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

翻译人员: Hongfeng Ge 校对人员: 杏儀 歐陽

It would be nice to be objective in life,

在生活中的很多方面

保持客观是有益的。

in many ways.

The problem is that we have these color-tinted glasses

问题是，我们常常会带着有色眼镜

as we look at all kinds of situations.

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

如果我让你品尝一些啤酒，

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

并让你根据烈度和苦味值打分，

different beers would occupy different space.

不同的啤酒会得不同的分数。

But what if we tried to be objective about it?

如果我们想客观一些，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。

我们做同样的测试， 让人品尝同样的啤酒，

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

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

但盲品测试的结果会稍有不同。

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,

你基本分辨不出它们的差别。

and the exception, of course, will be Guinness.

当然，健力士啤酒是个例外。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

Similarly, we can think about physiology.

同样的，生理体验也是一样。

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。

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,

更能减轻人们的痛苦。

because expectations do change our physiology.

这是因为预期会改变生理体验。

And of course, we all know that in sports,

当然，我们都知道，看比赛时，

if you are a fan of a particular team,

如果你是其中一支球队的粉丝，

you can't help but see the game

你就只会从那支球队的视角

develop from the perspective of your team.

来看待这场比赛。

So all of those are cases in which our preconceived notions

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。

and our expectations color our world.

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。

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

我们想知道，在贫富差距问题上

for thinking about inequality?

进行“盲品测试”会有什么结果？

So we started looking at inequality,

所以，我们开始考虑贫富差距，

and we did some large-scale surveys

我们在美国和其他国家

around the U.S. and other countries.

做了一些大规模的调查。

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

最穷的人排在最右边，

to the richest on the left,

最富的人排在最左边。

and then I divided them into five buckets:

然后，我把他们分成五组：

the poorest 20 percent, the next 20 percent,

每20%一组，最穷的20%人口，

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

以此类推到最富的20%人口。

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

然后，我问道：你认为每组人口

is concentrated in each of those buckets.

各占有多少财富。

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

再简单点儿，请告诉我，

how much wealth do you think is concentrated

你认为最穷的两组，

in the bottom two buckets,

也就是最底层的40%人口

the bottom 40 percent?

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。

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

他们认为，最底层的20%人口

has about 2.9 percent of the wealth,

拥有2.9%的财富，

the next group has 6.4,

稍富的一组拥有6.4%，

so together it's slightly more than nine.

所以两者之和略大于9%。

The next group, they say, has 12 percent,

下一组，他们说，拥有12%，

20 percent,

然后是20%，

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

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,

再下一组拥有3.9%，

11.3,

11.3%，

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

最富的一组拥有84%-85%的财富。

So what we actually have and what we think we have

所以，我们的想法跟现实

are very different.

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,

为了得到答案，

to look at what we really want,

了解我们真正想要什么，

we thought about the philosopher John Rawls.

我们要了解一下哲学家约翰·罗尔斯。

If you remember John Rawls,

你们可能记得，

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

约翰·罗尔斯有一个 关于公平社会的理念。

He said a just society

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，

is a society that if you knew everything about it,

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

你仍然愿意成为任何社会阶层中一份子。

And it's a beautiful definition,

这个定义很精彩，

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

因为如果你是富人，

你会希望富人更富，穷人更穷。

to have more money, the poor to have less.

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

但是，如果你进入社会，

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

但不知道自己会处于哪个阶层，

you have to consider all the aspects.

你不得不考虑所有的方面。

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

这有点像盲品测试，

what the outcome will be when you make a decision,

选择的时候，连自己也不知道结果，

and Rawls called this the "veil of ignorance."

罗尔斯把这叫做“无知之幕”。

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

所以，我们找来另一组美国人，

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

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,

如果你可能进入社会的任一阶层，

knowing that you could end randomly at any place?

你希望你的国家有哪些特质？

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,

第一组，即底层的20%人口，

the bottom 20 percent?

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,

下一组是14%的财富，

21, 22 and 32.

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。

But what does it mean?

这意味着什么？

It means that we have this knowledge gap

这意味着，

between what we have and what we think we have,

在现实和认知之间存在差距，

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

而我们的理想和认知之间，

to what we think we have.

也同样存在着差距。

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，

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

比如，我们针对世界不同地方的人

about this question,

做了这个测验。

people who are liberals and conservatives,

我们问了自由主义者和保守主义者，

and they gave us basically the same answer.

他们给了我们大致相同的答案。

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

我们问了富人和穷人，也是相同的答案，

men and women,

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。

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

我们问了英格兰人， 澳大利亚人，美国人……

very similar answers.

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,

我们去哈佛， 问了几乎每个学院的学生，

and in fact, from Harvard Business School,

事实上，哈佛商学院的学生中，

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

一些人希望富人更富或者更穷，

the similarity was astonishing.

相似度是惊人的。

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。

So you can see what people think is the ratio,

这是人们认为的比率，

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

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？

Wealth is not just about wealth.

财富不只是金钱意义上的财富，

我们也问了关于：健康，

We asked, what about things like health?

What about availability of prescription medication?

处方药物治疗的供给，

What about life expectancy?

平均寿命，

What about life expectancy of infants?

婴儿的预期寿命。

How do we want this to be distributed?

我们想要怎样的数据分布呢？

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

通过测试这些方面，

don't like inequality of wealth,

我们发现人们不喜欢贫富差距，

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

但更不喜欢、甚至厌恶 其他方面的不平等，

is even more aversive to them:

而这些恰恰是贫富差距的结果：

for example, inequality in health or education.

比如，健康或教育的不平等。

We also learned that people are particularly open

我们也发现，当谈论到

to changes in equality when it comes to people

能动性较低的人群的时候——

who have less agency --

比如孩子或者婴儿——

basically, young kids and babies,

人们更愿意改变这种不平等，

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

因为我们认为，这类人群 无法对自己的情况负责。

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：

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。

And the knowledge gap is something that we think about,

先考虑现实跟认知的差距，

how do we educate people?

我们要怎样去教育人们？

How do we get people to think differently about inequality

怎样让人们更好地认识贫富差距，

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

以及贫富差距所带来的后果？

jealousy, crime rate, and so on?

譬如健康、教育、嫉妒、犯罪率等等。

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,

罗尔斯的定义，他观察世界的方式，

the blind tasting approach,

这种盲品测试，

takes our selfish motivation out of the picture.

屏蔽了自私的动机。

How do we implement that to a higher degree

我们怎样能在更大程度、 更广的范围内

on a more extensive scale?

来应用这个思路？

And finally, we also have an action gap.

最后，我们还有理想跟行动的差距。

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

我认为，首先我们可以多想想

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

缺乏能动性的人，比如孩子或婴儿，

because people seem to be more willing to do this.

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,

总之，下一次你喝啤酒、葡萄酒，

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

可以先想一想， 你的体验有哪些是真实的，

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

又有哪些是来自预期的安慰剂效应？

coming from expectations?

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

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

and hopefully also for policy questions

that affect all of us.

能有什么启迪。

Thanks a lot.

非常感谢。

(Applause)

（鼓掌）