中英逐字稿
00:04
如果我們能客觀面對生活和各方面 就太好了。 問題是我們戴著這些有色鏡片 去看待各種情境。 拿啤酒這種簡單的例子來說吧。 如果我讓你嚐幾款啤酒， 請你評比每一種酒的烈度和苦味， 不同的啤酒會落在不同的位置。 但如果我們試著客觀面對 會怎麼樣？ 以啤酒來說很簡單。 如果我們不看啤酒廠牌 會怎麼樣？ 如果我們做同樣的事， 你嚐同樣的啤酒， 但現在你不知道是哪種啤酒， 結果就會不太一樣。 大部分的啤酒會落在同一個位置， 基本上你無法分辨， 當然，健力士例外。 （笑聲）
It would be nice to be objective in life, in many ways. The problem is that we have these color-tinted glasses as we look at all kinds of situations. For example, think about something as simple as beer. 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. But what if we tried to be objective about it? In the case of beer, it would be very simple. What if we did a blind taste? Well, if we did the same thing, you tasted the same beer, now in the blind taste, things would look slightly different. Most of the beers will go into one place. You will basically not be able to distinguish them, and the exception, of course, will be Guinness. (Laughter)
00:54
同樣我們也能來看看生理機能。 大家在預期自己的生理機能時 會出現什麼情況？ 例如，我們賣止痛藥給大家。 我們跟某些人說的價格比較昂貴， 跟其他人說的價格較低。 結果昂貴止痛藥的效果比較好， 更能有效舒緩這些人的疼痛， 因為預期會改變我們的身體機能。 當然，我們都知道看運動賽的時候， 如果你是某隊的粉絲， 你就會無法克制 從你支持隊伍的觀點去看比賽。
Similarly, we can think about physiology. What happens when people expect something from their physiology? For example, we sold people pain medications. Some people, we told them the medications were expensive. Some people, we told them it was cheap. And the expensive pain medication worked better. It relieved more pain from people, because expectations do change our physiology. 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.
01:26
因此這些案例都顯示了 我們先入為主的念頭和期待 影響了我們的世界。 但是在更重要的問題上 出現什麼情況？ 在和社會正義有關的問題上 出現什麼情況？ 所以我們想 思考不平等的盲測試版本是什麼？ 因此我們開始檢視不平等， 我們做了大規模的調查， 遍及美國和其它國家。 我們問了兩個問題： 大家「知道」 我們現今社會不平等的程度如何嗎？ 第二，我們「希望」 的不平等程度又是如何？ 我們來看看第一個問題。 想像我將所有美國人分類， 最貧窮的在右邊， 最富有的在左邊， 然後我將所有人分成五群： 最窮的佔 20%，接著 20%， 接著 20%、20%， 以及最富有的 20%。 然後請你告訴我， 你認為每一群人 擁有的財富比例是多少。 簡單來說，請想像我問的是 你認為有多少財富集中在 最底層的這兩群人身上？ 就是底層 40% 的人？ 花點時間，想出一個數字。 通常我們都不會多想。 只要花點時間，心裡得出一個數字。 有答案了嗎？
So all of those are cases in which our preconceived notions and our expectations color our world. But what happened in more important questions? What happened with questions that had to do with social justice? So we wanted to think about what is the blind tasting version for thinking about inequality? So we started looking at inequality, and we did some large-scale surveys around the U.S. and other countries. So we asked two questions: Do people know what kind of level of inequality we have? And then, what level of inequality do we want to have? So let's think about the first question. Imagine I took all the people in the U.S. 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. And then I asked you to tell me how much wealth do you think is concentrated in each of those buckets. 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? Take a second. Think about it and have a number. Usually we don't think. Think for a second, have a real number in your mind. You have it?
02:44
好，這是大多數美國人給我們的答案。 他們認為最底層 20% 的人 大概擁有 2.9% 的財富； 下一群人有 6.4% 的財富， 總計比 9% 多一點。 他們說下一群人有 12% 的財富， 20%， 大家認為最富有的 20% 人口 擁有 58% 的財富。 你可以看到這和你想像中數字的差異。
Okay, here's what lots of Americans tell us. 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. The next group, they say, has 12 percent, 20 percent, and the richest 20 percent, people think has 58 percent of the wealth. You can see how this relates to what you thought.
03:09
事實呢？ 事實有點不同。 底層 20% 的人擁有 0.1% 的財富。 接下來 20% 的人有 0.2% 的財富。 加起來是 0.3%。 下一組是 3.9%、 11.3%， 最富有的這群人 有 84% 到 85% 的財富。 因此事實和我們的想像 大不相同。
Now, what's reality? Reality is slightly different. The bottom 20 percent has 0.1 percent of the wealth. The next 20 percent has 0.2 percent of the wealth. Together, it's 0.3. The next group has 3.9, 11.3, and the richest group has 84-85 percent of the wealth. So what we actually have and what we think we have are very different.
03:38
那麼我們的期待呢？ 我們怎麼找出答案？ 為了找出答案， 了解我們真正的期待， 我們想到哲學家約翰．羅爾斯。 如果你記得約翰．羅爾斯的話， 你會知道他說 「什麼是正義的社會」這個概念。 他說正義的社會 是一個如果你知道其中的一切， 你會願意在這個社會的任何一個位置。 這是很美好的定義， 因為如果你很富有，你也許會希望 富者更富，窮者更窮。 如果你是窮人，你應該會希望更平等。 但如果你要進入那個社會， 可能待在任何的位置上， 你不知道是哪一個， 你就得考慮周詳。 這有點像盲測試， 你不知道自己做的決定會有什麼結果， 約翰．羅爾斯稱此為「無知之幕」。
What about what we want? How do we even figure this out? So to look at this, to look at what we really want, we thought about the philosopher John Rawls. If you remember John Rawls, he had this notion of what's a just society. 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. 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. If you're poor, you might want more equality. 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. 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."
04:25
我們拿另一組人，一大群美國人， 套用「無知之幕」的情況 問他們這個問題。 一個有什麼特質的國家 會讓你想成為國民？ 前提是你會隨機 被放在任何一個位置上。 我們得到的結果如下： 大家想給第一組人， 也就是底層 20% 的人多少？ 他們想要給這些人 10% 的財富， 接下來這組是 14% 的財富、 21%、22%、32% 的財富。
So, we took another group, a large group of Americans, and we asked them the question in the veil of ignorance. What are the characteristics of a country that would make you want to join it, knowing that you could end randomly at any place? And here is what we got. What did people want to give to the first group, the bottom 20 percent? They wanted to give them about 10 percent of the wealth. The next group, 14 percent of the wealth, 21, 22 and 32.
04:55
現在，樣本裡沒人想要完全平等。 樣本裡沒人認為社會主義是最好的。 但這意謂著什麼？ 這意謂了我們有知識落差， 存在於真實情況 和我們的想像之間， 但是我們認為正確 和我們想像中的現況， 這兩者間的知識落差更大。
Now, nobody in our sample wanted full equality. Nobody thought that socialism is a fantastic idea in our sample. But what does it mean? 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.
05:16
順帶一提，我們不只能 在財富上問這個問題， 每件事都能是這些問題的主題。 例如，我們問世界各地的人 這個問題， 不論是自由黨還是保守黨， 基本上他們給的答案都一樣。 不論貧富都給了相同答案， 不論男女， 不論是全國公共廣播電台聽眾， 或《富比士》讀者。 我們問了英國、澳洲、美國…等國國民， 答案都大同小異。 我們還問了大學不同系所的人， 我們幾乎去了哈佛的每個系所， 事實上哈佛商學院裡， 很少人希望富人更富， 而希望他們擁有的少一點。 答案如此雷同，非常驚人。 我知道在座有些人念過哈佛商學院。
Now, we can ask these questions, by the way, not just about wealth. We can ask it about other things as well. 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. We asked rich and poor, they gave us the same answer, men and women, NPR listeners and Forbes readers. We asked people in England, Australia, the U.S. -- very similar answers. We even asked different departments of a university. 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 [poor] to have less, the similarity was astonishing. I know some of you went to Harvard Business School.
06:00
我們也會拿其它主題來問這些問題。 我們問，總裁和非技術性員工的薪資比是多少？ 你可以看到大家想像中的比例， 接著我們可以再問這個問題， 你認為比例應該是多少？ 然後我們就可以問事實是多少？ 事實是多少？你可能會說， 噢，其實沒那麼差嘛？ 紅色和黃色差不多。 但事實是因為我沒有 使用相同的比例尺。 你幾乎看不到裡面還有黃色和藍色。
We also asked this question about something else. We asked, what about the ratio of CEO pay to unskilled workers? 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? And then we can ask, what is reality? What is reality? And you could say, well, it's not that bad, right? The red and the yellow are not that different. But the fact is, it's because I didn't draw them on the same scale. It's hard to see, there's yellow and blue in there.
06:33
那其它財富的結果呢？ 財富不只事關財富。 我們還問，健康方面又如何呢？ 像是取得處方箋的難易度呢？ 平均壽命呢？ 嬰兒的平均壽命呢？ 我們希望怎麼分配這些項目？ 年輕人的教育呢？ 年長者的教育呢？ 透過那些事情，我們發現 大家不是很喜歡貧富不均， 但是還有很多來自於貧富不均的情況 更讓人反感： 例如，健康或教育的不平等。 我們也發現大家特別願意 改變不平等的情況， 特別是碰到那些 比較沒有行為能力的對象， 基本上就是小孩和嬰兒， 因為我們認為 他們不需為自己的現況負責。
So what about other outcomes of wealth? Wealth is not just about wealth. We asked, what about things like health? What about availability of prescription medication? What about life expectancy? What about life expectancy of infants? How do we want this to be distributed? What about education for young people? And for older people? 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. 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.
07:25
那我們從中學到什麼？ 我們有兩種落差： 我們有知識落差和期望落差。 知識落差是指我們認為 我們怎麼教育大眾？ 我們怎麼讓大家 用不同的方式想像不平等、 以及隨之而來，像是健康、教育、 妒忌、犯罪率…等等的不平等後果？
So what are some lessons from this? We have two gaps: We have a knowledge gap and we have a desirability gap And the knowledge gap is something that we think about, how do we educate people? 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?
07:44
另外我們也有期望落差。 我們怎麼讓大家用不同的方式 思考我們真正想要的是什麼？ 你看羅爾斯定義， 羅爾斯看世界的方式， 盲測試法， 將我們自私的動機移到畫面之外。 我們如何將之運用在程度更高、 範圍更廣的事物上？
Then we have the desirability gap. How do we get people to think differently about what we really want? 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. How do we implement that to a higher degree on a more extensive scale?
08:03
最後，我們還有行為落差。 我們要如何依據這些東西 並確實做出改變？ 我認為可能的答案是 想想孩子、嬰兒， 他們沒什麼行為能力， 因為大家似乎更願意為了他們而改變。
And finally, we also have an action gap. How do we take these things and actually do something about it? 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.
08:19
總而言之，下次你去喝啤酒或紅酒， 先思考在你的經驗裡，有什麼是真的， 在你的經驗裡， 有什麼只是安慰劑效應， 你被期待影響了？ 接著再思考，這對你生命中 其它決定有何意義？ 以及對影響我們大家的政策問題 會有什麼意義？
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? 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.
08:40
非常感謝。
Thanks a lot.
留言