Paul Bloom: Can prejudice ever be a good thing?

譯者: Marssi Draw 審譯者: Coco Shen

When we think about prejudice and bias,

在思考成見與偏見時，

we tend to think about stupid and evil people

我們常會想到愚人和壞人

doing stupid and evil things.

在做蠢事和壞事。

And this idea is nicely summarized

這個想法正好等同

by the British critic William Hazlitt,

英國評論家威廉．哈茲列特

who wrote, "Prejudice is the child of ignorance."

所述：「偏見是無知的產物。」

I want to try to convince you here

我想試著在此說服各位

that this is mistaken.

這個說法錯了。

I want to try to convince you

我想試著說服各位

that prejudice and bias

成見與偏見很正常，

are natural, they're often rational,

通常也很理性，

and they're often even moral,

甚至往往合乎道德，

and I think that once we understand this,

我認為只要我們理解這點，

we're in a better position to make sense of them

就更容易了解偏見，

when they go wrong,

一旦偏見出錯，

when they have horrible consequences,

或偏見帶來恐怖後果時，

and we're in a better position to know what to do

我們就能更了解該怎麼做。

when this happens.

So, start with stereotypes. You look at me,

從刻板印象開始談起。

你看著我，知道我的名字和一些背景，

you know my name, you know certain facts about me,

and you could make certain judgments.

接著就能做出某些判斷。

You could make guesses about my ethnicity,

你可能會猜測我的種族、

my political affiliation, my religious beliefs.

政黨，以及宗教信仰。

And the thing is, these judgments tend to be accurate.

而且這些評斷通常都正確。

We're very good at this sort of thing.

我們很擅長這種事。

And we're very good at this sort of thing

我們很擅於這種事

because our ability to stereotype people

是因為將人分類的能力

is not some sort of arbitrary quirk of the mind,

不是什麼心血來潮的事，

but rather it's a specific instance

而是經過自然形成的真實案例，

of a more general process,

which is that we have experience

那就是我們在世上經歷的人事物

with things and people in the world

that fall into categories,

都會被歸類，

and we can use our experience to make generalizations

我們能依據自己的經驗

分類各種新奇事物。

about novel instances of these categories.

So everybody here has a lot of experience

在座各位都有許多經驗

with chairs and apples and dogs,

和椅子、蘋果、小狗有關，

and based on this, you could see

而根據這點，

unfamiliar examples and you could guess,

在你看到許多陌生案例時就能推測，

you could sit on the chair,

你能坐上椅子，

you could eat the apple, the dog will bark.

可以吃那顆蘋果，那隻狗會吠。

Now we might be wrong.

但我們也許錯了。

The chair could collapse if you sit on it,

你如果坐上椅子，它可能就會垮。

the apple might be poison, the dog might not bark,

蘋果也許有毒，狗也許不會叫，

and in fact, this is my dog Tessie, who doesn't bark.

事實上，這是我的狗泰希，牠不會叫。

But for the most part, we're good at this.

但大多數的情況下，我們擅於此事。

For the most part, we make good guesses

通常我們都能猜得八九不離十，

both in the social domain and the non-social domain,

無論是社交或非社交領域，

and if we weren't able to do so,

如果我們不太會猜，

if we weren't able to make guesses about new instances that we encounter,

如果我們不能猜出碰到的新事件，

we wouldn't survive.

我們就無法生存。

And in fact, Hazlitt later on in his wonderful essay

事實上，赫茲利特後來在他的絕佳論文中

concedes this.

承認了這點。

He writes, "Without the aid of prejudice and custom,

他說：「沒有成見和慣例輔助，

I should not be able to find my way my across the room;

我就找不到穿越房間的路徑；

nor know how to conduct myself in any circumstances,

不知道該如何融入各種環境，

nor what to feel in any relation of life."

以及如何感受生命中的各種關係。」

Or take bias.

以偏見來說，

Now sometimes, we break the world up into

有時候我們會把世界劃分為你我對立，

us versus them, into in-group versus out-group,

劃分成內團體和外團體，

and sometimes when we do this,

偶爾我們這麼做的時候，

we know we're doing something wrong,

會自知犯了點錯，

and we're kind of ashamed of it.

而覺得有點難為情。

But other times we're proud of it.

但有時候我們卻引以為傲。

We openly acknowledge it.

我們勇於承認。

And my favorite example of this

我最愛的例子

is a question that came from the audience

是觀眾提出的問題，

in a Republican debate prior to the last election.

場合是共和黨上次選舉前的辯論大會。

(Video) Anderson Cooper: Gets to your question,

（影片）安德森．庫珀：下一個問題，

the question in the hall, on foreign aid? Yes, ma'am.

來自在場觀眾詢問對外援助，請說。

Woman: The American people are suffering

女士：美國人當前在國內受苦，

in our country right now.

Why do we continue to send foreign aid

為什麼我們不斷對外援助，

to other countries

協助其它國家？

when we need all the help we can get for ourselves?

我們自己也需要幫助啊！

AC: Governor Perry, what about that?

安德森：佩里州長，你怎麼看？

(Applause)

（掌聲）

Rick Perry: Absolutely, I think it's—

里克．佩里：當然，我認為那…

Paul Bloom: Each of the people onstage

保羅：每一位在台上的候選人

agreed with the premise of her question,

都同意她的前提，

which is as Americans, we should care more

那就是身為美國人，

我們應該更關心本國人，而非外國人。

about Americans than about other people.

And in fact, in general, people are often swayed

事實上，大家常被感覺支配，

by feelings of solidarity, loyalty, pride, patriotism,

像是團結、忠誠、自尊、愛國心，

towards their country or towards their ethnic group.

這類對所屬國家或種族的情感。

Regardless of your politics, many people feel proud to be American,

不論你的黨派為何， 許多人都以身為美國人為榮，

and they favor Americans over other countries.

他們偏愛美國人勝於其它國家。

Residents of other countries feel the same about their nation,

其它國家的居民對自己國家 有同樣的感覺，

and we feel the same about our ethnicities.

我們對種族淵源也有同樣感受。

Now some of you may reject this.

在座有些人可能會不認同。

Some of you may be so cosmopolitan

有些人可能四海為家，

that you think that ethnicity and nationality

因此認為種族和國籍

should hold no moral sway.

不應該有道德羈絆。

But even you sophisticates accept

但是即使你硬要說

that there should be some pull

應該有某種影響力

towards the in-group in the domain of friends and family,

存在你和親友、熟人之間的內團體之中，

of people you're close to,

and so even you make a distinction

你也在我們和他們之間做了區隔。

between us versus them.

Now, this distinction is natural enough

這種區隔十分自然，

and often moral enough, but it can go awry,

通常也很合乎道德觀，但卻可能走樣，

and this was part of the research

這就是偉大心理學家亨利．泰弗爾

of the great social psychologist Henri Tajfel.

研究的一部分。

Tajfel was born in Poland in 1919.

泰弗爾在 1919 年生於波蘭，

He left to go to university in France,

他為了唸大學前往法國，

because as a Jew, he couldn't go to university in Poland,

因為身為猶太人，他不能在波蘭唸大學，

and then he enlisted in the French military

後來他加入法國軍隊，

in World War II.

參與第二次世界大戰。

He was captured and ended up

他被逮捕，

in a prisoner of war camp,

被關進戰俘營，

and it was a terrifying time for him,

對他來說那是段恐怖時期，

because if it was discovered that he was a Jew,

因為如果有人發現他是猶太人，

he could have been moved to a concentration camp,

他就可能會被送進集中營，

where he most likely would not have survived.

很可能會在裡頭喪命。

And in fact, when the war ended and he was released,

其實戰爭結束後，他重獲自由，

most of his friends and family were dead.

大部分的親友都死了。

He got involved in different pursuits.

他開始參與各種活動，

He helped out the war orphans.

並協助戰時遺孤脫困。

But he had a long-lasting interest

但他一直很有興趣

in the science of prejudice,

專研偏見科學，

and so when a prestigious British scholarship

因此當一份針對刻板印象的 知名英國獎學金開放申請時，

on stereotypes opened up, he applied for it,

and he won it,

他提出申請後獲選，

and then he began this amazing career.

就開啟了這美好的職業生涯。

And what started his career is an insight

讓他展開這份職業的原因是

that the way most people were thinking

他頓悟到大多數人理解的

about the Holocaust was wrong.

猶太人大屠殺並不正確。

Many people, most people at the time,

那時候大多數人

viewed the Holocaust as sort of representing

認為猶太人大屠殺

some tragic flaw on the part of the Germans,

象徵德國人的某種悲慘缺陷，

some genetic taint, some authoritarian personality.

基因汙點與獨裁人格。

And Tajfel rejected this.

泰弗爾反駁這點。

Tajfel said what we see in the Holocaust

他說我們在猶太人大屠殺中見到的

is just an exaggeration

只是種正常心理歷程的誇大版，

of normal psychological processes

that exist in every one of us.

我們每個人都會有。

And to explore this, he did a series of classic studies

為了深入探索， 他做了一系列經典研究，

with British adolescents.

針對英國青少年。

And in one of his studies, what he did was he asked

在一份研究中，

the British adolescents all sorts of questions,

他問英國青少年各種問題，

and then based on their answers, he said,

然後根據他們的答案說：

"I've looked at your answers, and based on the answers,

「我看了你們的答案，根據你的答案，

I have determined that you are either" —

我認定你要嘛不是…」

he told half of them —

他告訴一半的人說：

"a Kandinsky lover, you love the work of Kandinsky,

「你是康丁斯基的粉絲， 超愛康丁斯基的作品，

or a Klee lover, you love the work of Klee."

不然你就是克利的粉絲， 超愛他的作品。」

It was entirely bogus.

其實這根本就是場騙局。

Their answers had nothing to do with Kandinsky or Klee.

他們的答案和康丁斯基或克利毫無關係，

They probably hadn't heard of the artists.

說不定連這兩位藝術家的名字也沒聽過。

He just arbitrarily divided them up.

他只是任意將他們分類。

But what he found was, these categories mattered,

但他發現，這樣的分類有意義，

so when he later gave the subjects money,

因此當他之後給受試者酬勞，

they would prefer to give the money

他們會比較想把錢給和自己同類的人，

to members of their own group

than members of the other group.

不想給和自己不同類的人。

Worse, they were actually most interested

更糟的是，他們其實特別喜歡

in establishing a difference

突顯團體之間的差異。

between their group and other groups,

so they would give up money for their own group

他們寧願把錢都給自己的團，

if by doing so they could give the other group even less.

只為了少給別團一點錢。

This bias seems to show up very early.

這種偏見似乎在年幼時就會出現。

So my colleague and wife, Karen Wynn, at Yale

我的妻子兼耶魯的同事凱倫．韋恩

has done a series of studies with babies

對嬰兒做了一系列研究，

where she exposes babies to puppets,

她讓嬰兒接觸玩偶，

and the puppets have certain food preferences.

而每個玩偶都偏好某種食物。

So one of the puppets might like green beans.

可能某個玩偶喜歡四季豆，

The other puppet might like graham crackers.

另一個玩偶則喜歡全麥餅乾。

They test the babies own food preferences,

他們測試嬰兒的食物喜好，

and babies typically prefer the graham crackers.

嬰兒基本上都比較喜歡全麥餅乾。

But the question is, does this matter to babies

但問題是，這會影響嬰兒 對待玩偶的方式嗎？

in how they treat the puppets? And it matters a lot.

答案是大有關聯。

They tend to prefer the puppet

他們較喜歡的是

who has the same food tastes that they have,

和自己有同樣口味的玩偶，

and worse, they actually prefer puppets

更糟的是，他們真的比較樂見

同口味的玩偶處罰不同口味的玩偶。

who punish the puppet with the different food taste.

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

We see this sort of in-group, out-group psychology all the time.

我們無時無刻會看到 這種內、外團體的心態。

We see it in political clashes

我們會看到意識型態不同的 團體間有政治衝突。

within groups with different ideologies.

We see it in its extreme in cases of war,

我們在戰爭中看到極端的例子，

where the out-group isn't merely given less,

外團體不只是得到較少好處，

but dehumanized,

還會被眨得連人都不如，

as in the Nazi perspective of Jews

就像納粹人眼中的猶太人是害蟲、蝨子，

as vermin or lice,

or the American perspective of Japanese as rats.

或美國人眼中的日本人是卑鄙的老鼠。

Stereotypes can also go awry.

刻板印象也可能出差錯。

So often they're rational and useful,

通常刻板印象很理性和有用，

but sometimes they're irrational,

但有時卻不合理，

they give the wrong answers,

會提供錯誤答案，

and other times

而某些時候

they lead to plainly immoral consequences.

則會引起違反道德的結果。

And the case that's been most studied

最常被研究的例子是種族。

is the case of race.

There was a fascinating study

在 2008 年大選前有項很吸引人的研究，

prior to the 2008 election

where social psychologists looked at the extent

社會心理學家檢視

to which the candidates were associated with America,

每一位候選人和美國的相關程度，

as in an unconscious association with the American flag.

如同對美國國旗的無意識聯想。

And in one of their studies they compared

其中一項研究比較了歐巴馬和麥肯，

Obama and McCain, and they found McCain

他們發現大家認為 麥肯比歐巴馬更像美國人，

is thought of as more American than Obama,

and to some extent, people aren't that surprised by hearing that.

而且大家聽到這件事也不太驚訝。

McCain is a celebrated war hero,

麥肯被封為戰時英雄，

and many people would explicitly say

很多人會直說

he has more of an American story than Obama.

他的故事比歐巴馬更符合美國形象。

But they also compared Obama

但他們也拿歐巴馬

to British Prime Minister Tony Blair,

和英國首相東尼．布萊爾比較，

and they found that Blair was also thought of

結果發現大家也認為

as more American than Obama,

布萊爾比歐巴馬還像美國人，

even though subjects explicitly understood

即使題目已經明白指出

that he's not American at all.

他根本不是美國人。

But they were responding, of course,

但是想當然爾，他們都說

to the color of his skin.

問題出在他的膚色。

These stereotypes and biases

這些刻板印象和偏見

have real-world consequences,

都會影響現實生活，

both subtle and very important.

無論事情是輕或重。

In one recent study, researchers

最近一份報告中，

put ads on eBay for the sale of baseball cards.

研究員在拍賣網 eBay 刊登賣棒球卡的廣告。

Some of them were held by white hands,

有些是白人的手持卡，

others by black hands.

有些則是黑人持卡。

They were the same baseball cards.

這些都是一樣的棒球卡。

The ones held by black hands

某些黑人拿的卡

got substantially smaller bids

競標價格遠低於

than the ones held by white hands.

白人拿的卡。

In research done at Stanford,

有份史丹佛的報告指出，

psychologists explored the case of people

心理學家探究

白人被判謀殺罪的案件。

sentenced for the murder of a white person.

結果出爐，在所有條件相同的情況下，

It turns out, holding everything else constant,

you are considerably more likely to be executed

你極有可能被判死刑，

if you look like the man on the right

如果你長得較像右邊這位，

than the man on the left,

機率高於左邊這位，

and this is in large part because

主要是因為

the man on the right looks more prototypically black,

右邊這位看來像典型黑人，

more prototypically African-American,

較像非裔美國人，

and this apparently influences people's decisions

影響人們決定的顯然是這點，

over what to do about him.

而非他做了什麼事。

So now that we know about this,

但知道了這件事，

how do we combat it?

我們能如何抵抗？

And there are different avenues.

有幾種方法。

One avenue is to appeal

其一是訴諸大眾的情感反應，

to people's emotional responses,

to appeal to people's empathy,

訴諸大眾的同理心，

and we often do that through stories.

我們通常透過故事來呈現。

So if you are a liberal parent

如果你是開明的家長，

and you want to encourage your children

你想鼓勵孩子

to believe in the merits of nontraditional families,

相信非傳統家庭的價值，

you might give them a book like this. ["Heather Has Two Mommies"]

你可能會給他這類的書。 【海瑟有兩個媽咪】

If you are conservative and have a different attitude,

如果你很保守，有不同的看法，

you might give them a book like this.

你可能會給孩子這本書。

(Laughter) ["Help! Mom! There Are Liberals under My Bed!"]

（笑聲） 【媽呀！我床下有自由黨人！】

But in general, stories can turn

但一般來說，

故事能夠將無名人士變得舉足輕重，

anonymous strangers into people who matter,

and the idea that we care about people

我們會在乎、看重某些人

when we focus on them as individuals

is an idea which has shown up across history.

是因為他們在史上留名。

So Stalin apocryphally said,

因此傳說史達林提過：

"A single death is a tragedy,

「一個人喪命是悲劇，

a million deaths is a statistic,"

一百萬人喪命則是統計數字。」

and Mother Teresa said,

泰瑞莎修女曾說：

"If I look at the mass, I will never act.

「如果放眼天下，我永遠不會行動。

If I look at the one, I will."

如果關注個人，我就會起身而行。」

Psychologists have explored this.

心理學家已探究此事。

For instance, in one study,

例如，某項研究中，

people were given a list of facts about a crisis,

受試者被告知危機事件的細節，

and it was seen how much they would donate

看大家願意捐多少錢

to solve this crisis,

來解決這項危機。

and another group was given no facts at all

而另一組人則不會知道任何細節，

but they were told of an individual

但他們會得知

受害者的姓名和長相，

and given a name and given a face,

and it turns out that they gave far more.

結果是這組人會捐得較多。

None of this I think is a secret

對慈善團體來說，這不是秘密。

to the people who are engaged in charity work.

People don't tend to deluge people

他們比較不會塞一堆 資料和統計數字給大眾，

with facts and statistics.

Rather, you show them faces,

而是讓他們看見臉龐和真人。

you show them people.

It's possible that by extending our sympathies

透過延伸對他人的同情心就有機會

to an individual, they can spread

將愛心傳到受助者所屬的團體中。

to the group that the individual belongs to.

This is Harriet Beecher Stowe.

這位是哈里特．比徹．斯托。

The story, perhaps apocryphal,

有個傳說是

is that President Lincoln invited her

林肯總統在內戰期間邀請她進白宮，

to the White House in the middle of the Civil War

and said to her,

總統對她說：

"So you're the little lady who started this great war."

「你就是那位開啟這場大戰的小姐。」

And he was talking about "Uncle Tom's Cabin."

他指的是《湯姆叔叔的小屋》。

"Uncle Tom's Cabin" is not a great book of philosophy

這故事不是什麼人生大道理

or of theology or perhaps not even literature,

或神學故事，甚至稱不上文學，

but it does a great job

但這本書卻成功

of getting people to put themselves in the shoes

讓大眾對他們原本不懂的人感同身受，

of people they wouldn't otherwise be in the shoes of,

put themselves in the shoes of slaves.

讓他們理解奴隸。

And that could well have been a catalyst

成功促成了重大的社會變遷。

for great social change.

More recently, looking at America

看看最近數十年的美國，

in the last several decades,

there's some reason to believe that shows like "The Cosby Show"

有證據顯示， 像《天才老爹》這種節目

radically changed American attitudes towards African-Americans,

徹底改變美國人對非裔美國人的態度，

while shows like "Will and Grace" and "Modern Family"

而像《威爾與格蕾絲》 和《摩登家庭》這類的節目

changed American attitudes

則改變了美國人

towards gay men and women.

對男同志與女性的態度。

I don't think it's an exaggeration to say

若說美國的道德觀念變遷

that the major catalyst in America for moral change

歸功於情境喜劇

has been a situation comedy.

一點也不誇張。

But it's not all emotions,

但並不全和情感有關，

and I want to end by appealing

最後，我想談訴諸理智的力量。

to the power of reason.

At some point in his wonderful book

在一本好書

"The Better Angels of Our Nature,"

《人性中的善良天使》中

Steven Pinker says,

史迪芬．平克提到，

the Old Testament says love thy neighbor,

《舊約聖經》說愛鄰舍如同自己，

and the New Testament says love thy enemy,

《新約聖經》說愛敵人如同自己，

but I don't love either one of them, not really,

但我兩者都不愛，也不是這麼說，

but I don't want to kill them.

至少我不會想殺他們。

I know I have obligations to them,

我自知對他們有責任，

but my moral feelings to them, my moral beliefs

但我對他們的道德情感

與我應該怎麼對待他們的道德信念，

about how I should behave towards them,

aren't grounded in love.

並非基於愛。

What they're grounded in is the understanding of human rights,

而是因為我了解人權，

a belief that their life is as valuable to them

相信對他們而言，生命有價值，

as my life is to me,

如同我的生命也有價值，

and to support this, he tells a story

為了支持這個論點，

by the great philosopher Adam Smith,

他提到亞當．斯密說的故事，

and I want to tell this story too,

我也想分享這個故事，

though I'm going to modify it a little bit

不過我會稍微修改成現代版本。

for modern times.

So Adam Smith starts by asking you to imagine

亞當．斯密請你想像

the death of thousands of people,

有數千人死亡，

and imagine that the thousands of people

並想像這數千人

are in a country you are not familiar with.

在你不熟悉的國度，

It could be China or India or a country in Africa.

可能是中國、印度， 或是非洲的某個國家。

And Smith says, how would you respond?

斯密問，你會有什麼反應？

And you would say, well that's too bad,

你可能會說，好慘啊，

and you'd go on to the rest of your life.

接著就繼續過生活。

If you were to open up The New York Times online or something,

如果你上網看紐約時報之類的網站，

and discover this, and in fact this happens to us all the time,

會發現這種故事其實常發生，

we go about our lives.

我們還是繼續過生活。

But imagine instead, Smith says,

但斯密請你再想像

you were to learn that tomorrow

自己的小指頭明天會被切斷，

you were to have your little finger chopped off.

Smith says, that would matter a lot.

他說這樣你就會很在意了。

You would not sleep that night

你大概會一夜無眠，

wondering about that.

只想著那件事。

So this raises the question:

隨之而來的問題是：

Would you sacrifice thousands of lives

你會願意犧牲上千條人命

to save your little finger?

來拯救自己的小指頭嗎？

Now answer this in the privacy of your own head,

自己在腦袋裡回答這個問題，

but Smith says, absolutely not,

但斯密說，當然不願意，

what a horrid thought.

那種想法太恐怖了。

And so this raises the question,

因此針對那個問題

and so, as Smith puts it,

斯密歸納：

"When our passive feelings are almost always

「當我們的被動想法總是

so sordid and so selfish,

極度可悲與自私時，

how comes it that our active principles

我們的主動原則怎能

should often be so generous and so noble?"

時常表現得如此大方又高貴呢？」

And Smith's answer is, "It is reason,

而斯密回應：

「是因為理性、原則和意識

principle, conscience.

[This] calls to us,

召喚我們，

with a voice capable of astonishing the most presumptuous of our passions,

用駭人口吻對非常冒失的自己說，

that we are but one of the multitude,

不過是芸芸眾生的我們，

in no respect better than any other in it."

可不比任何人還高尚。」

And this last part is what is often described

最後一部分常被稱為

as the principle of impartiality.

公平原則。

And this principle of impartiality manifests itself

公平原則在世上所有的宗教中

in all of the world's religions,

in all of the different versions of the golden rule,

以各種不同版本的黃金法則顯現，

and in all of the world's moral philosophies,

也在世上所有的道德哲學中

which differ in many ways

以各種方式呈現，

but share the presupposition that we should judge morality

但卻都有同樣的前提，

from sort of an impartial point of view.

即我們應該公正無私地衡量道德。

The best articulation of this view

這種觀點的最佳說法

is actually, for me, it's not from a theologian or from a philosopher,

對我來說其實不是 以神學家或哲學家的身分，

but from Humphrey Bogart

而是以一種亨弗萊．鮑嘉

at the end of "Casablanca."

在《北非諜影》中的說法。

So, spoiler alert, he's telling his lover

注意我要爆雷了，

他告訴情人，為了大家好， 我們還是分手吧。

that they have to separate

for the more general good,

and he says to her, and I won't do the accent,

我不會模仿他的腔調，他對她說：

but he says to her, "It doesn't take much to see

「三個小人物的問題

that the problems of three little people

don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world."

在這瘋狂世界裡根本微不足道。」

Our reason could cause us to override our passions.

我們的理智可能會讓自己無視熱情。

Our reason could motivate us

我們的理智可能會促使自己

to extend our empathy,

變得更有同理心，

could motivate us to write a book like "Uncle Tom's Cabin,"

可能激勵我們寫本 《湯姆叔叔的小屋》之類的書，

or read a book like "Uncle Tom's Cabin,"

或是讀本那樣的書，

and our reason can motivate us to create

我們的理智可能激勵大家

建立習俗、戒律或法令，

customs and taboos and laws

that will constrain us

限制自己不會衝動行事，

from acting upon our impulses

when, as rational beings, we feel

身為理智的人類，

we should be constrained.

我們自認應該受限。

This is what a constitution is.

憲法即是如此。

A constitution is something which was set up in the past

憲法是過去建立，

that applies now in the present,

並在當代運用，

and what it says is,

憲法明訂

no matter how much we might to reelect

無論我們多想再次投票給 大受歡迎的總統，

a popular president for a third term,

讓他做第三任，

no matter how much white Americans might choose

不管美國白人多麼想

to feel that they want to reinstate the institution of slavery, we can't.

恢復奴隸制度，我們都無能為力。

We have bound ourselves.

我們已限制自己。

And we bind ourselves in other ways as well.

我們也在其它方面限制自己。

We know that when it comes to choosing somebody

我們知道在談到要選擇某人

for a job, for an award,

任職、獲獎時，

we are strongly biased by their race,

我們會輕易因他們的種族而有偏見，

we are biased by their gender,

因他們的性別而有偏見，

we are biased by how attractive they are,

因他們的外貌而有偏見，

and sometimes we might say, "Well fine, that's the way it should be."

有時我們會說： 「好吧，事情就該是這樣。」

But other times we say, "This is wrong."

但有時候我們會說：「那錯了。」

And so to combat this,

為了抵抗這件事，

we don't just try harder,

我們不只是要更努力，

but rather what we do is we set up situations

而是要開創某些情境，

where these other sources of information can't bias us,

如此其它訊息來源就不會誤導我們，

which is why many orchestras

這也是為何許多管弦樂隊

audition musicians behind screens,

甄選樂手時要在幕後，

so the only information they have

這樣他們接收到的 就只會是重要的訊息。

is the information they believe should matter.

I think prejudice and bias

我認為成見與偏見

illustrate a fundamental duality of human nature.

闡明了人性根本的二元論。

We have gut feelings, instincts, emotions,

我們有直覺、本能、情感，

and they affect our judgments and our actions

而這些感受都會影響我們的評斷與行動，

for good and for evil,

不論那是好是壞，

but we are also capable of rational deliberation

但我們也都有理性深思熟慮的能力，

and intelligent planning,

聰明規畫的能力，

and we can use these to, in some cases,

在某些情況下，我們能以此

accelerate and nourish our emotions,

刺激與培養我們的情緒，

and in other cases staunch them.

在其它情況下則阻止情緒爆發。

And it's in this way

也因此，理智幫助我們 建立更美好的世界。

that reason helps us create a better world.

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）