I'm Angela Duckworth.

我是安吉拉-達克沃斯

I'm Mike Mann.

我是麥克-曼

And you're listening to No Stupid Questions.

您正在收聽的是《沒有愚蠢的問題》。

Today on the show, can you be too agreeable?

今天的節目中，你會不會太順從？

What can I do to help you solve your problem?

我能幫您解決什麼問題？

Hello, Angela.

你好，安吉拉

We are on our fourth personality trait of the big five.

我們正在研究五大性格特徵中的第四種性格特徵。

These have gone fast.

這些東西賣得很快。

Oh, my gosh.

哦，我的天哪。

Three down.

倒下三個。

Here we go.

開始了

So today we are talking about agreeableness.

所以，今天我們要討論的是 "合群性"。

Right.

對

And we have a great question to set this up.

我們有一個很好的問題來做鋪墊。

Hi, NSQ.

嗨，NSQ。

It's really important to me to be kind and empathetic.

對我來說，善良和富有同情心真的很重要。

I volunteer.

我是志願者。

I donate to many charities and nonprofits, and I try to give everyone I meet the benefit of the doubt.

我向許多慈善機構和非營利組織捐款，並儘量給我遇到的每一個人以好處。

I don't regret any of these behaviors, but I've been taken advantage of many times because of them.

我並不後悔這些行為，但卻是以多次被人利用。

Friends always know that I'll help out when they need help moving or want to ride home from the airport, but they are suddenly busy when it's time to reciprocate.

朋友們總是知道，當他們需要幫忙搬家或想從機場搭車回家時，我會伸出援手，但當需要回報時，他們卻突然忙了起來。

I've also been scammed out of money when I thought I was helping someone in need.

我也曾被騙過錢，當時我以為自己是在幫助需要幫助的人。

My therapist tells me that I'm too nice, but I don't want to be meaner.

我的心理醫生告訴我，我太善良了，但我不想變得更刻薄。

Basically, my question is, can you be too agreeable?

基本上，我的問題是，你能不能太順從？

Faith.

信仰

Mike, I assume that Faith, who probably took the big five inventory on our website, scored really high in big five agreeableness.

邁克，我猜費絲可能參加了我們網站上的五大合意度調查，她的五大合意度得分非常高。

And I'm going to guess that you also scored super high in this personality factor.

我猜你在這個性格因素上也得分超高。

So this was my lowest of the positive scores.

是以，這是我的最低正分數。

No.

不

I got a four out of five in agreeableness.

我的 "合意度 "得了 4 分（滿分 5 分）。

Really?

真的嗎？

It was your lowest one?

這是你最低的一次？

Can't believe that.

真不敢相信

Yes.

是的。

Well, I mean, except for neuroticism, which you want to be low.

嗯，我是說，除了神經質，你希望神經質程度低。

Yes.

是的。

Yes.

是的。

So I scored a four.

所以我得了 4 分。

What was your score?

你的分數是多少？

And what are the scores for our NSQ listeners?

我們的 NSQ 聽眾得分如何？

Well, I scored a 4.33.

好吧，我得了 4.33 分。

So not that different from you.

所以和你沒什麼不同。

And our listeners scored 3.83.

我們的聽眾打出了 3.83 分。

So a little bit lower than you.

所以比你低一點。

The national average is almost exactly the average for our NSQ listeners.

全國平均水平幾乎正好是我們 NSQ 聽眾的平均水平。

So we are like straight up the middle of the alley for agreeableness compared to adults in the United States.

是以，與美國成年人相比，我們的合意度處於中等水平。

And let me remind you of the six questions that you and I took.

讓我提醒你一下你和我提出的六個問題。

So there were three questions that were positively scored.

是以，有三個問題得到了好評。

I am someone who is compassionate, has a soft heart.

我是一個富有同情心、內心柔軟的人。

I am someone who assumes the best about people.

我是一個會把別人想得最好的人。

I am someone who's respectful, treats others with respect.

我是一個尊重他人、以禮相待的人。

And you may recall there were three reverse scored items.

大家可能還記得有三個反向計分項目。

So the more you say, yeah, it's like me, the lower your agreeableness score.

是以，你越是說 "是的，它和我一樣"，你的合意度得分就越低。

I am someone who is sometimes rude to others.

我有時對別人很粗魯。

I'm someone who can be cold and uncaring.

我是一個冷酷無情的人。

I am someone who tends to find faults with others.

我是一個喜歡找別人缺點的人。

I mean, I will say that big five agreeableness is partly about being a compassionate person.

我的意思是，我想說的是，五大合意度在一定程度上是指一個富有同情心的人。

So I think we should talk about that because that's what Faith is curious about.

所以我認為我們應該談談這個問題，因為這正是費絲所好奇的。

But there is a whole other part of big five agreeableness, which is really more about being compliant with other people's requests, not because you're kind hearted or that you are sympathetic, but just that you have this tendency to kind of like fall in line with other people's demands.

但 "五大合意度 "中還有另一部分是關於對他人要求的順從，這並不是因為你心地善良或富有同情心，而只是因為你有這樣一種傾向，就像順從他人的要求一樣。

Interesting.

有意思

I have lived all over the world, but all over the United States as well.

我在世界各地生活過，也在美國各地生活過。

And I found this thing by a journalist named Frank Jacobs called Geopsychology.

我發現一個叫弗蘭克-雅各布斯的記者寫了一本叫《地質心理學》的書。

Your personality depends on where you live, who was referencing this 2021 study published in Perspectives on Psychological Science.

你的性格取決於你生活的地方，他提到了發表在《心理科學展望》（Perspectives on Psychological Science）上的這項 2021 年的研究。

And they did a survey on agreeableness in the United States and what regions are, quote unquote, the most agreeable or disagreeable.

他們對美國人的合意度做了一項調查，調查了哪些地區的人最合意，哪些地區的人最不合意。

And I would love for you to guess.

我很樂意讓你們猜猜。

Oh, my gosh, this is so fun.

哦，我的天哪，這太有趣了。

I'm going to guess the Northeast, including New York, is the least agreeable.

我猜包括紐約在內的東北部地區最不討人喜歡。

And I am going to guess that the Midwest is the most agreeable.

我猜中西部地區是最容易接受的。

Complete stereotyping here.

這裡完全是刻板印象。

They found that disagreeableness hangs heaviest over some Western states from Montana to New Mexico, Nevada to the western halves of Kansas and Oklahoma.

他們發現，從蒙大拿州到新墨西哥州，從內華達州到堪薩斯州和俄克拉荷馬州西半部的一些西部州，不認同感最強烈。

But this was my favorite line.

但這是我最喜歡的一句話。

There is an additional grumpiness epicenter in New England.

在新英格蘭還有一個暴躁的中心。

Oh, there you go.

哦，這就對了。

OK, so I was not wrong.

好吧，我沒有錯。

But the most agreeableness is pronounced in the South, as one might imagine.

但是，正如人們所想象的那樣，最合群的是南方。

Oh, forgot about the South.

哦，忘了南方了。

But they did, to your point, find an important cluster in Minnesota and the Dakotas where people are very agreeable.

但就你的觀點而言，他們確實在明尼蘇達州和達科他州發現了一個重要的集群，那裡的人們非常合群。

I am no expert on geographic psychology, and I don't want to say that this is scientific fact, but let me speculate that when I talk about these like two faces of agreeableness, there's the compassion element and then there's compliance.

我不是地理心理學專家，也不想說這是科學事實，但讓我來推測一下，當我談到 "合群 "的兩面性時，有同情的成分，也有順從的成分。

You know, sometimes compliance is also called politeness.

要知道，有時服從也叫禮貌。

I have not lived in the South, but I wonder whether it's more a polite culture than a truly compassionate culture.

我沒有在南方生活過，但我想知道那裡是否更多的是一種禮貌文化，而不是真正富有同情心的文化。

And I say this in part because there were two years in my life where I lived with a group of roommates who were from the South.

我這麼說的部分原因是，在我的生命中，有兩年我和一群來自南方的室友住在一起。

I mean, they had that wonderful, like soft accent, Southern charm.

我的意思是，他們有那種美妙的、柔和的口音、南方的魅力。

Yeah, they were just like, I guess for somebody who grew up in New Jersey, it was just so charming.

是啊，他們就像，我想對於一個在紐澤西長大的人來說，這真是太迷人了。

They always were polite, I mean, always solicitous and like, no problem.

他們總是彬彬有禮，我是說，總是很熱情，就像沒問題一樣。

But then after some months, I realized that there were times where they were totally irritated with me or totally irritated with other people.

但幾個月後，我發現他們有時會對我或其他人完全惱火。

And I got to see it when we would come home from some dinner party where they had been exceedingly polite and seemingly kind.

當我們從某個晚宴回家時，我就能看到這一點，他們在晚宴上彬彬有禮，看似和藹可親。

But then they would come home and just thrash the person.

但他們回到家就會痛打那個人。

So I do kind of wonder about the finding that, you know, people from the South are more agreeable because, I mean, you know, you could be polite and compassionate, but I think politeness and compassion or compliance and compassion, I mean, they're not the same thing.

是以，我對 "來自南方的人更合群 "這一發現感到疑惑，因為，我的意思是，你知道，你可以彬彬有禮，也可以富有同情心，但我認為，禮貌和同情心或服從和同情心，我的意思是，它們不是一回事。

And I do think it's worth asking the question whether you can have too much of these tendencies.

我認為值得一問的是，你是否可以擁有過多的這些傾向。

What's your instinct on this?

你對此有何直覺？

Yeah, obviously.

是的，很明顯。

Oh, really?

哦，真的嗎？

You're like, this is an easy question.

你會說，這是個簡單的問題。

For me, it is in the workplace, for example.

對我來說，工作場所就是一個例子。

I really look for and benefit from healthy conflict.

我非常期待健康的衝突，並從中受益。

And if people feel like they just have to be compassionate, compliant, agreeable, don't get me wrong, it can be an incredible asset when someone, their default is yes, they're going to figure out a way to get things done.

如果人們覺得自己必須要有同情心、順從、合群，別誤會我的意思，當一個人的默認想法是 "是的 "時，他就會想出辦法把事情做好，這可能是一筆驚人的財富。

At the same time, it's really damaging when people are just willing to say yes to everything.

與此同時，如果人們什麼都願意說 "是"，那就真的是一種傷害。

You never get to the best answer.

你永遠找不到最佳答案。

And if leaders haven't set up a culture where you can give feedback, where there can be this healthy conflict, where people are willing to push back and be, quote unquote, not agreeable in the moment, then you lose the ability to get to the right answer and you just end up with the opinion of the highest ranking person.

如果領導者沒有建立一種文化，在這種文化中，你可以提出反饋意見，可以有這種健康的衝突，人們願意反擊，可以說是當下不同意，那麼你就失去了找到正確答案的能力，你最終只會得到最高級別的人的意見。

So what does it look like when people don't do that?

那麼，如果人們不這樣做，會是什麼樣子呢？

Do you think the conflict goes underground, like people go to the bathroom together and like my two roommates, you know, just start talking trash and then they come back in the room and like everything's fine?

你是否認為衝突會轉入地下，比如人們一起去洗手間，比如我的兩個室友，你知道，就開始說垃圾話，然後他們回到房間，好像一切都很好？

Or do you think it's that people just like kind of stop thinking hard about what really should get done?

或者你認為是人們不再認真思考什麼是真正應該做的？

I think both of those probably happen.

我想這兩種情況都有可能發生。

Right.

對

And again, I'm going to put that on both sides.

我還是那句話，兩邊都要講。

Like people have to be willing to speak up and you have to create a culture where people feel safe to speak up.

比如，人們必須願意暢所欲言，你必須創造一種文化，讓人們覺得暢所欲言是安全的。

Right.

對

If you think like, oh, the goal in life is just to go from a three in agreeableness to a four and from a four in agreeableness to a five, it does actually raise these questions about like, well, what if you really disagree with somebody at work?

如果你認為，哦，人生的目標就是把合意度從 3 分提高到 4 分，把合意度從 4 分提高到 5 分，那麼實際上就會產生這樣的問題，比如，如果你在工作中真的不同意某個人的觀點怎麼辦？

What if you feel like you're getting taken advantage of like faith does, like you're basically being a doormat?

如果你感覺自己像信仰一樣被人利用，感覺自己基本上就是個門童，那該怎麼辦？

So there does seem to be this really messy nuance to it, which is like it can't always be the right thing to say yes to agree and maybe not even the right thing to like always be thinking about other people.

是以，似乎確實存在這種非常混亂的細微差別，這就像不可能總是正確地答應別人，甚至不可能總是為別人著想。

I was talking to our friend Adam Grant, who, as you know, is a professor of management at Wharton.

我和我們的朋友亞當-格蘭特（Adam Grant）聊了聊，大家都知道，他是沃頓商學院的管理學教授。

So when Adam came to my university, you know, University of Pennsylvania, which made him happy enough that we could recruit him.

所以當亞當來到我的大學時，你知道，賓夕法尼亞大學，這讓他很高興，我們可以招募他。

But immediately we got into an argument like from like minute three.

但從第三分鐘開始，我們就吵了起來。

We were like, that doesn't make sense.

我們當時想，這說不通啊。

And it's because we started talking about research and Adam was studying being a giver, you know, somebody who really asked the question, what can I do to help you?

這是因為我們開始討論研究，亞當正在研究如何成為一個給予者，你知道，一個真正會問 "我能為你做些什麼 "的人。

And I think, you know, he's always been interested actually in the dynamic between men and women in the workplace.

我認為，他一直對工作場所男女之間的動態很感興趣。

And he was very interested in how in his observation, a lot of women ask exactly that question.

根據他的觀察，很多女性都會問這個問題，他對此非常感興趣。

What can I do to help you solve your problem?

我能幫您解決什麼問題？

And a lot of men were asking the question, what can you do to help me solve my problem?

很多男人都在問：你能幫我解決什麼問題？

And he saw this asymmetry and he saw these female givers who were getting taken advantage of.

他看到了這種不對稱，看到了這些女性捐贈者被人利用。

They were getting all the scut work, you know, like, well, somebody's got to write up the minutes from this meeting and like somebody's got to like start the word document.

他們負責所有的雜務工作，比如，得有人把這次會議的記錄寫好，還得有人開始寫word文檔。

He saw that clearly men were less likely to volunteer for those tasks to concede when asked.

他看到，顯然男性不太可能在被問及這些任務時主動讓步。

I get into this argument with him now.

我現在和他爭論不休。

This is years ago.

這是多年前的事了。

I have since evolved.

從那時起，我開始進化。

But at the time I was defending the position that more and more and more giving was the right and right and right thing.

但當時我捍衛的立場是，越來越多、越來越多地給予是正確、正確、正確的事情。

So I was a little bit like Faith.

所以我有點像費絲。

I was like, isn't it just the right thing to be as altruistic as possible?

我就想，儘可能利他難道不是正確的做法嗎？

And then Adam said, no, you know, you're going to be a doormat.

然後亞當說，不，你知道，你會成為一個門墊。

And then he gave me this counter proposal.

然後他給了我一個反建議。

He's like, look, here's the way to be a giver who doesn't get taken advantage of.

他就像在說，聽著，這就是成為一個不會被人利用的施捨者的方法。

When you give, always ask yourself, what's the problem that I'm solving for this other person?

當你付出的時候，一定要問自己，我為這個人解決了什麼問題？

And at the same time, how does this benefit me?

同時，這對我有什麼好處？

I had like an allergic reaction.

我好像有過敏反應。

I was like, that's not the way my mother raised me.

我當時想，我媽不是這麼教育我的。

No, I have the same allergic reaction.

不，我也有同樣的過敏反應。

Doesn't that just sound like Machiavellian?

這聽起來像不像馬基雅維利？

I want to govern my life as a good person who does things just because it's the right thing to do, not because there's anything in for me.

我想做一個好人，做正確的事，而不是因為有什麼好處。

Right.

對

I mean, intuitively, doesn't it ruin it when the gift has an ulterior motive?

我的意思是，從直覺上講，如果禮物別有用心，不是會破壞氣氛嗎？

I think we share that instinct completely.

我認為我們完全擁有這種直覺。

Speaking of our friend Adam Grant, he wrote something with his wife in The New York Times where he talks a lot about this idea of self-sacrifice versus generosity.

說到我們的朋友亞當-格蘭特，他和他的妻子在《紐約時報》上寫了一篇文章，其中他談到了很多關於自我犧牲與慷慨的觀點。

He said those are pretty different things.

他說這是兩碼事。

Self-sacrifice is not sustainable and it isn't healthy because people who only care about others tend to kind of neglect themselves, which leads to more anxiety, more depression, et cetera.

自我犧牲是不可持續的，也是不健康的，因為只關心別人的人往往會忽視自己，從而導致更多的焦慮、更多的抑鬱等等。

Whereas those who are generous, it's not about the self-sacrifice.

而那些慷慨的人，則不是為了自我犧牲。

It's about giving in ways that nurture more givers.

這是關於以培養更多給予者的方式給予。

They said being less selfless actually allows you to give more because instead of letting people sap your energy, you maintain your motivation.

他們說，不那麼無私其實能讓你付出更多，因為你不會讓別人消耗你的精力，反而能保持你的動力。

That's something I can agree with.

這一點我同意。

That is exactly what he said in that argument.

這正是他在爭論中所說的話。

Yeah, but what you're repeating here is that it was also what's in it for me.

是的，但你在這裡重複的是，這也是我的好處。

I guess the phrasing for me matters a lot because if it's like, hey, I'll do this to help you, but only if it also helps me, that feels just messed up.

我想對我來說，措辭很重要，因為如果是這樣：嘿，我會這樣做來幫助你，但前提是它也能幫助我，那感覺就太糟糕了。

Yeah, and I think actually that's eventually where his thinking evolved, because as I said, this is years and years and years ago.

是的，我認為這就是他思想的最終發展方向，因為正如我所說，這已經是很多年前的事了。

I think it was before he started writing books and in the book Give and Take, Adam has this typology.

我想那是在他開始寫書之前，在《付出與收穫》一書中，亞當有這樣一個類型學。

There are three kinds of people.

有三種人

One kind of person is a giver.

一種人是給予者。

They're primarily motivated to help other people solve their problems.

他們的主要動機是幫助他人解決問題。

One kind of person is a taker.

一種人是索取者。

They're primarily motivated to get ahead and to relate to other people with the same kind of thing, like, hey, what can you do to solve my problems?

他們的主要動機是出人頭地，並與其他有相同遭遇的人建立聯繫，比如，嘿，你能為我解決什麼問題？

Also, there's the possibility that you're a matcher.

此外，你還有可能是一個匹配者。

And the matcher is actually the thing that we were just describing, like, I'll do this for you if you do something for me.

匹配器實際上就是我們剛才描述的那種東西，比如，如果你為我做一件事，我就為你做這件事。

I'll do a favor for you on Monday because on Tuesday I might need you to do a favor for me.

週一我會幫你一個忙，因為週二我可能需要你幫我一個忙。

And this nuance here is that it is possible to think about this as more sustainable giving, as you said.

這裡的細微差別在於，正如你所說的那樣，可以將其視為更可持續的捐贈。

Not like I'm a matcher.

我又不是火柴人。

It's tit for tat.

這是以牙還牙。

It's quid pro quo.

這是交換條件。

But it's more like, how am I going to do this without becoming like an exhausted, burnt out, cynical, detached, on the brink of quitting person?

但我更想知道的是，我該怎麼做才能不成為一個精疲力竭、焦頭爛額、憤世嫉俗、離群索居、瀕臨放棄的人呢？

And I think the sustainable part isn't always, oh, because you're going to do something for me, but something different.

我認為可持續發展的部分並不總是 "哦，因為你要為我做什麼"，而是 "不同的東西"。

Like, I remember we got a voice memo from one of our NSQ listeners from now, you know, a year and a half back, and they worked in some kind of charitable work.

比如，我記得我們收到了一位來自 NSQ 的聽眾的語音備忘錄，你知道，那是一年半以前的事了，他們從事某種慈善工作。

And they said that in their many years of working in that sector and also hiring people, what they had learned is to not hire people with a, quote, savior complex.

他們說，他們在該部門工作多年，也僱用過很多人，他們學到的是，不要僱用有 "救世主情結 "的人。

And the listener goes on to describe how when you hire somebody who's like a martyr, you know, it's like, I won't eat lunch, you can have all my money.

這位聽眾接著描述了當你僱傭一個像烈士一樣的人時，你知道，就像我不吃午餐，你可以拿走我所有的錢。

And like every person that I come across, I have to save them too, that you just know they're going to burn out.

就像我遇到的每一個人一樣，我也必須拯救他們，因為你知道他們會燃盡的。

That's the nuance, maybe not that you should go through life as a matcher and you should always look for like what you can get out of things when you give, but just that you should find a sustainable, self-propelling way, because otherwise you do, I think, eventually get to the end of your rope.

這就是其中的細微差別，也許並不是說你應該在生活中做一個匹配者，你應該在付出的時候總是尋找你能從事情中得到什麼，而是說你應該找到一種可持續的、自我推動的方式，因為否則，我認為，你最終會走到窮途末路。

The other group that I find somewhat difficult, and again, on the surface, it may seem positive, is people pleasers.

另一個讓我覺得有些困難的群體，表面上看起來可能是積極的，那就是取悅於人的人。

Well, how would you describe people pleasers?

那麼，你會如何形容取悅於人者呢？