in many ways.

就太好了。

The problem is that we have these color-tinted glasses

問題是我們戴著這些有色鏡片

as we look at all kinds of situations.

去看待各種情境。

For example, think about something as simple as beer.

拿啤酒這種簡單的例子來說吧。

If I gave you a few beers to taste

如果我讓你嚐幾款啤酒，

and I asked you to rate them on intensity and bitterness,

請你評比每一種酒的烈度和苦味，

different beers would occupy different space.

不同的啤酒會落在不同的位置。

But what if we tried to be objective about it?

但如果我們試著客觀面對會怎麼樣？

In the case of beer, it would be very simple.

以啤酒來說很簡單。

What if we did a blind taste?

如果我們不看啤酒廠牌會怎麼樣？

Well, if we did the same thing, you tasted the same beer,

如果我們做同樣的事，你嚐同樣的啤酒，

now in the blind taste, things would look slightly different.

但現在你不知道是哪種啤酒，結果就會不太一樣。

Most of the beers will go into one place.

大部分的啤酒會落在同一個位置，

You will basically not be able to distinguish them,

基本上你無法分辨，

and the exception, of course, will be Guinness.

當然，健力士例外。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Similarly, we can think about physiology.

同樣我們也能來看看生理機能。

What happens when people expect something from their physiology?

大家在預期自己的生理機能時會出現什麼情況？

For example, we sold people pain medications.

例如，我們賣止痛藥給大家。

Some people, we told them the medications were expensive.

我們跟某些人說的價格比較昂貴，

Some people, we told them it was cheap.

跟其他人說的價格較低。

And the expensive pain medication worked better.

結果昂貴止痛藥的效果比較好，

It relieved more pain from people,

更能有效舒緩這些人的疼痛，

because expectations do change our physiology.

因為預期會改變我們的身體機能。

And of course, we all know that in sports,

當然，我們都知道看運動賽的時候，

if you are a fan of a particular team,

如果你是某隊的粉絲，

you can't help but see the game

你就會無法克制

develop from the perspective of your team.

從你支持隊伍的觀點去看比賽。

So all of those are cases in which our preconceived notions

因此這些案例都顯示了我們先入為主的念頭和期待

and our expectations color our world.

影響了我們的世界。

But what happened in more important questions?

但是在更重要的問題上出現什麼情況？

What happened with questions that had to do with social justice?

在和社會正義有關的問題上出現什麼情況？

So we wanted to think about what is the blind tasting version

所以我們想

for thinking about inequality?

思考不平等的盲測試版本是什麼？

So we started looking at inequality,

因此我們開始檢視不平等，

and we did some large-scale surveys

我們做了大規模的調查，

around the U.S. and other countries.

遍及美國和其它國家。

So we asked two questions:

我們問了兩個問題：

Do people know what kind of level of inequality we have?

大家「知道」我們現今社會不平等的程度如何嗎？

And then, what level of inequality do we want to have?

第二，我們「希望」的不平等程度又是如何？

So let's think about the first question.

我們來看看第一個問題。

Imagine I took all the people in the U.S.

想像我將所有美國人分類，

and I sorted them from the poorest on the right

最貧窮的在右邊，

to the richest on the left,

最富有的在左邊，

and then I divided them into five buckets:

然後我將所有人分成五群：

the poorest 20 percent, the next 20 percent,

最窮的佔 20%，接著 20%，

the next, the next, and the richest 20 percent.

接著 20%、20%，以及最富有的 20%。

And then I asked you to tell me how much wealth do you think

然後請你告訴我，

is concentrated in each of those buckets.

你認為每一群人擁有的財富比例是多少。

So to make it simpler, imagine I ask you to tell me,

簡單來說，請想像我問的是

how much wealth do you think is concentrated

你認為有多少財富集中在

in the bottom two buckets,

最底層的這兩群人身上？

the bottom 40 percent?

就是底層 40% 的人？

Take a second. Think about it and have a number.

花點時間，想出一個數字。

Usually we don't think.

通常我們都不會多想。

Think for a second, have a real number in your mind.

只要花點時間，心裡得出一個數字。

You have it?

有答案了嗎？

Okay, here's what lots of Americans tell us.

好，這是大多數美國人給我們的答案。

They think that the bottom 20 percent

他們認為最底層 20% 的人

has about 2.9 percent of the wealth,

大概擁有 2.9% 的財富；

the next group has 6.4,

下一群人有 6.4% 的財富，

so together it's slightly more than nine.

總計比 9% 多一點。

The next group, they say, has 12 percent,

他們說下一群人有 12% 的財富，

20 percent,

20%，

and the richest 20 percent, people think has 58 percent of the wealth.

大家認為最富有的 20% 人口擁有 58% 的財富。

You can see how this relates to what you thought.

你可以看到這和你想像中數字的差異。

Now, what's reality?

事實呢？

Reality is slightly different.

事實有點不同。

The bottom 20 percent has 0.1 percent of the wealth.

底層 20% 的人擁有 0.1% 的財富。

The next 20 percent has 0.2 percent of the wealth.

接下來 20% 的人有 0.2% 的財富。

Together, it's 0.3.

加起來是 0.3%。

The next group has 3.9,

下一組是 3.9%、

11.3,

11.3%，

and the richest group has 84-85 percent of the wealth.

最富有的這群人有 84% 到 85% 的財富。

So what we actually have and what we think we have

因此事實和我們的想像

are very different.

大不相同。

What about what we want?

那麼我們的期待呢？

How do we even figure this out?

我們怎麼找出答案？

So to look at this,

為了找出答案，

to look at what we really want,

了解我們真正的期待，

we thought about the philosopher John Rawls.

我們想到哲學家約翰．羅爾斯。

If you remember John Rawls,

如果你記得約翰．羅爾斯的話，

he had this notion of what's a just society.

你會知道他說「什麼是正義的社會」這個概念。

He said a just society

他說正義的社會

is a society that if you knew everything about it,

是一個如果你知道其中的一切，

you would be willing to enter it in a random place.

你會願意在這個社會的任何一個位置。

And it's a beautiful definition,

這是很美好的定義，

because if you're wealthy, you might want the wealthy

因為如果你很富有，你也許會希望

to have more money, the poor to have less.

富者更富，窮者更窮。

If you're poor, you might want more equality.

如果你是窮人，你應該會希望更平等。

But if you're going to go into that society

但如果你要進入那個社會，

in every possible situation, and you don't know,

可能待在任何的位置上，你不知道是哪一個，

you have to consider all the aspects.

你就得考慮周詳。

It's a little bit like blind tasting in which you don't know

這有點像盲測試，

what the outcome will be when you make a decision,

你不知道自己做的決定會有什麼結果，

and Rawls called this the "veil of ignorance."

約翰．羅爾斯稱此為「無知之幕」。

So, we took another group, a large group of Americans,

我們拿另一組人，一大群美國人，

and we asked them the question in the veil of ignorance.

套用「無知之幕」的情況問他們這個問題。

What are the characteristics of a country that would make you want to join it,

一個有什麼特質的國家會讓你想成為國民？

knowing that you could end randomly at any place?

前提是你會隨機被放在任何一個位置上。

And here is what we got.

我們得到的結果如下：

What did people want to give to the first group,

大家想給第一組人，

the bottom 20 percent?

也就是底層 20% 的人多少？

They wanted to give them about 10 percent of the wealth.

他們想要給這些人 10% 的財富，

The next group, 14 percent of the wealth,

接下來這組是 14% 的財富、

21, 22 and 32.

21%、22%、32% 的財富。

Now, nobody in our sample wanted full equality.

現在，樣本裡沒人想要完全平等。

Nobody thought that socialism is a fantastic idea in our sample.

樣本裡沒人認為社會主義是最好的。

But what does it mean?

但這意謂著什麼？

It means that we have this knowledge gap

這意謂了我們有知識落差，

between what we have and what we think we have,

存在於真實情況和我們的想像之間，

but we have at least as big a gap between what we think is right

但是我們認為正確和我們想像中的現況，

to what we think we have.

這兩者間的知識落差更大。

Now, we can ask these questions, by the way, not just about wealth.

順帶一提，我們不只能在財富上問這個問題，

We can ask it about other things as well.

每件事都能是這些問題的主題。

So for example, we asked people from different parts of the world

例如，我們問世界各地的人

about this question,

這個問題，

people who are liberals and conservatives,

不論是自由黨還是保守黨，

and they gave us basically the same answer.

基本上他們給的答案都一樣。

We asked rich and poor, they gave us the same answer,

不論貧富都給了相同答案，

men and women,

不論男女，

NPR listeners and Forbes readers.

不論是全國公共廣播電台聽眾，或《富比士》讀者。

We asked people in England, Australia, the U.S. --

我們問了英國、澳洲、美國…等國國民，

very similar answers.

答案都大同小異。

We even asked different departments of a university.

我們還問了大學不同系所的人，

We went to Harvard and we checked almost every department,

我們幾乎去了哈佛的每個系所，

and in fact, from Harvard Business School,

事實上哈佛商學院裡，

where a few people wanted the wealthy to have more and the rich to have less,

有些人希望富者越富、有些人希望有錢人有的少一點，

the similarity was astonishing.

答案如此雷同，非常驚人。

I know some of you went to Harvard Business School.

我知道在座有些人念過哈佛商學院。

We also asked this question about something else.

我們也會拿其它主題來問這些問題。

We asked, what about the ratio of CEO pay to unskilled workers?

我們問，總裁和非技術性員工的薪資比是多少？

So you can see what people think is the ratio,

你可以看到大家想像中的比例，

and then we can ask the question, what do they think should be the ratio?

接著我們可以再問這個問題，你認為比例應該是多少？

And then we can ask, what is reality?

然後我們就可以問事實是多少？

What is reality? And you could say, well, it's not that bad, right?

事實是多少？你可能會說，噢，其實沒那麼差嘛？

The red and the yellow are not that different.

紅色和黃色差不多。

But the fact is, it's because I didn't draw them on the same scale.

但事實是因為我沒有使用相同的比例尺。

It's hard to see, there's yellow and blue in there.

你幾乎看不到裡面還有黃色和藍色。

So what about other outcomes of wealth?

那其它財富的結果呢？

Wealth is not just about wealth.

財富不只事關財富。

We asked, what about things like health?

我們還問，健康方面又如何呢？

What about availability of prescription medication?

像是取得處方箋的難易度呢？

What about life expectancy?

平均壽命呢？

What about life expectancy of infants?

嬰兒的平均壽命呢？

How do we want this to be distributed?

我們希望怎麼分配這些項目？

What about education for young people?

年輕人的教育呢？

And for older people?

年長者的教育呢？

And across all of those things, what we learned was that people

透過那些事情，我們發現

don't like inequality of wealth,

大家不是很喜歡貧富不均，

but there's other things where inequality, which is an outcome of wealth,

但是還有很多來自於貧富不均的情況

is even more aversive to them:

更讓人反感：

for example, inequality in health or education.

例如，健康或教育的不平等。

We also learned that people are particularly open

我們也發現大家特別願意

to changes in equality when it comes to people

改變不平等的情況，

who have less agency --

特別是碰到那些比較沒有行為能力的對象，

basically, young kids and babies,

基本上就是小孩和嬰兒，

because we don't think of them as responsible for their situation.

因為我們認為他們不需為自己的現況負責。

So what are some lessons from this?

那我們從中學到什麼？

We have two gaps:

我們有兩種落差：

We have a knowledge gap and we have a desirability gap

我們有知識落差和期望落差。

And the knowledge gap is something that we think about,

知識落差是指我們認為

how do we educate people?

我們怎麼教育大眾？

How do we get people to think differently about inequality

我們怎麼讓大家用不同的方式想像不平等、

and the consequences of inequality in terms of health, education,

以及隨之而來，像是健康、教育、

jealousy, crime rate, and so on?

妒忌、犯罪率…等等的不平等後果？

Then we have the desirability gap.

另外我們也有期望落差。

How do we get people to think differently about what we really want?

我們怎麼讓大家用不同的方式思考我們真正想要的是什麼？

You see, the Rawls definition, the Rawls way of looking at the world,

你看羅爾斯定義，羅爾斯看世界的方式，

the blind tasting approach,

盲測試法，

takes our selfish motivation out of the picture.

將我們自私的動機移到畫面之外。

How do we implement that to a higher degree

我們如何將之運用在程度更高、

on a more extensive scale?

範圍更廣的事物上？

And finally, we also have an action gap.

最後，我們還有行為落差。

How do we take these things and actually do something about it?

我們要如何依據這些東西並確實做出改變？

I think part of the answer is to think about people

我認為可能的答案是

like young kids and babies that don't have much agency,

想想孩子、嬰兒，他們沒什麼行為能力，

because people seem to be more willing to do this.

因為大家似乎更願意為了他們而改變。

To summarize, I would say, next time you go to buy, to drink beer or wine,

總而言之，下次你去購物、去喝啤酒或紅酒，

first of all, think about, what is it in your experience that is real,

先思考在你的經驗裡，有什麼是真的，

and what is it in your experience that is a placebo effect

在你的經驗裡，有什麼只是安慰劑效應，

coming from expectations?

你被期待影響了？

And then think about what it also means for other decisions in your life,

接著再思考，這對你生命中其它決定有何意義？

and hopefully also for policy questions

以及對影響我們大家的政策問題

that affect all of us.

會有什麼意義？

Thanks a lot.

非常感謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）