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 -- as well as the TED Book Payoff: The Hidden Logic that Shapes Our Motivations.

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
EG 2008

Dan Ariely: Are we in control of our own decisions?

Dan Ariely :我们是否主宰自己的决定?

Filmed:
6,706,559 views

“谁说人是理性的”一书的作者,行为经济学家Dan Ariely,利用经典视差图象和他那些跟直觉相反(甚至令人震惊)的研究结果,说明我们做决定时,并非自以为那么理性。
- 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

Double-click the English transcript below to play the video.

00:16
I'll tell you a little bit about irrational不合理的 behavior行为.
0
0
3000
今天我想谈谈非理性行为。
00:19
Not yours你的, of course课程 -- other people's人们.
1
3000
2000
我当然不是指你们的非理性行为,是其他人的。
00:21
(Laughter笑声)
2
5000
1000
(笑声)
00:22
So after being存在 at MITMIT for a few少数 years年份,
3
6000
4000
在MIT (麻省理工学院)待了几年之后,
00:26
I realized实现 that writing写作 academic学术的 papers文件 is not that exciting扣人心弦.
4
10000
4000
我发觉写学术论文并不怎样叫人兴奋。
00:30
You know, I don't know how many许多 of those you read,
5
14000
2000
我不知道有多少学术论文会有人看,
00:32
but it's not fun开玩笑 to read and often经常 not fun开玩笑 to write --
6
16000
3000
不过读学术文章并不十分有趣,很多时写学术文章也没有什么趣味,
00:35
even worse更差 to write.
7
19000
2000
其实写比读更糟。
00:37
So I decided决定 to try and write something more fun开玩笑.
8
21000
3000
所以我决定写一些较好玩的东西。
00:40
And I came来了 up with an idea理念 that I will write a cookbook食谱.
9
24000
4000
我有一个主意——我想写一本烹饪书。
00:44
And the title标题 for my cookbook食谱 was going to be
10
28000
2000
这本烹饪书的名字将会是
00:46
"Dining餐饮 Without没有 Crumbs面包屑: The Art艺术 of Eating Over the Sink水槽."
11
30000
3000
“没有碎屑的晚餐:在洗碗糟上吃饭的艺术”
00:49
(Laughter笑声)
12
33000
2000
(笑声)
00:51
And it was going to be a look at life through通过 the kitchen厨房.
13
35000
3000
这本书会从厨房看人生。
00:54
And I was quite相当 excited兴奋 about this. I was going to talk
14
38000
2000
这个计划令我很兴奋,
00:56
a little bit about research研究, a little bit about the kitchen厨房.
15
40000
3000
我打算在这本书里一方面写研究,一方面写厨房。
00:59
You know, we do so much in the kitchen厨房 I thought this would be interesting有趣.
16
43000
3000
你知啦,我们在厨房做那么多的事,我想这本书会很有趣。
01:02
And I wrote a couple一对 of chapters.
17
46000
2000
于是我写了几个章,
01:04
And I took it to MITMIT press and they said,
18
48000
2000
跟着把书拿到MIT出版社, 但他们说:
01:06
"Cute可爱, but not for us. Go and find somebody else其他."
19
50000
4000
“很有趣,不过不适合我们, 你找其他人吧。”
01:10
I tried试着 other people and everybody每个人 said the same相同 thing,
20
54000
2000
我又把书拿给其他人看,但他们说的全都一样:
01:12
"Cute可爱. Not for us."
21
56000
3000
“很有趣,不过不适合我们。”
01:15
Until直到 somebody said,
22
59000
3000
最后有人说:
01:18
"Look, if you're serious严重 about this,
23
62000
2000
“看,如果你是认真的话,
01:20
you first have to write a book about your research研究. You have to publish发布 something,
24
64000
3000
你必须先写一本关于你的研究的书 ,你一定要发表什么,
01:23
and then you'll你会 get the opportunity机会 to write something else其他.
25
67000
2000
才会得到写其他东西的机会。
01:25
If you really want to do it you have to do it."
26
69000
2000
如果你真的要出版这本书,就一定得这样做。”
01:27
So I said, "You know, I really don't want to write about my research研究.
27
71000
3000
我说:“我真的不想写跟我的研究有关的书,
01:30
I do this all day long. I want to write something else其他.
28
74000
2000
我一整天都做研究,我想写一些其他的东西,
01:32
Something a bit more free自由, less constrained受限."
29
76000
3000
一些比较自由,不那么拘紧的东西。”
01:35
And this person was very forceful有力 and said,
30
79000
3000
这个人很坚定地说:
01:38
"Look. That's the only way you'll你会 ever do it."
31
82000
2000
“如果你要达到目的,这是唯一的方法。”
01:40
So I said, "Okay, if I have to do it -- "
32
84000
3000
于是我说:“好吧,如果真的一定要这样做——”
01:43
I had a sabbatical休假. I said, "I'll write about my research研究
33
87000
3000
我有一个学术休假,我对自己说: “如果没有其他方法,
01:46
if there is no other way. And then I'll get to do my cookbook食谱."
34
90000
2000
我只好先写我的研究,然后再写我的烹饪书。”
01:48
So I wrote a book on my research研究.
35
92000
3000
于是我写了一本关于我的研究的书。
01:51
And it turned转身 out to be quite相当 fun开玩笑 in two ways方法.
36
95000
3000
写完后,我发觉其实写这本书也挺有趣。 这可以分开两方面来说。
01:54
First of all, I enjoyed享受 writing写作.
37
98000
3000
首先,我喜欢写作,
01:57
But the more interesting有趣 thing was that
38
101000
2000
但更有趣的是,
01:59
I started开始 learning学习 from people.
39
103000
2000
我开始向其他人学习。
02:01
It's a fantastic奇妙 time to write,
40
105000
2000
写作的过程很棒,
02:03
because there is so much feedback反馈 you can get from people.
41
107000
2000
因为有许多人给你回应。
02:05
People write me about their personal个人 experience经验,
42
109000
3000
他们给我写自己的个人经历,
02:08
and about their examples例子, and what they disagree不同意,
43
112000
2000
告诉我他们的例子,和不同意我的地方,
02:10
and nuances细微之处.
44
114000
2000
还有很多精细的见解。
02:12
And even being存在 here -- I mean the last few少数 days,
45
116000
2000
也就是在这儿,我是指过去几天,
02:14
I've known已知 really heights高度 of obsessive强迫症 behavior行为
46
118000
3000
我才见识到人们对事物着迷
02:17
I never thought about.
47
121000
2000
竟然可以达到那种程度,
02:19
(Laughter笑声)
48
123000
1000
(笑声)
02:20
Which哪一个 I think is just fascinating迷人.
49
124000
2000
使我大开眼界。
02:22
I will tell you a little bit about irrational不合理的 behavior行为.
50
126000
3000
让我们谈谈非理性行为。
02:25
And I want to start开始 by giving you some examples例子 of visual视觉 illusion错觉
51
129000
3000
首先我想你们看看几个视觉错觉的例子,
02:28
as a metaphor隐喻 for rationality理性.
52
132000
2000
作为理性错觉的一个比喻。
02:30
So think about these two tables.
53
134000
2000
请看看这两张台子,
02:32
And you must必须 have seen看到 this illusion错觉.
54
136000
2000
你一定见过这个错觉。
02:34
If I asked you what's longer, the vertical垂直 line线 on the table on the left,
55
138000
3000
如果我问你,左边桌子的垂直长度较长,
02:37
or the horizontal line线 on the table on the right?
56
141000
3000
还是右边桌子的水平长度较长?
02:40
Which哪一个 one seems似乎 longer?
57
144000
3000
那一条线看来比较长?
02:43
Can anybody任何人 see anything but the left one being存在 longer?
58
147000
3000
是不是每个人都看见左边那条线较长, 有没有看到别的?
02:46
No, right? It's impossible不可能.
59
150000
2000
没有人看到别的,对不对?没有可能看到别的。
02:48
But the nice不错 thing about visual视觉 illusion错觉 is we can easily容易 demonstrate演示 mistakes错误.
60
152000
3000
视觉错觉的美妙之处,是我们很容易证明错误。
02:51
So I can put some lines线 on; it doesn't help.
61
155000
3000
我可以加一些线在这里,不过没有什么用处。
02:54
I can animate活跃 the lines线.
62
158000
2000
我可以移动这些线,
02:56
And to the extent程度 you believe I didn't shrink收缩 the lines线,
63
160000
2000
只要你相信我没有缩短它们,
02:58
which哪一个 I didn't, I've proven证明 to you that your eyes眼睛 were deceiving欺骗 you.
64
162000
5000
而我确实没有,我就能证明你们的眼睛欺骗了你。
03:03
Now, the interesting有趣 thing about this
65
167000
2000
视觉错觉的有趣之处,
03:05
is when I take the lines线 away,
66
169000
2000
是如果我把这些线移走,
03:07
it's as if you haven't没有 learned学到了 anything in the last minute分钟.
67
171000
2000
那便好像你在刚才一分钟什么也没有学到。
03:09
(Laughter笑声)
68
173000
3000
(笑声)
03:12
You can't look at this and say, "Okay now I see reality现实 as it is."
69
176000
3000
你不能看着这图说,“哦,我现在看到真实的图像了。”
03:15
Right? It's impossible不可能 to overcome克服 this
70
179000
2000
对不对?要克服这个错觉是不可能的,
03:17
sense that this is indeed确实 longer.
71
181000
3000
我们还是觉得这条线较长。
03:20
Our intuition直觉 is really fooling嘴硬 us in a repeatable重复, predictable可预测, consistent一贯 way.
72
184000
3000
我们的直觉总是重复地,可预测地,屡试不爽地欺骗我们,
03:23
And there is almost几乎 nothing we can do about it,
73
187000
3000
而我们却几乎没有什么办法,
03:26
aside在旁边 from taking服用 a ruler统治者 and starting开始 to measure测量 it.
74
190000
3000
只能拿一把尺量一量仅此而已。
03:29
Here is another另一个 one -- this is one of my favorite喜爱 illusions幻想.
75
193000
3000
这是另一个例子。是我最喜欢的视觉错觉之一。
03:32
What do you see the color颜色 that top最佳 arrow箭头 is pointing指点 to?
76
196000
3000
你见到上方箭头指着的是什么颜色?
03:35
Brown棕色. Thank you.
77
199000
2000
棕色,谢谢你。
03:37
The bottom底部 one? Yellow黄色.
78
201000
2000
下面这个呢?黄色。
03:39
Turns out they're identical相同.
79
203000
2000
其实它们是完全一样的。
03:41
Can anybody任何人 see them as identical相同?
80
205000
2000
有人看见它们是一样的吗?
03:43
Very very hard.
81
207000
2000
非常非常难。
03:45
I can cover the rest休息 of the cube立方体 up.
82
209000
2000
我可以把方块的其他部分盖住,
03:47
And if I cover the rest休息 of the cube立方体 you can see that they are identical相同.
83
211000
3000
如果我把方块其他部分盖住,你可以看见它们其实是一样的。
03:50
And if you don't believe me you can get the slide滑动 later后来
84
214000
2000
如果你不相信我, 一会儿你可以向我要投影片,
03:52
and do some arts艺术 and crafts工艺 and see that they're identical相同.
85
216000
3000
把图像剪剪贴贴,看他们是否真的一样。
03:55
But again it's the same相同 story故事
86
219000
2000
不过,跟第一个例子一样,
03:57
that if we take the background背景 away,
87
221000
2000
只要我们把背景除掉,
03:59
the illusion错觉 comes back. Right.
88
223000
2000
我们的错觉又回来了,对不对?
04:01
There is no way for us not to see this illusion错觉.
89
225000
3000
我们没有办法不受这个错觉影响。
04:04
I guess猜测 maybe if you're colorblind色盲 I don't think you can see that.
90
228000
3000
或者如果有人是色盲的话,才可能会看不到。
04:07
I want you to think about illusion错觉 as a metaphor隐喻.
91
231000
3000
我想大家把视觉错觉看成一个比喻。
04:10
Vision视力 is one of the best最好 things we do.
92
234000
2000
视觉是我们最出色的能力之一,
04:12
We have a huge巨大 part部分 of our brain dedicated专用 to vision视力 --
93
236000
2000
我们大脑的很大部分是专用于视力的,
04:14
bigger than dedicated专用 to anything else其他.
94
238000
2000
比用作其他能力的部分都大。
04:16
We do more vision视力 more hours小时 of the day than we do anything else其他.
95
240000
4000
我们一天里运用视觉的时数,要比用在其他事情的时数多。
04:20
And we are evolutionarily进化 designed设计 to do vision视力.
96
244000
2000
人类的进化使我们长于视力。
04:22
And if we have these predictable可预测 repeatable重复 mistakes错误 in vision视力,
97
246000
3000
如果我们的视觉也有这些可预测的,可重复的错误,
04:25
which哪一个 we're so good at,
98
249000
2000
而视觉是我们最优秀的能力之一,
04:27
what's the chance机会 that we don't make even more mistakes错误
99
251000
2000
至于我们不那么优秀的能力,
04:29
in something we're not as good at --
100
253000
2000
我们不会犯更多错误的机会又有多少?
04:31
for example, financial金融 decision决定 making制造:
101
255000
2000
举一个例子,我们金融决策的订定。
04:33
(Laughter笑声)
102
257000
2000
(笑声)
04:35
something we don't have an evolutionary发展的 reason原因 to do,
103
259000
2000
一些我们没有一个演化原因会做得好的事情;
04:37
we don't have a specialized专门 part部分 of the brain,
104
261000
2000
一些在大脑中没有专责部分处理的事情;
04:39
and we don't do that many许多 hours小时 of the day.
105
263000
2000
一些我们在一天里,不是花那么多时间做的事情。
04:41
And the argument论据 is in those cases
106
265000
3000
我们要问的,就是在这些事情上
04:44
it might威力 be the issue问题 that we actually其实 make many许多 more mistakes错误
107
268000
4000
我们会否犯上更多的错误。
04:48
and, worse更差, not have an easy简单 way to see them.
108
272000
3000
更糟的是,要认识到这些错误并不容易。
04:51
Because in visual视觉 illusions幻想 we can easily容易 demonstrate演示 the mistakes错误;
109
275000
3000
在视觉错觉上,我们很容易证明错误;
04:54
in cognitive认知 illusion错觉 it's much, much harder更难
110
278000
2000
可是要向人们证明他们认知上的错觉,
04:56
to demonstrate演示 to people the mistakes错误.
111
280000
2000
却非常艰难。
04:58
So I want to show显示 you some cognitive认知 illusions幻想,
112
282000
3000
所以我想让大家看一些认知错觉的例子,
05:01
or decision-making做决定 illusions幻想, in the same相同 way.
113
285000
3000
和人们做决定时, 与认知误差有关的错觉。
05:04
And this is one of my favorite喜爱 plots地块 in social社会 sciences科学.
114
288000
3000
这是我在社会科学中,最喜爱的图表之一。
05:07
It's from a paper by Johnson约翰逊 and Goldstein戈尔茨坦.
115
291000
4000
取自Johnson 和Goldstein 的一篇文章。
05:11
And it basically基本上 shows节目
116
295000
2000
图表基本上显示
05:13
the percentage百分比 of people who indicated指示
117
297000
2000
表示有兴趣捐赠器官人士
05:15
they would be interested有兴趣 in giving their organs器官 to donation捐款.
118
299000
4000
的百分比。
05:19
And these are different不同 countries国家 in Europe欧洲. And you basically基本上
119
303000
2000
这些是欧洲的各个国家。基本上
05:21
see two types类型 of countries国家:
120
305000
2000
你可以见到两类国家:
05:23
countries国家 on the right, that seem似乎 to be giving a lot;
121
307000
2000
右边的国家很多人表示愿意捐赠器官,
05:25
and countries国家 on the left that seem似乎 to giving very little,
122
309000
3000
而左边的国家就很少人愿意,
05:28
or much less.
123
312000
2000
比右边少得多。
05:30
The question is, why? Why do some countries国家 give a lot
124
314000
2000
问题时,为什么有些国家有那么多人愿意捐赠器官,
05:32
and some countries国家 give a little?
125
316000
2000
而有些国家愿意的人是那么少?
05:34
When you ask people this question,
126
318000
2000
如果你问别人这个问题,
05:36
they usually平时 think that it has to be something about culture文化.
127
320000
2000
他们多数都会以为和文化有关。
05:38
Right? How much do you care关心 about people?
128
322000
2000
对不对?你有多关心其他人?
05:40
Giving给予 your organs器官 to somebody else其他
129
324000
2000
捐赠器官给其他人,
05:42
is probably大概 about how much you care关心 about society社会, how linked关联 you are.
130
326000
3000
大概跟一个人是否关心社会,和其他人的关系有多密切有关,
05:45
Or maybe it is about religion宗教.
131
329000
2000
又或者和宗教有关。
05:47
But, if you look at this plot情节,
132
331000
2000
不过,如果你看看这个图表,
05:49
you can see that countries国家 that we think about as very similar类似
133
333000
3000
你会看到,我们以为很相似的国家,
05:52
actually其实 exhibit展示 very different不同 behavior行为.
134
336000
3000
实际上却表现出非常不同的行为。
05:55
For example, Sweden瑞典 is all the way on the right,
135
339000
2000
例如,瑞典在图表的最右方,
05:57
and Denmark丹麦, that we think is culturally文化 very similar类似,
136
341000
3000
但我们认为和瑞典很相近的丹麦,
06:00
is all the way on the left.
137
344000
2000
却在图表的最左方;
06:02
Germany德国 is on the left. And Austria奥地利 is on the right.
138
346000
4000
德国在左方,但奥地利却在右方;
06:06
The Netherlands荷兰 is on the left. And Belgium比利时 is on the right.
139
350000
3000
荷兰在左方,而比利时就在右方;
06:09
And finally最后, depending根据 on your particular特定 version
140
353000
3000
最后,视乎你对欧洲各国
06:12
of European欧洲的 similarity相似,
141
356000
2000
的相近性的看法,
06:14
you can think about the U.K and France法国 as either similar类似 culturally文化 or not.
142
358000
5000
你可能会以为英国和法国的文化是互相接近或者不同,
06:19
But it turns out that from organ器官 donation捐款 they are very different不同.
143
363000
4000
不过,就器官捐赠比例来说,他们却显著不同。
06:23
By the way, the Netherlands荷兰 is an interesting有趣 story故事.
144
367000
2000
顺便说说,关于荷兰有一个有趣的故事。
06:25
You see the Netherlands荷兰 is kind of the biggest最大 of the small group.
145
369000
5000
你可以看到,荷兰是少人捐赠器官的国家之中比例最高的。
06:30
Turns out that they got to 28 percent百分
146
374000
3000
真相是,有百分之二十八的人
06:33
after mailing邮件 every一切 household家庭 in the country国家 a letter
147
377000
3000
在收到一封寄到全国每一户的信,
06:36
begging乞讨 people to join加入 this organ器官 donation捐款 program程序.
148
380000
3000
恳求人们参加器官捐赠计划以后, 表示愿意这么做。
06:39
You know the expression表达, "Begging乞讨 only gets得到 you so far"?
149
383000
3000
你听过一句话没有:“乞求不会有什么好效果。”
06:42
It's 28 percent百分 in organ器官 donation捐款.
150
386000
3000
在器官捐赠上,就只能达到百分之二十八。
06:45
(Laughter笑声)
151
389000
2000
(笑声)
06:47
But whatever随你 the countries国家 on the right are doing
152
391000
2000
反之,无论右方的国家做了什么,
06:49
they are doing a much better job工作 than begging乞讨.
153
393000
2000
他们的成效都比乞求人们好。
06:51
So what are they doing?
154
395000
2000
那究竟这些国家做了什么?
06:53
Turns out the secret秘密 has to do with a form形成 at the DMVDMV.
155
397000
3000
原来他们的秘密,在于汽车登记处的一张表格。
06:56
And here is the story故事.
156
400000
2000
这便是他们所做的。
06:58
The countries国家 on the left have a form形成 at the DMVDMV
157
402000
2000
在图表左方的国家,汽车登记处的表格包括了
07:00
that looks容貌 something like this.
158
404000
2000
这个部分:
07:02
Check检查 the box below下面 if you want to participate参加
159
406000
2000
愿意参加器官捐赠计划者,
07:04
in the organ器官 donor捐赠者 program程序.
160
408000
2000
请在方格打勾。
07:06
And what happens发生?
161
410000
2000
结果怎么样?
07:08
People don't check, and they don't join加入.
162
412000
3000
多数人没有打勾,他们没有参加捐赠计划。
07:11
The countries国家 on the right, the ones那些 that give a lot,
163
415000
2000
图表右方的国家,那些参加捐赠计划比例很高的国家,
07:13
have a slightly different不同 form形成.
164
417000
2000
则用了一张不同的表格,
07:15
It says check the box below下面 if you don't want to participate参加.
165
419000
3000
上面写着,不愿意参加器官捐赠计划者,请在方格打勾。
07:18
Interestingly有趣的是 enough足够, when people get this,
166
422000
2000
有趣的是,人们拿着这一张表格,
07:20
they again don't check -- but now they join加入.
167
424000
3000
他们也不打勾, 不过这么一来,他们参加了器官捐赠计划。
07:23
(Laughter笑声)
168
427000
3000
(笑声)
07:26
Now think about what this means手段.
169
430000
3000
让我们想想,这告诉我们什么?
07:29
We wake唤醒 up in the morning早上 and we feel we make decisions决定.
170
433000
4000
我们早上起来,觉得可以主宰自己的决定,
07:33
We wake唤醒 up in the morning早上 and we open打开 the closet壁橱
171
437000
2000
我们早上起来,打开衣橱,
07:35
and we feel that we decide决定 what to wear穿.
172
439000
2000
以为我们可以决定穿什么,
07:37
And we open打开 the refrigerator冰箱 and we feel that we decide决定 what to eat.
173
441000
3000
打开冰箱,以为我们可以决定吃什么,
07:40
What this is actually其实 saying is that
174
444000
2000
但我们刚才看到的,
07:42
much of these decisions决定 are not residing居住 within us.
175
446000
2000
是器官捐赠这个决定,很大程度上并不在乎我们,
07:44
They are residing居住 in the person who is designing设计 that form形成.
176
448000
3000
反而在乎设计表格的人。
07:47
When you walk步行 into the DMVDMV,
177
451000
3000
当你走进汽车登记处,
07:50
the person who designed设计 the form形成 will have a huge巨大 influence影响
178
454000
2000
设计表格的人将会对你跟着要做的事
07:52
on what you'll你会 end结束 up doing.
179
456000
2000
产生非常重大的影响。
07:54
Now it's also very hard to intuit意会 these results结果. Think about it for yourself你自己.
180
458000
4000
要知道单凭直觉去找出这些结果非常困难。试想想我们自己,
07:58
How many许多 of you believe
181
462000
2000
你们之中有多少人相信,
08:00
that if you went to renew更新 your license执照 tomorrow明天,
182
464000
2000
如果明天你要为你的汽车续牌,
08:02
and you went to the DMVDMV,
183
466000
2000
你走进汽车登记处,
08:04
and you would encounter遭遇 one of these forms形式,
184
468000
2000
拿起这些表格时,
08:06
that it would actually其实 change更改 your own拥有 behavior行为?
185
470000
3000
它们真的可以改变你的行为?
08:09
Very, very hard to think that you will influence影响 us.
186
473000
2000
要相信它们会影响我们非常困难。
08:11
We can say, "Oh, these funny滑稽 Europeans欧洲人, of course课程 it would influence影响 them."
187
475000
2000
我们会说,“噢,那些奇怪的欧洲人,他们当然会受到影响。”
08:13
But when it comes to us,
188
477000
3000
不过如果是我们的话,
08:16
we have such这样 a feeling感觉 that we are at the driver's司机 seat座位,
189
480000
2000
我们总是觉得,我们才是坐在驾驶席的那个人,
08:18
we have such这样 a feeling感觉 that we are in control控制,
190
482000
2000
我们总是觉得,一切在我们掌握之中,
08:20
and we are making制造 the decision决定,
191
484000
2000
我们主宰自己的决定。
08:22
that it's very hard to even accept接受
192
486000
2000
我们很难接受
08:24
the idea理念 that we actually其实 have
193
488000
2000
我们做决定只是一种错觉,
08:26
an illusion错觉 of making制造 a decision决定, rather than an actual实际 decision决定.
194
490000
4000
实质上决定并不是我们做的。
08:30
Now, you might威力 say,
195
494000
2000
可能你会说,
08:32
"These are decisions决定 we don't care关心 about."
196
496000
3000
“这些都是我们不在意的决定。”
08:35
In fact事实, by definition定义, these are decisions决定
197
499000
2000
事实上,按照定义,这些决定只是
08:37
about something that will happen发生 to us after we die.
198
501000
2000
跟我们死后的事情有关,
08:39
How could we care关心 about something less
199
503000
3000
有什么事情,
08:42
than something that happens发生 after we die?
200
506000
2000
比我们死后的事情更无关重要?
08:44
So a standard标准 economist经济学家, someone有人 who believes相信 in rationality理性,
201
508000
3000
所以一个典型的经济学家、一个相信人是理性的人会说,
08:47
would say, "You know what? The cost成本 of lifting吊装 the pencil铅笔
202
511000
3000
“你知道吗?提起铅笔打一个勾所付出的代价,
08:50
and marking印记 a V is higher更高 than the possible可能
203
514000
2000
要比做这个决定
08:52
benefit效益 of the decision决定,
204
516000
2000
可能带来的利益大。"
08:54
so that's why we get this effect影响."
205
518000
2000
这就是为什么我们得到这个结果。
08:56
But, in fact事实, it's not because it's easy简单.
206
520000
3000
不过,事实上,人们这样做并不是因为这个决定太容易,
08:59
It's not because it's trivial不重要的. It's not because we don't care关心.
207
523000
3000
不是因为这个决定不重要,不是因为我们不在意。
09:02
It's the opposite对面. It's because we care关心.
208
526000
3000
刚好相反,人们这样做是因为我们在意,
09:05
It's difficult and it's complex复杂.
209
529000
2000
因为这个决定既困难又复杂。
09:07
And it's so complex复杂 that we don't know what to do.
210
531000
2000
这个决定太复杂,以致我们不知道该做什么,
09:09
And because we have no idea理念 what to do
211
533000
2000
我们不知道该怎么做,
09:11
we just pick whatever随你 it was that was chosen选择 for us.
212
535000
4000
于是我们挑了别人预先为我们选的, 不管哪是什么。
09:15
I'll give you one more example for this.
213
539000
2000
让我多给你一个例子。
09:17
This is from a paper by RedelmeierRedelmeier and Schaefer谢弗.
214
541000
3000
这个例子取自Redelmeier 和Schaefer 的一篇文章。
09:20
And they said, "Well, this effect影响 also happens发生 to experts专家,
215
544000
3000
他们说:“这种现象也一样影响专家,
09:23
people who are well-paid高薪, experts专家 in their decisions决定,
216
547000
3000
高薪人士、专家做决定时,
09:26
do it a lot."
217
550000
2000
也常常受到错觉的影响。”
09:28
And they basically基本上 took a group of physicians医师.
218
552000
2000
简单来说,Redelmeier 和Schaefer找来一班医生,
09:30
And they presented呈现 to them a case案件 study研究 of a patient患者.
219
554000
2000
告诉他们一个病人的个案。
09:32
Here is a patient患者. He is a 67-year-old-岁 farmer农民.
220
556000
4000
病者是一个农夫,六十七岁,
09:36
He's been suffering痛苦 from a right hip臀部 pain疼痛 for a while.
221
560000
2000
右髖骨已经疼了一段时期。
09:38
And then they said to the physician医师,
222
562000
2000
接着他们对这班医生说,
09:40
"You decided决定 a few少数 weeks ago
223
564000
2000
几星期前,你决定
09:42
that nothing is working加工 for this patient患者.
224
566000
2000
已经没有什么疗法对这个病人有效,
09:44
All these medications药物治疗, nothing seems似乎 to be working加工.
225
568000
2000
所有药物似乎都没有效果,
09:46
So you refer参考 the patient患者 to hip臀部 replacement替代 therapy治疗.
226
570000
3000
所以你决定转介病人
09:49
Hip髋关节 replacement替代. Okay?"
227
573000
2000
接受髖关节置换手术。
09:51
So the patient患者 is on a path路径 to have his hip臀部 replaced更换.
228
575000
3000
所以,这个病人已经开始轮候置换髖关节。
09:54
And then they said to half the physicians医师, they said,
229
578000
2000
跟着他们对其中一半的医生说:
09:56
"Yesterday昨天 you reviewed回顾 the patient's耐心 case案件
230
580000
2000
你昨天再详阅病人的个案,
09:58
and you realized实现 that you forgot忘记 to try one medication药物治疗.
231
582000
3000
发现忘了试一种药物,
10:01
You did not try ibuprofen布洛芬.
232
585000
3000
你还没有试 ibuprofen(镇痛消炎药)。
10:04
What do you do? Do you pull the patient患者 back and try ibuprofen布洛芬?
233
588000
3000
你会怎么做呢?你会不会召回病人,把ibuprofen 开给他试试?
10:07
Or do you let them go and have hip臀部 replacement替代?"
234
591000
3000
还是让他继续轮候髖关节手术?
10:10
Well the good news新闻 is that most physicians医师 in this case案件
235
594000
2000
好消息是,大部分医生都决定
10:12
decided决定 to pull the patient患者 and try the ibuprofen布洛芬.
236
596000
3000
把病人召回,让他试试 ibuprofen。
10:15
Very good for the physicians医师.
237
599000
2000
我们都很高兴医生这样做。
10:17
The other group of the physicians医师, they said,
238
601000
2000
至于另一组医生,研究人员对他们说,
10:19
"Yesterday昨天 when you reviewed回顾 the case案件
239
603000
2000
“你昨天再详阅病人的个案,
10:21
you discovered发现 there were two medications药物治疗 you didn't try out yet然而,
240
605000
2000
发现还没有试两种药物,
10:23
ibuprofen布洛芬 and piroxicam吡罗昔康."
241
607000
3000
就是ibuprofen和piroxicam。”
10:26
And they said, "You have two medications药物治疗 you didn't try out yet然而. What do you do?
242
610000
3000
研究人员说:“你还有两种药物没有试,你会怎么做?
10:29
You let them go. Or you pull them back.
243
613000
2000
你会让病人继续轮候做手术, 还是叫他回来?
10:31
And if you pull them back do you try ibuprofen布洛芬 or piroxicam吡罗昔康? Which哪一个 one?"
244
615000
3000
如果你叫他回来,你会先试ibuprofen 还是 piroxicam?
10:34
Now think of it. This decision决定
245
618000
2000
试想想,这个决定可以很容易,
10:36
makes品牌 it as easy简单 to let the patient患者 continue继续 with hip臀部 replacement替代.
246
620000
3000
就是让病人继续轮候髖关节置换手术。
10:39
But pulling them back, all of the sudden突然 becomes more complex复杂.
247
623000
3000
不过如果叫他们回来,突然间决定就变得比较复杂,
10:42
There is one more decision决定.
248
626000
2000
因为还有一个决定要做。
10:44
What happens发生 now?
249
628000
2000
结果是怎么样呢?
10:46
Majority多数 of the physicians医师 now choose选择 to let the patient患者 go
250
630000
3000
大部分医生决定让病人继续轮候做手术,
10:49
to hip臀部 replacement替代.
251
633000
2000
把髖关节换掉。
10:51
I hope希望 this worries you, by the way --
252
635000
2000
我希望这个例子会使你关注,
10:53
(Laughter笑声)
253
637000
1000
(笑声)
10:54
when you go to see your physician医师.
254
638000
2000
当你下次去见医生的时候。
10:56
The thing is is that no physician医师 would ever say,
255
640000
3000
问题时,没有一个医生会说:
10:59
"Piroxicam吡罗昔康, ibuprofen布洛芬, hip臀部 replacement替代.
256
643000
2000
“Piroxicam,ibuprofen 和髖关节置换手术三者之间,
11:01
Let's go for hip臀部 replacement替代."
257
645000
2000
就选择髖关节置换手术吧。
11:03
But the moment时刻 you set this as the default默认
258
647000
3000
不过,一旦你把它设定作为先决的选择,
11:06
it has a huge巨大 power功率 over whatever随你 people end结束 up doing.
259
650000
4000
便会对人们最后的决定,产生巨大的影响力。
11:10
I'll give you a couple一对 of more examples例子 on irrational不合理的 decision-making做决定.
260
654000
3000
让我多举几个例子,证明我们的决定可以是不理性的。
11:13
Imagine想像 I give you a choice选择.
261
657000
2000
如果我给你一个选择,
11:15
Do you want to go for a weekend周末 to Rome罗马?
262
659000
2000
你可以选到罗马度周末,
11:17
All expenses花费 paid支付:
263
661000
2000
费用全免,
11:19
hotel旅馆, transportation运输, food餐饮, breakfast早餐,
264
663000
2000
包括酒店、交通、膳食、早餐,
11:21
a continental大陆 breakfast早餐, everything.
265
665000
2000
欧陆早餐等一切费用;
11:23
Or a weekend周末 in Paris巴黎?
266
667000
2000
或者到巴黎度周末。
11:25
Now, a weekend周末 in Paris巴黎, a weekend周末 in Rome罗马, these are different不同 things;
267
669000
3000
请想想,到巴黎度周末,跟到罗马度周末,是两码子的事。
11:28
they have different不同 food餐饮, different不同 culture文化, different不同 art艺术.
268
672000
2000
它们有不同的食物、不同的文化、不同的艺术。
11:30
Now imagine想像 I added添加 a choice选择 to the set
269
674000
2000
如果我在这两者之间,
11:32
that nobody没有人 wanted.
270
676000
2000
加上一个没有人喜欢的选择,
11:34
Imagine想像 I said, "A weekend周末 in Rome罗马,
271
678000
2000
如果我说:“你喜欢到罗马度周末,
11:36
a weekend周末 in Paris巴黎, or having your car汽车 stolen被盗?"
272
680000
3000
到巴黎度周末,还是被人偷车?“
11:39
(Laughter笑声)
273
683000
3000
(笑声)
11:42
It's a funny滑稽 idea理念, because why would having your car汽车 stolen被盗,
274
686000
3000
这是一个可笑的主意,加上“被人偷车”这个选择,
11:45
in this set, influence影响 anything?
275
689000
2000
能对最后决定有什么影响?
11:47
(Laughter笑声)
276
691000
2000
(笑声)
11:49
But what if the option选项 to have your car汽车 stolen被盗
277
693000
3000
不过如果这个额外的选择,
11:52
was not exactly究竟 like this.
278
696000
2000
并不是“被人偷车”那又如何?
11:54
What if it was a trip to Rome罗马, all expenses花费 paid支付,
279
698000
2000
如果这个额外的选择,是到罗马度周末,费用全免,
11:56
transportation运输, breakfast早餐,
280
700000
2000
包括交通、早餐,
11:58
but doesn't include包括 coffee咖啡 in the morning早上.
281
702000
3000
但不包括早晨的咖啡。
12:01
If you want coffee咖啡 you have to pay工资 for it yourself你自己. It's two euros欧元 50.
282
705000
3000
你要咖啡,便要自掏腰包,付两欧元的价钱。
12:04
Now in some ways方法,
283
708000
3000
在某程度来说,
12:07
given特定 that you can have Rome罗马 with coffee咖啡,
284
711000
2000
既然你可以到”罗马包咖啡”,
12:09
why would you possibly或者 want Rome罗马 without coffee咖啡?
285
713000
3000
有谁会选择“到罗马不包咖啡”呢?
12:12
It's like having your car汽车 stolen被盗. It's an inferior option选项.
286
716000
3000
就好像“被人偷车”一样,那是一个次等的选择。
12:15
But guess猜测 what happened发生. The moment时刻 you add Rome罗马 without coffee咖啡,
287
719000
2000
你猜猜结果怎麽样?结果是,你一加上“到罗马不包咖啡”这个选择,
12:17
Rome罗马 with coffee咖啡 becomes more popular流行. And people choose选择 it.
288
721000
5000
“到罗马包咖啡”就变得较吸引,变成人们的选择。
12:22
The fact事实 that you have Rome罗马 without coffee咖啡
289
726000
3000
“到罗马不包咖啡”这个选择
12:25
makes品牌 Rome罗马 with coffee咖啡 look superior优越,
290
729000
2000
令人觉得“到罗马包咖啡”这个选择比其他好,
12:27
and not just to Rome罗马 without coffee咖啡 -- even superior优越 to Paris巴黎.
291
731000
3000
不单比“到罗马不包咖啡”好,甚至比到巴黎好。
12:30
(Laughter笑声)
292
734000
4000
(笑声)
12:34
Here are two examples例子 of this principle原理.
293
738000
2000
关于这个原则我还有两个例子。
12:36
This was an ad广告 from The Economist经济学家 a few少数 years年份 ago
294
740000
3000
这是“经济学人”杂志几年前的一则广告,
12:39
that gave us three choices选择.
295
743000
2000
他给你三个选择:
12:41
An online线上 subscription订阅 for 59 dollars美元.
296
745000
3000
以五十九元订阅“经济学人”网上版;
12:44
A print打印 subscription订阅 for 125.
297
748000
4000
以一百二十五元订阅印刷版;
12:48
Or you could get both for 125.
298
752000
2000
或是以一百二十五元同时订阅印刷版和网上版。
12:50
(Laughter笑声)
299
754000
2000
(笑声)
12:52
Now I looked看着 at this and I called up The Economist经济学家.
300
756000
2000
见到这则广告后,我致电“经济学人”,
12:54
And I tried试着 to figure数字 out what were they thinking思维.
301
758000
3000
我想知道他们是怎样想的。
12:57
And they passed通过 me from one person to another另一个 to another另一个,
302
761000
3000
他们把我从一个人交到另一个人再交到另一个人,
13:00
until直到 eventually终于 I got to a person who was in charge收费 of the website网站.
303
764000
4000
最后我被转到网页的负责人,
13:04
And I called them up. And they went to check what was going on.
304
768000
3000
于是我打电话给他们,他们又说要去转问其他人。
13:07
The next下一个 thing I know, the ad广告 is gone走了. And no explanation说明.
305
771000
4000
接着我所知道的,是广告很快便消失了,没有什么解释。
13:11
So I decided决定 to do the experiment实验
306
775000
2000
我于是决定自己进行
13:13
that I would have loved喜爱 The Economist经济学家 to do with me.
307
777000
3000
这个我本来打算和经济学人一起做的实验。
13:16
I took this and I gave it to 100 MITMIT students学生们.
308
780000
2000
我把广告给一百个MIT 个学生看,
13:18
I said, "What would you choose选择?"
309
782000
2000
我说,“你会怎么选?”
13:20
These are the market市场 share分享. Most people wanted the combo二合一 deal合同.
310
784000
4000
这是各个选择的占有率 – 多数人都选择合拼订阅计划。
13:24
Thankfully感激地 nobody没有人 wanted the dominated占主导地位 option选项.
311
788000
2000
没有人选择主流的印刷版,
13:26
That means手段 our students学生们 can read.
312
790000
2000
那显示我们学生的阅读能力还不错。
13:28
(Laughter笑声)
313
792000
1000
(笑声)
13:29
But now if you have an option选项 that nobody没有人 wants,
314
793000
3000
不过既然有一个选择完全没有人选,
13:32
you can take it off. Right?
315
796000
2000
我们应该可以把它拿走了吧?
13:34
So I printed印刷的 another另一个 version of this,
316
798000
2000
于是我把订阅表格修改了一下,
13:36
where I eliminated淘汰 the middle中间 option选项.
317
800000
2000
把第二个选择移走,
13:38
I gave it to another另一个 100 students学生们. Here is what happens发生.
318
802000
3000
再交给另外一百个学生选。结果在这里。
13:41
Now the most popular流行 option选项 became成为 the least最小 popular流行.
319
805000
3000
这次最受欢迎的选择变成最不受欢迎,
13:44
And the least最小 popular流行 became成为 the most popular流行.
320
808000
3000
而最不受欢迎的却变成最受欢迎。
13:47
What was happening事件 was the option选项 that was useless无用,
321
811000
4000
我们发现中间那个选择,
13:51
in the middle中间, was useless无用 in the sense that nobody没有人 wanted it.
322
815000
4000
因为没有人选它,所以可算是一个没有用的选择,
13:55
But it wasn't useless无用 in the sense that it helped帮助 people figure数字 out
323
819000
2000
但事实上它又不是真正没用,
13:57
what they wanted.
324
821000
2000
因为它能帮助人们找出他们想要的东西。
13:59
In fact事实, relative相对的 to the option选项 in the middle中间,
325
823000
3000
事实上,与中间那个选择相比,
14:02
which哪一个 was get only the print打印 for 125,
326
826000
4000
即是以一百二十五块净订阅印刷版,
14:06
the print打印 and web卷筒纸 for 125 looked看着 like a fantastic奇妙 deal合同.
327
830000
4000
以一百二十五块一并得到印刷版和网上版看来十分划算,
14:10
And as a consequence后果, people chose选择 it.
328
834000
2000
于是,人人都选了它。
14:12
The general一般 idea理念 here, by the way,
329
836000
2000
这些例子告诉我们,
14:14
is that we actually其实 don't know our preferences优先 that well.
330
838000
2000
我们对自己的喜好其实并不那么清楚,
14:16
And because we don't know our preferences优先 that well
331
840000
2000
而正因为我们不清楚知道自己的喜好,
14:18
we're susceptible易感 to all of these influences影响 from the external外部 forces军队:
332
842000
4000
我们很容易受到各种外在因素的影响,
14:22
the defaults默认, the particular特定 options选项 that are presented呈现 to us, and so on.
333
846000
4000
例如那个是预设的选择,提供给我们的是那几个选择,等等。
14:26
One more example of this.
334
850000
2000
这里还有另一个例子。
14:28
People believe that when we deal合同 with physical物理 attraction引力,
335
852000
3000
一般人相信说到外表吸引力,
14:31
we see somebody, and we know immediately立即 whether是否 we like them or not,
336
855000
3000
只要我们可以见到对方,便可以立即知道自己是否喜欢这个人,
14:34
attracted吸引 or not.
337
858000
2000
他或她对自己是否有吸引力。
14:36
Which哪一个 is why we have these four-minute四分钟 dates日期.
338
860000
2000
这就是为什么我们有那些四分钟约会。
14:38
So I decided决定 to do this experiment实验 with people.
339
862000
3000
于是我决定找人做这个实验。
14:41
I'll show显示 you graphic图像 images图片 of people -- not real真实 people.
340
865000
2000
我这里有几个人面的图像 – 他们都不是真人。
14:43
The experiment实验 was with people.
341
867000
2000
再找来一些做这个实验。
14:45
I showed显示 some people a picture图片 of Tom汤姆, and a picture图片 of Jerry杰瑞.
342
869000
3000
我给他们看两幅图像,一幅是Tom, 一幅是Jerry。
14:48
I said "Who do you want to date日期? Tom汤姆 or Jerry杰瑞?"
343
872000
3000
我问他们:“你们喜欢跟谁约会,是Tom 还是Jerry?”
14:51
But for half the people I added添加 an ugly丑陋 version of Jerry杰瑞.
344
875000
4000
不过,对其中一半人,我加上了一个丑化了的Jerry 的图像,
14:55
I took PhotoshopPhotoshop中 and I made制作 Jerry杰瑞 slightly less attractive有吸引力.
345
879000
5000
我用Photoshop 加工图像,把Jerry 弄得没有那么具吸引力。
15:00
(Laughter笑声)
346
884000
1000
(笑声)
15:01
The other people, I added添加 an ugly丑陋 version of Tom汤姆.
347
885000
4000
对另外一半人,我加了一个丑化了的 Tom 的图像。
15:05
And the question was, will ugly丑陋 Jerry杰瑞 and ugly丑陋 Tom汤姆
348
889000
3000
我的问题是,丑化了的 Jerry 和Tom,
15:08
help their respective各自, more attractive有吸引力 brothers兄弟?
349
892000
4000
会不会教原来的 Jerry 和Tom 变得更具吸引力?
15:12
The answer回答 was absolutely绝对 yes.
350
896000
2000
答案是绝对的。
15:14
When ugly丑陋 Jerry杰瑞 was around, Jerry杰瑞 was popular流行.
351
898000
2000
当加上了丑Jerry,原来的Jerry就变得较受欢迎;
15:16
When ugly丑陋 Tom汤姆 was around, Tom汤姆 was popular流行.
352
900000
2000
当加上了丑Tom,原来的Tom也变得较受欢迎。
15:18
(Laughter笑声)
353
902000
2000
(笑声)
15:20
This of course课程 has two very clear明确 implications启示
354
904000
2000
这个结果对于我们日常的生活,
15:22
for life in general一般.
355
906000
4000
有两个很清楚的启示。
15:26
If you ever go bar酒吧 hopping跃迁, who do you want to take with you?
356
910000
3000
如果你要到酒吧留连,你会跟谁一起去?
15:29
(Laughter笑声)
357
913000
6000
(笑声)
15:35
You want a slightly uglier丑陋 version of yourself你自己.
358
919000
3000
你会想要一个样子没有你那么帅的伴儿。
15:38
(Laughter笑声)
359
922000
2000
(笑声)
15:40
Similar类似. Similar类似 ... but slightly uglier丑陋.
360
924000
2000
和你相似,但比你丑一点儿的。
15:42
(Laughter笑声)
361
926000
2000
(笑声)
15:44
The second第二 point, or course课程, is that
362
928000
2000
当然,第二点就是
15:46
if somebody else其他 invites邀请 you, you know how they think about you.
363
930000
3000
如果有人请你去酒吧,你就知道他们对你的看法。
15:49
(Laughter笑声)
364
933000
3000
(笑声)
15:52
Now you're getting得到 it.
365
936000
2000
你们现在明白了吧。
15:54
What is the general一般 point?
366
938000
2000
这些例子总的来说表明了什么?
15:56
The general一般 point is that when we think about economics经济学 we have
367
940000
2000
在经济学里,对于人的本质
15:58
this beautiful美丽 view视图 of human人的 nature性质.
368
942000
3000
有着很美丽的看法。
16:01
"What a piece of work is man! How noble高贵 in reason原因!"
369
945000
2000
“人类是一件多么了不得的杰作!多么高贵的理性!“(选自莎士比亚“王子复仇记”)
16:03
We have this view视图 of ourselves我们自己, of others其他.
370
947000
3000
我们也是这样看待自己和其他人。
16:06
The behavioral行为的 economics经济学 perspective透视
371
950000
2000
不过,用行为经济学的角度,
16:08
is slightly less generous慷慨 to people.
372
952000
3000
对人的看法却没有那么美好,
16:11
In fact事实 in medical terms条款, that's our view视图.
373
955000
3000
事实上,借用医学的语言,这便是行为经济学对人的看法。
16:14
(Laughter笑声)
374
958000
6000
(笑声)
16:20
But there is a silver lining.
375
964000
2000
不过这也未尝没有一点好处,
16:22
The silver lining is, I think,
376
966000
2000
我认为这点好处,
16:24
kind of the reason原因 that behavioral行为的 economics经济学 is interesting有趣 and exciting扣人心弦.
377
968000
4000
正是为什么行为经济学是那么有趣和刺激的原因。
16:28
Are we Superman超人? Or are we Homer荷马 Simpson辛普森?
378
972000
2000
我们到底是超人还是 Homer Simpson (美国电视剧的主角,以平凡愚笨见称)?
16:30
When it comes to building建造 the physical物理 world世界,
379
974000
4000
试想我们建设物质世界时,
16:34
we kind of understand理解 our limitations限制.
380
978000
2000
我们了解自己的限制。
16:36
We build建立 steps脚步. And we build建立 these things
381
980000
2000
于是我们建设步骤。我们制造了这些东西,
16:38
that not everybody每个人 can use obviously明显.
382
982000
3000
虽然,很明显并不是每个人都懂得使用。
16:41
(Laughter笑声)
383
985000
1000
(笑声)
16:42
We understand理解 our limitations限制,
384
986000
2000
因为我们明白自己的限制,
16:44
and we build建立 around it.
385
988000
2000
于是我们环绕着这些限制来建设世界。
16:46
But for some reason原因 when it comes to the mental心理 world世界,
386
990000
2000
可是为着某种缘故,到了思想世界,
16:48
when we design设计 things like healthcare卫生保健 and retirement退休 and stockmarkets股市,
387
992000
4000
当我们设计医疗改革、退休计划或股票市场等事情时,
16:52
we somehow不知何故 forget忘记 the idea理念 that we are limited有限.
388
996000
2000
不知怎地却忘了自己的限制。
16:54
I think that if we understood了解 our cognitive认知 limitations限制
389
998000
3000
我想如果我们明白人类理性的限制,
16:57
in the same相同 way that we understand理解 our physical物理 limitations限制,
390
1001000
2000
正如我们明白生理上的限制一样,
16:59
even though虽然 they don't stare us in the face面对 in the same相同 way,
391
1003000
2000
虽然它们并不像生理限制那么明显,
17:01
we could design设计 a better world世界.
392
1005000
3000
那么我们便可以设计一个更美好的世界。
17:04
And that, I think, is the hope希望 of this thing.
393
1008000
2000
我想这就是行为经济学带个我们的希望。
17:06
Thank you very much.
394
1010000
2000
谢谢大家。
17:08
(Applause掌声)
395
1012000
8000
(掌声)
Translated by Joyce Lee
Reviewed by zhangb bin

▲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 -- as well as the TED Book Payoff: The Hidden Logic that Shapes Our Motivations.

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