Jonathan Haidt on Morality, Politics, Disgust, and Intellectual Diversity on Campus (Ep. 8)
Jonathan is one of the world’s leading thinkers on the political views of individuals.
乔纳森是世界上研究个人政治观点的领先思想家之一。
Most recently, he has been involved in a crusade to make the campus environment more intellectually diverse.
最近，他参与了一项使校园环境在智力上更加多样化的运动。
He is one of the world’s leading psychologists, has a strong background in cultural anthropology and economics, and basically, is known to us all.
他是世界领先的心理学家之一，拥有深厚的文化人类学和经济学背景，基本上是众所周知的。
If you’re familiar with how the Conversations with Tyler series works, I’ll just point it out again: this is essentially the conversation I want to have with Jonathan, not the conversation you want to have.
如果您熟悉“与泰勒对话”系列的运作方式，我会再次指出：这本质上是我想与乔纳森进行的对话，而不是您想要进行的对话。
On the moral psychology of politics
论政治的道德心理
To start off with a question.
从一个问题开始。
Jonathan, you think of people’s political views as stemming from their social intuitions, which are fairly strongly hardwired into them.
乔纳森，你认为人们的政治观点源于他们的社会直觉，而这种直觉与他们根深蒂固。
If I look at politics this year, what I see is we had almost all the pundits, thinking about Republican values, the Republican past, and seeing Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, and thinking some mix of those people would be the leaders, because they matched Republican values.
如果我看看今年的政治，我看到的是我们几乎所有的专家都在思考共和党的价值观、共和党的过去，看到斯科特·沃克、马可·卢比奥、杰布·布什，并认为这些人中的某些人将成为领导人，因为他们符合共和党的价值观。
And they all have failed, basically.
基本上，他们都失败了。
How do we think about this using your constructs?
我们如何使用您的构造来思考这个问题？
You have to see politics as occurring at multiple levels simultaneously.
你必须将政治视为在多个层面同时发生的情况。
Just as at a university we’ve got psychologists studying individual experiences, we’ve got neurologists studying neurons, we’ve got political scientists and sociologists studying emergent phenomena, that’s what you have to do to study politics.
就像在大学里，我们有心理学家研究个人经历，我们有神经学家研究神经元，我们有政治学家和社会学家研究新兴现象，这就是研究政治所必须要做的。
If you look at the history, if you look at the higher‑level constructs, yeah, it’s bizarre what’s happening.
如果你看看历史，如果你看看更高层次的结构，是的，正在发生的事情很奇怪。
It’s unprecedented, and people expected the past to predict the future.
这是史无前例的，人们期望通过过去来预测未来。
But what if the emerging social constructs of the Republican Party have been getting progressively out of tune with the moral intuitions and the psychology of the voters?
但是，如果共和党新兴的社会结构逐渐与选民的道德直觉和心理格格不入呢？
I think that’s what we have seen happening.
我认为这就是我们所看到的情况。
Here’s what I worry about with that explanation.
这就是我对这个解释的担忧。
If I look at local government — state legislators, governors, Congress for that matter — the Republicans seem pretty much in tune with people’s intuitions, because they control all those branches, sometimes pretty solidly, especially at the state and local level.
如果我看看地方政府——“州立法者、州长、国会”——共和党人似乎非常符合人们的直觉，因为他们控制着所有这些部门，有时控制得相当牢固，尤其是在州和地方层面。
And then at the national level there’s this huge disconnect.
然后在国家层面上存在巨大的脱节。
So if all the Republicans were losing, it would be easier to see.
因此，如果所有共和党人都输了，那就更容易看到了。
National politics is different from local.
国家政治与地方政治不同。
National politics, I believe, is much more like religion than local politics is.
我认为，国家政治比地方政治更像宗教。
If you take it all the way down to the very local level — who the dogcatcher is, who the treasurer is of the town — that’s all very practical stuff.
如果你把它一直深入到当地层面——“谁是捕狗者，谁是镇上的财务主管”——这都是非常实际的东西。
People are very worried about their property values and things like that.
人们非常担心他们的财产价值和类似的事情。
It’s not very ideological.
这不是很意识形态。
National politics is much more like a religion.
国家政治更像是一种宗教。
The president is the high priest of the American civil religion — I think that’s what Robert Bellah called it.
总统是美国公民宗教的大祭司——我想这就是罗伯特·贝拉所说的。
At the national level it’s often unrelated to what happens at the local level.
在国家层面，这通常与地方层面发生的事情无关。
This is something that Ronald Reagan really understood much better than his challengers.
罗纳德·里根确实比他的挑战者更了解这一点。
He was able to appeal to the moral intuitions of people about America, making America great.
他能够唤起人们对美国的道德直觉，使美国变得伟大。
It’s very different from what happens at the state level.
这与州一级发生的情况非常不同。
Your core categories for understanding how values map into politics — in a second I’ll ask you to explain those — but do you see room for any new category?
您理解价值观如何映射到政治的核心类别 — 稍后我会要求您解释这些 — 但是您认为有任何新类别的空间吗？
A lot of people are saying this year, there’s a new category of populism.
很多人都说今年出现了一种新的民粹主义。
My Thomas Friedman–like taxi driver experiences, I’ve spoken to taxi drivers.
我和出租车司机谈过我的托马斯·弗里德曼式出租车司机经历。
They say, “I’d like to support either Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders.” Maybe that’s populism.
他们说，“我想支持唐纳德·特朗普或伯尼·桑德斯。”也许这就是民粹主义。
A kind of new category.
一种新的类别。
But tell us briefly what your categories are and how fixed do you think they are?
但请简单告诉我们您的类别是什么以及您认为它们的固定程度如何？
My early research, done with a lot of other social psychologists, is what we call moral foundations theory.
我与许多其他社会心理学家一起进行的早期研究就是我们所说的道德基础理论。
This grows out of my frustration as a graduate student at the University of Pennsylvania in the early 1990s trying to make sense of two things that seemed so obviously true to me.
这源于 20 世纪 90 年代初，作为宾夕法尼亚大学研究生，我试图理解两件对我来说显然是正确的事情，但我却感到沮丧。
One was that wherever you look people are the same in many ways.
一是无论你往哪里看，人们在很多方面都是一样的。
We’re obviously products of evolution.
我们显然是进化的产物。
Obviously there’s a human nature.
显然，人性是有的。
Evolutionary psychology has to be right to some extent.
进化心理学在某种程度上必定是正确的。
The other is that people are so variable.
另一个是人的变化很大。
Our cultures are so variable.
我们的文化如此多变。
Anthropology, cultural psychology is deeply right.
人类学、文化心理学是非常正确的。
The basic meaning of moral terms varies a lot around the world.
世界各地道德术语的基本含义差异很大。
Cultural psychology has to be right.
文化心理学必须是正确的。
How do you put these together?
你如何将这些放在一起？
But the people who love cultural psychology often are critical.
但热爱文化心理学的人往往持批评态度。
They feel threatened by evolution.
他们感到受到进化的威胁。
The people who do evolution often will dismiss cultural variation.
经常研究进化论的人会忽视文化差异。
What I tried to do — I was working with Richard Shweder, an anthropologist, at the time — what I tried to do is look around the world and say, “What are the things that everyone seems to care about?
我试图做的事情 — 当时我正在与人类学家理查德·施韦德（Richard Shweder）合作 — 我试图做的是环顾世界并说：“每个人似乎都关心的事情是什么？
Is there something innate about, say, reciprocity?”
比如说互惠，是否有某种与生俱来的东西？”
The answer has to be yes.
答案一定是肯定的。
Everywhere you go, in every society, people have something that involves reciprocity, the sense of “I’ve done something for you, you need to do something for me.” That might be that I’ve killed somebody in your clan.
无论你走到哪里，在每个社会中，人们都会有一些涉及互惠的东西，即“我为你做了一些事情，你需要为我做一些事情”的感觉。那可能是我杀了你们家族的某个人。
Well, you have to kill somebody in my clan.
好吧，你必须杀掉我部落中的一个人。
Or we might disagree with that, but we see the logic of reciprocity.
或者我们可能不同意这一点，但我们看到了互惠的逻辑。
At the same time there’s all these evolutionary theorists like Robert Trivers writing about the evolution of reciprocity.
与此同时，像罗伯特·特里弗斯这样的所有进化理论家都在撰写有关互惠进化的文章。
At a time when there were a lot of people in the academy who believed in blank slate notions that everything is social construction, everything could be taught by your society, fairness as reciprocity just stands out.
当学院里有很多人相信一切都是社会建构、一切都可以由社会教授的白板观念时，作为互惠的公平就脱颖而出了。
It’s got to be innate.
它必须是与生俱来的。
But then it gets built on in very culturally variable ways.
但随后它以文化差异很大的方式建立起来。
That’s one foundation.
这是一个基础。
Much more briefly, then, care versus harm is another.
那么，更简单地说，关心与伤害是另一个问题。
We’re mammals.
我们是哺乳动物。
We evolved an attachment system.
我们进化出了一个依恋系统。
Another is loyalty versus betrayal.
另一个是忠诚与背叛。
We are really good at coalitions.
我们真的很擅长联盟。
We’re tribal creatures.
我们是部落生物。
Another is authority versus subversion.
另一个是权威与颠覆。
We’re primates.
我们是灵长类动物。
Primates are mostly hierarchical.
灵长类动物大多是有等级制度的。
We’ve got a lot of innate programming that makes us deferential to authority.
我们有很多与生俱来的编程，使我们对权威表示尊重。
Another one is sanctity versus degradation.
另一种是神圣与堕落。
This is the weirdest one for secular progressives, but it’s one that you see in Kosher laws, and Hinduism, and Islam.
对于世俗进步主义者来说，这是最奇怪的，但你可以在犹太洁食法、印度教和伊斯兰教中看到这一点。
You see it in a lot of religions.
你在很多宗教中都能看到它。
You see it if you go to a yoga store or someplace where they talk about chakras and toxins.
如果您去瑜伽商店或谈论脉轮和毒素的地方，您就会看到它。
You see it there, too.
你也在那里看到它。
The idea that the body is a temple and you’d want to guard against impurities.
身体是一座寺庙，你需要防范杂质。
The left‑wing or right‑wing has more worry about lack of purity?
左翼或右翼更担心不够纯洁？
In general, the right.
一般来说，是对的。
If you look at who moralizes sex, the body, who would be more opposed to using the body as a way to just express your own individual values.
如果你看看谁将性、身体道德化，谁会更反对利用身体来表达自己的个人价值观。
It tends to pop up more on the right, but elements of the left have it, again, if you look at yoga.
它往往更多地出现在右侧，但如果你看看瑜伽，左侧的元素也有它。
It seems to be migrating toward the left.
它似乎正在向左移动。
That’s right.
这是正确的。
GMOs, when it comes to food, or buying a t‑shirt from the wrong country is disgusting.
转基因生物、食物或从错误的国家购买 T 恤都是令人厌恶的。
If these can migrate, I have this picture of these relatively fixed modules, and left‑wing people have more of some, and right‑wing people have more of others, but we also see them migrating.
如果这些可以迁移的话，我有这些相对固定的模块的图片，左翼的人有更多的一些，右翼的人有更多的其他模块，但我们也看到它们在迁移。
How flexible is this?
这有多灵活？
This is the key idea of these being these sort of modules, that they’re not modules that are going off in your head at the moment of judgment, so much as they are modules in us from birth, and they are what cultures can build upon as you develop.
这是这些模块的关键思想，它们不是在做出判断时在你头脑中出现的模块，而是我们从出生起就存在的模块，并且它们是随着你的发展可以建立文化的基础。
Think about it as like taste buds.
把它想象成味蕾。
We have these innate taste buds because this is the way our ancestors lived.
我们拥有这些与生俱来的味蕾，因为这是我们祖先的生活方式。
They ate fruit and meat, and so we have sweet and sour receptors, and we have MSG detectors, which guide us to meat.
他们吃水果和肉，所以我们有糖醋受体，我们有味精探测器，引导我们吃肉。
But we don’t just have a cuisine — here I am, talking to the expert on cultural variations in cuisine, in a sense.
但我们不只是有一种美食——从某种意义上说，我在这里与专家谈论美食的文化差异。
We don’t just have a cuisine that’s based on sweet, sour, salt.
我们不只是有以甜、酸、盐为基础的菜肴。
Each cuisine is a cultural creation that has to, ultimately, please the same universal taste buds.
每一种美食都是一种文化创造，最终必须满足共同的味蕾。
Think about it for morality.
为道德考虑一下。
We all have the same, let’s call them six moral taste buds.
我们都有相同的，我们称之为六个道德味蕾。
The sixth one I didn’t mention before is liberty versus oppression.
我之前没有提到的第六个是自由与压迫。
People resent being forced or told what to do, if they don’t perceive it as legitimate.
如果人们不认为这是合法的，他们就会讨厌被强迫或被告知要做什么。
We have these six moral taste buds, and if you’re raised on a desert island with nobody, maybe you would have them, but they wouldn’t be developed.
我们有这六种道德味蕾，如果你在无人的荒岛上长大，也许你会有它们，但它们不会被开发。
But, whenever you have a culture emerging, it’s going to build on certain aspects of that and not others.
但是，每当出现一种文化时，它都会建立在其某些方面而不是其他方面。
If you have a warrior culture, if you’re constantly being attacked, boy, is it going to build on the loyalty, the authority, the sanctity ones, to create this tribal consciousness.
如果你有战士文化，如果你不断受到攻击，孩子，它会建立在忠诚、权威、神圣的基础上，创造这种部落意识吗？
You can see that in a joke form in fraternities.
你可以在兄弟会的笑话中看到这一点。
Fraternities, even on a secular campus, fraternities will build on those tribal foundations.
兄弟会，即使是在世俗的校园里，兄弟会也将建立在这些部落的基础上。
Whereas, if you go to, say, Amsterdam, or New York, or places that are port cities with a lot of variety, diversity, commerce, those tend to thin down the moral domain.
然而，如果你去阿姆斯特丹或纽约，或者那些充满多样性、多样性和商业的港口城市，这些地方往往会削弱道德领域。
They don’t tend to do a lot with group loyalty and hierarchy.
他们往往不会在团体忠诚度和等级制度方面做太多事情。
They tend to focus more on, “I’ll tell you what, you don’t hurt me, I won’t hurt you.
他们倾向于更多地关注“我告诉你，你不伤害我，我也不会伤害你。
You honor your contracts, I’ll honor mine.”
你遵守你的合同，我也会遵守我的合同。”
This is a more appropriate morality for diversity and for commerce.
对于多样性和商业来说，这是更合适的道德。
If we get to a very fundamental question — left‑wing individuals and right‑wing individuals, and let’s take, for now, only America.
如果我们谈到一个非常基本的问题——左翼个人和右翼个人，那么我们现在只以美国为例。
As people, in other ways, how different do you think they are?
作为人，在其他方面，你认为他们有多么不同？
Or, is it just there are these semi‑accidental triggers which have set off certain modules in the left‑wingers and different modules in the right‑wingers, but otherwise they’re going to dress the same, they’re going to treat their spouses the same way, or not?
或者，是否只是有这些半偶然的触发器触发了左翼分子的某些模块和右翼分子的不同模块，但除此之外，他们会穿着相同，他们会以相同的方式对待他们的配偶，或者不是？
Are they fundamentally different?
它们有本质上的不同吗？
The most important finding in psychology in the last 50 to 100 years, I would say, is the finding that everything you can measure is heritable.
我想说，过去 50 到 100 年来心理学中最重要的发现是发现你可以测量的一切都是可遗传的。
The heritability coefficients vary between 0.3 and 0.6, or 30 to 60 percent of the variance, under some assumptions, can be explained by the genes.
遗传力系数在 0.3 到 0.6 之间变化，或者在某些假设下，30% 到 60% 的方差可以由基因来解释。
It’s the largest piece of variance we can explain.
这是我们可以解释的最大的差异。
Not fundamentally different, but different in predispositions.
没有本质上的不同，但倾向不同。
The most important finding in psychology in the last 50 to 100 years, I would say, is the finding that everything you can measure is heritable.
我想说，过去 50 到 100 年来心理学中最重要的发现是发现你可以测量的一切都是可遗传的。
The heritability coefficients vary between 0.3 and 0.6, or 30 to 60 percent of the variance, under some assumptions, can be explained by the genes.
遗传力系数在 0.3 到 0.6 之间变化，或者在某些假设下，30% 到 60% 的方差可以由基因来解释。
It’s the largest piece of variance we can explain.
这是我们可以解释的最大的差异。
If you and I were twins separated at birth and raised in different families, our families would pick which religions we were raised in and they would pick how often we go to church or synagogue, but once we’re out on our own, we’re going to both converge on our brain’s natural level of religiosity.
如果你和我是双胞胎，出生时就分开，在不同的家庭长大，我们的家庭会选择我们长大的宗教信仰，他们会选择我们去教堂或犹太教堂的频率，但一旦我们独自出去，我们都会趋于一致，集中在我们大脑的自然宗教信仰水平上。
Same with politics, whether you’re on the right or left is not determined by your genes, but you’re predisposed.
和政治一样，你是左派还是右派不是由你的基因决定的，而是你的性格决定的。
You find variety and diversity and challenging authority really exciting.
你会发现多样性和挑战权威真的很令人兴奋。
If that’s the way you were as a kid, even if you’re raised in a conservative household, once you go to college you’re going to be attracted to more radical left‑wing politics.
如果你小时候就是这样，即使你在保守的家庭长大，一旦你上大学，你也会被更激进的左翼政治所吸引。
But, say, hippies aside, do left‑wing people dress differently than right‑wing people, adjusting for some core variables?
但是，除了嬉皮士之外，左翼人士的着装是否与右翼人士有所不同，并根据一些核心变量进行调整？
Yes.
是的。
How do right‑wing people dress?
右翼人士如何着装？
The core psychology, here, is called openness to experience.
这里的核心心理学称为对体验的开放性。
People on the left are higher on a variable called openness to experience.
左派人士在“体验开放度”这一变量上表现更高。
People on the right are lower on it, but they’re also higher on conscientiousness, they’re more neat, orderly, they make deadlines.
右边的人责任心较低，但他们的责任心也较高，他们更整洁、更有秩序，他们会按时完成任务。
Some really interesting research done by Sam Gosling at the University of Texas at Austin, back when he was a grad student, or professor at Berkeley.
德克萨斯大学奥斯汀分校的萨姆·高斯林（Sam Gosling）在还是伯克利分校的研究生或教授时所做的一些非常有趣的研究。
They went into people’s dorm rooms.
他们走进了人们的宿舍。
They agreed, “You just leave your dorm room.
他们同意了：“你只要离开宿舍就可以了。
Don’t clean up.
不要清理。
Just leave.
离开吧。
We’re going to take photographs.” They come in, they photograph everything.
我们要去拍照。”他们进来，拍摄一切。
Another group of students now has to just look at the photographs and guess, “what do you think, liberal or conservative?”
另一组学生现在只需看照片并猜测，“你认为是自由派还是保守派？”
If you’re in a swing state in, say, proverbial southern Ohio and in a natural setting you meet a person.
如果你在一个摇摆州，比如说众所周知的俄亥俄州南部，在自然环境中你会遇到一个人。
With what probability do you think you can guess or forecast if they’re left‑wing or right‑wing?
您认为您可以猜测或预测他们是左翼还是右翼的概率有多大？
Even-up would be 0.5.
均匀的话就是 0.5。
Probably 0.58, 0.57.
大概是0.58、0.57。
People are incredibly variable.
人是非常多变的。
I’m a social scientist.
我是一名社会科学家。
Our goal is not to predict with perfect accuracy.
我们的目标不是完美准确地进行预测。
We’re just trying to extract what are the regularities under the surface that can explain some things of what we see on the surface.
我们只是试图提取表面之下的规律，这些规律可以解释我们在表面上看到的一些事情。
But, look, put it this way.
但是，看，这样说吧。
Suppose you’re going to an academic conference.
假设你要去参加一个学术会议。
I don’t know about economists but if it was psychologists or people in the humanities, you go into the conference and everybody is wearing a suit and tie.
我不了解经济学家，但如果是心理学家或人文学科的人，你走进会议，每个人都穿着西装打领带。
They’re all very neat.
它们都非常整洁。
You look around, you’d think, “I’m in the wrong room.” You probably are.
你环顾四周，你会想：“我走错房间了。”你可能是。
What Gosling found, people who are conservative, their rooms are more orderly and neat.
高斯林发现，保守的人，他们的房间更加有序和整洁。
They have more calendars, more postage stamps.
他们有更多的日历，更多的邮票。
They’re just better prepared to be orderly and neat and get things done.
他们只是更好地准备好有序、整洁并完成工作。
People on the left had more stylistic elements, more high design elements.
左边的人有更多的风格元素，更多的高级设计元素。
They had more varied books.
他们有更多种类的书籍。
So in a variety of ways, our preferences grow out of our innate temperaments.
因此，我们的偏好在很多方面都源于我们与生俱来的气质。
What Gosling found, people who are conservative, their rooms are more orderly and neat.
高斯林发现，保守的人，他们的房间更加有序和整洁。
They have more calendars, more postage stamps.
他们有更多的日历，更多的邮票。
They’re just better prepared to be orderly and neat and get things done.
他们只是更好地准备好有序、整洁并完成工作。
People on the left had more stylistic elements, more high design elements.
左边的人有更多的风格元素，更多的高级设计元素。
They had more varied books.
他们有更多种类的书籍。
So in a variety of ways, our preferences grow out of our innate temperaments.
因此，我们的偏好在很多方面都源于我们与生俱来的气质。
So this is true in all or mostly all cultures.
所以这在所有或大部分文化中都是如此。
Well, that I couldn’t say, the research has not been done.
好吧，我不能说，研究还没有完成。
But you’ve studied in Orissa, India.
但你曾在印度奥里萨邦学习过。
You’ve studied in Recife, Brazil.
您曾在巴西累西腓学习。
You must have thought about the questions there and other places you’ve been.
您一定思考过那里以及您去过的其他地方的问题。
You see this if you look at ancient societies too.
如果你也看看古代社会，你就会看到这一点。
Whenever there was an empire, the empire always ran into trouble.
每当有一个帝国的时候，这个帝国总是会遇到麻烦。
At that point, there are those who say, “Our misfortunes are because we have lost the ways of the elders.
这时，有人说：“我们的不幸是因为我们迷失了前人的道路。
The gods are punishing us for departing from the wisdom.
诸神正在惩罚我们背离智慧。
We need to return!” Those are the people I would bet who if you could transplant them, they would grow up to be more conservative.
我们需要回去！”我敢打赌，如果你能移植他们，他们长大后会变得更加保守。
They feel the moral decay.
他们感到道德败坏。
They feel the loss of the tradition.
他们感到传统的丧失。
Other people say, “No, we need to march forward.
其他人则说：“不，我们需要前进。
We need to radically change things.” There are certain psychological dimensions that are universal.
我们需要从根本上改变一切。”某些心理维度是普遍存在的。
Politics grows up around that.
政治是围绕这一点发展起来的。
But the way politics grows up in an open, commercial, secular society is just so different from, say, what I saw in Poland last year where you’ve got this gigantic neutron bomb of communism.
但政治在开放、商业、世俗社会中的成长方式与我去年在波兰看到的情况非常不同，那里有共产主义的巨大中子弹。
What it means to be on the left and the right in Poland is really different from what it means here, because if you’re on the left, you’re associated with the hated communists!
在波兰，左翼和右翼的含义与在这里的含义确实不同，因为如果你是左翼，你就会与可恨的共产主义者联系在一起！
So the dimensions of psychology are universal, but the politics that grows up on it is very influenced by local circumstance.
因此，心理学的维度是普遍的，但在心理学上成长起来的政治却深受当地环境的影响。
Would it be a partial test of your theory if we looked at a lot of different cultures and asked, “Who are the people who dress neatly and who have a lot of calendars and stamps?” to measure whether those were typically the conservatives?
如果我们考察许多不同的文化并问：“谁是衣着整齐、拥有大量日历和邮票的人？”，这是否是对你的理论的部分检验？来衡量这些人是否是典型的保守派？
Yes, that would be a test.
是的，那将是一个考验。
That would be the claim.
这就是主张。
If it is true — and here I’m drawing on research by NYU colleague John Jost and Sam Gosling and others — if it is true that the underlying psychological dimension of openness to experience and also conscientiousness, if those are what underlie political choices, then the answer is yes to your thought experiment.
如果这是真的——这里我借鉴了纽约大学同事约翰·乔斯特和萨姆·高斯林等人的研究——如果开放经验和责任心的潜在心理维度是真的，如果这些是政治选择的基础，那么你的思想实验的答案是肯定的。
It would be great to test.
如果能测试一下就太好了。
I’m interested in occupational choices.
我对职业选择很感兴趣。
You’ve probably thought about this also.
您可能也想过这个问题。
Oh yeah.
哦，是的。
If you look at dentists, they’re pretty Republican.
如果你看看牙医，你会发现他们都是相当共和党人。
Doctors lean heavily Democratic.
医生严重倾向于民主党。
Superficially, they’re doing similar things.
从表面上看，他们正在做类似的事情。
They’re taking care of bodies.
他们正在照顾身体。
Motel owners lean Republican or conservative.
汽车旅馆老板倾向于共和党或保守派。
But “innkeepers” lean Democratic or liberal.
但“旅馆老板”倾向于民主党或自由派。
Why do we see these regularities?
为什么我们会看到这些规律？
What are they showing?
他们在展示什么？
If you were to go to, say, India where there’s a caste system, you probably wouldn’t see it very much, but to the extent that the modern economy has opened up more and more choice for people to make career choices to express their values rather than acting on economic necessity, you’re going to see it.
比如说，如果你去印度，那里有种姓制度，你可能不会经常看到它，但现代经济为人们提供了越来越多的选择，让人们可以做出职业选择来表达自己的价值观，而不是根据经济需要采取行动，你就会看到它。
This is what we have in what’s called post‑materialist societies.
这就是我们在所谓的后物质主义社会中所拥有的。
My father made the choice to be a chemical engineer.
我父亲选择成为一名化学工程师。
He was born in the Depression, he was poor.
他出生在大萧条时期，家境贫寒。
It turns out he didn’t like that, and he did make the choice to then switch to patent law.
事实证明他不喜欢这样，他确实做出了选择转向专利法。
But he and his generation were very guided by economic pressures and necessities.
但他和他的一代人非常受经济压力和必需品的引导。
You do a job because your uncle has an opening for you.
你做一份工作是因为你叔叔有空缺给你。
But ever since you and I went into universities, we’re teaching all these undergrads, they’re thinking, “What’s right for me?
但自从你和我进入大学以来，我们教所有这些本科生，他们在想，“什么适合我？
What’s the right fit for me?”
什么才是最适合我的？”
It’s the same thing as we were talking about with the clothing.
这和我们谈论服装是一样的。
If you are interested in learning new things and trying to change the world and things like that, you’ll be more likely drawn to occupations that have a predominance of left‑wing people.
如果您有兴趣学习新事物并尝试改变世界之类的事情，您将更有可能被左翼人士占主导地位的职业所吸引。
Hollywood is overwhelmingly left.
好莱坞绝大多数都是左派。
Perhaps there’s discrimination after the fact but creative areas are almost always heavily left.
也许事后存在歧视，但创意领域几乎总是被大量留下。
Police, military, engineering, there are certain things that are more conducive to minds predisposed to conservatism.
警察、军队、工程，有些事情更有利于倾向于保守主义的人。
As you know when one thinks about this problem there is the question of what gets put in the realm of morality?
正如你所知，当人们思考这个问题时，就会出现一个问题：什么被归入道德领域？
What’s a moral choice?
什么是道德选择？
Like in Britain in the ’50s, are you a mod or are you a rocker?
就像 50 年代的英国一样，你是摩登派还是摇滚乐手？
But today, that just looks to us like silly convention.
但今天，这在我们看来只是愚蠢的惯例。
Who could get upset over that?
谁会为此感到不安呢？
We understand it’s PC versus Mac.
我们了解这是 PC 与 Mac 的对比。
That’s really what matters.
这才是真正重要的。
Correct.
正确的。
What are the forces which determine what gets put into morality and what gets put into convention?
是什么力量决定了什么被纳入道德、什么被纳入惯例？
Oh boy, that’s a good question.
哦，天哪，这是个好问题。
Things that clearly involve harm, violations of rights, there are certain things that are predisposed to be moralized, but the genius of human beings is because we’re so tribal, we can moralize anything that gets tabbed as being predictive of what group you belong to or being part of “them.” It’s funny, we see this in our politics.
明显涉及伤害、侵犯权利的事情，有些事情容易被道德化，但人类的天才在于我们是部落性的，我们可以道德化任何被标记为预测你属于哪个群体或属于“他们”的一部分的东西。有趣的是，我们在政治中看到了这一点。
The core idea of Obamacare was first proposed by the Heritage Foundation, I think it was.
奥巴马医改的核心理念是由传统基金会首先提出的，我认为是的。
I can’t remember what it was.
我不记得那是什么了。
Was it exchanges?
是交换吗？
Whatever it is.
不管是什么。
The mandate.
任务授权。
That’s it, the mandate, exactly.
就是这样，任务，正是如此。
A mandate, that’s interesting.
一项任务，这很有趣。
That would seem to be a left‑wing idea because the right in America tends to be wary of mandates.
这似乎是一个左翼想法，因为美国的右翼往往对授权持谨慎态度。
But the economists there concluded there’s some benefit to doing this, so it came up more from the right, but as soon as it was then promoted by Obama in such a tribal and hostile time, then it was tagged as bad.
但那里的经济学家得出的结论是这样做有一些好处，所以它更多地来自右翼，但一旦奥巴马在这样一个部落和敌对的时代推动它，那么它就被标记为坏的。
Almost anything that can be associated with an ongoing hot conflict can be moralized.
几乎任何与持续激烈冲突有关的事物都可以被道德化。
Let me ask you a very concrete question.
让我问你一个非常具体的问题。
I’ve had dialogue with people on the left, and I’ve made a harm argument to them.
我曾与左翼人士进行过对话，并向他们提出了有害的论点。
I’ve said, “Based on work by Mark Pauly, if you look at the people who are covered by the mandate, they have to pay more for health insurance than it’s worth, actually most of them.
我说过，“根据马克·保利的研究，如果你看看该强制保险覆盖的人，就会发现他们必须为健康保险支付比其价值更多的费用，实际上是大多数人。
So Obamacare is imposing a harm on them.”
所以奥巴马医改正在对他们造成伤害。”
Now generally I agree with your characterization of the left as more worried about harm.
现在，总的来说，我同意你对左派的描述，因为他们更担心伤害。
But when I make this harm argument, there’s a remarkable lack of interest in it.
但当我提出这个危害论点时，人们对此明显缺乏兴趣。
It could be the data are wrong.
可能是数据有误。
It could be Mark Pauly’s paper is wrong.
马克·保利的论文可能是错误的。
I would grant all that but the striking thing is they’re not interested in hearing about the harm.
我同意这一切，但引人注目的是他们对听到伤害不感兴趣。
Of course they’re not gonna — yeah.
他们当然不会 —— 是的。
Isn’t it the case that people just slot in the harms they want?
人们不就是把自己想要的伤害放进去吗？
Conservatives are very sensitive to some kinds of harms, like a deserving white student who didn’t get into Yale because of affirmative action.
保守派对某些伤害非常敏感，比如一个值得的白人学生因为平权行动而没有进入耶鲁大学。
That to them is a focal harm.
这对他们来说是一个焦点伤害。
For the left, people not getting adequate healthcare because there’s no Medicaid expansion, that’s a focal harm.
对于左派来说，由于医疗补助没有扩大，人们无法获得足够的医疗保健，这是一个焦点伤害。
Isn’t it more the split of what gets put into harm as opposed to — .
与 — 相反，这不是更多地对受到伤害的事物进行划分吗？
First of all, the idea of the harm foundation isn’t just something that’s happened that is against my interests.
首先，伤害基金会的想法不仅仅是发生了违背我利益的事情。
We have a visceral sense of seeing somebody physically suffering, crying, we feel compassion for this emotional suffering.
当我们看到某人身体上受苦、哭泣时，我们会有一种发自内心的感觉，我们对这种情感上的痛苦感到同情。
Simply saying this policy is going to work against your interests, that really doesn’t activate the harm foundation.
简单地说这项政策将损害您的利益，这实际上并不会激活伤害基础。
But the more important point is the one that you suggest, which is, once people have taken a position on something, especially if it relates to sacred values — something that has become sacred to them — they’re pretty much impervious to arguments at that point.
但更重要的一点是你所建议的，那就是，一旦人们对某件事采取了立场，特别是当它与神圣价值观相关时——“对他们来说已经变得神圣的东西”——在这一点上，他们几乎不会受到争论的影响。
Let’s go back to the basics of moral psychology.
让我们回到道德心理学的基础知识。
In my book The Righteous Mind, I boil it down to three principles, we’ve already touched on the second one.
在我的《正念》一书中，我将其归结为三个原则，我们已经谈到了第二个原则。
The first principle is intuitions come first, strategic reasoning second.
第一个原则是直觉第一，战略推理第二。
The basic fact about moral argument is that we’re not really listening to each other, we’re not actually open to reasoning.
关于道德争论的基本事实是，我们并没有真正倾听对方的意见，我们实际上并没有接受推理。
We start with our gut feeling or our partisan loyalty, and at that point we become lawyers.
我们从我们的直觉或党派忠诚开始，那时我们就成为了律师。
We’re really good at being lawyers and knocking down the other guy’s arguments, and giving them our own.
我们非常擅长成为律师，驳倒对方的论点，并为他们提供我们自己的论点。
The second principle is there’s more to morality than harm and fairness, that’s the moral foundations that we just talked about.
第二个原则是道德不仅仅是伤害和公平，这就是我们刚才讲的道德基础。
And left and right, while they all have all the foundations, the left tends to focus more on the care, harm, the fairness, reciprocity, not so much on the tribal ones.
而左派和右派，虽然他们都有所有的基础，但左派往往更注重关怀、伤害、公平、互惠，而不是部落的。
The third principle is morality binds and blinds.
第三个原则是道德的束缚和盲目。
That’s also relevant here, that’s the idea that people are incredibly good at forming groups — the key idea to keep in mind is the Arab proverb, “Me against my brother, me and my brother against our cousin, me and my brother and cousin against the stranger.”
这在这里也很重要，那就是人们非常擅长形成群体——要记住的关键思想是阿拉伯谚语，“我反对我的兄弟，我和我的兄弟反对我们的表弟，我和我的兄弟和表弟反对陌生人。”
That’s basic social psychology, coalitional psychology.
这是基本的社会心理学，联合心理学。
Once it becomes left versus right over Obamacare, it doesn’t matter however good your arguments are, I’m not listening.
一旦奥巴马医改问题变成左派和右派，无论你的论点有多么好，我都不会听。
I’ve got my team, and we’re on a mission to defeat your team.
我有我的团队，我们的使命是击败你们的团队。
On intellectual diversity in higher education, microaggressions, free speech, trigger warnings, and all the rest
关于高等教育中的知识多样性、微侵犯、言论自由、触发警告等
Let’s turn to some of your work on campus, and with this idea of political correctness.
让我们来看看你在校园里的一些工作，以及政治正确的想法。
I would say you’re the person who’s done the most in a good way to improve the quality of that debate and to make campus life more tolerant or more open.
我想说，你是为提高辩论质量、让校园生活更加宽容和开放做出最大努力的人。
And I’m very appreciative of that.
我对此非常感激。
Let me ask you a question about how far this can go.
让我问你一个问题，这可以走多远。
Let’s take your vision of morality based on what you’ve called social intuitionism, and this modularity, where things just get triggered.
让我们把你的道德观建立在你所谓的社会直觉主义和这种模块化的基础上，事情就会被触发。
If I look at America today, it does seem a more tolerant place than the America that I grew up with.
如果我看看今天的美国，它确实比我长大的美国更加宽容。
Oh, yeah.
哦，是的。
For gay individuals, maybe not all minorities, but many minorities this is very much a positive thing.
对于同性恋者来说，也许不是所有少数族裔，但对许多少数族裔来说，这是一件非常积极的事情。
If morality is fundamentally so nonrational or arational in some key ways, is it not the case we’re always either undershooting or overshooting the target, that we can never hit it just right?
如果道德在某些关键方面从根本上来说是如此非理性或非理性，那么我们是否总是要么低于目标，要么超过目标，以至于永远无法恰到好处地实现目标？
Maybe for America to be more tolerant, you need the norms to be quite crude and blunt, and overstated, and we get this political correctness.
也许为了让美国更加宽容，你需要非常粗鲁、生硬和夸大的规范，而我们得到了这种政治正确性。
Yes it’s bad, but maybe it’s less bad then when we used to undershoot the target?
是的，这很糟糕，但也许比我们过去未达到目标时的情况要好一些？
You need to break it down in terms of what domain you’re looking at.
您需要根据您正在查看的领域对其进行细分。
It’s unquestionably true that life in America is getting better rapidly for gay people in particular, and over a long period of time African-Americans, for every minority.
毫无疑问，美国的生活正在迅速改善，尤其是同性恋者，而且在很长一段时间内，非裔美国人、每个少数族裔的生活都在迅速改善。
So the objective facts are getting better and better and better.
所以客观事实越来越好。
But a campus is not America, a college campus is a very very particular community, an unusual community in a lot of ways.
但校园不是美国，大学校园是一个非常非常特殊的社区，在很多方面都是一个不寻常的社区。
I’ve learned a lot about what’s going on since — thank you for your praise of what I’ve done — it’s due largely to the fact that Greg Lukianoff came to me with this brilliant idea about what’s going on on campus, how the current campus climate is teaching students to think in distorted ways.
从那以后，我对正在发生的事情了解了很多——感谢你们对我所做的事情的赞扬——这很大程度上是因为格雷格·卢基安诺夫向我提出了关于校园正在发生的事情的绝妙想法，以及当前的校园氛围如何教导学生以扭曲的方式思考。
So that Atlantic article happened to come out just before Missouri, and Yale, and other campuses melted down.
因此，《大西洋月刊》的那篇文章恰好在密苏里州、耶鲁大学和其他校园崩溃之前发表。
You have to see college campuses as being institutions that were designed or intended to be places where people come up against diverse ideas, they’re challenged, and as within the marketplace — monopoly destroys a lot of the value of the marketplace — if you have a monopoly on ideas in the intellectual marketplace, you kill the marketplace.
你必须将大学校园视为一种机构，其设计或意图是让人们在这里遇到不同的想法，他们受到挑战，就像在市场中一样——“垄断摧毁了市场的很多价值”——如果你在知识市场上垄断了想法，你就会杀死市场。
Campuses are supposed to be places where nobody has a monopoly on ideas, but they’ve become that in the last few years.
校园本应是没有人能垄断思想的地方，但在过去几年里，它们已经变成了这样。
Even if things are getting better and better, and especially on college campuses, there’s a paradoxical sense in which the better they get, the worse the protests will be.
即使情况变得越来越好，尤其是在大学校园，但仍然存在一种矛盾的感觉，即情况越好，抗议活动就会越严重。
It’s not coincidental that most of the protests have been at the most egalitarian, left‑leaning schools.
大多数抗议活动都发生在最平等、左倾的学校，这并非巧合。
Yale, Amherst, Brown, these are among the most progressive places.
耶鲁大学、阿默斯特大学、布朗大学，这些都是最进步的地方。
Here we need to bring in this really wonderful article on victimhood culture, by Manning and Campbell, are the last names.
在这里，我们需要引入这篇关于受害者文化的精彩文章，作者是曼宁和坎贝尔，他们都是姓氏。
If listeners just Google “where microaggressions really come from,” they’ll find I did a summary of this article, it’s this incredibly brilliant article, which points out that — despite things are getting better and better, despite that fact — that actually makes these charges of microaggression proliferate.
如果听众只是谷歌“微侵犯的真正来源”，他们会发现我对这篇文章做了总结，这是一篇令人难以置信的精彩文章，它指出 - 尽管事实越来越好，尽管事实 - 实际上使得这些微侵犯的指控激增。
Because it’s only when you have a very egalitarian group and you have bureaucrats or institutions that will punish any sort of conflict, then, everybody’s incentivized to plead, “I’ve been harmed, I’ve been a victim,” or, “He’s been a victim, I’m standing up for him.” So microaggression culture, and a lot of the current campus protests, only emerges when you actually get really close to an incredibly egalitarian, open society.
因为只有当你有一个非常平等的群体，并且有会惩罚任何形式冲突的官僚或机构时，每个人都会有动力去辩解，“我受到了伤害，我一直是受害者”，或者，“他一直是受害者，我会为他挺身而出。”因此，微侵略文化以及当前的许多校园抗议活动，只有当你真正接近一个令人难以置信的平等、开放的社会时才会出现。
icroaggression culture, and a lot of the current campus protests, only emerges when you actually get really close to an incredibly egalitarian, open society.
反侵略文化，以及当前的许多校园抗议活动，只有当你真正接近一个令人难以置信的平等、开放的社会时才会出现。
Say we take the military, a very different environment.
比如说我们以军队为例，一个非常不同的环境。
The military is not-for-profit, it intersects with corporate America, but it’s not itself a corporation.
军队是非营利性的，它与美国企业有交叉，但它本身并不是一家公司。
It can at times be highly inefficient, and we at least try to overcome this by building up an ethos which is in some ways fairly homogenous, and it tells people to behave a certain way, and there are strong group norms, and a lot of sanctions.
有时效率可能非常低下，我们至少尝试通过建立一种在某些方面相当同质的精神来克服这一点，它告诉人们以某种方式行事，并且有强有力的群体规范和大量制裁。
One may not like all of that, but typically once sees something like that is needed in the military.
人们可能不喜欢所有这些，但通常会看到军队需要类似的东西。
Now if we take colleges and universities, they’re big, they’re bureaucratic, they’re not-for-profit, the incentives are not traditional commercial incentives — could it be the case that for higher education to function well it needs these tight, strict norms?
现在，如果我们以学院和大学为例，它们很大，很官僚，不以营利为目的，激励措施也不是传统的商业激励措施——高等教育要良好运转，是否需要这些严格的规范？
Tight, strict norms, will ex post always look in some ways silly, as they can in the military.
严格的规范在事后总是在某些方面看起来很愚蠢，就像在军队中一样。
Maybe this is a semi‑second, third best efficient way of running academia, yes or no?
也许这是管理学术界的半第二、第三最有效的方式，是或否？
No. Again, you’re looking at it like you look at these giant systems, and then let’s take that analogy to another giant system, but you have to think about what is each system designed to produce.
不。再说一次，你就像看待这些巨型系统一样看待它，然后让我们将这个类比与另一个巨型系统，但你必须考虑每个系统的设计目的是什么。
Diversity is divisive.
多样性是分裂的。
There’s a lot of social science research on this, the more you make something diverse, the less trust there will be, the harder it is for people to work together.
这方面有很多社会科学研究，你做的事情越多样化，信任就越少，人们就越难一起工作。
If you’re the US military, or any military, yes in the ’70s the Army in particular embraced ethnic diversity, and they did a great job of it.
如果你是美国军队，或者任何军队，是的，在 70 年代，军队特别拥抱种族多样性，他们在这方面做得很好。
It’s actually quite striking that the military has done — that things have gotten better and better and better in terms of racial climate in the military, and worse and worse and worse in the academy, we can come back to that.
事实上，军队所做的事情是相当惊人的——军队的种族氛围变得越来越好，而学院的情况却越来越糟，我们可以回到这一点。
If you’re the military, you need cohesion, and that’s what they say — above all, unit cohesion, we must have that.
如果你是军队，你需要凝聚力，这就是他们所说的“——”最重要的是，单位凝聚力，我们必须拥有。
You want to basically bury racial and other kinds of diversity in a sea of uniformity.
你想基本上将种族和其他种类的多样性埋葬在一片统一的海洋中。
You want to give people a sense of common mission, you have common uniforms, so you want to make people feel they’re all part of the same — that’s what you do if you need a group to function effectively together.
你想要给人们一种共同的使命感，你有共同的制服，所以你想让人们感觉他们都是同一个的一部分——如果你需要一个团队一起有效地运作，这就是你要做的。
In the academy that is not our goal.
在学院，这不是我们的目标。
We’re not trying to turn out classes of “our graduating class will go forth, and they will all work together as a unit to accomplish greatness.” No, that’s not what it’s all about.
我们并不是想培养出“我们的毕业生将继续前进，他们将作为一个整体共同努力以实现伟大”的课程。不，这不是问题的全部。
We want clashing ideas.
我们想要冲突的想法。
We don’t want uniformity and homogeneity, we want the benefits of diversity, but the irony is we have so focused on racial and other kinds of demographic diversity, because of the political slant of the university, because of the sacred values of the campus left, we have so focused on that kind of diversity.
我们不想要单一性和同质性，我们想要多样性的好处，但讽刺的是，我们如此关注种族和其他类型的人口多样性，因为大学的政治倾向，因为校园留下的神圣价值观，我们如此关注这种多样性。
There’s this wonderful line from George Will, in some essay he wrote, “There’s a certain kind of liberal that wants diversity in everything except thought.” That’s where we are.
乔治·威尔（George Will）在他写的一篇文章中说过这样一句话：“有一种自由主义者想要除了思想之外的一切事物的多样性。”这就是我们现在的处境。
We now have almost a kind of uniformity the military has, where everybody’s on the left, which gives us cohesion, but that kills the very function of the university, which is to have diversity of thought, so we can change our minds.
我们现在几乎有一种军队的统一性，每个人都在左边，这给了我们凝聚力，但这扼杀了大学的功能，即拥有思想的多样性，这样我们就可以改变我们的想法。
We challenge each other in the marketplace of ideas.
我们在思想市场上互相挑战。
In the sciences this is not that big a problem, right?
在科学上这并不是什么大问题，对吧？
Not at all, that’s correct, except for environmental science.
完全不，这是正确的，除了环境科学。
But is it at least possibly the case that we’re seeing the greatest threat to intellectual diversity in some of the areas which matter least, and when the stakes are high we overcome it.
但至少有可能的情况是，我们在一些最不重要的领域看到了知识多样性面临的最大威胁，而当风险很高时，我们就克服了它。
Physics looks pretty good, computer science looks pretty good.
物理看起来不错，计算机科学看起来也不错。
No, it’s not — there are two universities now, but it’s not which ones matter more and which ones matter less.
不，不是——现在有两所大学，但不在于哪一所更重要，哪一所不那么重要。
It’s what is the sacred value.
这就是神圣的价值。
The sacred value of universities from sometime in the 19th century through maybe the 1980s was truth.
从 19 世纪到 20 世纪 80 年代，大学的神圣价值就是真理。
Now it was not perfect, but we all talked that way.
现在它并不完美，但我们都是这样说话的。
Look at the mottos of Harvard and Yale — Veritas, Lux et Veritas, it’s right there on the motto, veritas, truth.
看看哈佛和耶鲁的座右铭——Veritas, Lux et Veritas，就在座右铭上，veritas, Truth。
We made a big show — it was largely true — of saying this is what we’re here for, we’re here to find truth.
我们做了一场盛大的表演——“这在很大程度上是正确的”——“这就是我们来这里的目的，我们来这里是为了寻找真相。”
But in the 1970s and ’80s as we had a big influx of baby boomers who were involved in social protest, who were fighting for very good causes, civil rights, women’s rights — they flood into the academy in ’70s and ’80s, they get tenure in the ’80s and ’90s, but also in the 1990s, the Greatest Generation begins to retire.
但在 20 世纪 70 年代和 80 年代，大量婴儿潮一代涌入，他们参与社会抗议，为非常好的事业、公民权利、妇女权利而奋斗——他们在 70 年代和 80 年代涌入学院，在 80 年代和 90 年代获得终身教职，但也在 1990 年代，最伟大的一代开始退休。
There were a lot of Republicans who became professors after World War II.
二战后有很多共和党人成为教授。
But the ’90s is the decade where everything flips.
但 90 年代是一切都发生逆转的十年。
At the start of the 1990s, the overall left‑right ratio of the academy, taking all departments, was two to one, just twice as many people on the left as right.
20世纪90年代初，学院所有院系的整体左右比例是二比一，左边的人数只是右边的两倍。
That’s fine, that’s not a problem.
没关系，这不是问题。
But by 2005, it had gone to five to one, five people on the left for every one on the right.
但到了 2005 年，比例已经变成五比一，即左边 5 人对应右边 1 人。
Those people on the right are mostly engineering, nursing, things like that.
右边的人大多是工程、护理之类的。
If you look at the core — the humanities and the social sciences, other than economics, it’s closer to 10 to 1 or 20 to 1.
如果你看核心——人文社会科学，而不是经济学，它更接近10比1或20比1。
In other words, right‑wing, or libertarian, or social conservative voices have basically vanished between 1995 and 2005.
换句话说，右翼、自由主义、社会保守派的声音在1995年到2005年间基本上消失了。
This has made us unfunctional, but it’s in the social sciences and humanities where the sacred value has become social justice and the protection of victims.
这使我们无法发挥作用，但在社会科学和人文学科中，神圣的价值变成了社会正义和对受害者的保护。
That’s the division.
这就是划分。
One university of the sciences still pursues truth, the other university in the social sciences and humanities pursues social justice.
一所理科大学仍然追求真理，另一所社会科学和人文学科大学追求社会正义。
Let’s say I’m a libertarian, and I notice, I suspect you would agree, that libertarians are somewhat overrepresented on the Internet, intellectual discourse, because of their personality traits which you’ve written about yourself.
假设我是一个自由主义者，我注意到，我怀疑你会同意，自由主义者在互联网和知识分子话语中的代表性有些过高，因为你所写的关于自己的人格特征。
On the other hand, the universities, especially top universities, are more left‑wing.
另一方面，大学，尤其是顶尖大学，则更加左翼。
On net, should I be happy with this tradeoff or upset about it?
在网上，我应该对这种权衡感到满意还是感到沮丧？
No, you should be very upset that your fellow libertarians are wasting their time in flame wars commenting on people on the Internet, while in the academy, where even though libertarians actually have the highest IQ, they’re the best at systemic thinking, they should be overrepresented.
不，你应该感到非常沮丧，因为你的自由主义者同伴在互联网上评论人们的激烈争论中浪费了时间，而在学院里，尽管自由主义者实际上拥有最高的智商，他们最擅长系统思考，但他们的代表性应该过高。
There’s interesting research, I think it’s by Shields and Dunn, somewhere I read this recently, that as people with libertarian leanings go through undergraduate, those who are inclined toward the academy end up concentrating in economics for a variety of reasons.
有一项有趣的研究，我想是希尔兹和邓恩的，我最近在某处读到过，当有自由主义倾向的人读完本科时，那些倾向于学院的人最终会因为各种原因而专注于经济学。
There are a lot of libertarians in economics.
经济学中有很多自由主义者。
I wish we had more in psychology, I there were more in sociology and political science.
我希望我们在心理学方面有更多的知识，在社会学和政治学方面有更多的知识。
So no, you should be upset because libertarians would be the easiest, easiest source of political diversity to spread throughout the academy.
所以不，你应该感到不安，因为自由主义者将是在整个学院传播政治多样性的最简单、最容易的来源。
It’s very hard to find social conservatives in the academy.
在学院里很难找到社会保守派。
Here’s a question from a reader at Marginal Revolution: As you Jonathan have delved into morality more deeply, are there any examples of something you considered harmless before, that now you think may actually be harmful once second, third, etc., social effects are taken into account?
这是《边际革命》的一位读者提出的问题：当你乔纳森更深入地研究道德时，是否有任何例子表明你以前认为无害的东西，现在你认为一旦考虑到社会影响，一旦第二次、第三次等等可能实际上是有害的？
Oh, yes, yes.
哦，是的，是的。
When I was younger I remember thinking, “Oh, you know, marriage isn’t so important, all that matters is that you — of course you need to take care of the kids, but people should be free to do what they want.” I’ve come to see — so I started off on the left.
当我年轻的时候，我记得我在想，“哦，你知道，婚姻并不那么重要，重要的是你——当然你需要照顾孩子，但人们应该可以自由地做他们想做的事。”我是来看看 ——所以我从左边开始。
In fact I got into political psychology in 2004 precisely to help the Democrats because I thought they were getting their rear‑ends kicked by the Republicans who knew how to talk about morality.
事实上，我在 2004 年进入政治心理学正是为了帮助民主党，因为我认为他们被懂得如何谈论道德的共和党人踢了屁股。
Whereas Gore and Kerry just didn’t have a clue.
而戈尔和克里却毫无头绪。
Since I started researching conservatism and then libertarianism, I’ve just found that they make a lot of points that as a social scientist I have to agree, “Oh, that’s a good point.”
自从我开始研究保守主义和自由主义以来，我发现他们提出了很多观点，作为一名社会科学家，我必须同意，“哦，这是一个很好的观点。”
The overriding importance of family stability, if you’re raising kids with incredible family stability, they just come out better.
家庭稳定至关重要，如果你在家庭稳定的情况下抚养孩子，他们就会表现得更好。
In fact they’re much more likely to rise economically than if they’re raised with any sort of family instability.
事实上，与在任何不稳定的家庭环境中长大的人相比，他们更有可能在经济上取得进步。
So I think I’m more conservative about family arrangements, precisely because of these second- and third-level effects.
所以我认为我对家庭安排比较保守，正是因为这些二级和三级效应。
Let’s see, what else?
让我们看看，还有什么？
I haven’t really changed my views of drugs, I still am pretty pro‑legalization and decriminalization.
我并没有真正改变对毒品的看法，我仍然非常支持合法化和非刑事化。
I guess in a way I’ve become more libertarian, but with a real sense of respect for what social conservatives say about family stability.
我想在某种程度上我变得更加自由主义，但真正尊重社会保守派关于家庭稳定的说法。
Let’s say if people say harmful things — take a classic case.
假设人们说了一些有害的话 —— 举一个经典案例。
There’s a football team called the Washington Redskins.
有一支橄榄球队叫华盛顿红皮队。
I’m pretty sure most of its fans, the intent is not offense, but there is an offense there for many people.
我很确定大多数粉丝的意图并不是冒犯，但对很多人来说确实是一种冒犯。
It’s called a harm, and there are some demands that name be changed.
这就是所谓的伤害，有人要求改名。
There is a public or social dimension to the name, that if certain groups are insulted enough times maybe there’s a demoralization or other kinds of prejudice become seen as more effective.
这个名字有一个公共或社会维度，如果某些群体被侮辱足够多次，可能会出现士气低落或其他类型的偏见被认为更有效。
How do you think through whether the Washington Redskins should be called the Washington Redskins, and does this not mean that on campus there should be some political correctness?
您如何看待华盛顿红皮队是否应该被称为华盛顿红皮队，这是否意味着校园里应该有一些政治正确？
This is a great question, because these really are tough questions.
这是一个很好的问题，因为这些确实是很难回答的问题。
Just two principles here.
这里只有两个原则。
One is we all should try thought experiments to reverse the group and see if it matters.
一是我们都应该尝试思想实验来逆转群体，看看它是否重要。
I’m Jewish, I think you’re Jewish, are you Jewish?
我是犹太人，我想你也是犹太人，你是犹太人吗？
No, mostly Irish.
不，主要是爱尔兰人。
OK.
好的。
Suppose it was the Washington Rabbis, it’s not a very fierce sort of name, so we’re the Washington Jews, or anything.
假设它是华盛顿拉比，这不是一个非常激烈的名字，所以我们是华盛顿犹太人，或者其他什么。
Now imagine a football game in which the fans of the Washington Rabbis bring little scissors as though they’re going to circumcise their opponents, and that’s their big chant, “We’re going to circumcise you.” It just sort of makes the whole thing look ridiculous.
现在想象一下一场足球比赛，华盛顿拉比队的球迷带着小剪刀，好像他们要给对手进行割礼，而这就是他们的大口号：“我们要给你割礼。”它只是让整件事看起来很荒谬。
I am sympathetic to some of these, even though the main thing I’m concerned about these days is political correctness, the whole culture of microaggressions, the hypersensitivity, I’m very concerned about that.
我对其中一些人表示同情，尽管这些天我主要担心的是政治正确性、整个微侵略文化、超敏感，我对此非常担心。
But there is really something legitimate here to having your group be mocked.
但让你的团队被嘲笑确实是有道理的。
That I think might be the principle.
我认为这可能是原则。
The worst idea — God, there’s so many bad ideas on campus — one of the worst and most ridiculous ideas is the idea of cultural appropriation.
最糟糕的想法——“天哪，校园里有这么多糟糕的想法”——“最糟糕、最荒谬的想法之一就是文化挪用的想法。
The idea if you go to West Africa, and you buy a necklace or you buy a shirt, and you come back and you wear it, someone would say, “You can’t do that, you’re appropriating their culture.” That is absurd, cultural evolution requires us to exchange ideas.
如果你去西非，你买了一条项链或一件衬衫，然后你回来穿上它，有人会说，“你不能这样做，你正在盗用他们的文化。”这是荒谬的，文化的进化需要我们交流思想。
What about the actual mocks, or semi‑mocks — should private colleges prohibit them?
那么真正的模拟或半模拟呢？私立大学应该禁止它们吗？
The private — ?
私人 —— ？
Let’s say you’re Brown or Yale, and students set up a lacrosse team, and they call it the Brown Redskins, and they do some rituals which offend some people.
假设你是布朗大学或耶鲁大学的学生，学生们组建了一支长曲棍球队，他们称之为布朗红皮队，他们做一些冒犯某些人的仪式。
No matter what the intent would be, should Brown or Yale step in and say, “You can’t do that”?
无论意图是什么，布朗或耶鲁是否应该介入并说“你不能这样做”？
There’s a big, big line between saying, “Brown or Yale should step in and tell people what they can’t — .” In general I think no, in general the idea — .
“布朗大学或耶鲁大学应该介入并告诉人们他们不能做的事情 - ”之间有很大很大的界限。总的来说，我认为不是，一般来说，这个想法是 — 。
No, they shouldn’t step in?
不，他们不应该介入吗？
They should not step in.
他们不应该介入。
We should be extremely limited when we say that authorities can step in and change things.
当我们说当局可以介入并改变事情时，我们应该非常有限。
The very fact of doing that encourages microaggression culture, encourages students to orient themselves toward appealing to these authorities.
这样做的事实本身就鼓励了微侵犯文化，鼓励学生向这些当局求助。
The point of the microaggression article is young people these days have become moral dependents.
这篇微侵犯文章的要点是，现在的年轻人已经成为道德依赖者。
If somebody insults them they can’t straighten it out themselves, they have to go right to the authorities, and this embroils everybody in eternal battles.
如果有人侮辱他们，他们自己无法解决，就必须直接向当局举报，这让每个人都陷入了永恒的斗争。
College used to be a lot of fun when I went, and now it’s constant conflicts, and that’s going to happen as far as the eye can see.
当我上大学的时候，大学曾经很有趣，现在却充满了不断的冲突，而且这种情况将会发生。
We should be extremely limited when we say that authorities can step in and change things.
当我们说当局可以介入并改变事情时，我们应该非常有限。
The very fact of doing that encourages microaggression culture, encourages students to orient themselves towards appealing to these authorities.
这样做的事实本身就鼓励了微侵犯文化，鼓励学生向这些当局求助。
The point of the microaggression article is young people these days have become moral dependents.
这篇微侵犯文章的要点是，现在的年轻人已经成为道德依赖者。
Let me try another analogy on you.
让我用另一个比喻来比喻你。
You mentioned the army, but take private corporations, and Brown and Yale are in a sense private corporations.
你提到了军队，但以私营企业为例，布朗大学和耶鲁大学在某种意义上就是私营企业。
Harvard was originally.
原来是哈佛。
I wouldn’t call them restrictions on free speech, I think that’s the wrong phrase, but if one’s going to use the phrase that way, there are numerous restrictions on free speech within companies, at the work place.
我不会称它们为对言论自由的限制，我认为这是一个错误的短语，但如果你要这样使用这个短语，那么公司内部、工作场所的言论自由有很多限制。
If you went to the water cooler and said a number of offensive things, you would be asked to stop and eventually fired, and I don’t see anything wrong with that.
如果你走到饮水机前说了一些冒犯性的话，你就会被要求停下来并最终被解雇，我不认为这有什么问题。
So if we think of Brown, Yale, or Harvard as like a normal company, isn’t there still even with all the nonsense, a lot more free speech on campus than in actual companies?
因此，如果我们将布朗大学、耶鲁大学或哈佛视为一家普通公司，那么即使有这么多废话，校园里的言论自由是否仍然比实际公司要多得多？
Yes, and there should be.
是的，而且应该有。
Again, a company is organized to be effective in the world.
同样，公司的组织是为了在世界范围内发挥作用。
Just like the army where their priority is unit cohesion, in a company your goal isn’t to encourage everyone to express their values and criticize each other, your goal is to get them to work together.
就像军队的首要任务是单位凝聚力一样，在公司中，你的目标不是鼓励每个人表达自己的价值观并互相批评，你的目标是让他们一起工作。
But you need a lot of that in a university though, right?
但在大学里你需要很多这样的东西，对吗？
No, you need basic civility.
不，你需要基本的礼貌。
You need people to be able to live with each other, to critique each other’s ideas, and to not then file charges because they were critiqued.
你需要人们能够和睦相处，能够批评彼此的想法，并且不会因为受到批评而提出指控。
Companies live in fear of lawsuits, and labor law is encouraging this more than ever before.
公司生活在对诉讼的恐惧之中，而劳动法比以往任何时候都更加鼓励这种做法。
Universities are very, very different.
大学非常非常不同。
Actually, let me suggest something in terms of where to draw a line.
实际上，让我就如何划清界限提出一些建议。
We’re seeing now: should the Woodrow Wilson School be renamed?
我们现在看到的是：伍德罗·威尔逊学校应该更名吗？
Should Calhoun College be renamed?
卡尔霍恩学院应该更名吗？
I have some maybe funny thoughts on this, but here are couple of principles.
我对此有一些可能很有趣的想法，但这里有几个原则。
One is that the name of your school, or — I went to Yale as an undergrad — your residential college is kind of part of your identity.
一是你的学校名称，或者 —— 我本科就读于耶鲁大学 —— 你的住宿学院是你身份的一部分。
And so students at Calhoun College, if they want to change that name because it’s offensive to African-Americans and to many people, if they want to change that name I think that they should have that right.
因此，卡尔霍恩学院的学生，如果他们想更改这个名字，因为它冒犯了非裔美国人和许多人，如果他们想更改这个名字，我认为他们应该有这个权利。
I think that’s a good thing.
我认为这是一件好事。
We just should have a process so that it’s not just the loudest group in the space of one year that gets to do it.
我们应该有一个流程，这样就不仅仅是一年内声音最大的团体才能做到这一点。
There should be a process that says if three-quarters of the people vote to do it, and you take that vote two years apart, then it should be done.
应该有一个流程，规定如果四分之三的人投票赞成这样做，并且你相隔两年进行投票，那么就应该这样做。
Now, if it’s a question of there’s a statue on campus, there’s a painting on campus — of Cecil Rhodes, I think it’s at Oxford.
现在，如果问题是校园里有一座雕像，那么校园里有一幅画——塞西尔·罗德斯的画，我想是在牛津。
Rhodes was a big donor, Rhodes was a racist, according to his writings a colonialist, if it’s that there’s a statue on campus, that’s a very, very different matter.
罗德是一个大捐助者，罗德是一个种族主义者，根据他的著作，他是一个殖民主义者，如果校园里有一尊雕像，那就是非常非常不同的事情了。
Once they start saying we’re going to put to a vote everything.
一旦他们开始说我们将对一切进行投票。
Everyone gets to opine on whether we take down this, take down this.
每个人都可以对我们是否取消这个、取消这个发表意见。
Before you know it, you’re taking down everything because presumably religious students are offended by certain things, conservative students are offended by certain things, everyone’s offended by something.
在你意识到之前，你就抹掉了一切，因为大概宗教学生会被某些事情冒犯，保守派学生会被某些事情冒犯，每个人都会被某些事情冒犯。
You have to have limits, you have to have a process.
你必须有限制，你必须有一个过程。
At present we don’t have a process, we just have outrage stoked by social media and then we have craven university presidents who can’t stand up to the protesters and say, “OK, we’ll do it.”
目前我们没有一个程序，我们只是社交媒体激起了愤怒，然后我们有胆怯的大学校长，他们无法对抗抗议者并说：“好吧，我们会这么做。”
Let’s say you were put in charge of undergraduate admissions at Yale, and you could more or less do what you thought was best without constraint, what would you change?
假设你被任命负责耶鲁大学的本科生招生，你或多或少可以不受约束地做你认为最好的事情，你会改变什么？
Oh gosh, I’d change a lot of things.
哦天哪，我会改变很多事情。
One thing that I would do is I would start admitting for signs that you can contribute to an intellectually diverse environment.
我要做的一件事是，我会开始承认有迹象表明你可以为智力多元化的环境做出贡献。
That means that I would look for people who — so Yale in particular, but all of the top schools have a huge problem, that they have basically social justice warriors who are so empowered, so angry, that they dominate discourse and you basically have the small illiberal left has completely terrorized the larger liberal left.
这意味着我会寻找这样的人——尤其是耶鲁大学，但所有顶尖学校都有一个巨大的问题，他们基本上都是社会正义斗士，他们如此强大，如此愤怒，以至于他们主导了话语，而你基本上有小非自由左派完全恐吓了更大的自由左派。
Yale right now is quite dysfunctional.
耶鲁现在的功能相当失调。
Students there say they can’t speak up, they can’t speak up in class, they feel pressure on Facebook, if somebody sends around a petition for some left-wing cause they have to endorse it, even if they don’t want to.
那里的学生说，他们不能发言，他们不能在课堂上发言，他们在 Facebook 上感到压力，如果有人为某些左翼事业发出请愿书，他们就必须支持它，即使他们不想。
Yale’s a mess right now, as a lot of schools are.
耶鲁大学现在一团糟，就像很多学校一样。
That should be the top diversity issue, is intellectual diversity.
这应该是最重要的多样性问题，即知识多样性。
I would stop admitting for social justice cred, in other words, if you say, “Oh, I started this protest group, and we got this overturned.”
换句话说，如果你说，“哦，我发起了这个抗议团体，我们就推翻了这个团体”，我将不再承认社会正义的信誉。
Basically I think a lot of students know is the way to get into a top school is show your social justice activism.
基本上我认为很多学生都知道进入顶尖学校的方法是展示你的社会正义行动主义。
Well, top schools are now full of social justice activists, and they’re no longer places where people can say anything that contradicts the social justice activists.
嗯，顶尖学校现在充满了社会正义活动家，他们不再是人们可以发表任何与社会正义活动家相矛盾的话的地方。
What’s that old joke?
那个老笑话是什么？
“Doctor, it hurts when I do this.
“医生，我这样做的时候会很痛。
Well, stop doing this.” They should stop admitting social justice warriors and start admitting people they’ve got the guts to disagree.
好吧，别再这样做了。”他们应该停止接纳社会正义斗士，而开始接纳那些有胆量不同意的人。
On things under- and overrated
关于被低估和高估的事情
We now move to a segment of the conversation called underrated versus overrated.
我们现在进入对话的一个部分，称为低估与高估。
I threw out a bunch of names or concepts, you tell me if you think they’re underrated or overrated and why.
我抛出了一堆名字或概念，你告诉我你是否认为它们被低估或高估以及原因。
Number one, Sigmund Freud.
第一名，西格蒙德·弗洛伊德。
Well, he certainly was overrated for a long time.
嗯，很长一段时间以来，他确实被高估了。
In academic psychology his value is essentially zero, so that might be underrated, in that Freud’s ideas about development were completely worthless.
在学术心理学中，他的价值基本上为零，因此可能被低估，因为弗洛伊德关于发展的思想完全没有价值。
But he was a very interesting and provocative writer, and he ought to be read a little bit more in psychology, overrated in humanities.
但他是一位非常有趣且具有挑衅性的作家，他在心理学方面应该多读一点，在人文学科方面则被高估了。
They still rely on him as a psychologist in humanities.
他们仍然信赖他作为人文心理学家。
Depends where you are in the humanities overrated, in social psychology, underrated.
取决于你在人文学科中被高估的位置，在社会心理学中被低估的位置。
LSD, overrated or underrated?
LSD，被高估还是被低估？
I would say underrated in that there are — I did a lot of reading about drugs in my late 20s.
我想说的是，它被低估了，因为 —— 我在 20 多岁的时候读了很多关于毒品的书。
I was interested to find that there are only a few drugs that people make religions around.
我很感兴趣地发现，人们信奉宗教的药物只有少数几种。
I forget the name of the chemical class, but it’s whatever the common compound is in LSD, psilocybin, yagé, those things.
我忘记了化学类别的名称，但它是 LSD、裸盖菇素、yagé 等常见化合物的名称。
Those drugs all have religions built around them, whereas heroin, morphine, alcohol — I mean alcohol plays a role in religion.
这些毒品都有围绕它们建立的宗教，而海洛因、吗啡、酒精——我的意思是酒精在宗教中发挥着作用。
So there are some drugs that ruin people’s lives, and there are other drugs that enrich people’s lives.
所以有些药物会毁掉人们的生活，而有些药物会丰富人们的生活。
Psychedelics have an incredibly positive track record in terms of enriching people’s lives versus damaging them.
迷幻药在丰富人们的生活而不是损害人们的生活方面有着令人难以置信的积极记录。
So to the extent that they are rarely used, and widely feared, I would say that they are underrated and I’m basing this on the research that was done in the ’60s and just starting now that when you give people psychedelic drugs in controlled settings, be they cancer patients, or criminals in jail, the therapeutic effects tend to be quite positive.
因此，就它们很少使用和广泛恐惧而言，我想说它们被低估了，我的这一点是基于 60 年代所做的研究，现在才刚刚开始，当你在受控环境下给人们迷幻药物时，无论他们是癌症患者还是监狱里的罪犯，治疗效果往往是相当积极的。
The moral panic against drugs in the ’60s through the ’80s was too much, and therefore psychedelic drugs in particular are now underrated.
20世纪60年代到80年代对毒品的道德恐慌太过严重，因此迷幻药物现在尤其被低估。
Psychedelics have an incredibly positive track record in terms of enriching people’s lives versus damaging them.
迷幻药在丰富人们的生活而不是损害人们的生活方面有着令人难以置信的积极记录。
So to the extent that they are rarely used, and widely feared, I would say that they are underrated and I’m basing this on the research that was done in the ’60s and just starting now that when you give people psychedelic drugs in controlled settings, be they cancer patients, or criminals in jail, the therapeutic effects tend to be quite positive.
因此，就它们很少使用和广泛恐惧而言，我想说它们被低估了，我的这一点是基于 60 年代所做的研究，现在才刚刚开始，当你在受控环境下给人们迷幻药物时，无论他们是癌症患者还是监狱里的罪犯，治疗效果往往是相当积极的。
I’ve done one of these dialogs with Peter Thiel, and he’s a big fan of René Girard, and his theory of sacrificial violence.
我与彼得·蒂尔进行过一次这样的对话，他是雷内·吉拉德及其牺牲暴力理论的忠实粉丝。
Do you have an opinion?
你有意见吗？
No, many people have emailed me about him, and I know I need to read him, I think he’s vaguely Durkheimian.
不，很多人给我发电子邮件谈论他，我知道我需要读他的书，我认为他隐约是涂尔干主义者。
Yes.
是的。
So if he’s Durkheimian, then I’m in favor of him.
所以如果他是涂尔干主义者，那么我就支持他。
By that I just mean — I don’t want to sound too academic and obscure here — just that if you look at what humans are doing, so much of what we do is weird and inexplicable.
我的意思只是 —— 我不想在这里听起来太学术和晦涩 —— 只是如果你看看人类在做什么，我们所做的很多事情都是奇怪和难以解释的。
But after you read Durkheim, you see, oh, we’re trying to form communities.
但是当你读完涂尔干之后，你会发现，哦，我们正在努力形成社区。
We’re trying to form moral communities that will give order, punish deviants, allow us to work together.
我们正在努力建立道德共同体，以维持秩序、惩罚越轨者、让我们共同努力。
So if that’s what’s Girard’s about, then I would agree with it.
所以如果这就是吉拉德的意思，那么我会同意。
Leo Strauss.
列奥·施特劳斯.
I don’t know enough about him, also on my to‑read list.
我对他了解不够，也在我的阅读清单上。
Reading through a lot of your past work, which I did to prepare for this conversation.
阅读了你过去的很多作品，这是我为这次谈话做准备的。
This struck me, and I didn’t expect it to be the case, but at times I was thinking more of Claude Lévi-Strauss, the anthropologist, than I thought I was going to.
这让我震惊，我没想到会是这样，但有时我对人类学家克洛德·列维-斯特劳斯的思考比我想象的要多。
Underrated or overrated?
被低估还是被高估？
Again, well I can’t say, because again it depends where you are.
再说一次，我不能说，因为这又取决于你在哪里。
In symbolic anthropology I think he is still quite highly rated, outside of that I think very few people know about him.
在象征人类学中我认为他的评价仍然很高，除此之外我认为很少有人了解他。
I read a little bit about, a little bit of his work when I was a postdoc in Chicago with Richard Shweder.
当我在芝加哥做博士后时，我和理查德·施韦德（Richard Shweder）一起读了一些关于他的工作。
What I remember is just the idea of interpreting cultures as people are making symbols, we live in a rich symbolic world, a world of narrative, we need to interpret those, that I think is quite right, and that’s again what I love about cultural anthropology is it gives you a way of interpreting cultures.
我记得的只是将文化解释为人们制造符号的想法，我们生活在一个丰富的符号世界，一个叙事的世界，我们需要解释这些，我认为这是完全正确的，这也是我喜欢文化人类学的原因，因为它为你提供了一种解释文化的方式。
Where it then leads you to deny that there’s also human nature that is based in our evolution, then it becomes a problem.
如果它让你否认在我们的进化中也存在人性，那么这就成了一个问题。
But I just can’t remember which part of those is attributable to Lévi-Strauss.
但我就是记不起其中哪一部分是列维-斯特劳斯的作品。
You’re a trained psychologist, in addition to your most famous work, you have a lot of other papers which are very well cited, but less famous for other public intellectuals doing what you’d call traditional psychological research.
你是一位训练有素的心理学家，除了你最著名的作品之外，你还有很多其他论文被很好地引用，但对于其他从事你所谓的传统心理学研究的公共知识分子来说却不太出名。
Here we have these economists, they do what they call behavioral economics, and they tread into the field of psychology, do they know what they’re doing?
这里有这些经济学家，他们从事所谓的行为经济学，他们涉足心理学领域，他们知道自己在做什么吗？
Behavioral economics, underrated or overrated?
行为经济学，被低估还是高估？
Properly rated right now, with one caveat.
现在评级正确，但有一点需要注意。
We psychologists have long felt, “Oh those economists they’re the only ones that are ever consulted in Congress, and they have all these high‑prestige jobs, they have a Nobel Prize, nobody listens to us.”
我们心理学家长期以来一直觉得，“哦，那些经济学家，他们是国会中唯一接受咨询的人，他们拥有所有这些高声望的工作，他们拥有诺贝尔奖，但没有人听我们的。”
Some economists beginning with Robert Frank, and Dan Kahneman, Dick Thaler, the fact that economists have been listening to psychologists, and making our work more well‑known, of course Kahneman did a lot of that work, and he is a psychologist.
从罗伯特·弗兰克（Robert Frank）、丹·卡尼曼（Dan Kahneman）、迪克·泰勒（Dick Thaler）开始的一些经济学家，事实上经济学家一直在倾听心理学家的意见，并使我们的工作更加出名，当然卡尼曼做了很多这样的工作，他是一名心理学家。
That’s all good, I’m thrilled with the way that’s going.
一切都很好，我对目前的进展感到兴奋。
The only caveat that I would put which I would say if they don’t do this soon, then they would be overrated, is the behavioral economics work is an example of this wonderful dictum from Robert Zajonc, the famous social psychologist, which is that cognitive psychology is social psychology with all the interesting variables set to zero.
我要提出的唯一警告是，如果他们不尽快这样做，那么他们就会被高估，行为经济学工作是著名社会心理学家罗伯特·扎洪克（Robert Zajonc）这一精彩格言的一个例子，即认知心理学是所有有趣变量都设置为零的社会心理学。
To the extent that behavioral economists are saying, “Look at a person shopping, what influences their decision?
行为经济学家说：“看看一个人购物，是什么影响了他们的决定？
If the apple is at eye‑level — .” They’re looking at lone consumers who are trying to make choices to optimize their outcomes.
如果苹果位于视线水平 —— 。”他们关注的是那些试图做出选择以优化结果的孤独消费者。
That’s great work, but that’s setting all the interesting variables to zero.
这是一项伟大的工作，但这将所有有趣的变量设置为零。
The interesting stuff is all social.
有趣的东西都是社交的。
It’s what does this say about me?
这说明了我的什么情况？
Will I be ostracized from my group?
我会被群体排斥吗？
If behavioral economics becomes more social, which I think will be the next phase, then I would say it would deserve ever‑rising market value.
如果行为经济学变得更加社会化（我认为这将是下一阶段），那么我想说它的市场价值将值得不断上升。
Thorstein Veblen, that was his initial vision for it actually, was that it be quite social and that the idea of a social reference class was central to people’s behavioral biases.
索尔斯坦·维勃伦（Thorstein Veblen）实际上是他最初的愿景，那就是它具有相当的社会性，而社会参考类别的想法是人们行为偏见的核心。
Interesting.
有趣的。
Again, this is a critique from outside, but what a lot of people say which sounds right to me is that the early economists were great social theorists.
再说一遍，这是来自外部的批评，但很多人所说的对我来说听起来正确的是，早期的经济学家是伟大的社会理论家。
My God, you read Adam Smith, what a brilliant world philosopher, historian, they thought so broadly and you tell me, but it seems there was a weird turn in the mid‑20th century towards mathematics.
天啊，你读过亚当·斯密，他是一位多么杰出的世界哲学家、历史学家，他们的思想如此广泛，你告诉我，但在 20 世纪中叶，数学似乎出现了一个奇怪的转变。
Yes.
是的。
I think it made economists set all the interesting variables to zero.
我认为这让经济学家将所有有趣的变量设置为零。
…
……
arly economists were great social theorists.
早期的经济学家都是伟大的社会理论家。
My God, you read Adam Smith, what a brilliant world philosopher, historian, they thought so broadly and you tell me, but it seems there was a weird turn in the mid‑20th century towards mathematics.
天啊，你读过亚当·斯密，他是一位多么杰出的世界哲学家、历史学家，他们的思想如此广泛，你告诉我，但在 20 世纪中叶，数学似乎出现了一个奇怪的转变。
I think it made economists set all the interesting variables to zero.
我认为这让经济学家将所有有趣的变量设置为零。
Antiparsimonialism , underrated or overrated?
反简约主义，被低估还是高估？
Antiparsimonialism, have you any heard anyone say that other than me, is that my term?
反简约主义，除了我之外，你有没有听过任何人说过，这是我的术语？
No, that’s why I asked.
不，这就是我问的原因。
Oh good, then of course I think it’s underrated, because I think — so parsimony is overrated.
哦，很好，那么我当然认为它被低估了，因为我认为 —— 所以节俭被高估了。
Rather here’s what I should say.
这就是我应该说的。
The pursuit of parsimony is a bad idea.
追求节俭是一个坏主意。
It becomes almost a religious quest, people think, “Oh, if I can explain this phenomenon with one principle, I have won, I have produced a better explanation.” That’s a disaster for the social sciences, maybe it works in physics, but again, people are really complicated, much more so than matter.
这几乎变成了一种宗教追求，人们想，“哦，如果我能用一个原则解释这个现象，我就赢了，我已经提出了更好的解释。”这对社会科学来说是一场灾难，也许它在物理学中有效，但同样，人真的很复杂，比物质复杂得多。
People who pursue parsimony, scientists who pursue it and think that the simplest explanation is better than one that’s a little more complicated, that’s a problem.
追求简约的人们，追求简约并认为最简单的解释比稍微复杂一点的解释更好的科学家，这是一个问题。
I’m trying to advocate for what I’m calling antiparsimony, or antiparsimonialism.
我试图倡导我所说的反简约主义或反简约主义。
Normatively you’re a pluralist then, and not like a utilitarian, or — ?
从规范上来说，你是一个多元主义者，而不是一个功利主义者，或者 —— ？
Normatively I’m a pluralist, yes.
一般来说，我是一个多元主义者，是的。
That means that there are many human values, and this is straight from Isaiah Berlin.
这意味着人类有很多价值观，这直接来自以赛亚·柏林。
There are many human values, and if you take one, let’s take liberty.
人类的价值观有很多种，如果你选择一种，那就让我们自由吧。
“Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.” Wrong.
“捍卫自由的极端主义并不是罪恶。”错误的。
Extremism in defense of any virtue becomes a vice, it becomes sick, it becomes something that leads to horrible inhumanity and brutality.
捍卫任何美德的极端主义都会变成一种恶习，它会变得病态，它会变成导致可怕的不人道和残暴的东西。
Many people try to say well all that really matters is care and compassion.
许多人试图说，真正重要的是关心和同情心。
But if you take that to its absurd extreme you get kind of close to what we have on campus, which is we will destroy anybody’s rights in order to protect these seven victim classes.
但如果你把这种想法推向荒谬的极端，你就会有点接近我们校园里的情况，那就是我们将摧毁任何人的权利，以保护这七个受害者阶层。
Some of your core ideas in psychology and also I would say anthropology, if you had to pick a famous movie, or famous novel, or play, that illustrated those, that you would use to teach some of your ideas, what would you point to, and what would your account be?
你在心理学以及人类学方面的一些核心观点，如果你必须选择一部著名的电影、著名的小说或戏剧来说明这些观点，你会用它来教授你的一些观点，你会指出什么，你会解释什么？
Oh my God.
我的天啊。
I should have a great answer to this question.
对于这个问题我应该有一个很好的答案。
I am so poorly read, my wife makes fun of me that I haven’t read a novel since I met her in the year 2000, I’ve just been so busy reading non‑fiction.
我的阅读能力很差，我的妻子取笑我，自从 2000 年遇见她以来，我就没有读过小说，我只是忙着读非小说类小说。
Let’s see.
让我们来看看。
Gosh, almost any of these BBC epics, anything that illustrates, I think English aristocratic life in the 19th century illustrates a rich, morally rich society with hierarchy and all those things that have disappeared from modern morality.
天哪，几乎所有这些 BBC 史诗，任何能说明的东西，我认为 19 世纪的英国贵族生活都说明了一个富裕、道德丰富的社会，有等级制度和所有那些从现代道德中消失的东西。
I should have a much better answer for you, but I think just reading novels from non‑Western cultures, and I would consider 19th century British aristocracy to be sort of a foreign culture now, just can give you an idea of cultures other than our own.
我应该给你一个更好的答案，但我认为只要阅读非西方文化的小说，我认为 19 世纪的英国贵族现在是一种外国文化，就能让你了解我们自己以外的文化。
On Haidt’s earlier research (and what disgusts him)
关于海特的早期研究（以及令他厌恶的事情）
Final segment, let me ask you some questions about your earlier psychological research, because a lot of people aren’t familiar about that.
最后一部分，让我问你一些关于你早期心理学研究的问题，因为很多人对此并不熟悉。
Let me just start with a very direct, personal question.
让我从一个非常直接的个人问题开始。
What is it that you find disgusting?
你觉得恶心的是什么？
What do I find disgusting?
我觉得什么很恶心？
These days I find illiberalism disgusting.
这些天我发现非自由主义令人厌恶。
The idea that one person takes it upon himself to shout down or shut down someone else, to decide I or my group, we get to tell you whether you can speak or not.
如果一个人自己去大声喊叫或阻止别人，来决定我或我的团队，我们会告诉你你是否可以说话。
I find this really disgusting.
我觉得这真的很恶心。
This is I think one of the reasons I’m so upset by what’s going on on campus, is that the certain group of activists decides that somebody’s going to come speak on campus, fine, if you want to stand up and protest outside and hold up signs, that’s fine.
我认为这就是我对校园里发生的事情感到如此不安的原因之一，就是某些活动分子决定有人来校园演讲，好吧，如果你想站起来在外面抗议并举起标语，那也可以。
But how dare you go in and shout them down so that people who have come to listen can’t hear.
但你怎么敢进去喊他们，让来听的人听不到。
I find that really revolting.
我觉得这真的很令人反感。
If I cook some insects and serve them to you with jelly and lime on top, you’d be fine with that, it may not be your favorite, but you wouldn’t say “Oh this is disgusting.” It might just be, “Oh, I don’t like turkey sandwiches.” Which is true, I don’t like turkey sandwiches.
如果我煮一些昆虫，上面放上果冻和酸橙，你就可以接受，它可能不是你最喜欢的，但你不会说“哦，这太恶心了。”它可能只是，“哦，我不喜欢火鸡三明治。”确实如此，我不喜欢火鸡三明治。
One of my little small moments of insight and I sat in disgust, was when Paul Rozin and I were working with a Japanese colleague, Sumio Imada, and he brought in a can of honey‑covered grasshoppers from Japan, into Paul’s office, in about the year 1990.
1990 年左右，我和保罗·罗津 (Paul Rozin) 与一位日本同事今田纯夫 (Sumio Imada) 一起工作时，他从日本带了一罐蜂蜜包裹的蚱蜢到保罗的办公室。
I was a disgust researcher, and I thought, “OK, good, I’ve never eaten an insect before, I’m going to try it.” I took one, I brought up to my mouth intending to eat it, and my throat just gagged.
我是一名厌恶研究员，我想，“好吧，很好，我以前从未吃过昆虫，我要尝试一下。”我拿了一个，放到嘴边想吃，结果我的喉咙卡住了。
I’ve never had such a clear gag response, my throat said no way, you’re not putting that in.
我从未有过如此明显的堵嘴反应，我的喉咙说不可能，你不能把它放进去。
I just forced my hand into my mouth, once beyond the lips, interestingly, once it’s beyond the lips then disgust, it’s sort of too late, and then I was able to eat it.
我只是把手伸进嘴里，一旦超出了嘴唇，有趣的是，一旦超出了嘴唇，我就感到恶心，有点太晚了，然后我就能吃掉它了。
But no, I still find eating insects disgusting.
但不，我仍然觉得吃昆虫很恶心。
Are all kinds of morality compromised in psychopathy?
是不是所有的道德都会在精神病态中受到损害？
Are all kinds?
各种都有吗？
We actually have some data on this.
我们实际上有一些这方面的数据。
The answer is generally yes, because they have no moral emotions.
答案一般是肯定的，因为他们没有道德情感。
I think there are certain kinds that they can understand a little better, but it hasn’t really been studied well enough because everybody’s been focused on care and fairness as morality.
我认为有些类型他们可以更好地理解，但还没有真正得到足够好的研究，因为每个人都把关注和公平作为道德。
Psychopaths have no sense of care, or compassion, or sympathy.
精神病患者没有关怀、同情或同情的意识。
They’re happy to cheat, they don’t care about fairness, but I think people haven’t really studied group loyalty, tribalism, hierarchy.
他们很乐意作弊，他们不关心公平，但我认为人们还没有真正研究过群体忠诚、部落主义和等级制度。
My prediction is that all forms are compromised.
我的预测是所有形式都会受到损害。
I know there’s a paper, I think I know I’m on a paper that basically has that as the title.
我知道有一篇论文，我想我知道我正在写一篇基本上以此为标题的论文。
But I’m trying to remember how clear the data was on all those, whether it goes beyond just the moral foundations questionnaire.
但我试图记住所有这些数据的清晰程度，是否超出了道德基础调查问卷的范围。
Yes, as far as I can tell psychopaths have no real morality.
是的，据我所知，精神病患者没有真正的道德。
They do get angry if they feel disrespected sometimes, but that’s about it.
如果有时他们感到不受尊重，他们确实会生气，但仅此而已。
You have some very interesting papers on moral elevation, the idea that you can elevate people and this is an important sympathetic relation, actually Adam Smith wrote about this.
你有一些关于道德提升的非常有趣的论文，你可以提升人们的思想，这是一种重要的同情关系，实际上亚当·斯密写过这一点。
You can induce them to be more caring, caring in the good way.
你可以诱导他们更加关心他人，以好的方式关心他们。
You can induce nursing behavior.
您可以诱导护理行为。
You can induce all kinds of positive responses.
你可以引发各种积极的反应。
If a student at, say, Yale, comes up to you and says, “Jonathan, I would like to engage in some moral elevation on campus.” What would you tell them to do?
如果耶鲁大学的一名学生走过来对你说：“乔纳森，我想在校园里从事一些道德提升活动。”你会告诉他们做什么？
Moral elevation happens when you display virtues in a way that’s really powerful.
当你以一种真正强大的方式展现美德时，道德就会得到提升。
Virtues of caring, and compassion, and loyalty tend to be the ones that get written about.
关怀、同情和忠诚的美德往往是被写下来的。
Courage, also, can be quite moving.
勇气也可以令人感动。
Gosh, in a really politicized climate, what would be elevating?
天哪，在一个真正政治化的气候下，什么会让人振奋呢？
Standing up for principles, standing up for people’s rights to speak.
坚持原则，维护人民的话语权。
You’d probably get your head cut off if you tried it.
如果你尝试的话，你的头可能会被砍掉。
Let’s see, what would be morally elevating on a campus?
让我们看看，在校园里什么可以提升道德？
Usually, people would go for social justice kinds of elevations, showing their devotion to oppressed groups.
通常，人们会追求社会正义的某种提升，以表达他们对受压迫群体的奉献。
But that’s kind of a moral signaling.
但这是一种道德信号。
I don’t know what I would advise that person.
我不知道我会给那个人什么建议。
I guess I would advise them — the research on the effects of elevation is complicated.
我想我会建议他们 ——关于海拔影响的研究很复杂。
I had originally hoped that if I simply showed someone an elevating video, they’d be more likely to help others right afterwards.
我原本希望，如果我只是向某人展示一段令人振奋的视频，他们就更有可能立即帮助别人。
I didn’t find that.
我没有找到。
A few other researchers found it, but it’s a small effect.
其他一些研究人员也发现了这一点，但影响很小。
Because when you’re touched, moved, inspired, it doesn’t make you go out and take action.
因为当你受到感动、感动、受到启发时，并不会让你出去采取行动。
It’s calming you.
它让你平静。
I think you have parasympathetic activation.
我认为你有副交感神经激活。
You’re not prepared for vigorous action, but I think you learn more.
你还没有准备好采取强有力的行动，但我认为你学到了更多。
You take in more, and it can change your values.
你吸收更多，它可以改变你的价值观。
There is a big debate lately about a replication crisis or supposed replication crisis in many fields, but a lot of it’s been social psychology.
最近，在许多领域都存在着关于复制危机或所谓的复制危机的大争论，但其中很多都是社会心理学方面的。
What’s your view on that debate?
您对这场辩论有何看法？
I have good friends on both sides.
我两边都有好朋友。
They all make incredibly good points.
他们都提出了令人难以置信的好观点。
I think Brian Nosek, who’s been leading the charge on the problems in psychology, is largely right.
我认为布莱恩·诺塞克（Brian Nosek）在心理学问题上一直处于领先地位，他的观点基本上是正确的。
That our methods have been sloppy, which has allowed us to engage in practices where we’re just more likely than we should be to get a significant result.
我们的方法一直很草率，这使得我们能够从事一些更有可能取得重大成果的实践。
And then of course, that’s more likely to get published.
当然，这更有可能被发表。
Given that we find the same problem in cancer research and biomedical research — in almost every field where it’s been looked at — I think that the replication crisis is very real.
鉴于我们在癌症研究和生物医学研究中发现了同样的问题——“几乎在每个被研究的领域中”——我认为复制危机是非常真实的。
It should be a top priority for science.
这应该是科学的首要任务。
A lot of my work is on how we are not fully rational creatures.
我的很多工作都是关于我们为何不是完全理性的生物。
We are deeply emotional and tribal creatures.
我们是情感丰富、部落化的生物。
If you have this idealized view of researchers and our null hypothesis significant testing is based on idealized view of researchers who are basically testing samples honestly.
如果您对研究人员有这种理想化的看法，并且我们的零假设显着测试是基于对基本上诚实地测试样本的研究人员的理想化看法。
“Well, this could only happen 1 in 20 times by chance,” but we’re not those creatures.
“好吧，这种情况只有二十分之一偶然发生，”但我们不是那些生物。
We want certain outcomes to happen.
我们希望某些结果发生。
We make certain choices unconsciously.
我们无意识地做出某些选择。
We all have to up our game.
我们都必须提高自己的水平。
I don’t think there’s anything special about social psychology.
我不认为社会心理学有什么特别之处。
It’s no worse than other fields.
并不比其他领域差。
But we have been the leaders at actually addressing it, and saying, “Why are we not able to replicate each other’s work so much?”
但我们一直是真正解决这个问题的领导者，并说：“为什么我们不能如此多地复制彼此的工作？”
I actually am impressed that the young generation has really embraced this and simply committing to making your data available — if you know that other people are going to get access to your SPSS file, or whatever, your data file, and they’re going to be looking it over, boy, you’re going to be a lot more careful.
事实上，令我印象深刻的是，年轻一代真的接受了这一点，并且只是承诺让你的数据可用 - 如果你知道其他人将访问你的 SPSS 文件，或者其他什么，你的数据文件，并且他们会查看它，孩子，你会更加小心。
I think just by raising the crisis, raising the alarm last year, the quality of our work is going to go substantially up.
我认为，只要通过去年提出危机、敲响警钟，我们的工作质量就会大幅提高。
I’m really excited by this.
我对此感到非常兴奋。
What’s the best replacement for religion in modern, secular society?
在现代世俗社会中，宗教的最佳替代品是什么？
Oh boy, the best replacement.
哦，孩子，最好的替代品。
Good question.
好问题。
Durkheimian question.
涂尔干的问题。
Yeah.
是的。
A few years ago I would have tried to give you an answer and say we should have some other sacred value to replace it, but given what’s happened in the last year on campuses, I’m really afraid of it, because you might think, “Humanitarianism should replace it.
几年前，我会试图给你一个答案，并说我们应该有一些其他神圣的价值来取代它，但考虑到去年校园里发生的事情，我真的很害怕它，因为你可能会想，“人道主义应该取代它。
We should all have a religion of helping the poor, helping each other.” Now, of course, it’s really important to help the poor.
我们都应该有一种帮助穷人、互相帮助的宗教信仰。”当然，现在帮助穷人确实很重要。
It’s really important to help people who are oppressed.
帮助受压迫的人确实很重要。
But once you make it a religion, that means you are impervious to evidence.
但一旦你把它变成一种宗教，那就意味着你不受证据的影响。
You are committed to certain religious rituals even if those rituals make things worse.
你致力于某些宗教仪式，即使这些仪式会让事情变得更糟。
For example, I’ve been studying the research on affirmative action and diversity training.
例如，我一直在研究平权行动和多样性培训的研究。
As far as I can tell there’s no evidence that they make things better and there is some evidence that it makes things worse.
据我所知，没有证据表明它们会让事情变得更好，而且有一些证据表明它会让事情变得更糟。
Now, it’s messy.
现在，情况很乱。
I can’t say for sure that they do, but the point is, we seem to be doing things on campus that are making things worse.
我不能肯定地说他们确实如此，但重点是，我们似乎在校园里做的事情让事情变得更糟。
The activists are largely asking for things that will make things worse.
活动人士的要求很大程度上会让事情变得更糟。
Much more affirmative action, much bigger racial preferences, which will cause much bigger gaps between Asians at the top and African-Americans at the bottom.
更多的平权行动，更大的种族偏好，这将导致处于顶层的亚裔和处于底层的非裔美国人之间的差距更大。
Which is going to inflame prejudice, not reduce it.
这会加剧而不是减少偏见。
Once you make something a religion, you’re not open to evidence.
一旦你把某种东西变成宗教，你就不会接受证据。
You do really crazy, stupid things.
你确实做了疯狂、愚蠢的事情。
What I would say is, let’s not have a replacement for religion.
我想说的是，我们不要用宗教来替代。
Let’s set things up so that there isn’t a big religion that unites us all to take on our enemies.
让我们做好安排，这样就不会出现一个大宗教将我们所有人团结起来对抗我们的敌人。
Let’s try to return to a climate in which people find meaning and purpose in their private lives and in their smaller associations, but we don’t have a big sense of national purpose.
让我们尝试回到这样一种氛围：人们在私人生活和较小的社团中找到意义和目标，但我们没有强烈的国家目标感。
Last question to finish up.
最后一个问题要结束。
Who is your best and most important critic in any of these areas and why?
谁是您在这些领域中最好和最重要的批评者？为什么？
Let’s see, my best and most important critic.
让我们看看，我最好、最重要的批评家。
In moral psychology — boy, it’s hard to think because when you engage in debates with people you tend to see what’s wrong with them.
在道德心理学中，男孩，很难思考，因为当你与人辩论时，你往往会发现他们出了什么问题。
My colleague at NYU, John Jost, we’ve had a lot of good discussions together.
我在纽约大学的同事约翰·乔斯特（John Jost），我们一起进行了很多很好的讨论。
He critiqued me early on in ways that in fact that led me to formulate the liberty and oppression hypothesis foundation.
他很早就对我进行了批评，事实上，这导致我制定了自由与压迫假说的基础。
Ronnie Janoff‑Bulman at University of Massachusetts, has pointed out that there are some gaps in moral foundations theory that we haven’t taken account, sort of the motivations behind social justice and social change movements.
马萨诸塞大学的罗尼·贾诺夫·布尔曼（Ronnie Janoff-Bulman）指出，道德基础理论中存在一些我们没有考虑到的缺陷，比如社会正义和社会变革运动背后的动机。
There have been some people who have critiqued moral foundations theory as it is — .
有些人批评了道德基础理论，因为它是 —— 。
Tell us again what you think the best criticism is, even if you don’t agree with it?
请再次告诉我们您认为最好的批评是什么，即使您不同意它？
The best criticism is just that we have left some things out, which is surely true.
最好的批评就是我们遗漏了一些东西，这确实是事实。
What’s been exciting is to see that there haven’t — there’s one critic, Kurt Gray, who has said that, basically, morality is just one thing, harm.
令人兴奋的是看到没有——有一位批评家库尔特·格雷（Kurt Gray）说过，基本上，道德只是一件事，那就是伤害。
That has to be wrong.
那一定是错误的。
Yeah, I just can’t see — .
是的，我就是看不到 —— 。
He hasn’t really put forth an argument as to why we would even try to fit everything into the procrustean bed.
他并没有真正提出论据来解释为什么我们会尝试将所有东西都放入普罗克拉斯提亚床上。
I don’t really see the advantage of that, other than parsimony, he’s a parsimonist.
我真的看不出这样做有什么好处，除了节俭之外，他是个节俭主义者。
Other critics have simply said, “OK, sure.
其他批评者只是简单地说：“好吧，当然。
There must be something innate, and OK, there are probably multiple things.”
一定有一些与生俱来的东西，好吧，可能有多种东西。”
If you agree with those two things, then that’s most of the moralist foundations theory, and then, of course, that morality develops on top of those.
如果你同意这两点，那么这就是大部分道德基础理论，当然，道德是在这些理论之上发展起来的。
It’s mostly critics who said, “You left out this,” or, “These two things should be combined.”
大多数批评者说，“你忽略了这一点”，或者“这两件事应该结合起来”。
That’s the kind of really constructive criticism that we need, because when we started the theory, we put forth these five foundations, and we didn’t say, “This is it.
这就是我们需要的那种真正有建设性的批评，因为当我们开始这个理论时，我们提出了这五个基础，我们并没有说，“就是这样。
We know these are the five.” We said, “This is our first pass from doing a lot of reading.
我们知道就是这五个人。”我们说：“这是我们进行大量阅读后的第一遍。
This our first guess, but let’s see.
这是我们的第一个猜测，但让我们看看。
Let’s see how it evolves.”
让我们看看它如何发展。”
And, campus life, your best critic.
而且，校园生活，你最好的批评者。
That’s the funny thing, is that there really haven’t been any.
有趣的是，确实没有。
When Greg Lukianoff and I wrote this Atlantic article, it was talked about all over the place.
当我和格雷格·卢基安诺夫（Greg Lukianoff）撰写这篇《大西洋月刊》文章时，到处都在谈论它。
A lot of people told us privately that they loved it, they were often afraid to say so publicly.
很多人私下告诉我们他们喜欢它，但他们常常不敢公开这么说。
Almost nothing was written against it, it’s the weirdest thing.
几乎没有任何文章反对它，这是最奇怪的事情。
My wife was actually kind of concerned that there would be this avalanche of criticism, and there would be a lot of anger directed towards us, but really, the only things that were written said, “You guys are white males.
我的妻子实际上有点担心会有大量的批评，并且会有很多针对我们的愤怒，但实际上，唯一写的东西是：“你们是白人男性。
You’re just defending your privilege.” That’s most of the argument.
你只是在捍卫你的特权。”这是大部分争论。
Other people said, “Trigger warnings actually are kind of useful, even if they can also be harmful.”
其他人说，“触发警告实际上是有用的，即使它们也可能有害。”
That’s about it.
就是这样。
It’s been the most amazing thing.
这是最令人惊奇的事情。
There’s been, really, no coherent criticism of what Lukianoff and I have said.
事实上，对于卢基亚诺夫和我所说的话，并没有一致的批评。
Jonathan, thank you for your time.
乔纳森，谢谢您抽出时间。
It’s been an honor and a pleasure.
这是一种荣幸和快乐。
It was a pleasure to talk with you.
很高兴与你交谈。