:::info 演讲者：Onora O’Neill
    演讲题目：What we don’t understand about trust :::

    信任感在降低，我们需要重建信任。这是我们为了建设一个更美好的社会经常听到的提议。但是，哲学家奥诺拉·奥尼尔说，我们并不真正理解我们在建议什么。她逐个分析这些问题，告诉我们对于信任的最普遍的三个观点其实是有误导性的。

    So I’m going to talk about trust, and I’m going to start by reminding you of the standard views that people have about trust. I think these are so commonplace, they’ve become clichés of our society.
    我今天要讲的是信任。一开始，我要先向你们交代一下，人们对信任的基本观点。我觉得这些观点都很司空见惯，在现实社会已经变成陈词滥调了。

    And I think there are three. One’s a claim: there has been a great decline in trust, very widely believed. The second is an aim: we should have more trust. And the third is a task: we should rebuild trust.

    我想一共有这样三点。第一点是主张：信任感已经大幅地降低了。这已经是有广泛共识的。第二点是目的：我们应该有更多的信任感。第三点是任务：我们应该重建信任感。

    I think that the claim, the aim and the task are all misconceived. So what I’m going to try to tell you today is a different story about a claim, an aim and a task which I think give one quite a lot better purchase on the matter.
    我觉得人们对这个主张、目的和任务都有错误的认识。所以我今天要跟你们说的是跟这种主张、目的和任务有所不同的观点。我想让你们更好地理解信任。

    First the claim: Why do people think trust has declined? And if I really think about it on the basis of my own evidence, I don’t know the answer. I’m inclined to think it may have declined in some activities or some institutions and it might have grown in others. I don’t have an overview.
    首先是主张：为什么人们认为信任感在降低呢？如果我在现有证据的基础上考虑，我真的不知道答案是什么。我倾向于认为信任感确实是有降低，但那是在某些活动中，或者在某些机构里。而在其他的方面也许是增加的。我没法一概而论。

    But, of course, I can look at the opinion polls, and the opinion polls are supposedly the source of a belief that trust has declined. When you actually look at opinion polls across time, there’s not much evidence for that. That’s to say, the people who were mistrusted 20 years ago, principally journalists and politicians, are still mistrusted. And the people who were highly trusted 20 years ago are still rather highly trusted: judges, nurses.
    但当然了，我可以去看看民意调查，民意调查应该是觉得信任感在降低的出处。但当你真的去看看不同时间的民意调查的话，其实没有多少证据支持这个观点。也就是说，那些在20年前就不被相信的人，主要是记者和政客，现在仍不被信任。而20年前就被高度信任的人，比如法官和护士，现在仍得到高度的信任。

    The rest of us are in between, and by the way, the average person in the street is almost exactly midway. But is that good evidence? What opinion polls record is, of course, opinions. What else can they record? So they’re looking at the generic attitudes that people report when you ask them certain questions. Do you trust politicians? Do you trust teachers?
    剩下的人就是居中了。顺便说一下，在社会上这些居中的人，差不多就是完全居中。但是这个证据说得过去吗？民意调查记录的当然就是一些人们的观点。要不然民意调查能记录什么？不过就是一些普遍的态度。你问他们什么，他们就说什么。你信任政客吗？信任老师吗？

    Now if somebody said to you, “Do you trust greengrocers? Do you trust fishmongers? Do you trust elementary school teachers?” you would probably begin by saying, “To do what?” And that would be a perfectly sensible response. And you might say, when you understood the answer to that, “Well, I trust some of them, but not others.” That’s a perfectly rational thing.
    如果有人问你，“你信任蔬菜商吗？”你信任卖鱼的吗？你信任小学老师吗？你可能会问，“信任他们去做什么？”这是一个非常明智的反问。当你明白问题到底是什么，你会说，“嗯。我相信一些人，不相信另一些人。”非常理性的回答。

    In short, in our real lives, we seek to place trust in a differentiated way. We don’t make an assumption that the level of trust that we will have in every instance of a certain type of official or office-holder or type of person is going to be uniform.
    简而言之，在我们现实生活中，我们以不同的方式来寻求信任。我们不对信任感的程度做假设。我们会对特定类型进行具体分析。那些公务员，官员之类的人，会被类型化。

    I might, for example, say that I certainly trust a certain elementary school teacher I know to teach the reception class to read, but in no way to drive the school minibus. I might, after all, know that she wasn’t a good driver. I might trust my most loquacious friend to keep a conversation going but not — but perhaps not to keep a secret. Simple.
    比如说，我会说我当然相信一个我知道的小学老师会教会学生怎么阅读，但是我不相信她可以开校车，也许最终我知道她确实不是个好司机。我也许相信我那爱喝酒的朋友是个聊天的好伙伴，但我不会相信他是个守得住秘密的人。就这么简单。

    So if we’ve got those evidence in our ordinary lives of the way that trust is differentiated, why do we sort of drop all that intelligence when we think about trust more abstractly? I think the polls are very bad guides to the level of trust that actually exists, because they try to obliterate the good judgment that goes into placing trust.
    在日常生活中我们有了这样的证据，说信任感是有区分的，那么为什么民意调查时我们一下子糊涂了，把信任感想得更概念化了呢？我觉得民意调查是个很差劲的衡量信任感是否存在的依据。因为它抹杀了人们良好的判断力，对考虑信任感的判断力。

    Secondly, what about the aim? The aim is to have more trust. Well frankly, I think that’s a stupid aim. It’s not what I would aim at. I would aim to have more trust in the trustworthy but not in the untrustworthy.
    第二，那个目的是怎么回事儿呢？目的是我们需要更多的信任感。坦白说，我觉得这个目的挺可笑的。这不是我想的那个目的。我会说，人们应该对值得信赖的（人）更加地信任。而不是去信任不值得信赖的人。

    In fact, I aim positively to try not to trust the untrustworthy. And I think, of those people who, for example, placed their savings with the very aptly named Mr. Madoff, who then made off with them, and I think of them, and I think, well, yes, too much trust. More trust is not an intelligent aim in this life. Intelligently placed and intelligently refused trust is the proper aim.
    实际上，我所说的目的是尽量不要信任不值得信赖的人。比如说，那些把自己的积蓄交给那个看起来很象样的，却把他们的钱都卷走的麦道夫先生的人，我觉得那些人呀，怎么说呢，对，太容易信任别人了。过度地信任别人不是一个很明智的目的。明智地信任和明智地选择不信任才是正确的目的。

    Well once one says that, one says, yeah, okay, that means that what matters in the first place is not trust but trustworthiness. It’s judging how trustworthy people are in particular respects.
    那么有人说，好呀，好，这不就是说最重要的不是要去信任，而是（对方的）信誉度吗？就是说要判断别人在某些方面是否值得信任。

    And I think that judgment requires us to look at three things. Are they competent? Are they honest? Are they reliable? And if we find that a person is competent in the relevant matters, and reliable and honest, we’ll have a pretty good reason to trust them, because they’ll be trustworthy.
    我觉得要想正确做出判断需要考虑三点。要看他们是否称职？是否诚实？是否可靠？如果我们觉得一个人是称职的，在他自己的领域是称职的，而且是诚实可靠的，我们就有理由去相信他们，因为他们是可信赖的。

    But if, on the other hand, they’re unreliable, we might not. I have friends who are competent and honest, but I would not trust them to post a letter, because they’re forgetful. I have friends who are very confident they can do certain things, but I realize that they overestimate their own competence. And I’m very glad to say, I don’t think I have many friends who are competent and reliable but extremely dishonest. (Laughter) If so, I haven’t yet spotted it.
    但是反过来，如果他们不可靠，那我们就不能信任他们。我有一些诚实可靠的朋友，但我就信不着他们去帮我寄信，因为他们很健忘。我有些非常自信的朋友，他们很能干，但是我觉得他们有些过于自信。当然我很高兴的是，我的朋友都是称职可靠，又不是非常不诚实的。（笑声） 也许有，我还没发现。

    But that’s what we’re looking for: trustworthiness before trust. Trust is the response. Trustworthiness is what we have to judge. And, of course, it’s difficult. Across the last few decades, we’ve tried to construct systems of accountability for all sorts of institutions and professionals and officials and so on that will make it easier for us to judge their trustworthiness.
    我们需要的就是：信任别人之前要看他的信誉度。信任是我们的反应，信誉度是需要我们来判断的。所以当然这不是容易做到的。过去的几十年里，我们努力地建立各种机构里的问责制度，是否达到专业水准或者官方要求等等。这些（问责制度）使我们更容易判断（这些机构）是否有信誉。

    A lot of these systems have the converse effect. They don’t work as they’re supposed to. I remember I was talking with a midwife who said, “Well, you see, the problem is it takes longer to do the paperwork than to deliver the baby.” And all over our public life, our institutional life, we find that problem, that the system of accountability that is meant to secure trustworthiness and evidence of trustworthiness is actually doing the opposite.
    很多机构都有这样的逆反应，他们不象他们应该做的那样做事。我记得和我一个助产士聊天，她说 ”你看看，现在的问题是我要办个什么手续比接生一个孩子还难！“ 在我们的公共生活里，我们的机构生活里，我们发现很多问题。这些机构里的问责制度、这些能保障自己的信誉、能作为值得信任的依据的制度，往往施行起来是相反的。

    It is distracting people who have to do difficult tasks, like midwives, from doing them by requiring them to tick the boxes, as we say. You can all give your own examples there.
    这就使人们难以专注自己的工作，比如助产士们，让他们把时间浪费在填表上。就象我刚提到的，你们其实都有这样的经历。

    So so much for the aim. The aim, I think, is more trustworthiness, and that is going to be different if we are trying to be trustworthy and communicate our trustworthiness to other people, and if we are trying to judge whether other people or office-holders or politicians are trustworthy. It’s not easy. It is judgment, and simple reaction, attitudes, don’t do adequately here.
    关于目的要讲的很多很多，我想这个目的更重要的是对方的信誉度，那就完全不一样了。比如说我们努力去成为值得信任的人，把我们值得信任的一面展示给别人。比如说我们先判断别人，官员或者政客是否值得信任，这不是容易的事这是判断，是迅速反应，是态度，在这里都讲不完。

    Now thirdly, the task. Calling the task rebuilding trust, I think, also gets things backwards. It suggests that you and I should rebuild trust. Well, we can do that for ourselves. We can rebuild a bit of trustworthiness. We can do it two people together trying to improve trust.
    那么第三点，关于任务。这个任务叫做重建信任感。这又是弄反了的。这个任务建议你和我要重建信任。好吧，我们能对自己这么做，我们能重建一些自己的信誉，我们可以互相努力增加我们的信任。

    But trust, in the end, is distinctive because it’s given by other people. You can’t rebuild what other people give you. You have to give them the basis for giving you their trust. So you have to, I think, be trustworthy. And that, of course, is because you can’t fool all of the people all of the time, usually.
    但归根到底，信任是很独特的。因为（信任）是来自他人的，你不可能重建别人对你的看法。你需要做出努力让人家信任你。我是说，你要成为一个值得信赖的人。当然，这就是说你不能在永远愚弄住所有的人，一般来说。

    But you also have to provide usable evidence that you are trustworthy. How to do it? Well every day, all over the place, it’s being done by ordinary people, by officials, by institutions, quite effectively. Let me give you a simple commercial example. The shop where I buy my socks says I may take them back, and they don’t ask any questions. They take them back and give me the money or give me the pair of socks of the color I wanted. That’s super. I trust them because they have made themselves vulnerable to me. I think there’s a big lesson in that.
    你得提供一些有用的依据，让别人知道你是值得信赖的。应该怎么做？其实每天，在不同得地方，普通人、办公人员、各个机构都在努力（博得信任），往往做得很有效呢。我给你举个简单的商家营销的例子，有个商店说（如果不满意）我可以把买的袜子退回去，他们绝不问任何问题。他们收退货，我拿退货款，或者给我换是我喜欢颜色的袜子。这很好，我信任他们。因为他们让我觉得他们是处于弱势。我觉得这很有教益。

    If you make yourself vulnerable to the other party, then that is very good evidence that you are trustworthy and you have confidence in what you are saying. So in the end, I think what we are aiming for is not very difficult to discern. It is relationships in which people are trustworthy and can judge when and how the other person is trustworthy.
    如果对于别人，你使自己处于弱势，这就是个很好的值得信任的依据。对自己说的话就有自信。所以最终呢，我们的意图就不那么难辨别了。人们是否值得信任是一种人和人之间的关系。我们可以判断什么时候人们是如何值得你信任的。

    So the moral of all this is, we need to think much less about trust, let alone about attitudes of trust detected or mis-detected by opinion polls, much more about being trustworthy, and how you give people adequate, useful and simple evidence that you’re trustworthy.
    从道义上说，我们要少考虑信任，更不要说对信任的态度，或者凭着民意测验来判断或者误判，让我们更关注于成为值得信赖的人。关注于如何提供恰当、有益、简单的依据让人们觉得你是可以信赖的。

    Thanks.
    谢谢！

    Remark：一切权益归TED所有，更多TED相关信息可至官网www.ted.com查询！