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, how accurately do we see ourselves?

今天的節目中，我們如何準確地看待自己？

When you ask people, are you an average driver?

當你問別人，你是一個普通的司機嗎？

Oh my gosh, everyone's a great driver.

天哪，每個人都是偉大的駕駛員。

Mike, we have an email from a listener named Haji, and I'm going to read it to you.

邁克，我們收到一封來自一位名叫哈吉的聽眾的郵件，我現在把它讀給你聽。

Okay.

好的

It begins, I found the ongoing discussions about the Big Five personality series fascinating.

一開始，我就發現目前關於大五人格系列的討論非常吸引人。

Oh, nice.

哦，不錯。

I mean, we went through each of the Big Five personality traits in a series recently.

我的意思是，我們最近在一個系列中介紹了五大人格特質。

And apparently Haji was one of the, I think we had 50,000 listeners take the survey.

很顯然，哈吉是其中之一，我想我們有 5 萬名聽眾參加了調查。

So Haji says, after taking the survey, I couldn't help but wonder how others might rate me if asked and vice versa.

哈吉說，在接受調查後，我不禁想知道，如果別人問我，會給我打多少分，反之亦然。

What factors lead to the variations between an individual's self-perception and how they're perceived by their family, colleagues, or friends?

是什麼因素導致了個人的自我認知與家人、同事或朋友對他們的認知之間的差異？

Terrific question and something I have been thinking about, I think, since my very first day of graduate school.

這個問題非常好，我想，從我讀研究所學生的第一天起，我就一直在思考這個問題。

I love this because I think we lie to ourselves all the time, probably not on purpose.

我喜歡這句話，因為我覺得我們總是在欺騙自己，可能不是故意的。

But I often wonder, like the way I perceive myself, I'm sure is massively different than how other people perceive me.

但我經常會想，就像我對自己的看法一樣，我相信我和其他人對我的看法大相徑庭。

Be specific.

具體一點。

I just think it's probably true that family and close friends are both more accurate in their perception of us, but maybe also more judgy.

我只是覺得，家人和好友對我們的看法可能更準確，但也可能更挑剔。

Not because they're judgmental, but because they have seen a broader perspective of our personality.

這並不是因為他們有評判性，而是因為他們從更廣闊的角度看到了我們的個性。

So they'd be more critical, you think?

你認為他們會更挑剔嗎？

Yeah, but critical in an observant way, not necessarily critical as in a negative way, right?

是的，但責備的方式是觀察，而不一定是負面的責備，對嗎？

I think it's really hard to be honest with ourselves all the time.

我認為，一直對自己誠實真的很難。

Okay, I've been collecting data on self-report questionnaires like No Stupid Questions listeners took.

好吧，我一直在收集 "沒有愚蠢的問題 "聽眾自述問卷的數據。

And by the way, by popular demand, we just kept the survey up.

順便說一下，應廣大讀者的要求，我們繼續進行了調查。

So if anybody wants to see what they think of their own personality traits, they can do that at Freakonomics.com slash big five.

是以，如果有人想了解他們對自己性格特徵的看法，可以訪問 Freakonomics.com slash big five。

But I've been collecting data that is like that survey, self-report.

但我一直在收集類似調查的數據，即自我報告。

Right.

對

Answer a bunch of questions about yourself.

回答一堆關於你自己的問題。

And then you get friends or teachers or parents to answer the same exact questions.

然後讓朋友、老師或父母回答同樣的問題。

But now the pronouns are not first person singular, they're third person.

但現在代詞不是第一人稱單數，而是第三人稱。

The technical term for this in psychology is called informant reports.

心理學中的專業術語稱之為線人報告。

You know, is Mike Maughan talkative?

邁克-毛恩健談嗎？

Does Mike Maughan like to go to parties?

邁克-毛恩喜歡參加派對嗎？

Did you know my mom once observed me talking to someone?

你知道我媽媽曾經看到我和別人說話嗎？

This is not a great moment in my life, but I walked back over and she said, who put a quarter in you?

這不是我人生中的美好時刻，但我又走了回去，她說，誰給你放了 25 美分？

Because I was incredibly, maybe overly talkative.

因為我非常健談，也許是過於健談。

Were you a jukebox?

你是點唱機嗎？

Yeah.

是啊

Maybe not as solicitous of asking questions of the other person as I ought to have been, as I was taught.

也許我沒有像別人教我的那樣，主動向對方提問。

Yeah, I love that expression.

是啊，我喜歡這種說法。

Had not heard it.

沒聽說過。

But anyway, the question is really rich and deep.

但無論如何，這個問題確實豐富而深刻。

And I mentioned that I've been thinking about this question since my first days of graduate school.

我說過，從讀研究所學生的第一天起，我就一直在思考這個問題。

That is because in my very first study as a graduate student, I gave questionnaires to middle school students.

這是因為在我作為研究所學生的第一項研究中，我向中學生髮放了調查問卷。

Actually, eighth grade is about the first grade where somebody can kind of reliably answer these questionnaires.

實際上，八年級是能夠可靠地回答這些問卷的第一個年級。

Before that, kids tend to be very egocentric.

在此之前，孩子們往往非常以自我為中心。

So when you ask them, like, are you talkative?

所以，當你問他們，你健談嗎？

They don't do what they're supposed to do, which is to compare themselves to other kids.

他們不會做他們應該做的事情，那就是與其他孩子進行比較。

They answer the questions, but there's a lot of noise and not a lot of signal.

他們回答了問題，但噪音很多，信號不多。

But I gave these self-report questionnaires about personality, in particular self-control, to these middle schoolers.

但我向這些初中生髮放了有關人格，特別是自控力的自我報告問卷。

And then I also gave the same exact questionnaires in their informant report version.

然後，我也給出了與線人報告版本完全相同的問卷。

So now, you know, does this child control themselves when they need to, etc.

那麼現在，你知道這個孩子在需要的時候會不會控制自己了吧，等等。

To the teachers of these kids and then also their parents.

敬這些孩子的老師，也敬他們的父母。

And Mike Mond would not be surprised that when you get all the data back, one way you know how much signal there is and how much noise is whether the scores for that particular way of measuring self-control correlate with the others.

邁克-蒙德不會感到驚訝的是，當你得到所有的數據時，你知道有多少信號，有多少噪音的一種方法是，測量自我控制的特定方法的分數是否與其他方法相關。

And in fact, parent ratings of self-control are the least correlated.

而事實上，家長對孩子自控力的評價是最不相關的。

Really?

真的嗎？

Yeah.

是啊

I mean, it's not that there's no correlation, but they don't predict outcomes as well as...

我的意思是，這並不是說沒有相關性，但它們並不能像......那樣預測結果。

Wait, wait, wait.

等等，等等，等等。

Let me clarify.

讓我澄清一下。

So parents are the least able to accurately determine?

那麼，父母是最不能準確判斷的嗎？

That would be my reading of the data.

這是我對數據的解讀。

Okay.

好的

I just want to make sure I was understanding.

我只是想確認一下我是否理解了。

It's like you would expect them to know the kid best, right?

就像你希望他們最瞭解孩子一樣，對嗎？

They've changed their diapers.

他們已經換了尿布。

They've seen them for much longer than their teachers.

他們比老師們見得更久。

I mean, who doesn't know you but your mother?

我是說，除了你媽媽，誰不認識你？

Yeah.

是啊

Is it that we all think our kids are the best?

是不是我們都認為自己的孩子是最棒的？

I can't remember whether the averages were higher because that's one way you would know.

我不記得平均值是否更高，因為這是你瞭解情況的一個途徑。

Like, oh, the parents are rating these kids like four out of five and the teachers are rating them like two out of five or something like that.

比如，家長給這些孩子的評分是五分中的四分，而老師給他們的評分是五分中的兩分之類的。

But they just didn't relate to other things very well.

但它們與其他事物的聯繫並不緊密。

And I found that over and over again.

我一次又一次地發現了這一點。

And one parent mailed back the survey.

還有一位家長寄回了調查表。

And instead of checking off the boxes, like very much like my child, you know, not at all like my child, they wrote in the margin, how am I supposed to answer this question?

他們沒有勾選 "非常像我的孩子"、"你知道的，一點也不像我的孩子 "等選項，而是在空白處寫道："我該如何回答這個問題？

I only have one kid.

我只有一個孩子。

I have no idea how they compare to others.

我不知道他們與其他人相比如何。

Oh, interesting.

哦，有意思。

And I do think that one of the reasons why parents struggle is because, you know, they want to think their son is the next Tom Brady or something.

我確實認為，父母們掙扎的原因之一是因為，你知道，他們想讓自己的兒子成為下一個湯姆-布雷迪（Tom Brady）什麼的。

But they also just have a very limited frame of reference compared to teachers, right, who see, I don't know, dozens of kids a year, sometimes hundreds, and then hundreds of kids, if not thousands over the course of their career.

但與教師相比，他們的參考範圍也非常有限，對吧，教師一年不知道要見幾十個孩子，有時是幾百個，然後是幾百個孩子，甚至在他們的職業生涯中要見幾千個孩子。

Well, and it's hard to judge yourself often going to Haji's question, because, I mean, it's the first time I've ever been a fifth grader or the first time I've ever been new at this company.

嗯，我很難經常對哈吉的問題作出自我判斷，因為，我是說，這是我第一次當五年級學生，也是我第一次成為這家公司的新人。

I don't even know how to rate myself against everybody else.

我甚至不知道如何給自己和其他人打分。

It's sort of like when they ask you at the hospital, rate your pain on a scale of one to ten.

這有點像他們在醫院問你，用一到十來評價你的疼痛。

I don't want to say that I'm a ten.

我不想說我是 10 分。

I don't know what it's like to give birth.

我不知道生孩子是什麼感覺。

It's so hard to compare.

這很難比較。

Right?

對不對？

Yeah, it is.

是的，就是這樣。

It used to be like, how's your pain?

以前會問，你的疼痛如何？

And then words would come out of people's mouths, but you're like, what?

然後，人們會說出一些話，但你會想，什麼？

It's better to say like, okay, scale from one to ten.

最好是說，好吧，從一到十。

But what is a six?

但什麼是六呢？

So now the better scales that your doctor can ask you are scales where the number comes with a description, cannot walk up a flight of stairs, you know, five, cannot pick up a half gallon of milk, seven, cannot get out of bed.

是以，現在醫生可以問你的更好的量表是數字附帶描述的量表，如不能走上一段樓梯，你知道的，5，不能拿起半加侖牛奶，7，不能下床。

By the way, they still aren't perfect.

順便說一句，它們仍然不夠完美。

This is called the vignette approach.

這就是所謂的小插圖方法。

But to this day, there's always a little bit of signal.

但時至今日，總有一點信號。

And there's also this kind of noise that comes from a stoic person, Jason's grandfather, who was affectionately known as Pothead.

還有一種聲音來自於一個剛毅的人，傑森的祖父，他被親切地稱為 "鍋蓋頭"。

I don't even know what his real name was.

我甚至不知道他的真名是什麼。

Wait, Pothead?

等等，鍋蓋頭？

I can't believe.

真不敢相信

Maybe his name was Ted and it was like Paw Ted.

也許他叫特德，就像爪子特德一樣。

Oh, Paw Ted.

哦，爪子特德。

It sounded a lot like a marijuana user, Pothead.

聽起來很像大麻使用者，"鍋蓋頭"。

No, yes.

不，是的。

That's what I thought you said.

我以為你是這麼說的。

He drank vodka, but no marijuana so far as we know.

據我們所知，他喝伏特加，但不喝大麻。

And Pothead is just like this extremely high pain threshold.

而 "鍋蓋頭 "就像這種極高的疼痛閾值。

There was these stories of his like breaking a bone and still doing that.

有一些關於他的故事，比如摔斷了骨頭還在繼續做。

Like, so even with the little vignettes that are supposed to help you with these reference points, like, I think one of the main lessons of measuring personality or anything else is that my six and your six are not the same six.

所以，即使有了這些小故事來幫助你瞭解這些參考點，我認為測量個性或其他任何東西的主要教訓之一就是，我的六點和你的六點並不是同一個六點。

Even when we add words and descriptions, I think you put your finger on one of the many reasons why when somebody else rates us and we rate ourselves, those ratings aren't always going to line up.

即使我們添加了文字和描述，我想你也指出了其中一個原因，那就是當別人給我們打分，我們也給自己打分時，這些評分並不總是一致的。

They may have different standards than we do.

他們的標準可能與我們不同。

You've mentioned that parents have a lack of ability maybe to see as objectively.

你提到過，父母可能缺乏客觀看待問題的能力。

Are there people or groups to whom we can turn that help us gain a better sense of who we are?

是否有一些人或團體可以幫助我們更好地認識自己？

Like in my world, we often would do these 360 degree feedback surveys.

就像在我的世界裡，我們經常會做 360 度反饋調查。

And that's where your manager, your direct reports and your peers all give feedback on a set list of questions.

在這個過程中，你的經理、你的直接下屬和你的同事都會就一系列問題給出反饋意見。

And that's meant to give a well-rounded view of you as a person and maybe point out blind spots or areas that are going well.

這樣做的目的是為了全面瞭解你這個人，並指出盲點或進展順利的方面。

I learned this lesson my very first year of graduate school when I was collecting that data from parents and teachers and then the students themselves.

我在讀研究所學生的第一年就學到了這一課，當時我從家長、老師和學生那裡收集數據。

In general, 360 is good because even though the parents have their biases and they struggle with knowing what an average fifth grader is like, and even though the teachers may also have biases, like rules of thumb about what girls are like or what boys are like.

一般來說，360 是好的，因為即使家長有他們的偏見，他們也很難了解五年級學生的一般情況，即使老師也可能有偏見，比如關於女孩是什麼樣或男孩是什麼樣的經驗法則。

And then also there's this problem called halo bias, where if a person has one positive characteristic, like they have a good sense of humor, you tend to attribute other things like they must be smart, they're probably a good athlete.

還有一個問題叫做 "光環偏差"，如果一個人有一個積極的特點，比如他很有幽默感，你就會傾向於歸因於其他方面，比如他一定很聰明，他可能是一個優秀的運動員。

I bet they have a lot of friends, right?

我打賭他們有很多朋友，對吧？

Right, for sure.

對，沒錯。

But here's the thing about 360 assessment, and here's why it's a good thing.

但 360 評估的問題是，它為什麼是件好事。

It's called the principle of aggregation, and it's so non-intuitive and it's so powerful and it's so important.

這就是所謂的 "聚合原則"，它是如此的不直觀、如此的強大、如此的重要。

When you take all these imperfect signals, so everybody has a little signal, but they have a lot of noise.

當你接收到所有這些不完美的信號時，每個人都有一點信號，但他們也有很多噪音。

When you just average them together, what happens is not what you would think.

當你把它們平均到一起時，結果並不是你想象的那樣。

Instead of getting more noise, you actually get a lot of signal because the noise kind of like cancels out.

因為噪音會被抵消掉，所以你得到的不是更多的噪音，而是更多的信號。

And so 360 assessment is essentially what I did in my first year of graduate school.

是以，360 評估基本上就是我在研究生院第一年所做的工作。

I just averaged together all the ratings, and even though each one was imperfect, their collective signal was a lot stronger than any one element alone.

我只是把所有的評分平均起來，儘管每個評分都不完美，但它們發出的集體信號比任何一個單獨的元素都要強得多。

So I think employers should keep doing 360s.

是以，我認為僱主應該繼續進行 360 度體檢。

I think that's also something we should do when we hire people, right?

我認為這也是我們在聘用員工時應該做的，對嗎？

Like, don't call one reference.

比如，不要給一個推薦人打電話。

Right, oh my gosh.

是啊，天哪

Such a rookie error.

真是個新手錯誤。

I make it all the time, though.

不過，我一直都在做。

Well, also, don't just call the references that they give you.

還有，不要只打電話給他們給你的推薦人。

You know what question that Luis went on, who was the last chair of the board that my nonprofit Character Lab had?

你知道路易斯提出的問題是什麼嗎？我的非營利組織 "性格實驗室 "上一任董事會主席是誰？

The question that he likes to ask when he's doing reference checks, would you hire that person again?

他在做推薦信調查時喜歡問的問題是：你會再次僱用這個人嗎？

That's a great question because at the end of the day, it says so much.

這是一個很好的問題，因為歸根結底，它說明了很多問題。

Do you think that your close friends, if they filled out the Big Five personality inventory, let's say you averaged together like your eight friends, do you think that if the scores came out differently for the eight friends who know you best, would you think that that is better evidence of who you really are than your own ratings?

你是否認為，如果你的親密朋友填寫了五大人格問卷，比方說你們八個朋友的平均分，你是否認為，如果最瞭解你的八個朋友的分數有所不同，你是否認為這比你自己的評分更能證明你的真實情況？

Like, they came out differently than my scores, not differently than each other.

比如，他們的成績與我的成績不同，而不是彼此不同。

Yeah, and by the way, when you take these ratings, they very often, like, don't line up perfectly.

是的，順便說一句，當你進行這些評級時，它們往往並不完全一致。

Right.

對

But let's take the average of them.

但我們還是取它們的平均值吧。

Right.

對

Let's use the principle of aggregation.

讓我們利用聚合原理。

And let's get the Mike Mon friend score and say they thought you were like really high in openness to experience and you thought you were lower than they thought.

讓我們給邁克-蒙的朋友打分，說他們認為你的經驗開放度很高，而你認為自己比他們想象的低。

Who would you believe?

你會相信誰？

I think that I would want to believe them because I would think that maybe I'm engaged in I don't know what it's even called, but a self-perception bias.

我想，我會願意相信他們，因為我會認為，也許我正在從事我甚至不知道這叫什麼，但自我認知的偏見。

Is that a thing?

有這回事嗎？

Sometimes it's called self-serving bias.

有時，這被稱為自我服務偏見。

Well, because I think to some extent we answer these things aspirationally or we all have selective memory or we have a willingness to kind of glorify the past, forget the things that were hard or bad.

好吧，因為我認為在某種程度上，我們回答這些問題時都很有抱負，或者我們都有選擇性記憶，或者我們願意美化過去，忘記那些艱難或糟糕的事情。

And I wonder if in our own taking of these questionnaires, we tend to focus on the most proximate experiences that are coloring things or, you know, I'm thinking of my best self when maybe they're thinking of my whole self.

我在想，在我們自己做這些問卷調查時，我們是否傾向於把注意力集中在最貼近生活的經歷上，這些經歷會給事情增添色彩，或者，你知道，我想到的是我最好的自己，而也許他們想到的是我整個的自己。

Like everyone who takes psych one, you know, intro psych is taught that we can be biased to say we're better than average.

就像每個選修心理學第一課的人一樣，你知道，心理學入門的課程告訴我們，我們可以偏頗地認為自己比平均水平要好。

Right.

對

And we often teach these introductory psychology students that when you ask people like, are you an average driver?

我們經常教心理學入門的學生，當你問別人，你是一個普通的司機嗎？

Oh, my gosh.

哦，我的天哪。

Are you better than average?

你比平均水平高嗎？

Worse than average?

比平均水平差？

Everyone's a great driver.

每個人都是出色的駕駛員

Except for me, by the way, I would raise my hand and be like, I'm a terrible, terrible driver.

順便說一句，除了我之外，我會舉起手來說，我是個糟糕透頂的司機。

You don't drive.

你不開車

Yes.

是的。

Then again, I'm not really a driver.

話又說回來，我並不是一個真正的司機。

Okay, fair enough.

好吧，有道理。

But everybody can't be better than average, so you must be deluding yourself.

但每個人都不可能比平均水平更好，所以你一定是在自欺欺人。

Right.

對

Well, a few years ago, there was this meta analysis.

幾年前，有一項元分析。

So these scientists took all of the data that had been gathered that they could get on like self-report personality scores, like the ones that we've been collecting on No Stupid Questions from our listeners, and then informant report about that person.

是以，這些科學家收集了他們所能得到的所有數據，比如自我報告人格分數，就像我們在《無愚蠢問題》節目中從聽眾那裡收集的分數一樣，然後又收集了關於這個人的線人報告。

And if there really is this strong self-serving bias, the average scores for positive traits like conscientiousness or agreeableness, they should be higher for self-report than for informant report.

如果真的存在這種強烈的自我服務偏差，那麼像自覺性或合群性這樣的積極特質，自我報告的平均得分應該高於線人報告的平均得分。

Uh-huh.

嗯哼

So I read this, and I was really surprised.

所以我讀了這本書，我真的很驚訝。

What they found from, you know, over 30,000 data points across 150 samples is that there is really not much difference between the average scores of people's self-report, big five personality, and informant report.

他們從 150 個樣本的 3 萬多個數據點中發現，人們的自我報告、五大人格和線人報告的平均得分之間確實沒有太大差別。

So there wasn't strong evidence.

所以證據並不充分。

There was one exception, which we can talk about, but in general, they're like, nah, maybe people are not as prone to self-serving bias as we teach in Psych 1.

有一個例外，我們可以討論一下，但總的來說，他們覺得，不，也許人們並不像我們在《心理學1》裡教的那樣，容易產生自我服務的偏見。

Interesting.

有意思