081

- Intro -

The news of society's growing inequality makes all of us uneasy. But why? Dan Ariely reveals some new, surprising research on what we think is fair, as far as how wealth is distributed over societies ... then shows how it stacks up to the real stats.

社会越发不公，这让我们都坐立不安。但是为什么？丹·艾瑞里揭露了一些新颖惊人的研究，研究话题涉及我们对公平以及财富在不同社会阶层如何分布的认知……然后他向我们展示了真实的数据。

- Audio -

- Transcript -

It would be nice to be objective in life, in many ways. The problem is that we have these color-tinted glasses as we look at all kinds of situations. For example, think about something as simple as beer. If I gave you a few beers to taste and I asked you to rate them on intensity and bitterness, different beers would occupy different space. But what if we tried to be objective about it? In the case of beer, it would be very simple. What if we did a blind taste? Well, if we did the same thing, you tasted the same beer, now in the blind taste, things would look slightly different. Most of the beers will go into one place. You will basically not be able to distinguish them, and the exception, of course, will be Guinness. (Laughter)

在生活中的很多方面 保持客观是有益的。 问题是，我们常常会带着有色眼镜 去看待身边的各种事物。 简单来说，以啤酒为例。 如果我让你品尝一些啤酒， 并让你根据烈度和苦味值打分， 不同的啤酒会得不同的分数。 如果我们想客观一些，怎么办？ 对于啤酒来说，这很简单。 我们可以做盲品测试。 我们做同样的测试， 让人品尝同样的啤酒， 但盲品测试的结果会稍有不同。 大多数啤酒的得分会很相近。 你基本分辨不出它们的差别。 当然，健力士啤酒是个例外。 （笑声）

Similarly, we can think about physiology. What happens when people expect something from their physiology? For example, we sold people pain medications. Some people, we told them the medications were expensive. Some people, we told them it was cheap. And the expensive pain medication worked better. It relieved more pain from people, because expectations do change our physiology. And of course, we all know that in sports, if you are a fan of a particular team, you can't help but see the game develop from the perspective of your team.

同样的，生理体验也是一样。 人们对生理体验有 一定预期的时候会如何呢？ 比如我们卖给人们一些止痛药。 对一些人，我们说药很贵。 对另一些人，我们说药很便宜。 结果是：贵的止痛药似乎更有效果， 更能减轻人们的痛苦。 这是因为预期会改变生理体验。 当然，我们都知道，看比赛时， 如果你是其中一支球队的粉丝， 你就只会从那支球队的视角 来看待这场比赛。

So all of those are cases in which our preconceived notions and our expectations color our world. But what happened in more important questions? What happened with questions that had to do with social justice? So we wanted to think about what is the blind tasting version for thinking about inequality? So we started looking at inequality, and we did some large-scale surveys around the U.S. and other countries. So we asked two questions: Do people know what kind of level of inequality we have? And then, what level of inequality do we want to have? So let's think about the first question. Imagine I took all the people in the U.S. and I sorted them from the poorest on the right to the richest on the left, and then I divided them into five buckets: the poorest 20 percent, the next 20 percent, the next, the next, and the richest 20 percent. And then I asked you to tell me how much wealth do you think is concentrated in each of those buckets. So to make it simpler, imagine I ask you to tell me, how much wealth do you think is concentrated in the bottom two buckets, the bottom 40 percent? Take a second. Think about it and have a number. Usually we don't think. Think for a second, have a real number in your mind. You have it?

在所有这些案例中， 我们的成见和预期 都会影响自己对世界的观察。 但在重要问题上也是这样吗？ 比如关于社会正义的问题。 我们想知道，在贫富差距问题上 进行“盲品测试”会有什么结果？ 所以，我们开始考虑贫富差距， 我们在美国和其他国家 做了一些大规模的调查。 我们问了两个问题： 人们了解目前的贫富差距吗？ 人们理想的贫富差距又是怎样的？ 我们首先看第一个问题。 想象一下，这是美国全部的人口， 最穷的人排在最右边， 最富的人排在最左边。 然后，我把他们分成五组： 每20%一组，最穷的20%人口， 以此类推到最富的20%人口。 然后，我问道：你认为每组人口 各占有多少财富。 再简单点儿，请告诉我， 你认为最穷的两组， 也就是最底层的40%人口 占有多少财富？ 想一想，想一个具体的数字。 通常我们都不去想。 现在想一下，要有一个确实的数字。 想好了吗？

Okay, here's what lots of Americans tell us. They think that the bottom 20 percent has about 2.9 percent of the wealth, the next group has 6.4, so together it's slightly more than nine. The next group, they say, has 12 percent, 20 percent, and the richest 20 percent, people think has 58 percent of the wealth. You can see how this relates to what you thought.

好，这是很多美国人的答案。 他们认为，最底层的20%人口 拥有2.9%的财富， 稍富的一组拥有6.4%， 所以两者之和略大于9%。 下一组，他们说，拥有12%， 然后是20%， 人们认为，最富的20%人口 拥有58%的财富。 大家可以比较一下自己的想法。

Now, what's reality? Reality is slightly different. The bottom 20 percent has 0.1 percent of the wealth. The next 20 percent has 0.2 percent of the wealth. Together, it's 0.3. The next group has 3.9, 11.3, and the richest group has 84-85 percent of the wealth. So what we actually have and what we think we have are very different.

那么，实际数据是怎样呢？ 实际数据略有不同。 底层的20%人口拥有0.1%的财富。 第二组20%拥有0.2%。 合起来是0.3%。 再下一组拥有3.9%， 11.3%， 最富的一组拥有84%-85%的财富。 所以，我们的想法跟现实 其实非常不一样。

What about what we want? How do we even figure this out? So to look at this, to look at what we really want, we thought about the philosopher John Rawls. If you remember John Rawls, he had this notion of what's a just society. He said a just society is a society that if you knew everything about it, you would be willing to enter it in a random place. And it's a beautiful definition, because if you're wealthy, you might want the wealthy to have more money, the poor to have less. If you're poor, you might want more equality. But if you're going to go into that society in every possible situation, and you don't know, you have to consider all the aspects. It's a little bit like blind tasting in which you don't know what the outcome will be when you make a decision, and Rawls called this the "veil of ignorance."

那么，我们理想的贫富差距是多少？ 怎么来计算这个？ 为了得到答案， 了解我们真正想要什么， 我们要了解一下哲学家约翰·罗尔斯。 你们可能记得， 约翰·罗尔斯有一个 关于公平社会的理念。 他说，公平社会是这样一个社会： 当你了解了这个社会的一切， 你仍然愿意成为任何社会阶层中一份子。 这个定义很精彩， 因为如果你是富人， 你会希望富人更富，穷人更穷。 如果你是穷人，你会希望缩小贫富差距。 但是，如果你进入社会， 但不知道自己会处于哪个阶层， 你不得不考虑所有的方面。 这有点像盲品测试， 选择的时候，连自己也不知道结果， 罗尔斯把这叫做“无知之幕”。