How equal do we want the world to be? You'd be surprised | Dan Ariely

Translator: Nana Ginnerup Reviewer: Aviaja Josenius

It would be nice to be objective in life,

Det ville på mange måder være dejligt at være objektiv i livet

in many ways.

The problem is that we have these color-tinted glasses

Problemet er, at vi bærer de her tonede briller

as we look at all kinds of situations.

i alle slags situationer.

For example, think about something as simple as beer.

Tænk for eksempel på noget så simpelt som øl.

If I gave you a few beers to taste

Gav jeg dig nogle forskellige øl at smage

and I asked you to rate them on intensity and bitterness,

og bad jer vurdere dem på intensitet og bitterhed,

different beers would occupy different space.

ville forskellige øl optage forskellige pladser.

But what if we tried to be objective about it?

Men hvad hvis vi forsøgte at være objektive omkring det?

In the case of beer, it would be very simple.

I tilfældet med øl ville det være ret simpelt.

What if we did a blind taste?

Men hvad hvis vi lavede en blindsmagning?

Well, if we did the same thing, you tasted the same beer,

Gjorde vi det samme, og I smagte den samme øl,

now in the blind taste, things would look slightly different.

men nu i en blindsmagning, så ville det se noget anderledes ud.

Most of the beers will go into one place.

De fleste af øllene ville placere sig ens.

You will basically not be able to distinguish them,

I ville faktisk ikke kunne skelne mellem dem,

and the exception, of course, will be Guinness.

med undtagelsen af Guinness, selvfølgelig.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

Similarly, we can think about physiology.

Ligeledes med fysiologi.

What happens when people expect something from their physiology?

Hvad sker der, når folk forventer noget af deres fysiologi?

For example, we sold people pain medications.

For eksempel solgte vi smertestillende til folk.

Some people, we told them the medications were expensive.

Til nogen fortalte vi, at medicinen var dyr.

Some people, we told them it was cheap.

Til nogen fortalte vi, den var billig.

And the expensive pain medication worked better.

Og det dyre smertestillende virkede bedre.

It relieved more pain from people,

Den lettede smerten bedre hos folk,

because expectations do change our physiology.

fordi forventninger laver forandringer i vores fysiologi.

And of course, we all know that in sports,

Og selvfølgelig, ved vi alle, at i sport,

if you are a fan of a particular team,

hvis man er fan af et bestemt hold,

you can't help but see the game

kan man ikke undgå at se spillet

develop from the perspective of your team.

udfolde sig fra det holds perspektiv.

So all of those are cases in which our preconceived notions

Alle disse er eksempler, hvor der er forudbestemte meninger,

and our expectations color our world.

og vore forventninger farver vores verden.

But what happened in more important questions?

Men hvad skete der med vigtigere spørgsmål?

What happened with questions that had to do with social justice?

Hvad med spørgsmål, der omhandlede social retfærdighed?

So we wanted to think about what is the blind tasting version

Vi havde lyst til at tænke over, hvordan blindsmagningsversionen

for thinking about inequality?

for ulighed er.

So we started looking at inequality,

Så vi startede med at kigge på ulighed

and we did some large-scale surveys

og foretog nogle omfattende undersøgelser

around the U.S. and other countries.

rundt omkring i USA og andre lande.

So we asked two questions:

Vi spurgte om to ting:

Do people know what kind of level of inequality we have?

Ved folk hvilket niveau af ulighed, vi har?

And then, what level of inequality do we want to have?

Og så; hvilket niveau af ulighed ønsker vi?

So let's think about the first question.

Lad os overveje det første spørgsmål.

Imagine I took all the people in the U.S.

Forestil jer, at jeg tog alle folk i USA

and I sorted them from the poorest on the right

og sorterede dem fra de fattigste til højre

to the richest on the left,

til de rigeste til venstre

and then I divided them into five buckets:

og så delte dem op i fem grupper:

the poorest 20 percent, the next 20 percent,

De fattigste 20 %, de næste 20 %,

the next, the next, and the richest 20 percent.

de næste, de næste, og de rigeste 20 %.

And then I asked you to tell me how much wealth do you think

Og så bad jeg jer om at vise mig, hvor meget velstand,

is concentrated in each of those buckets.

der er koncentreret i hver af disse grupper.

So to make it simpler, imagine I ask you to tell me,

For at gøre det nemmere, forestil jer, at det var

how much wealth do you think is concentrated

hvor meget velstand, der er koncentreret

in the bottom two buckets,

i de to nederste grupper;

the bottom 40 percent?

De nederste 40 %.

Take a second. Think about it and have a number.

Tænk et øjeblik. Tænk over det, og vælg et tal.

Usually we don't think.

Normalt tænker vi ikke.

Think for a second, have a real number in your mind.

Tænk et øjeblik og hav et rigtigt tal klar.

You have it?

Har I det?

Okay, here's what lots of Americans tell us.

Okay, her er hvad, mange amerikanere siger til os.

They think that the bottom 20 percent

De tror, at de nederste 20 %

has about 2.9 percent of the wealth,

har omkring 2,9 % af velstande,

the next group has 6.4,

den næste gruppe har 6,4 %,

so together it's slightly more than nine.

altså tilsammen lidt mere end ni.

The next group, they say, has 12 percent,

Den næste gruppe, siger de, har 12 %,

20 percent,

20 %,

and the richest 20 percent, people think has 58 percent of the wealth.

og de rigeste 20 %, tror folk, har omkring 58 % af velstanden.

You can see how this relates to what you thought.

I kan se hvordan det relaterer til det, I troede.

Now, what's reality?

Hvad er realiteten så?

Reality is slightly different.

Virkeligheden er en smule anderledes.

The bottom 20 percent has 0.1 percent of the wealth.

De nederste 20 % har 0,1 % af velstanden.

The next 20 percent has 0.2 percent of the wealth.

De næste 20 % har 0,2 % af velstanden.

Together, it's 0.3.

Tilsammen er det 0,3.

The next group has 3.9,

Den næste gruppe har 3,9.

11.3,

11,3.

and the richest group has 84-85 percent of the wealth.

Og den rigeste gruppe har 84-85 % af velstanden.

So what we actually have and what we think we have

Så hvad vi rent faktisk har, og hvad, vi tror, vi har,

are very different.

er meget forskellige.

What about what we want?

Hvad er det så, vi ønsker?

How do we even figure this out?

Hvordan fandt vi overhovedet ud af det?

So to look at this,

Så for at finde ud af dette,

to look at what we really want,

af hvad vi virkelig ønsker,

we thought about the philosopher John Rawls.

tænkte vi på filosoffen John Rawls.

If you remember John Rawls,

Hvis I husker John Rawls,

he had this notion of what's a just society.

så havde han den her idé om, hvad et retfærdigt samfund er.

He said a just society

Han sagde, et retfærdigt samfund

is a society that if you knew everything about it,

er et samfund hvor, hvis man vidste alt omkring det,

you would be willing to enter it in a random place.

så ville man være villig til at komme ind i det et vilkårligt sted.

And it's a beautiful definition,

Og det er en smuk definition,

because if you're wealthy, you might want the wealthy

for hvis man er rig vil man måske have de rige

to have more money, the poor to have less.

til at have flere penge; de fattige færre.

If you're poor, you might want more equality.

Er man fattig, ønsker man måske mere lighed.

But if you're going to go into that society

Men hvis man kan komme ind i det samfund

in every possible situation, and you don't know,

i hver en mulig situation, og man ikke ved hvilken,

you have to consider all the aspects.

så tvinges man til at overveje alle aspekter.

It's a little bit like blind tasting in which you don't know

Det er lidt ligesom blindsmagning, hvor man ikke ved,

what the outcome will be when you make a decision,

hvad udfaldet vil være, når man tager en beslutning,

and Rawls called this the "veil of ignorance."

og Rawls kaldte det "uvidenhedens slør".

So, we took another group, a large group of Americans,

Så vi tog en anden gruppe, en stor gruppe af amerikanere,

and we asked them the question in the veil of ignorance.

og vi spurgte dem et spørgsmål om uvidenhedens slør:

What are the characteristics of a country that would make you want to join it,

Hvad er karakteristikaene for et land, der ville få dig til at tilslutte dig det,

knowing that you could end randomly at any place?

velvidende om at du kunne ende op hvilket som helst sted i det?

And here is what we got.

Her er hvad, vi endte op med.

What did people want to give to the first group,

Hvad ville folk give til den første gruppe,

the bottom 20 percent?

de nederste 20 %?

They wanted to give them about 10 percent of the wealth.

De havde lyst til at give dem ca. 10 % af velstanden.

The next group, 14 percent of the wealth,

Den næste gruppe 14 % af velstanden,

21, 22 and 32.

21, 22 og 32.

Now, nobody in our sample wanted full equality.

Ingen i vores stikprøve ønskede fuld ligestilling.

Nobody thought that socialism is a fantastic idea in our sample.

Ingen i vores stikprøve mente, at socialisme er en fantastisk ide.

But what does it mean?

Men hvad betyder det?

It means that we have this knowledge gap

Det betyder, at vi har en videnskløft

between what we have and what we think we have,

mellem hvad vi har, og hvad vi tror vi har,

but we have at least as big a gap between what we think is right

men vi har et mindst lige så stort hul mellem hvad vi mener er rigtigt,

to what we think we have.

og hvad vi tror vi har.

Now, we can ask these questions, by the way, not just about wealth.

Vi kan ikke kun stille disse spørgsmål omkring økonomisk velstand.

We can ask it about other things as well.

Vi kan også stille dem omkring andre ting.

So for example, we asked people from different parts of the world

For eksempel spurgte vi folk fra forskellige dele af verden

about this question,

om dette -

people who are liberals and conservatives,

Liberale og konservative -

and they gave us basically the same answer.

og de gav os stort set det samme svar.

We asked rich and poor, they gave us the same answer,

Vi spurgte rig og fattig, de gav os det samme svar.

men and women,

Mænd og kvinder,

NPR listeners and Forbes readers.

NPR-lyttere og læsere af Forbes.

We asked people in England, Australia, the U.S. --

Vi spurgte folk i England, Australien, USA -

very similar answers.

meget ens svar.

We even asked different departments of a university.

Vi spurgte endda forskellige afdelinger på et universitet.

We went to Harvard and we checked almost every department,

Vi tog til Harvard og tjekkede næsten hver eneste afdeling,

and in fact, from Harvard Business School,

og faktisk på Harvard Business School,

where a few people wanted the wealthy to have more and the [poor] to have less,

hvor nogle få ønskede at de velhavende skulle have mere og de rigeste mindre,

the similarity was astonishing.

var ligheden forbløffende.

I know some of you went to Harvard Business School.

Jeg ved, at nogen af jer gik på Harvard Business School.

We also asked this question about something else.

Vi spurgte også spørgsmålet omkring noget andet.

We asked, what about the ratio of CEO pay to unskilled workers?

Vi spurgte omkring forholdet mellem direk- tørers løn og de ufaglærte arbejderes.

So you can see what people think is the ratio,

Så I kan se, hvad folk troede forholdet var.

and then we can ask the question, what do they think should be the ratio?

Vi spurgte dem som, hvad de mente forholdet burde være.

And then we can ask, what is reality?

Og så om hvad realiteten var.

What is reality? And you could say, well, it's not that bad, right?

Hvad er realiteten? Og man kan sige, at det er da ikke så slemt, vel?

The red and the yellow are not that different.

De røde og gule er ikke så forskellige.

But the fact is, it's because I didn't draw them on the same scale.

Men faktum er, at det er fordi, jeg ikke har tegnet dem på den samme skala.

It's hard to see, there's yellow and blue in there.

Det er svært at se, der er gult og blåt derinde.

So what about other outcomes of wealth?

Så hvad med andre udfald af velstand?

Wealth is not just about wealth.

Velstand er ikke kun om velstand.

We asked, what about things like health?

Vi spurgte: Hvad med ting som helbred?

What about availability of prescription medication?

Hvad med tilgængeligheden af receptpligtig medicin?

What about life expectancy?

Hvad med forventet levealder?

What about life expectancy of infants?

Hvad med spædbørns forventede levealder?

How do we want this to be distributed?

Hvordan ønsker vi, at det fordeles?

What about education for young people?

Hvad med uddannelse til unge?

And for older people?

Og til ældre?

And across all of those things, what we learned was that people

Og gennem alle disse ting lærte vi, at folk

don't like inequality of wealth,

ikke kan lide ulighed i velstand,

but there's other things where inequality, which is an outcome of wealth,

men der er andre ting, hvor ulighed, hvilket er et resultat af velstand,

is even more aversive to them:

virker endnu mere generende for dem:

for example, inequality in health or education.

For eksempel ulighed i helbred eller uddannelse.

We also learned that people are particularly open

Vi lærte også, at folk især er åbne

to changes in equality when it comes to people

for forandringer i lighed, når det kommer til folk, der

who have less agency --

er i dårligere stand til at klare sig selv -

basically, young kids and babies,

generelt set unge børn og babyer,

because we don't think of them as responsible for their situation.

fordi vi ikke se dem som værende ansvarlige for deres situation.

So what are some lessons from this?

Så hvad er lektien fra det her?

We have two gaps:

Vi har to kløfter:

We have a knowledge gap and we have a desirability gap

Vi har en videnskløft og en ønskekløft.

And the knowledge gap is something that we think about,

Videnskløften er noget, vi tænker på.

how do we educate people?

Hvordan uddanner vi folk?

How do we get people to think differently about inequality

Hvordan får vi folk til at tænke anderledes om ulighed

and the consequences of inequality in terms of health, education,

og konsekvenserne af ulighed i relation til helbred, uddannelse,

jealousy, crime rate, and so on?

jalousi, kriminalitet osv.?

Then we have the desirability gap.

Så har vi ønskekløften.

How do we get people to think differently about what we really want?

Hvordan får vi folk til at tænke anderledes omkring, hvad de virkelig vil have?

You see, the Rawls definition, the Rawls way of looking at the world,

Rawls måde at se verden på, ser I,

the blind tasting approach,

blindsmagningstilgangen,

takes our selfish motivation out of the picture.

eliminerer vores selviske motivation.

How do we implement that to a higher degree

Hvordan implementerer vi det i højere grad

on a more extensive scale?

på en mere omfattende skala?

And finally, we also have an action gap.

Og til slut har vi en handlingskløft.

How do we take these things and actually do something about it?

Hvordan får vi rent faktisk gjort noget ved de her ting?

I think part of the answer is to think about people

Jeg tror dele af svaret, er at tænke på folk

like young kids and babies that don't have much agency,

som unge børn og babyer, der dårligere kan klare sig selv,

because people seem to be more willing to do this.

for det ser ud til at folk er mere villige til at gøre det.

To summarize, I would say, next time you go to drink beer or wine,

For at opsummere vil jeg sige, næste gang I går ud og drikker øl eller vin,

first of all, think about, what is it in your experience that is real,

skal I først og fremmest overveje, hvilken del af jeres oplevelse, der er virkelig,

and what is it in your experience that is a placebo effect

og hvilken del, der er placeboeffekt

coming from expectations?

stammende fra forventninger.

And then think about what it also means for other decisions in your life,

Og overvej så, hvad det betyder for andre beslutninger i jeres liv

and hopefully also for policy questions

og forhåbentligt også for politiske spørgsmål,

that affect all of us.

der påvirker os alle.

Thanks a lot.

Mange tak.

(Applause)