→ オリジナル動画
→ スクリプト
No.05
I believe these are the five best candidates for what’s written on the first draft of the moral mind. I think this is what we come with, at least a preparedness to learn all of these things. But as my son, Max, grows up in a liberal college town, how is this first draft going to get revised? And how will it end up being different from a kid born 60 miles south of us in Lynchburg, Virginia? To think about culture variation, let’s try a different metaphor. If there really are five systems at work in the mind — five sources of intuitions and emotions — then we can think of the moral mind as being like one of those audio equalizers that has five channels, where you can set it to a different setting on every channel. And my colleagues, Brian Nosek and Jesse Graham, and I, made a questionnaire, which we put up on the Web at www.YourMorals.org. And so far, 30,000 people have taken this questionnaire, and you can too. Here are the results. Here are the results from about 23,000 American citizens. On the left, I’ve plotted the scores for liberals; on the right, those for conservatives; in the middle, the moderates. The blue line shows you people’s responses on the average of all the harm questions.
So, as you see, people care about harm and care issues. They give high endorsement of these sorts of statements all across the board, but as you also see, liberals care about it a little more than conservatives — the line slopes down. Same story for fairness. But look at the other three lines. For liberals, the scores are very low. Liberals are basically saying, “No, this is not morality. In-group, authority, purity — this stuff has nothing to do with morality. I reject it.” But as people get more conservative, the values rise. We can say that liberals have a kind of a two-channel, or two-foundation morality. Conservatives have more of a five-foundation, or five-channel morality.
ボキャブラリー
I believe these are the five best candidates for what’s written on the first draft of the moral mind. I think this is what we come with, at least a preparedness to learn all of these things. But as my son, Max, grows up in a liberal college town, how is this first draft going to get revised? And how will it end up being different from a kid born 60 miles south of us in Lynchburg, Virginia? To think about culture variation, let’s try a different metaphor. If there really are five systems at work in the mind — five sources of intuitions and emotions — then we can think of the moral mind as being like one of those audio equalizers that has five channels, where you can set it to a different setting on every channel. And my colleagues, Brian Nosek and Jesse Graham, and I, made a questionnaire, which we put up on the Web at www.YourMorals.org. And so far, 30,000 people have taken this questionnaire, and you can too. Here are the results. Here are the results from about 23,000 American citizens. On the left, I’ve plotted the scores for liberals; on the right, those for conservatives; in the middle, the moderates. The blue line shows you people’s responses on the average of all the harm questions.
So, as you see, people care about harm and care issues. They give high endorsement of these sorts of statements all across the board, but as you also see, liberals care about it a little more than conservatives — the line slopes down. Same story for fairness. But look at the other three lines. For liberals, the scores are very low. Liberals are basically saying, “No, this is not morality. In-group, authority, purity — this stuff has nothing to do with morality. I reject it.” But as people get more conservative, the values rise. We can say that liberals have a kind of a two-channel, or two-foundation morality. Conservatives have more of a five-foundation, or five-channel morality.
candidate: n. 候補者、志願者、候補
at least: 少なくとも、最低でも
preparedness: n. 準備（されていること）、覚悟
liberal: a. リベラルな、自由主義の、自由を認める、進歩的な
revise: vt. （意見など）を変える、改める；（見積もり・計画など）を見直す
end up: 結局［最後には］〜になる、〜で終わる、結局〜と分かる、最後は〜に落ち着く
variation: n. 変化、変動、差異
metaphor: n. 隠喩、暗喩、メタファー
intuition: n. 直感（力）、直観（力）；（直感で得られた）認識、洞察
audio: n., a. 音（の）、音響（の）、音声（の）
equalizer: n. イコライザー、平行装置、等化器、等しくするもの
Brian Nosek: ブライアン・ノセク（バージニア大の心理学教授）
Jesse Graham: ジェシー・グラハム（南カリフォルニア大学の心理学助教）
questionnaire: n. アンケート、質問（書・表）
put up: 示す、掲示する、公開する、発表する、提供する
plot: vt. 〜を座標で示す、〜を描く、書く
score: n. スコア、点数、成績、得点
harm: n. 損害、危害、悪意、悪気
care about: 〜を大切にする、大事に思う、気に掛ける；〜に関心がある、〜を心配する
endorsement: n. (〜の)支持、承認 (of, for)
across the board: 全体にわたって、全体的に、一律に、おしなべて、あまねく
slope down: 下り坂になる、傾斜している
story: n. （経験・事件についての）話、説明
in-group: n. 内集団、排他的な仲間集団、組織内組織、派閥
authority: n. 権威、権力；威厳、威光
have nothing to do with ~:〈人事物が〉〈事〉とは何の関係[かかわり]もない; 〈事が〉〈人〉の知った事ではない
reject: vt. 拒絶する、拒否する、拒む、受け入れない、認めない、退ける
more of ~: いっそう多くの〜、〜よりももっと
解説
イコライザー
イコライザー (Equalizer) とは、音声信号の周波数特性を変更する音響機器である。イコライザーを使って、音声信号の特定の周波数帯域 （倍音成分や高調波成分あるいはノイズ成分）を強調したり、逆に減少させる事ができ、全体的な音質の補正（平均化）や改善（音像の明確化など）、あるいは積極的な音作りに使用される。
単語本来の意味は「均一化（equalize）するもの」で、具体例としてマイクロフォンやスピーカーやレコーダー（場合によっては録音環境やリスニング環境全体を含む）の周波数特性の補正や、マスタリングにおける曲毎の音質的差異の平均化 といった例を挙げる事ができる。ただし現在では後述のように、周波数特性の均一化だけでなく、より積極的な音作りにも活用されている。（Wikipediaより）
Macのイコライザー
アンケートの結果（アメリカ人２３０００人）
YourMorals.Orgのサイトはこちら → http://www.yourmorals.org/