返回首页

DanAriely_2015U-_我们想要一个怎样的平等世界？意料之外的答案_
It would be nice to be objective in life,in many ways. 在生活中的很多方面保持客观是有益的。
objective:n.目标; adj.客观的;
The problem is that we have these color-tinted glasses as we look at all kinds of situations. 问题是,我们常常会带着有色眼镜 去看待身边的各种事物。
For example, think about something as simple as beer. 简单来说,以啤酒为例。
If I gave you a few beers to taste and I asked you to rate them on intensity and bitterness , different beers would occupy different space. 如果我让你品尝一些啤酒, 并让你根据烈度和苦味值打分, 不同的啤酒会得不同的分数。
intensity:n.强度;强烈;[电子]亮度;紧张; bitterness:n.苦味;苦难;怨恨; occupy:v.占据,占领;居住;使忙碌;
But what if we tried to be objective about it? 如果我们想客观一些,怎么办？
what if:如果…怎么办?
In the case of beer, it would be very simple. 对于啤酒来说,这很简单。
What if we did a blind taste? 我们可以做盲品测试。
Well, if we did the same thing, you tasted the same beer, now in the blind taste, things would look slightly different. 我们做同样的测试,让人品尝同样的啤酒, 但盲品测试的结果会稍有不同。
slightly:adv.些微地,轻微地;纤细地;
Most of the beers will go into one place. 大多数啤酒的得分会很相近。
You will basically not be able to distinguish them, and the exception , of course, will be Guinness . 你基本分辨不出它们的差别。 当然,健力士啤酒是个例外。
basically:adv.主要地,基本上; distinguish:vt.区分;辨别;使杰出,使表现突出;vi.区别,区分;辨别; exception:n.例外;异议; Guinness:n.吉尼斯黑啤酒(英国产强性黑啤酒的一种);
(Laughter) （笑声）
Similarly , we can think about physiology . 同样的,生理体验也是一样。
Similarly:adv.同样地;类似于; physiology:n.生理学;生理机能;
What happens when people expect something from their physiology? 人们对生理体验有一定预期的时候会如何呢？
For example, we sold people pain medications . 比如我们卖给人们一些止痛药。
medications:n.药;药物;(medication的复数)
Some people, we told them the medications were expensive. 对一些人,我们说药很贵。
Some people, we told them it was cheap. 对另一些人,我们说药很便宜。
And the expensive pain medication worked better. 结果是:贵的止痛药似乎更有效果,
It relieved more pain from people, because expectations do change our physiology. 更能减轻人们的痛苦。 这是因为预期会改变生理体验。
relieved:adj.释然的; v.缓解; expectations:n.预料;预期;期待;希望;指望;(expectation的复数)
And of course, we all know that in sports, if you are a fan of a particular team, you can't help but see the game develop from the perspective of your team. 当然,我们都知道,看比赛时, 如果你是其中一支球队的粉丝, 你就只会从那支球队的视角 来看待这场比赛。
perspective:n.观点;远景;透视图;adj.透视的;
So all of those are cases in which our preconceived notions and our expectations color our world. 在所有这些案例中,我们的成见和预期 都会影响自己对世界的观察。
preconceived:adj.预想的; v.预想(preconceive的过去式和过去分词); notions:n.观念(notion的复数);小商品;
But what happened in more important questions? 但在重要问题上也是这样吗？
What happened with questions that had to do with social justice ? 比如关于社会正义的问题。
justice:n.公平;公正;司法制度;审判;
So we wanted to think about what is the blind tasting version for thinking about inequality? 我们想知道,在贫富差距问题上 进行“盲品测试”会有什么结果？
blind tasting:葡萄酒品鉴;
So we started looking at inequality, and we did some large-scale surveys around the U.S. and other countries. 所以,我们开始考虑贫富差距, 我们在美国和其他国家 做了一些大规模的调查。
large-scale:adj.大规模的,大范围的;大比例尺的; surveys:n.调查(survey的复数);
So we asked two questions: 我们问了两个问题:
Do people know what kind of level of inequality we have? 人们了解目前的贫富差距吗？
And then, what level of inequality do we want to have? 人们理想的贫富差距又是怎样的？
So let's think about the first question. 我们首先看第一个问题。
Imagine I took all the people in the U.S. 想象一下,这是美国全部的人口,
and I sorted them from the poorest on the right to the richest on the left, and then I divided them into five buckets : the poorest 20 percent, the next 20 percent, the next, the next, and the richest 20 percent. 最穷的人排在最右边, 最富的人排在最左边。 然后,我把他们分成五组: 每20%一组,最穷的20%人口, 以此类推到最富的20%人口。
buckets:n.大桶状物; v.拼命划桨; (bucket的第三人称单数和复数)
And then I asked you to tell me how much wealth do you think is concentrated in each of those buckets. 然后,我问道:你认为每组人口 各占有多少财富。
wealth:n.财富;大量;富有; concentrated:adj.决心要做的; v.集中(注意力); (concentrate的过去式和过去分词)
So to make it simpler, imagine I ask you to tell me, how much wealth do you think is concentrated in the bottom two buckets, the bottom 40 percent? 再简单点儿,请告诉我, 你认为最穷的两组, 也就是最底层的40%人口 占有多少财富？
Take a second. Think about it and have a number. 想一想,想一个具体的数字。
Usually we don't think. 通常我们都不去想。
Think for a second, have a real number in your mind. 现在想一下,要有一个确实的数字。
real number:n.实数;
You have it? 想好了吗？
Okay, here's what lots of Americans tell us. 好,这是很多美国人的答案。
They think that the bottom 20 percent has about 2.9 percent of the wealth, the next group has 6.4, so together it's slightly more than nine. 他们认为,最底层的20%人口 拥有2.9%的财富, 稍富的一组拥有6.4%, 所以两者之和略大于9%。
The next group, they say, has 12 percent, 20 percent, and the richest 20 percent, people think has 58 percent of the wealth. 下一组,他们说,拥有12%, 然后是20%, 人们认为,最富的20%人口拥有58%的财富。
You can see how this relates to what you thought. 大家可以比较一下自己的想法。
Now, what's reality? 那么,实际数据是怎样呢？
Reality is slightly different. 实际数据略有不同。
The bottom 20 percent has 0.1 percent of the wealth. 底层的20%人口拥有0.1%的财富。
The next 20 percent has 0.2 percent of the wealth. 第二组20%拥有0.2%。
Together, it's 0.3. 合起来是0.3%。
The next group has 3.9, 11.3, and the richest group has 84-85 percent of the wealth. 再下一组拥有3.9%, 最富的一组拥有84%-85%的财富。
So what we actually have and what we think we have are very different. 所以,我们的想法跟现实 其实非常不一样。
What about what we want? 那么,我们理想的贫富差距是多少？
How do we even figure this out? 怎么来计算这个？
So to look at this, to look at what we really want, we thought about the philosopher John Rawls. 为了得到答案, 了解我们真正想要什么, 我们要了解一下哲学家约翰·罗尔斯。
philosopher:n.哲学家;深思的人;善于思考的人;
If you remember John Rawls, he had this notion of what's a just society. 你们可能记得, 约翰·罗尔斯有一个关于公平社会的理念。
He said a just society is a society that if you knew everything about it, you would be willing to enter it in a random place. 他说,公平社会是这样一个社会: 当你了解了这个社会的一切, 你仍然愿意成为任何社会阶层中一份子。
random:adj.[数]随机的;任意的;胡乱的;n.随意;adv.胡乱地;
And it's a beautiful definition , because if you're wealthy, you might want the wealthy to have more money, the poor to have less. 这个定义很精彩, 因为如果你是富人, 你会希望富人更富,穷人更穷。
definition:n.定义;清晰度;(尤指词典里的词或短语的)释义;解释;
If you're poor, you might want more equality. 如果你是穷人,你会希望缩小贫富差距。
But if you're going to go into that society in every possible situation, and you don't know, you have to consider all the aspects . 但是,如果你进入社会, 但不知道自己会处于哪个阶层, 你不得不考虑所有的方面。
aspects:n.方面;相位;面貌(aspect的复数);
It's a little bit like blind tasting in which you don't know what the outcome will be when you make a decision, and Rawls called this the " veil of ignorance ." 这有点像盲品测试, 选择的时候,连自己也不知道结果, 罗尔斯把这叫做“无知之幕”。
outcome:n.结果,结局;成果; veil:n.面纱;面罩;遮蔽物;托词;v.遮蔽;掩饰;以面纱遮掩;用帷幕分隔; ignorance:n.无知,愚昧;不知,不懂;
So, we took another group, a large group of Americans, and we asked them the question in the veil of ignorance. 所以,我们找来另一组美国人, 基于“无知之幕”,我们问他们:
What are the characteristics of a country that would make you want to join it, knowing that you could end randomly at any place? 如果你可能进入社会的任一阶层, 你希望你的国家有哪些特质？
characteristics:n.特征;特点;品质;(characteristic的复数) randomly:adv.随便地,任意地;无目的,胡乱地;未加计划地;
And here is what we got. 这是我们得到的结果。
What did people want to give to the first group, the bottom 20 percent? 第一组,即底层的20%人口, 人们想给这一组分配多少财富呢？
They wanted to give them about 10 percent of the wealth. 人们愿意给这一组10%的财富。
The next group, 14 percent of the wealth, 21, 22 and 32. 下一组是14%的财富, 接着是21%,22%,最后是32%。
Now, nobody in our sample wanted full equality. 注意:我们的样本里,没人想要绝对的平等。
Nobody thought that socialism is a fantastic idea in our sample. 我们的研究中,没人认为社会主义是一个好主意。
socialism:n.社会主义; fantastic:奇异的,空想的
But what does it mean? 这意味着什么？
It means that we have this knowledge gap between what we have and what we think we have, but we have at least as big a gap between what we think is right to what we think we have. 这意味着, 在现实和认知之间存在差距, 而我们的理想和认知之间, 也同样存在着差距。
gap:n.差距;间隙;缺口;间隔;v.使豁裂;豁开;
Now, we can ask these questions, by the way , not just about wealth. 另外,这些问题不仅限于财富的角度,
by the way:顺便说一下;
We can ask it about other things as well. 我们也能从其他角度来做测验。
So for example, we asked people from different parts of the world about this question, people who are liberals and conservatives , and they gave us basically the same answer. 比如,我们针对世界不同地方的人 做了这个测验。 我们问了自由主义者和保守主义者, 他们给了我们大致相同的答案。
liberals:n.自由主义者(liberal的复数); conservatives:n.保守党,保守派;
We asked rich and poor, they gave us the same answer, men and women, 我们问了富人和穷人,也是相同的答案, 男人和女人,
NPR listeners and Forbes readers. 全国公共广播电台(NPR)的听众和《福布斯》的读者。
listeners:n.听众;监听器(listener的复数); Forbes:n.福布斯(美国著名财经杂志);福布斯(美国出版及媒体集团);福布斯(姓氏);
We asked people in England, Australia, the U.S. -- very similar answers. 我们问了英格兰人,澳大利亚人,美国人…… 答案基本相同。
We even asked different departments of a university. 我们甚至问了大学里不同学院的人。
We went to Harvard and we checked almost every department, and in fact, from Harvard Business School , where a few people wanted the wealthy to have more and the rich to have less, the similarity was astonishing . 我们去哈佛,问了几乎每个学院的学生, 事实上,哈佛商学院的学生中, 一些人希望富人更富或者更穷, 相似度是惊人的。
Harvard:n.哈佛大学;哈佛大学学生; Business School:n.(大学里针对毕业生的)工商学院; similarity:n.类似;相似点; astonishing:adj.令人十分惊讶的;v.使十分惊讶;使吃惊;(astonish的现在分词)
I know some of you went to Harvard Business School. 我知道,这儿有些人上过哈佛商学院。
We also asked this question about something else. 我们也测验了其他话题。
We asked, what about the ratio of CEO pay to unskilled workers? 比如,CEO跟非技术人员的收入比率。
ratio:n.比率;比例;v.用比例方式表达;求出…的比值;使…成比例; unskilled:adj.无特长的;无(需)特别技能的;无(需)专门训练的;
So you can see what people think is the ratio, and then we can ask the question, what do they think should be the ratio? 这是人们认为的比率, 然后我们问,理想比率应该是多少。
And then we can ask, what is reality? 我们也可以问,现实比率是多少。
What is reality? And you could say, well, it's not that bad, right? 现实是多少？你也许会说,还算合理啊,
The red and the yellow are not that different. 橘色跟黄色没差那么多。
But the fact is, it's because I didn't draw them on the same scale. 不过,这是因为我用了不同的比例尺。
It's hard to see, there's yellow and blue in there. 这下很难看到中间的黄色和蓝色了吧。
So what about other outcomes of wealth? 那么财富衍生品方面,测试结果又如何呢？
outcomes:n.结果;成果;后果;出路;(outcome的复数)
Wealth is not just about wealth. 财富不只是金钱意义上的财富,
We asked, what about things like health? 我们也问了关于:健康,
What about availability of prescription medication? 处方药物治疗的供给,
availability:n.可用性;有效性;实用性; prescription:n.处方;药方;医生开的药;开处方;
What about life expectancy ? 平均寿命,
life expectancy:预期寿命;
What about life expectancy of infants ? 婴儿的预期寿命。
infants:n.婴儿(infant的复数);婴幼儿;
How do we want this to be distributed ? 我们想要怎样的数据分布呢？
distributed:adj.分布的;分散的;v.分发;分配;使分布(distribute的过去分词和过去式)
What about education for young people? 还有年轻人的教育,
And for older people? 以及成年人的教育。
And across all of those things, what we learned was that people don't like inequality of wealth, but there's other things where inequality, which is an outcome of wealth, is even more aversive to them: for example, inequality in health or education. 通过测试这些方面, 我们发现人们不喜欢贫富差距, 但更不喜欢、甚至厌恶其他方面的不平等, 而这些恰恰是贫富差距的结果: 比如,健康或教育的不平等。
We also learned that people are particularly open to changes in equality when it comes to people who have less agency -- basically, young kids and babies, because we don't think of them as responsible for their situation. 我们也发现,当谈论到 能动性较低的人群的时候—— 比如孩子或者婴儿—— 因为我们认为,这类人群无法对自己的情况负责。
particularly:adv.特别地,独特地;详细地,具体地;明确地,细致地; agency:n.代理,中介;代理处,经销处; responsible:adj.负责的,可靠的;有责任的;
So what are some lessons from this? 那么,我们可以从中学到什么呢？
We have two gaps : 我们有两种差距:
gaps:n.差异,缺口;缝隙(gap的复数形式);v.裂开;使豁裂(gap的第三人称单数形式);
We have a knowledge gap and we have a desirability gap 现实跟认知的差距,以及认知跟理想的差距。
desirability:n.愿望;有利条件;值得向往的事物;合意;
And the knowledge gap is something that we think about, how do we educate people? 先考虑现实跟认知的差距, 我们要怎样去教育人们？
How do we get people to think differently about inequality and the consequences of inequality in terms of health, education, jealousy , crime rate, and so on? 怎样让人们更好地认识贫富差距, 以及贫富差距所带来的后果？ 譬如健康、教育、嫉妒、犯罪率等等。
consequences:n.后果,结果;影响(consequence的复数); jealousy:n.嫉妒;猜忌;戒备;
Then we have the desirability gap. 然后是认知跟理想的差距。
How do we get people to think differently about what we really want? 我们怎样让人们更好地认识他们到底想要什么？
You see, the Rawls definition, the Rawls way of looking at the world, the blind tasting approach , takes our selfish motivation out of the picture . 罗尔斯的定义,他观察世界的方式, 这种盲品测试, 屏蔽了自私的动机。
approach:n.方法;路径;v.接近;建议;着手处理; motivation:n.动机;积极性;推动; out of the picture:不相干的;不合适;不在画面里的;
How do we implement that to a higher degree on a more extensive scale? 我们怎样能在更大程度、更广的范围内 来应用这个思路？
implement:v.实施;执行;贯彻;使生效;n.工具; extensive:adj.广泛的;大量的;广阔的;
And finally , we also have an action gap. 最后,我们还有理想跟行动的差距。
finally:adv.终于;最终;(用于列举)最后;彻底地;
How do we take these things and actually do something about it? 我们怎样才能把这些转化成行动？
I think part of the answer is to think about people like young kids and babies that don't have much agency, because people seem to be more willing to do this. 我认为,首先我们可以多想想 缺乏能动性的人,比如孩子或婴儿, 因为人们更愿意考虑这些人。
To summarize , I would say, next time you go to drink beer or wine, first of all , think about, what is it in your experience that is real, and what is it in your experience that is a placebo effect coming from expectations? 总之,下一次你喝啤酒、葡萄酒, 可以先想一想,你的体验有哪些是真实的, 又有哪些是来自预期的安慰剂效应？
summarize:v.总结;概述;概括;归纳; first of all:adv.首先; placebo:n.安慰剂;为死者所诵的晚祷词;
And then think about what it also means for other decisions in your life, and hopefully also for policy questions that affect all of us. 也要好好想想,这对我们个人生活中的其他决策, 对影响我们所有人的政策方面的问题 能有什么启迪。
policy:n.政策,方针;保险单;
Thanks a lot. 非常感谢。
(Applause) （鼓掌）