Suppose that two American friends are traveling together in Italy. They go to see Michelangelo's "David," and when they finally come face-to-face with the statue, they both freeze dead in their tracks. The first guy -- we'll call him Adam -- is transfixed by the beauty of the perfect human form. The second guy -- we'll call him Bill -- is transfixed by embarrassment, at staring at the thing there in the center. So here's my question for you: Which one of these two guys was more likely to have voted for George Bush, which for Al Gore?
Zamislite dva Amerikanca koji putuju zajedno po Italiji. Odu pogledati Michelangelovog Davida i kad konačno nađu licem u lice sa skulpturom obojica se smrznu. Prvi tip - zvat ćemo ga Adam - zatečen je ljepotom savršenog ljudskog oblika. Drugi tip - zvat ćemo ga Bill - zatečen je sramotom gledanja u tu stvar u sredini. I sad vas pitam: za kojeg od ove dvojice je vjerojatnije da je glasao za Georga Busha a koji za Ala Gorea?
I don't need a show of hands, because we all have the same political stereotypes. We all know that it's Bill. And in this case, the stereotype corresponds to reality. It really is a fact that liberals are much higher than conservatives on a major personality trait called openness to experience. People who are high in openness to experience just crave novelty, variety, diversity, new ideas, travel. People low on it like things that are familiar, that are safe and dependable.
Ne trebate dizati ruke jer svi imamo iste političke stereotipe. Svi znamo da je to Bill. Ali u ovom slučaju, stereotip odgovara stvarnosti. Stvarno je činjenica da su liberali više na ljestvici osnovne crte ličnosti koja se zove "otvorenost". Ljudi koji su visoko na ljestvici otvorenosti žude za novim, različitim, šarolikim; za svježim idejama, za putovanjima. Ljudi nisko na toj ljestvici traže poznato, sigurno i pouzdano.
If you know about this trait, you can understand a lot of puzzles about human behavior, like why artists are so different from accountants. You can predict what kinds of books they like to read, what kinds of places they like to travel to and what kinds of food they like to eat. Once you understand this trait, you can understand why anybody would eat at Applebee's, but not anybody that you know.
Ako znate za ovu karakternu crtu možete bolje razumijeti ljudsko ponašanje. Možete shvatiti zašto su umjetnici drugačiji od računovođa. Čak možete predvidjeti kakve knjige vole čitati, na kakva mjesta vole putovati i kakvu hranu vole jesti. Kad shvatite ovu crtu, možete razumjeti kako svi vole jesti u Applebeesu, samo nitko koga vi znate.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
This trait also tells us a lot about politics. The main researcher of this trait, Robert McCrae, says that "Open individuals have an affinity for liberal, progressive, left-wing political views ..." They like a society which is open and changing, "... whereas closed individuals prefer conservative, traditional, right-wing views."
Ova crta govori i o političkim uvjerenjima. Glavni istraživač ove crte ličnosti, Robert McCrae kaže: "Otvoreni pojedinci imaju sklonost liberalnim, naprednim, ljevičarskim pogledima" - vole društvo koje je otvoreno i mijenja se - "dok su zatvoreni pojedinci skloniji konzervativnim, tradicionalnim, desničarskim stavovima." Ova crta nam puno govori i o grupama u koje se ljudi učlanjuju.
This trait also tells us a lot about the kinds of groups people join. Here's the description of a group I found on the web. What kinds of people would join "a global community ... welcoming people from every discipline and culture, who seek a deeper understanding of the world, and who hope to turn that understanding into a better future for us all"? This is from some guy named Ted.
Evo opisa jedne grupe kojeg sam pronašao na Webu. Kakvi ljudi bi se pridružili globalnoj zajednici koja poziva ljude iz svih disciplina i kultura, koji traže dublje razumijevanje svijeta i nastoje to pretočiti u bolju budućnost za sve nas? Ovo je od nekog tipa koji se zove Ted. (Smijeh)
Well, let's see now. If openness predicts who becomes liberal, and openness predicts who becomes a TEDster, then might we predict that most TEDsters are liberal? Let's find out.
Pa da vidimo. Ako otvorenost predviđa tko postaje liberal i ako otvorenost predviđa tko postaje TEDovac, možemo li predvidjeti kako je većina TEDovaca liberalna? Ajmo vidjeti.
I'll ask you to raise your hand, whether you are liberal, left of center -- on social issues, primarily -- or conservative. And I'll give a third option, because I know there are libertarians in the audience. So please raise your hand -- in the simulcast rooms too. Let's let everybody see who's here. Please raise your hand if you'd say that you're liberal or left of center. Please raise your hand high right now. OK. Please raise your hand if you'd say you're libertarian. OK. About two dozen. And please raise your hand if you'd say you are right of center or conservative. One, two, three, four, five -- about eight or 10.
Zamolio bih vas da podignete ruke ako ste liberal, lijevo od centra - pričamo uglavnom o društvenim temama - odnosno ako ste konzervativni, a ponudit ću i treću mogućnost jer znam da ima i libertarijanaca u publici. Dakle, molim da podignete ruke - dolje u sobi također - neka svi vide tko je tu. Molim da podignete ruku ako bi za sebe rekli da ste liberal ili lijevo od centra. Podignite svoju desnu ruku sad. Dobro. Molim da podignete ruku ako bi za sebe rekli da ste libertarijanac. Otprilike dvadesetak. I molim da podignete ruku ako bi za sebe rekli da ste desno od centra ili konzervativni. Jedan, dva, tri, četiri, pet - oko osam ili deset.
OK. This is a bit of a problem. Because if our goal is to seek a deeper understanding of the world, our general lack of moral diversity here is going to make it harder. Because when people all share values, when people all share morals, they become a team. And once you engage the psychology of teams, it shuts down open-minded thinking. When the liberal team loses,
OK. Ovo je mali problem. Jer ako težimo razumjeti svijet, steći dublje razumijevanje svijeta, ovaj nedostatak moralne raznolikosti će nam to otežati. Jer kad ljudi dijele vrijednosti, kad su im moralne vrijednosti iste, oni postaju tim - a kad uključite psihologiju timova to sprečava otvoreno razmišljanje. Kad liberalni tim izgubi, kao što se dogodilo 2004.
[United States of Canada / Jesusland]
as it did in 2004, and as it almost did in 2000, we comfort ourselves.
i kao što se skoro dogodilo 2000., tješimo se.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
We try to explain why half of America voted for the other team. We think they must be blinded by religion
Trudimo se shvatiti zašto je pola Amerike glasalo za drugi tim. Mislimo kako su sigurno bili zaslijepljeni religijom, ili običnom glupošću.
[Post-election US map: America / Dumbf*ckistan]
or by simple stupidity.
(Smijeh)
(Laughter)
(Applause)
(Pljesak)
(Laughter)
Ako mislite da pola Amerike glasa za republikance
So if you think that half of America votes Republican because they are blinded in this way, then my message to you is that you're trapped in a moral Matrix, in a particular moral Matrix. And by "the Matrix," I mean literally the Matrix, like the movie "The Matrix."
zato što su zaslijepljeni na ovaj način ja vam kažem da ste zapeli u moralnu matricu, jednu specifičnu moralnu matricu. Kad kažem "matrica", mislim doslovno na matricu kao iz filma Matrix.
But I'm here today to give you a choice. You can either take the blue pill and stick to your comforting delusions, or you can take the red pill, learn some moral psychology and step outside the moral Matrix. Now, because I know --
Ali danas sam tu da vam ponudim izbor. Možete uzeti plavu tabletu i zadržati vaše ugodne zablude, ili možete uzeti crvenu tabletu, naučiti malo o moralnoj psihologiji i izaći iz moralne matrice. Sad, zato što znam -
(Applause)
(Pljesak)
I assume that answers my question. I was going to ask which one you picked, but no need. You're all high in openness to experience, and it looks like it might even taste good, and you're all epicures. Anyway, let's go with the red pill, study some moral psychology and see where it takes us.
OK, pretpostavljam da je to odgovor na moje pitanje. Htio sam vas pitati što ste odabrali, ali nema potrebe. Vi ste svi visoko na ljestvici otvorenosti, a osim toga izgleda kao da bi mogla biti dobrog okusa, a vi ste svi gurmani. Tako da uzimamo crvenu tabletu. Proučimo malo moralnu psihologiju kako bi vidjeli kuda nas vodi.
Let's start at the beginning: What is morality, where does it come from? The worst idea in all of psychology is the idea that the mind is a blank slate at birth. Developmental psychology has shown that kids come into the world already knowing so much about the physical and social worlds and programmed to make it really easy for them to learn certain things and hard to learn others. The best definition of innateness I've seen, which clarifies so many things for me, is from the brain scientist Gary Marcus. He says, "The initial organization of the brain does not depend that much on experience. Nature provides a first draft, which experience then revises. 'Built-in' doesn't mean unmalleable; it means organized in advance of experience." OK, so what's on the first draft of the moral mind? To find out, my colleague Craig Joseph and I read through the literature on anthropology, on culture variation in morality and also on evolutionary psychology, looking for matches: What sorts of things do people talk about across disciplines that you find across cultures and even species? We found five best matches, which we call the five foundations of morality.
Počnimo od početka. Što je moralnost i odakle dolazi? Najgora ideja u psihologiji je ideja kako je um pri rođenju prazna ploča. Razvojna psihologija je pokazala da djeca dolaze u ovaj svijet znajući puno toga o fizičkom i društvenom svijetu, i programirani su tako da im je lako naučiti određene stvari a teško nauče neke druge. Najbolja definicija urođenosti koju sam ikad vidio - to mi je razjasnilo puno toga - dolazi od neuroznanstvenika Garyja Marcusa. On kaže: "Početna organizacija mozga ne ovisi toliko o iskustvima. Priroda daje prvi nacrt, kojeg iskustvo kasnije revidira. 'Urođeno' ne znači 'nemjenjivo', nego 'organizirano prije sticanja iskustva'." Dobro, kakav je onda prvi nacrt moralnog uma? Kako bi to otkrili, moj kolega Craig Joseph i ja čitali smo literaturu o antropologiji o kulturnoj raznolikosti u moralnosti i o evolucijskoj psihologiji, tražeći preklapanja. O kojim to stvarima ljudi pričaju u različitim disciplinama, i koje pronalazite u različitim kulturama, čak različitim vrstama? Pronašli smo pet najboljih dodirnih točaka koje zovemo pet temelja moralnosti.
The first one is harm/care. We're all mammals here, we all have a lot of neural and hormonal programming that makes us really bond with others, care for others, feel compassion for others, especially the weak and vulnerable. It gives us very strong feelings about those who cause harm. This moral foundation underlies about 70 percent of the moral statements I've heard here at TED.
Prvi je šteta-brižnost. Svi smo mi sisavci, svi imamo puno neuralnih i hormonalnih programa zbog kojih se vežemo uz druge, brinemo za druge, suosjećamo se s njima, naročito ako su slabi i ranjivi. Zbog toga osjećamo ljutnju prema onima koji žele nauditi drugima. Ovaj moralni temelj je podloga otprilike 70% moralnih izjava koje sam čuo na TED-u.
The second foundation is fairness/reciprocity. There's actually ambiguous evidence as to whether you find reciprocity in other animals, but the evidence for people could not be clearer. This Norman Rockwell painting is called "The Golden Rule" -- as we heard from Karen Armstrong, it's the foundation of many religions. That second foundation underlies the other 30 percent of the moral statements I've heard here at TED.
Drugi temelj je poštenje-reciprocitet. Postoje proturječni dokazi o tome da li postoji reciprocitet među drugim životinjama, ali među ljudima dokazi su vrlo uvjerljivi. Ova slika Normana Rockwella se zove "Zlatno pravilo" i čuli smo o ovome od Karen Armstrong kako je temelj mnogih religija. Taj drugi temelj nosi preostalih 30% moralnih izjava koje sam čuo ovdje na TED-u.
The third foundation is in-group/loyalty. You do find cooperative groups in the animal kingdom, but these groups are always either very small or they're all siblings. It's only among humans that you find very large groups of people who are able to cooperate and join together into groups, but in this case, groups that are united to fight other groups. This probably comes from our long history of tribal living, of tribal psychology. And this tribal psychology is so deeply pleasurable that even when we don't have tribes, we go ahead and make them, because it's fun.
Treći temelj je odanost grupi. Grupe možete naći u životinjskom carstvu - možete pronaći surađivačke grupe - ali one su uvijek ili vrlo male ili su svi braća i sestre. Samo među ljudima možete pronaći vrlo velike grupe koje surađuju, ujedinjuju s drugim grupama a u ovom slučaju, grupe koje su ujedinjene da se bore s drugim grupama. Ovo je vjerojatno posljedica naše duge povijesti plemenskog života, plemenske psihologije I ova plemenska psihologija je toliko duboko ugodna da čak i kad nemamo plemena mi ih sami stvorimo jer je to zabavno.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
Sports is to war as pornography is to sex. We get to exercise some ancient drives.
Sport je za rat isto što je pornografija za seks. Vježbamo neki pradavni nagon.
The fourth foundation is authority/respect. Here you see submissive gestures from two members of very closely related species. But authority in humans is not so closely based on power and brutality as it is in other primates. It's based on more voluntary deference and even elements of love, at times.
Četvrti temelj je autoritet-poštovanje. Ovdje vidite geste pokornosti između dvaju jedinki vrlo srodnih vrsta ali autoritet kod ljudi nije tako snažno temeljen na moći i brutalnosti kao što je kod drugih primata. Više se temelji na dobrovoljnom poštovanju ponekad čak s elementima ljubavi.
The fifth foundation is purity/sanctity. This painting is called "The Allegory Of Chastity," but purity is not just about suppressing female sexuality. It's about any kind of ideology, any kind of idea that tells you that you can attain virtue by controlling what you do with your body and what you put into your body. And while the political right may moralize sex much more, the political left is doing a lot of it with food. Food is becoming extremely moralized nowadays. A lot of it is ideas about purity, about what you're willing to touch or put into your body.
Peti temelj je čistoća-svetost. Ova slika se zove "Alegorija čednosti" ali čistoća se ne svodi samo na potiskivanje ženske seksualnosti. Ona se odnosi na bilo kakvu ideologiju ili ideju koja vam kaže da ćete postići čestitost kontrolirajući što radite sa svojim tijelom, kontrolirajući što stavljate u svoje tijelo. I dok politička desnica možda puno više moralizira seks, politička ljevica stvarno puno naglašava hranu. Hrana danas postaje iznimno moralizirana i puno te moralizacije je u ideji čistoće, o tome što ste spremni dodirnuti ili staviti u vaše tijelo.
I believe these are the five best candidates for what's written on the first draft of the moral mind. I think this is what we come with, a preparedness to learn all these things. But as my son Max grows up in a liberal college town, how is this first draft going to get revised? And how will it end up being different from a kid born 60 miles south of us, in Lynchburg, Virginia?
Vjerujem kako su ovih pet stavki najbolji kandidati za ono što je napisano u prvom nacrtu moralnog uma. Mislim da s ovim dolazimo, barem pripremljeni da sve to naučimo. Ali, kako moj sin Max odrasta u liberalnom, sveučilišnom gradu kako će se ovaj prvi nacrt revidirati? I kako će na kraju postati drugačiji od djeteta rođenog 100 kilometara južnije, u Virginiji?
To think about culture variation, let's try a different metaphor. If there really are five systems at work in the mind, five sources of intuitions and emotions, then we can think of the moral mind as one of those audio equalizers that has five channels, where you can set it to a different setting on every channel. My colleagues Brian Nosek and Jesse Graham and I made a questionnaire, which we put up on the web at www.YourMorals.org. And so far, 30,000 people have taken this questionnaire, and you can, too. Here are the results from about 23,000 American citizens. On the left are the scores for liberals; on the right, conservatives; in the middle, moderates. The blue line shows people's responses on the average of all the harm questions.
Razmišljajući o kulturnoj varijaciji, pokušajmo s drugačijom metaforom. Ako stvarno postoji pet sustava koji djeluju u mozgu - pet izvora intuicije i emocija - možemo li smatrati moralni um kao nekakvo pojačalo zvuka s pet kanala na kojem možete podesiti posebno svaki kanal? Moje kolege: Brian Nosek, Jesse Graham i ja, napravili smo upitnik koji je objavljen na www.YourMorals.org. Dosad ga je popunilo 30 000 ljudi, možete i vi. I evo rezultata. Ovo su rezultati od otprilike 23 000 američkih građana. Na lijevoj strani sam nacrtao rezultate za liberale, na desnoj za konzervativce, u sredini su umjereni. Plava crta pokazuje odgovore u prosjeku za sva pitanja o brižnosti.
So as you see, people care about harm and care issues. They highly endorse these sorts of statements all across the board, but as you also see, liberals care about it a little more than conservatives; the line slopes down. Same story for fairness. But look at the other three lines. For liberals, the scores are very low. They're basically saying, "This is not morality. In-group, authority, purity -- this has nothing to do with morality. I reject it." But as people get more conservative, the values rise. We can say liberals have a two-channel or two-foundation morality. Conservatives have more of a five-foundation, or five-channel morality.
Vidite kako je ljudima stalo po pitanju oštećenja i brižnosti. Svi jako podržavaju ovu vrstu izjava ali možete također vidjeti kako je liberalima malo više stalo nego konzervativcima, crta se spušta. Ista priča je s pravednošću. Ali pogledajte preostale tri linije, za liberale ljestvica je vrlo nisko. Liberali u načelu govore: "Ovo nije moral." "Autoritet u grupi, čistoća - te stvari nemaju veze s moralom." Ali, kako ljudi postaju konzervativniji, vrijednosti rastu. Mogli bi reći kako liberali imaju neku vrstu dvokanalne, dvo-temeljne moralnosti. Konzervativci imaju više pet-temeljnu, moralnost s pet kanala.
We find this in every country we look at. Here's the data for 1,100 Canadians. I'll flip through a few other slides. The UK, Australia, New Zealand, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, East Asia and South Asia. Notice also that on all of these graphs, the slope is steeper on in-group, authority, purity, which shows that, within any country, the disagreement isn't over harm and fairness. I mean, we debate over what's fair, but everybody agrees that harm and fairness matter. Moral arguments within cultures are especially about issues of in-group, authority, purity.
To vidimo u svim zemljama. Evo podataka o 1100 Kanađana. Proći ću preko par slajdova: Velika Britanija, Australija, Novi Zeland, Zapadna Europa, Istočna Europa, Latinska Amerika, Bliski Istok, Istočna Azija i Južna Azija. Primijetite kako je kod svih ovih grupa pad strmiji na odanosti, autoritetu, čistoći. Što nam govori da u svakoj zemlji neslaganje nije o brižnosti i poštenju. Svi, kad raspravljamo o tome što je ispravno, svi se slažu kako su brižnost i poštenje važni. Moralna razilaženja unutar kultura uglavnom se tiču odanosti grupi, poštivanju autoriteta i čistoći.
This effect is so robust, we find it no matter how we ask the question. In a recent study, we asked people, suppose you're about to get a dog, you picked a particular breed, learned about the breed. Suppose you learn that this particular breed is independent-minded and relates to its owner as a friend and an equal. If you're a liberal, you say, "That's great!" because liberals like to say, "Fetch! Please."
Ovaj učinak je toliko robusan da ga nalazimo bez obzira kako postavimo pitanje. U jednoj nedavnoj studiji pitali smo ljude da zamisle kako će dobiti psa. Odabrali ste neku pasminu, i saznali ste novu informaciju o toj pasmini. Zamislimo da ste saznali kako ova je pasmina samosvojna, i smatra svog vlasnika prijateljem i jednakim sebi? Ako ste liberal, rekli bi ste: "Hej, to je super!" zato što liberali vole reći "Hvataj, molim!"
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
But if you're a conservative, that's not so attractive. If you're conservative and learn that a dog's extremely loyal to its home and family and doesn't warm up to strangers, for conservatives, loyalty is good; dogs ought to be loyal. But to a liberal, it sounds like this dog is running for the Republican nomination.
Ali ako ste konzervativni, to vam se baš i ne sviđa. Ako ste konzervativni, i saznate kako je taj pas iznimno odan svom domu i obitelji i neće se lako sprijateljiti sa strancima, za konzervativce odanost je dobra - psi bi trebali biti odani. Ali za liberale to zvuči kao da se ovaj pas natječe za republikansku nominaciju.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
You might say, OK, there are differences between liberals and conservatives, but what makes the three other foundations moral? Aren't they the foundations of xenophobia, authoritarianism and puritanism? What makes them moral? The answer, I think, is contained in this incredible triptych from Hieronymus Bosch, "The Garden of Earthly Delights." In the first panel, we see the moment of creation. All is ordered, all is beautiful, all the people and animals are doing what they're supposed to be doing, are where they're supposed to be. But then, given the way of the world, things change. We get every person doing whatever he wants, with every aperture of every other person and every other animal. Some of you might recognize this as the '60s.
Mogli bi ste reći: Dobro, to su razlike među liberalima i konzervativcima, ali zašto bi ova tri druga temelja bila moralna? Zar to nisu tek temelji ksenofobije, autoritarnosti i puritanizma? Što ih čini moralnima? Mislim da se odgovor nalazi u ovom nevjerojatnom triptihu Hieronymusa Boscha "Vrt naslade". Na prvoj ploči vidimo trenutak stvaranja. Sve je uređeno, sve je lijepo, svi ljudi i životinje rade što bi i trebali raditi, nalaze se tamo gdje bi i trebali biti. Ali tada, jer je svijet takav, stvari se promjene. Svaka osoba počne raditi kako želi sa svakim otvorom na svakoj osobi i životinji. Neki od vas će prepoznati ovo kao 60-te.
(Laughter)
(smijeh)
But the '60s inevitably gives way to the '70s, where the cuttings of the apertures hurt a little bit more. Of course, Bosch called this hell. So this triptych, these three panels, portray the timeless truth that order tends to decay. The truth of social entropy.
Ali 60-te neminovno prelaze u 70-te, gdje izrezivanje otvora malo više boli. Naravno, Bosch je ovo nazvao Paklom. Tako da ovaj triptih, ove tri ploče, prikazuju svevremensku istinu da red teži propadanju. Istinu o društvenoj entropiji.
But lest you think this is just some part of the Christian imagination where Christians have this weird problem with pleasure, here's the same story, the same progression, told in a paper that was published in "Nature" a few years ago, in which Ernst Fehr and Simon Gächter had people play a commons dilemma, a game in which you give people money, and then, on each round of the game, they can put money into a common pot, then the experimenter doubles what's there, and then it's all divided among the players. So it's a nice analog for all sorts of environmental issues, where we're asking people to make a sacrifice and they don't really benefit from their own sacrifice. You really want everybody else to sacrifice, but everybody has a temptation to free ride. What happens is that, at first, people start off reasonably cooperative. This is all played anonymously. On the first round, people give about half of the money that they can. But they quickly see other people aren't doing so much. "I don't want to be a sucker. I won't cooperate." So cooperation quickly decays from reasonably good down to close to zero.
Da ne biste pomislili da su ovo samo kršćani umislili jer kršćani imaju čudan problem s uživanjem, evo iste priče, iste progresije, u članku koji je prije par godina objavljen u časopisu Nature, gdje su Ernst Fehr i Simon Gachter organizirali igru zajedničkog dobra. U toj igri ljudima dajete novce i u svakoj rundi oni mogu staviti novac u zajedničku posudu i tada eksperimentator udvostručuje iznos koji je tamo i podjeli ga sa svim igračima. To je stvarno zgodna analogija s problemima okoliša u kojima tražimo od ljudi da se žrtvuju iako sami nemaju neku korist od svoje žrtve. Tražite od svih da se žrtvuju ali svi su u iskušenju da se švercaju. Ispočetka, ljudi poprilično surađuju - svi igraju anonimno - u prvoj rundi, ljudi daju otprilike polovicu novca. Ali brzo uvide kako drugi nisu baš tako darežljivi. "Neću biti naivčina i davati." I tako suradnja brzo propada od relativno dobre pa sve do skoro nikakve. Ali onda - i u ovom je trik -
But then -- and here's the trick -- Fehr and Gächter, on the seventh round, told people, "You know what? New rule. If you want to give some of your own money to punish people who aren't contributing, you can do that." And as soon as people heard about the punishment issue going on, cooperation shoots up. It shoots up and it keeps going up. Lots of research shows that to solve cooperative problems, it really helps. It's not enough to appeal to people's good motives. It helps to have some sort of punishment. Even if it's just shame or embarrassment or gossip, you need some sort of punishment to bring people, when they're in large groups, to cooperate. There's even some recent research suggesting that religion -- priming God, making people think about God -- often, in some situations, leads to more cooperative, more pro-social behavior.
Fehr i Gachter u sedmoj rundi kažu ljudima: "Znate šta? Novo pravilo. Možete dati dio svog novca kako bi kaznili ljude koji ne pridonose." I čim se pročulo kako se uvela kazna, suradnja naglo poraste. Poveća se i nastavi rasti. Istraživanja pokazuju da to pomaže poboljšati surađivanje. Nije dovoljno samo se pozivati na dobrotu, stvarno pomaže imati neku vrstu kazne. Čak i kad je to samo sram, neugoda ili trač, trebate kaznu da biste pridobili ljude na suradnju kad se nalaze u velikim grupama. Postoje čak i nedavna istraživanja koja sugeriraju kako religija - razmišljanje o Bogu - u nekim situacijama vodi do više surađivanja, pro-društvenog ponašanja.
Some people think that religion is an adaptation evolved both by cultural and biological evolution to make groups to cohere, in part for the purpose of trusting each other and being more effective at competing with other groups. That's probably right, although this is a controversial issue. But I'm particularly interested in religion and the origin of religion and in what it does to us and for us, because I think the greatest wonder in the world is not the Grand Canyon. The Grand Canyon is really simple -- a lot of rock and a lot of water and wind and a lot of time, and you get the Grand Canyon. It's not that complicated. This is what's complicated: that people lived in places like the Grand Canyon, cooperating with each other, or on the savannahs of Africa or the frozen shores of Alaska. And some of these villages grew into the mighty cities of Babylon and Rome and Tenochtitlan. How did this happen? It's an absolute miracle, much harder to explain than the Grand Canyon.
Neki ljudi misle da je religija adaptacija razvijena kroz kulturnu i biološku evoluciju kako bi bolje vezali grupe radi pojačanja međusobnog povjerenja i stoga u prednosti pred drugim grupama. Vjerojatno su u pravu iako je to kontroverzno pitanje. Ja sam posebno zainteresiran za religiju, nastanak religije, i kako ona utječe na nas. Jer ne mislim da je Grand Canyon najveće svjetsko čudo. Grand Canyon je vrlo jednostavan. To je samo puno kamenja, puno vode i vjetra i puno vremena, i dobijete Grand Canyon. Nije baš složeno. Ali ono što jest složeno je da su ljudi živjeli na mjestima kao što je Grand Canyon, međusobno surađivali, i na savanama Afrike ili na smrznutim obalama Aljaske, i onda su neka od tih sela izrasla u velebne gradove Babilon, Rim, Tenochtitlan. Kako se to dogodilo? To je čisto čudo, teže za objasniti od Grand Canyona.
The answer, I think, is that they used every tool in the toolbox. It took all of our moral psychology to create these cooperative groups. Yes, you need to be concerned about harm, you need a psychology of justice. But it helps to organize a group if you have subgroups, and if those subgroups have some internal structure, and if you have some ideology that tells people to suppress their carnality -- to pursue higher, nobler ends. Now we get to the crux of the disagreement between liberals and conservatives: liberals reject three of these foundations. They say, "Let's celebrate diversity, not common in-group membership," and, "Let's question authority," and, "Keep your laws off my body."
Mislim da je odgovor kako su koristili sve raspoložive alatke. Bila je potrebna sva naša moralna psihologija kako bi stvorili ovakve suradničke grupe. Da, treba vam biti stalo do brižnosti, trebate psihologiju pravde. Ali za organizaciju stvarno pomaže da imate podgrupe, i da te podgrupe imaju unutrašnji ustroj, da imate ideologiju koja ljudima govori da potisnu svoju putenost, da teže višim, plemenitijim ciljevima. I tako stižemo do srži neslaganja među liberalima i konzervativcima. Jer liberali odbijaju tri ova temelja. Oni kažu: "Slavimo različitost, umjesto pripadnosti istoj grupi." Kažu: "Osporavajmo autoritete." I kažu: "Ne propisuj zakone o mom tijelu."
Liberals have very noble motives for doing this. Traditional authority and morality can be quite repressive and restrictive to those at the bottom, to women, to people who don't fit in. Liberals speak for the weak and oppressed. They want change and justice, even at the risk of chaos. This shirt says, "Stop bitching, start a revolution." If you're high in openness to experience, revolution is good; it's change, it's fun. Conservatives, on the other hand, speak for institutions and traditions. They want order, even at some cost, to those at the bottom. The great conservative insight is that order is really hard to achieve. It's precious, and it's really easy to lose. So as Edmund Burke said, "The restraints on men, as well as their liberties, are to be reckoned among their rights." This was after the chaos of the French Revolution. Once you see that liberals and conservatives both have something to contribute, that they form a balance on change versus stability, then I think the way is open to step outside the moral Matrix.
Liberali imaju vrlo plemenite motive za to. Tradicionalni autoritet, tradicionalna moralnost mogu biti vrlo represivni i ograničavajući prema onima na dnu, prema ženama, ljudima koji se ne uklapaju. Zato liberali pričaju o slabima i ugnjetavanima. Žele promjenu i pravdu, čak riskirajući kaos. Na majici piše: "Prestani kukati, započni revoluciju." Ako ste vrlo otvoreni, revolucija je dobra, nešto novo, nešto uzbudljivo. Konzervativci, s druge strane, govore o institucijama i tradiciji. Traže red, čak i ako ga plaćaju oni s dna društva. Uvid koji konzervativci imaju je da je red teško postići. Vrlo je dragocjen, i vrlo ga je lako izgubiti. Kao što je Edmund Burke rekao: "Obuzdavanje ljudi, jednako kao i sloboda, trebalo bi se smatrati njihovim pravom." To je bilo nakon kaosa Francuske revolucije. Jednom kad to uvidite da i liberali i konzervativci mogu nešto pridonijeti, da oni stvaraju ravnotežu između promjene i stabilnosti, mislim da možete izaći iz moralne matrice.
This is the great insight that all the Asian religions have attained. Think about yin and yang. Yin and yang aren't enemies; they don't hate each other. Yin and yang are both necessary, like night and day, for the functioning of the world. You find the same thing in Hinduism. There are many high gods in Hinduism. Two of them are Vishnu, the preserver, and Shiva, the destroyer. This image, actually, is both of those gods sharing the same body. You have the markings of Vishnu on the left, so we could think of Vishnu as the conservative god. You have the markings of Shiva on the right -- Shiva's the liberal god. And they work together.
Ovo je važan uvid koji su dostigle azijske religije. Uzmite jin i jang. Jin i jang nisu neprijatelji. Jin i jang se ne mrze. I jin i jang su neophodni, kao noć i dan, kako bi svijet funkcionirao. Istu stvar vidite u hinduizmu. Postoji puno bogova u hinduizmu. Dvojica su Višnu održavatelj i Šiva uništavatelj. Ova slika prikazuje obojicu kako dijele isto tijelo. Imate značajke Višnua na lijevoj strani, pa možemo misliti o Višnuu kao konzervativnom bogu. Značajke Šive su na desnoj strani, Šiva je liberalni bog - i oni rade zajedno.
You find the same thing in Buddhism. These two stanzas contain, I think, the deepest insights that have ever been attained into moral psychology. From the Zen master Sēngcàn: "If you want the truth to stand clear before you, never be 'for' or 'against.' The struggle between 'for' and 'against' is the mind's worst disease." Unfortunately, it's a disease that has been caught by many of the world's leaders. But before you feel superior to George Bush, before you throw a stone, ask yourself: Do you accept this? Do you accept stepping out of the battle of good and evil? Can you be not for or against anything?
Istu stvar nalazimo u budizmu. Mislim da ova dva primjera sadržavaju najdublje uvide koje smo ikad stekli u moralnoj psihologiji. Od učitelja Zena Sengcana: "Ako želiš da ti se otkrije istina, nikad ne budi za ili protiv, borba između za i protiv je najgora pošast uma." Nažalost, ovo je pošast koja je zahvatila mnoge svjetske vođe. Ali prije nego se osjetite superiornim Georgeu Bushu, prije nego što bacite kamen, pitajte se: Da li ja to prihvaćam? Da li prihvaćate izlazak iz borbe između dobra i zla? Možete li biti niti za niti protiv ičega?
So what's the point? What should you do? Well, if you take the greatest insights from ancient Asian philosophies and religions and combine them with the latest research on moral psychology, I think you come to these conclusions: that our righteous minds were designed by evolution to unite us into teams, to divide us against other teams and then to blind us to the truth. So what should you do? Am I telling you to not strive? Am I telling you to embrace Sēngcàn and stop, stop with the struggle of for and against?
U čemu je poanta? Što bi trebali učiniti? Ako uzmete najveće uvide drevnih azijskih filozofija i religija, i kombinirate ih s najnovijim istraživanjima o moralnoj psihologiji, mislim da ćete doći do ovih zaključaka: kako je naš moralni um stvorila evolucija kako bi nas udružila u timove, odvojila od drugih timova i oslijepila za istinu. Pa što ćemo? Da li vam govorim da se ne trebate truditi? Da li vam govorim da prihvatite Sengcana i prestanete s ovom borbom za i protiv?
No, absolutely not. I'm not saying that. This is an amazing group of people who are doing so much, using so much of their talent, their brilliance, their energy, their money, to make the world a better place, to fight wrongs, to solve problems. But as we learned from Samantha Power in her story about Sérgio Vieira de Mello, you can't just go charging in, saying, "You're wrong, and I'm right," because, as we just heard, everybody thinks they are right.
Svakako ne. Ne kažem to. Ovo je zadivljujuća grupa ljudi koja čini puno toga, koristeći puno svog talenta, genijalnosti, energije, novca, kako bi učinila svijet boljim mjestom boreći se protiv nepravdi, rješavajući probleme. Ali, kako smo naučili od Samanthe Power u njenoj priči o Sergiu Vieiri de Mello, ne možete samo upasti i reći: "Vi ste u krivu, ja sam u pravu." Jer svatko misli da je on u pravu.
A lot of the problems we have to solve are problems that require us to change other people. And if you want to change other people, a much better way to do it is to first understand who we are -- understand our moral psychology, understand that we all think we're right -- and then step out, even if it's just for a moment, step out -- check in with Sēngcàn. Step out of the moral Matrix, just try to see it as a struggle playing out, in which everybody thinks they're right, and even if you disagree with them, everybody has some reasons for what they're doing. Step out. And if you do that, that's the essential move to cultivate moral humility, to get yourself out of this self-righteousness, which is the normal human condition. Think about the Dalai Lama. Think about the enormous moral authority of the Dalai Lama. It comes from his moral humility.
Puno od problema koje trebamo riješiti su problemi koji zahtijevaju da promijenimo druge ljude. I ako želite promijeniti druge, bolji način je da prvo shvatimo kakvi smo - da shvatimo našu moralnu psihologiju, da shvatimo kako svi mislimo da smo u pravu - i onda izađemo, makar samo na trenutak - sjetimo se Sengcana. Izađemo iz moralne matrice, pokušamo je sagledati kao borbu koja se odvija u kojoj svi misle da su u pravu, i svatko ima neke razloge - čak i ako se ne slažete s njima - svatko ima neke razloge zašto to rade. Izađite. I ako to učinite, to je osnovni korak prema kultiviranju moralne skromnosti, odbacivanju moralne superiornosti, koja je normalan ljudski osjećaj. Uzmite Dalaj Lamu. Razmislite kako ima ogroman moralni autoritet koji izlazi iz njegove moralne skromnosti.
So I think the point -- the point of my talk and, I think, the point of TED -- is that this is a group that is passionately engaged in the pursuit of changing the world for the better. People here are passionately engaged in trying to make the world a better place. But there is also a passionate commitment to the truth. And so I think the answer is to use that passionate commitment to the truth to try to turn it into a better future for us all.
Zato mislim da je poanta mog govora - a mislim i poanta TEDa - kako je ovo grupa koja je strastveno angažirana u težnji da promijeni svijet na bolje. Ljudi ovdje su strastveno angažirani da svijet postane bolje mjesto. Ali također postoji i strastvena posvećenost istini. I stoga mislim da je odgovor iskoristiti ovu strastvenu posvećenost istini kako bi je pokušali pretvoriti u bolju budućnost za sve nas.
Thank you.
Hvala.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)