I want you to, for a moment, think aboutplaying a game of Monopoly. Except in this game, that combination of skill,talent and luck that helped earn you success in games, as in life, has beenrendered irrelevant, because this game s been rigged, and you ve got the upperhand. You ve got more money, more opportunities to move around the board, andmore access to resources. 

我想让大家花一点时间，想象一下自己正在玩大富翁游戏，只不过在这个游戏里面，那些帮助你赢得游戏的因素，比如技巧，才能和运气，在此无关紧要，就像对于人生一样，因为这个游戏被操纵了，而你已经占了上风，你有更多的钱，有更多在棋盘上移动的机会，以及更多获得资源的机会。

And as you think about that experience, I want you toask yourself: How might that experience of being a privileged player in arigged game change the way you think about yourself and regard that otherplayer?

在你想象这个经历的时候，我想让大家问一下自己，一个被操纵的游戏里面，作为优势玩家的经历，会如何改变你思考自己和，对待对手的方式？

So, we ran a study on the UC Berkeleycampus to look at exactly that question. We brought in more than 100 pairs ofstrangers into the lab, and with the flip of a coin, randomly assigned one ofthe two to be a rich player in a rigged game. They got two times as much money;when they passed Go, they collected twice the salary; and they got to roll bothdice instead of one, so they got to move around the board a lot more.

在加州大学伯克利分校，我们做了一个试验，来研究这个问题，我们招募了100多对，陌生人到实验室，通过投掷硬币的方式，随机选定一对中的一个，作为这个游戏中占上风的玩家，他们拿到了两倍的钱，当他们途径起点的时候，他们拿到两倍的工资，而且他们可以同时掷两个骰子而不是一个，所以他们可以在棋盘上移动更多。

And over the course of 15 minutes, wewatched through hidden cameras what happened. What I want to do today, for thefirst time, is show you a little bit of what we saw. You ll to have to pardonthe sound quality, because again, these were hidden cameras. So we ve providedsubtitles.

在接下来的15分钟内，我们通过隐藏的摄像头观察了现场情况，今天是第一次，我想和大家分享一下我们观察到的，有的时候音质可能不太好，还请大家原谅，因为毕竟是用隐藏的摄像头，所以我们加上了字幕。

[Video] Rich Player: How many 500s did youhave?

Poor Player: Just one.

RP: Are you serious? PP: Yeah.

RP: I have three. (Laughs) I don t know whythey gave me so much.

富玩家：你有多少张500块？

穷玩家：就一张。

富玩家：真的吗？！

穷玩家：是啊。

富玩家：我有三张。不知道为什么他们给了我那么多。

Paul Piff: So it was quickly apparent toplayers that something was up. One person clearly has a lot more money than theother person, and yet, as the game unfolded, we saw very notable differences,dramatic differences begin to emerge between the two players. The rich playerstarted to move around the board louder, literally smacking the board with thepiece as he went around.

保罗·皮夫：所以，玩家们很快就意识到，这个游戏明显有点奇怪，一个玩家比另一个玩家，明显有更多的钱，随着游戏慢慢展开，我们观察到两个玩家，开始有一些，明显不同的表现，富的玩家，在棋盘上移动的声音更大，移动的时候，几乎是在狠狠砸棋盘。

(Game piece smacks board)

We were more likely to see signs ofdominance and nonverbal signs, displays of power and celebration among the richplayers.

我们看到了富玩家们更多的，”霸主”信号、肢体动作，权力的显露，以及互相庆祝。

We had a bowl of pretzels positioned off tothe side. It s on the bottom right corner. That allowed us to watchparticipants  consummatory behavior. So we re just tracking how many pretzelsparticipants eat.

我们在旁边放了一碗椒盐卷饼，就在右下角，这使得我们可以观察玩家吃椒盐卷饼的行为，我们就是看看玩家吃了多少椒盐卷饼。

[Video] RP: Are those pretzels a trick?

PP: I don t know.

富玩家：这些椒盐卷饼有什么猫腻么？

穷玩家：不知道啊。

Paul Piff: OK, so no surprises, people areon to us. They wonder what that bowl of pretzels is doing there in the firstplace. One even asks, like you just saw, "Is that bowl of pretzels thereas a trick?" And yet, despite that, the power of the situation seems toinevitably dominate, and those rich players start to eat more pretzels.

保罗·皮夫：好吧，不出所料，大家觉得有问题。起先他们好奇那一碗椒盐卷饼，为什么会在那里，就像你刚才看到的，其中一个甚至问：这碗椒盐卷饼有什么猫腻么？但尽管如此，整个现场的主导形势还是不可避免，那些富的玩家开始吃更多的椒盐卷饼。

[Video] RP: I love pretzels.

富玩家：我爱椒盐卷饼

Paul Piff: And as the game went on, one ofthe really interesting and dramatic patterns that we observed begin to emergewas that the rich players actually started to become ruder toward the otherperson -- less and less sensitive to the plight of those poor, poor players,and more and more demonstrative of their material success, more likely toshowcase how well they re doing.

保罗·皮夫：游戏继续进行，我们发现了一个很明显的，有趣现象，就是富玩家，开始对另一个玩家表现得不友好，对那些可怜玩家的贫穷困境，越来越不敏感，开始越来越频繁的炫富，开始越来越频繁的炫富，更喜欢展示他们正在做的一切。

[Video] RP: I have money ...

I have money for everything.

PP: How much is that?

RP: You owe me 24 dollars. You re going tolose all your money soon. I ll buy it. I have so much money. I have so muchmoney, it takes me forever.

富玩家：我什么都买得起，

穷玩家：你有多少钱？

富玩家：你还欠我24块，你很快就要输光了，我要买它，我太多钱了，那么多花都花不完的钱。

RP 2: I m going to buy out this wholeboard.

RP 3: You re going to run out of moneysoon. I m pretty much untouchable at this point.

富玩家2：我要把整个棋盘都买下来，

富玩家3：你很快就要没钱了，我已经差不多不可战胜了

Paul Piff: And here s what I think wasreally, really interesting: it s that, at the end of the 15 minutes, we askedthe players to talk about their experience during the game. And when the richplayers talked about why they had inevitably won in this rigged game ofMonopoly ...They talked about what they d done to buythose different properties and earn their success in the game.

保罗-皮夫：下面是我觉得，一个非常非常有意思的现象，在15分钟要结束的时候，我们请玩家谈论他们在游戏中的经历，当富玩家谈论，他们在这个被操纵的游戏里面，为什么必胜的时候。

And they became far less attuned to allthose different features of the situation -- including that flip of a coin --that had randomly gotten them into that privileged position in the first place.And that s a really, really incredible insight into how the mind makes sense ofadvantage.

他们提到了自己，为了买到不同地产，和赢得游戏所做的努力，而他们忽略了，这个游戏一开始的不同形势，也就是投掷硬币，随机决定了他们，哪一个获得优势，而这对我们理解大脑如何看待优势，提供了非常好的启发。

Now, this game of Monopoly can be used as ametaphor for understanding society and its hierarchical structure, wherein somepeople have a lot of wealth and a lot of status, and a lot of people don t;they have a lot less wealth and a lot less status and a lot less access tovalued resources. 

我们可以用这个大富翁的游戏作比喻，来理解我们的社会以及社会分层，也就是有的人，有大量的财富和地位，而很多人没有，他们仅有很少的财富和地位，以及很少获得宝贵资源的机会。

And what my colleagues and I for the last seven years havebeen doing is studying the effects of these kinds of hierarchies. What we vebeen finding across dozens of studies and thousands of participants across thiscountry is that as a person s levels of wealth increase, their feelings ofcompassion and empathy go down, and their feelings of entitlement, ofdeservingness, and their ideology of self-interest increase. 

我和我的同事在过去的7年里一直在做的，就是研究这些不同层次的影响，全国范围内的，大量研究都表明，当一个人的财富增加时，他们的同情心和同理心下降，而他们的优越感增加，也更注重个人利益。

In surveys, we ve found that it s actually wealthier individuals who are more likely to moralizegreed being good, and that the pursuit of self-interest is favorable and moral.Now, what I want to do today is talk about some of the implications of thisideology self-interest, talk about why we should care about those implications,and end with what might be done.

Some of the first studies that we ran inthis area looked at helping behavior, something social psychologists call"pro-social behavior." And we were really interested in who s morelikely to offer help to another person: someone who s rich or someone who spoor. In one of the studies, we bring rich and poor members of the communityinto the lab, and give each of them the equivalent of 10 dollars. 

我们在这一领域最初做的一些研究，观察了助人行为，社会心理学家称之为，亲社会行为，我们很想知道什么人更倾向于，给其他人提供帮助，富人还是穷人，其中一个研究，我们把一个社区的富人和穷人，都带到了实验室，给了每个人10美元。

We told theparticipants they could keep these 10 dollars for themselves, or they couldshare a portion of it, if they wanted to, with a stranger, who s totallyanonymous. They ll never meet that stranger; the stranger will never meet them.And we just monitor how much people give. Individuals who made 25,000,sometimes under 15,000 dollars a year, gave 44 percent more of their money tothe stranger than did individuals making 150,000, 200,000 dollars a year.

我们告诉他们，他们可以把这10块钱给自己用，也可以把其中一部分拿出来分享，如果他们愿意的话，跟一个陌生人分享，一个永远不会再相遇的陌生人，我们观察人们给了多少，那些年收入为25000，甚至低于15000美元的人，和那些年收入为15万，甚至20万的人比起来，多给了44%，多给了44%。

We ve had people play games to see who smore or less likely to cheat to increase their chances of winning a prize. Inone of the games, we actually rigged a computer so that die rolls over acertain score were impossible -- You couldn t get above 12 in this game, andyet ... the richer you were, the more likely you were to cheat in this game toearn credits toward a $50 cash prize -- sometimes by three to four times asmuch.

我们还让人们玩游戏，看看什么人更可能，为了赢得一个奖品而作弊，其中一个游戏，我们其实操纵了电脑，使得某些数字，不可能出现，这个游戏里面，你不可能超过12，然而，越富有的人，越有可能在这个游戏中作弊，去争取那个最终能够赢取50美元现金的分数，可能性甚至高达3到4倍。

We ran another study where we looked atwhether people would be inclined to take candy from a jar of candy that we explicitlyidentified as being reserved for children --I m not kidding -- I know it sounds likeI m making a joke. We explicitly told participants: "This candy is forchildren participating in a developmental lab nearby. They re in studies. Thisis for them." And we just monitored how much candy participants took.Participants who felt rich took two times as much candy as participants whofelt poor.

我们还做了另一个实验，观察人们是否会，从糖罐里面拿糖，糖罐上清楚地写着：给小朋友预留……，我是认真的，我知道这听上去像我在讲笑话，我们明确地告诉了参与者，这一罐糖是给隔壁发展中心的，小朋友准备的，他们在实验中，这是给他们的，然后我们观察这些参与者拿了多少糖果，那些感觉富有的参与者，比那些感觉贫穷的参与者，多拿了两倍的糖果。

We ve even studied cars. Not just any cars,but whether drivers of different kinds of cars are more or less inclined tobreak the law. In one of these studies, we looked at whether drivers would stopfor a pedestrian that we had posed waiting to cross at a crosswalk. 

我们还研究了汽车，不只是汽车，而是不同类型汽车的司机，谁更倾向于做一些违法的事情，其中一个实验，我们观察了，司机在碰到行人（我们安排的）过马路时的，停车行为。

Now in California, as you all know, because I m sure we all do this, it s the law tostop for a pedestrian who s waiting to cross. So here s an example of how wedid it. That s our confederate off to the left, posing as a pedestrian. Heapproaches as the red truck successfully stops. In typical California fashion,it s overtaken by the bus who almost runs our pedestrian over.

在加州，大家都知道，因为我相信我们都有这样做，法律规定碰到行人要过马路，我们必须停车，下面我告诉大家我们是怎样做的，左侧是我们的研究人员，装作一个行人，他正要过马路，这时候红色的卡车停了下来，当然这是在加州，很快一辆巴士呼啸而过，差点要撞倒我们的行人。

Now here s an example of a more expensivecar, a Prius, driving through, and a BMW doing the same. So we did this forhundreds of vehicles on several days, just tracking who stops and who doesn t.What we found was as the expensiveness of a car increased ...the drivers  tendencies to break the lawincreased as well. 

这是一辆比较贵的车，一辆普锐斯开过来，一辆宝马车也一样，几天内，我们测试了几百辆车，记录谁停了谁没有停，我们发现，随着车价的增加，司机违法的倾向，也增加了，而在我们的廉价车系里。

None of the cars -- none of the cars -- in our leastexpensive car category broke the law. Close to 50 percent of the cars in ourmost expensive vehicle category broke the law. We ve run other studies, findingthat wealthier individuals are more likely to lie in negotiations, to endorseunethical behavior at work, like stealing cash from the cash register, takingbribes, lying to customers.

没有一辆车，做出违法行为，而在我们的昂贵车系里，有接近50%的车，都违法了，我们还做了其它研究并发现，越有钱的人越有可能在谈判中说谎，赞同工作中的不道德行为，比如从收银台偷现金，受贿，忽悠顾客等。

Now, I don t mean to suggest that it s onlywealthy people who show these patterns of behavior. Not at all -- in fact, Ithink that we all, in our day-to-day, minute-by-minute lives, struggle withthese competing motivations of when or if to put our own interests above theinterests of other people. 

我并不是说，只是有钱人，会表现出类似的行为，完全不是。事实上，我觉得我们每个人，在我们日常的分分秒秒中，都要跟这些动机作斗争，什么时候以及是否把我们的利益置于，他人的利益之上。

And that s understandable, because the Americandream is an idea in which we all have an equal opportunity to succeed andprosper, as long as we apply ourselves and work hard. 

这很容易理解，因为美国梦告诉我们，每个人都有同等的机会，可以成功、发达，只要我们足够努力。

And a piece of that meansthat sometimes, you need to put your own interests above the interests andwell-being of other people around you. But what we re finding is that thewealthier you are, the more likely you are to pursue a vision of personalsuccess, of achievement and accomplishment, to the detriment of others aroundyou.

而这也意味着有的时候，你需要把自己的利益，置于你周边人的利益和幸福之上，但是我们的发现是，你越有钱，则越有可能，去追求一种个人的成功，个人的成果和成就，这可能是建立在对旁人的损害之上。

Here I ve plotted for you the meanhousehold income received by each fifth and top five percent of the populationover the last 20 years. In 1993, the differences between the differentquintiles of the population, in terms of income, are fairly egregious. It s notdifficult to discern that there are differences. 

这里我为大家画出了，在过去20年里，每个1/5和最高5%人口的平均家庭收入，1993年，每个1/5之间的收入差异，还是相当大的，我们不难看出其中的差别。

But over the last 20 years,that significant difference has become a Grand Canyon of sorts between those atthe top and everyone else. In fact, the top 20 percent of our population ownclose to 90 percent of the total wealth in this country.

但是在过去的20年里面，这种巨大差异最终成为了，顶层人群与其他所有人之间的鸿沟，事实是，顶层20%的人口，拥有整个国家接近90%的财富。

We re at unprecedented levels of economicinequality. What that means is that wealth is not only becoming increasinglyconcentrated in the hands of a select group of individuals, but the Americandream is becoming increasingly unattainable for an increasing majority of us.

我们正在经历史无前例的，经济上的不平等，而这不仅意味着财富，更多地聚集在为数很少的一群人手里，还意味着美国梦，对越来越多的人来说，都变得越来越遥远。

And if it s the case, as we ve been finding, that the wealthier you are, themore entitled you feel to that wealth, and the more likely you are toprioritize your own interests above the interests of other people, and bewilling to do things to serve that self-interest, well, then, there s no reasonto think that those patterns will change. In fact, there s every reason tothink that they ll only get worse, and that s what it would look like if thingsjust stayed the same, at the same linear rate, over the next 20 years.

如果事实果真如我们发现的那样，你越有钱，就越发觉得这些财富是你应得的，越会把自己的利益，置于他人的利益之上，越会做那些利己的事情，那么没有理由可以相信，这个现状会有所改变，事实上，我们有更多的理由认为，情况会变得更糟糕，这是在接下来的20年内，保持和原来一样、相同线性速率的情况。

Now inequality -- economic inequality -- issomething we should all be concerned about, and not just because of those atthe bottom of the social hierarchy, but because individuals and groups withlots of economic inequality do worse ... not just the people at the bottom,everyone. 

不平等，经济上的不平等，是我们每个人都要关心的问题，不仅是因为社会底层的人，不仅是因为社会底层的人，而是因为经济不平等，会让个人和集体都变得糟糕，不仅仅是底层的人，是每一个人。

There s a lot of really compelling research coming out from top labsall over the world, showcasing the range of things that are undermined aseconomic inequality gets worse. Social mobility, things we really care about,physical health, social trust, all go down as inequality goes up. 

有很多来自世界各地顶级实验室的，非常有说服力的研究，展示了日益增加的经济不平等，造成的影响范围，造成的影响范围，社会流动性，那些我们非常关心的东西，如身体健康、社会信任，都会随着不平等的增加而削弱，同样的，社会中消极的东西。

Similarly,negative things in social collectives and societies, things like obesity, andviolence, imprisonment, and punishment, are exacerbated as economic inequalityincreases. Again, these are outcomes not just experienced by a few, but thatresound across all strata of society. Even people at the top experience theseoutcomes.

同样的，社会中消极的东西，比如肥胖、暴力，徒刑和惩罚，都会随着经济不平等的增加而加剧，而这些后果，不是少数人所经历的，而是会影响社会的各个阶层，即使是在顶层的人也要遭受这些后果。

So what do we do? This cascade ofself-perpetuating, pernicious, negative effects could seem like somethingthat s spun out of control, and there s nothing we can do about it, certainlynothing we as individuals could do. 

那我们该怎么办呢？，这些带有延续性的，有害的消极影响，看上去像是什么东西失控了，而我们无能为力，特别是作为个人更是无能为力。

But in fact, we ve been finding in our ownlaboratory research that small psychological interventions, small changes topeople s values, small nudges in certain directions, can restore levels ofegalitarianism and empathy. For instance, reminding people of the benefits ofcooperation or the advantages of community, cause wealthier individuals to bejust as egalitarian as poor people.

In one study, we had people watch a briefvideo, just 46 seconds long, about childhood poverty that served as a reminderof the needs of others in the world around them. And after watching that, welooked at how willing people were to offer up their own time to a strangerpresented to them in the lab, who was in distress. 

其中一个实验中，我们让参与者看一短片，46秒，关于儿童贫困，以此提醒大家周围人的需要，以此提醒大家周围人的需要，看过这个视频后，我们观察了他们，为实验中一个压抑的陌生人，提供帮助的积极性。

After watching this video,an hour later, rich people became just as generous of their own time to helpout this other person, a stranger, as someone who s poor, suggesting that thesedifferences are not innate or categorical, but are so malleable to slightchanges in people s values, and little nudges of compassion and bumps ofempathy.

看完这个视频一个小时后，富人变得和穷人一样大方，他们愿意花时间帮助别人，帮助那些陌生人，这意味着这些差别不是，与生俱来或一成不变的，它们很容易改变，只需要价值观的微小变化，同情心的一点点推动，和同理心的轻微触碰。

And beyond the walls of our lab, we re evenbeginning to see signs of change in society. Bill Gates, one of our nation swealthiest individuals, in his Harvard commencement speech, talked about theproblem of inequality facing society as being the most daunting challenge, andtalked about what must be done to combat it, saying, "Humanity s greatestadvances are not in its discoveries -- but in how those discoveries are appliedto reduce inequity." And there s the Giving Pledge, in which more than 100 of our nation s wealthiest individuals are pledging half of their fortunes tocharity. 

在实验室之外，我们也开始看到社会上的改变，比尔-盖茨，我们国家的富豪之一，在哈佛的开学典礼演讲中，说到这个社会所面临的问题，他说不平等是我们目前面临的最严峻挑战，他谈论了我们应该如何战胜它，他说：“人类最伟大的进步”，“不在于它的各种发现”“而在于如何将这些发现”，用于削弱不平等”，还有捐赠承诺，我们国家100多个，最富有的人，正在承诺将他们一半的财产捐赠给慈善事业。

And there s the emergence of dozens of grassroots movements, like"We are the 1 percent," "Resource Generation," or"Wealth for Common Good," in which the most privileged members of thepopulation, members of the one percent and elsewhere, people who are wealthy,are using their own economic resources, adults and youth alike -- that s what smost striking to me -- leveraging their own privilege, their own economicresources, to combat inequality by advocating for social policies, changes insocial values and changes in people s behavior that work against their owneconomic interests, but that may ultimately restore the American dream.

还有很多草根运动的出现，比如“我们是那百分之一”，“资源一代”，“共同的财富”等，在这些组织中，那些最有优势的成员，那些1%的人，和其他有钱的人，其中有成人有青少年，这是最让我震惊的，他们正在利用自己的优势，他们正在利用自己的优势，利用自己的经济资源，与不平等抗争，通过倡导社会政策，社会价值的改变，人类行为的改变，这有悖于他们自身的经济利益，但却会最终重建美国梦！