Paul Bloom: The origins of pleasure

Translator: David J. Kreps Finnemann Reviewer: Anders Finn Jørgensen

I'm going to talk today

Jeg vil i dag tale

about the pleasures of everyday life.

om glæderne ved hverdagen.

But I want to begin with a story

Men jeg vil begynde med en historie

of an unusual and terrible man.

om en ualmindelig og forfærdelig mand.

This is Hermann Goering.

Dette er Hermann Goering.

Goering was Hitler's second in command in World War II,

Goering var Hitlers næstkommanderende under anden verdenskrig,

his designated successor.

hans udpegede efterfølger.

And like Hitler,

Og ligesom Hitler,

Goering fancied himself a collector of art.

prydede Goering sig af at være kunstsamler.

He went through Europe, through World War II,

Han rejste gennem Europa, gennem anden verdenskrig,

stealing, extorting and occasionally buying

stjal, afpressede og sommetider købte

various paintings for his collection.

forskellige malerier til sin samling.

And what he really wanted was something by Vermeer.

Og det han virkelig gerne ville have var noget af Vermeer.

Hitler had two of them, and he didn't have any.

Hitler havde to af dem, og han havde ikke nogen.

So he finally found an art dealer,

Så han fandt endelig en kunsthandler,

a Dutch art dealer named Han van Meegeren,

en hollandsk kunsthandler der hed Han van Meegeren,

who sold him a wonderful Vermeer

der solgte ham et vidundeligt Vermeer

for the cost of what would now be 10 million dollars.

til en pris der nu ville svare til 10 millioner dollars.

And it was his favorite artwork ever.

Og det var hans yndlingskunstværk nogensinde.

World War II came to an end,

Anden verdenskrig sluttede,

and Goering was captured, tried at Nuremberg

og Goering blev taget til fange,

and ultimately sentenced to death.

og i sidste ende dømt til døden.

Then the Allied forces went through his collections

Så gennemgik de allierede hans kunstsamling

and found the paintings

og fandt malerierne

and went after the people who sold it to him.

og gik efter de mennesker der havde solgt det til ham.

And at some point the Dutch police came into Amsterdam

Og på et tidspunkt kom det hollandske politi til Amsterdam

and arrested Van Meegeren.

og anholdte van Meegeren.

Van Meegeren was charged with the crime of treason,

Van Meegeren blev sigtet for forræderi,

which is itself punishable by death.

der i sig selv er strafbart med døden.

Six weeks into his prison sentence,

Seks uger inde i sin fængselsstraf,

van Meegeren confessed.

tilstod van Meegeren.

But he didn't confess to treason.

Men han tilstod ikke til forræderi.

He said, "I did not sell a great masterpiece

Han sagde, "Jeg solgte ikke et stort kunstværk

to that Nazi.

til den nazist.

I painted it myself; I'm a forger."

Jeg malede det selv; jeg er falskner."

Now nobody believed him.

Der var ingen der troede på ham.

And he said, "I'll prove it.

Og han sagde, "Jeg beviser det.

Bring me a canvas and some paint,

Kom med et lærred og noget maling,

and I will paint a Vermeer much better

og jeg vil male et Vermeer der er meget bedre

than I sold that disgusting Nazi.

end det jeg solgte til den afskyelige nazist.

I also need alcohol and morphine, because it's the only way I can work."

Jeg har også brug for alkohol og morfin, fordi det er den eneste måde jeg kan arbejde på."

(Laughter)

(Latter)

So they brought him in.

Så de kom ind med ham.

He painted a beautiful Vermeer.

Han malede et smukt Vermeer.

And then the charges of treason were dropped.

Og så blev sigtelserne om forræderi droppet.

He had a lesser charge of forgery,

Han fik en mindre sigtelse for falskneri,

got a year sentence

fik et års fængselsstraf

and died a hero to the Dutch people.

og døde som en helt for det hollandske folk.

There's a lot more to be said about van Meegeren,

Der kan siges meget mere om van Meegeren,

but I want to turn now to Goering,

men jeg vil nu tale om Goering,

who's pictured here being interrogated at Nuremberg.

der her er afbilledet som afhørt ved Nuremberg.

Now Goering was, by all accounts, a terrible man.

Nu var Goering, efter alle udsagn, en forfærdelig mand.

Even for a Nazi, he was a terrible man.

Selv for en nazist var han en forfærdeligt mand.

His American interrogators described him

Hans amerikanske forhørere beskrev ham

as an amicable psychopath.

som en fremragende psykopat.

But you could feel sympathy

Men man kunne føle sympati

for the reaction he had

for den reaktion han havde

when he was told that his favorite painting

da han fik at vide at hans yndlings maleri

was actually a forgery.

faktisk var en forfalskning.

According to his biographer,

Ifølge sin biografi,

"He looked as if for the first time

"Han så ud som om han for første gang

he had discovered there was evil in the world."

havde opdaget, at der var ondskab i verden."

(Laughter)

(Latter)

And he killed himself soon afterwards.

Og han begik selvmord kort derefter.

He had discovered after all

Han havde fundet ud af

that the painting he thought was this

at maleriet som han troede var dit,

was actually that.

faktisk var dat.

It looked the same,

Det så magen til ud,

but it had a different origin, it was a different artwork.

men det havde forskellig oprindelse, det var et andet kunstværk.

It wasn't just him who was in for a shock.

Det var ikke kun ham der fik sig et chok.

Once van Meegeren was on trial, he couldn't stop talking.

Da van Meegeren var i retten, kunne han ikke stoppe med at tale.

And he boasted about all the great masterpieces

Og han pralede med alle de store mesterværker

that he himself had painted

som han selv havde malet

that were attributed to other artists.

som var tilskrevet andre kunstnere.

In particular, "The Supper at Emmaus"

Især, "The Supper at Emmaus"

which was viewed as Vermeer's finest masterpiece, his best work --

der blev set som Vermeers bedste mesterværk, hans bedste arbejde --

people would come [from] all over the world to see it --

mennesker kom [fra] hele verden for at se det --

was actually a forgery.

faktisk var et falskneri.

It was not that painting, but that painting.

Det var ikke dette maleri, men det maleri.

And when that was discovered,

Og da det blev opdaget,

it lost all its value and was taken away from the museum.

mistede det al sin værdi og blev fjernet fra museet.

Why does this matter?

Hvorfor betyder dette noget?

I'm a psychologists -- why do origins matter so much?

Jeg er psykolog -- hvorfor betyder oprindelse så meget?

Why do we respond so much

Hvorfor vi reagerer så meget

to our knowledge of where something comes from?

på vores viden om hvor noget kommer fra?

Well there's an answer that many people would give.

Jamen der er et svar som mange mennesker vil give.

Many sociologists like Veblen and Wolfe

Mange sociologer som Veblen og Wolfe

would argue that the reason why we take origins so seriously

ville argumentere at grunden til at oprindelse er så vigtigt for os

is because we're snobs, because we're focused on status.

er fordi vi er snobber, fordi vi er fokuserede på status.

Among other things,

Blandt andre ting,

if you want to show off how rich you are, how powerful you are,

hvis man vil prale med hvor rig man er, hvor magtfuld man er,

it's always better to own an original than a forgery

er det altid bedre at eje en original end en forfalskning

because there's always going to be fewer originals than forgeries.

fordi der vil altid være færre originaler end forfalskninger.

I don't doubt that that plays some role,

Jeg tvivler ikke på at det spiller en rolle,

but what I want to convince you of today

men det jeg i dag vil overbevise jer om

is that there's something else going on.

er at der sker noget andet.

I want to convince you

Jeg vil overbevise jer om

that humans are, to some extent, natural born essentialists.

at mennesker er, til en vis grad, naturligt fødte essentialister.

What I mean by this

Det jeg mener med dette

is we don't just respond to things as we see them,

er at vi ikke kun svarer på ting som vi ser dem,

or feel them, or hear them.

eller føler dem, eller hører dem.

Rather, our response is conditioned on our beliefs,

Men i stedet er vores svar en følge af vores tro,

about what they really are, what they came from,

om hvad de virkelig er, hvad de kom fra,

what they're made of, what their hidden nature is.

hvad de er lavet af, hvad deres skjulte natur er.

I want to suggest that this is true,

Jeg vil forestille at dette er sandt,

not just for how we think about things,

ikke kun for hvordan vi tænker over ting,

but how we react to things.

men også for hvordan vi handler på ting.

So I want to suggest that pleasure is deep --

Så jeg vil foreslå at glæde er dyb --

and that this isn't true

og at det ikke er sandt

just for higher level pleasures like art,

udelukkende for højere niveau glæde som kunst,

but even the most seemingly simple pleasures

men selv de mest simple glæder

are affected by our beliefs about hidden essences.

bliver påvirket af vores tro om skjulte essenser.

So take food.

Tag mad.

Would you eat this?

Ville man spise dette?

Well, a good answer is, "It depends. What is it?"

Jamen, et godt svar er, "Det kommer an på. Hvad er det?"

Some of you would eat it if it's pork, but not beef.

Nogle af jer ville spise det hvis det er svin, men ikke oksekød.

Some of you would eat it if it's beef, but not pork.

Nogle af jer ville spise det hvis det er oksekød, men ikke svin.

Few of you would eat it if it's a rat

De færreste af jer ville spise det hvis det er rotte

or a human.

eller et menneske.

Some of you would eat it only if it's a strangely colored piece of tofu.

Nogle af jer ville kun spise det hvis det er et mærkelig farvet stykke tofu.

That's not so surprising.

Det er ikke så overraskende.

But what's more interesting

Det der er mere interessant

is how it tastes to you

er hvordan det smager for jer

will depend critically on what you think you're eating.

kommer meget an på hvad I tror I spiser.

So one demonstration of this was done with young children.

Så en demonstration af dette blev givet af unge børn.

How do you make children

Hvordan får man børn

not just be more likely to eat carrots and drink milk,

til ikke kun med større sandsynlighed at spise gulerødder og drikke mælk,

but to get more pleasure from eating carrots and drinking milk --

men til at få mere glæde af at spise gulerødder og drikke mælk --

to think they taste better?

til at tro at de smager bedre?

It's simple, you tell them they're from McDonald's.

Det er simpelt, man fortæller dem at det kommer fra McDonalds.

They believe McDonald's food is tastier,

De tror på, at maden fra McDonalds smager bedre,

and it leads them to experience it as tastier.

og det får dem til at opleve at det smager bedre.

How do you get adults to really enjoy wine?

Hvordan får man voksne til virkelig at nyde vin?

It's very simple:

Det er meget simpelt:

pour it from an expensive bottle.

hæld det fra en kostbar flaske.

There are now dozens, perhaps hundreds of studies showing

Der er nu dusinvis, måske hundredvis af undersøgelser der viser

that if you believe you're drinking the expensive stuff,

at hvis man tror på at man drikker dyre ting,

it tastes better to you.

så smager det bedre for en.

This was recently done with a neuroscientific twist.

Dette blev for nylig gjort med et neurovidenskabeligt twist.

They get people into a fMRI scanner,

De lægger folk i en fMRI skanner,

and while they're lying there, through a tube,

og mens de ligger derinde, gennem et rør,

they get to sip wine.

får de lov til at sippe til vinen.

In front of them on a screen is information about the wine.

Foran dem på skærmen er der information om vinen.

Everybody, of course,

Alle, selvfølgelig,

drinks exactly the same wine.

drikker præcis den samme vin.

But if you believe you're drinking expensive stuff,

Men hvis man tror på at man drikker noget der er dyrt,

parts of the brain associated with pleasure and reward

lyser de dele af hjernen der er associeret med glæde og belønning

light up like a Christmas tree.

op som et juletræ.

It's not just that you say it's more pleasurable, you say you like it more,

Det er ikke kun det at man siger at det er mere glædeligt, man siger at man synes bedre om det,

you really experience it in a different way.

man oplever det virkeligt på en anden måde.

Or take sex.

Eller tag sex.

These are stimuli I've used in some of my studies.

Dette er små stimuli jeg har brugt i nogle af mine studier.

And if you simply show people these pictures,

Og hvis man bare viser disse billeder til mennesker,

they'll say these are fairly attractive people.

siger de at dette er nogenlunde attraktive mennesker.

But how attractive you find them,

Men hvor attraktiv man synes de er,

how sexually or romantically moved you are by them,

hvor seksuelt eller romantisk bevæget man er af dem,

rests critically on who you think you're looking at.

er kritisk forskelligt alt efter hvem man tror man kigger på.

You probably think the picture on the left is male,

Man tror sikkert at billedet til venstre er mandligt,

the one on the right is female.

det til højre er kvindelig.

If that belief turns out to be mistaken, it will make a difference.

Hvis den tro viser sig at være forkert, vil det gøre en forskel.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

It will make a difference if they turn out to be

Det vil gøre en forskel hvis de viser sig at være

much younger or much older than you think they are.

meget yngre eller meget ældre end man tror de er.

It will make a difference if you were to discover

Det vil gøre en forskel hvis man skulle finde ud af

that the person you're looking at with lust

at den person man kigger på med lyst

is actually a disguised version of your son or daughter,

faktisk er en udklædt udgave af en søn eller datter,

your mother or father.

ens mor eller far.

Knowing somebody's your kin typically kills the libido.

At vide at nogen er ens slægtning dræber som regel libidoen.

Maybe one of the most heartening findings

Måske en af de mest opmuntrende resultater

from the psychology of pleasure

fra glædens psykologi

is there's more to looking good than your physical appearance.

er at der er mere ved det at se godt ud, end ens fysiske fremtræden.

If you like somebody, they look better to you.

Hvis man kan lide nogen, ser de bedre ud for en.

This is why spouses in happy marriages

Dette grunden til at ægtefæller i lykkelige ægteskaber

tend to think that their husband or wife

har en tendens til at synes at deres mand eller kone

looks much better than anyone else thinks that they do.

ser meget bedre ud end alle andre synes de gør.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

A particularly dramatic example of this

Et særlig dramatisk eksempel på dette

comes from a neurological disorder known as Capgras syndrome.

kommer fra en neurologisk lidelse der hedder Capgras syndrom.

So Capgras syndrome is a disorder

Så Capgras syndrom er en lidelse

where you get a specific delusion.

hvor man har en specifik vrangforestilling.

Sufferers of Capgras syndrome

Dem der lider af Capgras syndrom

believe that the people they love most in the world

mener at de mennesker de holder mest af i verden

have been replaced by perfect duplicates.

er blevet erstattet af perfekte kopier.

Now often, a result of Capgras syndrome is tragic.

Nu er et tilfælde af Capgras syndrom tit tragisk.

People have murdered those that they loved,

Mennesker har myrdet dem de holdte af,

believing that they were murdering an imposter.

og troet at de har myrdet en bedrager.

But there's at least one case

Men der er i hvert fald en sag

where Capgras syndrome had a happy ending.

hvor Capgras syndrom havde en lykkelig slutning.

This was recorded in 1931.

Dette blev set i 1931.

"Research described a woman with Capgras syndrome

"Forskning beskrev en kvinde med Capgras syndrom

who complained about her poorly endowed and sexually inadequate lover."

der klagede over sin dårligt udrustede og seksuelt utilstrækkelige elsker."

But that was before she got Capgras syndrome.

Men det var inden hun fik Capgras syndrom.

After she got it, "She was happy to report

Efter hun fik det, "Hun var glad for at kunne meddele

that she has discovered that he possessed a double

at hun har fundet ud af at han havde en dobbeltgænger

who was rich, virile, handsome and aristocratic."

der var rig, viril, smuk og aristokratisk."

Of course, it was the same man,

Det var, selvfølgelig, den samme mand,

but she was seeing him in different ways.

men hun så ham på andre måder.

As a third example,

Som et tredje eksempel,

consider consumer products.

overvej forbrugsgoder.

So one reason why you might like something is its utility.

En af grundene til at man kan lide en ting er dens anvendelighed.

You can put shoes on your feet; you can play golf with golf clubs;

Man kan putte sko på fødderne; man kan spille golf med golfkøller;

and chewed up bubble gum doesn't do anything at all for you.

og udtygget tyggegummi gør intet overhovedet for en.

But each of these three objects has value

Men hver af disse tre objekter har en værdi

above and beyond what it can do for you

ud over det det kan gøre for en

based on its history.

baseret på dets historie.

The golf clubs were owned by John F. Kennedy

Golfkøllerne var tidligere ejet af John F. Kennedy

and sold for three-quarters of a million dollars at auction.

og solgt for tre-kvart milllion dollars på en auktion.

The bubble gum was chewed up by pop star Britney Spears

Tyggegummiet blev gennemtygget af popstjernen Britney Spears

and sold for several hundreds of dollars.

og solgt for adskillige hundrede dollars.

And in fact, there's a thriving market

Og faktisk, er der et blomstrende marked

in the partially eaten food of beloved people.

i den delvist spiste mad af elskede mennesker.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

The shoes are perhaps the most valuable of all.

Skoene er måske det mest værdifulde overhovedet.

According to an unconfirmed report,

Ifølge en ubekræftet rapport,

a Saudi millionaire offered 10 million dollars

tilbød en saudisk millionær 10 millioner dollars

for this pair of shoes.

for dette par sko.

They were the ones thrown at George Bush

Det var dem der blev kastet efter George Bush

at an Iraqi press conference several years ago.

ved en irakisk pressekonference adskillige år siden.

(Applause)

(Bifald)

Now this attraction to objects

Nu virker denne tiltrækning til objekter

doesn't just work for celebrity objects.

ikke kun for kendtes objekter.

Each one of us, most people,

Hver af os, de fleste mennesker,

have something in our life that's literally irreplaceable,

har noget i vores liv der bogstavelig talt er uerstatteligt,

in that it has value because of its history --

på den måde at det har en værdi på grund af dets historie --

maybe your wedding ring, maybe your child's baby shoes --

måske vores vielsesring, måske ens børns babysko --

so that if it was lost, you couldn't get it back.

så hvis det gik tabt, kunne man ikke få det tilbage.

You could get something that looked like it or felt like it,

Man kunne få noget der lignede det eller føltes som det,

but you couldn't get the same object back.

men man kunne ikke få det samme objekt tilbage.

With my colleagues George Newman and Gil Diesendruck,

Men mine kolleger George Newman og Gil Diesendruck,

we've looked to see what sort of factors, what sort of history, matters

har vi set på hvilke faktorer, hvilken slags historie, gør en forskel

for the objects that people like.

for de objekter folk kan lide.

So in one of our experiments,

Så i et af vores eksperimenter,

we asked people to name a famous person who they adored,

bad vi mennesker om at navngive en kendt person de forgudede,

a living person they adored.

en levende person de forgudede.

So one answer was George Clooney.

Et af svarene var George Clooney.

Then we asked them,

Så spurgte vi dem,

"How much would you pay for George Clooney's sweater?"

"Hvor meget ville du betale for George Clooneys sweater?"

And the answer is a fair amount --

Og svaret er en hel del --

more than you would pay for a brand new sweater

mere end man ville betale for en helt ny sweater

or a sweater owned by somebody who you didn't adore.

eller en sweater ejet af en man ikke forguder.

Then we asked other groups of subjects --

Så bad vi en anden gruppe testpersoner --

we gave them different restrictions

vi gav dem forskellige restriktioner

and different conditions.

og forskellige forhold.

So for instance, we told some people,

Så for eksempel, fortalte vi nogle mennesker,

"Look, you can buy the sweater,

"Se, du kan købe sweateren,

but you can't tell anybody you own it,

men du kan ikke fortælle nogen at du ejer den,

and you can't resell it."

og du kan ikke sælge den videre."

That drops the value of it,

Det får værdien af den til at falde,

suggesting that that's one reason why we like it.

hvilket foreslår at det er en af grundene til at vi kan lide den.

But what really causes an effect

Men det der virkelig skaber en effekt

is you tell people, "Look, you could resell it, you could boast about it,

er at man fortæller mennesker, "Se, du kunne sælge den videre, du kunne prale om det,

but before it gets to you,

men før du får den,

it's thoroughly washed."

er den vasket grundigt."

That causes a huge drop in the value.

Det skaber et stort fald i værdien.

As my wife put it, "You've washed away the Clooney cooties."

Som min kone siger, "Du har vasket Clooney lusene væk."

(Laughter)

(Latter)

So let's go back to art.

Så lad os se på kunst igen.

I would love a Chagall. I love the work of Chagall.

Jeg ville elske et Chagall. Jeg elsker Chagalls arbejde.

If people want to get me something at the end of the conference,

Hvis mennesker vil købe noget til mig til slutningen af konferencen,

you could buy me a Chagall.

kunne man købe et Chagall til mig.

But I don't want a duplicate,

Men jeg vil ikke have en kopi,

even if I can't tell the difference.

selv hvis jeg ikke kan se forskel.

That's not because, or it's not simply because,

Det er ikke fordi, eller det er ikke bare fordi,

I'm a snob and want to boast about having an original.

jeg er snobbet og vil prale med at have en original.

Rather, it's because I want something that has a specific history.

Men, det er fordi jeg vil have noget der har en specifik historie.

In the case of artwork,

I tilfældet med kunstværker,

the history is special indeed.

er det bestemt en speciel historie.

The philosopher Denis Dutton

Filosofen Denis Dutton

in his wonderful book "The Art Instinct"

fremfører i hans vidunderlige bog "The Art Instinct"

makes the case that, "The value of an artwork

sagen, at "Værdien af et kunstværk

is rooted in assumptions about the human performance underlying its creation."

stammer fra formodningen om den menneskelige præstation der ligger til grund for dets skabelse."

And that could explain the difference

Og det kunne forklare forskellen

between an original and a forgery.

mellem en original og en forfalskning.

They may look alike, but they have a different history.

De ser måske ens ud, men de har en forskellig historie.

The original is typically the product of a creative act,

Den originale er typisk produktet af en kreativ

the forgery isn't.

det er forfalskningen ikke.

I think this approach can explain differences

Jeg mener at denne tilgang kan forklare forskellen

in people's taste in art.

i menneskers smag for kunst.

This is a work by Jackson Pollock.

Dette er et værk af Jackson Pollock.

Who here likes the work of Jackson Pollock?

Hvem her kan lide værket af Jackson Pollock?

Okay. Who here, it does nothing for them?

Okay. Hvem her, det gør ikke noget for dem?

They just don't like it.

De kan bare ikke lide det.

I'm not going to make a claim about who's right,

Jeg vil ikke komme med nogle påstande om hvem der har ret,

but I will make an empirical claim

men jeg vil lave en empirisk påstand

about people's intuitions,

om menneskers intuitioner,

which is that, if you like the work of Jackson Pollock,

som er, hvis man kan lide Jackson Pollock værker,

you'll tend more so than the people who don't like it

er der en større tendens til, end ved mennesker der ikke kan lide det,

to believe that these works are difficult to create,

at tro på at disse værker er svære at skabe,

that they require a lot of time and energy

at de kræver meget tid og energi

and creative energy.

og kreativ energi.

I use Jackson Pollock on purpose as an example

Jeg bruger med vilje Jackson Pollock som eksempel

because there's a young American artist

fordi der er en ung amerikansk kunstner

who paints very much in the style of Jackson Pollock,

der maler meget lig Jackson Pollocks stil,

and her work was worth

og hendes arbejde var måske

many tens of thousands of dollars --

mange tusinde dollars værd --

in large part because she's a very young artist.

for en stor del fordi hun er en meget ung kunstner.

This is Marla Olmstead

Dette er Maria Olmstead

who did most of her work when she was three years old.

der lavede mange af hendes værker da hun var tre år gammel.

The interesting thing about Marla Olmstead

Det interessante ved Maria Olmstead

is her family made the mistake

er at hendes familie begik den fejl

of inviting the television program 60 Minutes II into their house

at invitere fjernsynsprogrammet 60 Minutes ind i deres hjem

to film her painting.

til at filme hende mens hun maler.

And they then reported that her father was coaching her.

Og de rapporterer så at hendes far trænede hende.

When this came out on television,

Da dette kom ud i tv,

the value of her art dropped to nothing.

faldt værdien af hendes kunst til ingenting.

It was the same art, physically,

Det var den samme kunst, fysisk,

but the history had changed.

men historien havde ændret sig.

I've been focusing now on the visual arts,

Jeg har nu fokuseret på visuel kunst,

but I want to give two examples from music.

men jeg vil give jer to eksempler fra musik.

This is Joshua Bell, a very famous violinist.

Dette er Joshua Bell, en meget berømt violinist.

And the Washington Post reporter Gene Weingarten

Og Washington Post journalisten Gene Weingarten

decided to enlist him for an audacious experiment.

besluttede sig for at tilmelde ham til et dristigt eksperiment.

The question is: How much would people like Joshua Bell,

Spørgsmålet er: Hvor meget ville mennesker kunne lide Joshua Bell,

the music of Joshua Bell,

Joshua Bells musik,

if they didn't know they were listening to Joshua Bell?

hvis de ikke vidste at de lyttede til Joshua Bell?

So he got Joshua Bell to take his million dollar violin

Så han fik Joshua Bell til at tage sin violin til en million dollars

down to a Washington D.C. subway station

med til Washinton D.C. undergrundsbanen

and stand in the corner and see how much money he would make.

og stå i et hjørne og se hvor mange penge han kunne tjene.

And here's a brief clip of this.

Og her er et kort klip af det.

(Violin music)

(Violin musik)

After being there for three-quarters of an hour,

Efter ar have været der i tre kvarter,

he made 32 dollars.

havde han tjent 32 dollars.

Not bad. It's also not good.

Ikke dårligt. Det er heller ikke godt.

Apparently to really enjoy the music of Joshua Bell,

For virkelig at nyde Joshua Bells musik,

you have to know you're listening to Joshua Bell.

skal man åbenbart vide at man lytter til Joshua Bell.

He actually made 20 dollars more than that,

Han tjente faktisk 20 dollars mere end det,

but he didn't count it.

men han talte det ikke.

Because this woman comes up --

Fordi der kom en kvinde hen til ham --

you see at the end of the video -- she comes up.

man ser det i slutningen af videoen -- hun kommer hen.

She had heard him at the Library of Congress a few weeks before

Hun havde hørt ham ved Library of Congress et par uger inden

at this extravagant black-tie affair.

ved denne ekstravagante fest.

So she's stunned that he's standing in a subway station.

Så hun er målløs over at han står i undergrundsbanen.

So she's struck with pity.

Så hun rammes af medlidenhed.

She reaches into her purse and hands him a 20.

Hun tager hånden ned i hendes pung og giver ham 20.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

(Applause)

(Bifald)

The second example from music

Det andet eksempel fra musik

is from John Cage's modernist composition,

er fra John Cages modernistiske partitur

"4'33"."

"4'33"."

As many of you know,

Som mange af jer ved,

this is the composition where the pianist sits at a bench,

er dette partituren hvor pianisten sidder på bænken,

opens up the piano

åbner klaveret

and sits and does nothing for four minutes and 33 seconds --

og sidder og gør ingenting i fire minutter og 33 sekunder --

that period of silence.

perioden med stilhed.

And people have different views on this.

Og mennesker har forskellige syn på dette.

But what I want to point out

Men det jeg vil pointere

is you can buy this from iTunes.

er at man kan købe dette i iTunes.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

For a dollar 99,

for en dollar og 99 cent,

you can listen to that silence,

kan man lytte til den stilhed,

which is different than other forms of silence.

som er forskellig fra andre former for stilhed.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

Now I've been talking so far about pleasure,

Nu har jeg indtil videre talt om glæde,

but what I want to suggest

men det jeg vil foreslå

is that everything I've said applies as well to pain.

er at alt jeg har sagt også gælder for smerte.

And how you think about what you're experiencing,

Og hvordan man tænker over det man oplever,

your beliefs about the essence of it,

ens tro om essensen ved det,

affect how it hurts.

påvirker hvordan det gør ondt.

One lovely experiment

Et dejligt eksperiment

was done by Kurt Gray and Dan Wegner.

blev udført af Kurt Gray og Dan Wegner.

What they did was they hooked up Harvard undergraduates

Det de gjorde var, at de satte nogle Harvard

to an electric shock machine.

til en elektrisk shock maskine.

And they gave them a series of painful electric shocks.

Og de gav dem en række smertefulde elektriske chok.

So it was a series of five painful shocks.

Det var en serie af fem smertefulde chok.

Half of them are told that they're being given the shocks

Halvdelen af dem bliver fortalt at de bliver givet chok

by somebody in another room,

af nogen i et andet lokale,

but the person in the other room doesn't know they're giving them shocks.

men personen i det andet lokale ved ikke at de giver dem chok.

There's no malevolence, they're just pressing a button.

Der er ikke nogen ondskab, de trykker bare på en knap.

The first shock is recorded as very painful.

De første chok bliver opgivet som meget smertefuldt.

The second shock feels less painful, because you get a bit used to it.

Det andet chok føles mindre smertefuldt, fordi man bliver lidt van til det.

The third drops, the fourth, the fifth.

Det tredje falder, det fjerde, det femte.

The pain gets less.

Smerten mindskes.

In the other condition,

I den anden form,

they're told that the person in the next room

bliver de fortalt at personen i det andet lokale

is shocking them on purpose -- knows they're shocking them.

giver dem chok med vilje -- ved at de giver dem chok.

The first shock hurts like hell.

Det første chok gør fandens ondt.

The second shock hurts just as much,

Det andet chok gør lige så ondt,

and the third and the fourth and the fifth.

og det tredje og det fjerde og det femte.

It hurts more

Det gør mere ondt

if you believe somebody is doing it to you on purpose.

hvis man tror at nogen gør det ved en med vilje.

The most extreme example of this

Det mest ekstreme eksempel på dette

is that in some cases,

er at i nogle tilfælde

pain under the right circumstances

kan smerte under de rigtige forhold

can transform into pleasure.

forvandle sig til glæde.

Humans have this extraordinarily interesting property

Mennesker har denne ekstraordinært interessant egenskab

that will often seek out low-level doses of pain

der ofte vil søge lave doser af smerte

in controlled circumstances

i kontrollerede forhold

and take pleasure from it --

og tage glæde af det --

as in the eating of hot chili peppers

ligesom at spise stærk chili peber

and roller coaster rides.

og rutsjebane ture.

The point was nicely summarized

Pointen blev fint opsummeret

by the poet John Milton

af poeten John Milton

who wrote, "The mind is its own place,

der skrev, "Sindet er dets eget sted,

and in itself can make a heaven of hell,

og i sig selv kan lave himmel af helvede,

a hell of heaven."

og helvede af himmel."

And I'll end with that. Thank you.

Og jeg vil slutte med det. Tak.

(Applause)

(Bifald)