，甚至沒(méi)有失敗。
玩耍對(duì)于生命個(gè)體來(lái)說(shuō)很重要，它的存在要遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)早于人類出現(xiàn)的時(shí)間。玩耍或許是幼年動(dòng)物練習(xí)交配的手段，幾乎所有的幼年哺乳動(dòng)物都會(huì)玩耍，鳥類中的鸚鵡和烏鴉、一些爬行類動(dòng)物、魚類，甚至蜘蛛中都曾有過(guò)玩耍的記錄。但是說(shuō)到最會(huì)玩耍的動(dòng)物，還是非寬吻海豚莫屬，它們?cè)挥涗涍^(guò)有37種不同的玩耍方式。圈養(yǎng)海豚會(huì)孜孜不倦地玩球和其他玩具，野生海豚則會(huì)玩羽毛、海綿和從氣孔中噴出的“水圈”。
但是玩耍是要付出代價(jià)的。年輕的動(dòng)物會(huì)把一天20%的能量預(yù)算花在玩耍上，這就意味著這些能量不能用于捕食。此外，玩耍還會(huì)帶來(lái)一些生存相關(guān)的問(wèn)題：因?yàn)榛ハ嘧分鸹蚋谀赣H身后玩耍，獵豹幼崽會(huì)嚇跑獵物；因?yàn)樨澩娑萑肽嗵兜拇笙?；被仙人掌刺釘住的大角羊等。有的?dòng)物甚至還會(huì)因?yàn)橥嫠Ｕ`殺了自己或者同伴。在一項(xiàng)1991年的研究中，劍橋研究院的Robert Harcourt觀察了一群南美海狗。一個(gè)季節(jié)內(nèi)，群落里有102只幼崽被海獅攻擊，其中26只死亡，而且超過(guò)80%的幼崽是在玩耍時(shí)被攻擊而死亡的。
既然玩耍的代價(jià)如此之高，那肯定也會(huì)帶來(lái)很多好處。甚至有時(shí)，玩耍可以決定生與死。舉例來(lái)說(shuō)，新西蘭的野馬越貪玩，它們?cè)诘谝荒昃痛婊畹迷胶?。阿拉斯加棕熊的幼崽一歲時(shí)候的游戲行為，能讓它們安穩(wěn)地度過(guò)冬天。
另外，某些玩耍行為也不是單純地為了放松精神。馬會(huì)在玩耍過(guò)程中讓肌肉變得更強(qiáng)；獅子幼崽們玩打斗的游戲，實(shí)則是為日后爭(zhēng)奪部落首領(lǐng)的斗爭(zhēng)打下基礎(chǔ)；海豚吹空氣泡泡，是在訓(xùn)練迷惑和捕捉獵物的技巧；雄性蜘蛛練習(xí)怎樣在交配后快速遠(yuǎn)離雌性，以防被其他雄性攻擊。
至少在哺乳動(dòng)物中，玩耍的作用不只是單純地練習(xí)某項(xiàng)行為，當(dāng)它們跟蹤、捕獵和逃跑時(shí)，它們能夠發(fā)現(xiàn)自己處在前所未有的新環(huán)境中?？屏_拉多大學(xué)研究員Marc Bekoff一生都在研究動(dòng)物行為，他認(rèn)為玩耍擴(kuò)大了動(dòng)物的行為范圍，能讓它們靈活適應(yīng)不斷改變的周遭環(huán)境。換句話說(shuō)，動(dòng)物的玩耍是具有創(chuàng)造性的，不管這是否能馬上被利用上，但正是這些玩耍行為讓動(dòng)物能為不可預(yù)知的意外做好準(zhǔn)備。
在1978年一項(xiàng)以幼鼠為對(duì)象的試驗(yàn)中，為阻止同齡伙伴之間的溝通玩耍，小鼠在籠子中被網(wǎng)隔開。經(jīng)過(guò)一段時(shí)間的隔離后，研究人員教所有小鼠通過(guò)拉出一個(gè)橡皮球來(lái)?yè)Q取食物，隨后將食物獲取的方法從“拉出球”換成“拋球”。與自由玩耍的小鼠相比，被剝奪了玩耍的小鼠需要花費(fèi)更長(zhǎng)的時(shí)間來(lái)學(xué)習(xí)獲取食物的新方法。
玩耍與創(chuàng)造力
劍橋大學(xué)的動(dòng)物行為專家Patrick Bateson則更直接地將觀察到的動(dòng)物行為與創(chuàng)造力聯(lián)系了起來(lái)。他認(rèn)為，玩耍能夠讓人從一些思想上的死胡同中走出來(lái)，當(dāng)你卡在某個(gè)點(diǎn)想不通的時(shí)候，還會(huì)讓你茅塞頓開，并產(chǎn)生新的想法。
在這種觀點(diǎn)中，玩耍對(duì)個(gè)人創(chuàng)造力來(lái)說(shuō)，就像基因漂移對(duì)演化或者熱量對(duì)分子自組裝的作用。如果玩耍真的與創(chuàng)造力有關(guān)，那我們就不會(huì)驚訝，為什么有創(chuàng)造性的人總是把看似枯燥的工作描述得趣味性十足。
青霉素的發(fā)現(xiàn)者Alexander Fleming經(jīng)常被上司指責(zé)他過(guò)于散漫的工作態(tài)度，但Fleming說(shuō)，“我會(huì)跟顯微鏡做游戲......打破規(guī)則，發(fā)現(xiàn)沒(méi)人注意的東西是非常有趣的?！?010年諾貝爾物理學(xué)獎(jiǎng)得主Andre Geim曾宣布“工作中保持游戲態(tài)度一直是我的特點(diǎn)。除非你碰巧在對(duì)的時(shí)間、對(duì)的地點(diǎn)剛好獲得了想要的結(jié)果，或者你有別人沒(méi)有的捷徑。否則，我們只能冒險(xiǎn)來(lái)尋找出路?！?/p>
James Watson和Francis Crick發(fā)現(xiàn)了DNA雙螺旋，但是他們卻是從彩色小球中獲得了啟示，這些彩色小球可以像積木一樣粘在一起，就這樣他們建立了雙螺旋模型。用Watson的話說(shuō)，他們要做的不過(guò)是“開始玩耍吧”。
短暫停止玩耍行為，會(huì)讓我們的判斷能力停滯，因此我們會(huì)失去選取好主意的能力，但是恢復(fù)玩耍時(shí)這種能力又會(huì)回來(lái)。這就是為什么我們有時(shí)會(huì)跌入不完美的低谷，然后又會(huì)再次爬上完美的頂峰。玩耍只是達(dá)到目的的一種方式而已。
夢(mèng)也是同樣強(qiáng)大的。心理學(xué)家Jean Piaget將做夢(mèng)比作玩耍，他的開創(chuàng)性研究幫助我們理解了兒童的成長(zhǎng)過(guò)程。正是在夢(mèng)中，我們的大腦才會(huì)自由地將最奇異的思想和圖像片段組合成小說(shuō)中的人物和情節(jié)。著名歌手Paul McCartney曾在夢(mèng)中聽到了一首歌曲，在夢(mèng)里他認(rèn)為這是別人創(chuàng)造出的歌曲，因此他將其作曲出來(lái)后，詢問(wèn)了音樂(lè)界人士是否知道這首歌，結(jié)果當(dāng)然是沒(méi)人聽過(guò)。就這樣，這首夢(mèng)中的歌 Yesterday 成為了20世紀(jì)最成功的歌曲之一；德國(guó)生理學(xué)家Otto Loewi在夢(mèng)到了一個(gè)重要實(shí)驗(yàn)的想法，這個(gè)實(shí)驗(yàn)在日后證明了神經(jīng)遞質(zhì)的交流功能，這為他贏得了諾貝爾獎(jiǎng)。
Paul McCartney在夢(mèng)中創(chuàng)造出了金曲Yesterday
即使在半睡眠狀態(tài)下，我們的大腦也足夠開啟想象。在這種狀態(tài)下，August Kekule發(fā)現(xiàn)了苯的結(jié)構(gòu)；Mary Shelley構(gòu)思了《弗蘭肯斯坦》；Dmitri Mendeleev發(fā)現(xiàn)了化學(xué)元素周期表。
玩耍和做夢(mèng)都是我們放飛思維的方式。據(jù)報(bào)告，96%的美國(guó)成年人每天都會(huì)放飛思維，也就是走神，而另外4%的人可能只是因?yàn)樾牟辉谘啥鴽](méi)注意到而已。要判斷一個(gè)人在做一件事情時(shí)走神的頻率很簡(jiǎn)單，直接問(wèn)他們就好了。打斷正在工作的人，問(wèn)問(wèn)他們?cè)谙胧裁?；在任意時(shí)間給研究參與者發(fā)一條短信，詢問(wèn)他們?cè)谙胧裁础．?dāng)心理學(xué)家這樣做時(shí)，他們發(fā)現(xiàn)人類走神的頻率高得驚人，大部分人的大腦在三分之一到一半的時(shí)間里是都在走神。
走神通常被認(rèn)為是無(wú)害的，但不代表這沒(méi)后果。心不在焉的人很難集中注意力，比如他們會(huì)在閱讀理解測(cè)試中表現(xiàn)得很差。更令人擔(dān)憂的是，他們?cè)诳荚囍械谋憩F(xiàn)也更差，其中包括許多大學(xué)入學(xué)要求的學(xué)業(yè)能力測(cè)試。如果你有職業(yè)抱負(fù)的話，最好還是不要掛科。
但是走神也有有利的一面——至少對(duì)于訓(xùn)練有素的頭腦來(lái)說(shuō)是這樣。事實(shí)上，像愛(ài)因斯坦、牛頓和著名數(shù)學(xué)家亨利·龐加萊這樣的人，他們解決了許多重要的問(wèn)題。但是，很多時(shí)候他們并沒(méi)有刻意鉆研這些問(wèn)題，比如阿基米德在進(jìn)入浴缸時(shí)發(fā)現(xiàn)了應(yīng)該如何測(cè)量物體的體積。阿基米德這一最重要的發(fā)現(xiàn)，是由他進(jìn)入浴缸時(shí)不斷上升的水中獲得的。龐加萊曾描述了他有一段時(shí)間在數(shù)學(xué)問(wèn)題上沒(méi)有取得成功的心態(tài):
我對(duì)自己的失敗感到厭惡，于是去海邊玩了幾天，想了些別的事情。一天早晨，當(dāng)我走在懸崖上時(shí)，我突然產(chǎn)生了一個(gè)想法，簡(jiǎn)單地、突然地，而且我立刻確定了：不定三元二次型的算術(shù)變換和非歐幾何的變換方法完全一樣
控制玩耍，獲得無(wú)限創(chuàng)造力
在靈光一現(xiàn)，想法到來(lái)之前，我們會(huì)把這段看似空閑的時(shí)期叫做思維孕育期。當(dāng)你在努力工作，卻沒(méi)有獲得什么結(jié)果后，來(lái)一些不需要注意力高度集中的活動(dòng)（比如散步、烹飪、洗澡），大腦思維就能自由地漫游了。而當(dāng)思維漫游到你開始解決不了的問(wèn)題時(shí)，就可能會(huì)偶然得出解決辦法。
這個(gè)所謂的思維孕育過(guò)程是無(wú)意識(shí)的，但卻能增強(qiáng)創(chuàng)造力。在一項(xiàng)實(shí)驗(yàn)中，135名大學(xué)生參加了一項(xiàng)關(guān)于創(chuàng)造力的心理測(cè)試，他們被分為三組，測(cè)試要求他們找到日常用品的不尋常用途，比如磚頭或鉛筆。測(cè)試開始幾分鐘后，心理學(xué)家打斷了第一組學(xué)生，并給他們布置了一項(xiàng)不相關(guān)的任務(wù)，給學(xué)生們看一系列的數(shù)字，并讓他們分辨出哪些是偶數(shù)，哪些是奇數(shù)，這項(xiàng)新任務(wù)比較簡(jiǎn)單，但這分散了學(xué)生們對(duì)測(cè)試的注意力。在被打斷之后，學(xué)生們繼續(xù)進(jìn)行創(chuàng)造力測(cè)試，他們的答案比沒(méi)有被打斷的第二組學(xué)生更具創(chuàng)造力。
圖片來(lái)源：pixabay
第三組學(xué)生也被打斷了，但他們被分配了更困難的任務(wù)，需要注意力更集中的任務(wù)。他們的答案則沒(méi)有第一組那么有創(chuàng)意。所以，結(jié)論是，簡(jiǎn)單到幾乎不需要注意力的“打斷“可以解放思想，從而創(chuàng)造性地解決問(wèn)題。
如果走神會(huì)影響創(chuàng)造力，那么反過(guò)來(lái)冥想就應(yīng)該有相反的效果。事實(shí)也確實(shí)如此。2012年的一項(xiàng)研究表明，人們?cè)谮は脒^(guò)程中會(huì)減少走神，因此可以提高學(xué)術(shù)考試的分?jǐn)?shù)。但在創(chuàng)造力測(cè)試中，冥想的人卻明顯不如那些走神的人。
正如生物演化與自然選擇之間會(huì)達(dá)到一個(gè)微妙的平衡，創(chuàng)造力同樣也需要平衡。當(dāng)你冥思苦想而沒(méi)有進(jìn)展時(shí)，也許某些想法就在手邊，你要做的就是停下手頭的工作，去玩，去做夢(mèng)，讓思緒漫游起來(lái)。
來(lái)源：環(huán)球科學(xué) 翻譯：董依明
By Andreas Wagner
June 6, 2019?
The 19th-century physicist Hermann von Helmholtz compared his progress in solving a problem to that of a mountain climber “compelled to retrace his steps because his progress stopped.” A mountain climber, von Helmholtz said, “hits upon traces of a fresh path, which again leads him a little further.” The physicist’s introspection provokes the question: How do creative minds overcome valleys to get to the next higher peak?
Because thinking minds are different from evolving organisms and self-assembling molecules, we cannot expect them to use the same means—mechanisms like genetic drift and thermal vibrations—to overcome deep valleys in the landscapes they explore. But they must have some way to achieve the same purpose. As it turns out, they have more than just one—many more. But one of the most important is play.
I don’t mean the rule-based play of a board game or the competitive play of a soccer match, but rather the kind of freewheeling, unstructured play that children perform with a pile of LEGO blocks or with toy shovels and buckets in a sandbox. I mean playful behavior without immediate goals and benefits, without even the possibility of failure.
AN EASY GAME TO PLAY: Paul McCartney has said he dreamed the tune for “Yesterday” and “woke up one morning with this tune in my head.” In dreams, as in play, writes Andreas Wagner, “our minds are at their freest.”Shutterstock
Play is so important that nature invented it long before it invented us. Almost all young mammals play, as do birds like parrots and crows. Play has been reported in reptiles, fish, and even spiders, where sexually immature animals use it to practice copulation. But the world champion of animal play may be the bottlenose dolphin, with 37 different reported types of play. Captive dolphins will play untiringly with balls and other toys, and wild dolphins play with objects like feathers, sponges, and “smoke rings” of air bubbles that they extrude from their blowholes.
Such widespread play must be more than just a frivolous whim of nature. The reason: It costs. Young animals can spend up to 20 percent of their daily energy budget goofing around rather than, say, chasing dinner. And their play can cause serious problems. Playing cheetah cubs frequently scare off prey by chasing each other or by clambering over their stalking mother. Playing elephants get stuck in mud. Playing bighorn sheep get impaled on cactus spines. Some playful animals even get themselves killed. In a 1991 study, Cambridge researcher Robert Harcourt observed a colony of South American fur seals. Within a single season, 102 of the colony’s pups were attacked by sea lions, and 26 of them were killed. More than 80 percent of the killed pups were attacked while playing.
With costs this high, the benefits can’t be far behind. And indeed, where the benefits of play have been measured, they can make the difference between life and death. The more feral horses from New Zealand play, for example, the better they survive their first year. Likewise, Alaskan brown bear cubs that played more during their first summer not only survived the first winter better, but also had a better chance to survive subsequent winters.
Male spiders practice how to copulate fast enough to get away from a female before other males attack them.
Some purposes of such play have nothing to do with mental problem solving. When horses play, they strengthen their muscles, and that very strength can help them survive. When lion cubs play-fight, they prepare for the real fights that will help them dominate the group. When dolphins play with air bubbles, they are honing their skills at confusing and catching prey. And when male spiders play at sex, they practice how to copulate fast enough to get away from a female before other males attack them.
But at least in mammals, play goes beyond mere practice of a stereotypical behavior, like that of a pianist rehearsing the same passage over and over again. When mammals stalk, hunt, and escape, they find themselves in ever-new situations and environments. Marc Bekoff, a researcher at the University of Colorado and a lifelong student of animal behavior, argues that play broadens an animal’s behavioral repertoire, giving them the flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances. In other words, animal play creates diverse behaviors, regardless of whether that diversity is immediately useful. It prepares the player for the unexpected in an unpredictable world.
That very flexibility can also help the smartest animals solve difficult problems. A 1978 experiment demonstrated its value for young rats. In this experiment, some rats were separated from their peers for 20 days by a mesh in their cage, which prevented them from playing. After the period of isolation, the researchers taught all the rats to get a food reward by pulling a rubber ball out of the way. They then changed the task to a new one where the ball had to be pushed instead of pulled. Compared to their freely playing peers, the play-deprived rats took much longer to try new ways of getting at the food and solving this problem.
University of Cambridge ethologist Patrick Bateson linked observations like this more directly to the landscapes of creation when he argued that play can “fulfill a probing role that enables the individual to escape from false endpoints, or local optima” and that “when stuck on a metaphorical lower peak, it can be beneficial to have active mechanisms for getting off it and onto a higher one.” In this view, play is to creativity what genetic drift is to evolution and what heat is to self-assembling molecules.
If that is the case, it is hardly surprising that creative people often describe their work as playful. Alexander Fleming, who would discover penicillin, was reproved by his boss for his playful attitude. He said, “I play with microbes ... It is very pleasant to break the rules and to find something that nobody had thought of.” Andre Geim, 2010 Nobel laureate in physics, declared that “a playful attitude has always been the hallmark of my research ... Unless you happen to be in the right place and the right time, or you have facilities no one else has, the only way is to be more adventurous.” When James Watson and Francis Crick discovered the double helix, they had help in the form of colored balls they could stick together—LEGO-like—to build a model. In Watson’s words, all they had to do was “begin to play.” And C.G. Jung, one of the fathers of psychoanalysis, said it best: “The debt we owe to the play of imagination is incalculable.”
One hallmark of play is that it suspends judgment so that we are no longer focused on selecting good ideas and discarding bad ones. That’s what allows us to descend into the valleys of imperfection to later climb the peaks of perfection. But play is only one means to get there.
Less deliberate but just as powerful are the dreams that we experience in our sleep. It is no coincidence that the psychologist Jean Piaget, whose trailblazing research helped us understand how children develop, likened dreaming to play. It is in dreams that our minds are at their freest to combine the most bizarre fragments of thoughts and images into novel characters and plotlines. Paul McCartney famously first heard his song “Yesterday” in a dream and did not believe that it was an original song, asking people in the music business for weeks afterward whether they knew it. They didn’t. “Yesterday” would become one of the 20th century’s most successful songs, with 7 million performances and more than 2,000 cover versions. Another dream whispered to the German physiologist Otto Loewi the idea for a crucial experiment, which proved that nerves communicate through chemicals that we now call neurotransmitters. It would win him a Nobel Prize.
Mind-wandering is staggeringly frequent. The typical mind is absent between a third and half the time.
Even in the state of half-sleep—psychologists call it hypnagogia—our minds are sufficiently loose to descend from those lowly hills. In this state, August Kekule, saw the structure of benzene, Mary Shelley found the idea for her iconic novel Frankenstein, and Dmitri Mendeleev discovered the periodic table of the chemical elements.
Similar to playing and dreaming is the wandering of our minds. Ninety-six percent of adult Americans report that it happens to them daily—the other 4 percent may be too absent-minded to notice. To quantify how often any one mind wanders during a task is simple: Ask. Interrupt people who work on the task and ask what’s on their mind. Or let mobile phones do the work for you. Program them to send study participants a text asking what they are thinking about at random times of the day. When psychologists do that, they find that mind-wandering is staggeringly frequent. The typical mind is absent between a third and half the time.
Mind-wandering is often considered a harmless quirk, as in the cliche? of the scatter-brained professor. But it has real consequences. Let’s begin with the bad ones. Absentminded people perform less well on tests that require focused attention, such as reading comprehension tests. More worrisome, they also perform more poorly on tests that you better not flunk if you have any career aspirations. Among them is the Scholastic Aptitude Test that many colleges require for admission.
But mind-wandering also has an upside—at least for well-trained minds. Indeed, many anecdotes of creators like Einstein, Newton, and eminent mathematician Henri Poincaré, report that these scientists solved important problems while not actually working on anything. The common wisdom that the best ideas arrive in the shower is exemplified by Archimedes’s discovery of how to measure an object’s volume. (OK, he was in a bathtub.) But while Archimedes’s discovery was triggered by the rising water as he entered the tub, other breakthroughs surface apropos of nothing. Take this well-known quote from the Poincaré describing a period in his life when he had worked without success on a mathematical problem:
Disgusted with my failure, I went to spend a few days at the seaside, and thought of something else. One morning, walking on the bluff, the idea came to me, with … brevity, suddenness, and immediate certainty, that the arithmetic transformations of indeterminate ternary quadratic forms were identical with those of non-Euclidean geometry.
The apparently idle period before such insights arrive has a name: incubation. If hard and seemingly futile work on a difficult problem is followed up with a less demanding activity that does not require complete focus—walking, showering, cooking—a mind is free to wander. And when that mind incubates the problem, it can stumble upon a solution.
Incubation is as unconscious as it is real, and it enhances creativity. In one experiment making that point, 135 college students took a psychological test for creativity that required them to find unusual uses for everyday objects, like bricks or pencils. A few minutes into the test, the psychologists running the experiment interrupted some students and gave them an unrelated task. The new task did not take much effort—the students were shown a series of digits and had to tell which of them were even or odd—but it distracted the students from the test. After that interruption, the students continued with the creativity test, and they found more-creative answers than a second group of students who had not been given the distracting task.
Students in a third group got a break like the first, but they were given a harder task that required more focus. And, lo and behold, their answers were less creative than those of the first group. The conclusion: Undemanding tasks—easy enough to require little attention, but hard enough to prevent conscious work on a problem—can free a mind to wander and solve a problem creatively.
If mind-wandering impacts creativity, then its opposite, the control of attention practiced in mindfulness meditation, should have the opposite effects, both good and bad. And indeed it does. A 2012 study showed, for example, that mindfulness meditation, by reducing mind-wandering, can improve scores on standardized academic tests. In contrast, less mindful individuals perform better on creativity tests like that just mentioned.
The message is clear: Just as biological evolution can require a balance between natural selection, which pushes uphill, and genetic drift, which does not, so too does creativity require a balance between the selection of useful ideas—where a focused mind comes in handy—and the suspension of that selection to play, dream, or allow the mind to wander.
Andreas Wagner is the author of Life Finds a Way: What Evolution Teaches Us About Creativity. He is a professor and chairman at the Institute of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental Studies at the University of Zurich and an external professor at the Santa Fe Institute. He is also the author of four books on evolutionary innovation.
聯(lián)系客服
