演講簡介：
What we don't understand about trust
演講者：Onora O'Neill 奧諾拉·奧尼爾
語言：英語
簡介：2013 | 信任感在降低，我們需要重建信任。這是我們為了建設一個更美好的社會經常聽到的提議。但是，哲學家奧諾拉·奧尼爾說，我們並不真正理解我們在建議什麼。她逐個分析這些問題，告訴我們對於信任的最普遍的三個觀點其實是有誤導性的。
中英字幕視頻：
中英對照翻譯：
I dedicated the past two years tounder standing how people achieve their dreams. When we think about the dreams we have, and the dent we want to leave in the universe, it is striking to see how big of an overlap there is between the dreams that we have and projects that never happen. (Laughter) So I'm here to talk to you today about five way show not to follow your dreams.
我花了兩年的時間去理解人們如何實現他們的夢想。說到我們的夢想、我們想要在這個宇宙留下的痕跡，讓人吃驚的是 我們的夢想常常只是夢。（笑聲）今天我在這裡要講的就是 5個如何毀滅夢想的辦法。
So I'm going to talk about trust, and I'm going to start by reminding you of the standard views that people have about trust. I think these are so commonplace, they've become clichés of our society.
我今天要講的是信任。一開始，我要先向你們交代一下，人們對信任的基本觀點。我覺得這些觀點都很司空見慣，在現實社會已經變成陳詞濫調了。
And I think there are three. One's a claim: there has been a great decline in trust, very widely believed. The second is an aim: we should have more trust. And the third is a task: we should rebuild trust.
我想一共有這樣三點。第一點是主張：信任感已經大幅地降低了。這已經是有廣泛共識的。第二點是目的：我們應該有更多的信任感。第三點是任務：我們應該重建信任感。
I think that the claim, the aim and the task are all misconceived. So what I'm going to try to tell you today is a different story about a claim, an aim and a task which I think give one quite a lot better purchase on the matter.
我覺得人們對這個主張、目的和任務都有錯誤的認識。所以我今天要跟你們說的是跟這種主張、目的和任務有所不同的觀點。我想讓你們更好地理解信任。
First the claim: Why do people think trust has declined? And if I really think about it on the basis of my own evidence, I don't know the answer. I'm inclined to think it may have declined in some activities or some institutions and it might have grown in others. I don't have an overview.
首先是主張：為什麼人們認為信任感在降低呢？如果我在現有證據的基礎上考慮，我真的不知道答案是什麼。我傾向於認為信任感確實是有降低，但那是在某些活動中，或者在某些機構裡。而在其他的方面也許是增加的。我沒法一概而論。
But, of course, I can look at the opinion polls, and the opinion polls are supposedly the source of a belief that trust has declined. When you actually look at opinion polls across time, there's not much evidence for that. That's to say, the people who were mistrusted 20 years ago, principally journalists and politicians, are still mistrusted. And the people who were highly trusted 20 years ago are still rather highly trusted: judges, nurses.
但當然了，我可以去看看民意調查，民意調查應該是覺得信任感在降低的出處。但當你真的去看看不同時間的民意調查的話，其實沒有多少證據支持這個觀點。也就是說，那些在20年前就不被相信的人，主要是記者和政客，現在仍不被信任。而20年前就被高度信任的人，比如法官和護士，現在仍得到高度的信任。
The rest of us are in between, and by the way, the average person in the street is almost exactly midway. But is that good evidence? What opinion polls record is, of course, opinions. What else can they record? So they're looking at the generic attitudes that people report when you ask them certain questions. Do you trust politicians? Do you trust teachers?
剩下的人就是居中了。順便說一下，在社會上這些居中的人，差不多就是完全居中。但是這個證據說得過去嗎？民意調查記錄的當然就是一些人們的觀點。要不然民意調查能記錄什麼？不過就是一些普遍的態度。你問他們什麼，他們就說什麼。你信任政客嗎？信任老師嗎？
Now if somebody said to you, "Do you trust greengrocers? Do you trust fishmongers? Do you trust elementary school teachers?" you would probably begin by saying, "To do what?" And that would be a perfectly sensible response. And you might say, when you understood the answer to that, "Well, I trust some of them, but not others." That's a perfectly rational thing.
如果有人問你，“你信任蔬菜商嗎？”你信任賣魚的嗎？你信任小學老師嗎？你可能會問，“信任他們去做什麼？”這是一個非常明智的反問。當你明白問題到底是什麼，你會說，“嗯。我相信一些人，不相信另一些人。”非常理性的回答。
In short, in our real lives, we seek to place trust in a differentiated way. We don't make an assumption that the level of trust that we will have in every instance of a certain type of official or office-holder or type of person is going to be uniform.
簡而言之，在我們現實生活中，我們以不同的方式來尋求信任。我們不對信任感的程度做假設。我們會對特定類型進行具體分析。那些公務員，官員之類的人，會被類型化。
I might, for example, say that I certainly trust a certain elementary school teacher I know to teach the reception class to read, but in no way to drive the school minibus. I might, after all, know that she wasn't a good driver. I might trust my most loquacious friend to keep a conversation going but not -- but perhaps not to keep a secret. Simple.
比如說，我會說我當然相信一個我知道的小學老師會教會學生怎麼閱讀，但是我不相信她可以開校車，也許最終我知道她確實不是個好司機。我也許相信我那愛喝酒的朋友是個聊天的好夥伴，但我不會相信他是個守得住秘密的人。就這麼簡單。
So if we've got those evidence in our ordinary lives of the way that trust is differentiated, why do we sort of drop all that intelligence when we think about trust more abstractly? I think the polls are very bad guides to the level of trust that actually exists, because they try to obliterate the good judgment that goes into placing trust.
在日常生活中我們有了這樣的證據，說信任感是有區分的，那麼為什麼民意調查時我們一下子糊塗了，把信任感想得更概念化了呢？我覺得民意調查是個很差勁的衡量信任感是否存在的依據。因為它抹殺了人們良好的判斷力，對考慮信任感的判斷力。
Secondly, what about the aim? The aim is to have more trust. Well frankly, I think that's a stupid aim. It's not what I would aim at. I would aim to have more trust in the trustworthy but not in the untrustworthy.
第二，那個目的是怎麼回事兒呢？目的是我們需要更多的信任感。坦白說，我覺得這個目的挺可笑的。這不是我想的那個目的。我會說，人們應該對值得信賴的（人）更加地信任。而不是去信任不值得信賴的人。
In fact, I aim positively to try not to trust the untrustworthy. And I think, of those people who, for example, placed their savings with the very aptly named Mr. Madoff, who then made off with them, and I think of them, and I think, well, yes, too much trust. More trust is not an intelligent aim in this life. Intelligently placed and intelligently refused trust is the proper aim.
實際上，我所說的目的是儘量不要信任不值得信賴的人。比如說，那些把自己的積蓄交給那個看起來很象樣的，卻把他們的錢都捲走的麥道夫先生的人，我覺得那些人呀，怎麼說呢，對，太容易信任別人了。過度地信任別人不是一個很明智的目的。明智地信任和明智地選擇不信任才是正確的目的。
Well once one says that, one says, yeah, okay, that means that what matters in the first place is not trust but trustworthiness. It's judging how trustworthy people are in particular respects.
那麼有人說，好呀，好，這不就是說最重要的不是要去信任，而是（對方的）信譽度嗎？就是說要判斷別人在某些方面是否值得信任。
And I think that judgment requires us to look at three things. Are they competent? Are they honest? Are they reliable? And if we find that a person is competent in the relevant matters, and reliable and honest, we'll have a pretty good reason to trust them, because they'll be trustworthy.
我覺得要想正確做出判斷需要考慮三點。要看他們是否稱職？是否誠實？是否可靠？如果我們覺得一個人是稱職的，在他自己的領域是稱職的，而且是誠實可靠的，我們就有理由去相信他們，因為他們是可信賴的。
But if, on the other hand, they're unreliable, we might not. I have friends who are competent and honest, but I would not trust them to post a letter, because they're forgetful. I have friends who are very confident they can do certain things, but I realize that they overestimate their own competence. And I'm very glad to say, I don't think I have many friends who are competent and reliable but extremely dishonest. (Laughter) If so, I haven't yet spotted it.
但是反過來，如果他們不可靠，那我們就不能信任他們。我有一些誠實可靠的朋友，但我就信不著他們去幫我寄信，因為他們很健忘。我有些非常自信的朋友，他們很能幹，但是我覺得他們有些過於自信。當然我很高興的是，我的朋友都是稱職可靠，又不是非常不誠實的。（笑聲） 也許有，我還沒發現。
But that's what we're looking for: trustworthiness before trust. Trust is the response. Trustworthiness is what we have to judge. And, of course, it's difficult. Across the last few decades, we've tried to construct systems of accountability for all sorts of institutions and professionals and officials and so on that will make it easier for us to judge their trustworthiness.
我們需要的就是：信任別人之前要看他的信譽度。信任是我們的反應，信譽度是需要我們來判斷的。所以當然這不是容易做到的。過去的幾十年裡，我們努力地建立各種機構裡的問責制度，是否達到專業水準或者官方要求等等。這些（問責制度）使我們更容易判斷（這些機構）是否有信譽。
A lot of these systems have the converse effect. They don't work as they're supposed to. I remember I was talking with a midwife who said, "Well, you see, the problem is it takes longer to do the paperwork than to deliver the baby." And all over our public life, our institutional life, we find that problem, that the system of accountability that is meant to secure trustworthiness and evidence of trustworthiness is actually doing the opposite.
很多機構都有這樣的逆反應，他們不象他們應該做的那樣做事。我記得和我一個助產士聊天，她說 ”你看看，現在的問題是我要辦個什麼手續比接生一個孩子還難！“ 在我們的公共生活裡，我們的機構生活裡，我們發現很多問題。這些機構裡的問責制度、這些能保障自己的信譽、能作為值得信任的依據的制度，往往施行起來是相反的。
It is distracting people who have to do difficult tasks, like midwives, from doing them by requiring them to tick the boxes, as we say. You can all give your own examples there.
這就使人們難以專注自己的工作，比如助產士們，讓他們把時間浪費在填表上。就象我剛提到的，你們其實都有這樣的經歷。
So so much for the aim. The aim, I think, is more trustworthiness, and that is going to be different if we are trying to be trustworthy and communicate our trustworthiness to other people, and if we are trying to judge whether other people or office-holders or politicians are trustworthy. It's not easy. It is judgment, and simple reaction, attitudes, don't do adequately here.
關於目的要講的很多很多，我想這個目的更重要的是對方的信譽度，那就完全不一樣了。比如說我們努力去成為值得信任的人， 把我們值得信任的一面展示給別人。比如說我們先判斷別人，官員或者政客是否值得信任，這不是容易的事這是判斷，是迅速反應，是態度，在這裡都講不完。
Now thirdly, the task. Calling the task rebuilding trust, I think, also gets things backwards. It suggests that you and I should rebuild trust. Well, we can do that for ourselves. We can rebuild a bit of trustworthiness. We can do it two people together trying to improve trust.
那麼第三點，關於任務。這個任務叫做重建信任感。這又是弄反了的。這個任務建議你和我要重建信任。好吧，我們能對自己這麼做，我們能重建一些自己的信譽，我們可以互相努力增加我們的信任。
But trust, in the end, is distinctive because it's given by other people. You can't rebuild what other people give you. You have to give them the basis for giving you their trust. So you have to, I think, be trustworthy. And that, of course, is because you can't fool all of the people all of the time, usually.
但歸根到底，信任是很獨特的。因為（信任）是來自他人的，你不可能重建別人對你的看法。你需要做出努力讓人家信任你。我是說，你要成為一個值得信賴的人。當然，這就是說你不能在永遠愚弄住所有的人，一般來說。
But you also have to provide usable evidence that you are trustworthy. How to do it? Well every day, all over the place, it's being done by ordinary people, by officials, by institutions, quite effectively. Let me give you a simple commercial example. The shop where I buy my socks says I may take them back, and they don't ask any questions. They take them back and give me the money or give me the pair of socks of the color I wanted. That's super. I trust them because they have made themselves vulnerable to me. I think there's a big lesson in that.
你得提供一些有用的依據，讓別人知道你是值得信賴的。應該怎麼做？其實每天，在不同得地方，普通人、辦公人員、各個機構都在努力（博得信任），往往做得很有效呢。我給你舉個簡單的商家營銷的例子，有個商店說（如果不滿意）我可以把買的襪子退回去，他們絕不問任何問題。他們收退貨，我拿退貨款，或者給我換是我喜歡顏色的襪子。這很好，我信任他們。因為他們讓我覺得他們是處於弱勢。我覺得這很有教益。
If you make yourself vulnerable to the other party, then that is very good evidence that you are trustworthy and you have confidence in what you are saying. So in the end, I think what we are aiming for is not very difficult to discern. It is relationships in which people are trustworthy and can judge when and how the other person is trustworthy.
如果對於別人，你使自己處於弱勢，這就是個很好的值得信任的依據。對自己說的話就有自信。所以最終呢，我們的意圖就不那麼難辨別了。人們是否值得信任是一種人和人之間的關係。我們可以判斷什麼時候人們是如何值得你信任的。
So the moral of all this is, we need to think much less about trust, let alone about attitudes of trust detected or mis-detected by opinion polls, much more about being trustworthy, and how you give people adequate, useful and simple evidence that you're trustworthy.
從道義上說，我們要少考慮信任，更不要說對信任的態度，或者憑著民意測驗來判斷或者誤判，讓我們更關注於成為值得信賴的人。關注於如何提供恰當、有益、簡單的依據讓人們覺得你是可以信賴的。
Thanks.(Applause)謝謝！（掌聲）
閱讀更多 TED博物館 的文章
