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)
Bilo bi lijepo u životu biti objektivan, na mnogo načina. Problem je u tome što imamo te obojane naočale dok promatrano razne situacije. Na primjer, razmislite o nečem jednostavnom kao pivo. Ako vam dadem da probate nekoliko piva i upitam vas da ocijenite njihovu jačinu i gorčinu, različita piva zauzeti će različita mjesta. No što ako pokušamo biti objektivni? U slučaju piva to bi bilo jako jednostavno. Što ako napravimo kušanje na slijepo? Pa, da smo učinili istu stvar, da ste kušali isto pivo, sada kušajući na slijepo, stvari bi izgledale malo drugačije. Većina piva upala bi na jedno mjesto. Vi ih u biti ne bi mogli razlikovati, a iznimka bi, naravno, bio Guinness. (Smijeh)
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.
Na sličan način možemo razmišljati o fiziologiji. Što se događa kada ljudi nešto očekuju od svoje fiziologije? Na primjer, ljudima smo prodali lijekove protiv boli. Nekim ljudima smo rekli da su ti lijekovi bili skupi. Nekim ljudima rekli smo da su bili jeftini. I skuplji lijekovi protiv boli djelovali su bolje. Više su ljudima olakšali bol, zbog toga jer očekivanja stvarno mijenjaju našu fiziologiju. I naravno, svi to znamo u sportu, ako ste navijač određenog tima, ne možete si pomoći da odvijanje utakmice ne gledate iz perspektive svog tima.
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?
Dakle, sve su to slučajevi u kojima naši unaprijed stvoreni stavovi i naša očekivanja bojaju naš svijet. No što se događa s mnogo važnijim pitanjima? Što se događa s pitanjima koja su povezana sa socijalnom pravdom? Stoga smo željeli razmotriti verziju kušanja na slijepo za razmišljanje o nejednakosti. Pa smo počeli razmatrati nejednakost i napravili smo par opsežnih anketa širom SAD-a i drugih zemalja. Pa smo postavili dva pitanja: Znaju li ljudi koju razinu nejednakosti imamo? A zatim, koju razinu nejednakosti želimo imati? Pa hajdemo razmisliti o prvom pitanju. Zamislite da sam uzeo sve ljude u SAD-u i poredao ih od najsiromašnijeg s desne strane do najbogatijeg s lijeve strane, te ih onda podijelio u pet grupa: najsiromašnijih 20 posto, sljedećih 20 posto, sljedećih, sljedećih, i najbogatijih 20 posto. I onda vas pitam da mi kažete koliko mislite da je bogatstva koncentrirano u svakoj od tih grupa. Da pojednostavimo, zamislite da sam vas upitao, koliko mislite da je bogatstva koncentrirano u najdonje dvije grupe, najdonjih 40 posto? Uzmite si časak. Razmislite i odaberite broj. Obično ne razmišljamo. Razmislite sekundu, odaberite u glavi stvarni broj. Imate ga?
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.
U redu, evo što nam kaže mnogo Amerikanaca. Oni misle da donjih 20 posto ima oko 2,9 posto bogatstva, sljedeća grupa ima 6,4 tako da je to zajedno malo više od devet. Sljedeća grupa, kažu, ima 12 posto, 20 posto, i najbogatijih 20 posto, ljudi misle, ima 58 posto bogatstva. Možete vidjeti u kojem je to odnosu s onim što ste vi mislili.
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.
Sada, što je stvarnost? Stvarnost je malo drugačija. Donjih 20 posto ima 0,1 posto bogatstva. Sljedećih 20 posto ima 0,2 posto bogatstva. Zajedno to je 0,3. Sljedeća grupa ima 3,9, 11,3, i najbogatija grupa ima 84-85 posto bogatstva. Dakle, ono što stvarno imamo i ono što mislimo da imamo jako se razlikuje.
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."
A kako je s onim što želimo? Kako ćemo to uopće ustanoviti? Dakle da bi to ustanovili, da bi ustanovili što stvarno želimo, sjetili smo se filozofa Johna Rowlsa. Ako se sjećate Johna Rowlsa, on je imao tu predstavu o tome što je to pravedno društvo. On je rekao da je pravedno društvo ono društvo u koje bi, znajući sve o njemu, bili voljni ući na bilo kojem mjestu. I to je prekrasna definicija jer ako ste bogati, vjerojatno biste željeli da bogati imaju više novca, a siromašni manje. Ako ste siromašni, vjerojatno biste željeli više jednakosti. No ako namjeravate ući u to društvo u svakoj mogućoj situaciji, a ne znate, tada morate razmotriti sve aspekte. To je pomalo kao kušanje na slijepo u kojem ne znate što će biti ishod vaše odluke i Rowls je to nazvao "veo neznanja".
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.
Stoga smo uzeli drugu grupu, veliku grupu Amerikanaca, i postavili smo im pitanje pod velom neznanja. Koje karakteristike neke zemlje bi vas navele da joj se pridružite, znajući da biste se mogli naći na bilo kojem mjestu? I evo što smo dobili. Što su ljudi željeli dati prvoj grupi, donjih 20 posto? Željeli su ima dati oko 10 posto bogatstva. Sljedećoj grupi 14 posto bogatstva, 21, 22 i 32.
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.
Dakle, nitko u našem uzorku nije želio potpunu jednakost. Nitko iz našeg uzorka nije mislio da je socijalizam fantastična ideja. No, što to znači? To znači da imamo taj jaz znanja između toga što imamo i što mislimo da imamo, no bar jednako tako veliki jaz imamo između onoga što mislimo da je ispravno i onoga što mislimo da imamo.
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.
Usput, ta pitanja možemo postaviti ne samo o bogatstvu. Možemo ih postaviti i o drugim stvarima također. Tako smo na primjer, ljudima iz različitih dijelova svijeta postavili ta pitanja, ljudima koji su liberali i konzervativci, i oni su nam dali načelno iste odgovore. Pitali smo bogate i siromašne, dobili smo iste odgovore, muškarce i žene, slušatelje Narodnog radija i čitatelje Forbesa. Pitali smo ljude u Engleskoj, Australiji, SAD-u -- vrlo slični odgovori. Pitanja smo čak postavili i u različitim odjelima sveučilišta. Otišli smo na Harvard i provjerili skoro svaki odjel, i u stvari, na Harvard Business School, gdje je malo ljudi željelo da bogati imaju više, a siromašni manje, sličnost je bila zapanjujuća. Znam da su neki od vas pohađali Harvard Business School.
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.
Također smo ista pitanja postavili o nečem drugom. Upitali smo, što je s omjerom plaća direktora i nekvalificiranih radnika? Pa možete vidjeti što ljudi misle da je omjer, a onda možemo postaviti pitanje, što misle kakav bi omjer trebao biti. A onda možemo upitati, što je stvarnost? Što je stvarnost? I mogli biste reći, pa to nije tako loše, zar ne? Crvena i žuta se ne razlikuju toliko. No stvar je u tome da ih nisam nacrtao u istom mjerilu. Teško je vidjeti, tu unutra su žuta i plava.
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.
Što je onda s drugim posljedicama bogatstva? Bogatstvo nije samo u bogatstvu. Upitali smo, a što je sa stvarima poput zdravlja? Što je s dostupnošću lijekova na recept? Što s očekivanim životnim vijekom? Što s očekivanim preživljavanjem novorođenčadi? Kakvu distribucija toga želimo? Što s obrazovanjem mladih ljudi? A starijih? I kroz sve te stvari ustanovili smo da ljudi ne vole nejednakost u bogatstvu, ali postoje druge stvari gdje je nejednakost, koja je posljedica bogatstva, ljudima čak još odbojnija: na primjer, nejednakost u zdravlju ili obrazovanju. Također smo ustanovili da su ljudi posebno otvoreni za promjene u jednakosti kada se radi o ljudima koji imaju manju mogućnost djelovanja -- načelno, mala djeca i dojenčad, jer mislimo da oni nisu odgovorni za svoju situaciju.
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?
Dakle koje su lekcije iz ovoga? Imamo dva jaza: Imamo jaz znanja i imamo jaz poželjnosti. A jaz znanja je nešto o čemu razmišljamo, kako obrazovati ljude? Kako postići da ljudi drugačije razmišljaju o nejednakosti i posljedicama nejednakosti u terminima zdravlja, obrazovanja, ljubomore, stope kriminala i tako dalje?
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?
Potom imamo jaz poželjnosti. Kako postići da ljudi drugačije razmišljaju o onom što stvarno žele? Vidite, Rowlsova definicija, Rowlsov pogled na svijet, koncept kušanja na slijepo, iz priče eliminira našu sebičnu motivaciju. Kako ćemo to implementirati na višoj razini u širim mjerilima?
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.
I na kraju, imamo također i jaz djelovanja. Kako uzeti ove stvari i stvarno učiniti nešto u vezi toga? Ja mislim da je dio odgovora da razmišljamo o ljudima poput mladih i male djece koji nemaju puno mogućnosti djelovanja jer izgleda da ljudi radije to rade.
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.
Da zaključim, rekao bih, sljedeći puta kada pijete pivo ili vino, prije svega razmislite što je to u vašem doživljaju što je stvarno, a što je to u vašem doživljaju što je placebo efekt koji dolazi od očekivanja? I onda razmislite također što to znači za druge odluke u vašem životu, i također, nadajmo se, za politička pitanja koja utječu na sve nas.
Thanks a lot.
Puno hvala.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)