The psychology behind irrational decisions - Sara Garofalo

譯者: Mindy Liang 審譯者: Max Chern

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

假設你在一個有獎競賽節目上

You've already earned $1000 in the first round

第一輪你已贏得了 1 千元

when you land on the bonus space.

當你轉到獎金那格時

Now, you have a choice.

你要作一個選擇

You can either take a $500 bonus guaranteed

你被保證可得到 500 元獎金

or you can flip a coin.

或者你可擲硬幣

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

如果是正面，你會贏 1000 元獎金

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

如果是背面，你得不到任何獎金

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

第二輪你已贏了 2000 元， 但當你轉到罰款那格時

Now you have another choice.

你要作另一個選擇

You can either take a $500 loss,

你可以接受損失 500 元

or try your luck at the coin flip.

或者試試運氣擲硬幣

If it's heads, you lose nothing,

若是正面，你依然有 2000 元

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

但若是反面，你會損失 1000 元

If you're like most people,

如果你像大多數人

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

你可能在第一輪時 選擇接受保證的獎金

and flip the coin in the second round.

並在第二輪時選擇擲硬幣

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

但若仔細想想，這根本毫無意義

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

勝算和結果在兩輪都是完全一樣

So why does the second round seem much scarier?

但為什麼第二輪看起來比較嚇人呢？

The answer lies in a phenomenon known as loss aversion.

答案在於 損失規避 (loss aversion) 的現象

Under rational economic theory,

根據理性經濟理論

our decisions should follow a simple mathematical equation

我們的決定會遵循一種簡單數學方程式

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

它會衡量「風險等級」和「所涉金額 」

But studies have found that for many people,

但研究發現，對大多數人而言

the negative psychological impact we feel from losing something

擔心損失所導致的負面心理影響

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

兩倍於得到等量東西的正面影響

Loss aversion is one cognitive bias that arises from heuristics,

損失規避是一種認知偏差， 它源於 啟發法 (heuristics)

problem-solving approaches based on previous experience and intuition

「啟發法」是根據先前經驗和直覺 來解決問題的方法

rather than careful analysis.

而不是根據仔細的分析

And these mental shortcuts can lead to irrational decisions,

這些思考捷徑 會導致我們做出不理性決定

not like falling in love

不像墜入情網

or bungee jumping off a cliff,

或懸崖高空彈跳的不理性

but logical fallacies that can easily be proven wrong.

而是做出容易被証實錯的邏輯謬誤

Situations involving probability are notoriously bad for applying heuristics.

在涉及機率時， 使用啟發法是非常不好的

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

例如你要擲一個四面綠色 兩面紅色的骰子

twenty times.

擲二十次

You can choose one of the following sequences of rolls,

你可以選擇以下三種排序其中之一

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

若你選的有出現，你將贏得 25 元

Which would you pick?

你會選哪一個？

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

在一個調查，65% 的大學生參與者

chose sequence B

選擇序列 B

even though A is shorter and contained within B,

可是 A 比較短，而且還包含在 B 中

in other words, more likely.

所以說 A 比較可能

This is what's called a conjunction fallacy.

這就是所謂的 合取謬誤 (conjunction fallacy)

Here, we expect to see more green rolls,

在此，我們預料會擲出較多綠色面

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

所以大腦誘騙我們 作了較不可能的選擇

Heuristics are also terrible at dealing with numbers in general.

通常，啟發法對處理數字方面也極糟榚

In one example, students were split into two groups.

在一個例子，把學生分成兩組

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

第一組被問 聖雄甘地在 9 歲之前或之後死的

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

而第二組被問 他在 140 歲之前或之後死的

Both numbers were obviously way off,

這兩個數字很明顯都錯得離譜

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

但要兩組學生猜猜 甘地死時的真實年齡時

the first group's answers averaged to 50

第一組答案的平均值是 50 歲

while the second group's averaged to 67.

第二組是 67 歲

Even though the clearly wrong information in the initial questions

雖然最初問題中明顯錯誤的信息

should have been irrelevant,

不應該考慮進去

it still affected the students' estimates.

但它還是影響了學生的評估

This is an example of the anchoring effect,

這是個 錨定效應 (anchoring effect) 的例子

and it's often used in marketing and negotiations

這效應常用在市場營銷和談判中

to raise the prices that people are willing to pay.

以提高顧客願意支付的價位

So, if heuristics lead to all these wrong decisions,

那麼，如果啟發法 導致所有這些錯誤判斷

why do we even have them?

為什麼我們還是需要它呢？

Well, because they can be quite effective.

因為，它們可以非常有效

For most of human history,

在大多數人類歷史上

survival depended on making quick decisions with limited information.

生存之道在於 用有限的訊息快速做出決定

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

當沒有時間做邏輯分析所有可能性時

heuristics can sometimes save our lives.

啟發法有時可以救我們一命

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

但今日的環境，遠需要更複雜的決策

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

而這些決策受潛意識因素影響 比我們想像更有偏頗

affecting everything from health and education

其影響從健康和教育

to finance and criminal justice.

到經濟和刑事司法各方面

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

我們不可能讓大腦完全遠離啟發法

but we can learn to be aware of them.

但我們可以學會留意它們

When you come to a situation involving numbers,

當面對的情況涉及數字

probability,

機率或許多細節時

or multiple details,

pause for a second

停下來思考一下，

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

畢竟直覺的答案不一定是正確的

翻譯：min liang