So when you look at ‘us’
“我们”是指 人类 类人猿 灵长类 哺乳动物等
‘us’ (such)as humans, (such)as apes, (such)as primates, (such)as mammals.
When you look at some of the most appalling realms of our behavior,
much of it has to do with the fact
that social organisms are really, really hardwired
to make a basic dichotomy about the social world,
which is those organisms who count as Us’s and those who count as Them’s.
And this is virtually universal among humans
and this is virtually universal among all sorts of social primates
that have aspects of social structures built around separate social groupings.
Us’s and Thems:
we turn the world into Us’s and Thems
and we don’t like the Thems very much
and are often really awful to them.
And the Us’s,
我们夸大了自己的美好 慷慨 友爱
we exaggerate how wonderful and how generous and how affiliative
and how just like siblings they are to us.
We divide the world into Us and Them.
And one of the greatest ways of seeing just biologically how real this fault line is,
is there’s this hormone oxytocin.
Oxytocin is officially the coolest, grooviest hormone on earth,
because what everybody knows is
it enhances mother-infant bonding and
it enhances pair bonding in couples.
它能增强你们之间的信任 理解 情感表达 更善于眉目传意 更加宽容
And it makes you more trusting and empathic and emotionally expressive, and better at reading expressions and more charitable.
And it’s obvious that
if you just like spritzed oxytocin up everyone’s noses on this planet,
it would be the Garden of Eden the next day.
Oxytocin promotes prosocial behavior.
Until people look closely,
and it turns out oxytocin does all those wondrous things
但这种作用只是针对一类人 这类人属于“我们群体” 属于组内成员
only for people who you think of as an “Us”, as an in-group member.
It improves in-group favoritism, in-group parochialism.
What does it do to individuals who you consider a Them?
它让你对“他们”更恶劣 更先发制人 在经济游戏中不那么合作
It makes you crappier to them, pre-emptively aggressive, less cooperative in an economic game.
What oxytocin does is enhance this Us/Them divide.
So that, along with other findings—
the classic lines of Us versus Them along the lines of race, of sex, of age, of socio-economic class.
Your brain processes these Us/Them differences on the scale of milliseconds.
A twentieth of a second, your brain is already responding differently to an Us versus Them.
Okay, so collectively this is depressing as hell.
“Oh my god, we are hardwired toinevitably be awful to Thems”,
“and Thems along all sorts of disturbing lines of”.
“Oh, if only we could overcome these Us and Them dichotomies”!
“我们非得按民族 种族 国籍这种令人不安的标准来划分世界吗？”
“Are we hardwired to divide the world along lines of race and ethnicity and nationality and all those disturbing things?”
And what becomes clear is, when you look closely is:
it is virtually inevitable that we divide the world into Us’s and Thems,
and don’t like Thems very much and don’t treat them well.
But we are incredibly easilymanipulated as to who counts as an Us and who counts as a Them.
And those fault lines that we view as, “Oh my god, how ancient can you get?”
也就是说 另一个种族的人会唤起我们的边缘反应 将他们定义为非我族类
that say, somebody of another race evokes limbic responses in us, commensurate with they are a Them.
They respond, they motivate automatic responses—”Oh my god, is that just the basic fault line?”
And then you do something like have faces of the same race versus other race,
and either they are or aren’t wearing a baseball cap with your favorite team’s logo on it,
and you completely redefine who’s an Us.
Us is people who like the Yankees and Them are Red Sox fans.
突然间 你的大脑飞速运转 他们戴的他妈的什么棒球帽
And suddenly you’re processing, within milliseconds, what damn baseball cap they have,
and race is being completely ignored.
“Oh my god, we are inevitablyhardwired to make really distressing Us/Them…”
We’re manipulated within seconds as to who counts as an Us and a Them.
Good news with that: we can manipulate us out of some of our worst Us/Them dichotomies and re-categorize people.
Bad news: we could be manipulated by all sorts of ideologues out there
别人也会这样想“真的不同 他们完全和我们不一样 他们属于另一种人”
as to deciding that people who seem just like us “really aren’t. They’re really so different that they count as a Them.”
Okay, so a fabulous study showing this, this double-edged quality to oxytocin,
and this was a study done by a group in the Netherlands.
And what they did was they took Dutch university student volunteers
and they gave them a classic philosophy problem, the runaway trolley problem:
“Is it okay to sacrifice one person to save five?”
Runaway trolley: can you push this big, beefy guy onto the track who gets squashed by the trolley
but that slows it down so that five people tied to the track don’t…
典型的哲学问题：功利主义 结果大于手段 等等
Standard problem in philosophy, utilitarianism, ends justifies means—all of that.
So you give people the scenario and people have varying opinions,
and now you give them the scenario where the person you push onto the track has a name.
And either it’s a standard name from the Netherlands,
德克 或者皮耶听起来更好 额 或者……
Dirk, I think, sounds good like a Pied orsomething which like if here this is like, hum, like
meat-and-potatoes Netherlandish name.
Or a name from either of two groups that evoke lots of xenophobic hostility among people from the Netherlands.
有人是典型的德国名字 哦 就叫第二次世界大战 好吧 这可不行
Someone with a typically German name—oh yeah, World War II, that’s right, that was a problem—
Or someone with a typically Muslim name.
所以现在他们选择是否把德克（或者叫奥托 穆罕默德）推到铁轨上 来拯救这五个人
So now they’re choosing whether to save five by pushing Dirk onto the track or Otto or Mahmoud and.
In general, give them those names and there’s no difference in how people would rate them if they were anonymous.
Give people oxytocin, where they don’t know that they’ve gotten it,
control group has just placebo spritzed up their nose,
give people oxytocin and,
“kumbaya, you are far less likely to push Dirk onto the track”,
and you are now far more likely to push good old Otto or good old Mahmoud onto the rails there.
And you are more likely to sacrifice an out-group member to save five, and you are less likely to sacrifice an in-group member.
All you’ve done there is exaggerate the Us/Them divide with that.