This is it. Here we all are, together at last, to talk about optimism. If this isn't nice, I don't know what is.
就是這一刻了。 終於,大家都聚在這裡, 談論樂觀。 如果這樣還不算好, 我不知道什麼才好了。
Here's the problem: it's 2021. We are living through a global plague, one that revealed our worst instincts at the worst times. We are so divided that public health has become a power struggle. We pioneered a vaccine, a moon-landing level innovation, and then kept it among wealthy countries while poor ones suffered.
問題如下:現在是 2021 年。 我們正在經歷全球性的瘟疫, 這場瘟疫揭露出我們在 最糟糕的時刻有最糟糕的直覺。 我們的分裂很嚴重,以致於 公共衛生變成權力鬥爭。 我們開創出了疫苗, 登月等級的創新, 然後把它留在富裕的國家, 而貧窮的國家還在苦難中。
Against this backdrop, isn't talking about optimism, like discussing pagers or horse-drawn carriages? Isn't optimism obsolete, backwards and naive, given all we've been through? Shouldn't it be replaced with a more up-to-date cognitive technology?
在這個背景之下, 談論樂觀不就好像是討論 呼叫器或是馬車? 我們經歷這些事的前提下, 樂觀不是已過時、開倒車, 且太天真了嗎? 不是該把它換成 更現代的認知科技嗎?
Well, lots of people have replaced it with cynicism: the notion that humanity is greedy, selfish and dishonest. In 1972, 45 percent of Americans thought that most people can be trusted. By 2018, that had dropped to about 30 percent. We are living through a cynicism epidemic. I should know -- last year, it infected me, and I'm supposed to be immune.
嗯,很多人用憤世嫉俗取代了樂觀: 他們認為人類很貪婪、 自私、不誠實。 1972 年,有 45% 美國人 認為大部分人可被信賴。 到了 2018 年,只剩 30%。 我們正在經歷憤世嫉俗的大流行。 這我很清楚—— 去年,我被感染了, 而我應該是能免疫的。
I'm a psychologist and neuroscientist, and my whole career, I've studied the sunny side of human nature. My lab and I have found that giving away money activates similar parts of your brain as eating chocolate, and that helping other people through their stress calms our own. Our punch line is clear: there is good in us, and it does good for us.
我是心理學家和神經科學家, 我的整個職涯都在 研究人性的陽光面。 我和我的實驗室發現 送錢給別人會啟動的大腦區域 和吃巧克力很相近, 協助他人度過壓力 能讓你自己平靜下來。 我們的點睛之語很清楚: 我們心中有善,且它對我們有益。
Now, people love hearing this, but in 2020, I started to hate saying it. I was building hope in others while losing my own. I was evangelizing for human kindness all day and then doomscrolling at night. I was peddling something that I would never want to buy anymore. I felt like a fraud, or, at best, maybe a fax-machine salesman.
大家都很愛聽這句話, 但在 2020 年,我開始討厭說它了。 我在幫他人建立希望的同時, 自己卻在失去希望。 我白天都在傳播福音, 宣揚人性的仁慈, 晚上卻在滑手機看愁雲慘霧。 我在兜售的,是我自己 永遠都不會再買的東西。 我覺得自己像騙子, 或者,最好的說法 就是傳真機銷售員。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
But here's the thing. You might think that cynicism is a system upgrade that allows us to see who we really are. It's not. It traps us in a version of the world we don't want to live in, and one we don't have to.
但,重點來了。 你可能會認為, 憤世嫉俗是種系統更新, 讓我們看見自己的真貌。 並不是。 它把我們困在一種世界裡, 我們不會想在這種世界生活, 我們也不用在那種世界生活。
One of my favorite studies of all time occurred in southeastern Brazil. Two fishing villages there are separated by just 30 miles. One sits by the ocean, where fishing requires large boats and heavy equipment. To make a living there, fishermen must work together. The other sits by a lake, where fishermen strike out alone on small boats and compete with one another. Years ago, researchers tested how people in each of these villages responded to a set of social experiments. Ocean fishermen trusted strangers and cooperated with their neighbors. Lake fishermen competed and mistrusted instead. But here's the crazy part. These folks didn't start out any different from each other, but the longer fishermen worked on the lake, the more they competed. The longer they worked on the ocean, the less they did.
我最喜歡的研究之一, 是在巴西東南部進行的研究。 那裡有兩個漁村,相隔三十哩。 一個在海邊, 捕魚會需要大型船隻和重裝備。 在那裡,要謀生,漁夫就得要合作。 另一個在湖邊, 漁夫自己獨自乘小船去捕魚, 彼此競爭。 數年前,研究者去測試 這兩個漁村的人 對一系列社會實驗會有什麼反應。 海洋漁夫會相信陌生人, 並和鄰居合作。 湖泊漁夫反而相互競爭,不信任。 但瘋狂的是 這些人在一開始時並沒有什麼不同。 但漁夫在湖泊上工作越久, 他們就越會與人競爭; 在海洋上工作越久, 就越不會去競爭。
Some families, schools and companies are like ocean villages. People trust, because they know others will earn it. Some are like lake towns -- people look out for themselves, because no one else will. Our social worlds shape us, like clay, into hopeful or cynical versions of ourselves. And right now, many of us are living in a lake town of historic proportion. Inequality has soared, injustice is all around, self-interest might as well be pumped into the water supply. These forces raise cynicism, and so do times of disaster. After the last 18 months, there's a real chance we could tip into a sort of cynical permafrost.
有些家庭、學校,和公司 就像是靠海的漁村。 大家彼此信任,因為知道 別人能贏得這份信任。 有些則像是湖泊漁村—— 大家自顧自的,因為 沒有別人會照顧他們。 就像黏土,我們的社交世界 會把我們形塑成 抱持希望版本 或憤世嫉俗版本的我們。 而此時, 我們許多人身處在歷史上 屬於湖泊漁村的時期。 不平等暴漲,不公正無所不在, 可以說自私自利被灌入水源中。 這些力量促成了憤世嫉俗, 災難時期亦是如此。 十八個月過去了, 我們真的有可能會掉入到 某種憤世嫉俗永久凍土層中。
Now, I'm going to guess there may be some proud cynics in the audience today, and you might be thinking, "Good. More people should turn to the dark side. Optimism might feel nice -- so would calling tiramisu a health food, but we don't get to go around believing whatever we like." George Bernard Shaw tells us that the power of accurate observation is commonly called "cynicism" by those who haven't got it.
我猜,今天的觀眾當中可能 有一些驕傲的憤世嫉俗者, 也許你們在想:「很好。 應該有更多人加入黑暗的一方。 樂觀的感覺可能很好—— 但把提拉米蘇稱為健康食物也一樣, 但我們不會到處去相信 我們想相信的事。」 蕭伯納告訴我們, 精確觀察的力量 通常被沒這種力量的人 稱為「憤世嫉俗」。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
107 years later, the cartoon philosopher Lisa Simpson taught us that as intelligence goes up, happiness goes down. Maybe hope does, too. Maybe cynicism is the price of being right.
一百零七年後, 卡通裡的哲學家莉莎·辛普森告誡我們 智力越高,快樂越少。 也許希望也會越少。 也許憤世嫉俗就是正確的代價。
Most people think so. 70 percent think cynics are smarter than noncynics; 85 percent think they would make better lie detectors. Most people are wrong. It turns out that cynics tend to perform less well than noncynics on cognitive tests. They earn less money, and they lose more often in negotiations. They're not even good at spotting bad guys. In one study, researchers conducted mock job interviews, asking half the candidates to lie and half to tell the truth. Cynics and noncynics watched videos of these interviews and guessed who was lying. And cynics did way worse. More generally, they assume liars are everywhere so can't pick real ones out of a crowd.
大部分的人都這麼認為。 70% 的人認為憤世嫉俗者 比不憤世嫉俗者更聰明。 85% 的人認為憤世嫉俗者 更能偵測出謊言。 大部分的人都錯了。 結果發現, 憤世嫉俗者在認知測驗的表現 不如非憤世嫉俗者; 他們賺的錢較少; 在談判中他們比較常是輸家; 他們甚至不擅長辨視出壞人。 在一項研究中,研究者 進行了假的工作面試, 請一半應徵者說謊,另一半說實話。 憤世嫉俗者和非憤世嫉俗者 看了這些面談影片,猜測誰在說謊。 憤世嫉俗者的表現糟糕很多。 通常,他們會假設騙子比比皆是, 反而無法從人群中挑出真騙子。
So cynicism might not be as smart as you think it is, but it's still powerful, because our stories about each other become self-fulfilling. Cynics are more likely to refuse intimacy and cooperation. They hurt others to avoid being hurt. They tend to spy on their colleagues and suspect their friends, and other people, unsurprisingly, react badly -- sometimes, acting selfishly in response. In other words, by mistreating others, cynics create the exact conditions they fear. They tell a story full of villains and end up living in it. I call this the cynicism trap, and my lab explores ways that people fall into it. In one study, we asked people how happiness works. Some thought that it's a zero-sum game, meaning that as one person's happiness goes up, another person's must go down. Now they're wrong. It turns out that when we act generously towards others, that tends to increase our happiness. But cynics acted on their illusion. When given chances to help strangers, they were less likely to do so. They ended up less happy as well. By hoarding well-being, they lost out on one of its key ingredients -- other people.
所以,憤世嫉俗可能沒有 你想的那麼聰明, 但它仍然很強大, 因為我們彼此編的故事最後會成真。 憤世嫉俗者比較可能會 拒絕親密感和合作; 他們傷害他人,以避免被他人傷害; 他們傾向會監視同事、懷疑朋友。 並不意外,其他人的反應會很糟—— 有時,會用自私的反應來回應。 換言之,因為對別人不好, 憤世嫉俗者反而創造出了 他們所懼怕的情況。 他們描述的故事中滿是壞蛋, 最後自己就活在這樣的故事中。 我稱之為憤世嫉俗陷阱, 我的實驗室在探究 人如何落入這種陷阱。 我們有一項研究詢問大家 快樂怎麼運作。 有人認為快樂是種零和遊戲, 意即,當一個人的快樂上升, 另一個人的快樂就一定會下降。 他們是錯的。 結果發現,當我們大方對待別人時, 通常會增加我們的快樂。 但憤世嫉俗者的行為根據 是他們的幻覺。 有機會協助陌生人時, 憤世嫉俗者比較不會去做。 最後他們也比較不快樂。 他們想積聚幸福, 反而因此失去了 幸福的一個重要成份—— 別人。
In other work, we asked Republicans and Democrats what it would mean to empathize with the other side. Some people saw politics as a war, and thought empathy would be as useful as bringing cotton candy to a gunfight. These folks didn't want to cooperate with the other side, or even to know them at all. In one study, we measured college students' cynicism about empathy and asked about the friends they made on campus. Here, each dot is a person, coded blue to red based on ideology, and each line is a friendship. Now, this was a pretty liberal campus, but nonetheless, noncynics managed to find ideologically diverse friends. Cynics stuck to their own kind. Now that's, of course, their right. But most of us wish our country was less divided, and empathy is critical to moving us towards that goal. By giving up on it, cynics lose that chance.
我們做了另一個研究, 詢問共和黨和民主黨員 同理另一黨的意涵是什麼? 有些人把政治視為戰爭, 認為同理心的用處 和帶著棉花糖去槍戰中差不多。 這些人並不想和另一黨合作, 甚至不想認識他們。 我們做了一個研究,測量大學生 對同理心的憤世嫉俗程度, 並問及他們在校園中認識的朋友。 圖上的每一點代表一個人, 藍到紅的顏色代表他們的意識形態, 每條線都代表友誼。 這是個很開放校園, 但,非憤世嫉俗者想辦法 找到了各種意識形態的朋友。 憤世嫉俗者只和同類在一起。 當然,他們有權如此。 但大部分人希望 我國少一點分裂, 要朝那個目標邁進, 同理心就很重要。 憤世嫉俗者放棄了同理心, 因而失去了那個機會。
Our studies and many others give us a clear picture of the cynicism trap. When we decide everyone's out for themselves, we stop seeing their kindness. When we think the world is zero-sum, everyone becomes a potential enemy. These views spread across us, too. Parents pass on their suspicions to their kids. Politicians act in bad faith and damage voters' faith in each other. Media companies trade in judgment and outrage. Our cynicism is their product, and it is a growth industry.
我們的研究及許多其他研究 清楚描繪了憤世嫉俗陷阱。 當我們認定人人為己時, 就不會再看見他們的仁慈。 當我們認為世界是零和的, 每個人都會成為潛在的敵人。 這些觀點也會在我們之間傳播。 父母會把他們的疑心 傳給他們的孩子。 政治人物做出惡意的行為, 傷害了選民對彼此的信心。 媒體公司用評斷和惡行來做交易。 我們的憤世嫉俗是他們的產品, 且這是個成長產業。
So no, cynicism doesn't help us see reality more clearly, but it does change reality, poisoning our relationships, our lives and our culture. It is not a system upgrade, it's mental malware.
所以,不,憤世嫉俗並不會 讓我們把現實看得更清楚, 但它的確會改變現實, 毒害我們的關係、生活,和文化。 它不是系統升級, 而是心靈的惡意軟體。
But we don't have to accept it. We can take control of our stories. To escape the cynicism trap, we have to. My lab tries to help. In one study, we taught people that happiness is not a zero-sum game, and that helping others helps us, too. These folks, compared to those in a cynical condition, donated more to charity afterwards, and they ended up happier as well. In other work, we changed how people thought about empathy in politics. Some people were randomly chosen to read a cynical essay. It began, and I'm paraphrasing, "You might think empathy is a weakness that will make you lose every argument, and you'd be right." Afterwards, we asked these folks to write a note about gun control to someone they disagreed with, and they sniped at each other. Here’s a voice actor reading what one Democrat wrote to a Republican.
但我們不用接受它。 我們可以控制我們怎麼編故事。 想要逃過憤世嫉俗陷阱, 我們就得這麼做。 我的實驗室想要幫忙。 我們做了一項研究, 教導大家快樂並不是零和遊戲, 且協助他人對我們自己也會有助益。 和其他在憤世嫉俗條件下的人相比, 這些人後來捐了比較多錢 給慈善機構, 他們最後也比較快樂。 換言之,我們改變大家 怎麼看待政治中的同理心。 我們隨機選出一些人, 讓他們閱讀憤世嫉俗的短文。 讓我引述短文的開頭: 「你可能認為同理心是弱點, 會讓你爭不贏別人, 那你是對的。」 之後, 我們請這些人寫一段 關於槍枝控制的訊息 給他們不認同的人, 而他們會中傷彼此。 以下是聲音演員讀出某民主黨員 寫給某共和黨員的內容。
Recording: “It’s hard not to state this bluntly. You should be in favor of stricter gun laws because you should care about the lives of other people more than your outdated feelings of machismo."
錄音:「這件事很難不直說。 你應該要支持更嚴格的槍枝法律, 因為你應該要在乎其他人的性命, 而不是你那過時的大男人主義感。
Jamil Zaki: And here’s a Republican writing to a Democrat.
講者:再來是某共和黨員 寫給某民主黨員的內容。
Recording: "People need to know they're able to have the freedom to bear arms in order to protect themselves. You democrats don't get to take that away from us."
錄音:「人民需要知道他們有 攜帶武器的權力,才能保護自己。 你們民主黨不可以 奪走我們的自由。」 講者:基本上,我們 不小心又創造出了推特。
JZ: Basically, we recreated Twitter, by accident.
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
Other people read a different essay. It began, "You might think empathy is a weakness that will make you lose every argument, and you'd be wrong." ... and went on to describe empathy as a strength in politics. Again, we asked these folks to write to an opponent about gun control, but this time, things changed. Here’s a Democrat.
其他人則閱讀另一篇短文。 開頭如下: 「你可能認為同理心是弱點, 會讓你爭不贏別人, 那你就錯了。」 接著描述在政治中同理心是長處。 同樣的,我們也請他們寫一段 關於槍枝控制的訊息給對手, 但這次卻發生了改變。 以下是某民主黨員寫的。
Recording: "There are some common-sense regulations that we should implement to keep people safe. We all want what is best for the country, and there are things we can meet in the middle on to tackle the issue of gun violence."
錄音:「我們應該要導入一些 常識法規定來確保人民安全。 我們都是為了國家好, 我們可以找到折衷平衡點, 來處理槍枝暴力的問題。」
JZ: And a Republican.
講者:再來是共和黨員寫的。
Recording: "Horrible crimes can be committed using guns ... everything from school shootings to murders because of racism and white supremacy. It's very understandable that you think it makes sense to make gun laws more strict. We're all reasonable people, and we just want what's best for our loved ones."
錄音:「槍枝可以被用來 犯下可怕的犯罪…… 從校園槍擊案, 到種族主義和白人至上者 造成的謀殺。 可以理解你會認為 把槍枝法律加嚴是合理的。 我們都是理性的人, 只是在為我們所愛的人著想。」
JZ: To us, this was wild. Remember, just like ocean and lake fishermen, these people did not start out any different, but just reading one essay turned some of them into new optimists and others into new cynics. This shaped how they acted, and their effect on other people. We sent all of these notes to people who really disagreed with the writer about gun control, and found that notes written by new optimists were more persuasive than those written by new cynics, more likely to make other people change their mind. In other words, we taught these people that empathy was useful, they used it, and it became useful.
講者:對我們而言,這很狂。 記住這就像海洋和湖泊的漁夫。 這些人一開始沒什麼不同, 但光是讀了一篇短文, 就能讓一些人變成新樂觀主義者, 其他人變成新憤世嫉俗者。 這形塑了他們的行為, 以及他們對他人的影響。 我們把這些訊息通通 發送給真正和作者在槍枝控制 議題上意見不同的人, 發現新樂觀主義者所寫的訊息 比新憤世嫉俗者寫的更有說服力, 更有可能改變他人的心意。 換言之,我們教這些人 同理心很有用, 他們用了同理心, 同理心就變有用了。
This is what I want you to remember and what I want you to know: that if cynical stories can become self-fulfilling, our work shows that hopeful ones can as well.
這就是我希望各位 能記住並了解的事: 如果憤世嫉俗的故事最後會成真, 我們的研究顯示, 帶有希望的故事也能成真。
Now, cynicism is not the only root of our problems, and optimism alone will not fix them. But it's hard to change a broken system if you think it's a mirror reflecting our broken nature. If people are selfish to our core, then toxic laws and practices are here to stay. But we can all choose to tell a different story. We can be skeptical -- demanding evidence before we believe in people -- but hopeful, knowing they can change for the better. We can notice their kindness even when the media doesn’t and envision systems built on that kindness. We can find other people in our neighborhoods, unions and faith communities who want the same thing. We can use our collective optimism to build pockets of solidarity and mutual aid, miniature ocean villages that can grow over time.
我們的問題不僅是憤世嫉俗 造成的,光靠樂觀也無法補救。 但如果你認為有問題的體制 只是反映出我們有問題的本性, 那就難以改變它。 如果人本來就自私到骨子裡, 那麼有害的法律和做法 也會持續存在。 但我們都可以選擇改變敘事。 我們可以抱持懷疑—— 在相信人之前先要求證據—— 但要懷抱希望, 知道他們可以變得更好。 我們可以留意他們的仁慈, 即使媒體沒, 我們可以展望 以那種仁慈為基礎的體制。 我們可以在鄰里、公會、信仰團體中 找到一些人 和我們想要一樣的東西。 我們可以用我們集體的樂觀 建立互助的團體, 那會隨著時間成長的小型海洋村落。
Now, this is the part of the talk where I'm supposed to tell you how I cured my own cynicism. But the truth is, I still struggle. Depending on the day or the hour, I promise, I can be as cynical as anyone here. But I see cynicism for what it is -- a psychological quicksand that will pull me in deeper, the more I move through it.
演說到了這個時點, 我應該要告訴大家, 我怎麼治好我的憤世嫉俗。 但事實是,我仍在努力。 要看那一天或那一個小時的狀況, 我保證我和在座任何人一樣憤世嫉俗; 但我看見的憤世嫉俗的真面目 是一種心理流沙, 我越是努力穿越,反而陷得更深。
So I fight to believe in people, not because it feels good, but because stories matter, and we're telling ours all the time, together. We all get stuck in quicksand -- sometimes, that's OK. But the next time you manage to pull yourself out, and find some faith in humanity, try to remember to reach back and grab someone else who's stuck, until more of us can make it to solid ground. Because optimism is not a relic of the past. It's one key to building a better future by letting us see it more clearly.
所以,我會為了相信人類而戰, 並非因為感覺良好, 而是因為故事很重要, 而我們時時刻刻一起 訴說著我們的故事。 我們有時難免會陷入流沙中, 那沒關係。 但下一次,你要想辦法脫身, 找到一些對人類的信念, 別忘了回過頭伸出手 拉一把其他陷在裡面的人, 直到我們有更多人 能爬到堅實的地面上。 因為樂觀並不是過去的遺物, 而是建造更美好未來的關鍵之一, 它讓我們把未來看得更清楚。
Thank you.
謝謝。
(Applause)
(掌聲)