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?
我想請在座的各位 想像我們一起玩大富翁 只是在這場遊戲裡 那些讓你在遊戲與人生中 成功的能力、天分、運氣 都無關緊要 因為這場遊戲被動過手腳 你因此佔了上風 你更有錢 比別人更多移動的機會 更能接觸資源 當你這麼想像時 也請自問 在這被動手腳的遊戲中 作為佔上風的玩家 會如何改變對自己 和其他玩家的看法呢?
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.
我們在加州柏克萊大學 研究這個問題 我們帶100對以上的陌生人 到研究室 用擲硬幣的方式 隨機分配兩人中的一人 當富有的玩家 富玩家領的錢會多兩倍 每經過起點就會 多領一倍的薪水 還能一次擲兩個骰子 所以更有機會多走幾圈
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
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.
我們便在這15分鐘內 從隱藏相機觀察他們 今日是我們首次公布 我們觀察的成果 若音質不太好請予見諒 畢竟這些都來自隱蔽鏡頭 大家可以讀字幕
[Video] Rich Player: How many 500s did you have?
富玩家:嘿,你有多少張 500元?
Poor Player: Just one.
窮玩家:就一張
RP: Are you serious? PP: Yeah.
富玩家:開玩笑的吧?! 窮玩家:是啊
RP: I have three. (Laughs) I don't know why they gave me so much.
富玩家:我有三張(笑聲) 真不知他們幹嘛給我這麼多
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.
講員:好,玩家很快就注意到 有些事情不太對勁 其中一位很明顯 比另一位更有錢 但當遊戲繼續時 我們看到既顯著 又巨大的差異 在兩位玩家之間出現 富玩家移動跳棋 的聲音變大 根本就是邊跳棋
(Game piece smacks board)
邊砸紙板
We were more likely to see signs of dominance and nonverbal signs, displays of power and celebration among the rich players.
我們開始看到宣示主權的樣子 和非語言表達 都在展現勢力 和富玩家互相慶祝
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.
我們有碗椒鹽脆餅放在一旁 就在那右下角 這讓我們得以觀察參與者的胃口 然後單純追蹤他們吃了多少脆餅
[Video] RP: Are those pretzels a trick?
富玩家:這些脆餅有什詭計嗎?
PP: I don't know.
窮玩家:不知
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.
講者:可想而知,他們開始懷疑我們了 他們懷疑那碗脆餅 為什麼一開始就在那 就像你剛看到的 一位甚至問那碗脆餅放在那是否藏有詭計 即便如此,主權似乎仍不可避免的 開始展現出來 那些富玩家開始吃更多的脆餅了
(Laughter)
[Video] RP: I love pretzels.
富玩家: 我愛~椒鹽脆餅
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
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.
講員: 遊戲持續時 我們觀察出一種有趣 又戲劇化的既定模式 富玩家開始對 另一位玩家更粗魯 對於這些窮玩家可憐的處境 顯得越來越沒同理心 也越來越愛誇炫 自己物質上的豐碩 更愛現他們有多成功
[Video] RP: I have money ...
富玩家: 我樣樣不缺錢
(Laughs) I have money for everything.
PP: How much is that?
窮玩家: 那有多少?
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.
富玩家:你欠我24美元 你快傾家蕩產了 我買。反正我有的是錢。 多到花都花不完
RP 2: I'm going to buy out this whole board.
富玩家2:我要買起這整張紙板
RP 3: You're going to run out of money soon. I'm pretty much untouchable at this point.
富玩家3: 你就要身無分文了 我已經到了無可匹敵的地步了
(Laughter)
講員: 現在,
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 ...
這是我覺得特別特別有趣的地方 在15分鐘的遊戲結束後 我們詢問玩家在這遊戲中取得的經驗 當富玩家談到為何 他們最終贏了 這場我們動過手腳的大富翁遊戲
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
They talked about what they'd done to buy those different properties and earn their success in the game.
他們高闊談論 費了多少力才買下各種資產 然後獲得成功
(Laughter)
對於遊戲過程中
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.
感到怪異的也變得無感 包括以擲硬幣的方式 隨機讓他們雀屏中選 在遊戲一開始就取得優勢 這給予我們很棒的機會洞察 人的心理如何對優勢作出合理的解釋
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.
這場大富翁遊戲影射整個社會 幫助我們了解 社會的階級體制 有些人擁有許多財富和身分地位 多數人卻沒有 他們過的較拮据 沒有社會地位 也較難取得有用資源 過去7年我與同事 一起研究這些階級體制帶來的影響 我們從各地數千名參與者身上 得出的結論是 個人財富比例越高 憐憫心和同理心都會同時降低 對於頭銜的慾望,享有應得的 和自身利益相關的意識都會增加 我們在調查中發現 較富有的人更容易 把貪婪道德化 而追求自身利益 也被當做是道德的 今天我想談談 追求自身利益暗示著甚麼 談我們為何應該關注這些事 以及相關對策
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.
我們在這個領域裡首先做的研究 是那些互助行為 社會學家稱作為 「利社會行為」 我們對誰更會對別人 施以援手更感興趣 是富人還是窮人呢? 在某項研究裡 我們邀社區裡的 富人和窮人到實驗室 給每位10美元 我們告訴參與者 他們可選擇保留這10美元 或與人分享一部分 若他們想要也可贈予 完全不認識的陌生人 而且雙方以後都不會再遇到 接著很單純的監視人們會給多少 一年賺2萬5或 低於1萬5的參與者 更願意贈與44% 自己的錢給陌生人 而一年賺15萬 或20萬的人卻不太會
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.
我們讓參與者玩遊戲 藉此看出誰更容易作弊 增加贏得獎金的機會 其中我們對一台電腦作了手腳 讓骰子難以出現 特定的數字 這遊戲無法讓你得超過12點 然而你越富有 就越有可能作弊 以便獲得近50美元的獎金 有時甚至有3、4倍之多
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 --
我們所做的另一項研究是 告訴參與者是否會拿糖果罐裡的糖果 我們清楚的告訴他們 那罐糖果是要留給小孩吃的
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
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.
我是說真的 我知道這聽起來很可笑 但我們很清楚的告知參與者 那一罐糖果是要給在附近 研究室裡的小孩吃的 他們就在研究室裡 這是要給他們的 然後我們監控參與者吃了多少糖果 感到富有的參與者 比感到窮的參與者 多吃兩倍的糖果
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.
我們甚至研究車輛 不只是任何車輛 而是不同車款的車主 是否更傾向於犯法 其中一項研究裡 我們察看 駕駛員是否會為行人停下來 這些要過馬路的人都是我們請的 在加州 我確信你們都知道 因為我們都做過 法律明規路人要過馬路時需停車 這是大家平常的做法 左邊是我們的人 裝作要過馬路 他在紅色卡車成功停下時過馬路 在加州也很常見公車 像是沒看到路人直接開過去
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
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 ...
這是另一個較為昂貴的轎車 豐田普銳斯 和BMW的做法一樣 我們花了好幾天 研究了幾百輛車 追蹤誰會和誰不會為路人停 我們發現
(Laughter)
越貴的車裡
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.
坐的駕駛員 就越傾向於犯法 在那些最便宜的車款中 沒有任何一輛,沒有任何一輛 觸法。 而近乎5成的汽車 在我們最昂貴的 車款項目裡都犯法 我們在別的研究裡也發現 更富有的人在協商時更容易說謊 或在工作上做出沒道德的事 像是從收銀機裡偷錢 接受賄路,欺騙顧客
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.
我不是要說 只有富人才會 有這類的行為 不是的 我想我們大家 在每日每分的生活裡 都得跟這些動機交戰好幾回 像是何時放下個人的利益 把他人的利益擺在前面 這種掙扎在所難免 因為美國夢的思維是 人人都有平等的機會 成功、發達 只要我們認真努力打拼 那就意味著有時 我們的自身利益得放在 別人的利益和福利前面 但我們也研究出 越富有的人越能 想像個人成功的樣子 其成就和豐功偉業 甚至不惜損及周遭的人
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.
這裡是每5分之1的人口 和前5%人口的平均家庭收入 這資料匯集超過20年 1993年 其差異在 每5分之1人口的薪水上 就相當的糟 要分辨出其差異很簡單 但過去20年 其差異 變得像大峽谷一樣淵長 夾在頂端和普遍人口之間 人口頂端的2成就擁有 這國家近9成的財富
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.
我們已到前所未見的 經濟失衡 這意味著財富不只逐漸 集中在少數特定人口的手上 但取得美國夢 對大多數的我們 也顯得難上加難 若這是問題的癥結 也就是你越富有 就越覺得應得那份財富 也就更傾向自己的利益優先 再來才會輪到別人的 然後竭盡心力的維護自身利益 這樣的情況下 其差異當然不會縮小 反而給足理由認定 情況只會越來越糟 若情況沒改善的話 接下來的20年情況也不會好轉
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.
我們全部人,都應該關心 經濟的分配不均 而不只限於 社會底層的人 因為在分配不均的經濟情況裡 個人和團體都過的更不好 不只是社會底層 大家也都蒙受其害 有份可信度十分高的研究 來自世界各地頂尖的實驗室 證實社會問題 隨著經濟失衡變本加厲 也會隨之變得更嚴重 像是社會流動和我們很在乎的 如健康,社會互信等方面 全都會隨著不平等的增長降低 依此類推 社會和其群體性的負面 如過胖,暴力 關押,處罰 也會隨之遽增 這些不良的後果 不是只有少數的有所體會 而是橫跨社會各個階級 甚至那些身處高位的人也會有經歷這些後果
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.
那我們該作些什麼呢? 這一連串壞的影響 正自運轉著 隨時都會失控 而我們卻束手無策 以個人的力量當然沒辦法解決 但我們實際上卻在 自己的研究室發現 只要在心理上作少許的干預 在價值觀上作些小改變 微微轉移他們的注意力 便能重新回到正常的平等主義和同理心 例如,提醒人們 團結的力量 或社區可帶來的益處 讓富人也可變得 跟窮人一樣的愛平等
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.
一項研究邀參與者看 僅46秒有關家境貧困的簡短影片 用意在於提醒他們 別人的需要 看了那片子後 我們觀察人們會變得有多願意 用自己的時間去幫助 在研究室裡苦惱的陌生人 一小時後 看那片子的富人變得一樣大方 願意奉獻自己的時間去幫助別人 一位陌生人或貧困的人 這些研究顯示差異並不是與生俱來的 或侷限在你來自哪個社會階層 這是可改變得 稍微改變人們的價值觀 輕輕提醒他們該更有憐憫心 更富有同理心
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.
橫越過我們實驗室牆外 我們甚至開始看到社會改變的跡象 比爾•蓋茲,我國最富有的人之一 在哈佛畢業典禮的演講中 他談到社會問題 解決不平等的現象是艱困的挑戰 也談到該做什麼來打擊問題 他說: 「 ...人類最大的進步 並不是來自於這些發現 — 而是在於那些被用來減少 不平等的創見。」(取自Morton's Weblog) 還有「捐贈誓言」 我國超過100位 的富豪 都發誓簽署捐贈他們一半的資產給慈善機構 還有許多民間運動 逐漸匯集 像「我們是那1%的人口」 「資源世代」(自譯:吳貞慧) 「普及財富」(自譯) 也就是人口中 擁有許多特權的人 人口頂尖的1%等 以及富豪 都在運用自己的經濟資源 不管是成年人或青少年- 最讓我驚喜的 都在運用自身的 優勢和經濟資源 對抗不平等 藉由擁護社會方針 改善社會價值觀 改善人們的行為 即便與自身利益相突 但終能給予希望恢復美國夢
Thank you.
謝謝
(Applause)
(掌聲)