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?
Dva Amerikanca koji su prijatelji putuju zajedno u Italiju. Odlaze da vide Mikelanđelovog "Davida" i u trenutku kada se konačno nađu ispred statue obojica se "zamrznu" na trenutak. Prvi momak - nazovimo ga Adam - je zatečen lepotom savršene ljudske figure. Drugi momak - nazovimo ga Bil - je zatečen sramotom usled gledanja u onu stvar u sredini. Postavljam vam sledeće pitanje: za kojeg od ovih momaka je verovatnije da je glasao za Džordža Buša, a za kojeg da je glasao za Al Gora?
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 morate da podižete ruke budući da svi mi imamo iste političke stereotipe. Svi znamo da je u pitanju Bil. U ovom slučaju, stereotip se poklapa sa realnošću. Činjenica je da liberali poseduju značajnu osobinu ličnosti zvanu "otvorenost ka novim iskustvima" u većoj meri od konzervativaca. Ljudi koji su veoma otvoreni ka novim iskustvima prosto žude za novinama, raznovrsnošću, novim idejama, putovanjima. Ljudi koji nisu toliko vole stvari koje su im poznate, bezbedne i na koje se mogu osloniti.
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 vam je poznata ova osobina možete razumeti puno zagonetki ljudskog ponašanja. Možete razumeti zašto su umetnici toliko drugačiji od računovođa. Možete pretpostaviti koje vrste knjiga vole da čitaju, na kakva mesta vole da putuju i kakvu hranu vole da jedu. Kada razumete ovu osobinu, razumećete zašto bi bilo ko jeo u Eplbiju, ali ne bilo ko koga vi znate.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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 osobina nam puno govori i o politici. Najistaknutiji istraživač ove osobine, Robert Mekre ističe da "Otvorene osobe imaju afinitet ka liberalnim, progresivnim, levičarskim političkim stavovima" - vole otvorenu i promenljivu organizaciju društva - "dok zatvorene osobe preferiraru konzervativne, tradicionalističke, desničarske stavove." Ova osobina nam dosta govori i o grupama kojima se ljudi priključuju.
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 koji sam našao na internetu. Kakvi ljudi se uključuju u globalnu zajednicu gde su dobrodošli ljudi iz bilo koje profesije i kulture, koji traže dublje razumevanje sveta i koji teže da to razumevanje pretoče u kvalitetniju budućnost za sve nas? To je opis nekog tipa zvanog TED. (Smeh)
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.
Sad, ako otvorenost kaže ko će postati liberal i ako otvorenost kaže ko će postati TEDovac, možemo li reći da su većina TEDovaca liberali? Hajde da proverimo.
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.
Zamoliću vas da podignete ruku, bilo da se liberal, levo od centra - govorimo o društvenim temama, primarno - ili konzervativac, a ponudiću i treću opciju, budući da znam da se u publici nalaze i libertarijanci. Dakle, molim vas da podignete ruku - i vi u tehničkim sobama, hajde da svi vidimo ko je prisutan. Molim vas, podignite ruku ako biste rekli da ste liberal ili levo od centra. Podignite ruku sada, molim vas. OK. Molim vas, podignite ruku ako ste libertarijanac. OK, 20-25 vas. I molim vas, podignite ruku ako ste desno od centra ili konzervativac. Jedan, dva, tri, četiri, pet - između 8 i 10.
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. To je mali problem, jer ako je naš cilj da razumemo svet, potraga za boljim razumevanjem sveta, ovaj nedostatak moralne raznovrsnosti će to otežati. Kad ljudi dele iste vrednosti, kada su im svima moralne vrednosti iste, oni postaju tim, a jednom kada uđete u psihologiju tima to isključuje razmišljenje otvorenog uma. Kada liberalni tim izgubi, 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 2000. godine, istina za dlaku, tešimo sami sebe.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
We try to explain why half of America voted for the other team. We think they must be blinded by religion
Pokušavamo da objasnimo zašto je pola Amerike glasalo za drugi tim. Mislimo da mora da su zaslepljeni religijom ili najobičnijom glupošću.
[Post-election US map: America / Dumbf*ckistan]
or by simple stupidity.
(Smeh)
(Laughter)
(Applause)
(Aplauz)
(Laughter)
Stoga, 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 zaslepljeni tim razlozima, moja poruka vama je da ste zarobljeni u moralnoj matrici, specifičnoj moralnoj matrici. Pod tom matricom doslovno mislim na matricu poput filma "Matriks (Matrica)".
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 --
Zapravo sam ovde danas da bih vam ponudio izbor. Možete odabrati plavu pilulu i zadržati svoje ugodne zablude, ili možete odabrati crvenu pilulu, naučiti nešto o psihologiji morala i iskoračiti iz moralne matrice. Budući da znam -
(Applause)
(Aplauz)
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 to pruža odgovor. Zaustio sam da vas pitam koju birate, ali sada nema potrebe za time. Svi ste otvoreni ka novim iskustvima, a pored toga, izgleda da je i dobrog ukusa, a svi ste gurmani. U svakom slučaju, uzimamo crvenu pilulu. Proučimo malo psihologiju morala i vidimo gde će nas to odvesti.
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. Šta je moral i odakle potiče? Najgora ideja u psihologiji je ideja da je po rođenju um "prazna tabla". Razvojna psihologija je pokazala da deca po dolasku na svet već znaju puno o fizičkom i društvenom svetu, i da su "programirana" tako da im učenje određenih stvari ide veoma lako, dok neke druge uče teško. Najbolja definicija urođenosti koju sam ikada čuo - i ona mi razjašnjava mnoge stvari - je delo Geri Markusa, psihologa koji proučava mozak. On kaže: "Početna organizacija mozga ne zavisi toliko od iskustava. Priroda daje prvi nacrt, koji iskustva potom modifikuju. 'Urođeno' ne znači 'nepromenljivo'; to podrazumeva 'organizovano pre sticanja iskustva'." Dakle, šta se nalazi u prvom nacrtu moralnog uma? Da bismo to otkrili, Kreg Džozef, moj kolega, i ja smo čitali antropološke radove o kulturološkim varijacijama morala i radove iz evolutivne psihologije, tražeći preklapanja. Koje su to stvari o kojima ljudi pričaju u različitim oblastima istraživanja, one koje nalazimo u različitim kulturama, ili čak životinjskim vrstama? Pronašli smo ih pet - pet najboljih preklapanja, koje smo nazvali 'pet osnova 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.
Prva je odnos nauditi - zaštititi, briga za druge. Svi smo sisari, svi smo u velikoj meri neuralno i hormonalno isprogramirani tako da se vezujemo za druge, brinemo o drugima, saosećamo sa drugima, posebno slabašnima i ranjivima. Imamo veoma jaka osećanja prema onima koji naude nekome. Ova moralna osnova je ugrađena u oko 70% svih izjava o moralnosti koje sam čuo ovde 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.
Druga osnova je pravednost - reciprocitet. Zapravo, postoje suprotstavljeni dokazi o postojanju reciprociteta u ponašanju drugih životinja, ali dokazi za ljude su apsolutno jasni. Naziv ove slike Normana Rokvela je "Zlatno pravilo" i Karen Armstrong je pričala o tome, naravno, kao temelju mnogih religija. Ta druga osnova se provlači kroz preostalih 30% izjava o moralnosti koje sam čuo 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.
Treća osnova je odanost grupi. U životinjskom carstvu postoje grupe - grupe u kojima jedinke sarađuju - ali te grupe su po pravilu veoma male ili sačinjene od bliskih rođaka. Samo među ljudima postoje veoma velike grupe jedinki koje su u stanju da sarađuju međusobno i da se udružuju u grupe - ali u ovom slučaju, te grupe su ujedinjene u borbi protiv drugih grupa. To je verovatno posledica veoma dugog života u plemenima, tj. psihologije plemena. Toliko uživamo u toj psihologiji plemena da čak i kada nemamo plemena, mi ih stvaramo zato što nam je to zabavno.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
Sports is to war as pornography is to sex. We get to exercise some ancient drives.
Sport je za rat ono što je pornografija za seks. Prilika da primenimo neke davne, davne nagone.
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.
Četvrta osnova je autoritet - poštovanje. Ova dva pripadnika blisko povezanih vrsta iskazuju gestove pokornosti - ali autoritet kod ljudi nije čin moći i brutalnost u tolikoj meri kao kod ostalih primata. Više je baziran na dobrovoljnom poštovanju, ponekad čak i na 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.
Peta osnova je čistota - svetost. Naziv ove slike je "Amblem čednosti", ali čistota nije ekvivalent potiskivanju ženske seksualnosti. Čistota obuhvata bilo kakvu ideologiju, bilo kakvu ideju koja poručuje da možete dostići vrlinu kontrolisanjem šta radite svojim telom i šta unosite u svoje telo. I dok politička desnica verovatno više morališe o seksu, politička levica se koncentrisala na hranu. Danas se puno morališe o hrani, a mnoge te ideje su bazirane baš na čistoti, na tome šta ste voljni da dodirnete ili unesete u svoje telo.
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?
Ubeđen sam da su ovo pet najboljih kandidata za ono što zapisano u prvom nacrtu moralnog uma. Mislim da sa ovime dolazimo na svet, makar pripremljeni da naučimo sve ove stvari. Dok moj sin, Maks, odrasta u liberalnom, studentskom gradu, kako će se taj prvi nacrt menjati? Na koji način će postati drugačiji od deteta rođenog 100 km južno od nas u Linčburgu, u Virdžiniji?
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.
Obzirom na kulturne varijacije, razmislimo o drugoj metafori. Ako u umu zaista dela pet sistema - pet izvora intuicije i emocija - onda moralni um možemo posmatrati kao jedan petokanalni audio ekvilajzer, gde se svaki kanal može posebno podešavati. Moje kolege, Brajan Nozek i Džesi Grejem, i ja smo sastavili upitnik, koji smo postavili na www.YourMorals.org. Do sada ga je popunilo 30 hiljada ljudi, a možete i vi. Ovo su rezultati. Ovo su rezultati oko 23 hiljade građana Amerike. Na levoj strani su ucrtani rezultati liberala, na desnoj konzervativaca, a u sredini su umereni. Plava linija pokazuje prosečne vrednosti odgovora na pitanja o brizi za druge.
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.
Kao što možete videti, ljudi razmišljaju o tim pitanjima. Ljudi u velikoj meri potvrđuju da im je stalo do tih pitanja, ceo politički spektar, ali kao što možete videti, liberali brinu o tome malo više nego konzervativci - linija opada nadesno. Isto važi i za pravednost. Ali pogledajte ostale tri linije, vrednosti za liberale su veoma niske. Liberali praktično kažu: "Ne, to nije moralnost. Odanost grupi, autoriteti, čistota - to nema veze sa moralnošću. Odbijam ih." Ali kako su ljudi konzervativniji, vrednosti rastu. Možemo reći da liberali na neki način imaju dvokanalnu, tj. moralnost baziranu na dve osnove. Konzervativci više naginju ka pet osnova, tj. petokanalnoj moralnosti.
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 važi za svaku zemlju koju smo posmatrali. Ovo su podaci za 1100 Kanađana. Proćiću kroz još par slajdova. Velika Britanija, Australija, Novi Zeland, zapadna Evropa, istočna Evropa, Latinoamerika, Bliski istok, istočna Azija i južna Azija. Takođe, primetite da su na svim grafovima krive odanosti grupi, autoriteta i čistote strmije. To nam govori da nesuglasice u bilo kojoj zemlji nisu oko brige za druge i pravednosti. Svi - zapravo, debatujemo o tome šta je pravedno - ali se svi slažemo da je briga za druge i pravednost bitna. Moralne svađe unutar kultura se vode najviše oko pitanja odanosti grupi, autoritetu i čistoti.
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."
Efekat je toliko robustan da ne zavisi od načina na koji postavljamo pitanja. U jednom skorašnjem istraživanju smo rekli ispitanicima: "Pretpostavite da nabavljate psa. Odabrali ste rasu i saznali neke informacije o toj rasi. Recimo da ste saznali da je ta rasa prilično samovoljna i da se prema vlasniku odnosi kao prema prijatelju i jednakome?" Liberali kažu: "Hej, to je odlično!", zato što liberali vole da kažu: "Hvataj... molim."
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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 konzervativcima to nije toliko privlačno. Konzervativac voli da čuje da je pas izuzetno lojalan svom domu i porodici, i da se ne sprijateljuje lako sa strancima, za konzervativca - pa, lojalnost je dobra - pas i treba da bude lojalan. Ali liberalu se čini kao da se taj pas kandiduje za republikansku kandidaturu.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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.
Moglo bi se reći - OK, postoje te razlike između liberala i konzervativaca, ali zbog čega su te tri osnove zapravo deo moralnosti? Zar one nisu samo osnove ksenofobičnosti, autoritarnosti i puritanstva? Šta ih čini delom moralnosti? Čini mi se da je odgovor sadržan u ovom neverovatnom triptihu Hijeronimus Boša, "Vrt ovozemljskih užitaka". Prvi pano prikazuje trenutak stvaranja. Sve je uređeno, sve je prelepo, svi ljudi i sve životinje rade ono što treba da rade i nalaze se tamo gde treba da se nalaze. Ali potom, budući da je svet takav, stvari se menjaju. Svaka osoba radi šta god poželi, koristeći bilo koji otvor bilo koje druge osobe ili životinje. Neki od vas će u ovome prepoznati '60-te godine XX veka.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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, i tada udubljenja tih otvora počinju da bole malo više. Naravno, Boš je to nazvao Paklom. Dakle, ovaj triptih, ova tri panoa, prikazuju bezvremenu istinu da poredak ima tendenciju da se raspada. Istinu društvene entropije.
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.
Ali da ne biste pomislili kako je to samo deo hrišćanske imaginacije gde Hrišćani iskazuju svoj čudan odnos prema zadovoljstvima, spomenuću istu priču, isti razvoj događaja, ispričanu u naučnom radu objavljenom pre par godina u Nature časopisu, gde su Ernst Fer i Sajmon Gahter organizovali igranje igre deljenog dobra. U toj igri se svakom učesniku da novac, zatim svake runde igrači mogu da stave nešto tih para na zajedničku gomilu, a zatim se zajednička gomila udvostručava i deli tako da svaki igrač dobije istu sumu novca. Stoga, ta igra veoma dobro opisuje razne vrste ekoloških problema, gde tražimo od ljudi da se žrtvuju, jer oni sami nemaju punu korist od sopstvene žrtve. Cilj je da se svi žrtvuju, ali svako oseća poriv da se "švercuje". Ono što se dešava je da su u početku ljudi relativno kooperativni - ova igra se igra anonimno - u prvoj rundi igrači ulažu oko pola novca kojim raspolažu, ali ubrzo uvide: "Vidi, drugi ljudi ne doprinose toliko. Neću da budem naivčina. Neću sarađivati." na taj način kooperacija brzo pada, od relativno dobre, sve do skoro nule. Ali onda - i u tome 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.
Fer i Gahter kažu - u sedmoj rundi kažu ljudima: "Znate šta? Ubacujemo novo pravilo. Ako želite da potrošite nešto svog novca kako biste kaznili ljude koji ne doprinose, možete to učiniti." I čim ljudi čuju da se ubacuje mogućnost kažnjavanja, kooperacija naglo skoči. Ne samo da naglo skoči, već i nastavi da raste posle toga. Istraživanja pokazuju da to poboljšava rešavanje problema saradnje. Nije dovoljno samo apelovati na dobronamernost, postojanje kazne zaista pomaže. Čak i ako je u pitanju samo sramota, neugodnost ili ogovaranje, neka vrsta kazne je neophodna da bi ljudi, u sklopu velikih grupa, sarađivali. Neka novija istraživanja sugerišu da religija - uvođenje Boga o kojem ljudi razmišljaju u priču - često u nekim situacijama uzrokuje kooperativnije, druptvenije ponašanje.
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.
Postoji mišljenje da je religija adaptacija nastala kulturološkom i biološkom evolucijom kako bi bolje vezali grupe radi jačeg međusobnog poverenja u cilju prednosti nad ostalim grupama. Verovatno je to tačno iako je to kontroverzno pitanje. Ja sam posebno zainteresovan za religiju, nastanak religije i kako ona utiče na nas. Mislim da najveće svetsko čudo nije Veliki kanjon Kolorada. Veliki Kanjon je zaista jednostavan. Sve u svemu - puno kamena, a zatim puno vode i vetra, i puno vremena, i dobijete Veliki Kanjon. To nije toliko komplikovano. Ovo je zaista komplikovano, činjenica da ljudi žive na mestima poput Velikog Kanjona, sarađujući međusobno, ili na savanama Afrike, zaleđenim obalama Aljaske, a potom su neka od tih sela prerasla u silne gradove poput Vavilona, Rima i Tenočtitlana. Kako se to dogodilo? To je čudo bez premca koje je mnogo teže objasniti od Velikog Kanjona.
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."
Odgovor, čini mi se, je da su koristili sve postojeće alate. Bila je potrebna sva psihologija morala da bi se stvorile ove kooperativne grupe. Da, potrebno je da brinete za druge, potrebna vam je psihologija pravde. Ali, organizovanju grupe veoma pomaže postojanje pod-grupa, interne strukture unutar tih pod-grupa, i neke ideologije koja poručuje ljudima da potisnu svoju požudu, da streme višim, plemenitijim ciljevima. Sada dolazimo do srži nesuglasice između liberala i konzervativaca, budući da liberali odbacuju tri osnove. Oni kažu: "Ne, hajde da slavimo različitost, a ne pripadnost grupi." Oni kažu: "Preispitujmo autoritete." Oni takođe kažu: "Ne propisuj zakone koji se tiču mog tela."
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 veoma plemenite motive za to. Tradicionalni autoriteti, tradicionalna moralnost umeju biti veoma represivni i ograničavati one na dnu, žene, ljude koji se ne uklapaju. Stoga liberali govore za slabe i potlačene. Oni žele promenu i pravdu, čak i po cenu haosa. Na majici ovog momka piše: "Prekinite kukati, počnite revoluciju." Ako ste veoma otvoreni za nova iskustva, revolucija je dobra, ona je promena, ona je zabavna. Konzervativci, sa druge strane, govore u ime institucija i tradicija. Oni žele red, čak i po cenu onih na dnu. Značajan rezon konzervativaca je da je red teško postići. Veoma je dragocen i lako ga je izgubiti. Kao što je Edmund Burk rekao: "Ograničavanje ljudi, kao i njihovih sloboda, bi trebalo da bude ubrojano u njihova prava." To je rečeno nakon haosa Francuske revolucije. Dakle, jednom kada uvidite da i liberali i konzervativci mogu nečim da doprinesu, da formiraju balans po pitanju promene nasuprot stabilnosti - stvoren je put kojim možemo da iskoračimo 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.
To je značajan uvid koji su sve azijske religije stekle. Setite se Jina i Janga. Jin i Jang nisu neprijatelji. Oni se ne mrze. I Jin i Jang su neophodni, kao noć i dan, da bi svet funkcionisao. Isti princip postoji i u hinduizmu. U hinduizmu postoji mnogo viših Božanstava. Dva su Višnu - očuvalac, i Šiva - razarač. Zapravo, na ovoj slici oba dele jedno telo. Oznake Višnua su na levoj strani, a o Višnuu možemo da razmišljamo kao o konzervativnom Božanstvu. Oznake Šive su na desnoj strani, Šive kao liberalnog Božanstva - 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?
Isti koncept postoji i u budizmu. Ova dva stiha, čini mi se, sadrže najdublji uvid u psihologiju morala, ikada postignut. Izrekao ih je zen učitelj Sengcan: "Ako želite da vam se istina jasno prikaže, nikada ne budite za ili protiv, bitka između za i protiv je najgora bolest uma." Nažalost, to je bolest od koje boluju mnogi svetski lideri. Ali, pre nego što se osetite superiorni u odnosu na Džordža Buša, pre nego što bacite kamen, zapitajte se: da li prihvatate ovo? Da li prihvatate da iskoračite iz borbe dobra i zla? Možete li da ne budete za ili protiv bilo čega?
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 poenta? Šta biste trebali da radite? Ako razmatrate najveće uvide drevnih azijskih filozofija i religija, i uporedite ih sa najnovijim istraživanjima psihologije morala, verujem da ćete doći do ovih zaključaka: da su naši pravedni umovi dizajnirani evolucijom tako da se ujedinimo u timove, protiv drugih timova, a da zatim budemo zaslepljeni i ne vidimo istinu. Stoga, šta bismo trebali da radimo? Govorim li vam da ne treba stremiti nečemu? Govorim li vam da prigrlite Sengcana i stanete, prestanete borbu 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.
Ne, apsolutno ne. Ne govorim to. Ovo je zadivljujuća grupa ljudi koji rade toliko puno, koriste toliko svog talenta, genijalnosti, energije, novca, kako bi načinili svet boljim mestom, borili se protiv nepravdi, rešavali probleme. Ali kao što smo naučili iz priče Samante Pauer o Serhiu Vieiri de Melju, ne možete samo uleteti govoreći: "Vi grešite, a ja sam u pravu." Zato što, kao što smo upravo čuli, svi misle da su 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.
Rešavanje mnogih problema koje imamo zahteva od nas da promenimo druge ljude. A ako želite da promenite druge ljude, mnogo bolji način da to uradite je da prvo razumete ko smo mi - razumete psihologiju morala, razumete da svi mislimo da smo u pravu - a zatim iskoračite - čak i na trenutak - prisetite se Sengcana. Iskoračite iz moralne matrice, pokušajte je sagledati kao odigravanje borbe u kojoj svako zaista misli da je u pravu, i svako ima makar neki razlog - čak i ako se ne slažete sa njima - svako ima neki razlog za ono što radi. Iskoračite. Ako uradite to, to je esencijalan potez kultivisanja moralne skromnosti, odbacivanje osećanja samoispravnosti, što je inače normalno ljudsko osećanje. Setite se Dalaj Lame. Prisetite se ogromnog moralnog autoriteta Dalaj Lame - koji dolazi 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.
Stoga mislim da je poenta mog predavanja, a mislim i poenta TED-a, da je ovo grupa strastveno angažovana nastojanjem da promeni svet na bolje. Ljudi ovde su strastveno angažovani pokušavajući da svet načine boljim mestom. Ali postoji i strastvena posvećenost istini. Stoga mislim da je odgovor u korišćenju te strastvene posvećenosti za istinu, pokušavajući da je pretočimo u bolju budućnost za sve nas.
Thank you.
Hvala vam.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)