How to let go of being a "good" person — and become a better person | Dolly Chugh

Translator: Joseph Geni Reviewer: Krystian Aparta

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: Marssi Draw

So a friend of mine was riding in a taxi to the airport the other day,

有一天，我朋友搭計程車去機場，

and on the way, she was chatting with the taxi driver,

在路上，她和計程車司機聊天，

and he said to her, with total sincerity,

司機很誠懇地對她說：

"I can tell you are a really good person."

「我看得出來，你真的是個好人。」

And when she told me this story later,

後來，當她告訴我這個故事時，

she said she couldn't believe how good it made her feel,

她說她無法相信， 那句話讓她感覺這麼好，

that it meant a lot to her.

那對她而言意義重大。

Now that may seem like a strong reaction from my friend

那只是個完全陌生的人所說的話，

to the words of a total stranger,

我朋友的反應似乎很強烈，

but she's not alone.

但她並不孤單。

I'm a social scientist.

我是社會科學家。 我研究的是好人的心理。

I study the psychology of good people,

and research in my field says many of us care deeply

我的領域中的研究指出， 我們很多人會非常在乎

about feeling like a good person and being seen as a good person.

「感覺自己是個好人」 和「被視為是個好人」。

Now, your definition of "good person" and your definition of "good person"

你對於「好人」的定義、 你對於「好人」的定義，

and maybe the taxi driver's definition of "good person" --

還有也許那位計程車司機 對於「好人」的定義——

we may not all have the same definition,

我們可能都有不同的定義，

but within whatever our definition is,

但不論我們的定義是什麼，

that moral identity is important to many of us.

在那定義中的道德身分 對許多人而言是很重要的。

Now, if somebody challenges it, like they question us for a joke we tell,

如果有人挑戰它，

比如他們質疑我們所說的笑話，

or maybe we say our workforce is homogenous,

或是也許我們說 大家的勞動力是同樣的，

or a slippery business expense,

或是棘手的營業支出，

we go into red-zone defensiveness a lot of the time.

大多時候，我們會進入 防禦的紅色警戒區。

I mean, sometimes we call out

我的意思是，有時我們會大聲說出

all the ways in which we help people from marginalized groups,

我們用了哪些方式 去幫助被邊緣化的族群，

or we donate to charity,

或是我們捐錢給慈善機構，

or the hours we volunteer to nonprofits.

或是我們在非營利機構 當了幾小時的志工。

We work to protect that good person identity.

我們會努力保護那個好人的身分。

It's important to many of us.

那對許多人而言是很重要的。

But what if I told you this?

但如果我告訴你這件事呢？

What if I told you that our attachment to being good people

如果我告訴你，我們 對於「當好人」的依附感

is getting in the way of us being better people?

其實會阻礙我們 成為「更好的人」呢？

What if I told you that our definition of "good person" is so narrow,

如果我告訴你，

我們對於「好人」的 定義非常狹隘，

it's scientifically impossible to meet?

在科學上來看，要成為 這種人是不可能的呢？

And what if I told you the path to being better people

如果我告訴你，邁向 成為「更好的人」之路

just begins with letting go of being a good person?

開始於放下想要當好人的執念呢？

Now, let me tell you a little bit about the research

讓我跟各位稍微 說明一下這個研究，

about how the human mind works

人腦如何運作的研究， 來解釋這個現象。

to explain.

The brain relies on shortcuts to do a lot of its work.

大腦在做許多工作時，要仰賴捷徑。

That means a lot of the time,

那就表示，大多時候

your mental processes are taking place outside of your awareness,

你不會意識到你的 心理過程正在發生，

like in low-battery, low-power mode in the back of your mind.

就像是在你的大腦背景 以省電模式在運作。

That's, in fact, the premise of bounded rationality.

事實上，那就是 「有限理性」的前提。

Bounded rationality is the Nobel Prize-winning idea

有限理性這個概念贏得了諾貝爾獎，

that the human mind has limited storage resources,

指出人腦中用來儲存的資源有限，

limited processing power,

處理的能力也有限，

and as a result, it relies on shortcuts to do a lot of its work.

因此，它在做許多工作的時候 會需要仰賴捷徑。

So for example,

比如，

some scientists estimate that in any given moment ...

有些科學家估計，在任何時刻……

Better, better click, right? There we go.

（彈指）彈好一點，有了。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

At any given moment,

在任何時刻，

11 million pieces of information are coming into your mind.

都會有一千一百萬則資訊 進入你的大腦。

Eleven million.

一千一百萬。

And only 40 of them are being processed consciously.

當中只有四十則會被有意識地處理。

So 11 million, 40.

所以，一千一百萬，四十。

I mean, has this ever happened to you?

你有沒有遇過這種狀況？

Have you ever had a really busy day at work,

你是否曾經忙了一天的工作，

and you drive home,

開車回家，

and when you get in the door,

進了家門，

you realize you don't even remember the drive home,

你才發現你都不記得 你是怎麼開車回來的，

like whether you had green lights or red lights.

經過的是紅燈或綠燈都不記得？

You don't even remember. You were on autopilot.

你都不會記得。你是在自動駕駛。

Or have you ever opened the fridge,

或者，你是否曾經打開冰箱，

looked for the butter,

想要找奶油，

swore there is no butter,

發誓沒有看到裡面有任何奶油，

and then realized the butter was right in front of you the whole time?

接著才發現奶油 其實一直都在你面前？

These are the kinds of "whoops" moments that make us giggle,

這些是讓我們發笑的 「哎喲」時刻，

and this is what happens in a brain

會發生這種狀況，就是因為大腦

that can handle 11 million pieces of information coming in

能夠處理一千一百萬則 輸入的資訊，

with only 40 being processed consciously.

但當中卻只有四十則 是有意識地在處理。

That's the bounded part of bounded rationality.

那就是有限理性的有限部分。

This work on bounded rationality

關於有限理性的這項研究，

is what's inspired work I've done with my collaborators

成為我的靈感，

讓我和麥斯．貝澤曼 及瑪札琳．貝納基合作研究

Max Bazerman and Mahzarin Banaji,

on what we call bounded ethicality.

我們所謂的「有限倫理」。

So it's the same premise as bounded rationality,

它的前提和有限理性是一樣的，

that we have a human mind that is bounded in some sort of way

也就是，我們的大腦

有某種限制且要仰賴捷徑，

and relying on shortcuts,

and that those shortcuts can sometimes lead us astray.

而那些捷徑有時可能會 讓我們偏離正道。

With bounded rationality,

就有限理性來說，

perhaps it affects the cereal we buy in the grocery store,

也許它會影響我們 到雜貨店買的麥片，

or the product we launch in the boardroom.

或是我們在董事會上發表的產品。

With bounded ethicality, the human mind,

就有限倫理來說，人腦，

the same human mind,

同樣的人腦，

is making decisions,

會做決策，

and here, it's about who to hire next,

在這裡，決定的是接下來要僱用誰，

or what joke to tell

或是要說什麼笑話，

or that slippery business decision.

或是棘手的營業支出。

So let me give you an example of bounded ethicality at work.

所以，讓我舉個例子 說明有限倫理怎麼運作。

Unconscious bias is one place

其中一個能看見有限倫理 有什麼效應的地方，

where we see the effects of bounded ethicality.

就是無意識偏見。

So unconscious bias refers to associations we have in our mind,

無意識偏見指的是， 我們的腦中都有一些關聯性，

the shortcuts your brain is using to organize information,

我們的大腦會用 這些捷徑來組織資訊，

very likely outside of your awareness,

很可能是你沒有意識到的，

not necessarily lining up with your conscious beliefs.

不一定會和你的意識信念有一致性。

Researchers Nosek, Banaji and Greenwald

諾賽克、貝納基， 和格林華德這些研究者

have looked at data from millions of people,

研究了數百萬人的資料，

and what they've found is, for example,

他們的發現是，比如，

most white Americans can more quickly and easily

大部分白種美國人 會比較快也比較容易

associate white people and good things

將白人與好事連結起來，

than black people and good things,

勝過將黑人與好事連結起來，

and most men and women can more quickly and easily associate

而大部分的男性和女性 都會比較快也比較容易

men and science than women and science.

將男性和科學連結起來， 勝過將女性和科學連結起來。

And these associations don't necessarily line up

這些關聯性不見得

會和人們有意識時的想法一致。

with what people consciously think.

They may have very egalitarian views, in fact.

事實上，這些人可能 有非常平等的觀點。

So sometimes, that 11 million and that 40 just don't line up.

所以，有時，那一千一百萬則資訊 和那四十則資訊並沒有一致性。

And here's another example:

還有一個例子。

conflicts of interest.

利益衝突。

So we tend to underestimate how much a small gift --

我們傾向會低估一個小禮物——

imagine a ballpoint pen or dinner --

想像那是一枝原子筆或一頓晚餐——

how much that small gift can affect our decision making.

一個小禮物對我們的決策 有多大的影響。

We don't realize that our mind is unconsciously lining up evidence

我們並不知道，我們的大腦 會無意識地整理出證據

to support the point of view of the gift-giver,

來支持送禮者的觀點，

no matter how hard we're consciously trying to be objective and professional.

不論我們的意識多麼努力去反對， 去保持專業，都沒有用。

We also see bounded ethicality --

我們也會看到有限倫理——

despite our attachment to being good people,

儘管我們很喜愛「當好人」，

we still make mistakes,

我們仍然會犯錯，

and we make mistakes that sometimes hurt other people,

我們犯的錯有時會傷害別人，

that sometimes promote injustice,

有時會造成不公正，

despite our best attempts,

儘管我們盡力嘗試了，

and we explain away our mistakes rather than learning from them.

而我們會從我們的錯誤中辯解， 而不是從我們的錯誤中學習。

Like, for example,

比如，

when I got an email from a female student in my class

我收到一封我班上的 一名女學生寄來的電子郵件，

saying that a reading I had assigned,

信上提到我分派的一項閱讀作業，

a reading I had been assigning for years,

我多年來都會分派 學生做的閱讀作業，

was sexist.

是有性別主義的。

Or when I confused two students in my class

或是，我分不清我班上

兩個同種族的學生——

of the same race --

look nothing alike --

他們長得一點也不像——

when I confused them for each other

我會把他們兩個搞混，

more than once, in front of everybody.

不只一次，且是在大家面前。

These kinds of mistakes send us, send me,

這些錯誤會讓我們，會讓我，

into red-zone defensiveness.

進入防禦的紅色警戒區。

They leave us fighting for that good person identity.

它們會讓我們努力爭取好人身分。

But the latest work that I've been doing on bounded ethicality with Mary Kern

但我和瑪麗．肯恩最新合作的 有限倫理研究指出，

says that we're not only prone to mistakes --

我們不只經常會犯錯——

that tendency towards mistakes depends on how close we are to that red zone.

犯錯的傾向是依據我們 有多靠近那紅色警戒區。

So most of the time, nobody's challenging our good person identity,

所以，大部分的時候， 沒有人會挑戰我們的好人身分，

and so we're not thinking too much

我們就不會針對

about the ethical implications of our decisions,

我們決策的倫理意涵想太多，

and our model shows that we're then spiraling

而我們的模型顯示， 接著，大部分的時候，

towards less and less ethical behavior most of the time.

我們就會越來越少 做出符合倫理的行為。

On the other hand, somebody might challenge our identity,

另一方面，有人可能 會挑戰我們的身分，

or, upon reflection, we may be challenging it ourselves.

或是，我們在反思的時候， 會自己挑戰自己的身分。

So the ethical implications of our decisions become really salient,

所以，我們決策的倫理意涵 就變得非常突顯，

and in those cases, we spiral towards more and more good person behavior,

在那些案例中，我們會 越做越多好人的行為，

or, to be more precise,

或是，更精確地說，

towards more and more behavior that makes us feel like a good person,

做更多讓我們感覺 自己是個好人的行為，

which isn't always the same, of course.

當然，這兩者不見得是一樣的。

The idea with bounded ethicality

有限倫理的概念是

is that we are perhaps overestimating

我們可能高估了

the importance our inner compass is playing in our ethical decisions.

我們的內在羅盤在我們 做倫理決策時的重要性。

We perhaps are overestimating how much our self-interest

我們可能高估了我們的決策

is driving our decisions,

被自利所驅使的程度，

and perhaps we don't realize how much our self-view as a good person

也許我們不知道，

我們把自己視為好人的自我觀點

對我們的行為有多大的影響，

is affecting our behavior,

that in fact, we're working so hard to protect that good person identity,

事實上，我們太努力

去保護好人身分，

to keep out of that red zone,

保持不要踏入紅色警戒區，

that we're not actually giving ourselves space to learn from our mistakes

以致於我們沒有真正 給予我們自己空間

來從錯誤中學習並成為更好的人。

and actually be better people.

It's perhaps because we expect it to be easy.

可能是因為我們預期這會很容易。

We have this definition of good person that's either-or.

我們對於好人的定義是 「是這樣，不然就是那樣」。

Either you are a good person or you're not.

你要嘛是好人，不然就不是。

Either you have integrity or you don't.

你要嘛很正直，不然就是不正直。

Either you are a racist or a sexist or a homophobe or you're not.

你是種族主義者、性別主義者， 或恐同性戀者，不然你就不是。

And in this either-or definition, there's no room to grow.

在「是這樣，不然就是那樣」的 這種定義中，沒有成長的空間。

And by the way,

順便一提，我們在生活中 大部分的時候，都不會這麼做。

this is not what we do in most parts of our lives.

Life, if you needed to learn accounting,

在人生中，如果你需要學習會計，

you would take an accounting class,

你會去修會計的課程，

or if you become a parent,

或者，如果你初為人父母，

we pick up a book and we read about it.

我們就會去找本相關書籍來閱讀。

We talk to experts,

我們會和專家談，

we learn from our mistakes,

我們會從錯誤中學習， 我們會把我們的知識更新，

we update our knowledge,

we just keep getting better.

我們會持續變更好。

But when it comes to being a good person,

但談到「做好人」時， 我們認為它是

we think it's something we're just supposed to know,

我們應該知道、我們應該去做的事，

we're just supposed to do,

without the benefit of effort or growth.

沒有努力帶來的益處或成長。

So what I've been thinking about

所以，我一直在想，

is what if we were to just forget about being good people,

如果我們能不要再想著要當好人，

just let it go,

放下這個執念，

and instead, set a higher standard,

取而代之，設定更高的標準，

a higher standard of being a good-ish person?

成為「有好人特徵的人」的 更高標準，如何？

A good-ish person absolutely still makes mistakes.

有好人特徵的人絕對還是會犯錯。

As a good-ish person, I'm making them all the time.

身為有好人特徵的人， 我總是在犯錯。

But as a good-ish person, I'm trying to learn from them, own them.

但，身為有好人特徵的人， 我試圖從錯誤中學習，承認錯誤。

I expect them and I go after them.

我預期會犯錯，然後就去犯錯。

I understand there are costs to these mistakes.

我知道錯誤會造成成本。

When it comes to issues like ethics and bias and diversity and inclusion,

如果是像倫理、偏見、 多樣性，及包容這類議題，

there are real costs to real people,

會有真正的人需要付出真正的成本，

and I accept that.

我接受這一點。

As a good-ish person, in fact,

事實上，身為有好人特徵的人，

I become better at noticing my own mistakes.

我變得更會注意到我自己的錯誤。

I don't wait for people to point them out.

我不用等其他人點出來。

I practice finding them,

我練習自己找出自己的錯誤，

and as a result ...

結果……

Sure, sometimes it can be embarrassing,

當然，有時是很丟臉的，

it can be uncomfortable.

有時會很不舒服。

We put ourselves in a vulnerable place, sometimes.

有時，我們讓自己 處於一個脆弱的位置。

But through all that vulnerability,

但透過那些脆弱，

just like in everything else we've tried to ever get better at,

就像我們在試著 學得更好的其他事情一樣，

we see progress.

我們會看到進步。 我們會看到成長。

We see growth.

We allow ourselves to get better.

我們允許自己變得更好。

Why wouldn't we give ourselves that?

為什麼我們不給自己這樣的東西？

In every other part of our lives, we give ourselves room to grow --

在我們人生中的所有其他部分， 我們都會給自己成長的空間——

except in this one, where it matters most.

除了這個部分，但在這個部分， 成長空間卻是最重要的。

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）