美國選舉態度調查報告 害羞的選民

Last week, UBS released a survey of 1,200 of its American clients and their attitudes towards the US election.

不久前，瑞銀(UBS)發佈了對其1200名美國客戶以及他們對美國選舉的態度的調查報告。

It revealed some striking insights — after the election, for example, the proportion of investors who were bullish about US stocks jumped from 25 per cent to 53 per cent, while those who were bullish about growth rose from 39 per cent to 48 per cent.

該報告揭示出一些引人注目的見解——例如，在美國大選後，看好美國股市的投資者比例從25%飆升至53%，同時看好美國經濟增長的投資者比例從39%升至48%。

There was, however, an even more important detail: 36 per cent of respondents said that they did not tell their friends and family who they voted for, because they wanted to fend off arguments or avoid judgment.

然而，該報告中更爲重要的細節是，36%的受訪者表示，他們沒有告訴朋友和家人自己投了誰，因爲他們希望避免爭論或遭到評判。

Yes, you read that right.

是的，你沒看錯。

Among these wealthy and (presumably) educated UBS clients, more than one-third were apparently too nervous or embarrassed to reveal their election choice.

在這些富裕而且（想必）受過良好教育的瑞銀客戶當中，逾三分之一的人似乎害怕或羞於透露他們在選舉中的選擇。

Call it, if you like, a plague of squeamish silence.

如果你願意的話，可以將這稱爲一場神經脆弱所致沉默的瘟疫。

Sadly, UBS does not have any long-term data with which to compare this result (I checked), and since the sample is tiny, it may be very biased.

遺憾的是，瑞銀沒有任何能與這一結果相對照的長期數據（我覈查過了），而且由於樣本數量很少，結果也可能偏差很大。

But I suspect the result points to a bigger pattern — and one that may help explain why Trump won, in stark contrast to the pollsters’ predictions.

但我懷疑調查結果揭示出一種更爲廣泛的模式，它可能有助於解釋爲何與民調機構預測大相徑庭的是，特朗普贏得了大選。

As I criss-crossed the US this past year, I often heard middle-class, professional people tell me — with slightly embarrassed smiles — that they understood the appeal of Trump’s promises about change.

我在過去的一年裏走遍了美國各地，經常聽到中產階級和專業人士（帶着略有些尷尬的笑容）告訴我，他們理解特朗普承諾改變的吸引力。

Yes, their comments were typically laced with distaste for his aggressive persona and words — you only have to look at his outburst against Saturday Night Live to see why his tweets make people wince.

沒錯，他們在說這些的時候通常還夾帶着對特朗普激進形象和言辭的反感——你只需看看他對《週六夜現場》(Saturday Night Live)的發飆就會明白爲何他在Twitter上的帖子讓人們蹙眉了。

But what struck me on my travels was that people voting for Hillary Clinton were rarely embarrassed to admit to it.

但在旅途中讓我印象深刻的是，投票給希拉里.克林頓(Hillary Clinton)的人們很少會不好意思承認。

Instead, they were resigned or dutiful.

相反，他們是無可奈何的或有責任心的。

In political terms, a vote for Clinton seemed akin to eating spinach.

投票給希拉里似乎就像政治上的吃菠菜，

A vote for Trump, however, was more like eating ice-cream laced with whisky for breakfast — something that establishment people did not want to admit to.

而投票給特朗普，更像是早餐吃冰激凌就威士忌——建制派人士不想承認的吃法。

I suspect that this reticence will last for some time.

我懷疑，這種沉默將會持續一段時間。

Last week, I travelled to Minneapolis (for the annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association) and discovered that the local media were gripped by a debate about how to handle family gatherings amid all the political poison unleashed by the Trump win.

不久前，我去了明尼阿波利斯（參加美國人類學協會(American Anthropological Association)年會），發現當地媒體熱議的一個話題是，如何在特朗普勝選釋放的政治有毒空氣中處理家庭聚會。

Some people feel so angry that they are taking radical measures.

一些人極爲憤慨，因此採取了激進的舉措。

I sent an email to an in-law telling him that his genial hockey buddy and Trump supporter friend, Johnny, was no longer welcome on Thanksgiving! a front-page column in Minnesota’s Star Tribune declared.

明尼蘇達州的《明星論壇報》(Star Tribune)頭版的一篇專欄文章宣稱：我給姻親發了一封電子郵件，告訴他，今年感恩節，他那位支持特朗普的隨和的曲棍球夥伴約翰尼(Johnny)不再是受歡迎的客人。

However, most writers — and advice columnists — took a different tack and decided, like the UBS respondents, that it would be better to avoid fights caused by too much honesty this Thanksgiving and Christmas.

然而，大多數作者（以及問答欄目專欄作家）採取了不同的做法，他們與瑞銀受訪者一樣，認爲在今年感恩節和聖誕節期間最好避免因過於誠實而導致爭執。

In other words, I suspect there will be lots of loaded, tactful silences around the dinner table, much as there were with the pollsters.

換言之，我懷疑晚餐期間會出現意味深長的、策略性的沉默，就像面對民調機構一樣。

All of this has three important implications.

所有這些有3個重要意義。

First, it suggests that anybody who wants to guess how the forthcoming elections will turn out in France, Italy and the Netherlands needs to be careful about trusting poll results.

首先，它表明，無論是誰想要猜測法國、意大利和荷蘭即將舉行的選舉情況都需要謹慎，別輕易相信民調結果。

Maybe voters in Europe are less shy about non-traditional choices but I doubt it.

或許歐洲的選民不會那麼羞於說出自己的非傳統選擇，但我對此表示懷疑。

A second lesson is that the polling industry needs to rethink the questions it asks.

第二個教訓是，民調業有必要重新思考它所問的問題。

It is striking, for example, that the one poll that was more accurate than most was conducted by the right-leaning political consultancy the Trafalgar Group.

例如，引人注目的是，一個比大多數民調都更爲準確的民調是由偏右的政治諮詢公司Trafalgar Group進行的。

Early on, it decided that people were lying about their voting intentions.

該公司很早就認定，人們不會如實透露自己的投票打算。

So it started asking questions such as how respondents’ neighbours were likely to vote.

因此，它開始問諸如受訪者的鄰居可能投誰之類的問題。

Not only did this deliver a different result but it enabled Trafalgar to predict the result in both Pennsylvania and Michigan.

這種做法不僅得出了不同的結果，而且還讓Trafalgar預測到了賓夕法尼亞州和密歇根州的投票結果。

The third, and biggest, lesson is that pollsters and political pundits need to move beyond their obsession with complicated mathematical models, and participate in more ethnographic research into subtle cultural trends of the sort that anthropologists do (on the shame problem, for example).

第三個、也是最大的教訓是，民調機構和政治評論員需要擺脫對複雜數學模型的癡迷，對微妙的文化趨勢（比如在害羞的問題上）展開更多人種志研究，就像人類學家做的那樣。

Of course, such an undertaking will not be easy.

當然，此類研究不會輕鬆。

Ethnographic research is time-consuming and cannot be plugged neatly into spreadsheets.

人種志研究極爲耗費時間，而且無法整齊地編排爲電子表格。

And while last week’s meeting of the AAA revealed some amazing, grassroots work that anthropologists are doing to understand shifting American culture, it also reminded me why so few non-anthropologists know about these insights: this breed of academic tends to be very shy about pushing their analyses into the mainstream in a timely way, especially when it comes to politics.

儘管不久前的美國人類學協會會議揭示出，人類學家正在做一些引人注目的基礎工作來理解處於轉變當中的美國文化，但它也提醒我，爲何非人類學家很少知道這些見解：人類學學者往往非常不願意及時將他們的研究推向主流，尤其是在政治問題上。

If nothing else, the US election has shown us that we all urgently need to relearn the art of listening — to anthropologists, mavericks, naysayers and, yes, to people with opposing opinions.

別的不說，美國大選向我們表明，我們全都亟需重新學習聆聽的藝術——聆聽人類學家、持另類觀點者、唱反調者、（沒錯）還有持相反觀點者的聲音。

I hope that anthropologists get more plugged into the polling world.

我希望，人類學家更加專注民調領域。

But I also hope that yesterday’s shy voters start to talk more openly in the months ahead about why they disliked the status quo.

但我也希望，過去害羞的選民在今後幾個月開始更爲公開地談論他們爲何不喜歡現狀。

Only then will America be truly ready for change, with or without shame.

只有到那時，美國纔會真正準備好迎接改變，無論是否帶着羞澀。