TEDGlobal 2011
Paul Bloom: The origins of pleasure
Filmed:
Readability: 3.7
2,137,903 views
Why do we like an original painting better than a forgery? Psychologist Paul Bloom argues that human beings are essentialists -- that our beliefs about the history of an object change how we experience it, not simply as an illusion, but as a deep feature of what pleasure (and pain) is.
Paul Bloom - Psychologist
Paul Bloom explores some of the most puzzling aspects of human nature, including pleasure, religion, and morality. Full bio
Paul Bloom explores some of the most puzzling aspects of human nature, including pleasure, religion, and morality. Full bio
Double-click the English transcript below to play the video.
00:15
I'm going to talk today
0
0
2000
00:17
about the pleasures of everyday life.
1
2000
2000
00:19
But I want to begin with a story
2
4000
2000
00:21
of an unusual and terrible man.
3
6000
2000
00:23
This is Hermann Goering.
4
8000
2000
00:25
Goering was Hitler's second in command in World War II,
5
10000
3000
00:28
his designated successor.
6
13000
2000
00:30
And like Hitler,
7
15000
2000
00:32
Goering fancied himself a collector of art.
8
17000
2000
00:34
He went through Europe, through World War II,
9
19000
2000
00:36
stealing, extorting and occasionally buying
10
21000
3000
00:39
various paintings for his collection.
11
24000
2000
00:41
And what he really wanted was something by Vermeer.
12
26000
3000
00:44
Hitler had two of them, and he didn't have any.
13
29000
3000
00:47
So he finally found an art dealer,
14
32000
2000
00:49
a Dutch art dealer named Han van Meegeren,
15
34000
3000
00:52
who sold him a wonderful Vermeer
16
37000
2000
00:54
for the cost of what would now be 10 million dollars.
17
39000
3000
00:57
And it was his favorite artwork ever.
18
42000
3000
01:00
World War II came to an end,
19
45000
2000
01:02
and Goering was captured, tried at Nuremberg
20
47000
3000
01:05
and ultimately sentenced to death.
21
50000
3000
01:08
Then the Allied forces went through his collections
22
53000
2000
01:10
and found the paintings
23
55000
2000
01:12
and went after the people who sold it to him.
24
57000
2000
01:14
And at some point the Dutch police came into Amsterdam
25
59000
3000
01:17
and arrested Van Meegeren.
26
62000
2000
01:19
Van Meegeren was charged with the crime of treason,
27
64000
3000
01:22
which is itself punishable by death.
28
67000
3000
01:25
Six weeks into his prison sentence,
29
70000
2000
01:27
van Meegeren confessed.
30
72000
2000
01:29
But he didn't confess to treason.
31
74000
2000
01:31
He said, "I did not sell a great masterpiece
32
76000
3000
01:34
to that Nazi.
33
79000
2000
01:36
I painted it myself; I'm a forger."
34
81000
3000
01:39
Now nobody believed him.
35
84000
3000
01:42
And he said, "I'll prove it.
36
87000
2000
01:44
Bring me a canvas and some paint,
37
89000
2000
01:46
and I will paint a Vermeer much better
38
91000
2000
01:48
than I sold that disgusting Nazi.
39
93000
2000
01:50
I also need alcohol and morphine, because it's the only way I can work."
40
95000
3000
01:53
(Laughter)
41
98000
2000
01:55
So they brought him in.
42
100000
2000
01:57
He painted a beautiful Vermeer.
43
102000
3000
02:00
And then the charges of treason were dropped.
44
105000
3000
02:03
He had a lesser charge of forgery,
45
108000
2000
02:05
got a year sentence
46
110000
2000
02:07
and died a hero to the Dutch people.
47
112000
3000
02:11
There's a lot more to be said about van Meegeren,
48
116000
3000
02:14
but I want to turn now to Goering,
49
119000
2000
02:16
who's pictured here being interrogated at Nuremberg.
50
121000
3000
02:19
Now Goering was, by all accounts, a terrible man.
51
124000
2000
02:21
Even for a Nazi, he was a terrible man.
52
126000
3000
02:24
His American interrogators described him
53
129000
3000
02:27
as an amicable psychopath.
54
132000
2000
02:29
But you could feel sympathy
55
134000
2000
02:31
for the reaction he had
56
136000
2000
02:33
when he was told that his favorite painting
57
138000
2000
02:35
was actually a forgery.
58
140000
2000
02:37
According to his biographer,
59
142000
2000
02:39
"He looked as if for the first time
60
144000
2000
02:41
he had discovered there was evil in the world."
61
146000
2000
02:43
(Laughter)
62
148000
3000
02:46
And he killed himself soon afterwards.
63
151000
3000
02:49
He had discovered after all
64
154000
2000
02:51
that the painting he thought was this
65
156000
2000
02:53
was actually that.
66
158000
3000
02:56
It looked the same,
67
161000
2000
02:58
but it had a different origin, it was a different artwork.
68
163000
2000
03:00
It wasn't just him who was in for a shock.
69
165000
2000
03:02
Once van Meegeren was on trial, he couldn't stop talking.
70
167000
3000
03:05
And he boasted about all the great masterpieces
71
170000
2000
03:07
that he himself had painted
72
172000
2000
03:09
that were attributed to other artists.
73
174000
2000
03:11
In particular, "The Supper at Emmaus"
74
176000
2000
03:13
which was viewed as Vermeer's finest masterpiece, his best work --
75
178000
3000
03:16
people would come [from] all over the world to see it --
76
181000
3000
03:19
was actually a forgery.
77
184000
2000
03:21
It was not that painting, but that painting.
78
186000
2000
03:23
And when that was discovered,
79
188000
2000
03:25
it lost all its value and was taken away from the museum.
80
190000
3000
03:28
Why does this matter?
81
193000
2000
03:30
I'm a psychologists -- why do origins matter so much?
82
195000
3000
03:33
Why do we respond so much
83
198000
2000
03:35
to our knowledge of where something comes from?
84
200000
3000
03:38
Well there's an answer that many people would give.
85
203000
2000
03:40
Many sociologists like Veblen and Wolfe
86
205000
3000
03:43
would argue that the reason why we take origins so seriously
87
208000
3000
03:46
is because we're snobs, because we're focused on status.
88
211000
3000
03:49
Among other things,
89
214000
2000
03:51
if you want to show off how rich you are, how powerful you are,
90
216000
2000
03:53
it's always better to own an original than a forgery
91
218000
2000
03:55
because there's always going to be fewer originals than forgeries.
92
220000
3000
03:59
I don't doubt that that plays some role,
93
224000
2000
04:01
but what I want to convince you of today
94
226000
2000
04:03
is that there's something else going on.
95
228000
2000
04:05
I want to convince you
96
230000
2000
04:07
that humans are, to some extent, natural born essentialists.
97
232000
3000
04:10
What I mean by this
98
235000
2000
04:12
is we don't just respond to things as we see them,
99
237000
2000
04:14
or feel them, or hear them.
100
239000
2000
04:16
Rather, our response is conditioned on our beliefs,
101
241000
3000
04:19
about what they really are, what they came from,
102
244000
3000
04:22
what they're made of, what their hidden nature is.
103
247000
3000
04:25
I want to suggest that this is true,
104
250000
2000
04:27
not just for how we think about things,
105
252000
2000
04:29
but how we react to things.
106
254000
2000
04:31
So I want to suggest that pleasure is deep --
107
256000
2000
04:33
and that this isn't true
108
258000
2000
04:35
just for higher level pleasures like art,
109
260000
3000
04:38
but even the most seemingly simple pleasures
110
263000
3000
04:41
are affected by our beliefs about hidden essences.
111
266000
3000
04:44
So take food.
112
269000
2000
04:46
Would you eat this?
113
271000
2000
04:48
Well, a good answer is, "It depends. What is it?"
114
273000
3000
04:51
Some of you would eat it if it's pork, but not beef.
115
276000
2000
04:53
Some of you would eat it if it's beef, but not pork.
116
278000
3000
04:56
Few of you would eat it if it's a rat
117
281000
2000
04:58
or a human.
118
283000
2000
05:00
Some of you would eat it only if it's a strangely colored piece of tofu.
119
285000
3000
05:04
That's not so surprising.
120
289000
2000
05:06
But what's more interesting
121
291000
2000
05:08
is how it tastes to you
122
293000
2000
05:10
will depend critically on what you think you're eating.
123
295000
3000
05:13
So one demonstration of this was done with young children.
124
298000
3000
05:16
How do you make children
125
301000
2000
05:18
not just be more likely to eat carrots and drink milk,
126
303000
3000
05:21
but to get more pleasure from eating carrots and drinking milk --
127
306000
3000
05:24
to think they taste better?
128
309000
2000
05:26
It's simple, you tell them they're from McDonald's.
129
311000
3000
05:29
They believe McDonald's food is tastier,
130
314000
2000
05:31
and it leads them to experience it as tastier.
131
316000
3000
05:34
How do you get adults to really enjoy wine?
132
319000
2000
05:36
It's very simple:
133
321000
2000
05:38
pour it from an expensive bottle.
134
323000
2000
05:40
There are now dozens, perhaps hundreds of studies showing
135
325000
3000
05:43
that if you believe you're drinking the expensive stuff,
136
328000
2000
05:45
it tastes better to you.
137
330000
2000
05:47
This was recently done with a neuroscientific twist.
138
332000
3000
05:50
They get people into a fMRI scanner,
139
335000
2000
05:52
and while they're lying there, through a tube,
140
337000
2000
05:54
they get to sip wine.
141
339000
2000
05:56
In front of them on a screen is information about the wine.
142
341000
3000
05:59
Everybody, of course,
143
344000
2000
06:01
drinks exactly the same wine.
144
346000
2000
06:03
But if you believe you're drinking expensive stuff,
145
348000
3000
06:06
parts of the brain associated with pleasure and reward
146
351000
3000
06:09
light up like a Christmas tree.
147
354000
2000
06:11
It's not just that you say it's more pleasurable, you say you like it more,
148
356000
3000
06:14
you really experience it in a different way.
149
359000
3000
06:17
Or take sex.
150
362000
3000
06:20
These are stimuli I've used in some of my studies.
151
365000
3000
06:23
And if you simply show people these pictures,
152
368000
3000
06:26
they'll say these are fairly attractive people.
153
371000
2000
06:28
But how attractive you find them,
154
373000
3000
06:31
how sexually or romantically moved you are by them,
155
376000
3000
06:34
rests critically on who you think you're looking at.
156
379000
3000
06:37
You probably think the picture on the left is male,
157
382000
3000
06:40
the one on the right is female.
158
385000
2000
06:42
If that belief turns out to be mistaken, it will make a difference.
159
387000
3000
06:45
(Laughter)
160
390000
2000
06:47
It will make a difference if they turn out to be
161
392000
2000
06:49
much younger or much older than you think they are.
162
394000
3000
06:52
It will make a difference if you were to discover
163
397000
2000
06:54
that the person you're looking at with lust
164
399000
2000
06:56
is actually a disguised version of your son or daughter,
165
401000
2000
06:58
your mother or father.
166
403000
2000
07:00
Knowing somebody's your kin typically kills the libido.
167
405000
3000
07:03
Maybe one of the most heartening findings
168
408000
2000
07:05
from the psychology of pleasure
169
410000
2000
07:07
is there's more to looking good than your physical appearance.
170
412000
3000
07:10
If you like somebody, they look better to you.
171
415000
3000
07:13
This is why spouses in happy marriages
172
418000
3000
07:16
tend to think that their husband or wife
173
421000
2000
07:18
looks much better than anyone else thinks that they do.
174
423000
3000
07:21
(Laughter)
175
426000
2000
07:23
A particularly dramatic example of this
176
428000
3000
07:26
comes from a neurological disorder known as Capgras syndrome.
177
431000
3000
07:29
So Capgras syndrome is a disorder
178
434000
3000
07:32
where you get a specific delusion.
179
437000
2000
07:34
Sufferers of Capgras syndrome
180
439000
2000
07:36
believe that the people they love most in the world
181
441000
2000
07:38
have been replaced by perfect duplicates.
182
443000
2000
07:40
Now often, a result of Capgras syndrome is tragic.
183
445000
3000
07:43
People have murdered those that they loved,
184
448000
2000
07:45
believing that they were murdering an imposter.
185
450000
3000
07:48
But there's at least one case
186
453000
2000
07:50
where Capgras syndrome had a happy ending.
187
455000
2000
07:52
This was recorded in 1931.
188
457000
2000
07:54
"Research described a woman with Capgras syndrome
189
459000
3000
07:57
who complained about her poorly endowed and sexually inadequate lover."
190
462000
3000
08:00
But that was before she got Capgras syndrome.
191
465000
3000
08:03
After she got it, "She was happy to report
192
468000
2000
08:05
that she has discovered that he possessed a double
193
470000
3000
08:08
who was rich, virile, handsome and aristocratic."
194
473000
2000
08:10
Of course, it was the same man,
195
475000
2000
08:12
but she was seeing him in different ways.
196
477000
2000
08:14
As a third example,
197
479000
2000
08:16
consider consumer products.
198
481000
2000
08:18
So one reason why you might like something is its utility.
199
483000
3000
08:21
You can put shoes on your feet; you can play golf with golf clubs;
200
486000
3000
08:24
and chewed up bubble gum doesn't do anything at all for you.
201
489000
3000
08:27
But each of these three objects has value
202
492000
2000
08:29
above and beyond what it can do for you
203
494000
2000
08:31
based on its history.
204
496000
2000
08:33
The golf clubs were owned by John F. Kennedy
205
498000
3000
08:36
and sold for three-quarters of a million dollars at auction.
206
501000
3000
08:39
The bubble gum was chewed up by pop star Britney Spears
207
504000
3000
08:42
and sold for several hundreds of dollars.
208
507000
2000
08:44
And in fact, there's a thriving market
209
509000
2000
08:46
in the partially eaten food of beloved people.
210
511000
3000
08:49
(Laughter)
211
514000
2000
08:51
The shoes are perhaps the most valuable of all.
212
516000
3000
08:54
According to an unconfirmed report,
213
519000
2000
08:56
a Saudi millionaire offered 10 million dollars
214
521000
2000
08:58
for this pair of shoes.
215
523000
2000
09:00
They were the ones thrown at George Bush
216
525000
3000
09:03
at an Iraqi press conference several years ago.
217
528000
2000
09:05
(Applause)
218
530000
2000
09:07
Now this attraction to objects
219
532000
2000
09:09
doesn't just work for celebrity objects.
220
534000
2000
09:11
Each one of us, most people,
221
536000
2000
09:13
have something in our life that's literally irreplaceable,
222
538000
3000
09:16
in that it has value because of its history --
223
541000
3000
09:19
maybe your wedding ring, maybe your child's baby shoes --
224
544000
3000
09:22
so that if it was lost, you couldn't get it back.
225
547000
3000
09:25
You could get something that looked like it or felt like it,
226
550000
2000
09:27
but you couldn't get the same object back.
227
552000
3000
09:30
With my colleagues George Newman and Gil Diesendruck,
228
555000
3000
09:33
we've looked to see what sort of factors, what sort of history, matters
229
558000
3000
09:36
for the objects that people like.
230
561000
2000
09:38
So in one of our experiments,
231
563000
2000
09:40
we asked people to name a famous person who they adored,
232
565000
3000
09:43
a living person they adored.
233
568000
2000
09:45
So one answer was George Clooney.
234
570000
2000
09:47
Then we asked them,
235
572000
2000
09:49
"How much would you pay for George Clooney's sweater?"
236
574000
2000
09:51
And the answer is a fair amount --
237
576000
2000
09:53
more than you would pay for a brand new sweater
238
578000
3000
09:56
or a sweater owned by somebody who you didn't adore.
239
581000
3000
09:59
Then we asked other groups of subjects --
240
584000
2000
10:01
we gave them different restrictions
241
586000
2000
10:03
and different conditions.
242
588000
2000
10:05
So for instance, we told some people,
243
590000
2000
10:07
"Look, you can buy the sweater,
244
592000
2000
10:09
but you can't tell anybody you own it,
245
594000
2000
10:11
and you can't resell it."
246
596000
2000
10:13
That drops the value of it,
247
598000
2000
10:15
suggesting that that's one reason why we like it.
248
600000
3000
10:18
But what really causes an effect
249
603000
2000
10:20
is you tell people, "Look, you could resell it, you could boast about it,
250
605000
3000
10:23
but before it gets to you,
251
608000
2000
10:25
it's thoroughly washed."
252
610000
2000
10:27
That causes a huge drop in the value.
253
612000
3000
10:30
As my wife put it, "You've washed away the Clooney cooties."
254
615000
3000
10:33
(Laughter)
255
618000
2000
10:35
So let's go back to art.
256
620000
2000
10:37
I would love a Chagall. I love the work of Chagall.
257
622000
2000
10:39
If people want to get me something at the end of the conference,
258
624000
2000
10:41
you could buy me a Chagall.
259
626000
2000
10:43
But I don't want a duplicate,
260
628000
2000
10:45
even if I can't tell the difference.
261
630000
2000
10:47
That's not because, or it's not simply because,
262
632000
2000
10:49
I'm a snob and want to boast about having an original.
263
634000
3000
10:52
Rather, it's because I want something that has a specific history.
264
637000
3000
10:55
In the case of artwork,
265
640000
2000
10:57
the history is special indeed.
266
642000
2000
10:59
The philosopher Denis Dutton
267
644000
2000
11:01
in his wonderful book "The Art Instinct"
268
646000
2000
11:03
makes the case that, "The value of an artwork
269
648000
2000
11:05
is rooted in assumptions about the human performance underlying its creation."
270
650000
3000
11:08
And that could explain the difference
271
653000
2000
11:10
between an original and a forgery.
272
655000
2000
11:12
They may look alike, but they have a different history.
273
657000
2000
11:14
The original is typically the product of a creative act,
274
659000
3000
11:17
the forgery isn't.
275
662000
2000
11:19
I think this approach can explain differences
276
664000
3000
11:22
in people's taste in art.
277
667000
2000
11:24
This is a work by Jackson Pollock.
278
669000
2000
11:26
Who here likes the work of Jackson Pollock?
279
671000
3000
11:30
Okay. Who here, it does nothing for them?
280
675000
2000
11:32
They just don't like it.
281
677000
3000
11:35
I'm not going to make a claim about who's right,
282
680000
2000
11:37
but I will make an empirical claim
283
682000
2000
11:39
about people's intuitions,
284
684000
2000
11:41
which is that, if you like the work of Jackson Pollock,
285
686000
2000
11:43
you'll tend more so than the people who don't like it
286
688000
3000
11:46
to believe that these works are difficult to create,
287
691000
3000
11:49
that they require a lot of time and energy
288
694000
2000
11:51
and creative energy.
289
696000
2000
11:53
I use Jackson Pollock on purpose as an example
290
698000
3000
11:56
because there's a young American artist
291
701000
2000
11:58
who paints very much in the style of Jackson Pollock,
292
703000
2000
12:00
and her work was worth
293
705000
2000
12:02
many tens of thousands of dollars --
294
707000
2000
12:04
in large part because she's a very young artist.
295
709000
2000
12:06
This is Marla Olmstead
296
711000
2000
12:08
who did most of her work when she was three years old.
297
713000
2000
12:10
The interesting thing about Marla Olmstead
298
715000
2000
12:12
is her family made the mistake
299
717000
2000
12:14
of inviting the television program 60 Minutes II into their house
300
719000
4000
12:18
to film her painting.
301
723000
2000
12:20
And they then reported that her father was coaching her.
302
725000
3000
12:23
When this came out on television,
303
728000
2000
12:25
the value of her art dropped to nothing.
304
730000
3000
12:28
It was the same art, physically,
305
733000
2000
12:30
but the history had changed.
306
735000
3000
12:33
I've been focusing now on the visual arts,
307
738000
2000
12:35
but I want to give two examples from music.
308
740000
2000
12:37
This is Joshua Bell, a very famous violinist.
309
742000
2000
12:39
And the Washington Post reporter Gene Weingarten
310
744000
3000
12:42
decided to enlist him for an audacious experiment.
311
747000
3000
12:45
The question is: How much would people like Joshua Bell,
312
750000
2000
12:47
the music of Joshua Bell,
313
752000
2000
12:49
if they didn't know they were listening to Joshua Bell?
314
754000
3000
12:53
So he got Joshua Bell to take his million dollar violin
315
758000
3000
12:56
down to a Washington D.C. subway station
316
761000
3000
12:59
and stand in the corner and see how much money he would make.
317
764000
3000
13:02
And here's a brief clip of this.
318
767000
2000
13:04
(Violin music)
319
769000
7000
13:11
After being there for three-quarters of an hour,
320
776000
2000
13:13
he made 32 dollars.
321
778000
3000
13:16
Not bad. It's also not good.
322
781000
2000
13:18
Apparently to really enjoy the music of Joshua Bell,
323
783000
3000
13:21
you have to know you're listening to Joshua Bell.
324
786000
3000
13:24
He actually made 20 dollars more than that,
325
789000
2000
13:26
but he didn't count it.
326
791000
2000
13:28
Because this woman comes up --
327
793000
2000
13:30
you see at the end of the video -- she comes up.
328
795000
2000
13:32
She had heard him at the Library of Congress a few weeks before
329
797000
2000
13:34
at this extravagant black-tie affair.
330
799000
3000
13:37
So she's stunned that he's standing in a subway station.
331
802000
3000
13:40
So she's struck with pity.
332
805000
2000
13:42
She reaches into her purse and hands him a 20.
333
807000
2000
13:44
(Laughter)
334
809000
2000
13:46
(Applause)
335
811000
2000
13:48
The second example from music
336
813000
2000
13:50
is from John Cage's modernist composition,
337
815000
2000
13:52
"4'33"."
338
817000
2000
13:54
As many of you know,
339
819000
2000
13:56
this is the composition where the pianist sits at a bench,
340
821000
3000
13:59
opens up the piano
341
824000
2000
14:01
and sits and does nothing for four minutes and 33 seconds --
342
826000
2000
14:03
that period of silence.
343
828000
2000
14:05
And people have different views on this.
344
830000
2000
14:07
But what I want to point out
345
832000
2000
14:09
is you can buy this from iTunes.
346
834000
2000
14:11
(Laughter)
347
836000
2000
14:13
For a dollar 99,
348
838000
2000
14:15
you can listen to that silence,
349
840000
2000
14:17
which is different than other forms of silence.
350
842000
3000
14:20
(Laughter)
351
845000
2000
14:22
Now I've been talking so far about pleasure,
352
847000
3000
14:25
but what I want to suggest
353
850000
2000
14:27
is that everything I've said applies as well to pain.
354
852000
3000
14:30
And how you think about what you're experiencing,
355
855000
2000
14:32
your beliefs about the essence of it,
356
857000
2000
14:34
affect how it hurts.
357
859000
2000
14:36
One lovely experiment
358
861000
2000
14:38
was done by Kurt Gray and Dan Wegner.
359
863000
2000
14:40
What they did was they hooked up Harvard undergraduates
360
865000
2000
14:42
to an electric shock machine.
361
867000
2000
14:44
And they gave them a series of painful electric shocks.
362
869000
3000
14:47
So it was a series of five painful shocks.
363
872000
3000
14:50
Half of them are told that they're being given the shocks
364
875000
2000
14:52
by somebody in another room,
365
877000
2000
14:54
but the person in the other room doesn't know they're giving them shocks.
366
879000
3000
14:57
There's no malevolence, they're just pressing a button.
367
882000
2000
14:59
The first shock is recorded as very painful.
368
884000
3000
15:02
The second shock feels less painful, because you get a bit used to it.
369
887000
3000
15:05
The third drops, the fourth, the fifth.
370
890000
2000
15:07
The pain gets less.
371
892000
3000
15:10
In the other condition,
372
895000
2000
15:12
they're told that the person in the next room
373
897000
2000
15:14
is shocking them on purpose -- knows they're shocking them.
374
899000
3000
15:17
The first shock hurts like hell.
375
902000
2000
15:19
The second shock hurts just as much,
376
904000
2000
15:21
and the third and the fourth and the fifth.
377
906000
2000
15:23
It hurts more
378
908000
2000
15:25
if you believe somebody is doing it to you on purpose.
379
910000
3000
15:28
The most extreme example of this
380
913000
3000
15:31
is that in some cases,
381
916000
2000
15:33
pain under the right circumstances
382
918000
2000
15:35
can transform into pleasure.
383
920000
2000
15:37
Humans have this extraordinarily interesting property
384
922000
3000
15:40
that will often seek out low-level doses of pain
385
925000
2000
15:42
in controlled circumstances
386
927000
2000
15:44
and take pleasure from it --
387
929000
2000
15:46
as in the eating of hot chili peppers
388
931000
2000
15:48
and roller coaster rides.
389
933000
3000
15:51
The point was nicely summarized
390
936000
2000
15:53
by the poet John Milton
391
938000
2000
15:55
who wrote, "The mind is its own place,
392
940000
2000
15:57
and in itself can make a heaven of hell,
393
942000
2000
15:59
a hell of heaven."
394
944000
2000
16:01
And I'll end with that. Thank you.
395
946000
2000
16:03
(Applause)
396
948000
7000
ABOUT THE SPEAKER
Paul Bloom - PsychologistPaul Bloom explores some of the most puzzling aspects of human nature, including pleasure, religion, and morality.
Why you should listen
In Paul Bloom’s last book, How Pleasure Works, he explores the often-mysterious enjoyment that people get out of experiences such as sex, food, art, and stories. His latest book, Just Babies, examines the nature and origins of good and evil. How do we decide what's fair and unfair? What is the relationship between emotion and rationality in our judgments of right and wrong? And how much of morality is present at birth? To answer these questions, he and his colleagues at Yale study how babies make moral decisions. (How do you present a moral quandary to a 6-month-old? Through simple, gamelike experiments that yield surprisingly adult-like results.)
Paul Bloom is a passionate teacher of undergraduates, and his popular Introduction to Psychology 110 class has been released to the world through the Open Yale Courses program. He has recently completed a second MOOC, “Moralities of Everyday Life”, that introduced moral psychology to tens of thousands of students. And he also presents his research to a popular audience though articles in The Atlantic, The New Yorker, and The New York Times. Many of the projects he works on are student-initiated, and all of them, he notes, are "strongly interdisciplinary, bringing in theory and research from areas such as cognitive, social, and developmental psychology, evolutionary theory, linguistics, theology and philosophy."
He says: "A growing body of evidence suggests that humans do have a rudimentary moral sense from the very start of life."
Paul Bloom | Speaker | TED.com