TED演講：越有錢越無情(中英對照版)(共13頁)

1、精選優(yōu)質文檔-傾情為你奉上越有錢越無情It's amazing what a rigged game of Monopoly can reveal. In this entertaining but sobering talk, social psychologist Paul Piff shares his research into how people behave when they feel wealthy. (Hint: badly.) But while the problem of inequality is a complex and daunting challen

2、ge, there's good news too. (Filmed at TEDx Marin.) 一個被操縱的大富翁游戲能告訴我們的東西竟然有那么多！在這個有趣且發(fā)人深省的演講中，社會心理學家保羅-皮夫分享了他對于“人感到富有時如何表現(xiàn)”的研究結果（暗示：很壞）。在面對異常復雜、異常嚴峻的不平等問題的同時，我們也聽到了好的消息。（攝于TEDx加州馬林縣）Paul Piff studies how social hierarchy, inequality and emotion shape relations between individuals and groups.Why yo

3、u should listen:Paul Piff is an Assistant Professor of Psychology and Social Behavior at the University of California, Irvine. In particular, he studies how wealth (having it or not having it) can affect interpersonal relationships.His surprising studies include running rigged games of Monopoly, tra

4、cking how those who drive expensive cars behave versus those driving less expensive vehicles and even determining that rich people are literally more likely to take candy from children than the less well-off. The results often don't paint a pretty picture about the motivating forces of wealth. H

5、e writes, "specifically, I have been finding that increased wealth and status in society lead to increased self-focus and, in turn, decreased compassion, altruism, and ethical behavior."What others say:“When was the last time, as Piff puts it, that you prioritized your own interests above

6、the interests of other people? Was it yesterday, when you barked at the waitress for not delivering your cappuccino with sufficient promptness? Perhaps it was last week, when, late to work, you zoomed past a mom struggling with a stroller on the subway stairs and justified your heedlessness with a r

7、uthless but inarguable arithmetic: Today, the 9 a.m. meeting has got to come first; that ladys stroller cant be my problem. Piff is one of a new generation of scientistspsychologists, economists, marketing professors, and neurobiologistswho are exploiting this moment of unprecedented income inequali

8、ty to explore behaviors like those. ” Lisa Miller, New York Magazine演講稿正文I want you to, for a moment, think about playing a game of Monopoly, except in this game, that combination of skill, talent and luck that help earn you success in games, as in life, has been rendered irrelevant, because this ga

9、me's been rigged, and you've got the upper hand. You've got more money, more opportunities to move around the board, and more access to resources. And as you think about that experience, I want you to ask yourself, how might that experience of being a privileged player in a rigged game c

10、hange the way that you think about yourself and regard that other player?我想讓大家花一點時間，想想一下自己正在玩大富翁游戲。只不過在這個游戲里面，那些幫助你贏的游戲的因素，比如技巧、才能和運氣在此無關緊要，就像對于人生一樣，因為這個游戲被操縱了，而你已經(jīng)占了上風，你有更多的錢，有更多在棋盤上移動的機會以及更對獲得資源的機會。在你想象這一經(jīng)歷的過程中，我想讓大家問一下自己，一個被操縱的游戲里面作為優(yōu)勢玩家的經(jīng)歷會如何改變你思考自己和對待對手的方式？So we ran a study on the U.C. Berkeley

11、 campus to look at exactly that question. We brought in more than 100 pairs of strangers into the lab, and with the flip of a coin randomly assigned one of the two to be a rich player in a rigged game. They got two times as much money. When they passed Go, they collected twice the salary, and they g

12、ot to roll both dice instead of one, so they got to move around the board a lot more. (Laughter) And over the course of 15 minutes, we watched through hidden cameras what happened. And what I want to do today, for the first time, is show you a little bit of what we saw. You're going to have to p

13、ardon the sound quality, in some cases, because again, these were hidden cameras. So we've provided subtitles. 在加州大學伯克利分校，我們做了一個試驗來研究這個問題。我們招募了100多對陌生人到實驗室，通過投擲硬幣的方式隨機選中一對中的一個作為這個游戲中占上風的玩家。他們拿到了兩倍的錢。當他們途徑起點的時候，他們拿到兩倍的工資，而且他們可以同時擲兩個骰子而不是一個，所以他們可以在棋盤上移動更多。在接下來的15分鐘內(nèi)，我們通過隱藏的攝像頭觀察了現(xiàn)場情況。今天是第一次我想和大家分享

14、一下我們觀察到的，有的時候音質可能不太好，還請大家原諒，因為畢竟是用隱藏的攝像頭，所以我們加上了字幕。Rich Player: How many 500s did you have? 富玩家：你有多少張500塊？Poor Player: Just one.窮玩家：就一張。Rich Player: Are you serious. 富玩家：真的嗎？Poor Player: Yeah.窮玩家：是的。Rich Player: I have three. (Laughs) I don't know why they gave me so much.富玩家：我有三張。（笑聲）不知道為什么他們給了

15、我這么多。Paul Piff: Okay, so it was quickly apparent to players that something was up. One person clearly has a lot more money than the other person, and yet, as the game unfolded, we saw very notable differences and dramatic differences begin to emerge between the two players. The rich player started t

16、o move around the board louder, literally smacking the board with their piece as he went around. We were more likely to see signs of dominance and nonverbal signs, displays of power and celebration among the rich players.保羅.皮夫：所以，玩家們很快就意識到這個游戲明顯有點奇怪。一個玩家比另一個玩家明顯有更多的錢。隨著游戲慢慢展開，我們觀察到兩個玩家開始有一些明顯不同的表現(xiàn)。富

17、的玩家明顯在棋盤上移動的聲音更大，移動的時候幾乎是在狠狠砸棋盤。我們看到富玩家們“霸主”信號、肢體動作，權力的顯示以及相互慶祝。We had a bowl of pretzels positioned off to the side. It's on the bottom right corner there. That allowed us to watch participants' consummatory behavior. So we're just tracking how many pretzels participants eat.我們在旁邊放了一碗椒鹽

18、卷餅，就在右下角，這使得我們可以觀察玩家吃椒鹽卷餅的行為。我們就是看看玩家吃了多少椒鹽卷餅。Rich Player: Are those pretzels a trick?富玩家：這些椒鹽卷餅有什么貓膩嗎？Poor Player: I don't know.窮玩家：不知道啊。Okay, so no surprises, people are onto us. They wonder what that bowl of pretzels is doing there in the first place. One even asks, like you just saw, is that

19、 bowl of pretzels there as a trick? And yet, despite that, the power of the situation seems to inevitably dominate, and those rich players start to eat more pretzels.保羅·皮夫：好吧，不出所料，大家覺得有問題。起先他們好奇那一碗椒鹽卷餅為什么會在那里。就像你剛才看到的，其中有一個甚至問：這碗椒鹽卷餅與什么貓膩嗎？但盡管如此，整個現(xiàn)場的主導形勢還是不可避免的。那些富的玩家開始吃更多的椒鹽卷餅。Rich Player: I

20、love pretzels.富玩家：我愛椒鹽卷餅。 (Laughter)（笑聲）And as the game went on, one of the really interesting and dramatic patterns that we observed begin to emerge was that the rich players actually started to become ruder toward the other person, less and less sensitive to the plight of those poor, poor players,

21、 and more and more demonstrative of their material success, more likely to showcase how well they're doing. 保羅·皮夫：游戲繼續(xù)進行，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)了一個很明顯的有趣現(xiàn)象，就是富玩家開始對另一個玩家表現(xiàn)得不友好，對那些可憐玩家的貧窮困境越來越不敏感，開始越來越頻繁的炫富，更喜歡展示他們正在做的一切。Rich Player: I have money for everything.富玩家：我什么都買得起。 Poor Player: How much is that? 窮玩家：你

22、有多少錢？Rich Player: You owe me 24 dollars. You're going to lose all your money soon. I'll buy it. I have so much money. I have so much money, it takes me forever. 富玩家：你還欠我24塊。你很快就要輸光了。我要買它，我太多錢了那么多花都花不完的錢。Rich Player 2: I'm going to buy out this whole board. 富玩家2：我要把整個棋盤都買下來。Rich Player 3：

23、You're going to run out of money soon. I'm pretty much untouchable at this point.富玩家3：你很快就要沒錢了。我已經(jīng)差不多不可戰(zhàn)勝了。Okay, and here's what I think was really, really interesting, is that at the end of the 15 minutes, we asked the players to talk about their experience during the game. And when the

24、 rich players talked about why they had inevitably won in this rigged game of Monopoly - (Laughter) they talked about what they'd done to buy those different properties and earn their success in the game, and they became far less attuned to all those different features of the situation, includin

25、g that flip of a coin that had randomly gotten them into that privileged position in the first place. And that's a really, really incredible insight into how the mind makes sense of advantage.保羅·皮夫：下面是我覺得一個非常非常有有意思的現(xiàn)象。在15分鐘要結束的時候，我們請玩家談論他們在游戲中的經(jīng)歷。當玩家談論他們在這個被操縱的游戲里面為什么必勝的時候（笑聲）他們提到了自己為了買到不同地

26、產(chǎn)和贏得游戲所作的努力而他們忽略了這個游戲一開始的不同形勢也就是投擲硬幣隨即決定了他們哪一個獲得優(yōu)勢，而這對我們理解大腦如何看待優(yōu)勢提供了非常好的啟發(fā)。Now this game of Monopoly can be used as a metaphor for understanding society and its hierarchical structure, wherein some people have a lot of wealth and a lot of status, and a lot of people don't. They have a lot less

27、wealth and a lot less status and a lot less access to valued resources. And what my colleagues and I for the last seven years have been doing is studying the effects of these kinds of hierarchies. What we've been finding across dozens of studies and thousands of participants across this country

28、is that as a person's levels of wealth increase, their feelings of compassion and empathy go down, and their feelings of entitlement, of deservingness, and their ideology of self-interest increases. In surveys, we found that it's actually wealthier individuals who are more likely to moralize

29、 greed being good, and that the pursuit of self-interest is favorable and moral. Now what I want to do today is talk about some of the implications of this ideology self-interest, talk about why we should care about those implications, and end with what might be done.我們可以用這個大富翁的游戲作比喻來理解我們的社會以及社會分層，也

30、就是有的人有大量的社會財富和地位而很多人沒有，他們僅有很少的財富和地位以及很少獲得寶貴資源的機會。我和我的同事在過去的7年里一直在做的就是研究這些不同層次的影響。全國范圍內(nèi)的大量研究都表明，當一個人的財富增加時，他們的同情心和同理心下降，而他們的優(yōu)越感增加，也更注重個人利益。在調查中，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)，富有的人更可能把貪婪定義為好的，把對個人利益的追求定義為有利的，道德的。今天我想談的就是這種個人利益思維的影響，談談為什么我們應該關注這些影響以及我們能做些什么。Some of the first studies that we ran in this area looked at helping be

31、havior, something social psychologists call pro-social behavior. And we were really interested in who's more likely to offer help to another person, someone who's rich or someone who's poor. In one of the studies, we bring in rich and poor members of the community into the lab and give e

32、ach of them the equivalent of 10 dollars. We told the participants that they could keep these 10 dollars for themselves, or they could share a portion of it, if they wanted to, with a stranger who is totally anonymous. They'll never meet that stranger and the stranger will never meet them. And w

33、e just monitor how much people give. Individuals who made 25,000 sometimes under 15,000 dollars a year, gave 44 percent more of their money to the stranger than did individuals making 150,000 or 200,000 dollars a year.我們在這一領域最初做的一些研究，觀察了助人行為，社會心理學家稱之為親社會行為。我們很想知道什么人更傾向于給其他人提供幫助，富人還是窮人。其中一個研究，我們把一個社區(qū)

34、的富人和窮人都帶到了實驗室，給了每個人十美元。我們告訴他們，他們可以把這十塊錢給自己用，也可以把其中一部分拿出來分享。如果他們愿意的話，跟一個陌生人分享，一個永遠不會再相見的陌生人。我們觀察人們給了多少。那下年收入為25000甚至低于15000美元的人，而那些收入為15萬甚至20萬的人比起來多給了44%。We've had people play games to see who's more or less likely to cheat to increase their chances of winning a prize. In one of the games, we

35、 actually rigged a computer so that die rolls over a certain score were impossible. You couldn't get above 12 in this game, and yet, the richer you were, the more likely you were to cheat in this game to earn credits toward a $50 cash prize, sometimes by three to four times as much.我們還讓人們玩游戲，看看什

36、么人更可能為了贏得一個獎品而作弊。其中一個游戲，我們其實操縱了電腦使得某些數(shù)字不可能出現(xiàn)。這個游戲里面你不可能超過12。然而，越富有的人，越有可能在這個游戲中作弊去爭取那個最終能夠贏取50美元現(xiàn)金的分數(shù)，可能性甚至高達3到4倍。We ran another study where we looked at whether people would be inclined to take candy from a jar of candy that we explicitly identified as being reserved for children - (Laughter) parti

37、cipating - I'm not kidding. I know it sounds like I'm making a joke. We explicitly told participants this jar of candy's for children participating in a developmental lab nearby. They're in studies. This is for them. And we just monitored how much candy participants took. Participant

38、s who felt rich took two times as much candy as participants who felt poor.我們還做了另一個實驗，觀察人們是否會從糖罐里面拿糖。糖罐上清楚地寫著：給小朋友預留.（笑聲）我是認真的，我知道這聽上去像我在講笑話，我們明確的告訴了參與者，這一罐糖是給隔壁發(fā)展中心的小朋友準備的，他們在實驗中，這是給他們的。然后我們觀察這些參與者拿了多少糖果，那些感覺富有的參與者多拿了兩倍的糖果。We've even studied cars, not just any cars, but whether drivers of diffe

39、rent kinds of cars are more or less inclined to break the law. In one of these studies, we looked at whether drivers would stop for a pedestrian that we had posed waiting to cross at a crosswalk. Now in California, as you all know, because I'm sure we all do this, it's the law to stop for a

40、pedestrian who's waiting to cross. So here's an example of how we did it. That's our confederate off to the left posing as a pedestrian. He approaches as the red truck successfully stops. In typical California fashion, it's overtaken by the bus who almost runs our pedestrian over. (L

41、aughter) Now here's an example of a more expensive car, a Prius, driving through, and a BMW doing the same. So we did this for hundreds of vehicles on several days, just tracking who stops and who doesn't. What we found was that as the expensiveness of a car increased, the driver's tende

42、ncies to break the law increased as well. None of the cars, none of the cars in our least expensive car category broke the law. Close to 50 percent of the cars in our most expensive vehicle category broke the law. We've run other studies finding that wealthier individuals are more likely to lie

43、in negotiations, to endorse unethical behavior at work like stealing cash from the cash register, taking bribes, lying to customers.我們還研究了汽車，不只是汽車，而是不同類型汽車的司機誰更傾向于做一些違法的事情。其中一個實驗，我們觀察了，司機在碰到行人（我們安排的）過馬路時的停車行為。在加州，大家都知道，因為我相信我們都有這樣做，法律規(guī)定碰到行人要過馬路，我們必須停車。下面我告訴大家我們是怎樣做的，左側是我們的研究人員裝作一個行人，她正要過馬路，這時候紅色的卡車停

44、了下來，當然這是在加州。很快一輛巴士呼嘯而過，差點要撞到我們的行人（笑聲）這是一輛比較貴的車，一輛普銳斯開過來，一輛寶馬車也一樣。幾天內(nèi)，我們測試了幾百輛車記錄誰停了誰沒有停。我們發(fā)現(xiàn)，隨著車價的增加司機違法的傾向也增加了。而在我們的廉價車系里，沒有一輛車作出違法行為。而在我們的昂貴車系里，有接近50%的車都違法了。我們還做了其他研究并發(fā)現(xiàn)，越有錢的人越有可能在談判中說謊，贊同工作中的不道德行為。比如從收銀臺偷現(xiàn)金，受賄，忽悠顧客等。Now I don't mean to suggest that it's only wealthy people who show these

45、patterns of behavior. Not at all. In fact, I think that we all, in our day-to-day, minute-by-minute lives, struggle with these competing motivations of when, or if, to put our own interests above the interests of other people. And that's understandable because the American dream is an idea in wh

46、ich we all have an equal opportunity to succeed and prosper, as long as we apply ourselves and work hard, and a piece of that means that sometimes, you need to put your own interests above the interests and well-being of other people around you. But what we're finding is that, the wealthier you

47、are, the more likely you are to pursue a vision of personal success, of achievement and accomplishment, to the detriment of others around you. Here I've plotted for you the mean household income received by each fifth and top five percent of the population over the last 20 years. In 1993, the di

48、fferences between the different quintiles of the population, in terms of income, are fairly egregious. It's not difficult to discern that there are differences. But over the last 20 years, that significant difference has become a grand canyon of sorts between those at the top and everyone else.我

49、并不是說只是有錢人會表現(xiàn)出類似的行為，完全不是。事實上，我覺得我們每個人在我們?nèi)粘５姆址置朊胫卸家@些動機作斗爭。什么時候以及是否把我們的利益置于他人的利益之上。這很容易理解，因為美國夢告訴我們每個人都有同等的機會可以成功，發(fā)達，只要我們足夠努力。而這也意味著有的時候字需要把自己的利益置于你周邊人的利益和幸福之上。但我們發(fā)現(xiàn)的是，你越有錢，則越有可能一種個人的成功。個人的成果和成就，這可能是建立在對旁人的損害之上。這里我為大家畫出了在過去20年里，每個15和最高5%人口的平均家庭收入。1993年，每個15之間的收入差距還是相當大的，我們不難看出其中的差別。但是在過去的20年里面，這種巨大差距

50、最終成為了頂層人群與其他所有人之間的鴻溝。In fact, the top 20 percent of our population own close to 90 percent of the total wealth in this country. We're at unprecedented levels of economic inequality. What that means is that wealth is not only becoming increasingly concentrated in the hands of a select group of in

51、dividuals, but the American dream is becoming increasingly unattainable for an increasing majority of us. And if it's the case, as we've been finding, that the wealthier you are, the more entitled you feel to that wealth, and the more likely you are to prioritize your own interests above the

52、 interests of other people, and be willing to do things to serve that self-interest, well then there's no reason to think that those patterns will change. In fact, there's every reason to think that they'll only get worse, and that's what it would look like if things just stayed the

53、same, at the same linear rate, over the next 20 years.事實是，頂層20%的人口擁有整個國家接近90%的財富。我們正在經(jīng)歷史無前例的經(jīng)濟上的不平等，而這不僅意味著財富更多的聚集在為數(shù)很少的一群人手里，還意味著美國夢對越來越多的人來說都變得越來越遙遠。如果事實果真如我們發(fā)現(xiàn)的那樣，你越有錢就越發(fā)覺得這些財富是你應得的，越會把自己的利益置于他人的利益之上，越會做那些利己的事情。那里沒有理由可以相信這個現(xiàn)狀會有所改變。事實上，我們有更多的理由認為情況會變得更糟糕。這時在接下來的20年內(nèi)保持和原來一樣、相同現(xiàn)行速率的情況。Now, inequalit

54、y, economic inequality, is something we should all be concerned about, and not just because of those at the bottom of the social hierarchy, but because individuals and groups with lots of economic inequality do worse, not just the people at the bottom, everyone. There's a lot of really compellin

55、g research coming out from top labs all over the world showcasing the range of things that are undermined as economic inequality gets worse. Social mobility, things we really care about, physical health, social trust, all go down as inequality goes up. Similarly, negative things in social collective

56、s and societies, things like obesity, and violence, imprisonment, and punishment, are exacerbated as economic inequality increases. Again, these are outcomes not just experienced by a few, but that resound across all strata of society. Even people at the top experience these outcomes.不平等，經(jīng)濟上的不平等，是我們

57、每個人都要關心的問題，不僅是因為社會底層的人，而是因為經(jīng)濟不平等會讓個人和集體都變得糟糕。不僅僅是底層的人，是每一個人。有很多來自世界各地的頂級實驗室的非常有說服力的研究，展示了日益增加的經(jīng)濟不平等造成的影響范圍。社會流動性，那些我們非常關心的東西，如身體健康、社會信任，都會隨著不平等的增加而削弱。同樣的，社會中消極的東西，比如肥胖、暴力、徒刑和懲罰都會隨著經(jīng)濟不平等的增加而加劇。而這些后果，不是少數(shù)人所經(jīng)歷的而是會影響社會的各個階層。即使是在頂層的人也要遭受這些后果。So what do we do? This cascade of self-perpetuating, pernicious

58、, negative effects could seem like something that's spun out of control, and there's nothing we can do about it, certainly nothing we as individuals could do. But in fact, we've been finding in our own laboratory research that small psychological interventions, small changes to people

59、9;s values, small nudges in certain directions, can restore levels of egalitarianism and empathy. For instance, reminding people of the benefits of cooperation, or the advantages of community, cause wealthier individuals to be just as egalitarian as poor people. In one study, we had people watch a b

60、rief video, just 46 seconds long, about childhood poverty that served as a reminder of the needs of others in the world around them, and after watching that, we looked at how willing people were to offer up their own time to a stranger presented to them in the lab who was in distress. After watching this video, an hour later, rich people became just as generous of their own time to help out this other person, a stranger, as someone who's poor, s