TED英语演讲视频：偏见是有道德的（附视频+演讲稿）
TED是Technology, Entertainment, Design(科技、娱乐、设计)的缩写，这个会议的宗旨是"用思想的力量来改变世界"。TED演讲的特点是毫无繁杂冗长的专业讲座，观点响亮，开门见山，种类繁多，看法新颖。而且还是非常好的英语口语听力练习材料，建议坚持学习。
TED英语演讲视频：偏见是有道德的
视频介绍我们时常将偏见和偏好视为无知的产物。但是，心理学家保罗?布鲁姆试图告诉大家，偏见时常是天生的、理性的......甚至是有道德的。布鲁姆认为，最重要的是去理解我们的偏见是如何运作的——这样我们就能在它出错时，提出更好的应对方式。
演讲者：Paul Bloom
片长：16:23
https://v.qq.com/txp/iframe/player.html?width=500&height=375&auto=0&vid=v075296svyb
演讲稿
偏见是有道德的
When we think about prejudice and bias, we tend to think about stupid and evil people doing stupid and evil things. And this idea is nicely summarized by the British critic William Hazlitt, who wrote, "Prejudice is the child of ignorance." I want to try to convince you here that this is mistaken. I want to try to convince you that prejudice and bias are natural, they're often rational, and they're often even moral, and I think that once we understand this, we're in a better position to make sense of them when they go wrong, when they have horrible consequences, and we're in a better position to know what to do when this happens.
当我们想到偏见和偏爱，我们总会联想到愚蠢又邪恶的人做着愚蠢且邪恶的事。英国评论家威廉?哈兹里特非常好地总结了这个想法，他写道，“偏见是无知的幼子” 我想要试图游说你这是错误的。我想要向你证明偏见和偏爱是自然而然的，它们时常是理性的，时常甚至是道德的，我想当我们理解这，当它出现问题的时候 当它可能造成严重后果的时候，我们会有更好的应对方式，当这一切发生的时候，我们会知道要如何处理。
So, start with stereotypes. You look at me, you know my name, you know certain facts about me, and you could make certain judgments. You could make guesses about my ethnicity, my political affiliation, my religious beliefs. And the thing is, these judgments tend to be accurate. We're very good at this sort of thing. And we're very good at this sort of thing because our ability to stereotype people is not some sort of arbitrary quirk of the mind, but rather it's a specific instance of a more general process, which is that we have experience with things and people in the world that fall into categories, and we can use our experience to make generalizations about novel instances of these categories. So everybody here has a lot of experience with chairs and apples and dogs, and based on this, you could see unfamiliar examples and you could guess, you could sit on the chair, you could eat the apple, the dog will bark. Now we might be wrong. The chair could collapse if you sit on it, the apple might be poison, the dog might not bark, and in fact, this is my dog Tessie, who doesn't bark. But for the most part, we're good at this. For the most part, we make good guesses both in the social domain and the non-social domain, and if we weren't able to do so, if we weren't able to make guesses about new instances that we encounter, we wouldn't survive. And in fact, Hazlitt later on in his wonderful essay concedes this. He writes, "Without the aid of prejudice and custom, I should not be able to find my way my across the room; nor know how to conduct myself in any circumstances, nor what to feel in any relation of life." Or take bias. Now sometimes, we break the world up into us versus them, into in-group versus out-group, and sometimes when we do this, we know we're doing something wrong, and we're kind of ashamed of it. But other times we're proud of it. We openly acknowledge it. And my favorite example of this is a question that came from the audience in a Republican debate prior to the last election.
好，让我们从“成见”开始聊起。你看着我，你知道我的名字，以及一些关于我的事情，你可以做出一定的判断。你可以猜测我的种族，我的政治倾向，我的宗教信仰 这些判断似乎可以是准确的。我们对这些事非常擅长。我们非常善于这些事的原因是我们“定义”他人的能力不是非常武断的意识行为，而是一个综合过程的特定反应， 这意谓着，当我们对所经历过的世界上发生的人与事做出分类，我们可以用经验来做出反应，这里的每个人都有很多经验椅子，苹果，狗根据这些物件，你可以看到 不熟悉的例子，并且你可以猜测，你可以坐在这张椅子上，你可以吃这个苹果，狗会对着你叫。
我们可能是错的。当你坐在椅子上的时候，椅子可能会塌， 苹果可能是有毒的，狗未必会叫，事实上，这是我的狗泰西，它不叫。但在大多数情况下，我们对此很擅长。在大多数情况下，我们的猜测是合理的 在社会领域或其他领域，如果我们不具有这样的能力，如果我们没有办法对出现的新鲜事物做出正确的猜测，我们将无法生存。事实上，哈兹里特后来在他的佳作中 对此评论做出了让步。
他写道，“如果没有偏见和风俗习惯的帮助，我将无法找到穿越房间的路；也无法知晓自己在不同条件下要做出怎样的行为反应， 也无法体会人生关系中的任何感觉。”现在来讨论偏爱。有时候，我们将世界划分为我们对抗他们，内群体对抗外群体，有时当我们这么做的时候， 我们知道我们正在犯错误，我们甚至会有些惭愧。但其他时间，我们对此很自豪。我们公开承认。我最喜欢的例子是一个来自观众的问题在一个选前的共和党辩论。
Anderson Cooper: Gets to your question, the question in the hall, on foreign aid? Yes, ma'am.
Woman: The American people are suffering in our country right now. Why do we continue to send foreign aid to other countries when we need all the help we can get for ourselves?
AC: Governor Perry, what about that?
Rick Perry: Absolutely, I think it's—
安德森·库柏：问答时间，观众提问，有关对外援助？有请这位女士。
女士：在美国国内，有很多美国人民正在经受苦难。为什么我们要持续为其他国家提供援助呢？此时我们需要这些援助使用在本国人身上。
安德森·库柏：州长佩里，请您解答？
里克·佩里：绝对的，我认为--
Paul Bloom: Each of the people onstage agreed with the premise of her question, which is as Americans, we should care more about Americans than about other people. And in fact, in general, people are often swayed by feelings of solidarity, loyalty, pride, patriotism, towards their country or towards their ethnic group. Regardless of your politics, many people feel proud to be American, and they favor Americans over other countries. Residents of other countries feel the same about their nation, and we feel the same about our ethnicities.
保罗·布鲁姆：这个台上的每个人同意她问题的前提，这个前提就是作为美国人，我们应该将更多的关注给予本国人民而不是其他人民。事实上，总的来说， 人们时常容易受到影响对他们国家以及种族诸如团结，忠诚，自豪以及爱国主义。不谈政治倾向，很多人对他们美国人的身份感到自豪，他们偏爱美国多于其他国家。 其他国家的人们也持有这样的态度，人们对自己的种族也是如此。
Now some of you may reject this. Some of you may be so cosmopolitan that you think that ethnicity and nationality should hold no moral sway. But even you sophisticates accept that there should be some pull towards the in-group in the domain of friends and family, of people you're close to, and so even you make a distinction between us versus them.
一些人会反对这种说法。你们中的某些人可能是世界主义者，会认为种族和国籍不该影响到人们。但是，即便如此，你仍然会接受群体可以以朋友和家人来做划分， 那些与你更亲近的人们甚至你也会做一个划分区别我们和他们。
Now, this distinction is natural enough and often moral enough, but it can go awry, and this was part of the research of the great social psychologist Henri Tajfel. Tajfel was born in Poland in 1919. He left to go to university in France, because as a Jew, he couldn't go to university in Poland, and then he enlisted in the French military in World War II. He was captured and ended up in a prisoner of war camp, and it was a terrifying time for him, because if it was discovered that he was a Jew, he could have been moved to a concentration camp, where he most likely would not have survived. And in fact, when the war ended and he was released, most of his friends and family were dead. He got involved in different pursuits. He helped out the war orphans. But he had a long-lasting interest in the science of prejudice, and so when a prestigious British scholarship on stereotypes opened up, he applied for it, and he won it, and then he began this amazing career. And what started his career is an insight that the way most people were thinking about the Holocaust was wrong. Many people, most people at the time, viewed the Holocaust as sort of representing some tragic flaw on the part of the Germans, some genetic taint, some authoritarian personality. And Tajfel rejected this. Tajfel said what we see in the Holocaust is just an exaggeration of normal psychological processes that exist in every one of us. And to explore this, he did a series of classic studies with British adolescents. And in one of his studies, what he did was he asked the British adolescents all sorts of questions, and then based on their answers, he said, "I've looked at your answers, and based on the answers, I have determined that you are either" — he told half of them — "a Kandinsky lover, you love the work of Kandinsky, or a Klee lover, you love the work of Klee." It was entirely bogus. Their answers had nothing to do with Kandinsky or Klee. They probably hadn't heard of the artists. He just arbitrarily divided them up. But what he found was, these categories mattered, so when he later gave the subjects money, they would prefer to give the money to members of their own group than members of the other group. Worse, they were actually most interested in establishing a difference between their group and other groups, so they would give up money for their own group if by doing so they could give the other group even less.
这些区别是自然而然的时常也是道德的，但有时也会出错，这是伟大的社会心理学家亨利·泰吉弗尔研究的一个部分。泰吉弗尔生于1919年的波兰。 他离开家乡去法国上大学，因为他是犹太人，无法在波兰接受大学教育，随后在第二次世界大战他应募入伍加入法军。他被捕了随后被送到战俘营， 对他来说这是非常恐怖的经历，因为如果一旦发现他是犹太人，他便会被移送到集中营，很难活下来。
事实上，当战争结束的时候，他被释放了， 绝大多数他的亲友都死亡了。他参与不同的活动。他帮助战争孤儿。但他对偏见科学有着极高的兴趣因此当一个极有声望的，有关“刻板印象成见” 的英国奖学金机会释出的时候，他递交了申请，并拿到了奖学金，这使他开启了精彩的职业生涯。他的职业开始于发觉当绝大多数人思考大屠杀是错误的 采取了怎样的方法。
很多人，那时候的绝大多数人，将大屠杀视为代表某种德国人的悲剧错误，像是基因污点，威权性格。泰吉弗尔拒绝这样的解释。他说道，大屠杀 只是夸大了正常的心理状态这样的心理状态存在于我们中的每一个人。为了继续研究，他做了一系列的经典研究有关英国青少年。在他的其中一项研究中，他去询问 英国青少年各种不同的问题，基于他们的回答，他说，“我看过你的答案，基于你的回答，我决定你是”--他告诉青少年中一半的人--“康定斯基迷， 你喜爱康定斯基的作品，你是克利迷，你喜爱克利的画作。”这完全是胡编的。这些青少年的答案和康定斯基或者克利一点关系也没有。他们甚至还未听说过 这两位艺术家的大名。
泰吉弗尔只是武断地把青少年们划分开来。但他发现，这样的类别划分是有作用的，随后，他让这些青少年分配钱，他们更愿意将金钱给予 他们本组的其他人而不是另一个组别的人。更糟的是，他们真的很乐于建立一个不同来将自己的组和他组区分开来，为了令别组少拿到些钱他们甚至愿意放弃自己的钱。
This bias seems to show up very early. So my colleague and wife, Karen Wynn, at Yale has done a series of studies with babies where she exposes babies to puppets, and the puppets have certain food preferences. So one of the puppets might like green beans. The other puppet might like graham crackers. They test the babies own food preferences, and babies typically prefer the graham crackers. But the question is, does this matter to babies in how they treat the puppets? And it matters a lot. They tend to prefer the puppet who has the same food tastes that they have, and worse, they actually prefer puppets who punish the puppet with the different food taste. (Laughter)
偏爱很快就展现出来。我的妻子也是我的同事，凯伦·维恩，在耶鲁大学做了一系列有关婴儿的研究她将幼儿放在玩偶旁边，玩偶有它们各自喜爱的食物。 某个玩偶可能喜爱青豆。另个玩偶更爱全麦饼干。研究人员测试了幼儿们自身的食物偏好幼儿们代表性地更爱全麦饼干。问题是，这样的喜好差别 会影响到幼儿们对待玩偶的态度吗？确实有很大影响。幼儿们更喜欢和他们有相同口味偏好的玩具，更糟的是，幼儿们喜欢那些惩罚拥有不同口味同伴的玩偶。（笑声）
We see this sort of in-group, out-group psychology all the time. We see it in political clashes within groups with different ideologies. We see it in its extreme in cases of war, where the out-group isn't merely given less, but dehumanized, as in the Nazi perspective of Jews as vermin or lice, or the American perspective of Japanese as rats.
这样群体内外分别非常常见。政治冲突中也会展现在持有不同意识形态的群体。极端的例子通过战争展现，外群体不是被轻视而是被不当作人类对待， 如同纳粹视犹太人为害虫或是虱子，美国人视日本人为老鼠。
Stereotypes can also go awry. So often they're rational and useful, but sometimes they're irrational, they give the wrong answers, and other times they lead to plainly immoral consequences. And the case that's been most studied is the case of race. There was a fascinating study prior to the 2008 election where social psychologists looked at the extent to which the candidates were associated with America, as in an unconscious association with the American flag. And in one of their studies they compared Obama and McCain, and they found McCain is thought of as more American than Obama, and to some extent, people aren't that surprised by hearing that. McCain is a celebrated war hero, and many people would explicitly say he has more of an American story than Obama. But they also compared Obama to British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and they found that Blair was also thought of as more American than Obama, even though subjects explicitly understood that he's not American at all. But they were responding, of course, to the color of his skin.
刻板印象是会歪曲现实的。因此时常他们是理性的，有帮助的，但时常也会是非理性的，会给出错误的答案，有时会导致不道德的后果。最常被研究的案例是种族。 在2008年美国大选前有个极好的研究，社会心理学家研究被测者们是如何通过对美国国旗不知不觉的联系和美国联系在一起的。在其中一个研究中， 他们比较了奥巴马和麦凯恩，他们发现麦凯恩比奥巴马更加“美国”，某种程度上，人们甚至并未表示惊讶。麦凯恩是一个著名的战争英雄，很多人明确地说道 比起奥巴马，麦凯恩有更多的美国故事。研究人员也比对了奥巴马和英国首相布莱尔，他们发现比起奥巴马人们认为布莱尔更加“美国”，即使他们完全知晓 布莱尔根本不是美国人。但人们回应，当然，因为肤色的原因。
These stereotypes and biases have real-world consequences, both subtle and very important. In one recent study, researchers put ads on eBay for the sale of baseball cards. Some of them were held by white hands, others by black hands. They were the same baseball cards. The ones held by black hands got substantially smaller bids than the ones held by white hands. In research done at Stanford, psychologists explored the case of people sentenced for the murder of a white person. It turns out, holding everything else constant, you are considerably more likely to be executed if you look like the man on the right than the man on the left, and this is in large part because the man on the right looks more prototypically black, more prototypically African-American, and this apparently influences people's decisions over what to do about him.
这样的成见和偏好有着现世的影响，这有些微妙，也非常重要。在最近的一个研究中，研究人员在易趣（eBay）网站上投放广告销售篮球卡。有些卖家是白人， 另一些则是黑人。同样的实验也包括销售棒球卡。黑人卖家得到的来自买家的出价价位略小于白人卖家。在斯坦福的一个研究项目也表明，心理学家研究了 因谋杀白人而被判刑的罪犯。结果表明，除去其他因素，比起图片左边的人（白人）图片右边的人（黑人）更可能被判死刑，这很大程度归结于图片右边的人是黑人， 美国黑人，很明显这影响到了人们对他所做出的决定。
So now that we know about this, how do we combat it? And there are different avenues. One avenue is to appeal to people's emotional responses, to appeal to people's empathy, and we often do that through stories. So if you are a liberal parent and you want to encourage your children to believe in the merits of nontraditional families, you might give them a book like this. ["Heather Has Two Mommies"] If you are conservative and have a different attitude, you might give them a book like this. (Laughter) ["Help! Mom! There Are Liberals under My Bed!"] But in general, stories can turn anonymous strangers into people who matter, and the idea that we care about people when we focus on them as individuals is an idea which has shown up across history. So Stalin apocryphally said, "A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic," and Mother Teresa said, "If I look at the mass, I will never act. If I look at the one, I will." Psychologists have explored this. For instance, in one study, people were given a list of facts about a crisis, and it was seen how much they would donate to solve this crisis, and another group was given no facts at all but they were told of an individual and given a name and given a face, and it turns out that they gave far more. None of this I think is a secret to the people who are engaged in charity work. People don't tend to deluge people with facts and statistics. Rather, you show them faces, you show them people. It's possible that by extending our sympathies to an individual, they can spread to the group that the individual belongs to.
现在我们知道了成见和偏爱的存在，我们要怎样对抗这样的想法呢？有很多不同的方法。一个方法是去感化人们的情感，去令人们感同身受，通常我们会用故事 来达到这样的效果。如果你是自由的父母你想要鼓励你的孩子来相信非传统家庭的价值优点，你会给他们看这样的书。[海瑟有两个妈妈]如果你比较传统 对此持有不同的态度，你会给他们看这本书（笑声）[“救命呀！妈妈！自由党人藏在我的床下！”]总的来说，故事能够让路人从陌生到关注，我们在乎人们 当我们将他们是做个体这样的思想贯穿人类历史。因此，斯大林虚情假意地说，“一个人死亡是悲剧，一百万人的死亡则是统计数据，”特蕾莎修女说道， "假如我看到一群人，我不会有所行动。假如我看到一个人，我会。
"心理学家对此作出研究。比方说，在一个研究中，研究人员交给人们一张清单， 上面列举了一些危急的例子，看人们愿意为了化解危机捐赠多少，另一个组则未被告知这些事情但研究人员告诉他们个体故事，包括名字，相片， 结果是，他们比上一组捐赠更多善款。上述故事对于从事慈善工作的人来说都不是秘密。慈善工作者不会向人们展示大量的事实和数据。而是，给人们看相片， 展示灾民的样子。很有可能的是，通过展现我们对于个体的同情，他们可以进而展示个体从属的群体。
This is Harriet Beecher Stowe. The story, perhaps apocryphal, is that President Lincoln invited her to the White House in the middle of the Civil War and said to her, "So you're the little lady who started this great war." And he was talking about "Uncle Tom's Cabin." "Uncle Tom's Cabin" is not a great book of philosophy or of theology or perhaps not even literature, but it does a great job of getting people to put themselves in the shoes of people they wouldn't otherwise be in the shoes of, put themselves in the shoes of slaves. And that could well have been a catalyst for great social change.
这是哈里耶持·比彻·斯托。故事，可能是假的，林肯总统邀请她在美国内战期间到白宫对她说，“你是开始这场战争的女子。”他谈到“汤姆叔叔的小屋。” “汤姆叔叔的小屋”不是伟大的哲学或宗教故事甚至可能都不是文学，但它起了很大的作用在人们能够将自己置身于某个故事那些本不可能属于他们的故事中， 以奴隶的角度来看世界。这些是催化剂，催生巨大的社会变革。
More recently, looking at America in the last several decades, there's some reason to believe that shows like "The Cosby Show" radically changed American attitudes towards African-Americans, while shows like "Will and Grace" and "Modern Family" changed American attitudes towards gay men and women. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that the major catalyst in America for moral change has been a situation comedy.
近年来，看看美国在过去几十年的表现，太多的原因让我们相信像是“考斯比一家”从更本上改变了美国人对美国黑人的看法，“威尔与格蕾丝”，“摩登家庭” 改变了很多美国人对同性恋男女的态度。不夸张地说，对美国道德价值改变做出最大贡献的是情景喜剧。
But it's not all emotions, and I want to end by appealing to the power of reason. At some point in his wonderful book "The Better Angels of Our Nature," Steven Pinker says, the Old Testament says love thy neighbor, and the New Testament says love thy enemy, but I don't love either one of them, not really, but I don't want to kill them. I know I have obligations to them, but my moral feelings to them, my moral beliefs about how I should behave towards them, aren't grounded in love. What they're grounded in is the understanding of human rights, a belief that their life is as valuable to them as my life is to me, and to support this, he tells a story by the great philosopher Adam Smith, and I want to tell this story too, though I'm going to modify it a little bit for modern times.
但这并不全是情感上的，最后我想要谈到理性的力量。在他佳作的某些部分“唤醒人性中的天使”史蒂文·平克说道，旧约说到要爱我们的邻居， 新约说到要爱我们的敌人，但我不爱他们中的任何一个，不尽然，但我不想杀了他们。我知道我有义务对他们，但我对他们的道德感受，我要如何对待他们的道德信念， 不会是基于爱。是基于对人权的理解，他们的生命对他们的价值正如我的生命对我的价值，为了支持这个观点，他讲了一个故事，关于伟大的哲人亚当·斯密， 我现在讲这个故事，我为了使其适应现代略微做了改动。
So Adam Smith starts by asking you to imagine the death of thousands of people, and imagine that the thousands of people are in a country you are not familiar with. It could be China or India or a country in Africa. And Smith says, how would you respond? And you would say, well that's too bad, and you'd go on to the rest of your life. If you were to open up The New York Times online or something, and discover this, and in fact this happens to us all the time, we go about our lives. But imagine instead, Smith says, you were to learn that tomorrow you were to have your little finger chopped off. Smith says, that would matter a lot. You would not sleep that night wondering about that. So this raises the question: Would you sacrifice thousands of lives to save your little finger? Now answer this in the privacy of your own head, but Smith says, absolutely not, what a horrid thought. And so this raises the question, and so, as Smith puts it, "When our passive feelings are almost always so sordid and so selfish, how comes it that our active principles should often be so generous and so noble?" And Smith's answer is, "It is reason, principle, conscience. [This] calls to us, with a voice capable of astonishing the most presumptuous of our passions, that we are but one of the multitude, in no respect better than any other in it."
亚当斯密让你来想象数千人死亡的场景，想象这数千人是在你不熟悉的国家。可能是中国，或者是印度，或者是某个非洲国家。斯密说到，你会怎样回应？ 你可能会说，这太糟了，然后继续你的生活。如果你打开纽约时报的网站或什么，看到这些消息，事实上这常发生，我们继续我们的生活。斯密说，想象另一个画面： 你发现明天你的小手指会被砍掉。斯密说，这太重要了。你整晚会睡不着觉辗转反侧。这就提出了问题：你会牺牲数千人的生命以求得保全自己小手指吗？ 现在在自己的脑袋里回答这个问题，但是斯密说，绝对不，这是多么邪恶的想法。这就提出了问题，随后，斯密提出这样的疑问，“我们的消极情绪总是 如此利欲熏心，自私卑鄙，我们的行为又怎么可能时常很无私和高尚呢？”斯密回答道，“因为理性，道德，良知。”[这]告诉我们能够惊人地绝大部分 爆发我们的激情，但众多思考中，没有比尊重更重要。“
And this last part is what is often described as the principle of impartiality. And this principle of impartiality manifests itself in all of the world's religions, in all of the different versions of the golden rule, and in all of the world's moral philosophies, which differ in many ways but share the presupposition that we should judge morality from sort of an impartial point of view.
最后的这个部分是有关公正的原则。这样公正的原则在全世界宗教中都有所证明，在各种不同版本的黄金法则，世界上所有的道德哲学，即使有所不同但共有的假设是 我们应该从公正的角度来评判道德。
The best articulation of this view is actually, for me, it's not from a theologian or from a philosopher, but from Humphrey Bogart at the end of "Casablanca." So, spoiler alert, he's telling his lover that they have to separate for the more general good, and he says to her, and I won't do the accent, but he says to her, "It doesn't take much to see that the problems of three little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world."
这观点最重要的是事实上，对我来说，这不是从宗教学家或哲学家听来，而是从亨弗莱·鲍嘉在电影“卡萨布兰卡”片尾的表现。警告有剧透，他告诉他的爱人 为了更伟大的善，他们必须要分开，他对她说，我不会模仿这口音，他对她说“不用多久就可以看到这三个小人的问题不会使世界瘋狂。”
Our reason could cause us to override our passions. Our reason could motivate us to extend our empathy, could motivate us to write a book like "Uncle Tom's Cabin," or read a book like "Uncle Tom's Cabin," and our reason can motivate us to create customs and taboos and laws that will constrain us from acting upon our impulses when, as rational beings, we feel we should be constrained. This is what a constitution is. A constitution is something which was set up in the past that applies now in the present, and what it says is, no matter how much we might to reelect a popular president for a third term, no matter how much white Americans might choose to feel that they want to reinstate the institution of slavery, we can't. We have bound ourselves.
我们的理性可以驾驭我们的热情。我们的理性可以激励我们扩展我们的同理心，可以激励我们写“汤姆叔叔的小屋”这样的书或者看“汤姆叔叔的小屋”， 我们的理性可以促使我们创造海关，烟草和法律这会限制我们冲动的行为，当理性存在，我们感到我们要被限制。这是宪法。宪法是过去撰写的 适用于现在以及未来，宪法提到的，无论我们多想选举受欢迎的总统开始第三任期，无论美国白人多么想重新回到奴隶制度，我们不能。我们限制自己。
And we bind ourselves in other ways as well. We know that when it comes to choosing somebody for a job, for an award, we are strongly biased by their race, we are biased by their gender, we are biased by how attractive they are, and sometimes we might say, "Well fine, that's the way it should be." But other times we say, "This is wrong." And so to combat this, we don't just try harder, but rather what we do is we set up situations where these other sources of information can't bias us, which is why many orchestras audition musicians behind screens, so the only information they have is the information they believe should matter. I think prejudice and bias illustrate a fundamental duality of human nature. We have gut feelings, instincts, emotions, and they affect our judgments and our actions for good and for evil, but we are also capable of rational deliberation and intelligent planning, and we can use these to, in some cases, accelerate and nourish our emotions, and in other cases staunch them. And it's in this way that reason helps us create a better world.Thank you.
我们也从别的方式约束自己。当我们想要选择某人来从事一项工作，获得一个奖项，我们很容易受到种族因素的影响，我们会因他们的性别产生偏见， 我们会因为他们的样貌产生偏爱，有时我们会说，“是的，就是这样。”有时我们会说，“这是错的。”为了对抗这些，我们不仅更加努力，我们建立机构 这些信息资源不会有成见，这就是为什么很多交响乐团面试音乐家时，让他们站在幕后，这样评委唯一的信息来源就是他们认为最重要的。我认为偏见和偏爱 展示了人性最基础的二元性。
我们有胆识，本能，情感，这会影响我们对于好与坏的判断和行为，但我们同样有能力做出理性思考和智能规划， 我们可以运用这些，在某些情况下，加速和丰富我们的情绪，某些情况下止住它们。这样成见和偏爱就能帮助我们创建更美好的世界。谢谢。
喜欢就点个赞支持我一下吧！
ID：yykouyuwu
一个有温度的公众号
点击"阅读原文"查看往期TED合集