Why are we happy? Why aren't we happy? | Dan Gilbert

Translator: David J. Kreps Finnemann Reviewer: Asger Bachmann

Når man har 21 minuter til at tale,

When you have 21 minutes to speak,

virker to millioner år som rigtig lang tid.

two million years seems like a really long time.

Men evolutionært er to millioner år ingenting.

But evolutionarily, two million years is nothing.

Og alligevel har den menneskelige hjerne i løbet af to millioner år næsten tredoblet sin masse,

And yet, in two million years,

the human brain has nearly tripled in mass,

going from the one-and-a-quarter-pound brain of our ancestor here, Habilis,

og er gået fra at have en hjerne på cirka et halvt kilo som vores forfader her, Habilis,

til en næsten halvandet kilo kødfars som alle her har mellem ørerne.

to the almost three-pound meatloaf everybody here has between their ears.

Hvad er det ved en stor hjerne, der gør, at naturen er så ivrig efter, at vi alle skal have én?

What is it about a big brain

that nature was so eager for every one of us to have one?

Det viser sig at når hjerner tredobles i størrelse,

Well, it turns out when brains triple in size,

they don't just get three times bigger; they gain new structures.

bliver de ikke kun tre gange større, de opbygger nye strukturer.

And one of the main reasons our brain got so big is because it got a new part,

Og en af de vigtigste årsager til at vores hjerne blev så stor er, at den fik en ny del,

kaldet "frontal lapperne". Og især en del kaldet den "præ-frontale cortex."

called the "frontal lobe,"

particularly, a part called the "prefrontal cortex."

Så hvad gør en præ-frontal cortex for dig, der retfærdiggører

What does a prefrontal cortex do for you

that should justify the entire architectural overhaul of the human skull

hele den arkitektoniske overhaling af det menneskelige kranie i løbet af kort evolutionær tid.

in the blink of evolutionary time?

Det viser sig, at den præ-frontale cortex gør en masse ting,

Well, it turns out the prefrontal cortex does lots of things,

men én af de vigtigste ting, den gør,

but one of the most important things it does is it's an experience simulator.

er, at den er en oplevelses-simulator.

Piloter øver sig i fly-simulatorer,

Pilots practice in flight simulators

so that they don't make real mistakes in planes.

så de ikke begår rigtige fejl i fly.

Human beings have this marvelous adaptation

Mennesker har denne fantastiske tilpasning,

that they can actually have experiences in their heads

at de kan have oplevelser i deres hoveder,

before they try them out in real life.

før de prøver dem af i virkeligheden.

This is a trick that none of our ancestors could do,

Dette er et trick, som ingen af vores forfædre kunne,

and that no other animal can do quite like we can.

og som ingen andre pattedyr kan gøre helt ligeså godt, som vi kan. Det er en fantastisk tilpasning.

It's a marvelous adaptation.

It's up there with opposable thumbs and standing upright and language

Den er på højde med modsatrettede tommelfingre og at stå oprejst og sprog

as one of the things that got our species out of the trees

som én af de ting, der har fået vores race ned fra træerne

and into the shopping mall.

og ind i indkøbscentret.

(Laughter)

Nuvel -- (Latter) -- I har alle gjort dette.

All of you have done this.

Jeg mener, I ved,

Ben and Jerry's doesn't have "liver and onion" ice cream,

Ben and Jerry's laver ikke lever-og-løg is,

and it's not because they whipped some up, tried it and went, "Yuck!"

og det er ikke fordi de lavede noget, smagte på det og sagde "ad."

It's because, without leaving your armchair,

Det er fordi, uden at forlade din lænestol,

you can simulate that flavor and say "yuck" before you make it.

kan du simulere den smagsvariant og sige "ad" før du laver den.

Lad os se hvordan jeres oplevelses-simulatorer fungerer.

Let's see how your experience simulators are working.

Let's just run a quick diagnostic

Lad os tage en hurtig test, før jeg fortsætter med resten af foredraget.

before I proceed with the rest of the talk.

Here's two different futures that I invite you to contemplate.

Her er to forskellige fremtidige scenarier, som jeg vil invitere jer til at forestille jer,

You can try to simulate them and tell me which one you think you might prefer.

og I kan prøve at simulere dem og fortælle mig, hvilken, I tror, I foretrækker.

One of them is winning the lottery. This is about 314 million dollars.

Èn af dem er at vinde i Lotto. Det her er cirka 314 millioner dollars.

And the other is becoming paraplegic.

Og den anden er at blive lam.

(Laughter)

Jeg vil lige give jer et øjebliks betænkningstid.

Just give it a moment of thought.

You probably don't feel like you need a moment of thought.

I føler nok, at I ikke har brug for et øjebliks betænkningstid.

Interestingly, there are data on these two groups of people,

Der er, interessant nok, data på disse to grupper mennesker,

data on how happy they are.

data på hvor glade de er.

And this is exactly what you expected, isn't it?

Og det her er præcis, hvad I forventede, er det ikke?

But these aren't the data. I made these up!

Men det her er ikke dataene. Jeg har fundet på dem!

These are the data.

Det her er dataene. Du har ikke bestået den korte quiz, og du er kun knap 5 minuter inde i foredraget.

You failed the pop quiz, and you're hardly five minutes into the lecture.

Because the fact is that a year after losing the use of their legs

Fordi virkeligheden er, at et år efter at have mistet brugen af deres ben,

and a year after winning the lotto,

og et år efter at have vundet i Lotto, er lotteri-vindere og lamme

lottery winners and paraplegics are equally happy with their lives.

lige tilfredse med deres liv.

Men hav det ikke for dårligt med at være dumpet i den første quiz,

Don't feel too bad about failing the first pop quiz,

because everybody fails all of the pop quizzes all of the time.

fordi alle mislykkes med alle quizzer hele tiden.

Den forskning som mit laboratorium har udført,

The research that my laboratory has been doing,

som økonomer og psykologer rundt om i landet har udført,

that economists and psychologists around the country have been doing,

har afsløret noget ganske overraskende for os,

has revealed something really quite startling to us,

noget, vi kalder "impact bias",

something we call the "impact bias,"

which is the tendency for the simulator to work badly,

hvilket er en tendens til at simulatoren fungerer dårligt.

for the simulator to make you believe that different outcomes are more different

En tendens til at simulatoren får dig til at tro, at forskellige resultater

er mere forskellige, end de egentlig er.

than, in fact, they really are.

From field studies to laboratory studies,

Fra felt-studier til laboratorie-studier,

we see that winning or losing an election,

ser vi at at vinde eller tabe et valg, få eller miste en romantisk partner,

gaining or losing a romantic partner,

at få eller ikke at få en forfremmelse, bestå eller ikke bestå en eksamen,

getting or not getting a promotion,

passing or not passing a college test,

on and on,

igen og igen, har langt mindre påvirkning, mindre intensitet og meget kortere varighed,

have far less impact, less intensity and much less duration

end folk forventer, at de har.

than people expect them to have.

Faktisk viste en nylig undersøgelse -- dette fejer næsten benene væk under mig --

A recent study -- this almost floors me --

en nylig undersøgelse, der viser, hvordan store traumer påvirker mennesker,

a recent study showing how major life traumas affect people

tyder på, at hvis det skete for mere end tre måneder siden,

suggests that if it happened over three months ago,

med kun et par undtagelser,

har det ikke nogen indflydelse på din lykke overhovedet.

with only a few exceptions,

Hvorfor?

it has no impact whatsoever on your happiness.

Fordi lykke kan syntetiseres.

Why?

Because happiness can be synthesized.

Sir Thomas Brown skrev i 1642, "Jeg er den lykkeligste mand.

Sir Thomas Brown wrote in 1642, "I am the happiest man alive.

Jeg har det i mig, der kan vende fattigdom til rigdom, modgang til velstand.

I have that in me that can convert poverty to riches, adversity to prosperity.

Jeg er mere usårlig end Achilleus; skæbnen har ikke ét sted at ramme mig."

I am more invulnerable than Achilles; fortune hath not one place to hit me."

Hvilken slags bemærkelsesværdig mekanisme har denne fyr i sit hoved?

What kind of remarkable machinery does this guy have in his head?

Det viser sig, at det er præcis den samme bemærkelsesværdige mekanisme, som vi alle har.

Well, it turns out it's precisely the same remarkable machinery that all of us have.

Mennesker har noget, som vi kan betragte som et "psykologisk immunsystem."

Human beings have something

that we might think of as a "psychological immune system,"

Et system af kognitive processer, overvejende ikke-bevidste kognitive processer,

a system of cognitive processes, largely nonconscious cognitive processes,

der hjælper dem med at ændre deres synspunkter om verden,

that help them change their views of the world,

så de kan føle sig bedre tilpas i den verden, de befinder sig i.

so that they can feel better about the worlds

Ligesom Sir Thomas har du denne maskine.

in which they find themselves.

I modsætning til Sir Thomas, synes du ikke at vide det. (Latter)

Like Sir Thomas, you have this machine.

Unlike Sir Thomas, you seem not to know it.

Vi syntetiserer lykke, men vi mener, lykke er noget, der skal findes.

We synthesize happiness, but we think happiness is a thing to be found.

I har ikke brug for, at jeg viser jer for mange eksempler på folk, der syntetiserer glæde,

Now, you don't need me to give you

too many examples of people synthesizing happiness, I suspect,

formoder jeg. Selvom jeg vil vise jer nogle eksperimentelle bevismaterialer,

behøver man ikke at kigge særligt langt for at finde beviser.

though I'm going to show you some experimental evidence.

Som en udfordring til mig selv, da jeg siger dette en gang imellem i forelæsninger,

You don't have to look very far for evidence.

I took a copy of the "New York Times"

tog jeg en kopi af the New York Times og forsøgte at finde nogle eksempler på folk, der syntetiserer lykke.

and tried to find some instances of people synthesizing happiness.

Og her er tre fyre, der syntetiserer lykke.

Here are three guys synthesizing happiness.

"Jeg er så meget bedre stillet fysisk, økonomisk, følelsesmæssigt, mentalt

"I'm better off physically, financially, mentally ..."

"I don't have one minute's regret. It was a glorious experience."

og næsten hvilken som helst anden måde." "Jeg har ikke et øjebliks fortrydelse.

"I believe it turned out for the best."

Det var en glorværdig oplevelse." "Jeg tror, det viste sig at være det bedste."

Who are these characters who are so damn happy?

Hvem er disse mennesker, der er så pokkers glade?

The first one is Jim Wright.

Some of you are old enough to remember:

Den første er Jim Wright.

he was the chairman of the House of Representatives,

Nogle af jer er gamle nok til at huske det: han var formand for Repræsentanternes Hus,

and he resigned in disgrace

when this young Republican named Newt Gingrich found out about

og han trådte tilbage i unåde, da en ung republikaner ved navn Newt Gingrich

a shady book deal that he had done.

He lost everything.

fandt ud af en lyssky bog-aftale, han havde lavet.

The most powerful Democrat in the country lost everything:

Han mistede alt. Den mest magtfulde demokrat i landet,

he lost his money, he lost his power.

han mistede alt.

What does he have to say all these years later about it?

Han mistede sine penge; han mistede sin magt.

"I am so much better off physically, financially, mentally

Hvad har han at sige om det alle disse år senere?

"Jeg er så meget bedre stillet fysisk, økonomisk, følelsesmæssigt, mentalt

and in almost every other way."

What other way would there be to be better off?

og næsten hvilken som helst anden måde."

Vegetably? Minerally? Animally?

Hvilken anden måde ville der være at være bedre tjent?

He's pretty much covered them there.

Vegetabilsk? Mineralsk? Dyrisk? Han har egentlig dækket det hele.

Moreese Bickham is somebody you've never heard of.

Moreese Bickham uttered these words upon being released.

Moreese Bickham er én, I aldrig har hørt om.

Moreese Bickham sagde disse ord efter at være blevet løsladt.

He was 78 years old.

He'd spent 37 years in Louisiana State Penitentiary

Han var 78 år gammel. Han tilbragte 37 år

for a crime he didn't commit.

i Louisiana Statsfængsel for en forbrydelse, han ikke havde begået.

He was ultimately [released for good behavior halfway through his sentence.]

Han blev i sidste ende renset,

What did he have to say about his experience?

i en alder af 78, ved hjælp af DNA beviser.

"I don't have one minute's regret. It was a glorious experience."

Og hvad havde han at sige om sin oplevelse?

Glorious!

"Jeg har ikke et minuts beklagelse. Det var en glorværdig oplevelse."

This guy's not saying, "There were some nice guys. They had a gym."

Glorværdig! Denne fyr siger ikke,

"Glorious" -- a word we usually reserve for something like a religious experience.

"Du ved, der var nogle flinke gutter. De havde et motionscenter."

Det er "glorværdigt",

et ord, vi normalt kun bruger til noget som en religiøs erfaring.

Harry S. Langerman uttered these words.

He's somebody you might have known but didn't,

Harry S. Langerman ytrede disse ord, og han er én I måske burde kende,

because in 1949, he read a little article in the paper

men ikke kender, fordi i 1949 læste han en lille artikel i avisen

about a hamburger stand owned by these two brothers named McDonald.

om en hamburger-stand ejet af to brødre ved navn McDonalds.

And he thought, "That's a really neat idea!"

So he went to find them.

Og han tænkte, "Det er en virkelig god idé!"

They said, "We can give you a franchise on this for 3,000 bucks."

Så han fandt dem. De sagde,

Harry went back to New York, asked his brother, an investment banker,

"Vi kan give dig en franchise til det her for 3.000 dollars."

Harry tog tilbage til New York, bad sin bror, som var en investeringsrådgiver,

to loan him 3,000 dollars, and his brother's immortal words were,

"You idiot, nobody eats hamburgers."

låne ham 3.000 dollars,

og hans brors udødelige ord var:

He wouldn't lend him the money.

Of course, six months later, Ray Kroc had exactly the same idea.

"Din idiot, ingen spiser hamburgere."

Han ville ikke låne ham penge, og seks måneder senere

It turns out, people do eat hamburgers,

fik Ray Croc naturligvis nøjagtigt den samme idé.

and Ray Kroc, for a while, became the richest man in America.

Det viser sig, at mennesker faktisk spiser hamburgere,

og Ray Croc var, i et stykke tid, den rigeste mand i Amerika.

And then, finally,

some of you recognize this young photo of Pete Best,

Og til sidst -- I ved, det bedste fra alle verdener --

who was the original drummer for the Beatles,

nogle af jer genkender dette tidlige foto af Pete Best,

until they, you know, sent him out on an errand and snuck away

and picked up Ringo on a tour.

der var den oprindelige trommeslager i the Beatles,

Well, in 1994, when Pete Best was interviewed --

indtil de, I ved, sendte ham på et ærinde og sneg sig væk

yes, he's still a drummer; yes, he's a studio musician --

og fandt Ringo på en turné.

he had this to say: "I'm happier than I would have been with the Beatles."

I 1994, da Pete Best blev interviewet,

-- ja, han er stadig trommeslager; ja, han er en studiemusiker --

OK, there's something important to be learned from these people,

havde han dette at sige: "Jeg er lykkeligere, end jeg ville have været med the Beatles."

and it is the secret of happiness.

Here it is, finally to be revealed.

Okay. Der er noget vigtigt at lære fra disse mennesker,

First: accrue wealth, power and prestige,

og det er hemmeligheden bag lykke.

then lose it.

Her er den, klar til endelig at blive afsløret.

(Laughter)

Først: opnå formue, magt og prestige,

Second: spend as much of your life in prison as you possibly can.

tab det derefter. (Latter)

(Laughter)

Third: make somebody else really, really rich.

Andet: tilbring så meget af dit liv i fængsel, som du overhovedet kan.

(Latter) Tredje: gør en anden virkelig, virkelig rig. (Latter)

And finally: never, ever join the Beatles.

(Laughter)

Yeah, right.

Because when people synthesize happiness,

Og endelig: bliv aldrig nogensinde medlem af the Beatles. (Latter)

as these gentlemen seem to have done,

Ok. Jeg kan, ligesom Ze Frank, forudsige jeres næste tanke,

we all smile at them, but we kind of roll our eyes and say,

"Yeah, right, you never really wanted the job."

som er "helt sikkert". Fordi når

"Oh yeah, right -- you really didn't have that much in common with her,

folk syntetiserer lykke, som disse herrer synes at have gjort,

and you figured that out just about the time

smiler vi alle til dem, men vi ruller ligesom med øjnene, og siger

she threw the engagement ring in your face."

We smirk,

"Helt sikkert, du ønskede dig aldrig rigtig jobbet."

because we believe that synthetic happiness is not of the same quality

"Selvfølgelig. Du havde virkelig

ikke så meget til fælles med hende,

as what we might call "natural happiness."

og det fandt du ud af cirka i det øjeblik,

What are these terms?

Natural happiness is what we get when we get what we wanted,

hvor hun kastede forlovelsesringen i hovedet på dig."

Vi griner smørret, fordi vi mener, at syntetiseret lykke

and synthetic happiness is what we make when we don't get what we wanted.

ikke er af samme kvalitet som det, vi kunne kalde "naturlig lykke".

And in our society, we have a strong belief

Hvad er disse termer?

Naturlige lykke er, hvad vi får, når vi får, hvad vi ønskede os,

that synthetic happiness is of an inferior kind.

og syntetisk lykke er, hvad vi fremstiller, når vi ikke får, hvad vi ønskede os.

Why do we have that belief?

Well, it's very simple.

What kind of economic engine would keep churning

Og i vores samfund har vi en stærk overbevisning om,

if we believed that not getting what we want

at denne syntetiserede lykke er en ringere slags.

could make us just as happy as getting it?

Hvorfor har vi denne overbevisning?

Det er meget simpelt. Hvilken slags økonomisk motor

With all apologies to my friend Matthieu Ricard,

ville blive ved med at køre

a shopping mall full of Zen monks

hvis vi tror på, at vi kunne blive lige så lykkelig af ikke at få det, vi ønsker, som at få det vi ønsker?

is not going to be particularly profitable,

because they don't want stuff enough.

(Laughter)

Med al respekt for min ven Matthieu Ricard,

I want to suggest to you

that synthetic happiness is every bit as real and enduring

vil et indkøbscenter fuld af Zen munke

ikke være særligt indbringende,

as the kind of happiness you stumble upon

fordi de ikke ønsker ting nok.

when you get exactly what you were aiming for.

Now, I'm a scientist, so I'm going to do this not with rhetoric,

Jeg vil gerne foreslå jer, at syntetisk lykke

but by marinating you in a little bit of data.

er præcis lige så virkelig og vedvarende

Let me first show you an experimental paradigm

som den slags lykke, man falder over,

that's used to demonstrate the synthesis of happiness

når man får præcis det, man havde bestræbt sig.

among regular old folks.

Jeg er en videnskabsmand, så jeg vil ikke gøre dette med retorik,

This isn't mine,

men ved at marinere jer i en lille smule data.

it's a 50-year-old paradigm called the "free choice paradigm."

Lad mig først vise jer et eksperimentelt paradigme, der bruges

It's very simple.

You bring in, say, six objects,

til at demonstrere syntetiseret lykke

and you ask a subject to rank them from the most to the least liked.

blandt ganske almindelige mennesker. Og dette er ikke mit.

In this case, because this experiment uses them,

Dette er et 50 år gammelt paradigme kaldet det "frie valg paradigmet".

these are Monet prints.

Det er meget simpelt.

Everybody ranks these Monet prints from the one they like the most

Man tager, for eksempel, seks objekter frem,

to the one they like the least.

og man beder en forsøgsperson om at rangere dem fra den mest ønskede til den mindst ønskede.

Now we give you a choice:

I dette tilfælde, fordi eksperimentet, jeg vil fortælle om, bruger dem,

"We happen to have some extra prints in the closet.

We're going to give you one as your prize to take home.

er objekterne Monet-malerier.

Alle kan rangere disse Monet-malerier

We happen to have number three and number four," we tell the subject.

fra den, de bedst kan lide, til den, de mindst kan lide.

Nu giver vi jer et valg:

This is a bit of a difficult choice,

"Vi har tilfældigvis nogle ekstra malerier i skabet.

because neither one is preferred strongly to the other,

but naturally, people tend to pick number three,

Vi vil give dig en som en gevinst, du kan tage med hjem.

Vi har tilfældigvis nummer tre og nummer fire,"

because they liked it a little better than number four.

siger vi til forsøgspersonen. Det er et lidt vanskeligt valg,

Sometime later -- it could be 15 minutes, it could be 15 days --

fordi den ene ikke foretrækkes meget mere end den anden,

the same stimuli are put before the subject,

men naturligvis har mennesker tendens til at vælge nummer tre,

and the subject is asked to re-rank the stimuli.

fordi de kunne lide det en smule bedre end nummer fire.

"Tell us how much you like them now."

What happens?

På et senere tidspunkt -- det kunne være 15 minutter; det kunne være 15 dage --

Watch as happiness is synthesized.

This is the result that's been replicated over and over again.

bringes de samme stimuli for forsøgspersonen,

You're watching happiness be synthesized.

og forsøgspersonen bliver bedt om at re-rangere stimuliene.

Would you like to see it again?

"Fortæl os, hvor meget du kan lide dem nu."

Hvad sker der? Se lykke blive syntetiseret.

Happiness!

"The one I got is really better than I thought!

Dette er resultatet, som er blevet genskabt igen og igen.

That other one I didn't get sucks!"

That's the synthesis of happiness.

I ser lykke blive syntetiseret.

(Laughter)

Vil I gerne se det igen? Lykke!

Now, what's the right response to that?

"Yeah, right!"

"Det, jeg fik, er virkelig bedre, end jeg troede!

Now, here's the experiment we did,

Det andet, jeg ikke fik, stinker!"

and I hope this is going to convince you

(Latter) Det er syntese af lykke.

that "Yeah, right!" was not the right response.

Hvad er nu det rigtige svar? "Helt sikkert!"

We did this experiment with a group of patients

who had anterograde amnesia.

These are hospitalized patients.

Her er eksperimentet, vi udførte,

Most of them have Korsakoff syndrome,

og jeg håber, dette vil overbevise jer om at,

a polyneuritic psychosis.

"Helt sikkert!" ikke var det rigtige svar.

They drank way too much, and they can't make new memories.

Vi udførte dette eksperiment med en gruppe patienter,

der havde anterograd amnesi. De er indlagte patienter.

They remember their childhood, but if you walk in and introduce yourself

De fleste af dem har Korsakoffs syndrom,

and then leave the room,

en polyneurotisk psykose som -- de drak alt for meget,

when you come back, they don't know who you are.

We took our Monet prints to the hospital.

og de kan ikke lave nye minder.

Ok? De husker deres barndom, men hvis du går ind og introducerer dig selv

And we asked these patients to rank them

from the one they liked the most to the one they liked the least.

og derefter forlader væreslet,

når du kommer tilbage, ved de ikke, hvem du er.

We then gave them the choice between number three and number four.

Vi tog vores Monet-malerier med til hospitalet.

Like everybody else, they said,

Og vi bad disse patienter om at rangere dem

"Gee, thanks Doc! That's great! I could use a new print.

fra det de bedst kunne lide til det de synes mindst om.

I'll take number three."

We explained we would have number three mailed to them.

Vi gav dem derefter valget mellem nummer tre og nummer fire.

We gathered up our materials,

Ligesom alle andre, sagde de,

and we went out of the room and counted to a half hour.

"Nøj, tak, doktor! Det er fedt! Jeg kunne godt bruge et nyt maleri.

(Laughter)

Jeg tager nummer tre."

Back into the room, we say, "Hi, we're back."

Vi forklarede, at vi ville sende nummer tre til dem.

The patients, bless them, say, "Ah, Doc, I'm sorry,

Vi indsamlede vores materialer, og vi gik ud af værelset,

I've got a memory problem; that's why I'm here.

og talte til en halv time.

If I've met you before, I don't remember."

Tilbage i lokalet, siger vi "Hej, vi er tilbage."

"Really, Jim, you don't remember? I was just here with the Monet prints?"

Patienterne, velsign dem, siger, "Ah, doktor, jeg er ked af det,

"Sorry, Doc, I just don't have a clue."

"No problem, Jim.

jeg har et hukommelsesproblem; det er derfor jeg her.

All I want you to do is rank these for me,

Hvis jeg har mødt dig før, kan jeg ikke huske det."

from the one you like the most to the one you like the least."

"Virkelig, Jim, kan du ikke huske det? Jeg var her netop med Monet-malerierne?"

What do they do?

"Desværre, doktor, jeg har ikke en anelse om det."

Well, let's first check and make sure they're really amnesiac.

"Det er ikke noget problem, Jim. Alt jeg ønsker, du skal gøre, er at rangere disse for mig

We ask these amnesiac patients to tell us which one they own,

fra det du bedst kan lide til det du synes mindst om."

which one they chose last time, which one is theirs.

Hvad gør de? Lad os først kontrollere og være sikre på,

And what we find is, amnesiac patients just guess.

at de virkelig har hukommelsesbesvær. Vi beder disse

These are normal controls, where if I did this with you,

patienter med hukommelsesbesvær om at fortælle os, hvilket maleri, de ejer,

all of you would know which print you chose.

hvilket de valgte sidste gang, hvilket der er deres.

But if I do this with amnesiac patients, they don't have a clue.

Og vi fandt ud af at patienter med hukommelsesbesvær bare gætter.

They can't pick their print out of a lineup.

Disse er normale kontrolpersoner, hvor, hvis jeg gjorde det med jer,

Here's what normal controls do: they synthesize happiness. Right?

ville I alle vide, hvilket maleri I valgte.

Men hvis jeg gør dette med patienter med hukommelsesbesvær,

This is the change in liking score,

har de ikke en anelse. De kan ikke vælge deres maleri i en opstilling.

the change from the first time they ranked to the second time they ranked.

Normal controls show -- that was the magic I showed you;

Her er hvad normale kontrolpersoner gør: de syntetiserer lykke.

now I'm showing it to you in graphical form --

"The one I own is better than I thought.

Ikke? Her er ændringen i popularitet,

The one I didn't own, the one I left behind,

ændringen fra første gang de rangerede til anden gang de rangerede.

is not as good as I thought."

Normale kontrolelementer viser

-- det var magien jeg viste jer;

Amnesiacs do exactly the same thing. Think about this result.

nu viser jeg jer det i grafisk form --

"Det jeg ejer er bedre, end jeg troede. Det jeg ikke ejer,

These people like better the one they own,

but they don't know they own it.

det jeg efterlod, er ikke så god, som jeg troede."

Folk med hukommelsestab gør nøjagtigt det samme. Tænk over dette resultat.

"Yeah, right" is not the right response!

What these people did when they synthesized happiness

Disse mennesker kan bedre lide det de ejer,

men de ved ikke, de ejer det.

is they really, truly changed

their affective, hedonic, aesthetic reactions to that poster.

"Helt sikkert" er ikke det rigtige svar!

Det disse folk gjorde, da de syntetiserede lykke,

They're not just saying it because they own it,

because they don't know they own it.

er, at de virkelig, virkelig ændrede

When psychologists show you bars,

deres følelsesmæssige, hedonistiske, æstetiske reaktioner på denne plakat.

you know that they are showing you averages of lots of people.

De siger det ikke, bare fordi de ejer det,

And yet, all of us have this psychological immune system,

fordi de ved ikke ejer de det.

this capacity to synthesize happiness,

but some of us do this trick better than others.

Når psykologer viser dig statistikker,

And some situations allow anybody to do it more effectively

ved du, at de viser gennemsnittet af en masse mennesker.

Og alligevel har vi alle dette psykologiske immunsystem,

than other situations do.

denne kapacitet til at syntetisere lykke,

It turns out that freedom,

men nogle af os kan dette trick bedre end andre.

the ability to make up your mind and change your mind,

Og nogle situationer tillader alle at gøre det mere effektivt

is the friend of natural happiness,

end andre situationer gør.

because it allows you to choose among all those delicious futures

and find the one that you would most enjoy.

Det viser sig, at frihed

But freedom to choose,

-- evnen til at beslutte sig for noget og ændre mening --

to change and make up your mind,

is the enemy of synthetic happiness,

er en ven af naturlig lykke, fordi det giver dig muligheden for at vælge

and I'm going to show you why.

blandt alle disse dejlige fremtids-scenarier og finde den, du ville nyde mest.

Dilbert already knows, of course.

"Dogbert's tech support. How may I abuse you?"

"My printer prints a blank page after every document."

Men frihed til at vælge

"Why complain about getting free paper?"

-- at ændre mening og beslutte sig for noget -- er fjenden af syntetiseret lykke.

"Free? Aren't you just giving me my own paper?"

"Look at the quality of the free paper compared to your lousy regular paper!

Og jeg vil vise jer hvorfor.

Dilbert ved det allerede, naturligvis.

I læser tegneserien, mens jeg taler.

Only a fool or a liar would say that they look the same!"

"Dogbert's tech support. Hvordan kan jeg misbruge dig?"

"Now that you mention it, it does seem a little silkier!"

"Min printer udskriver en tom side efter hvert dokument."

"What are you doing?"

"Hvorfor ville du klage over at få gratis papir?"

"I'm helping people accept the things they cannot change." Indeed.

"Gratis? Giver du mig ikke bare mit eget papir?"

"Egad, mand! Se på kvaliteten af det gratis papir

The psychological immune system works best

sammenlignet med dit elendige almindelige papir!

Kun et fjols eller en løgner vil sige, at de ser ens ud!"

when we are totally stuck, when we are trapped.

"Ah! Nu, hvor du nævner det, virker det faktisk lidt mere silkeblødt!"

This is the difference between dating and marriage.

You go out on a date with a guy,

"Hvad laver du?"

and he picks his nose; you don't go out on another date.

"Jeg hjælper folk med at acceptere de ting, de ikke kan ændre." Rigtigt.

You're married to a guy and he picks his nose?

Det psykologiske immunsystem fungerer bedst,

He has a heart of gold. Don't touch the fruitcake!

når vi sidder fuldstændig fast, når vi er fanget.

You find a way to be happy with what's happened.

Det er forskellen mellem dating og ægteskab, ikke?

(Laughter)

Now, what I want to show you

Jeg mener, man går på date med en fyr,

is that people don't know this about themselves,

og han piller næse; så går man ikke med på anden date.

and not knowing this can work to our supreme disadvantage.

Du er gift med en fyr, og han piller næse?

Altså, har han et hjerte af guld;

lad vær med at røre ved frugttærten. Ikke? (Latter)

Here's an experiment we did at Harvard.

Du finder en måde at være tilfreds med, hvad der er sket.

We created a black-and-white photography course,

and we allowed students to come in and learn how to use a darkroom.

Det vil jeg nu vil vise jer er, at

folk ikke ved dette om sig selv,

So we gave them cameras, they went around campus,

they took 12 pictures of their favorite professors

og ikke at vide dette kan være vores største ulempe.

and their dorm room and their dog,

Her er et eksperiment, vi udførte på Harvard.

and all the other things they wanted to have Harvard memories of.

Vi oprettede et fotograferings-kursus, et sort-hvid fotograferings-kursus,

They bring us the camera, we make up a contact sheet,

og vi tillod studerende at komme og lære at bruge et mørkekammer.

they figure out which are the two best pictures.

Så gav vi dem kameraer; de gik omkring på campus;

We now spend six hours teaching them about darkrooms,

de tog 12 billeder af deres foretrukne professorer og deres kollegieværelse og deres hund,

and they blow two of them up.

They have two gorgeous 8 x 10 glossies

of meaningful things to them, and we say,

og alle de andre ting, de ville have Harvard-minder af.

"Which one would you like to give up?"

De kommer med kameraet til os; vi laver et kontaktark;

"I have to give one up?"

"Yes, we need one as evidence of the class project.

de finder ud af hvilke billeder er de to bedste;

og så bruger vi seks timer på at lære dem om mørkekamre.

So you have to give me one. You have to make a choice.

Og de forstørrer to af dem,

You get to keep one, and I get to keep one."

og så har de to pragtfulde 8 gange 10 fotografier af

ting, der er betydningsfulde for dem, og vi siger,

Now, there are two conditions in this experiment.

"Hvilken vil du opgive?"

In one case, the students are told,

De siger: "Skal jeg opgive ét?"

"But you know, if you want to change your mind,

"Oh, ja. Vi har brug for en som bevis for klassens projekt.

I'll always have the other one here,

Så du skal give mig et. Du skal foretage et valg.

and in the next four days, before I actually mail it to headquarters" --

Du får lov til at beholde en, og jeg får lov til at beholde en."

yeah, "headquarters" --

Nuvel, der er to betingelser i dette eksperiment.

(Laughter)

"I'll be glad to swap it out with you.

I ét tilfælde får de studerende at vide, "Men du ved,

In fact, I'll come to your dorm room, just give me an email.

hvis du vil ændre mening, har jeg altid det andet her,

Better yet, I'll check with you.

og i de næste fire dage, før jeg faktisk sender det til hovedkvarteret,

You ever want to change your mind, it's totally returnable."

The other half of the students are told exactly the opposite:

vil jeg meget gerne" -- (Latter) -- ja ,"hovedkvarteret" --

"Make your choice, and by the way,

"vil jeg meget gerne bytte med dig. Faktisk

the mail is going out, gosh, in two minutes, to England.

kommer jeg gerne til dit kollegieværelse og giver

Your picture will be winging its way over the Atlantic.

-- bare send mig en mail. Eller endnu bedre, jeg kommer bare forbi.

You will never see it again."

Hvis du nogensinde vil ændre mening, er det fuldstændig returnerbart."

Half of the students in each of these conditions

Den anden halvdel af de studerende får præcis det modsatte at vide:

are asked to make predictions

about how much they're going to come to like

"Træf et valg. Og forresten,

the picture that they keep

posten er på vej om, hov, til England om to minutter.

and the picture they leave behind.

Other students are just sent back to their little dorm rooms

Dit billede vil flyve over atlanten.

Du kommer aldrig til at se det igen."

and they are measured over the next three to six days

Så, halvdelen af de studerende i hver af disse situationer

on their satisfaction with the pictures.

bliver bedt om at komme med forudsigelser om, hvor meget

Look at what we find.

de vil komme til at lide det billede, de beholder,

First of all, here's what students think is going to happen.

og billedet de efterlader.

They think they're going to maybe come to like the picture they chose

Andre studerende bliver bare sendt tilbage til deres lille kollegieværelser,

a little more than the one they left behind.

og de måles over de næste tre til seks dage

But these are not statistically significant differences.

på hvor godt de kan lide, er tilfredse med billederne.

It's a very small increase, and it doesn't much matter

Og se hvad vi finder ud af.

Her er først og fremmest, hvad eleverne tror der vil ske.

whether they were in the reversible or irreversible condition.

De tror, de nok vil komme til at lide billedet, de valgte,

Wrong-o.

Bad simulators.

Because here's what's really happening.

lidt mere end det billede, de valgte fra,

Both right before the swap and five days later,

men disse er ikke statistisk signifikante forskelle.

people who are stuck with that picture,

who have no choice,

Det er en meget lille stigning, og det betyder ikke rigtig noget,

who can never change their mind,

om de var i den låste eller ulåste situation.

like it a lot.

And people who are deliberating -- "Should I return it?

Forkert! Dårlige simulatorer. Fordi her er, hvad der virkelig sker.

Have I gotten the right one?

Maybe this isn't the good one. Maybe I left the good one?" --

Både lige før ombytningen og fem dage senere,

have killed themselves.

kan mennesker, der sidder fast med billedet,

They don't like their picture.

In fact, even after the opportunity to swap has expired,

som ikke har noget valg,

der aldrig kan ændre mening, rigtig godt lide det!

they still don't like their picture.

Why?

Og mennesker, der overvejer -- "Bør jeg returnere det?

Because the [reversible] condition is not conducive

Har jeg fået det rigtige? Dette er måske ikke det gode billede?

to the synthesis of happiness.

Måske jeg efterlod det gode?" -- har dræbt sig selv.

So here's the final piece of this experiment.

De kan ikke lide deres billede, og faktisk

selv efter muligheden for at bytte er udløbet,

We bring in a whole new group of naive Harvard students

bryder de sig stadig ikke om deres billede. Hvorfor?

and we say, "You know, we're doing a photography course,

and we can do it one of two ways.

Fordi den ulåste betingelse ikke er befordrende

We could do it so that when you take the two pictures,

til at syntetisere lykke.

you'd have four days to change your mind,

Så her er den sidste brik i dette eksperiment.

or we're doing another course where you take the two pictures

Vi finder en helt ny gruppe af naive Harvard-studerende

and you make up your mind right away and you can never change it.

og vi siger, "Nu skal I høre, vi laver et fotograferings-kursus,

Which course would you like to be in?" Duh!

Sixty-six percent of the students, two-thirds,

og vi kan gøre det på to måder.

prefer to be in the course where they have the opportunity to change their mind.

Vi kunne gøre det således, at når du tager de to billeder,

du ville, har du fire dage til at ændre mening,

Hello? Sixty-six percent of the students choose to be in the course

eller vi laver et andet kursus, hvor du tager de to billeder,

og du vælger et billede med det samme,

in which they will ultimately be deeply dissatisfied with the picture --

og du kan aldrig ændre det. Hvilket kursus vil du gerne tage?"

Duh! 66 procent af de studerende, to-tredjedele,

(Laughter)

because they do not know the conditions under which synthetic happiness grows.

foretrækker at være i kurset, hvor de har mulighed for at ændre deres mening.

The Bard said everything best, of course, and he's making my point here

Hallo? 66 procent af studerende vælger at være i kurset, hvor de

but he's making it hyperbolically:

i sidste ende vil være dybt utilfredse med billedet.

"'Tis nothing good or bad But thinking makes it so."

Fordi de ikke kender de betingelser, hvorunder syntetisk lykke vokser.

It's nice poetry, but that can't exactly be right.

Is there really nothing good or bad?

Shakespeare har sagt alt det bedste, naturligvis, og han understøtter min pointe her

Is it really the case that gall bladder surgery and a trip to Paris

are just the same thing?

men han overdriver det:

(Laughter)

That seems like a one-question IQ test.

"'Der er intet godt eller dårligt / men overvejelsen gør det så."

They can't be exactly the same.

Det er fin poesi, men det kan ikke være rigtigt.

In more turgid prose, but closer to the truth,

Er der virkelig ikke noget godt eller dårligt?

was the father of modern capitalism, Adam Smith, and he said this.

Er det virkelig tilfældet, at en galdeblære-operation og en tur til Paris

This is worth contemplating:

er nøjagtig den samme ting? Der synes at være en ét-spørgsmåls IQ test.

"The great source of both the misery and disorders of human life

seems to arise from overrating the difference

De kan ikke være præcis det samme.

between one permanent situation and another.

I mere bombastisk prosa, men tættere på sandheden,

Some of these situations may, no doubt, deserve to be preferred to others,

var faderen til den moderne kapitalisme, Adam Smith, og han sagde dette.

Dette er værd at overveje:

but none of them can deserve to be pursued

"Den store kilde til både elendighed og forstyrrelser af menneskeliv

with that passionate ardor which drives us to violate the rules

synes at opstå fra at overvurdere forskellen

either of prudence or of justice,

mellem én permanent situation og en anden...

or to corrupt the future tranquility of our minds,

Nogle af disse situationer fortjener uden tvivl at blive foretrukket frem for andre,

either by shame from the remembrance of our own folly,

men ingen af dem kan fortjene at blive forfulgt

or by remorse for the horror of our own injustice."

In other words: yes, some things are better than others.

med den lidenskabelige glød, der driver os til at overtræde reglerne

We should have preferences that lead us into one future over another.

enten af forsigtighed eller retfærdighed, eller til at fordærve den fremtidige stilhed for vores hjerner,

But when those preferences drive us too hard and too fast

enten ved skam fra erindringen om vores egen galskab,

because we have overrated the difference between these futures,

eller ved anger for rædslen ved vores egen uretfærdighed."

we are at risk.

Med andre ord: ja, nogle ting er bedre end andre.

When our ambition is bounded, it leads us to work joyfully.

Vi bør have præferencer, der fører os ind i én fremtid frem for en anden.

When our ambition is unbounded,

it leads us to lie, to cheat, to steal, to hurt others,

Men når disse præferencer driver os alt for hårdt og alt for hurtig,

to sacrifice things of real value.

fordi vi har overvurderet forskellen mellem disse fremtidige stadier,

When our fears are bounded,

we're prudent, we're cautious,

er vi i fare.

we're thoughtful.

When our fears are unbounded and overblown,

Når vores ambition er afgrænset, fører det os til at arbejde med glæde.

we're reckless, and we're cowardly.

Når vores ambition er ubegrænset, får det os til at lyve, at snyde, at stjæle, at såre andre,

The lesson I want to leave you with, from these data,

is that our longings and our worries are both to some degree overblown,

at ofre ting af reel værdi. Når vores frygt er afgrænset,

because we have within us the capacity to manufacture the very commodity

er vi fornuftige; vi er forsigtige; vi er eftertænksomme.

Når vores frygt er ubegrænsede og overdrevne,

we are constantly chasing when we choose experience.

er vi hensynsløse, og vi er feje.

Thank you.

Lektionen, jeg vil efterlade jer med fra disse data,

(Applause)

er at vores længsler og vores bekymringer er begge til en vis grad overdrevede,

fordi vi inden i os har kapaciteten til at fremstille den selvsamme råvare,

vi konstant jagter, når vi vælger erfaring.

Tak.