譯/王丹怡

眾所周知，智力對(duì)于個(gè)人而言非常重要，它會(huì)影響個(gè)人在學(xué)習(xí)、工作和生活中的表現(xiàn)。幾十年來的研究都證明了這一點(diǎn)。但如果你的個(gè)人智力水平和你所在國(guó)的國(guó)民平均智力水平相比，并不那么重要呢？這就是喬治梅森大學(xué)的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家加雷特·瓊斯在他的新書《蜂群思維：國(guó)家智商為何比個(gè)體智商更重要》中所說的“智商悖論”。

[2]瓊斯是在和同事W.喬爾·施耐德研究智商和收入間的聯(lián)系時(shí)發(fā)現(xiàn)的這個(gè)悖論。在一國(guó)范圍內(nèi)，智商（IQ）和收入間的關(guān)聯(lián)并不是很緊密。智商每高一個(gè)點(diǎn)，人均收入僅多1%。但在不同國(guó)家，同樣是智商指數(shù)高一個(gè)點(diǎn)，人均收入多出6%。為什么在預(yù)測(cè)最終收入時(shí)，國(guó)家智商會(huì)比個(gè)人智商更重要呢？這個(gè)問題使得瓊斯開始探尋一些可能的原因，以及這一悖論的潛在影響。

We know that intelligence matters at the level of the individual, impacting performance in school, work,and life. Decades of research supports that point. But what if your personal intelligence level doesn’t matter as much as the average level of intelligence of the country in which you live? This is what economist Garett Jones of George Mason University calls the “paradox of IQ1=Intelligence Quotient，智商?！?in his new book Hive Mind:How Your Nation’s IQ Matters So Much More Than Your Own.

[2] Jones discovered this paradox when researching the link between IQ and income with his colleague W. Joel Schneider. Within a country, the link between IQ and income appears modest2modest（數(shù)量、比率）不太高的，適中的。,with one IQ point predicting 1% higher income per person. But across countries, that same IQ point predicts 6%higher income per person. Why would it be that the IQ of the country you live in matters more than your individual IQ for predicting eventual income? This led Jones on a quest to3on a quest to尋求。explore some of the reasons why this might be, and potential implications of this paradox,discussed in detail in his new book.

[3] In an interview, Jones told Quartz4美國(guó)新聞網(wǎng)站。,“If something appears to matter more for a nation than it does for an individual,that something may well be causing positive side effects.” He described three key paths that may generate positive side effects: the links between IQ and patience, cooperation, and team performance. A fourth path, the productivity of those around you, multiplies the impact of the other three. All these paths are supported by research studies spanning psychology, economics, management,and political science, specifically large research syntheses or meta-analyses.

[3]在接受Quartz雜志網(wǎng)采訪時(shí)，瓊斯表示：“如果某事對(duì)國(guó)家的影響比對(duì)個(gè)人更大，那么這件事很可能會(huì)產(chǎn)生積極的副作用?！彼枋隽巳N可能產(chǎn)生這種作用的關(guān)鍵途徑，智商與耐心、合作以及團(tuán)隊(duì)表現(xiàn)分別建立的聯(lián)系。第四個(gè)途徑是你周圍的人的生產(chǎn)率，這一途徑極大地強(qiáng)化了前三者的影響。這些途徑都有調(diào)查研究的支持，相關(guān)研究涉及心理學(xué)、經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)、管理學(xué)和政治學(xué)，特別是大范圍的綜合研究和元分析。

智力越高，越有耐心

[4]越聰明的人越有耐心、越愿意延遲滿足、等待回報(bào)。諾亞·薩莫什和杰里米·格雷的元分析支持了這一觀點(diǎn)。瓊斯這樣解釋其中的聯(lián)系：“當(dāng)你更有耐心的時(shí)候，你就會(huì)存更多（錢），其中一部分錢很有可能會(huì)留在你的國(guó)家。因此，儲(chǔ)蓄率高的國(guó)家可能擁有更多資金用于商業(yè)投資。如果你的左鄰右舍更有耐心的話，你以后就可以向他們借錢。”

Intelligence predicts greater patience

[4] Smarter people are more likely to be more patient, delaying gratification and being willing to wait for rewards.A meta-analysis by Noah Shamosh and Jeremy Gray supports this point. Here’s how Jones explains the link: “When you’re more patient you save more[money], and some of that money has a tendency to stay in your home country.So nations with high savings rates tend to have more funds available for busi-ness investment. If you have more patient neighbors, you’ll be able to borrow some of their money down the road.”

智力越高，親社會(huì)行為越多

[5]一項(xiàng)由蘇迪普·夏爾瑪、威廉·波頓和希拉里·艾爾芬拜因進(jìn)行的元分析發(fā)現(xiàn)，智力越高的人們往往更多傾向于雙贏、做大蛋糕和親社會(huì)的行為。瓊斯解釋道∶“我們需要的是那些能夠與別國(guó)簽訂協(xié)議而不是發(fā)動(dòng)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的政治領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人，需要的是想辦法做大經(jīng)濟(jì)蛋糕、而不是為了稍微一點(diǎn)利益爭(zhēng)得頭破血流的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人。政客們很少能從合作中收獲大部分好處：因?yàn)榇蠖鄶?shù)的好處會(huì)遍及全國(guó)各地……在許多社會(huì)環(huán)境中（并非全部），聰明的群體都更具合作精神。我們推測(cè)這其中的一個(gè)原因就是他們更有耐心。更有耐心的人更在意自己的名譽(yù)，更關(guān)心從建立合作規(guī)范中獲得的長(zhǎng)期收益?！?/p>

智力越高，團(tuán)隊(duì)表現(xiàn)越好

[6]一項(xiàng)由丹尼斯·迪瓦恩和珍妮弗·菲利普斯進(jìn)行的元分析檢測(cè)了在實(shí)驗(yàn)室和真實(shí)工作環(huán)境下的團(tuán)隊(duì)智商和生產(chǎn)率，結(jié)果發(fā)現(xiàn)團(tuán)隊(duì)的平均智商是對(duì)團(tuán)隊(duì)表現(xiàn)的一個(gè)相當(dāng)好的預(yù)測(cè)指標(biāo)。瓊斯解釋說∶“從很大程度上說，經(jīng)濟(jì)是一個(gè)團(tuán)隊(duì)努力的結(jié)果，無論這個(gè)團(tuán)隊(duì)是同一家公司的員工、供應(yīng)鏈上合作的不同企業(yè)、當(dāng)然還有努力建設(shè)健康經(jīng)濟(jì)的政界人士和官員……既然大部分經(jīng)濟(jì)價(jià)值是在團(tuán)隊(duì)工作中產(chǎn)生的，例如工程公司、醫(yī)院的手術(shù)室、好萊塢大片，那么任何能夠提高團(tuán)隊(duì)生產(chǎn)率的因素很可能對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)的整體健康也非常重要?！?/p>

Intelligence predicts more pro-social behavior

[5] A meta-analysis by Sudeep Sharma, William Bottom, and Hillary Elfenbein found that higher intelligence predicted greater win-win, pie-growing5grow the pie是宏觀經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)中的一個(gè)概念，意為發(fā)展一國(guó)的整體經(jīng)濟(jì)，以創(chuàng)造更多財(cái)富和就業(yè)機(jī)會(huì)。,pro-social behavior. Jones explains, “We need political leaders who cut deals6cut a deal達(dá)成協(xié)議。rather than start wars, who find ways to grow the economic pie rather than battle over a slightly larger slice. And politicians rarely reap most of the benefits of cooperation: Most of the benefits spill over to the whole nation…In many social settings, but not all, intelligent groups are more cooperative. One reason we’d predict smarter groups to be more cooperative is because they tend to be more patient. And more patient people care more about their reputations, they care more about the long-run benefits that come from building a norm of cooperation.”

Intelligence predicts greater team performance

[6] A meta-analysis by Dennis Devine and Jennifer Philips examining team IQ and productivity in both lab and real work settings found that the average IQ of a team was a reasonably good predictor of team performance. Jones explains, “Much of the economy is a team effort, whether the team is workers in a firm, different businesses collaborating along a supply chain, or of course politicians and bureaucrats trying to build a healthy economy…Since team tasks are where so much of our economy’s value is created—in engineering firms, in hospital operating rooms, in Hollywood blockbusters7blockbuster轟動(dòng)一時(shí)的電影；一度熱賣的暢銷書。—anything that enhances team productivity probably matters a lot for the economy’s overall health.”

你周圍的人生產(chǎn)率越高，你自己工作也會(huì)更有效率

[7]最后，丹尼爾·赫布斯特和亞歷山大·麥斯在實(shí)驗(yàn)室和實(shí)地環(huán)境下進(jìn)行了一項(xiàng)全新的元分析，發(fā)現(xiàn)如果你的同事的工作效率提高10%，你的工作效率應(yīng)該會(huì)隨之提高1.2%。瓊斯解釋說：“我們的工作表現(xiàn)往往是由我們的同事塑造的，至少會(huì)受到他們的一點(diǎn)影響，而我們反過來也會(huì)影響他們的工作表現(xiàn)。這也是與智商更高的人做鄰居的另一個(gè)積極效應(yīng)：他們不僅會(huì)存更多的錢、樹立合作的榜樣，還會(huì)設(shè)立一個(gè)更高的表現(xiàn)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，供普通人努力看齊，至少是一點(diǎn)點(diǎn)。我們周圍的人會(huì)影響我們將成為什么樣的人。”

If you’re around more productive people, you’ll be more productive yourself

[7] Finally, a brand new meta-analysis by Daniel Herbst and Alexandre Mas looked at both lab and field studies8field study田野調(diào)查，實(shí)地調(diào)查，現(xiàn)場(chǎng)研究。,uncovering that if your coworkers became 10% more productive, that should increase your productivity by 1.2%.Jones explains, “Our work performance is often shaped by our peers, at least a little, and we shape our peers in return.This is yet another side effect of having neighbors with higher test scores:Not only do they save more, not only do they set an example of cooperation,but they also set a higher standard of performance that the average person emulates, at least a little. Those around us shape whom we become.”

[8] So what’s the takeaway9takeaway要點(diǎn)，關(guān)鍵。for the individual? According to Jones, it’s that“being around smart people is more important than you being smart yourself. It means that if you want to raise your long run economic well-being, you should care a lot about your country’s average test scores. The effect is about three times at the cross-country level than at the US state level, so it might not be worth it to move across state lines to get smarter neighbors, but I can’t deter you if you want to move to Singapore, it’s a great place.”

[9] Jones argues that medical and educational research should be directed on how to credibly raise test scores:“It should be a global obsession on the scale of10on the scale of以……的規(guī)模，按……比例。cancer research.” Jones acknowledges that he isn’t certain whether it’s the average IQ level of the entire nation or the average IQ level of the smartest people of that nation that matters most for long-run economic health. However, he stresses that many nations should consider how migration may shape their nation’s average test scores in the long run. For example,“The United Arab Emirates and Qatar,for instance, are two of just a handful of nations where migration policy substantially raises national average test scores.That’s a brave thing to do, and it’s a way to shape a more prosperous future.High human capital immigration policies, the kind embraced by Hong Kong and Singapore, tend to make a nation’s economic future brighter. These nations are choosing some of their future citizens, and they’re very likely building a stronger hive mind.” ■

[8]那么對(duì)于個(gè)人而言，關(guān)鍵是什么呢？根據(jù)瓊斯的說法，關(guān)鍵就是“和聰明的人在一起比你自己聰明更重要。這意味著如果你想提高長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)的經(jīng)濟(jì)收益，就應(yīng)該關(guān)心自己國(guó)家的平均智商分?jǐn)?shù)。在不同國(guó)家間的這種效應(yīng)大約是在美國(guó)各州層面的三倍。因此，跨越州界以期與更聰明的人為鄰可能并不值當(dāng)。但如果你想搬到新加坡去，我也不能阻止你，那的確是個(gè)好地方?！?/p>

[9]瓊斯認(rèn)為醫(yī)學(xué)和教育研究應(yīng)該聚焦于如何切實(shí)提高智商測(cè)試的分?jǐn)?shù)。他說：“對(duì)這方面的研究應(yīng)該要和癌癥研究比肩，也成為讓全球?qū)W者著迷的研究重點(diǎn)?！钡偹挂渤姓J(rèn)，他并不確定到底是整個(gè)國(guó)家的平均智商水平，還是這個(gè)國(guó)家最聰明的人的平均智商水平對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)長(zhǎng)期健康的運(yùn)行更為重要。然而，他強(qiáng)調(diào)，許多國(guó)家應(yīng)該考慮移民對(duì)平均智商測(cè)試分?jǐn)?shù)的長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)影響。例如，“在為數(shù)不多的幾個(gè)通過移民政策大幅提高全國(guó)平均智商分?jǐn)?shù)的國(guó)家中，阿聯(lián)酋和卡塔爾就是其中兩個(gè)。這么做需要勇氣，這種方式也能讓國(guó)家的未來更加繁榮。高人力資本移民政策（香港和新加坡所采取的就是這一政策），往往會(huì)使一個(gè)國(guó)家（或地區(qū)）的經(jīng)濟(jì)前景更加光明。這些國(guó)家（或地區(qū)）正在選擇未來的部分公民進(jìn)行，他們極有可能構(gòu)建一個(gè)更為強(qiáng)大的蜂群思維。” □