The psychology behind irrational decisions - Sara Garofalo

翻译人员: xiao gu 校对人员: Vivi Dai

Let's say you're on a game show.

假设你在玩博彩游戏

You've already earned $1000 in the first round

第一轮，你已经赚了1000美元

when you land on the bonus space.

当指针停留在奖励区域

Now, you have a choice.

现在，你有个选择

You can either take a $500 bonus guaranteed

再给你500美元奖金(1000+500=1500美元)

or you can flip a coin.

或者再投币一次

If it's heads, you win $1000 bonus.

如果正面，再得到1000美元奖金（1000+1000=2000美元）

If it's tails, you get no bonus at all.

如果反面，什么也得不到（1000美元）

In the second round, you've earned $2000 when you land on the penalty space.

第二轮游戏，你已经赚了2000美元,当指针停留在惩罚区域

Now you have another choice.

现在你有另一个选择

You can either take a $500 loss,

或者损失500美元（2000-500=1500美元）

or try your luck at the coin flip.

或者再投币一次

If it's heads, you lose nothing,

如果是正面，不亏不赚（2000美元）

but if it's tails, you lose $1000 instead.

如果是反面，损失1000美元（2000-1000=1000美元）

If you're like most people,

如果你和大部分人一样

you probably chose to take the guaranteed bonus in the first round

你可能会选择第一轮再拿500美元（1500美元）

and flip the coin in the second round.

第二轮选择投币（200050%+100050%=1500美元）

But if you think about it, this makes no sense.

但是，仔细想想，完全没有道理

The odds and outcomes in both rounds are exactly the same.

2次的赔率和结果是完全一样的

So why does the second round seem much scarier?

为什么第二轮的选择让你害怕

The answer lies in a phenomenon known as loss aversion.

答案是我们称为“损失厌恶”的现象

Under rational economic theory,

在理性经济学理论中

our decisions should follow a simple mathematical equation

我们用一个简单的数学等式来做决定

that weighs the level of risk against the amount at stake.

“风险程度”除以“赌注数量”

But studies have found that for many people,

但研究发现，绝大部分人

the negative psychological impact we feel from losing something

害怕损失的负面心理影响

is about twice as strong as the positive impact of gaining the same thing.

两倍于获得收益的正面心理影响

Loss aversion is one cognitive bias that arises from heuristics,

“损失厌恶”是一种来自于大脑快速判断的认知失调

problem-solving approaches based on previous experience and intuition

我们解决问题的方式来源于从前的经验和直觉

rather than careful analysis.

而不是仔细的分析

And these mental shortcuts can lead to irrational decisions,

脑力捷径（快速思维）导致不合理的决定

not like falling in love

不同于热恋

or bungee jumping off a cliff,

或悬崖上的蹦极

but logical fallacies that can easily be proven wrong.

逻辑谬误很容易被证伪

Situations involving probability are notoriously bad for applying heuristics.

当存在概率时，大脑更容易做出错误决定

For instance, say you were to roll a die with four green faces and two red faces

比如： 投掷一个4面绿色2面红色的骰子

twenty times.

20次

You can choose one of the following sequences of rolls,

你可以在下面的结果中做出选择

and if it shows up, you'll win $25.

如果正确，赢25美元

Which would you pick?

如何选择？

In one study, 65% of the participants who were all college students

一项研究显示65%的大学生参与者

chose sequence B

选择B

even though A is shorter and contained within B,

明显的A比B更短，并且包含在B中

in other words, more likely.

就是说，A更可能

This is what's called a conjunction fallacy.

这被称为“链接谬误”

Here, we expect to see more green rolls,

我们期待能看见更多的绿色

so our brains can trick us into picking the less likely option.

大脑玩弄我们，让我们选择更不可能的答案

Heuristics are also terrible at dealing with numbers in general.

“快速思考”在处理数字时也特别糟糕

In one example, students were split into two groups.

在一个实验中，学生被分成2组

The first group was asked whether Mahatma Gandhi died before or after age 9,

第一组被问到：甘地死于9岁前还是后？

while the second was asked whether he died before or after age 140.

第二组被问到：甘地死于140岁前还是后？

Both numbers were obviously way off,

这两组问题显然都是错误的

but when the students were then asked to guess the actual age at which he died,

当学生被要求猜测甘地什么时候去世？

the first group's answers averaged to 50

第一组学生平均答案是：50岁

while the second group's averaged to 67.

第二组：67岁

Even though the clearly wrong information in the initial questions

当然最早给出的信息都是错误的

should have been irrelevant,

应该不相关

it still affected the students' estimates.

仍然影响学生的判断

This is an example of the anchoring effect,

这是“锚定影响”的例子

and it's often used in marketing and negotiations

被用于营销和谈判

to raise the prices that people are willing to pay.

用来增加人们愿意支付的价格

So, if heuristics lead to all these wrong decisions,

如果快速思考导致上述的错误

why do we even have them?

为什么会这样？

Well, because they can be quite effective.

原因是他们相当有效

For most of human history,

大部分人类历史

survival depended on making quick decisions with limited information.

当信息有限时，生存依赖于快速决定

When there's no time to logically analyze all the possibilities,

当我们没有时间逻辑分析所有可能性

heuristics can sometimes save our lives.

快速决定有时能让我们活下来

But today's environment requires far more complex decision-making,

但今天的环境需要做出更复杂决定

and these decisions are more biased by unconscious factors than we think,

这些决定比我们想象的还要容易存在偏见

affecting everything from health and education

影响健康，教育

to finance and criminal justice.

经济和司法公正的方方面面

We can't just shut off our brain's heuristics,

我们不能关闭大脑的直觉思考

but we can learn to be aware of them.

但是我们应该学会了解他们

When you come to a situation involving numbers,

当处理数字问题

probability,

概率

or multiple details,

或者复杂决定时候

pause for a second

等一等

and consider that the intuitive answer might not be the right one after all.

直觉给出的答案也许根本就是错误的