Daniel Goleman: Why arent we all Good Samaritans?

譯者: Lauren Huang 審譯者: Chih-Yuan Huang

You know, I'm struck by how one of the implicit themes of TED

你們知道，同情心這個含蓄的議題在TED大會上

is compassion, these very moving demonstrations we've just seen:

我們已經聽了兩場震撼有力的短講 :

HIV in Africa, President Clinton last night.

HIV在非洲的現況，克林頓總統昨晚的演講。

And I'd like to do a little collateral thinking, if you will,

容我在此繼續作個橫向思考，

about compassion and bring it from the global level to the personal.

將同情心從全球性的角度帶到個人層次。

I'm a psychologist, but rest assured,

我是心理學家，請放心，

I will not bring it to the scrotal.

我不會離題去講陰囊炎。

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

There was a very important study done a while ago

前陣子有個非常重要的研究

at Princeton Theological Seminary that speaks to why it is

是在普林斯頓神學院進行的，探索到為什麼

that when all of us have so many opportunities to help,

每個人都有那麼多機會允許我們伸出援手，

we do sometimes, and we don't other times.

但為何幫助有時，不幫助有時?

A group of divinity students at the Princeton Theological Seminary

在普林斯頓神學院裡有一組神學生

were told that they were going to give a practice sermon

被告知要準備一篇實習佈道的講章

and they were each given a sermon topic.

每個人都分配了一個佈道講題。

Half of those students were given, as a topic,

半數的人得到的講題是，

the parable of the Good Samaritan:

耶穌說過的「好撒瑪利亞人」的比喻，

the man who stopped the stranger in --

是關於一個仁慈善心人在旅途中，

to help the stranger in need by the side of the road.

為倒在路旁的陌生人擔擱旅程，慷慨給予陌生人一切的幫助。

Half were given random Bible topics.

另一半的神學生拿到的是其他聖經相關的講題。

Then one by one, they were told they had to go to another building

他們被一一個別告知，需去到另一大樓

and give their sermon.

去講道。

As they went from the first building to the second,

當他們走向另一棟大樓時，

each of them passed a man who was bent over and moaning,

每個人都經過了一個人，正屈身呻吟，

clearly in need. The question is: Did they stop to help?

很明顯的，這個人需要幫助。問題是:神學生們停下來幫助他了嗎?

The more interesting question is:

更有趣的問題是:

Did it matter they were contemplating the parable

頭腦深深思考了寓言的意涵，會影響行為嗎?

of the Good Samaritan? Answer: No, not at all.

從「好撒瑪利亞人」比喻而來的意義影響?答案是:完全沒有。

What turned out to determine whether someone would stop

決定了一個人是否停下來幫助

and help a stranger in need

有需要的陌生人

was how much of a hurry they thought they were in --

結果呢，是依他們認為自己有多麼趕時間的程度而定，

were they feeling they were late, or were they absorbed

一方面以為自己可能遲到，另一方面

in what they were going to talk about.

預備講章過程中汲取的意義也有作用。

And this is, I think, the predicament of our lives:

我認為這也是我們每天生活的困境寫照，

that we don't take every opportunity to help

為什麼我們不能總是把握住每次幫助他人的機會，

because our focus is in the wrong direction.

是因為,焦點有所偏差

There's a new field in brain science, social neuroscience.

腦科學現在有了一個新的領域，「社會神經學」。

This studies the circuitry in two people's brains

研究兩個人的腦神經迴路

that activates while they interact.

在兩人互動時腦部發生的活動。

And the new thinking about compassion from social neuroscience

從社會神經學的角度來看同情心，新思維發現到

is that our default wiring is to help.

幫助他人是腦神經系統的原始預設值。

That is to say, if we attend to the other person,

也就是說，如果我們去關心一個人

we automatically empathize, we automatically feel with them.

我們就會自動的有同情心，自動感受到他們的感受。

There are these newly identified neurons, mirror neurons,

研究者發現一些新類型的神經元，鏡像神經元

that act like a neuro Wi-Fi, activating in our brain

在大腦中就像Wi-Fi無線網路一樣的會發射訊號

exactly the areas activated in theirs. We feel "with" automatically.

訊號瞄準對應到另一個人大腦中的同一個部位。以至於「同感」自動發生。

And if that person is in need, if that person is suffering,

倘若另一個人有所需要，正在受煎熬

we're automatically prepared to help. At least that's the argument.

人總是自動預備好是要給予幫助的。至少目前的論據是如此主張。

But then the question is: Why don't we?

但下一個問題來了:為何有時我們卻不幫助呢?

And I think this speaks to a spectrum

我認為這像個光譜

that goes from complete self-absorption,

一頭是完全的以自我中心，

to noticing, to empathy and to compassion.

然後是注意他人，同理心，以至於另一端的同情心。

And the simple fact is, if we are focused on ourselves,

事實上，如果我們太專注於自我

if we're preoccupied, as we so often are throughout the day,

而到了心不在焉的程度 - 我們時常整天都處於這樣的狀況，

we don't really fully notice the other.

則我們也不會真正注意到別人發生了什麼事。

And this difference between the self and the other focus

在自我和他人之間，這兩種焦點之間的差異

can be very subtle.

可能非常微小。

I was doing my taxes the other day, and I got to the point

比方說,有一天我在整理報稅資料，發現

where I was listing all of the donations I gave,

當列出所有捐款明細時

and I had an epiphany, it was -- I came to my check

突然來了個頓悟-

to the Seva Foundation and I noticed that I thought,

看到曾開給Seva基金會的支票時，我注意到我是這麼想，

boy, my friend Larry Brilliant would really be happy

哇,我朋友Larry Brilliant真的會很高興

that I gave money to Seva.

我有捐錢給Seva。

Then I realized that what I was getting from giving

然後我意識到從給予而來的收穫

was a narcissistic hit -- that I felt good about myself.

一陣自戀的快感衝上來 - 自我感覺真好。

Then I started to think about the people in the Himalayas

然後我才開始想到喜馬拉雅山上的人

whose cataracts would be helped, and I realized

他們白內障的疾病問題可以得到幫助，並且我意識到

that I went from this kind of narcissistic self-focus

我從自戀的自我焦點

to altruistic joy, to feeling good

來到利他的喜樂，感覺到

for the people that were being helped. I think that's a motivator.

為我們所幫助的人感到快樂。我認為利他是個驅動力。

But this distinction between focusing on ourselves

但以自我或他人為中心

and focusing on others

的差異

is one that I encourage us all to pay attention to.

我呼籲各位要多加予以重視。

You can see it at a gross level in the world of dating.

尤其在約會場合這現象更表露無遺。

I was at a sushi restaurant a while back

有一天我在壽司餐廳

and I overheard two women talking about the brother of one woman,

聽見兩位女士在談論其中一位女士的哥哥

who was in the singles scene. And this woman says,

這位哥哥仍然單身的女士說

"My brother is having trouble getting dates,

「我老哥很難約的到女孩子，

so he's trying speed dating." I don't know if you know speed dating?

所以他參加了快速約會俱樂部」你們聽說過快速約會嗎?

Women sit at tables and men go from table to table,

女士們固定坐著，男士們則輪流轉檯，

and there's a clock and a bell, and at five minutes, bingo,

現場有時鐘和響鈴，5分鐘一到，時間到，

the conversation ends and the woman can decide

聊天結束，女士可以決定

whether to give her card or her email address to the man

要不要將聯絡資料或電子郵件給這位男士

for follow up. And this woman says,

以決定兩人是否後續保持聯絡。這位女士說

"My brother's never gotten a card, and I know exactly why.

「我老哥從來不曾有女生留給他聯絡資料。我完全明白為甚麼。

The moment he sits down, he starts talking non-stop about himself;

他一坐下來就開始不停的談論他自己，

he never asks about the woman."

從來不問關於女士這一方的任何事」

And I was doing some research in the Sunday Styles section

我當時正在為Sunday Styles進行一些研究

of The New York Times, looking at the back stories of marriages --

這是紐約時報的一個版面，看一些婚姻中的趣事

because they're very interesting -- and I came to the marriage

非常有趣 - 我有一次

of Alice Charney Epstein. And she said

接觸到艾莉絲愛普斯頓。她說

that when she was in the dating scene,

她約會的話

she had a simple test she put people to.

會和對方玩一個簡單測驗。

The test was: from the moment they got together,

計算從兩人碰面開始

how long it would take the guy to ask her a question

要花多久時間讓男士向她提出第一個問題

with the word "you" in it.

問句當中且必須帶有「妳」字。

And apparently Epstein aced the test, therefore the article.

測驗的結果當然是艾普斯頓得到壓倒性的勝利，所以才有那篇訪談。

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

Now this is a -- it's a little test

像這樣的小小測驗

I encourage you to try out at a party.

或許在任何宴會場合都可以玩玩看。

Here at TED there are great opportunities.

現場在TED大會中就是個絕佳的機會。

The Harvard Business Review recently had an article called

哈佛商業評論最近有一篇文章

"The Human Moment," about how to make real contact

「人性時刻」，講到關於如何與人發生真情流露的交流

with a person at work. And they said, well,

特別是同事。雜誌裡說到

the fundamental thing you have to do is turn off your BlackBerry,

最基本的，你必須先關掉黑苺機

close your laptop, end your daydream

關掉手提電腦，不做白日夢

and pay full attention to the person.

注意力完全在這個人身上。

There is a newly coined word in the English language

英文現在有一個新字

for the moment when the person we're with whips out their BlackBerry

就是當你和一個人共處的時候，對方突然亮出黑苺機

or answers that cell phone, and all of a sudden we don't exist.

或接聽個手機來電，突然瞬間你就變成一個不存在的人了。

The word is "pizzled": it's a combination of puzzled and pissed off.

這個新詞叫做"pizzled"，也就是「發傻」+「不爽」，兩個字的結合。

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

I think it's quite apt. It's our empathy, it's our tuning in

很精準的敘述。人是因為能和其他人有共鳴，能關注其他人

which separates us from Machiavellians or sociopaths.

才和「權謀政客」或「反社會者」有所區別的。

I have a brother-in-law who's an expert on horror and terror --

我的小叔是一位驚憟專家

he wrote the Annotated Dracula, the Essential Frankenstein --

他的著作包括「吸血鬼注釋」和「科學怪人要錄」

he was trained as a Chaucer scholar,

他本是研究喬叟的學者

but he was born in Transylvania

但他的出生地是川索凡尼亞 (譯註:該地因吸血鬼出沒而聞名)

and I think it affected him a little bit.

可能對他有些潛移默化影響。

At any rate, at one point my brother-in-law, Leonard,

無論如何，我的小叔，李奧納多

decided to write a book about a serial killer.

有一天決定要寫一本關於連續殺人犯的書。

This is a man who terrorized the very vicinity we're in

這人在我們居住鄰近之地曾造成極大恐懼

many years ago. He was known as the Santa Cruz strangler.

那是幾年前的事。他的外號是聖塔克魯茲勒人魔。

And before he was arrested, he had murdered his grandparents,

被逮捕之前，他殺了親生祖父母，

his mother and five co-eds at UC Santa Cruz.

親生母親以及五位聖塔克魯茲大學女學生，

So my brother-in-law goes to interview this killer

我小叔去訪問了這個人

and he realizes when he meets him

當他們會面的時候他意識到

that this guy is absolutely terrifying.

這位仁兄真是恐怖

For one thing, he's almost seven feet tall.

包括他的身高，將近7呎。

But that's not the most terrifying thing about him.

但這還不是最駭人的部份

The scariest thing is that his IQ is 160: a certified genius.

最恐怖的是,他的智商高達160:絕對達到了天才的標準。

But there is zero correlation between IQ and emotional empathy,

但,IQ和情緒上的共感力，二者關聯性是零，

feeling with the other person.

所以他對別人的感覺是毫無感知力

They're controlled by different parts of the brain.

這兩件事是由大腦的兩個不同部分所控制。

So at one point, my brother-in-law gets up the courage

最後我小叔終於鼓起勇氣

to ask the one question he really wants to know the answer to,

問了一個他真的很想知道答案的問題。

and that is: how could you have done it?

他問的是:你怎麼能辦到這樣的事?

Didn't you feel any pity for your victims?

難道對受害者沒有絲毫憐憫的感覺嗎?

These were very intimate murders -- he strangled his victims.

他親手勒死這些受害人 - 勒死某人是非常親密的一種殺人方式。

And the strangler says very matter-of-factly,

勒人魔的回答是基於事實的，他說

"Oh no. If I'd felt the distress, I could not have done it.

「喔，完全不會的。如果我感受得到他們的痛苦悲哀，一定下不了手。

I had to turn that part of me off. I had to turn that part of me off."

我得將自己那個部份關掉才行。必須先將自己的那個部份關起來。」

And I think that that is very troubling,

我想，那就是麻煩的所在了

and in a sense, I've been reflecting on turning that part of us off.

我一直在思考這件我們會將自己的那部份關起來的事實。

When we focus on ourselves in any activity,

當我們專注於自己的某項工作或活動時，

we do turn that part of ourselves off if there's another person.

如果有他人在場，我們真是會把那部份的自己關掉的。

Think about going shopping and think about the possibilities

想想看有沒有可能購物逛街

of a compassionate consumerism.

是以具同情心的道德性消費來進行的。

Right now, as Bill McDonough has pointed out,

就像比爾 麥當諾所指出的

the objects that we buy and use have hidden consequences.

我們所買所用的物品，背後都有著看不見的後續效應。

We're all unwitting victims of a collective blind spot.

我們都在集體盲點中不知不覺受成為受害者。

We don't notice and don't notice that we don't notice

我們沒注意，並且也沒想到過我們根本不曾注意

the toxic molecules emitted by a carpet or by the fabric on the seats.

無論從地毯或是座椅上的纖維所釋放出來的有毒粒子。

Or we don't know if that fabric is a technological

我們無從得知那纖維是科技合成的

or manufacturing nutrient; it can be reused

或怎樣的生產過程;能被回收使用嗎

or does it just end up at landfill? In other words,

或者最後只能當作填土使用？換句話說

we're oblivious to the ecological and public health

我們是忽略了環保及公眾健康那個部份的事實

and social and economic justice consequences

以及社會經濟公平正義等等的後續結果

of the things we buy and use.

在我們日常所買和所使用的物品上。

In a sense, the room itself is the elephant in the room,

可以說，我們是避而不談，自欺欺人，

but we don't see it. And we've become victims

但是我們又不知道。結果自己仍然成為受害者

of a system that points us elsewhere. Consider this.

只是受害場景轉移到其他體系而已。試想。

There's a wonderful book called

有一本好書:

Stuff: The Hidden Life of Everyday Objects.

東西:生活雜物中你所看不見的旅程故事

And it talks about the back story of something like a t-shirt.

談到關於許多產品的背後故事，譬如說，一件T恤

And it talks about where the cotton was grown

T恤的棉花產地

and the fertilizers that were used and the consequences

種植棉花所使用的肥料以及

for soil of that fertilizer. And it mentions, for instance,

使用那種肥料對土壤的後果。書中提到，

that cotton is very resistant to textile dye;

布品染料事實上非常難對棉花起作用；

about 60 percent washes off into wastewater.

大約有60%的染料最後是被洗掉成為廢水。

And it's well known by epidemiologists that kids

流行病學家都清楚知道

who live near textile works tend to have high rates of leukemia.

住在紡織原料廠附近的孩子，患白血病的比例特別高。

There's a company, Bennett and Company, that supplies Polo.com,

有一家班尼特公司，是Polo.com 及"維多利亞的秘密" (註:知名內衣褲品牌)

Victoria's Secret -- they, because of their CEO, who's aware of this,

的上游供應商，因為他們的CEO注意到染料危害，

in China formed a joint venture with their dye works

在中國和他們的染料廠創立了一個合資企業

to make sure that the wastewater

確保他們工廠的廢水排放

would be properly taken care of before it returned to the groundwater.

在成為天然地下水前是經過合宜的處理。

Right now, we don't have the option to choose the virtuous t-shirt

目前，我們還沒有辦法按消費道德的標準選購T恤

over the non-virtuous one. So what would it take to do that?

我們該怎麼做才能有這種選擇自由呢?

Well, I've been thinking. For one thing,

我在想

there's a new electronic tagging technology that allows any store

有一種新的電子標籤技術，是能夠從每一個店家

to know the entire history of any item on the shelves in that store.

追蹤到店裡架上每一樣產品的生產歷史的。

You can track it back to the factory. Once you can track it

能一路追蹤到工廠，

back to the factory, you can look at the manufacturing processes

追蹤到工廠之後，你還能看到生產流程

that were used to make it, and if it's virtuous,

製造時用到了哪些原料，如果是符合消費道德的

you can label it that way. Or if it's not so virtuous,

就貼上一個認證標籤。如果他是不符合消費道德的

you can go into -- today, go into any store,

你也能走進任何一家商店

put your scanner on a palm onto a barcode,

用手持式條碼機一掃描而得知結果

which will take you to a website.

然後進入一個網站。

They have it for people with allergies to peanuts.

網站上提供一些有用的資料，譬如有人對花生過敏。

That website could tell you things about that object.

它會提供一些和花生過敏主題相關的產品資訊。

In other words, at point of purchase,

換句話說，在採買點現場，

we might be able to make a compassionate choice.

我們或許當下就可以運用較多同情心來進行採購。

There's a saying in the world of information science:

在資訊科學裡有一句話說：

ultimately everybody will know everything.

最後，所有的人都成了萬事通。

And the question is: will it make a difference?

重點是:萬事通之後，你會做什麼來改變萬事呢?

Some time ago when I was working for The New York Times,

我曾經為紐約時報工作過一段時間

it was in the '80s, I did an article

那是80年代，我寫了一篇文章

on what was then a new problem in New York --

關於當時紐約市的一個新問題

it was homeless people on the streets.

也就是露宿街頭的街友族群。

And I spent a couple of weeks going around with a social work agency

我和一個關懷街友的社工團體，一起花了幾個星期的時間

that ministered to the homeless. And I realized seeing the homeless

訪談這些街友們，了解他們，也從他們眼神中看出來

through their eyes that almost all of them were psychiatric patients

他們幾乎每個人都是精神病患

that had nowhere to go. They had a diagnosis. It made me --

並且無處可收容。這就是診斷結果。這也讓我-

what it did was to shake me out of the urban trance where,

從一個都市人的昏睡症中清醒過來

when we see, when we're passing someone who's homeless

當我們看見了，經過了這些無家可歸者

in the periphery of our vision, it stays on the periphery.

他們只出現在視野邊緣，也只停留在那邊緣上。

We don't notice and therefore we don't act.

我們既未曾加以注意，所以也不採取行動。

One day soon after that -- it was a Friday -- at the end of the day,

之後沒多久，有一天，一個週五的下班時間

I went down -- I was going down to the subway. It was rush hour

我正走下地鐵站，人潮擁擠

and thousands of people were streaming down the stairs.

下樓梯的人數以千計

And all of a sudden as I was going down the stairs

突然在我走下樓梯的時候，

I noticed that there was a man slumped to the side,

我注意到遠處有一個人是倒在一邊的，

shirtless, not moving, and people were just stepping over him --

沒有穿上衣，沒有動靜，人們只是繞過，跨過他

hundreds and hundreds of people.

幾百個人，都是如此。

And because my urban trance had been somehow weakened,

因為我的都市人昏睡症狀此時已經較為輕微，

I found myself stopping to find out what was wrong.

我自然的停了下來，想弄清楚發生了什麼事。

The moment I stopped, half a dozen other people

當我這麼停了一下，其他6,7位也停下

immediately ringed the same guy.

立刻有人去搖醒他。

And we found out that he was Hispanic, he didn't speak any English,

原來他是來自西班牙語系的人，英語不通，

he had no money, he'd been wandering the streets for days, starving,

身上沒錢，已經在街頭流浪好多天，非常餓

and he'd fainted from hunger.

餓到昏倒了。

Immediately someone went to get orange juice,

很快有人給他柳橙汁喝

someone brought a hotdog, someone brought a subway cop.

有人買了熱狗和麵包，有人找來了地鐵警察。

This guy was back on his feet immediately.

很快的，這個人就能站起來走路了。

But all it took was that simple act of noticing,

唯一需要的就是有人首先跨出這注意到他人的第一步。

and so I'm optimistic.

因此我仍然樂觀。

Thank you very much.

謝謝大家

(Applause)

(掌聲)