16:21
TED2009

Dan Ariely: Our buggy moral code

ダン・アリエリー

Filmed:

ダン・アリエリーは私たちのモラルに潜む落とし穴に注目する行動経済学者です。何故、ずるいことをしたり、(時として)盗みを働いても平気だという考え方が生まれてくるのか、その隠された真実を探ります。ユニークで愉快な実験を通して、彼は人が「予想通りに不合理」で無意識のうちに自分たちの判断を左右されているのだと指摘します。

- Behavioral economist
The dismal science of economics is not as firmly grounded in actual behavior as was once supposed. In "Predictably Irrational," Dan Ariely told us why. Full bio

I want to talk to you today a little bit
今日のテーマは
00:16
about predictable irrationality.
「予想通りの不合理さ」です
00:18
And my interest in irrational behavior
私が「不合理な行動」に興味を持ったのは
00:21
started many years ago in the hospital.
ずいぶん前に病院でのこと
00:25
I was burned very badly.
私は酷い火傷を負ったことがあります
00:28
And if you spend a lot of time in hospital,
病院で何年か過ごす間に
00:32
you'll see a lot of types of irrationalities.
色々な不合理さが目につき
00:35
And the one that particularly bothered me in the burn department
特に 火傷病棟で私の頭を悩ませたのは
00:38
was the process by which the nurses took the bandage off me.
看護師たちの包帯の剥がし方です
00:43
Now, you must have all taken a Band-Aid off at some point,
さて 今皆さんはバンドエイドを
00:48
and you must have wondered what's the right approach.
剥がそうとしています
00:50
Do you rip it off quickly -- short duration but high intensity --
さっさと剥がして 短いが激しい痛みに耐えるか
00:53
or do you take your Band-Aid off slowly --
ゆっくり剥がして
00:57
you take a long time, but each second is not as painful --
長めの穏やかな痛みに耐えるか
00:59
which one of those is the right approach?
どちらがよいでしょう?
01:03
The nurses in my department thought that the right approach
私の病棟の看護師たちの持論は
01:06
was the ripping one, so they would grab hold and they would rip,
さっさと剥がす方で かまえては引き剥がし
01:10
and they would grab hold and they would rip.
かまえては一気に引き剥がしたのです
01:13
And because I had 70 percent of my body burned, it would take about an hour.
私の火傷は全身の70%に及びましたから
01:15
And as you can imagine,
一時間はかかり 引き剥がす間の
01:19
I hated that moment of ripping with incredible intensity.
あの恐ろしい痛みが嫌でしたね
01:22
And I would try to reason with them and say,
だから ある時頼んでみました
01:26
"Why don't we try something else?
「もう少し
01:28
Why don't we take it a little longer --
ゆっくりと剥がしてよ
01:29
maybe two hours instead of an hour -- and have less of this intensity?"
2時間ぐらいはかけて 痛みを和らげられないの」と
01:31
And the nurses told me two things.
看護師が言うには
01:36
They told me that they had the right model of the patient --
自分たちは患者の扱い方を知っているし
01:38
that they knew what was the right thing to do to minimize my pain --
痛みを抑える方法もわかっている
01:42
and they also told me that the word patient doesn't mean
それに「患者」という言葉に
01:45
to make suggestions or to interfere or ...
「助言」や「邪魔」をする意味はないと
01:48
This is not just in Hebrew, by the way.
私が知る限りでは
01:50
It's in every language I've had experience with so far.
このことは万国共通のようです
01:53
And, you know, there's not much -- there wasn't much I could do,
とにかく 私にはどうにもできないまま
01:56
and they kept on doing what they were doing.
看護師は同じように続けました
02:00
And about three years later, when I left the hospital,
それから3年後には退院して
02:03
I started studying at the university.
大学で勉強を始めました
02:05
And one of the most interesting lessons I learned
そこで面白いことを学びました
02:08
was that there is an experimental method
自分が疑問に思うことを
02:11
that if you have a question you can create a replica of this question
抽象的な質問の形に作り変え
02:13
in some abstract way, and you can try to examine this question,
その質問の答を探ることで この世界について
02:17
maybe learn something about the world.
少しヒントが得られることを知ったのです
02:21
So that's what I did.
だから試してみました
02:23
I was still interested
私はその時もまだ
02:25
in this question of how do you take bandages off burn patients.
火傷患者の包帯の剥がし方が気になっていました
02:26
So originally I didn't have much money,
初めは あまりお金がなく
02:28
so I went to a hardware store and I bought a carpenter's vice.
万力を買ってきて
02:31
And I would bring people to the lab and I would put their finger in it,
研究室に人を集めて 指を間に挟ませ
02:35
and I would crunch it a little bit.
少しだけ締めてみました
02:39
(Laughter)
(笑)
02:41
And I would crunch it for long periods and short periods,
長めに締め付けたり 短めだったり
02:43
and pain that went up and pain that went down,
痛みを強めては弱め
02:46
and with breaks and without breaks -- all kinds of versions of pain.
しばらく続けたあとには少し間をあけて
02:48
And when I finished hurting people a little bit, I would ask them,
痛みを与えるたびに
02:52
so, how painful was this? Or, how painful was this?
どう痛かったか?
02:54
Or, if you had to choose between the last two,
選ぶとすれば
02:56
which one would you choose?
どちらの痛みを選ぶか?と聞きました
02:58
(Laughter)
(笑)
03:00
I kept on doing this for a while.
しばらく続けましたよ
03:03
(Laughter)
(笑)
03:06
And then, like all good academic projects, I got more funding.
研究費をもらえるようになってからは
03:08
I moved to sounds, electrical shocks --
他の痛みも試してみました
03:12
I even had a pain suit that I could get people to feel much more pain.
不快な音 電気ショック 拷問スーツまで
03:14
But at the end of this process,
そしてこれらの実験から 看護師たちが
03:19
what I learned was that the nurses were wrong.
間違っていたことがわかりました
03:23
Here were wonderful people with good intentions
看護師たちは あれだけの善意と
03:26
and plenty of experience, and nevertheless
経験を持ち合わせても
03:29
they were getting things wrong predictably all the time.
予想通り間違うことを証明したのです
03:31
It turns out that because we don't encode duration
私たちは 持続時間と痛みの強さを
03:35
in the way that we encode intensity,
同じ計りで計っていないようです
03:38
I would have had less pain if the duration would have been longer
もしゆっくりと包帯を剥がしていたら
03:40
and the intensity was lower.
ずっと痛みは軽減されていたでしょう
03:44
It turns out it would have been better to start with my face,
より痛みの強い顔の方から脚の方へ
03:46
which was much more painful, and move toward my legs,
包帯を剥がしていたら
03:49
giving me a trend of improvement over time --
苦痛は軽い方へ向かうのですから
03:51
that would have been also less painful.
恐らく痛みも和らいでいたでしょう
03:54
And it also turns out that it would have been good
また 途中で少し
03:55
to give me breaks in the middle to kind of recuperate from the pain.
休憩を入れてもよかったようです
03:57
All of these would have been great things to do,
改善の余地はありました
03:59
and my nurses had no idea.
しかし 看護師は知らなかったのです
04:01
And from that point on I started thinking,
そこで私が考えたのは
04:04
are the nurses the only people in the world who get things wrong
これは看護師に限ったことなのか
04:05
in this particular decision, or is it a more general case?
もっと一般的に当てはまるのか ということです
04:08
And it turns out it's a more general case --
答えは後者です
04:11
there's a lot of mistakes we do.
私たちは多くの間違いを犯します
04:13
And I want to give you one example of one of these irrationalities,
この不合理の具体例の一つが
04:16
and I want to talk to you about cheating.
不正行為です
04:21
And the reason I picked cheating is because it's interesting,
ここで紹介する興味深い実験は
04:24
but also it tells us something, I think,
昨今の混沌とした証券市場にも
04:26
about the stock market situation we're in.
応用できます
04:28
So, my interest in cheating started
私がはじめに不正に興味を持ったのは
04:31
when Enron came on the scene, exploded all of a sudden,
2001年のエンロン事件です
04:34
and I started thinking about what is happening here.
一体何が起こっていたのでしょう
04:36
Is it the case that there was kind of
これは
04:39
a few apples who are capable of doing these things,
少数の悪い人間の行いなのか
04:40
or are we talking a more endemic situation,
それとも人間に特有の
04:43
that many people are actually capable of behaving this way?
誰もが犯しうる過ちだったのでしょうか
04:45
So, like we usually do, I decided to do a simple experiment.
そこで いつも通り 単純な実験を
04:49
And here's how it went.
行ってみました
04:53
If you were in the experiment, I would pass you a sheet of paper
皆さんに 紙を一枚配るとします
04:54
with 20 simple math problems that everybody could solve,
簡単な誰もが解ける数学の問題20問です
04:57
but I wouldn't give you enough time.
しかし 十分な時間がありません
05:01
When the five minutes were over, I would say,
制限時間は5分で
05:03
"Pass me the sheets of paper, and I'll pay you a dollar per question."
答案を回収します 一問正解につき一ドル払います
05:05
People did this. I would pay people four dollars for their task --
平均正解数は4問
05:08
on average people would solve four problems.
平均4ドル渡しました
05:12
Other people I would tempt to cheat.
次に 別の人たちにはわざと不正を働くよう仕掛けをします
05:14
I would pass their sheet of paper.
今度も
05:17
When the five minutes were over, I would say,
紙を配り 5分後にこう言います
05:18
"Please shred the piece of paper.
「紙を破き
05:20
Put the little pieces in your pocket or in your backpack,
ポケットか鞄にしまってください
05:21
and tell me how many questions you got correctly."
そして 何問正解したかを教えてください」
05:24
People now solved seven questions on average.
正解は平均7問に増えました
05:27
Now, it wasn't as if there was a few bad apples --
これは 少数の悪人が
05:30
a few people cheated a lot.
たくさんズルをしたのではなく
05:35
Instead, what we saw is a lot of people who cheat a little bit.
実は 多くの人が少しズルをしたのです
05:38
Now, in economic theory,
さて 経済学の理論では
05:41
cheating is a very simple cost-benefit analysis.
不正は単純な費用便益分析の一例です
05:44
You say, what's the probability of being caught?
捕まる確率は?
05:47
How much do I stand to gain from cheating?
不正から得られる価値はいくらか?
05:49
And how much punishment would I get if I get caught?
捕まったらどんな罰を受けるのか?
05:52
And you weigh these options out --
これらを計りにかけます
05:54
you do the simple cost-benefit analysis,
これが単純な費用便益分析です
05:56
and you decide whether it's worthwhile to commit the crime or not.
そして 罪を犯す価値があるかどうかを決めます
05:58
So, we try to test this.
そこで 次の実験では
06:01
For some people, we varied how much money they could get away with --
持ち逃げさせる金額を変えてみました
06:03
how much money they could steal.
いくらなら盗むか
06:07
We paid them 10 cents per correct question, 50 cents,
一問あたり 10セント 50セント
06:08
a dollar, five dollars, 10 dollars per correct question.
1ドル 5ドル 10ドルと変えてみました
06:11
You would expect that as the amount of money on the table increases,
皆さんは 金額が大きいほど不正が増える
06:14
people would cheat more, but in fact it wasn't the case.
と思うでしょうが 実際は違いました
06:18
We got a lot of people cheating by stealing by a little bit.
多くの人がわずかだけ盗んだのです
06:21
What about the probability of being caught?
また 捕まる可能性は?
06:24
Some people shredded half the sheet of paper,
ある人は紙を半分だけ破き
06:27
so there was some evidence left.
証拠を残し
06:29
Some people shredded the whole sheet of paper.
ある人は丸々一枚破き
06:30
Some people shredded everything, went out of the room,
ある人は粉々にして 部屋を出てゆき
06:32
and paid themselves from the bowl of money that had over 100 dollars.
100ドルは入っているボウルからお金をとりました
06:35
You would expect that as the probability of being caught goes down,
ここでは 捕まる可能性が低い方が
06:38
people would cheat more, but again, this was not the case.
不正が増えるようですが 同じく 違いました
06:41
Again, a lot of people cheated by just by a little bit,
やはり 多くの人が少しだけ不正をしました
06:44
and they were insensitive to these economic incentives.
つまり 経済的なインセンティブに反応しなかったのです
06:47
So we said, "If people are not sensitive
このように
06:50
to the economic rational theory explanations, to these forces,
人々が経済の合理性に見合わない行動をとる
06:51
what could be going on?"
そこで何が起きているのか考えてみました
06:56
And we thought maybe what is happening is that there are two forces.
私が考えるに そこには2つの力が働いています
06:59
At one hand, we all want to look at ourselves in the mirror
一つは 自分の姿を鏡に映し出し
07:02
and feel good about ourselves, so we don't want to cheat.
自尊心から 不正を抑えようとする力
07:04
On the other hand, we can cheat a little bit,
もう一つは 少しだけなら不正をしても
07:07
and still feel good about ourselves.
自尊心はまだ保てるという力です
07:09
So, maybe what is happening is that
つまり
07:11
there's a level of cheating we can't go over,
超えてはいけない一線を守りながら
07:12
but we can still benefit from cheating at a low degree,
自分の評価を傷つけない程度に
07:14
as long as it doesn't change our impressions about ourselves.
些細な不正から何かを得ようとするのです
07:18
We call this like a personal fudge factor.
これを「私的補正因子」と言います
07:21
Now, how would you test a personal fudge factor?
この「私的補正因子」はどのようにテストできるでしょう?
07:25
Initially we said, what can we do to shrink the fudge factor?
また「私的補正因子」を減らすにはどうしたらよいでしょうか?
07:29
So, we got people to the lab, and we said,
そこで人々を研究室に集め
07:33
"We have two tasks for you today."
二つの課題を与えました
07:35
First, we asked half the people
まず 半分の人に
07:37
to recall either 10 books they read in high school,
高校時代に読んだ本を10冊
07:38
or to recall The Ten Commandments,
他の人には「十戒」を思い出してもらうように指示します
07:40
and then we tempted them with cheating.
ここでもまた わざとズルをする細工をしました
07:43
Turns out the people who tried to recall The Ten Commandments --
結果は 「十戒」を指示された人は
07:45
and in our sample nobody could recall all of The Ten Commandments --
誰も10個全ては思い出せませんでした
07:48
but those people who tried to recall The Ten Commandments,
でも わざとズルができるようにしたにも関わらず
07:51
given the opportunity to cheat, did not cheat at all.
誰も不正を働かなかったのです
07:55
It wasn't that the more religious people --
これは 特に熱心な信者が
07:58
the people who remembered more of the Commandments -- cheated less,
ズルをしなかった訳でもなく
08:00
and the less religious people --
「十戒」と無縁な人が
08:01
the people who couldn't remember almost any Commandments --
よりズルをした
08:03
cheated more.
訳でもありません
08:04
The moment people thought about trying to recall The Ten Commandments,
「十戒」を思い出そうとした瞬間すでに
08:06
they stopped cheating.
不正はなくなったのです
08:10
In fact, even when we gave self-declared atheists
自称 無宗教者ですら
08:11
the task of swearing on the Bible and we give them a chance to cheat,
聖書に手を置き 誓いをたてると
08:13
they don't cheat at all.
不正を働く気はなくなったのです
08:17
Now, Ten Commandments is something that is hard
さて「十戒」は宗教的で
08:21
to bring into the education system, so we said,
教育現場には不向きですから
08:23
"Why don't we get people to sign the honor code?"
倫理規定を使って実験を続けることにしました
08:25
So, we got people to sign,
倫理規定に
08:27
"I understand that this short survey falls under the MIT Honor Code."
「私はここに この調査がMIT倫理規定の適用を受けることを理解しました」と
08:29
Then they shredded it. No cheating whatsoever.
署名させ それを破かせました
08:33
And this is particularly interesting,
この場合も不正はなくなりました
08:36
because MIT doesn't have an honor code.
しかし 面白いことにMITには倫理規定などはありません
08:37
(Laughter)
(笑)
08:39
So, all this was about decreasing the fudge factor.
これは全て「私的補正因子」を減らすために起こったのです
08:44
What about increasing the fudge factor?
それでは「私的補正因子」はどのような時に増えるのでしょう
08:48
The first experiment -- I walked around MIT
はじめに 私はキャンパスを歩き回り
08:51
and I distributed six-packs of Cokes in the refrigerators --
6缶入りのコーラを様々な場所の冷蔵庫に置きました
08:53
these were common refrigerators for the undergrads.
学部生用の共有冷蔵庫です
08:56
And I came back to measure what we technically call
私たちは「半生分のコーラ」と呼んでますが
08:58
the half-lifetime of Coke -- how long does it last in the refrigerators?
どれぐらい保つか調べてみたのです
09:01
As you can expect it doesn't last very long; people take it.
おわかりの通り それほど長くはありません
09:05
In contrast, I took a plate with six one-dollar bills,
しかし 代わりに6ドルをのせたお皿を
09:08
and I left those plates in the same refrigerators.
同じように冷蔵庫にいれても
09:12
No bill ever disappeared.
一枚も無くならなかったのです
09:15
Now, this is not a good social science experiment,
され これではよい社会学実験と言えません
09:16
so to do it better I did the same experiment
そこで私が先ほど説明した実験を
09:19
as I described to you before.
再度行ってみました
09:22
A third of the people we passed the sheet, they gave it back to us.
今度は3分の1の人は 紙を私達に戻します
09:24
A third of the people we passed it to, they shredded it,
また別の3分の1は 紙を破き
09:27
they came to us and said,
私達の所へ来て
09:30
"Mr. Experimenter, I solved X problems. Give me X dollars."
「試験官 私はX問正解しましたから Xドルください」と言います
09:31
A third of the people, when they finished shredding the piece of paper,
他の3分の1の人は 紙を破き
09:34
they came to us and said,
私達の所へ来て
09:37
"Mr Experimenter, I solved X problems. Give me X tokens."
「試験官 私はX問正解しましたから X枚引換券をください」と言います
09:39
We did not pay them with dollars; we paid them with something else.
つまり お金で支払うのではなく 別の物で支払いました
09:45
And then they took the something else, they walked 12 feet to the side,
その別の物をもらい 12フィートほど歩いて行って
09:48
and exchanged it for dollars.
換金します
09:51
Think about the following intuition.
直感的に考えてみてください
09:53
How bad would you feel about taking a pencil from work home,
職場から鉛筆を一本盗む時と
09:55
compared to how bad would you feel
ちょっと10セントほど小銭を盗むのでは
09:58
about taking 10 cents from a petty cash box?
どちらが罪悪感をより強く感じますか?
10:00
These things feel very differently.
この二つには大きな違いがあります
10:02
Would being a step removed from cash for a few seconds
現金ではなく引換券であったならば
10:05
by being paid by token make a difference?
どう違うというのでしょうか?
10:08
Our subjects doubled their cheating.
実際 不正は2倍に増えたのです
10:11
I'll tell you what I think
ここで私が考えたのは
10:13
about this and the stock market in a minute.
この実験と証券市場の関連です
10:15
But this did not solve the big problem I had with Enron yet,
もちろん 社会的な要素の強いエンロン事件のような
10:18
because in Enron, there's also a social element.
大きな事件の解決にはなりません
10:22
People see each other behaving.
要するに 人は他人の振りをみているわけです
10:25
In fact, every day when we open the news
事実 毎日ニュースをチェックし
10:26
we see examples of people cheating.
人々の不正を目撃します
10:28
What does this cause us?
そこからどんな影響を受けるのでしょうか?
10:30
So, we did another experiment.
そこで別の実験をしてみました
10:33
We got a big group of students to be in the experiment,
大勢の学生を集めて実験協力謝金を
10:34
and we prepaid them.
先に渡しました
10:37
So everybody got an envelope with all the money for the experiment,
全員 お金が入った封筒を手にします
10:38
and we told them that at the end, we asked them
そして最後に 正解できなかった問題の数だけ
10:41
to pay us back the money they didn't make. OK?
お金を返すように言いました
10:43
The same thing happens.
結果はさほど変わりません
10:47
When we give people the opportunity to cheat, they cheat.
不正を働く機会があると 人々はそうします
10:48
They cheat just by a little bit, all the same.
しかも 多くの人が少しだけズルをするのです
10:50
But in this experiment we also hired an acting student.
ただ 今回の実験では偽物の学生を一人混ぜ
10:53
This acting student stood up after 30 seconds, and said,
30秒後に立ち上がらせ こう言わせます
10:56
"I solved everything. What do I do now?"
「全部正解したら どうしたらよいですか?」
11:00
And the experimenter said, "If you've finished everything, go home.
そして試験官は全て終わったなら そのまま帰るように言います
11:03
That's it. The task is finished."
これだけです
11:07
So, now we had a student -- an acting student --
さてこの偽物学生は
11:08
that was a part of the group.
グループの中に溶け込み
11:12
Nobody knew it was an actor.
誰も 演技をしていることは知りません
11:14
And they clearly cheated in a very, very serious way.
そして もちろん皆真面目に不正を行うのです
11:16
What would happen to the other people in the group?
すると グループの他の人はどうするでしょう?
11:20
Will they cheat more, or will they cheat less?
もっとズルをするか しないか?
11:23
Here is what happens.
結果はこうです
11:26
It turns out it depends on what kind of sweatshirt they're wearing.
実は 結果は着ているパーカーによって違いました
11:28
Here is the thing.
つまり
11:32
We ran this at Carnegie Mellon and Pittsburgh.
この実験をピッツバーグで行いましたが
11:34
And at Pittsburgh there are two big universities,
そこには二つの大学があります
11:37
Carnegie Mellon and University of Pittsburgh.
カーネギーメロン大学とピッツバーグ大学です
11:39
All of the subjects sitting in the experiment
実験の参加者はみな
11:42
were Carnegie Mellon students.
カーネギーメロン大学の学生です
11:44
When the actor who was getting up was a Carnegie Mellon student --
演技をしている学生がカーネギーメロンの学生の時
11:46
he was actually a Carnegie Mellon student --
実際 彼はそうでしたが
11:50
but he was a part of their group, cheating went up.
彼はグループの一員であり 不正は増加しました
11:52
But when he actually had a University of Pittsburgh sweatshirt,
しかし ピッツバーグ大学のパーカーを着てみたら
11:56
cheating went down.
不正は減ったのです
12:00
(Laughter)
(笑)
12:02
Now, this is important, because remember,
これは大切なことです 考えてみて下さい
12:05
when the moment the student stood up,
学生が立ち上がった瞬間
12:08
it made it clear to everybody that they could get away with cheating,
全員がズルをして帰っても良いという認識をもちました
12:10
because the experimenter said,
試験官が「全問終わったら
12:13
"You've finished everything. Go home," and they went with the money.
帰ってよい」というので 皆帰ったのです
12:15
So it wasn't so much about the probability of being caught again.
つまり ここでもまた単に捕まる可能性が問題なのではありません
12:17
It was about the norms for cheating.
これは不正してもよいかの判断の基準が問題なのです
12:20
If somebody from our in-group cheats and we see them cheating,
同じグループの人がズルをし それを見たならば
12:23
we feel it's more appropriate, as a group, to behave this way.
同じメンバーとして ズルをしてもよいという気になります
12:26
But if it's somebody from another group, these terrible people --
しかし その人が違うグループならば 最悪な人たち
12:30
I mean, not terrible in this --
いや この実験には最悪な人など本当はいませんよ
12:32
but somebody we don't want to associate ourselves with,
つまり 出来れば関係を保ちたくない人
12:34
from another university, another group,
別の大学の学生であるとかだと
12:36
all of a sudden people's awareness of honesty goes up --
急に 人々は正直になるわけです
12:38
a little bit like The Ten Commandments experiment --
これは「十戒」の実験に似ていますが
12:41
and people cheat even less.
ズルをする人は減ったのです
12:43
So, what have we learned from this about cheating?
さて ここから何が学べるでしょう?
12:47
We've learned that a lot of people can cheat.
まず 多くの人が不正をすることはわかりました
12:51
They cheat just by a little bit.
しかも ほんの少しだけズルをします
12:54
When we remind people about their morality, they cheat less.
ところが モラルに少しでも触れたとたん 不正は減ります
12:57
When we get bigger distance from cheating,
不正と少し距離が離れると
13:01
from the object of money, for example, people cheat more.
例えばお金以外のものだと ズルは増えます
13:04
And when we see cheating around us,
そして周りの人がズルをしているのを見ると
13:08
particularly if it's a part of our in-group, cheating goes up.
特に同じ仲間だと ズルは増えるのです
13:10
Now, if we think about this in terms of the stock market,
これを 証券市場に当てはめてみると
13:14
think about what happens.
どうでしょうか
13:17
What happens in a situation when you create something
多額のお金を他の何かで支払うと
13:18
where you pay people a lot of money
つまり現実を少し曲げて
13:21
to see reality in a slightly distorted way?
見るとどうなるでしょう
13:23
Would they not be able to see it this way?
この実験があてはまることが
13:26
Of course they would.
おわかりでしょう?
13:29
What happens when you do other things,
少し現金から離れたとたん
13:30
like you remove things from money?
何がおこるのでしょう?
13:31
You call them stock, or stock options, derivatives,
株券だとか オプションだとか デリバティブとか
13:33
mortgage-backed securities.
土地担保証券だとかありますよね
13:36
Could it be that with those more distant things,
こうして非現金のものを使うと
13:37
it's not a token for one second,
引換券ではないにしても
13:40
it's something that is many steps removed from money
現金からは何段階も離れているわけで
13:42
for a much longer time -- could it be that people will cheat even more?
長い目でみれば 人はよりズルをする傾向にあるのではないでしょうか?
13:44
And what happens to the social environment
さらに このような他人の行動を見ることは
13:48
when people see other people behave around them?
社会環境にどう影響を及ぼすのでしょう?
13:50
I think all of those forces worked in a very bad way
私はこれらの要因は全て証券市場では
13:53
in the stock market.
悪い方へ向かうと考えます
13:57
More generally, I want to tell you something
一般的には 行動経済学では
13:59
about behavioral economics.
次のようなことが言えます
14:02
We have many intuitions in our life,
私達は直観にかなり頼っていて
14:05
and the point is that many of these intuitions are wrong.
多くの場合その直観は間違っています
14:09
The question is, are we going to test those intuitions?
問題は そのような直観を省みるかどうかにあります
14:12
We can think about how we're going to test this intuition
自分たちが毎日の生活 ビジネス
14:15
in our private life, in our business life,
特に政策決定の場で
14:17
and most particularly when it goes to policy,
直観をどう使っているか考えてみるのです
14:19
when we think about things like No Child Left Behind,
例えば 教育制度だとか
14:22
when you create new stock markets, when you create other policies --
新しい証券市場を作る時や
14:25
taxation, health care and so on.
税制や社会福祉など 新しい政策を作る時です
14:28
And the difficulty of testing our intuition
そして この直観を確かめる難しさは
14:31
was the big lesson I learned
私自身がよく知っています
14:33
when I went back to the nurses to talk to them.
病院に戻って看護師たちと話した時
14:35
So I went back to talk to them
こんなことがありました
14:37
and tell them what I found out about removing bandages.
包帯の剥がし方についてわかったことを教えると
14:39
And I learned two interesting things.
二つの面白い答えが返ってきました
14:42
One was that my favorite nurse, Ettie,
私が好きだった看護師のエティは まず
14:44
told me that I did not take her pain into consideration.
看護師の気持ちを考えてないと言いました
14:46
She said, "Of course, you know, it was very painful for you.
エティは「もちろんあなたの痛みは当然だけど
14:50
But think about me as a nurse,
看護師のことも考えてみて
14:52
taking, removing the bandages of somebody I liked,
大好きな人の包帯を取る辛さを
14:54
and had to do it repeatedly over a long period of time.
しかも何度 何度も繰り返し
14:56
Creating so much torture was not something that was good for me, too."
苦しめ続けるのは 私にとっても楽なことではなかった」と
14:59
And she said maybe part of the reason was it was difficult for her.
ところが それほど彼女を苦しめた理由は
15:02
But it was actually more interesting than that, because she said,
もっと興味深い別の点にあって
15:07
"I did not think that your intuition was right.
「私は他人の直観が正しいと思ったことなどなく
15:10
I felt my intuition was correct."
自分の直観が正しいと思った」と続けました
15:15
So, if you think about all of your intuitions,
もし自分の身に置き換えてみれば
15:16
it's very hard to believe that your intuition is wrong.
自分の直観が間違っていると思うのは相当に難しいことです
15:18
And she said, "Given the fact that I thought my intuition was right ..." --
そして 彼女が言うには 私が自分の直観を正しいと思ったように
15:22
she thought her intuition was right --
彼女も自分の直観を正しいと思い
15:25
it was very difficult for her to accept doing a difficult experiment
別の視点をもつのはほぼ不可能なことだったのです
15:27
to try and check whether she was wrong.
自分が間違っているかどうか考えもしなかった
15:32
But in fact, this is the situation we're all in all the time.
しかし 実際には これはよくあることです
15:34
We have very strong intuitions about all kinds of things --
私達はあらゆることを強い直感を持って判断しています
15:38
our own ability, how the economy works,
自分の能力や これから経済がどう動くか
15:41
how we should pay school teachers.
教師にいくら給料を払うか
15:44
But unless we start testing those intuitions,
しかし この直観は確かめてみない限り
15:46
we're not going to do better.
改善の余地はないのです
15:49
And just think about how better my life would have been
もしあの看護師が自分たちの直観に疑いをもつことがあれば
15:51
if these nurses would have been willing to check their intuition,
私の病院生活はどれほど楽になっていたか
15:53
and how everything would have been better
自分の直感をより体系的に
15:55
if we just start doing more systematic experimentation of our intuitions.
調べることができれば 物事はもう少し上手く運んでいたのではないでしょうか
15:56
Thank you very much.
どうもありがとうございました
16:01
Translated by Tomoko Tsubaki
Reviewed by Aya Akiyoshi

▲Back to top

About the Speaker:

Dan Ariely - Behavioral economist
The dismal science of economics is not as firmly grounded in actual behavior as was once supposed. In "Predictably Irrational," Dan Ariely told us why.

Why you should listen

Dan Ariely is a professor of psychology and behavioral economics at Duke University and a founding member of the Center for Advanced Hindsight. He is the author of the bestsellers Predictably IrrationalThe Upside of Irrationality, and The Honest Truth About Dishonesty. Through his research and his (often amusing and unorthodox) experiments, he questions the forces that influence human behavior and the irrational ways in which we often all behave.

More profile about the speaker
Dan Ariely | Speaker | TED.com