【TED】是一个会议的名称,它是英文technology,entertainment, design三个单词的首字母缩写。它是社会各界精英交流的盛会,这里有当代最杰出的思想家,这里有当代最优秀的科学家,这里有迸发着最闪耀的思想火花,这里孕育着最光辉的梦想。


Interestingly, some parallel work going on in social psychology: some people reviewed 208 different studies in which volunteers had been invited into a psychological laboratory and had their stress hormones, their responses to doing stressful tasks, measured. And in the review, what they were interested in seeing is what kind of stresses most reliably raise levels of cortisol, the central stress hormone. And the conclusion was it was tasks that included social-evaluative threat -- threats to self-esteem or social status in which others can negatively judge your performance. Those kind of stresses have a very particular effect on the physiology of stress. Now we have been criticized. Of course, there are people who dislike this stuff and people who find it very surprising. I should tell you though that when people criticize us for picking and choosing data, we never pick and choose data. We have an absolute rule that if our data source has data for one of the countries we're looking at, it goes into the analysis. Our data source decides whether it's reliable data, we don't. Otherwise that would introduce bias.
有趣的是, 社会心理学领域一些类似的工作也在同样进行着: 一些人查阅了 208 项不同的研究; 在研究中,志愿者被邀请到 一个心理试验中心 然后测试他们的压力霍尔蒙以及 他们执行压力任务时的反应。 在这观察中, 科学家感兴趣是 哪一种压力 最能提高体内皮质醇, 最重要的压力霍尔蒙的水平。 结果正是 那些包括社会评价威胁的任务—— 威胁到自尊和社会地位的任务,这些任务中他人能负面评价你的表现。 这些压力 在压力生理学上 有非常特别的效果。 目前我们已经接受了批评。 当然,有些人不喜欢这个, 也有人发现这个很出人意料。 然而我还是应该告诉你们 当人们批评我们挑拣数据时, 我们从来没有这样做过。 我们有一个无条件的规定 如果我们的数据源包含所观测国家的数据, 那么我们就将其纳入分析。 我们的数据源决定 数据是否有效, 而不是我们。 否则就会产生偏差。