你是一個非常有同情心的人嗎？你在什麼情況下會同情別人？
Daniel Goleman，哈佛大學心理學博士，現為美國科學促進協會（AAAS）研究員，曾四度榮獲美國心理協會（APA）最高榮譽獎項，20世紀80年代即獲得心理學終生成就獎，並曾兩次獲得普立茲獎提名。
今天他為我們解析為什麼我們更多的時候不那麼有同情心。
演講題目：為什麼我們失去了同情心？
中英文字幕
You know, I'm struck by how one of the implicit themes of TED is compassion, these very moving demonstrations we've just seen: HIV in Africa, President Clinton last night. And I'd like to do a little collateral thinking, if you will, about compassion and bring it from the global level to the personal.
TED的隱性主題之一是同情心，這讓我很受觸動。我們已經傾聽了這些感人的演說：例如昨晚關於非洲愛滋病、柯林頓總統等的演講。而我也想談一些與同情心相關的想法我會從全球的層面談到個人的層面。
I'm a psychologist, but rest assured, I will not bring it to the scrotal. There was a very important study done a while ago at Princeton Theological Seminary that speaks to why it is that when all of us have so many opportunities to help, we do sometimes, and we don't other times.
我是一個心理學家，但請儘管放心，我不會談到陰囊的。不久前有一項非常重要的研究在普林斯頓神學院展開，解釋了為什麼在我們有如此多的機會可以去助人的情況下，我們卻只會偶爾幫忙。
A group of divinity students at the Princeton Theological Seminary were told that they were going to give a practice sermon and they were each given a sermon topic. Half of those students were given, as a topic, the parable of the Good Samaritan: the man who stopped the stranger in -- to help the stranger in need by the side of the road.
來自普林斯頓神學院的學生被告知，他們將進行一次布道實習並且分配給每人一個布道的主題。一半的學生得到的主題是關於仁慈心善的人的故事：關於一個在路邊幫助需要幫助的陌生人的故事。
Half were given random Bible topics. Then one by one, they were told they had to go to another building and give their sermon. As they went from the first building to the second, each of them passed a man who was bent over and moaning, clearly in need. The question is: Did they stop to help?
另外的一半學生得到的是隨機的聖經故事，他們輪流被告知他們將去另外一棟樓去布道，在他們去那棟樓的途中，他們每個人都經過了一個彎著腰呻吟著的人，顯然此人需要幫助。問題是：他們停下來幫忙了麼？
The more interesting question is: Did it matter they were contemplating the parable of the Good Samaritan? Answer: No, not at all. What turned out to determine whether someone would stop and help a stranger in need was how much of a hurry they thought they were in -- were they feeling they were late, or were they absorbed in what they were going to talk about.
更有意思的問題是：若他們的主題是關於那個仁慈心善的人的故事對他們的行為有影響嗎？結果：一點都沒有影響。決定了是否會停下來去幫助有需要的陌生人，完全取決於他們自認為的忙碌程度——他們感到自己要遲到了，或者是他們全神貫注於他們所要談的內容。
And this is, I think, the predicament of our lives: that we don't take every opportunity to help because our focus is in the wrong direction. There's a new field in brain science, social neuroscience. This studies the circuitry in two people's brains that activates while they interact.
這，我想，就是我們人生的窘境：我們並不總是去幫助他人，因為我們的關注點存在偏差。腦科學有一新領域：這項研究的是兩個人大腦中在互動時激活的電路。
And the new thinking about compassion from social neuroscience is that our default wiring is to help. That is to say, if we attend to the other person, we automatically empathize, we automatically feel with them.
社會神經科學關於同情心的新想法是，我們默認的連接方式是幫助他人。這也就是說，如果我們我們不由自主地感動身受，會去同情對方。
There are these newly identified neurons, mirror neurons, that act like a neuro Wi-Fi, activating in our brain exactly the areas activated in theirs. We feel "with" automatically. And if that person is in need, if that person is suffering, we're automatically prepared to help. At least that's the argument.
新發現的神經元，即鏡像神經元就好像神經無線保真技術一樣，在大腦中激活與對方大腦裡相同的區域。我們不由自主地與對方「心心相映」了。若是那個人需要幫助，若是他正承受痛苦，我們不由自主地要去幫他。至少這是論點。
But then the question is: Why don't we? And I think this speaks to a spectrum that goes from complete self-absorption, to noticing, to empathy and to compassion. And the simple fact is, if we are focused on ourselves, if we're preoccupied, as we so often are throughout the day, we don't really fully notice the other.
可問題是：為什麼我們會不去幫忙呢?我認為這有一個範圍從完全的專心致志到注意對方，再到感同身受，最後同情。簡單的事實是，如果我們關注我們自己，如果我們像通常一樣一整天都更多的關注自身的話，我們實際上並沒有完全注意到他人。
And this difference between the self and the other focus can be very subtle. I was doing my taxes the other day, and I got to the point where I was listing all of the donations I gave, and I had an epiphany, it was -- I came to my check to the Seva Foundation and I noticed that I thought, boy, my friend Larry Brilliant would really be happy that I gave money to Seva.
這種對自己和對他人的關注度的差距可能是非常細微。有一天我在納稅，當我要列出我的捐贈物時，我在寫支票給Seva基金會時，我留意到我的想法——我的朋友LarryBrilliant一定會因我把錢捐給Seva而感到高興的。
Then I realized that what I was getting from giving was a narcissistic hit -- that I felt good about myself. Then I started to think about the people in the Himalayas whose cataracts would be helped, and I realized that I went from this kind of narcissistic self-focus to altruistic joy, to feeling good for the people that were being helped. I think that's a motivator.
於是我意識到我因給予而獲得的是自我陶醉——我對自己感到滿意。於是我開始想到在喜馬拉雅山脈的人們他們的白內障將得到醫治，我意識到我從這種自我陶醉變成了無私的快樂，因別人受助而快樂。我想這就是一種動力。
But this distinction between focusing on ourselves and focusing on others is one that I encourage us all to pay attention to. You can see it at a gross level in the world of dating. I was at a sushi restaurant a while back and I overheard two women talking about the brother of one woman, who was in the singles scene.
但關注自己與關注他人的區別是我鼓勵咱們大家都去留意的。你可以在約會者中粗略了解此情況。前陣子我去了一家壽司店無意間聽到了兩位女士在討論其中一位的兄弟。
And this woman says, "My brother is having trouble getting dates, so he's trying speed dating." I don't know if you know speed dating? Women sit at tables and men go from table to table, and there's a clock and a bell, and at five minutes, bingo, the conversation ends and the woman can decide whether to give her card or her email address to the man for follow up.
這位女士說，「我弟弟在尋找伴侶方面有困難，所以他現在嘗試閃電配對。」不知你們對閃電配對是否了解？女士們坐在桌邊，男士們依次與她們溝通，有個時鐘和鈴鐺，每隔五分鐘，時間到，交流便結束，女士就決定是否將其名片或電郵地址給這位男士以便今後聯絡。
And this woman says, "My brother's never gotten a card, and I know exactly why. The moment he sits down, he starts talking non-stop about himself; he never asks about the woman." And I was doing some research in the Sunday Styles section of The New York Times, looking at the back stories of marriages -- because they're very interesting -- and I came to the marriage of Alice Charney Epstein.
這位女士說，「我弟弟從來就沒得到過名片。我知道原因何在。每當他坐下，他就開始不停地談自己的情況，從不問對方的情況。」我在《紐約時報》的「周日格調」板塊做了一些調查關注一些婚姻背後的故事因為他們很有意思。在調查AliceCharneyEpstein的婚姻時，
And she said that when she was in the dating scene, she had a simple test she put people to. The test was: from the moment they got together, how long it would take the guy to ask her a question with the word "you" in it. And apparently Epstein aced the test, therefore the artic
她說當她在約會時，她會給對方一個考驗。這個考驗也就是：當他們在一起的時候，要過多久這個男士才會問她一個帶有「你」字的問題。顯然，Epstein先生通過了考驗，所以才有了這篇報導。
Now this is a -- it's a little test I encourage you to try out at a party. Here at TED there are great opportunities. The Harvard Business Review recently had an article called "The Human Moment," about how to make real contact with a person at work. And they said, well, the fundamental thing you have to do is turn off your BlackBerry, close your laptop, end your daydream and pay full attention to the person.
這是一個，一個很小的測試我鼓勵你們也去在派對上嘗試一下。在TED這就就有很多很好的機會。最近《哈佛商業評論》上有篇文章題為《人情時刻》，講述的是如何在工作時與別人真正地接觸。他們稱你要做的最基本的事情是關掉黑莓（手機），關閉筆記本，結束白日夢然後專心地與對方交流。
There is a newly coined word in the English language for the moment when the person we're with whips out their BlackBerry or answers that cell phone, and all of a sudden we don't exist. The word is "pizzled": it's a combination of puzzled and pissed off. I think it's quite apt. It's our empathy, it's our tuning in which separates us from Machiavellians or sociopaths.
英語中有個新造的詞彙該詞使用的情景是：與我們交談的人突然掏出黑莓或接聽來電，然後頃刻間就當我們不存在了。這個詞語就是「pizzled」。這個詞語是由「puzzled（困惑的）」和「pissedoff（憤怒）」組合而成的。我想這是挺恰當的。正是我們的同理心把我們和反社會者區別開來。
I have a brother-in-law who's an expert on horror and terror -- he wrote the Annotated Dracula, the Essential Frankenstein -- he was trained as a Chaucer scholar, but he was born in Transylvania and I think it affected him a little bit. At any rate, at one point my brother-in-law, Leonard, decided to write a book about a serial killer.
我姐（妹）夫是研究恐懼的專家，他擁有theAnnotatedDracula，theEssentialFrenkenstein等著作，他被訓練成為喬叟研究學者，但他出生地是特蘭西瓦尼亞，我想這對他有點影響。不論如何，在某一點上，我的姐（妹）夫，李奧納多下定決心寫一本關於一個連續作案的殺人惡魔的書。書中的這個人多年前給我們的生活帶來了恐慌。
This is a man who terrorized the very vicinity we're in many years ago. He was known as the Santa Cruz strangler. And before he was arrested, he had murdered his grandparents, his mother and five co-eds at UC Santa Cruz. So my brother-in-law goes to interview this killer and he realizes when he meets him that this guy is absolutely terrifying.
他就是聖克魯斯扼殺者。在他被捕之前，他謀殺了他的祖父母，他的母親及在聖他克魯茲分校的五位女生。所以，我的姐（妹）夫去採訪了這位殺人犯。當他見到他時，他意識到這個傢伙的確令人恐怖。
For one thing, he's almost seven feet tall. But that's not the most terrifying thing about him. The scariest thing is that his IQ is 160: a certified genius. But there is zero correlation between IQ and emotional empathy, feeling with the other person. They're controlled by different parts of the brain.
一方面，他有將近七英尺高。但這還不是最讓人覺得恐怖的。最可怕的是他的智商達到了160，一個絕對的天才。但是智商和情緒的同理心之間毫無關係，同理心是指感同身受的明白他人的感受。它們是由大腦的不同部分控制的。
So at one point, my brother-in-law gets up the courage to ask the one question he really wants to know the answer to, and that is: how could you have done it? Didn't you feel any pity for your victims? These were very intimate murders -- he strangled his victims.
所以，一方面，我姐（妹）夫鼓起勇氣問了一個他真想知道答案的問題。即：你怎麼能這麼做？難道你就對受害者沒有一點點的同情嗎？這些都是非常親密的謀殺，他扼死了他們。
And the strangler says very matter-of-factly, "Oh no. If I'd felt the distress, I could not have done it. I had to turn that part of me off. I had to turn that part of me off." And I think that that is very troubling, and in a sense, I've been reflecting on turning that part of us off.
這個扼殺者很平淡地回答道：「呃，不的。若我覺得痛苦，我就不會這麼做了。我得不去考慮這點。我得不去考慮這點。」我覺得這很令人煩擾。從某種意義上說，我們在活動中關注我們自己的話，
When we focus on ourselves in any activity, we do turn that part of ourselves off if there's another person. Think about going shopping and think about the possibilities of a compassionate consumerism. Right now, as Bill McDonough has pointed out, the objects that we buy and use have hidden consequences. We're all unwitting victims of a collective blind spot.
當有其他人時，我們就不會關注自身，想像一下購物時的情景，想像一下同情消費的可能性。現在，正如比爾.麥克唐納所指出的，我們所購買及使用的物品都有潛在的後果。我們都是共同盲點的不知情的受害者。
We don't notice and don't notice that we don't notice the toxic molecules emitted by a carpet or by the fabric on the seats. Or we don't know if that fabric is a technological or manufacturing nutrient; it can be reused or does it just end up at landfill? In other words, we're oblivious to the ecological and public health and social and economic justice consequences of the things we buy and use.
我們沒有注意到，且沒注意到我們沒注意到地毯或椅子織物所放射出來的有毒分子。或者我們不知道這一織物是技術上的或製造業的營養物。它可以被再生使用還是被丟到垃圾堆裡呢？換句話說，我們疏忽了我們購買和使用的產品所帶來的生態，公共健康及社會經濟公正所帶來的結果。
In a sense, the room itself is the elephant in the room, but we don't see it. And we've become victims of a system that points us elsewhere. Consider this. There's a wonderful book called Stuff: The Hidden Life of Everyday Objects.
在某種意義上，房間本身就是「房中之象」（眾所周知，但被某房忽略不提的問題），但我們卻沒看到。於是我們便成了受害者把我們引向它處的體系的受害者。試想一下——有本好書，題為《材料：日常用品之隱秘人生》
And it talks about the back story of something like a t-shirt. And it talks about where the cotton was grown and the fertilizers that were used and the consequences for soil of that fertilizer. And it mentions, for instance, that cotton is very resistant to textile dye; about 60 percent washes off into wastewater.
該書談的是諸如T恤衫的幕後故事。該書談還到棉花的生產地，使用的化肥及其對土壤帶來的後果。該書還提到，比如說，棉花是非常不易織物染色的，大約百分之60會被隨著廢水被洗掉。
And it's well known by epidemiologists that kids who live near textile works tend to have high rates of leukemia. There's a company, Bennett and Company, that supplies Polo.com, Victoria's Secret -- they, because of their CEO, who's aware of this, in China formed a joint venture with their dye works to make sure that the wastewater would be properly taken care of before it returned to the groundwater.
流行病學家都深知住在紡織工廠附近的兒童患白血病的機率很高。有這麼一家公司，BennettandCompany，該公司支持著Polo.com網站。維多利亞的秘密——他們，因為他們的執行長知道這一點，而在中國建了一家合資企業，他們的染織工廠能確保廢水在流向地下水之前能被適當的處理。
Right now, we don't have the option to choose the virtuous t-shirt over the non-virtuous one. So what would it take to do that? Well, I've been thinking. For one thing, there's a new electronic tagging technology that allows any store to know the entire history of any item on the shelves in that store.
現在，我們沒有選擇這種道德T恤的能力而不去選擇其它無德產品機會。那怎樣才能做到這一點呢？嗯，我一直在思考這一點。有一項新的電子標籤技術可以讓任何商鋪了解到該商鋪貨架上任一商品的完整歷史。
You can track it back to the factory. Once you can track it back to the factory, you can look at the manufacturing processes that were used to make it, and if it's virtuous, you can label it that way. Or if it's not so virtuous, you can go into -- today, go into any store, put your scanner on a palm onto a barcode, which will take you to a website.
可以追蹤其生產工廠。一旦你能追蹤到其工廠，你就能了解其生產過程，並知道它是否符合道德標準，可以用此方式進行標籤。若其不符合道德標準，你可去任一家商鋪，將你手上的掃描儀放在條形碼上該條形碼將引領你進入一家網站。
They have it for people with allergies to peanuts. That website could tell you things about that object. In other words, at point of purchase, we might be able to make a compassionate choice. There's a saying in the world of information science: ultimately everybody will know everything.
有人對花生過敏。這網站可以告訴你關於該物品的情況。也就是說，在購買時，我們也就能夠做出一個有同情心的選擇。在信息科學界有一種說法：最終每一個人都會了解一切。
And the question is: will it make a difference? Some time ago when I was working for The New York Times, it was in the '80s, I did an article on what was then a new problem in New York -- it was homeless people on the streets. And I spent a couple of weeks going around with a social work agency that ministered to the homeless.
然而問題是：這有什麼不同麼？有段時間我在《紐約時報》工作，那是80年代的事情了，我寫了一篇文章談到紐約的新問題——大街上無家可歸的人們。我花了數周的時間與一家為無家人員服務的社會工作機構一起工作。
And I realized seeing the homeless through their eyes that almost all of them were psychiatric patients that had nowhere to go. They had a diagnosis. It made me -- what it did was to shake me out of the urban trance where, when we see, when we're passing someone who's homeless in the periphery of our vision, it stays on the periphery. We don't notice and therefore we don't act.
我意識到這些無家可歸的人大多數都是精神病人他們無處可去。他們有診斷的結論。這使我從城市人的恍惚中驚醒，當我們經過一個無家可歸的，一個處在我們視野邊緣的人，我們沒有注意到，我們也就沒有採取任何行動。
One day soon after that -- it was a Friday -- at the end of the day, I went down -- I was going down to the subway. It was rush hour and thousands of people were streaming down the stairs. And all of a sudden as I was going down the stairs I noticed that there was a man slumped to the side, shirtless, not moving, and people were just stepping over him -- hundreds and hundreds of people.
在那不久後的一天，這是一個周五，工作完後，我正要走下地鐵站。正值下班高峰期上萬人的人流湧下臺階。突然，正當我走下梯子時我注意到有一個人倒在一邊，沒穿上衣，一動不動，人們從他身上跨過，成百上千的人們從他身上跨過。
And because my urban trance had been somehow weakened, I found myself stopping to find out what was wrong. The moment I stopped, half a dozen other people immediately ringed the same guy. And we found out that he was Hispanic, he didn't speak any English, he had no money, he'd been wandering the streets for days, starving, and he'd fainted from hunger. I
因為我的這種「城市人的恍惚」已經減弱，我停下來了解出了什麼問題。我剛停步，六七個路人也注意到了他。我們發現他是西班牙人，他不說英語，他身無分文，已經在街上遊蕩了數天，飢腸轆轆，最終餓暈了。
mmediately someone went to get orange juice, someone brought a hotdog, someone brought a subway cop. This guy was back on his feet immediately. But all it took was that simple act of noticing, and so I'm optimistic.
有人立刻去買了橘子汁，有人拿來了熱狗，有人帶來了地鐵警察。不一會兒，這個人就能站起來了。所需要做的僅僅只是去注意罷了。所以我還是樂觀的。
Thank you very much.
謝謝大家。