Jeg ønsker at I, for et øjeblik, tænker på at spille et spil Matador, bortset fra at i dette spil, hvor den kombination af øvelse, talent og held som hjælper jer med at få succes i spillet, som i livet, er blevet gjort irrelevant, fordi spillet er blevet manipuleret, og du har fået fordelen. Du har flere penge, flere muligheder for at komme rundt på brættet, og bedre adgang til ressourcerne. Og hvis I tænke over den oplevelse, så ønsker jeg at i spørger jer selv, hvordan mon den oplevelse af at være den privilegerede spiller i et manipuleret spil ændre måden hvorpå du tænker om dig selv og om den anden spiller?
I want you to, for a moment, think about playing a game of Monopoly. Except in this game, that combination of skill, talent and luck that helped earn you success in games, as in life, has been rendered irrelevant, because this game's been rigged, and you've got the upper hand. You've got more money, more opportunities to move around the board, and more access to resources. And as you think about that experience, I want you to ask yourself: How might that experience of being a privileged player in a rigged game change the way you think about yourself and regard that other player?
Så vi lavede en undersøgelse på campus hos U. C. Berkeley for at se på præcis det spørgsmål. Vi bragte mere end 100 par af fremmede ind i vores Lab, og ved at slå plat eller krone gjorde vi en af de to til den rige spiller i det manipulerede spil. De fik dobbelt så mange penge. Når de passerede start, fik de det dobbelte beløb, og de fik lov til at bruge to terninger i stedet for en, så de fik mulighed for at komme mere rundt på brættet. (Latter) Og i løbet af 15 minutter, iagttog vi dem gennem skjulte kameraer. Og hvad jeg vil i dag, for første gang, er at vise en lille smule af hvad vi så. I må have lydkvaliteten undskyldt, i nogle tilfælde, fordi igen, dette er med skjulte kameraer. Så vi har tilføjet undertekster. Rig spiller: "Hvor mange 500'ere havde du?" Fattig spiller: "Kun en."
So, we ran a study on the UC Berkeley campus to look at exactly that question. We brought in more than 100 pairs of strangers into the lab, and with the flip of a coin, randomly assigned one of the two to be a rich player in a rigged game. They got two times as much money; when they passed Go, they collected twice the salary; and they got to roll both dice instead of one, so they got to move around the board a lot more. (Laughter) And over the course of 15 minutes, we watched through hidden cameras what happened. What I want to do today, for the first time, is show you a little bit of what we saw. You'll to have to pardon the sound quality, because again, these were hidden cameras. So we've provided subtitles. [Video] Rich Player: How many 500s did you have? Poor Player: Just one.
Rig spiller: "Er det rigtigt" Fattig spiller: "Ja."
RP: Are you serious? PP: Yeah.
Rig spiller: "Jeg har tre." (Griner) Jeg ved ikke hvorfor de gav mig så mange.
RP: I have three. (Laughs) I don't know why they gave me so much.
Paul Piff: Okay, så det gik hurtigt op for spillerne at noget var anderledes. En person havde tydeligt langt flere penge end den anden person, og alligevel, som spillet udviklede sig, så vi en meget udtalt forskel og en dramatisk forskel begyndte at vise sig mellem de to spillere. Den rige spiller begyndte at flytte brikken mere støjende, bogstaveligt slår den ned i brættet mens han flytter den. Vi så oftere tegn på dominans og ikke-verbale tegn, fremvisning af magt og fejring hos de rige spillere.
Paul Piff: So it was quickly apparent to players that something was up. One person clearly has a lot more money than the other person, and yet, as the game unfolded, we saw very notable differences, dramatic differences begin to emerge between the two players. The rich player started to move around the board louder, literally smacking the board with the piece as he went around. (Game piece smacks board) We were more likely to see signs of dominance and nonverbal signs, displays of power and celebration among the rich players.
Vi havde en skål med saltkringler placeret ved siden af. Den er i nederste højre hjørne her. Dette tillod os at iagttage deltagernes forbrugsadfærd. Så vi talte bare hvor mange saltkringler hver deltager spiste.
We had a bowl of pretzels positioned off to the side. It's on the bottom right corner. That allowed us to watch participants' consummatory behavior. So we're just tracking how many pretzels participants eat.
Rig spiller: "Er disse saltkringler et trick?"
[Video] RP: Are those pretzels a trick?
Fattig spiller: "Jeg ved det ikke"
PP: I don't know.
PP: Okay, ingen overraskelser, folk er mistænkelige. De undrer sig over hvad skålen med saltkringler er der for, fra starten. En spørger endda, som I lige så, er skålen med saltkringler et trick? og trods dette, påvirkning af situation ser ud til at slå igennem, og den rige spiller begynder at spise flere saltkringler.
Paul Piff: OK, so no surprises, people are on to us. They wonder what that bowl of pretzels is doing there in the first place. One even asks, like you just saw, "Is that bowl of pretzels there as a trick?" And yet, despite that, the power of the situation seems to inevitably dominate, and those rich players start to eat more pretzels.
(Laughter)
Rig spiller: "Jeg elsker saltkringler"
[Video] RP: I love pretzels.
(Latter)
(Laughter)
PP: Og som spillet fortsatte, en af de mest interessante og dramatiske mønstre vi observere begyndte at vise sig var at den rige spiller faktisk begyndte at blive grovere overfor den anden person og mindre og mindre følsomme overfor forfatningen hos disse stakels, fattige spillere, og mere og mere demonstrative med deres materielle succes, mere tilbøjelige til at fremvise hvad de gør. Rig spiller: "Jeg har penge til alt."
Paul Piff: And as the game went on, one of the really interesting and dramatic patterns that we observed begin to emerge was that the rich players actually started to become ruder toward the other person -- less and less sensitive to the plight of those poor, poor players, and more and more demonstrative of their material success, more likely to showcase how well they're doing. [Video] RP: I have money ...
Fattig spiller: "Hvor meget er det?" Rig spiller: "Du skylder mig 24 dollars." Du vil tabe alle dine penge om lidt. Jeg køber den, jeg har så mange penge. Jeg har så mange penge, jeg kan alt. Rig spiller 2: "Jeg kommer til at købe hele brættet" Rig spiller 3: "Du løber snart tør for penge." Jeg er urørlig fra nu af.
(Laughs) I have money for everything. PP: How much is that? RP: You owe me 24 dollars. You're going to lose all your money soon. I'll buy it. I have so much money. I have so much money, it takes me forever. RP 2: I'm going to buy out this whole board. RP 3: You're going to run out of money soon. I'm pretty much untouchable at this point.
PP: Okay, her er hvad jeg tænker var rigtigt, rigtigt interessant, var at ved slutningen af de 15 minutter, spurgte vi spillerne om deres oplevelse af spillet. Og når de rige spillere talte om hvorfor de uundgåeligt havde vundet i det manipulerede spil Matador (Latter) så talte de om hvad de havde gjort for at købe forskellige ejendomme og fortjent deres succes i spillet, og de blev mindre opmærksomme på alle de forskellige komponenter i situationen, herunder slåen plat eller krone som tilfældigt havde bragt dem i den fordelagtige situation til at starte med. Og dette er en virkelig, virkelig utrolig indsigt i hvordan vores opfattelse af fordele.
(Laughter) Paul Piff: And here's what I think was really, really interesting: it's that, at the end of the 15 minutes, we asked the players to talk about their experience during the game. And when the rich players talked about why they had inevitably won in this rigged game of Monopoly ... (Laughter) They talked about what they'd done to buy those different properties and earn their success in the game. (Laughter) And they became far less attuned to all those different features of the situation -- including that flip of a coin -- that had randomly gotten them into that privileged position in the first place. And that's a really, really incredible insight into how the mind makes sense of advantage.
Nu kan dette spil Matador bruges som en metafor til at forstå samfundet og det hierarkiske struktur, hvor nogle folk har masser af penge og status, som mange folk ikke har. De som har mindre rigdom og meget mindre status og meget mindre adgang til værdifulde ressourcer. Og hvad mine kollegaer og jeg har gjort i de sidste syv år er at studere effekterne af disse former for hierarkier. Hvad vi har fundet gennem en række studier og tusinder af deltagere rundt om i landet er at når en persons niveau af rigdom stiger, falder deres medfølelse og empati, og deres følelse af berettigelse, af de har fortjent det, og deres ideologi om selvinteresse stiger. I undersøgelser, har vi fundet at det faktisk er de rigeste individer, som er mere tilbøjelige til at moraliserer at grådighed er godt, og forfølgelsen af selv-interesse er er godt og moralsk. Hvad jeg ønsker at tale om i dag er nogle af følgerne af selv-interesse ideologi, at tale om hvorfor vi skal bekymre os om disse følger, og til sidst om hvad der bør gøres.
Now, this game of Monopoly can be used as a metaphor for understanding society and its hierarchical structure, wherein some people have a lot of wealth and a lot of status, and a lot of people don't; they have a lot less wealth and a lot less status and a lot less access to valued resources. And what my colleagues and I for the last seven years have been doing is studying the effects of these kinds of hierarchies. What we've been finding across dozens of studies and thousands of participants across this country is that as a person's levels of wealth increase, their feelings of compassion and empathy go down, and their feelings of entitlement, of deservingness, and their ideology of self-interest increase. In surveys, we've found that it's actually wealthier individuals who are more likely to moralize greed being good, and that the pursuit of self-interest is favorable and moral. Now, what I want to do today is talk about some of the implications of this ideology self-interest, talk about why we should care about those implications, and end with what might be done.
Nogle af de første studier vi lavede på dette område kiggede på hjælpeadfærd, noget som psykologer kalder pro-social adfærd. Og vi interesserede os for hvem der er mest tilbøjelig til at hjælpe en anden person, en som er rig eller en som er fattig. I et studie, bragte vi et rigt og et fattigt medlem af et lokalsamfund ind i laboratoriet og gave dem hver en sum svarende til 10 dollars. Vi fortalte deltagerne at de kunne beholde disse 10 dollars for dem selv eller de kunne give en del af dem, hvis de ønskede det, til en fremmed som var totalt anonym. De har aldrig mødt denne fremmede og den fremmede har aldrig mødt dem. Og vi målte hvor mange penge folk giver væk. Individer der tjener ca 25.000 nogen gange under 15.000 dollars om året gav 44 procent mere af deres penge til den fremmede end individer der tjener 150.000 eller 200.000 dollars om året.
Some of the first studies that we ran in this area looked at helping behavior, something social psychologists call "pro-social behavior." And we were really interested in who's more likely to offer help to another person: someone who's rich or someone who's poor. In one of the studies, we bring rich and poor members of the community into the lab, and give each of them the equivalent of 10 dollars. We told the participants they could keep these 10 dollars for themselves, or they could share a portion of it, if they wanted to, with a stranger, who's totally anonymous. They'll never meet that stranger; the stranger will never meet them. And we just monitor how much people give. Individuals who made 25,000, sometimes under 15,000 dollars a year, gave 44 percent more of their money to the stranger than did individuals making 150,000, 200,000 dollars a year.
Vi lod folk spille spil for at se hvem der var mest tilbøjelig til at snyde for at forøge deres chancer for en gevinst. I et spil manipulerede vi en computer så terningkast over en bestemt score var umulig. Man kunne ikke få mere end 12 i det spil, og igen, jo rigere du er, jo større sandsynlighed har du for at snyde i dette spil for at tjene point til at vinde en 50$ kontant præmie, nogen gange op til 3 eller 4 gange så meget.
We've had people play games to see who's more or less likely to cheat to increase their chances of winning a prize. In one of the games, we actually rigged a computer so that die rolls over a certain score were impossible -- You couldn't get above 12 in this game, and yet ... the richer you were, the more likely you were to cheat in this game to earn credits toward a $50 cash prize -- sometimes by three to four times as much.
Vi lavede en anden undersøgelse, hvor vi undersøgte hvorvidt folk ville være tilbøjelige til at tage slik fra en krukke som vi tydeligt sagde var reserveret til børn -- (Latter) som deltog i -- jeg joker ikke. Jeg ved det lyder som om jeg laver en joke. Vi fortalte tydeligt deltagerne at denne krukke var slik til børn som deltog i et udviklingsforsøg i nærheden. De deltager i et studie, de er for dem. Og vi overvågende hvor mange bolsjer deltagerne tog. Deltagere som følte sig rige to to gange så mange bolsjer som deltagere som følte sig fattige.
We ran another study where we looked at whether people would be inclined to take candy from a jar of candy that we explicitly identified as being reserved for children -- (Laughter) I'm not kidding -- I know it sounds like I'm making a joke. We explicitly told participants: "This candy is for children participating in a developmental lab nearby. They're in studies. This is for them." And we just monitored how much candy participants took. Participants who felt rich took two times as much candy as participants who felt poor.
Vi studerede også biler, ikke hvilke som helst biler, men om fører af forskellige slags biler er mere eller mindre tilbøjelige til bryde loven. I et af disse studier, kiggede vi på om en bil ville stoppe for en fodgænger som stod og ville gå over en fodgængerovergang. I Californien, som I alle ved, fordi jeg ved at I alle gør det, der siger loven at man skal stoppe for en fodgænger som venter på at gå over. Så her er et eksempel på hvordan vi gjorde det. Det er vores medsammensvorne til venstre poserer som en fodgænger. Han nærmer sig og den røde bil stopper efterfølgende. På typisk Californisk vis, er den overhalet af af en bus, som næsten kører vores fodgænger over. (Latter) Her er et eksempel på en mere dyr bil, en Prius, kører gennem, og en BMW, der gør det samme. Således gjorde vi for hundrede af køretøjer på forskellige dage, bare registrerede hvem der stoppede og hvem der ikke gjorde det. Hvad vi fandt var at når prisen på en bil blev forøget så førerens tendens til at bryde loven også forøget. Ingen af bilerne, ingen af bilerne i vores mindst kostbare kategori brød loven. Tæt på 50 procent af bilerne i vores mest kostbare kategori brød loven. Vi har lavet andre studier som finder at rigere individer er mere tilbøjelige til at lyve i forhandlinger at udvise uetisk adfærd på arbejde så som tyveri af penge, tage i mod bestikkelse, lyve overfor kunder.
We've even studied cars. Not just any cars, but whether drivers of different kinds of cars are more or less inclined to break the law. In one of these studies, we looked at whether drivers would stop for a pedestrian that we had posed waiting to cross at a crosswalk. Now in California, as you all know, because I'm sure we all do this, it's the law to stop for a pedestrian who's waiting to cross. So here's an example of how we did it. That's our confederate off to the left, posing as a pedestrian. He approaches as the red truck successfully stops. In typical California fashion, it's overtaken by the bus who almost runs our pedestrian over. (Laughter) Now here's an example of a more expensive car, a Prius, driving through, and a BMW doing the same. So we did this for hundreds of vehicles on several days, just tracking who stops and who doesn't. What we found was as the expensiveness of a car increased ... (Laughter) the drivers' tendencies to break the law increased as well. None of the cars -- none of the cars -- in our least expensive car category broke the law. Close to 50 percent of the cars in our most expensive vehicle category broke the law. We've run other studies, finding that wealthier individuals are more likely to lie in negotiations, to endorse unethical behavior at work, like stealing cash from the cash register, taking bribes, lying to customers.
Nu mener jeg ikke at det kun er rige mennesker som udviser disse mønstre af adfærd. Ikke overhovedet. Faktisk, tror jeg at vi alle, i vores dag til dag, minut for minut liv, kæmper mellem disse to konkurrerende motivationer om hvornår, eller om, at sætte vores egne interesser over interesserne for andre folk. Og det er forståeligt fordi den amerikanske drøm er ideen om at vi alle skal have ens muligheder for succes og fremgang, så længe vi klarer os selv og arbejder hård, og et stykke at dette betyder at nogen gange, er du nødt til at sætte dine egne interesser over interesserne og velbefindende af andre folk omkring dig. Men hvad vi er ved at finde er at, jo rigere du er, jo mere tilbøjelig er du til at forfølge en vision af personlig succes, af belønning og gennemførsel, på bekostning af andre omkring dig. Jeg har plottet for jer den gennemsnitlige husholdningsindkomst for hver femtedel og de øverste 5% af befolkningen gennem de sidste 20 år. i 1993, forskellen mellem de forskellige femtedele af befolkningen, set som indkomst, er rimeligt tydelige. Det er ikke svært at se at der er forskelle. Men over de sidste 20 år, har den tydelige forskel blevet en slags Grand Canyon mellem den i toppen og alle andre. Faktisk, de 20 % i toppen af vores befolkning ejer tæt på 90 % af den totale rigdom i dette land. Vi har fået ikke ført set højder af økonomisk ulighed. Hvad dette betyder er at rigdom ikke kun er blevet stigende koncentreret på hænderne af en lille gruppe individer, men at den amerikanske drøm er blevet i stigende grad uopnåelig for en stigende del af os. Og hvis det er tilfældet, som vi har fundet, at jo rigere man er, jo mere fortjent man føler sig til den rigdom, jo mere tilbøjelig er man til at prioritere sine egne interesser over interesserne for andre folk, og være villig til at gøre ting for at følge den selvinteresse. Der er ingen grund til at tænke at disse mønstre vil ændres. Faktisk, der er al mulig grund til at tro at det vil blive værre, og dette er hvordan det vil se ud hvis tingene bare fortsætter, men samme lineære rate, i de næste 20 år.
Now, I don't mean to suggest that it's only wealthy people who show these patterns of behavior. Not at all -- in fact, I think that we all, in our day-to-day, minute-by-minute lives, struggle with these competing motivations of when or if to put our own interests above the interests of other people. And that's understandable, because the American dream is an idea in which we all have an equal opportunity to succeed and prosper, as long as we apply ourselves and work hard. And a piece of that means that sometimes, you need to put your own interests above the interests and well-being of other people around you. But what we're finding is that the wealthier you are, the more likely you are to pursue a vision of personal success, of achievement and accomplishment, to the detriment of others around you. Here I've plotted for you the mean household income received by each fifth and top five percent of the population over the last 20 years. In 1993, the differences between the different quintiles of the population, in terms of income, are fairly egregious. It's not difficult to discern that there are differences. But over the last 20 years, that significant difference has become a Grand Canyon of sorts between those at the top and everyone else. In fact, the top 20 percent of our population own close to 90 percent of the total wealth in this country. We're at unprecedented levels of economic inequality. What that means is that wealth is not only becoming increasingly concentrated in the hands of a select group of individuals, but the American dream is becoming increasingly unattainable for an increasing majority of us. And if it's the case, as we've been finding, that the wealthier you are, the more entitled you feel to that wealth, and the more likely you are to prioritize your own interests above the interests of other people, and be willing to do things to serve that self-interest, well, then, there's no reason to think that those patterns will change. In fact, there's every reason to think that they'll only get worse, and that's what it would look like if things just stayed the same, at the same linear rate, over the next 20 years.
Nu, ulighed, økonomisk ulighed, er noget vi alle skal være bekymrede om, og ikke kun omkring dem på bunden af det sociale hierarki, men fordi individer og grupper med meget økonomisk ulighed får det værre, ikke kun folkene i bunden, men alle. Der kommer meget overbevisende forskning ud fra top institutter i hele verden som viser en række ting som bliver undermineret når den økonomiske ulighed bliver værre. Social mobilitet, noget vi virkeligt bekymrer os om, psykisk sundhed, social tillid, alt går ned når uligheden går op. Tilsvarende, negative ting i sociale grupper og samfund, ting som overvægt, og vold, antal fængslede, og straffe, bliver forværret når økonomisk ulighed stiger. Igen, dette er konsekvenser ikke bare oplevet af nogle få, men giver genlyd i alle lag af samfundet. Selv folk i toppen oplever disse konsekvenser.
Now inequality -- economic inequality -- is something we should all be concerned about, and not just because of those at the bottom of the social hierarchy, but because individuals and groups with lots of economic inequality do worse ... not just the people at the bottom, everyone. There's a lot of really compelling research coming out from top labs all over the world, showcasing the range of things that are undermined as economic inequality gets worse. Social mobility, things we really care about, physical health, social trust, all go down as inequality goes up. Similarly, negative things in social collectives and societies, things like obesity, and violence, imprisonment, and punishment, are exacerbated as economic inequality increases. Again, these are outcomes not just experienced by a few, but that resound across all strata of society. Even people at the top experience these outcomes.
Så hvad skal vi gøre? Denne kaskade af selvforstærkende, skadelige, negative effekter kunne se ud som noget der er kommet ud af kontrol, og der er intet vi kan gøre ved det, bestemt ikke noget vi som individer kan gøre. Men faktisk, vi har fundet i vores laboratorieforskning at små psykologiske indgreb, små ændringer i folks værdier, små skub i bestemte retninger, kan genskabe niveauer af lighedstænkning og empati. For eksempel, at påminde folk om fordelene ved samarbejde, eller ved fordelene ved et samfund for de rigere til at være ligeså lighedssindede som fattige folk. I et forsøg, lod vi folk se en kort video, bare 46 sekunder lang, omkring børnefattigdom som fungerede som en påmindelse om andres behov i verden omkring dem, og efter at have set den kigede vi på hvor villige folk var til at bruge deres egen tid på fremmede som de mødte i laboratoriet og som var i nød. Efter at have set denne video, en time efter, rige folk var lige så generøse med deres egen tid til at hjælpe denne anden person en fremmed, som en fattig var, hvilket muliggør at disse forskelle er ikke indgroede eller kategoriske, men er så påvirkelige til en lille ændring i folks værdier, og små puf af medfølelse og skub af empati.
So what do we do? This cascade of self-perpetuating, pernicious, negative effects could seem like something that's spun out of control, and there's nothing we can do about it, certainly nothing we as individuals could do. But in fact, we've been finding in our own laboratory research that small psychological interventions, small changes to people's values, small nudges in certain directions, can restore levels of egalitarianism and empathy. For instance, reminding people of the benefits of cooperation or the advantages of community, cause wealthier individuals to be just as egalitarian as poor people. In one study, we had people watch a brief video, just 46 seconds long, about childhood poverty that served as a reminder of the needs of others in the world around them. And after watching that, we looked at how willing people were to offer up their own time to a stranger presented to them in the lab, who was in distress. After watching this video, an hour later, rich people became just as generous of their own time to help out this other person, a stranger, as someone who's poor, suggesting that these differences are not innate or categorical, but are so malleable to slight changes in people's values, and little nudges of compassion and bumps of empathy.
Og udenfor vores vægge i laboratoriet, er vi begyndt at se tegn på ændringer i vores samfund. Bill Gates, en af vores lands rigeste individer, i hans tale til dimitenterne fra Havard, talte han om de problemer som samfundet står overfor hvor ulighed er den mest skræmmende udfordring, og talte om hvad der skal gøres for at bekæmpe den, og sagde at: "Menneskehedens største fremskridt ligger ikke i dets opdagelser, men i hvordan disse opdagelser er brugt til at reducerer ulighed." Og her er the "Giving Pledge" [Forpligtelsen til at give] hvor mere end 100 af vores lands rigeste personer har forpligtiget sig til at give halvdelen af deres formue til velgørenhed. Og der er fremkomsten af dusinvis af græsrodsbevægelser, som We are the one percent, [Vi er de 1 %], Ressource Generationen, eller Wealth for Common Good [rigdom for fælles bedste] hvor de mest privilegerede medlemmer af befolkningen, medlemmer af den rigeste procent og andre, folk der er velhavende, som bruger deres egne økonomiske ressourcer, voksne og unge imellem, hvad der er mest påfaldende for mig, udjævner deres egne privilegier, deres egne økonomiske ressourcer, for at bekæmpe ulighed ved at være fortaler for social politik, ændring i sociale normer, og ændre folks adfærd, som arbejder i mod deres egne økonomiske interesser men som tilsidst vil genskabe den amerikanske drøm.
And beyond the walls of our lab, we're even beginning to see signs of change in society. Bill Gates, one of our nation's wealthiest individuals, in his Harvard commencement speech, talked about the problem of inequality facing society as being the most daunting challenge, and talked about what must be done to combat it, saying, "Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries -- but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity." And there's the Giving Pledge, in which more than 100 of our nation's wealthiest individuals are pledging half of their fortunes to charity. And there's the emergence of dozens of grassroots movements, like "We are the 1 percent," "Resource Generation," or "Wealth for Common Good," in which the most privileged members of the population, members of the one percent and elsewhere, people who are wealthy, are using their own economic resources, adults and youth alike -- that's what's most striking to me -- leveraging their own privilege, their own economic resources, to combat inequality by advocating for social policies, changes in social values and changes in people's behavior that work against their own economic interests, but that may ultimately restore the American dream.
Mange tak
Thank you.
(Bifald)
(Applause)