TED2010

Daniel Kahneman: The riddle of experience vs. memory

Filmed:

Using examples from vacations to colonoscopies, Nobel laureate and founder of behavioral economics Daniel Kahneman reveals how our "experiencing selves" and our "remembering selves" perceive happiness differently. This new insight has profound implications for economics, public policy -- and our own self-awareness.

- Behavioral economics founder
Widely regarded as the world's most influential living psychologist, Daniel Kahneman won the Nobel in Economics for his pioneering work in behavioral economics -- exploring the irrational ways we make decisions about risk. Full bio

Everybody talks about happiness these days.
00:15
I had somebody count the number of books
00:18
with "happiness" in the title published in the last five years
00:21
and they gave up after about 40, and there were many more.
00:24
There is a huge wave of interest in happiness,
00:29
among researchers.
00:32
There is a lot of happiness coaching.
00:34
Everybody would like to make people happier.
00:36
But in spite of all this flood of work,
00:38
there are several cognitive traps
00:42
that sort of make it almost impossible to think straight
00:44
about happiness.
00:47
And my talk today will be mostly about these cognitive traps.
00:49
This applies to laypeople thinking about their own happiness,
00:52
and it applies to scholars thinking about happiness,
00:55
because it turns out we're just as messed up as anybody else is.
00:58
The first of these traps
01:02
is a reluctance to admit complexity.
01:04
It turns out that the word "happiness"
01:07
is just not a useful word anymore,
01:10
because we apply it to too many different things.
01:13
I think there is one particular meaning to which we might restrict it,
01:16
but by and large,
01:19
this is something that we'll have to give up
01:21
and we'll have to adopt the more complicated view
01:23
of what well-being is.
01:27
The second trap is a confusion between experience and memory;
01:29
basically, it's between being happy in your life,
01:33
and being happy about your life
01:36
or happy with your life.
01:38
And those are two very different concepts,
01:40
and they're both lumped in the notion of happiness.
01:42
And the third is the focusing illusion,
01:45
and it's the unfortunate fact that we can't think about any circumstance
01:48
that affects well-being
01:51
without distorting its importance.
01:53
I mean, this is a real cognitive trap.
01:55
There's just no way of getting it right.
01:58
Now, I'd like to start with an example
02:01
of somebody who had a question-and-answer session
02:03
after one of my lectures reported a story,
02:08
and that was a story --
02:12
He said he'd been listening to a symphony,
02:13
and it was absolutely glorious music
02:16
and at the very end of the recording,
02:19
there was a dreadful screeching sound.
02:22
And then he added, really quite emotionally,
02:24
it ruined the whole experience.
02:26
But it hadn't.
02:30
What it had ruined were the memories of the experience.
02:32
He had had the experience.
02:35
He had had 20 minutes of glorious music.
02:37
They counted for nothing
02:39
because he was left with a memory;
02:41
the memory was ruined,
02:44
and the memory was all that he had gotten to keep.
02:46
What this is telling us, really,
02:49
is that we might be thinking of ourselves and of other people
02:52
in terms of two selves.
02:54
There is an experiencing self,
02:56
who lives in the present
02:59
and knows the present,
03:01
is capable of re-living the past,
03:03
but basically it has only the present.
03:05
It's the experiencing self that the doctor approaches --
03:08
you know, when the doctor asks,
03:11
"Does it hurt now when I touch you here?"
03:12
And then there is a remembering self,
03:16
and the remembering self is the one that keeps score,
03:19
and maintains the story of our life,
03:23
and it's the one that the doctor approaches
03:25
in asking the question,
03:28
"How have you been feeling lately?"
03:30
or "How was your trip to Albania?" or something like that.
03:33
Those are two very different entities,
03:36
the experiencing self and the remembering self,
03:39
and getting confused between them is part of the mess
03:42
about the notion of happiness.
03:46
Now, the remembering self
03:49
is a storyteller.
03:52
And that really starts with a basic response of our memories --
03:55
it starts immediately.
03:59
We don't only tell stories when we set out to tell stories.
04:01
Our memory tells us stories,
04:04
that is, what we get to keep from our experiences
04:07
is a story.
04:09
And let me begin with one example.
04:11
This is an old study.
04:16
Those are actual patients undergoing a painful procedure.
04:18
I won't go into detail. It's no longer painful these days,
04:21
but it was painful when this study was run in the 1990s.
04:24
They were asked to report on their pain every 60 seconds.
04:28
Here are two patients,
04:31
those are their recordings.
04:34
And you are asked, "Who of them suffered more?"
04:36
And it's a very easy question.
04:39
Clearly, Patient B suffered more --
04:41
his colonoscopy was longer,
04:43
and every minute of pain that Patient A had,
04:45
Patient B had, and more.
04:48
But now there is another question:
04:51
"How much did these patients think they suffered?"
04:54
And here is a surprise.
04:57
The surprise is that Patient A
04:59
had a much worse memory of the colonoscopy
05:01
than Patient B.
05:04
The stories of the colonoscopies were different,
05:06
and because a very critical part of the story is how it ends.
05:09
And neither of these stories is very inspiring or great --
05:15
but one of them is this distinct ... (Laughter)
05:18
but one of them is distinctly worse than the other.
05:22
And the one that is worse
05:25
is the one where pain was at its peak at the very end;
05:27
it's a bad story.
05:30
How do we know that?
05:32
Because we asked these people after their colonoscopy,
05:34
and much later, too,
05:37
"How bad was the whole thing, in total?"
05:38
And it was much worse for A than for B, in memory.
05:40
Now this is a direct conflict
05:44
between the experiencing self and the remembering self.
05:46
From the point of view of the experiencing self,
05:49
clearly, B had a worse time.
05:52
Now, what you could do with Patient A,
05:54
and we actually ran clinical experiments,
05:57
and it has been done, and it does work --
06:00
you could actually extend the colonoscopy of Patient A
06:02
by just keeping the tube in without jiggling it too much.
06:07
That will cause the patient
06:10
to suffer, but just a little
06:13
and much less than before.
06:16
And if you do that for a couple of minutes,
06:18
you have made the experiencing self
06:20
of Patient A worse off,
06:22
and you have the remembering self of Patient A
06:24
a lot better off,
06:27
because now you have endowed Patient A
06:29
with a better story
06:31
about his experience.
06:33
What defines a story?
06:36
And that is true of the stories
06:39
that memory delivers for us,
06:41
and it's also true of the stories that we make up.
06:43
What defines a story are changes,
06:46
significant moments and endings.
06:50
Endings are very, very important
06:53
and, in this case, the ending dominated.
06:55
Now, the experiencing self
06:59
lives its life continuously.
07:01
It has moments of experience, one after the other.
07:04
And you can ask: What happens to these moments?
07:07
And the answer is really straightforward:
07:10
They are lost forever.
07:12
I mean, most of the moments of our life --
07:14
and I calculated, you know, the psychological present
07:16
is said to be about three seconds long;
07:19
that means that, you know,
07:21
in a life there are about 600 million of them;
07:23
in a month, there are about 600,000 --
07:25
most of them don't leave a trace.
07:28
Most of them are completely ignored
07:32
by the remembering self.
07:34
And yet, somehow you get the sense
07:36
that they should count,
07:38
that what happens during these moments of experience
07:40
is our life.
07:43
It's the finite resource that we're spending
07:45
while we're on this earth.
07:47
And how to spend it
07:49
would seem to be relevant,
07:51
but that is not the story
07:53
that the remembering self keeps for us.
07:55
So we have the remembering self
07:57
and the experiencing self,
07:59
and they're really quite distinct.
08:01
The biggest difference between them
08:03
is in the handling of time.
08:05
From the point of view of the experiencing self,
08:08
if you have a vacation,
08:11
and the second week is just as good as the first,
08:13
then the two-week vacation
08:16
is twice as good as the one-week vacation.
08:19
That's not the way it works at all for the remembering self.
08:22
For the remembering self, a two-week vacation
08:25
is barely better than the one-week vacation
08:27
because there are no new memories added.
08:30
You have not changed the story.
08:32
And in this way,
08:35
time is actually the critical variable
08:37
that distinguishes a remembering self
08:40
from an experiencing self;
08:43
time has very little impact on the story.
08:45
Now, the remembering self does more
08:49
than remember and tell stories.
08:52
It is actually the one that makes decisions
08:54
because, if you have a patient who has had, say,
08:58
two colonoscopies with two different surgeons
09:00
and is deciding which of them to choose,
09:03
then the one that chooses
09:06
is the one that has the memory that is less bad,
09:09
and that's the surgeon that will be chosen.
09:13
The experiencing self
09:15
has no voice in this choice.
09:17
We actually don't choose between experiences,
09:20
we choose between memories of experiences.
09:23
And even when we think about the future,
09:26
we don't think of our future normally as experiences.
09:29
We think of our future
09:32
as anticipated memories.
09:34
And basically you can look at this,
09:37
you know, as a tyranny of the remembering self,
09:39
and you can think of the remembering self
09:42
sort of dragging the experiencing self
09:44
through experiences that
09:46
the experiencing self doesn't need.
09:48
I have that sense that
09:50
when we go on vacations
09:52
this is very frequently the case;
09:54
that is, we go on vacations,
09:56
to a very large extent,
09:58
in the service of our remembering self.
10:00
And this is a bit hard to justify I think.
10:03
I mean, how much do we consume our memories?
10:06
That is one of the explanations
10:09
that is given for the dominance
10:11
of the remembering self.
10:13
And when I think about that, I think about a vacation
10:15
we had in Antarctica a few years ago,
10:17
which was clearly the best vacation I've ever had,
10:20
and I think of it relatively often,
10:23
relative to how much I think of other vacations.
10:25
And I probably have consumed
10:27
my memories of that three-week trip, I would say,
10:31
for about 25 minutes in the last four years.
10:33
Now, if I had ever opened the folder
10:36
with the 600 pictures in it,
10:39
I would have spent another hour.
10:42
Now, that is three weeks,
10:44
and that is at most an hour and a half.
10:46
There seems to be a discrepancy.
10:48
Now, I may be a bit extreme, you know,
10:50
in how little appetite I have for consuming memories,
10:52
but even if you do more of this,
10:55
there is a genuine question:
10:58
Why do we put so much weight on memory
11:01
relative to the weight that we put on experiences?
11:05
So I want you to think
11:08
about a thought experiment.
11:10
Imagine that for your next vacation,
11:13
you know that at the end of the vacation
11:15
all your pictures will be destroyed,
11:18
and you'll get an amnesic drug
11:21
so that you won't remember anything.
11:23
Now, would you choose the same vacation? (Laughter)
11:25
And if you would choose a different vacation,
11:29
there is a conflict between your two selves,
11:34
and you need to think about how to adjudicate that conflict,
11:36
and it's actually not at all obvious, because
11:39
if you think in terms of time,
11:42
then you get one answer,
11:45
and if you think in terms of memories,
11:48
you might get another answer.
11:51
Why do we pick the vacations we do
11:53
is a problem that confronts us
11:56
with a choice between the two selves.
11:59
Now, the two selves
12:01
bring up two notions of happiness.
12:04
There are really two concepts of happiness
12:06
that we can apply, one per self.
12:08
So you can ask: How happy is the experiencing self?
12:11
And then you would ask: How happy are the moments
12:16
in the experiencing self's life?
12:18
And they're all -- happiness for moments
12:21
is a fairly complicated process.
12:23
What are the emotions that can be measured?
12:25
And, by the way, now we are capable
12:28
of getting a pretty good idea
12:30
of the happiness of the experiencing self over time.
12:32
If you ask for the happiness of the remembering self,
12:38
it's a completely different thing.
12:41
This is not about how happily a person lives.
12:43
It is about how satisfied or pleased the person is
12:46
when that person thinks about her life.
12:49
Very different notion.
12:53
Anyone who doesn't distinguish those notions
12:55
is going to mess up the study of happiness,
12:58
and I belong to a crowd of students of well-being,
13:00
who've been messing up the study of happiness for a long time
13:03
in precisely this way.
13:07
The distinction between the
13:09
happiness of the experiencing self
13:11
and the satisfaction of the remembering self
13:13
has been recognized in recent years,
13:16
and there are now efforts to measure the two separately.
13:18
The Gallup Organization has a world poll
13:21
where more than half a million people
13:24
have been asked questions
13:26
about what they think of their life
13:28
and about their experiences,
13:30
and there have been other efforts along those lines.
13:32
So in recent years, we have begun to learn
13:35
about the happiness of the two selves.
13:38
And the main lesson I think that we have learned
13:41
is they are really different.
13:44
You can know how satisfied somebody is with their life,
13:46
and that really doesn't teach you much
13:51
about how happily they're living their life,
13:53
and vice versa.
13:56
Just to give you a sense of the correlation,
13:58
the correlation is about .5.
14:00
What that means is if you met somebody,
14:02
and you were told, "Oh his father is six feet tall,"
14:05
how much would you know about his height?
14:09
Well, you would know something about his height,
14:11
but there's a lot of uncertainty.
14:13
You have that much uncertainty.
14:15
If I tell you that somebody ranked their life eight on a scale of ten,
14:17
you have a lot of uncertainty
14:21
about how happy they are
14:23
with their experiencing self.
14:25
So the correlation is low.
14:27
We know something about what controls
14:29
satisfaction of the happiness self.
14:32
We know that money is very important,
14:34
goals are very important.
14:36
We know that happiness is mainly
14:38
being satisfied with people that we like,
14:42
spending time with people that we like.
14:45
There are other pleasures, but this is dominant.
14:48
So if you want to maximize the happiness of the two selves,
14:50
you are going to end up
14:53
doing very different things.
14:55
The bottom line of what I've said here
14:57
is that we really should not think of happiness
14:59
as a substitute for well-being.
15:03
It is a completely different notion.
15:05
Now, very quickly,
15:08
another reason we cannot think straight about happiness
15:11
is that we do not attend to the same things
15:15
when we think about life, and we actually live.
15:22
So, if you ask the simple question of how happy people are in California,
15:25
you are not going to get to the correct answer.
15:30
When you ask that question,
15:33
you think people must be happier in California
15:35
if, say, you live in Ohio.
15:37
(Laughter)
15:39
And what happens is
15:41
when you think about living in California,
15:44
you are thinking of the contrast
15:48
between California and other places,
15:50
and that contrast, say, is in climate.
15:53
Well, it turns out that climate
15:55
is not very important to the experiencing self
15:57
and it's not even very important to the reflective self
16:00
that decides how happy people are.
16:03
But now, because the reflective self is in charge,
16:06
you may end up -- some people may end up
16:10
moving to California.
16:12
And it's sort of interesting to trace what is going to happen
16:14
to people who move to California in the hope of getting happier.
16:17
Well, their experiencing self
16:20
is not going to get happier.
16:22
We know that.
16:24
But one thing will happen: They will think they are happier,
16:27
because, when they think about it,
16:30
they'll be reminded of how horrible the weather was in Ohio,
16:34
and they will feel they made the right decision.
16:38
It is very difficult
16:41
to think straight about well-being,
16:43
and I hope I have given you a sense
16:45
of how difficult it is.
16:48
Thank you.
16:50
(Applause)
16:52
Chris Anderson: Thank you. I've got a question for you.
16:55
Thank you so much.
16:59
Now, when we were on the phone a few weeks ago,
17:01
you mentioned to me that there was quite an interesting result
17:05
came out of that Gallup survey.
17:08
Is that something you can share
17:10
since you do have a few moments left now?
17:12
Daniel Kahneman: Sure.
17:14
I think the most interesting result that we found in the Gallup survey
17:16
is a number, which we absolutely did not expect to find.
17:19
We found that with respect to the happiness
17:22
of the experiencing self.
17:24
When we looked at how feelings,
17:27
vary with income.
17:32
And it turns out that, below an income
17:34
of 60,000 dollars a year, for Americans --
17:37
and that's a very large sample of Americans, like 600,000,
17:40
so it's a large representative sample --
17:43
below an income of 600,000 dollars a year...
17:45
CA: 60,000.
17:47
DK: 60,000.
17:49
(Laughter)
17:51
60,000 dollars a year, people are unhappy,
17:53
and they get progressively unhappier the poorer they get.
17:57
Above that, we get an absolutely flat line.
18:00
I mean I've rarely seen lines so flat.
18:03
Clearly, what is happening is
18:06
money does not buy you experiential happiness,
18:08
but lack of money certainly buys you misery,
18:11
and we can measure that misery
18:14
very, very clearly.
18:16
In terms of the other self, the remembering self,
18:18
you get a different story.
18:21
The more money you earn, the more satisfied you are.
18:23
That does not hold for emotions.
18:26
CA: But Danny, the whole American endeavor is about
18:28
life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness.
18:31
If people took seriously that finding,
18:34
I mean, it seems to turn upside down
18:38
everything we believe about, like for example,
18:41
taxation policy and so forth.
18:43
Is there any chance that politicians, that the country generally,
18:45
would take a finding like that seriously
18:48
and run public policy based on it?
18:51
DK: You know I think that there is recognition
18:53
of the role of happiness research in public policy.
18:55
The recognition is going to be slow in the United States,
18:58
no question about that,
19:00
but in the U.K., it is happening,
19:02
and in other countries it is happening.
19:04
People are recognizing that they ought
19:06
to be thinking of happiness
19:09
when they think of public policy.
19:11
It's going to take a while,
19:13
and people are going to debate
19:15
whether they want to study experience happiness,
19:18
or whether they want to study life evaluation,
19:20
so we need to have that debate fairly soon.
19:22
How to enhance happiness
19:25
goes very different ways depending on how you think,
19:27
and whether you think of the remembering self
19:30
or you think of the experiencing self.
19:32
This is going to influence policy, I think, in years to come.
19:34
In the United States, efforts are being made
19:37
to measure the experience happiness of the population.
19:40
This is going to be, I think, within the next decade or two,
19:43
part of national statistics.
19:46
CA: Well, it seems to me that this issue will -- or at least should be --
19:48
the most interesting policy discussion to track
19:52
over the next few years.
19:54
Thank you so much for inventing behavioral economics.
19:56
Thank you, Danny Kahneman.
19:58

▲Back to top

About the Speaker:

Daniel Kahneman - Behavioral economics founder
Widely regarded as the world's most influential living psychologist, Daniel Kahneman won the Nobel in Economics for his pioneering work in behavioral economics -- exploring the irrational ways we make decisions about risk.

Why you should listen

Daniel Kahneman is an eminence grise for the Freakonomics crowd. In the mid-1970s, with his collaborator Amos Tversky, he was among the first academics to pick apart exactly why we make "wrong" decisions. In their 1979 paper on prospect theory, Kahneman and Tversky examined a simple problem of economic risk. And rather than stating the optimal, rational answer, as an economist of the time might have, they quantified how most real people, consistently, make a less-rational choice. Their work treated economics not as a perfect or self-correcting machine, but as a system prey to quirks of human perception. The field of behavioral economics was born.

Kahneman was awarded the Nobel Memorial prize in 2002 for his work with Tversky, who died before the award was bestowed. In a lovely passage in his Nobel biography, Kahneman looks back on his deep collaboration with Tversky and calls for a new form of academic cooperation, marked not by turf battles but by "adversarial collaboration," a good-faith effort by unlike minds to conduct joint research, critiquing each other in the service of an ideal of truth to which both can contribute.