So I'm going to talk about trust, and I'm going to start by reminding you of the standard views that people have about trust. I think these are so commonplace, they've become clichés of our society. And I think there are three. One's a claim: there has been a great decline in trust, very widely believed. The second is an aim: we should have more trust. And the third is a task: we should rebuild trust.
今天我要談的是信任, 在這之前我想要提醒你們 人們對於信任的普遍觀點。 我認為這些都老生常談的事, 他們變成了社會上經常討論的陳詞濫調。 我認為一共有三點。 第一是一個主張:人們普遍認為, 信任感驟減。 第二個是一個目標:我們需要有更多的信任。 而第三個是一個任務:我們需要重建信任。
I think that the claim, the aim and the task are all misconceived. So what I'm going to try to tell you today is a different story about a claim, an aim and a task which I think give one quite a lot better purchase on the matter.
而我認為,主張也好,目標和任務也好, 都是誤解。 所以我今天要跟你們說的 與社會上所公認的主張、目標和任務截然不同, 而我認為,這是對信任這一話題更好的解讀。
First the claim: Why do people think trust has declined? And if I really think about it on the basis of my own evidence, I don't know the answer. I'm inclined to think it may have declined in some activities or some institutions and it might have grown in others. I don't have an overview. But, of course, I can look at the opinion polls, and the opinion polls are supposedly the source of a belief that trust has declined. When you actually look at opinion polls across time, there's not much evidence for that. That's to say, the people who were mistrusted 20 years ago, principally journalists and politicians, are still mistrusted. And the people who were highly trusted 20 years ago are still rather highly trusted: judges, nurses. The rest of us are in between, and by the way, the average person in the street is almost exactly midway. But is that good evidence? What opinion polls record is, of course, opinions. What else can they record? So they're looking at the generic attitudes that people report when you ask them certain questions. Do you trust politicians? Do you trust teachers?
首先是主張:爲什麽人們普遍認為信任感驟減? 根據我自己的證明出發, 我不知道答案。 我更傾向於去想信任感 可能在某些活動或者組織里驟減 但是在其他活動或組織里增加。 我沒有一個總體觀察。 但,當然,我可以去看民意調查, 而民意調查按推測來說是 “信任感驟減“這一主張的根源。 但當你真的去看從以前到現在的民意調查時, 並沒有根據去可以去支持這一主張。 也就是說,二十年前 被不信任的人群, 主要是記者和政客在現在還是不被信任。 但二十年前被高度信任的人群 現在還是被高度信任,如法官和護士。 其他人的信任感在其間, 順便提到一點,在街上的普通人 信任感都在中等程度。 這是一個好的證據嗎? 民意調查記錄的,當然,是意見。 但他們還能記錄其他別的什麽嗎? 所以他們開始看人們回答 一些問題時的一半態度。 你們相信政客嗎?你們相信老師嗎?
Now if somebody said to you, "Do you trust greengrocers? Do you trust fishmongers? Do you trust elementary school teachers?" you would probably begin by saying, "To do what?" And that would be a perfectly sensible response. And you might say, when you understood the answer to that, "Well, I trust some of them, but not others." That's a perfectly rational thing. In short, in our real lives, we seek to place trust in a differentiated way. We don't make an assumption that the level of trust that we will have in every instance of a certain type of official or office-holder or type of person is going to be uniform. I might, for example, say that I certainly trust a certain elementary school teacher I know to teach the reception class to read, but in no way to drive the school minibus. I might, after all, know that she wasn't a good driver. I might trust my most loquacious friend to keep a conversation going but not -- but perhaps not to keep a secret. Simple.
如果有一個人問你,”你相信水果蔬菜攤販嗎? 你相信魚販嗎? 你相信小學老師嗎?” 你也許會開始問,“爲什麽要信任?” 這也許是一個非常合理的回答。 當你明白了問題的答案,你也許會說, “好吧,我相信他們之中其中一些,但不是其他的。” 那也是非常理智的一件事。 簡要來說,在我們的真實生活中, 我們嘗試去把信任從不同的層面來理解。 對於我們信任的程度 會根據某種類型 比如說政府人員或官方人員 而統一 不做假設。 比方說,我也許會說我一定會信任 一個我所熟知的小學老師 教授學前班閱讀, 但是卻絕不能讓他開校車。 我也許知道她並不是一個好的司機。 我也許相信我最多嘴的朋友 可以使對話變得順暢 但恐怕不能信任他可以保守秘密。 這是一個簡單的論點。
So if we've got those evidence in our ordinary lives of the way that trust is differentiated, why do we sort of drop all that intelligence when we think about trust more abstractly? I think the polls are very bad guides to the level of trust that actually exists, because they try to obliterate the good judgment that goes into placing trust.
所以如果我們收集這些在我們平常生活中的證據 來證明信任是分不同層面的, 那麼爲什麽當我們把信任這一話題抽象意義上想的時候 就丟失我們的智慧了呢? 我認為民意調查對於真正存在的信任程度 是非常錯誤的指標 因為他們以信任作為話題的時候 就丟失掉良好的判斷力。
Secondly, what about the aim? The aim is to have more trust. Well frankly, I think that's a stupid aim. It's not what I would aim at. I would aim to have more trust in the trustworthy but not in the untrustworthy. In fact, I aim positively to try not to trust the untrustworthy. And I think, of those people who, for example, placed their savings with the very aptly named Mr. Madoff, who then made off with them, and I think of them, and I think, well, yes, too much trust. More trust is not an intelligent aim in this life. Intelligently placed and intelligently refused trust is the proper aim. Well once one says that, one says, yeah, okay, that means that what matters in the first place is not trust but trustworthiness. It's judging how trustworthy people are in particular respects.
第二,那麼目標呢? 目標是要有更多的信任。 好吧,坦白說,我覺得這是個愚蠢的目標。 這不會是我的目標。 我的目標會是對值得信賴的多信任 而不是對待不值得信任的胡亂信任。 實際上,我的目標是不要去相信那些不值得信任的。 而且我認為,比如,那些人 把他們的存款存在馬多夫(旁氏騙局,美國歷史上最大的欺詐案)名下 然後馬多夫再把他們騙光, 我認為他們, 就太過於信任了。 更多信任不應該是人生中的一個明智的目標。 明智的選擇相信和明智的選擇不相信 才是更合適的目標。 曾經有一個人說, 放在第一位的應該 不是信任而是可信度。 可信度是用來檢測人們在特定的層面 是否可信。
And I think that judgment requires us to look at three things. Are they competent? Are they honest? Are they reliable? And if we find that a person is competent in the relevant matters, and reliable and honest, we'll have a pretty good reason to trust them, because they'll be trustworthy. But if, on the other hand, they're unreliable, we might not. I have friends who are competent and honest, but I would not trust them to post a letter, because they're forgetful. I have friends who are very confident they can do certain things, but I realize that they overestimate their own competence. And I'm very glad to say, I don't think I have many friends who are competent and reliable but extremely dishonest. (Laughter) If so, I haven't yet spotted it.
而我認為判斷要求我們觀察三件事。 他們是否有能力?他們是否誠實?他們是否可信賴? 如果我們發現一個人在有關事項里 具有能力, 可信又誠實, 我們就有足夠的理由去相信他們, 因為他們可信賴。 但是如果,換一個角度來說,他們不可信, 我們就也許不會選擇相信了。 我有幾個又有能力又誠實的朋友, 但是我確不會向他們去張貼一封信, 因為他們很健忘。 我有朋友非常的自信 他們能做某些特定的事情上, 但我也認識到他們高估了自己的能力。 我非常高興的說,我不認為我有很多 有能力、可靠又極其不誠實的朋友。 (笑) 即使有的話,我也還沒發現。
But that's what we're looking for: trustworthiness before trust. Trust is the response. Trustworthiness is what we have to judge. And, of course, it's difficult. Across the last few decades, we've tried to construct systems of accountability for all sorts of institutions and professionals and officials and so on that will make it easier for us to judge their trustworthiness. A lot of these systems have the converse effect. They don't work as they're supposed to. I remember I was talking with a midwife who said, "Well, you see, the problem is it takes longer to do the paperwork than to deliver the baby." And all over our public life, our institutional life, we find that problem, that the system of accountability that is meant to secure trustworthiness and evidence of trustworthiness is actually doing the opposite. It is distracting people who have to do difficult tasks, like midwives, from doing them by requiring them to tick the boxes, as we say. You can all give your own examples there.
但這就是我們需要的: 信任之前檢測可信度。 信任是反應。 可信度是我們需要判斷的。 誠然,這是很難去判斷的。 在過去的幾十年,我們嘗試為 各種各樣的機構、專業人員以及政府官員 建立問責制度 讓我們更容易去判斷他們是否可信。 但很多這樣的體制卻有反效果。 他們並不像預期的那樣有效。 我記得當我跟一個助產師談話的時候說, “你看,問題在於文書工作 比生產的時間還要長。“ 有一個問題遍佈在 我們的所有場所和機構里, 那就是問責制度 本應該用來保護可信度 和用來做可信度的證據 但它卻做著相反的事情。 它使做複雜工作的人們分心, 比如說助產師, 讓他們去勾選表格框框而不是讓他們去助產。 你也可以舉你自己身上的例子。
So so much for the aim. The aim, I think, is more trustworthiness, and that is going to be different if we are trying to be trustworthy and communicate our trustworthiness to other people, and if we are trying to judge whether other people or office-holders or politicians are trustworthy. It's not easy. It is judgment, and simple reaction, attitudes, don't do adequately here.
這就是目標。 我認為,目標更在於是可信度, 如果我們嘗試去做一個值得信任的人 更把我們可信度傳遞給別人 那就是另外一件不同的事了。 如果我們嘗試要去判斷是否他人 政府官員或政客們是否值得信任, 那真是不容易。這些是判斷,反應, 和態度都遠遠不夠的。
Now thirdly, the task. Calling the task rebuilding trust, I think, also gets things backwards. It suggests that you and I should rebuild trust. Well, we can do that for ourselves. We can rebuild a bit of trustworthiness. We can do it two people together trying to improve trust. But trust, in the end, is distinctive because it's given by other people. You can't rebuild what other people give you. You have to give them the basis for giving you their trust. So you have to, I think, be trustworthy. And that, of course, is because you can't fool all of the people all of the time, usually. But you also have to provide usable evidence that you are trustworthy. How to do it? Well every day, all over the place, it's being done by ordinary people, by officials, by institutions, quite effectively. Let me give you a simple commercial example. The shop where I buy my socks says I may take them back, and they don't ask any questions. They take them back and give me the money or give me the pair of socks of the color I wanted. That's super. I trust them because they have made themselves vulnerable to me. I think there's a big lesson in that. If you make yourself vulnerable to the other party, then that is very good evidence that you are trustworthy and you have confidence in what you are saying. So in the end, I think what we are aiming for is not very difficult to discern. It is relationships in which people are trustworthy and can judge when and how the other person is trustworthy.
現在我們來談第三點,任務。 把任務定位重建信任,我認為, 同樣是起到了適得其反的功效。 這個目標建議的是你我都應該重建信任。 好吧,我們可以為我們自己做這個。 我們也可以重建一點的可信度。 我們可以在兩個人之間嘗試去提升信任。 但是,說到底,信任是獨特的, 因為它是由他人給予的。 你不能重建別人給予你的東西。 你必須給他們給予你他們信任 的根據。 所以我認為,你必須,值得信任。 而那個,當然,是你通常不能夠 欺騙所有人,一直欺騙可以得到的。 但你也必須提供有用的證據 來證明你值得信任。 要怎麼做呢? 每天,每個地方,這都在 被普通的個人、官員、機構 有效的實踐著。 讓我給你們一個簡單的商業案例。 我買襪子的商店跟我說,我可以退還這些商品, 他們不會詢問原因。 他們把襪子收回並且退還給我錢 或者給我一雙我想要顏色的襪子。 這很好,所以我相信他們。 因為他們使自己放在一個弱勢地位。 我認為其中有大道理。 如果你讓自己相對於另一方弱勢, 那麼你就有足夠的證據來證明你是可信任的 而且你對自己所說的有信心。 所以,最後,我認為要發現我們所要追求的 並不十分困難。 那就是可信任人們之間的關係, 并可以判斷何時以及如何 他人是可信的。
So the moral of all this is, we need to think much less about trust, let alone about attitudes of trust detected or mis-detected by opinion polls, much more about being trustworthy, and how you give people adequate, useful and simple evidence that you're trustworthy.
這其中的寓意在於, 我們需要少想一些信任, 更不要去想對待信任這一話題的態度、 檢測或誤解民意調查, 而更需要想是如何成為可信的人, 以及你如何給予人們足夠的、有用的 和簡單的證據來證明你是可信的。
Thanks.
謝謝。
(Applause)
(鼓掌)