There’s an apparent paradox in modern life: Society as a whole is getting smarter, yet we aren’t any closer to figuring out how to all get along.

現(xiàn)代生活里有一個(gè)明顯的矛盾：整體社會(huì)正變得更智慧，然而我們卻仍然不知道如何相處融洽,。 

“How is it possible that we have just as many, if not more, conflicts as before?” asks social psychologist Igor Grossmann at the University of Waterloo in Canada.

“我們的沖突怎么會(huì)跟以前一樣多,，而沒有減少呢？”加拿大滑鐵盧大學(xué)的社會(huì)心理學(xué)家伊戈.格羅斯曼問道,。

The answer is that raw intelligence doesn’t reduce conflict, he asserts.Wisdom does. 

原因在于總體更聰明并不能減少?zèng)_突,，他說，要更有智慧才可以,。

Such wisdom—in effect, the ability to take the perspectives of others into account and aim for compromise—comes much more naturally to those who grow up poor or working class, according to a new study by Grossman and colleagues.

這種智慧—實(shí)際上,，能夠?yàn)樗酥氩⒛軌蛲讌f(xié)的能力—對(duì)那些在貧窮或者勞動(dòng)階層成長(zhǎng)起來的人們要來得更自然，這來自格羅斯曼和同事的最新研究,。

“This work represents the cutting edge in wisdom research,” says Eranda Jayawickreme, a social psychologist at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

“這項(xiàng)研究代表了智慧研究的前沿,，”北卡羅萊納州溫斯頓塞勒姆的維克森林大學(xué)社會(huì)心理學(xué)家艾蘭達(dá).捷亞威克姆說,。

To conduct the study, Grossmann and his graduate student Justin Brienza embarked on a two-part experiment. 

為了進(jìn)行研究，格羅斯曼和他的研究生賈斯丁.布倫扎開展了一個(gè)分為兩部分的實(shí)驗(yàn),。

First, they asked 2145 people throughout the United States to take an online survey.

首先他們邀請(qǐng)全美國(guó)的2145個(gè)人進(jìn)行了線上問卷調(diào)查,。 

Participants were asked to remember a recent conflict they had with someone, such as an argument with a spouse or a fight with a friend.

參與者需要回憶起最近一次與人起沖突，比如跟配偶吵架或者與朋友打架,。 

They then answered 20 questions applicable to that or any conflict, including: “Did you ever consider a third-party perspective?” “How much did you try to understand the other person’s viewpoint?” and “Did you consider that you might be wrong?”

然后他們回答了20個(gè)跟那次或者任何沖突相關(guān)的問題,，包括：“你有沒有站在第三方考慮過？”“你有多努力去試圖理解別人的觀點(diǎn),？”“你有考慮過你可能是錯(cuò)的嗎,？”

Grossmann and Brienza crunched the data and assigned the participants both a “wise reasoning” score based on the conflict answers and a “social class” score, then plotted the two scores against one another. 

格羅斯曼和布倫扎分析了數(shù)據(jù),，然后根據(jù)對(duì)沖突問題的回答給每個(gè)參與者打出“明智”分,，另外再打一個(gè)“社會(huì)階層”分，然后用其中一個(gè)對(duì)另一個(gè)做曲線圖,。

They found that people with the lowest social class scores—those with less income, less education, and more worries about money—scored about twice as high on the wise reasoning scale as those in the highest social class. 

他們發(fā)現(xiàn)那些社會(huì)階層分最低—那些收入更少,，教育程度更低，更擔(dān)心錢—的人們的明智分是那些最高社會(huì)階層的人們的兩倍高,。

The income and education levels ranged from working class to upper middle class; neither the very wealthy nor the very poor were well represented in the study.

收入和教育水平包括了從工人階層到上流中產(chǎn)階層,，這次研究既沒有針對(duì)很富裕也沒有針對(duì)很貧窮的階層。

In the second part of the experiment, the duo recruited 200 people in and around Ann Arbor, Michigan, to take a standard IQ test and read three letters to the Dear Abby advice column.

在實(shí)驗(yàn)第二部里,，他們兩人在密歇根州安阿伯市召集了200人來參加智商測(cè)試,，并給親愛的艾比建議專欄讀三封信。 

One letter, for example, asked about choosing sides in an argument between mutual friends.

其中一封,，舉個(gè)例子,，問到在彼此朋友的爭(zhēng)論中站在哪一方。 

Each participant then discussed with an interviewer how they thought the situations outlined in the letters would play out. 

每個(gè)參與者都與采訪者討論他們?nèi)藗冃闹兴o的情景最后會(huì)結(jié)果如何,。

A panel of judges scored their responses according to various measures of wise reasoning. 

一個(gè)專家組會(huì)根據(jù)明智度的多種考量對(duì)他們的回答進(jìn)行打分,。

In the example above, thinking about how an outsider might view the conflict would earn points toward wisdom, whereas relying only on one’s own perspective would not.

在剛剛所具的例子中，從外人的角度思考這次沖突可以得到明智分,，而只從自己的觀點(diǎn)出發(fā)則不能得分,。

As with the first part of the experiment, those in lower social classes consistently had higher wise-reasoning scores than those in higher social classes, the researchers reported today in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B

跟第一部分的實(shí)驗(yàn)一樣，那些更低社會(huì)階層的人們往往比更高階層的人們明智分高很多,，研究者們今天在《皇家學(xué)會(huì)報(bào)告》B刊上匯報(bào)說,。 

.IQ scores, however, weren’t associated one way or another with wise reasoning.

然而，智商得分跟明智分沒有什么關(guān)系,。

The findings make sense, Jayawickreme says, as people who grow up in a working-class environment have to rely on shared, communal resources more than people in the middle class, and therefore hone social techniques that smooth out conflicts with their peers. 

這個(gè)結(jié)果是很有道理的,，捷亞威克姆說，因?yàn)閺膭趧?dòng)階層環(huán)境中成長(zhǎng)起來的人們幣中產(chǎn)階級(jí)的人更多需要分享和集體資源,，因此打磨出了與他們周圍的人緩解沖突的技能,。

Those in the middle class, in contrast, tend to focus on education, which improves their IQ scores, but they don’t put nearly as much effort into conflict resolution skills, Grossmann says.

那些中產(chǎn)階級(jí)的人們則相反,，傾向于關(guān)注教育，來提高他們的智商分?jǐn)?shù),，但他們并不會(huì)把同樣的努力放在解決沖突的技巧上,，格羅斯曼說。

Eventually, Grossman wants to expand his study of wisdom to people at the extremes of social class. 

最后,，格羅斯曼想要把他對(duì)人們的智慧的研究擴(kuò)大了社會(huì)兩極的階層,。

“I would not be surprised if the result is even more pronounced in the extremely wealthy, but we don’t have the data to speak to it yet,” he says. “I would love to interview Donald Trump.”

“如果結(jié)果在財(cái)富兩極階層的人們還要更明顯，我一點(diǎn)都不會(huì)覺得奇怪,，只是我們還沒有數(shù)據(jù)來支持,，”他說，“我想要采訪一下唐納德.特朗普,?！?/p>