(单词翻译:单击)
Data on trust between individual Americans are harder to come by; surveys have asked questions about so-called interpersonal trust less consistently, according to Pew.
美国个人之间信任的数据更难获得; 皮尤研究中心称，调查中关于所谓人际信任的问题越来越少。
But, by one estimate, the percentage of Americans who believed “most people could be trusted” hovered around 45 percent as late as the mid-’80s; it is now 30 percent.
但是，据一项估计，直到80年代中期，相信“大多数人都是可以信任的”的美国人比例徘徊在45%左右; 现在是30%。
According to Pew, half of Americans believe trust is down because Americans are “not as reliable as they used to be.”
根据皮尤研究中心的调查，半数美国人认为信任度下降是因为美国人“不像过去那样可靠了”。
Those studies of suspicious Zoom workers suggest the Trust Recession is getting worse.
那些对可疑的Zoom员工的研究表明，信任衰退正在恶化。
By October 2021, just 13 percent of Americans were still working from home because of COVID-19, down from 35 percent in May 2020, the first month the data were collected.
到2021年10月，由于新冠肺炎，只有13%的美国人仍然在家工作，低于2020年5月(数据收集的第一个月)的35%。
But the physical separation of colleagues has clearly taken a toll, and the effects of a long bout of remote work may linger.
但是，同事之间的身体隔离显然已经造成了负面影响，长时间远程工作的影响可能会挥之不去。
Why? one reason is: We’re primates.
为什么? 一个原因是:我们是灵长类动物。
To hear the anthropologists tell it, we once built reciprocity by picking nits from one another’s fur—a function replaced in less hirsute times by the exchange of gossip.
根据人类学家的说法，我们曾经通过从彼此身上捡虱子来建立一种互助关系——而在毛发稀疏的时代，这种功能被交流八卦所取代。
And what better gossip mart is there than the office?
还有什么地方比办公室更能八卦呢?
Separate people, and the gossip—as well as more productive forms of teamwork—dries up.
人与人之间的分离、八卦——以及更有成效的团队合作形式——逐渐枯竭。
In the 1970s, an MIT professor found that we are four times as likely to communicate regularly with someone sitting six feet away from us as with someone 60 feet away.
上世纪70年代，麻省理工学院的一位教授发现，我们经常与离我们六英尺远的人交流的可能性，是与离我们六十英尺远的人交流的可能性的四倍。
Maybe all that face time inside skyscrapers wasn’t useless after all.
也许在摩天大楼里的那些面对面的时间并不是毫无用处的。
Trust is about two things, according to a recent story in the Harvard Business Review: competence (is this person going to deliver quality work?) and character (is this a person of integrity?).
根据《哈佛商业评论》最近的一篇文章，信任取决于两件事:能力(这个人能否提供高质量的工作?)和性格(这个人是否正直?)
“To trust colleagues in both of these ways, people need clear and easily discernible signals about them,” wrote the organizational experts Heidi Gardner and Mark Mortensen.
组织专家海蒂·加德纳和马克·莫滕森写道:“要在这两方面都信任同事，人们需要清楚、容易识别的信息。”
They argue that the shift to remote work made gathering this information harder.
他们认为，向远程工作的转变使得收集这些信息更加困难。
Unconsciously, they conclude, we “interpret a lack of physical contact as a signal of untrustworthiness.”
在不知不觉中，他们总结道，我们“将缺乏物理接触解读为不值得信赖的信号。”
This leaves us prone to what social scientists call “fundamental attribution error”
这让我们倾向于社会科学家所说的“基本归因错误”
—the creeping suspicion that Blake hasn’t called us back because he doesn’t care about the project.
——逐渐怀疑布莱克没有给我们回电话，因为他不关心这个项目。
Or because he cares about it so much that he’s about to take the whole thing to a competitor.
或者因为他太在乎这个项目了，所以他要把整个东西拿给竞争对手。
In the absence of fact—that Blake had minor dental surgery—elaborate narratives assemble.
在缺乏事实的情况下-布莱克做了牙科小手术-复杂的叙述汇集在一起。
