On a recent morning, I took an Uber to visit Dan Ariely, a psychologist at Duke University and one of the world's foremost experts on lying. The inside of the car, though neat, had a strong odor of sweaty socks, and the driver, though courteous, had trouble finding her way. When we finally got there, she asked me smilingly if I would give her a five-star rating. "Sure," I replied. Later, I gave her three stars. I assuaged my guilt by telling myself that it was better not to mislead thousands of Uber riders.
最近早上，我乘坐Uber去拜访杜克大学的心理学家丹·艾瑞里，他是世界上最重要的一位谎言专家。这趟行程中，虽然Uber车内部很整洁，但车厢里充满了汗渍的味道，虽然司机十分礼貌，但总是找不到路。当我们最终到达那里的时候，她微笑着问我能否给她一个五星好评。“当然可以。”我回答道；下车后，我给了她三颗星。 为了减轻负罪感，我告诉自己这样做避免了成千上万的乘客被误导，总比不说来得好。
Ariely became fascinated with dishonesty about 15 years ago. Looking through a magazine on a long-distance flight, he came across a mental aptitude test. He answered the first question and flipped to the key in the back to see if he got it right. He found himself taking a quick glance at the answer to the next question. Continuing in this vein through the entire test, Ariely, not surprisingly, scored very well. "When I finished, I thought—I cheated myself," he says. "Presumably, I wanted to know how smart I am, but I also wanted to prove I'm this smart to myself." The experience led Ariely to develop a lifelong interest in the study of lying and other forms of dishonesty.
大约在15年前，艾瑞里对不诚实着迷。他在长途旅行航班的杂志上翻到了一个精神状态的测试。他回答了第一个问题，并对了书后面的要点，检测他的回答是否正确。他发现自己会迅速地瞟一眼下一个问题的答案。这个过程持续在整个测试中，不出意料地，艾瑞里得到了不错的分数。“当我完成的时候，我觉得我骗了自己。”艾瑞里说，“我大概想知道自己有多聪明，但同时我也很想证明自己是聪明的。”这个经历使艾瑞里将终生兴趣放在了对说谎和其他不诚实行为的研究中。
In experiments he and his colleagues have run on college campuses and elsewhere, volunteers are given a test with 20 simple math problems. They must solve as many as they can in five minutes and are paid based on how many they get right. They are told to drop the sheet into a shredder before reporting the number they solved correctly. But the sheets don't actually get shredded. A lot of volunteers lie, as it turns out. On average, volunteers report having solved six matrices, when it was really more like four. The results are similar across different cultures. Most of us lie, but only a little.
在他和同事在校园或其他地方进行的实验测试中，被试需要回答20个简单的数学问题。他们必须在五分钟内尽可能多地解决问题，并根据正确答案的数量来获取费用。他们被告知需要在报告正确数字前将纸张放入粉碎机。但其实纸张并没有被粉碎。事实证明，很多志愿者都说了谎。志愿者的报告上显示平均每个人解决了6个问题，但实际上更像四个。结果在不同的文化背景中是相似的：大多数人都会说谎，但一般都无伤大雅。
The question Ariely finds interesting is not why so many lie, but rather why they don't lie a lot more. Even when the amount of money offered for correct answers is raised significantly, the volunteers don't increase their level of cheating. "Here we give people a chance to steal lots of money, and people cheat only a little bit. So something stops us—most of us—from not lying all the way," Ariely says. The reason, according to him, is that we want to see ourselves as honest, because we have, to some degree, internalized honesty as a value taught to us by society. Which is why, unless one is a sociopath, most of us place limits on how much we are willing to lie. How far most of us are willing to go—Ariely and others have shown—is determined by social norms arrived at through unspoken consensus, like the tacit acceptability of taking a few pencils home from the office supply cabinet.
艾瑞里发现有趣的并不是为什么会有那么多人说谎，而是为什么人们不说更多的谎。即使提高支付给正确答案的报酬，被试也不会将欺骗上升一个等级。“我们给被试一个能偷很多钱的机会，但他们只会偷一点。有些东西阻止我们大多数人从头到尾说谎。”艾瑞里说。据他所言，这是因为我们希望自己诚实，在某种程度上，我们将诚实内化为社会向我们教授的价值。这就是为什么，除了反社会者，大多数人对于我们愿意撒谎的程度都会有所控制。我们大多数人愿意到哪种程度呢？艾瑞里和其他人表示，这是通过不言而喻的共识而达成的社会规范来决定的，就像从办公室供应柜里拿几支铅笔的默认可接受性一样。
评论
打印
