Very happy to be here, also a little sad. I'm very happy to be here because it's a wonderful city and it's a wonderful event. I'm a little sad to be here because Ron, who's sitting in the back there, Moran, and myself a few years ago decided to spend a month travelling together every year, and this is the end of our trip together. So it's a little sad that we have to wait another year to start our next journey. One more comment: you might have noticed that I have half a beard. You might have wondered why. It is not because I did not wake up in time. Many years ago, I was badly burned, most of my body is covered in burns, including the right side of my face. So I just don't have hair on this side of my face. I didn't plan on this. It looks symmetrical, but it's because of how the explosion happened, and if you're wondering, I'm not recommending half beards. Let's talk a little bit about trust. One of the amazing things about trust is how much trust we have and how little attention we pay to it. Think about banks. You put your money in the bank, and generally, you think you'll get it back. You get a babysitter for your kid. Some 15-year-old you've never met before, and you give them your kid, and you expect them to be healthy when you come back. My phone is in the back room back there; my passport and money is in a room in a hotel - I'm not going to tell you which one. We have tremendous trust, and like many other things, when trust works, we take it for granted. We notice only when it goes badly. I'll give you one example of something that went badly for me. I was in a country in South America - I will not tell you which one - and I was going to buy a pen. I went to a store, and there was this glass cage, and there were little pens underneath it. I point to one of the pens that I wanted, and the person behind the counter wrote me a little note and pointed to another corner of the store. I went to that corner of the store with the note, and I gave the note to a person, and he told me how much to pay him. It was about $12. I paid him $12, and he gave me another note and pointed me to another corner of the store. I go to this third place, and I meet another person, I give him the second note, and I get the pen. Now why do you think you need three people to sell a $12 pen in an empty store? I was the only client. Because the owner of the store didn't trust anybody. He didn't want anybody to have the money and the pen at the same time, so he created this incredibly elaborate and expensive system. And if you think about it, every time we have trust, society benefits, and every time trust breaks, we pay a lot for it. And I'll give you my favorite analogy for trust. And this analogy is something called "The Public Goods Game". The Public Goods Game: it's not really a game, it's an experiment that economists play. Here is how it works: Imagine that we play the game in Porto, and we pick ten random people. We wake them up in the morning, and we say, "You are one of the players, you are one of the ten players of this game, and every morning, we are going to wake you up and give you ten euros. You can do one of two things with those ten euros: you can keep the money to yourself, or you can put it in a public pot, in a central pot. All the money in the central pot will grow throughout the day by five times. In the evening, it will be equally divided by everybody. The other players, you don't know who they are, you'll never find out who they are. And we'll play this game day after day after day." So imagine we play this game. We start on day one, we wake up ten people, and we tell them the rules of the game. What happened? Usually, they all decide to put the money in the central pot. Ten people, each person gets ten euros, multiply, it's 100 euros. During the day, it grows five times. In the evening we have 500 euros, equally divided by everybody, everybody gets 50 euros. Life is good! Right, you wake up with ten euros, you go to sleep with 50. This continues and continues and continues until one day, one person decides to betray the public good. One person keeps the money to themselves. What happened on that day? On that day nine people put ten euros, 90 euros. Multiply five times, 450 euros, in the evening, it's equally divided by everybody, including the bastard that didn't put money in. Everybody gets 45 euros, right? But the bastard has 55 euros: they have their 10 euros from the morning, plus they get the money from the public good. That person betrayed the public good for their own selfish benefit. But here's the question: what happens the next day? What do you think? Nobody puts any money in. And this is the situation, this is a game with two equilibria. There's one equilibria that is good: everybody participates, everybody benefits. This is what a good society is: we all put money in, volunteers, people participate, people help, and everybody benefits. But when somebody starts betraying the public good, What happens? More and more people betray the public good. There's no equilibria where five people participate and five people don't. It's either everybody or nobody. And the nobody participating is a terrible equilibria. But there's another point. The good equilibria, the one where everybody participates, is very fragile. It's enough for one person to betray the public good, and everything deteriorates. The bad equilibria is very stable; imagine that nobody puts money, nobody puts money, then one day three people put money in. What happened the next day? Does it go back up? No. Goes back to zero. And that for me is the issue with trust. When we have trust, we can create the good equilibria, but then things can really deteriorate, and we all suffer. So now the question is, How do we increase trust? How do we engineer things in society to increase trust? I'll give you a couple of examples. The first example is an example from an insurance. Now think about insurance. We have an insurance company and we have customers. Customers pay the insurance company, they pay the insurance company. At some point, something bad happens. And the cusomers want what? They want the insurance company to pay them for their damage. And the insurance company wants what? Not to pay, right? It's very simple. There's a pot of money; if they pay more to the customers, they get to keep less. As customers, we know that the insurance company doesn't want to pay us. So what do we do? We exaggerate, we inflate our claim. And the insurance company knows that we inflate our claim. So they make it difficult and complex and so on. Now if you think about that system, it's a system that is based on conflicts of interest - the insurance company prefers not to pay than to pay - and mistrust. Terrible idea. Who would design a system like this? So at Lemonade - Lemonade is a young insurance company - they said, "Let's solve this problem." How can we solve this problem? Let's change it from a two-player game to a three-player game. How does this help? Here's how it works. When you join Lemonade, imagine all of us join Lemonade, you get to pick a charity you really love; let's say the World Wildlife Fund. We all pick a charity we love. We pay, every month we pay Lemonade, we pay for the insurance. Lemonade takes a fixed amount and pays back claims, and if there's money leftover in the pool for all of us, it goes to the charity. So now Lemonade takes itself out of the conflicts of interest. They say, "We don't care if we pay you or not; it's a game between you and the charity. And if you now cheat us, Who are you cheating? Your favorite charity." Lemonade started a few years ago. About two weeks after we'd started, the first interesting email comes in. That email says, "You insured my apartment. I told you somebody stole my laptop. You paid me. It turns out I just misplaced my laptop; nobody stole it. I made a mistake. How do I return the money?" That was the email. On that day, I called all my friends in all the insurance companies, and I asked them, How do you deal with such cases? They never happened. This is, for me, an amazing starting point. It says that if you create a system that creates trust and you trust people, there's a good chance trust will come back. One more trick about increasing trust. Imagine I'm a waiter. I come to four people, and I say to the first person, "What would you like?" And that person says, "I want the fish." And I say, "Ah, the fish is not so good today. Dont take the fish, take the chicken. The chicken is cheaper and better. Cheaper and better." And then we measure how much the second person, the third person, and the fourth person take my advice and how much the whole table takes my advice for what wine to get. That's case number one. Case number two. I come to the first person, "What would you like?" He says, "I want the fish." I say, "The fish is not so good today; take the lobster. It's only three times more expensive, but it's amazing." How likely are the second, third, and fourth person to take my advice now? Not at all. How much are they likely to take my advice for wine? Not at all. What's the difference between the first waiter and the second waiter? The difference is that the first waiter showed us that they prefer our benefit to their benefit. There was opportunity to say, "Take something better and cheaper." The second waiter, we don't know. Maybe that lobster is the most amazing in the world, maybe we'll dream about it until the day we die, maybe it's a wonderful decision, but we will never know. We will never know if they work for themselves or for us. So the second advice about creating trust is think about the cases where you can show somebody that you really care and show that you prefer their benefit to your benefit. There's a not-so-funny joke that says, "Why do women like diamond rings?" Why do women like diamond rings? And the answer is "Because men hate buying them." (Laughter) Now what is the point about this? The point is, imagine you buy your loved one a digital camera. You come home and you say, "Darling, I love you so much: here is a digital camera." Who are you buying it for? Unclear. You are like the waiter with the lobster; it's unclear who you're working for. But if you buy them something that you clearly hate, now it's a good sign of pure love. There's no other explanation for this. (Laughter) So when you get a chance, think about how to show love and caring with something that is not confusing as a signal. So we said that trust is important and we want to create a high level of trust. But from time to time, things are going to [go] wrong. The question is, How do we not get into a deterioration? And I'll tell you a personal story. I deeply trust everybody I worked with. I did a project with somebody, and at some point towards the end, I decided the project was not going in a good direction, and I stopped it. That person told me she already had lots of expenses she had to pay, and she'd spent a lot of time and money on this. She gave me a very expensive bill to pay for this. And I paid, and then I found out she'd spent much less money than she told me, and then I found out that the contract she had was different than she told me; lots of things about that really upset me and offended me. My first instinct was "I don't want to feel like this again." I don't want to feel bad like this again, and then I thought, "Should I start having contracts with everybody?" Because when I started working with her, I didn't do any contract; it was all a handshake agreement. I love working with handshake agreements. I thought, "Should I start having contracts?" Think about what having contracts with everybody means. It would mean that one bad incident would get me to start doubting everybody I work with. But the thing about trust is that when trust really works, we don't notice it as much. And I thought about all the wonderful relationships I have and all the wonderful people I work with and how much trust is allowing us to behave better, how much trust is allowing us to get to a much higher equilibrium. I decided that from time to time, things are going to [go] wrong, and I'll have the instinct to try and protect myself and say that I never want to feel like this again and to surround myself with security and blankets and contracts, but I'm going to try and resist this. Because trust is wonderful. Trust is wonderful: we need to recognise it; we need to work towards it; we need to create mechanisms that [will] allow us to create trust. And from time to time, things are going to [go] wrong. Then we need to fight our own instinct to try and protect ourselves. But the good news is that if we get to have higher trust, it is certainly worth it. Thank you very much. (Applause)
很高兴来到这儿, 也有些悲伤。 我非常高兴在这里 因为这是个很棒的城市 也是个很棒的活动。 我有点悲伤 因为坐在后排的罗恩、 莫兰和我 几年前决定每年 一起去旅行一个月, 这是我们旅行的终点。 所以有点伤感 下一次旅行要再等一年。 还有一点:你们可能看到 我只有一边的胡子。 你们可能想知道为什么。 不是因为我没按时起床。 许多年前,我被严重烧伤, 身体大面积烧伤, 包括我的右脸颊。 所以我这边没有胡子。 我没想让自己变成这样。 它看上去对称是因为 爆炸就是这样发生的, 如果你们也在考虑, 我不建议留半边胡子。 咱们聊聊信任吧。 信任最令人吃惊的是 我们拥有多少信任, 然而却很少关注它。 想一想银行。 你把钱放在银行里, 通常,你会认为 钱能拿回来。 你给自己的孩子找个保姆。 一个 15 岁从未谋面的青少年, 你会把你的孩子交给她, 并期待回家时 孩子安然无恙。 我的电话就在后面那间屋里; 我的护照和钱 在旅馆的一间客房里—— 我不会告诉你是哪间。 我们有十足的信任, 就像很多其他事情一样, 当信任没出现问题时, 我们不把它当回事。 只有出问题时 才会注意到。 我给你们举个例子 一个我亲身经历的倒霉事。 我在南美洲一个国家—— 就不说是哪里了—— 我正要买一支笔。 进了一家商店, 有一个玻璃盒子, 里面有几支小笔。 我指了指一支我想要的笔, 柜台后面的人 给我写了个小纸条 指着商店的另一角。 我带着纸条走过去, 把纸条给一个人, 他告诉我该付多少钱。 大概 12 美元。 我付了他 12 美元后, 他给我另一张纸条, 让我去商店的另一角。 我去了第三个地方, 见到另一个人, 我给了他第二个纸条, 然后我拿到了那只笔。 现在您想想为什么, 你需要三个人在没人的商店里 卖一支 12 美元的笔吗? 我是唯一的顾客。 因为商店老板 不相信任何人。 他不想让任何人 同时拿到钱和笔。 所以他建立了这个 特别复杂而昂贵的系统。 那么你们想一想, 每当我们信任时,社会得益, 而当信任遭到破坏时, 我们会付出很多。 告诉大家我最喜欢的例子。 这个例子叫做“公共品博弈” (The Public Goods Game)。 其实公共品博弈 并非是个游戏(game), 而是经济学家们的一项实验。 原理是这样的: 想象我们在波尔图做这个实验, 我们任选 10 个人。 我们早上叫醒他们说, “你是这个实验 10 名成员之一, 每天早上,我们会叫醒你, 并给你 10 欧元。 你可以拿这 10 欧元做两件事: 你可以把钱留给自己, 或者可以把它 放进一个公共钱箱。 公共钱箱里所有的钱 在一天内会增长五倍。 到晚上,会平均地分给每个人。 其它的参与者,你都不认识, 你也永远不会知道他们是谁。 我们将持续不断地 做这个实验。” 想象我们开始做这个实验。 我们从第一天开始, 我们叫醒 10 个人, 告诉他们游戏规则。 会发生什么?通常他们都会 把钱放入公共钱箱。 10 个人,每个人获得 10 欧元, 做乘法,就是 100 欧元。 一天中增长五倍。 晚上就有 500 欧元, 每个人平分。 每人拿到 50 欧元。 人生是美好的!早上有 10 欧元 晚上变成了 50 欧元。 这样继续下去 直到有一天, 一个人决定背叛公约。 这个人决定一分钱都不出。 那天发生了什么? 那天九个人各放 10 欧元, 共 90 欧元 乘以五倍,450 欧元, 到晚上,每个人平均分配, 包括那个一毛不拔的家伙。 每个人得到 45 欧元,对吗? 但是那个家伙有 55 欧元: 他早上的 10 欧元, 加上来自公共基金的钱。 那人为了自己的私利 背叛了公共利益。 但问题是: 第二天会怎样? 你觉得呢? 没人再会放钱。 情况就是这样, 这个实验有两种均衡。 其中一种是好的: 每个人都参与, 每个人都受益。 一个好的社会是这样: 我们都放钱,当志愿者, 大家都参与,都帮忙, 每个人都受益。 但当有人开始背叛公共利益, 那会怎样呢? 越来越多的人会背叛公共利益。 5 人参与,5 人不参与, 无法达到均衡。 均衡中要么每人都参与, 要么无人参与。 没人参与是个糟糕的均衡。 但不过还有一点。 每人都参与的良好均衡, 是非常脆弱的。 一个人足以破坏公共品, 导致全盘皆输。 不良的均衡却很稳定; 想象没有人放钱, 然后有一天, 有三个人放钱。 第二天会发生什么? 还会增加吗?不会。 会回到零。 这对我来说是信任的问题。 当我们有信任时, 我们能创建良好的均衡, 但当事情真地恶化, 我们都会倒霉。 所以现在的问题是, 我们如何增加信任? 我们如何构建社会 以增加信任? 我给你们举两个例子。 第一个是保险的例子。 让我们想想保险。 我们有一家保险公司及客户。 客户付保费给保险公司。 当发生坏事时 客户想要什么? 他们想让保险公司 赔偿他们的损失。 而保险公司想要什么? 不付钱,对吧?这很简单。 这笔钱,如果给客户, 剩下的就会少。 作为客户,我们知道保险 公司不想付钱给我们。 那我们怎么办? 我们夸大其词, 我们夸大索赔。 保险公司知道 我们夸大了索赔。 所以他们就让它变得难又复杂。 如果您想一想这个系统, 这是一个基于利益冲突的系统—— 保险公司宁愿不支付—— 和不信任。 很差劲的主意。 谁会设计这样一个系统? 所以在柠檬水——柠檬水 是一家年轻的保险公司—— 他们说,“让我们解决这个问题吧。” 我们怎样才能解决这个问题? 让我们把双人博弈 变为三人博弈。 这有什么用? 它的原理是这样。 当你加入柠檬水时, 想象我们全加入柠檬水, 你可选择一个慈善机构; 如世界野生动物基金会。 我们会选择自己 热衷的慈善机构。 我们每个月付保费给柠檬水。 柠檬水拿走固定金额 并支付索赔, 如果有剩余的钱 会付给慈善机构。 现在柠檬水就不在 利益冲突里了。 他们说,“我们不在乎 是否付给您钱; 那是你和慈善机构之间的事。 如果你现在欺骗我们, 你在欺骗谁? 你最热衷的慈善机构。” 柠檬水几年前就开始了。 我们开办(柠檬水)大约两周后, 第一封有趣的电子邮件来了。 那封邮件说, “你保险了我的公寓。 我告诉你有人偷了 我的笔记本电脑。 你赔偿给我。 事实上我只是放错了地方; 没有人偷走它。 我犯了一个错误。 我该怎样退钱?” 这就是邮件的内容。 那天,我给所有保险公司 每个朋友打了电话, 我问他们,你会怎样 处理此类案件? 这种事从未发生过。 对我来说, 这是个很好的起点。 它告诉我们,如果您创建 一个建立信任的系统 并且信任大众, 我们很可能会得回信任。 另一个增加信任的技巧。 想象我是一名服务员。 面对四个人, 我对第一个人说 “您想点什么?” 那个人说,“我想要鱼。” 我说,“啊,今天的鱼不太好。 不要点鱼,点鸡。 鸡肉更便宜更好吃。 更便宜,更好吃。” 然后我们衡量一下 第二个人,第三个人, 第四个人接受我建议的程度 以及整张桌子接受我 推荐的葡萄酒的程度。 这是第一个案例。 第二个案例。 我问第一个人, “您想点什么?” 他说,“我想要鱼。” 我说,“今天的鱼不太好;点龙虾吧。 它只贵三倍,但是非常好吃。” 有多大可能, 第二、第三、第四个人 会接受我的建议? 完全不会。 他们有多大可能 会接受我推荐的葡萄酒? 完全不会。 第一个和第二个服务员 有什么区别? 不同的是第一个 服务员让我们感到 我们的利益高于他们的利益。 有机会说, “点一些更好更便宜的东西。” 第二个服务员,我们不知道。 也许那个龙虾 是世界上最棒的, 也许直到死去的那一天 我们仍会梦到它, 也许(点龙虾)会是个很好的决定, 但我们永远不会知道。 我们永远不知道他们是 为自己还是为我们。 因此关于创建信任的第二个建议 是考虑如何 表现出你真的很在乎 并表明他们的利益更重要。 有一个不那么有趣的笑话说, “为什么女人喜欢钻戒?” 女人为什么喜欢钻戒? 答案是“因为男人讨厌买。” (笑声) 这个笑话是什么意思呢? 意义在于,想象你给 爱人买个数码相机。 你回到家说, “亲爱的,我特别爱你: 这是一台数码相机。” 你是给谁买的? 不清楚。 你就像推荐龙虾的服务员; 不清楚你是为谁。 但如果你给她买了 你不喜欢的东西, 那将是纯洁爱情的象征。 对此没有其他解释。 (笑声) 所以当你有机会时, 想想如何用不混淆的信号 表达爱和关怀。 所以我们说信任很重要, 而且我们想建立高度信任。 但有时,事情会出岔子。 问题是,我们如何 不让它恶化? 我再告诉你们一个亲身经历。 我深信与我合作的每一个人。 我和某人做了一个项目, 快结束时, 我认为这个项目 正朝着不好的方向发展, 所以我结束了项目。 那个人告诉我她已经有 很多费用要支付, 而且也花了不少时间和钱。 她给了我一个非常贵的账单。 我付了钱。 后来我发现她没有 花费那么多钱, 然后我发现她的合同 和她告诉我的不一样; 这些事让我很烦恼很生气。 我的第一直觉是 “我不想再这样了。” 我不想再感觉这么难受, 然后我想,“我应该开始 和每个人签订合同吗?” 因为当我开始和她工作时, 我没有签合同; 完全是握手协议。 我喜欢握手协议的工作方式。 我思考,“我应该开始订合同吗?” 想想跟每个人 签合同意味着什么。 这意味着一件坏事 会让我开始怀疑 每个与我合作的人。 但关于信任是 当我们有信任时, 我们根本注意不到它。 我想到一切 我拥有的美好关系 和所有与我一起工作的人, 信任如何让我们 表现得更好, 信任如何让我们 达到更高的均衡。 我决定有时事情会出错, 而且我的直觉 会试图保护自己, 我会告诉自己 再也不想这样了, 然后用毯子和合同 安全地包裹自己, 但我会试着抵制它。 因为信任是美好的。 信任很棒: 我们需要认识到它; 我们需要向它努力; 我们需要创建 允许我们建立信任的机制。 有时事情会不如意。 我们需要战胜自己 试图保护自己的直觉。 但好消息是如果我们 获得更高的信任, 那肯定是值得的。 非常感谢。 (掌声)