TED英語演講：如何放棄做好人
如果你對做一個(gè)“好人”的執(zhí)著阻礙了你成為一個(gè)更好的人，那么該怎么辦? 在這篇通俗易懂的演講中，社會心理學(xué)家多莉 · 丘格解釋了令人費(fèi)解的道德行為其中的心理學(xué) (比如為什么我們很難發(fā)現(xiàn)自己的偏見并承認(rèn)錯(cuò)誤))，并展示了我們?nèi)绾螐某姓J(rèn)錯(cuò)誤開始做更好的自己。“在生活的其他方面，我們都能給予自己成長的空間，然而在這個(gè)最重要的方面則不然。” 丘格如是說。下面是小編為大家收集關(guān)于TED英語演講：如何放棄做好人，歡迎借鑒參考。
演講者：Dolly Chugh 多莉 · 丘格
中英對照翻譯
So a friend of mine was riding in a taxi to the airport the other day, and on the way, she was chatting with the taxi driver, and he said to her, with total sincerity, "I can tell you are a really good person." And when she told me this story later, she said she couldn't believe how good it made her feel, that it meant a lot to her. Now that may seem like a strong reaction from my friend to the words of a tota lstranger, but she's not alone.
某天，我的一位朋友乘出租車去機(jī)場。在路上，她跟出租車司機(jī)閑聊，他用非常真誠的語氣對她說：“我看得出你是個(gè)好人。”當(dāng)她后來告訴我這個(gè)故事時(shí)，她說這讓她感到無比的開心，那句話對她的意義重大。這看起來像是我朋友對陌生人話語的一種強(qiáng)烈反應(yīng)，但她并非特例。
I'm a social scientist. I study the psychology of good people, and research in my field says many of us care deeply about feeling like a good person and being seen as a good person. Now, your definition of "good person" and your definition of "good person" and maybe the taxi driver's definition of "good person"-- we may not all have the same definition, but within whatever our definitionis, that moral identity is important to many of us.
我是一個(gè)社會科學(xué)家。我研究關(guān)于好人的心理學(xué)，這個(gè)領(lǐng)域的研究顯示，大家對自認(rèn)為是“好人”，和被他人視為”好人“的感覺頗為在意。你對“好人”的定義，或是你對“好人”的定義，可能跟出租車司機(jī)定義的“好人”不同，我們也許沒有相同的定義，但不管我們的定義是什么，這種道德認(rèn)同對我們很多人都很重要。
Now, if somebody challenges it, like they question us for a joke we tell, or maybe we say our workforce is homogenous, or a slippery business expense, we go into red-zone defensiveness a lot of the time. I mean, sometimes we call out all the ways in which we help people from marginalized groups, or we donate to charity, or the hours we volunteer tononprofits. We work to protect that good person identity. It's important to many of us.
如果有人挑戰(zhàn)這個(gè)事實(shí)，比如他質(zhì)疑我們講的笑話，或者他說我們的勞動(dòng)是同質(zhì)的，或者是一筆狡猾的商業(yè)支出，我們在這些時(shí)候會進(jìn)入一種“紅區(qū)警戒”狀態(tài)。我的意思是，有時(shí)候我們會用各種方式來幫助那些處于社會邊緣的人，或者向慈善組織捐贈(zèng)，或者自愿成為非營利組織的義工。我們努力捍衛(wèi)這種好人的身份，這對我們多數(shù)人都很重要。
But what if I told you this? What if I told you that our attachment to being good people is getting in the way of us being better people? What if I told you that our definition of "good person" is so narrow, it's scientifically impossible to meet? And what if I told you the path to being better people just begins with letting go of being a good person?
但如果我告訴你們，我們對做好人的向往會阻止我們成為更好的人呢?如果我告訴你們，我們對“好人”的定義很狹隘，在科學(xué)角度上是無法實(shí)現(xiàn)的呢?又如果我告訴們，你成為更好的人的路徑只需從拋棄做一個(gè)好人開始呢?
Now, let me tell you a little bit about there search about how the human mind works to explain. The brain relies on shortcuts to do a lot of its work. That means a lot of the time, your mental processes are taking place outside of your awareness, like in low-battery, low-powermode in the back of your mind.
那么，讓我告訴你們一些有關(guān)人類大腦是如何運(yùn)作的研究，來解釋我的說法。大腦依靠捷徑完成很多工作，這意味著大部分時(shí)間，你的思維過程發(fā)生在你的意識之外，就像大腦處于低電量、低功耗模式下。
That's, in fact, the premise of bounded rationality. Bounded rationality is the Nobel Prize-winning idea that the humanmind has limited storage resources, limited processing power, and as a result, it relies on shortcuts to do a lot of its work. So for example, some scientists estimate that in any given moment ... Better, better click, right? There we go.
其實(shí)，這是“有限理性”的前提。“有限理性”是諾貝爾獎(jiǎng)得主的觀點(diǎn)，人類大腦的存儲資源是有限的，處理能力是有限的，因此，它依靠捷徑來完成很多工作。所以舉個(gè)例子，有些科學(xué)家估計(jì)在任何時(shí)刻…比如打個(gè)響指的瞬間，再來一次，這下打響了吧?
At any given moment, 11 million pieces of information are coming into your mind. Eleven million. And only 40 of them are being processed consciously. So 11 million, 40.
在任意一個(gè)瞬間，數(shù)以千萬計(jì)的信息會涌入你的大腦。整整1100萬。而其中只有四十個(gè)被有意識地處理。所以1100萬和40做下對比。
I mean, has this ever happened to you? Have you ever had a really busy day at work, and you drive home, and when you get in the door, you realize you don't even remember the drive home, like whether you had green lights or red lights. You don't even remember. You were on autopilot.
你有沒有經(jīng)歷過這樣的事?在工作超忙的一天，你開車回家，到家門口時(shí)，發(fā)現(xiàn)你甚至不記得駕車時(shí)的事，比如是否過了紅燈或綠燈。你甚至不記得這些。你當(dāng)時(shí)相當(dāng)于是在“自動(dòng)駕駛”模式下。
Or have you ever opened the fridge, looked for the butter, swore there is no butter, and then realized the butter was right in front of you the whole time?These are the kinds of "whoops" moments that make us giggle, and this is what happens in a brain that can handle 11 million pieces of information coming in with only 40 being processed consciously. That's the bounded part of bounded rationality.
或者你有沒有開過冰箱，尋找黃油，發(fā)誓沒有黃油的痕跡，然后才意識到黃油一直就在你面前?這些都是回想起來讓我們覺得好笑的時(shí)刻，這就是大腦為了應(yīng)付1100萬條涌進(jìn)來的信息，但只有40條被有意識處理時(shí)所發(fā)生的事。這就是“有限理性"的有限部分。
This work on bounded rationality is what's inspired work I've done with my collaborators Max Bazerman and Mahzarin Banaji,on what we call bounded ethicality. So it's the same premise as bounded rationality, that we have a human mind that is bounded in some sort of way and relying on shortcuts, and that those short cuts can sometimes lead us astray.
這個(gè)關(guān)于有限理性的研究提供了我和我的搭檔馬克斯·巴澤曼和馬扎林·巴納吉研究“有限道德”的靈感來源。這和“有限理性”的前提是一樣的，我們的大腦是受束縛的，它需要依賴捷徑，并且這個(gè)捷徑有時(shí)候會讓我們誤入歧途。
With bounded rationality, perhaps it affects the cereal we buy in the grocerystore, or the product we launch in the boardroom. With bounded ethicality, thehuman mind, the same human mind, is making decisions, and here, it's about who to hire next, or what joke to tell or that slippery business decision.
考慮到人的有限理性，可能它會影響我們在雜貨店買的麥片，或者我們在會議室推出的產(chǎn)品。當(dāng)“有限道德”發(fā)生時(shí)，人類的大腦，如同有限理性一樣，在做出決策。比如要雇傭誰?去講什么笑話?或是那個(gè)狡猾的商業(yè)決策。
So let me give you an example of bounded ethicality at work. Unconscious bias is one place where we see the effects of bounded ethicality. So unconscious bias refers to associations we have in our mind, the shortcuts your brain is using to organize information, very likely outside of your awareness, not necessarily lining up with your conscious beliefs.
那么讓我給你們一個(gè)有限道德體現(xiàn)在工作中的案例。“無意識偏見”是“有限道德”體現(xiàn)出的一個(gè)方面。“無意識偏見”指我們大腦中的聯(lián)想，那些大腦用來組織信息的捷徑，很可能在你的意識之外，不一定會符合你的意識信念。
Researchers Nosek, Banaji and Greenwald have looked at data from millions of people, and what they've found is, for example, most white Americans can more quickly and easily associate white people and good things than black people and good things, and most men and women can more quickly and easily associate men and science than women and science.
研究者諾斯，巴納吉和格林沃爾德看過了數(shù)百萬人的數(shù)據(jù)，他們發(fā)現(xiàn)的是，例如：多數(shù)美國白人能夠更快和更輕松地把白人和好事聯(lián)系起來，而非黑人和好事，而且多數(shù)人更傾向于把男性跟科學(xué)家聯(lián)系起來，而不是把女性和科學(xué)家聯(lián)系起來。
And these associations don't necessarily line up with what people consciously think. They may have very egalitarian views, in fact. So sometimes, that 11 million and that 40 just don't line up.
而這些聯(lián)系不一定與人們有意識的想法一致。事實(shí)上，他們可能有非常平等的觀點(diǎn)。所以有時(shí)候，1100萬與40的對比并不是很合理。
And here's another example: conflicts ofinterest. So we tend to under estimate how much a small gift -- imagine a ballpoint pen or dinner -- how much that small gift can affect our decision making. We don't realize that our mind is unconsciously lining up evidence to support the point of view of the gift-giver, no matter how hard we're consciously trying to be objective and professional.
這是另外一個(gè)例子：利益沖突。我們往往會低估一個(gè)小禮物的作用——比如一支圓珠筆或一頓晚餐——這個(gè)小禮物能對我們的決策產(chǎn)生多大的影響。我們意識不到自己的大腦會無意識地收集證據(jù)來支持送禮人的觀點(diǎn)，無論我們多么努力地保持客觀和專業(yè)。
We also see bounded ethicality -- despite our attachment to being good people, we still make mistakes, and we make mistakes that sometimes hurt other people, that sometimes promote injustice, despite our best attempts, and we explain away our mistakes rather than learning from them.
我們也能看到有界的道德——即便我們希望當(dāng)一個(gè)好人，我們?nèi)詴稿e(cuò)，我們犯的錯(cuò)誤有時(shí)候會傷害他人，有時(shí)候會促進(jìn)不公，盡管我們盡了最大的努力，我們還為自己的錯(cuò)誤辯解，而不是從中學(xué)習(xí)。
Like, for example, when I got an email from a female student in my class saying that a reading I had assigned, a reading I had been assigning for years, wassexist. Or when I confused two students in my class of the same race -- look nothing alike -- when I confused them for each other more than once, in front of everybody.
比如說，有天我收到了班上女同學(xué)的電郵，說我布置的閱讀材料，這個(gè)我指定了好些年的閱讀材料，有性別歧視。或者當(dāng)我把班上同種族的兩個(gè)學(xué)生弄混時(shí)——他們倆看起來一點(diǎn)也不像——當(dāng)我在大家面前，不止一次把他們弄混時(shí)。
These kinds of mistakes send us, send me, into red-zone defensiveness. They leave us fighting for that good personidentity. But the latest work that I've been doing on bounded ethicality with Mary Kern says that we're not only prone to mistakes -- that tendency towards mistakes depends on how close we are to that red zone.
這些類型的錯(cuò)誤讓我們……讓我，進(jìn)入了”紅色警戒區(qū)“。它們讓我們?yōu)楹萌说纳矸荻鴳?zhàn)。但是我最近和瑪麗·克恩做的關(guān)于有限道德的研究發(fā)現(xiàn)我們不僅容易犯錯(cuò)，犯錯(cuò)的傾向還取決于我們離紅色區(qū)域的距離。
So most of the time,nobody's challenging our good person identity, and so we're not thinking too much about the ethical implications of our decisions, and our model shows that we're then spiraling towards less and less ethical behavior most of the time.
大多數(shù)時(shí)候，沒人質(zhì)疑我們的好人身份。所以我們也沒有想太多關(guān)于我們決定的倫理意義，我們的模型顯示我們大部分時(shí)間都在朝著越來越少的道德行為發(fā)展。
On the other hand, somebody might challenge our identity, or, upon reflection, we may be challenging it ourselves. So the ethical implications of our decisions become really salient, and in those cases, we spiral towards more and more good person behavior, or, to be more precise, towards more and more behavior that makes us feel like a good person,which isn't always the same, of course.
另一方面，有人可能會質(zhì)疑我們的身份。或者，經(jīng)過反思后我們會挑戰(zhàn)自己。所以我們決定的倫理意義變得非常突出，在這些情況下，我們會越來越傾向于好人的行為，或者，更準(zhǔn)確地說，越來越傾向于使我們感覺像個(gè)好人的行為，當(dāng)然，有時(shí)候兩者并不一樣。
The idea with bounded ethicality is that we are perhaps over estimating the importance our inner compass is playing in our ethical decisions. We perhaps are overestimating how much ourself-interest is driving our decisions, and perhaps we don't realize how much our self-view as a good person is affecting our behavior, that in fact, we're working so hard to protect that good person identity, to keep out of that red zone, that we're not actually giving ourselves space to learn from our mistakes and actually be better people.
有限道德的觀點(diǎn)是，我們可能高估了我們內(nèi)在的指南針在道德決策中的重要性。我們可能高估了我們的自身利益驅(qū)使我們做出決策的程度，也許我們沒有意識到身為一個(gè)好人的自我認(rèn)同感對我們的行為有多大的影響，事實(shí)上，我們?nèi)绱伺Φ厝ズ葱l(wèi)我們的好人身份，遠(yuǎn)離紅區(qū)，以致于我們沒有足夠的空間從錯(cuò)誤中學(xué)習(xí)，去真正做一個(gè)更好的人。
It's perhaps because we expect it to beeasy. We have this definition of good person that's either-or. Either you are a good person or you're not. Either you have integrity or you don't. Either you are a racist or a sexist or a homophobe or you're not. And in this either-or definition, there's no room to grow. And by the way, this is not what we do in most parts of our lives.
這可能是因?yàn)槲覀兤诖鼤苋菀?。我們對好人的定義是非此即彼的。要么你是好人，要么不是。要么你誠實(shí)，要么不誠實(shí)。要么你是種族主義者，或者性別歧視，或者恐同者，要么都不是。在這個(gè)非此即彼的定義中，沒有任何成長的空間。順便說一句：這不是我們在大部分生活中做的事情。
Life, if you needed to learn accounting, you would take an accounting class, or if you become a parent, we pick up a book and we read about it. We talk to experts, we learn from our mistakes, we update our knowledge, we just keep getting better. But when it comes to being a good person, we think it's something we're just supposed to know, we're just supposed to do,without the benefit of effort or growth.
生活中，如果你需要學(xué)習(xí)會計(jì)，你可能會報(bào)個(gè)會計(jì)班，或者如果你成為父母，我們會去找本書，學(xué)習(xí)為人父母之道。我們跟專家交流，我們從錯(cuò)誤中學(xué)習(xí)，我們更新我們的知識，我們不斷變得更好。但當(dāng)涉及到成為好人時(shí)，我們則認(rèn)為這是我們應(yīng)該知道的，我們應(yīng)該去做的，卻無需獲得努力和成長帶來的好處。
So what I've been thinking about is what if we were to just forget about being good people, just let it go, and instead, seta higher standard, a higher standard of being a good-ish person? A good-ishperson absolutely still makes mistakes. As a good-ish person, I'm making the mall the time. But as a good-ish person, I'm trying to learn from them, own them.
以我在想的是：如果我們忘記做一個(gè)好人會怎樣?就這么隨它去，反之，設(shè)立一個(gè)更高的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，一個(gè)善良人的更高標(biāo)準(zhǔn)?一個(gè)善良的人無疑仍會犯錯(cuò)誤。作為一個(gè)善良的人，我常常都會犯錯(cuò)誤。但作為一個(gè)善良人，我試圖從錯(cuò)誤中學(xué)習(xí)，解決問題。不逃避錯(cuò)誤，而是直面它們。
I expect them and I go after them. I understand there are costs to these mistakes. When it comes to issues like ethics and bias and diversity and inclusion, there are real costs to real people, and I accept that. As a good-ish person, in fact, I become better at noticing my own mistakes. I don't wait for people to point them out. I practice finding them, and as a result ...
我知道這些錯(cuò)誤要付出代價(jià)，當(dāng)涉及到倫理、偏見、多樣性和包容等問題時(shí)，這對真實(shí)的人來說是真實(shí)存在的代價(jià)，而我接受這個(gè)事實(shí)。作為一個(gè)好人，事實(shí)上，我變得更善于發(fā)現(xiàn)自己的錯(cuò)誤。我不用等別人指出它們，我鍛煉自己去尋找它們，結(jié)果呢?
Sure, sometimes it can be embarrassing, it can be uncomfortable. We put ourselves in a vulnerable place, sometimes. But through all that vulnerability,just like in everything else we've tried to ever get better at, we see progress. We see growth. We allow ourselves to get better.
當(dāng)然，這有時(shí)候會讓人感到很尷尬，會覺得不舒服。有時(shí)，我們會變得很脆弱。但克服了所有的弱點(diǎn)后，就像所有一切我們努力改進(jìn)的東西一樣，我們可以看到進(jìn)步。我們可以看到成長。我們允許自己變得更好。
Why wouldn't we give ourselves that? In every other part of our lives, we give ourselves room to grow -- except in thisone, where it matters most.
為什么我們不能允許自己變得更好?在我們生活的其他方面，我們都給了自己成長的空間，然而在這個(gè)最重要的方面，卻始終無所作為。
Thank you.(Applause)
謝謝大家。(鼓掌)
相關(guān)文章：