The riddle of experience vs. memory | Daniel Kahneman

Translator: Lasse Christensen Reviewer: Mikael Fuhr

Everybody talks about happiness these days.

Alle snakker om lykken nu om stunder.

I had somebody count the number of books

Jeg fik nogen til at tælle, hvor mange bøger

with "happiness" in the title published in the last five years

med "lykke" i titlen, der er udgivet inden for de sidste fem år.

and they gave up after about 40, and there were many more.

De gav op efter omkring 40, og der var mange flere.

There is a huge wave of interest in happiness,

Der er en enorm interesse for lykken,

among researchers.

blandt forskere.

There is a lot of happiness coaching.

Der er kurser i at blive lykkelig.

Everybody would like to make people happier.

Alle vil gerne gøre folk lykkeligere.

But in spite of all this flood of work,

Men på trods af dette store arbejde

there are several cognitive traps

er der en række kognitive fælder,

that sort of make it almost impossible to think straight

der gør det næsten umuligt at tænke klart

about happiness.

over spørgsmålet om lykken.

And my talk today will be mostly about these cognitive traps.

I dag vil jeg først og fremmest snakke om disse kognitive fælder.

This applies to laypeople thinking about their own happiness,

Det vedrører alle, der funderer over deres egen lykke,

and it applies to scholars thinking about happiness,

såvel som akademikere, der studerer lykken,

because it turns out we're just as messed up as anybody else is.

for det viser sig, at vi er lige så forvirrede som alle andre.

The first of these traps

Den første af disse fælder

is a reluctance to admit complexity.

er en modvilje mod at indrømme, at det er indviklet.

It turns out that the word "happiness"

Det viser sig, at ordet "lykke"

is just not a useful word anymore,

ikke er et nyttigt ord længere,

because we apply it to too many different things.

for vi bruger det om for mange forskellige ting.

I think there is one particular meaning to which we might restrict it,

Man kunne måske fastholde en snæver mening,

but by and large,

men i det store og hele

this is something that we'll have to give up

er det noget, vi må lægge på hylden

and we'll have to adopt the more complicated view

for i stedet at acceptere et mere kompliceret billede af,

of what well-being is.

hvad velvære indebærer.

The second trap is a confusion between experience and memory;

Den anden fælde vedrører forvirring omkring oplevelse og erindring.

basically, it's between being happy in your life,

Altså omkring forskellen på at være lykkelig i livet

and being happy about your life

og at være lykkelig ved tanken om ens liv,

or happy with your life.

eller lykkelig over ens liv.

And those are two very different concepts,

Og det er to vidt forskellige koncepter,

and they're both lumped in the notion of happiness.

der begge er proppet ind i lykkebegrebet.

And the third is the focusing illusion,

Den tredje er fokus-illusionen, der uheldigvis medfører,

and it's the unfortunate fact that we can't think about any circumstance

at vi ikke kan tænke på en omstændighed,

that affects well-being

der har med velvære at gøre,

without distorting its importance.

uden at forvrænge dens betydning.

I mean, this is a real cognitive trap.

Det er virkelig en kognitiv fælde.

There's just no way of getting it right.

Det kan simpelthen ikke lade sig gøre.

Now, I'd like to start with an example

Jeg vil gerne indlede med et eksempel,

of somebody who had a question-and-answer session

hvor jeg blev stillet et spørgsmål i spørgetiden

after one of my lectures reported a story,

efter en af mine forelæsninger, hvor han fortalte en historie,

and that was a story --

og det var en historie...

He said he'd been listening to a symphony,

Han fortalte, at han havde lyttet til en symfoni,

and it was absolutely glorious music

og det var noget helt enestående musik,

and at the very end of the recording,

og allersidst i optagelsen

there was a dreadful screeching sound.

havde der været en forfærdelig hyletone.

And then he added, really quite emotionally,

Og så tilføjede han, ganske rørt,

it ruined the whole experience.

at det havde ødelagt hele oplevelsen.

But it hadn't.

Men det havde det ikke.

What it had ruined were the memories of the experience.

Det, der var blevet ødelagt, var erindringen om oplevelsen.

He had had the experience.

Oplevelsen havde han jo haft.

He had had 20 minutes of glorious music.

Han havde haft 20 minutters enestående musik.

They counted for nothing

Men de betød ikke noget,

because he was left with a memory;

for han sad tilbage med en erindring,

the memory was ruined,

erindringen var ødelagt,

and the memory was all that he had gotten to keep.

og erindringen var det eneste, han kunne beholde.

What this is telling us, really,

Hvad dette fortæller os er,

is that we might be thinking of ourselves and of other people

at vi kan opfatte os selv og andre mennesker

in terms of two selves.

som bestående af to selv.

There is an experiencing self,

Der er det oplevende selv,

who lives in the present

som lever i nutiden

and knows the present,

og kender til nutiden.

is capable of re-living the past,

Det kan genopleve fortiden,

but basically it has only the present.

men har stort set kun adgang til nutiden.

It's the experiencing self that the doctor approaches --

Det er det oplevende selv, som lægen henvender sig til –

you know, when the doctor asks,

altså, når lægen spørger,

"Does it hurt now when I touch you here?"

"Gør det ondt, når jeg rører dig her?"

And then there is a remembering self,

Og så er der det erindrende selv,

and the remembering self is the one that keeps score,

som er det, der holder regnskab

and maintains the story of our life,

og vedligeholder vores livshistorie.

and it's the one that the doctor approaches

Og det er dette selv, som lægen henvender sig til,

in asking the question,

når han spørger,

"How have you been feeling lately?"

"Hvordan har du haft det i den seneste tid?"

or "How was your trip to Albania?" or something like that.

eller "Hvordan gik turen til Albanien?" og den slags.

Those are two very different entities,

Det er to vidt forskellige størrelser,

the experiencing self and the remembering self,

det oplevende selv og det erindrende selv,

and getting confused between them is part of the mess

og forvirringen omkring disse to bidrager til det rod,

about the notion of happiness.

der plager begrebet lykke.

Now, the remembering self

Det erindrende selv

is a storyteller.

fortæller historier.

And that really starts with a basic response of our memories --

Og det starter med en aktivering af vores erindringer.

it starts immediately.

Det starter øjeblikkeligt.

We don't only tell stories when we set out to tell stories.

Vi fortæller ikke kun historier, når vi rent faktisk fortæller historier.

Our memory tells us stories,

Vores hukommelse fortæller os historier,

that is, what we get to keep from our experiences

og det, vi står tilbage med efter en oplevelse,

is a story.

er en historie.

And let me begin with one example.

Lad mig begynde med et eksempel.

This is an old study.

Det er en gammel undersøgelse.

Those are actual patients undergoing a painful procedure.

Disse patienter havde undergået et smertefuldt indgreb.

I won't go into detail. It's no longer painful these days,

Jeg skal ikke gå i detaljer. Det er ikke smertefuldt nu om dage,

but it was painful when this study was run in the 1990s.

men det var det, da undersøgelsen blev foretaget i 1990erne.

They were asked to report on their pain every 60 seconds.

De blev spurgt om at bedømme smerteniveauet hvert 60. sekund.

Here are two patients,

Og her har vi så to patienter.

those are their recordings.

Det er, hvad de rapporterede.

And you are asked, "Who of them suffered more?"

Og så kan man spørge, "Hvem led mest?"

And it's a very easy question.

Det er jo et let spørgsmål.

Clearly, Patient B suffered more --

Det er åbenlyst, at patient B led mest.

his colonoscopy was longer,

Hans koloskopi varede længere,

and every minute of pain that Patient A had,

og hvert smertefulde minut, som patient A oplevede,

Patient B had, and more.

oplevede patient B også, og mere til.

But now there is another question:

Men så kan man yderligere spørge,

"How much did these patients think they suffered?"

"Hvor meget mente patienterne selv, de led?"

And here is a surprise.

Og svaret er overraskende:

The surprise is that Patient A

For det viser sig, at patient A

had a much worse memory of the colonoscopy

havde en meget værre erindring om koloskopien

than Patient B.

end patient B.

The stories of the colonoscopies were different,

De to koloskopihistorier var forskellige,

and because a very critical part of the story is how it ends.

og fordi slutningen er vigtig for enhver historie -

And neither of these stories is very inspiring or great --

og idet ingen af disse historier ellers er synderligt inspirerende -

but one of them is this distinct ... (Laughter)

er der en af dem, der er særligt...

but one of them is distinctly worse than the other.

...en af dem, der er meget værre end den anden.

And the one that is worse

Og den, der er værst,

is the one where pain was at its peak at the very end;

er den, hvor smerteniveauet var på sit højeste helt til sidst.

it's a bad story.

Det er en slem historie.

How do we know that?

Hvordan ved vi så det?

Because we asked these people after their colonoscopy,

Vi spurgte disse personer lige efter deres koloskopi,

and much later, too,

og igen meget senere,

"How bad was the whole thing, in total?"

"Hvor slem var oplevelsen som helhed?"

And it was much worse for A than for B, in memory.

og det var meget værre for A end for B i erindringen.

Now this is a direct conflict

Dette er et udtryk for en direkte konflikt

between the experiencing self and the remembering self.

mellem det oplevende selv og det erindrende selv.

From the point of view of the experiencing self,

Fra det oplevende selvs synspunkt

clearly, B had a worse time.

havde B det helt klart værst.

Now, what you could do with Patient A,

Hvad man kunne have gjort med patient A,

and we actually ran clinical experiments,

og vi har faktisk foretaget kliniske undersøgelser,

and it has been done, and it does work --

hvor vi gjorde sådan, og det virkede...

you could actually extend the colonoscopy of Patient A

Man kunne forlænge patient A's koloskopi,

by just keeping the tube in without jiggling it too much.

ved at lade røret blive siddende uden at bevæge det for meget.

That will cause the patient

På den måde oplever patienten

to suffer, but just a little

ubehag, men kun en lille smule,

and much less than before.

og meget mindre end tidligere i forløbet.

And if you do that for a couple of minutes,

Og hvis man gør det i et par minutter,

you have made the experiencing self

har man gjort forløbet værre

of Patient A worse off,

for patient A's oplevende selv,

and you have the remembering self of Patient A

men for patientens erindrende selv

a lot better off,

har man gjort oplevelsen meget bedre,

because now you have endowed Patient A

for nu har man givet patient A

with a better story

en bedre historie

about his experience.

om hans oplevelse.

What defines a story?

Det, der definerer en historie -

And that is true of the stories

hvad enten det er de historier,

that memory delivers for us,

som erindringen leverer,

and it's also true of the stories that we make up.

eller de historier, vi selv finder på -

What defines a story are changes,

det, der definerer en historie, er ændringer,

significant moments and endings.

betydningsfulde øjeblikke og slutninger.

Endings are very, very important

Slutninger er meget, meget vigtige,

and, in this case, the ending dominated.

og i dette tilfælde var slutningen dominerende.

Now, the experiencing self

Det oplevende selv

lives its life continuously.

lever livet i en lige linie.

It has moments of experience, one after the other.

Det oplever det ene øjeblik efter det andet.

And you can ask: What happens to these moments?

Men hvad sker der med disse øjeblikke?

And the answer is really straightforward:

Svaret er lige til:

They are lost forever.

De går tabt for evigt.

I mean, most of the moments of our life --

De fleste af livets øjeblikke -

and I calculated, you know, the psychological present

og regner man på det, altså den psykologiske nutid,

is said to be about three seconds long;

så er den tre sekunder i udstrækning,

that means that, you know,

hvilket altså betyder,

in a life there are about 600 million of them;

at der er omtrent 600 millioner i et helt liv.

in a month, there are about 600,000 --

Det bliver til 600.000 om måneden.

most of them don't leave a trace.

De fleste af dem forsvinder sporløst.

Most of them are completely ignored

De fleste af dem bliver helt ignoreret

by the remembering self.

af det erindrende selv.

And yet, somehow you get the sense

Og dog sidder man tilbage med en følelse af,

that they should count,

at de burde tælle for noget.

that what happens during these moments of experience

At det, vi oplever i de øjeblikke,

is our life.

er vores liv.

It's the finite resource that we're spending

Det er den begrænsede ressource, som vi bruger af,

while we're on this earth.

mens vi er på jorden.

And how to spend it

Hvordan vi bruger den

would seem to be relevant,

synes at måtte være relevant,

but that is not the story

men det er ikke den historie,

that the remembering self keeps for us.

som vores erindrende selv vedligeholder.

So we have the remembering self

Så vi har altså det erindrende selv

and the experiencing self,

og det oplevende selv,

and they're really quite distinct.

og de er ganske forskellige.

The biggest difference between them

De adskiller sig især fra hinanden

is in the handling of time.

på måden, hvorpå de håndterer tid.

From the point of view of the experiencing self,

Fra det oplevende selvs synspunkt,

if you have a vacation,

hvis du er på ferie,

and the second week is just as good as the first,

og den anden uge er lige så god som den første,

then the two-week vacation

så er en ferie på to uger

is twice as good as the one-week vacation.

dobbelt så god som en enkelt uges ferie.

That's not the way it works at all for the remembering self.

Men sådan fungerer det erindrende selv ikke.

For the remembering self, a two-week vacation

For det erindrende selv er to ugers ferie

is barely better than the one-week vacation

ikke nævneværdigt bedre end en uges ferie,

because there are no new memories added.

for der tilføjes ikke yderligere erindringer.

You have not changed the story.

Du har ikke ændret på historien.

And in this way,

Og på den måde er det tiden,

time is actually the critical variable

der er den vigtigste variable,

that distinguishes a remembering self

der adskiller et erindrende selv

from an experiencing self;

fra et oplevende selv.

time has very little impact on the story.

Tiden er af lille betydning for denne historie.

Now, the remembering self does more

Det erindrende selv gør mere

than remember and tell stories.

end bare at huske og fortælle historier.

It is actually the one that makes decisions

Det er faktisk dette selv, det træffer beslutninger,

because, if you have a patient who has had, say,

for hvis du har en patient, der har haft

two colonoscopies with two different surgeons

to koloskopier hos to forskellige kirurger,

and is deciding which of them to choose,

og han skal vælge mellem de to,

then the one that chooses

så vælger han den,

is the one that has the memory that is less bad,

der er ansvarlig for hans mindst dårlige erindring,

and that's the surgeon that will be chosen.

og det er denne kirurg, der bliver valgt.

The experiencing self

Det oplevende selv

has no voice in this choice.

har ikke noget at skulle have sagt.

We actually don't choose between experiences,

Vi vælger ikke mellem oplevelser,

we choose between memories of experiences.

men mellem erindringer om oplevelser.

And even when we think about the future,

Og selv når vi tænker på fremtiden,

we don't think of our future normally as experiences.

så er det ikke en fremtid bestående af oplevelser.

We think of our future

Vi tænker på vores fremtid

as anticipated memories.

som forventede erindringer.

And basically you can look at this,

Og man kan således betragte dette

you know, as a tyranny of the remembering self,

som en slags erindrende selvs tyranni,

and you can think of the remembering self

og man kan sige, at det erindrende selv

sort of dragging the experiencing self

nærmest trækker det oplevende selv

through experiences that

gennem oplevelser,

the experiencing self doesn't need.

som det erindrende ikke selv har brug for.

I have that sense that

Jeg har indtryk af,

when we go on vacations

at vi, når vi skal på ferie -

this is very frequently the case;

det er ofte sådan, det foregår -

that is, we go on vacations,

altså, vi tager på ferie,

to a very large extent,

i stor udstrækning,

in the service of our remembering self.

i vores erindrende selvs tjeneste.

And this is a bit hard to justify I think.

Og det er svært at retfærdiggøre.

I mean, how much do we consume our memories?

Jeg mener, hvor ofte forbruger vi vores erindringer?

That is one of the explanations

Dette er en af de forklaringer,

that is given for the dominance

man ofte hører givet

of the remembering self.

på det erindrende selvs dominans.

And when I think about that, I think about a vacation

Og når jeg tænker over det, så tænker jeg

we had in Antarctica a few years ago,

på en ferie til Antarktis for et par år siden,

which was clearly the best vacation I've ever had,

som var den bedste ferie, jeg nogensinde har haft,

and I think of it relatively often,

og jeg tænker på den relativt ofte,

relative to how much I think of other vacations.

sammenlignet med andre ferier.

And I probably have consumed

Jeg har nok forbrugt mine erindringer

my memories of that three-week trip, I would say,

om de tre ugers ferie

for about 25 minutes in the last four years.

i omkring 25 minutter over de sidste fire år.

Now, if I had ever opened the folder

Havde jeg hentet albummet

with the 600 pictures in it,

med de 600 billeder fra turen,

I would have spent another hour.

så havde jeg måske brugt en time mere.

Now, that is three weeks,

Så vi har altså tre uger,

and that is at most an hour and a half.

sammenlignet med halvanden time.

There seems to be a discrepancy.

Der er en uoverensstemmelse.

Now, I may be a bit extreme, you know,

Det er måske lidt ekstremt,

in how little appetite I have for consuming memories,

hvor lidt appetit jeg har på mine erindringer,

but even if you do more of this,

men selvom man er mere tilbøjelig til den slags,

there is a genuine question:

kan man stadig spørge,

Why do we put so much weight on memory

hvorfor vi lægger så stor vægt på erindringer,

relative to the weight that we put on experiences?

sammenlignet med de faktiske oplevelser?

So I want you to think

I kan nu fundere lidt

about a thought experiment.

over et tankeeksperiment.

Imagine that for your next vacation,

Forestil jer, at I på jeres næste ferie ved,

you know that at the end of the vacation

at når ferien er overstået,

all your pictures will be destroyed,

så bliver alle jeres billeder destrueret,

and you'll get an amnesic drug

og jeres erindringer bliver slettet,

so that you won't remember anything.

så I ikke husker noget.

Now, would you choose the same vacation? (Laughter)

Ville I holde ferie på samme måde?

And if you would choose a different vacation,

Hvis I ville vælge en anderledes ferie,

there is a conflict between your two selves,

opstår der en konflikt mellem jeres to selv,

and you need to think about how to adjudicate that conflict,

og I ville være tvunget til at træffe afgørelse i den konflikt,

and it's actually not at all obvious, because

hvilket faktisk ikke er helt så ligetil,

if you think in terms of time,

for hvis I tænker på det tidsmæssige,

then you get one answer,

får I ét svar,

and if you think in terms of memories,

og hvis I tænker på erindringerne,

you might get another answer.

får I måske et andet svar.

Why do we pick the vacations we do

Hvorfor vi vælger de ferier, vi gør,

is a problem that confronts us

er et problem, der konfronterer os

with a choice between the two selves.

med et valg mellem de to selv.

Now, the two selves

Disse to selv er ansvarlige

bring up two notions of happiness.

for to forestillinger om lykken.

There are really two concepts of happiness

Der er således tale om to lykkebegreber,

that we can apply, one per self.

som vi kan tage i brug, et per selv.

So you can ask: How happy is the experiencing self?

Så man kan spørge, "Hvor lykkelig er det oplevende selv?"

And then you would ask: How happy are the moments

Og derefter, "Hvor lykkelige er de øjeblikke,

in the experiencing self's life?

der udgør det oplevende selvs liv?"

And they're all -- happiness for moments

Og lykkeværdien i et enkelt øjeblik

is a fairly complicated process.

er en ret kompliceret størrelse.

What are the emotions that can be measured?

Hvilke følelser kan man måle på?

And, by the way, now we are capable

Nu er vi forresten i stand til

of getting a pretty good idea

at forstå, hvad det vil sige

of the happiness of the experiencing self over time.

for det oplevende selv at være lykkelig over længere tid.

If you ask for the happiness of the remembering self,

Hvis man spørger til det erindrende selvs lykke,

it's a completely different thing.

er det en helt anderledes størrelse.

This is not about how happily a person lives.

Det handler ikke om, hvor lykkeligt livet leves.

It is about how satisfied or pleased the person is

Det handler om, hvor tilfreds en person er,

when that person thinks about her life.

når denne person betragter sit eget liv.

Very different notion.

Et helt andet begreb.

Anyone who doesn't distinguish those notions

Hvis man ikke skelner mellem disse begreb,

is going to mess up the study of happiness,

vil det forkludre undersøgelsen af lykken.

and I belong to a crowd of students of well-being,

Jeg tilhører selv en gruppe fra velværens skole,

who've been messing up the study of happiness for a long time

der har forkludret studiet af lykken i lang tid

in precisely this way.

på præcis denne måde.

The distinction between the

Denne skelnen mellem

happiness of the experiencing self

det oplevende selvs lykke,

and the satisfaction of the remembering self

og det erindrende selvs tilfredshed

has been recognized in recent years,

er blevet anerkendt i de seneste år,

and there are now efforts to measure the two separately.

og man forsøger nu at måle på de to uafhængigt af hinanden.

The Gallup Organization has a world poll

Gallup foretog en global meningsmåling

where more than half a million people

blandt flere end en halv million mennesker.

have been asked questions

De blev stillet spørgsmål om,

about what they think of their life

hvad de synes om deres liv,

and about their experiences,

og om deres oplevelser.

and there have been other efforts along those lines.

Og der har været flere lignende tiltag.

So in recent years, we have begun to learn

I de seneste år er vi begyndt

about the happiness of the two selves.

at lære om de to selvs lykkebegreber.

And the main lesson I think that we have learned

Den vigtigste erkendelse har været,

is they are really different.

at de er meget forskellige.

You can know how satisfied somebody is with their life,

Selvom man ved, hvor tilfreds en person er med sit liv,

and that really doesn't teach you much

siger det ikke særlig meget om,

about how happily they're living their life,

hvor lykkeligt de lever deres liv,

and vice versa.

og omvendt.

Just to give you a sense of the correlation,

Hvad angår den statistiske korrelation,

the correlation is about .5.

så er den omkring 0,5.

What that means is if you met somebody,

Det betyder, at hvis du møder nogen,

and you were told, "Oh his father is six feet tall,"

og du får at vide, at vedkomnes far er 183cm høj,

how much would you know about his height?

hvad siger det så om personens egen højde?

Well, you would know something about his height,

Ja, du ved måske en lille smule om hans højde,

but there's a lot of uncertainty.

men der er meget stor usikkerhed.

You have that much uncertainty.

Der er rigtig meget usikkerhed.

If I tell you that somebody ranked their life eight on a scale of ten,

Hvis en person bedømmer deres liv til otte ud af ti,

you have a lot of uncertainty

så er det meget usikkert,

about how happy they are

hvor glade de er

with their experiencing self.

for deres oplevende selv.

So the correlation is low.

Så korrelationen er lav.

We know something about what controls

Vi ved lidt om, hvad der styrer,

satisfaction of the happiness self.

hvor tilfreds det lykkelige selv er.

We know that money is very important,

Vi ved, at penge er meget vigtige,

goals are very important.

og at mål er meget vigtige.

We know that happiness is mainly

Vi ved at lykken mest af alt handler om

being satisfied with people that we like,

at være tilfreds med mennesker, vi kan lide,

spending time with people that we like.

og at omgås folk, vi kan lide.

There are other pleasures, but this is dominant.

Der er andre glæder, men disse dominerer.

So if you want to maximize the happiness of the two selves,

Så vil man maksimere lykken for begge selv,

you are going to end up

ender man med

doing very different things.

at gøre forskellige ting.

The bottom line of what I've said here

Det korte og det lange er,

is that we really should not think of happiness

at vi ikke bør tænke på lykken

as a substitute for well-being.

som en erstatning for velvære.

It is a completely different notion.

De er et helt andet begreb.

Now, very quickly,

Man kan indskyde,

another reason we cannot think straight about happiness

at en anden grund til, vi ikke tænker klart over lykken er,

is that we do not attend to the same things

at vi ikke fokuserer på de samme ting,

when we think about life, and we actually live.

når vi tænker over livet, og når vi rent faktisk lever.

So, if you ask the simple question of how happy people are in California,

Så hvis man spørger, hvor lykkelige folk er i Calfornien,

you are not going to get to the correct answer.

får man ikke det rigtige svar.

When you ask that question,

Spørger man således,

you think people must be happier in California

får man indtryk af, at folk er lykkeligere i Californien,

if, say, you live in Ohio.

hvis man for eksempel bor i Ohio.

(Laughter)

(publikum ler)

And what happens is

Det, der sker, er,

when you think about living in California,

at når man tænker på at bo i Californien,

you are thinking of the contrast

tænker man på kontrasten

between California and other places,

mellem California og andre steder,

and that contrast, say, is in climate.

på områder som for eksempel klima.

Well, it turns out that climate

Men det viser sig, at klima

is not very important to the experiencing self

ikke er særlig vigtigt for det oplevende selv

and it's not even very important to the reflective self

og ikke engang for det reflekterende selv,

that decides how happy people are.

der bestemmer, hvor lykkelige folk er.

But now, because the reflective self is in charge,

Men fordi det reflekterende selv er i førersædet,

you may end up -- some people may end up

er der måske nogen, der ender med

moving to California.

at flytte til Californien.

And it's sort of interesting to trace what is going to happen

Og det er interessant at se, hvad der sker med folk,

to people who move to California in the hope of getting happier.

der flytter til Californien i håb om at blive lykkeligere.

Well, their experiencing self

Altså, deres oplevende selv

is not going to get happier.

bliver ikke lykkeligere.

We know that.

Så meget ved vi.

But one thing will happen: They will think they are happier,

Men der vil ske det, at de tror de er lykkeligere,

because, when they think about it,

for når de tænker over det,

they'll be reminded of how horrible the weather was in Ohio,

bliver de mindet om, hvor forfærdeligt vejret er i Ohio.

and they will feel they made the right decision.

Så de tror, de har truffet det rigtige valg.

It is very difficult

Det er virkelig svært,

to think straight about well-being,

at tænke klart over velvære,

and I hope I have given you a sense

og jeg håber, jeg har givet jer en idé om,

of how difficult it is.

hvor svært det er.

Thank you.

Tak skal I have.

(Applause)

(publikum klapper)

Chris Anderson: Thank you. I've got a question for you.

Tak. Jeg har et spørgsmål.

Thank you so much.

Mange tak skal du have.

Now, when we were on the phone a few weeks ago,

Da vi snakkede sammen for et par uger siden,

you mentioned to me that there was quite an interesting result

nævnte du et interessant resultat

came out of that Gallup survey.

af den Gallupundersøgelse.

Is that something you can share

Er det noget, du kan dele med os,

since you do have a few moments left now?

når nu vi har lidt tid til overs?

Daniel Kahneman: Sure.

Javist.

I think the most interesting result that we found in the Gallup survey

Det mest interessante resultat af den Gallupundersøgelse

is a number, which we absolutely did not expect to find.

var et tal, som vi bestemt ikke havde forudset.

We found that with respect to the happiness

Med hensyn til følelsen af lykke

of the experiencing self.

for det oplevende selv,

When we looked at how feelings,

når vi så kiggede på, hvordan følelser

vary with income.

varierer med indkomst

And it turns out that, below an income

viste det sig, at havde man en indkomst

of 60,000 dollars a year, for Americans --

under 60.000 dollars om året, for amerikanere -

and that's a very large sample of Americans, like 600,000,

og her snakker vi om cirka 600.000 amerikanere,

so it's a large representative sample --

altså en stor, repræsentativ gruppe -

below an income of 600,000 dollars a year...

Med en indkomst under 600.000 dollars årligt...

CA: 60,000.

60.000

DK: 60,000.

Ja, 60.000.

(Laughter)

(publikum ler)

60,000 dollars a year, people are unhappy,

...60.000 dollars om året, er folk ulykkelige,

and they get progressively unhappier the poorer they get.

og de bliver gradvis mere ulykkelige, jo fattigere de er.

Above that, we get an absolutely flat line.

Over den grænse så vi en helt flad kurve.

I mean I've rarely seen lines so flat.

Jeg har sjældent set fladere kurver.

Clearly, what is happening is

Det, der foregår, er helt sikkert,

money does not buy you experiential happiness,

at oplevelseslykke ikke kan købes for penge,

but lack of money certainly buys you misery,

men mangel på samme fører helt sikkert til elendighed.

and we can measure that misery

Og denne elendighed kan måles

very, very clearly.

helt, helt tydeligt.

In terms of the other self, the remembering self,

Hvad angår det erindrende selv,

you get a different story.

så er historien en anden.

The more money you earn, the more satisfied you are.

Jo flere penge man har, jo mere tilfreds er man.

That does not hold for emotions.

Det gælder ikke følelser.

CA: But Danny, the whole American endeavor is about

Men Danny, den amerikanske drøm handler jo om

life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness.

livet, friheden og stræben efter lykke.

If people took seriously that finding,

Hvis folk virkelig tog disse resultater til sig,

I mean, it seems to turn upside down

så ville det jo vende vores forestillinger

everything we believe about, like for example,

om for eksempel skattepolitik

taxation policy and so forth.

helt på hovedet.

Is there any chance that politicians, that the country generally,

Tror du, det er muligt, at politikere og befolkningen generelt

would take a finding like that seriously

ville tage sådanne resultater seriøst,

and run public policy based on it?

og føre politik ud fra dem?

DK: You know I think that there is recognition

Der er en vis anerkendelse

of the role of happiness research in public policy.

af lykkeforskningens rolle inden for politik.

The recognition is going to be slow in the United States,

Anerkendelsen vil være lang tid undervejs i USA,

no question about that,

det er der ikke tvivl om,

but in the U.K., it is happening,

men i Storbritannien findes den allerede,

and in other countries it is happening.

og i andre lande findes den allerede.

People are recognizing that they ought

Det går op for folk, at de burde

to be thinking of happiness

tage lykken med i betragtningerne

when they think of public policy.

i forbindelse med politik.

It's going to take a while,

Det kommer til at tage tid,

and people are going to debate

og folk vil skulle overveje,

whether they want to study experience happiness,

om de vil studere oplevelseslykke,

or whether they want to study life evaluation,

eller om de vil studere livsevaluering,

so we need to have that debate fairly soon.

så vi bør tage den debat rimelig snart.

How to enhance happiness

Spørgsmålet om forbedringer af lykken

goes very different ways depending on how you think,

fører i forskellige retninger, afhængigt af hvordan man tænker,

and whether you think of the remembering self

og om man tænker på det erindrende selv,

or you think of the experiencing self.

eller på det oplevende selv.

This is going to influence policy, I think, in years to come.

Det kommer til at have politisk betydning i fremtiden.

In the United States, efforts are being made

I USA er man gået i gang med

to measure the experience happiness of the population.

at måle på befolkningens oplevelseslykke.

This is going to be, I think, within the next decade or two,

Jeg tror, at det inden for det næste årti eller to

part of national statistics.

bliver en del af de nationale statistikker.

CA: Well, it seems to me that this issue will -- or at least should be --

Det forekommer mig, at det er, eller at det burde være

the most interesting policy discussion to track

den mest interessante politiske diskussion

over the next few years.

at følge i de kommende år.

Thank you so much for inventing behavioral economics.

Du skal have tak for at have opfundet adfærdsøkonomien.

Thank you, Danny Kahneman.

Tak til Danny Kahneman.