ABOUT THE SPEAKER
Dan Gilbert - Psychologist; happiness expert
Harvard psychologist Dan Gilbert says our beliefs about what will make us happy are often wrong -- a premise he supports with intriguing research, and explains in his accessible and unexpectedly funny book, Stumbling on Happiness.

Why you should listen

Dan Gilbert believes that, in our ardent, lifelong pursuit of happiness, most of us have the wrong map. In the same way that optical illusions fool our eyes -- and fool everyone's eyes in the same way -- Gilbert argues that our brains systematically misjudge what will make us happy. And these quirks in our cognition make humans very poor predictors of our own bliss.

The premise of his current research -- that our assumptions about what will make us happy are often wrong -- is supported with clinical research drawn from psychology and neuroscience. But his delivery is what sets him apart. His engaging -- and often hilarious -- style pokes fun at typical human behavior and invokes pop-culture references everyone can relate to. This winning style translates also to Gilbert's writing, which is lucid, approachable and laugh-out-loud funny. The immensely readable Stumbling on Happiness, published in 2006, became a New York Times bestseller and has been translated into 20 languages.

In fact, the title of his book could be drawn from his own life. At 19, he was a high school dropout with dreams of writing science fiction. When a creative writing class at his community college was full, he enrolled in the only available course: psychology. He found his passion there, earned a doctorate in social psychology in 1985 at Princeton, and has since won a Guggenheim Fellowship and the Phi Beta Kappa teaching prize for his work at Harvard. He has written essays and articles for The New York Times, Time and even Starbucks, while continuing his research into happiness at his Hedonic Psychology Laboratory.

More profile about the speaker
Dan Gilbert | Speaker | TED.com
TEDGlobal 2005

Dan Gilbert: Why we make bad decisions

Dan Gilbert談我們對期望的誤解

Filmed:
5,287,085 views

Dan Gilbert展示了他探索幸福的研究資料——分享一些大家可以自行嘗試的令人驚訝的測試和實驗。注意本片末段一些TED常客與他進行的問答交流時所碰撞出的火花。
- Psychologist; happiness expert
Harvard psychologist Dan Gilbert says our beliefs about what will make us happy are often wrong -- a premise he supports with intriguing research, and explains in his accessible and unexpectedly funny book, Stumbling on Happiness. Full bio

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

00:18
We all make decisions決定 every一切 day; we want to know
0
0
2000
我們每天都作出決定;我們想知道如何做
00:20
what the right thing is to do -- in domains from the financial金融
1
2000
3000
正確的事情——從金融
00:23
to the gastronomic美食 to the professional專業的 to the romantic浪漫.
2
5000
4000
到烹飪到職業到愛情。
00:27
And surely一定, if somebody could really tell us how to do
3
9000
3000
當然,如果有人能夠真的能告訴我們
00:30
exactly究竟 the right thing at all possible可能 times,
4
12000
3000
在所有可能的時刻如何做正確的事情,
00:33
that would be a tremendous巨大 gift禮品.
5
15000
3000
那可是一份非凡的智慧。
00:36
It turns out that, in fact事實, the world世界 was given特定 this gift禮品 in 1738
6
18000
5000
事實上,早在1738年,荷蘭博學家Daniel Bernoulli
00:41
by a Dutch荷蘭人 polymath博學 named命名 Daniel丹尼爾 Bernoulli伯努利.
7
23000
3000
就為世人提供了這項智慧。
00:44
And what I want to talk to you about today今天 is what that gift禮品 is,
8
26000
3000
我今天想講的是這項智慧是什麽,
00:47
and I also want to explain說明 to you why it is
9
29000
3000
以及,我想向各位解釋
00:50
that it hasn't有沒有 made製作 a damn該死的 bit of difference區別.
10
32000
3000
爲什麽這項智慧根本就沒有影響我們的生活。
00:53
Now, this is Bernoulli's伯努利 gift禮品. This is a direct直接 quote引用.
11
35000
5000
這就是Bernoulli提供的智慧。這是他的原文。
00:58
And if it looks容貌 like Greek希臘語 to you, it's because, well, it's Greek希臘語.
12
40000
3000
如果這看上去像希臘文,因為,它就是希臘文。
01:02
But the simple簡單 English英語 translation翻譯 -- much less precise精確,
13
44000
4000
把它簡單翻譯成英文——雖然不夠精確,
01:06
but it captures捕獲 the gist要旨 of what Bernoulli伯努利 had to say -- was this:
14
48000
4000
但它抓住了Bernoulli所表達的要點:
01:10
The expected預期 value of any of our actions行動 --
15
52000
2000
我們所有行為的預期值——
01:12
that is, the goodness善良 that we can count計數 on getting得到 --
16
54000
4000
即是,我們所能期望得到的好處——
01:16
is the product產品 of two simple簡單 things:
17
58000
2000
是以下兩個簡單事物的乘積:
01:18
the odds可能性 that this action行動 will allow允許 us to gain獲得 something,
18
60000
4000
這就是,該行為能使我們獲益的機率,
01:22
and the value of that gain獲得 to us.
19
64000
3000
和我們從中所獲得的益處的價值。
01:25
In a sense, what Bernoulli伯努利 was saying is,
20
67000
2000
在某種意義上而言,Bernoulli所說的是,
01:27
if we can estimate估計 and multiply these two things,
21
69000
3000
如果我們能夠評估這兩者並把它們相乘,
01:30
we will always know precisely恰恰 how we should behave表現.
22
72000
3000
我們就會精確的知道自己應該怎麼做。
01:33
Now, this simple簡單 equation方程, even for those of you
23
75000
3000
那麼,這個簡單的公式,即使對那些
01:36
who don't like equations方程, is something that you're quite相當 used to.
24
78000
3000
不喜歡公式的人而言,也是很平常簡單的。
01:39
Here's這裡的 an example: if I were to tell you, let's play
25
81000
3000
舉個例子:如果我告訴你,讓我們來玩
01:42
a little coin硬幣 toss折騰 game遊戲, and I'm going to flip翻動 a coin硬幣,
26
84000
3000
一個拋硬幣的遊戲,我會拋一個硬幣,
01:45
and if it comes up heads, I'm going to pay工資 you 10 dollars美元,
27
87000
3000
如果是正面朝上,我會給你10元,
01:48
but you have to pay工資 four dollars美元 for the privilege特權 of playing播放 with me,
28
90000
4000
但你得花4元來得到這個與我玩的機會,
01:52
most of you would say, sure, I'll take that bet賭注. Because you know
29
94000
3000
你們大多數人會說,好,我參加。因為你們知道
01:55
that the odds可能性 of you winning勝利 are one half, the gain獲得 if you do is 10 dollars美元,
30
97000
5000
你們贏的機會是一半,如果贏的話會得到10元,
02:00
that multiplies to five, and that's more
31
102000
2000
兩者相乘得5,這比我收取的
02:02
than I'm charging充電 you to play. So, the answer回答 is, yes.
32
104000
4000
費用要多。所以,你會回答,好。
02:06
This is what statisticians統計學家 technically技術上 call a damn該死的 fine bet賭注.
33
108000
4000
這就是統計師們技術上所稱的很棒的賭局。
02:10
Now, the idea理念 is simple簡單 when we're applying應用 it to coin硬幣 tosses,
34
112000
3000
那麼,當我們把這個原理應用到拋硬幣上時,是很簡單的,
02:13
but in fact事實, it's not very simple簡單 in everyday每天 life.
35
115000
4000
但實際上,在應用到日常生活中卻並不那麼簡單。
02:17
People are horrible可怕 at estimating估計 both of these things,
36
119000
4000
人們評估兩者的能力非常糟糕,
02:21
and that's what I want to talk to you about today今天.
37
123000
2000
而這就是我今天想要談論的話題。
02:23
There are two kinds of errors錯誤 people make when trying to decide決定
38
125000
3000
人們在為自己的行為作決策時,
02:26
what the right thing is to do, and those are
39
128000
2000
會犯兩種錯誤,
02:28
errors錯誤 in estimating估計 the odds可能性 that they're going to succeed成功,
40
130000
3000
即錯誤地估計成功的機率,
02:31
and errors錯誤 in estimating估計 the value of their own擁有 success成功.
41
133000
4000
以及錯誤地估計成功的價值。
02:35
Now, let me talk about the first one first.
42
137000
4000
首先讓我談談第一個錯誤。
02:39
Calculating計算 odds可能性 would seem似乎 to be something rather easy簡單:
43
141000
2000
計算機率看起來是件很簡單的事情:
02:41
there are six sides雙方 to a die, two sides雙方 to a coin硬幣, 52 cards in a deck甲板.
44
143000
4000
一個骰子有六面,一個硬幣有兩面,一副撲克牌有52張。
02:45
You all know what the likelihood可能性 is of pulling the ace高手 of spades黑桃
45
147000
4000
你們都知道摸到黑桃A或者
02:49
or of flipping翻轉 a heads.
46
151000
1000
拋出硬幣正面的可能性。
02:50
But as it turns out, this is not a very easy簡單 idea理念 to apply應用
47
152000
5000
但結果是,這個道理如果應用於日常生活的時候,
02:55
in everyday每天 life. That's why Americans美國人 spend more --
48
157000
3000
就不那麼容易了。這也是爲什麽美國人花了更多的錢——
02:58
I should say, lose失去 more -- gambling賭博
49
160000
3000
我應該說,輸了更多的錢——在賭博上。
03:01
than on all other forms形式 of entertainment娛樂 combined結合.
50
163000
5000
這些錢比所有其他娛樂形式費用的總和還要多。
03:06
The reason原因 is, this isn't how people do odds可能性.
51
168000
3000
原因就是,人們並不用這種方式來計算機率。
03:09
The way people figure數字 odds可能性
52
171000
1000
要談論人們計算機率的方式,
03:10
requires要求 that we first talk a bit about pigs.
53
172000
3000
我們先得談談和豬有關的事宜。
03:13
Now, the question I'm going to put to you is whether是否 you think
54
175000
2000
我現在要問你們的問題是,
03:15
there are more dogs小狗 or pigs on leashes牽引繩
55
177000
3000
在牛津的任何一天,
03:18
observed觀察到的 in any particular特定 day in Oxford牛津.
56
180000
3000
你認為被拴的狗多還是被拴的豬多。
03:21
And of course課程, you all know that the answer回答 is dogs小狗.
57
183000
2000
當然,你們都知道答案是狗。
03:23
And the way that you know that the answer回答 is dogs小狗 is
58
185000
3000
你知道這個答案是狗
03:26
you quickly很快 reviewed回顧 in memory記憶 the times
59
188000
2000
是靠你快速地回憶
03:28
you've seen看到 dogs小狗 and pigs on leashes牽引繩.
60
190000
2000
看到狗和豬被拴的次數。
03:30
It was very easy簡單 to remember記得 seeing眼看 dogs小狗,
61
192000
3000
我們很容易記起見到被拴的狗,
03:33
not so easy簡單 to remember記得 pigs. And each one of you assumed假定
62
195000
3000
但不那麼容易記起被拴的豬。而且你們每個人會假設
03:36
that if dogs小狗 on leashes牽引繩 came來了 more quickly很快 to your mind心神,
63
198000
4000
如果狗被拴的情景更快地出現在你的腦海中的話,
03:40
then dogs小狗 on leashes牽引繩 are more probable可能.
64
202000
2000
那麼狗被拴的可能性更大。
03:42
That's not a bad rule規則 of thumb拇指, except when it is.
65
204000
5000
這個憑感覺的方法還不錯,但也有例外。
03:47
So, for example, here's這裡的 a word puzzle難題.
66
209000
2000
舉例說,這裡有個填詞遊戲。
03:49
Are there more four-letter四個字母 English英語 words
67
211000
2000
在四個字母的英文單詞裡,第三個字母是R的單詞
03:51
with R in the third第三 place地點 or R in the first place地點?
68
213000
4000
與第一個字母是R的單詞哪個比較多?
03:55
Well, you check memory記憶 very briefly簡要地, make a quick scan掃描,
69
217000
3000
嗯,你們會很快搜索下記憶,作一個快速掃描,
03:58
and it's awfully非常 easy簡單 to say to yourself你自己, Ring, Rang, Rung梯級,
70
220000
3000
對你來說記起這些單詞太容易了,Ring,Rang,Rung,
04:01
and very hard to say to yourself你自己, Pare削減, Park公園: they come more slowly慢慢地.
71
223000
7000
而記起Pare,Park就很難:它們在腦海中出現得更慢。
04:08
But in fact事實, there are many許多 more words in the English英語 language語言
72
230000
2000
而實際上,在英文裡,第三字母是R的單詞,
04:10
with R in the third第三 than the first place地點.
73
232000
3000
比第一字母是R的單詞要多得多。
04:13
The reason原因 words with R in the third第三 place地點 come slowly慢慢地 to your mind心神
74
235000
4000
你回憶起第三字母是R的單詞比較慢的原因,
04:17
isn't because they're improbable難以置信, unlikely不會 or infrequent罕見的.
75
239000
3000
不是因為它們不存在,不大可能出現或使用頻率少。
04:20
It's because the mind心神 recalls召回 words by their first letter.
76
242000
4000
而是因為我們的大腦是用第一個字母來回憶單詞。
04:24
You kind of shout out the sound聲音, S -- and the word comes.
77
246000
3000
我們好像是用大腦在讀這個單詞的音,S——然後單詞就出來了。
04:27
It's like the dictionary字典;
78
249000
1000
很像詞典;
04:28
it's hard to look things up by the third第三 letter.
79
250000
3000
我們很難用第三個字母來查找單詞。
04:31
So, this is an example of how this idea理念 that
80
253000
2000
所以,這個例子說明一個道理,
04:33
the quickness速度 with which哪一個 things come to mind心神
81
255000
2000
即我們大腦回憶事物的速度,
04:35
can give you a sense of their probability可能性 --
82
257000
2000
會影響你對該事物出現的可能性的感覺——
04:37
how this idea理念 could lead you astray走錯. It's not just puzzles謎題, though雖然.
83
259000
4000
而這個道理可能會讓你出現誤差。這並不僅限於填詞遊戲。
04:41
For example, when Americans美國人 are asked to estimate估計 the odds可能性
84
263000
3000
譬如說,當讓美國人估計他們
04:44
that they will die in a variety品種 of interesting有趣 ways方法 --
85
266000
3000
奇奇怪怪的死因的機率時——
04:47
these are estimates估計 of number of deaths死亡 per year
86
269000
3000
這些估計數據是以每年每兩億美國人
04:50
per 200 million百萬 U.S. citizens公民.
87
272000
2000
的死亡人數而計。
04:52
And these are just ordinary普通 people like yourselves你自己 who are asked
88
274000
2000
他們只是一些是跟你我一樣的普通人。問他們
04:54
to guess猜測 how many許多 people die from tornado龍捲風, fireworks煙花, asthma哮喘, drowning溺死, etc等等.
89
276000
4000
猜測一下會有多少人死於颶風,煙花,哮喘,溺水等等。
04:58
Compare比較 these to the actual實際 numbers數字.
90
280000
3000
讓我們跟實際數據比較一下。
05:01
Now, you see a very interesting有趣 pattern模式 here, which哪一個 is first of all,
91
283000
3000
你們可以看到一個非常有趣的現象,首先,
05:04
two things are vastly大大 over-estimated高估, namely亦即 tornadoes龍捲風 and fireworks煙花.
92
286000
5000
兩者被大幅高估,即颶風和煙花;
05:09
Two things are vastly大大 underestimated低估:
93
291000
2000
兩者被大幅低估:
05:11
dying垂死 by drowning溺死 and dying垂死 by asthma哮喘. Why?
94
293000
3000
溺水和哮喘。爲什麽?
05:14
When was the last time that you picked採摘的 up a newspaper報紙
95
296000
3000
你們還記得上次拿起一張報紙,
05:17
and the headline標題 was, "Boy男孩 dies of Asthma哮喘?"
96
299000
3000
上面的的大標題是“男孩死於哮喘”是什麽時候嗎?
05:20
It's not interesting有趣 because it's so common共同.
97
302000
3000
這沒什麽稀奇因為太普通了。
05:23
It's very easy簡單 for all of us to bring帶來 to mind心神 instances實例
98
305000
4000
對我們來說,非常容易記起
05:27
of news新聞 stories故事 or newsreels新聞影片 where we've我們已經 seen看到
99
309000
3000
我們曾看到報紙和電視上的新聞報導
05:30
tornadoes龍捲風 devastating破壞性的 cities城市, or some poor較差的 schmuck笨蛋
100
312000
2000
諸如颶風摧毀城市,或是某個可憐的笨蛋
05:32
who's誰是 blown his hands off with a firework焰火 on the Fourth第四 of July七月.
101
314000
4000
在國慶節被煙花炸掉雙手。
05:36
Drownings溺水 and asthma哮喘 deaths死亡 don't get much coverage覆蓋.
102
318000
3000
對因溺水和哮喘而死的報導並不多。
05:39
They don't come quickly很快 to mind心神, and as a result結果,
103
321000
2000
我們並不會很快記起這類事件,而結果就是,
05:41
we vastly大大 underestimate低估 them.
104
323000
2000
我們極度低估了它們。
05:43
Indeed確實, this is kind of like the Sesame芝麻 Street game遊戲
105
325000
2000
的確,這就有點像芝麻街遊戲
05:45
of "Which哪一個 thing doesn't belong屬於?" And you're right to say
106
327000
4000
"哪樣東西與眾不同?" 你說游泳池不同
05:49
it's the swimming游泳的 pool that doesn't belong屬於, because the swimming游泳的 pool
107
331000
3000
就對了,因為游泳池是
05:52
is the only thing on this slide滑動 that's actually其實 very dangerous危險.
108
334000
4000
這張上唯一非常危險的東西。
05:56
The way that more of you are likely容易 to die than the combination組合
109
338000
2000
也就是說,你們死於游泳池的可能性
05:58
of all three of the others其他 that you see on the slide滑動.
110
340000
4000
比這張圖片上其他三種加起來還要高。
06:02
The lottery抽獎 is an excellent優秀 example, of course課程 -- an excellent優秀 test-case測試用例
111
344000
4000
彩票是一個很棒的例子,一個測試
06:06
of people's人們 ability能力 to compute計算 probabilities概率.
112
348000
3000
人們計算可能性的能力的例子。
06:09
And economists經濟學家 -- forgive原諒 me, for those of you who play the lottery抽獎 --
113
351000
3000
先對那些買彩票的朋友說聲抱歉,
06:12
but economists經濟學家, at least最小 among其中 themselves他們自己, refer參考 to the lottery抽獎
114
354000
3000
但經濟學家們,至少在他們之間,把彩票稱為
06:15
as a stupidity糊塗事 tax, because the odds可能性 of getting得到 any payoff付清
115
357000
5000
愚蠢之稅,因為投資買彩票
06:20
by investing投資 your money in a lottery抽獎 ticket
116
362000
2000
而中獎的可能性
06:22
are approximately equivalent當量 to flushing沖洗 the money
117
364000
2000
跟把錢直接沖進馬桶差不多
06:24
directly down the toilet廁所 -- which哪一個, by the way,
118
366000
2000
而且,沖馬桶還
06:26
doesn't require要求 that you actually其實 go to the store商店 and buy購買 anything.
119
368000
4000
不需要你親自去彩票店跑一趟。
06:30
Why in the world世界 would anybody任何人 ever play the lottery抽獎?
120
372000
3000
究竟世上爲什麽會有人想買彩票呢?
06:33
Well, there are many許多 answers答案, but one answer回答 surely一定 is,
121
375000
3000
嗯,有許多答案,但其中肯定包括這個答案:
06:36
we see a lot of winners獲獎者. Right? When this couple一對 wins the lottery抽獎,
122
378000
4000
我們看到許多中大獎的人。對吧?當這對夫妻贏了大獎,
06:40
or Ed埃德 McMahon麥克馬洪 shows節目 up at your door with this giant巨人 check --
123
382000
3000
或Ed McMahon帶著一張巨大的支票來到你家門口時——
06:43
how the hell地獄 do you cash現金 things that size尺寸, I don't know.
124
385000
3000
我可不知道你怎麼用那麼巨大的支票去換錢。
06:46
We see this on TV電視; we read about it in the paper.
125
388000
3000
我們在電視上看到這些,在報紙上讀到這些。
06:49
When was the last time that you saw extensive廣泛 interviews面試
126
391000
3000
你們什麽時候見過對每個輸錢的人
06:52
with everybody每個人 who lost丟失?
127
394000
2000
所作出的大量採訪呢?
06:54
Indeed確實, if we required需要 that television電視 stations run
128
396000
3000
的確,如果我們要求電視台
06:57
a 30-second interview訪問 with each loser失敗者
129
399000
2000
每次採訪大獎得主的時候,
06:59
every一切 time they interview訪問 a winner優勝者, the 100 million百萬 losers失敗者
130
401000
4000
必須播放對每個輸家一段30秒的採訪,
07:03
in the last lottery抽獎 would require要求 nine-and-a-half九和半 years年份
131
405000
3000
那麼上次開獎後你得全神貫注地花上9年半的時間
07:06
of your undivided一心一意 attention注意 just to watch them say,
132
408000
3000
來看那1億輸家採訪,你會看到他們說,
07:09
"Me? I lost丟失." "Me? I lost丟失."
133
411000
3000
"我?我輸了。" "我?我輸了。"
07:12
Now, if you watch nine-and-a-half九和半 years年份 of television電視 --
134
414000
2000
那麼,如果你看了九年半的電視——
07:14
no sleep睡覺, no potty便壺 breaks休息 -- and you saw loss失利 after loss失利 after loss失利,
135
416000
5000
不睡不拉——你就會往復循環地看到輸輸輸,
07:19
and then at the end結束 there's 30 seconds of, "and I won韓元,"
136
421000
2000
然後最後的30秒"我贏了",
07:21
the likelihood可能性 that you would play the lottery抽獎 is very small.
137
423000
3000
這樣你去買彩票的可能性就很小了。
07:24
Look, I can prove證明 this to you: here's這裡的 a little lottery抽獎.
138
426000
3000
來,我可以證明給你:這兒有個小彩票。
07:27
There's 10 tickets門票 in this lottery抽獎.
139
429000
2000
一共有10張彩票。
07:29
Nine of them have been sold出售 to these individuals個人.
140
431000
3000
其中9張已經賣給其他不同的人了,
07:32
It costs成本 you a dollar美元 to buy購買 the ticket and, if you win贏得,
141
434000
3000
1元1張票,如果你贏了,
07:35
you get 20 bucks雄鹿. Is this a good bet賭注?
142
437000
2000
你得到20元。值得賭嗎?
07:37
Well, Bernoulli伯努利 tells告訴 us it is.
143
439000
1000
嗯,Bernoulli告訴我們肯定的答案:
07:38
The expected預期 value of this lottery抽獎 is two dollars美元;
144
440000
3000
這個彩票的預期價值是2元,
07:41
this is a lottery抽獎 in which哪一個 you should invest投資 your money.
145
443000
3000
你應該投資購買該彩票。
07:44
And most people say, "OK, I'll play."
146
446000
2000
大多數人會說,"好,我會買。"
07:46
Now, a slightly different不同 version of this lottery抽獎:
147
448000
3000
現在,稍微改變一下彩票規則:
07:49
imagine想像 that the nine tickets門票 are all owned擁有的
148
451000
2000
假設9張票全部
07:51
by one fat脂肪 guy named命名 Leroy樂華.
149
453000
2000
給一個叫Leroy的胖子買走了。
07:53
Leroy樂華 has nine tickets門票; there's one left.
150
455000
2000
Leroy有9張票;那就只剩下1張。
07:55
Do you want it? Most people won't慣於 play this lottery抽獎.
151
457000
3000
你還會買嗎?大多數人不想買了。
07:58
Now, you can see the odds可能性 of winning勝利 haven't沒有 changed,
152
460000
2000
你可以看到贏的機率並沒有改變,
08:00
but it's now fantastically飛馳 easy簡單 to imagine想像 who's誰是 going to win贏得.
153
462000
5000
但現在非常容易想像出誰會是贏家。
08:05
It's easy簡單 to see Leroy樂華 getting得到 the check, right?
154
467000
3000
很容易看出Leroy會贏獎,對吧?
08:08
You can't say to yourself你自己, "I'm as likely容易 to win贏得 as anybody任何人,"
155
470000
2000
你不會對自己說,"我跟其他人得獎的機會一樣大。"
08:10
because you're not as likely容易 to win贏得 as Leroy樂華.
156
472000
3000
因為你跟Leroy得獎的機會不一樣大。
08:13
The fact事實 that all those tickets門票 are owned擁有的 by one guy
157
475000
2000
所有其他彩票被一個人買走的事實
08:15
changes變化 your decision決定 to play,
158
477000
2000
改變了你是否要買的決定,
08:17
even though雖然 it does nothing whatsoever任何 to the odds可能性.
159
479000
3000
儘管你知道你贏的機率一點都沒變。
08:20
Now, estimating估計 odds可能性, as difficult as it may可能 seem似乎, is a piece of cake蛋糕
160
482000
5000
那麼,評估可能性的難度,雖然看起來很難,
08:25
compared相比 to trying to estimate估計 value:
161
487000
2000
但與評估價值相比較,簡直是小菜一碟:
08:27
trying to say what something is worth價值, how much we'll enjoy請享用 it,
162
489000
3000
評估價值就是試圖找出某樣東西的價值,我們對它的享受程度,
08:30
how much pleasure樂趣 it will give us.
163
492000
3000
它會帶給我們多少快樂。
08:33
I want to talk now about errors錯誤 in value.
164
495000
2000
我現在想談下價值的錯誤。
08:35
How much is this Big Mac蘋果電腦 worth價值? Is it worth價值 25 dollars美元?
165
497000
4000
這個巨無霸漢堡包值多少錢?值25元嗎?
08:39
Most of you have the intuition直覺 that it's not --
166
501000
3000
大多數人直覺它不值——
08:42
you wouldn't不會 pay工資 that for it.
167
504000
2000
你不會花那麼多錢買它。
08:44
But in fact事實, to decide決定 whether是否 a Big Mac蘋果電腦 is worth價值 25 dollars美元 requires要求
168
506000
4000
而實際上,決定一個巨無霸漢堡是否值25元,
08:48
that you ask one, and only one question, which哪一個 is:
169
510000
3000
只需要你問一個問題而已,即:
08:51
What else其他 can I do with 25 dollars美元?
170
513000
2000
我還能用25元做什麽?
08:53
If you've ever gotten得到 on one of those long-haul長途 flights航班 to Australia澳大利亞
171
515000
4000
如果你曾坐過那種去澳大利亞的長途航班,
08:57
and realized實現 that they're not going to serve服務 you any food餐飲,
172
519000
3000
而且得知他們不會提供任何食物,
09:00
but somebody in the row in front面前 of you has just opened打開
173
522000
2000
但你前排有個人剛剛打開了
09:02
the McDonald's麥當勞 bag, and the smell of golden金色 arches拱門
174
524000
3000
麥當勞的紙袋,那金黃色圓麵包的香味
09:05
is wafting飄出 over the seat座位, you think,
175
527000
3000
從座位上方飄了過來,這時你會想,
09:08
I can't do anything else其他 with this 25 dollars美元 for 16 hours小時.
176
530000
3000
我在這16個小時用這25元什麽也不能做。
09:11
I can't even set it on fire -- they took my cigarette香煙 lighter打火機!
177
533000
3000
我甚至不能點燃它——他們把我的打火機收走了!
09:14
Suddenly突然, 25 dollars美元 for a Big Mac蘋果電腦 might威力 be a good deal合同.
178
536000
3000
突然,25元買個巨無霸漢堡可能是筆好交易。
09:17
On the other hand, if you're visiting訪問 an underdeveloped發育不全的 country國家,
179
539000
2000
相反的情況,如果你去參觀一個發展中國家,
09:19
and 25 dollars美元 buys購買 you a gourmet美食 meal膳食, it's exorbitant高昂 for a Big Mac蘋果電腦.
180
541000
4000
25元就可以讓你大快朵頤,而買巨無霸漢堡就太貴了。
09:23
Why were you all sure that the answer回答 to the question was no,
181
545000
3000
爲什麽在我還沒告訴你們所處的情境時,
09:26
before I'd even told you anything about the context上下文?
182
548000
3000
你們都確定對這個問題的答案是"不"呢?
09:29
Because most of you compared相比 the price價錢 of this Big Mac蘋果電腦
183
551000
4000
因為你們大多數人將這個巨無霸漢堡的價格
09:33
to the price價錢 you're used to paying付款. Rather than asking,
184
555000
3000
與你們過去常付的價格比較。而不是問,
09:36
"What else其他 can I do with my money," comparing比較 this investment投資
185
558000
3000
"我還能用這錢幹什麼",即將這項投資與
09:39
to other possible可能 investments投資, you compared相比 to the past過去.
186
561000
4000
其他可能的投資比較,你們是與過去的情境比較。
09:43
And this is a systematic系統的 error錯誤 people make.
187
565000
2000
而這是人們犯的一個系統性錯誤。
09:45
What you knew知道 is, you paid支付 three dollars美元 in the past過去; 25 is outrageous蠻橫的.
188
567000
5000
你所知道的是,你在過去是花3元;如果花25元就太過分了。
09:50
This is an error錯誤, and I can prove證明 it to you by showing展示
189
572000
2000
這是一個錯誤,我可以證明給大家看,
09:52
the kinds of irrationalities不合理 to which哪一個 it leads引線.
190
574000
2000
我會展示給大家看它可以導致什麼樣的非理性。
09:54
For example, this is, of course課程,
191
576000
3000
舉例來說,
09:57
one of the most delicious美味的 tricks技巧 in marketing營銷,
192
579000
2000
一個最有效的營銷技巧是,
09:59
is to say something used to be higher更高,
193
581000
2000
告訴顧客商品的原價更高,
10:01
and suddenly突然 it seems似乎 like a very good deal合同.
194
583000
3000
這樣的話,現價一下子就看起來很划算了。
10:04
When people are asked about these two different不同 jobs工作:
195
586000
3000
當人們被問及兩份工作時:
10:07
a job工作 where you make 60K, then 50K, then 40K,
196
589000
3000
第一份工作你的年薪先是6萬元,然後5萬元,然後4萬元,
10:10
a job工作 where you're getting得到 a salary薪水 cut each year,
197
592000
2000
每年都會減薪,
10:12
and one in which哪一個 you're getting得到 a salary薪水 increase增加,
198
594000
2000
第二份工作是每年都會加薪,
10:14
people like the second第二 job工作 better than the first, despite儘管 the fact事實
199
596000
4000
人們更喜歡第二份工作,儘管事實上
10:18
they're all told they make much less money. Why?
200
600000
3000
他們都被告知會賺得更少。爲什麽會這樣?
10:21
Because they had the sense that declining下降 wages工資 are worse更差
201
603000
4000
因為他們感覺逐年遞減的工資比
10:25
than rising升起 wages工資, even when the total amount of wages工資 is higher更高
202
607000
4000
遞增的工資要差,儘管總數算起來前者要比
10:29
in the declining下降 period. Here's這裡的 another另一個 nice不錯 example.
203
611000
4000
後者多。這裡有另外一個例子。
10:33
Here's這裡的 a $2,000 Hawaiian夏威夷 vacation假期 package; it's now on sale拍賣 for 1,600.
204
615000
5000
這是一套價值二千元的夏威夷假日套票,現在促銷價是一千六百元
10:38
Assuming假設 you wanted to go to Hawaii夏威夷, would you buy購買 this package?
205
620000
3000
假設你想去夏威夷,你願意買這個套票嗎?
10:41
Most people say they would. Here's這裡的 a slightly different不同 story故事:
206
623000
4000
大多數人會同意購買。那麼把條件稍微改變一下:
10:45
$2,000 Hawaiian夏威夷 vacation假期 package is now on sale拍賣 for 700 dollars美元,
207
627000
4000
2000元的夏威夷假日套票現在只售700元,
10:49
so you decide決定 to mull仔細考慮 it over for a week.
208
631000
2000
於是你考慮了一個星期。
10:51
By the time you get to the ticket agency機構, the best最好 fares票價 are gone走了 --
209
633000
2000
等你來到售票代理的時,最好的價格過期了——
10:53
the package now costs成本 1,500. Would you buy購買 it? Most people say, no.
210
635000
5000
現在的價格是一千五百元。你還會買嗎?大多數人會說,不會。
10:58
Why? Because it used to cost成本 700, and there's no way I'm paying付款 1,500
211
640000
4000
爲什麽?因為它過去的價格是七百元,而我絕不會花一千五百元
11:02
for something that was 700 last week.
212
644000
3000
買上個星期只有七百元的東西。
11:05
This tendency趨勢 to compare比較 to the past過去
213
647000
2000
人們喜歡與過去的事物比較的傾向
11:07
is causing造成 people to pass通過 up the better deal合同. In other words,
214
649000
4000
導致人們錯過了更好的交易。換句話說,
11:11
a good deal合同 that used to be a great deal合同 is not nearly幾乎 as good
215
653000
3000
一個划算的交易,會因為它之前更划算而導致現在顯得不那麼划算,
11:14
as an awful可怕 deal合同 that was once一旦 a horrible可怕 deal合同.
216
656000
4000
同樣,一個糟糕的交易,會因為之前更糟糕而導致現在顯得不那麼糟糕。
11:18
Here's這裡的 another另一個 example of how comparing比較 to the past過去
217
660000
2000
這是另外一個跟過去比較是
11:20
can befuddle醉人 our decisions決定.
218
662000
4000
如何迷惑我們的決策的例子。
11:24
Imagine想像 that you're going to the theater劇院.
219
666000
2000
假設你要去劇院。
11:26
You're on your way to the theater劇院.
220
668000
1000
你在去劇院的路上。
11:27
In your wallet錢包 you have a ticket, for which哪一個 you paid支付 20 dollars美元.
221
669000
2000
你錢包里放著你花了20元買的一張票。
11:29
You also have a 20-dollar-美元 bill法案.
222
671000
2000
你也有一張20元的鈔票。
11:31
When you arrive到達 at the theater劇院,
223
673000
2000
當你到達劇院時,
11:33
you discover發現 that somewhere某處 along沿 the way you've lost丟失 the ticket.
224
675000
3000
你發現不知怎樣電影票在路上丟了。
11:36
Would you spend your remaining其餘 money on replacing更換 it?
225
678000
3000
你會花剩下的錢再買一張嗎?
11:39
Most people answer回答, no.
226
681000
3000
大多數人的答案是,不會。
11:42
Now, let's just change更改 one thing in this scenario腳本.
227
684000
3000
那麼,讓我們把這個情境改變一點。
11:45
You're on your way to the theater劇院,
228
687000
1000
你在去劇院的路上,
11:46
and in your wallet錢包 you have two 20-dollar-美元 bills票據.
229
688000
2000
在你的錢包裡有兩張20元的鈔票。
11:48
When you arrive到達 you discover發現 you've lost丟失 one of them.
230
690000
2000
當你到達劇院時你發現丟了一張。
11:50
Would you spend your remaining其餘 20 dollars美元 on a ticket?
231
692000
2000
你會花剩下的20元買電影票嗎?
11:52
Well, of course課程, I went to the theater劇院 to see the play.
232
694000
3000
嗯,當然了:我是去劇院看電影的。
11:55
What does the loss失利 of 20 dollars美元 along沿 the way have to do?
233
697000
3000
在路上丟了20元跟這個有什麽關係?
11:58
Now, just in case案件 you're not getting得到 it,
234
700000
3000
萬一你還不太明白,
12:01
here's這裡的 a schematic概要 of what happened發生, OK?
235
703000
2000
我用圖表來表示剛才所發生的。
12:03
(Laughter笑聲)
236
705000
1000
(笑聲)
12:04
Along沿 the way, you lost丟失 something.
237
706000
2000
在路上,你丟了點東西。
12:06
In both cases, it was a piece of paper.
238
708000
2000
在兩種情況下,丟的都是一張紙。
12:08
In one case案件, it had a U.S. president主席 on it; in the other case案件 it didn't.
239
710000
4000
只不過一張紙上有美國總統頭像在上面,另外一張沒有。
12:12
What the hell地獄 difference區別 should it make?
240
714000
2000
那又有什麽區別呢?
12:14
The difference區別 is that when you lost丟失 the ticket you say to yourself你自己,
241
716000
3000
區別其實在於當你丟了電影票的時候,你對自己說,
12:17
I'm not paying付款 twice兩次 for the same相同 thing.
242
719000
2000
我不會為同樣的事情付兩次錢。
12:19
You compare比較 the cost成本 of the play now -- 40 dollars美元 --
243
721000
3000
你把這次看電影要花的費用——40元——
12:22
to the cost成本 that it used to have -- 20 dollars美元 -- and you say it's a bad deal合同.
244
724000
5000
與以前的比較——20元——你會認為它是個差勁的交易。
12:27
Comparing對比 with the past過去 causes原因 many許多 of the problems問題
245
729000
4000
與過去價值比較這一現象,
12:31
that behavioral行為的 economists經濟學家 and psychologists心理學家 identify鑑定
246
733000
3000
使行為經濟學家和心理學家發現了
12:34
in people's人們 attempts嘗試 to assign分配 value.
247
736000
2000
人們在嘗試評估價值中所犯的許多錯誤。
12:36
But even when we compare比較 with the possible可能, instead代替 of the past過去,
248
738000
5000
但甚至當我們只是與可能的情況,而非過去作比較時,
12:41
we still make certain某些 kinds of mistakes錯誤.
249
743000
2000
我們仍然會犯某些錯誤。
12:43
And I'm going to show顯示 you one or two of them.
250
745000
2000
我會講其中一兩種錯誤給大家聽。
12:45
One of the things we know about comparison對照:
251
747000
3000
對於比較,我們都知道的是:
12:48
that when we compare比較 one thing to the other, it changes變化 its value.
252
750000
3000
當我們拿一件東西跟另外一件比較時,它的價值就變了。
12:51
So in 1992, this fellow同伴, George喬治 Bush襯套, for those of us who were
253
753000
4000
在1992年,這個傢伙,George Bush,對我們其中一些
12:55
kind of on the liberal自由主義的 side of the political政治 spectrum光譜,
254
757000
3000
政治上傾向於自由的人們來說,
12:58
didn't seem似乎 like such這樣 a great guy.
255
760000
2000
看上去並不怎麼樣。
13:00
Suddenly突然, we're almost幾乎 longing渴望 for him to return返回.
256
762000
4000
現在呢,我們突然渴望他回來了。
13:04
(Laughter笑聲)
257
766000
3000
(笑聲)
13:07
The comparison對照 changes變化 how we evaluate評估 him.
258
769000
3000
比較改變了我們如何評價他。
13:10
Now, retailers零售商 knew知道 this long before anybody任何人 else其他 did, of course課程,
259
772000
4000
其實,零售商們比任何人都早知道一個道理,
13:14
and they use this wisdom智慧 to help you --
260
776000
2000
而且他們使用這個道理來幫助你——
13:16
spare備用 you the undue過度的 burden負擔 of money.
261
778000
2000
花掉你更多的錢。
13:18
And so a retailer零售商, if you were to go into a wine紅酒 shop
262
780000
3000
如果你去一個賣酒的商店,
13:21
and you had to buy購買 a bottle瓶子 of wine紅酒,
263
783000
1000
你得買一瓶酒,
13:22
and you see them here for eight, 27 and 33 dollars美元, what would you do?
264
784000
4000
有三種價格分別是8元,27元,33元,你會選哪種?
13:26
Most people don't want the most expensive昂貴,
265
788000
2000
大多數人不想要最貴的,
13:28
they don't want the least最小 expensive昂貴.
266
790000
2000
也不想要最便宜的。
13:30
So, they will opt選擇 for the item項目 in the middle中間.
267
792000
2000
於是,他們會選中間的價格。
13:32
If you're a smart聰明 retailer零售商, then, you will put a very expensive昂貴 item項目
268
794000
3000
如果你是個聰明的零售商,那麼,你把一瓶非常貴
13:35
that nobody沒有人 will ever buy購買 on the shelf,
269
797000
2000
而永遠不可能有人買的的酒放在貨架上,
13:37
because suddenly突然 the $33 wine紅酒 doesn't look as expensive昂貴 in comparison對照.
270
799000
6000
因此突然間,相比較而言,33元的酒看起來就不那麼貴了。
13:43
So I'm telling告訴 you something you already已經 knew知道:
271
805000
1000
其實我在告訴你們已經知道的道理,
13:44
namely亦即, that comparison對照 changes變化 the value of things.
272
806000
4000
即,比較會改變事物的價值。
13:48
Here's這裡的 why that's a problem問題:
273
810000
1000
爲什麽它是個問題呢:
13:49
the problem問題 is that when you get that $33 bottle瓶子 of wine紅酒 home,
274
811000
6000
問題是當你把33美元的酒帶回家時,
13:55
it won't慣於 matter what it used to be sitting坐在 on the shelf next下一個 to.
275
817000
4000
它在商店里跟哪瓶酒擺在一起已經不重要了。
13:59
The comparisons對比 we make when we are appraising評價 value,
276
821000
5000
我們在評估價值的時候會作比較,
14:04
where we're trying to estimate估計 how much we'll like things,
277
826000
4000
我們試圖通過比較來評估我們將會多喜歡它們,
14:08
are not the same相同 comparisons對比 we'll be making製造 when we consume消耗 them.
278
830000
3000
而這種比較跟我們在享用它們的時候所作的比較是不同的。
14:11
This problem問題 of shifting comparisons對比 can bedevil困擾
279
833000
4000
這種轉移比較的問題會
14:15
our attempts嘗試 to make rational合理的 decisions決定.
280
837000
3000
在我們嘗試作出理性選擇時困擾我們。
14:18
Let me just give you an example.
281
840000
1000
我再舉一個例子。
14:19
I have to show顯示 you something from my own擁有 lab實驗室, so let me sneak潛行 this in.
282
841000
4000
我要給你們看我自己實驗室的一項實驗,來看這個。
14:23
These are subjects主題 coming未來 to an experiment實驗 to be asked
283
845000
2000
這些參與實驗的對象要回答
14:25
the simplest簡單 of all questions問題:
284
847000
2000
一個最最簡單的問題:
14:27
How much will you enjoy請享用 eating potato土豆 chips芯片 one minute分鐘 from now?
285
849000
4000
一分鐘後你對吃馬鈴薯片的享受程度會是怎樣?
14:31
They're sitting坐在 in a room房間 with potato土豆 chips芯片 in front面前 of them.
286
853000
3000
他們坐在屋子里,薯片放在他們前面。
14:34
For some of the subjects主題, sitting坐在 in the far corner of a room房間
287
856000
3000
其中一些實驗對象的屋子遠角
14:37
is a box of GodivaGODIVA chocolates巧克力, and for others其他 is a can of Spam垃圾郵件.
288
859000
5000
放了一盒Godiva的巧克力,其他人的屋子遠角是放了一罐Spam午餐肉。
14:42
In fact事實, these items項目 that are sitting坐在 in the room房間 change更改
289
864000
4000
實際上,這些放在屋子里的東西改變了
14:46
how much the subjects主題 think they're going to enjoy請享用 the potato土豆 chips芯片.
290
868000
3000
實驗對象認為他們將會享用薯片的程度。
14:49
Namely亦即, those who are looking at Spam垃圾郵件
291
871000
2000
也就是說,那些看到Spam午餐肉的人
14:51
think potato土豆 chips芯片 are going to be quite相當 tasty可口;
292
873000
2000
認為薯片會很好吃;
14:53
those who are looking at GodivaGODIVA chocolate巧克力
293
875000
2000
那些看著Godiva巧克力的人
14:55
think they won't慣於 be nearly幾乎 so tasty可口.
294
877000
2000
認為薯片不怎麼樣。
14:57
Of course課程, what happens發生 when they eat the potato土豆 chips芯片?
295
879000
2000
當然,當他們真正吃的時候會怎樣呢?
14:59
Well, look, you didn't need a psychologist心理學家 to tell you that
296
881000
3000
嗯,你們根本不需要一個心理學家來告訴你們
15:02
when you have a mouthful一口 of greasy, salty, crispy香脆, delicious美味的 snacks小吃,
297
884000
4000
當你滿嘴是油油的,鹹鹹的,脆脆的,美味的點心時,
15:06
what's sitting坐在 in the corner of the room房間
298
888000
1000
這屋子的角落里放著什麽東西
15:07
makes品牌 not a damn該死的 bit of difference區別 to your gustatory味覺 experience經驗.
299
889000
5000
難道會對你的味覺體驗造成一丁點的影響嗎?
15:12
Nonetheless儘管如此, their predictions預測 are perverted變態 by a comparison對照
300
894000
4000
不管怎樣,他們的預測被一個根本不會影響到
15:16
that then does not carry攜帶 through通過 and change更改 their experience經驗.
301
898000
4000
他們實際體驗的比較給破壞了。
15:20
You've all experienced有經驗的 this yourself你自己, even if you've never come
302
902000
2000
就算你們從未到實驗室吃薯片,你們也都
15:22
into our lab實驗室 to eat potato土豆 chips芯片. So here's這裡的 a question:
303
904000
3000
有過這種經歷,那麼,問題來了:
15:25
You want to buy購買 a car汽車 stereo立體聲.
304
907000
2000
你想買套汽車音響。
15:27
The dealer零售商 near your house sells塞爾斯 this particular特定 stereo立體聲 for 200 dollars美元,
305
909000
5000
你家附近的經銷商買這款音響的價格是200元,
15:32
but if you drive駕駛 across橫過 town, you can get it for 100 bucks雄鹿.
306
914000
3000
如果你開車穿過市區去買,你花100元就行了。
15:35
So would you drive駕駛 to get 50 percent百分 off, saving保存 100 dollars美元?
307
917000
3000
那麼你願意開車去一趟,以節省百分之50,省下100元嗎?
15:38
Most people say they would.
308
920000
2000
大多數人會願意。
15:40
They can't imagine想像 buying購買 it for twice兩次 the price價錢
309
922000
2000
當開車跑一趟,可以省一半價錢時,
15:42
when, with one trip across橫過 town, they can get it for half off.
310
924000
4000
他們絕不願意花兩倍的價格來買。
15:46
Now, let's imagine想像 instead代替 you wanted to buy購買 a car汽車 that had a stereo立體聲,
311
928000
4000
現在,讓我們假設一下,你想買一輛帶音響的車而不是音響,
15:50
and the dealer零售商 near your house had it for 31,000.
312
932000
2000
你家附近的經銷商賣三萬一千元。
15:52
But if you drove開車 across橫過 town, you could get it for 30,900.
313
934000
5000
如果你駕車穿過市區去買,你可以以三萬零九百元成交。
15:57
Would you drive駕駛 to get it? At this point, 0.003 savings -- the 100 dollars美元.
314
939000
4000
你會開車跑一趟去買嗎?這時,節省的100元只佔0.003。
16:01
Most people say, no, I'm going to schlep拖帶 across橫過 town
315
943000
2000
大多數人會說,不,我難道會爲了省100元
16:03
to save保存 100 bucks雄鹿 on the purchase採購 of a car汽車?
316
945000
3000
而費那麼大勁穿過市區跑一趟嗎?
16:06
This kind of thinking思維 drives驅動器 economists經濟學家 crazy, and it should.
317
948000
4000
這種思維讓經濟學家們抓狂,的確是這樣。
16:10
Because this 100 dollars美元 that you save保存 -- hello你好! --
318
952000
4000
因為你節省的這100元——聽好了——
16:14
doesn't know where it came來了 from.
319
956000
2000
這100元它自己可不知道自己從哪兒來的。
16:16
It doesn't know what you saved保存 it on.
320
958000
2000
它不知道你是從何處節省出來的。
16:18
When you go to buy購買 groceries雜貨 with it, it doesn't go,
321
960000
2000
你用它去買雜貨時,它不會說,
16:20
I'm the money saved保存 on the car汽車 stereo立體聲, or,
322
962000
3000
我是從汽車音響上省下來的,或,
16:23
I'm the dumb money saved保存 on the car汽車. It's money.
323
965000
4000
我是從汽車上省下來的傻錢。它還是錢耶。
16:27
And if a drive駕駛 across橫過 town is worth價值 100 bucks雄鹿, it's worth價值 100 bucks雄鹿
324
969000
3000
如果駕車穿過市區跑一趟值100元的話,那它就值100元,
16:30
no matter what you're saving保存 it on. People don't think that way.
325
972000
3000
不管你是從哪裡省出來的。但人們不這麼想。
16:33
That's why they don't know whether是否 their mutual相互 fund基金 manager經理
326
975000
2000
這也是爲什麽他們不知道他們的共同基金經理
16:35
is taking服用 0.1 percent百分 or 0.15 percent百分 of their investment投資,
327
977000
5000
是從他們的投資中抽取百分之0.1還是0.15,
16:40
but they clip coupons優惠券 to save保存 one dollar美元 off of toothpaste牙膏.
328
982000
3000
但他們卻會收集牙膏盒上的優惠券來省一元。
16:43
Now, you can see, this is the problem問題 of shifting comparisons對比,
329
985000
3000
現在,你看出來了吧,這就是轉移比較造成的問題,
16:46
because what you're doing is, you're comparing比較 the 100 bucks雄鹿
330
988000
3000
因為你所作的是,你在用這100元
16:49
to the purchase採購 that you're making製造,
331
991000
2000
與你所購買之物比較,
16:51
but when you go to spend that money you won't慣於 be making製造 that comparison對照.
332
993000
4000
但當你去花這100元的時候,你是不會作這個比較的。
16:55
You've all had this experience經驗.
333
997000
2000
你們都有過這種經歷。
16:57
If you're an American美國, for example, you've probably大概 traveled旅行 in France法國.
334
999000
4000
如果你是一個美國人,舉例來說,你可能去過法國。
17:01
And at some point you may可能 have met會見 a couple一對
335
1003000
2000
你可能在某個時刻遇到一對
17:03
from your own擁有 hometown家鄉, and you thought,
336
1005000
1000
來自家鄉的夫婦,並且你覺得,
17:04
"Oh, my God, these people are so warm. They're so nice不錯 to me.
337
1006000
5000
"哇,他們真熱情。他們對我真好。
17:09
I mean, compared相比 to all these people who hate討厭 me
338
1011000
2000
我是說,我試著說法語時,那些法國佬不喜歡我,
17:11
when I try to speak說話 their language語言 and hate討厭 me more when I don't,
339
1013000
3000
我不說時他們更不喜歡我,跟這些法國佬比較,
17:14
these people are just wonderful精彩." And so you tour遊覽 France法國 with them,
340
1016000
3000
那對夫婦真是太好了。" 於是你跟他們一起遊覽法國,
17:17
and then you get home and you invite邀請 them over for dinner晚餐,
341
1019000
2000
回家後你請他們來吃晚餐,
17:19
and what do you find?
342
1021000
1000
你會發現什麽?
17:20
Compared相比 to your regular定期 friends朋友,
343
1022000
2000
與你的正常朋友比較,
17:22
they are boring無聊 and dull平淡, right? Because in this new context上下文,
344
1024000
4000
他們顯得無聊而乏味,對吧?因為在這個新的環境下,
17:26
the comparison對照 is very, very different不同. In fact事實, you find yourself你自己
345
1028000
4000
比較變得非常非常不同。實際上,你會發現
17:30
disliking不喜歡 them enough足夠 almost幾乎 to qualify修飾 for French法國 citizenship國籍.
346
1032000
3000
你差不多跟法國佬一樣不喜歡他們了。
17:34
Now, you have exactly究竟 the same相同 problem問題 when you shop for a stereo立體聲.
347
1036000
3000
嗯,你去購買音響時會遇到一模一樣的問題。
17:37
You go to the stereo立體聲 store商店, you see two sets of speakers音箱 --
348
1039000
3000
你去音響店,你看到兩種音響——
17:40
these big, boxy四四方方, monoliths巨石, and these little, sleek光滑 speakers音箱,
349
1042000
4000
這些大大的,方方的,像石頭一樣的,還有這些小巧閃亮的音響,
17:44
and you play them, and you go, you know, I do hear a difference區別:
350
1046000
2000
然後你播放它們,你會想,嗯,我是聽出點不同來了:
17:46
the big ones那些 sound聲音 a little better.
351
1048000
2000
大個的效果要好一些。
17:48
And so you buy購買 them, and you bring帶來 them home,
352
1050000
2000
於是你買了它們,帶回家,
17:50
and you entirely完全 violate違反 the décorCOR of your house.
353
1052000
3000
然後你完全打亂了房間的裝飾風格。
17:53
And the problem問題, of course課程, is that this comparison對照 you made製作 in the store商店
354
1055000
4000
問題出在哪裡?當然是你在店裡所作的比較,
17:57
is a comparison對照 you'll你會 never make again.
355
1059000
2000
是你永遠沒有機會再作的比較。
17:59
What are the odds可能性 that years年份 later後來 you'll你會 turn on the stereo立體聲 and go,
356
1061000
2000
難道你會有機會在幾年后打開音響然後想,
18:01
"Sounds聲音 so much better than those little ones那些,"
357
1063000
3000
"聽起來確實比那些小傢伙好哦,"
18:04
which哪一個 you can't even remember記得 hearing聽力.
358
1066000
2000
而你根本就不會記得當時曾聽過哪個了。
18:06
The problem問題 of shifting comparisons對比 is even more difficult
359
1068000
3000
在選項跨越時間的情況下,
18:09
when these choices選擇 are arrayed擺著 over time.
360
1071000
3000
轉移比較的問題會更困難。
18:12
People have a lot of trouble麻煩 making製造 decisions決定
361
1074000
3000
人們在對發生在不同時刻的事情作決策時,
18:15
about things that will happen發生 at different不同 points in time.
362
1077000
3000
會有許多困難。
18:18
And what psychologists心理學家 and behavioral行為的 economists經濟學家 have discovered發現
363
1080000
2000
心理學家和行為經濟學家所發現的是,
18:20
is that by and large people use two simple簡單 rules規則.
364
1082000
3000
總的來說,人們使用兩種簡單的規則。
18:23
So let me give you one very easy簡單 problem問題, a second第二 very easy簡單 problem問題
365
1085000
4000
我先提一個簡單的問題,然後再一個簡單的問題,
18:27
and then a third第三, hard, problem問題.
366
1089000
1000
然後第三個很難的問題。
18:28
Here's這裡的 the first easy簡單 problem問題:
367
1090000
3000
第一個簡單的問題是:
18:31
You can have 60 dollars美元 now or 50 dollars美元 now. Which哪一個 would you prefer比較喜歡?
368
1093000
3000
你可以馬上得到60元或50元。你喜歡哪個選擇?
18:34
This is what we call a one-item一個項目 IQ智商 test測試, OK?
369
1096000
3000
這是我們所說的單題智商測試,好吧?
18:37
All of us, I hope希望, prefer比較喜歡 more money, and the reason原因 is,
370
1099000
3000
我希望我們所有人都喜歡更多的錢,原因是,
18:40
we believe more is better than less.
371
1102000
3000
我們相信多比少好。
18:43
Here's這裡的 the second第二 problem問題:
372
1105000
1000
第二個問題是:
18:44
You can have 60 dollars美元 today今天 or 60 dollars美元 in a month. Which哪一個 would you prefer比較喜歡?
373
1106000
4000
你可以今天得到60元或一個月後得到60元。你喜歡哪個?
18:48
Again, an easy簡單 decision決定,
374
1110000
2000
還是一個很簡單的決定,
18:50
because we all know that now is better than later後來.
375
1112000
4000
因為我們都知道馬上得到比遲延要好。
18:54
What's hard in our decision-making做決定 is when these two rules規則 conflict衝突.
376
1116000
3000
而當這兩條規則衝突時,我們作決策就很難了。
18:57
For example, when you're offered提供 50 dollars美元 now or 60 dollars美元 in a month.
377
1119000
4000
舉例來說,當讓你選擇馬上得到50元或一個月後得到60元。
19:01
This typifies典型代表 a lot of situations情況 in life in which哪一個 you will gain獲得
378
1123000
3000
這代表了生活中的許多情況,即你將通過等待獲益,
19:04
by waiting等候, but you have to be patient患者.
379
1126000
3000
但你得有耐心。
19:07
What do we know? What do people do in these kinds of situations情況?
380
1129000
3000
我們知道什麽?在這些情況下,人們會怎麼做?
19:10
Well, by and large people are enormously巨大 impatient不耐煩.
381
1132000
4000
嗯,總的來說,大多數人都非常缺乏耐心。
19:14
That is, they require要求 interest利益 rates利率 in the hundred
382
1136000
3000
也就是說,得給他們百分之幾百
19:17
or thousands數千 of percents百分比 in order訂購 to delay延遲 gratification享樂
383
1139000
4000
或幾千的利息,才會讓他們願意推遲得到的滿足感,
19:21
and wait until直到 next下一個 month for the extra額外 10 dollars美元.
384
1143000
4000
並等到下個月來得到那額外的10元。
19:25
Maybe that isn't so remarkable卓越, but what is remarkable卓越 is
385
1147000
3000
也許這看起來沒什麼了不起,可了不起的是,
19:28
how easy簡單 it is to make this impatience不耐煩 go away by simply只是 changing改變
386
1150000
4000
我們可以很輕易的趕走這種急躁,只是通過很簡單的
19:32
when the delivery交貨 of these monetary貨幣 units單位 will happen發生.
387
1154000
4000
改變發放錢的時間而已。
19:36
Imagine想像 that you can have 50 dollars美元 in a year -- that's 12 months個月 --
388
1158000
3000
假設你在一年後可以得到50元——即12個月——
19:39
or 60 dollars美元 in 13 months個月.
389
1161000
3000
或13個月後得到60元。
19:42
What do we find now?
390
1164000
1000
我們會得出什麽結論?
19:43
People are gladly樂意 willing願意 to wait: as long as they're waiting等候 12,
391
1165000
3000
人們很願意得到:如果他們得等12個月,
19:46
they might威力 as well wait 13.
392
1168000
2000
他們也願意等13個月。
19:48
What makes品牌 this dynamic動態 inconsistency前後矛盾 happen發生?
393
1170000
3000
是什麽導致這種動態不一致性呢?
19:51
Comparison對照. Troubling令人不安 comparison對照. Let me show顯示 you.
394
1173000
4000
比較。令人困惑的比較。我來展示一下。
19:55
This is just a graph圖形 showing展示 the results結果 that I just suggested建議
395
1177000
3000
這張圖展示了問題的答案,
19:58
you would show顯示 if I gave you time to respond響應, which哪一個 is,
396
1180000
2000
如果我給你們時間來回答,你們的答案就是這樣,也就是說,
20:00
people find that the subjective主觀 value of 50 is higher更高
397
1182000
3000
人們發現馬上得到50元的主觀價值要比
20:03
than the subjective主觀 value of 60 when they'll他們會 be delivered交付 in now
398
1185000
4000
一個月後得到60元的主觀價值高
20:07
or one month, respectively分別 -- a 30-day-天 delay延遲 --
399
1189000
2000
——30天的遲延——
20:09
but they show顯示 the reverse相反 pattern模式 when you push the entire整個 decision決定
400
1191000
4000
但若將兩者都向後推遲一年的話,
20:13
off into the future未來 a year.
401
1195000
3000
其展示的模式卻相反。
20:16
Now, why in the world世界 do you get this pattern模式 of results結果?
402
1198000
4000
那麼,究竟我們爲什麽會有這樣的結果呢?
20:20
These guys can tell us.
403
1202000
1000
這兩個傢伙會告訴我們答案。
20:21
What you see here are two lads小伙子,
404
1203000
3000
你們看到這兒有兩個小傢伙,
20:24
one of them larger than the other: the fireman消防隊員 and the fiddler小提琴手.
405
1206000
3000
其中一個比另外一個要大:消防員和小提琴手。
20:27
They are going to recede退 towards the vanishing消失 point in the horizon地平線,
406
1209000
3000
他們會後退一直到消失在地平線,
20:30
and I want you to notice注意 two things.
407
1212000
2000
我想讓大家注意兩個事情。
20:32
At no point will the fireman消防隊員 look taller than the fiddler小提琴手. No point.
408
1214000
6000
任何距離消防員都不可能比小提琴手高。任何距離。
20:38
However然而, the difference區別 between之間 them seems似乎 to be getting得到 smaller.
409
1220000
3000
然而,他們兩者之間的差別似乎變得越來越小。
20:41
First it's an inch英寸 in your view視圖, then it's a quarter-inch四分之一英寸,
410
1223000
3000
開始的時候在你的視線里他們相差一英寸,然後是四分之三英寸,
20:44
then a half-inch半英寸, and then finally最後 they go off the edge邊緣 of the earth地球.
411
1226000
4000
然後是半英寸,然後最終他們消失在地平線上。
20:48
Here are the results結果 of what I just showed顯示 you.
412
1230000
3000
這就是我剛才展示的結果。
20:51
This is the subjective主觀 height高度 --
413
1233000
2000
這是主觀高度——
20:53
the height高度 you saw of these guys at various各個 points.
414
1235000
3000
你們所看到的在不同距離的兩人的高度。
20:56
And I want you to see that two things are true真正.
415
1238000
2000
我想讓大家注意兩件事是真實的。
20:58
One, the farther更遠 away they are, the smaller they look;
416
1240000
3000
第一,他們距離越遠,看起來就越小;
21:01
and two, the fireman消防隊員 is always bigger than the fiddler小提琴手.
417
1243000
2000
第二,消防員總是比小提琴手高大。
21:03
But watch what happens發生 when we make some of them disappear消失. Right.
418
1245000
6000
但是注意當我們讓其中一些消失時,會發生什麽?沒錯。
21:09
At a very close distance距離, the fiddler小提琴手 looks容貌 taller than the fireman消防隊員,
419
1251000
3000
在一段很近的距離,小提琴手看上去比消防員高,
21:12
but at a far distance距離
420
1254000
2000
但如果相距很遠
21:14
their normal正常, their true真正, relations關係 are preserved罐頭.
421
1256000
3000
他們正常的,真實的關係會得以保留。
21:17
As Plato柏拉圖 said, what space空間 is to size尺寸, time is to value.
422
1259000
5000
如柏拉圖所說,空間之於尺寸,時間之於價值。
21:22
These are the results結果 of the hard problem問題 I gave you:
423
1264000
5000
這些就是我所提問題——馬上得到60元或一個月後得到50元——
21:27
60 now or 50 in a month?
424
1269000
2000
的結果。
21:29
And these are subjective主觀 values,
425
1271000
1000
這些是主觀價值,
21:30
and what you can see is, our two rules規則 are preserved罐頭.
426
1272000
2000
你可以看到,我們的兩條規則沒有改變。
21:32
People always think more is better than less:
427
1274000
2000
人們總是認為多比少好:
21:34
60 is always better than 50,
428
1276000
2000
60要比50好;
21:36
and they always think now is better than later後來:
429
1278000
2000
並且他們總是認為馬上得到比遲延要好:
21:38
the bars酒吧 on this side are higher更高 than the bars酒吧 on this side.
430
1280000
3000
這邊的條形柱要比這邊的高。
21:41
Watch what happens發生 when we drop下降 some out.
431
1283000
3000
當我們撤掉一些條形柱時,注意會出現什麽。
21:44
Suddenly突然 we have the dynamic動態 inconsistency前後矛盾 that puzzled困惑 us.
432
1286000
3000
突然間,那些困擾我們的動態不一致性出現了。
21:47
We have the tendency趨勢 for people to go for 50 dollars美元 now
433
1289000
4000
我們可以看到,人們有寧可馬上得到50元而
21:51
over waiting等候 a month, but not if that decision決定 is far in the future未來.
434
1293000
3000
不願意等一個月的傾向,但如果決策在很遠的未來,結果就不同了。
21:54
Notice注意 something interesting有趣 that this implies暗示 -- namely亦即, that
435
1296000
4000
注意這會導致什麽有趣的推論——即
21:58
when people get to the future未來, they will change更改 their minds頭腦.
436
1300000
4000
當人們走近未來時,他們會改變想法。
22:02
That is, as that month 12 approaches方法, you will say,
437
1304000
3000
也就是說,當第十二個月來臨時,你會說,
22:05
what was I thinking思維, waiting等候 an extra額外 month for 60 dollars美元?
438
1307000
3000
我在想什麽,爲了60元等一個月?
22:08
I'll take the 50 dollars美元 now.
439
1310000
3000
我還不如現在就拿那50元。
22:11
Well, the question with which哪一個 I'd like to end結束 is this:
440
1313000
3000
嗯,在結束之前,我想問的問題是:
22:14
If we're so damn該死的 stupid, how did we get to the moon月亮?
441
1316000
3000
如果我們這麼蠢不可及,我們是怎麼登月的?
22:17
Because I could go on for about two hours小時 with evidence證據
442
1319000
3000
因為我可以再花兩個小時來列舉證據
22:20
of people's人們 inability無力 to estimate估計 odds可能性 and inability無力 to estimate估計 value.
443
1322000
6000
證明人們在評估機率與評估價值方面的無能。
22:26
The answer回答 to this question, I think, is an answer回答 you've already已經 heard聽說
444
1328000
2000
問題的答案,我想,你們已經在其他一些演講中
22:28
in some of the talks會談, and I dare say you will hear again:
445
1330000
2000
聽過了,我敢說你們還會再聽到:
22:30
namely亦即, that our brains大腦 were evolved進化 for a very different不同 world世界
446
1332000
4000
我們的大腦是從一個與我們
22:34
than the one in which哪一個 we are living活的.
447
1336000
2000
現在所居住的世界截然不同的世界進化而來的。
22:36
They were evolved進化 for a world世界
448
1338000
2000
在大腦進化過程中,
22:38
in which哪一個 people lived生活 in very small groups,
449
1340000
2000
人類是以小群體居住的,
22:40
rarely很少 met會見 anybody任何人 who was terribly可怕 different不同 from themselves他們自己,
450
1342000
3000
很少遇見跟他們自己差異很大的人,
22:43
had rather short lives生活 in which哪一個 there were few少數 choices選擇
451
1345000
3000
他們的壽命很短,選擇不多,
22:46
and the highest最高 priority優先 was to eat and mate伴侶 today今天.
452
1348000
5000
並且他們的最高優先選項是當下進食和交配。
22:51
Bernoulli's伯努利 gift禮品, Bernoulli's伯努利 little formula, allows允許 us, it tells告訴 us
453
1353000
5000
Bernoulli的智慧,Bernoulli的小公式允許我們,告訴我們
22:56
how we should think in a world世界 for which哪一個 nature性質 never designed設計 us.
454
1358000
5000
我們應該如何在這個世界上思考,雖然自然界並沒有把我們設計成這樣思考。
23:01
That explains說明 why we are so bad at using運用 it, but it also explains說明
455
1363000
4000
這也解釋了我們爲什麽使用這公式的能力如此糟糕,但也解釋了
23:05
why it is so terribly可怕 important重要 that we become成為 good, fast快速.
456
1367000
5000
爲什麽它如此重要以至於我們現在變得如此之好,如此之快。
23:10
We are the only species種類 on this planet行星
457
1372000
2000
我們是這顆行星上唯一的
23:12
that has ever held保持 its own擁有 fate命運 in its hands.
458
1374000
4000
把握自己命運的物種。
23:16
We have no significant重大 predators大鱷,
459
1378000
2000
我們沒有天敵,
23:18
we're the masters主人 of our physical物理 environment環境;
460
1380000
2000
我們是物理環境的主人;
23:20
the things that normally一般 cause原因 species種類 to become成為 extinct絕種
461
1382000
3000
環境通常是導致物種滅絕的原因,
23:23
are no longer any threat威脅 to us.
462
1385000
3000
但卻不再能夠威脅到我們。
23:26
The only thing -- the only thing -- that can destroy破壞 us and doom厄運 us
463
1388000
5000
只有一樣東西——唯一能夠破壞和毀滅我們的是
23:31
are our own擁有 decisions決定.
464
1393000
2000
我們自己的決定。
23:33
If we're not here in 10,000 years年份, it's going to be because
465
1395000
4000
如果一萬年後我們滅絕了,那將會是因為
23:37
we could not take advantage優點 of the gift禮品 given特定 to us
466
1399000
4000
我們不能很好的利用這個
23:41
by a young年輕 Dutch荷蘭人 fellow同伴 in 1738,
467
1403000
3000
由1738年一個年輕的荷蘭人提供給我們的智慧,
23:44
because we underestimated低估 the odds可能性 of our future未來 pains辛勞
468
1406000
4000
因為我們低估了我們未來的痛苦
23:48
and overestimated高估 the value of our present當下 pleasures樂趣.
469
1410000
4000
而且高估了我們眼下的快樂。
23:52
Thank you.
470
1414000
1000
謝謝。
23:53
(Applause掌聲)
471
1415000
10000
(掌聲)
24:03
Chris克里斯 Anderson安德森: That was remarkable卓越.
472
1425000
3000
Chris Anderson:非常精彩。
24:06
We have time for some questions問題 for Dan Gilbert吉爾伯特. One and two.
473
1428000
5000
我們還有點時間讓大家向Dan Gilbert提問題。第一個和第二個。
24:11
Bill法案 Lyell萊爾: Would you say that this mechanism機制
474
1433000
3000
Bill Lyell:你認為在某種程度上,
24:14
is in part部分 how terrorism恐怖主義 actually其實 works作品 to frighten嚇唬 us,
475
1436000
4000
這種機制是導致我們害怕恐怖主義的原因嗎?
24:18
and is there some way that we could counteract抵消 that?
476
1440000
4000
我們是否有辦法來克服呢?
24:22
Dan Gilbert吉爾伯特: I actually其實 was consulting諮詢 recently最近
477
1444000
1000
Dan Gilbert:其實我最近在給
24:23
with the Department of Homeland家園 Security安全, which哪一個 generally通常 believes相信
478
1445000
3000
國土安全局作諮詢,他們普遍相信
24:26
that American美國 security安全 dollars美元 should go to making製造 borders國界 safer更安全.
479
1448000
4000
美國的安全經費應該用在使邊境更安全的措施上。
24:30
I tried試著 to point out to them that terrorism恐怖主義 was a name名稱
480
1452000
3000
我嘗試告訴他們,恐怖主義是一個
24:33
based基於 on people's人們 psychological心理 reaction反應 to a set of events事件,
481
1455000
4000
基於人們對一系列事件的心理反應的名詞,
24:37
and that if they were concerned關心 about terrorism恐怖主義 they might威力 ask
482
1459000
2000
而如果他們擔心恐怖主義,他們可能會問
24:39
what causes原因 terror恐怖 and how can we stop people from being存在 terrified,
483
1461000
3000
是什麼原因產生恐懼以及我們如何阻止人們被嚇壞,
24:42
rather than -- not rather than, but in addition加成 to
484
1464000
3000
與其——不是與其,而是在此基礎上
24:45
stopping停止 the atrocities暴行 that we're all concerned關心 about.
485
1467000
3000
再去阻止我們都擔心的暴行。
24:48
Surely一定 the kinds of play that at least最小 American美國 media媒體 give to --
486
1470000
6000
當然,至少美國媒體作出的報導——
24:54
and forgive原諒 me, but in raw生的 numbers數字 these are very tiny accidents事故.
487
1476000
5000
原諒我這麼說,但是從數據上看,這些是機率很小的意外事件。
24:59
We already已經 know, for example, in the United聯合的 States狀態,
488
1481000
2000
我們已經知道,譬如,在美國,
25:01
more people have died死亡 as a result結果 of not taking服用 airplanes飛機 --
489
1483000
4000
死於不坐飛機的人——
25:05
because they were scared害怕 -- and driving主動 on highways公路,
490
1487000
2000
因為他們害怕——於是駕車上高速公路,
25:07
than were killed殺害 in 9/11. OK?
491
1489000
2000
要比911事件的遇難者要多。對吧?
25:09
If I told you that there was a plague鼠疫
492
1491000
2000
假設我告訴你,有一種疾病
25:11
that was going to kill 15,000 Americans美國人 next下一個 year,
493
1493000
3000
將在明年導致1萬5千個美國人死亡,
25:14
you might威力 be alarmed驚慌 if you didn't find out it was the flu流感.
494
1496000
3000
你可能會感到驚慌,如果你不知道我說的其實是感冒。
25:17
These are small-scale小型 accidents事故, and we should be wondering想知道
495
1499000
3000
這是些小概率事件,我們應該思考,
25:20
whether是否 they should get the kind of play,
496
1502000
2000
它們是否值得
25:22
the kind of coverage覆蓋, that they do.
497
1504000
2000
像現在這樣得到這麼多的報導。
25:24
Surely一定 that causes原因 people to overestimate估計過高 the likelihood可能性
498
1506000
3000
理所當然地,這些報導會導致人們高估
25:27
that they'll他們會 be hurt傷害 in these various各個 ways方法,
499
1509000
2000
他們可能會在這些不同情況下受傷害的可能性,
25:29
and gives power功率 to the very people who want to frighten嚇唬 us.
500
1511000
2000
同時也給了那些想恐嚇我們的人更大的權力。
25:31
CACA: Dan, I'd like to hear more on this. So, you're saying
501
1513000
2000
CA:Dan,我希望你能多談下這個問題。那麼,你是說,
25:33
that our response響應 to terror恐怖 is, I mean, it's a form形成 of mental心理 bug竊聽器?
502
1515000
4000
我們對恐怖事件的反應是,我是說,它是一種心理問題?
25:37
Talk more about it.
503
1519000
1000
能否就此多談一下。
25:38
DGDG: It's out-sized出大小. I mean, look.
504
1520000
3000
DG:它是被誇大了的。我的意思是,看。
25:41
If Australia澳大利亞 disappears消失 tomorrow明天,
505
1523000
2000
如果澳大利亞明天消失了,
25:43
terror恐怖 is probably大概 the right response響應.
506
1525000
2000
也許這才叫真正的恐怖。
25:45
That's an awful可怕 large lot of very nice不錯 people. On the other hand,
507
1527000
5000
那可是好多好多善良的人。但另一方面,
25:50
when a bus總線 blows打擊 up and 30 people are killed殺害,
508
1532000
3000
當一輛公共汽車爆炸,30人遇難,
25:53
more people than that were killed殺害
509
1535000
2000
而同一個國家有更多的人
25:55
by not using運用 their seatbelts安全帶 in the same相同 country國家.
510
1537000
3000
因為沒有繫安全帶而死亡。
25:58
Is terror恐怖 the right response響應?
511
1540000
1000
我們應感到恐怖嗎?
25:59
CACA: What causes原因 the bug竊聽器? Is it the drama戲劇 of the event事件 --
512
1541000
4000
CA:是什麽導致這個心理問題呢?是因為事件的發生
26:03
that it's so spectacular壯觀?
513
1545000
1000
太過驚人嗎?
26:04
Is it the fact事實 that it's an intentional故意的 attack攻擊 by, quote引用, outsiders外人?
514
1546000
3000
是因為它是一場國際襲擊嗎?由"外人"發起的?
26:07
What is it?
515
1549000
1000
到底是什麽原因呢?
26:08
DGDG: Yes. It's a number of things, and you hit擊中 on several一些 of them.
516
1550000
3000
DG:是的,有幾個原因,你說對了其中幾個。
26:11
First, it's a human人的 agent代理人 trying to kill us --
517
1553000
2000
首先,想殺死我們的是人——
26:13
it's not a tree falling落下 on us by accident事故.
518
1555000
3000
而不是一棵樹意外砸到我們身上。
26:16
Second第二, these are enemies敵人 who may可能 want to strike罷工 and hurt傷害 us again.
519
1558000
3000
其次,這是一些想要再次襲擊傷害我們的敵人。
26:19
People are being存在 killed殺害 for no reason原因 instead代替 of good reason原因 --
520
1561000
3000
人們是無緣無故被殺死的,而不是因為正當理由——
26:22
as if there's good reason原因, but sometimes有時 people think there are.
521
1564000
3000
這麼說好像應該有正當理由似的,但有時人們的確是這麼認為的。
26:25
So there are a number of things that together一起
522
1567000
2000
所以幾件事情合在一起
26:27
make this seem似乎 like a fantastic奇妙 event事件, but let's not play down
523
1569000
3000
造成了其看起來是一件驚人的事件,但我們也不要輕描淡寫
26:30
the fact事實 that newspapers報紙 sell when people see something in it
524
1572000
4000
這樣一個事實,即報紙報導人們想要看的東西時
26:34
they want to read. So there's a large role角色 here played發揮 by the media媒體,
525
1576000
3000
才會大賣。所以媒體在此事上也起了很大作用,
26:37
who want these things to be
526
1579000
2000
它們想要這類事情
26:39
as spectacular壯觀 as they possibly或者 can.
527
1581000
4000
看起來越轟動越好。
26:43
CACA: I mean, what would it take to persuade說服 our culture文化 to downplay淡化 it?
528
1585000
6000
CA:我的意思是,我們應該怎樣做才能說服我們的文化減少這類做法?
26:49
DGDG: Well, go to Israel以色列. You know,
529
1591000
1000
DG:嗯,去以色列吧。你知道,
26:50
go to Israel以色列. And a mall購物中心 blows打擊 up,
530
1592000
2000
去以色列。一個商場爆炸了,
26:52
and then everybody's每個人的 unhappy不快樂 about it, and an hour-and-a-half一個半小時 later後來 --
531
1594000
3000
然後每個人都不高興,而一個半小時之後——
26:55
at least最小 when I was there, and I was 150 feet from the mall購物中心
532
1597000
3000
至少我在時是那樣,當那個商場爆炸時,
26:58
when it blew自爆 up -- I went back to my hotel旅館
533
1600000
2000
我距離它150英尺——我回到酒店
27:00
and the wedding婚禮 that was planned計劃 was still going on.
534
1602000
3000
那個計劃好的婚禮照常舉行。
27:03
And as the Israeli以色列 mother母親 said,
535
1605000
1000
那個以色列母親說,
27:04
she said, "We never let them win贏得 by stopping停止 weddings婚禮."
536
1606000
4000
"我們絕不會停止婚禮讓他們獲勝。"
27:08
I mean, this is a society社會 that has learned學到了 --
537
1610000
1000
我是說,這個社會已經學會了如何應付——
27:09
and there are others其他 too -- that has learned學到了 to live生活
538
1611000
2000
還有其他國家也是這樣——學會了如何應付
27:11
with a certain某些 amount of terrorism恐怖主義 and not be quite相當 as upset煩亂 by it,
539
1613000
5000
某種程度的恐怖主義,他們所受的影響,
27:16
shall I say, as those of us who have not had many許多 terror恐怖 attacks攻擊.
540
1618000
3000
是否可以說,要遠遠少於我們那些沒有經歷過那麼多襲擊的人呢?
27:19
CACA: But is there a rational合理的 fear恐懼 that actually其實,
541
1621000
3000
CA:但是是否存在一種理性的恐懼呢,
27:22
the reason原因 we're frightened受驚 about this is because we think that
542
1624000
3000
之所以我們對此恐懼,是因為我們認為
27:25
the Big One is to come?
543
1627000
1000
會有特大襲擊來臨嗎?
27:26
DGDG: Yes, of course課程. So, if we knew知道 that this was the worst最差 attack攻擊
544
1628000
4000
DG:是的,當然。那麼,如果我們知道這是史上
27:30
there would ever be, there might威力 be more and more buses公共汽車 of 30 people --
545
1632000
4000
最嚴重的襲擊,如果有更多的30人的公共汽車被炸——
27:34
we would probably大概 not be nearly幾乎 so frightened受驚.
546
1636000
2000
我們可能就不會那麼恐懼了。
27:36
I don't want to say -- please, I'm going to get quoted somewhere某處
547
1638000
2000
我不想這麼說——拜託,我將被某處引用說
27:38
as saying, "Terrorism恐怖主義 is fine and we shouldn't不能 be so distressed苦惱."
548
1640000
4000
"恐怖主義沒什麼,我們不必太擔心。"
27:42
That's not my point at all.
549
1644000
2000
我根本不是這個意思。
27:44
What I'm saying is that, surely一定, rationally合理,
550
1646000
2000
我想說的是,當然,理性地說,
27:46
our distress苦難 about things that happen發生, about threats威脅,
551
1648000
4000
我們對事情的擔心程度,對威脅的擔心,
27:50
should be roughly大致 proportional成比例的 to the size尺寸 of those threats威脅
552
1652000
3000
應該大體上同這些威脅以及可能來臨的威脅大小
27:53
and threats威脅 to come.
553
1655000
2000
成正比。
27:55
I think in the case案件 of terrorism恐怖主義, it isn't.
554
1657000
3000
我想就恐怖主義而言,它並不成正比。
27:58
And many許多 of the things we've我們已經 heard聽說 about from our speakers音箱 today今天 --
555
1660000
2000
而我們今天從許多演講者中所聽到的——
28:00
how many許多 people do you know got up and said,
556
1662000
2000
多少人會早上起來說,
28:02
Poverty貧窮! I can't believe what poverty貧窮 is doing to us.
557
1664000
4000
貧窮!我無法相信貧窮對我們造成的影響。
28:06
People get up in the morning早上; they don't care關心 about poverty貧窮.
558
1668000
2000
人們早上起來;他們不在乎貧窮。
28:08
It's not making製造 headlines新聞頭條, it's not making製造 news新聞, it's not flashy華而不實.
559
1670000
2000
貧窮不會佔據頭條;它不會上新聞,它不引人注目。
28:10
There are no guns槍砲 going off.
560
1672000
2000
它沒有放槍。
28:12
I mean, if you had to solve解決 one of these problems問題, Chris克里斯,
561
1674000
2000
我的意思是,如果你必須解決其中一個問題,Chris,
28:14
which哪一個 would you solve解決? Terrorism恐怖主義 or poverty貧窮?
562
1676000
2000
你會解決哪個,恐怖主義還是貧窮?
28:16
(Laughter笑聲)
563
1678000
4000
(笑聲)
28:20
(Applause掌聲)
564
1682000
2000
(掌聲)
28:22
That's a tough強硬 one.
565
1684000
2000
很困難吧。
28:24
CACA: There's no question.
566
1686000
1000
CA:毫無疑問。
28:25
Poverty貧窮, by an order訂購 of magnitude大小, a huge巨大 order訂購 of magnitude大小,
567
1687000
4000
貧窮,按次序來講它是優先的,遠遠優先於恐怖主義,
28:29
unless除非 someone有人 can show顯示 that there's, you know,
568
1691000
3000
除非有人能證明,你知道,
28:32
terrorists恐怖分子 with a nuke核彈 are really likely容易 to come.
569
1694000
4000
恐怖分子會真的用核彈來襲擊。
28:36
The latest最新 I've read, seen看到, thought
570
1698000
2000
我最近讀到的,看到的,想到的是
28:38
is that it's incredibly令人難以置信 hard for them to do that.
571
1700000
4000
他們想要做到這點是極其困難的。
28:42
If that turns out to be wrong錯誤, we all look silly愚蠢,
572
1704000
2000
如果這是錯的,我們就都看起來很愚蠢,
28:44
but with poverty貧窮 it's a bit --
573
1706000
2000
但貧窮有點——
28:46
DGDG: Even if that were true真正, still more people die from poverty貧窮.
574
1708000
3000
DG:即便那是真的,還是有更多的人死於貧窮。
28:53
CACA: We've我們已經 evolved進化 to get all excited興奮
575
1715000
1000
CA:我們的進化讓我們對於
28:54
about these dramatic戲劇性 attacks攻擊. Is that because in the past過去,
576
1716000
3000
這類戲劇性的襲擊很興奮。這是因為在過去,
28:57
in the ancient past過去, we just didn't understand理解 things like disease疾病
577
1719000
3000
在古代,我們只是不理解像疾病這樣的事
29:00
and systems系統 that cause原因 poverty貧窮 and so forth向前,
578
1722000
2000
以及造成貧窮的系統等等,
29:02
and so it made製作 no sense for us as a species種類 to put any energy能源
579
1724000
4000
所以對我們作為一個物種而言,沒有道理將精力
29:06
into worrying令人擔憂 about those things?
580
1728000
2000
放在這些事情上?
29:08
People died死亡; so be it.
581
1730000
2000
人們死了;那就死了唄。
29:10
But if you got attacked襲擊, that was something you could do something about.
582
1732000
2000
但如果你遭到襲擊,那麼你其實是可以做些什麽來應付襲擊的,
29:12
And so we evolved進化 these responses回复.
583
1734000
2000
於是我們就進化成有這些反應。
29:14
Is that what happened發生?
584
1736000
1000
是這種情況嗎?
29:15
DGDG: Well, you know, the people who are most skeptical懷疑的
585
1737000
3000
DG:嗯,你知道,動不動跳到進化理論解釋每件事,
29:18
about leaping跳躍 to evolutionary發展的 explanations說明 for everything
586
1740000
2000
對於這種做法最持懷疑態度的,
29:20
are the evolutionary發展的 psychologists心理學家 themselves他們自己.
587
1742000
2000
恰恰是進化心理學家他們自己。
29:22
My guess猜測 is that there's nothing quite相當 that specific具體
588
1744000
3000
我估計在我們的進化史中,並沒有那麼
29:25
in our evolutionary發展的 past過去. But rather, if you're looking for
589
1747000
2000
具體的東西。相反,如果你要找
29:27
an evolutionary發展的 explanation說明, you might威力 say
590
1749000
2000
進化理論解釋的話,你可以說
29:29
that most organisms生物 are neo-phobic新恐懼 -- that is, they're a little scared害怕
591
1751000
4000
大多數有機體是恐新的——也就是說,它們對於
29:33
of stuff東東 that's new and different不同.
592
1755000
1000
新的和不同的事物是有點害怕的。
29:34
And there's a good reason原因 to be,
593
1756000
2000
一個很好的理由是,
29:36
because old stuff東東 didn't eat you. Right?
594
1758000
1000
因為舊東西不會吃了你。對吧?
29:37
Any animal動物 you see that you've seen看到 before is less likely容易
595
1759000
3000
一隻你從未見過的動物,比你早已見過的任何動物
29:40
to be a predator捕食者 than one that you've never seen看到 before.
596
1762000
3000
都有可能成為你的敵人。
29:43
So, you know, when a school學校 bus總線 is blown up and we've我們已經 never seen看到 this before,
597
1765000
3000
所以,你知道,當一個學校校車被炸掉時,而我們從未見過這種情形,
29:46
our general一般 tendency趨勢 is to orient東方 towards
598
1768000
2000
我們的普遍傾向是,
29:48
that which哪一個 is new and novel小說 is activated活性.
599
1770000
5000
對新的奇怪的事物的反應傾向被激活了。
29:53
I don't think it's quite相當 as specific具體 a mechanism機制
600
1775000
2000
我不認為它是一個如你所暗示的
29:55
as the one you alluded暗示 to, but maybe a more fundamental基本的 one underlying底層 it.
601
1777000
2000
那麼具體的機制,但也許是一個更基礎的潛在的機制在起作用。
30:01
Jay松鴉 Walker助步車: You know, economists經濟學家 love to talk about
602
1783000
5000
Jay Walker:你知道,經濟學家喜歡談論
30:06
the stupidity糊塗事 of people who buy購買 lottery抽獎 tickets門票. But I suspect疑似
603
1788000
4000
人們買彩票是多麼愚蠢。但我懷疑
30:10
you're making製造 the exact精確 same相同 error錯誤 you're accusing指責 those people of,
604
1792000
3000
你所犯的錯誤與你所指責那些人犯的錯誤完全一樣,
30:13
which哪一個 is the error錯誤 of value.
605
1795000
1000
即對價值的錯估。
30:14
I know, because I've interviewed採訪
606
1796000
1000
我之所以知道,是因為這些年來我採訪了
30:15
about 1,000 lottery抽獎 buyers買家 over the years年份.
607
1797000
2000
大約1000名彩票買家。
30:17
It turns out that the value of buying購買 a lottery抽獎 ticket is not winning勝利.
608
1799000
4000
結果是,購買彩票的價值不在於贏大獎。
30:21
That's what you think it is. All right?
609
1803000
2000
而這就是你所認為的。對吧?
30:23
The average平均 lottery抽獎 buyer買方 buys購買 about 150 tickets門票 a year,
610
1805000
3000
一個普通的彩票買家大約每年買150張彩票,
30:26
so the buyer買方 knows知道 full充分 well that he or she is going to lose失去,
611
1808000
4000
所以買家完全知道他或她會輸錢,
30:30
and yet然而 she buys購買 150 tickets門票 a year. Why is that?
612
1812000
3000
但她仍然會每年買150張。爲什麽會這樣?
30:33
It's not because she is stupid or he is stupid.
613
1815000
4000
並不是因為她或他是愚蠢的。
30:37
It's because the anticipation預期 of possibly或者 winning勝利
614
1819000
3000
而是因為對可能贏大獎的期待
30:40
releases發布 serotonin血清素 in the brain, and actually其實 provides提供 a good feeling感覺
615
1822000
4000
會使大腦釋放抑制血清胺素,並使人感覺舒服
30:44
until直到 the drawing畫畫 indicates指示 you've lost丟失.
616
1826000
2000
一直持續到開獎時知道你沒贏為止。
30:46
Or, to put it another另一個 way, for the dollar美元 investment投資,
617
1828000
3000
或者,用另外的話來說,買彩票的投入的錢,
30:49
you can have a much better feeling感覺 than flushing沖洗 the money
618
1831000
3000
可以讓你比把錢沖進馬桶的感覺好得多,
30:52
down the toilet廁所, which哪一個 you cannot不能 have a good feeling感覺 from.
619
1834000
3000
而把錢沖馬桶可不會讓你有什麽好感覺。
30:55
Now, economists經濟學家 tend趨向 to --
620
1837000
2000
現在,經濟學家傾向於——
30:57
(Applause掌聲)
621
1839000
3000
(掌聲)
31:00
-- economists經濟學家 tend趨向 to view視圖 the world世界
622
1842000
1000
——經濟學家傾向於透過
31:01
through通過 their own擁有 lenses鏡頭, which哪一個 is:
623
1843000
2000
他們自己的鏡片看世界,即:
31:03
this is just a bunch of stupid people.
624
1845000
2000
這不過是一幫笨蛋人們。
31:05
And as a result結果, many許多 people look at economists經濟學家 as stupid people.
625
1847000
4000
而結果是,許多人把經濟學家們當成笨蛋看。
31:09
And so fundamentally從根本上, the reason原因 we got to the moon月亮 is,
626
1851000
3000
所以從根本上而言,我們能夠登月的原因是,
31:12
we didn't listen to the economists經濟學家. Thank you very much.
627
1854000
3000
我們沒有聽經濟學家的話。謝謝大家。
31:15
(Applause掌聲)
628
1857000
5000
(掌聲)
31:20
DGDG: Well, no, it's a great point. It remains遺跡 to be seen看到
629
1862000
3000
DG:嗯,不,這個觀點很好。對於期望的喜悅
31:23
whether是否 the joy喜悅 of anticipation預期 is exactly究竟 equaled追平
630
1865000
4000
是否完全等同於開獎後的失望,
31:27
by the amount of disappointment失望 after the lottery抽獎. Because remember記得,
631
1869000
3000
我們尚未得知。因為不要忘記,
31:30
people who didn't buy購買 tickets門票 don't feel awful可怕 the next下一個 day either,
632
1872000
3000
沒有買彩票的人並不會在次日感覺糟糕,
31:33
even though雖然 they don't feel great during the drawing畫畫.
633
1875000
2000
雖然他們並不會在等待抽獎過程中感覺很好。
31:35
I would disagree不同意 that people know they're not going to win贏得.
634
1877000
2000
我不同意人們知道他們不會贏大獎。
31:37
I think they think it's unlikely不會, but it could happen發生,
635
1879000
3000
我認為他們覺得不太可能,但還是有希望發生,
31:40
which哪一個 is why they prefer比較喜歡 that to the flushing沖洗.
636
1882000
3000
這也是爲什麽他們更願意買彩票而不是把錢沖馬桶。
31:43
But certainly當然 I see your point: that there can be
637
1885000
3000
但是當然我明白你的意思:也就是買彩票
31:46
some utility效用 to buying購買 a lottery抽獎 ticket other than winning勝利.
638
1888000
4000
除了贏獎之外還是有其他用處的。
31:50
Now, I think there's many許多 good reasons原因 not to listen to economists經濟學家.
639
1892000
3000
那麼,雖然我認為有許多不聽經濟學家的好理由。
31:53
That isn't one of them, for me, but there's many許多 others其他.
640
1895000
3000
但這並非其中一個理由,對我而言如此,但還有許多其他人可能不同意。
31:56
CACA: Last question.
641
1898000
2000
CA:最後一個問題。
31:58
Aubrey奧布里 de Grey灰色: My name's名字的 Aubrey奧布里 de Grey灰色, from Cambridge劍橋.
642
1900000
3000
Aubrey de Grey:我的名字是Aubrey de Grey,來自劍橋大學。
32:01
I work on the thing that kills殺死 more people than anything else其他 kills殺死 --
643
1903000
4000
我的工作對象比任何其他東西殺死的人都多——
32:05
I work on aging老化 -- and I'm interested有興趣 in doing something about it,
644
1907000
2000
我研究衰老——我想致力於在此領域有所建樹,
32:07
as we'll all hear tomorrow明天.
645
1909000
1000
我明天會進行演講。
32:08
I very much resonate諧振 with what you're saying,
646
1910000
3000
你所說的很能引起我的共鳴,
32:11
because it seems似乎 to me that the problem問題
647
1913000
2000
因為對我而言,阻礙人們
32:13
with getting得到 people interested有興趣 in doing anything about aging老化
648
1915000
3000
致力於在衰老領域進行研究的問題是,
32:16
is that by the time aging老化 is about to kill you it looks容貌 like cancer癌症
649
1918000
3000
當衰老令你死亡的時候,它看起來像癌症
32:19
or heart disease疾病 or whatever隨你. Do you have any advice忠告?
650
1921000
3000
或心臟病或其他什麽。你有什麽好建議嗎?
32:22
(Laughter笑聲)
651
1924000
3000
(笑聲)
32:25
DGDG: For you or for them?
652
1927000
1000
DG:對你的建議還是對他們的?
32:26
AdGADG: In persuading說服 them.
653
1928000
1000
AdG:用來說服他們。
32:27
DGDG: Ah, for you in persuading說服 them.
654
1929000
2000
DG:啊,幫助你說服他們。
32:29
Well, it's notoriously臭名昭著 difficult to get people to be farsighted.
655
1931000
3000
嗯,讓人們有遠見是極其困難的。
32:32
But one thing that psychologists心理學家 have tried試著 that seems似乎 to work
656
1934000
4000
但心理學家們所嘗試的一種看起來起作用的方法是,
32:36
is to get people to imagine想像 the future未來 more vividly生動地.
657
1938000
3000
讓人們更生動地想像未來。
32:39
One of the problems問題 with making製造 decisions決定 about the far future未來
658
1941000
3000
對更遠的未來及較近的未來作決策時所遇到的一個問題是,
32:42
and the near future未來 is that we imagine想像 the near future未來
659
1944000
3000
我們對於較近的未來的想像
32:45
much more vividly生動地 than the far future未來.
660
1947000
2000
比較遠的未來更生動。
32:47
To the extent程度 that you can equalize均衡 the amount of detail詳情
661
1949000
4000
到達這樣一種程度,你在對於較近或較遠未來的想像中,
32:51
that people put into the mental心理 representations交涉
662
1953000
2000
在你的腦中想像出相同數量的細節,
32:53
of near and far future未來, people begin開始 to make decisions決定
663
1955000
2000
這樣人們對於這兩種情況
32:55
about the two in the same相同 way.
664
1957000
2000
就可以用相同的方式來作決策。
32:57
So, would you like to have an extra額外 100,000 dollars美元 when you're 65
665
1959000
5000
所以,你願意在65歲時多拿10萬元嗎,
33:02
is a question that's very different不同 than,
666
1964000
1000
這個問題與下面的截然不同,
33:03
imagine想像 who you'll你會 be when you're 65: will you be living活的,
667
1965000
4000
想像你65歲時會是什麽樣子:你會活著嗎,
33:07
what will you look like, how much hair頭髮 will you have,
668
1969000
2000
你的樣子如何,你的頭髮還剩多少,
33:09
who will you be living活的 with.
669
1971000
1000
你會跟誰一起住。
33:10
Once一旦 we have all the details細節 of that imaginary假想 scenario腳本,
670
1972000
3000
一旦我們有了所要想像情境的所有細節,
33:13
suddenly突然 we feel like it might威力 be important重要 to save保存
671
1975000
2000
突然我們就會感覺也許儲蓄是很重要的,
33:15
so that that guy has a little retirement退休 money.
672
1977000
3000
那樣的話那個傢伙就會有一些退休金。
33:18
But these are tricks技巧 around the margins利潤率.
673
1980000
2000
但這些技巧有點隔靴搔癢。
33:20
I think in general一般 you're battling作戰 a very fundamental基本的 human人的 tendency趨勢,
674
1982000
3000
我認為普遍而言,我們在同一個非常根本的人類傾向作鬥爭,
33:23
which哪一個 is to say, "I'm here today今天,
675
1985000
2000
即,"我此刻在此,
33:25
and so now is more important重要 than later後來."
676
1987000
3000
所以此刻比未來要重要。"
33:28
CACA: Dan, thank you. Members會員 of the audience聽眾,
677
1990000
2000
CA:Dan,謝謝你。各位聽眾,
33:30
that was a fantastic奇妙 session會議. Thank you.
678
1992000
1000
這是一場精彩的演講。謝謝
33:31
(Applause掌聲)
679
1993000
2000
(掌聲)
Translated by Yujian Li
Reviewed by Jeannie Cheng

▲Back to top

ABOUT THE SPEAKER
Dan Gilbert - Psychologist; happiness expert
Harvard psychologist Dan Gilbert says our beliefs about what will make us happy are often wrong -- a premise he supports with intriguing research, and explains in his accessible and unexpectedly funny book, Stumbling on Happiness.

Why you should listen

Dan Gilbert believes that, in our ardent, lifelong pursuit of happiness, most of us have the wrong map. In the same way that optical illusions fool our eyes -- and fool everyone's eyes in the same way -- Gilbert argues that our brains systematically misjudge what will make us happy. And these quirks in our cognition make humans very poor predictors of our own bliss.

The premise of his current research -- that our assumptions about what will make us happy are often wrong -- is supported with clinical research drawn from psychology and neuroscience. But his delivery is what sets him apart. His engaging -- and often hilarious -- style pokes fun at typical human behavior and invokes pop-culture references everyone can relate to. This winning style translates also to Gilbert's writing, which is lucid, approachable and laugh-out-loud funny. The immensely readable Stumbling on Happiness, published in 2006, became a New York Times bestseller and has been translated into 20 languages.

In fact, the title of his book could be drawn from his own life. At 19, he was a high school dropout with dreams of writing science fiction. When a creative writing class at his community college was full, he enrolled in the only available course: psychology. He found his passion there, earned a doctorate in social psychology in 1985 at Princeton, and has since won a Guggenheim Fellowship and the Phi Beta Kappa teaching prize for his work at Harvard. He has written essays and articles for The New York Times, Time and even Starbucks, while continuing his research into happiness at his Hedonic Psychology Laboratory.

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