Michele Gelfand on Tight and Loose Cultures (Ep. 49)
I’m here today with Michele Gelfand, who is a professor of psychology at the University of Maryland.
今天我和米歇尔·盖尔范德一起来到这里，他是马里兰大学的心理学教授。
She has a very interesting new book out called Rule Makers, Rule Breakers: How Tight and Loose Cultures Wire Our World.
她出版了一本非常有趣的新书，名为《规则制定者，规则破坏者：紧密和松散的文化如何连接我们的世界》。
Welcome, Michele.
欢迎，米歇尔。
Thanks for having me.
谢谢你有我。
Now, in one of your ratings you mention that New Zealand is arguably the loosest country or culture on this planet.
现在，在您的一项评级中，您提到新西兰可以说是这个星球上最宽松的国家或文化。
Why does New Zealand qualify in that regard?
为什么新西兰在这方面有资格？
Well, I would say it’s of the loosest, not the loosest.
好吧，我会说这是最宽松的，而不是最宽松的。
In our study, we measured perceptions that people had of the strength of the norms in their cultural context.
在我们的研究中，我们测量了人们对其文化背景下的规范强度的看法。
New Zealanders, like many people around the world, agreed — they shared perceptions about the strength of norms.
与世界各地的许多人一样，新西兰人也同意“他们对规范的力量有着共同的看法”。
They categorized their culture as being relatively loose, permissive, and having a wide range of behavior that was permissible.
他们将自己的文化归类为相对宽松、宽容，并且有多种行为是被允许的。
But can we trust what Kiwis say?
但我们能相信新西兰人所说的话吗？
I think of New Zealand as a place where conformity is relatively strong.
我认为新西兰是一个从众性比较强的地方。
There’s a phrase, “cutting down tall poppies.” You don’t stand out too much.
有句话叫“砍倒高大的罂粟花”。你并没有太突出。
They might deviate a lot on small things, but there’s oddly little radicalism there.
他们可能在小事情上有很大偏差，但奇怪的是，那里很少有激进主义。
To me, they seem a bit cautious.
在我看来，他们似乎有点谨慎。
They have lots of impulse control, and they’re extremely polite.
他们有很强的冲动控制能力，而且非常有礼貌。
Does that make them loose or tight?
这会使它们松动还是紧绷？
It’s a great question.
这是一个很好的问题。
All cultures have tight and loose domains.
所有文化都有紧密和松散的领域。
New Zealand is a place, like you said, that has some domains that are pretty tight.
正如您所说，新西兰是一个有一些领域非常紧张的地方。
Some of these domains evolve for good reasons.
其中一些领域的发展是有充分理由的。
The value of egalitarianism is really important in New Zealand.
平等主义的价值观在新西兰非常重要。
Tall poppies are cut down because that threatens that value.
高大的罂粟被砍伐，因为这威胁到了它的价值。
In all cultures, I would argue that some domains evolved to be tight because they’re really important in that culture.
在所有文化中，我认为某些领域发展得非常紧密，因为它们在该文化中非常重要。
The United States is a great example.
美国就是一个很好的例子。
Privacy is a very important domain here, so we tend to be pretty regulated about it.
隐私在这里是一个非常重要的领域，因此我们往往对此进行严格监管。
If I just show up at someone’s house — even if it’s a close friend — unannounced, I’ll get some pretty strong feedback.
如果我只是出现在某人的家里 ——即使是一个亲密的朋友—— 不事先通知，我就会得到一些非常强烈的反馈。
Even in the United States, which is relatively loose, we have some domains that are tight.
即使在相对宽松的美国，我们也有一些领域比较严格。
What would be a social phenomenon that the degree of tightness or looseness in a culture or country might explain?
一种文化或国家的松紧程度可以解释什么社会现象？
Many things.
很多事情。
Actually, in the book, I talk about the tradeoffs that tight and loose provide for human groups.
事实上，在书中，我谈到了人类群体所面临的紧与松的权衡。
Tight groups tend to have a lot of synchrony, a lot of coordination, a lot of self-control.
紧密的团队往往具有很强的同步性、协调性和自我控制能力。
Loose groups, generally speaking, are very disorganized, and they have self-regulation failures, problems with self-regulation.
松散的团体一般来说是非常无组织的，他们有自我调节失败、自我调节的问题。
But on the flip side, tight cultures tend to struggle with openness.
但另一方面，紧密的文化往往会与开放性作斗争。
They have more ethnocentrism, they’re less creative, and they’re less open to change.
他们有更多的民族中心主义，他们缺乏创造力，而且他们不太愿意改变。
That’s where loose cultures have a market.
这就是松散文化的市场所在。
They’re very open even if they’re slightly disorganized.
他们非常开放，即使他们有点混乱。
In one of your papers, you gave some 2011 rankings where, if I recall, the three tightest cultures were in this order: Malaysia, Pakistan, and India.
在您的一篇论文中，您给出了 2011 年的一些排名，如果我没记错的话，三个最严格的文化按以下顺序排列：马来西亚、巴基斯坦和印度。
They don’t seem very orderly when you go there.
当你去那里时，他们看起来不太有序。
What makes them tight?
是什么让他们紧绷？
Isn’t it the case that they, in some regards, maybe have oppressive norms, but they absolutely fail at regulating behavior in some regards?
是不是他们在某些方面可能有压迫性的规范，但在某些方面却绝对不能规范行为？
If you try standing in a queue, at least, say, in India, it’s a highly disorderly experience.
如果你尝试排队，至少在印度，这是一种非常混乱的经历。
That’s right.
这是正确的。
These are very crowded places that are relatively poor.
这些都是非常拥挤但相对贫穷的地方。
So those domains, in terms of things like traffic or coordinating, like you said, and cutting lines — these are things that they tend to be loose in.
因此，这些领域，就交通或协调等方面而言，就像你所说的，以及切割线 ——这些都是他们往往松懈的事情。
But in many domains, they tend to be very tight: in the domain of marriage, in the domain of sexuality, in authority and language.
但在许多领域，它们往往非常紧密：在婚姻领域、在性领域、在权威和语言领域。
These are very strong rules that people have to abide by, and if they deviate, then there’s strong punishments.
这些都是非常严格的规则，人们必须遵守，如果违反，就会受到严厉的惩罚。
These are really important observations.
这些都是非常重要的观察结果。
Every culture has some tight domains and some loose domains.
每种文化都有一些紧密的领域和一些松散的领域。
It’s helpful for people to develop cultural intelligence — not just emotional intelligence or general intelligence — when they’re traveling, and understand and anticipate what domains are going to be tight and loose.
人们在旅行时培养文化智商 （不仅仅是情商或一般智力 ）以及理解和预测哪些领域会变得紧张和松散是有帮助的。
Japan’s another example.
日本是另一个例子。
It’s really tight, but there’s some domains that become totally loose.
它确实很紧，但有些领域变得完全松散。
Takeshita Street — I talked about it in the book; it’s a place where anything goes.
竹下街 —— 书里有讲过；这是一个一切皆有可能的地方。
After hours in organizations, anything goes.
在组织中度过几个小时后，一切都会发生。
You need in a very tight culture some places that you can let off some steam and become quite loose.
在一个非常紧张的文化中，你需要一些地方可以释放一些压力，变得非常宽松。
Any culture needs both tightness and looseness, and I would argue — and I talk about the Goldilocks principle that any culture that gets too extreme in terms of looseness or tightness has a lot of problems.
任何文化都需要紧密和宽松，我认为，“金发姑娘原则”是指任何在宽松或紧密方面变得过于极端的文化都会产生很多问题。
In that 2011 rating, if the three most tight are listed as Malaysia, Pakistan, India, and then the three next most tight are Singapore, South Korea, and Norway, might we infer that there are two kinds of tightness somehow?
在2011年的评级中，如果最紧的三个是马来西亚、巴基斯坦、印度，然后紧随其后的三个是新加坡、韩国和挪威，我们是否可以推断出有两种紧度？
That Malaysia, Pakistan, India belong together, but Singapore, South Korea, and Norway deserve a separate dimension?
马来西亚、巴基斯坦、印度属于同一类，但新加坡、韩国和挪威应该有一个单独的维度？
And that tightness-looseness is too few dimensions; there ought to be three, four, maybe more?
而那种松紧的维度太少了；应该有三个，四个，也许更多？
In our data — it’s a great question — we didn’t find any multidimensionality to the scale in terms of factor analysis.
在我们的数据中 ——这是一个很好的问题 —— 我们在因子分析方面没有发现任何规模的多维性。
Also, when we look at banding, we statistically group cultures.
此外，当我们查看条带时，我们会对文化进行统计分组。
Those groups actually banded together.
这些团体实际上联合在一起。
In our data, they pretty clearly fall together, even if they appear very different.
在我们的数据中，它们很明显是在一起的，即使它们看起来非常不同。
There’s an interesting reason why cultures evolve to be tight or loose.
文化演变为紧密或宽松有一个有趣的原因。
Maybe that could help to explain why some of these cultures seem so different that actually are quite similar in terms of the strength of norms.
也许这有助于解释为什么其中一些文化看起来如此不同，但实际上在规范的强度方面却非常相似。
Tight cultures, both in modern day and in ancient history, from our research with anthropologists, archaeologists, they don’t share a similar religion.
从我们与人类学家、考古学家的研究来看，无论是现代还是古代历史，紧密的文化都没有相似的宗教信仰。
They don’t share a same location.
他们不共享同一位置。
They don’t share a same language.
他们没有相同的语言。
But they do share one fundamental aspect of their sociality, which is that they experience, generally speaking, a lot of threat.
但他们的社会性确实有一个共同的基本方面，那就是，一般来说，他们都经历着很多威胁。
Threats can be varied, from ecological threats to man-made threats.
威胁多种多样，从生态威胁到人为威胁。
That might help to explain some of the ranking that you see.
这可能有助于解释您看到的一些排名。
Tight cultures, both in modern day and in ancient history, from our research with anthropologists, archaeologists, they don’t share a similar religion.
从我们与人类学家、考古学家的研究来看，无论是现代还是古代历史，紧密的文化都没有相似的宗教信仰。
They don’t share a same location.
他们不共享同一位置。
They don’t share a same language.
他们没有相同的语言。
But they do share one fundamental aspect of their sociality, which is that they experience, generally speaking, a lot of threat.
但他们的社会性确实有一个共同的基本方面，那就是，一般来说，他们都经历着很多威胁。
As you know, it’s a common distinction in cross-cultural analysis to call some cultures individualistic and others collectivistic.
如您所知，跨文化分析中的一个常见区别是将某些文化称为个人主义文化，而另一些文化称为集体主义文化。
How does tightness and looseness differ from that distinction?
紧度和松度有何不同？
What do you pick up that, say, the work of Triandis does not?
比方说，你发现了什么是 Triandis 的作品没有发现的？
Actually, Triandis is my mentor.
事实上，特里亚迪斯是我的导师。
I went to Champaign to work with him.
我去尚佩恩和他一起工作。
I did a lot of research on collectivism and individualism.
我对集体主义和个人主义做了很多研究。
For a long time, that was the one dimension that we looked at in cross-cultural psychology.
长期以来，这就是我们在跨文化心理学中研究的一个维度。
It’s almost akin to, in personality psychology, only studying extroversion to the neglect of other dimensions, like neuroticism.
这几乎类似于在人格心理学中只研究外向性而忽视其他维度，比如神经质。
In cross-cultural psychology, we got a little bit narrow in what we were studying.
在跨文化心理学中，我们研究的内容有点狭窄。
Collectivism-individualism is related to tightness but distinct.
集体主义-个人主义与紧密相关但又截然不同。
Part of the problem we’ve had is, we’ve confounded cultures in our research.
我们遇到的部分问题是，我们在研究中混淆了文化。
We’ve been studying East Asia, which is both tight and collectivistic, with the United States and other Western cultures, which tend to be loose and individualistic.
我们一直在研究东亚，它既是紧密的、集体主义的，又是美国和其他西方文化，它往往是松散的、个人主义的。
So they have been confounded.
所以他们一直很困惑。
But when you think about the off-diagonals of that two-by-two, you can imagine cultures like Germany, Switzerland, Austria that tend to be pretty individualistic.
但当你想到二乘二的非对角线时，你可以想象像德国、瑞士、奥地利这样的文化往往非常个人主义。
They emphasize privacy.
他们强调隐私。
They’re not hugely group and family oriented, but they’re relatively tight.
他们并不是非常注重团体和家庭，但他们相对紧密。
They have strong rules and punishments for deviance.
他们对异常行为有严格的规则和惩罚。
On the flip side, you can think about Latin American cultures — in our data, that’s Brazil or Spain — that tend to be pretty family oriented and pretty collectivistic, but they’re rather loose.
另一方面，你可以想想拉丁美洲文化 ——在我们的数据中，这是巴西或西班牙—— 它们往往非常注重家庭和集体主义，但它们相当松散。
In a lot of ways, you can disentangle that variation, even if they’re related.
在很多方面，你都可以理清这种变化，即使它们是相关的。
They tend to be related about 0.4.
它们的相关性往往约为 0.4。
That’s found both in modern nations and also traditional societies.
现代国家和传统社会都存在这种情况。
At the state level, they also tend to be related but again distinct.
在州一级，它们也往往相关，但又截然不同。
Only in that case, it’s about 0.2 or 0.3, the correlation between tightness and collectivism.
仅在这种情况下，紧缩性与集体主义之间的相关性约为 0.2 或 0.3。
Would the notions of tightness and looseness, say, predict big five personality variables like conscientiousness, openness?
例如，紧密和宽松的概念是否可以预测诸如责任心、开放性等五大人格变量？
These are different levels of analysis.
这些是不同层次的分析。
It’s important to think about cultures as systems.
将文化视为系统很重要。
You have very macro-level factors like threat.
你有非常宏观的因素，比如威胁。
Then you have personality, individual level.
然后你就有个性、个人水平。
The question is, how do those relate to each other?
问题是，它们之间有何关系？
In the Science paper, I tried to develop a multilevel model that specified different factors that help reinforce tightness at different levels.
在《科学》论文中，我尝试开发一个多级模型，该模型指定了有助于增强不同级别的紧密度的不同因素。
Certainly, at the individual level, I would say that openness — the big five dimension — and conscientiousness are critical for making up and reinforcing the strength of norms.
当然，在个人层面上，我想说，开放性——“大五维度”——和责任心对于构成和加强规范的力量至关重要。
Loose cultures need people, socialize people to be open because you need to actually tolerate a lot of ambiguity in loose cultures.
松散的文化需要人，需要开放的人际交往，因为在松散的文化中你实际上需要容忍很多模糊性。
You’re going to see a lot of weird stuff happening.
你会看到很多奇怪的事情发生。
Tight cultures have stronger norms — think about being in a library — need people to have a lot of self-regulation and a lot of prevention focus in order to fit into those contexts and maintain them.
严格的文化有更强的规范——“想想在图书馆里”——需要人们有大量的自我调节和大量的预防重点，以便适应这些环境并维持它们。
There is a connection.
这是有联系的。
You can start thinking about how norms and personality make each other up.
你可以开始思考规范和个性是如何相互结合的。
They can’t exist without each other in a large extent.
在很大程度上，它们不能离开彼此而存在。
I’m from northern New Jersey.
我来自新泽西州北部。
Do you regard that as a tight or a loose region?
您认为这是一个紧的区域还是一个松的区域？
I know you have state-level variables, but of course we can’t count the South here.
我知道你有州级变量，但我们当然不能在这里算上南方。
I’m from Long Island, so we have a little bit of a rivalry, although I will say that, as I’ve grown older, I think Jersey’s definitely a much nicer place than Long Island.
我来自长岛，所以我们有一点竞争，尽管我会说，随着我年龄的增长，我认为泽西岛绝对是一个比长岛更好的地方。
Sorry for my Long Island friends out there.
对不起我的长岛朋友们。
New Jersey, in our data at the state level, falls in the relatively loose category.
从我们州一级的数据来看，新泽西州属于相对宽松的类别。
When we rank order the 50 states, we can see a new way to think about our variation in the United States.
当我们对 50 个州进行排序时，我们可以看到一种新的方式来思考美国的差异。
Not just red or blue, but, again, tight or loose.
不仅仅是红色或蓝色，还有紧或松。
New Jersey tends to be on the looser side.
新泽西州往往较为宽松。
The coasts tend to be looser.
海岸往往比较松散。
The South tends to be tighter in our data.
我们的数据显示，南方往往更为紧张。
We can think about this both in terms of, again, threat.
我们可以再次从威胁的角度来思考这一点。
Threat tends to predict tightness, even in the United States.
威胁往往预示着紧张，即使在美国也是如此。
If you look at the map that the New York Times published earlier this summer in terms of natural disasters, it’s very closely aligned with our map of tightness in the United States.
如果你看一下《纽约时报》今年夏天早些时候发布的自然灾害地图，就会发现它与美国的紧张程度地图非常吻合。
The South has been the victim of Mother Nature’s fury for years, and it also has a lot of other threats.
多年来，南方一直是大自然愤怒的受害者，而且还面临许多其他威胁。
There’s also a lot of founder’s effects that I talk about in the book.
我在书中还谈到了很多创始人的影响。
The East Coast has been a diverse place for centuries, as has been the West Coast.
几个世纪以来，东海岸一直是一个多元化的地方，西海岸也是如此。
Diversity promotes looseness.
多样性促进松散。
One of your ratings of the states has the five tightest as being Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Tennessee.
您对各州的评级最严格的五个州之一是密西西比州、阿拉巴马州、阿肯色州、俄克拉荷马州、田纳西州。
Those strike me as some of the states where a stranger is most likely to shoot you in a bar.
在我看来，这些州是陌生人最有可能在酒吧里向你开枪的州。
I understand they may be tight as a kind of response to threat and danger.
我知道他们可能会采取严格措施，作为对威胁和危险的一种反应。
But isn’t this showing that there are always two dimensions?
但这不是表明总是有二维的吗？
They have some norms that are tight precisely because the places themselves are not tight.
他们有一些严格的规范，正是因为地方本身并不严格。
Things can spiral out of control and be somewhat chaotic and disorderly.
事情可能会失去控制，变得有些混乱和无序。
What you’re measuring is always one side of the coin.
您所测量的始终是硬币的一面。
But it’s exactly offset by other chaotic features of these places.
但这恰恰被这些地方的其他混乱特征所抵消。
It’s a great question.
这是一个很好的问题。
The South is both tight and it’s also honor oriented.
南方既紧张又注重荣誉。
The people who settled in the South were coming from contexts where honor was very important because of the weak institutions in that context.
定居在南方的人们来自荣誉非常重要的环境，因为那里的机构薄弱。
Honor evolves when you need strong rules to regulate behavior.
当你需要强有力的规则来规范行为时，荣誉就会演变。
All honor cultures — or many — are tight, but not all tight cultures are honor cultures.
所有荣誉文化（或许多荣誉文化）都是紧密的，但并非所有紧密的文化都是荣誉文化。
You can also separate out what’s happening in the South from what’s happening around the world.
您还可以将南方发生的事情与世界各地发生的事情区分开来。
I will say that the stranger getting shot in a bar .
我会说那个陌生人在酒吧里被枪杀。
.
。
.
。
I would disagree with that because usually what’s happening in these contexts is, when you have an honor threat, when you have an insult to someone .
我不同意这一点，因为通常在这些情况下发生的事情是，当你受到荣誉威胁时，当你侮辱某人时。
.
。
.
。
we know, from a lot of our evolutionary game theory models and other computational work, that honor evolves in contexts where you need to defend your reputation.
我们从许多进化博弈论模型和其他计算工作中知道，荣誉是在你需要捍卫自己声誉的情况下演变的。
Those kinds of contexts are places where people felt the need to defend themselves for survival.
在这些环境中，人们感到需要保护自己以求生存。
It’s not that people just shoot each other randomly.
这并不是说人们只是随意地互相射击。
It’s usually precipitated by some kind of threat.
它通常是由某种威胁引发的。
Does Silicon Valley have a strong honor culture?
硅谷有很强的荣誉文化吗？
I would say not.
我想说不是。
No. When you think about honor, think about whether or not — as Dov Cohen talks about — your self-worth is negotiable with other people.
不。当你想到荣誉时，请考虑一下——正如多夫·科恩所说的——你的自我价值是否可以与其他人协商。
In honor cultures, your self-worth is constantly negotiated with others.
在荣誉文化中，你的自我价值是不断与他人协商的。
When people insult you, it’s as if they’ve just stolen some of your self-worth.
当人们侮辱你时，就好像他们偷走了你的一些自我价值。
In dignity cultures, what Dov Cohen calls .
在尊严文化中，多夫·科恩称之为“尊严文化”。
.
。
.
。
which, I think, characterize Silicon Valley, if someone insults you it’s painful, but it doesn’t mean that your worth has been stolen.
我认为这是硅谷的特点，如果有人侮辱你，你会很痛苦，但这并不意味着你的价值被窃取了。
That’s how I differentiate honor cultures from other types of cultures.
这就是我将荣誉文化与其他类型的文化区分开来的方式。
It’s not as though people like being insulted in any context, but in some contexts that carries a lot of weight for your sense of self-worth.
人们并不喜欢在任何情况下受到侮辱，但在某些情况下，这对你的自我价值感有很大的影响。
My colleague, Garett Jones, is a big fan of what he calls the deep roots literature, namely the notion that cultural traits are extremely persistent, possibly even for centuries, but at least for generations.
我的同事加雷特·琼斯（Garet Jones）是他所谓的“深根文学”的忠实拥护者，即文化特征极其持久的观念，甚至可能持续几个世纪，但至少世代相传。
Your notions of tightness and looseness — how much do they persist over time?
你对紧和松的观念 ——随着时间的推移，它们持续的程度如何？
At least assuming the set of people living in a given territory is staying more or less the same.
至少假设居住在特定地区的人群或多或少保持不变。
I think that tight-loose is a dynamic construct that .
我认为紧松是一种动态结构。
.
。
.
。
what we can see, and I’ve collected data after, for example, the Boston bombing.
我们可以看到什么，我在波士顿爆炸案之后收集了数据。
After that event happened, we could see immediate tightening in Boston.
该事件发生后，我们可以看到波士顿立即收紧。
People wanting stronger rules.
人们想要更严格的规则。
People starting to get skeptical of outsiders.
人们开始对外人产生怀疑。
We’ve seen this in the laboratory.
我们在实验室里已经看到了这一点。
I can convince people at Maryland that they’re living in an environment like Singapore that has 20,000 people per square mile.
我可以让马里兰州的人们相信，他们生活在像新加坡一样每平方英里有 20,000 人的环境中。
That activation of threat can make people immediately tighter and wanting stronger rules, wanting stronger leaders.
威胁的激活会让人们立即变得更加紧张，想要更强有力的规则，想要更强大的领导者。
But if the threat is not chronic, if it’s not perpetuated, then we go back to the attractor that we’re used to in dynamical systems theory.
但如果威胁不是长期存在的，如果它不是永久存在的，那么我们就会回到动力系统理论中习惯的吸引子。
It’s not as though it can’t change, but in order to actually have a gigantic change in tightness, you need to have either a very strong, top-down threat that’s persistent or different people that have now entered the system.
这并不是说它不能改变，但为了真正在严格性方面发生巨大的变化，你需要要么有一个非常强大的、自上而下的持续威胁，要么有不同的人现在已经进入系统。
That’s something that doesn’t happen that much.
这种事并不经常发生。
That’s why I think it’s relatively stable.
所以我认为它是相对稳定的。
Let’s say China does not, in a major way, threaten Japan, and the Japanese population continues to shrink.
假设中国没有在很大程度上威胁日本，而日本人口继续减少。
You end up with 50 million people living in what we now call Japan.
最终有 5000 万人生活在我们现在所说的日本。
What’s your sense of the speed of adjustment?
您对调整速度有何感受？
Japan will then become a much looser culture?
那么日本会变得更加宽松的文化吗？
How long does that take?
这需要多长时间？
Is it more like 20 years, 200 years?
更像是20年、200年吗？
How do you think about that?
您对此有何看法？
I think that someone like Joe Henrich might argue that it would take a long time, several hundred years.
我认为像乔·亨利奇这样的人可能会认为这需要很长时间，几百年。
I think that people, through socialization, through social learning, are trained to follow the norms of their previous generations.
我认为，人们通过社会化、社会学习，接受了遵循前几代人的规范的训练。
Ron Inglehart also talks about — change takes a long time in his data, over years and years to happen.
罗恩·英格尔哈特 (Ron Inglehart) 还谈到，“他的数据发生变化需要很长时间，需要年复一年的时间才能发生。”
This is not something that we can witness, change happening overnight.
这不是我们可以亲眼目睹、一夜之间发生的变化。
You mention in your book that population density in the year 1500 has fairly high predictive power.
您在书中提到，1500年的人口密度具有相当高的预测能力。
What does it predict?
它预测什么？
It predicts tightness.
它预示着紧张。
Imagine you’re living in Singapore, which I’m sure you’ve visited — 20,000 people per square mile.
想象一下您住在新加坡，我相信您已经去过那里了——每平方英里有 20,000 人。
It makes sense to ban gum, large quantities of gum in that context.
在这种情况下，禁止大量口香糖是有道理的。
That’s exactly what Lee Kuan Yew did.
李光耀正是这样做的。
He’s a brilliant cultural psychologist, in my point of view.
在我看来，他是一位出色的文化心理学家。
He assessed the level of threat that Singapore experienced, both ecologically and in terms of diversity, having many different cultural groups.
他评估了新加坡在生态和多样性方面所经历的威胁程度，以及拥有许多不同文化群体的情况。
He decided, “We have to have tight rules here.” He actually talks about it in his autobiography.
他决定，“我们必须在这里制定严格的规则。”他在自传中实际上谈到了这一点。
The gum issue is interesting.
口香糖的问题很有趣。
He saw people in this very crowded context were taking their gum, throwing it on the ground.
他看到在这个非常拥挤的环境中，人们拿着口香糖，把它扔在地上。
It was causing a national mess.
它造成了全国性的混乱。
Overnight, he said, “Guys, we’ve got to ban gum.”
一夜之间，他说：“伙计们，我们必须禁止口香糖。”
You wouldn’t find that in New Zealand, that has 50 people per square mile.
在新西兰，你不会发现这样的情况，每平方英里有 50 人。
When you have a lot of people per square mile, you need rules to help you coordinate, to avoid chaos.
当每平方英里有很多人时，您需要规则来帮助您协调，以避免混乱。
Isn’t Singapore evidence of low persistence, though?
那么，新加坡不就是持久性低下的证据吗？
Because in the 1950s, sanitation levels were pretty low in Singapore.
因为在 20 世纪 50 年代，新加坡的卫生水平相当低。
Early in the 20th century, it wasn’t even that well populated.
20世纪初，这里的人口还不是很多。
Lee Kuan Yew comes.
李光耀来了。
He makes a lot of big changes.
他做出了很多重大改变。
That seems to show you can change the equilibrium pretty readily if you do the right things.
这似乎表明，如果你做正确的事情，你可以很容易地改变平衡。
That’s right.
这是正确的。
He did.
他做到了。
He was a very good example of a top-down influence that was very much deliberate, and it was very systematic.
他是自上而下的影响力的一个很好的例子，这种影响力是经过深思熟虑的，而且是非常系统化的。
In that particular case, he’s a good example of when cultural change can happen.
在这种特殊情况下，他是何时可以发生文化变革的一个很好的例子。
When it’s deliberate, when it’s top down, and when it’s necessary.
何时是有意的、何时是自上而下的、何时是必要的。
In Singapore, there’s good reasons why you have to sacrifice liberty for security, given the context.
在新加坡，考虑到当时的情况，你有充分的理由必须牺牲自由来换取安全。
On wealth and social norms
关于财富和社会规范
One of my readers wrote to me and suggested, correctly or not, that about 70 percent of the variation in a people’s values can be explained by wealth.
我的一位读者写信给我，无论正确与否，他表示，一个人价值观的大约 70% 的差异可以用财富来解释。
Do you agree?
你同意？
Just this one variable, wealth, much more important than anything else.
光是财富这个变量就比其他任何东西都重要得多。
True or false?
是真是假？
I would say that wealth is obviously very important.
我想说，财富显然非常重要。
It predicts, in the collectivism literature, high levels of group orientation.
在集体主义文献中，它预测了高水平的群体导向。
In our data, we don’t find any direct connection between GDP per capita and tightness.
在我们的数据中，我们没有发现人均GDP与紧缩性之间有任何直接联系。
You have very tight cultures that are wealthy, like Singapore and Japan.
你们拥有非常紧密且富裕的文化，比如新加坡和日本。
You have very loose cultures that struggle.
你们的文化非常松散，很挣扎。
In our data, actually, what we can see is that there’s no real main effect of GDP on the strength of norms.
实际上，在我们的数据中，我们可以看到 GDP 对规范强度没有真正的主要影响。
Doesn’t that mean, though, if there’s no correlation, that both tightness and looseness — in some way, they don’t work?
但这是否意味着，如果没有相关性，那么紧度和松度 ——在某种程度上，它们都不起作用？
Looseness doesn’t get you more innovation.
宽松不会带来更多创新。
Tightness doesn’t get you more order.
紧张并不会让你更有秩序。
Are they, then, a kind of epiphenomenon?
那么，它们是一种附带现象吗？
How people answer questions or how they set their clocks in synchronization, but that don’t really drive what people actually care about in the country, which is wealth?
人们如何回答问题或如何同步时钟，但这并不能真正驱动这个国家的人们真正关心的是什么，即财富？
Actually, what we find in our data is a curvilinear effect of GDP.
事实上，我们在数据中发现的是GDP的曲线效应。
Extremely loose and extremely tight cultures both have low GDP.
极度宽松和极度紧缩的文化的 GDP 都较低。
They have low happiness.
他们的幸福感很低。
They have higher instability.
它们具有较高的不稳定性。
This kind of Goldilocks principle is very important when it comes to the strength of norms.
当谈到规范的强度时，这种金发姑娘原则非常重要。
Groups might need to veer tight or loose based on their ecologies.
团体可能需要根据他们的生态来调整或放松。
But as they get more extreme — and for different reasons — they wind up being unsuccessful, both in terms of monetary wealth, but also in terms of their happiness.
但随着他们变得更加极端——并且出于不同的原因——他们最终会失败，无论是在金钱财富方面，还是在幸福方面。
Very, very tight cultures tend to be very oppressive.
非常非常严格的文化往往非常压抑。
What Durkheim would say, they want to escape from this kind of oppression.
涂尔干会说，他们想逃离这种压迫。
Very, very loose cultures — those usually which are coming from a very autocratic context that have dismantled, like the Ukraine — they tend to experience a lot of anomie, as Durkheim would say, and total unpredictability.
非常非常松散的文化——那些通常来自一个已经瓦解的非常专制的环境，比如乌克兰——它们往往会经历很多失范，正如涂尔干所说，以及完全的不可预测性。
They’re not sustainable, either.
它们也不可持续。
This principle of too much or too little constraint is applicable to many domains.
这种约束过多或过少的原则适用于许多领域。
It relates to free speech.
它与言论自由有关。
It relates to the brain.
它与大脑有关。
When the brain is too synchronized or too little synchronized, it produces different brain disorders.
当大脑过于同步或太不同步时，就会产生不同的大脑疾病。
When we have too little choice or too much choice, it produces a lot of problems.
当我们的选择太少或太多时，就会产生很多问题。
When we have too many rules or too few rules for raising our children, it produces problems.
当我们养育孩子的规则太多或太少时，就会产生问题。
So this principle of having a balance in terms of the strength of norms is important.
因此，在规范强度方面保持平衡的原则很重要。
That’s why wealth is important, but it’s not determinant of human behavior.
这就是为什么财富很重要，但它并不是人类行为的决定因素。
In your broad view, norms are actually not very functional.
从你的宏观角度来看，规范实际上并不是很有用。
They may try to do certain things .
他们可能会尝试做某些事情。
.
。
.
。
No, no, no.
不，不，不。
.
。
.
。
.
。
but they fail.
但他们失败了。
No, no, no. I’m saying the extreme nature of norms is problematic.
不，不，不。我是说规范的极端性是有问题的。
We need norms.
我们需要规范。
We can’t operate without norms.
没有规范我们就无法运作。
From the moment we get up in the morning to the moment we go back to bed, we have been following norms, thousands of norms.
从我们早上起床的那一刻到我们回去睡觉的那一刻，我们一直在遵循规范，成千上万的规范。
Sure, you need some norms.
当然，你需要一些规范。
But a particular pattern of norms as defined in terms of tightness or looseness — it won’t make you wealthier.
但是，以严格或宽松来定义的特定规范模式——它不会让你变得更富有。
It won’t make you happier as long as you avoid the extremes.
只要你避免走极端，它就不会让你更快乐。
Within a broad range, the norm at the macro level — it has particular effects, but again, the things people care about — wealth and happiness — it fails to deliver.
从大范围来看，宏观层面的规范——有一定的效果，但同样，人们关心的东西——财富和幸福——却无法实现。
Or not.
或不。
I’ll say that again: the extremes are what produce the problems.
我再说一遍：极端才会产生问题。
But when we look at groups that are tight and not extreme, they provide a lot of things that people need.
但当我们观察那些紧密且不极端的团体时，他们提供了人们需要的很多东西。
They provide a lot of order.
他们提供了大量的订单。
They provide a lot of synchrony.
它们提供了很多同步性。
Synchrony is really important as a very basic phenomenon, feeling like you are aligned with others.
同步作为一种非常基本的现象非常重要，感觉就像你与他人保持一致。
It produces a lot of cooperation.
它产生了很多合作。
But it also has a detriment of creativity.
但它也损害了创造力。
Looseness, when it’s not too extreme, makes people really creative.
宽松，只要不是太极端，就能让人真正发挥创造力。
It makes people really open to different people.
它使人们真正对不同的人开放。
There are definitely huge advantages to both tightness and looseness, depending on your vantage point.
紧度和松度肯定都有巨大的优势，具体取决于你的有利位置。
You mentioned Joe Henrich before.
你之前提到过乔·亨利奇。
He has this idea of what he calls WEIRD psychology.
他有一种他称之为“怪异心理学”的想法。
WEIRD is an acronym for Western Educated Industrialized Rich Democratic.
WEIRD 是“西方受过教育的工业化的富有的民主党人”的缩写。
As I understand his view, people who are WEIRD are just fundamentally different in terms of their norms.
据我了解他的观点，“怪异”的人只是在他们的规范方面有根本的不同。
There’s not some kind of spectrum or continuum.
不存在某种频谱或连续体。
There’s simply a fundamental break in human civilization.
人类文明发生了根本性的断裂。
Do you agree with that?
你同意吗？
Or what’s your perspective?
或者你的观点是什么？
No, I don’t.
不，我不。
I would say this idea of WEIRD predates years and years of psychology.
我想说，这种“怪异”的想法早在心理学出现之前就已经存在了很多年。
The reason why cross-cultural psychology developed in the first place is because people were really concerned that American psychology was based on very strange samples, ignoring 70 percent of the world.
跨文化心理学之所以发展起来，首先是因为人们真的担心美国心理学基于非常奇怪的样本，忽视了世界上70%的人。
This WEIRD idea has been with us for a long time.
这个奇怪的想法已经伴随我们很长时间了。
I would say that, no, there’s not this discontinuous nature where there’s one society that’s so unusual.
我想说的是，不，不存在这种不连续的性质，有一个如此不寻常的社会。
The difference in the United States from other cultures is in the type of individualism that we endorse.
美国与其他文化的区别在于我们所支持的个人主义类型。
We’re not just focused on privacy and on independence.
我们不仅仅关注隐私和独立。
We’re focused on what I call vertical individualism.
我们专注于我所说的垂直个人主义。
That’s competitive individualism.
这就是竞争性个人主义。
That is different than other Western cultures like Scandinavia, Australia, that are much more horizontal in their individualism.
这与斯堪的纳维亚、澳大利亚等其他西方文化不同，后者的个人主义更加横向。
So the WEIRDness of the United States, in many ways, is its form of individualism.
因此，从很多方面来说，美国的怪异之处在于它的个人主义形式。
I think that there’s a lot of ways we can examine cultural constructs and find variation around the world.
我认为我们可以通过很多方法来检查文化结构并发现世界各地的差异。
We don’t, in this country, actually seem all that rational to me in the way that WEIRD might predict.
在我看来，在这个国家，我们实际上并不像《怪异》所预测的那样理性。
General question about what we can never know about culture.
关于我们永远无法了解文化的一般问题。
As you know, a lot of people who work in areas with large numbers of data points and well-specified models — they’re very critical of cross-cultural papers, because they think we don’t really know the true model; we can’t write it down.
如您所知，许多在拥有大量数据点和明确模型的领域工作的人——他们对跨文化论文非常批评，因为他们认为我们并不真正了解真正的模型；我们无法把它写下来。
There are all these big interaction effects at the macro level.
在宏观层面上存在着所有这些巨大的相互作用效应。
We’re not sure how to trace them.
我们不确定如何追踪它们。
Maybe the tests have low statistical power, or it’s hard to come up with causal tests at all.
也许这些测试的统计功效较低，或者根本很难提出因果测试。
What’s your response to this kind of criticisms?
您对此类批评有何回应？
Is your view, “Well, they’re misunderstanding the econometrics; this is actually as good as a lot of other empirical work”?
您是否认为“好吧，他们误解了计量经济学；这实际上和许多其他实证研究一样好”？
Or is your view, “We know culture is important.
或者你的观点是，“我们知道文化很重要。
It’s either this or the anthropologists, and this is telling us something”?
要么是这个，要么是人类学家，这正在告诉我们一些事情”？
How do you place yourself in this debate on cross-cultural econometrics?
您如何看待这场关于跨文化计量经济学的辩论？
It’s a great question.
这是一个很好的问题。
Every method that any of us use is very limited in what we can say about any particular study.
我们任何人使用的每种方法对于任何特定研究的影响都非常有限。
I’ve always been a big fan of theory, testing theory with as many methods as humanly possible.
我一直是理论的忠实粉丝，用尽可能多的方法来测试理论。
That’s how I think about cross-cultural psychology.
这就是我对跨文化心理学的看法。
We can’t take one paper that has 35 nations and come to any massive conclusion about that or strong conclusion about that.
我们不能拿一篇涉及 35 个国家的论文来得出任何大规模的结论或强有力的结论。
We have to then try to replicate that theory with other methods, whether it’s using computational models, using neuroscience, looking to traditional societies with totally different methods.
然后，我们必须尝试用其他方法复制该理论，无论是使用计算模型，使用神经科学，还是用完全不同的方法研究传统社会。
We just spent a couple years coding over a hundred samples in terms of the strength of norms in various different domains with ethnographies.
我们只花了几年时间，根据民族志在各个不同领域的规范强度，对一百多个样本进行了编码。
I’m really curious to see, with my work, can I see the theory replicating with different types of methods?
我真的很好奇，通过我的工作，我能否看到该理论可以用不同类型的方法进行复制？
My group at Maryland is really fiercely interdisciplinary because we want to bring in methods that can help us replicate theory.
我在马里兰州的团队确实是跨学科的，因为我们希望引入可以帮助我们复制理论的方法。
That’s my approach to these issues, given that any particular study is going to be flawed in many ways.
这就是我解决这些问题的方法，因为任何特定的研究都会在很多方面存在缺陷。
Your own work aside, what would be a few generalizations about culture that you think we’ve learned empirically and follow from theory that you more or less agree with or believe in?
除了你自己的工作之外，你认为我们已经从经验中学到了一些关于文化的概括，并从你或多或少同意或相信的理论中得出了哪些结论？
I would say that we’ve learned that culture is not random, that it evolves for semi-adaptive reasons, given the kinds of environments that people place.
我想说的是，我们已经了解到，文化不是随机的，它是出于半适应性原因而进化的，考虑到人们所处的环境类型。
That doesn’t mean all cultural traits, values, norms have been adapted, but many are.
这并不意味着所有文化特征、价值观和规范都已被适应，但很多都是如此。
People don’t realize that cultures are not just accidental, that there’s some rationale to cultural differences.
人们没有意识到文化不仅仅是偶然的，文化差异也有一定的道理。
Actually, once we realize that and we can start to document that, I think it produces a lot more empathy.
事实上，一旦我们意识到这一点并且我们可以开始记录这一点，我认为它会产生更多的同理心。
When you’re traveling, when you’re learning about other cultures, when you start to think, wait, if I lived in that context, whether it’s the US South, or whether it’s in Sri Lanka, or wherever it is, or Japan, that you also would likely support the norms and values that are being cultivated if they were helpful for your survival.
当你旅行时，当你了解其他文化时，当你开始思考时，等等，如果我生活在那种环境中，无论是在美国南部，还是在斯里兰卡，或者无论在哪里，还是日本，你也可能会支持正在培养的规范和价值观，如果它们对你的生存有帮助的话。
So I tend to think about cultures being quasi-rational.
所以我倾向于认为文化是准理性的。
On the replication crisis
关于复制危机
How bad is the replication crisis in social psychology?
社会心理学的复制危机有多严重？
It relates not so much to your work, but it’s become a big issue.
它与你的工作关系不大，但它已经成为一个大问题。
What’s your view?
你的看法是什么？
It’s a great question.
这是一个很好的问题。
I’m actually really proud of what psychology’s doing.
事实上，我对心理学所做的事情感到非常自豪。
I think that transparency is really important.
我认为透明度非常重要。
Best practices — identifying them is important.
最佳实践 — 识别它们很重要。
I’m really excited about this revolution, we would call it.
我对这场革命感到非常兴奋，我们称之为革命。
I would say that cross-cultural psychologists are not too unfamiliar with this kind of replication crisis because for years and years, we know that when you try to replicate something, even in a different state, let alone another country, you are going to be dealing with hundreds of rival hypotheses.
我想说，跨文化心理学家对这种复制危机并不太陌生，因为多年来，我们知道，当你试图复制某些东西时，即使在不同的州，更不用说另一个国家，你将面临数百个相互竞争的假设。
Whether it’s different instructions, interpretations of the instructions, or different motivations of the subjects, the interactions with experimenter, they’re all things that can produce null effects, or they can dramatically change your effects.
无论是不同的指令、对指令的解释，还是受试者的不同动机、与实验者的互动，它们都可能产生无效效果，或者它们可以极大地改变你的效果。
We’re in the business — cross-cultural psychologists — of having problems replicating basic American findings for many, many years.
我们从事的行业——“跨文化心理学家”——多年来在复制美国的基本发现方面遇到了问题。
What’s interesting is that what you see in the replication crisis and the recent PNS paper, that the papers that didn’t replicate very well were rated by other scientists as having a lot of contextual factors that might weigh in on them.
有趣的是，你在复制危机和最近的 PNS 论文中看到的是，那些复制得不好的论文被其他科学家评为有很多可能对其产生影响的背景因素。
It’s really important, as we go through the replication crisis, to think about, we’re trying to replicate things.
当我们经历复制危机时，思考我们正在尝试复制事物，这一点非常重要。
And we have to understand that if they’re very much influenced by the social context, there’s a risk they won’t be replicated.
我们必须明白，如果它们受到社会背景的影响很大，那么它们就有无法被复制的风险。
That doesn’t mean that the theory doesn’t matter.
这并不意味着理论不重要。
The risk — and I’ll talk a couple of seconds about the replication crisis risks — is that people will throw out the theory with the bathwater, whatever the metaphor might be.
风险——我会花几秒钟谈谈复制危机风险——人们会把理论和洗澡水一起倒掉，无论比喻是什么。
That we’re in this business now of just seeing, can we replicate this in one other context?
我们现在所处的行业只是看到，我们可以在其他环境中复制这一点吗？
As just an example, there was an attempt to replicate some kind of race relations question that was done in LA in Italy.
举个例子，有人试图复制意大利洛杉矶所做的某种种族关系问题。
Now that, to me as a cross-cultural psychologist, is silly.
现在，对于我作为一名跨文化心理学家来说，这是愚蠢的。
But it could also be that if we try to replicate something in Kansas, it might be different.
但也可能是，如果我们尝试在堪萨斯州复制某些东西，结果可能会有所不同。
People, I think, need to be collaborative as they seek to replicate, to understand the social context in which the phenomena has been tested and make sure, when things don’t replicate, that there might be a good reason why it hasn’t replicated.
我认为，人们在寻求复制时需要进行协作，了解这些现象经过测试的社会背景，并确保当事情没有复制时，可能有一个很好的理由来解释为什么它没有复制。
As you mentioned before, in your work there’s a notion that fear of outsiders or natural disasters or a sense of threat — it can make a culture tighter.
正如您之前提到的，在您的作品中存在一种观念，即对外来者、自然灾害或威胁感的恐惧 ——它可以使文化更加紧密。
Now, Jonathan Haidt and some other researchers — they’ve talked about how a sense of disgust can make personal moral views, in some way, more conservative, or arguably tighter.
现在，乔纳森·海特和其他一些研究人员——他们讨论了厌恶感如何使个人道德观念在某种程度上变得更加保守，或者可以说更加严格。
Do you think this is ultimately the same phenomenon?
您认为这最终是同一个现象吗？
Or are they two separate mechanisms here?
或者它们是两个独立的机制？
That’s a great question.
这是一个很好的问题。
I think that they are two separate mechanisms.
我认为它们是两个独立的机制。
Disgust is not necessarily an emotion that relates to fear.
厌恶不一定是一种与恐惧相关的情绪。
But both might relate to needing stronger rules in order to coordinate behaviors in those contexts.
但两者都可能涉及到需要更强有力的规则来协调这些环境中的行为。
Disease threat or pathogen threat usually is something that could be related to disgust.
疾病威胁或病原体威胁通常与厌恶有关。
But that’s different than the fear of invasion.
但这与对入侵的恐惧不同。
Fear of invasion is not activating disgust.
对入侵的恐惧并不会引发厌恶。
It’s activating something where you feel, as a collective, that you need to coordinate your action to face that threat.
它激活了你作为一个集体感到需要协调行动来应对威胁的东西。
But how do people respond to a pandemic when they come?
但是，当流行病来临时，人们如何应对呢？
It looks a lot like a war, right?
这看起来很像一场战争，对吧？
You have quarantines.
你有隔离区。
You have people band together.
你们让人们团结起来。
There’s a fair amount of central planning.
有相当多的中央计划。
I just don’t think it activates disgust.
我只是不认为它会引起厌恶。
I would say the same thing with natural disasters.
对于自然灾害我也会说同样的话。
If we’re worried about a natural disaster happening at Maryland, we don’t start feeling disgusted.
如果我们担心马里兰州发生自然灾害，我们不会开始感到厌恶。
We feel fear.
我们感到恐惧。
But they might both produce .
但它们可能都产生 .
.
。
.
。
and we have seen that pathogens produce tightness, both in the lab and also in the field.
我们已经看到病原体会在实验室和现场产生密封性。
We see that other threats that require coordination also produce tightness, but they’re not mediated through feelings of disgust.
我们看到其他需要协调的威胁也会产生紧张感，但它们并不是通过厌恶感来调节的。
How do the categories of loose and tight map onto traditional gender roles?
宽松和紧密的类别如何映射到传统的性别角色？
Is there a gender-based difference, say, in how people respond to fear or a sense of threat?
例如，人们对恐惧或威胁感的反应是否存在性别差异？
I haven’t actually seen much evidence for gender differences in response to threat.
实际上，我还没有看到太多证据表明性别在应对威胁方面存在差异。
I will say that women, minorities, people of lower social power tend to live in tighter worlds.
我想说的是，女性、少数族裔、社会权力较低的人往往生活在更紧密的世界里。
That is how I think about the connection of gender and race to tightness.
这就是我对性别和种族与紧张关系的看法。
I think that in the past we’ve thought about power as allowing people to violate norms and to have a lot of latitude.
我认为过去我们认为权力是允许人们违反规范并拥有很大的自由度。
That’s a looseness phenomenon.
这就是一种松动现象。
People who are in high-power positions live in looser worlds.
身居高位的人生活在更宽松的世界里。
They’re not as accountable, whereas people in lower social statuses are much more accountable.
他们不那么负责任，而社会地位较低的人则要负责任得多。
They have to be worried about rule violations to a much greater extent.
他们必须在更大程度上担心违反规则的情况。
That might produce more of a prevention-oriented mentality, as mediated by having to survive those tight environments.
这可能会产生更多以预防为导向的心态，因为必须在这些紧张的环境中生存下来。
Is Steven Pinker correct that human progress is improving basic culture basically all the time?
史蒂文·平克（Steven Pinker）关于人类进步基本上一直在改善基本文化的说法正确吗？
I agree with Steven a lot on how much we’ve come in terms of threat, if you compare hundreds of years ago, the kinds of things we experience.
我非常同意史蒂文的观点，如果你比较数百年前我们所经历的事情，我们所面临的威胁有多大。
I disagree with him, though, in the sense that I think we have to be mindful of looming threats, things like climate change.
不过，我不同意他的观点，因为我认为我们必须警惕迫在眉睫的威胁，比如气候变化。
I think that there are certain threats like violence that have been dramatically reduced, but there’s other collective threats that we have to be mindful of.
我认为暴力等某些威胁已大大减少，但我们必须注意其他集体威胁。
Are cultures in general becoming tighter or looser over time?
随着时间的推移，文化总体上是变得更严格还是更宽松？
That’s a great question.
这是一个很好的问题。
Many people would think that they’re becoming looser, but actually you can see here in the US lots of evidence that we see tightening in the United States.
很多人会认为他们正在变得更加宽松，但实际上你可以在美国看到很多证据表明我们看到美国在收紧。
I don’t think it’s a healthy tightening, per se.
我认为这本身并不是一种健康的紧缩措施。
It’s involving a lot of fake threat or exaggerated threat, the confluence of leaders that are activating threat as well as social media that amplifies threats.
它涉及大量虚假威胁或夸大的威胁、激活威胁的领导人以及放大威胁的社交媒体。
People pay attention to these threats.
人们关注这些威胁。
This is the availability heuristic, as you know, in cognitive science.
如您所知，这就是认知科学中的可用性启发法。
When we hear about an immigrant who has just shot someone, it’s very salient to us.
当我们听说一名移民刚刚枪杀了某人时，这对我们来说非常重要。
It’s much more salient than another person in another state who is an American citizen shooting their whole family.
这比另一个州的另一个美国公民射杀他们全家的人要突出得多。
So we overexaggerate these threats.
所以我们过度夸大了这些威胁。
As a result, it produces the desire for stronger rules and strong leaders.
结果，它产生了对更强有力的规则和强有力的领导者的渴望。
I think that looseness ebbs and flows.
我认为松动会潮起潮落。
It depends on the perceived or actual level of threat in the environment.
这取决于环境中感知或实际的威胁程度。
Geographic cross-state mobility is down about 50 percent from its postwar peak in this country.
该国的地理跨州流动性较战后峰值下降了约 50%。
How is that changing our culture?
这如何改变我们的文化？
Mobility is a really critical aspect of tight-loose in the sense that when you have lower mobility, you have less exposure to differences in opinions, differences in traditions, and it tends to promote tightness.
流动性是紧松关系的一个非常重要的方面，因为当你的流动性较低时，你就较少接触到意见差异、传统差异，并且往往会促进紧缩。
It reinforces tightness.
它增强了紧密度。
Lots of mobility affords looseness.
大量的流动性带来了宽松。
We’ve seen that empirically.
我们已经凭经验看到了这一点。
We know that mobility in some of our computational models is really affecting ethnocentrism.
我们知道，一些计算模型中的流动性确实影响了种族中心主义。
In Axelrod’s famous paper on the evolution of ethnocentrism, he would argue that ethnocentrism is inevitable.
在阿克塞尔罗德关于种族中心主义演变的著名论文中，他认为种族中心主义是不可避免的。
But actually, in our data, we could see that high-mobile contexts actually have much less ethnocentrism.
但实际上，在我们的数据中，我们可以看到高流动性环境中的种族中心主义实际上要少得多。
Mobility is really part and parcel of looseness.
移动性确实是松散性的重要组成部分。
How much does it matter, if at all, that so much of the Western world is now post-Christian for social norms such as tightness and looseness?
西方世界的许多地区现在对于紧缩和宽松等社会规范来说是后基督教的，这有多重要（如果有的话）？
Do we fear different things because we’re not so religious anymore?
我们是否因为不再那么虔诚而害怕不同的事情？
I can’t really speak to the religious differences.
我无法真正谈论宗教差异。
What I can say is that when people feel threatened, they tend to desire different aspects of God, from our research.
我能说的是，根据我们的研究，当人们感到受到威胁时，他们往往会渴望上帝的不同方面。
They want a more tight, monitoring, punishing God, in our research, when they feel threatened by natural disasters or conflict.
当他们感到受到自然灾害或冲突的威胁时，他们希望在我们的研究中有一个更严格、更监控、更惩罚的上帝。
So I think that even religion is both a source of tightness, but it could be affected by the ecology in which people are embedded.
所以我认为即使是宗教也是紧张的根源，但它也可能受到人们所处生态的影响。
What was it like for you when you moved from New York State to Champaign-Urbana for your graduate work?
当您从纽约州搬到厄巴纳-香槟进行研究生工作时，您感觉如何？
It was culture shock, no question about it.
这是文化冲击，毫无疑问。
I went to a small school for undergrad, upstate New York at Colgate.
我在纽约州北部科尔盖特的一所小型学校读本科。
I was really looking forward to being in a city.
我真的很期待来到一个城市。
When I heard about Harry Triandis and his work and I thought, “Oh, my gosh.
当我听说 Harry Triandis 和他的作品时，我想：“哦，天哪。
I’d love to work with him,” and got in there, it was devastating to have to go live in another small town.
我很想和他一起工作。”当我进入那里时，不得不去另一个小镇生活是毁灭性的。
I would say that it was the most amazing graduate experience, mainly because of the interdisciplinarity of the context.
我想说这是最令人惊奇的研究生经历，主要是因为背景的跨学科性。
I got over the culture shock relatively quickly.
我相对较快地克服了文化冲击。
What surprised you the most about actually living in Champaign-Urbana?
实际生活在厄巴纳-香槟市最令您惊讶的是什么？
Oh.
哦。
I would say the politeness.
我想说的是礼貌。
In our research, loose states are very rude.
在我们的研究中，松散的状态是非常粗鲁的。
Tight states are more polite, more norm-abiding.
严格的国家更加有礼貌，更加遵守规范。
I’m someone who’s used to flipping people off as a friendly gesture.
我是一个习惯于以友好姿态激怒别人的人。
New Yorkers are known for interrupting people.
纽约人以爱打断别人而闻名。
I have a lot of relatives in the Midwest, so we’ve negotiated these differences in culture over the years.
我在中西部有很多亲戚，所以多年来我们一直在协商解决这些文化差异。
That was probably the biggest shock.
这可能是最大的震惊。
Also, the general geography.
还有一般地理。
It was very flat and very different than upstate New York.
它非常平坦，与纽约州北部有很大不同。
Do tight or loose cultures scapegoat more?
紧密的文化还是松散的文化更容易成为替罪羊？
Scapegoat in terms of blaming .
就指责而言。
.
。
.
。
Take someone from within the community, consider them to be in some way at fault, correctly or not, treat them as a sacrificial victim, which is done very often in American political culture, and enact an ongoing ritual through which that victim falls.
从社区内部找一个人，无论正确与否，都认为他们在某种程度上有过错，将他们视为牺牲品的受害者，这在美国政治文化中很常见，并制定一个持续的仪式，让受害者倒下。
Then the community feels cleansed as a result, à la René Girard.
然后，社区就会感觉得到了净化，就像雷内·吉拉德那样。
I would suspect that tight cultures do have more of that phenomenon because people who are different are seen as dangerous.
我怀疑紧密的文化中确实存在更多这种现象，因为不同的人被视为危险的。
We actually had students go around the world in tight and loose cultures, wearing even something as minor as a facial stigma like warts.
实际上，我们让学生在严格和宽松的文化中周游世界，甚至穿着像疣这样的面部耻辱这样的小东西。
I bought them warts to wear on their face, or tattoos where they were wearing nose rings.
我给他们买了疣戴在脸上，或者在他们戴鼻环的地方纹上纹身。
We asked them to seek help in city streets or in malls.
我们要求他们在城市街道或商场寻求帮助。
In the tightest of cultures people were helped much less.
在最紧张的文化中，人们得到的帮助要少得多。
They were really much less friendly to them and much less helpful as compared to loose cultures.
与松散的文化相比，他们对他们确实不太友好，也不太乐于助人。
In small communities, when someone is threatening the social order, then scapegoating is possibly a response to that.
在小社区中，当有人威胁社会秩序时，寻找替罪羊可能是对此的回应。
What do you think of five-factor personality theory as a psychologist?
作为一名心理学家，您如何看待五因素人格理论？
How good is it?
有多好？
I would say it’s an approximation to try to explain lots of variation.
我想说这是一个近似值，试图解释很多变化。
As a cross-cultural psychologist, I would say that it’s not necessarily the only personality dimensions that are relevant around the world.
作为一名跨文化心理学家，我想说，这不一定是与世界各地相关的唯一人格维度。
There’s some research in China that suggests that there’s a sixth dimension of interpersonal relatedness that hasn’t been found with the big-five factor.
中国的一些研究表明，人际关联性还存在第六个维度，而大五因素尚未被发现。
This is what’s so upsetting about cross-cultural research, because when you generate theory and research in one context, it doesn’t mean that you’re not deficient in that theory.
这就是跨文化研究令人不安的地方，因为当你在一种背景下产生理论和研究时，并不意味着你在该理论上没有缺陷。
And you have to go to other cultures to think, “Well, do we need a sixth factor?” or “What might be contaminating about those factors in other cultures?
你必须去其他文化中思考，“那么，我们需要第六个因素吗？”或者“在其他文化中这些因素可能会受到哪些污染？
Maybe some of these dimensions are not as relevant in other cultures.”
也许其中一些维度与其他文化并不相关。”
The construct’s base itself is what we’re trying to really look at in cross-cultural research.
这个结构的基础本身就是我们在跨文化研究中真正想要研究的东西。
But the big five have been replicated.
但五巨头已被复制。
I do think there’s a lot to be said about it, but I think that there’s some variation around the world that would suggest additional dimensions are relevant.
我确实认为对此有很多话要说，但我认为世界各地存在一些差异，表明额外的维度是相关的。
If you could have data on something for your research that you don’t have data on right now, to satisfy your curiosity, what would that data be?
如果您可以为您的研究提供一些目前没有数据的数据，以满足您的好奇心，那么这些数据会是什么？
Great question.
很好的问题。
I would say it would be data from thousands of years ago in terms of societal norms and ecology.
我想说这将是数千年前的社会规范和生态数据。
In fact, I’m teaming up with Peter Turchin, who I’m sure you know of, who’s developed this fabulous database, Seshat.
事实上，我正在与 Peter Turchin 合作，我相信你认识他，他开发了这个出色的数据库 Seshat。
I’m trying to start to look at tight-loose in the ancient record.
我试图开始审视古代记录中的紧与松。
Let’s say you could go back in time a thousand years to any place on Earth.
假设你可以回到一千年前到地球上的任何地方。
There’s no problem with disease, and by definition you’re fluent in the language.
疾病没有问题，而且根据定义，你的语言很流利。
For your own curiosity and fun, where would you choose?
为了您自己的好奇心和乐趣，您会选择哪里？
I would go and hang out with Herodotus.
我会去和希罗多德一起出去玩。
Herodotus.
希罗多德。
Why?
为什么？
I would just like to be traveling around with him and noticing what he’s noticing.
我只是想和他一起旅行并注意他所注意到的事情。
The Histories is one of the most fabulous books that is really the first text in cross-cultural psychology.
《历史》是最精彩的书籍之一，实际上是跨文化心理学的第一本著作。
I would like to really witness what he looked at.
我很想亲眼目睹他所看到的一切。
I would also say, if I had another second place, I would like to go to Sparta because Sparta is a very fascinating place, and even its neighbor, Athens, at the time, to contrast the strength of norms that we see in those two contexts.
我还想说，如果我还有第二名，我想去斯巴达，因为斯巴达是一个非常迷人的地方，甚至是它的邻居雅典，以对比我们在这两种情况下看到的规范的强度。
On things under- and overrated
关于被低估和高估的事情
Now in the middle of these discussions, there’s usually a segment, overrated versus underrated.
现在，在这些讨论的中间，通常会有一个部分，被高估与被低估。
I’ll toss out some names of things.
我会抛出一些事物的名称。
You’re free to pass on any one of them, but please give us your opinion.
您可以自由地传递其中任何一项，但请给我们您的意见。
First and foremost, Bethesda, Maryland.
首先也是最重要的是，马里兰州贝塞斯达。
Overrated or underrated?
被高估还是被低估？
I would say properly rated.
我想说的是正确评价。
I think that Bethesda is a thriving place.
我认为贝塞斯达是一个繁荣的地方。
There’s a lot of interesting restaurants.
有很多有趣的餐馆。
There’s a lot of emerging culture, jazz, and so forth.
有很多新兴文化、爵士乐等等。
So I wouldn’t say it’s really over- or underrated.
所以我不会说它真的被高估或低估了。
For me it’s dull, so I think it’s overrated.
对我来说，它很无聊，所以我认为它被高估了。
I would much rather live in Silver Spring or College Park or anywhere else in that part of Maryland than Bethesda.
我宁愿住在银泉或大学公园或马里兰州其他任何地方，而不是贝塞斯达。
I should say that, as someone who lives in PG County near College Park, that I do really love living in an extremely diverse environment in PG County.
我应该说，作为住在大学公园附近的 PG 县的人，我真的很喜欢生活在 PG 县极其多元化的环境中。
I’m proud that my kids are in a context where they’re learning about different cultures.
我很自豪我的孩子们正在学习不同的文化。
Now, I think you also learn a lot of other cultures in Bethesda as well.
现在，我认为您在贝塞斯达也学到了很多其他文化。
I just think that you’re more of a minority if you’re a white, Jewish kid when you’re in PG County.
我只是认为，如果你是一名白人犹太孩子，当你在 PG 县时，你更像是少数族裔。
The world looks very different, and the way you think is affected by that.
世界看起来非常不同，你的思维方式也会受到影响。
I’m glad that they’ve had that experience.
我很高兴他们有这样的经历。
The TV show The Americans.
电视剧《美国人》。
Ohhhh.
哦哦。
It’s probably underrated.
它可能被低估了。
I’m on episode 10 of season 6 right now.
我现在正在看第六季第十集。
I’m not a big TV fan.
我不是一个电视迷。
I don’t watch a lot of television, but I started watching The Americans this summer, and I was hooked by the first episode.
我看电视的次数不多，但今年夏天我开始看《美国谍梦》，我被第一集迷住了。
It’s just phenomenal.
这真是太神奇了。
It’s underrated to the extent that everyone on this planet should watch that show.
它被低估了，以至于这个星球上的每个人都应该观看该节目。
What is interesting for the social scientist in that show?
该节目中的社会科学家感兴趣的是什么？
I would say it’s the ability to be inauthentic all the time, having to play a role.
我想说的是，这是一种始终不真实、必须扮演角色的能力。
Not just a dangerous role, but also just go against your inner instincts at all times.
不仅是一个危险的角色，而且总是违背你内心的本能。
It’s also extremely interesting to watch the dynamics of the couple on this show in terms of their loyalty.
观看这对夫妇在这个节目中的忠诚度动态也非常有趣。
It’s a tight-loose issue.
这是一个紧松问题。
I’m not going to get into details for the audience, but you have one person who really wants to get rid of the allegiance, who questions what they’re being told to do, and another that, for a very long time, thinks, “No. When we’re given an order, we abide by it.” That conflict is fascinating from a tight-loose perspective.
我不会向观众透露细节，但有一个人真的想摆脱效忠，他们质疑自己被告知要做的事情，而另一个人则在很长一段时间内认为：“不。当我们接到命令时，我们就会遵守它。”从紧松的角度来看，这种冲突是令人着迷的。
Overrated or underrated, Staten Island?
史泰登岛被高估还是低估？
I would say probably underrated.
我想说可能被低估了。
That’s because I actually am familiar with Staten Island.
那是因为我其实对史泰登岛很熟悉。
We have relatives that live there.
我们有亲戚住在那里。
It’s probably the last undiscovered place around the city.
这可能是这座城市最后一个未被发现的地方。
Brooklyn has become a chichi place to live, but Staten Island has not.
布鲁克林已经成为一个时髦的居住地，但史坦顿岛却没有。
There’s great delis there.
那里有很棒的熟食店。
I’ve spent some time there.
我在那里呆了一段时间。
My late mother is buried in Staten Island, so I have a very fond feeling for that place.
我已故的母亲埋葬在斯塔滕岛，所以我对那个地方有一种非常好的感情。
Direct talk in negotiations.
谈判中直接交谈。
Overrated.
被高估了。
Why?
为什么？
It works very well in certain ecologies, where cutting to the chase, where time is money, where you’re taught to be authentic, where face and honor are not that important as cultural constructs.
它在某些生态系统中效果很好，在这些生态系统中，切入主题，时间就是金钱，你被教导要诚实，面子和荣誉不像文化结构那么重要。
Again, it’s important in certain contexts, but it very much backfires in contexts where trying to maintain face, trying to signal respect to people is more important.
再说一次，这在某些情况下很重要，但在试图保持面子、试图表达对人的尊重更重要的情况下，它会适得其反。
Therefore, more indirect communication is more relevant in those contexts.
因此，在这些情况下，更多的间接沟通更有意义。
Do Americans do too much direct talk when they negotiate?
美国人在谈判时是否有太多直接的谈话？
Oh, yeah.
哦，是的。
I would say, generally speaking, no question about it.
我想说，一般来说，这是毫无疑问的。
One of the biggest problems in negotiation is, again, around cultural intelligence.
谈判中最大的问题之一又是文化智慧。
It’s taking our ways of doing things and just applying them around the world without thinking about, “Do these styles match the context?”
它采用我们的做事方式，并将其应用到世界各地，而不考虑“这些风格是否符合环境？”
There’s a reason why these things work here, but they might not work in Egypt or in Japan.
这些东西在这里行得通是有原因的，但在埃及或日本可能行不通。
It’s really important because we’re training our students, our MBAs, our political scientists, our lawyers to adapt a certain style of negotiating that just doesn’t work in other parts of the world.
这非常重要，因为我们正在培训我们的学生、MBA、政治学家、律师，以适应某种在世界其他地方行不通的谈判方式。
Economics.
经济学。
What’s the biggest thing wrong with us?
我们最大的问题是什么？
COWEN: You can be harsh.
COWEN：你可以很严厉。
I would say that economics can be somewhat atheoretical in the sense that psychologists are concerned with mediating mechanisms.
我想说，从心理学家关注中介机制的意义上来说，经济学可能有点非理论化。
What explains the phenomenon?
如何解释这一现象？
Whenever I’ve given a talk to economists, and I try to open up the black box of what I’m talking about, they lose interest very quickly.
每当我向经济学家发表演讲，并试图打开我所谈论内容的黑匣子时，他们很快就会失去兴趣。
“Why do you need to understand the mechanism?
“为什么你需要了解这个机制？
Just give me what the effects are.”
请告诉我效果如何。”
I’m not saying all economists are like this.
我并不是说所有经济学家都是这样。
I’ve spent quite a bit of time with people up at Harvard — Nathan Nunn, other people — that really do care about these things, so I don’t want to overgeneralize.
我花了很多时间与哈佛的人们一起度过，他们确实关心这些事情，所以我不想过度概括。
I also think experimental economics has another set of problems, but .
我还认为实验经济学还有另外一系列问题，但是。
.
。
.
。
No, tell us, please.
不，请告诉我们。
I think that a lot of it, again, is the strengths to it.
我认为这很大程度上是它的优势。
I’ve always admired the lack of deception that’s used in experimental economics.
我一直钦佩实验经济学中不存在欺骗行为。
In psychology, for a very long time, people felt OK with deceiving subjects because we had new subject pools that wouldn’t be spoiled by that deception.
在心理学领域，很长一段时间以来，人们对欺骗性的主题感到满意，因为我们有新的主题库，不会被这种欺骗所破坏。
Nowadays, when you use Mechanical Turk, the same people are engaging in studies.
如今，当你使用 Mechanical Turk 时，同样的人正在从事研究。
We have to be concerned about this, so I admire some parts of experimental economics.
我们必须关心这一点，所以我很欣赏实验经济学的一些部分。
Again, on the theory side, I’m a big proponent of theory, and I think the theory comes first.
再说一次，在理论方面，我是理论的大力支持者，我认为理论是第一位的。
A lot of times, we just see these effects happening, that you can nudge people in this direction or that direction.
很多时候，我们只是看到这些效果的发生，你可以将人们推向这个或那个方向。
How replicable they are is a question.
它们的可复制性如何是一个问题。
But really, what’s the underlying theory that’s being tested sometimes is open to question.
但实际上，有时正在测试的基本理论是什么是值得商榷的。
Other than yourself and Triandis, but who’s a psychologist that economists should read more of whom they don’t?
除了你自己和特里亚迪斯之外，还有谁是经济学家应该多读一些他们不读的心理学家的著作呢？
Not just economists but intelligent lay readers.
不仅是经济学家，还有聪明的普通读者。
I would say someone like Joe McGrath.
我会说像乔·麦格拉思这样的人。
He is deceased.
他已经死了。
He was a big groups researcher at Illinois when I was there.
当我在那里时，他是伊利诺伊州的一名大团体研究员。
He really created many circumplexes — I’m always a big fan of the circumplex — whereby he can delineate what kind of tasks groups are engaged in, what kind of conflicts they might have.
他确实创造了许多环形体 ——“我一直是环形体的忠实粉丝”——“他可以通过它来描述团队正在从事什么样的任务，他们可能会遇到什么样的冲突。
I think he’s a phenomenal theorist.
我认为他是一位杰出的理论家。
Also wrote a lot about research methods that would be useful, the judgments we have to make in research that he wrote about in several books.
还写了很多关于有用的研究方法，以及我们在他在几本书中写的研究中必须做出的判断。
Jordan Peterson is trying to resurrect the reputation of Carl Jung who, of course, was a psychologist.
乔丹·彼得森正试图恢复卡尔·荣格的声誉，卡尔·荣格当然是一位心理学家。
What do you think?
你怎么认为？
Probably not a good idea.
可能不是一个好主意。
Why not?
为什么不呢？
Maybe the ideas that he had, but the methods or the test of those ideas would need to be really approached very differently.
也许他有一些想法，但这些想法的方法或测试需要以非常不同的方式进行。
How much of Freud has held up?
弗洛伊德的观点有多少是成立的？
I would say not a whole lot, although some of his very big ideas really were not noticed as much.
我想说不是很多，尽管他的一些非常伟大的想法确实没有引起太多注意。
His ideas about how societal constraints affect psychopathology are really interesting.
他关于社会约束如何影响精神病理学的想法非常有趣。
I read about it in a book.
我在一本书上读到过它。
Could you give us an example of that?
您能给我们举个例子吗？
Just the kind of neuroses he would argue when people feel that they have to abide by a lot of strong norms.
当人们觉得自己必须遵守许多严格的规范时，他就会争论这种神经症。
He was conflicted also about, how do we create a balance between freedom and constraint?
他也很矛盾，如何在自由与约束之间取得平衡？
That kind of idea he picked up on in Civilization and Its Discontents, but it hasn’t been really something that people talk about a lot.
他在《文明及其不满》中提出了这种想法，但这并不是人们经常谈论的话题。
In general, in the history of psychology, are there unmined insights in the history of psychological thought?
总的来说，在心理学史上，心理学思想史上是否存在未经挖掘的见解？
Or is virtually all of it incorporated into the contemporary wisdom?
或者几乎所有这些都融入了当代智慧？
That’s a great question.
这是一个很好的问题。
I really think that there’s so much about history that psychologists ignore.
我真的认为历史上有很多东西被心理学家忽视了。
This is not just psychologists.
这不仅仅是心理学家。
It’s in any discipline that, if anything, our science should be more historical.
在任何学科中，如果有的话，我们的科学应该更具历史性。
It should be trying to address questions that are not just relevant right now but to the past, and that it will inform our methods now to think about history and evolution.
它应该试图解决不仅与现在相关而且与过去相关的问题，并且它将为我们现在思考历史和进化的方法提供信息。
That’s why I started to team up with people who are studying history to try to test questions that are informing now with previous behavior.
这就是为什么我开始与研究历史的人合作，尝试测试现在与以前的行为有关的问题。
We almost act as though life started here, now, in the 21st century.
我们几乎表现得好像生活是从这里开始的，现在，在21世纪。
One of the problems, also in the sociology of science and psychology, is that we’re getting much more ahistorical, even in our science.
科学社会学和心理学的问题之一是，我们变得越来越非历史化，甚至在我们的科学领域也是如此。
The length of journals makes it such that people don’t review literature that happened 50, 60 years ago, even in the science.
期刊的长度使得人们不会回顾 50、60 年前发生的文献，即使是科学领域的文献。
It’s a big problem, and that we need to make sure that our theories are not just getting rehashed because people don’t know what happened 60 years ago.
这是一个大问题，我们需要确保我们的理论不会因为人们不知道 60 年前发生了什么而被重新讨论。
Part of that is some of the practices in journalism.
其中一部分是新闻业的一些实践。
But part of it is that people want to create something sometimes that maybe is old wine in new bottles.
但部分原因是人们有时想要创造一些可能是新瓶装旧酒的东西。
The length of journals makes it such that people don’t review literature that happened 50, 60 years ago, even in the science.
期刊的长度使得人们不会回顾 50、60 年前发生的文献，即使是科学领域的文献。
It’s a big problem, and that we need to make sure that our theories are not just getting rehashed because people don’t know what happened 60 years ago.
这是一个大问题，我们需要确保我们的理论不会因为人们不知道 60 年前发生了什么而被重新讨论。
On the importance of management
论管理的重要性
Do social psychologists have anything to teach CEOs about management?
社会心理学家有什么可以教给首席执行官的管理知识吗？
Oh, of course.
哦，当然。
What?
什么？
Of course.
当然。
I teach executives.
我教高管。
I teach negotiation, mainly in Beijing for the Smith School.
我主要在北京的史密斯学院教授谈判课程。
What happens with MBA students, in general, is that they want to learn about finance and accounting.
一般来说，MBA 学生想要学习金融和会计方面的知识。
It’s only later, when they become older, that they realize, “You know what?
直到后来，当他们长大后，他们才意识到：“你知道吗？
I really need to understand human behavior.”
我真的需要了解人类的行为。”
That’s the stuff that’s really difficult, is how to manage, how to lead, how to motivate, how to manage conflict.
这才是真正困难的事情，就是如何管理、如何领导、如何激励、如何管理冲突。
These are the critical skills that managers need.
这些是管理者需要的关键技能。
They can learn those other skills pretty easily.
他们可以很容易地学习其他技能。
But they need psychology to understand how to actually deal with human behavior.
但他们需要心理学来理解如何真正处理人类行为。
Say I’m a CEO, and I want an entry point into understanding academic psychology as a research enterprise.
假设我是一名首席执行官，我想要一个切入点来理解学术心理学作为一个研究企业。
Where and how should I start?
我应该从哪里开始以及如何开始？
In terms of your education?
就你的教育程度而言？
You mean in how you would get educated?
你的意思是你将如何接受教育？
Yes.
是的。
There’s some great textbooks that you can learn in organizational behavior.
您可以学习一些有关组织行为的优秀教科书。
They say people don’t respond well to textbooks, which maybe tells .
他们说人们对教科书的反应不佳，这也许能说明问题。
.
。
.
。
I would say maybe Harvard Business Review.
我想说也许是《哈佛商业评论》。
Harvard Business Review?
哈佛商业评论？
I think that there’s some really smart, accessible types of papers that come out in HBR that help people to understand human behavior, give real-world examples of how they apply.
我认为《哈佛商业评论》发表了一些非常聪明、易于理解的论文，可以帮助人们理解人类行为，并举例说明如何应用这些行为。
I’ve been just writing about, for example, Elon Musk and some of his problems and how they reflect his genius, his looseness, but how much he needs to tighten up that operation.
例如，我一直在写埃隆·马斯克和他的一些问题，以及它们如何反映他的天才、他的松散，以及他需要在多大程度上加强这一运作。
We write about mergers and acquisitions, and how they succeed or fail, and the cultural factors that managers and CEOs should know about.
我们撰写有关并购的文章，以及它们如何成功或失败，以及经理和首席执行官应该了解的文化因素。
You would think that in those contexts, they would understand and do cultural due diligence before they get married with other companies, but they don’t.
你可能会认为在这种情况下，他们在与其他公司联姻之前会理解并进行文化尽职调查，但他们没有。
So HBR helps people to understand the scientific principles that inform management, but in a context where they’re given real-world examples.
因此，《哈佛商业评论》帮助人们理解为管理提供信息的科学原理，但要在给他们提供现实世界例子的背景下进行。
Is academia a tight or a loose culture?
学术界是紧密的文化还是松散的文化？
I would say that it’s pretty tight.
我会说它非常紧。
The replication crisis in particular is making it even tighter.
尤其是复制危机，使得这种情况变得更加严峻。
That’s another possible downside of the movement, in the sense that it gets personal.
这是该运动的另一个可能的缺点，因为它变得个人化。
People sometimes are accusing people of things that are reflecting their intent.
人们有时会指责别人反映他们意图的事情。
And this is making people more cautious, or it might make people more cautious.
这正在让人们更加谨慎，或者说可能会让人们更加谨慎。
It might actually inhibit creativity if it’s not something that we develop norms of civility for.
如果我们不为此制定文明规范，它实际上可能会抑制创造力。
I’ve seen it happen with many people because of the loose nature of the internet, which in itself has a lot of advantages but also is a cesspool of anti-normative behavior.
我见过这种情况发生在很多人身上，因为互联网的松散性，它本身有很多优点，但也是反规范行为的污水坑。
It promotes a lot of problems when it comes to reputations and therefore might limit creativity.
当涉及到声誉时，它会引发很多问题，因此可能会限制创造力。
How did academia become such a tight culture?
学术界是如何变得如此紧密的文化的？
Is it that it feels under threat?
是不是感觉受到了威胁？
Does it have some notion of population density but in intellectual space?
它是否有一些人口密度的概念，但在知识空间中？
Or what’s the transmission mechanism?
或者说传递机制是什么？
It’s a great question.
这是一个很好的问题。
I would share, by the way, disciplines vary in terms of their tightness.
顺便说一句，我想分享的是，学科的严格程度各不相同。
I wouldn’t say that we can define all academia as tight.
我不会说我们可以将所有学术界定义为严格的。
I think that because of the tenure process, because sometimes the demands of the task can actually cause tight or loose to evolve.
我认为这是由于任期过程的原因，因为有时任务的要求实际上会导致紧或松的演变。
.
。
.
。
.
。
When you need to get tenure, when you are being evaluated and monitored, that tends to produce a tight mentality.
当你需要获得终身职位时，当你受到评估和监督时，往往会产生紧张的心态。
It tends to produce some elements of risk aversion.
它往往会产生一些风险厌恶的因素。
That, again, could limit creativity.
这又可能会限制创造力。
Of course, now I’m a full professor, but even when I was just assistant professor, I thought, “If I’m going to be in this job, I want to do something that’s risky, that’s interesting.”
当然，现在我是一名正教授，但即使我只是助理教授，我也想，“如果我要从事这份工作，我想做一些有风险、有趣的事情。”
I try to encourage my students to do that, to think big, to not be inhibited by the journal space or what might be expected.
我试图鼓励我的学生这样做，大胆思考，不要被期刊空间或可能发生的事情所束缚。
That incremental contributions are not nearly as interesting as big contributions, even if you failed a lot, which we all do.
增量贡献并不像大贡献那么有趣，即使你失败了很多次，我们都这样做。
COWEN: Now, you’re well known for your work on negotiation.
COWEN：现在，您因谈判方面的工作而闻名。
Why are women worse negotiators than men, if indeed they are?
如果女性确实比男性更糟糕的话，为什么女性的谈判能力较差呢？
I don’t know where that comes from because meta analyses would say that when there are gender differences, they tend to be pretty small.
我不知道这是从哪里来的，因为荟萃分析表明，当存在性别差异时，它们往往很小。
That is to say that situational factors really do affect behavior and outcomes in negotiation a lot.
也就是说，情境因素确实对谈判的行为和结果有很大影响。
So there’s not huge differences in gender.
所以性别上并没有太大的差异。
What I do find that differentiates women and men in general — but this is again delimiting it further: white women of a certain social class compared to white men — is that women are less likely to get to the negotiation table.
我确实发现，女性和男性总体上存在差异——但这再次进一步界定了这一点：与白人男性相比，某个社会阶层的白人女性——女性不太可能进入谈判桌。
We can think about putting people in a lab, having them negotiate, and studying their behavior, but we can think about who gets to the table in the first place.
我们可以考虑将人们放入实验室，让他们进行谈判并研究他们的行为，但我们可以考虑谁首先进入谈判桌。
It’s what we call propensity to negotiate.
这就是我们所说的谈判倾向。
We started this research program with Linda Babcock.
我们与琳达·巴布科克 (Linda Babcock) 一起启动了这个研究项目。
She’s an economist at Carnegie Mellon.
她是卡内基梅隆大学的经济学家。
We can see that women actually are less likely to ask for things than men.
我们可以看到，女性实际上比男性更少提出要求。
Men get to the negotiation table more often.
男性更频繁地进入谈判桌。
We’ve been studying that phenomenon, why it’s the case.
我们一直在研究这种现象，以及为什么会这样。
It turns out, actually, there’s some kind of rationality to it.
事实证明，实际上，这是有某种合理性的。
Other people have showed that when women do negotiate, when they do initiate negotiations, they tend to experience a lot of backlash.
其他人的研究表明，当女性进行谈判时，当她们发起谈判时，她们往往会遭受很多抵制。
I would argue that that would apply to other forms of lower status, whether it’s social class or minority status.
我认为这也适用于其他形式的较低地位，无论是社会阶层还是少数群体地位。
There is some sense that, if I do ask for more things, I’m going to get some negative feedback.
有一种感觉是，如果我确实要求更多的东西，我会得到一些负面的反馈。
Tightness.
紧绷感。
There’s a frequently communicated result — it may or may not be true — that women have a harder time asking for raises.
有一个经常被传达的结果——“这可能是真的，也可能不是”——女性更难要求加薪。
Do you agree?
你同意？
In negotiation situations you don’t get a memo that says, “It’s time for you to do this.” They’re very ambiguous — weak situations is what we’d call them.
在谈判情况下，你不会收到一份备忘录，上面写着“你该这么做了”。它们非常模糊——我们称之为“弱势情境”。
So you need to perceive the opportunity.
所以你需要感知机会。
Then you need to feel comfortable and emotionally comfortable with taking on that opportunity.
然后你需要在接受这个机会时感到舒适和情感上舒适。
Asking for raises is something that involves all those processes.
要求加薪涉及所有这些流程。
You have to perceive that it’s even possible.
你必须意识到这是可能的。
Most times, when you’re around people who are very powerful, they might tell you to do this.
大多数时候，当你周围的人都很有权势时，他们可能会告诉你这样做。
Mentors tell you, “It’s time for you to do this.”
导师告诉你：“是时候做这件事了。”
I tend to, I should say, negotiate a lot, so I’m not sure.
我应该说，我倾向于进行很多谈判，所以我不确定。
That’s always been the case.
情况一直如此。
I’ve never felt like it’s a problem to ask for something.
我从来不觉得要求什么是有问题的。
Ask and you shall receive, or you’re not going to get something if you don’t ask for it.
提出要求，你就会得到，否则如果你不要求，你就不会得到什么。
But there are some social consequences to asking for women.
但要求女性会产生一些社会后果。
It’s a delicate balance of how you do that.
这是你如何做到这一点的微妙平衡。
Are Americans less patient as negotiators?
美国人作为谈判者是否缺乏耐心？
Oh, yeah.
哦，是的。
COWEN: And why?
考恩：为什么？
De Tocqueville really noticed this as an American trait years ago, that Americans seem to be pretty impatient.
德托克维尔多年前就确实注意到这是美国人的一个特点，美国人似乎相当不耐烦。
We live in a context.
我们生活在一个环境中。
An undervalued, underrated concept in psychology is metaphor.
心理学中一个被低估的概念是隐喻。
We live in a context where sports metaphors, game metaphors, are really guiding a lot of interaction in general but also in negotiation.
我们生活在这样一个环境中，体育隐喻、游戏隐喻确实指导着许多一般互动，但也指导着谈判。
In those contexts, the clock is ticking.
在这种情况下，时间正在流逝。
People feel like they have to get things done quickly.
人们觉得他们必须快速完成事情。
That’s where the impatience comes from.
这就是不耐烦的来源。
It comes from certain metaphors.
它来自某些隐喻。
When you’re in a relationship metaphor, the clock is not ticking.
当你处于关系隐喻中时，时钟不会滴答作响。
The relationship metaphor is much more common in places like East Asia or the Middle East, where reputation building and understanding one’s honor and building trust is not something that you could put a time limit on.
关系隐喻在东亚或中东等地方更为常见，在这些地方，建立声誉、理解一个人的荣誉以及建立信任并不是你可以设定时间限制的事情。
Americans tend to operate in certain metaphoric frameworks, and that guides their impatience.
美国人倾向于在某些隐喻框架中行事，这导致了他们的不耐烦。
To some extent, that’s OK here in the US, but it doesn’t work so well in other places.
从某种程度上来说，这在美国没问题，但在其他地方就不那么管用了。
An undervalued, underrated concept in psychology is metaphor.
心理学中一个被低估的概念是隐喻。
We live in a context where sports metaphors, game metaphors, are really guiding a lot of interaction in general but also in negotiation.
我们生活在这样一个环境中，体育隐喻、游戏隐喻确实指导着许多一般互动，但也指导着谈判。
In those contexts, the clock is ticking.
在这种情况下，时间正在流逝。
People feel like they have to get things done quickly.
人们觉得他们必须快速完成事情。
That’s where the impatience comes from.
这就是不耐烦的来源。
It comes from certain metaphors.
它来自某些隐喻。
When you’re in a relationship metaphor, the clock is not ticking.
当你处于关系隐喻中时，时钟不会滴答作响。
Putting aside your political views, but just if you observe Donald Trump as a negotiator — as a psychologist, what strikes you?
抛开你的政治观点不谈，但如果你观察唐纳德·特朗普作为一名谈判者——作为一名心理学家，什么让你印象深刻？
Donald Trump has a very classic negotiation style.
唐纳德·特朗普有非常经典的谈判风格。
It’s a distributive negotiation style.
这是一种分布式谈判风格。
It’s a win-lose style.
这是一种双输的风格。
It works in certain contexts, especially contexts where there’s one issue or when there’s very little expected future interaction.
它在某些情况下有效，特别是在存在一个问题或预期未来交互很少的情况下。
What Donald Trump does is, he takes that style to international politics where these contexts, the structure of these situations is very different.
唐纳德·特朗普所做的是，他将这种风格运用到国际政治中，这些背景、这些情况的结构非常不同。
There’s usually many issues at the table.
桌面上通常有很多问题。
There’s expected future interaction.
预计未来会有互动。
Trump uses these distributive tactics like threats.
特朗普像威胁一样使用这些分配策略。
He makes threats very easily.
他很容易发出威胁。
Psychologists know that threats create a lot of reactants.
心理学家知道威胁会产生很多反应物。
When you threaten me, I’m going to threaten you right back.
当你威胁我的时候，我也会威胁你。
When I teach students how to negotiate and I train them, “If someone threatens you, you go right back to interests.
当我教学生如何谈判并训练他们时，“如果有人威胁你，你就会回到利益上。
You tell them, ‘I can threaten you, but let’s go back to interests.
你告诉他们，‘我可以威胁你，但让我们回到利益上来。
That’s really where we’re going to make a lot of action in this negotiation.’” His style is really mismatched with the context that he’s in.
这确实是我们在这次谈判中要采取很多行动的地方。’”他的风格与他所处的环境确实不匹配。
I’ll say one more thing as a cross-cultural psychologist: Trump, as many negotiators need to do, is to develop cultural intelligence.
作为一名跨文化心理学家，我还要再说一件事：正如许多谈判代表需要做的那样，特朗普就是发展文化智商。
In our data, cultural intelligence is just as important as general intelligence or emotional intelligence.
在我们的数据中，文化智力与一般智力或情商一样重要。
That’s one thing he really doesn’t understand, is the cultural context, that there are so many ways you can violate someone’s honor in a negotiation.
他真正不明白的一件事是文化背景，在谈判中你可以通过多种方式侵犯某人的荣誉。
I’ve studied this among hundreds of professional negotiators in the Middle East.
我对中东数百名专业谈判人员进行了研究。
If I’m on my phone and negotiating with you, that’s a sign that I’m not respecting you enough to put my phone away.
如果我拿着手机与你谈判，那就表明我不够尊重你，无法把手机收起来。
If I wear something that’s not formal in a negotiation, that’s a sign of disrespect.
如果我在谈判中穿着不正式的衣服，那就是不尊重的表现。
That could be as important as the economics of the negotiation.
这可能与谈判的经济效益同样重要。
So Trump needs to gain some cultural intelligence, in my point of view.
因此，在我看来，特朗普需要获得一些文化智慧。
How can people best learn cultural intelligence?
人们如何才能最好地学习文化智能？
Say they’re a prospective diplomat, politician, or CEO.
假设他们是未来的外交官、政治家或首席执行官。
What’s the path to learning cultural IQ?
学习文化智商的途径是什么？
It’s immersing yourself in different cultures.
让自己沉浸在不同的文化中。
It’s studying cross-cultural psychology, anthropology, and other disciplines.
它研究跨文化心理学、人类学和其他学科。
Part of the problem is that a lot of people get these dos and don’ts — superficial aspects of culture — when they’re being sent on an expatriate assignment.
部分问题在于，很多人在被派往外派任务时，都会明白这些该做和不该做的事——“文化的肤浅方面”。
They’re usually selected because of their technical competence, not because they’re culturally competent.
他们被选中通常是因为他们的技术能力，而不是因为他们的文化能力。
You need to see it as a lifelong — at least I do — quest to understand what are the cultural differences and why do they evolve?
你需要将其视为一生的 ——至少我是这样的——理解什么是文化差异以及它们为何演变？
On the Michele Gelfand production function
关于米歇尔·格尔凡德生产函数
I’ll close with a few questions about the Michele Gelfand production function, which is that classic thing we do in these chats.
最后，我将提出几个有关 Michele Gelfand 生产函数的问题，这是我们在这些聊天中所做的经典事情。
What’s your secret to how you’ve been so productive so as to publish so much?
您如此高效地发表如此多文章的秘诀是什么？
Other than just hard work.
除了努力工作之外。
That’s obvious.
这是显而易见的。
What is it you can teach other people about how to be productive?
关于如何提高工作效率，你可以教其他人什么？
I would say that having a passion — it sounds pretty trite — but having a passion means you’ll never work a day in your life.
我想说的是，拥有激情 ——这听起来很老套—— 但是拥有激情意味着你一生中永远不会工作一天。
I feel like being paid to do what I do is an unbelievable feat because I love what I do.
我觉得做我所做的事情并获得报酬是一项令人难以置信的壮举，因为我热爱我所做的事情。
I wake up and I’m crazy curious about what I do.
我醒来，对自己所做的事情感到非常好奇。
When you’re really curious and really passionate, it will drive the rest.
当你真的好奇并且充满热情时，它会推动其余的事情。
Work doesn’t seem like work.
工作看起来不像工作。
I also think it’s important — a good idea can come from anywhere.
我也认为这很重要——好主意可以来自任何地方。
It could come from a lab manager.
它可能来自实验室经理。
It doesn’t have to be a postdoc.
不一定是博士后。
In our group, we try to practice no one’s different.
在我们的团队中，我们努力做到没有人有什么不同。
It doesn’t matter what your level of education is.
你的教育水平是什么并不重要。
It’s a matter of being engaged.
这是一个参与的问题。
I’ve had a lot of visitors comment on that practice in our group.
我有很多访客对我们小组中的这种做法发表了评论。
I like to tell people, “Come up with the stupidest idea possible.” I want people to feel psychologically safe, whatever their rank, to come up with ideas.
我喜欢告诉人们，“想出尽可能最愚蠢的主意。”我希望人们在心理上感到安全，无论其级别如何，都能提出想法。
Many of them, like, I have many ideas that are not good but some that might be good.
他们中的许多人，比如，我有很多不好的想法，但也有一些可能是好的。
There’s always an implicit bidding for quality coauthors.
对于高质量的合著者总是有隐性的竞价。
A lot of people will want to work with them.
很多人会想和他们一起工作。
You’re choosing coauthors.
你正在选择合著者。
They’re choosing you, in turn.
他们反过来选择你。
What is it you think you know about spotting talent in collaborators that other people don’t?
您认为您知道哪些关于在合作者中发现人才而其他人不知道的事情？
It’s commitment.
这是承诺。
This again sounds pretty obvious, but it’s commitment to and passion for similar questions, but having very different perspectives on them.
这听起来又很明显，但它是对类似问题的承诺和热情，但对它们有截然不同的观点。
These interdisciplinary collaborations are — when they can work, and many of them don’t — they are beautiful because you have people who are interested in the same questions, and yet we have such different complementary expertise that it makes for really interesting research.
这些跨学科合作是 — 当它们可以发挥作用时，而其中很多都不起作用时 — 它们是美妙的，因为人们对相同的问题感兴趣，但我们拥有如此不同的互补专业知识，这使得研究变得非常有趣。
I could say that with Dana Nau at Maryland.
我可以对马里兰州的 Dana Nau 这么说。
His students, who have been trained in evolutionary game theory, collaborate with cross-cultural psychologists.
他的学生接受过进化博弈论的培训，与跨文化心理学家合作。
We eat together at breakfast every other week.
我们每隔一周一起吃早餐。
Maybe that helps.
也许这有帮助。
We always are having our meetings at restaurants.
我们总是在餐馆开会。
We are committed to the same problems, but we have very different perspectives on them.
我们致力于解决同样的问题，但我们对这些问题的看法却截然不同。
Some collaborations are harder.
有些合作比较困难。
I remember I was working as part of a MURI grant with the Israeli computer scientist Sarit Kraus, a really brilliant woman.
我记得我曾作为 MURI 资助项目的一部分与以色列计算机科学家 Sarit Kraus 一起工作，她是一位非常出色的女性。
When she came to Maryland, she was developing computer agents to negotiate.
当她来到马里兰州时，她正在开发计算机代理进行谈判。
I wanted to use these computer agents and bring her work into our work on negotiation.
我想利用这些计算机代理，并将她的工作带入我们的谈判工作中。
She said, “Michele, I’m not interested at all about human behavior.” I was crushed at the time.
她说：“米歇尔，我对人类行为一点也不感兴趣。”我当时就崩溃了。
I said to her, “You know what?
我对她说：“你知道吗？
While we’re being honest, I don’t really care about your computer agent.”
说实话，我并不真正关心你的电脑代理。”
GELFAND: Then we realized, “OK, we’re going to have to start somewhere.
GELFAND：然后我们意识到，“好吧，我们必须从某个地方开始。
How are we going to integrate our interests?” It turns out, I said to her, “Look, your agent is going to be a better agent” — which is her quest — “if it understands culture.
我们如何整合我们的利益？”事实证明，我对她说，“看，你的代理人将会成为一个更好的代理人” — 这是她的追求 — “如果它理解文化。
And I can use your agent to collect data in a very standardized way in a lab but around the US.
我可以使用您的代理在美国各地的实验室中以非常标准化的方式收集数据。
I can actually benefit from your work.”
我实际上可以从你的工作中受益。”
We never had a common problem per se, but we were able to integrate our interests enough and get past the really-do-I-want-to-work-with-you stage.
我们本身没有共同的问题，但我们能够充分整合我们的兴趣，并度过了“我真的想和你一起工作”的阶段。
It takes a lot of commitment.
这需要很多承诺。
Those complementary skills can help both parties advance their research agendas.
这些互补的技能可以帮助双方推进他们的研究议程。
Last question.
最后一个问题。
What is it that other academics don’t know about teaching and mentoring?
关于教学和指导，其他学者不知道的是什么？
I would say it’s like these are like your kids.
我想说这就像你的孩子一样。
When you accept a PhD student, you’re going to be committed to them for not just five years, but forever.
当你接受一名博士生时，你将不仅仅为他们服务五年，而是永远为他们服务。
My students, they’ll write me emails when they’re going for tenure or when they’re going for full, whatever.
我的学生们，当他们要获得终身教职或全职学位时，无论什么时候，他们都会给我写电子邮件。
They’re like, “I need some mentoring.”
他们就像是，“我需要一些指导。”
I always tell my students, “Once a mentor, you’re always a mentor.” These are going to become your family.
我总是告诉我的学生：“一旦成为导师，你就永远是导师。”这些将成为你的家人。
That’s, at least, my approach.
至少，这是我的方法。
I still rely on Harry Triandis.
我仍然依赖哈利·特里亚迪斯。
I’ve sent him every chapter of this book.
我已经把这本书的每一章都发给他了。
He’s 90 years old.
他今年 90 岁了。
We’ve just recently wrote a paper together, and I left Champaign years ago.
我们最近刚刚一起写了一篇论文，而我几年前就离开了尚佩恩。
It’s a long-term commitment.
这是一项长期承诺。
It’s incredible to watch your students grow up.
看着你的学生成长真是令人难以置信。
It’s painful when they leave.
他们离开的时候很痛苦。
Always is.
总是如此。
COWEN: Michele Gelfand, thank you very much.
COWEN： Michele Gelfand，非常感谢你。