电视节目，类似美国“Who Wants to Be a Millionnaire ”翻版。他在节目中间遇到一个问题：“What revolves around the earth? ”。可供选择的答案是：(1) 月球，(2) 太阳， (3) 金星，(4) 水星。面对这个简单的问题亨利不知为何大脑短路，不敢贸然回答，便选择了“问现场观众”这个 方法。有意思的是，56%的观众选择了明显的错误答案 --(2) 太阳，只有42% 的观众选了正确答案-- (1)月球！尽管亨利坐在观众席上的女朋友看上去被这个奇怪的情况搞得火冒三丈，可怜的亨利却从本来的不太确定变成了很不确定，最后他决定听从大多数的意见，选择了“太阳”！结果可想而知，他赢了的几万法郎最后只好乖乖地退了回去。
作者没有马上回答这个问题，而是转而开始讲述一个德国心理学家们做的一个实验。这个实验将两个随机选出的对象(A and B) 安置在两个房间里(双方都不知道对方是谁，也无法看到对方，更没有机会讨论交流谈判)。他们被告知，实验者将给他们两人10 块钱，但这十块钱如何在两人之间分配，却必须由他们自己决定。因为两个参加者无法相互交流，其中一个(A)被给予决定权，由他/她先决定如何在两人之间分配这十块钱。另外那个参加者(B)将被告知A给的“offer”， 然后决定自己是否接受分配给他/她的那个部分。如果B接受了A的分配，那么两人各自拿到自己的一份；如果B者不接受，那么两个人都空手离开。这个游戏只能玩一次，是游戏理论中的“single game" scenario.
UBC 的心理学家Joseph Henrich又做了另外一个试验。这回，UCLA 的研究生们作为试验对象参与。为了让参与者们认真对待试验，A 和B 将要分配的金额提高到了160 美元(相当于学生们做助理两天半的工资)。试验结果没有什么悬念 -- 绝大多数参加者选择了50/50 的分配。但这个试验还有另外一个部分-- Henrich 旅行到位于亚马逊森林的一个土著部落Machiguenga 去重复这个试验，而且得到了十分不同的结果。在Machiguenga，有权提出分配方案的参与者A，几乎无一例外地选择了对自己有利的分配方式 -- 最典型的是85/15的分配; 而更让研究者们惊讶的，是试验中的B几乎全部接受了这个看上去十分“不公平”的分配方案！因为他们认为，“能得到一点点，也什么都得不到好！”当被问及他们是否对A 得到多得多的份额感到不公的时候，B 这样回答：“It was just bad luck that Im the responder, not the proposer". 当然，也有很少的几个土著给了50/50 的方案，而当Henrich访问他们的时候，他惊讶地发现，这几个“例外”， "无一例外"地都曾经在亚马逊森林之外的“现代社会”待过！！！
作者在这个章节结束的时候这样写道：
In the end, the Machiguenga are no more rational than are the UCLA students. They simply have a different perception of whats fair. In Russia its not fair for one person to get rich. In America its only fair if the splitter presents an even-steven offer. And in the Amazon jungle, its finders keepers".
昭君, Sorry I was not being clear in my earlier comments. There was no quibble at all with the title. I actually thought it was quite "on topic". Of course I knew it (the title) was intended as a rhetorical question. I think most of us understood that.
Great writing as usual. I can hardly wait for tomorrow’s installment.
In English “公平” is “fair”, or “fairness”, “公正” is “just”, or “justness”.
“Justness” does not quite mean the same thing as “justice”, which in Chinese is “正义”.
One could write a piece about “公正” or “正义” as well. But I think the thrust of your essay is correct. It is about whether “fairness is a UNIVERSAL ideal”?
Which of course is a rhetorical question (修辞性疑问). I mean, which society in its right mind would argue against “fairness”? It would be like arguing against “motherhood”.
The examples you cite to illustrate the way the human psyche works in evaluating “fairness” are excellent.
I agree as far as the statement goes. However trying to put my finger on China’s (and by extension Chinese society’s) social ills eludes me. China has had 5000 years of (largely brutal) history (and I presume that included a lot of socialization). Where did it go astray? Why is today’s China so stratified(*)? So “me first”? Why is human life worth so little in China? Why does everyone (almost everyone) seem to feel that “in order for me to win, someone else has to lose”?
* - In fact Asian society in general is very stratified.
昭君，你的文章真的让我“想到了很多很多”，以致过了一夜再来留言。这里只是略举一二。我常常想，为什么你的博文总有那么多不同的选题?为什么你的文章总能吸引那么多读者？为什么你的论点总能引来那么人的参与（讨论、辩论或争论）？我猜想其中的原因之一就是“开卷有益”--你的广泛阅读与勤于思辨，使得你的知识面很广，思路非常开阔，你写出的博文也就主题丰富、耐人寻味、催人思考。难怪有人赞誉Your work has become “soul food” to many of us。所以你的文章才有那么多的读者，真的很“公平”噢！
I, like countless others, have become hooked on your essays (treatises). They're typically reasoned and balanced. A breadth of fresh air! It was not extravagant praise.
“不敢当”, depending on the context, can be translated as “I’m flattered”, “I don’t deserve it”, or simply “not at all!”
又是一篇耐人寻味的好文章！ Your work has become “soul food” to many of us. I think the short answer to your last question is that, in order for society(*) to function, those who “take” from society must also remember to “give back” to society. To ensure this in fact happens, governments have instituted taxation. But taxation alone does not absolve the “takers” of the responsibility to also become “givers” voluntarily. * - one could interpret "society" to mean a "community of people", or a "community of nations".
