Det ville på mange måder være dejligt at være objektiv i livet Problemet er, at vi bærer de her tonede briller i alle slags situationer. Tænk for eksempel på noget så simpelt som øl. Gav jeg dig nogle forskellige øl at smage og bad jer vurdere dem på intensitet og bitterhed, ville forskellige øl optage forskellige pladser. Men hvad hvis vi forsøgte at være objektive omkring det? I tilfældet med øl ville det være ret simpelt. Men hvad hvis vi lavede en blindsmagning? Gjorde vi det samme, og I smagte den samme øl, men nu i en blindsmagning, så ville det se noget anderledes ud. De fleste af øllene ville placere sig ens. I ville faktisk ikke kunne skelne mellem dem, med undtagelsen af Guinness, selvfølgelig. (Latter)
It would be nice to be objective in life, in many ways. The problem is that we have these color-tinted glasses as we look at all kinds of situations. For example, think about something as simple as beer. If I gave you a few beers to taste and I asked you to rate them on intensity and bitterness, different beers would occupy different space. But what if we tried to be objective about it? In the case of beer, it would be very simple. What if we did a blind taste? Well, if we did the same thing, you tasted the same beer, now in the blind taste, things would look slightly different. Most of the beers will go into one place. You will basically not be able to distinguish them, and the exception, of course, will be Guinness. (Laughter)
Ligeledes med fysiologi. Hvad sker der, når folk forventer noget af deres fysiologi? For eksempel solgte vi smertestillende til folk. Til nogen fortalte vi, at medicinen var dyr. Til nogen fortalte vi, den var billig. Og det dyre smertestillende virkede bedre. Den lettede smerten bedre hos folk, fordi forventninger laver forandringer i vores fysiologi. Og selvfølgelig, ved vi alle, at i sport, hvis man er fan af et bestemt hold, kan man ikke undgå at se spillet udfolde sig fra det holds perspektiv.
Similarly, we can think about physiology. What happens when people expect something from their physiology? For example, we sold people pain medications. Some people, we told them the medications were expensive. Some people, we told them it was cheap. And the expensive pain medication worked better. It relieved more pain from people, because expectations do change our physiology. And of course, we all know that in sports, if you are a fan of a particular team, you can't help but see the game develop from the perspective of your team.
Alle disse er eksempler, hvor der er forudbestemte meninger, og vore forventninger farver vores verden. Men hvad skete der med vigtigere spørgsmål? Hvad med spørgsmål, der omhandlede social retfærdighed? Vi havde lyst til at tænke over, hvordan blindsmagningsversionen for ulighed er. Så vi startede med at kigge på ulighed og foretog nogle omfattende undersøgelser rundt omkring i USA og andre lande. Vi spurgte om to ting: Ved folk hvilket niveau af ulighed, vi har? Og så; hvilket niveau af ulighed ønsker vi? Lad os overveje det første spørgsmål. Forestil jer, at jeg tog alle folk i USA og sorterede dem fra de fattigste til højre til de rigeste til venstre og så delte dem op i fem grupper: De fattigste 20 %, de næste 20 %, de næste, de næste, og de rigeste 20 %. Og så bad jeg jer om at vise mig, hvor meget velstand, der er koncentreret i hver af disse grupper. For at gøre det nemmere, forestil jer, at det var hvor meget velstand, der er koncentreret i de to nederste grupper; De nederste 40 %. Tænk et øjeblik. Tænk over det, og vælg et tal. Normalt tænker vi ikke. Tænk et øjeblik og hav et rigtigt tal klar. Har I det?
So all of those are cases in which our preconceived notions and our expectations color our world. But what happened in more important questions? What happened with questions that had to do with social justice? So we wanted to think about what is the blind tasting version for thinking about inequality? So we started looking at inequality, and we did some large-scale surveys around the U.S. and other countries. So we asked two questions: Do people know what kind of level of inequality we have? And then, what level of inequality do we want to have? So let's think about the first question. Imagine I took all the people in the U.S. and I sorted them from the poorest on the right to the richest on the left, and then I divided them into five buckets: the poorest 20 percent, the next 20 percent, the next, the next, and the richest 20 percent. And then I asked you to tell me how much wealth do you think is concentrated in each of those buckets. So to make it simpler, imagine I ask you to tell me, how much wealth do you think is concentrated in the bottom two buckets, the bottom 40 percent? Take a second. Think about it and have a number. Usually we don't think. Think for a second, have a real number in your mind. You have it?
Okay, her er hvad, mange amerikanere siger til os. De tror, at de nederste 20 % har omkring 2,9 % af velstande, den næste gruppe har 6,4 %, altså tilsammen lidt mere end ni. Den næste gruppe, siger de, har 12 %, 20 %, og de rigeste 20 %, tror folk, har omkring 58 % af velstanden. I kan se hvordan det relaterer til det, I troede.
Okay, here's what lots of Americans tell us. They think that the bottom 20 percent has about 2.9 percent of the wealth, the next group has 6.4, so together it's slightly more than nine. The next group, they say, has 12 percent, 20 percent, and the richest 20 percent, people think has 58 percent of the wealth. You can see how this relates to what you thought.
Hvad er realiteten så? Virkeligheden er en smule anderledes. De nederste 20 % har 0,1 % af velstanden. De næste 20 % har 0,2 % af velstanden. Tilsammen er det 0,3. Den næste gruppe har 3,9. 11,3. Og den rigeste gruppe har 84-85 % af velstanden. Så hvad vi rent faktisk har, og hvad, vi tror, vi har, er meget forskellige.
Now, what's reality? Reality is slightly different. The bottom 20 percent has 0.1 percent of the wealth. The next 20 percent has 0.2 percent of the wealth. Together, it's 0.3. The next group has 3.9, 11.3, and the richest group has 84-85 percent of the wealth. So what we actually have and what we think we have are very different.
Hvad er det så, vi ønsker? Hvordan fandt vi overhovedet ud af det? Så for at finde ud af dette, af hvad vi virkelig ønsker, tænkte vi på filosoffen John Rawls. Hvis I husker John Rawls, så havde han den her idé om, hvad et retfærdigt samfund er. Han sagde, et retfærdigt samfund er et samfund hvor, hvis man vidste alt omkring det, så ville man være villig til at komme ind i det et vilkårligt sted. Og det er en smuk definition, for hvis man er rig vil man måske have de rige til at have flere penge; de fattige færre. Er man fattig, ønsker man måske mere lighed. Men hvis man kan komme ind i det samfund i hver en mulig situation, og man ikke ved hvilken, så tvinges man til at overveje alle aspekter. Det er lidt ligesom blindsmagning, hvor man ikke ved, hvad udfaldet vil være, når man tager en beslutning, og Rawls kaldte det "uvidenhedens slør".
What about what we want? How do we even figure this out? So to look at this, to look at what we really want, we thought about the philosopher John Rawls. If you remember John Rawls, he had this notion of what's a just society. He said a just society is a society that if you knew everything about it, you would be willing to enter it in a random place. And it's a beautiful definition, because if you're wealthy, you might want the wealthy to have more money, the poor to have less. If you're poor, you might want more equality. But if you're going to go into that society in every possible situation, and you don't know, you have to consider all the aspects. It's a little bit like blind tasting in which you don't know what the outcome will be when you make a decision, and Rawls called this the "veil of ignorance."
Så vi tog en anden gruppe, en stor gruppe af amerikanere, og vi spurgte dem et spørgsmål om uvidenhedens slør: Hvad er karakteristikaene for et land, der ville få dig til at tilslutte dig det, velvidende om at du kunne ende op hvilket som helst sted i det? Her er hvad, vi endte op med. Hvad ville folk give til den første gruppe, de nederste 20 %? De havde lyst til at give dem ca. 10 % af velstanden. Den næste gruppe 14 % af velstanden, 21, 22 og 32.
So, we took another group, a large group of Americans, and we asked them the question in the veil of ignorance. What are the characteristics of a country that would make you want to join it, knowing that you could end randomly at any place? And here is what we got. What did people want to give to the first group, the bottom 20 percent? They wanted to give them about 10 percent of the wealth. The next group, 14 percent of the wealth, 21, 22 and 32.
Ingen i vores stikprøve ønskede fuld ligestilling. Ingen i vores stikprøve mente, at socialisme er en fantastisk ide. Men hvad betyder det? Det betyder, at vi har en videnskløft mellem hvad vi har, og hvad vi tror vi har, men vi har et mindst lige så stort hul mellem hvad vi mener er rigtigt, og hvad vi tror vi har.
Now, nobody in our sample wanted full equality. Nobody thought that socialism is a fantastic idea in our sample. But what does it mean? It means that we have this knowledge gap between what we have and what we think we have, but we have at least as big a gap between what we think is right to what we think we have.
Vi kan ikke kun stille disse spørgsmål omkring økonomisk velstand. Vi kan også stille dem omkring andre ting. For eksempel spurgte vi folk fra forskellige dele af verden om dette - Liberale og konservative - og de gav os stort set det samme svar. Vi spurgte rig og fattig, de gav os det samme svar. Mænd og kvinder, NPR-lyttere og læsere af Forbes. Vi spurgte folk i England, Australien, USA - meget ens svar. Vi spurgte endda forskellige afdelinger på et universitet. Vi tog til Harvard og tjekkede næsten hver eneste afdeling, og faktisk på Harvard Business School, hvor nogle få ønskede at de velhavende skulle have mere og de rigeste mindre, var ligheden forbløffende. Jeg ved, at nogen af jer gik på Harvard Business School.
Now, we can ask these questions, by the way, not just about wealth. We can ask it about other things as well. So for example, we asked people from different parts of the world about this question, people who are liberals and conservatives, and they gave us basically the same answer. We asked rich and poor, they gave us the same answer, men and women, NPR listeners and Forbes readers. We asked people in England, Australia, the U.S. -- very similar answers. We even asked different departments of a university. We went to Harvard and we checked almost every department, and in fact, from Harvard Business School, where a few people wanted the wealthy to have more and the [poor] to have less, the similarity was astonishing. I know some of you went to Harvard Business School.
Vi spurgte også spørgsmålet omkring noget andet. Vi spurgte omkring forholdet mellem direk- tørers løn og de ufaglærte arbejderes. Så I kan se, hvad folk troede forholdet var. Vi spurgte dem som, hvad de mente forholdet burde være. Og så om hvad realiteten var. Hvad er realiteten? Og man kan sige, at det er da ikke så slemt, vel? De røde og gule er ikke så forskellige. Men faktum er, at det er fordi, jeg ikke har tegnet dem på den samme skala. Det er svært at se, der er gult og blåt derinde.
We also asked this question about something else. We asked, what about the ratio of CEO pay to unskilled workers? So you can see what people think is the ratio, and then we can ask the question, what do they think should be the ratio? And then we can ask, what is reality? What is reality? And you could say, well, it's not that bad, right? The red and the yellow are not that different. But the fact is, it's because I didn't draw them on the same scale. It's hard to see, there's yellow and blue in there.
Så hvad med andre udfald af velstand? Velstand er ikke kun om velstand. Vi spurgte: Hvad med ting som helbred? Hvad med tilgængeligheden af receptpligtig medicin? Hvad med forventet levealder? Hvad med spædbørns forventede levealder? Hvordan ønsker vi, at det fordeles? Hvad med uddannelse til unge? Og til ældre? Og gennem alle disse ting lærte vi, at folk ikke kan lide ulighed i velstand, men der er andre ting, hvor ulighed, hvilket er et resultat af velstand, virker endnu mere generende for dem: For eksempel ulighed i helbred eller uddannelse. Vi lærte også, at folk især er åbne for forandringer i lighed, når det kommer til folk, der er i dårligere stand til at klare sig selv - generelt set unge børn og babyer, fordi vi ikke se dem som værende ansvarlige for deres situation.
So what about other outcomes of wealth? Wealth is not just about wealth. We asked, what about things like health? What about availability of prescription medication? What about life expectancy? What about life expectancy of infants? How do we want this to be distributed? What about education for young people? And for older people? And across all of those things, what we learned was that people don't like inequality of wealth, but there's other things where inequality, which is an outcome of wealth, is even more aversive to them: for example, inequality in health or education. We also learned that people are particularly open to changes in equality when it comes to people who have less agency -- basically, young kids and babies, because we don't think of them as responsible for their situation.
Så hvad er lektien fra det her? Vi har to kløfter: Vi har en videnskløft og en ønskekløft. Videnskløften er noget, vi tænker på. Hvordan uddanner vi folk? Hvordan får vi folk til at tænke anderledes om ulighed og konsekvenserne af ulighed i relation til helbred, uddannelse, jalousi, kriminalitet osv.?
So what are some lessons from this? We have two gaps: We have a knowledge gap and we have a desirability gap And the knowledge gap is something that we think about, how do we educate people? How do we get people to think differently about inequality and the consequences of inequality in terms of health, education, jealousy, crime rate, and so on?
Så har vi ønskekløften. Hvordan får vi folk til at tænke anderledes omkring, hvad de virkelig vil have? Rawls måde at se verden på, ser I, blindsmagningstilgangen, eliminerer vores selviske motivation. Hvordan implementerer vi det i højere grad på en mere omfattende skala?
Then we have the desirability gap. How do we get people to think differently about what we really want? You see, the Rawls definition, the Rawls way of looking at the world, the blind tasting approach, takes our selfish motivation out of the picture. How do we implement that to a higher degree on a more extensive scale?
Og til slut har vi en handlingskløft. Hvordan får vi rent faktisk gjort noget ved de her ting? Jeg tror dele af svaret, er at tænke på folk som unge børn og babyer, der dårligere kan klare sig selv, for det ser ud til at folk er mere villige til at gøre det.
And finally, we also have an action gap. How do we take these things and actually do something about it? I think part of the answer is to think about people like young kids and babies that don't have much agency, because people seem to be more willing to do this.
For at opsummere vil jeg sige, næste gang I går ud og drikker øl eller vin, skal I først og fremmest overveje, hvilken del af jeres oplevelse, der er virkelig, og hvilken del, der er placeboeffekt stammende fra forventninger. Og overvej så, hvad det betyder for andre beslutninger i jeres liv og forhåbentligt også for politiske spørgsmål, der påvirker os alle. Mange tak.
To summarize, I would say, next time you go to drink beer or wine, first of all, think about, what is it in your experience that is real, and what is it in your experience that is a placebo effect coming from expectations? And then think about what it also means for other decisions in your life, and hopefully also for policy questions that affect all of us. Thanks a lot.