评论
打印
Data on trust between individual Americans are harder to come by; surveys have asked questions about so-called interpersonal trust less consistently, according to Pew. [qh]
美国个人之间信任的数据更难获得; 皮尤研究中心称，调查中关于所谓人际信任的问题越来越少。 [qh]
But, by one estimate, the percentage of Americans who believed “most people could be trusted” hovered around 45 percent as late as the mid-’80s; it is now 30 percent. [qh]
但是，据一项估计，直到80年代中期，相信“大多数人都是可以信任的”的美国人比例徘徊在45%左右; 现在是30%。 [qh]
According to Pew, half of Americans believe trust is down because Americans are “not as reliable as they used to be.”[qh]
根据皮尤研究中心的调查，半数美国人认为信任度下降是因为美国人“不像过去那样可靠了”。 [qh]
Those studies of suspicious Zoom workers suggest the Trust Recession is getting worse. [qh]
那些对可疑的Zoom员工的研究表明，信任衰退正在恶化。 [qh]
By October 2021, just 13 percent of Americans were still working from home because of COVID-19, down from 35 percent in May 2020, the first month the data were collected. [qh]
到2021年10月，由于新冠肺炎，只有13%的美国人仍然在家工作，低于2020年5月(数据收集的第一个月)的35%。 [qh]
But the physical separation of colleagues has clearly taken a toll, and the effects of a long bout of remote work may linger.[qh]
但是，同事之间的身体隔离显然已经造成了负面影响，长时间远程工作的影响可能会挥之不去。[qh]
Why? one reason is: We’re primates. [qh]
为什么? 一个原因是:我们是灵长类动物。 [qh]
To hear the anthropologists tell it, we once built reciprocity by picking nits from one another’s fur—a function replaced in less hirsute times by the exchange of gossip.[qh]
根据人类学家的说法，我们曾经通过从彼此身上捡虱子来建立一种互助关系——而在毛发稀疏的时代，这种功能被交流八卦所取代。 [qh]
And what better gossip mart is there than the office?[qh]
还有什么地方比办公室更能八卦呢? [qh]
Separate people, and the gossip—as well as more productive forms of teamwork—dries up. [qh]
人与人之间的分离、八卦——以及更有成效的团队合作形式——逐渐枯竭。 [qh]
In the 1970s, an MIT professor found that we are four times as likely to communicate regularly with someone sitting six feet away from us as with someone 60 feet away. [qh]
上世纪70年代，麻省理工学院的一位教授发现，我们经常与离我们六英尺远的人交流的可能性，是与离我们六十英尺远的人交流的可能性的四倍。 [qh]
Maybe all that face time inside skyscrapers wasn’t useless after all.[qh]
也许在摩天大楼里的那些面对面的时间并不是毫无用处的。 [qh]
Trust is about two things, according to a recent story in the Harvard Business Review: competence (is this person going to deliver quality work?) and character (is this a person of integrity?).[qh]
根据《哈佛商业评论》最近的一篇文章，信任取决于两件事:能力(这个人能否提供高质量的工作?)和性格(这个人是否正直?) [qh]
“To trust colleagues in both of these ways, people need clear and easily discernible signals about them,” wrote the organizational experts Heidi Gardner and Mark Mortensen. [qh]
组织专家海蒂·加德纳和马克·莫滕森写道:“要在这两方面都信任同事，人们需要清楚、容易识别的信息。” [qh]
They argue that the shift to remote work made gathering this information harder. [qh]
他们认为，向远程工作的转变使得收集这些信息更加困难。 [qh]
Unconsciously, they conclude, we “interpret a lack of physical contact as a signal of untrustworthiness.”[qh]
在不知不觉中，他们总结道，我们“将缺乏物理接触解读为不值得信赖的信号。” [qh]
This leaves us prone to what social scientists call “fundamental attribution error”[qh]
这让我们倾向于社会科学家所说的“基本归因错误”[qh]
—the creeping suspicion that Blake hasn’t called us back because he doesn’t care about the project. [qh]
——逐渐怀疑布莱克没有给我们回电话，因为他不关心这个项目。 [qh]
Or because he cares about it so much that he’s about to take the whole thing to a competitor.[qh]
或者因为他太在乎这个项目了，所以他要把整个东西拿给竞争对手。 [qh]
In the absence of fact—that Blake had minor dental surgery—elaborate narratives assemble.[qh]
在缺乏事实的情况下-布莱克做了牙科小手术-复杂的叙述汇集在一起。[qh]
