Can you be rich and caring?
傑夫•貝索斯(Jeff Bezos)最近談到每年要在太空上花費10億美元。“要有效地利用這麼多資金，我能想到的唯一辦法就是把我在亞馬遜(Amazon)的獎金用於太空旅行。”今年4月阿克塞爾•施普林格集團(Axel Springer)在柏林舉行的頒獎典禮上，他這樣解釋說。Jeff Bezos recently spoke of spending a billion dollars a year on space. “The only way that I can see to deploy this much financial resource is by converting my Amazon winnings into space travel,” he explained during an Axel Springer awards ceremony in Berlin in April.
這番話立刻招致批評，一些人認為，如果把這些“資金”分配給成千上萬依靠食品券來維持收支平衡的亞馬遜員工可能更好。意思很明白：貝索斯是個對普通人缺乏同情心的富人。Criticism was swift, with some suggesting that this “financial resource” might be better deployed to the thousands of Amazon employees who rely on food stamps to make ends meet. The implication was clear: Bezos was a rich guy who lacked empathy for ordinary people.
事實上，像貝索斯這樣的失言之舉時有發生，而許多研究表明，富人確實比較沒有同情心。In fact, gaffes such as Bezos’s come amid plenty of research that suggests the rich really do have less empathy than others.
加州大學(University of California)2017年發表的一項研究發現，較上層階級的個體往往會感受到更“以自我為導向”的積極情緒，而較底層的人則往往會更多地“以他人為導向”來感受這些積極情緒。A study at the University of California published in 2017 found that upper-class individuals tended to experience more “self-orientated” positive emotions whereas those in lower classes tended to experience these feelings in a more “other-orientated” way.
2015年亞利桑那大學(Arizona University)的心理學家也發現，雖然富人們自認為比較有同情心，但讓他們一邊觀看苦難照片一邊給他們做核磁共振成像(MRI)掃描時，卻顯示並非如此。這些心理學家寫道：“社會經濟地位(SES)較高的人對他人苦難的神經反應降低。”相比之下，社會經濟地位較低的人“似乎更能體諒他人”。In a similar vein, psychologists at Arizona University in 2015 found that, while the rich rated themselves as more empathetic, MRI scans taken while looking at pictures of suffering told a different story. The authors wrote: “People who are higher in socio-economic status (SES) have diminished neural responses to others’ pain”. By contrast those lower in SES “appear to be more attuned to others”.
2012年伯克利兩位心理學家完成的一系列研究或許是近年來最為著名的。其中一項研究顯示，豪車司機更有可能衝撞其他司機，給別的司機讓路的可能性更低。兩人還發現富人更有可能在工作中欺騙、撒謊、偷竊以及支持不道德行為。Perhaps the most famous recent series of studies was done by a pair of Berkeley psychologists in 2012. One of these showed that drivers of luxury vehicles were more likely to cut up other motorists and less likely to let other drivers through. The duo also discovered the rich were more likely to cheat, lie, steal and endorse unethical behaviour at work.
那說明了什麼呢？有錢和同情心不可兼得？顯然不是。比爾•蓋茨(Bill Gates)和沃倫•巴菲特(Warren Buffett)只是捐出財富的眾多超級富豪中最近的兩位，這些超級富豪可以追溯到羅馬時期的參議員赫羅狄斯•阿提庫斯(Herodes Atticus)。公平地說，貝索斯確信太空探索對人類的未來至關重要，所以或許他對全人類抱有某種博愛。So what gives? Is it impossible to be rich and caring? Clearly not. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are just two of the latest in a long line of the super-rich stretching back to the Roman senator Herodes Atticus who have given fortunes away. In fairness to Bezos, he does believe that space exploration is vital to the future of humanity, so he may have some generalised feeling for our species.
但即便是在富人的世界裡，億萬富翁也屬鳳毛麟角。那麼，更“普通的”富人呢，比如那些備受詬病的1%？But even in the world of the rich, multi-billionaires are rare. So what about more “everyday” rich people, like the much maligned 1 per cent?
如果你屬於這個群體，金錢確實能將你與社會中其他（通常是比較窮的那些）群體隔離開來。如果你碰不到他們，就更容易一概而論地說出“窮人都是懶蛋”這樣的評語。If you belong to this group, money does allow you to isolate yourself from other (usually poorer) groups in society. When you don’t meet people, it is easier to make sweeping generalisations such as “the poor are all lazy”.
還有其他因素在起作用。金錢使你不那麼依賴別人，讓你認為自己是獨立的。你會說：“我的成功是靠自身努力獲得的，我誰也不需要。”以照看孩子為例。窮人很可能依靠一個由鄰居、家人及朋友組成的關係網來幫襯；有錢人則會僱個保姆。此外也可能存在“鄰近效應”——有些人認為沒那麼富的人給的小費更多，因為他們會移情（“我曾經也是個服務員”），雖然這並無定論。There are other factors at work too. Money makes you less reliant on others and allows you to see yourself as independent. It lets you say: “I got where I am through my own hard work. I don’t need anyone else.” Take childcare as an example. The poorer person is likely to have a network of neighbours, family and friends who pick up the slack; the rich person hires a nanny. There may also be a proximity effect at work — some think the less wealthy tip servers better because they empathise (“I used to be that waitress”) although this is far from conclusive.
不過，可以肯定的是，有沒有同情心，關鍵在於能不能設身處地為他人著想。What must surely be correct, though, is that the key to empathising is the ability to put yourself in others’ shoes.
不足為奇的是，在這方面都市生活也許是有益處的。哈佛大學(Harvard University)經濟學教授愛德華•格萊澤(Edard Glaeser)提出“鄰近能培養同理心”。如果你生活在一個混雜的城區，即便你非常富有，也更有可能瞭解並因此同情那些不如你富的人。城市也造就了富人和窮人做同樣事情的場合（比如搭乘公共交通）。Unsurprisingly, city living may be good for you here. Edward Glaeser, a professor of economics at Harvard University, has suggested that “proximity breeds empathy”. If you live in a mixed urban neighbourhood, even as a very rich person, you are more likely to know and therefore empathise with those less wealthy than you. Cities also create situations where rich and poor do the same things (such as taking public transport).
研究還表明，同理心能夠以正規的方式被教授。有項研究叫做“這麼多人在掙扎：通過模擬貧困培養社會同理心”，其中的意思不言而喻。這顯然是有效的。Research also suggests you can be formally taught empathy. One self-explanatory study was called, “So many people are struggling: developing social empathy through a poverty simulation”. Apparently it worked.
然而，要想真正具有同情心，你必須與你所在的社會經濟圈子以外的人真實地相處一些時間。這相當困難，因為富人往往缺少時間，並習慣於用錢解決問題。但沒辦法——如果你不希望自己像一個自私的富人，最好的方法就是別像一個自私的富人。沒人說這很容易。To become truly empathetic though, you have to spend real time with people outside your socio-economic bubble. This is rather harder as wealthy people tend to be time poor and are used to buying their way out of problems. But there you are — the best way not to be like a selfish rich person is not to be like a selfish rich person. Nobody said it was going to be easy.
閱讀更多 喵大翻譯 的文章
