Petter Johansson: Do you really know why you do what you do?
佩特強納森: 你真的知道你所做所為背後的理由嗎?
Petter Johansson and his research group study self-knowledge and attitude change using methods ranging from questionnaires to close-up card magic. Full bio
Double-click the English transcript below to play the video.
the rich should pay more in taxes?
有錢人應該繳比較多稅?
vote for Donald Trump?
of question all the time,
we expect ourselves to know the answer,
期望我們自己知道答案,
所做所為背後的理由。
George Clooney to Tom Hanks,
喬治克隆尼多於湯姆漢克,
and genuinely believe
非常真誠且真正相信
that drives your choice,
這個選擇的背後理由,
like something is missing.
the nature of subjectivity,
因為主觀性的本質,
that people are wrong about themselves.
對自己的看法是錯的。
we've been trying to solve in our lab.
一直想解決的問題。
what people say about themselves,
about their own mind is hard.
他自己大腦的事,是很困難的。
the illusion of a free choice.
有自由選擇權的幻覺。
任何一張牌。」
is that your choice is no longer free.
你的選擇已不是自由的。
brainstorming sessions
the outcome of people's choices.
操控別人的選擇結果。
有誤時,我們就會知道,
when people are wrong about themselves,
a short movie showing this manipulation.
說明這種操控要如何進行。
How did they react, and what did they say?
他們會如何反應、會說什麼?
if you can spot the magic going on.
你能否看到有魔術在發生。
they don't know what's going on.
他們不知道會發生什麼事。
Hi, my name's Petter.
嗨,我是佩特。
pictures like this.
which one you find more attractive.
哪一張比較吸引人。
I will ask you why you prefer that face.
你為什麼偏好那張臉。
Becka: Yeah.
貝卡:好了。
I like the way it's lit and looks.
打燈和看起來的感覺。
of their choice.
是他們沒選的那張。
innocent than the other guy.
and contour of the nose and face.
還有鼻子和臉頰的輪廓。
to me, and her haircut.
還有她的髮型。
he looks a little bit like the Hobbit.
他看起來有點像哈比人。
of the experiment?
真正在做什麼,會如何?
ask a few questions.
我只需要問幾個問題。
of this experiment, was it easy or hard?
容易或困難?
the pictures three times.
Man: No.
男子:沒有。
but I actually gave you the opposite.
但我其實給你的是另一張。
OK, when you --
my attention span was.
during the experiment
but then I gave you the other one.
我接著會給你另一張。
figured out now,
所以現在你們可能已經想通,
two cards in each hand,
into the black surface on the table.
下面黑色的那張就像消失了一樣。
of the participants detect these tries.
受試者會發現有詐。
we explain what's going on,
to believe the trick has been made.
相信我有使用這個技倆。
is quite robust and a genuine effect.
相當可靠且真實的效應。
in self-knowledge, as I am,
對「自我知識」感興趣,
when they explained these choices?
他們說了什麼?
in these experiments.
what they say in a manipulated trial
那幾回當中的說詞,
a normal choice they've made
他們的說詞做比較,
just as specific,
with the same level of certainty.
and a manipulated choice,
with the actual faces.
和真實面孔來匹配。
he preferred the girl to the left,
偏好左邊的女子,
his choice like this.
at the bar than the other one.
接近她而不是其他人。
the girl on the left to begin with,
為什麼選左邊的女子,
sitting on the girl on the right.
of a post hoc construction.
說明了「事後建構」。
the choice afterwards.
that our choices have been changed,
我們的選擇被掉包了,
to explain them in another way.
來解釋我們的選擇。
often come to prefer the alternative,
自己喜歡的那個選擇。
they had previously rejected.
是他們先前沒選的那個。
we call "choice blindness."
a number of different studies --
and even reasoning problems.
甚至試過推理問題。
to more complex, more meaningful choices?
更有意義的選擇上嗎?
moral and political issues.
it needs a little bit of a background.
and a right-wing coalition.
between the parties within each coalition,
兩黨之間有一點點猶疑,
between the coalitions.
就幾乎不會猶疑。
"an election compass"
of dividing issues
should be increased
between the two parents
to do a quick political survey.
快速的政治調查。
their voting intention
to answer 12 of these questions.
十二個這樣的問題。
tax on gas should be increased?
汽油稅應該要提高?
to tally their overall score.
one, two, three, four
scores to the left,
fill in their voting intention once more.
填寫他們的投票傾向。
also a trick involved.
about their voting intention
going in the opposite direction.
of the participant's own answer.
about each of the questions:
每個問題再問他們:
their overall score.
their voting intention again.
他們的投票傾向。
manipulations are detected.
in the sense that they realize,
the question the first time I read it.
問題時誤解了它的意思。
manipulations were changed,
of the participants' answers
都被我們成功偷換掉了,
their overall profile.
左翼換到右翼,右翼換到左翼。
they are asked to motivate their choices?
這個選擇時,會發生什麼事?
interesting verbal reports
and I'll read it to you.
of email and internet traffic
大規模政府監控
international crime and terrorism."
國際犯罪和恐怖主義的手段。」
with this statement." "Yes."
算是認同。」「是的。」
at international crime and terrorism,
和恐怖主義很難處理,
those kinds of tools."
from the newspaper in the morning.
在早報上的一段論述。
listen to mobile phones from prison,
從監獄打的行動電話,
繼續他的犯罪就會被發現。
his crimes from inside.
that we have so little power
the possibility to do so."
back and forth in the end:
to everything I do,
知道我所做的任何事,
it's worth it in the long run."
a choice blindness experiment,
of that person.
with the voting intention?
clearly affected by the questionnaire.
人也會明顯受到問卷的影響。
or from right to left.
或從右翼變成左翼。
that go from clear voting intention
to clear voting intention.
staying uncertain throughout.
從頭到尾都一直不確定。
at what the polling institutes say
considered uncertain.
shifting their attitudes.
that you are not allowed to use this
當然你不能夠用這個方式
to change people's votes
opportunity to change back
that if you can get people
如果你能讓人民去看另一方的觀點,
in a conversation with themselves,
change their views.
is actually self-interpretation.
其實大部分是自我詮釋。
as much sense of it as possible
and with such ease
when we answer why.
when we try to understand other people.
the question "why"
這個問題時,要很小心,
is that, if you asked them,
or this relationship?" --
為什麼持續這段戀情?」──
is that you actually create an attitude
很可能會造出一種態度,
before you asked the question.
in your professional life, as well,
and then you ask people,
asking a politician,
why a certain decision was made.
from a positive direction,
a little bit more flexible than we think.
the minds of others,
to engage with the issue
真正去了解那個問題,
since starting with this research --
自從開始這項研究之後,
we've always had the rule
I liked something a year ago,
to stay consistent
relational life so mush easier to live.
也讓我們能夠輕鬆過人際的生活。
as you think you do.
ABOUT THE SPEAKER
Petter Johansson - Experimental psychologistPetter Johansson and his research group study self-knowledge and attitude change using methods ranging from questionnaires to close-up card magic.
Why you should listen
Petter Johansson is an associate professor in cognitive science, and together with Lars Hall he runs the Choice Blindness Lab at Lund University in Sweden.
The main theme of Johansson's research is self-knowledge: How much do we know about ourselves, and how do we come to acquire this knowledge? To study these questions, he and his collaborators have developed an experimental paradigm known as "choice blindness." The methodological twist in these experiments is to use magic tricks to manipulate the outcome of people's choices -- and then measure to what extent and in what ways people react to these changes. The general finding is that participants often fail to detect when they receive the opposite of their choice, and when asked to explain, they readily construct and confabulate answers motivating a choice they only believe they intended to make. The effect has been demonstrated in choice experiments on topics such as facial attractiveness, consumer choice and moral and political decision making.
Petter Johansson | Speaker | TED.com