EG 2008
Dan Ariely: Are we in control of our own decisions?
丹‧艾瑞利問道：我們是否主宰自己的決定？
Filmed:
Readability: 3.3
6,706,559 views
《誰說人是理性的！》一書的作者，行為經濟學家丹‧艾瑞利，用經典的錯視現象和他那些跟直覺相反(甚至令人驚訝)的研究结果，證明當我們在做決定時，並不像自己想的那般理性。
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. Full bio
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 behavior.
0
0
3000
我要談的主題是非理性行為
00:19
Not yours, of course -- other people's.
1
3000
2000
當然不是談你們的非理性行為，談別人的
00:21
(Laughter)
2
5000
1000
(笑聲)
00:22
So after being at MIT for a few years,
3
6000
4000
在麻省理工學院待了數年後，
00:26
I realized that writing academic papers is not that exciting.
4
10000
4000
我發現寫學術文章不是很刺激的一回事。
00:30
You know, I don't know how many of those you read,
5
14000
2000
我不知道你們閱讀了多少學術文章。
00:32
but it's not fun to read and often not fun to write --
6
16000
3000
但閱讀和寫這些文章並不有趣。
00:35
even worse to write.
7
19000
2000
寫尤甚。
00:37
So I decided to try and write something more fun.
8
21000
3000
因此我決定嘗試寫一些更有趣的東西，
00:40
And I came up with an idea that I will write a cookbook.
9
24000
4000
並且想到不如寫一本烹飪書。
00:44
And the title for my cookbook was going to be
10
28000
2000
書的標題是
00:46
"Dining Without Crumbs: The Art of Eating Over the Sink."
11
30000
3000
「餐不餘屑： 在廚房水槽上進餐的藝術。」
00:49
(Laughter)
12
33000
2000
(笑聲)
00:51
And it was going to be a look at life through the kitchen.
13
35000
3000
這本書是透過廚房看人生，
00:54
And I was quite excited about this. I was going to talk
14
38000
2000
而我對於這個題目相當感興趣。
00:56
a little bit about research, a little bit about the kitchen.
15
40000
3000
我打算寫一點關於研究和廚房的事。
00:59
You know, we do so much in the kitchen I thought this would be interesting.
16
43000
3000
我們在廚房裡做好多事，我覺得這會非常有趣。
01:02
And I wrote a couple of chapters.
17
46000
2000
我寫了幾個章節，
01:04
And I took it to MIT press and they said,
18
48000
2000
然後把它拿給麻省理工學院出版社看。他們說：
01:06
"Cute, but not for us. Go and find somebody else."
19
50000
4000
「很可愛，但不適合我們。 去找其他出版社吧。」
01:10
I tried other people and everybody said the same thing,
20
54000
2000
我試了不同的出版社，大家都是說：
01:12
"Cute. Not for us."
21
56000
3000
「很可愛的書，但不適合我們。」
01:15
Until somebody said,
22
59000
3000
直到有人說：
01:18
"Look, if you're serious about this,
23
62000
2000
「欸，如果你是認真的，
01:20
you first have to write a book about your research. You have to publish something,
24
64000
3000
你就必須先寫一本關於你的研究的書。你必須先發表一些東西，
01:23
and then you'll get the opportunity to write something else.
25
67000
2000
然後才有機會寫其他東西。
01:25
If you really want to do it you have to do it."
26
69000
2000
只有這個辦法。」
01:27
So I said, "You know, I really don't want to write about my research.
27
71000
3000
我說：「我真的不想寫我的研究。
01:30
I do this all day long. I want to write something else.
28
74000
2000
那是我整天在寫的啊，我想寫別的，
01:32
Something a bit more free, less constrained."
29
76000
3000
一些比較自由、比較不拘謹的題目。」
01:35
And this person was very forceful and said,
30
79000
3000
那個人非常堅持地說：
01:38
"Look. That's the only way you'll ever do it."
31
82000
2000
「 聽好：這是你唯一的方法了。」
01:40
So I said, "Okay, if I have to do it -- "
32
84000
3000
然後我說：「好，如果我真的需要這樣做．．．」
01:43
I had a sabbatical. I said, "I'll write about my research
33
87000
3000
我請了假。 我說：「如果沒別的辦法，
01:46
if there is no other way. And then I'll get to do my cookbook."
34
90000
2000
那我會先寫研究，然後就可以寫烹飪書了。」
01:48
So I wrote a book on my research.
35
92000
3000
然後我寫了關於我研究的書，
01:51
And it turned out to be quite fun in two ways.
36
95000
3000
結果我卻發現挺有趣的。有兩個原因：
01:54
First of all, I enjoyed writing.
37
98000
3000
首先，我喜歡寫作。
01:57
But the more interesting thing was that
38
101000
2000
但最有趣的是，
01:59
I started learning from people.
39
103000
2000
我開始從別人身上學習。
02:01
It's a fantastic time to write,
40
105000
2000
寫作很棒
02:03
because there is so much feedback you can get from people.
41
107000
2000
因為可以從別人身上得到好多回應
02:05
People write me about their personal experience,
42
109000
3000
有人寫信述說他們的個人經驗，
02:08
and about their examples, and what they disagree,
43
112000
2000
他們的例子，他們不同意我的地方
02:10
and nuances.
44
114000
2000
以及一些精細的見解。
02:12
And even being here -- I mean the last few days,
45
116000
2000
甚至在這裡的這幾天
02:14
I've known really heights of obsessive behavior
46
118000
3000
我才知道
02:17
I never thought about.
47
121000
2000
原來強迫症可以這麼嚴重
02:19
(Laughter)
48
123000
1000
(笑聲)
02:20
Which I think is just fascinating.
49
124000
2000
我覺得這實在太有趣了
02:22
I will tell you a little bit about irrational behavior.
50
126000
3000
我來講講非理性行為
02:25
And I want to start by giving you some examples of visual illusion
51
129000
3000
先從一些錯視的例子開始
02:28
as a metaphor for rationality.
52
132000
2000
作為理性錯覺的比喻
02:30
So think about these two tables.
53
134000
2000
請大家看一下這兩張桌子
02:32
And you must have seen this illusion.
54
136000
2000
你們已經看到這張錯視圖
02:34
If I asked you what's longer, the vertical line on the table on the left,
55
138000
3000
哪一個比較長：左邊桌子的垂直線，
02:37
or the horizontal line on the table on the right?
56
141000
3000
還是右邊桌子的水平線？
02:40
Which one seems longer?
57
144000
3000
哪個看起來比較長？
02:43
Can anybody see anything but the left one being longer?
58
147000
3000
有人覺得左邊的比較不長嗎？
02:46
No, right? It's impossible.
59
150000
2000
沒有吧？不可能的
02:48
But the nice thing about visual illusion is we can easily demonstrate mistakes.
60
152000
3000
但錯視圖的好處就在，我們能輕易地証明錯誤
02:51
So I can put some lines on; it doesn't help.
61
155000
3000
我可以加一些線。沒啥幫助
02:54
I can animate the lines.
62
158000
2000
我可以移動這些線
02:56
And to the extent you believe I didn't shrink the lines,
63
160000
2000
讓你們相信我沒有縮短這些線
02:58
which I didn't, I've proven to you that your eyes were deceiving you.
64
162000
5000
而我真的沒有。這證明你們的眼睛騙了你們
03:03
Now, the interesting thing about this
65
167000
2000
最有趣的是
03:05
is when I take the lines away,
66
169000
2000
當我把這些線拿走後
03:07
it's as if you haven't learned anything in the last minute.
67
171000
2000
就好像你們剛剛那一分鐘都沒學到任何東西
03:09
(Laughter)
68
173000
3000
(笑聲)
03:12
You can't look at this and say, "Okay now I see reality as it is."
69
176000
3000
你沒辦法看著圖說：「OK，我現在能看到真正的長度了。」
03:15
Right? It's impossible to overcome this
70
179000
2000
對吧？這是沒辦法克服的
03:17
sense that this is indeed longer.
71
181000
3000
你沒辦法覺得它真的比較長
03:20
Our intuition is really fooling us in a repeatable, predictable, consistent way.
72
184000
3000
我們的直覺一再地、用可預期的方式在愚弄我們
03:23
And there is almost nothing we can do about it,
73
187000
3000
而我們沒辦法改變
03:26
aside from taking a ruler and starting to measure it.
74
190000
3000
除了拿一把尺來量
03:29
Here is another one -- this is one of my favorite illusions.
75
193000
3000
另一個例子。這是我最喜歡的錯覺之一。
03:32
What do you see the color that top arrow is pointing to?
76
196000
3000
上方的箭頭指的是什麼顏色？
03:35
Brown. Thank you.
77
199000
2000
棕色。謝謝
03:37
The bottom one? Yellow.
78
201000
2000
下面的呢？黃色
03:39
Turns out they're identical.
79
203000
2000
但它們其實是一模一樣的
03:41
Can anybody see them as identical?
80
205000
2000
有人覺得是一模一樣的嗎？
03:43
Very very hard.
81
207000
2000
非常難
03:45
I can cover the rest of the cube up.
82
209000
2000
我可以把剩下的立方體遮起來
03:47
And if I cover the rest of the cube you can see that they are identical.
83
211000
3000
遮起來之後，你們可以看到是一樣的
03:50
And if you don't believe me you can get the slide later
84
214000
2000
如果不相信我，可以等下拿這張投影片
03:52
and do some arts and crafts and see that they're identical.
85
216000
3000
剪貼一下，就會發現它們是一樣的
03:55
But again it's the same story
86
219000
2000
這和上個例子一樣
03:57
that if we take the background away,
87
221000
2000
如果我們移除背景
03:59
the illusion comes back. Right.
88
223000
2000
錯覺又會回來。
04:01
There is no way for us not to see this illusion.
89
225000
3000
我們沒有辦法不看到錯覺
04:04
I guess maybe if you're colorblind I don't think you can see that.
90
228000
3000
如果你色盲，我想你可能看不到
04:07
I want you to think about illusion as a metaphor.
91
231000
3000
請你們把錯覺想成是一個譬喻
04:10
Vision is one of the best things we do.
92
234000
2000
視覺是我們最出色的能力之一
04:12
We have a huge part of our brain dedicated to vision --
93
236000
2000
我們大腦的很大一部分是掌管視覺
04:14
bigger than dedicated to anything else.
94
238000
2000
比其他的部分都還要大
04:16
We do more vision more hours of the day than we do anything else.
95
240000
4000
每天多在"看"的時間比其他事多很多
04:20
And we are evolutionarily designed to do vision.
96
244000
2000
人類的進化使我們擅長視力
04:22
And if we have these predictable repeatable mistakes in vision,
97
246000
3000
如果我們很擅長的視覺，都會發生這些
04:25
which we're so good at,
98
249000
2000
可預期的、重複的錯誤
04:27
what's the chance that we don't make even more mistakes
99
251000
2000
那我們對自己不擅長的東西
04:29
in something we're not as good at --
100
253000
2000
犯錯的機會就會更大了
04:31
for example, financial decision making:
101
255000
2000
比如說，財務決策
04:33
(Laughter)
102
257000
2000
（笑聲）
04:35
something we don't have an evolutionary reason to do,
103
259000
2000
財務決策和物種進化沒有關係
04:37
we don't have a specialized part of the brain,
104
261000
2000
大腦並沒有專門管財務決策的部份
04:39
and we don't do that many hours of the day.
105
263000
2000
也沒有花很多時間在財務決策上
04:41
And the argument is in those cases
106
265000
3000
而我的論點是，在這些情況下
04:44
it might be the issue that we actually make many more mistakes
107
268000
4000
我們很可能犯了更多的錯誤
04:48
and, worse, not have an easy way to see them.
108
272000
3000
更糟的是，並沒有簡單的方法能察覺錯誤
04:51
Because in visual illusions we can easily demonstrate the mistakes;
109
275000
3000
在錯視上，我們能很容易地證明錯誤
04:54
in cognitive illusion it's much, much harder
110
278000
2000
在認知錯覺上，要證明錯誤
04:56
to demonstrate to people the mistakes.
111
280000
2000
卻是難的多
04:58
So I want to show you some cognitive illusions,
112
282000
3000
現在我要用同樣的方法示範認知錯覺
05:01
or decision-making illusions, in the same way.
113
285000
3000
也可以稱為決策錯覺
05:04
And this is one of my favorite plots in social sciences.
114
288000
3000
這是我最喜歡的社會科學實驗之一
05:07
It's from a paper by Johnson and Goldstein.
115
291000
4000
這是從Johnson和Goldstein的研究裡來的
05:11
And it basically shows
116
295000
2000
基本上是顯示
05:13
the percentage of people who indicated
117
297000
2000
有多少比例的人
05:15
they would be interested in giving their organs to donation.
118
299000
4000
有興趣捐贈器官
05:19
And these are different countries in Europe. And you basically
119
303000
2000
這些是不同的歐洲國家。而你可以
05:21
see two types of countries:
120
305000
2000
看到有兩種不同的國家
05:23
countries on the right, that seem to be giving a lot;
121
307000
2000
右邊國家很多人表示願意捐贈器官
05:25
and countries on the left that seem to giving very little,
122
309000
3000
而左邊國家就很少人願意
05:28
or much less.
123
312000
2000
或者說少很多
05:30
The question is, why? Why do some countries give a lot
124
314000
2000
重點是，為什麼？為什麼有些國家捐很多
05:32
and some countries give a little?
125
316000
2000
而有些國家捐很少？
05:34
When you ask people this question,
126
318000
2000
當你問人們這個問題的時候
05:36
they usually think that it has to be something about culture.
127
320000
2000
他們通常以為答案和文化有關
05:38
Right? How much do you care about people?
128
322000
2000
對吧？你有多關心別人？
05:40
Giving your organs to somebody else
129
324000
2000
捐獻自己的器官給別人
05:42
is probably about how much you care about society, how linked you are.
130
326000
3000
基本上就代表你有多關心這個社會
05:45
Or maybe it is about religion.
131
329000
2000
或者和宗教有關
05:47
But, if you look at this plot,
132
331000
2000
但如果你看這張圖
05:49
you can see that countries that we think about as very similar
133
333000
3000
可以發現，我們以為很相似的國家
05:52
actually exhibit very different behavior.
134
336000
3000
其實做出非常不同的行為
05:55
For example, Sweden is all the way on the right,
135
339000
2000
例如，瑞典在最右邊
05:57
and Denmark, that we think is culturally very similar,
136
341000
3000
而我們覺得丹麥和它在文化上很相近
06:00
is all the way on the left.
137
344000
2000
但丹麥卻在最左邊
06:02
Germany is on the left. And Austria is on the right.
138
346000
4000
德國在左邊，而奧地利卻在右邊
06:06
The Netherlands is on the left. And Belgium is on the right.
139
350000
3000
荷蘭在左邊，比利時卻在右邊
06:09
And finally, depending on your particular version
140
353000
3000
最後，每個人對歐洲的認知
06:12
of European similarity,
141
356000
2000
可能不相同，
06:14
you can think about the U.K and France as either similar culturally or not.
142
358000
5000
有人覺得英國和法國的文化很相似，有人覺得很不同
06:19
But it turns out that from organ donation they are very different.
143
363000
4000
但在器官捐贈上，他們是很不同的
06:23
By the way, the Netherlands is an interesting story.
144
367000
2000
對了，荷蘭人很有趣
06:25
You see the Netherlands is kind of the biggest of the small group.
145
369000
5000
你看，荷蘭是少人捐贈器官的國家之中比例最高的
06:30
Turns out that they got to 28 percent
146
374000
3000
但也只有28%而已
06:33
after mailing every household in the country a letter
147
377000
3000
在給全國的家庭都寄信，
06:36
begging people to join this organ donation program.
148
380000
3000
求他們加入器官捐贈計畫後，只有28%
06:39
You know the expression, "Begging only gets you so far"?
149
383000
3000
大家都知道這個諺語吧，『靠哀求得到的有限』
06:42
It's 28 percent in organ donation.
150
386000
3000
在捐贈器官上，『有限』就等於28%
06:45
(Laughter)
151
389000
2000
（笑聲）
06:47
But whatever the countries on the right are doing
152
391000
2000
但右邊國家的表現
06:49
they are doing a much better job than begging.
153
393000
2000
比哀求來的好太多了
06:51
So what are they doing?
154
395000
2000
他們到底做了什麼呢？
06:53
Turns out the secret has to do with a form at the DMV.
155
397000
3000
原來這跟監理處的一張表格有關
06:56
And here is the story.
156
400000
2000
是這樣的
06:58
The countries on the left have a form at the DMV
157
402000
2000
左邊國家在監理處拿到的表格
07:00
that looks something like this.
158
404000
2000
看起來像這樣
07:02
Check the box below if you want to participate
159
406000
2000
如果你願意參加器官捐贈計畫
07:04
in the organ donor program.
160
408000
2000
請在框框中打勾
07:06
And what happens?
161
410000
2000
結果呢？
07:08
People don't check, and they don't join.
162
412000
3000
他們不打勾。所以他們就不參加
07:11
The countries on the right, the ones that give a lot,
163
415000
2000
右邊捐很多的國家
07:13
have a slightly different form.
164
417000
2000
他們的表格有點不同
07:15
It says check the box below if you don't want to participate.
165
419000
3000
上面寫：如果你不想參加，就在框框打勾
07:18
Interestingly enough, when people get this,
166
422000
2000
有趣的是，當人們拿到表格時
07:20
they again don't check -- but now they join.
167
424000
3000
他們還是不打勾。但是現在他們參加了
07:23
(Laughter)
168
427000
3000
（笑聲）
07:26
Now think about what this means.
169
430000
3000
想想它代表的意思
07:29
We wake up in the morning and we feel we make decisions.
170
433000
4000
早上起來，我們覺得自己要做很多決定
07:33
We wake up in the morning and we open the closet
171
437000
2000
我們早上醒來，打開衣櫃
07:35
and we feel that we decide what to wear.
172
439000
2000
覺得自己必須決定穿什麼
07:37
And we open the refrigerator and we feel that we decide what to eat.
173
441000
3000
打開冰箱，覺得自己必須決定吃什麼
07:40
What this is actually saying is that
174
444000
2000
但事實上是
07:42
much of these decisions are not residing within us.
175
446000
2000
很多的決定都不是我們控制的
07:44
They are residing in the person who is designing that form.
176
448000
3000
而是設計那張表格的人
07:47
When you walk into the DMV,
177
451000
3000
當你走進監理處
07:50
the person who designed the form will have a huge influence
178
454000
2000
設計那張表格的人將會大大地影響
07:52
on what you'll end up doing.
179
456000
2000
你的未來
07:54
Now it's also very hard to intuit these results. Think about it for yourself.
180
458000
4000
而這些結果也很難用直覺預測。想想看
07:58
How many of you believe
181
462000
2000
你們多少人相信
08:00
that if you went to renew your license tomorrow,
182
464000
2000
如果你們明天去換新駕照
08:02
and you went to the DMV,
183
466000
2000
你走進監理處
08:04
and you would encounter one of these forms,
184
468000
2000
拿到這些表格
08:06
that it would actually change your own behavior?
185
470000
3000
它們真的可以改變你的行為？
08:09
Very, very hard to think that you will influence us.
186
473000
2000
非常難相信我們會被影響
08:11
We can say, "Oh, these funny Europeans, of course it would influence them."
187
475000
2000
我們會說：『喔這些好笑的歐洲人當然會被影響』
08:13
But when it comes to us,
188
477000
3000
但當我們碰到同樣情況時
08:16
we have such a feeling that we are at the driver's seat,
189
480000
2000
我們卻覺得一切由自己主導
08:18
we have such a feeling that we are in control,
190
482000
2000
覺得一切操之在己
08:20
and we are making the decision,
191
484000
2000
我們是做決定的人
08:22
that it's very hard to even accept
192
486000
2000
而很難接受
08:24
the idea that we actually have
193
488000
2000
事實上我們擁有的
08:26
an illusion of making a decision, rather than an actual decision.
194
490000
4000
是做決定的錯覺，而不是真的決定權
08:30
Now, you might say,
195
494000
2000
而你可能會說
08:32
"These are decisions we don't care about."
196
496000
3000
這些都是不重要的決定
08:35
In fact, by definition, these are decisions
197
499000
2000
這些決定
08:37
about something that will happen to us after we die.
198
501000
2000
是決定我們死後會如何
08:39
How could we care about something less
199
503000
3000
有什麼事情
08:42
than something that happens after we die?
200
506000
2000
比我們死後的事更無關緊要呢？
08:44
So a standard economist, someone who believes in rationality,
201
508000
3000
所以一個典型的、相信理性的經濟學家
08:47
would say, "You know what? The cost of lifting the pencil
202
511000
3000
可能會說：『你知道嗎？提起鉛筆
08:50
and marking a V is higher than the possible
203
514000
2000
打一個勾所付出的代價
08:52
benefit of the decision,
204
516000
2000
都比這個決定重要多了
08:54
so that's why we get this effect."
205
518000
2000
所以我們才得到這種結果
08:56
But, in fact, it's not because it's easy.
206
520000
3000
但事實上，並不是因為這決定很簡單
08:59
It's not because it's trivial. It's not because we don't care.
207
523000
3000
並不是因為它不重要，也不是因為我們不在乎
09:02
It's the opposite. It's because we care.
208
526000
3000
正好相反。是因為我們在乎
09:05
It's difficult and it's complex.
209
529000
2000
因為這決定很難又很複雜
09:07
And it's so complex that we don't know what to do.
210
531000
2000
複雜到我們不知道該怎麼辦
09:09
And because we have no idea what to do
211
533000
2000
因為我們不知道該怎麼辦
09:11
we just pick whatever it was that was chosen for us.
212
535000
4000
我們就選了既定的選項
09:15
I'll give you one more example for this.
213
539000
2000
這邊有另一個例子
09:17
This is from a paper by Redelmeier and Schaefer.
214
541000
3000
出自於 Redelmeier和Schaefer的研究
09:20
And they said, "Well, this effect also happens to experts,
215
544000
3000
他們說這個現象也發生在專家身上
09:23
people who are well-paid, experts in their decisions,
216
547000
3000
那些高薪的決策專家
09:26
do it a lot."
217
550000
2000
也常常犯
09:28
And they basically took a group of physicians.
218
552000
2000
Redelmeier和Schaefer找來一群醫生
09:30
And they presented to them a case study of a patient.
219
554000
2000
給他們看一個病人的個案
09:32
Here is a patient. He is a 67-year-old farmer.
220
556000
4000
這是病人，67歲的老農夫
09:36
He's been suffering from a right hip pain for a while.
221
560000
2000
他的右髖部已經痛了很久
09:38
And then they said to the physician,
222
562000
2000
然後他們告訴這群醫生
09:40
"You decided a few weeks ago
223
564000
2000
「幾個禮拜前，你們確定
09:42
that nothing is working for this patient.
224
566000
2000
沒有藥對這位病人有效
09:44
All these medications, nothing seems to be working.
225
568000
2000
所有的藥物都沒有效
09:46
So you refer the patient to hip replacement therapy.
226
570000
3000
所以你決定讓他做髖部移植
09:49
Hip replacement. Okay?"
227
573000
2000
髖部移植。OK?」
09:51
So the patient is on a path to have his hip replaced.
228
575000
3000
所以病人即將接受髖部移植了
09:54
And then they said to half the physicians, they said,
229
578000
2000
然後他們跟一半的醫生說，
09:56
"Yesterday you reviewed the patient's case
230
580000
2000
「昨天你們看了這病例
09:58
and you realized that you forgot to try one medication.
231
582000
3000
結果發現你們忘了試一種藥
10:01
You did not try ibuprofen.
232
585000
3000
忘記試布洛芬
10:04
What do you do? Do you pull the patient back and try ibuprofen?
233
588000
3000
怎麼辦呢？把病人叫回來試布洛芬嗎？
10:07
Or do you let them go and have hip replacement?"
234
591000
3000
還是讓他接受髖部移植？
10:10
Well the good news is that most physicians in this case
235
594000
2000
好消息是，在這個例子裡，幾乎全部的醫生
10:12
decided to pull the patient and try the ibuprofen.
236
596000
3000
都決定要試新的藥
10:15
Very good for the physicians.
237
599000
2000
這些醫生做的很好
10:17
The other group of the physicians, they said,
238
601000
2000
但他們又對另一半的醫生說
10:19
"Yesterday when you reviewed the case
239
603000
2000
「昨天你們看了個病例
10:21
you discovered there were two medications you didn't try out yet,
240
605000
2000
結果發現你們忘了試兩種藥
10:23
ibuprofen and piroxicam."
241
607000
3000
布洛芬和匹洛西卡。」
10:26
And they said, "You have two medications you didn't try out yet. What do you do?
242
610000
3000
他們說：「還有兩種藥你們沒試過。怎麼辦呢？
10:29
You let them go. Or you pull them back.
243
613000
2000
放棄嘗試，或者把病人叫回來？
10:31
And if you pull them back do you try ibuprofen or piroxicam? Which one?"
244
615000
3000
如果把病人叫回來，該試布洛芬還是匹洛西卡呢？」
10:34
Now think of it. This decision
245
618000
2000
想一想，這個決定
10:36
makes it as easy to let the patient continue with hip replacement.
246
620000
3000
如果是髖部移植，對醫生來說很容易下決定
10:39
But pulling them back, all of the sudden becomes more complex.
247
623000
3000
但如果叫病人回來，決定就變得很複雜
10:42
There is one more decision.
248
626000
2000
他們還要多做一個決定
10:44
What happens now?
249
628000
2000
所以結果呢？
10:46
Majority of the physicians now choose to let the patient go
250
630000
3000
大部分的醫生決定讓病人接受
10:49
to hip replacement.
251
633000
2000
髖部移植
10:51
I hope this worries you, by the way --
252
635000
2000
我希望你們有受到警惕
10:53
(Laughter)
253
637000
1000
（笑聲）
10:54
when you go to see your physician.
254
638000
2000
看醫生的時候請小心
10:56
The thing is is that no physician would ever say,
255
640000
3000
沒有醫生會說
10:59
"Piroxicam, ibuprofen, hip replacement.
256
643000
2000
「布洛芬，匹洛西卡，髖部移植......
11:01
Let's go for hip replacement."
257
645000
2000
就做髖部移植吧。」
11:03
But the moment you set this as the default
258
647000
3000
但是當髖部移植是預設值的時候
11:06
it has a huge power over whatever people end up doing.
259
650000
4000
它對人們最後的決定就有很大的影響
11:10
I'll give you a couple of more examples on irrational decision-making.
260
654000
3000
讓我給你們一些其他非理性決策的例子
11:13
Imagine I give you a choice.
261
657000
2000
假如我讓你們選
11:15
Do you want to go for a weekend to Rome?
262
659000
2000
週末的時候去羅馬渡假
11:17
All expenses paid:
263
661000
2000
花費全免
11:19
hotel, transportation, food, breakfast,
264
663000
2000
飯店，交通，食物，早餐
11:21
a continental breakfast, everything.
265
665000
2000
歐式早餐等等
11:23
Or a weekend in Paris?
266
667000
2000
或是週末去巴黎渡假
11:25
Now, a weekend in Paris, a weekend in Rome, these are different things;
267
669000
3000
去巴黎和去羅馬渡假是兩個不同的事
11:28
they have different food, different culture, different art.
268
672000
2000
他們有不同的食物，文化，藝術
11:30
Now imagine I added a choice to the set
269
674000
2000
假如我現在再加一個選項
11:32
that nobody wanted.
270
676000
2000
一個沒有人想要的選項
11:34
Imagine I said, "A weekend in Rome,
271
678000
2000
假如我說：「去羅馬渡假，
11:36
a weekend in Paris, or having your car stolen?"
272
680000
3000
去巴黎渡假，或是車被偷？」
11:39
(Laughter)
273
683000
3000
（笑聲）
11:42
It's a funny idea, because why would having your car stolen,
274
686000
3000
很可笑吧？車被偷怎麼會影響
11:45
in this set, influence anything?
275
689000
2000
你的決定呢？
11:47
(Laughter)
276
691000
2000
（笑聲）
11:49
But what if the option to have your car stolen
277
693000
3000
但如果這個額外的選項
11:52
was not exactly like this.
278
696000
2000
並不是車被偷呢？
11:54
What if it was a trip to Rome, all expenses paid,
279
698000
2000
如果我是問你：去羅馬渡假，花費全免
11:56
transportation, breakfast,
280
700000
2000
交通，早餐
11:58
but doesn't include coffee in the morning.
281
702000
3000
但不包括早上的咖啡
12:01
If you want coffee you have to pay for it yourself. It's two euros 50.
282
705000
3000
如果你想喝要自付，一杯2.5歐元
12:04
Now in some ways,
283
708000
3000
現在，
12:07
given that you can have Rome with coffee,
284
711000
2000
如果可以選羅馬渡假加免費咖啡
12:09
why would you possibly want Rome without coffee?
285
713000
3000
怎麼會有人想選羅馬渡假不加咖啡呢？
12:12
It's like having your car stolen. It's an inferior option.
286
716000
3000
就像車被偷一樣，是個不利選項
12:15
But guess what happened. The moment you add Rome without coffee,
287
719000
2000
但結果呢？一旦增加羅馬渡假不加咖啡的選項後
12:17
Rome with coffee becomes more popular. And people choose it.
288
721000
5000
羅馬加咖啡就變得更吸引人了，大家都選。
12:22
The fact that you have Rome without coffee
289
726000
3000
不加咖啡的選項
12:25
makes Rome with coffee look superior,
290
729000
2000
事實上讓加咖啡的選項看起來更棒了
12:27
and not just to Rome without coffee -- even superior to Paris.
291
731000
3000
而且甚至超越巴黎渡假的選項
12:30
(Laughter)
292
734000
4000
（笑聲）
12:34
Here are two examples of this principle.
293
738000
2000
還有另外兩個例子
12:36
This was an ad from The Economist a few years ago
294
740000
3000
幾年前，經濟學人網站刊了個廣告
12:39
that gave us three choices.
295
743000
2000
給你三個選擇
12:41
An online subscription for 59 dollars.
296
745000
3000
線上訂閱要59美元
12:44
A print subscription for 125.
297
748000
4000
紙本訂閱要125美元
12:48
Or you could get both for 125.
298
752000
2000
或者兩種都訂閱，125美元
12:50
(Laughter)
299
754000
2000
（笑聲）
12:52
Now I looked at this and I called up The Economist.
300
756000
2000
我看了以後打電話給經濟學人
12:54
And I tried to figure out what were they thinking.
301
758000
3000
想知道他們在想什麼
12:57
And they passed me from one person to another to another,
302
761000
3000
他們一直轉接我的電話
13:00
until eventually I got to a person who was in charge of the website.
303
764000
4000
最後我聯絡上負責網站的人
13:04
And I called them up. And they went to check what was going on.
304
768000
3000
打電話給他們後，他們去檢查發生了什麼事
13:07
The next thing I know, the ad is gone. And no explanation.
305
771000
4000
等我再去看，廣告就不見了。完全沒有解釋
13:11
So I decided to do the experiment
306
775000
2000
所以我決定做一個
13:13
that I would have loved The Economist to do with me.
307
777000
3000
我本來希望經濟學人和我一起做的實驗
13:16
I took this and I gave it to 100 MIT students.
308
780000
2000
我把廣告拿給100個麻省理工的學生看
13:18
I said, "What would you choose?"
309
782000
2000
我問：「你選哪一個？」
13:20
These are the market share. Most people wanted the combo deal.
310
784000
4000
這是比例。大部分的人都選組合套餐。
13:24
Thankfully nobody wanted the dominated option.
311
788000
2000
還好沒有人選不利選項
13:26
That means our students can read.
312
790000
2000
代表我們的學生閱讀能力沒問題
13:28
(Laughter)
313
792000
1000
（笑聲）
13:29
But now if you have an option that nobody wants,
314
793000
3000
但如果其中一個選項是沒有人想要的
13:32
you can take it off. Right?
315
796000
2000
我們就能把它拿掉，對吧？
13:34
So I printed another version of this,
316
798000
2000
所以我印了這個版本的
13:36
where I eliminated the middle option.
317
800000
2000
把中間的選項拿掉
13:38
I gave it to another 100 students. Here is what happens.
318
802000
3000
拿給不同的100個學生看。結果是
13:41
Now the most popular option became the least popular.
319
805000
3000
最受歡迎的選項變成最不受歡迎的
13:44
And the least popular became the most popular.
320
808000
3000
而最不受歡迎的變成最受歡迎的
13:47
What was happening was the option that was useless,
321
811000
4000
我們說中間的選項沒有用
13:51
in the middle, was useless in the sense that nobody wanted it.
322
815000
4000
是因為沒有人想選它
13:55
But it wasn't useless in the sense that it helped people figure out
323
819000
2000
但它其實是有用的，因為它幫助我們決定
13:57
what they wanted.
324
821000
2000
我們想要哪一個選項
13:59
In fact, relative to the option in the middle,
325
823000
3000
和中間的選項（紙本訂閱125元）
14:02
which was get only the print for 125,
326
826000
4000
比較的話，
14:06
the print and web for 125 looked like a fantastic deal.
327
830000
4000
紙本加線上125元看起來真是太划算了。
14:10
And as a consequence, people chose it.
328
834000
2000
所以大家才會選
14:12
The general idea here, by the way,
329
836000
2000
基本的道理是
14:14
is that we actually don't know our preferences that well.
330
838000
2000
我們不太清楚自己的喜好
14:16
And because we don't know our preferences that well
331
840000
2000
因為我們不了解自己的喜好
14:18
we're susceptible to all of these influences from the external forces:
332
842000
4000
所以我們很容易被外在的力量影響
14:22
the defaults, the particular options that are presented to us, and so on.
333
846000
4000
預設值，別人給我們的選項，等等
14:26
One more example of this.
334
850000
2000
這裡有另外一個例子
14:28
People believe that when we deal with physical attraction,
335
852000
3000
說到外表，我們都相信
14:31
we see somebody, and we know immediately whether we like them or not,
336
855000
3000
看到一個人，我們就能馬上知道自己喜不喜歡他
14:34
attracted or not.
337
858000
2000
他是不是吸引我們
14:36
Which is why we have these four-minute dates.
338
860000
2000
所以現在才有快速約會這種東西
14:38
So I decided to do this experiment with people.
339
862000
3000
因此我決定做一個實驗
14:41
I'll show you graphic images of people -- not real people.
340
865000
2000
這裡有一些人的照片--不是真人
14:43
The experiment was with people.
341
867000
2000
再找一些人來做這個實驗
14:45
I showed some people a picture of Tom, and a picture of Jerry.
342
869000
3000
我讓他們看Tom和Jerry的照片
14:48
I said "Who do you want to date? Tom or Jerry?"
343
872000
3000
我說：「你們想跟誰約會？Tom還是Jerry?」
14:51
But for half the people I added an ugly version of Jerry.
344
875000
4000
但是其中一半的人，我加上了一個「醜版的Jerry」
14:55
I took Photoshop and I made Jerry slightly less attractive.
345
879000
5000
我用Photoshop把Jerry修的醜一點
15:00
(Laughter)
346
884000
1000
（笑聲）
15:01
The other people, I added an ugly version of Tom.
347
885000
4000
另外一半人，我給他們看醜版的Tom
15:05
And the question was, will ugly Jerry and ugly Tom
348
889000
3000
我想知道的是：醜版的Jerry和Tom
15:08
help their respective, more attractive brothers?
349
892000
4000
會不會讓原來的Jerry和Tom變得更受歡迎？
15:12
The answer was absolutely yes.
350
896000
2000
答案是肯定的
15:14
When ugly Jerry was around, Jerry was popular.
351
898000
2000
人們看到醜版的Jerry時，原來的Jerry就變得有魅力
15:16
When ugly Tom was around, Tom was popular.
352
900000
2000
人們看到醜版的Tom時，原來的Tom就變得有魅力
15:18
(Laughter)
353
902000
2000
（笑聲）
15:20
This of course has two very clear implications
354
904000
2000
這對我們的日常生活
15:22
for life in general.
355
906000
4000
有兩個涵義
15:26
If you ever go bar hopping, who do you want to take with you?
356
910000
3000
如果你要去酒吧喝酒，你會帶誰一起去？
15:29
(Laughter)
357
913000
6000
（笑聲）
15:35
You want a slightly uglier version of yourself.
358
919000
3000
一個比你醜一點的人
15:38
(Laughter)
359
922000
2000
（笑聲）
15:40
Similar. Similar ... but slightly uglier.
360
924000
2000
和你差不多，但是醜一點點
15:42
(Laughter)
361
926000
2000
（笑聲）
15:44
The second point, or course, is that
362
928000
2000
第二個涵義，當然就是
15:46
if somebody else invites you, you know how they think about you.
363
930000
3000
如果有人約你去酒吧，你就知道他們怎麼看你了
15:49
(Laughter)
364
933000
3000
（笑聲）
15:52
Now you're getting it.
365
936000
2000
你們慢慢懂了
15:54
What is the general point?
366
938000
2000
我想要告訴你們的是什麼？
15:56
The general point is that when we think about economics we have
367
940000
2000
當我們講到經濟學的時候，
15:58
this beautiful view of human nature.
368
942000
3000
我們總是想到光明的人性
16:01
"What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason!"
369
945000
2000
「人類真是完美！理性多麼高貴！」
16:03
We have this view of ourselves, of others.
370
947000
3000
我們對自己、對別人的觀感皆如此
16:06
The behavioral economics perspective
371
950000
2000
但行為經濟學的觀點
16:08
is slightly less generous to people.
372
952000
3000
就對人性沒有這麼樂觀了
16:11
In fact in medical terms, that's our view.
373
955000
3000
事實上，用醫學方法來表示，這是我們眼中的人類
16:14
(Laughter)
374
958000
6000
（笑聲）
16:20
But there is a silver lining.
375
964000
2000
但事情總有光明面
16:22
The silver lining is, I think,
376
966000
2000
那就是
16:24
kind of the reason that behavioral economics is interesting and exciting.
377
968000
4000
為什麼行為經濟學會這麼有趣
16:28
Are we Superman? Or are we Homer Simpson?
378
972000
2000
我們到底是超人，還是荷馬辛普森呢？
16:30
When it comes to building the physical world,
379
974000
4000
我們建造物質世界的時候
16:34
we kind of understand our limitations.
380
978000
2000
我們了解自己的能力有限
16:36
We build steps. And we build these things
381
980000
2000
我們蓋樓梯。我們製造那些
16:38
that not everybody can use obviously.
382
982000
3000
不是每個人都會用的東西
16:41
(Laughter)
383
985000
1000
（笑聲）
16:42
We understand our limitations,
384
986000
2000
因為我們了解自己的極限
16:44
and we build around it.
385
988000
2000
所以我們根據這些限制來建造世界
16:46
But for some reason when it comes to the mental world,
386
990000
2000
但不知道為什麼，在思想上
16:48
when we design things like healthcare and retirement and stockmarkets,
387
992000
4000
例如當我們計畫醫療、退休、或是股市的時候
16:52
we somehow forget the idea that we are limited.
388
996000
2000
我們卻忘記能力是有限的
16:54
I think that if we understood our cognitive limitations
389
998000
3000
如果我們能了解人類理性的限制
16:57
in the same way that we understand our physical limitations,
390
1001000
2000
如同我們了解生理上的限制一樣
16:59
even though they don't stare us in the face in the same way,
391
1003000
2000
雖然它們不像生理限制那樣明顯
17:01
we could design a better world.
392
1005000
3000
我們就能夠創造更好的世界
17:04
And that, I think, is the hope of this thing.
393
1008000
2000
這就是行為經濟學能帶來的希望
17:06
Thank you very much.
394
1010000
2000
謝謝
17:08
(Applause)
395
1012000
8000
（鼓掌）
ABOUT THE SPEAKER
Dan Ariely - Behavioral economistThe 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 Irrational, The 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.
Dan Ariely | Speaker | TED.com