William Craig Rice is the Director of the Division of Education Programs at the National Endowment for the Humanities, which sponsors seminars for college and school teachers on subjects as diverse as Shakespeare's plays, Mayan civilization and the Civil Rights Movement. Bill's remarks today don't represent the views of the National Endowment for the Humanities, but are simply his as a teacher, writer and scholar. Bill previously served as the 12th president of Shimer College, the Great Books college of Chicago and he taught writing seminars for many years at Harvard University. He's the author of public discourse and academic inquiry and of essays and verse in cultural periodicals. He was recently given a life time achievement award for contributions to the humanities by Utah Valley University. It's a pleasure to speak here today with Bill Rice.
Bill, I've seen you in action, reading difficult material. For example, Adam Smith's Rhetorical Discourses. You seem to be able to synthesize and chunk the essential ideas in difficult reading material like that very easily. Do you have any suggestions for us mere mortals about how we can do something a little similar.
>> I don't know that I'm any better at this than another reader would be, because what I start with is just noticing. I was taught this a long time ago that you don't need to be ready to analyze or make an argument or otherwise elaborate. Just read and when you notice something, mark it. Just noticing is a neutral act, it's giving your own mind credit for being alive. That's really important and I mark with a little vertical sign on the margin. Other people could use other methods, but I think that's the starting point. Once you do that, you may notice that you're noticing the same thing over and over again. In which case, I call it a pattern an original idea, but you look for patterns. And that's related to the idea of chunks, except that I guess chunks can also be sections of, of argument that you begin to detect. I find too is something that's potentially really dry, like rhetoric and written. Basically, what we were reading was lecture notes taken by someone else of a man who's mainly famous for other things, namely inventing the modern science of economy, but also as a philosopher. So, I found that the best thing to do was to notice and watch for patterns.
>> Well, probably early on here, we should define what do we really mean. What, what are the humanities? Don't people get confused about this?
>> Well, they do. People think it means humanitarian as in humanitarian aid. They think it means humanity as in some great cause for saving the world from ourselves. And actually, the humanities are a number of academic disciplines. Philosophy, the study of religion, literature, history, art history. To some extent, anthropology when it's most concerned with should we say, the human nature. Those are the fields and there, there are others that creep in, classics certainly, archeology. They're actually called the humanities, because what happened was when the fields were being divided, you had the natural sciences, like physics and astronomy and chemistry. And then you had the social sciences, the hard kind of social sciences, like psychology, sociology. And when they were done with those that, everything that was left was called the humanities. So, it was a process of elimination and they got left on the table. They're, it, that's the definition, but it's strange, because people don't get it. Similarly, people often don't understand the term liberal arts. They are, some people, I remember one fellow saying to me. Well, what about conservative arts? And, you know, with liberal education, what about conservative education? You get, people understand the basic, ter, misunderstand the basic terms. Perhaps, because thy haven't been taught them. It's not deliberate. But we're saddled with terms that are unfortunate in a way, because people don't understand them.
>> Well, good approaches to learning, often involve transfer from one field, for example, mathematics to another field, like music or language. But each field has its own special challenges. Are there approaches that you reco, would recommend that are applicable, particularly applicable for the humanities?
>> Yes. One broad point is that in chemistry. Although in the theoretical realm, there are lots of ambiguities and uncertainties among those who are doing pioneering work. For the, for a large part, for those of us who are studying at a relatively introductory or intermediate level there are answers to be arrived at through methods that are, will help illuminate how a field works. This will be true in chemistry or astronomy. There are measurements to be taken. There are all kinds of re, reasonably objective, repeatable exercises that determine what knowledge is. And this isn't, I don't mean to over simplify the sciences, but that's broadly true and it's not broadly true in the humanities, which are are concerned with questions more than with answers. You have to be interested and tolerant of at least ambiguity the idea that a question remains unsolved for pretty much the entirety of human history or at least of recent human history. So, it's important to understand that controversies aren't settled in the humanities. They're more likely simply to be raised and explored. That's the, those are the broad brush the broad brush need you have in the, in humanities when you're approaching it particularly at the beginning. That you're not striving for a direct, complete, final answer. This is hard for students who have been trained to take exams and get, you know, get to the right answers by whatever, by whatever means they can. Instead in the humanities, what you admire in in the work of someone who's just figuring things out, it's a kind of openness to contrary evidence. That seems to me broadly, the way to go. As to the specific fields there are lots of sub-que, sub, sub-questions or, or second order problems to explore. But broadly speaking in the humanities, it's about tolerance of ambiguity. And at a certain point, a real love of ambiguity, which can of course, become quite frustrating for people. [LAUGH] Because you never feel like you're getting an answer from this guy at the front of the class or wherever.
>> That's true. That I think that's so true and it's such a different way of looking at things than we, for example, in engineering and how we look at things. But I think actually, both approaches can be so interesting and useful. And I think for, for engineers and for those in humanities, sort of getting an understanding and a tolerance of both of our perspectives is probably worth while. Students in the humanities, sometimes complain that they're expected to make arguments, but they don't have anything to say.
>> Mm-hm.
>> So, it's not that they don't care, they do the reading. They actually participate in all the discussions.
>> They wanna be involved, it's just they can't come up with a position to defend. So what advice would you give in this circumstance?
>> Well, [LAUGH] I was in that position myself for many years. I thought it was borderline preposterous to call on me to have anything to say or to ask me to write a, an eight or ten or twelve or twenty page papers when I really hadn't read enough to have anything legitimate to say. I was I found this to be one of the problems in classroom education and perhaps one of the ways in which online education could begin to untangle a problem of the, the given time in a semester.
So I remember, again and again, feeling like the best thing I could do would be was to read and to take notes, which I think is absolutely essential, by the way. If you, you have to read and be content with being alone. We talk a lot about group work, but a lot of it's solo. Reading and taking notes. In any case, back to the question. I found that I was in again and again faced with a problem of finding something to say. So what I, the advice I give is ask for, if you don't find, conflicting interpretations of the thing you're studying. It might be two scholars who disagree on what Machiavelli meant when he said, the prince should be more concerned about being feared than about being loved. People different, differ on that and authorities differ. If you can, if you don't find that in the materials that you're assigned as it were seek them out. What are the, what are the flash points? Where are the major points of contention? And instead of thinking, well, I agree with this side or the other side, instead say gee. How is this argument a stronger argument than another? Not whether it's right or not, but whether it's stronger. It's who has the better evidence. Who is pointing to evidence that is harder to understand? Who's taking on the more difficult questions? That's the first thing that I would recommend is, is looking for conflicting interpretations.
Another is to look at, particularly when you're studying what we call a primary source. I would cite Mary Wollstonecraft's work on, on the in the late 18th century on the education of women or Thomas Jefferson's statute for religious freedom in Virginia. Reading that, you feel a real rhetorical power. These people are making an argument. What are they arguing against? It's not often clear in the given text what the argument is. Who, who, who and what they're aiming at? And if you can read carefully, sometimes you can make a, what we ca, inference. Because Jefferson is so concerned about the government giving special treatment to members of the Anglican Church. What we, well, why was that an issue? It prompts one to want to know more. So, if you have the rhetorical flashpoints in view, you can then ask questions of an objective nature. What was it that got Wollstonecraft or Jefferson or anyone else worked up? What was it that got Machiavelli worked up? Those are, those are what questions and they send you back into historical information. So those are some of the ways I would approach the problem of having nothing to say. But in the end, I wish we had a system of education that was described to me by young woman I knew who had gone to an English University, Cambridge. And she, I said, how did you get to be so knowledgeable and such a good writer? And so careful in your, in your thinking. As you said, well, all the way through four years as an undergraduate, I was told I had to write summaries. Summary, given an article, write a summary. One page, one page, one page. Pracies, they called them over there. That was hugely helpful to her. She wasn't asked to come up with something of her own to say, she was asked to explain what other people had said and that was a real revelation to me. And then from then on, when I was in the classroom I would assign summaries. Because It wasn't, it was something you could do differently, not all summaries had to be the same, but you would learn the material that way without having to be invested in whether you had an argument to make. Understanding other's thinking actually can open up one's own thinking and my Dr. Vater Richard Marius the director of writing at Harvard used to say, encourage your students not so much to be in, you know, original thinkers, but to find their thinking in the thinking of others. That's okay. That's what, really what scholarship and learning and humanity is, is about. It's about standing on the shoulders of others in order to understand, perhaps a little bit better. I know that when I'm doing writing, I often, I think of writing as something I do to help me better understand my own thoughts.
>> Mm-hm.
>> And when I'm beginning to write something, I'm looking at the thoughts of others. But it's, it's what I start trying to struggle with putting words in the paper myself that I start to understand my own words. But then observation of the woman that you knew about writing summaries, that's such an exquisite approach to learning. Because it, it helps neurally in code in a small chunk.
>> Mm-hm.
>> What the main ideas are and that actually does really help you to better understand your own thoughts. And another thing I just have to bring up is that I, I very much admire your, your thought in relation to it, it is important to work alone sometimes.
>> Yeah.
>> And we do have this enormous emphasis. I mean, there's, there are trends in education, in fads-
>> Mm-hm.
>> So forth and they go in and out. One of the current fads is to do a lot of group work.
>> Right. Mm-hm.
>> and I, I emphasize that myself and I think there's value in it. But also too much group work and you start to think like other people, instead of-
>> Mm-hm.
>> Thinking independently.
>> Yeah.
>> And part of what I think we value in western society, in modern society is this idea to think more independently as well as to understand the opinions of others.
>> Mm-hm.
>> So, anyway, with that, what hinders students most from learning in the humanities?
>> Well, you know, I think it gets back to this problem of being comfortable with ambiguity. A feeling that there is some way of understanding that, that, that they haven't got yet. And that the teacher has and is in a very frustrating way, insisting they find for themselves. That I think is, is, is a psychological level and at a level of interaction certainly in a classroom though, less so online where one is working primarily in the solo context. The another problem, though is that what we call discipline-specific learning. It's not the same to play chess and play baseball to to, to do many different things in life. To cook well. To To make furniture. Not all skills are really transferable. It's, there's discipline specific understanding. And, in a, it, there's a certain kind of reasoning that takes place with historians.
They go into archives, they find the a rare set of letters between a, an early Nobel Prize winner and his editor and they look into that and they find all kinds of issues of the day were boiling right beneath. These letters have, have remarks on the outbreak of World War I that are very hard to understand and that to a historian is fascinating. Something distant, archival. It takes a certain kind of thinking, what was it that was bothering people? What, what were the arguments that are not being made? What inferences can we make from a, an old source that nobody's looked at in a long time? That's what historical reasoning is partly about. It's about other things as well. In in, in other fields, say, take art history, you have the notion of building on, on achievements. The discovery of ways of accurately depicting perspective which occurred in the 15th century. That builds, that then builds to other achievements some achievements in the arts were really, really advanced in the classical era, in sculpture the depiction, accurate depiction of the human body is recovered later on in the renaissance. So there's a notion of building on, on previous achievements. That's a, a way of understanding that is particularly common in our history. Where it's breakthrough, after breakthrough, after breakthrough. Getting up finally to the influence of African sculpture on on European artists, in, in the, at the turn of the last century. And, and with Cubism. So, these are ways of understanding that are specific to the disciplines. Anthropologists look at topics like marriage or, exchange, or or food prohibitions in very different from the ways that a that, that, that we typically look at. So they have a broad view of all kinds of human variations, and literary scholars are probably those who are most pursuant who pursued the ambiguities of, of, of, of language most energetically because poetry and novels depend on multiple meanings, multiple layers of interpretation. And, none of them ab, absolutely certain. Some of them probably wrong but that's been an issue in the field for some time. So, it's, I would say the disciplines have their own ways and those are frustrating because people want to understand a given field coming in with what they already have from another field. In your materials which I thought were so helpful, the eye of Einstellung. You come in to a problem with mental equipment that solved the last problem that you solved and it doesn't work. For example, you could look at history. Partly eh, almost any historical phenomenon from the point of view of competition. But if you take the, the lens of competition to other subjects it doesn't work. You can take chronology and it doesn't always work. There, so, it seems to me those are some of the things that stand between a person studying humanities for, for the first time, or for the first time in a while. And, and a feeling of accomplishment.
>> Mm-hm. So one thing that, that surprises me sometimes, is I so love people who come with a, a background in the humanities because of their tolerance of ambiguity, except for one thing. They often are intolerant of lack of ambiguity.
>> Hm.
>> And they can think that people with a scientific training or an engineering training, are simplistic because things are so straightforward. And of course that's, that sort of putting their own lens in their own stereotypes on what's going on in those fields because often there's much more ambiguity and divergence of approaches, that might be a imagined. But also, I think sometimes lack of ambiguity is okay. If something is clear, if 2 plus 2 actually does equal 4. You know, that's not necessarily a bad thing to have that lack of, ambiguity. So, anyway, the, there's just such differences.
>> Well, I, that's actually, particularly a problem, that the frustration is a, is a very understandable one. I think it's most, most felt in the field of the study of literature. They're trends that have affected teaching for the last 30, 40 years. That, say an effect that, or at least that are understood, whether correctly or not, to say that you are, that an interpretation can, is, that all interpretations have some validity because they occurred in an individual mind. Well, sometimes things are flat out wrong. And, we, in the Humanities, we have not been sufficiently attentive to the, the idea of validity.
>> Uh-huh.
>> Of, of implausibility, of being wrong about a given thing. There are sometimes interpretations that are mounted, that are flat out just wrong. And claims made that are indefensible that wind up falling apart including some great thinkers. Sigmund Freud was caught out in his interpretation of Leonardo da Vinci. He relied on the mistranslation of the key word in the text, and his entire interpretation was built on that, on that one flaw, and once that flaw was revealed. The, the, it was a house of cards. Similarly, I understand, though I don't know this case as well, that, Martin Heidegger was called out on a misinterpretation of a painting by Van Gogh of, shoes. And in both cases the man who called them out was an art historian who knew the material a lot better. So, humanists tend to get into a lot of trouble when they try to be interdisciplinary. Sometimes they do it and do it brilliantly. But, one thing about scientists that I so admire, is that they have tremendous respect for the limitations of their own understanding. This, this is built into lab work. To the careful pursuit of conclusions, some of which don't work out. In fact, a lot of which don't work out. Very comfortable with that. Because when you find out you're wrong, in a, in an experiment in a, in sequencing DNA that is knowledge. That's a contribution. That this avenue doesn't go anywhere. That it leads to an, you know, that it was unproductive. I haven't seen that kind of recognition in the humanities very much.
>> Right.
Well, one thing I sometimes notice is that there is this tendency for moral relativism that can arise and The way that is found out of that is sort of, there's a happy medium to everything.
>> Mm-hm.
>> And so I always, I kinda think sometimes. Well is there a happy medium then to genocide? I mean if, you know, if no genocide and then there's genocide does that mean that there's a happy medium in where, you know?
>> Yeah.
>> Which is, I, I think all of these things, sometimes an engineering approach or a more scientific approach to these kinds of issues where, where you are able to make a decision as to whether something is right or wrong. It can be helpful.
>> Well, absolutely. And I'll even go one better, which is that it's not the case that creativity and imagination are the primary primarily owned by the humanities. I don't believe that for a minute. The, a scientist is testing implausible ideas and really testing them. And there, the creativity that's gone into computer science, into modern physics, just to take the most staggering example. There, there's tremendous energy and imagination coupled with discipline in the sciences. So, when people, and when people talk about philoso, the humanities taking on the moral dimensions of existence. No. Scientists and others do this all the time as well. I, I think it's very unhelpful for humanists to claim that they have some special access to a, a moral high ground. This is probably not true, and certainly unhelpful in advancing the cause and making people want to study literature or history or philosophy or, or comparative religion which is something we really need now.
>> Right.
>> We need to understand other religions, because we're mixing up in ways we never did before.
>> Right, right.
>> And, and that's the most pressing of our needs, it seems to me. And it's it's one thing the humanities scholars and the humanities texts and so forth can really help people do.
>> Let me ask you this. So, what about the use of online resources like Wikipedia? Do you have any sorts of advice for us there?
>> Well the jury is still out on all of that, but it's, what I understand is that in classes, whether online or in person people are often discouraged from using those sources, unless they go through some kind of vetting. On the one hand, if you look up a Wikipedia entry for something that is fairly remote, and not very controversial, or not controversial at all. Such as navigable rivers in Africa or the history of a given plant, its migration across across the globe, historically. Which has happened, is one of the interesting things is botany. There you might get a pretty reliable case in the, in the Wikipedia entry. But if you look up something like the Kennedy assassination, or the Reagan administration policy in Central America. Or any number of other subjects of great controversy. Then the Wikipedia entry is a kind, is a battleground. And that may be interesting to look at, but if you're looking for information you, you're in, you get into trouble. It used to be that you could say if any site has a .edu after it, that that was a good sign, but th, that seems to me not, not something you'd wanna take to the bank. In many cases a .edu is a good sign, but there are some subjects on which, there are, you know, fringe elements, within academia that present as objective ideas or information that, that others would challenge. Main thing is to, that I happen to know that certain things are controversial, and you happen to know that. But a person starting out, or kind of midway through the study of a given subject, can't be expected to know what's controversial. So you're really out at sea with online resources.
This was true of print resources in the past as well. Things like comments on online sources sometimes can reveal a controversy embedded. If you have an, an entry in, in a blog with 264 comments following it, you can bet that something in there ticked people off. And that there's something at, in dispute. So I, those are, those are, I think the problem is not, is not resolved yet. We don't have a Good Housekeeping seal. And we have some mater, some sites from learned societies that are probably more reliable than others, but many of them are restricted access. So you don't really know. You have to be a paid up member in order to get access to what other scholars have vetted. In, and in that case you know, that's not much help to a person out there trying to learn on his or her own. I wish I could give a more, a more encouraging answer. I think things are just working out. The great news on online resources is that if you're interested in a, well, I, I read a lot of poetry, and I think of a particular author and I hear about a poem, I look, and there it is online. Now, I will say though, typos slip in. The additions of different poets sometimes are at variance and sometimes it really matters. Even a comma in a Robert Frost poem can be a matter of considerable contention among those who are devoted to Robert Frost. And which edition of Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman you're looking at can be a matter of great concern. So, even there, there's a sloppiness to a lot of what's online. And an inattentiveness to things like accidentals, and, and formatting. And in a lot of cases really quite hideous formatting that are hard on the eyes, and doesn't make one want to read. So there are many, many issues at stake. Again, I wish I could say something more emphatically encouraging, but it's what we have. It's all, in many ways, all to the good, because things are available now that were just required a trip to a major library in the past.
>> Well, I think one thing that's of interest for people is, Daniel Kahneman, the Nobel Prize winning psychologist has, he has made the point that there's our fast thinking system and our slow thinking system. And our fast thinking is emotionally based, and so things like empathy and sympathy for others that, that's very fast.
>> Hm.
>> And logical thinking is slow, much slower.
>> Hm.
>> So often what very intelligent people can do is they can leap to conclusions based on their fast thinking systems. And once they have leapt to those kinds of conclusions, Einstellung kicks in. They already think they have the answer, and so they're not gonna think about more rational considerations.
>> Hm.
>> So it, my own research area involves how altruism, well meaning efforts, can go awry, and actually end up harming people.
>> Mm-hm.
>> So sometimes, I think, in these Wikipedia articles people will go in, and they'll edit, and they'll They'll rewrite directly counter to what is known in the facts. But they do that because they really think they're helping others. Those fast systems have kicked in and you overwritten everything else, and so, facts kind of can go out the wayside.
>> Mmhm.
>> And I find that whole circumstance very interesting. But the one really interesting thing about that is you can have a really smart person who jumps to conclusions. They think they've got the right answer for helping people. And then other people can jump on board and you can think hey look there's a large group of people. They must all be right
>> Mmhm.
>> There couldn't be that many people that're being wrong. But actually that herd can go right along doing things that can be very harmful for people. And, we saw that with national socialism in in Nazi Germany.
>> Right.
>> We saw that in Communist Russia with Stalin. We, we've, so large groups of people can become involved in these kinds of things. Well, I have to ask you though. You are probably one of the most
wide-read just interested in new things people I've ever met.
>> Oh.
>> So what kinds of things do you, do you do and what could you say to our viewers about how to kind of keep interested and, and keep your love of learning alive. Any, any final thoughts on that.
>> Thank you, I don't, I don't think of myself as having that much of a range but I, I, I do read what I feel like reading. And, for better or worse, I seem to have continued to do it. It hasn't always been professionally to my advantage but I did it anyway because I just felt that to do anything else would have bored me or turned me into something I didn't want to be. You create your own world. And if you get to choose what's in it, you have a, only yourself to blame if things don't work out, but you also have your, you have some self, sense of self awareness that comes from, making choices. I think people should trust what interests them. I don't mean just follow your dreams but, but to be disciplined about the dream. To choose books or ideas, particularly those that aren't, don't represent too deep a commitment.
Try something short before try, trying something long. Guess that's why I'm attracted to poetry, you can come back and re-read and re-read but it's not, they're not that long, most poems. Artwork's the same thing, you can keep coming back to look at something or a particular event if it's recorded on YouTube or on a, or, or a speech, something that's, that's, in effect, not quite memorizable, but easy to commit in a lot of detail to memory. Stock your memory. Because when you're bored if you're waiting in line to get on an airplane or you're waiting for your car to be fixed and you have a flat tire and, you know, or whatever. If you have your mind well stocked with fairly specific, and tight, and coherent things, it makes life a lot easier to get through. And is a source of enter, you know, entertainment, or even of passion. I think reading is the main way to, where I happen to have gotten.
But it wasn't always voluminous, but rather selective according to my interests. A lot of people in America, thanks to technology, have a great commitment and love of music. It wasn't possible a, a hundred years ago. You, you didn't have phonograph, well, you had phonographs just be coming out and, you know, the recorded sound technology was making some progress. But a hundred years before that you, you had to listen to music being played. It had a great power in human life back then, but now it's everywhere. It's annoyingly everywhere, actually. But we, if you get to choose it, again, if you choose your music you can. You can choose other things in life. And it's all really readily available thanks again to the magnificent opportunities. The wealth of what's on the web. But with music you take that and I happen to be very important to me and so I think one of the good things that's happened is we have lots of good biographies. Identify ideas and history and other things that concern you with the lives and achievements of individuals. Goes against something of the grain and where we think, that, that, you know, in some academic circles the individual has been demoted and that what we're really just dealing with is social forces. And there are social forces behind the music of Johann Sebastian Bach or of Ludwig von Beethoven or Friedrich Chopin, those happen to be my mainstays. There are certainly social forces behind the Beatles. Or between, behind the early Joan Baez or Bob Dylan, others that are important to me, personally. Those are, so there you have biographies available. Who are these people? You get curious about the individuals who made history. It, there, there are you know, the lives of individuals can inspire us, can warn us, can give us, permission to seek. I, that for me is the great thing about the humanities, is that, that we do get biography. We also get biographies of great scientists. I think of Walter Isaacson's biographies of great scientists and those are, those are wonderful humanistic texts that he created for us.
>> Absolutely.
>> And they're many others that are out there. John Elliot Gardiner has a new biography of Bach. There always seems to be another book about Beethoven every year. And so whatever it is that inspires you. Even tragic figures like Van Gogh. Or William Blake, or many others. People who've, who led less than happy lives are wonderful to read, and, and to know. I think getting to know people in history is a wonderful experience.
>> I just, not long ago, read, read Sam Gwynne's Empire of the Summer Moon, about the Comanches. Now, I'm, so that made me a fan of Sam Gwynne and now I'm reading his Stonewall Jackson and.
>> Wow.
>> I just love, I'm a biography junkie.
>> Yeah.
>> And I'm always surprised at how I can be inspired by both the triumphs and the mistakes of people in history. I think it lends great examples for all of us.
>> On the matter of biography, if I could just add a little squib here. Autobiography is another great source. And, I, for me, one of the most important books I ever read was the first thing that was assigned to me in my first college course was The Confessions of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. And he talked a little bit about teaching and music. He was a music teacher.
>> And he said he didn't really know anything about music but he knew he could stay one lesson ahead of his students. And I thought now, that's inspired, maybe I should be a teacher. There was my, my invitation. And I think reading autobiography can encourage students and people ta, in classes and, and people doing online courses.
>> In writing their own. Write a memoir. What was it about that person that who just died who was important in your life. Write about him. What about the person who's, who's, whom you know has, had troubles in life and seems to be making, making, making things go well. What is it. It can be private. But I think that, that autobiography leads to memoir and this can be again for personal private consumption and it can turn into more than that. So that's another, again, something that of course scientists have written autobiographies. Again nothing special about the humanities here except it seems to have landed in our territory.
>> [LAUGH] Yes. Exactly.
>> [LAUGH]
>> Well thank you so much again.
>> Thank you.
威廉·克雷格·赖斯是国家人文基金会教育项目部的主任，该基金会为大学和学校教师赞助研讨会，主题多样，包括莎士比亚戏剧、玛雅文明和民权运动等。比尔今天的言论不代表国家人文基金会的观点，而仅仅是他作为一名教师、作家和学者的个人看法。比尔此前曾担任芝加哥伟大书籍学院——希默学院的第12任校长，并在哈佛大学教授写作研讨会多年。他是《公共话语与学术探究》以及文化期刊上的散文和诗歌的作者。犹他谷大学最近授予他终身成就奖，以表彰他对人文学科的贡献。今天能在这里与比尔·赖斯交谈，我感到非常高兴。
比尔，我见过你阅读困难材料时的表现，比如亚当·斯密的《修辞学讲座》。你似乎能够很容易地综合和划分这类阅读材料中的核心思想。对于我们这些普通人来说，你有没有一些建议，我们可以怎样做类似的事情？
我不认为我在这方面比其他读者做得更好，因为我开始的方式只是注意观察。很久以前我就被教导过，你不需要准备好分析、辩论或以其他方式阐述。只要阅读，当你注意到什么时，做个标记。仅仅注意观察是一个中性的行为，这是对自己思维活跃的一种肯定。这一点非常重要，我在页边用一个小竖线做标记。其他人可以使用不同的方法，但我认为那是起点。一旦你这样做了，你可能会注意到你在一次又一次地注意到同一件事。在这种情况下，我称之为模式，一个原始想法，但你寻找模式。这与块的概念有关，除了我认为块也可以是你开始检测到的论点的部分。我发现有些东西可能真的很枯燥，比如修辞和写作。基本上，我们读的是一个人对另一个主要以发明现代经济学而闻名的人的讲座笔记，但他也是一位哲学家。所以，我发现最好的做法是注意观察并寻找模式。
嗯，或许我们应该早点定义我们真正的意思。什么是人文学科？人们对此感到困惑吗？
是的，他们确实感到困惑。人们认为这意味着人道主义援助中的人道主义。他们认为这意味着拯救世界的某种伟大事业中的人性。实际上，人文学科是一系列学术学科。哲学、宗教研究、文学、历史、艺术史。在某种程度上，当人类学最关心我们所说的人性时，也包括在内。这些是领域，还有其他一些领域也涉及其中，当然包括古典学、考古学。它们之所以被称为人文学科，是因为当这些领域被划分时，你有自然科学，如物理、天文学和化学。然后你有硬核社会科学，如心理学、社会学。当这些都完成之后，剩下的一切都被称为人文学科。所以，这是一个排除的过程，它们被留在了桌面上。这就是定义，但这很奇怪，因为人们不理解。同样，人们通常不理解通识教育这个术语。我记得有个人对我说，那么保守艺术呢？在通识教育中，保守教育是什么？你得到，人们理解基本的，误解了基本术语。也许是因为他们没有被教导过。这不是故意的。但我们被一些不幸的术语所困扰，因为人们不理解它们。
嗯，好的学习方法通常涉及从一个领域转移到另一个领域，例如，从数学到音乐或语言。但每个领域都有自己的特殊挑战。有没有你推荐的方法，特别是适用于人文学科的？
是的。一个广泛的点是，在化学领域，尽管在理论领域存在很多模糊和不确定性，那些做开创性工作的人之间有很多不明确的地方。但对我们这些在相对入门或中级水平学习的人来说，通过某些方法可以找到答案，这些方法将有助于阐明一个领域是如何运作的。无论是在化学还是天文学中都是如此。有测量要做，有各种合理的、客观的、可重复的练习来确定什么是知识。我并不是想过分简化科学，但这是广泛适用的，而在人文学科中则不然，人文学科更关注的是问题而不是答案。你必须对至少是模糊性感兴趣和宽容——这个想法是一个问题在整个人类历史中，或者至少在近期的人类历史中仍然未解决。因此，理解人文学科中的争议并没有解决是很重要的。它们更有可能仅仅是被提出和探索。这是你在接触人文学科时，特别是在开始时需要的宽广视野。你不是在寻求一个直接的、完整的、最终的答案。这对于习惯了考试并尽一切可能得到正确答案的学生来说很难。相反，在人文学科中，你会欣赏那些刚刚弄清楚事情的人的工作，这是一种对相反证据的开放性。在我看来，这是广泛适用的方法。至于具体领域，有很多子问题或二级问题需要探索。但总的来说，在人文学科中，它是关于对模糊性的容忍。而且在某个点上，是对模糊性的一种真正的热爱，这当然可能会让人们感到非常沮丧。[笑声] 因为你不会觉得你从这个在前面的家伙那里得到了答案。
确实如此。我认为这太对了，这是一种与我们例如在工程学中看待事物的方式截然不同的视角。但我认为实际上，这两种方法都可以非常有趣和有用。我认为对于工程师和人文学科的人来说，理解和容忍我们双方的观点可能是值得的。人文学科的学生有时会抱怨他们被期望提出论点，但他们没有什么可说的。
嗯哼。
所以，并不是他们不在乎，他们做了阅读。他们实际上参与了所有的讨论。
他们想要参与进来，只是他们无法提出一个立场来辩护。那么在这种情况下，你会给出什么建议呢？
嗯，[笑声] 我自己多年来也处于那个位置。我觉得要求我有话可说或者要求我写一个八页、十页、十二页或二十页的论文几乎是荒谬的，当我确实没有读够足够的书来有任何东西可以说的时候。我发现这是课堂教育中的一个问题，也许在线教育可以开始解决学期给定时间内的问题之一。
所以我一次又一次地记得，我觉得我能做的最好的事情就是阅读和做笔记，顺便说一句，我认为这是绝对必要的。如果你，你必须阅读并满足于独处。我们经常谈论团队合作，但很多都是单独的。阅读和记笔记。无论如何，回到问题上来。我发现我一次又一次地面临着找话要说的问题。所以，我给你的建议是，如果你没有发现，对你正在研究的东西有矛盾的解释。可能是两位学者对马基雅维利所说的王子应该更关心被恐惧而不是被爱的意思意见不一。人们不同，在这一点上不同，当局也不同。如果可以的话，如果你在分配给你的材料中没有发现这一点，就去找它们。什么是闪光点？主要的争论点在哪里？与其说，好吧，我同意这一方或另一方的观点，不如说，天哪。为什么这个论点比另一个论点更有力？不是它是否正确，而是它是否更强大。谁有更好的证据。谁在指向更难理解的证据？谁在回答更难的问题？这是我建议的第一件事，就是寻找相互矛盾的解释。
另一个是要看，特别是当你在研究我们所说的主要来源时。我想引用玛丽·沃斯通克拉夫特在18世纪末关于妇女教育的工作，或者托马斯·杰斐逊在弗吉尼亚州的宗教自由法令。读到这篇文章，你会感受到一种真正的修辞力量。这些人在争论。他们反对什么？在给定的文本中，通常不清楚论点是什么。他们的目标是谁、谁、谁和什么？如果你能仔细阅读，有时你可以做出我们所能做的推断。因为杰斐逊非常关心政府对圣公会成员的特殊待遇。我们，嗯，为什么这是一个问题？它促使人们想了解更多。因此，如果你有修辞的闪光点，你就可以提出客观的问题。是什么让沃斯通克拉夫特、杰斐逊或其他人激动不已？是什么让马基雅维利激动不已？这些是，这些是什么问题，它们把你送回历史信息中。因此，这些是我处理无话可说问题的一些方法。但最终，我希望我们的教育体系能像我认识的一位上过剑桥英语大学的年轻女士所描述的那样。而她，我说，你是怎么变得如此知识渊博，成为如此优秀的作家的？在你的思想上是如此的小心。正如你所说，在四年的本科生生涯中，我被告知必须写摘要。总结，给一篇文章，写一篇总结。一页一页。Pracies，他们在那边叫他们。这对她帮助很大。她没有被要求说出自己的话，而是被要求解释别人说了什么，这对我来说是一个真正的启示。从那时起，当我在课堂上时，我会布置总结。因为事实并非如此，这是你可以做的不同的事情，不是所有的总结都必须相同，但你可以通过这种方式学习材料，而不必考虑你是否有论点。了解他人的想法实际上可以打开自己的思维，我的哈佛大学写作主任Vater Richard Marius博士曾说过，鼓励你的学生与其说是有独创性的思想家，不如说是在他人的思维中找到自己的思维。没关系。这就是学术、学习和人性的真谛。这是站在别人的肩膀上，以便更好地理解，也许会更好一点。我知道，当我写作时，我经常认为写作是为了帮助我更好地理解自己的想法。
嗯。
当我开始写作时，我会参考别人的想法。但是，当我尝试自己把文字写在纸上时，我开始理解自己的文字。然后，关于你提到的那位女士的观察，她写摘要的方法是一种精致的学习方式。因为它在神经编码上以小块的形式帮助理解主要思想，这实际上确实有助于你更好地理解自己的想法。另外，我必须提到的是，我非常欣赏你的思考，有时候独自工作是很重要的。
是的。
我们确实非常重视这一点。我是说，教育中有趋势，有流行的东西——
嗯。
诸如此类，它们进进出出。当前的流行之一是做很多小组工作。
对。嗯。
我自己也强调这一点，我认为它有价值。但是太多的小组工作，你开始像其他人一样思考，而不是——
嗯。
独立思考。
是的。
我认为我们在西方社会，现代社会中所重视的一部分，就是要更加独立地思考，同时也要理解他人的观点。
嗯。
所以，不管怎样，是什么最阻碍学生在人文学科中的学习呢？
你知道，我认为这回到了对模糊性的舒适感的问题。有一种感觉，那就是有些理解的方式，他们还没有掌握，而老师拥有并且以一种非常令人沮丧的方式坚持让他们自己找到。我认为这是心理层面上的，也是课堂互动层面上的，尽管在线上这种情况较少，因为在那里主要是单独工作。另一个问题是我们所说的特定学科的学习。下棋和打棒球不一样，生活中做许多不同的事情也不一样。烹饪得好。制作家具。并非所有的技能都是真正可转移的。这是特定学科的理解。而且，在历史学家那里，有一种特定类型的推理在进行。
他们翻阅档案，找到一位早期诺贝尔奖得主与其编辑间的稀有信件，深入探究其中，发现各种当时的社会议题正暗涌。这些信件记录了对第一次世界大战爆发的评论，对于历史学家而言，这些内容令人着迷。遥远的历史档案需要一种特定的思考方式：是什么在困扰人们？有哪些论点尚未被提出？我们能从一份长期无人问津的旧资料中推断出什么？这就是历史推理的部分意义所在。当然，它也涉及其他方面。在其他领域，比如艺术史，你会看到在前人成就的基础上发展的概念。15世纪发现了准确描绘透视的方法，这成为了后续其他成就的基础。在古典时期，艺术上的一些成就非常先进，比如雕塑中对人体的精确描绘，在文艺复兴时期又得到了复兴。因此，有一个在前人成就基础上发展的概念。这是一种特别常见的理解方式，即一个接一个的突破。最终，上个世纪末非洲雕塑对欧洲艺术家的影响，以及立体主义的出现。这些都是特定学科的理解方式。人类学家研究婚姻、交换或食物禁忌等话题的方式与我们通常的方式截然不同。因此，他们对各种人类变异有着广阔的视野，而文学学者可能是那些最追求语言模糊性的人，因为诗歌和小说依赖于多重含义、多层次的解释。而且，没有哪一个是绝对确定的。其中一些可能是错误的，但这已经是该领域的一个问题有一段时间了。所以，我会说每个学科都有自己的方法，这些方法令人沮丧，因为人们想要用他们在另一个领域已经拥有的知识来理解一个给定的领域。在你的材料中，我认为非常有用的是“Einstellung”的视角。你带着解决上一个问题的心理准备来面对一个新问题，但它并不奏效。例如，你可以从竞争的角度来看待历史现象。但如果你将竞争的视角应用到其他学科，它就行不通了。你可以采用年表法，但它并不总是有效。所以，在我看来，这些是阻碍一个人首次或间隔一段时间后学习人文学科并取得成就感的一些因素。
嗯。所以有时候，让我觉得惊讶的一点是，我非常喜欢那些有人文学科背景的人，因为他们能够容忍模糊性，除了一件事。他们常常不能容忍缺乏模糊性。
嗯。
他们认为接受科学或工程训练的人思考问题过于简单，因为事物似乎都很直接。当然，这是他们将自己的视角和对那些领域的刻板印象投射到发生的事情上，因为在那些领域里，往往存在着更多的模糊性和方法上的分歧，这可能超出了他们的想象。但同时，我认为有时候缺乏模糊性也是可以的。如果某件事很清晰，如果2加2确实等于4。你知道，这种缺乏模糊性并不一定是坏事。所以，不管怎样，就是存在这样的差异。
嗯，实际上，这是一个特别的问题，这种挫败感是非常可以理解的。我认为在文学研究领域这种感觉最为强烈。过去30、40年的教学趋势受到了影响。也就是说，至少人们理解了，无论是否正确，所有的解释都有一定的有效性，因为它们发生在个体的头脑中。但是，有时候事情就是彻头彻尾的错误。我们人文学科的学者，对于有效性的概念并没有给予足够的关注。
嗯哼。
对于不合理性，对于对某个特定事物的错误理解。有时候提出的解释就是完全错误的。还有一些站不住脚的主张最终瓦解，包括一些伟大的思想家。西格蒙德·弗洛伊德在解读达芬奇时就犯了错。他依赖于文本中一个关键词的错误翻译，他的整个解释就建立在这个错误之上，一旦这个错误被揭露，整个理论就像纸牌屋一样崩塌了。同样地，虽然我对这个情况不太了解，马丁·海德格尔在解读梵高的一幅鞋画时也被指出了误解。而在这两个案例中，指出错误的人都是对材料了解更深的艺术史学家。所以，当人文学者试图跨学科时，他们往往会遇到很多麻烦。有时候他们做得很出色。但我非常钦佩科学家的一点，是他们对自身理解局限性的巨大尊重。这一点在实验室工作中得到了体现。对结论的谨慎追求，其中很多并不成立。事实上，很多都不成立。对此他们非常自在。因为当你在实验中发现自己的错了，比如在DNA测序中，那是知识。那是贡献。这表明这条路走不通。它导致了，你知道的，它是无果的。我在人文学科中很少看到这种认识。
对。
嗯，我有时候会注意到有一种道德相对主义的倾向可能会出现，而找到解决这种倾向的方法就是，每件事都有一个中庸之道。
嗯哼。
所以我总是，我有时候会想，那么种族灭绝有没有一个中庸之道呢？我的意思是，如果没有种族灭绝和有种族灭绝之间，是否意味着存在一个中庸之道呢？
是的。
我认为所有这些问题，有时候采取工程方法或更科学的方法来处理这些问题，能够判断某事是对是错，这是有帮助的。
当然。我甚至更进一步认为，创造力和想象力并不是人文学科所独有的。我一点也不相信这一点。科学家在测试那些看似不可能的想法，并且真正地进行测试。在计算机科学、现代物理学中投入的创造力，就拿最惊人的例子来说吧。在科学中，有巨大的能量和想象力与纪律相结合。所以，当人们谈论哲学、人文学科承担存在的道德维度时。不。科学家和其他人一直都在做这件事。我认为人文学者声称他们拥有某种特殊的道德制高点是非常无益的。这可能不是真的，而且肯定不利于推进事业，让人们想要学习文学、历史、哲学或者比较宗教学，这是我们现在确实需要的。
对。
我们需要理解其他宗教，因为我们以前从未像现在这样混合在一起。
对，对。
在我看来，这是我们最迫切的需求之一。这也是人文学者和人文文本等可以帮助人们做到的事情。
那我想问你这个问题。那么，对于使用在线资源，比如维基百科，你有什么建议吗？
嗯，对于所有这些问题，陪审团还没有做出裁决，但我理解的是，在课堂上，无论是在线还是面对面，人们通常不鼓励使用这些资源，除非它们经过了某种审查。一方面，如果你查找维基百科上一些相对偏僻、没有争议或根本不具争议性的条目，比如非洲的可航行河流或者某种植物的历史迁移情况，这是植物学中发生的有趣事情之一。在这些情况下，你可能会得到一个相当可靠的维基百科条目。但如果你查找像肯尼迪暗杀案、里根政府在中美洲的政策，或者其他许多有重大争议的主题，那么维基百科条目就成了一个战场。这可能很有趣，但如果你在寻找信息，你就会陷入麻烦。过去你可以说，如果任何网站后面有.edu，那是一个好迹象，但这对我来说似乎不是，不是你想要确信的东西。在很多情况下.edu是一个好迹象，但在某些主题上，学术界内部有一些边缘分子，他们提出的观点或信息会被其他人质疑。主要问题是，我碰巧知道某些事情是有争议的，而你碰巧也知道。但是一个刚开始学习某个学科的人，或者正在学习过程中的人，不能指望他们知道什么是有争议的。所以你在使用在线资源时真的是在大海中漂泊。
过去的印刷资源也是如此。在线资源上的评论有时可以揭示出潜在的争议。如果你在一个博客条目下看到有264条评论，你可以肯定那里有些东西激怒了人们，有些东西存在争议。所以我认为这个问题还没有解决。我们没有一个“好管家”印章。我们有一些来自学术社团的网站可能比其他网站更可靠，但它们中的许多都是限制访问的。所以你并不真正了解。你必须成为一个付费会员才能获得其他学者审查过的内容。在这种情况下，你知道，这对一个想要自学的人来说并没有多大帮助。我希望我能给出一个更加令人鼓舞的答案。我认为事情只是在发展。关于在线资源的好消息是，如果你对某个领域感兴趣，比如，我读了很多诗歌，我想到一个特定的作者并听说一首诗，我查找，它就在网上。不过我要说的是，打字错误会混入其中。不同诗人的增补有时会有所不同，有时这真的很重要。即使是罗伯特·弗罗斯特诗中的一个逗号也可能是那些热爱罗伯特·弗罗斯特的人之间相当大的争议点。你正在查看的沃尔特·惠特曼的《草叶集》是哪个版本也可能是一个非常重要的事情。所以，即使在那里，网上的很多东西也是粗制滥造的。对诸如标点符号和格式之类的事情不够注意。在很多情况下，真的很难看的格式对眼睛不好，也不会让人想要阅读。所以有很多很多问题需要考虑。再次，我希望我能说出更加坚定鼓舞人心的话，但这就是我们所拥有的。在很多方面，这一切都是好的，因为现在可以获得的东西在过去需要去一个大图书馆才能找到。
嗯，我认为对人们来说有一件有趣的事情是，诺贝尔奖获得者心理学家丹尼尔·卡尼曼指出了我们有快速思考系统和慢速思考系统。我们的快速思考是基于情绪的，因此对他人的共情和同情反应非常迅速。
嗯。 而逻辑思维则很慢，要慢得多。
嗯。 所以通常非常聪明的人能够基于他们的快速思考系统直接跳到结论上。一旦他们得出了这类结论，定势效应就开始作用了。他们已经认为自己找到了答案，所以他们就不会再去考虑更理性的考量了。
嗯。 因此，我自己的研究领域涉及利他主义，即出于好意的努力，如何可能出错，实际上最终伤害到人。
嗯哼。
所以有时候，我想，在这些维基百科文章中，人们会进去编辑，他们会直接重写与已知事实相反的内容。但他们这么做是因为真的以为自己在帮助他人。那些快速系统介入后，你覆盖了所有其他东西，所以事实可能会被抛到一边。
嗯哼。
我觉得整个情况非常有趣。但真正有趣的一件事是，你可以有一个非常聪明的人在跳跃性地得出结论。他们认为找到了正确的答案来帮助人。然后其他人可以加入进来，你会想，嘿，看啊，有一大群人在那儿。他们一定都对。
嗯哼。
不可能有那么多人同时犯错。但实际上，那群人可以一直做着对人非常有害的事情。我们在德国的国家社会主义中看到了这一点，在斯大林时期的共产主义俄罗斯也看到了。我们看到了，如此庞大的人群可以参与到这类事情中。不过，我得问你。你可能是我遇到过的最广泛阅读、对新事物感兴趣的人之一。
哦。
所以你平时都做些什么，你能对我们的观众说些什么来保持兴趣，以及如何保持你对学习的热爱？对此你还有什么最后的想法吗？
谢谢，我不认为我涉猎的范围有多广，但我确实会读我想读的东西。不管好坏，我似乎一直在做这件事。这并不总是对我的职业有利，但我还是这么做了，因为我觉得做其他事情会让我厌烦，或者变成我不想成为的那种人。你创造了自己的世界。如果你能选择其中的内容，那么当事情不顺利时，你只能怪自己，但你也会从做出选择中获得某种自我意识。我认为人们应该信任他们感兴趣的事物。我不是说仅仅追随你的梦想，而是要有纪律地追求梦想。选择书籍或想法，尤其是那些不需要太深承诺的。 尝试先读一些短的东西，再尝试长的。我猜这就是为什么我喜欢诗歌，你可以一遍又一遍地回来重读，但大多数诗歌并不长。艺术作品也是一样，你可以不断回来看某件东西，或者如果它被记录在YouTube上，或者一个演讲，这些东西实际上不容易记住，但很容易记住很多细节。丰富你的记忆库。因为当你感到无聊时，比如在排队登机、等车修好因为轮胎漏气，或者其他什么情况。如果你的脑海中充满了相当具体、紧凑、连贯的事物，那么生活会容易得多。这是娱乐的来源，甚至是激情的来源。我认为阅读是我碰巧获得这些的主要方式。 但这并不总是大量的，而是根据我的兴趣选择性地进行。在美国，很多人由于技术的进步，对音乐有了巨大的承诺和热爱。一百年前是不可能的。你没有留声机，好吧，你有留声机刚开始出现，你知道，录音技术正在取得一些进展。但在那之前的一百年，你必须现场聆听音乐演奏。那时候它在人类生活中有着巨大的力量，但现在它无处不在。实际上它无处不在到令人讨厌的地步。但是，如果你能选择的话，再次强调，如果你选择了你的音乐，你也可以选择生活中的其他事物。而且这一切都非常容易获得，再次感谢这个宏伟的机会。网络上丰富的资源。但是对于音乐，你可以选择对我来说非常重要的东西，所以我认为发生的一件好事是我们有很多好的传记。通过个人的生活和成就来识别与你有关的思想、历史和其他事物。这与我们认为的，在某些学术圈子中个体被贬低，我们真正处理的是社会力量的观点背道而驰。约翰·塞巴斯蒂安·巴赫、路德维希·范·贝多芬或弗雷德里克·肖邦的音乐背后肯定有社会力量，这些恰好是我的主要支撑。披头士乐队的背后肯定也有社会力量。或者在早期的琼·贝兹或鲍勃·迪伦的背后，还有其他对我个人的重要的。所以你可以阅读传记。这些人是谁？你会对创造历史的个体感到好奇。个人的生活可以激励我们，警告我们，给我们寻求的许可。对我来说，人文学科的伟大之处在于，我们确实可以获得传记。我们也可以得到伟大科学家的传记。我想到沃尔特·艾萨克森为我们所创作的伟大科学家的传记，那些是他为我们创造的精彩人文文本。
确实如此。
而且还有很多其他的书籍。约翰·埃利奥特·加德纳有一本关于巴赫的新传记。似乎每年都有另一本关于贝多芬的书出版。所以，无论是什么激发了你的兴趣。即使是像梵高这样的悲剧人物，或者威廉·布莱克，或者其他许多人。那些生活不那么幸福的人的故事读起来非常精彩，而且值得了解。我认为了解历史上的人物是一种美妙的体验。
我刚刚不久前读了萨姆·格温的《夏月帝国》，关于科曼奇人的故事。这让我成为了萨姆·格温的粉丝，现在我正在读他的《石墙杰克逊》。
哇。
我就是喜欢，我是个传记迷。
是啊。
我总是惊讶于历史人物的胜利和错误如何给我带来灵感。我认为这为我们所有人提供了极好的榜样。
说到传记，我在这里补充一个小插曲。自传是另一个伟大的来源。对我来说，我读过的最重要的书之一，在我大学第一门课上布置的第一本书就是《让-雅克·卢梭的忏悔录》。他谈到了一些关于教学和音乐的内容。他是一名音乐教师。
他说他对音乐其实一无所知，但他知道他总能比学生领先一课。我当时想，这太鼓舞人心了，也许我应该成为一名教师。那是我的邀请。我认为阅读自传可以鼓励学生和参加课堂及在线课程的人。
去写自己的回忆录。那个刚刚去世的、在你生活中重要的人，写写关于他的事情。或者是那个你知道在生活中遇到困难但似乎正在好转的人，是什么让他如此。这可以是私人的。但我认为，自传可以引导人们写回忆录，这可以再次成为个人私人的消费，也可以变成更多的东西。所以这又是另一个，当然科学家也写过自传。这里人文学科并没有什么特别的，除了它似乎已经成为我们的领域。
[笑] 是的。没错。
[笑]
再次非常感谢你。
谢谢。
扫一扫
被折叠的 条评论
为什么被折叠?
到【灌水乐园】发言
